Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/19/1991 • MARIE JENSEN CITY CLERK CITY OF f AGENDA CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE Scheduled Meeting for March 19, 1991 4 :45 PM Court Room Kent City Hall This is to inform you that the City Council Planning Committee will meet in the Court Room of Kent City Hall at 4 :45 PM on Tuesday, March 19, 1991. Committee Members Jon Johnson, Chair Christi Houser Leona Orr Agenda 1. School Impact Fees (F. Satterstrom) 2 . Human Services Roundtable Update (L. Ball) 3 . 1992 CDBG Funding & Local Program Policies (L. Ball) 4 . 1991 CDBG Local Program Policies Amendment (Alice Shobe) 5. Resolution Challenging County Plats for Traffic Mitigation (J. Johnson) I � 220 4th AVE.SO., I KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-58961 TELEPHONE (206)859-33151 FAX#859-6572 crry of MPA CITY OF KENT _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM March 13 , 1991 MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT AND SCHOOL IMPACT MITIGATION The Growth Management Act of 1990 grants to local jurisdictions some tools for dealing with the impacts of growth. One of these tools is the impact fee, and the Act specifically allows them to be imposed for roads, parks and open space, infrastructure, and schools. Rapid urban growth has heavily impacted school districts in the Kent area. Districts have had a difficult time matching the pace of school construction with the pace of residential development. Furthermore, because of statutory limitations on assessing fees for public facilities, districts have had to rely on voter approval of bond issues in order to build needed schools. The Kent City Council has recognized this problem and has supported, in concept, the school impact fee. In January 1991, the City Council adopted a motion to this effect and directed City staff to begin the process of developing a school impact fee ordinance. This action came out of a discussion of the King County school impact fee ordinance. This "introductory" meeting is intended to get the parties of this issue together - i.e. , the City and the school districts. This meeting is but a first step. Future meetings with the Planning Committee will be needed to examine the King County school impact mitigation ordinance in greater detail, and to get general direction on a number of policy issues in order to begin drafting a City ordinance. r FS:mp:schools. fee cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director ary of Rea CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 CCt. MEMORANDUM March 11, 1991 MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: ALICE SHOSEI PLANNER SUBJECT: 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING AND LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES CDBG GENERAL PROGRAM Again this year, the City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass- through" funds for its 1992 Community Development Block Grant Program. The City has received its estimate for 1992 funds from King County. The estimate of $183 , 146 is approximately $2 , 000 lower than the original estimate received last year. However, last year's estimate was raised significantly to $240, 129 due to an increase in the Federal entitlement. The County has warned us that we should not expect a Program at the same level as 1991 as it was an exceptionally good year. It appears that our total CDBG allocation will decrease in 1992 because President Bush has proposed reducing CDBG funds by approximately ten percent. It is likely that the estimate will increase slightly due to program income earned from our Home Repair Program throughout the remainder of 1991 and recaptured funds. The City Council needs to take five actions: 1. Receipt of Funds The City of Kent needs to inform the County whether it elects to receive the "pass-through" funds again this year or to compete for funds. The Planning Department recommends that the City accept the pass-through funds in lieu of, the competitive funds. This recommendation is based on the following: a) With pass-through funds, the City is guaranteed a funding level far greater than that received in the years prior to the availability of the "pass-through" option. The only funds guaranteed previously were the "pop fund" monies, which in 1986 were approximately $94, 000 for the City of Kent. Don Johnson, Chair, and Members of the Planning Committee March 11, 1991 Page 2 b) If the City does not elect to take the pass-through monies, Kent is not guaranteed the receipt of any CDBG funds. Kent would have to compete with the County and other cities for all funds. c) The pass-through alternative maximizes the City's discretion in use of funds. The City will be able to plan its own programs based on its own community needs without having to compete for funds to implement the projects. 2 . Public (Human) Services Funding If the City chooses to accept pass-through funds, it can reserve the maximum of its fair share of public services dollars. If the City does not reserve the right to use this amount of funding for human services, another city can request the use of any unreserved ceilings. In order to retain the maximum flexibility in the use of its CDBG funds, and to continue in its present support for human services, the Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify the County that it wishes to reserve the maximum dollars available ($351743) for human services. 