The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 06/19/2001 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda KEN T W A S H I N G T O N Mayor Jim White Councilmembers Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling June 19, 2001 Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY AGENDA KEN T KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WASHINGTON June 19, 2001 Council Chambers 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling 1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Drinking Driver Task Force Design Contest Award B. Introduction of Appointees C. Legislative Report 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DeMarco Annexation - Ordinance B . 127th Avenue S .E. Street Vacation C. S . 228th Street Corridor Extension Project 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills - Approval C. LID 354 , N. Washington Avenue & W. Meeker Street Improvements Funding D. Canyon Drive Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements Funding E. AT&T Public Access Studio - Resolution /6�75 F. Pacific Parke Bill of Sale - Accept G. Central Avenue Mini Storage Bill of Sale - Accept H. Kent Retail Center Rezone - Ordinance 35 63 I . Aerial Easement for Sound Transit Walkway - Approve J. Public Development Board Reappointments - Confirm 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment - Resolution / q(o B. Kent Commuter Rail Station Garage Conditional Use Permit - Council Findings and Conclusions on Appeal Hearing (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 8 . BIDS A. Canyon Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Improvements B. LID 354, N. Washington Avenue and W. Meeker Street Improvements C. Re-roof Corrections Facility 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. -5-freef aft g. P��js,1c � Go� how-$E 12 . EXECUTIVE SESSION 0- �ud�ef � 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. The Agenda Summary page is on the City of Kent web site at www.ci .kent .wa.us . An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page . Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk' s Office in advance at (253) 856-5725 . For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388 . CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will , at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE DESIGN CONTEST AWARD B) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEES C) LEGISLATIVE REPORT Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19, 2001 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: DEMARCO ANNEXATION (#AN-2000-1) - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a hearing on the proposed DeMarco Annexation. The City has received a sufficient and valid property owner petition and the King County Boundary Review Board approved the annexation proposal on June 11, 2001 . This annexation contains approximately 266 acres and is located between 116th Avenue SE and 132nd Avenue SE and SE 231st and SE 240th. The proposed ordinance would annex the DeMarco Annexation area effective July 1, 2001 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, map and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. /� B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember rL seconds to adopt Ordinance No. 15-01annexing the DeMarco Annexation area effective July 1, 20011 Ci DISCUSSION: ACTION: C Council Agenda Item No. 5A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director • PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderscn,AICP,Acting Manager W/.SNINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 12, 2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, AICP, ACTING COMMUNITY DEV. DIRECTOR RE: DEMARCO ANNEXATION#AN-2000-1 - PUBLIC HEARING Meeting Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 I. Background On November 21, 2000 the City Council accepted the 10 percent annexation petition for the DeMarco Annexation area and authorized the circulation of the 60 percent petition. _ The City received the 60 percent petition on April 3, 2001, and the Notice of Intention was filed with the King County Boundary Review Board on April 19, 2001. II. Location The �roposed annexation is located on the East Hill of Kent, from 116`h Avenue SE to 132" Avenue SE and from SE 240th Street north to approximately SE 231" Place on the west and SE 233`d Street, if extended, on the east. III. Size of Proposed Annexation The proposed annexation contains approximately 266.6 acres. The estimated population is 770 persons. IV. Future Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Zoning On July 17th and August 21", 2001, the City Council will hold public hearings to consider the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation of initial zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the annexed area. V. Financial Information The assessed valuation of the DeMarco annexation is $69,879,000. The total estimated (year 3) revenue is $307,482. A separate financial report will be presented to the City Council at the June 19th public hearing. VI. Annexation Policies The annexation satisfies the Annexation Policies adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1997. FNS\Ckpm S:\Permit\Plan\ANNEXATIONS\2000\AN2001CC.DOC �w ��www�ww��r1 �► Ii � ♦ _! - �� 1 : anvii�• `� � •—_ a ro`" ��i►�___ �_� �� 11111 Lwl1►�IP IIISI ��11�1�� i �1♦♦♦ �S � i/i/%v/%/////.i✓�iiii;llllle .Illlli�\� �� r♦� a►♦ � � - � ��IFi31�1� ;,�.�' ''/.��/}y��six-t"� �\III illGll�!wn ��1 ♦♦ , :� w� ��t11111 r1Ol ItI��1111111 • •�� ' SSI �� i`� �C-,�r� � � . .��► ♦i♦ •��_ a '�♦i ♦�MINE >/'�%'!l'%�/%':%/GAL%n:1111gh�. i ��K�♦♦IIw ►I �I Ins �,01� %.rw�� %�:n'- � err r �iy,♦i�� Moog 0 NEW 0. 1 4 � �nz /•� L<///i / /6 r. � j ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, annexing to the City certain contiguous lands, comprising approximately 266.6 acres, generally bounded on the East Hill of Kent, from 116`h Avenue SE to 132"d Avenue SE and from SE 240`h Street north to approximately SE 231" Place on the west and SE 233`d Street, if extended, on the east, all generally referred to as the "DeMarco Annexation"; making the property annexed subject to the City's proportionate share of its existing indebtedness and to its interim zoning regulations for newly annexed lands; adjusting the City's 2001 annual budget to accommodate changes in revenues and expenditures related to the I annexation; making July 1, 2001 the effective date of the annexation; and authorizing the City Clerk to determine the resident population within the annexation area and to deliver required annexation information to the State Office of Financial Management and to the Metropolitan King County Council. WHEREAS in accordance with Chapter 35A.14 RCW the owners p , of not less than 60 percent of the assessed valuation for general taxation of certain real property, the "DeMarco Annexation" area, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A to this ordinance (map attached as Exhibit B), have petitioned the Kent City Council to annex the DeMarco Annexation Area to the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the City has determined the DeMarco Annexation area petition to be sufficient in all respects; and 1 DeMarco Annexation WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 35A.14 RCW various proceedings were had; and WHEREAS, the City filed a Notice of Intention document with the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County("BRB") on April 19, 2001; and WHEREAS, on J 7, 2001, the BRB approved the City's Notice of Intention and annexation pr posa and WHEREAS, the City has published and posted notice of a public hearing on the proposed DeMarco Annexation in accordance with RCW 35A.14.130 so that interested persons could voice their approval or disapproval of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent held a public hearing on the DeMarco Annexation in the City Council Chambers at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Kent City Council at 7:00 p.m. on June 19, 2001; and I I WHEREAS, it appears to the City of Kent that the DeMarco Annexation meets all requirements specified by law, that the land to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Kent, and that the annexation area has not heretofore been incorporated in or as a city or town; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, � DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 2 DeMarco Annexation i SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by this reference and made a part hereof. SECTIONI. Effective July 1, 2001, there shall be annexed to the City of Kent, Washington, certain property situated in King County, Washington, commonly known as the "DeMarco Annexation" area, which property is legally described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference, and having the boundaries indicated in the map attached as Exhibit B, which is incorporated by this reference. SECTION 3. In accordance with the DeMarco Annexation property owners'petition, the property hereby annexed shall be subject to its proportionate share of the City s existing indebtedness and shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis that other property within the City of Kent is assessed and taxed to pay for any outstanding general indebtedness of the City, if that indebtedness has been approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or existing at the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 4. Until the City completes its final zoning determination for the I annexation area, the DeMarco Annexation area shall be subject to the interim zoning regulations for newly annexed areas established in Title 15 of the Kent City Code, as now enacted or hereafter amended. SECTION 5. This annexation will become effective July 1, 2001, and on that date, the annexation area shall become a part of the City of Kent, subject to all the laws and ordinances of the City except as otherwise provided by law. ,I SECTION 6. Based on the additional revenue and expenditures that this annexation is anticipated to generate, the City's 2001 budget is adjusted to establish a 3 DeMarco Annexation DeMarco Annexation budget as shown on Exhibit C, attached and incorporated by this reference. SECTION 7. Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of this annexation as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Kent shall,under the direction of the Mayor of the City of Kent, determine the resident population of the annexed territory, which population determination shall consist of an actual enumeration of the population that shall be made in accordance with the practices and policies and subject to approval of the State of Washington's Office of Financial Management and which population shall be determined as of the effective date of this annexation as specified in this ordinance. SECTION 8. The City Clerk of the City of Kent, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.700, shall prepare a certificate signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk in such form and containing such information as shall be prescribed by the State Office of Financial Management, and the City Clerk shall thereafter submit that certificate in triplicate to the Office of Financial Management together with the population determination of the annexed territory. SECTION 9. Upon passage of this annexation ordinance, the City Clerk of i the City of Kent, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.140, shall send to the Office of the Clerk of the County Council a certified copy of this ordinance together with a copy of a letter from the BRB's Executive Secretary of the King County Boundary Review Board that declares the I li BRB's decision relating to this annexation. I SECTION 10. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 4 DeMarco Annexation SECTION 11. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK (APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 12001. APPROVED: day of 12001. i 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 5 DeMarco Annexation That portion of the North one-half of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying within S.E. 2401h Street which portion of said street lies West of the Southerly extension of the West . line of the plat of Winsberg Haven, recorded in Volume 157 of plats, pages 12-15; AND ALSO the plat of Terra Heights, recorded in Volume 125 of plats, pages 7-9, TOGETHER NVITH that portion of 116`h Avenue S.E. adjacent to said plat on the West; AND ALSO the South one-half of Section 16, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, TOGETHER WITH that portion of 116`h Avenue S.E. lying adjacent thereto, EXCEPT any portion lying within 132❑d Avenue S.E., AND EXCEPT the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 16, and that portion of S.E. 240`h Street lying adjacent thereto, AND EXCEPT said plat of Winsberg Haven including all of S.E. 2401h Street lying between the Southerly extension of the West and East lines of said plat, AND ALSO EXCEPT the North one-half of the North one-half of the Northeast quarter of said South one-half of said Section 16. EXHIBIT A ■nu•1• asr � � . �IIU� /1 IWII L�U��11 llll Il11111!!!!!!!!! 1111� .Ilill�a\�■ �1♦ri.♦j ti► �� a�llii111� \\Ilk il!#LI�� 1.♦ ♦♦ 1 .� �� 11111+ 9i'/i,•/J1o/%%% %.;r111� IIia�1111111 . •�� • �� ■ 1o1 rm • � '//✓/ii.'� uyy� 1i111D�/, . :�i♦i ♦i ■� IIq �i� �� 1111�1A� � �� Day♦♦�♦� •1�= .�♦♦ �,_ , g 7 IN inns mill Iiiiiiiiiiiiii1m ME PF IFIN S ,fir /✓�R�%/.W' • -',� •v Zvi Moms, o/j�. ONO V015 all �xv WEAK /// // / �/ y ,��:%ice./,i/ %/ ��%5 �%�!•%% �//////////,s% % %i!% iiv�% :''%%% / !%/' Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: 127TH AVENUE S .E. STREET VACATION - STV-2001-1 (KIVA #2011174) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Resolution No. 1588 established June 19, 2001, as the public hearing date for the application by Michael & Connie Baerny and Paul & Cynthia Scott, to vacate a portion the unimproved right-of-way that exists at 127th Avenue SE . A staff report recommending approval with conditions is included in the Council ' s packet . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report 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: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Co ncilmember seconds to approve/disapprove/modify th staff ' s recommendation of approval with conditions of th application to vacate a portion of 127th Avenue SE, as refere ced in Resolution No . 1588 , and to direct the City Attorney o prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the co ditions of approval . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 12, 2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, ACTING PLANNING MANAGER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE A PORTION OF 127TH AVENUE SE, SOUTH OF SE 259TH PL. —#STV-2001-1 (KIVA#2011174) Hearing Date: June 19, 2001 Recommendation: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS 1. Name of Applicants Michael and Connie Baemy Paul and Cynthia Scott 21433 — 174`h Avenue SE 26012 - 1271h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Kent, WA 98031 II. Reason for Requesting Street Vacation As stated in the application, the vacation of the unimproved street portion is being sought to enhance lot 1 and provide a building site on lot 2 that would not impact existing drain fields nor infringe on proper setbacks from existing wetlands. III. Background The proposed area to be vacated is unopened right of way that the City of Kent obtained via the Meridian Annexation. A portion of the right of way appears to be encumbered by wetlands. Wetland tracts extend offsite for approximately 1,000 feet to the south of the subject site. Per City Code, the 1271h Avenue SE right of way is classified as Class "C" right of way, the vacation of which may require compensation. There is City of Kent undeveloped park land (Tract "A" of Rainier View Estates subdivision)just east of lot 3 as shown on the map submitted with the application. Connectivity of parks to neighborhoods is a high priority of the Kent City Council.. IV. Staff Recommendation Staff notified the following departments and agencies of this proposed street vacation. ■ Public Works Department 0 Police #STV-2001-1(KIVA#2011174 _ Approval Letter Page 2 • Parks, Recreation and Community Services • Fire and Life Safety ■ Puget Sound Energy ■ U. S. West ■ Department of Transportation ■ METRO Transit Division After a review of the comments received, the Planning Services Division recommends that the request to vacate a portion of 1271h Avenue SE, south of SE 259rh Pl. as described in Resolution #1588 and as shown on the accompanying map, be APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. The applicants/petitioners shall compensate the City for the value of the right of way in accordance with state law. 2. The applicants/petitioners shall deed to the City sufficient right of way for the future construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround. The alignment and location of said cul-de-sac turnaround shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works. The additional property deeded to the City for same shall be deducted on a square foot per square foot basis from the total amount of right of way being vacated prior to determining the City's compensation therefore. 