HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 12/10/1996 (3) 1 CITY 0F ��5.� ZS
Jim White, Mayor
L NNING COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
DECEMBER 10, 1996
THE CITE' COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE IS HOLDING A 'MEETING ON
DECEMBER 10. 1996 AT 4:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FAST ROOM OF
KENT CITY HALL AT 220 S. FOURTH AVENUE,:
r%orcmittee Members
Leona Orr, Chair
on Johnson
• 1'im Clark
AGENDA
1. Timelines for Amendments for Comprehensive INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
Plan - (F. Satterstrom)
Position on Agricultural Preservation INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
- (F. Satterstrom)
3. Annexation Policy - Q. Harris) INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
4. Moratorium on Communication Towers INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
- (T. Brubaker)
Added Items:
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN
ADVANCE FOR MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993
• OR THE CITY OF DENT AT (206)813-2068.
mp:c:pc111196.ugn
220 4th AVE.SO., 1 KENT WASHINGFON 98032 5895 1 TELEPHONE 2061859 33001 FAX#8593334
•
WHEREAS, Goal LU-27 of the Kent Comprehensive Plan encourages the conservation and
enhancement of agricultural areas through regulation, acquisition and other methods; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-27.1 discourages urban development of designated, long-term
agricultural areas; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-27.2 discourages incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to
designated agricultural lands; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-27.3 seeks to reduce adverse environmental impacts to agricultural
lands which are caused by urban development; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-27.4 encourages the City of Kent to work with King County to
provide for purchasing or transferring the development rights of agricultural lands identified as
having long-term commercial significance; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan Map of the Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain
valley floor lands located both within the City of Kent and in unincorporated King County for
agricultural use; and
WHEREAS, land use conversion pressures continue to bear upon agriculturally-designated
properties which have not had their development rights purchased and, applications for land use
conversion have continued to be submitted to King County government for the past several years;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has maintained an interest in the outcome of these deliberations
and has submitted comments and letters of support for the retention of agricultural lands to the King
County Executive and Metropolitan Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Kent does declare its continued
support for the preservation of designated agricultural lands within the City of Kent and its
unincorporated potential annexation area(PAA) as shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map
and, furthermore, encourages the County Executive and Metropolitan Council to consider this
position in its review of land use amendments which would threaten the continuation and viability
of these agricultural lands.
•
Y
MEMORANDUM
TO: COUNCIL PRESIDENT CHRISTI HOUSER AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYC Z
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION POLICY AND ACTION PLAN
DATE: October 30, 1996
One of Council's top priorities among this year's Target Issues was "Annexation Policy and Action
Plan." To that end,staff has been working on a report for your consideration. This report is attached
for your review. I am submitting the report in fulfillment of your Target Issue, and stand ready to
work with you as you review, revise and adopt your policy.
I suggest that the report be forwarded to Council's Planning Committee for consideration and
recommendation. Planning staff will work with the Committee to support its efforts.
The events of the past two years have highlighted the need for this annexation policy, and I look
forward to its ultimate adoption.
•
cc: Jim Harris
•
APPENDIXANNEXATION POLICY AND ACTION PLAN
The second City Council Top Priority Target Issue for 1996 is titled Annexation Policy and
Action Plan. The goals to help implement this target issue are:
* Review Annexation Policy and Strategy - How to Address it
* Complete Pacific Highway Analysis
* Monitor Meridian Valley Annexation
The following report will address these goals and arrive at an array of policy options for Council
action.
S0VEYIARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
1. The City should play an active role in inducing the remainder of its Potential Annexation
Area to annex to the City by the year 2007.
2. Annexations must pay their own way.
3. Potential costs of annexation should be known well in advance of any annexations.
4. The existing high levels of service shall not be diminished because of annexations.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Annexation Policy Actions
Since 1987, a number of events, concerning annexation policy, have occurred. These events
include:
1. March, 1987
The WESTERN CITY BOUNDARY STUDY, prepared by the Planning
Department, concluded that Kent should not deannex the area on the west side of
the Pacific Highway corridor between Kent Des Moines Road and South 259th
Street.
2. April 13, 1987
Planning Department Document titled GREATER KENT STUDY was presented
to the City Council
3. September 4, 1987
. Planning Department memo titled REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES
AND PLANNING AREA/ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES FROM THE
GREATER KENT STUDY was presented to the City Council.
• 4. October 6, 1987
The City Council adopted Resolution 1150 which contained annexation policies
and amended the 1972 Sphere of Interest document. These policies were those
listed in the Planning Department memo of September 4th.
5. October 6, 1987
The City Council approved two maps pertaining to annexations. Map #1 is a 10
year annexation plan; map #2 is a 20 year annexation plan. The Council took
this action at the same time that they approved Resolution 1150. However, the
two maps were not approved.as exhibits for Resolution 1150; they stand alone.