3 . Planning and Administration Funds As with human services, the City has a maximum of its CDBG funds that can be spent for Planning and Administration. The maximum amount which can be reserved is seven (7) percent of its pass-through allocation. In 1990, Planning & Administration funds were used to do a community needs assessment to assist the City in setting funding priorities for its CDBG money. Since this study was recently completed, there is not an immediate need in 1992 for the City to reserve a large amount of the CDBG money for Planning and Administration. A small amount should be set aside to pay for communications, printing, and supplies. Staff feels that the rest of the amount which could be allocated to Planning and Administration would be better spent by leaving it in our general pot of money to be spent for other needed projects. For this reason, the Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify the County that it wishes to reserve only one-half of one percent ( . 005%) of its 1992 CDBG funds, for Planning and Administration ($916) . 4 . Local Program Policies Background The development of Local Program Policies is an annual federal requirement for the receipt of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. It is necessary to readopt Kent' s CDBG Program Policies each year. The attached draft of Kent's 1992 CDBG Local Program Policies is a description of our local strategies for the use of CDBG funds. These draft policies Don Johnson, Chair, and Members of the Planning Committee March 11, 1991 Page 3 form the basis for decisions pertaining to allocation of CDBG funds in the City of Kent. The Human Services Commission reviewed the Public (Human) Services Policy at their February meeting and recommends adoption of the policy as proposed in the draft document. Local Program Policy Changes from 1991 A. Elimination of the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) In past years our policies have encouraged projects within the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) , a mapped portion of the city which included the Central Business District, North Park, South of Willis and Lower East Hill neighborhoods. This area was emphasized because the low and moderate income households were primarily clustered within this area in Kent. As explained in the memo regarding the proposed amendment to the 1991 Local Program Policies, a needs survey completed in 1990 revealed that pockets of low and moderate income families are living throughout Kent. In order to retain consistency with CDBG program goals, all reference to the NSA has been eliminated in the proposed 1992 Local Program Policies. B. Expanded Emphasis on Regional Projects You will note under Part III "Needs Assessment" of the attached Local Program Policies that a second section entitled "Regional Needs" was added. The Local Program Polices for 1991 emphasized the importance of regional programming and acknowledged Kent' s commitment to exploring and supporting regional funding systems. The commitment made in 1991 remains in the 1992 Local Program Policies, however there is acknowledgement of a new regional public services funding system targeted for emergency shelter programs and "one-time-only" projects. For the 1992 program year, new federal guidelines regarding calculating the CDBG public service ceiling have been adopted. For the first time, program income can be added to the annual entitlement prior to calculating the fifteen percent public (human) services ceiling. This will create additional public service capability for the Consortium but will not increase total CDBG entitlement funds. Don Johnson, Chair, and Members of the Planning Committee March 11, 1991 Page 4 The Consortium has created a program whereby the funding potential created by the additional public services ceiling will be dedicated to a regional funding pot. This funding pot, entitled "The Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System" will be administered by King County. Emergency shelter programs have been targeted because homeless individuals do not usually have strong associations with one jurisdiction. Each Consortium City has the opportunity to donate their portion of Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL) program income to this regional emergency shelter fund. The program estimate for the City of Kent is $9,597 . If this amount is not donated to the regional shelter fund, the City of Kent will retain the money for capital CDBG projects. CDIL program income will vary significantly from year; therefore, the public services entitlement will vary. In years when the public service entitlement allocated to the emergency shelter program is increased, the additional funding will be designated to regional one- time-only projects. Allocations will be balanced between south county and east county. Examples of one-time-only regional projects include: a new van for a regional multi-service center or TTD phones for the hearing impaired. In the past, one time projects have had difficulty obtaining local funding because on-going programs have received preference. 5. Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System Funds The City must determine if it will participate in the newly developed Consortium Emergency Shelter System. The Planning Department Recommends that the City allocate $9,597, the full amount of Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL) Program Income to the Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System. This recommendation is based on the following: 1. There is an increased awareness of the need to build regional systems to address critical human services needs which cannot be as effectively met on the local level. 2 . The City of Kent has seen an increased demand for public (human) services dollars in recent years. Agencies report that capital funding is available from private sources and public state programs. Therefore, they are desperately seeking public service money to subsidize operating costs. If the City of Kent chooses to retain the CDIL program income, the money must be allocated for capital CDBG projects because the public service Don Johnson, Chair, and Members of the Planning Committee March 11, 1991 Page 5 "ceiling" has been raised for the entire Consortium, not individual cities. 3 . Homeless families and individuals in need of emergency services has increased significantly in recent years. The City of Kent has responded to some of the local need by providing emergency funding for a severe weather voucher program. This gives the City an opportunity to enhance their commitment to addressing the plight of the homeless. 4 . King County has provided a significant amount of funding for homeless programs within the City of Kent. Currently, King County funds eight units of YWCA transitional housing in Kent. (The City of Kent does not provide any funding for this program. ) The County has also provided matching funds for capital projects serving homeless people within the City limits. Allocating funding to the regional pot will ensure that King County continues to fund public service programs within incorporated cities. The City's approval of these five items needs to be forwarded to King County by April 8 , 1991. The Planning Committee needs to schedule a City Council public hearing on April 2 to consider these five items. Recommended Action 1. Approval of City Council to accept 1992 Pass-Through funds. 2 . Allocation of its fair share maximum of 1992 Pass-Through funds ($ 35,743) to Public (Human) Services. 3 . Allocation of . 005% ($916) of 1992 Pass-Through funds to Planning and Administration. 4 . Approval of the proposed 1992 Local Program Policies. 5. Allocation of CDIL program income ($9, 597) to the Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System. ALS: ljh:policies.mem cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager cm of Rea CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM March 11, 1991 MEMO TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: ALICE SHOB� PLANNER SUBJECT: 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL PROGRAM POLICES AMENDMENT The City Council adopted Local Program Policies for this year's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in March of 1990. The 1991 Local Program Policies emphasized projects which would serve residents residing in the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) which is a mapped area consisting of the Central Business District, North Park, South of Willis and Lower Scenic Hill neighborhoods. The NSA was originally identified as the concentrated area of low and moderate income residents in the City of Kent. In the fall of 1990, a study entitled "Needs Survey of Kent Neighborhood Strategy Area and Target Areas" was conducted by the Planning Department. One of the primary objectives of the study was to identify areas outside of the NSA with a concentration of low and moderate income individuals. The study confirmed that low and moderate income individuals are no longer concentrated in the four neighborhoods listed above. Rather, there are also small pockets of low and moderate income residents which are scattered throughout the city. The Kent Housing Repair Services Program is currently our only CDBG funded program which uses the NSA to determine service priority within the program. Currently, applicants residing inside the NSA will receive priority (unless the repair is an emergency) over those residents living outside the NSA. The Housing Repair Services Program was approved for funding last year because it addressed a need identified in the Housing category of the 1991 CDBG Local Program Policy. The Housing policy category currently reads: Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or expansion of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income residents of Kent with priority given to the Neighborhood Jon Johnson, Chair, and Members of the Planning Committee March 11, 1991 Page 2 Strategy Area. (Emphasis added. ) While the city's current Housing Repair Program and assistance to emergency and transitional housing programs should be continued, new methods of meeting housing needs may also be considered. The Needs Assessment Study completed by the Planning Department last November clearly shows that our NSA boundaries are outdated. The Kent Planning Department recommends that the NSA be eliminated rather than expanded for the following reasons: 1. There is no federal program requirement mandating designation of an NSA. 2 . The low and moderate income neighborhoods are no longer contiguous and, therefore, distinct boundaries are difficult to map. 3 . A primary goal of the CDBG program is to address need of low and moderate income families. The need throughout Kent will be addressed more fairly. 