3. For that portion of the right of way that is encumbered by wetlands, the applicants/petitioners shall grant to the City a sensitive area tract or easement over, upon, through and under same. Included in said sensitive area easement or tract also shall be that additional portion of the vacated right of way associated with the respective buffer area for said wetland. No compensation to the City shall be required for any vacated right of way encumbered by said sensitive area tract or easement. 4. All monies received by the City for compensation of the value of the right of way being vacated shall be deposited in the City's School Pedestrian Walkways fund (R36). 5. The applicants/petitioners shall grant to the City a ten-foot-wide pedestrian and associated non-motorized use access easement along the entire length of the northerly property line from and including the existing right of way to the easterly property line of lot 3. The square footage therein shall be deducted from the net area of the street vacation the applicants/petitioners receive on a proportional basis, with lot 3 receiving the bulk of the deduction, thereby reducing the compensation requirement for the right of way being vacated. In no case shall the applicants/petitioners be compensated more than the value of the vacated street right of way each would be receiving. CA:S:\Perrnit\P lan\vacations\2001\2011174-2001-1.DOC Enclosure-Map Y. 2B•.a,ft. s.>� .� / OF �23.90 1 /mac>.'s` b N CLj 17y ! / c9 i♦ p0�c H h a ti to ♦ °lyo 70 , °.t° °'. lit s.ea•s.r_ar.T xk0 /H.91 3O � ° � C."a/ �� Q 132./2 C ON 65 5 L 7 e ao and a�°�cs C. ♦ /3 r SE. 259TH. PLcry Si o 0♦ Z�, l0 ter.c. It Ta.sz •rJ -- .�� NDf.)t Iq /si 07. 5 S.00-s*-e7 GCL 07 Ba ?a ,(.90 373.59 127TH AVENUE SE #STV-2001-1 KIVA#2011174 Hatched area to be vacated )81 M 8601160685 Q o LOT Z Lot 3 rn � h a �ti s o h 0 C.P • co V,5 . ti � An 1 / % �V n5 F 277. /s ne ne ,p ezr N 6B.57-3CY,I /C91•SO•p•1 +e7 fo °I�a q es�/1 WI22.TG ..M' 1'jG y 171.11 !� i:4 6D'M C 7 ig 3 23 pu Jo/yo°{�� ,�D1` > at+ , 1Lo; �W ` h 4 L J i \ _ • +. �a+gb,S 24 `�ooR ' . 29 $coo f to .0 i.'�°\+•. Alf :�° '+,�=�, " , MEAD W °vo�z?;°qs - o ` -.� . �.L... This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. It is not immnded m. show all mars_ related to the property including, but not limited m, area, dimensions, easements, en- croachments, or location of boundaries. It is nor a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or policy m which it is attached. The Company assumes NO LLABILI TY for any matter related m this s1.ketch. ROE-_renccs should be mad- to an 2k.CU72Ct sur: fl ��^ — i Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: S . 228TH STREET CORRIDOR EXTENSION PROJECT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing on the 228th Street Corridor Extension Project . Following public testimony, Council will consider action to select one of the three roadway alignments and to take further action on the project . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council 6/5/01 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve the South 228th Street Corridor Extension Project, to select Alternative A for the project , along with identified mitigation for this alternative as set forth in the (EIS) , and to direct the public works department to proceed with design and implementation of the project, including additional design for noise control for further Council consideration. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • KEN T ax Phone:253-856- 500 F '253-856-6500 Wnz Hiwcrou , Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: June 13, 2001 To: City Council From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: South 228th Street Extension Project Final Environmental Impact Statement The Engineering Division has completed the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) for the S. 228th Street Extension Project (a copy thereof is in the council's office for perusal), and is ready to continue with preliminary design and permitting. As shown in Figure 1, the S. 228th Street Extension would complete a 5-lane minor arterial roadway between Central Avenue and Military Road allowing traffic to access SR-167 and I-5 through Kent's industrial center with lower delay. Along with the no action alternative three alternative alignments (A, B, and C) as shown in Figure 2 were considered in the EIS. Alternative A (Figure 3) was chosen as the Preferred Alternative by the Engineering Department because it not only provided traffic congestion relief for the area it was also a more direct route up the West Hill with similar grades to Alternative B or C. In addition its location was farthest away from the west end of The Lakes residential community. Commuters and freight haulers on I-5 that currently access this area via S. 212th Street, W. Meeker Street and Kent-Des Moines Road (SR-516) would be able to use the S. 228th Street Extension to access the area directly. The traffic study performed for the EIS indicates that overall traffic operations between S. 212th Street and W. Meeker Street would improve as a result of the S. 228th Street Extension. Traffic modeling forecasts show that between 17,000 and 21,000 vehicles per day (vpd) would utilize the S. 228th Street Extension. With the proposed roadway extension in place, traffic volumes on other major roadways would be lower. Traffic volumes on W. Meeker Street would be approximately 3500 vpd lower, on SR-516 they would be roughly 5000 vpd lower, and traffic on S. 212th Street would be reduced by about 2500 vpd. Memorandum: City Council June 13, 2001 _ Page: 2 The S. 228th Street Extension alone would not solve the valley's traffic problems, but it would create an alternative route to I-5 and would provide a more balanced transportation system in the valley. In addition,.through discussions with WSDOT, the Engineering Department has been working on planning, conceptual design, and funding for a possible direct connection between the proposed S. 228th Street Extension and the proposed SR-509 Extension. This possible future direct connection would reduce overall vehicle delays and travel times between I-5 and the valley floor. Without the S. 228th Street Extension, this direct connection would not be a possibility. Figure 4 illustrates the conceptual layout of this proposed connection. The S. 22.8`h Street Extension will provide significant traffic relief whether or not the proposed SR 509 Extension, and a possible connection to S. 228`h• is ever constructed. Although there has been earlier SEPA review, and may be subsequent review for specific federal permits which may be required, the FEIS constitute the major environmental review for the S. 228th Street Extension. The likely environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for those impacts are included in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. A summary of the most significant impacts is included as Attachment 1 to this memorandum. During the DEIS comment period, a number of residents from The Lakes residential _ development (located south of S. 228th Street, near 54th Avenue S.) expressed concern with the environmental impacts associated with the S. 228th Street Extension particularly with regard to noise and traffic issues. As shown in the Attachment 1, there are required mitigation measures that must be constructed with the project to make it compatible with the existing infrastructure, such as the improvements to the SR-516/Military Road intersection. Note that with regard to traffic noise, the Kent City Code (KCC 8.05.140) specifically exempts traffic noise from the Kent Noise Ordinance. Nonetheless, other improvements, specifically a noise wall or speed limit reduction, are optional design measures for Council consideration are although not required under any applicable environmental regulations. The traffic study for the EIS confirms that the S. 228th Extension would improve traffic operations throughout the valley. Comments to the contrary have not been supported by any data. One feature of the proposal is a lack of direct connection to I-5 and the routing of traffic to SR-516 to access freeway ramps. The traffic analysis indicates, however, that the mitigation measures shown in Attachment 1 would provide an acceptable level of service (LOS) on Military Road and SR-516. In fact, the improvements are substantial enough to improve traffic operations over those that would exist without the S. 228th Street Extension. The Public Works Department recommends that, based on the EIS, the Council directed staff to: (1) proceed with implementing the project; and (2) pursue design of some level. of noise mitigation for future Council consideration. Memorandum: City Council June 13, 2001 Page: 3 MOTION: Council person moves and Council person seconds to select Alternative A for the S. 2281h Street Extension Project, along with identified mitigation for this alternative set forth in the EIS, and directs the Public Works Department to proceed with the project, including additional design for noise control for further Council consideration. 97 ZnO7F. L '— u Q u n U U U y_ n N U N tr �� C 7 •^—• — � CV y y U -� zap z 30 � zG v � N n N C U — � C U C - _ � E � 011 J � U L = � ca a r Ir O vUi U y J �'✓ zJ. � O •q r • • L � �—' C ,❑ U -7 U � L 0. n 4? � N U 1 -O N ^L'C � L ? iv E C G O 155 u c ci — u G � y O — = L — U N z Y pp ' N R R wp .y C etl O � Co R y C y p 'x A D F a R . R N u c E C� o c ai b a o a e 0 > o �y o o ° ¢ c c .E a a 3• �n c 0 R C O � O u o •c ° N ° •o on U i>lo o o . .. ,o c to o m a 'N v o ? A ❑ ' Cri c E :=�° o CG c •� p �' � o � `—c' � � � � °' 7 0 ¢ � c E °' .� m � c `n t."-. E � �' w c o m a R o E p s a s atb o �T4 0 ❑ 4 N p �00 F .a+ N W y0 .D .i. O U C '�v1 C V1 V1 C y c C:] c C w OF A L S^� O G O p p '^0 ce .� C V] O DA,y L O � ° r `° a_' 3 � au � ` wc � t '- c ` `Trc•'� v � xven� � p •7 �.>' N .a. > N C y 'O a .0 a a •O E 4.. N O t,: O ;6 u ,D 1 O a u N o '� mac° _ �° x o cr O ao u r: K oa c ° � � c > o � 3v v�u C v� vi v v, :a b u R c E x o - R s A u � R L F ;; d N L d i 'O V L R y 7 u > R e E r C R V 4' C C 0 R OD R J C y c w 00cnO O N O .0 y"T R vi O U y c E >, r � L U 7 D y 0 @ N Q _p Vi rl G R C E d 0 0 C �+ V � R 5 L F ` FA \ evue; . r � 0 7 2 ; SCALE IN MILES S 160TH Sl 1e T�KWIL NOT TO SCALE S 1196TM iS T I ti' • n ay 3 �S EATTA � t � — J L� GT� r, FI I J SE x TM Sr ' S xlxm ST of°$ t N COUNTY II TH STREETS., M0T'NES „kE 9Y "K'ECJ L T_ — _i -TERNA�TII E SE x.OTH ST ALIGNMENT d sl r JAI J W 5 :, TM5T I L I L FEDE W AUBURN 1_ i CITY OF KENT S. 228TH STREET FIGURE \ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT EXTENSION PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION oli I(10 N N o ° — a o z W W �I I OgOV Qo< 3 22 ,.. I , o (lQr < W z Como O ©Q goC°F ' o > PCB0,= ° Oo u� opt � IC 4°r d <z Sml �OZI nry /cam.. �J!�� CIJ�O Cf .� v V) Oz a}f OLO /<�L a I z C O W N d W _ Vi X j W s N33ao 10, I \ ' IA I Z a W LII# J I — n �i d '�QIC�O f. \ i ' r / i U F / r ' /yyy R a r �Y uoa G: \DWG\8ii&\EISFIGSB\228eisxx.dwg05/30/101 IF7 I O A m N O� O 0+00 O A m O O O O O O O ® Q s F A 1+00 p0 I f 2+00 c F 3+00 z 4+005+00 m O ct r 6+00 j x X —.X/ S \V m 7+00 8+00 I ; 9+00 10+00 `ti"i / # z �` „+oo ti j o n o 12+00 zo / ow 13+00 14+00 m _ O z OF 2F 2 1 21+00 I 9 23+00 24+00— I � I JK/ 9 a A AL 25+00 SEASON A CREEK Os 26+00 O 28+00— Y I x / + a 29+00Il ii�'s y llil� U 31+00IFj'lll 32+00 33+00 a O 35+00 36+00 III � ar 39+00IY3 .� \ yll to 40+00 m z 2 -U 7 2+00 �� D Lv (n a 0 +0043 zoCo3 : O ✓/ m r n l/I I a m m I o /a`• '3 44+00 r � - I � JQ no I 45+00 ' . 'N I Q „Fa pm 0 aDoc) .e I AI A n I ti< 47+00— ci z I c,^\ f m 48+00 ! C.� ) L7C�S� IMo ~ p z a 49+00 �)� I �D� > m \ CAJ 50+00 C) �((y\^\\ Q Z 1" � m H 51+00 `-- ozm v A -+ 00 53+00 _(N i ;M 54+00 I I O LJ O pp� ' r.i E�_54TR AVE S._ 2 s C m ,��, o�� 55+00 . I a a Z " I a l? 8 z s6+oo I o !o a ooa�n�J I �Z n- -1 zmo ro m 0 0 0 0 0 2 z Q0 C) U ' — — ( N v G: ADWG \EISFIGS6\fig39tb.dwg05/30/101 \ I I I' I i I 1111 ill' 'll 1 1 �� 1111 • r s li, '. ,.y`, _': .� / „"rr.'fr:{{�GGi MI \� 1 I •�I II If ''• ll II a �.F o I III iI I I � I �'.�e � 't7 �t7 `D ' � I I \ 11';IVE I II 999I,pp � It ilk,; , _ yy 'Ifl I I).� r illil 1 Ih I'I 11 V] um15 11 \ TV; 1 / {' � 7 ,I �yy o III ," '� n :1Q.'Gp o .✓e°V✓jti "/ f 'T�. !A!� \.i I Ily', iI \ it \t , l it P ' a �A l ' J .. vm � \1 v it \� ` + ..I \\\\ ,,/ `� 1 ( r � I _ �I IlI .�� it '� '.� \� ••>`�.� I ? �I /,.� ) •'. J / 1 I I t' In I'' ,i1� s .� I {/' Q.. I one+. I • l i I 1 / ,.. �� } tllt �• �� 1,1 �1� ll'I II b +1 ..( l IT cn two x LA a Z N - .r'_..' ,, 1 1 Inn co v _ .� • . I I\ !\✓�,>v� \ o � I. J SOS J` 1 1 om •�V t A. I � �Ii1, 11 ��i I`Il I l I IIt I 'l l' I; F _. hlrn I ; I ol'I I li it I 1 1 I.. 8 l 'I It VI I t i <'�lI -- p rD0 C I\ �' II'1 i', II Ilp �yy i'II. II i� ' r � Ij;•• o m Z 0 Z VIZ mOm 11 I'f / 1} i:';11�� G L Illll •� ' 1{ Itj Mnm n I �II.1., •a ,,}S ..:'q T �i 'I Il+p,ll 11 j I �. ,n. �1 r 1 I _ C 0� All } K La i ; It m r;o N s '� ' III il''�I A . I O o N 0 r _ 3 m j I v! I 1 O �pl mn'�• I� IIi1 'IA.'i il, 1Il: LJlit Z �m 1"J4 do I ,� � � ', 1, tI III t E�. 1 ,11j » Z m A I 'C I \ h 1 II Il•.`Ip, III i4� li!,i� 11 1 �� l� , 1...'•' 0 C-) n t I II It I II III I11I1 tfl•_. ,I mD z o ""LL l v V)� ~ j mix , ...: I III i!l I 11• 1 , I ...,0 1. m F I 1 ' Y'I I I II I I , " , O > i t III 1 1. IFi1 _ I (\ ) I A C: CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: qq fi� nn Councilmember L AAh moves, Councilmember ( d seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J. Discussion /1 Action 1. 6A. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of June 5, 2001, and approval of the following correction to the minutes of May 15, 2001 : Consent Calendar Item 6A should say "Approval of the minutes of the regular Council Meeting of May 1 , 2001" rather than March 1 , 2001 . 6B . Approval of Bills . Nothing for approval , as the Operations Committee was cancelled. Approval of checks issued for payroll for May 1 through May 15 and paid on May 18, 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount 5/18/01 Checks 251950-252327 $ 288 , 976 . 91 5/18/01 Advices 111591-112247 1 , 055 , 977 . 02 $1, 344 , 953 . 93 Approval of checks issued for payroll for May 16 through May 31 and paid on June 5, 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount 6/5/01 Checks 252328-252690 $ 287, 726 . 94 6/5/01 Advices 112248-112955 991 , 074 . 53 $1, 278, 801 .47 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington June 5 , 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 : Interim Chief Administrative Officer Martin, City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Manager Satterstrom, and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Hodgson. Approximately 95 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Councilmember Orr asked that the order of the agenda be changed to deal with the Consent Calendar prior Public Hearings . There was no objection and it was so ordered. The following items were added to Continued Communications at the request of audience members : 11A - Easement, 11B - Taxes and discrepancies, 11C - Business in residential zone, and 11D - Golf Course . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Employee of the Month. Mayor White introduced Helena Reynolds, Parks Program Coordinator for the Kent Senior Activity Center and announced that she has been chosen as Employee of the Month for June . He noted that Ms . Reynolds has built up the City' s volunteer programs into some of the best in King County, and that she supervises the largest Meals on Wheels program in the county. He noted that she provides programs that appeal to both the older seniors and the younger ones, and that because of her hard work and commitment, the City now has 49 professionally taught computer class sessions per quarter for seniors . He said Ms . Reynolds is truly an asset to the City of Kent . Lea Bishop, Kent Senior Activities Center Manager, commended Reynolds on the new programs she is working on and for her work with the Washington State Association of Senior Center and thanked her for her tireless efforts . Fire Department Citizen Award Presentation. Fire Lt . Pat Pawlak introduced Mr. Jesse Garcia and stated that on April 4 , 2001, at 6 : 30 a.m. Mr. Garcia noticed smoke in the apartment building where he lived, and that he immediately called 911 to report the fire and then went down the hallway knocking on doors alerting every- one to the fire . Lt . Pawlak paid tribute to Mr. Garcia 1 Kent City Council Minutes June 5 , 2001 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS for his lifesaving notification of neighbors by pre- senting him with the Fire Department Citizen Award Presentation and a plaque honoring him for his selfless act . Fire Chief Angelo said the Fire Department depends on citizens to be involved, and that what Mr. Garcia did goes above and beyond being brave . Washington Recreation and Park Association Staff Award. Cheryl Fraser, Resource Center Program and Facility Manager, introduced Dennis Higashiyama and noted that he recently received the Professional Citation of Merit Award. She explained that Mr. Higashiyama is a program specialist with the youth and teen services division, and has been involved with the Washington Recreation and Parks Association for many years . Higashiyama said he enjoys working for the City of Kent, which is a good reflection on the Mayor, Council and Parks Director. Washington Aggregate and Concrete Award. Curtis Nakamura of Gary Merlino Construction noted that the 2000 Sidewalk Replacement and Gateway Improvement Project was chosen as the winner of the Excellence in Concrete Construction Award by the Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association in the Public Works category. He and Gary Merlino presented the plaque to the City of Kent . Hire-A-Veteran Month. Mayor White read a proclamation noting that there are more than 619, 000 veterans residing in Washington and that over 70 , 000 veterans have sought employment and training services from the Employment Security Department during the last program year. He proclaimed June 2001 as Hire-A-Veteran Month in the City of Kent and urged all citizens to join him in this special observance . Don Sparks of the Washington State Employment Security Department office in Auburn accepted the proclamation and conveyed appreciation to the Mayor, Council and business com- munity for their support . He added that the Auburn office has achieved one of the highest veterans employment rates in the state . CONSENT CALENDAR ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through M. Woods seconded and the motion carried. 2 Kent City Council Minutes June 5 , 2001 MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 15 , 2001 . WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Auburn-Kent Emergency Water Intertie Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sigh the Kent/Auburn Water System Intertie Agreement for the emergency supply facility located near South 277th Street upon concur- rence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) Soos Creek Water & Sewer District Emergency System Intertie Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District Emergency Use Intertie Agreement upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) Falkner Short Plat Latercomer Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Public Works Director to execute a Sanitary Sewer Latecomer Agreement for the Falkner Short Plat , as recommended by the Public Works Committee . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L) 2000 Asphalt Overlay. ACCEPT the 2000 Asphalt Overlay contract as complete and release retainage to Icon Materials, Inc . upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens . The original contract amount was $552 , 042 . 30 . The final construction cost was $444 , 849 . 03 , as recommended by the Public Works Director. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M) 155th Avenue SE Street Vacation. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3559 relating to the vacation of a portion of 155thAvenue SE. A Street and/or Alley Vacation Application and Petition was filed by DFM, LLC, to vacate a portion of 155th Avenue SE . Planning Services 3 Kent City Council Minutes June 5 , 2001 PUBLIC WORKS processed this petition and the Public Works Department approved the petition for vacation. A public hearing was held on January 16, 2001 . PUBLIC SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) Unlawful Race Attendance and "Stay out of Areas of Racing. " ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3557 relating to unlawful race attendance and "Stay Out of Areas of Racing" orders . The City of Kent has an ongoing problem with illegal racing in numerous areas of the City. The illegal races occur weekly in times of good weather and regularly involve 500+ people and 200 cars . The illegal races occur on City streets and create a serious risk of death or bodily injury and property damage to the racers, spectators, police, and innocent persons coming into the areas . The ordinance will amend the Kent City Code to establish misdemeanor crimes that address issues of racing. _ (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Washington State Traffic Safety Commission Grants . ACCEPT and budget for two Washington Traffic Safety Commission Mini-grants for the Drinking Driver Task Force : A. $500 mini-grant from WTSC received indirectly from Safety Restraint Coalition to provide shirts for the "Child Passenger Safety Team. " B. $400 mini-grant from WTSC to provide an overhead projector to be used for training and educational programs . (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) Emergency Medical Services . The City of Kent has a population of over 70 , 000 people, and cities in King County of greater than 50, 000 in population must approve any EMS levy being placed on a county-wide ballot . The proposed resolution approves the levy renewal being placed on the November 2001 ballot with a levy rate of twenty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. The resolution provides that such approval is given on the condition that ' the 2002 Strategic Plan 4 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PUBLIC SAFETY Update of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan will include a meaningful participation with the County in discussions regarding the feasibility of delivering paramedic Advanced Life Support services by means of a consortium of South King County Basic Life Support provider agencies . Fire Chief Angelo pointed out that this has been discussed at a Council workshop. EPPERLY MOVED to pass Resolution No. 1593 approving the EMS levy being placed on the November 2001 county-wide ballot . Amodt seconded. Epperly stated that the voters should make the decision. Amodt noted that this simply puts the EMS issue on the ballot . The motion then carried. PLANNING (HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) Multifamily Tax Exemption. Chapter 3 . 25 of the Kent City Code entitled "Multi-Family Dwelling Tax Exemption, " exempts from ad valorem taxes, for up to ten (10) years, approved multi-family housing in the target area to help create additional desirable, attractive, and livable residential housing. The ordinance also revises related provisions of Chapter 2 . 32 of the Kent City Code . The City Attorney noted that a substitute ordinance has been distributed which clarifies that the exemption applies to owner occupied condominiums-type housing. Eileen Harris of the Planning Department said this is designed to create a community with a visible residen- tial component which supports retail, commercial and government sectors . She displayed the target area and noted for Brotherton that the mixed use area near SR 167 and Washington Avenue was not included in order to be consistent with the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and in order to focus efforts on bringing housing into the downtown core. Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and EPPERLY MOVED to close 5 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PLANNING the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. BROTHERTON MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3560 relating to the development of multifamily housing, exemption from certain ad valorem taxes and to related appeal provi- sions . Woods seconded. It was clarified that this is the substitute ordinance relating to the owner occupied condominium requirement . Clark pointed out that this is an opportunity to change the face of downtown and make Kent a more livable City. The motion then carried. (HEARINGS - ITEM SC) Kent Commuter Rail Station Garage Conditional Use Permit Closed Record Appeal (CE-2000-9) . This is a closed record appeal hearing of the City' s Hearing Examiner ' s revised decision approving a conditional use permit for the Kent Commuter Rail Station Garage . The Hearing Examiner' s Findings and Decision were first issued on — January 24 , 2001 . Mr. Don Shaffer requested recon- sideration of that decision, and on March 15, 2001, the Hearing Examiner issued a revised final decision, which is the subject of this closed record appeal . This particular hearing is not a public hearing, but a closed record appeal hearing. A closed record appeal hearing is limited strictly to the record and to the parties directly involved in the appeal . The record is the same record used by the City' s Hearing Examiner to make his decision on this matter and includes both the documents submitted to the Hearing Examiner and transcripts of the oral testimony presented before the Hearing Examiner. Only three parties - or their designated representatives - will be allowed to address the Council on this appeal : Mr. Shaffer, who is the appellant ; Sound Transit, who is the permit applicant; and a member of the City staff . City Attorney Lubovich explained the procedure and announced that he has a conflict and will turn the chair over to outside counsel, Mr. Phil Olbrechts of Ogden _ Murphy and Wallace . He added that a motion was filed by Sound Transit and City staff to limit evidence submitted in the appeal by Mr. Shaffer as outside the record. 6 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PLANNING Mr. Olbrechts noted that this is a quasi-judicial meeting, so ex-parte contacts or personal benefits or detriments should be disclosed. He explained that it is a state requirement that no new evidence is to be heard. Mayor White declared the hearing open. Kim Pratt from the Legal Department reiterated that the City and Sound Transit made a motion not to add additional evidence to the record. She pointed out that the record is the first portion of the large notebook entitled "Kent Commuter Rail Station Garage Conditional Use Permit Appeal" and asked that the other documents not be included as part of the record from the Hearing Examiner. ORR MOVED that this hearing be based on the record of the Hearing Examiner and that none of the additional documents, according to State law, be allowed to be considered as part of the hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Don Shaffer, President of Northwest Alliance, objected to the fact that he did not have an opportunity to object to the motion, but that he did submit a response to the motion. He said State law allows information which was not available at the time of the hearing to be submitted at a later time . He said some of the informa- tion he requested on January 11 was not received until May 4 , making it difficult to submit it on January 10 . He said he was not given notice of the public hearing. Shaffer noted that there are 415 pages of documents in the binder, 270 of which he submitted and that virtually none of it was available at the time of the hearing. Shaffer requested that twenty minutes of his time be reserved for rebuttal . He said his concern is primarily that his family has operated various businesses at this location since the late 18001s . He said he feels that alone should provide an opportunity to participate in the public process for the design of the station and garage . He reiterated that he did not receive notice of the public hearing on January 10 even though he was a party of record, therefore he was not able to attend and contribute . He said he was not aware that the scope of 7 Kent City Council Minutes June 5 , 2001 — PLANNING the garage had expanded, and noted that he is the only business owner whose tenants are impacted by the construction and operation of the garage . Shaffer stated that City and RTA staff do not reply to letters and phone calls, and said it is difficult to participate in the process . He said the RTA budget for the train station was $6, 000, 000 and is now at an estimated completion cost of $32 , 000 , 000 , which is the- essence of why they are trying to side step the normal requirements . Shaffer said his concerns are legitimate and that there is not a land use permit under the Conditional Use requirements, and yet construction at the garage site is progressing full speed. He said RTA had told him that there will no impacts to his tenants while construction is going on and when the garage goes into operation. He played a recording of the noise from the construction _. and said this is an impact . He asked that the normal environmental checklist be gone through and impacts mitigated. He noted that he has had a greater vacancy rate because of construction parking, and has found it difficult to find new tenants . He said he is one businessman against USDOT, FTA, RTA, King County, and t:.e City trying to protect his business . Shaffer stated that no one looked at the issue of getting trucks in and out of his building, and that not only was that issue not considered, but the staff report did not even indicate that the building exists . He questioned how the Hearing Examiner could consider impacts to the building if it was not acknowledged that the building exists . He reiterated that his family has been at that location for over a century, and said he feels he deserved at last a phone call . Shaffer said he feels there are public process viola- tions, that the process was done in secret, and that decisions were concealed from the public . He said there are five doors on the east side of the building which he can no longer use, and that some of the new road will be under his roof . He said there are code violations as to the right-of-way, which leaves little room to get trucks in and out . 8 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PLANNING Shaffer added that it is well known that there is hazardous material on the site . Kim Pratt of the Legal Department noted that the Hearing Examiner ruled that the seven criteria for a Conditional Use Permit were met, and said that was supported by sub- stantial evidence submitted at the hearing on January 10 and under reconsideration as well . She said that the code and statute require that those notices of the Conditional Use hearing go to the owners of property and to occupants within a certain radius, and that that was done in this case . She added that notice was also published and posted on the property. She pointed out that Northwest Alliance does not own the property which the 105 Building sits on, that it is owned by Burlington Northern, and that is why Northwest Alliance did not get notice, so there is no irregularity there . Pratt emphasized that consideration was given to Shaffer ' s building and pointed out that all four of the issues which are discussed in the reconsideration done by the Hearing Examiner deal with only the 105 Building, including access to parking, access to existing loading docks and truck bays, right and left turns from the loading dock area, and access during construction. She pointed out that the Hearing Examiner proposed an additional criteria on reconsideration to deal with Mr. Shaffer ' s concerns about the construction, and that the other impacts had already been considered or mitigated. Perry Weinberg, Environmental Manager and Legal Counsel for Sound Transit, introduced Project Manager Jeff Wolfe and assured Council that the environmental processes for this project fully complied with the requirements of the law, that the public participated, and the analysis was rigorous and was reviewed by the public and many agencies . He added that Sound Transit is the lead agency and they have done the environmental work. In rebuttal, Shaffer stated that there is clear language within the City Code referring to notification to some- one who doesn' t live in the area who has corresponded with the City regarding the fact that he needs notifica- tion. He said that documents show that Northwest 9 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PLANNING Alliance was not given notification even though he was told in writing that he would receive notice . Shaffer said it is true that the Hearing Examiner asked that the City and the contractor make available the names of contacts in case he had complaints, but that he has not received that information. He added that he has compliant letters from all of his tenants . Shaffer stated that the Hearing Examiner said he did not include the information Shaffer submitted because it was not provided to the other parties, but that there was no request that Shaffer do so. He said that traffic issues and circulation issues and turning motions were not considered, and that signalization should have been considered. Shaffer noted that he has requested a wetlands expert to review whether there is a wetlands at the northwest corner of the garage site. He said his information is factual, and that no one has said otherwise . He noted that the Washington State Code is