Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 03/16/2009Public Works Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Ron HarmonDebbie RapleeDeborah Ranniger, Chair Unless otherwise noted, the Public Works Committee meets at 5:00 p.m. on the 1st & 3rd Mondays of each month. Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, 98032-5895. For information please contact Public Works Administration (253) 856-5500. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (253) 856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. U:\PWCommittee\Agendas\2009\Mar 16 09.doc March 16, 2009 4:30 p.m. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING Note different time - for this meeting only Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 01. Approval of Minutes Dated March 2, 2009 YES NONE 03 01 02. 2009 Design & Construction Standards & Adoption of Ordinance YES Mike Gillespie 25 05 03. Status of Transportation Master Plan Proposed Funding Option- Transportation Impact Fee NO Cathy Mooney 15 21 04. Resolution- Residential Traffic Calming Chad Bieren/ Program YES Rob Knutsen 15 23 This page intentionally left blank. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 2, 2009 Page 1 of 3 U:\PWCommittee\Minutes\PWMinutes 03 02 09.doc COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair Deborah Ranniger was present. Tim Clark sat in on behalf of committee member Debbie Raplee. Committee Member Ron Harmon was present. The meeting was called to order at 4:32 p.m. The items were moved around on the agenda and are reflected in the following minutes. ITEM 1- Approval of Minutes Dated February 02, 2009: Committee Member Harmon moved to approve the minutes of February 02, 2009. The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 2– Information Only/Fire Response Time – 72nd Ave South: Larry Rabel, Fire Captain/Community Liaison and Ken Langholz Senior Project Engineer gave an informative PowerPoint presentation titled “Roadways and Fire Service Delivery.” Rabel said that the Fire Departments level of service in regards to response time is lacking in some areas in Kent and specifically in the industrial north end north of SE 212th and east of 72nd Ave South because 72nd Ave does not connect with SE 196th Street. They would like to improve their drive time in this area, as they currently are not within their four (4) minute and fifteen (15) second drive time. He summarized the importance of implementation of the Transportation Improvement Plan by completing this project which would improve sub-standard service to more than 300 businesses in the area. Completion of the 72nd Ave S project would be cost effective in the long run because it would be much cheaper than building and staffing a new Fire Station with all of the related costs. No motion required, informational item only. ITEM 7 3 –Information Only/Water System Plan and Proposed Revenue Options: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director gave a brief PowerPoint presentation hitting on recent milestones and provided updates on each item: • 2008 Water System Plan – Adopted September 2, 2008 without the approval of rates from the consultant. Looked @ the potential sale of water to our neighbors to the east and south. • Water Sale Discussion-expected revenue approximately $3,000,000 in additional water sales per year to the water fund when agreements secured. • Water Rate Increase – Adopted December 9, 2008 not to go into effect until April 1, 2009. Increased base rate by 15% due to potential water sales. Updated information that Water Sales may not occur until 2012-2014, if @ all due to our neighbors negotiating with other water providers. • Environmental Updates. Regarding the Habitat Conservation Plan and the Landsburg Mine Issue as they relate to Water Quality issues. Information Only No Motion Required ITEM 3 4 –Environmental Legal Services for Landsburg Mine – Robert Bakemeier: Assistant City Attorney, Susan Jensen explained that the Landsburg Mine site is currently being addressed by the state’s Department of Ecology and its Toxics Cleanup Program. The City is concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the site on the City’s Clark Springs water source therefore; the City would like to retain the services of attorney Robert Bakemeier to assist the City and monitor the Department of Ecology’s efforts to require those responsible for the contamination in the mine to clean up the site. The cost is not expected to exceed $50,000 and 1 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 2, 2009 Page 2 of 3 U:\PWCommittee\Minutes\PWMinutes 03 02 09.doc will be paid out of the Water fund. Councilmember Clark thanked city staff for taking a look at all the options in the protection of Clark Springs. Clark moved to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign an engagement letter with attorney Robert Bakemeier for environmental legal services related to the Landsburg Mine site, which fees shall not exceed $50,000. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 4 5 – Environmental Legal Services for Landsburg Mine – Aspect Consulting: Assistant City Attorney, Susan Jensen explained that the Landsburg Mine site is currently being addressed by the state’s Department of Ecology and its Toxics Cleanup Program. Because the City is concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the site on the City’s Clark Springs water source, the City Attorney is requesting to retain the services of Aspect Consulting to conduct an objective review of action taken to date by Ecology, and provide overall guidance to the City of Kent during the development of the Clean-up Action Plan. Harmon moved to recommend Council authorize the Mayor to sign a consultant services agreement with Aspect Consulting to allow the City Attorney to conduct additional environmental review and analysis related to the Landsburg Mine site within available budgets. The total contract amount for this initial review is expected not to exceed $48,617. The agreement is subject to terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Clark and passed 3-0. ITEM 5 6 –Emergency Resolution – Kent Comprehensive Plan: Beth Tan, Sr. Environmental Engineer explained that the City of Kent is working toward completing an update to the Surface Water Design Manual for Council Approval, in July 2009. The updated storm water manual will address storm water management requirements, water quality protection, and habitat improvements. The Capital Facilities Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan will need modification of date and manual references, and possible revisions to the goals and policies section. These recommendations are tentatively scheduled to be brought to the Public Works Committee for its consideration in July, 2009. The Emergency Resolution is needed, because the Comp Plan can only be updated in the fall. Clark moved to recommend authorization for the Mayor to sign the Emergency Resolution to amend the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan for the Surface Water Design Manual subject to the terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Public Works Director. The motion was seconded by Harmon and passed 3-0. ITEM 6 7–Information Only/Schedule for 256th Street Proposed Local Improvement District LID 364: Deputy Public Works Director, Tim LaPorte and Project Manager, Mark Madfai gave a brief PowerPoint Presentation on the status of the SE 256th Street Road Improvements. Slides depicted current road conditions as well as the proposed LID boundary area and formation schedule. Information Only No Motion Required 2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES March 2, 2009 Page 3 of 3 U:\PWCommittee\Minutes\PWMinutes 03 02 09.doc Added Item 8: SE 248th St @ 101st Ave SE Sidewalk & Driveway Improvements - Mel Roberts Kent Bicycle Advisory Board (KBAB) member - Roberts, thanked Bill Thomas and his staff for keeping the shoulders and sidewalks swept. He also thanked Cathy Mooney, for updating the TMP maps. Roberts voiced concerns regarding Schedule B: SE 248th St Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements, request for bids that went out recently. Staff will look into his suggestions and get back to him. Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. (note special time) Cheryl Viseth, Public Works Committee Secretary 3 This page intentionally left blank. 4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: March 9, 2009 Date: March 9, 2009 To: Chair Debbie Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members To: Chair Debbie Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members PW Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2009 PW Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2009 From: Mike Gillespie, Development Engineering Manager From: Mike Gillespie, Development Engineering Manager Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Subject: 2009 Design & Construction Standards and Adopting Ordinance Subject: 2009 Design & Construction Standards and Adopting Ordinance Motion: Move to recommend that Council adopt the amendment of KCC 6.02 to adopt the 2009 City of Kent Design & Construction Standards, repeal KCC 7.08, regarding side sewers, adjust the threshold amount for mitigation requirements, and incorporate regulation of grading and excavation into the Standards. Summary: Summary: The Design and Construction Standards (Standards) are utilized by both City staff and private design professionals when designing projects for construction in the City of Kent. The Standards provide the accepted processes and methods to be used for public and private infrastructure. The Design and Construction Standards (Standards) are utilized by both City staff and private design professionals when designing projects for construction in the City of Kent. The Standards provide the accepted processes and methods to be used for public and private infrastructure. The Standards have not been comprehensively updated since 1993, with the exception of minor modifications as approved by the Public Works Director. Over the past two years, staff has worked to complete a thorough review and update of the standards and details. Side sewers are now regulated through these Standards. The Standards will also apply to excavation and grading which is otherwise regulated by KCC 14.01.030. The Standards have not been comprehensively updated since 1993, with the exception of minor modifications as approved by the Public Works Director. Over the past two years, staff has worked to complete a thorough