4 . The Home Repair Services Program requires income verification from every applicant, therefore, income eligibility is verified on a case by case basis. Recommended CDBG Action 1. Amend the 1991 Local Program Policies to eliminate any specific emphasis on the Neighborhood Strategic Area. Specifically, amend the Housing Section of the 1991 CDBG Local Program Policies to read: Housing Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or expansion of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income residents of Kent. While the city' s current Housing Repair Program and assistance to emergency and transitional housing programs should be continued, new methods of meeting housing needs mayfalso be considered. 2 . Recommend that the City Council consider this amendment during a public hearing on April 2 , 1991. ALS: ljh: 91POLIC.MEM cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) 1992 LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES CITY OF KENT I. INTRODUCTION The City of Kent's 1992 Local Program Policies summarize the City's housing and community development needs and outlines policies and priorities for use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The City of Kent receives federal CDBG funds through a county-wide consortium; therefore, these Local Polices are also part of the 1992 King County CDBG Consortium Policy Plan. II. BACKGROUND Existing predominately as an agricultural area for many years, the City of Kent, incorporated in 1890, has developed a suburban character as a result of the rapid growth in Seattle and the Puget Sound area. The City's residential character is varied and divided greatly by natural topography. The residential areas in the valley, clustered mostly around the downtown, consist primarily of single family homes built in the early to mid 1900s. The east and west hills of Kent have seen significant single family and multifamily residential growth in the later half of this century. The east hill continues to experience significant development pressures. The valley floor, outside of the downtown, has developed with primarily industrial, commercial, and retail uses. The City of Kent occupies roughly nineteen square miles, with a population of approximately 37 , 960. According to the most recent census estimates (1980) , approximately 30 percent of the City's population are 19 years or younger, and 15 percent are seniors (55 years or older) . Over 40 percent of the City' s residents are estimated to be of low and moderate income. In the past, the low and moderate income households were concentrated in and around the original townsite, which includes the Central Business District. According to recent studies, pockets of low and moderate income families in both owner occupied and rental dwellings are scattered on the east and west hills as well. III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT A. Local Needs Since the inception of the CDBG program in the City of Kent, a target area or a "Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA) " was designated to receive a predominate share of the City's CDBG allocation. The NSA was originally mapped to include the largest concentration of low and moderate income residents. The NSA included four neighborhoods located in the valley area Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 1992 Local Program Policies City of Kent of Kent: North Park, South of Willis, Lower East Hill and the Central Business District. In the fall of 1990, the Kent Planning Department conducted a needs assessment of the NSA and other low and moderate income areas of the City. The results of this survey were published in November, 1990 in a report entitled "Needs Survey of Kent Neighborhood Strategy Area and Target Areas" . One of the primary objectives of the study was to identify areas outside of the NSA with a concentration of low and moderate income individuals. The study confirmed that low and moderate income individuals are no longer concentrated only in the four neighborhoods listed above. Rather, there are a number of smaller pockets of low and moderate income residents which are scattered throughout the city. The primary purpose of Kent's CDBG program is to address the needs of the city' s low and moderate income residents and to follow the related goals, objectives and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. As a result of survey findings and in order to remain consistent with the Community Development Block Grant Program purpose, the City has decided to eliminate the NSA. In order to determine eligibility for area wide projects, the most recent census data available will be evaluated by census block. This change