6. April 19, 1988
The City Council adopted Resolution 1199 which contained an annexation priority
map. This map is Exhibit A of Resolution 1199 and is titled 1989-1990 Priority
Annexation Man.
7. September 1, 1992
The City Council ratified the Countywide Planning Policies which clarified the
requirement mandated by the Washington State Growth Management Act that
each county establish an Urban Growth Area.
• 8. November 3, 1992
The City Council approved Resolution 1334 which adopted an Interim Urban
Growth Boundary pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies.
9. May 18, 1993
The City Council approved Resolution 1360 which adopted an Interim Potential
Annexation Area (PAA) pursuant to Resolution 1334.
10. April 4, 1995
The City Council modified the PAA boundary southerly to South 204th Street in
a line extending westerly from the Green River to Orillia Road. The Council also
adjusted the PAA boundary in the vicinity of South 285th Street to coincide with
the Meridian Annexation boundaries.
11. April 18, 1995
The City Council approved Ordinance 3222 which adopted Kent's Comprehensive
Plan as mandated by the State Growth Management Act. The Plan contains the
City's Potential Annexation Area as distinguished from the earlier Interim
Potential Annexation Area.
•
2
12. 1995
. Kent signs interlocal agreements with Federal Way and Auburn defining PAA
boundaries between Kent and these two cities.
13. March 5, 1996
The City Council modified the PAA boundary between Renton and Kent by
moving the PAA line northerly from South 196th Street to South 192nd Street.
The Council's most significant policy actions concerning annexations have been the adoption of
the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) and their incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan and
the adoption of Resolution 1150 (1987) and Resolution 1190 (1988). Many of the annexation
policies contained in Resolution 1150 have been folded into the Potential Annexation Areas
concept.
B. Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA)
Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA), contains approximately nine square miles. When
these nine square miles are annexed the City will contain approximately 36 square miles. The
Growth Management Act (GMA) advocates the annexation of PAAs into their adjacent cities.
However, State annexation statutes still maintain citizens' rights to greatly control annexations.
Consequently some areas lying within Kent's PAA could conceivably stay out of the City for
a long period of time. If all of Kent's PAA was annexed today Kent's population would be
approximately 90,000 persons.
• One important factor to be considered in compiling annexation policies is King County's
Comprehensive Plan which has the following statements and goals:
11
1. Potential Annexation Area Plans
Potential Annexation Area Plans will become the most important examples of subarea
planning. These plans, which will include interlocal agreements between King County
and each city, will have the following components:
The city's Potential Annexation Area boundary, which includes the area the city
is expected to annex within the next 20 years.
The regional issues and services which King County will be responsible for after
annexation.
The local issues and services which the city will be responsible for upon
annexation, and possibly before annexation.
Strategies for the transition of responsibility for local issues and services from the
County to the city.
• 3
A funding strategy for local and regional services.
• The revision of relevant community plans, policies and area zoning to comply
with the County and city's comprehensive plans and to provide the basis for land
use, development and other decisions by both jurisdictions.
I-210 (the County Goal to implement the above statement)
Following designation of Potential Annexation Areas, King County shall work
with cities to establish agreements on future annexations. The County and
cities should jointly develop land use policies and consistent public
improvement standards. The Potential Annexation Area Plan shall be an
element of the Comprehensive Plan. This process shall include participation
by tribes, governmental agencies, special purpose districts, other providers,
landowners and residents. The planning process may address, but is not
limited to:
a. Determining responsibility for upgrading facilities in Potential
Annexation Areas where present facilities have been identified as
insufficient, and establishing a financial partnership between County,
city and other service providers to address payment of costs to build
new and improve existing infrastructure;
b. Providing reciprocal notification of development proposals in the
Potential Annexation Areas and opportunities to propose mitigation
for adverse impacts on County, city and other service providers'
• facilities;
C. Giving cities, to the extent possible, the opportunity to be the
designated sewer or water provider within the Potential Annexation
Area, where this can be done without harm to the integrity of existing
systems and without significantly increasing rates;
d. Modifying improvement standards for County roads, parks, building
design and other urban standards;
e. Transferring local parks, recreation and open space sites and facilities;
f. Establishing that Potential Annexation Areas are principally for urban
uses;
g- Making residential development density consistent with regional goals
for promoting transit and efficient service delivery;
h. Continuing equivalent protection of County landmarks and historic
resources listed on the King County historic Resources Inventory;
i. Providing environmental protection for critical areas; and
j. Identifying the major service deficiencies within Service Planning
Areas and establishing a schedule for resolving them.
The Potential Annexation Area agreements between King County and the cities will implement
each jurisdiction's comprehensive plans and policies by identifying the responsibilities of each
party. Special purpose districts will be partners within the process, helping define how services
•
4
a
can be provided most cost effectively. The costs of providing infrastructure and services should
• be shared to provide the most equitable and efficient services to all residents of King County.