review and update of the standards and details. Side sewers are now regulated through these Standards. The Standards will also apply to excavation and grading which is otherwise regulated by KCC 14.01.030. Council comments offered at the November 3, 2008, Public Works Committee meeting have been incorporated into the Standards. Public hearing on the final draft was duly noticed and held before the Land Use and Planning Board on February 23, 2009. The Standards were submitted to the Washington State Office of Community, Economic and Trade Development for expedited review. No comments were returned. Council comments offered at the November 3, 2008, Public Works Committee meeting have been incorporated into the Standards. Public hearing on the final draft was duly noticed and held before the Land Use and Planning Board on February 23, 2009. The Standards were submitted to the Washington State Office of Community, Economic and Trade Development for expedited review. No comments were returned. Staff seeks Committee approval of the referenced amendments and repeal. Staff seeks Committee approval of the referenced amendments and repeal. Budget Impact: Budget Impact: None None P:\Civil\Motions-BlueSheets\Construction Standards-Motion.docx P:\Civil\Motions-BlueSheets\Construction Standards-Motion.docx 5 This page intentionally left blank. 6 1 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington related to design and construction standards for infrastructure improvements, repealing Ordinance No. 3117; repealing chapter 7.08 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Side Sewer Code”; and amending chapter 6.02 of the Kent City Code entitled, “Required public improvements.” RECITALS A. The City last developed and enacted construction standards for public works related improvements on May 18, 1993. Since 1993 construction techniques have changed dramatically, necessitating revision to the City’s construction standards. Public Works Department staff has worked to complete a thorough review and update of the standards and standard plans. B. As part of the review and development process, the City held focus group meetings with developers and other professionals on October 28 and 30 of 2008. A draft of the revised construction standards was also sent to King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division for approval per the requirements of an Interlocal Agreement. On November 3, 2008 the City received approval of the draft from King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division. 7 2 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 C. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) responsible official has determined that the proposed code amendments are procedural in nature and further SEPA analysis is not required for these code amendments. D. On October 31, 2008, the City requested expedited review from the state of Washington, under RCW 36.70A.106, of the City’s intent to adopt amendments to the subdivision code. Approval for expedited review was granted on November 3, 2008 and no comments were made after review. E. Public Works Committee considered these updates to the design and construction standards on November 3, 2008, and the Land Use and Planning Board held workshops on November 10, 2008 and February 9, 2009. The Board then held a public hearing on February 23, 2009, and the Public Works Committee considered the issues and the recommendation of the Board on March 16, 2009. The City Council adopted these amendments at its meeting on , 2009. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE Section 1. – Repealer. Ordinance 3117 of the City of Kent, enacting new construction standards for public works related improvements in the City of Kent, adopted on May 18, 1993, is hereby repealed. 8 3 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 Section 2. – Repealer. Chapter 7.08 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Side Sewer Code,” is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 3. – Adopt. The City hereby adopts the 2009 Design and Construction Standards for infrastructure related improvements, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. – Amendment. Chapter 6.02 of the Kent City code, entitled “Required Public Improvements,” is amended as follows: CHAPTER 6.02 REQUIRED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Sec. 6.02.010 Standard specifications Construction Standards adopted. The City hereby adopts by reference Tthe latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, as published by the Washington State Department of Transportation and the American Public Works Association; and the 2009 City of Kent Design and Construction Standards (“Construction Standards”) and all codes, standards and and provisions cited therein in Section 1.6. is hereby adopted by reference. One (1) copy of each of these standardsConstruction Standards is on file in the city clerk’s office. Sec. 6.02.020 Intention. It is intended that the Construction Standards standards adopted in KCC 6.02.010 shall become the base specifications and standards, subject to amendment by the city on individual projects, for the construction of and improvements to city infrastructure city public works including: streets, alleys, other public rights-of-way, sanitary sewer systems, water distribution systems, storm drainage systems, and all other transportation, telecommunications and 9 4 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 utility systems and associated appurtenances. facilities. It is also intended that the Construction Standards shall govern all permits for excavation and grading in the City and be applicable to the City’s own projects for public works. Sec. 6.02.030 Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish: 1. Authority The Intention of the city to require a building each developers for a development permit (“Developer”) to make construct or install reasonable public infrastructure improvements; andprimarily through a no protest local improvement district agreement process. 