in policy from previous years will guarantee equal funding opportunity for projects addressing the needs of low and moderate residents throughout Kent. B. Regional Needs The City of Kent realizes that there are regional needs that cut across all jurisdictions within the Consortium. Currently, the City is addressing some of these needs by funding two regional agencies which provide emergency housing and services to low and moderate income residents and a sub- regional health care facility. These programs currently receive money from the City of Kent, the County, and neighboring cities. The City should continue in 1992 to Address the funding of regional and subregional systemq. Recognizing the need to address some public service programs on a Consortiumwide (regional) basis, the Consortium has for the first time in 1992 created a Consortiumwide pot. This pot of money will be targeted to support the Consortiumwide emergency shelter program and one-time-only regional projects. 2 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 1992 Local Program Policies City of Kent The City of Kent supports this new regional funding program. Provision of emergency shelter is a high priority issue for the City of Kent. The City acknowledges that this new funding pot cannot fund the entire regional, shelter system. Therefore, there is a need for the City of Kent, the County and other consortium cities to not only contribute to this new Consortiumwide pot, but also to continue to support their existing Emergency 'Shelter Programs. In the event that future mechanisms are developed to address regional/Consortiumwide needs, the City will consider further contributing its fair share for programs which demonstrate a benefit for the citizens of Kent. IV. PROJECT CATEGORIES AND POLICIES The seven categories listed below are priorities the City of Kent has identified for their 1992 Community Development Block Grant program. Project applications which address one or more of the following goals are encouraged. Housing Projects will be encouraged which lead toward preservation or expansion of housing occupied by low and moderate income residents of Kent. The City of Kent's Housing Repair Services Program should be continued, for it addresses the needs of low and moderate income home owners. Emergency and transitional housing projects which currently serve homeless or special needs persons are a priority, however, new programs which provide shelter or permanent housing should be considered. Public (Human) Services Projects should provide essential public services to low and moderate income persons. This may include programs which provide health care, counseling and therapy, child care, family . support, support to seniors and persons with disabilities, job training, transportation, emergency and transitional housing and support services, and other services that meet demonstrated needs. Streets Walkways and Architectural Barriers Pedestrian walkways, free of impediments to access, are important in neighborhoods where a large number of children, elderly, and persons with disabilities reside. The following types of physical improvements are encouraged in eligible neighborhoods throughout Kent: projects that improve 3 . i • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 1992 Local Program Policies City of Kent pedestrian circulation and safety; projects that link residential areas to the downtown or to community facilities and services; projects that help implement or complement the Downtown Improvement Plan; projects that improve storm drainage conditions where there exists a threat to the health or safety of the residents. Many existing publicly or privately owned housing units and commercial buildings and other non-residential structures do not currently meet federal barrier free standards. Any project which removes architectural barriers which restrict mobility of persons with disabilities or the elderly is also encouraged. Community Facilities Past CDBG funding has contributed to a number of community facilities used by the City' s low and moderate income population. Past projects include design of the Kent Senior Center; acquisition of a youth services facility; acquisition of a facility to house an agency providing low income and elderly persons emergency services; and construction of the South King County Community Health Center. Funding requests may be considered to assist in design, acquisition, and/or construction or other facilities benefiting Kent's low and moderate income, elderly, or disabled residents. Parks Park projects to be encouraged are those which serve low and moderate income neighborhoods and/or other target populations, i.e. , handicapped residents. Parks projects may include rehabilitation of existing park facilities and establishment of new facilities for which funds are not elsewhere available. Historic Preservation Kent's inventory of historic structures locates a number of potentially significant buildings within Kent. Rehabilitation of publicly or privately owned structures is an eligib�e use of CDBG funds, provided that the project meets one of the national objectives. Projects which serve low and moderate income residents will be favored. Planning and Administration Funds will be used for staff support and operating costs to plan and manage Kent's CDBG program and to identify and assess 4 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 1992 Local Program Policies City of Kent the needs in the community. This will ensure adequate project implementation, fiscal control, planning, and contract compliance to ensure CDBG funds provide maximal benefit to low and moderate income residents in Kent. Additional Evaluation Criteria In addition to the' categorical priorities listed above, the following criteria will also be considered in evaluation of project applications: 1. Feasibility, timeliness, urgency. 