Citizens will be equal partners with the County, cities and the special service districts in the
Potential Annexation Area process.
I-211 King County and the cities shall collaboratively address level of service standards
and costs. King County and the cities may share the costs of needed capital
improvement programs and other services."
Although these statements and goals have not been implemented between Kent and King County
at this time, it is inevitable that King County will, in the near future, begin to advocate interlocal
agreements between the City and the County for the City to take over a number of services now
provided by the County. Before that point it becomes incumbent upon the City to determine if
it should be providing urban services in its PAA or should actively move to annex all of its
PAA.
See the Appendix for copies of Resolution 1150, 1199 and a map of the Potential Annexation
Areas.
II. RECENT ANNEXATION ACTIVITIES
The City has been quite active in pursuing annexations in recent years with the two most
significant having been the Ramstead/East Hill and Meridian annexations. Other annexation
have included Beck, Jones/Hobbs and Everson.
The Ramstead/East Hill annexation (annexed on June 27, 1994) contained 608 acres (.95 square
miles) and had a population of 1,834. At the time of annexation the estimated annual cost of
service was $441,164 while the revenue was estimated to be $398,170 which left a deficit of
$42,994. This annexation was small enough that it did not cause an undue impact on existing
City operations or to the City's ability to maintain the same high standard of service in the
annexation area as was maintained throughout the City. This annexation was predominately made
up of single family residential uses with little or no commercial uses.
The Meridian annexation (annexed on January 1, 1996) contained 5.27 square miles and had a
population of 14,546. At the time of annexation the estimated annual expenditures were
$3,744,894 while the estimated revenue was $3,664,676. The adjusted expenditure was
$3,473,924 and the adjusted revenue was $3,037,315. Although the Meridian annexation
contained a large number of dwellings, it also contained a good sized commercial component.
This annexation had a major impact on the City's ability to provide the same high level of
services in the annexed area as is maintained in the existing City. However, the revenue from
annexed area provided the City with the means to cover the additional personnel needs for
Police, Planning, Public Works and other departments. Although only nine months have elapsed
since the annexation there has been no apparent diminishing of service levels in the City because
• 5
of the annexation.
What these two annexation tell us concerning the balance between expenditures and revenue is
that for annexations not to be a burden to the City they must include a substantial commercial
component and not consist of only residential uses.
Two implementing goals advocated by the City Council to help implement the top priority issue
were:
1. Complete Pacific Highway Analysis
2. Monitor Meridian Valley Annexation
Staff has begun the Pacific Highway analysis and should have it complete in a short period of
time. The Pacific Highway area, extending northerly from S.E. 272nd Street to S.E. 259th
Street (extended) and easterly from Pacific Highway South to the existing City boundary, is a
prime area for annexation in the near future.
The Meridian Valley annexation is well under way. The Council has approved the 10 per cent
petition and the annexation proponents are currently circulating the 60 per cent petitions with
a turn-in date of mid-November. This area will probably be annexed sometime in 1997.
• III. PROPOSED ANNEXATION POLICY
There is no doubt that the City will at some time annex the remaining nine square miles in the
PAA. However, there are tremendous costs associated with annexing these nine square miles
that dictate that the City carry out annexations in such a manner that these costs can be absorbed
by the City without diminishing the high level of service provided in the existing City. Many
of these costs are capital facilities related.
In addition to the capital facility needs are the on going general fund operations including
personnel to handle the increase in fire, police, planning, public works and others City
operations expected to be generated in the newly annexed areas. These costs would add to
dollars to the City's general fund, a budget that derives its funds primarily from property and
retail sales taxes.
The City has the recent experience from the Meridian annexation from which to draw
conclusions for future similar annexations. There are approximately 6 square miles of area
remaining in the PAA north of S.E. 240th Street northerly to S.E. 192nd Street. This area
contains approximately 24,000 persons (the Meridian annexation contained 5.2 square miles and
just over 14,000 persons) and is similar to the Meridian annexation with its land use of primarily
single family residential. There is a large commercial node at the intersection of 108th Avenue
S.E. and S.E. 208th Street, much larger than a similar commercial node at the intersection of
6
Kent Kangely Road and 132nd Avenue S.E. in the Meridian annexation.
With the experience gained from the Meridian annexation, it is important to include a
commercial component with any annexation that will have a large area residential land use. It
is the commercial tax base that will permit the City to provide services on the same high level
in the annexed areas as is provided in the existing City while not diminishing the exiting City
level of service.
One final urbanized area remaining in the PAA is the approximately 1.25 square mile area lying
on the east side of Pacific Highway South and extending northerly from South 272nd Street to
South 259th Street (extended). This area's land use is primarily commercial with some
multifamily residential.
Most of the remainder of the PAA consist of the large area west of Smith Brother's Dairy north
of South 272nd Street and west of West Valley Highway. This is primarily an area of
undevelopable land and will likely remain in agricultural and flood storage use.