2. PpProcedures that will be used to determine the nature, extent and location extent and nature of the requiredprovide for publicinfrastructure improvements andimprovements; and and determine the appropriate method of satisfying these requirementsby building permit applicants.andrequirements; and 3. cCCriteria that will be used to determine the nature, extent and location of the required public infrastructure improvements.s. B. The criteria established in this chapter do not satisfy or supersede additional requirements imposedrequired by the city in Ch. 11.036 KCC- under other Code provisions orprovisions or required in the State Environmental Policy Act. Sec. 6.02.040 Scope and exceptions. All development in the City will require infrastructure improvements as conditions of permit except when: This chapter applies to all public infrastructure 10 5 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 improvements and to private development infrastructure and site improvements constructed by an applicanteach applicant for a building permit except the following: 1. An applicant for a permit for a building on a lot legally subdivided under the subdivision code, Ch. 12.04 KCC after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter was derived; 2A. An applicationnt for a building development The permit is to make an additions, alterations or repairs of less than twentyfifty thousand dollars ($250,000) in cost value to any structuresite as that term is defined in the Standards. This threshold amount shall be automatically , adjusted annually by the percentage increase or decrease in the Washington State Department of Transportation Construction Cost Index; or B. an application for a development The permit is to make an additions, alterations or repairs of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more in costvalue to any site, adjusted annually by the Washington State Department of Transportation Construction Cost Indexsuch threshold amount to be subject to the automatic adjustment described in the preceding subsection, if the Developerapplicant proves to the Public Works Ddirector or his or her designee (“director”) that the additions, alterations or repairs will result in no improvements being made have no additional adverse impacts toon existing the orinfrastructure; or C.3. aAn applicationnt for aThe permitThe permit is to make wholly interior improvements within an existing structure. Provided, however, that if a Developerapplicant chooses to make any infrastructure improvements for a development permit that would 11 6 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 otherwise be exempt then, such improvements shall be in compliance with the Construction Standards.the project is subject to the related terms of this chapter. Sec. 6.02.050 General. Based solely on the criteria of KCC 6.02.040, the The city shall require each Developerapplicant for a buildingdevelopment permit not otherwise exempted by this chapter to install or otherwise provide for the following publicinfrastructure improvements within the public right-of-way: in compliance with the according to the Design and Construction Standards: 1A. Adequate rights-of-way and paved roadwaysstreets; 2B. Street lighting systems to provide illumination of not more than two (2) footcandles at the nearest edge of the paved roadway; 3C. Sidewalks and walkways on the frontage of the same side of the street as the subject property; 4CD. Curbs and, gutters, sidewalks and landscaping; 5DE. Storm drainage systems;. EF. Sanitary sewer systems; FG. Domestic water and fire systems; H. Traffic control systems; and I. Conduit for fiber optic systems.. Sec. 6.02.060 Procedure. A. Generally. After consultation with representatives of the departments listed in subsection (B) of this section, the director of public works dDirector or his/her designate shall tentatively determine: 1. The nature, extent and location of the infrastructure improvements that are to be provided within the criteria set forth in Section 6.02.70 herein. 12 7 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 2.1. Whether to require the applicantdeveloper to: a. Install necessary infrastructure improvements; and/orSign an agreement not to protest the formation of or assessments under a future local improvement district; b. Ppay a fee in lieu of construction; and/or bc. Execute Ssign and record a covenant to run with the land agreeing not to protest the formation of a to participate in a local improvement district to finance for any deferred publicinfrastructure improvements required under this chapter.;; and/or and/or d. Provide surety bond or other Plat Guarantees as set forth in the Construction Standards to secure the later construction of the required infrastructure improvements. cd. sign an agreement not to protest the formation of, or assessments under, a future local improvement district.Install necessary public improvements; and or e. some combination of the above requirements in this subsection (1). 