clear that if toxic material is found on your site, you must take certain steps . He said the environmental review occurred in the fall of 1998 and the toxic studies were done in 1999, and questioned how all the hazardous material analysis was adequate when it was not even available when the documents were done . He also questioned why twelve toxic studies were done unless some of them generated information which was questionable . He said there are a number of issues indicating a wetland problem, and that the City Code says if a wetland is indicated, a wetland report must be done, but that no report was done . He said that the 1998 Federal Transit Administration Environmental Assessment mentions a 3-story garage with 500 stalls and that it is now a 5-story facility with almost 900 stalls . He said the City Code says anything over 40 stalls requires an environmental review, but that the City doesn' t have to do so. Shaffer asked that the Council remand the Conditional Use Permit CE-2000-9 back to the Hearing Examiner in order to obtain additional evidence, facts and informa- tion for reconsideration, including a yet to be done 10 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PLANNING comprehensive review of all the issues included in the City' s environmental checklist, with particular emphasis on adverse environmental impacts due to the construction and subsequent operation of the proposed RTA garage dealing with the topics of traffic congestion, traffic circulation, noise, vibration, visual quality, loss of solar exposure, building security, pedestrian safety, historical resources, exhaust pollution, dust, removal of hazardous materials, and damage to wetlands . Shaffer said the public should have an opportunity to participate in the environmental review process as required by law; that a public notice should be prepared by the Planning Department which clearly describes the significant expansion in the scope and scale of the proposed Kent-Metro-RTA garage project including infor- mation that the construction plans provide for as many as seven total stories of structure; since the RTA, the City of Kent and King County Metro all plan to invest significant tax funds into the garage project, all three should be included in application documents as co- applicants . Since his rebuttal time was up, he then provided a copy of the memo he was reading from. ORR MOVED to sustain the Findings and Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner. Woods seconded. Upon the recommenda- tion of Mr. Olbrechts, Orr modified the motion to include directing Olbrechts or the City Attorney to write Findings and Conclusions which clearly specify what the decision was based on. Woods agreed. Epperly said the City should have ensured that Shaffer was notified, and said she thinks some procedures have been skipped or missed and that she would like the additional material to be looked at . Amodt expressed concern about issues including a land use permit, noise levels, right-of-way, and suggested that the code and statute be changed regarding notice requirements . She added that the City should go beyond notice requirements . Orr emphasized that this is an unusual situation, and that the City is not building the garage and did not do the environmental checklist because they are done by another entity. She said there is no indication that 11 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 _. PLANNING the appropriate processes were not done. She said the garage footprint remains the same even though more floors were added, and that she does not see anything allowing the opportunity to grant Shaffer' s appeal . Brotherton said that he did not hear evidence that enough of an error was made that Council should reverse the decision. Yingling voiced confusion regarding the evidence, and about notification of the public hearing dates . He said he feels that a long time business should have received notice of the first hearing, and that if he did not receive notice of later hearings, it was a procedural irregularity. He said that when the scope of the project was changed, construction impacts might have been substantial and that businesses in the area would want to know about that . He said that he would like Council to speak to issues such as notice in the Findings . Orr pointed out that Mr. Shaffer received the Findings and Recommendations and was able to get information to the Hearing Examiner and ask for reconsideration, and that his Request for Reconsideration is part of the record. Yingling said there is a difference between being at a hearing and making your objections known, and learning of the hearing afterwards and trying to appeal what happened at the hearing. He said Shaffer had stated that he would not have access to his truck site because of design changes in the road structure and he has seen no comments on that from the City or Sound Transit, and that he would like the Council to address that in their findings . Epperly stated that adding an additional floor to the garage does not change the footprint or impervious surface, but does result in an impact to traffic which should have been looked at . Olbrechts explained that the evidence in the record is basically the exhibits to the Hearing Examiner ' s deci- sion (Exhibits 2 and 3) and the testimony. He said that if Council feels the notice did not comply with the 12 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PLANNING code, that ' s a reason to send the matter back to the Hearing Examiner. Upon a roll call vote, Orr' s motion to sustain the Findings and Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner and to direct Mr. Olbrechts or the City Attorney to write Findings and Conclusions which clearly specify what the decision was based on carried with Brotherton, Clark, Orr and Woods in favor and Amodt, Epperly and Yingling opposed. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) Kentview Pod H Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Adoption of Ordinance No. 3558 approving amendments relating to Kentview Pod H. On May 15, 2001, the City Council approved the recommendation of the comprehensive plan amendment CPA-2000-2 (A) to amend the comprehensive plan designation of the parcel of property located at 21800 Frager Road and 22002 Riverview Boulevard from Agricultural (A) and Single Family Residential , 3 units per acre (SF-3) to Single Family Residential, 3 units per acre (SF-3) ; and approved the recommendation of the zoning map amendments for the parcel of property located at 21800 Frager Road and 22002 Riverview Boulevard from Agricultural, one unit per acre (A-1) and Single Family residential , 3 . 63 units per acre (SR-3) to Single Family Residential , 3 . 63 units per acre (SR-3) . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) 228th Corridor Final EIS. SET June 19th as the Public Hearing date for the Council to consider adopting the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the S . 228th Street Extension project as complete, along with selecting the preferred alternative and its associated mitigation for the project; directing staff to pursue additional noise mitigation along the Lakes Developments and return to Council with a recommendation; and direct- ing staff to proceed with the design and implementation of the project, as recommended by Council at their May 15th workshop. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) Street Standards Residential Connectivity - Subdivision Code Amendment. At its March 26, 2001 , meeting, the Land Use and Planning Board recommended approval of 13 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 - PLANNING amendments to Kent City Code Chapter 12 . 04 entitled "Subdivisions" to facilitate better connectivity within and between neighborhoods . The proposed ordinance would allow for such amendments . Bill Osborne of the Planning Department outlined the nine recommended revisions which increase the consis- tency between the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code . Upon Amodt ' s question, it was noted that 5 ' sidewalks allow for two people to walk side by side, and that bicycles, pedestrians, scooters and, with restrictions, skateboards would be allowed on public sidewalks . BROTHERTON MOVED to adopt Ordinance No . 3561 approving amendments to Kent City Code Chapter 12 . 04 entitled "Subdivisions" to facilitate better connectivity within and between neighborhoods . Woods seconded. Amodt spoke in opposition to the motion, noting that it adds too many restrictions and increases costs to homeowners . _. Clark stated that the inefficiency of current circum- stances created the need for this ordinance, and that it provides safety. Steve Mitchell, 24514 100th Avenue S .E. , asked how existing neighborhoods adjacent to new neighborhoods would be affected. Wickstrom stated that each situation would be looked at individually and made to fit . The motion to adopt Ordinance No. 3561 then carried with Amodt opposed. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C) Land Use Fee Schedule for Notice Boards and Multifamily Exemptions. The proposed resolution enacts revisions to the fee schedule for public notice boards and further establishes revised fees consistent with the Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions, as enacted this date by separate ordinance. The City Attorney pointed out that staff has recommended combining the fee schedule for notice boards and the Multifamily exemptions in one resolution. Kim Marousek of the Planning Department noted for Amodt that those are the only revisions . 14 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 PLANNING BROTHERTON MOVED to pass Resolution 1594 approving revisions to the fee schedule for public notice boards and Multifamily Dwelling tax exemptions . Clark seconded and the motion carried with Amodt opposed. Amodt opined that since the citizens and business owners have to cut back, the City should do so as well . ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) DeMarco Annexation. SET June 19, 2001, as the date for a public hearing on the DeMarco Annexation. The King County Auditor has verified the sufficiency of the 1160%" petition, and the King County Boundary Review Board is expected to approve this annexation on June 7, 2001 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) DeMarco Annexation Zoning (AZ-2001-1) . SET July 17, 2001 and August 21, 2001, as the public hearing dates to establish the initial zoning for the DeMarco Annexation area. Amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map shall also be considered. The Land Use and Planning Board made a recommendation for initial zoning and corresponding comprehensive plan and land use map amendments at their May 21st meeting. PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (HEARINGS - ITEM 5B) Surplus House on 248th. The City of Kent purchased real property located at 12525 SE 248th Street as part of the East Hill Public Works Maintenance Complex. The Parks Department requests that the City Council authorize sale of a house located on the property, as it is no longer needed for City purposes . The proposed resolution would allow for such a sale . Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience . ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. WOODS MOVED to pass Resolution No . 1592 to surplus the house located at 12525 SE 248th. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. 15 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through May 15 and paid on May 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on May 15, 2001 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 5/15/01 512716-513034 $1, 855, 530 . 30 S/15/01 513035-513469 1 , 291 , 049 . 08 $3 , 146, 579 . 38 Approval of checks issued for payroll for April 16 through April 30 and paid on May 4 , 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount 5/4/01 Checks 251570-251949 $ 274 , 020 . 50 5/4/01 Advices 110876-111590 988 , 721 . 32 $1 , 262 , 741 . 82 -- ADDED ITEMS (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A) Easement. Gail Shewev, 11217 SE 274 , provided a copy of a letter dated August 18 , 1999 from Michael Charneski stipulating that the City would move his private water line and provide him with an easement , and asked that the matter be looked into. WOODS MOVED to make Mr. Shewey' s letter a part of the public record. Orr seconded and the motion carried. (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B) Taxes and Discrepancies. Ted Kogita, 25227 Reith Road, said taxes for Kent went up, and that the City put out conflicting information about the golf course . He said that when the newspaper reported the conflicting information for the year 2000, the Mayor stated that the golf course information was a preliminary report . He asked whether the City is going to look into the matter of misrepresenting the number of rounds played. (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11C) -- Business in Residential Area. Calvin Ost, 27448 141st Avenue SE, Kent stated that his neighbor has an automo- tive business and expressed concern about safety and noise . Mayor White agreed to look into the matter: 16 Kent City Council Minutes June 5, 2001 ADDED ITEMS (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11D) Golf Course. Joe Rubio, 3831 S. 248th, said he has been told the golf course is making 'money but has not seen numbers showing that . He asked the Council to launch an investigation and provide a statement of all expenses . He said he 'd like to see the documents the City pre- sented to the Parks Committee on the health of the golf course, and a report of all expenses and revenues . Woods stated that the South County Journal completely misrepresented the golf course in their story and that it was one of the cheapest shots ever rendered by a publication in this community. She said that the only thing they were interested in was the Par 3 and did not want to consider that the 18-hole course, the restaurant and all other services are doing far, far better than the golf course has ever done in the past . She added that the City is currently paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on the debt, and when it is paid off , the City will have that revenue . She suggested that Mr. Rubio meet with Mr. Hodgson or Mr. Martin, who would be happy to show him what is on the public record from the Parks Committee, and emphasized that the golf course is doing very well . Martin stated that he has met with Hodgson about this issue and said he is extraordinarily pleased with the decisions made in the recent past in terms of the way the golf course is run and with the revenue that is generated. He said the newspaper article in question had to do with the averaging of rounds at the Par 3 as opposed to actual rounds . He said this is an insigni- ficant issue compared to the enormous success of the golf course . Hodgson noted that the State audit is almost final and that he would be happy to meet with Rubio. He added that expenses are dramatically down from the previous year. REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers to make reservations for the Suburban Cities dinner, and thanked the Fire Chief for the Citizen Award presentation. 17 Kent City Council Minutes June 5 , 2001 REPORTS Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the next meeting will be June 18 at 5 : 00 p.m. Parka Committee. Woods noted that the next meeting will be on June 18 on 4 : 00 p.m. , and reminded citizens of the special park dedication on June 16 in the Chestnut Ridge neighborhood at 1 : 00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT ORR MOVED to adjourn at 9 :27 p.m. Woods seconded and the motion carried. 42a��Jaco r, CMC City Clerk 18 � 3 i Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LID 354 , N. WASHINGTON AVENUE & W. MEEKER STREET IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to add and/or modify the budget for the LID 354, N. Washington Avenue & W. Meeker Street Improvement Project as described in the June 4th memo to the Public Works Committee from the Public Works Director and to spend the same . 3 . EXHIBITS: 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. 