The following annexation policies are proposed to enable the City to consider annexing the
remainder of the PAA:
1. The City's goal is to annex the remainder of Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA)
by the year 2007.
. 2. The City should conduct a vigorous annexation program.
3. The annexations shall be paced so that their impacts can be absorbed prior to beginning
additional annexations.
4. All areas of the PAA shall have an equal priority for annexing to the City, but only one
annexation shall take place at a time. There shall be a lag between annexations to give
the City time to absorb the annexed area into the City's operations.
5. The City shall identify citizens living in the PAA area who can help facilitate
annexations.
6. The City shall identify those capital facility impacts associated with an annexation and
shall determine their costs and the time line to accomplish them well before the
annexation takes place.
7. The City shall identify, to the extent possible, the general fund costs associated with
annexations.
8. The Goals and policies contained in Kent's Growth Management Comprehensive Plan
shall be followed as they pertain to annexations.
• 7
9. Levels of service in the existing City shall not be diminished because of new annexations.
• 10. Annexations shall pay their own way; annexations shall include a commercial component
and not primarily consist of residential uses.
11. The City shall require all development within the PAA that desires City utilities to sign
no-protest agreements and agreements to development in conformance with Kent's
Comprehensive Plan designation and to Kent Public Works standards.
12. The City shall not initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning amendment
hearings until the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance.
13. After the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance, the actual date the annexation
takes place should coincide with the availability of revenue to be received by the City for
the annexed area.
14. The preferred method of annexation is through the property owner petition method.
15. Annexations shall only be considered if they are of sufficient size or population that will
make the annexation both financially feasible and will allow efficient and effective
extension of City services.
•
• 8
• APPENDIX
•
•
•
f�'xt . �' LC{w'FFidi r Iro '�TS" s.'a-� +f
�e.�i.T
rr
eW"� ";5^;'�a3�ae
H r.
�;�JS r� + f �r t c#st�s .�. er�rs'�'r �' ♦ � t� i7 n� ��'n.,.e .d
_
�` z
R � Y . �, k,f *[f-4 9r T,� �� a � Ct✓.3*yY^• +'^T�y.�.�"i'� :i'3
'' t Pa ar J 11(.sar
U j«
r K�
`AR i� l \f, o � 'ten ♦ yTv�Ji.ul:]ii���
r -W1.
r �Jr 'a
f •� hks�' `jp`r;'��f l�•"'Yfa��3'iL1�151�7atilFFrsll�fi .�. ,��
I V/
�QaA tflL,�g$
RESOLUTION NO. /Z f5D
A RESOLUTION of the City cf Kent,
Washington, adopting Annexation Policies and
amending the Kent Sphere of In=erest adopted
April 17, 1972.
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1972, the City Council of the City
of Kent, by Resolution 718 A, adopted a report entitled "Kent's
Sphere of Interest", and adopted amendments to such report on
December 4, 1978 and December 19, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the growth patterns of the City of Kent since
1972 and the future growth potential of the City require the
Sphere of Interest to be reevaluated and revised; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent desires to achieve the
effective management of impacts associated with new development,
the efficient provision of needed levels of city service, the
. coordinated preparation of land use, functional and capital
improvement plans, and the delineation of appropriate potential
annexation areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent recocnizes that planning and
land use decisions can have extra-jurisdictional impacts and that
governmental cooperation is an effective manner under existing law
to address impacts and opportunities which spread across .
jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent reviewed
the new annexation policies in workshop meetings on April 14, 1987
and September 4, 1987; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council adopts the following
Annexation Policies amending the present Kent Sphere of Interest•
Annexation Policies - General (G)
• G1 The rights and privileges of Kent's citizens shall be
protected when considering areas for annexation.
G2 The City shall identify potential code violation problems.
and nonconforming development prior to annexation.
G3 The City shall ensure that the property owners and
residents are fully informed of the obligations and
requirements that may be imposed (bonded indebtedness or
cost of services) .
G4 The City shall review annexations and future City
boundaries with special districts to determine impacts of
annexation on their services.
G5 The City shall promote a positive image and an accurate
portrayal of available services to encourage public
support and desire for annexations.
This analysis shall include participation from each City
department to identify impacts and associated costs of
delivery of services to the proposed area.
G8 The City should work with other cities and Ring County to
identify future annexation areas; to sign interlocal
agreements to ensure consistent land use policies and
public improvement standards within the agreed-upon
. annexation areas.
G9 The City shall promote annexations that will solve the
problem of disjointed provision of public service (such
as police protection) .
Boundaries/Land Use (LU)
LU1 Annexations shall be promoted that serve to square off
the City boundaries, particularly if they are consistent
with the Potential Annexation Area map.
LU2 Existing residential areas adjacent to the City, with
City water and/or sewer service, should have a high
priority for annexation.
2 _
• LU3 Annexation boundaries should follow logical physical
features while at the same time follow established
property lines.