2. The nature, extent and location of the publicinfrastructure improvements that are to be provided. The director of public works ddirector shall discuss the tentative determination with the Developerapplicant in relation to the criteria of KCC 6.02.040. After any resulting necessary modifications deemed appropriate by the Ddirector, the Dddirector shall inform the Developerapplicant of the final determination. 13 8 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 B. Interdepartmental review. Before making the final determination required by subsection (A) of this section, the director of public works Dddirector shall consult with and may incorporate or modify the recommendations of representatives from the following departments of the city: 1. Police department; 2. Fire department; 3. PlanningCommunity dDevelopment department; and 4. Parks and recreation department. The director may consult with other city departments as appropriate., DepartmentThese representatives shall use only the criteria of in this chapterKCC 6.02.040 to formulate their recommendations. Sec. 6.02.070 Criteria for requiring infrastructure improvmentsimprovements. The director of pPublic wWorks dDirector shall use only the following criteria in making the determinations required by KCC 6.02.060(A)(12): 1A. If the city council, through an approved plan or policy, has, by ordinance or resolution, established the nature, extent and location of publicinfrastructure improvements to be provided in the vicinity of the property for which the buildingdevelopment permit is sought, the Dddirector shall require publicinfrastructure improvements under this chapter consistent with the nature, extent and location thereof as established by the city council. 2B. If the city council has not established the nature, extent and location of publicinfrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the property for which the buildingdevelopment permit is sought: 14 9 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 a1. The director of public works ddirector shall require the appropriate publicinfrastructure improvements if the ddirector has first explored alternatives to requiring the Developerapplicant to provide the improvements and has found these alternatives in his opinion not reasonably feasible, and if the dDirector additionally finds any of the followingthat: (1)a. Similar publicinfrastructure improvements already exist or are scheduled in the immediate vicinity of the property for which the buildingdevelopment permit is sought; (2)b. The proposed use of the property for which the buildingdevelopment permit is sought necessitates the installation of the publicinfrastructure improvements; (3)c. The property for which the buildingdevelopment permit is sought is located in close proximity to an activity center, defined as a park, school, commercial center, large employment center, large multifamily development or any other public or private development where people or activities are concentrated,; and that the required improvements will enhance access to this activity center and that it is in the best interests of the residents of the city to enhance access to this activity center; (4)d. Physical characteristics of the property for which a buildingdevelopment permit is sought, including but not limited to topography, slope, soil type, drainage pattern or vegetation, necessitate the installation of publicinfrastructure improvements; (5)e. ThepublicIinfrastructure improvements are necessary to maintain water quality; or (6)f. For any other reason, the publicinfrastructure improvements are necessitated by a compelling in the public interest. If the Dddirector of public works requires the provision of publicinfrastructure improvements under this subsection, (a)(6), the 15 10 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 DdirectorDirector shall make written findings and conclusions specifying the compelling public interest that necessitates the improvements and the manner in which these improvements will fulfill this compelling public interest. b2. The director of public works director shall not require any publicinfrastructure improvement pursuant to this chapter to unless such beimprovement is comply with the Construction Standards. in accordance with .specifications and/or standards approved by the director and adopted by the city council. If such specifications or standards have not been adopted by the city council, then the specifications or standards established in the subdivision code, Ch. 12.04 KCC shall apply, where applicable. Sec. 6.02.080 Criteria for dDeferral of publicinfrastructure improvements. The ddirector of public works Ddirector may defer the allow the Developer a to defer the construction of portions of the required infrastructure improvements where