6C - 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 EN T Fax: 253-856-6500 W A n I H G.OW Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: June 4, 2001 To: PubZickstrom, i rks Committee From: Do Public Works Director Regarding: LID 354 - N. Washington Ave. & W. Meeker St. Imp. Funding We have bid this project twice. The first bid opening was on May l" for which only 2 bids were received. The low bid of S4,212,576 was significantly over our estimate and thus exceeded the project budget. Further, because we only received two bids, we weren't sure if the bids reflected the true cost of the project. The bids were rejected and after making some design changes the project was advertised again. On May 23`d bids were open for which 6 bids were received. The low bid of S3,496,956 was submitted by Ceccanti Inc., which was below the engineer's estimate. While the bid was below the engineer's estimate the total project costs exceeds the budget by S1,138,195. The budget over run relates to several factors, the first and major one being the project scope changed and the second being inflation. Per the scope change, since the budget was established we added a water quality treatment facility and a pumping station to the project. These were added to address 1). the water quality concerns (ESA) of the existing Washington Ave storm drain system which outfalls to the Green River and 2). the flooding problem that occurs in the Kmart/Langstan Landing area when a combination of heavy rains and high river flows occur. This addition added about S750,000'(S150,000 for water quality and S600,000 for the pumping station) to the project cost. In addition to these improvements we also added extensive reconstruction of 64` Ave S between Meeker St and Smith St. The issue here was that the pavement on 64`h Ave is presently falling apart. As such, since our project was tying into it, it was obvious it should be done in conjunction therewith,just as an over all cost-saving approach. This however did add about another S 162,000 to the project costs but to come back later would probably be even more expensive. While there were minor scope changes, I feel the balance is probably caused by inflation, or the lack of competition. In other words, there is seems to be a lot of work out there. This was obviously apparent when we got only two bids the first time out. To even get the six bids on the second opening we had to make numerous calls to various contractors to stir interest in the project. With a S 1,138,195 short fall what do we do? Well, first of all the costs for the water quality and pumping station improvements ($750,000) are not included in the bid as they are still under design and won't be bid until 2002. Secondly we are proposing to transfer 5565,631 from the S. 212 Street Overlay project and $100,000 from the Orillia Road Repair project to this project fund. By doing so the total available funds for this project would be $5,188,481 (see attached). As reflected also in the attached table, the project short fall would then only be 5778,564. Further we would also take 528,564 from our annual overlay program and earmark it towards the 641h Ave. reconstruction costs. This brings the unfunded balance down to $750,000, which is the cost of the water quality and pumping station improvements. Since this work is scheduled for 2002, we could proceed with the award of this contract withjust the changes noted. To fund the water quality and pumping station improvements we do have about $800,000 in our Outfall Treatment project budget. It's our recommendation that we fund it from same and consider the refunding of the Outfall Treatment project budget per the 2002 budget. Per the 212 Street Overlay project what we did was transfer a federal grant of 5306,000 that we had for this project to the 212 St.Overlay project with the intent to transfer back to this project the equivalent city funds from there. This cut the federal paper work out of this project and put it onto one simple project for which we also had a little bit of federal funds therein. Further since the federal funds will not be available until fiscal year 2004 we felt it was better to use all the city money in the 212`h Overlay project budget now and then budget for the city funds in 2003. With the federal funds we will only need about S 100,000 in city funds versus the 5565,631 therein now. Per the Orrillia Rd. Repair project the county is paying for it. So the funds are not needed. The County is paying for it because we agreed to annex the road, which is a sliver between the city and the City of Sea Tac. We also agreed to annex the other half of Lake Fenwick Rd. which, like Orillia Rd., the present city limits split the right of way thereof. Attachments MOTION: Concur with the funding changes noted in the memo. WASHINGTON AVE/MEEKER ST IMPROVEMENTS AVAILABLE FUNDS Source . ourt TIB UATA Wash Ave 660,000 TIB PSMP Wash Ave 148,400 TIB UATA Meeker St 950,000 Drainage Funds 965,000 Street Funds 475,000 Water Funds 90,000 LID 354 480,400 LID 348 159,394 Mitigation Funds 109,656 WSDOT Overlay Funds 485,000 212th Pavement Rehab funds 565,631 Orillia Road Repair 100,000 Total Available Funds 5,188,481 WASHINGTON AVE/MEEKER ST IMPROVEMENTS ` TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY PHASE AMOUNT Design 413,489 Right of Way 956,920 Construction 4,596,636 TOTAL 5,967,045 Available Funds 5,188,481 Shortfall 778,564 Note: Construction cost includes $750,000 for pump station and downstream defender stormwater treatment device Construction work in 2001 Work to be awarded in 2001 includes the following: - Roadway improvements along Washington Ave from Green River to James Street, - Roadway improvements along Meeker Street from Washington Ave to 64th Avenue South - Roadway improvements along 64th Ave S from Meeker St to Smith Street - Replacement of water main Construction work in 2002 Work to be awarded in 2002 includes the construction of the new stormwater pump station and downstream defender stormwater treatment device. Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CANYON DRIVE BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorization to add and/or modify the budget for the Canyon Drive Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvement Project as described in the June 4th memo to the Public Works Committee from the Public Works Director and to spend the same . 3 . EXHIBITS: 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. 6D _ 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 W•5111NGiGN Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: June 4, 2001 To: Public Works Committee From: Don Wickstrol�; Public Works Director Retarding: Canyon Drive Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Imp. Funding Bids were open on this project on May 24`h with 5 bids received. The low bid was by Tydico Inc for S1,338,100. With the bid the total cost for this project is S1,672,625; however, as reflected in the attached table the project fund for this project in now S569,998.72. To fund it we are proposing to use S200,000 in the Bicycle Path fund and to transfer to this project fund S 170,000 from the 132"d/272"d Intersection Improvement fund. The monies in the Bicycle Path fund were not earmarked for any specific project. Since this project will in fact construct the key Bike link (presently our only bike link) to the east hill its only fitting that the funds be used for it. Per the 112"d/272"d Intersection Improvement project funds because a significant amount of the anticipated improvements were done by the developer of the drug store on the northeast comer of the intersection ample funds well still remain in the project fund to complete the northwest comer. As such we recommend transferring S370,000 to this project fund. Why did the project costs exceed the budget? Basically there are several reasons. The first was we added to the scope of the project. We extended to improvements to tie into the existing curb and gutter section in the area of SE 252"d St versus stopping them just southerly of 94`h Ave. We also added conduit for future wire through out the length of the project and we added bases and wiring conduit for a future street light system. Secondly the project was a little more difficult than originally anticipated and thirdly as we saw on the Washintton/Meeker St project we believe the competition for work doesn't seem to be as competitive as its was earlier in the year. MOTION: Concur with the budget changes. 3 R c N 2 w <+ m C - R '? D WFi. 9 0 0 0 -{ 0 0 0 mz1 � 0C7 X o OHO �Ow X. N N A , fn O C N.< N N 6 M 9 61 O O G� N S.'Z' V O < S S J K. < p J O 6 N CL 325 m o m n mom B , m � °— o 000 CD d 3 my ;; � �a y RIn ^ > >'gm D� m m Jm m m F ^ A m >< A mla , D m J f o u o EF D o °'. 0 0 3 J m m a m w o J .. m 3 > > < < n a y M ' 6 1 �' O 3 01 H O m O �' J W N N u x ID Apo m� Nm < to j A 11 J S �, II II (9D N 0 O � J � (JCC O f0<D d A = J A N A CL m A J v O A m C? 0 0 O N T O m w N O V N O w 0 V O w m W + O O O O O N O O N I}1 a O o o N m 0 coN Oo N o A p <n a p o 0 0 0 0 0 o O " p N N y c d C m 7 _ c m 'O m O O Q+ N D J A D b < 0 0 0 o y � O b C J � 3 = o v » e o C W N N m e 0 W O N O J m o o m0, m v N a 0 0 0 O 0 n d n u _ u E d D H A m= M O C C'7 u o a < O II H II " N M w H ' o w W o n O O O O N tJI JN W Of m N W + NO N O N W m S A O m T fVl O INJI N N O. w N N N V C_ JC m O m N 0 O O O O 0 0 o m 0 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: AT&T PUBLIC ACCESS STUDIO - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Passage of Resolution No. confirming fulfillment of the franchise obligation of TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc . known as AT&T Broadband to provide, maintain, and operate a public access facility. Under Section 5 of its Franchise Agreement with the City of Kent, TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc . , known as AT&T Broadband ( "AT&T" ) , assumed an obligation to provide, maintain, and operate a public access studio for the City during the life of its franchise. AT&T has reached an agreement with the Cities of Auburn, Burien, Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila to fulfill the franchise obligation described in the attached Resolution by a one-time payment of $3 , 701, 942 . 78 to Puget Sound Access Foundation, a Washington non-profit corporation. The Access Funds will be used solely for the purpose of constructing, equipping, operating and maintaining a public access studio and administering the functions of the public access channel (s) provided by AT&T for the use and benefit of the Cities . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY• (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. 6E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, confirming fulfillment of the franchise obligation of TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. known as AT&T Broadband to provide, maintain, and operate a public access facility. WHEREAS, under Section 5 of its Franchise Agreement with the City of Kent, TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc., known as AT&T Broadband ("AT&T"), assumed an obligation to provide, maintain, and operate a public access studio for the City during the life of its franchise; and _ WHEREAS, AT&T has assumed this same franchise obligation with the cities of Auburn, Burien, Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila (collectively "Cities"); and WHEREAS, AT&T has reached an agreement with the Cities to fulfill the franchise obligation described herein by a one-time payment of $3,701,942.78 (the "Access Funds") to Puget Sound Access Foundation ("PSAF"), a Washington non-profit corporation; and WHEREAS, the Access Funds will be used solely for the purpose of constructing, equipping, operating and maintaining a public access studio and administering the functions of the public access channel(s) provided by AT&T for the use and benefit of the Cities; and 1 Franchise Confirmation of TCI Cablevision of Washington (generally known as AT&T Broadband) WHEREAS, the Access Funds will be held in a Designated Fund; and WHEREAS, the Cities agree that the payment of Access Funds to PSA fully and unconditionally fulfills AT&T's franchise obligation to provide, maintain, and operate a public access studio;NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. In consideration of the total payment of $3,701,942.78, to PSA, by AT&T, the City of Kent confirms that AT&T's obligation to "provide, maintain, and operate" a public access studio in the City of Kent pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 3108, is, in all respects, completely fulfilled, and AT&T is, accordingly, fully released from all public access facility, maintenance and operation requirements under its current Franchise Agreement with the City. SECTION Z Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. 2 Franchise Confirmation of -- TCI Cablevision of Washington (generally known as AT&T Broadband) SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of June, 2001. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of June, 2001. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 2001. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P C-. RemlutunUT&T-Frn hodonfirtretion doc 3 Franchise Confirmation of TCI Cablevision of Washington (generally known as AT&T Broadband) Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PACIFIC PARKE BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for Pacific Parke Plat submitted by Pacific Industries, for continuous operation and maintenance of 1346 feet of street improvements and 426 feet of storm sewer as complete . Release of bonds is to be after the 1-year expiration period. This project is located at 27620- 152nd Ave . 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. 6F y � y'•]dl P V fib.''b` •Y 6 ,!'fir �N '111�L�.�.I 0 C �n n nc 5 i 46 cf '• 982469T m J `^ ?,P6, MERIDIAN VALLEY i s8]479R -�.*yK vo 248 PL COUNTRY CLRd:••' p : aiz raL■OatAY 6 YAflal�BL YOU11IlPo#]COwLYY f• i4, •4 - � a , -�, ..5y p�'•. OOLF COVP9B •� A i S252PL ] m m �M42`.c..5tm m {DG d a y1 S-mti t+ 68253 Cr m �6' q' ^' m ,L `•.1e m .�.. m y9 CI m ry P]53 ' Y + m '� •�^�� d L n ^ W 5 mry R n .i SB]SJ PL �! .... +.. ^!\• pj 11."i5.:y O aA. PB 265 PL �35�.; PL AR 254; T i aea vV �' ;m 256 YL � m Qrsasax932 6'mm 257 �,mYN 4 88 7 L y`4 _• Jere( .^.i>5 682509T56 .......m ,m C O mr•Ma . > m • ' `—T •.aJl er :b .. T S I m J-0 58....14 .i2 9 rv349SE 260 ST�Y•........ 1- se 3608 t\�59261 ST PxRr 26}P 26TC _ 263 L .52 264 ]6J PL 9d 26..... e �_ 264 BT yr ' h �Lr ,6, 6E 4 PL s 36 'Ti ^ m m ......... 4 ....... \ e: J�{.� 4" +a£�el.Wl. Y P BE 265 ST :. •I m evcvu 266 3T s .... • 3p' Jh�/yi+� i� aR S � � -._ � - _ - q J44. 4 4�............. 3E zs99T t i " `; tt: . :. _.� Y V 1 •' �7 J 1 ,�•d> \ ' LARER3ZSYANo ro' •_ o (\ 7, + lvz ar � -- ... • i ,�i n 76 J'1] PL 6aPINO11000 '� •� m m d])39a'1' a ... e i :.. i ''' _ 275 PL .... ....._... 88295 PL a i 327 p 9E 276 PL 766T Pam,, 69T ■ 76 PL \i 276� m ]76 PL r. .', xoacLe am°NtaaY / af—'r`L ! )J 0, m BE 27 ar 4uner ry - SE217 PL 21iPL 98278 2795. ......... 's r ]96 ^ - y6 "279 PL 86 BO T ............................. ••J+a JL�' 1464 n +� SVNMEADOWB Sit OPENSPACE �{ 98]029T ^ �98 292 ST .................. / j PROJECT LOCATION " PRVICB CLD 5 ` PARR : SE207 Y? T ;rL SE 2885T y 2869, K � ®3 'i ® Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CENTRAL AVENUE MINI STORAGE BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept the Bill of Sale for the Central Avenue Mini- Storage/Napa Auto submitted by IDC Enterprises, LP, for continuous operation and maintenance of 75 feet of water mains and 168 feet of sidewalk as complete. Release of bonds is to be after the 1-year expiration period. This project is located at 1407 S . Central Avenue . 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 . 6G _. � .• _ � - NOvaKGN ................... 9 «_ ........... ....... ...... e P iZ m ... .•N CL vxla .....9]]ReT My 9T fAY?iGD+ ^ n ay < (,PII,ALI .. w �.............. i:::C aLNI P{'M. •.�N� Pt Z) �, g 3L4_ l q ]IPa I f5F P : L........... .......> : W 8 B n PL. � D iSJlarw.L court: =ib6ea7,��] : 82tO eT Q LLCT � � ILrI<PM9NY -`�P[.LvrI� ■ r giavL 1a ■ ID ROR q•: RWIPMTL RI® •• j 92a2 tl I uu9rxn ccrsRR 'a Pxuau/T . ............ ,r o R .. S'aJ cJxrlwmr � �M � ••.•.... R�. 'R axoucAL weeVN� T NxMx RORwuox .l MSbnTH ATL[wk, T tl cv + PvvvMk m x' Ce rojto ,appp NA •• � ~ > i9347 C'.' : '' 4 GTtr �aN s3 hv :�� ^ e1 a iAv W L......... W B ,� RA 9T I$11I FIR 9P lj 1CY••• `YT 7 , ` iJer x 99APR+a < S SHPATIL39'11 S ; A S ' .,RIRAxxa PARR rI � � L I' uRACI@LP RQtoR eT LeL:KLRP - ' e IX p0 r �• g }I rx RQv rf�}[•1 93GWIx52 e P6T RICA009T 9 L VRMs zKS ] ZAPR ��II �:.. • r. •• 4 R) MDRTO(i T n m > �, `rfa TrtxiB , � YC IT p C' F e�LMACRdi :Fi C 9 L t l RL- }I ^ it `° ` ............. G0.IVb0.K61P ANOwOti �NAPLB 6T A cl ` .ti V auewaPl,rl R x \.' vt+ ji " 11 ' CC2IERYLRY S 259 9T 9L6M - PAM - '.I l- �L /S 6 PACILITf ql+� O - ^� gT 9 26]BT :fGhlxC Rxi.L Lt•`Q+IARt y 836 ST 9 6 8 b N �.10 I I < a � V7 �'i 93666 d tfii - 0 e PROJECT f LOCATION P>C ye m y I 4 CD=y bu 8 277 9T Aurnir ; N V _ 3 I 'lA�ST Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KENT RETAIL CENTER REZONE (RZ-2000-1) - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. rezoning 4 . 35 acres of real property located north of SE 253rd Place on the west side of 104th Avenue SE from Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) to Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) zone, as approved by the City Council January 16, 2001 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (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. 