LU4 Annexations shall occur only if the area is contiguous to
the existing City boundary with the exception of
annexations for municipal purposes.
LU5 Areas proposed for annexation should exceed five acres in
size unless a smaller area would serve to straighten a
boundary or eliminate an island of unincorporated land.
LU6 Special service district boundaries must be considered
when determining annexation areas and future City
boundaries.
LU7 Proposed zoning and sensitive areas designations for
annexation areas shall be consistent with the applicable
subarea land use plan and the City-wide comprehensive
plan; PROVIDED, that the City may withhold full
implementation of the comprehensive land use plan map
designations in its annexation zoning proposals in order
to achieve a more orderly physical development pattern
and to implement its goal of a 20 percent density
reduction in multifamily residential areas.
LUB The City shall not initiate zoning hearings for annexed
lands until the annexation ordinance has been adopted by
Council.
Utilities/Streets (U)
U1 The City shall continue to require all development in
unincorporated King County that desires City utilities to
sign no-protest annexation agreements and agreements to
develop in accordance with the comprehensive plan
designation and to Kent Public Works standards.
U2 New utility service should be a higher priority for
unserved areas in the City.
3 _
• U3 A report shall be developed that identifies the condition
of streets and utilities within a proposed annexation
area and determines needed improvements and long-term
maintenance costs.
U4 The City shall require that all necessary street and
utility improvements be made with the assistance of
residents/property owners within the annexation area.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1987.
Co curred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1987.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JE EN, CITY CLERK
APPR VED TO FORM:
aj
SA A DRISCOLL, Y ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. J/,!5'D , passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of 1987.
�C '1 (SEAL)
MARIE UENSEN, CITY CLERK
05220-170
•
- 4 -
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting a priority
annexation map.
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1972, the City Council of the City
of Kent, by Resolution 718 A, adopted a report entitled "Kent's
Sphere of Interest", and adopted amendments to such report on
December 4, 1978 and December 19, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the growth patterns of the City of Kent since
1972 and the future growth potential of the City require the
Sphere of Interest to be reevaluated and revised; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent desires to achieve the
effective management of impacts' associated with new development,
the efficient provision of needed levels of city service, the
coordinated preparation of land use, functional and capital
improvement plans, and the delineation of appropriate potential
annexation areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent recognizes that planning and
land use decisions can have extra-jurisdictional impacts and that
governmental cooperation is an effective manner under existing law
to address impacts and opportunities which spread across
jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent adopted new
annexation policies per Resolution 41150 establishing 10 and 20
year potential annexation areas; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1988, the City Council Planning
Committee reviewed the Priority Annexation Map and recommended
approval with some revisions; and ;
WHEREAS, on January 7, 1989, the City Council reviewed
the Priority Annexation Map at their annual retreat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed and
• approved the revised 1989-1990 Annexation Action Plan in March of
1989; NOW, THEREFORE,
- a .
• THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council adopts the 1989-1990
Priority Annexation Map as attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit A.
Passed at a regular me ing of the it Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1989.
Con purred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of , 1989.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENS'Ejt, CITY CLERK
APPRO D AS. TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, 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 T_ 1989.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENS-EY, CITY CLERK
7170-250
- 2 -
.w � � a � J It•,r� `I
G i y
m IXC
a E. q ��• 6 i c J V__ �j1�.' S _. .��.'1.1 fl�� 1
0/
Vo-
.-
A
1J t
1 W 1• 7 ��-;� -���� ��• — 1 I�
��/' v— _,".�':1 :- J.r:y fir �k� / ' •• j n ;7 7 M 1' ,i
I '
7 k. GL!%.L•• .✓ -� i.eT1°1�
It
1 f
I I..^L. I n I'.I i�I n� ix J�_`.. J �� — � II 'vi ..� _ �t II +�- - •.+_e
lip .'� I�� L�' �11� .'.�I 1,1 I• .t � . ,l ,� i ��7r
1 J
1 f''71
I•t
r 41.
LD
• .V � - [,[err •r:i:�fs>
tle L I`S
i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, imposing a moratorium upon the
issuance of land use and development permits for wireless
telecommunication facilities.