such improvements will result in only partial structures, where anticipated future development and/or planned city public works projects will result in more complete and logical systems, and where such deferral is otherwise in the public interest. Upon the determination of the director to allow deferral, the Developer ashall secure its contribution pursuant to KCC 6.02.060(2).installation of publicinfrastructure improvements required by the director under this chapter where total compliance with those requirements would not be reasonable in the time construction takes place, or wherever such construction, addition or alteration is located in an isolated area or where the adjoining or abutting improvements are substandard. For those deferred improvements, the director shall require the applicant to execute and record a covenant document that insures the participation of the owner of the property for which the buildingdevelopment permit is sought 16 11 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 in any local improvement district formed for the construction of such improvements. Sec. 6.02.090 Enforcement. A. General. No protest local improvement district agreements, covenants required pursuant to KCC 6.02.060 or installation of publicIinfrastructure improvements and the conditions of any deferrals required by the Dddirector of public works under this chapter, shall be listed as a conditions of approval and shall become part of the approved buildingdevelopment permit. B. Procedure. The provisions provisions required by the ddirector of public works under subsection (A) of this section shall be enforced as conditions part of the approved buildingdevelopment permits and otherwise as allowed by applicable law.. Sec. 6.02.100 Appeals. A. The determination of the ddirector regarding the nature, location and extent of infrastructure improvements of public works shall be final, unless an appeal by the applicantdeveloper is made to the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days after the director’s determination. The appeal shall be in writing to the hearing examiner and filed with the public works department. The hearing examiner shall act on the appeal within sixty (60) days unless an extension thereto is agreed to, in writing, by the applicantdeveloper. The hearing examiner should review the decision of the public works ddirector to assure compliance with this chapter, the general purposes of the comprehensive plan of the city as well as all adopted ordinances, resolutions and standards. 17 12 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 B.B. A fee of twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be paid at the time of filing the written appeal. The appeal will not be accepted unless accompanied by full payment. C.C. The decision of the hearing examiner may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the rules and procedures established for the hearing examiner under Ch. 2.32 KCC. D. Decisions of the Ddirector with respect to compliance with the Construction Standards shall be final with no administrative appeal. SECTION 5. – Savings. The existing chapter 6.02 of the Kent City Code, which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 6. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 18 13 Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards Amend 6.02 APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2009. APPROVED: day of , 2009. PUBLISHED: day of , 2009. 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 19 This page intentionally left blank. 20       Item 3 - Information Only Status of Transportation Master Plan Proposed Funding Options – Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) 21 This page intentionally left blank. 22 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WORKS DEPARTMENT Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director Larry R. Blanchard, Public Works Director Phone: 253-856-5500 Phone: 253-856-5500 Fax: 253-856-6500 Fax: 253-856-6500 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: March 10, 2009 Date: March 10, 2009 To: Chair Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members To: Chair Deborah Ranniger and Public Works Committee Members PW Committee Meeting Date: March 16th 2009 PW Committee Meeting Date: March 16th 2009 From: Chad Bieren/Rob Knutsen From: Chad Bieren/Rob Knutsen Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Through: Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director Subject: Resolution - Residential Traffic Calming Program Subject: Resolution - Residential Traffic Calming Program Motion: Move to recommend a resolution of the City of Kent Council, repealing Resolution No. 1546 and adopting a new Residential Traffic Calming Program and authorize the Public Works Director to establish and implement a Residential Traffic Calming Program to better respond to residential area traffic problems and authorize the Public Works Director to implement the new program. Summary: Summary: A comprehensive review of the City’s existing Neighborhood Traffic Control Program was completed in an effort to improve its effectiveness. City staff worked with Transportation Consulting Northwest (a local transportation engineering firm) to collect and analyze neighborhood traffic