HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 06/10/1998 CITY OF � L=11yN j
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1998
TO: TIM CLAM CHAIR, AND PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF BUDGET FOR SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM UPDATE
In July 1997, the City of Kent received a grant from the Washington State Department of
Ecology (DOE) to update the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The total budget
for the project is $50,000, with DOE contributing $23,000 and the City contributing
$27,000. With regard to the City's contribution, $18,000 was allocated in the Capital
Improvement Program in 1997, and the other $9,000 was approved as part of the
Planning Department's 1998 budget.
In January 1998, the City Council approved authorization for the Mayor to sign a grant
agreement with the Department of Ecology to commence with the project. Since that
time, the City has issued a Request for Qualifications, and hired Berryman and Henigar to
assist us with the project. However, the Finance Department has notified the Planning
Department that in order to disburse grant funds, the City Council must authorize that a
budget be established for the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Public Works and Planning Committee recommend to the City
Council that staff establish a budget to expend the grant funds received from the
Department of Ecology for the update of the Shoreline Master Program.
KO1pm A:lsmpbumem.doc
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Barbara Ekstrom, Finance Department
"0401,A1 LVC'H SOt r11 , KENT,% :%SHING-10S nu :-:,o;i FELIPHUNI ,450-3z00
CITY OF Min v in T
• Jim White, Mayor
_� puty��ca
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JUNE 10, 1998
TO: PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
TIM CLARK, CHAIR, TOM BROTHERTON AND RICO YINGLING
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: ANNEXATION POLICY AND STRATEGY
At its retreat earlier this year,the City Council set the following High Priority Target:
Annexation Policy and Strategy
• Review Current Policy
• Evaluate Options
• Decision: Policy Direction
• Develop Strategy with Action Plan
I have attached for your information the most recent Annexation Policy action taken by the Council.
The Council approved the current Annexation Policy on April 1, 1997.
•
"01ih VVENUE SOCTH KENT.W,ASHINCTON Tall;_- SUS;TELPPHUNE CJ71 ado-,300
• Kent City Council Minutes April 1, 1997
PLANNING (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
Annexation Policy. The Planning Committee has
recommended a new Annexation Policy. They held
meetings on this issue on December 10, 1996,
January 21, 1997 and March 18, 1997 .
Planning Director Harris showed a map of the
Potential Annexation Area and explained that the
Del Mar Annexation and the Meridian Valley
Annexation are currently under way. -He said
that after those areas are annexed, there will be
approximately nine square miles left to annex.
Harris noted that the 1987 annexation policies
have been reviewed, updated and presented to the
I Planning Committee. He explained that some of
the proposed policies include assisting citizens
who have expressed a desire to annex to the City,
continuing the current high level of service,
giving equal priority to all areas of the
Potential Annexation Area for annexing to the
City but having only one annexation take place at
a time.
Harris noted that the next large area for
annexation is in the vicinity of Kentridge High
School and Panther Lake, and that there are
approximately 20, 000 residents and a large
commercial component.
He said that these policies will bring the City
up to date and that when all annexations in the
Potential Annexation Area have been completed,
the City will be approximately 36 square miles in
size and will have a population of about 90, 000.
ORR MOVED to approve the Annexation Policy as
I recommended by the Planning Committee. Woods
l seconded and the motion carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) y
Contract for Zoning Code Update. The 1997 Kent
Capital Improvement Plan set aside $75, 000 for
consultant services to update and modernize the
City's Zoning Code. The Planning Department has
interviewed several consulting firms and seeks
• authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract
with McConnell/Burke consultants.
CC
C , �7
11
r
CITY OF
,Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/17AY (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
April 1, 1997
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION POLICY
The Council Planning Committee approved the attached Annexation Policy at their meeting of
March 18th meeting. The Committee discussed this document several times and have approved
a policy that will guide the City through the final annexations that will fill out our Potential
Annexation Area.
JPH/mp:c:annexpol.cc
•
^1l-ih U F SU 6F\T FFLFPHOAF :110,F\A a viQ ;r,.i
ANNEXATION 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.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
1. The City should help citizens who want to annex to the City.
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.
L 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.
April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
•
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 Map-
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
2
April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
City's Potential Annexation Area as distinguished from the earlier Interim Potential
Annexation Area.
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.
•
3
April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
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.
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;
4
April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
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
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.
i
5
. April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
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 this annexation started with a
first year deficient due to initial start up costs (capital expenditures for equipment, vehicle and
other one-time start up costs amounted to over $650,000 in the 1996 budget), by 1998 a $55,339
surplus will be in effect. This is the financial path annexations often follow; a deficient during
the first year followed by subsequent year balanced budgets. 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 of the
annexation.
What these two annexations 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.
6
April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
The Meridian Valley annexation is well under way. The Council has approved the 10 per cent
petition and the annexation proponents have submitted the 60% petition. The notice of intent is
before the Boundary Review Board. The area may be annexed by July 1, 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 Kent Kangley 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 existing City level of
service.
