HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development - 12/09/2013 KENT
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
December 9, 2013
Committee Members Committee Chair Jamie Perry, Deborah Ranniger, and Bill Boyce.
In the absence of Perry and Ranniger, Committee Members Elizabeth Albertson and Dennis
Higgins attended. Boyce called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
1. Approval of Minutes
Committee Member Higgins Moved and Committee Member Albertson Seconded a
Motion to approve the Minutes of November 12, 2013. Motion PASSED 3-0.
2. Public Hearing: Consideration of three (3) Planned Action (PAO) and Infill
Exemption Ordinance (IEO) Options associated with the Downtown Subarea
Action Plan Study area.
Long Range Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen explained that staff had been directed by the
Committee at the November 121h meeting to develop alternative options to the boundaries
of the PAO and IEO near North Park. She cited that the Committee's recommendation will
go before Kent City Council for consideration on December 10`h
Gould-Wessen gave an overview of the three (3) Planned Action and Infill Exemption
Ordinance boundary options concluding by identifying mitigation measures and the costs
associated with each of the three options.
Gould-Wessen stated that the proposed PAO does not change zoning, rather, the PAO
provides certainty for the public and for developers as the environmental analysis has been
completed and is included as part of the planned action. Gould-Wessen stated that the
purpose of the IEO is to facilitate and incentivize residential and mixed-use development,
and non-retail commercial development less than 65,000 square feet in size.
Gould-Wessen stated that Option 1 was originally presented to the ECDC at their November
121h meeting and the PAO and IEO boundaries extend into the North Park Neighborhood
north of James St as illustrated in Attachment A of the 11/12/13 packet. Option 2
designates James Street as the boundary for the PAO and IEO, and the PAO and IEO does
not extend north of James Street as illustrated in Attachment B of the packet. Option 3
maintains the PAO and IEO boundary as proposed in Option 1 for the area in North Park
zoned DCE (Downtown Commercial Enterprise) and the area north of the DCE Zoning
District is not designated as part of the PAO or IEO.
Gould-Wessen referenced Tables 1 and 2 within her report. She stated that the Tables
reflect the PAO and IEO mitigation measure's cost estimates per trip by options. She stated
that the consequence of reduced future development potential in Options 2 and 3 results in
a redistribution of the mitigation costs for streets, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities slightly
upwards.
Committee Member Albertson Moved and Committee Member Higgins Seconded a Motion to
Open the Public Hearing. Motion Passed 3-0. Committee Member Boyce declaring the Public
Hearing open.
Bruce Malcolm, 944 3a' Ave North, Kent, WA stated that he sets on the North Park
Neighborhood Council. He voiced support for Option 2 as it maintains existing zoning, but
would also support Option 3 because it would bring improvements into the neighborhood.
Seeing no further speakers, Council Member Higgins Moved and Council Member Albertson
seconded the Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion Passed 3-0 with Council Member
Boyce declaring the Public Hearing closed.
ECDC Minutes
December9,2013
Page 1 of
After deliberations, the Council Committee collaboratively supported Option 3 for the
Planned Action and Infill Exemption Ordinances.
Committee Member Higgins MOVED and Committee Member Albertson SECONDED
a Motion to recommend to the full City Council APPROVAL of the Downtown
Planned Action Ordinance Option 3 and Downtown Infill Exemption Allowance
Option 3; as evaluated in the Supplemental EIS for the Downtown Subarea Action
Plan. Motion PASSED 3-0.
3. Customer Service Survey Update
Planning Director Fred Satterstrom stated that the permit center launched their first on-line
survey three years ago, to customers who had previously applied for permits. The survey
included questions related to how the city was doing. After analyzing survey responses,
staff responded to those comments during a period of increasing work load. During the
same timeframe, permit application intake increased by over a third and the building
valuation of those permits increased by 40 percent. While not always complimentary,
feedback has primarily been positive.
Permit Center Manager Kimberlee McArthur stated that the survey is sent out quarterly to
previous applicants such as contractors, engineers, home owners, first time or repeat
customers. Staff developed a series of survey questions based on those specific genres of
applicants and providing opportunity for customer comment.
McArthur stated that a survey was conducted last year. In response staff sent an email to
update all those who had received the survey, informing them of what the City had done to
implement improvements based on their comments. As a result of the email half of those
people who responded to the survey provided additional specific comments.
McArthur stated that staff implemented improvements that have streamlined the permitting
process. Improvements included: synchronizing the Permit Centers hours of operation with
the Finance Department to allow customers more flexibility with picking up and paying for
their permits; implementing online permitting for plumbing, mechanical, and reroofs;
issuing minor mechanical permits (HVAC systems) and smaller tenant improvement permits
over the counter where previously it took 7-10 days to issue those permits. Computers
were installed in the inspector's vehicles so that inspection results could be entered on site,
with customers able to view those results immediately on-line.
McArthur stated that Economic and Community Development staff was engaged in a LEAN
process, creating a review center scenario. As a result, commercial permit timelines were
reduced from 63 to 45 days. Additionally, an applicant is now required to submit only one
rather than four sets of large plans; a substantial cost savings for the customer.
Satterstrom stated that the permit center is currently functioning under an increased
workload and decreased staffing at a B level of service.
Committee Member Albertson stated that in the past, the City was heavily subsidizing the
permit process and not charging for actual costs. The city could not afford to keep
subsidizing the permit process and improve it at the same time. Fee rates were raised to be
on par with neighboring communities and to be able to provide higher levels of services.
Satterstrom stated that with higher fees come greater expectation about service and
technology. Customers will not likely be satisfied with Kent's current technology. Staff is
currently working with the IT department on upgrading the KIVA software system to allow
for more on-line permitting and review.
Adiournment
Committee Member Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Pamela Mottram, Secretary
Economic & Community Development Committee
P:\Planning\E DC\2013\Minutes\12-0113 Min.doca
ECDC Minutes
December9,2013
Page 2 of