2 . Compliance with the policies outlined in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. These policies include needs for housing and other physical improvements, as well as needs for critical human services. 3 . Ability to meet one or more of the federal objectives. 4 . The extent to which the needs of very low income citizens or special populations, including abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons, handicapped persons, homeless persons, illiterate persons, or migrant farm workers, are addressed. 5. The extent to which regional needs are addressed. City of Kent Planning Department March 11, 1991 A:POLICIES.92 5 • WY of WSen CITY OF KENT _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM March 13 , 1991 MEMO ,TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CHALLENGING COUNTY PLATS FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION Jon Johnson suggested that this resolution be brought to the Planning Committee on March 19th and, if approved, to forward it to the full Council on March 19 also. This resolution directs the Planning, Public Works, and Law Departments to pursue the appeal process of King County developments which impact the City' s transportation system. It was discussed by Mr. Johnson at the Council meeting on March 5th at which time the Council voted to have the matter brought before the Council 's Planning and Public Works Commitees for further action. JPH:mp:TRAFRES.PCO cruY of'A=� _ CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE March 5, 1991 4 : 45 PM Committee Members Present Planning Staff Leona Orr Lauri Anderson Jon Johnson, Chair Jim Harris Christi Houser Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom Other City Staff Other Guests Ed Chow Lyle Price Jim Huntington Carol Morris HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (Lin Ball) Senior Planner Ball did not have an update at this meeting. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES UPDATE (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reminded the Committee members that on January 15, 1991 the Committee generally endorsed the concept of school impact fees. At this same time, the King County Council passed Ordinance No. 9767 which sets up a process to impose school impact fees in unincorporated King County. City of Kent staff have had meetings with the Kent School District and Federal Way School District, and they both indicated they would like to have the City of Kent adopt an ordinance similar to that of King County. Mr. Satterstrom mentioned that King County had a clause in their ordinance that cities could adopt it by reference and then enter into an interlocal agreement with the County. At the school district meeting mentioned above, there was some discussion of this and they felt they could endorse the notion of impact fees but not the notion of adopting the County's ordinance. Mr. Satterstrom talked to the Planning Committee about a process by which the City of Kent could go about developing a school impact fee ordinance. Even though at the Planning Committee meeting on January 15 it was decided that the Planning and Law Department would work together in developing the ordinance, Mr. Satterstrom stated it was not quite that simple. He said there is some education that needs to be done before this can be 1 Planning Department City Council Planning Committee March 5, 1991 accomplished. Mr. Satterstrom proposed to the Committee that as a first step the City invite the Federal Way, Kent, Renton and Highline school districts to the next Planning Committee meeting on March 19, 1991. Each district could tell the Committee what is going on in their district and how each district looks at the King County Ordinance. This would be educational to the Committee. A follow-up Committee meeting could be done on the explanation as to what • is exactly in the King County Ordinance. There was much discussion by the Committee members. Councilmember Leona Orr liked the idea but did not want to see this item take months and months. Councilmember Christi Houser and Chairman Johnson were also in favor of inviting the school districts at the March 19, 1991 meeting. ADDED ITEM - RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING MAP & ZONING TEXT TO IMPLEMENT THE DOWNTOWN PLAN (L. Anderson) Senior Planner Lauri Anderson brought this to the Committee as an added item and she passed out a memo to the Committee members. Ms. Anderson stated that the Planning Department has been working for several months on the zoning code amendments proposal for implementing the Downtown