HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/19/1995 CI'4 OF L"L21
Jim White, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 19, 1995
4:00 p.m.
Committee Members Present Ci1y Attorneys Office
Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich
Jon Johnson Laurie Evezich
Tim Clark
Plannina Staff Other Guests
Jim Harris Fred High, Kent School District
Fred Satterstrom
Margaret Porter
Public Notice Board Code Amendment#ZCA-95-7 (Fred Satterstrom)
Planner Fred Satterstrom summarized the existing code relating to the Public Notice Board
Requirement. The original code, Section 15.09.060, states the actual dollar amounts charged for the
use of the signs and the City is regretting that now.
The City of Kent rents a generic Public Notice Board to the applicant. The City requires a$60.00
deposit per ordinance up-front and refunds $45.00 after the sign is returned in good condition. The
total cost to rent the Public Notice Board is only $15.00. An applicant, who over time will have
several applications that require the use of the Public Notice Board, it behooves them to keep the
sign. It costs an applicant$60.00 to keep the sign and if they need the sign four times they break
even. Some applicants may use the sign even more than four times. At this time we have one
applicant who is holding a sign for that reason. There is no need to continue renting the sign if they
hold on to the sign.
King County and other jurisdictions that require Public Notice Boards actually require a special
purpose board to be made and to be specially painted for individual use. This "special" board costs
hundreds of dollars, is used once and is then discarded.
The problem is that the cost to replace the Public Notice Board is more than the$60.00 deposit. The
original cost to reproduce the sign from the vendor we contracted with was $60.00 and now it costs
closer to $100. We have been losing signs and therefore losing money. People have been keeping
signs for various reasons. The prospect of getting $45 back has not been a sufficient motivator to
return the signs.
The Planning Staff is asking the Committee to authorize a code amendment. The Staff would like
to eliminate the actual dollar amount and put in verbiage to indicate the fee should be determined
by the Planning Department based on the current cost of reproduction. Seventy-five percent of the
1
220 4th AVE SO /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#8593334
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 19, 1995
the attorney for the Kent School District, Preston, Gates, and Ellis. Their attorney said they had
reached an agreement with one of the other school districts that they were attempting to develop and
enter into a local agreement with. We now have an example from the other agreements to use as a
model. Ms. Evezich stated she had just received the sample yesterday and has not yet had an
opportunity to go over the Agreement in depth.
The Interlocal Agreement does seem to address the main concern. As discussed in part of the
Indemnification and Hold Harmless Section beginning on the bottom of page 3 and continuing on
to page 4, "the District agrees to protect,defend indemnify,and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, and agents,from any costs, claims,judgments, or awards of damages, resulting from a
challenge to the legality of Ordinance No. ,or resulting from any claim for compensation under
Initiative 164 or similar legislation . . ." This is about as direct as we could look to have it.
The Ordinance itself is essentially establishing a framework for the collection of the fee. The fee
calculation schedule is attached to the back of the Ordinance. Mr. High explained the framework
of the plan is essentially to allow the Kent School District to establish what their needs are based on
the increases to any grade. This calculation will determine what impacts there are to the districts
from the new development. It is the City's responsibility to collect the fee, interest, and to provide
a trust fund for the safe keeping of those funds.
Both the City and the School District have reporting responsibilities associated with the different
responsibilities that each entity will have. The Kent School District will also provide the City of
Kent a copy of its Capital Facilities Plan on an annual basis. The School District's Capital Facilities
Plan will be incorporated as a sub-element of the City's Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis.
This is a required element of both the Growth Management and RCW 8202. This is presented as
an information item only. We could take some of your questions or concerns at this time and discuss
this at another meeting.
The Ordinance example handed out was primarily modeled after the impact fee ordinance that was
developed in King County and it has been updated to a more contemporary version by the cities of
Issaquah,Bothell, and Renton. The city of Issaquah is the one city that has a Interlocal Agreement
with a School District based on this plan.
Mr. Lubovich added that this particular Ordinance has been drafted basically with the Kent School
District in mind however we do have a few other school districts that are affected. We will probably
need to change this Ordinance to be more generic so that basically any school district that wants to
participate with the Capital Facilities Plan can. We do have schools in Kent that are in the Federal
Way, Renton, and Highland school districts. The Ordinance will need to be more generic to
incorporate other school districts.
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 19, 1995
The question was addressed regarding the collection of fees in Federal Way,Renton, and Highland.
The City of Renton is in the process of collecting a fee, while the City of Federal Way is already
collecting a fee.
The Committee decided to make comments and changes to the sample ordinance and return those
changes to Laurie Evezich. The changes will be discussed at the next Planning Committee meeting
scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 1995.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
4