6H ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to Land Use and Zoning, rezoning 4.35 acres of real property located north of SE 253`d Place on the west side of 104`h Avenue SE from Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) to Community Commercial- Mixed Use (CC-MU) zone. (Kent Retail Center RZ-2000- 1). WHEREAS, an application to rezone approximately 4.35 acres from the current zoning of Office-Mixed Use (O-MU)to Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC- MU) was filed on August 28, 2000; and i; WHEREAS, the City's SEPA responsible official issued a Determination of Nonsignifrcance (DNS) with no conditions for the proposed rezone on November 27, 2000; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Kent Retail Center Rezone was held before the Hearing Examiner on December 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner issued findings that the Kent Retail i Center Rezone is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed rezone 1 Kent Retail Center Rezone and subsequent development activity would be compatible with the development in the vicinity, that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated, that circumstances have changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone, and that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the findings are consistent with the standards for rezone set forth in Sections 15.09.050(A)(3) of the Kent City Code; and I WHEREAS, the Kent Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the Kent Retail Center Rezone on December 29, 2000, as submitted by the applicant; and i WHEREAS, the City Council moved to accept the findings of the Hearing j Examiner and the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for approval of the Kent Retail Center Rezone from Office-Mixed Use (O-MU)to Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner and finds that the proposed rezone for the real property located north of SE 253`d Place on the west side of 104`h Avenue SE will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. I — 2 Kent Retail Center Rezone SECTION 2. The property, located north of SE 253rd Place on the west side of 104th Avenue SE, Kent, Washington, consisting of approximately 4.5 acres, depicted in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is rezoned as follows: Parcel numbers 202205-9061 and 202205-9095 located in Kent, Washington, shall be rezoned from Office-Mixed Use(O-MU)to Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU). SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, 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 4. Effective Date. 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: i i i BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK i APPROVED AS TO FORM: i i ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 Kent Retail Center Rezone 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 P.\Cinl%OTd mccKcntRnvlCrnrtrRcmnc.doc i I I, III ill ii 4 Kent Retail Center Rezone ao -. AV S _ EXHIalt -1 CD CN C!T Q AV 5 -- • f O CD CD 1 . 0 D i -- � ,M f MIT m ca N Cfl q 1 04 AV S i `wpm - - - I KEN T KETAIL CENTER REZONE RZ-2000-1/KIVA #200034,36 i - N I cn - - 1Q96Y, SE w, -- _ Id cn _ cn - m I. 111..AV SE _ . _ i Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: AERIAL EASEMENT FOR SOUND TRANSIT WALKWAY - APPROVE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Air Rights Easement with Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority allowing Central Puget Sound Transit Authority to construct, operate and maintain a pedestrian bridge attached to the Sound Transit Parking Garage over 1st Avenue North, between West Smith Street and Temperance Street . 3 . EXHIBITS: Grant of Easement for Air Rights 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning 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. 6I AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Property Management City of Kent 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent WA 98032 Grantor: City of Kent Grantee: Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Abbreviated Legal Description: Portion of the NE Quarter of Section 24-22-4 Additional Legal Description on Page 1 of Exhibit C Assessor's Tax Parcel ID No. N/A GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR AIR RIGHTS THIS INSTRUMENT made this day of June, 2001, by and between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ("Grantor") and the CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a ("Grantee"). RECITALS Grantor is the owner of real property located in the City of Kent commonly known as First Avenue North, and more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A. Grantee is the owner of real property located adjacent to Grantor's real property, and is more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit B. Grantee desires to use certain air space above the real property described in Exhibit A in connection with the construction, operation and maintenance of a pedestrian bridge attached to the parking garage located on the real property described in Exhibit B. The air space boundaries are more fully described in the attached Exhibit C. AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT-Page 1 of 3 (between Ciry of Kent and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) AGREEMENT - WITNESSETH that Grantor for and in consideration of mutual benefits derived and/or other valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, do grant, bargain, sell, convey, and confirm to Grantee, its successors and/or assigns, an easement for the use of certain air space in connection with the construction, operation and maintenance of a pedestrian bridge attached to the parking garage located on the real property described in Exhibit B, for the purpose of movement of commuter passengers from the parking garage to Grantee's train station. The air space boundaries are described in the attached Exhibit C ("Easement Area"). No obstructions of any kind whatsoever shall be allowed within the Easement Area that would impede the construction, operation and maintenance of the pedestrian bridge. Grantee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enter the Easement Area to remove obstructions and to maintain the Easement Area for its intended use. Grantor shall retain the right to use the Easement Area so long as that use does not interfere with the uses described in this document. Grantee shall at all times exercise its rights under this easement in accordance with the requirements of all applicable statutes, orders, rules and regulations of any public authority having jurisdiction. Grantee accepts the Easement Area in its present physical condition, AS IS. Grantee does hereby release, indemnify and promise to defend and save harmless Grantor from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense actions and claims, including costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Grantor in connection therewith, arising directly or indirectly on account of or out of the exercise by Grantee, its servants, agents, employees and contractors of the rights granted in this easement. This easement shall be a covenant running with the land so long as said easement is used for its granted purpose; and, should the easement not be used for its granted purpose the easement shall automatically terminate and all interest herein shall revert to the Grantor. The term "used for its granted purpose" shall include periods of time when the pedestrian bridge is closed for maintenance, remodeling or replacement but only for a period not to exceed twenty- four (24) months. This grant of easement shall be binding on the Grantor's and Grantee's successors, heirs, and assigns. DATED this day of June, 2001. GRANTOR: CITY OF KENT By: Its: DATE: (Notary Acknowledgment on Next Page) AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT-Page 2 of 3 (between City of Kent and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of 2001, before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared , to me known to be the of City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of said corporation, for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC,in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH City Attorney P.\Civil\FILES\Op nFiln\0293WrRighUEuem t.doc AIR RIGHTS EASEMENT-Page 3 of 3 (between City of Kent and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) EXHIBIT "A" COMMENCING AT THE EAST ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SECTIONS 24 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RAINGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER BEING MARKED BY CONCRETE MONUMENT WITHIN A MONUMENT CASE; THENCE SOUTH 88436'01' EAST ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID SECTIONS 24 AND 13 A DISTANCE OF 143.65 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE SOUTH 0040'10" ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 406.44 FEET;THENCE NORTH 68°38'01"WEST A DISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0040'10" WEST A DISTANCE OF 164.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89019'50'WEST A DISTANCE OF 8.06 FEET TO A POINT 25.00 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING EASTERLY TRACK ALIGNMENT; THENCE SOUTH 0040'10' WEST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SAID EASTERLY TRACK ALIGNMENT A DISTANCE OF 380.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89020'19' WEST A DISTANCE OF 148.58 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF FIRST AVENUE NORTH AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A SPACE CONTAINED WITHIN THE VERTICAL EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL: THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89020'19" WEST A DISTANCE OP 5013 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 1ST AVENUE NORTH DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF KENT ; THENCE NORTH 00016'02' EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 14.63 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT FROM WHICH THE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 53°48'56" WEST 21.00 FEET DISTANT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01=16'28" AN ARC LENGTH OF 0.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89020'19" EAST A DISTANCE OF 50.91 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID 1ST AVENUE NORTH; THENCE SOUTH 01'38'21' WEST 15.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING EXHIBIT "B" Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington; Together with that portion of vacated Second Avenue adjoining, which upon vacation under City of Kent Ordinance No. 2779, recording No. 8807130681, attached to said property by operation of law. Together with that portion of vacated unused alleyway adjoining, which upon vacation under City of Kent Ordinance No. 3549, attached to said property by operation of law. Lot 7 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington; Except that portion conveyed to the City of Kent by recording Nos. 7607010194 and 7607010195 described as follows: That portion of Lot 7 in Bock 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot; thence north along the east line of said Lot a distance of 10 feet; thence in a southwesterly direction to a point on the south line of said Lot which lies 65 feet west of beginning; thence east to beginning. EXHIBIT "C" Page 1 of 4 RTA KENT AERIAL EASEMENT OVER 1ST AVENUE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY COMMENCING AT THE EAST ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SECTIONS 24 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF KENT. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER BEING MARKED BY A CONCRETE MONUMENT WITHIN A MONUMENT CASE; THENCE SOUTH 88°36'01' EAST ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID SECTIONS 24 AND 13 A DISTANCE OF 143.65 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE SOUTH W40'10" ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF 406.44 FEET;THENCE NORTH 88°38'01'WEST A ❑ISTANCE OF 3.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0040'10' WEST A DISTANCE OF 184.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89019'50" WEST A DISTANCE OF 8.06 FEET TO A POINT 25.00 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING EASTERLY TRACK ALIGNMENT; THENCE SOUTH 0040'10' WEST ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SAID EASTERLY TRACK ALIGNMENT A DISTANCE OF 380.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89*20'19' WEST A DISTANCE OF 148.58 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF FIRST AVENUE NORTH AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A SPACE CONTAINED WITHIN THE VERTICAL EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL: THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89020'19" WEST A DISTANCE OF 50.13 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 1ST AVENUE NORTH DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF KENT ; THENCE NORTH 00016'02" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 14.63 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT FROM WHICH THE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 5W46'56'WEST 21.00 FEET DISTANT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF Ol'16'28" AN ARC LENGTH OF 0.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89020'19" EAST A DISTANCE OF 50.91 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID 1S AVENUE NORTH; THENCE SOUTH 01038'21" WEST 15.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID PARCEL BEING CONTAINED WITHIN THE VERTICAL SPACE LYING BETWEEN A LOWER ELEVATION PLANE AT ELEVATION 74.0 FEET AT THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND AN UPPER ELEVATION PLANE AT ELEVATION 90.0 FEET. ALL ELEVATIONS REFR TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88). CONTAINING 756 SO. FT.MORE OR LESS 12,096 CU. FT. MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT "C " Page 2 of 4 SEC IJ NBB'35'57'W f4J.65_. W JAMES ST --SEC 74 - 62,37 - 7/15 TH CORNER a 50 50, m i Ln � 2 o � a A � — �c z z p w - p N, � j I in 4 i 2 a x n I I � � � i N8636'0r"W m � O n � O O — ro O rr m O SHEET 7 SHEfT�Z - m a z AERIAL EASEMENT EXHIBIT y a_ sn -, z eW =2• fA c o 7 M � A �A fro z 10 KENT RAIL STATION E„> CITY OF KEN WASHINOTON V01/01 BRIDGE ES EX 60 06/12/01 09:12 12425 821 3481 TRIAD ASSOC1A,la r. . EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 of 4 SHE r I I ... ... SH,lt r nn Q - - - - � � NB9't9'S0"w a n m t r o I / i / o z 6 O O O a O - O ri SHEET SHEFr J a `I n� 4 O Cl a n A r„a Otis tnm inu �a '� a ob 5 n 0 oy �� m eo off: FJ,o � / o _ x ti Up O O tr,N a �`OS' ,• �K,' z' U o N v 1 O ngin+v! m gA M AERIAL EASEMENT EXHIBIT m KENT RAIL STATION !R. alQ4 M C1 rY OF KEN r WASHING rON F1 5/01/01 BRIDGE ES EX 60 06/12/01 09:12 V425 821.3481 1d1AV Aaauunaca EXHIBIT "C " Page 4 of 4 LH ra SHEET 3 p � O a x G Q at L J y wb 4 � A � a � tz a 00 a O O A � x a aD 30' 40ni � A yo oti ti . SAII TH ST v i N I n D ' I I it o` OUR . m w � AERIAL EASEMENT EXHIBIT 2 e 1WIpp w A co ~,�o�m KENT RAIL IS TA TION I 4 zi CITY OF KENT WASHINGTON t� 5/0!/0•. BRIDGE ES EX 60 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19, 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD REAPPOINTMENTS - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s reappoint- ments of Ms . Charlene Shaw and Mr. Dick Lackey to continue serving as members of the Kent Downtown Public Market Development Authority Board of Directors . Their new terms will continue until 5/31/2005 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 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. 6J KENT WASHIHOTON MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHIT DATE: JUNE 12, 2001 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC MARKET DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD I have reappointed Ms. Charlene Shaw and Mr. Dick Lackey to continue serving as members of the Kent Downtown Public Market Development Authority Board of Directors. Their new terms will continue until 5/31/2005. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category. Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: DEMARCO ANNEXATION COMP PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On March 14, 2001, the City received a 60% Annexation Petition to annex an area commonly referred to as the DeMarco Annexation. The City Council has accepted the petition and a Notice of Intention to annex was filed with and accepted by the King County Boundary Review Board. The land use and zoning designations must be established for the annexation area, requiring an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is updated only once annually, unless an emergency is declared due to an issue of community- wide significance that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare. This resolution would declare such an emergency and would allow for the amendment of the City' s comprehensive plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmemberz,01—moves, Councilmember �/1 seconds to pass Resolution No. relating to the DeMarco Annexation and declaring an emergency to amend the comprehensive plan. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Acting Director • PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Manager WAGNINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 12, 2001 TO: Mayor Jim White, Council President Leona Orr and City Council Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Planning Manager RE: DEMARCO ANNEXATION—EMERGENCY RESOLUTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #AZ-2001-1 (KIVA # 2011034) _. The attached resolution declares an emergency in accordance with Chapter 12.02 of Kent City Code so that the City may pursue an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the DeMarco Annexation area. This resolution allows an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan separate from the annual amendment process. CA\cb\S:\Permit\Plan\ANNEXATIONS\2001\201 1034-2001-1 cc.DOC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the DeMarco Annexation and declaring an emergency to amend the comprehensive plan because the land use and zoning designations for the annexation area are issues of community-wide significance that promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. WHEREAS, on March 14, 2001, the city received a 60% Annexation Petition to annex an area located in unincorporated King County into the City of Kent, commonly referred to as the DeMarco Annexation; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2001, the City Council accepted the petition and on April 19, 2001, a Notice of Intention was filed with the King County Boundary Review Board; and WHEREAS, the City analyzes an annexation area through a public process described in Kent City Code ("KCC") 15.09.055 in order to establish land use and zoning designations for the annexation area; and WHEREAS, the land use and zoning designations are issues of community-wide significance that promote the public health, safety, and general 1 DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan Amendment Land Use and Zoning Designations welfare, thereby constituting an emergency under KCC 12.02.035 and RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) and allowing for the amendment of the City's comprehensive plan; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The land use and zoning designations for the DeMarco Annexation area are issues of community-wide significance that promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, thereby constituting an emergency under KCC 12.02.035 and RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) and allowing for the amendment of the City's comprehensive plan. SECTION 2. The Planning Services Office may proceed with the process required to amend the comprehensive plan. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 4. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. 2 DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan Amendment Land Use and Zoning Designations SECTION 5. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of June, 2001. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of June, 2001. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of June, 2001. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 DeMarco Annexation Comprehensive Plan Amendment Land Use and Zoning Designations Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19, 2001 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: KENT COMMUTER RAIL STATION GARAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - COUNCIL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON APPEAL HEARING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Written findings and conclusions are presented for Council adoption sustaining the Hearing Examiner' s findings and decision in Case No. CE-2000-9 regarding the Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage . 3 . EXHIBITS: Findings and conclusions 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ''1I11 Councilmember_ k" oves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Findings and Conclusions sustaining the Hearing Examiner' s Findings and Decision in Case No. CE-2000-9 regarding the Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage . DISCUSSION: ACTION: w f N1 '� Council Agenda Item No. 7B BEFORE THE CITY OF KENT CITY COUNCIL In re: the Application for a Conditional . ) Use Permit for the ) NO. CE-2000-9 Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage ) CLOSED RECORD Sound Transit, Applicant ) APPEAL DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On October 4, 2000, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ("RTA") applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 680-stall parking garage adjacent to the Kent Commuter Rail Station. Ex. 1(C).1 2. The RTA increased the size of the parking garage to 871 stalls by letter dated January 10, 2001. Ex. 2. The City had known of the revision for approximately a month and a half prior to that date. 1/10/01 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes, p. 2. The City also distributed a memorandum dated December 19, 2000, advising various City departments of the revision. Ex. 1(E). RTA had also submitted drawings incorporating the project revision prior to January 10, 2001. Ex. 2. 3. The City mailed notice of the public hearing for the application to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site, posted hearing notice on the site, and published hearing notice in a local newspaper on December 22, 2000. Ex. 1(G). The notice did not specify the number of parking stalls or levels proposed for the garage. 4. The City of Kent Hearing Examiner held a hearing on the RTA application on January 10, 2001. 1/24/01 Hearing Examiner Decision. 5. Shortly before the hearing the appellant, Don Shaffer, as president of Northwest Alliance Inc., faxed comments on the proposal to the Hearing Examiner. Ex. 3. Mr. Shaffer owns a building that is chiefly comprised of a distribution warehouse adjacent to the proposed garage. The written comments did not request a continuance of the hearing. All references to exhibits are those attached to the 1/24/O1Hearing Examiner decision,using the exhibit numbers from the closed record appeal. In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Page 1 of 8 6. The Hearing Examiner issued a final decision granting the conditional use permit dates: January 24, 2001. 7. Mr. Shaffer submitted a request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner dated January 29, 2001. 8. The Hearing Examiner held a phone conference with Mr. Shaffer and the parties on February 8, 2001. As a result, the Hearing Examiner issued an order on that same date allowing the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on specified mitigation measures to protect Mr. Shaffer's property. The order required the parties to submit their agreed upon mitigation measures to the Hearing Examiner by February 28, 2001. If no agreement was reached, the Hearing Examiner would take action he deemed appropriate. 9. By letter dated February 28, 2001, Mr. Shaffer requested an extension of time to submit the ordered mitigation measures, on the basis that he was awaiting responses to several record requests made to various local government agencies. 10. By letter dated March 7, 2001, the City of Kent opposed the requested extension. The RTA also submitted a letter opposing the request on the same date. The City and the RTA took the position that the requested records were not relevant to the mitigation measures specified by the Hearing Examiner in his 2/8/01 Order. In the same letters, the City and the RTA both stated they could not come to agreement on the mitigation measures because the parking garage essentially did not create any adverse impacts that warranted further mitigation. 11. By order dated March 15, 2001, the Hearing Examiner granted a part of Mr. Shaffer's reconsideration request by imposing a condition mitigating impacts caused during construction of the parking garage. 12. Mr. Shaffer appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision by letter dated March 29, 2001. 13. Mr. Shaffer submitted several hundred pages of documents in support of his appeal. The City of Kent and the RTA made a joint motion dated May 8, 2001, objecting to the admission of new evidence by Mr. Shaffer. Mr. Shaffer responded to the motion by letter dated May 11, 2001. 14. The City Council held a closed-record appeal hearing on June 5, 2001. It granted the Motion In Opposition To Admitting Additional Evidence. The Council directed its legal counsel to prepare appropriate findings and conclusions of law upholding the decision of the Hearing Examiner. 15. The City Council adopts the findings of fact made by the Hearing Examiner in his January 24, 2001, decision and the findings of fact in his March 15, 2001, reconsideration decision. In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Page 2 of 8 EXHIBITS 1. January 24, 2001 Hearing Examiner Decision, including referenced exhibits. 2. January 29, 2001 Shaffer request for reconsideration, plus attachment. 3. February 8, 2001 Hearing Examiner Order limiting scope of reconsideration. 4. March 1, 2001 Hearing Examiner Notice of Motion, plus attached motion for time extension from Mr. Shaffer.. 5. March 7, 2001 Letter from Fred Satterstrom responding to Motion for Reconsideration,plus fax coversheet attachments. 6. March 7, 2001 Letter from RTA responding to Motion for Reconsideration, plus attachments. 7. March 15, 2001 Decision on Reconsideration. 8. March 29, 2001 Shaffer Appeal, excluding attachments. 9. April 11, 2001 order for transcript plus treasury receipt. 10. January 10, 2001 Verbatim Minutes. 11. May 8, 2001 Motion In Opposition To Admitting Additional Evidence. 12. May 11, 2001 Response to Motion re Additional Evidence plus Exhibit A and C. 13. Undated, untitled document submitted by Mr. Shaffer to the council at the June 5, 2001, closed record appeal. 14. Undated copy of KCC 2.32.150 submitted by Mr. Shaffer with underlined portions. 15. Undated"Statement of Hearing Officer". 16. June 5, 2001, Blue Sheet for Kent Commuter Rail Station Garage Conditional Use Permit - Closed Record Appeal (#CE-2000-9) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Authoritv of the Citv Council: 1. General Authority. Kent City Code (KCC) 12.01.040 provides that the Kent Hearing Examiner shall make a final decision on conditional use permit applications, appealable to the Kent City Council. KCC 12.01.040 further provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hold an open record hearing on the applications and that the City Council shall review the appeals by closed record appeal. 2. SEPA Authority. Mr. Shaffer makes several arguments alleging noncompliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), Chapter 43.21C RCW. KCC 11.03.520(A) requires that all SEPA appeals must be filed with the Hearing Examiner. SEPA threshold determinations are the only SEPA procedural determinations subject to administrative appeal. These appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance of the threshola determination. Mr. Shaffer made no SEPA appeal to the Hearing Examiner. The City Council has no jurisdiction on Mr. Shaffer's allegations of SEPA noncompliance. In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law -Page 3 of 8 3. Design Review Authority. Mr. Shaffer argues that the proposed parking garage fails to comply with design review guidelines. Design review decisions are only appealable to the Hearing Examiner. See KCC 12.01.040. Mr. Shaffer made no design review appeal to the Hearing Examiner. The City Council has no jurisdiction over Mr. Shaffer's allegations of noncompliance with design review. Motion to Exclude Evidence 4. State Requirements. RCW 36.70B.050(2), adopted in 1995, requires cities and counties to adopt land use review regulations that provide for no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal for project applications. RCW 36.70B.020(1) defines a closed record appeal as an appeal based upon the administrative record with no or "limited new evidence" allowed. 5. Kent Requirements. The City has four code sections governing the admission of new evidence in closed record appeals. The City Council construes these standards as limiting new evidence to the "limited new evidence" standard identified in RCW 36.70B.020(1). Section 6 of Resolution No. 896, adopted in 1980, provides that the Council may request additional information in closed record appeals "at its discretion". KCC 2.32.150(B) provides that new evidence not available at the time of hearing held by the Hearing Examiner may be considered on appeal. KCC 12.01.020(A) adopts the RCW 36.70B.020(l) definition of closed - record appeal. KCC 12.01.090(I) provides that no new evidence shall be presented at a closed record appeal. KCC 12.01.020(A) and 12.01.090(I) were adopted in 1998 by the City in response to the state law requirements identified in Conclusion No. 4 herein. Since KCC 12.01.020(A) and 12.01.090(1) constitute the most recent City enactments on closed record evidence, and since these provisions incorporate state law requirements, the City construes these provisions as superceding Resolution 896 and KCC 12.01.090(I) to the extent that they conflict. Further, the "no new" evidence mandate of KCC 12.01.090(1) is qualified as allowing for the "limited new evidence" allowed in KCC 12.01.020(A). The "limited new evidence" provides for consistency with state law and also protects the constitutional rights of land use participants. In summary, the Kent City Council will only allow "limited new evidence" in a closed record appeal. 6. "Limited New Evidence": Both the KCC and Chapter 36.70B allow for "limited new evidence" at closed record appeals. This term has not been legislatively or judicially defined. However, the Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA"), Chapter 36.70C RCW, does identify very limited circumstances under which a court may review evidence outside the administrative record in reviewing a city's land use decision. The City Council construes the "limited new evidence" term as incorporating the LUPA limitations for new evidence. This interpretation will help protect the integrity of City land use decisions by allowing the Council the same opportunity to review issues presented by outside evidence as a reviewing court. Since the LUPA In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Page 4 of 8 standards for outside evidence are essentially designed to protect constitutional rights, their incorporation into the "limited new evidence" term will also allow the Council to protect those constitutional rights. It is a recognized principle of statutory construction that regulations should be interpreted in a manner that preserves their constitutionality. 7. Notice. Mr. Shaffer asserts that he is entitled to present new evidence because he did not receive notice of the public hearing for the conditional use permit application. RCW 36.70C.120(1) (a LUPA standard) limits evidence to the administrative record only if the parties had an opportunity, consistent with due process, to submit evidence into the record. If proper notice of the hearing was not sent, then there was not the appropriate opportunity consistent with due process to submit evidence. Affidavits in Ex. 1(G) establish that notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet, and published and posted on the property in compliance with KCC 12.01.140(H). The Council construes this as proper notice. Mr. Shaffer may not have received mailed notice because he does not own the property adjacent to the parking garage. Rather, he leases the property that is occupied by his sub-tenants. Mr. Shaffer did ultimately receive actual notice of the public hearing, as evidenced by the written comments he submitted to the Hearing Examiner prior to the opening of the hearing. In those written comments, Mr. Shaffer had the opportunity to request additional time to present evidence and/or to object to the apparently late notice he received of the hearing. Mr. Shaffer did not take advantage of these opportunities and so waived his right to request additional evidence on appeal. Mr. Shaffer also claims that notice of the public hearing was defective because the RTA increased the size of the project after it filed its application. The public hearing notice did not specify the size of the garage and City planning records as early as December 19, 2000, showed that the RTA planned on increasing the size of the garage. The notice was not defective due to a change in project size. Mr. Shaffer further claims that the City promised him notice of all public meetings regarding the parking garage. He supports his assertion with a copy of a letter dated August 20, 1998, in which a City planner confirmed that he would advise Mr. Shaffer on the date of an upcoming meeting on the parking garage. The planner wrote that "I would let you know when this meeting was scheduled". (emphasis added). In the letter, the planner then advised Mr. Shaffer of a September 2, 1998, parking garage meeting. The letter does not constitute a permanent commitment from the City to advise Mr. Shaffer of all meetings and hearings pertaining to the parking garage. The planner fulfilled his promise by advising Mr. Shaffer of the September 2, 1998, meeting. Even if the August 2, 1998, letter does constitute a permanent assurance, it does not serve as grounds to invalidate the proceedings of the Hearing Examiner. City staff do not have the authority to modify the notice requirements specified in the KCC. In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Page 5 of 8 Mr. Shaffer's final argument is that he was entitled to notice due to his participation in other proceedings related to the Kent Commuter Rail Station. Nothing in the KCC entitles Mr. Shaffer to notice of the conditional use permit application or hearing solely due to his participation in other Kent Commuter Rail Station proceedings. In summary, the City Council concludes that the notice for the application and public hearing of this matter was issued in compliance with the KCC. The Council also finds that Mr. Shaffer received actual notice of the hearing and had the opportunity to request additional time to present additional evidence. Mr. Shaffer received notice consistent with his due process rights to present evidence to the Hearing Examiner. 