Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/21/1992 CITY OF I A\.A JT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 4:00 PM Committee Members Present Jon Johnson, Chair Leona Orr Judy Woods, Council President for Christie Houser Planning Staff OTHER CITY STAFF Lin Ball Tom Brubaker Sharon Clamp Roger Lubovich James Harris Carol Morris Carol Proud Alana McIalwain Fred Satterstrom Alice Shobe OTHERS PRESENT Suzette Cook Tim Gates Mike Jasper Joyce Kling John Naylor Pam Newcomer Don Rust Russ Stringham Jim White NORTH PARK ISSUE (J. HARRIS) This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Pam Newcomer, a resident of the North Park subdivision. It appears that several single family dwellings are being constructed so they can be converted to duplexes. These homes are being constructed with a large bonus room located above the garage that could be converted to an apartment. Ms. Newcomer indicated the only access to the bonus room is through the garage. This property was recently downzoned to a single family residential zoning district. Mr. Harris explained that since the houses are being built on 5,000 square foot lots, they cannot be converted to duplexes because duplexes require 8,200 square foot lots. Senior Planner Carol Proud indicated that the plans indicate extra plumbing and wiring CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 2 which would make it easy to convert the structures to duplexes although there is currently no indication that this is being done. Chairman Johnson advised Ms. Newcomer if she or the neighbors see the structures being converted to let the City know and we will see if any action could be taken. BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE (C. PROUD) Planning Director James Harris changed this to an Information Item due to new information which was just received. City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained the ordinance has been continually changing and is not ready for detailed discussion. He indicated it has been suggested to go back and amend the original ordinance in the City Code to take care of the concerns rather than using the new ordinance. The new ordinance was originally drafted with the intention to obtain information for the potential street utility ordinance, i.e. employee records, however, this has been deleted from the new ordinance. Another reason for the new ordinance is to take the revocation process from the City Council and put it under administrative proceedings. Since the street utility ordinance has been deleted, it is conceivable to amend the original ordinance. However, the Chamber of Commerce has spend a lot of time looking at the new ordinance, and they are interested in continuing to work on the new ordinance. The Planning Department has the Chamber's comments but has not had an opportunity to responded. Planning Director James Harris explained that it is not the City's intention to be looking over the shoulder of Kent businesses. He stated the bottom line is to fix the glitches in the business license ordinance without going so far as to run red flags up among business owners. He also stated the City does not want a situation similar to the U.S. Engine incident to go before the City Council. The ordinance needs to be amended so that type of situation will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Chairman Johnson asked if the ordinance could be amended to include language stating that if a license is revoked the City can examine the business's records to verify that they have not been operating since the revocation rather than the existing language that sounds like the City can demand to see a business's records at any time. Assistant City Attorney Carol Morris indicated other examples when the City might need to examine a business's records is when an business misrepresents information on the business license application or a business is operating without a license. She indicated this is not an unusual provision in a business license ordinance and it is best left to the director's discretion. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 3 John Naylor stated language allowing the director to inspect a business's records should not be included in the ordinance when 99.9% of businesses are operating within the letter of the law. Jim White, speaking as a business owner, stated the new ordinance is overkill due to a bad situation with U.S. Engine. He also stated he has a serious problem with revoking a license for six months because that will essentially put a company out of business. Russ Stringham agreed with Jim White's comments. Mr. Stringham would like to see a change to the section indicating the business license is not transferrable except when a sole proprietor incorporates and retains 100% ownership of the stock. He indicated when he incorporates, he will own approximately 80% of the stock with the remainder being owned by his employees. This is done in a small business to reward loyal employees because small business owners cannot afford large benefit packages. The 100% ownership provision will penalize businesses such as his. Chairman Johnson suggested staff revise and fine tune the existing ordinance and continue to work with the Chamber and other business to get them input and their reaction to any changes. Tim Gates, Chamber of Commerce City Government Chairman, stated his committee has put a lot of time and effort into the new ordinance and the three revisions which have followed. He expressed a concern about going back to ground zero. Chairman Johnson indicated he would like to see the process continued with a workable, amended ordinance created. Mr. Gates indicated the process is at approximately 95% of that goal. Suzette Cook distributed recommendations from the Chamber's City Government Committee. She indicated the Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors will meet on January 22 to review the recommendations. Planning Director Harris indicated there is additional work to be done, and the City will work with the Chamber of Commerce to come up with an equitable and fair ordinance. Chairman Johnson indicated the issue will come back to the Planning Committee at a future date and the Chamber will be advised of that date. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 4 HEARING EXAMINER ORDINANCE (C. PROUD) Since the Hearing Examiner ordinance is related to the business license ordinance, no discussion was held and it will return at a future date. REALLOCATION OF 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS (A. SHOBE) Planner Alice Shobe explained that the $421. 17 retainer for the Special Populations Resource Center Rehabilitation Project was inadvertently recaptured and reallocated to the 1992 program. The City has never received final reimbursement of the $421. 17. In order to correct this error and receive reimbursement from King County, $421. 17 needs to be reallocated from the Kent Housing Repair Services Program to the Special Population Resource Center Rehabilitation Project. Councilmember Orr MOVED and Council President Woods SECONDED a motion to recommend to the full City Council on February 4, 1992 that $421. 