One final urbanized area remaining in the PAA is the approximately 578 acre 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. The Council has accepted the 10% petition and citizens are currently circulating the
. 60% petition.
7
April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
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) as willing citizens come forward and within the ability of the City to
provide a high level of service.
2. The City should assist citizens who have expressed a desire to annex to the City.
3. Impacts to City services from annexations need to be absorbed prior to attempting
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.
5. 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.
6. The City shall identify, to the extent possible, the general fund costs associated
with annexations.
7. The Goals and policies contained in Kent's Growth Management Comprehensive
Plan shall be followed as they pertain to annexations.
8. Levels of service in the existing City shall not be diminished because of new
annexations.
9. Annexations shall, to the extent practical, pay their own way.
10. 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.
• 11. The City shall not initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning amendment
hearings until the Ciy Council adopts an annexation ordinance.
8
April 1, 1997
Annexation Policy and Action Plan
12. 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.
13. The preferred method of annexation is through the property owner petition method.
However, the election method may be, from time to time, in the citizens' and
City's best interest.
jph/mp:c:annexpl.cc
•
9
•
•
1q{'C+1 'FY �'rtvTt 'F W'�`rrr %mow���+••l�y�^,�y'9r� f f.F>"Avr,V(^'�1 ti.�+ t L rJ9^'�i MY,
V� is r\r� r � 1'•.[j,,,-W:�i t}�: t�Y- �5!'�R~i..f�f�C� l'L'LTrp trL 7t
t�
�-
(
�.T t 1� _ v.w�.�i�"'! -�arf...a1 •� f �� '�C � .� & :i _C✓ ".an�'TS� ,ydt
� r 'YI +� !♦�� 'rat. Y�In...T -
EJ+•-`
r r,r
.'T ill ?3�.M • ''.
t 6M
w�
C
Yjq,
r RY1
F
JAIJ 2 ; i990
_ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
January 23 , 1990 CITY OF KENT
rITY ri 1:4K ��—
TO: ' ' CITY COUNCIL PRES DENT JJUDDY WOODS AND COUNCIL MEMAtAS
FROM: MAYOR DAN KELLEHE R "
SUBJECT: SUBMITTAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE
VALLEY FLOOR SUBAREA PLAN AND THE KENT ZONING MAP
As per RCW 35A. 63 . 072 and City Council Resolution No. 989, I am
forwarding to you the Planning Commission' s recommendation on
revisions to the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor
Subarea Plan and Kent' s Zoning Map.
In response to Resolution No. 1172 , the Planning Department
conducted a study of multifamily residential densities throughout
the City. Staff also reviewed ways to encourage new single family
development. The detailed studies followed a major update of the
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, approved by Council in
February, 1989 . Resolution No. 1172 directed staff to conduct the
study in steps, area by area, and to move forward on implementation
as each area was completed.
The Planning Commission held four public hearings on this matter
on September 25, October 23 , November 20 and November 27, 1989, and
adopted their Findings and Conclusions on December 11, 1989 . At
the November 27th public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
amend the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Subarea
Plan. Proposed amendments to the Valley Floor Subarea Plan include
adding certain language in Goal 2, Objective 1 of the Housing
Element; adding two new policies under Goal 2 , Objective 1 of the
Housing Element; and adding a new policy under Goal 2 , Objective
2 of the Public Utilities Element. Valley Floor Plan Map
amendments include redesignating two areas from MF, Multifamily to
SF, Single Family; redesignating one area from IBP, Light
Industrial/Business Park to MF, Multifamily; and creating a
"Single-Family Designated Area" overlay for a portion of the Valley
Floor Planning Area.
The specific recommendations of the Planning Commission are.
outlined on pages 7-18 of the "Findings and Conclusions. " Related
to the Plan amendments, the Commission has also recommended
amendments to the City' s Zoning Map. The Zoning Map amendments
would rezone eight areas of the Valley Floor to a less dense
residential designation, and rezone two areas from a non-
residential designation to a low-density multifamily residential
designation.
City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map amendments (to bring that map into
conformance with the proposed changes) include redesignating two
areas from MF, Multifamily to SF, Single Family and redesignating
one area from I, Industrial to MF, Multifamily.
1 �
TO CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDY WOODS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM MAYOR KELLEHER
JANUARY 23 , 1990
As per RCW 35A. 63 . 072 and Council Resolution No. 989, within 60
days of receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the
Council at a public meeting shall vote to approve, disapprove, or
modify and approve as modified the amendments to the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Subarea Plan. The Council may
also refer them back to the Planning Commission for further
proceedings.
Attached to this memo are the following:
1. Council Resolutions No. 989 , 1123, and 1172
2 . Staff Report to Planning Commission, Area Housin4 Studies:
Project Overview & Valley Floor Planning Area
4 . Planning commission' s Findings and Conclusions (adopted
12/11/1989)
5. Planning Commission minutes (9/25 , 10/23, 11/20, 11/27 and
12/11, 1989)
JS: DK:ca
Attachments
2