8. Appearance of Fairness. Mr. Shaffer claims that the Council should be disqualified from this proceeding on the basis of the appearance of fairness doctrine because it has a financial interest in the parking garage. RCW 36.70C.120(1) and (2)(a) (a LUPA standard) allows the supplementation of the administrative record on grounds for disqualification of a decision maker when such grounds were unknown by the petitioner at the time the record was created. Mr. Shaffer failed to establish that he was unaware of the City's financial interest in the parking garage at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Council does not find the documents pertaining to appearance of fairness admissible. The Council also notes that even if the appearance of fairness doctrine were properly raised, there would be no violation, since city councils do have the authority under the appearance of fairness doctrine to review their own land use projects. See Trepanier v. Everett, 64 Wn. App. 380 (1992); RCW 42.36.020 and RCW - 42.36.0902 . 9. Reconsideration Documents. In an undated declaration, the Hearing Examiner stated that he based his reconsideration decision upon the evidence presented at the hearing in addition to memoranda submitted by Mr. Shaffer, the City and the applicant. Given the limitations on new evidence, it is questionable whether the Hearing Examiner could include the memoranda as part of the record. However, no party objected to the addition of these documents to the record. On this basis, the City Council will allow these memoranda to serve as part of the record. The Council makes the express finding, however, that it would still adopt the findings and conclusions of the 1/24/01 Hearing Examiner decision plus the added condition imposed in the 3/15/01 reconsideration decision even without the admission of the reconsideration documents. The Hearing Examiner's imposition of an additional condition in his reconsideration decision is supported by the record established at the public hearing, which shows the proximity of Mr. Shaffer's business to the parking garage and the dependency of that business upon unfettered access during garage construction. a RCW 42.36.090 does require disclosure,but in this case all parties had actual notice of the£mancial interest prior to the commencement of the closed-record appeal. In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Page 6 of 8 10. Documents Unavailable at the Time of Hearine. Mr. Shaffer claims that many of the documents he submitted are admissible in the closed-record appeal because they were not available at the time of the hearing. Some documents unavailable at the time of hearing may be admissible under the LUPA due process standard referenced in Conclusion No. 7. However, the Council does not need to address that issue since Mr. Shaffer failed to establish the unavailability of any pertinent documents. Mr. Shaffer states that he had difficulty obtaining responses to record requests, but all the record requests he submitted to the Council were made after the close of the Hearing Examiner hearing. There is no evidence that Mr. Shaffer made a records request for purposes of the Hearing Examiner hearing prior to the hearing. Any asserted delays in responses to record requests, therefore, did not prevent Mr. Shaffer from submitting documents to the Hearing Examiner. To the extent that Mr. Shaffer argues that delays in record responses have prevented him from establishing the existence of new documents, Mr. Shaffer has failed to establish any reasonable likelihood that pertinent new documents exist. The Council cannot create further delays in the review process on completely unfounded speculation that a pertinent new document might exist. Mr. Shaffer did submit a letter dated January 30, 2001, from the Metropolitan King County Council to the RTA. King County did prepare this letter after the close of the Hearing Examiner's hearing. The letter simply provides that King County endorses the expansion of the parking garage. As identified in Finding No. 2 herein, the City had notice of the expansion as early as December 19, 2000. The January 30, 2001, letter adds nothing to this or any other pertinent issue concerning Mr. Shaffer's appeal. 11. Decision on Motion to Exclude Evidence. The City Council will base its decision exclusively on the record established by the Hearing Examiner. This record consists of the three documents attached to the Hearing Examiner's January 10, 2001, decision as well as the three memoranda identified in the "Materials Considered" portion of the Hearing Examiner's March 15, 2001, reconsideration decision. Any other evidence, verbal or written, was not considered by the Council in reaching its decision on this matter. As a point of clarification, evidence should not be confused with argument. Arguments based upon the record and/or laws and regulations are completely admissible and were considered by the City Council. To this end, the three-page document submitted by Mr. Shaffer during oral argument on his closed record appeal is an admissible document, since it contains no new information. Mr. Shaffer may have submitted some documents that only present appeal argument on SEPA and design issues. Since the Council does not have jurisdiction over these issues, the documents are excluded on grounds of relevancy. Mr. Shaffer also submitted some documents that include a mix of new information and argument. These documents comprise hundreds of pages and the Council will not sift through these documents to put them in proper appeal form for Mr. Shaffer. All documents admitted into evidence are listed in the "Exhibits" portion of this decision. No portions of those admitted documents that contain new evidence should be considered a part of the record. In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Page 7 of 8 Hearing Examiner Decision 12. Adoption of Conclusions of Law. The City Council adopts the Conclusions of Law made by the Hearing Examiner in his January 24, 2001, decision and the Conclusions of Law in his March 15, 2001, reconsideration decision. 13. Upholding Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the Hearing Examiner's findings in his decision and reconsideration decision are supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole administrative record. The Council also finds that the Hearing Examiner correctly interpreted applicable laws in making his conclusions of law and also correctly applied the law to the facts. DECISION Based on the administrative record and the previously made Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the appeal filed by Mr. Shaffer is hereby denied and the decision and reconsideration decision of the Hearing Examiner on this matter is affirmed. DATED this day of , 2001. PURSUANT TO COUNCIL MOTION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL LEONA ORR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK In re: the Application for a Condition Use Permit Kent Commuter Rail Parking Garage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Page 8 of 8 ® Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: CANYON DRIVE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on May 24th, with five (5) bids received. The low bid was submitted by Ceccanti, Inc . in the amount of $1, 414 , 718 . 04 . The Engineers estimate was $1, 627, 657 . The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Ceccanti, Inc . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $1 , 414 , 718 . 04 SOURCE OF FUNDS : R14,R33 , R38 , R51 ,R74 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember�i&1tK. moves, Councilmember seconds that the Canyon Drive Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvemeppppppnt Project be awarded to Ceccanti, Inc . for the bid amount of $1, 414 , 718 . 04 , plus applicable tax. DISCUSSION: ACTION: air Council Agenda Item No. 8A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • KEN T Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax: 253-556-6500 w.s�i�crow Address: 220 Fourth.Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: June 11, 2001 To: Public Works Corrun ttee From: Don Wickstrom Regarding: Canyon Drive Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Funding At the June 4, 2001 meeting, the Committee approved additional funds for the Canyon Drive Project. These funds were reallocated from the Citywide Bicycle Paths (R-14) and 132nd/272nd Intersection Improvement (R-74) budgets and will be used to construct sidewalk, bicycle lane, storm sewer and a traffic signal on Canyon Drive near 94th Avenue S. Two construction schedules (BI and CI) were removed due to budgetary constraints. After further evaluation of the project funding, it was determined that Schedule CI could be removed and constructed as part of a separate, future project. Schedule BI, which would extend a 10-foot sidewalk/bicycle lane to 97th Place S.(Crow Rd), could be included in this year's construction with more funding. Additional funding is available from the 2001 Sidewalks budget. The current available funding for the project is S300,000; however, we only anticipate needing S175,000 to do this year's work. The balance, (S125,000), when one exists is then carried over into next year's work. Instead of doing this we are proposing to ear mark S96,500 for the Canyon Drive project, enabling us to then include Schedule BI, which would extend the sidewalk/bicycle lane to 97th Place S (Crow Rd). . With Schedule BI included in the project, the apparent low bidder is Ceccanti Inc. of Spana«ay, Washington, with a bid of S1,414,718.04. Public Works plans on recommending to the Council at the June 19th meeting that Ceccanti Inc. be awarded the Canyon Drive Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Project to construct Schedules Al, AII, AIII, and BI. See Attachment I for a description of the schedules and a breakdown of the funding. I have discussed this with Councilman Clark and he has concurs. Further since this would have been the only item for the Public Works committee meeting of June 181h and as its more clarification versus action Councilman Clark also concurred with my suggestion that we cancel said committee meeting and handle this matter via this correspondence. As such if you have a concern or question thereon please call me. Otherwise as I previously its on your June 19`h Council agenda to be- awarded to Ceccanti. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Public Works Director • KEN T Phone:253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: June 11, 2001 To: City Council From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Regarding: Canyon Drive Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Public Works opened and accepted five bids for the Canyon Drive Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Project (Project Number 97-3012C) on May 24, 2001. After reviewing the bids, it was determined that Schedule CI could be removed and constructed as part of a separate, _ future project. Excluding Schedule CI, the bids were finalized as follows: Rank Contractor Bid Amount 1 Ceccanti, Inc. $1,414,718.04 2 T dico, Inc. $1,438,100.00 3 R.W. Scott $1,628,877.00 4 Westwater Construction Company S1,651,385.00 5 Dennis R. Craig Construction $1,821,954.10 Engineer's Estimate $1,627,657.00 The apparent low bidder is Ceccanti Inc. of Spanaway, Washington, with a bid of S1,414,718.04. Our reference check regarding Ceccanti Inc. provided favorable recommendations. It is my recommendation that Ceccanti Inc. be awarded the Canyon Drive Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Project to construct Schedules AI, AII, AIII, and BI. MOTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Canyon Drive Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Project be awarded to Ceccanti, Inc. for the bid amount of S 1,414,718.04. Expenditures: $1,414,718.04 Source of Funds: RI4,R33,R38,R51,R74 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19, 2001 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: LID 354 , N. WASHINGTON AVENUE AND W. MEEKER STREET IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on May 23rd, with six (6) bids received. The low bid was submitted by Ceccanti, Inc . in the amount of $3 , 496, 956 . 02 . The Engineer' s estimate was $3 , 673 , 548 . 42 . The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Ceccanti, Inc . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $3 , 496 , 956 . 02 SOURCE OF FUNDS : R11 ,R17 , R18 ,R40 . R59 . R69 and R75 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember Cbpl- moves, Councilmember seconds that the Washington Avenue/Meeker Street Improvement Project be awarded to Ceccanti, Inc. for the bid amount of $3 , 496, 956 . 02 , including tax. DISCUSSION: /1 ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8B 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 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Date: June 11, 2001 To: City Council From: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Directo Regarding: Washington Avenue/Meeker Street Improvement Project The bid opening for the Washington Avenue/Meeker Street Improvement Project was held on May 23, 2001. Six bids were received, opened and accepted in the following order: RANK CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT 1 Ceccanti Inc $3,496,956.01 2 T dico Inc. $3,775,520.00 3 Robison Construction Inc. $3,849,599.84 4 Mid-Mountain Contractors $4,120,881.68 5 R.W. Scott Co. $4,287,763.68 6 Gary Merlino Construction Inc. $4,802,250.40 The Engineer's Estimate was $3,673,528.42. The low bid was submitted by Ceccanti Inc. of Spanaway Washington. References contacted regarding Ceccanti Inc. provided favorable recommendations. It is my recommendation that Ceccanti Inc. be awarded the Washington Avenue/Meeker Street Improvement Project and that all schedules be included in the project. MOTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Washington Avenue/Meeker Street Improvement Project be awarded to Ceccanti, Inc. for the bid amount of$3,496,956.01. Expenditures: S3,496,956.01 Source of Funds: RI 1,R17,R18,R40,R59,R69 and R75 Kent City Council Meeting Date June 19 , 2001 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: RE-ROOF CORRECTIONS FACILITY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Director, authorization to award a contract to Kruger Sheet Metal for the Corrections Facility Re-roof Project in the amount of $246, 453 . 76 for base bid, plus Alternate #1 in the amount of $7, 193 . 86, and Washington State Sales Tax. Seven bids were received for the Corrections Facility Re-Roof project . The Engineer' s estimate was $375, 000 , including Alternate #1 , 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $253 , 647 . 62 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Long Term General Bonds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember 0 H k4 moves, Councilmember seconds to award a contract to Kruger Sheet Metal for the Corrections Facility Re-roof Project in the amount of $253 , 647 . 62 , plus Washington State Sales Tax. DISCUSSION: y� ACTION: 0 C Council Agenda Item No. 8C PARKS FACILITIES BID TAB RESULTS June 8, 2001 PROJECT: REROOF KENT CORRECTIONS FACILITY BIDDER BID Kruger Sheet Metal $ 246,453.76 Alternate #1 $ 7,193.86 Snyder Roofing $255,152.00 Alternate #1 $ 9,472.00 Rainbow Federal $284,134.00 Alternate #1 $ 29,150.00 MJ Takisaki $288,103.00 Alternate #1 $ 10,446.00 Wayne Roofing $310,515.00 Alternate #1 $ 13,056.00 Wright Roofing $319,828.48 Alternate #1 $ 5,483.52 Pacific Rainier Roofing $335,104.00 Alternate #1 $ 9,792.00 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS E. PLANNING COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. of /u P�7� 60 l Yr��e�fi C�o EXECUTIVE SESSION