calming programs throughout the region and to develop a more effective and streamlined program for Kent. The proposed Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP) will utilize techniques that have worked throughout the region to address excess vehicle speeds and cut through traffic on residential streets. The program includes a two-phase approach; the first phase emphasizes education and enforcement while the second phase focuses on installation of traffic calming infrastructure such as traffic circles or speed humps. The second phase is available to those areas where the 85th-percentile speed exceeds the posted speed limit by 10 mph or greater. A comprehensive review of the City’s existing Neighborhood Traffic Control Program was completed in an effort to improve its effectiveness. City staff worked with Transportation Consulting Northwest (a local transportation engineering firm) to collect and analyze neighborhood traffic calming programs throughout the region and to develop a more effective and streamlined program for Kent. The proposed Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP) will utilize techniques that have worked throughout the region to address excess vehicle speeds and cut through traffic on residential streets. The program includes a two-phase approach; the first phase emphasizes education and enforcement while the second phase focuses on installation of traffic calming infrastructure such as traffic circles or speed humps. The second phase is available to those areas where the 85th-percentile speed exceeds the posted speed limit by 10 mph or greater. Along with the new resolution, an updated informational brochure has been developed that will be sent to interested parties – the brochure is included in the agenda packet. Along with the new resolution, an updated informational brochure has been developed that will be sent to interested parties – the brochure is included in the agenda packet. Budget Impact: Budget Impact: No impact – however the program places a large percentage of the work effort of the Transportation Engineering section into the Residential Traffic Calming Program. No impact – however the program places a large percentage of the work effort of the Transportation Engineering section into the Residential Traffic Calming Program. 23 This page intentionally left blank. 24 1 Residential Traffic Calming Program RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Resolution No. 1546 and adopting a new Residential Traffic Calming Program to better respond to residential area traffic problems and authorizing the public works director to implement the new program. RECITALS A. Residential streets within the City of Kent have measurable safety and community character impacts due to the speed and volume of through traffic. Such impacts have been addressed by the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program, previously adopted on July 6, 1999, Resolution No. 1546. B. The Mayor and City Council recognize the need to update and otherwise revise the means by which residential traffic impacts are addressed, and have directed the City’s Public Works Department to consider proven solutions that include resident involvement. In response, the Department conducted research on residential traffic calming efforts throughout the United States and developed a new program to be called the “Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP).” A copy of the RTCP is appended hereto as Exhibit “A.” 25 2 Residential Traffic Calming Program C. On December 15, 2008, the Public Works Committee heard a presentation by the Public Works Engineering Department regarding the RTCP. On March 16, 2009, the Public Works Committee reviewed the RTCP in final form and recommended its adoption by resolution. The City Council has had the opportunity to review the RTCP and the public was given the opportunity to comment on the RTCP at the regularly scheduled Council Meeting on April 7, 2009. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1. – Repealer. Resolution No. 1564 which adopted the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Control Program is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. Program Adopted. – There is hereby adopted the Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP). This program is designed to focus on traffic speeds and volumes to the extent that they negatively impact residential environments. This is a phased program that will allow residents to identify problems and solutions specific to their neighborhoods. Initially, problems will be addressed by education efforts, driver alerts, and City notification to identified speeders. If necessary, potential solutions may involve traffic calming devices, which could include the construction of physical structures to reduce volumes and speeds. Installation of physical structures will be considered after less intrusive means fail to yield acceptable results and shall be based upon sound engineering and transportation planning principles and with regard to neighborhood aesthetics. The RTCP will provide for periodic evaluation of the solutions as implemented and will include follow-up surveys to determine the resident satisfaction. 