Plan, which the City Council approved in 1989. These amendments are almost ready to go forward into Hearing. In other situations where there have been area-wide zoning changes, i.e. the Agricultural Lands Study, the Gateway Commercial Study, and the Housing Study, rather than take those zoning changes through on individual properties before the Hearing Examiner, the Planning Department has taken them into hearing before the Planning Commission. This request today would be for the Planning Committee to authorize the Planning Department to have a resolution developed to go to the full Council on March 19, 1991 requesting that the hearings on the Downtown amendments be heard before the Planning Commission in lieu of the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Leona Orr made the MOTION to the above and Councilmember Christi Houser SECONDED it. MOTION carried. ADDED ITEM - RESOLUTION PROHIBITING OUTSIDE SEWER & WATER CONNECTIONS (Jon Johnson) Chair Jon Johnson asked about the status on this item. Councilmember Leona Orr mentioned that this had been approved by the Public Works Committee and the Planning Committee. Councilmember Leona Orr made .the MOTION and Councilmember Christi Houser SECONDED it to adopt the resolution and to go to full Council on March 19, 1991. MOTION carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5: 15 p.m. MP:C:PC0305.MIN 2 cray of Wed CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE March 19, 1991 4 :45 PM Committee Members Present Other City Staff Leona Orr Carol Morris Jon Johnson, Chair Christi Houser Planning Staff Other Guests Jim Harris Paul Bray Margaret Porter Donn Fountain Alice Shobe Fred High Fred Satterstrom Dick Lowell Lyle Price Danny Westneat HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (Lin Ball) Due to lack of time, Senior Planner Lin Ball did not give an update at this meeting but she will do so at the April 2nd meeting. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES UPDATE (F. Satterstrom) Planning Committee Chair Jon Johnson asked the Committee members and guests to introduce themselves. Three school district representatives were present at the meeting with Paul Bray representing Highline School District, Donn Fountain Federal Way School District and Fred High Kent School District. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom summarized what was mentioned in the Agenda packet about the Growth Management Act of 1990 and the new ordinance adopted by King County in January 1991 which sets up a process to impose school impact fees in unincorporated King County. Mr. Satterstrom mentioned this ordinance has a provision in it which says that incorporated cities could adopt the County' s ordinance by reference. He said the Kent City Council at its meeting on January 15, 1991 preliminarily reviewed this ordinance and decided to support the concept of school impact fees for Kent's developing its own ordinance. The representatives. from school districts were invited to this meeting to discuss what the pressures are that play upon each district in terms of growth and their position or perspective on the issue of impact fees for schools. 1 Planning Department City Council Planning Committee March 19 , 1991 Chair Jon Johnson directed two questions to the school districts as follows: 1) In terms of the ordinance that has been adopted by King County, does this mean that in your viewpoint that in service areas where the schools are over capacity, will that mean that the district will not allow any development to' take place until there is additional facilities built to meet future demand? 2) If a developer came in with a project, i. e. an apartment or single family development, how will you do the following? This development is in the City of Kent but the students that will be generated from this development will be going to a County school, how will the fee be collected with the development being in the City and the school is out in the County? Fred High, representing Kent School District, answered Question No. 1 by handing out a report entitled, "Kent School District - Summary of Projected Enrollment and Capacity" . Mr. High said that a model is set up on a district wide basis rather than a specific area and State funding is on a district-wide basis. Also, Mr. High said based on building capacity the enrollment and capacity projections is over capacity by 1, 056 students in 1990 and over capacity projection by as much as 5, 662 students in 1996. Mr. High answered Question No. 2 with a practical and theoretical answer. He said fees would be collected to try to guarantee the very best possible education. The school district would collect fees from a development in the City of Kent but may be building a school further out from the service ' area where the fee was collected. As this local service area is being impacted and as the population of a school either expands or contracts, the boundaries of the service area would be adjusted appropriately so the students would have approximately the same kind of education across the district. This is why the school district goes through this painful process of adjusting the service area every time a new school is opened. Councilmember Leona Orr commented