WHEREAS, city staff have seen a significant increase in applications for
wireless telecommunications facilities specifically including building and rooftop-mounted
antenna systems and stand-alone antenna towers, within the city limits of the City of Kent
as well as within adjacent areas of unincorporated King County; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 has directly
impacted State and Local ability to regulate wireless telecommunications facilities, and
WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") is
developing rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions that
may affect the placement or configuration of wireless telecommunications facilities in the
City of Kent: and
WIMREAS, because these facilities represent growth in an entirely new
branch of telecommunications technology, the Citv's Land Use and Development
Regulations do no adequately address the various impacts to public health and safety and
to aesthetics that these facilities present: and
• 1
WHEREAS, outside the City's manufacturing districts, it appears that a
limited number of potential sites exist that would be acceptable for the construction and
installation of wireless telecommunication facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent values the existence of this new technology
within its corporate boundaries and wants to support the presence of these businesses
within The City of Kent, but believes that its citizens and these businesses would be best
served if the wireless telecommunications facilities were designed and located so as to
serve each individual business' needs while at the same time minimizing health, safety, and
aesthetic concerns; and
WHEREAS, the development and construction of these wireless
telecommunications facilities form part of a rapidly changing technology that may, in
certain instances, allow for less invasive facilities than those initially proposed for
construction without creating an undue burden upon wireless telecommunications facilities
• providers, and
WHEREAS, because of potential impacts to the public health and safety
and to neighborhood aesthetics, it may be appropriate to develop incentives or regulations
that will encourage co-location of wireless telecommunications facilities within those areas
within the City of Kent that may be appropriate for location of wireless
telecommunications facilities; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Kent would be well served if city staff
addressed and understood the potential health and safety hazards and potential negative
aesthetic effects of these facilities on neighboring properties and the community as a
whole: and
is 2
WHEREAS, The City of Kent, with the assistance of current and future
• wireless telecommunications providers requires time to study issues related to siting,
design, and co-location of these facilities, as well as impacts to neighborhood aesthetics to
public health and safety, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
.SECTION 1: Recitals Incorporated. The above listed recitals are
incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION Z: Findings of Fact. The Kent City Council hereby adopts the
following findings of fact:
A. The City of Kent is a diverse suburban Seattle community with
approximately sixty thousand (60,000) citizens. That part of Kent that lies in the Green
River Valley involves primarily commercial, industrial, and warehouse land uses, but the
remainder of the city is primarily residential in nature. Moreover, the remaining
undeveloped properties within the Green River Valley, a significant proportion of those
properties are being developed for residential use.
B. Outside designated manufacturing zones, acceptable sites for the
construction of wireless telecommunications facilities may be limited by health, safety, and
aesthetic factors.
C. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 affects the City's ability to
regulate wireless telecommunications facilities and additional time is required to further
understand and review the impacts of this Act on a state and local level.
D. Rapid changes in wireless telecommunications technology, when coupled
with the increased demand for wireless telecommunications services, have created a
significant increase in the demand for the installation and construction of wireless
3
telecommunications facilities within the City of Kent.
E. The unparalleled increase in the number of applications to construct
wireless telecommunications facilities in and near the City of Kent raises significant
concerns regarding potential health and safety hazards and aesthetic impacts to
neighboring properties and communities. These concerns merit further review to protect
the best interests of the citizens of Kent.
F. Information from the telecommunications industry and from other
governmental entities indicates that wireless telecommunications facilities can be designed
and installed in ways that will minimize health, safety and aesthetic concerns.
G. The FCC is developing rules and regulations regarding the environmental
impacts of radio frequency emissions which may affect the location, configuration and
final city approval of wireless telecommunications facilities.
H. The City needs time to study the appropriateness of(1) locating wireless
telecommunications facilities in non-manufacturing zones: (2) requiring consolidation or
co-location of various wireless telecommunications facilities to defined locations, (3)
reviewing the various technological options available to wireless telecommunications
service providers to develop and utilize less invasive facilities where ever possible, and (4)
and of limiting the impacts to public health, safety and aesthetics when approving land use
and development applications to construct and maintain wireless telecommunications
facilities.
SECTION 3: Moratorium imposed.
A. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, the Kent City Council has held a public
hearing after giving appropriate notice, on the matter of imposing a moratorium on the
issuance of land use or development permits for the construction, installation, and
operation of wireless telecommunications facilities outside manufacturing zones in the City
of Kent.
B. The City Council adopts the foregoing findings of fact and finds them to be
• 4
F
• 4 4
true and correct in all respects.
• C. The City of Kent shall issue no land use and development permits for the
installation, construction or operation of wireless telecommunications facilities within the
City of Kent until new regulations pertaining to these permits have been developed and
adopted by the City of Kent. Nothing in this moratorium resolution, however, shall
prohibit any person or entity from applying for a land use or development permit to install,
construct or operate a wireless telecommunications facility, except that no vested rights
shall accrue to any application made during the effective term of this moratorium.
D. Moratorium shall expire six months from the date of this resolution, unless
renewed by further council action.
Passed at a regular meetinu of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington
this day of 1996.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of
1996.
JI_M WHITE. MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
•
5
iI 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
1996
(SEAL)
P:IRESO:.UTLTELECOMM1-LRES BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
•
E
' RCW 36.70A.470 Project review—Amendment
suggestion procedure—Definitions. (1)Project review,
• which shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of
chapter 36.70B RCW, shall be used to make individual
project decisions,not land use planning decisions. If,during
project review, a county or city planning under RCW
36.70A.040 identifies deficiencies in plans or regulations:
RCW 36.70A.130 Comprehensive plans— (a) The permitting process shall not be used as a
Amendments. (1) Each comprehensive land use plan and comprehensive planning process;
development regulations shall be subject to continuing (b)project review shall continue; and
evaluation and review by the county or city that adopted (c) The identified deficiencies shall be docketed for
them. possible f rt u e plan or development regulation amendments.