26 3 Residential Traffic Calming Program SECTION 3. –Public Works Director Authorized. The Public Works Director is hereby authorized to implement the RTCP and to adopt procedures and standard construction plans consistent with the principles set forth in this resolution. SECTION 4. –Availability of Program Details. A copy of the Residential Traffic Calming Program is appended to this resolution and shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and the Public Works Department. Brochures summarizing the RTCP will be made available to the public. SECTION 5. – 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 6. – Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 7. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this _______ day of _________________, 2009. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this ______ day of __________________, 2009. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR 27 4 Residential Traffic Calming Program ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, 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 _________________, 2009. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Resolution\ResidentialTrafficCalming.docx 28 EXHIBIT “A” RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM The Residential Traffic Calming Program (RTCP) deals with problems common to many cities; cut-through and speeding traffic on residential streets. Sometimes, the problems are related. Drivers attempting to save time may cut-through a residential area to avoid congestion on certain arterials or to avoid inconvenient traffic control devices. They may also drive at speeds that exceed the posted limits in order to make it through the residential area quickly. Consequently, some of the traffic control devices employed to address volume control are very similar to those that address speed control. They are designed to either force drivers to slow down (thereby eliminating the time saving incentive for using the street as a cut-through), or to prevent them from entering a particular street section altogether. Much of the time, the greatest single cause of neighborhood speeding problems rests with the neighbors themselves. As drivers become comfortable with their everyday driving routes, speeds tend to increase. This is particularly true of the roadways nearest the home, which are travelled most often. Part of the RTCP is to educate drivers about their own practices to ensure the neighbors are doing their part to keep neighborhood speeds down. The RTCP is comprised of two phases: • Phase I employs a variety of passive control devices. • Phase II involves physical alterations to the street section. Criteria have been developed to delineate the threshold conditions that warrant the use of various traffic calming devices. The criteria were designed to support and maintain safety for pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles traveling on residential streets as determined by the transportation element of the city’s comprehensive plan. Typically, speed limits are determined by the design of the roadway, the behavior of reasonable and prudent drivers on that roadway, and statutory requirements. The speed limits for Washington state roadways are determined by RCW 46.61.400. They are 25 miles per hour on city and town streets, 50 miles per hour on county roads, and 60 miles per hour on state highways. RCW 46.61.415 gives local jurisdictions the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit based on an engineering and traffic investigation which determines that it is reasonable to do so. Local jurisdictions cannot increase the speed limit to more than 60 miles per hour, or decrease it to less than 20 miles per hour. 29 Speed limit enforcement can be an effective traffic calming measure; however, it is neither realistic nor practical to rely on the constant presence of law enforcement officers to ensure that drivers rigidly adhere to speed limits. Problem areas in neighborhoods are to be identified through a combination of traffic speed studies conducted by neighborhood volunteers and City staff. If a speeding problem is confirmed by these traffic studies, Phase 1 traffic calming measures will be discussed with the neighborhood. Once a consensus has been reached with the neighborhood, Phase 1 measures will be implemented. Speeds will be assessed following placement of these measures and after sufficient time has elapsed for behavior modification to occur. If speeds continue to exceed the following levels, the neighborhood will be eligible to move to Phase 2 of the program: Speed Limit: 85% Speed: 25 mph 35 mph or greater 30 mph 40 mph or greater If neighborhood speeds do not exceed these levels, City staff is available to continue implementing Phase 1 measures, but Phase 2 measures will not be implemented. Phase 2 of the RTCP involves formation of a Residential Traffic Committee and selection of traffic calming devices to be constructed within the neighborhood to reduce traffic speeds and volumes. The Residential Traffic Committee will work with City staff to select the preferred measures and locations that will most effectively lower traffic speeds and volumes. The attached flow chart describes the process. 30 31 This page intentionally left blank. 32 33 This page intentionally left blank. 34 35 This page intentionally left blank.