that as a taxpayer, she pays taxes to the Kent School District but that does not guarantee that those tax dollars are building the school that is in her neighborhood. Mr. High agreed with this statement. Ms. Orr commented that this is the same as an impact fee in which the money would be used for the best purpose to benefit the entire district. Donn Fountain, representing the Federal Way School District, commented that in the past three years his district has experienced a tremendous growth of 2 , 000 students with 700-800 more students projected for next year. They are currently building two elementary schools and are also going through the same process of balancing their population by redrawing both the 2 Planning Department City Council Planning Committee March 19, 1991 elementary and Junior High boundaries. The reason they have a serious problem is because they have for the second time in a row failed to have a bond issue approved, which would have provided two additional elementary schools and an additional Junior High School. Therefore, Mr. Fountain stated the Federal Way School District has a real interest in this whole subject of impact fees for schools and in growth management. They are not opposed to growth and think halting all growth is not the answer. They cannot keep up with the pace of providing facilities to students. He said he hopes that an ordinance would be drawn up that is compatible to all the school districts involved. Paul Bray, representing the Highline School District, stated that only half of their district is in King County and it was important that all five cities around them develop continuity for economic reasons. Dick Lowell spoke representing the Master Builders Association said he doesn't feel it is fair to spread impact fees area-wide. 1991 CDBG LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AMENDMENT (A. Shobe) Planner Alice Shobe summarized the background on this amendment as mentioned in the Agenda packet. In the fall of 1990 a study entitled "Needs Survey of Kent Neighborhood Strategy Area (NSA) and Target Areas" was conducted by the Planning Department. One of the primary objectives of the study was to identify areas outside of the NSA with a concentration of low and moderate income individuals. The study confirmed that low and moderate income individuals are no longer concentrated in just the four target neighborhoods. The Kent Housing Repair Services Program is currently the only CDBG funded program in the County which uses the NSA .to determine service priority within the program. Ms. Shobe stated that the Kent Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed Amendment to the Local Program Policies for the 1991 Kent Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. This proposed Amendment includes eliminating all priority emphasis given to the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) . Specifically, a revision to the Housing policy category is proposed. Councilmember Christi Houser made the MOTION to support this Amendment and to forward this to full Council as a Public Hearing on April 2nd. Councilmember Leona Orr SECONDED it and the motion CARRIED. 1992 CDBG FUNDING & LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES (A. Shobe) Planner Alice Shobe explained that the City Council needs to take action on five items for the 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The Human Services Commission has approved the Public (human) Services portion of the Program Policies and the allocation of the Community 3 Planning Department City Council Planning Committee March 19, 1991 Development Interim Loan (CDIL) Program Income to the new regional funding pot. It is recommended that action on these items be forwarded to the full Council for a Public Hearing on April 2, 1991. Leona Orr made the MOTION, Christi Houser SECONDED it, and the motion CARRIED to approve the following five action items including the adoption of the Local Program Policies for the 1992 Kent Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program submitted by the Planning Department. The` estimated amount of funds available for the 1992 Program is $183, 146. The five action items are as follows: 1. Approval by City Council to accept 1992 Pass-Through funds. 2 . Allocation the City's fair share maximum of 1992 Pass-Through funds ($35,743) to Public (Human) Services. 3 . Allocation of . 005% ($916) of 1992 Pass-Through funds to Planning and Administration. 4 . Approval of the proposed 1992 Local Program Policies. 5. Allocation of Community Development Interim Loan (CDIL) program income ($9,597) to the Consortiumwide Emergency Shelter System. RESOLUTION CHALLENGING COUNTY PLATS FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION (Jon Johnson) Councilmember Leona Orr reported that this resolution went to the Public Works Committee on March 19th with approval by only two votes because Steve Dowell was not present at the meeting. Councilmember Orr made the MOTION to approve the Resolution and recommend it to full Council as recommended by the Planning Committee and Public Works Committee. Councilmember Christi Houser SECONDED it and the motion CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. MP:C:PC0319 .MIN 4