Any amendment or revision to a comprehensive land (2) Each county and city planning under RCW
use plan shall conform to this chapter, and any change to 36.70A.040 shall include in its development regulations a
development regulations shall be consistent with and procedure for any interested person, including applicants,
implement the comprehensive plan. citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to
(2xa)Each county and city shall establish and broadly suggest plan or development regulation amendments. The .
disseminate to the public a public participation program suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on
identifying procedures whereby proposed amendments or at least an annual basis, consistent with the provisions of
revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the RCW 36.70A.130.
governing body of the county or city no more frequently (3) For purposes of this section, a deficiency in a
than once every year except that amendments may be comprehensive plan or development regulation refers to the
considered more frequently under the following circumstanc- absence of required or potentially desirable contents of a
es: comprehensive plan or development regulation. It does not
(i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan; and refer to whether a development regulation addresses a
(ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master -
program under the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 project's probable specific adverse environmental impacts
RCW which the permitting agency could mitigate in the normal
(b) All proposals shall be considered by the governing project review process.
body concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various (4) For purposes of this section, docketing refers to
atsacs can be ascertained. However, after appropriate compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the
participation a county or city may adopt amendments comprehensive plan or development regulations in a manner
or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with-this that will ensure such suggested changes wr71 be considered
chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an by the county or city and will be available for review by the
appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth manage- public. (1995 c 347 § 102.1
ment hearings board or with the court. Ftodings—Intent—i99s c 347 1 102: -rhe leguirmce finds that
during p1°
(3) Each county that designates urban growth areas �review.a county cc dry planning under RCW 36.70A.040 is
under RCW 36.70A.110 shall review, at least eve ten �Y m d de-v l the at t g aced in males. The improvements is no in mmpc�mive
every plans and development segDlatioos. There is no etmeat requiraoeat or
years, its designated urban growth area or areas, and the process for applicants,citizens,or agency staff to ensure that these
densities permitted within both the incorporated and unincor- improvements are 000c- I in the pin review process. The►egislamte
porated portions of each urban growth area In conjunction also finds that in the pea eawroomenut review and permitting of proposed
with this review b the each city located within an p1,have ben need to reopen and make land use planning demons
1 county, nc that shoats have been made through the comprehmun planing process.
urban growth area shall review the densities permitted within is put became,;Cocy stiff and bearing examiners have not beea able to
its boundaries, and the extent to which the urban growth ensure Consideration of all issues in the local planning process. The
occurring within the county has located within each city and legislature further finds that.while plans and miularions should be
the unincorporated portions of the urban growth auras The and tamed over sae,it is Dash ta peaaime applicants that have
is do intent
county comprehensive plan designating urban growth areas, of le'�e�g RCW 36 that meet.770�A.470 in=Ablkhha mesas by
and the densities permitted in the urban growth areas by the which cities and counties will docket suggested plan or development
comprehensive plans of the county and each city located won ammdmtsts and ensure their Considmdm during the piaaomg
within the urban growth areas,shall be revised to aceommo- per' [1995 c 347§ 101.)
date the urban growth a cted to occur in the county for FIWaK--1995 c 3a "ate" e legislature mcogoaes by this act th.t the
Prof growth management act is a faodamental building block of regulatory
-- — reform. The state and local governments have invested considerable
the succeeding twenty-year period [1995 c 347 § 106; 1990 tesomsa in an act that should serve as the inatimng f aidwod:for all
1st ex.s. c 17 § 13.1
other iaod-ma related laws. The growth management act provides the
Flading-Sevenbility—part headings and tsbk of Contents Dot means to effectively combine certainty for development decisions.
law-1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A-470. reasonable mvuenmental protection,long-range pttmamg for as<ffeetr'e
inhwunceme,and orderly growth and development.' [1995 c 347§ 1.1
Severabillty-1995 c 347: 'If any provision of this as of its
application may pets- or a ctinsaaaw is held invalid,the remainder of
the ad a the appiintien of the provision to other perms or eccomsaooes
is not aHaaad.' 11995 c 347§901.1
Part besdhtp and table of Coated not her-10"S a 347: 'Par
head and the table of contents as's ed in this act do not Comdtare any
pats of the law.' [1995 c 347 1902.1
•
ORDINANCE NO. .3 Q 31
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of Kent,
Washington, adding a new chapter of the Kent
City Code establishing procedures for
amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan.
WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature adopted
the Growth Management Act (GMA) , which requires jurisdictions
throughout the State of Washington, including the City of Kent, to
prepare and adopt comprehensive plans under the guidelines and
policies set forth in the Act; and
• WHEREAS, the Kent City Council adopted the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan on April 18, 1995 ; and
WHEREAS, the GMA states that each comprehensive land use
plan shall be subject to continuing evaluation and review by the
city upon adoption (RCW 36 . 70A. 130 (1) ) ; and
WHEREAS, each jurisdiction is required under the GMA (RCW
36 . 70A. 130 (2) ) to establish procedures whereby proposed amendments
or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the City
Council no more frequently than once a year; that all proposals
shall be considered by the City Council concurrently so the
cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained; and
that the City may adopt amendments or revisions to the
comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DO
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
L
i
Section I . There is hereby added a new chapter, 12 . 02 ,
to the Kent City Code as follows :
Sec. 12 . 02 .010 . Amendments.
The City Council shall consider amendments to the Kent
Comprehensive Plan no more than once each calendar year, except as
provided in Section 12 . 02 . 035 .
Sec. 12 .02 . 020 . Concurrent review.
In considering annual amendments to the comprehensive
plan, City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council
shall consider all proposed amendments concurrently so as to assess
their cumulative impact .
Sec. 12 . 02 . 030 . Time of filing.
• Annual amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be
submitted to the Kent Planning Department by September 1 of each
calendar year. Requests for amendments shall be submitted on forms
prescribed by the Planning Department . Incomplete amendment
applications will not be accepted for filing. Requests received
each year after September 1 shall be considered in the following
year' s comprehensive plan amendment process .
Sec. 12 . 02 . 035 . Emergency amendments.
The City Council may consider and adopt amendments or
revisions to the comprehensive plan more than once a year if an
emergency . exists . An emergency is defined as an issue of
community-wide significance that promotes the public health,
safety, and general welfare . Emergency comprehensive plan
amendments may be processed separately and in addition to the
standard annual update .
2
•
Sec. 12 . 02 . 040 . SEPA review.
After September 1 of each calendar year, the City' s
Responsible Official shall review the cumulative anticipated
environmental impact of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments,
pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) .
If the Responsible Official determines that a Draft Final or
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or other
appropriate environmental review is warranted, applicants may be
responsible for a full or proportionate share of the costs of
preparing the EIS as determined by the Responsible Official .
Sec. 12 . 02 .050 . Standard of review.
The Planning Department may recommend and the City
Council may approve, approve with modifications or deny amendments
to the comprehensive plan text or map designations based upon the
• following criteria:
A. The amendment will not result in development that
will adversely affect the public health, safety and general
welfare; and
B . The amendment is based upon new information that was
not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or
that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that
warrant an amendment to the plan; and
C. The amendment is consistent with other goals and
policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will
maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and
capital facilities elements of the plan.
Sec. 12 . 02 . 060 . Hearing procedures - notice requirements.
The Planning Department shall prepare a report and
recommendation on proposed plan amendments which shall be presented
0 to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. For proposed text
3
amendments, notice of public hearing shall be given in at least one
(1) publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior
to said hearing. For plan map amendments, notice of public hearing
shall be given both by publication in the local newspaper as
prescribed above, and by notification of all property owners within
two hundred (200) feet of the affected property. Affected property
is defined as the parcels identified by the applicant, plus any
additional parcels contiguous to the applicant' s property which the
Planning Director determines should also be considered for a
potential amendment . The Planning Director shall consider the
following in deciding whether to expand the geographic scope of a
proposed amendment :
1 . The effect of the proposed amendment on the
surrounding area;
2 . The effect of the proposed amendment on the land use
and circulation pattern of the area; and
3 . The effect of the proposed amendment on the future
development of the area.
Following the public hearing by the Planning
Commission, the Planning Department' s recommendation shall be
forwarded to the City Council for action.
Sec . 12 . 02 . 070 . City council action.
Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Planning
Department recommendation, the City Council shall either affirm,
deny, or modify or return the application to the Planning
Department for further consideration. In the event the City
Council modifies the recommendation, it shall make its own findings
and set forth in writing the reasons for the action taken.
4
Sec. 12 . 02 . 080 . Standing.
Comprehensive plan amendments may be initiated by the
City Planning Department or other administrative staff of the City,
private citizens , or the City Council .
Sec. 12 .02 . 090 . Fees .
Application fees for comprehensive plan amendments shall
be the same as the fee established for rezones .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 100 . Appeals.
Appeals from a decision of the Kent City Council shall be
pursuant to Chapter 36 . 70A RCW.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or
. unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance .
Section 3 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
i4 A
J WHI E, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DONnJA SUJAU t9C7-/A)G
•
5
a
s
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUB VICH, ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 0, 1995 .
APPROVED 62 day of _ 1995 .
PUBLISHED 7 day of 12j-A-. _ 1995 .
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
• No . 3 a'�Z, passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
,( l �z �, fct�,J� (SEAL)
CITY CLERK
Pox)NA 50AtJ RT/NG
6