17 be reallocated from the Housing Repair Services Program to the Special Population Resource Center Rehabilitation Project. Motion Carried. PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENTITLEMENT (A. SHOBE) Planner Alice Shobe explained that the City Council approved the 1992 CDBG program, and a contingency plan was adopted in the event that funds were either increased or decreased. The City has received a larger entitlement than expected. It was specified that the King County Housing Authority domestic violence program receive an additional $12, 500 should the City receive additional Block Grant money, and these funds have been allocated to them. The City now has an additional $11,820 to allocate. Staff proposes allocating $5, 000 to Program Planning and Administration and $6,820 to the Kent Housing Repair Services Program. Ms. Shobe went on to explain that if additional Planning and Administration ceiling is available through the King County CDBG Consortium, $1,000 will be transferred from the Housing Repair Services Program to Program Planning and Administration resulting in Program Planning and Administration receiving $6, 000 and Housing Repair receiving $5,820. Program Planning and Administration funds will be used to cover a portion of the new Housing and Human Services Manager position salary and a temporary part-time intern. Additional funds for the housing repair program will supplement contracted services and supplies. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 5 Councilmember Orr MOVED and Council President Woods SECONDED a motion to recommend to the full City Council on February 4, 1992 that the two abovementioned projects receive additional 1992 CDBG program funds as proposed, including the contingency plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reviewed the proposed Growth Management service agreement with the Committee. He indicated that this agreement was an update of the 1991 service agreement and was similar in content. He also indicated that the level of funding was down approximately $6, 000 from the previous year to about $56, 000. He expressed regret that the City was not even presented with a revised agreement until the seventh month of the State's 1991-92 fiscal year. Assistant City Attorney Carol Morris presented a memo outlining several concerns with the proposed agreement. She explained there are sections in this agreement regarding termination that need to be eliminated or amended. One section allows King County to unilaterally terminate the agreement without cause. The only reason the County might terminate the agreement without cause is if the City of Kent misappropriate funds. If this section is left in, the County could terminate the agreement and either keep Kent's portion of the funds or reallocate them to other jurisdictions. There is no provision in this section of the agreement that deals with disposal of funds if the agreement is terminated. There is a section like this in another part of the agreement that could be read as not applying to the section that Ms. Morris proposes be eliminated. By law, the Interlocal Cooperation Act requires any agreement between King county and the City of Kent to contain a specific provision for that money in the instance that the County decides to terminate. There is another section on termination that discusses what would happen if King County loses DCD grant status or reduces or amends the amount of funds they send the City of Kent. The County can terminate for that reason but they also include wording in that section that would allow revocation if the King County Council does not appropriate DCD funds for distribution to the City. Ms. Morris stated this is unacceptable because it puts discretion in the agreement for the King County Council to decide not to distribute funds to the City of Kent. Another section on reduction of funds needs to be changed because it is redundant. The section on the recapture of funds describes how the County can sue the City if the City misappropriates the funds. It allows King County to recapture all of their attorney fees and costs. There is nothing in the agreement that would protect the City of Kent if the City is sued wrongly. Ms. Morris suggests adding language to the agreement that would allow the City of Kent to recapture attorney fees and costs if the court decides that King CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 211 1992 PAGE 6 County is wrong in suing the City. Another section which talks about amendment of the agreement is inconsistent with another section discussing the same thing. If the agreement is amended, both parties have to sign an amendment. One section says King County can amend the agreement by itself, and then there is a section that says both parties have to sign an amendment. Councilmember Orr MOVED and Council President Woods SECONDED a motion to recommend that the resolution be adopted and the agreement be adopted with the amendments as discussed. Motion carried. COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT (F. SATTERSTROM) On December 3, 1991, the Planning Committee reviewed and approved the proposed interlocal agreement on the county wide planning policies framework. This agreement was forwarded to the City Council on December 17, 1991 but was withdrawn because of some last minute changes to the agreement initiated by the County. The changes affected the ratification process for the Growth Management Planning Council. This Council will be putting the proposed goals and policies together that will service as the general framework for the City to do the comprehensive plan which must be in effect by June 1992 . The ratification process for the planning policies will take place when approved by at least 30% of city and county governments representing 70% of the population of King County. ISLAND ANNEXATION (J. HARRIS) Planning Director Harris reported the Staff Annexation Committee has met twice with the citizens of the West Hill Island regarding the proposed annexation. The Annexation Committee recommends the proposed annexation be placed on the City Council agenda on February 4, 1992 and a notice be sent to all property owners of record in the island. Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker explained because this is an incorporated island surrounded by the City of Kent and because it is less than 100 acres, the statutory framework allows annexation by an ordinance passed by the Council. It requires a hearing, and if the ordinance is passed by the Council, it does not become effective for 45 days. Within this 45 day period the residents have an opportunity to gather a referendum petition and put the annexation to a vote. If the Council agrees to go forth with this on February 4, a resolution would be prepared, a hearing date would be set, and after the hearing if the Council chooses to go forth with the annexation, they could do so by ordinance. Again, there would be CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1992 PAGE 7 a public notice, and 45 days from the effective date of that ordinance the annexation would either pass or be subject to the referendum petition. A referendum petition takes 10 percent of the qualified votes within the island. The annexation would then go to vote at the next election. The City is required to pay the costs of the election. A simple majority decides the issue. Planning Director Harris added the Annexation Committee would like to notify affected property owners in advance of placing the annexation on the City Council agenda. Staff will bring item this back to Planning Committee on February 4 with more definitive information on election dates and the costs involved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5: 10 p.m. PC0121.92