HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development - 09/14/2015 Economic & Community Development
KETITeN� � Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Dennis Higgins - Jim Berrios - Bill Boyce, Chair
September 14, 2015
5 P.M.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Call to order Chair Boyce 1
2. Roll Call Chair Boyce 1
3. Changes to the Agenda Chair Boyce 1
4. Approval of Minutes, dated August 24, 2015 YES Chair Boyce 2 1
5. Countywide Planning Policies Amendment, YES Haylee Bonsteel 10 7
School Siting Process
6. International Property Maintenance Code Yes Matt Gilbert 10 25
7. Sound Transit Paid Parking No Charlene 10 35
Information Only Anderson
8. Economic Development Update NO Ben Wolters 5
Information Only
9. ShoWare Update No Ben Wolters 5
Information Only
Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m.
on the second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 41h Ave S,
Kent, 98032.
For additional information please contact either Julie Pulliam at 253-856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's
Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington
Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
1
/ter •
T M'ENl"�R
Nx siur.yx
ECONOMIC &COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING & HEARING MINUTES
AUGUST 24, 2015
Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins, and Jim Berrios. Boyce
called the meeting to order at 4:40 pm.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Changes to the Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of August
10, 2015. Motion PASSED 3-0.
S. Public Hearing-Comprehensive Plan
• Land Use Plan and Zoning district Map and Text Amendments
• Comprehensive Plan Elements and Background Reports
Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that she will present the Land Use
and Zoning District Maps amendments, then text amendments to Kent City Code, and finally
the entire C omprehensive Plan E lements, Goals, Policies, and Text; to include map
amendments presented at the August 10, 2015 meeting before the Eco nomic and
Community Development Committee (ECDC).
Anderson submitted Exhibits #41-49 for the record related to the Land Use and Zoning Map
Amendments; plus three (3) additional exhibits submitted at the meeting from Mr. Singh
and Mr. Sahota, Mr. Basmajian, and Norma Yonce and Russell Everly.
Anderson described previously considered zoning designation and land use designation map
amendment proposals for the following locations:
• Property North of 272"' next to Star Lake Park-N-Ride
• The CVS Pharmacy Site properties at Kent Kangley Road and 1161h Ave and
including two additional properties along 272"'
• L-shaped property at the northeast corner of 2641h and 1041h
• The Devore Property located at Kent Kangley Road and 2201h.
• The KOA campground site located at 2121h and Frager Road.
Five additional options before the Commi ttee for consideration include text amendments
that were included in the ECDC's August loth packet and condensed into the following nine
bullet points:
• Deleted reference to and associated notes for Office (0), Office/Mixed Use (O-MU),
Industrial Agricultural (MA) and Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning Districts.
• For Community Commercial/Mixed Use zo ned properties, allowed a reducti on in
minimum required commercial uses when residential uses are proposed: for parcels
two acres or less in size the minimum is 5% commercial rather than 25%.
• Added Secure Community Transition Facilities as a separate li ne in the Use Tables,
with a note that they are allowed only as a Conditional Use Permit and only within
the boundaries of the former GWC zoning district.
• Provide for sales of product accessory to and directly related to the manufacturing or
warehousing use on sites within the M1, MI-C, M2 and M3 zoning districts.
• Clarified that in the Limited Industrial (M2) Zoning District, the 25% limitation on
retail and services uses is a com bined total for a mu Itiple-building business park,
and an individual limitation for single building parcels.
• Broadened the uses in the Industrial Park/Commercial zoning district:
2
a. Allow retail sal es of tires, batteries an d accessories for bo th industrial and
personal vehicles and equipment.
b. Allow convenience and deli marts without limitation.
• Clarified that design review is required for mixed use development in the
Community Commercial/Mixed Use (DD-MU) Zoning District.
• Clarified that for rezones to Industrial Park/Commercial, citywide mapping proposals
may be speculative in nature.
• Incorporated housekeeping am endments such as correcting incorrect code
reference, clarifying verbiage and syntax, adding a definition of mini-warehouses.
Anderson entered into the record Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 12-15.
The Comprehensive Plan (CP) Amendments will refresh the demographics and trends of the
City. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates new goals and policies related to healthy living,
social justice, food policies, climate change and promote a variety of housing options, good
design, including street scape, and promotes protection of the environment. The CP
supports Human Services and access to opportunities.
The CP shows there is adequate capacity to accommodate our growth target and forecast to
the year 2035. It uses growth ce nters approach to accommodate growth. Kent is both an
urban center and a manufacturing industrial center in the region. Kent Do wntown, the
Industrial Center and in the future the Midway area will be des ignated as a center as
envisioned the Midway Subarea Plan for growth. The CP emphasizes safe and multi-model
transportation systems and provides a real istic picture of the needs for Parks and
Recreation.
The CP promotes conservation of natural resources and supports connectivity of Information
Technology, promotes the action plan of the Economic Develo pment Strategic Plan as well
as incorporates other master plans within it.
Growth Management requires 8 elements or chapters. Kent has added a Human Servi ce
Element and an introductory chapter. At the foundation of the plan it incorporates the City
Council's Strategic Goals and looks at Place Making as a key element of those goals.
The Capital Facilities Element requires adequate funding to meet the needs fo r
accommodating growth, with the first 6 years of the plan constrained, and with a realistic
but yet aspirational goal for the remainder of the 20 year plan.
Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a motion to incorporate exhibits #12-15
into the record and also moved to include exhibits #41-52 into the record for the
Land Use and Zoning District Text Amendments. Motion PASSED 3-0.
Chair Boyce opened the public hearing
Amy Gore with Future Wise highlighted two issues from Kent residents. 1) Affordable
Housing and the i ncreasing prices of housi ng in Kent. She was happy to see affordable
housing addressed in the CP. Ms . Gore suggested changes to Policy H4.3 that would point
out the tools which can be used to support housing development in this policy and that
these tool should be used to support both affordable housing and market rate housing. 2)
Would like Kent to include a policy to include working with other South King County City's to
plan for affordability together as well as to share resources. Workforce development was
highlighted as a need as 1 in 4 residents in Kent is an immigrant; suggested that the City
add a goal or policy 6.2.5 regarding workfo rce development programs and strategies
targeting these wide ranges of users.
Penny Ackerson - DKT 2014-6; is asking the Committee to consider including her
property which borders neighboring properties on Kent-Kangley and 116 th in the zoning
change. This is part of the recommendation to the Committee to vote on.
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 2 of 5
3
David Konen - DKT 2014-6; stated he is Penny Ac kerson's brother-in-law and owns
property on Kent-Kangley Road. As part of the staff recommendation to be re-zoned, we are
trying to include Ackerson's property. We are in a position where we have to learn to li ve
with more noise or move on and sell the property. We would like to have both properties
re-zoned together as it will make it much more attractive as a commercia I development
area with an overall acreage of about 1.76 acres.
David Devore - Stated he presented to the Commi ttee on August 18, 2015 a proposed
agreement discussed with Chair Boyce and Ben Wolters. Mr. Devore referenced letters from
residents around the area who are in agreem ent with the development. Within the letters
was a letter voicing interest from a builder but retail would kill the deal. Mr. Devore stated
that his proposal basically was that the City would agree that the northern part front on
Kent-Kangley Road to high density without any of the 25% retail required. As an agreement
with the City and Mr. Devore there would be a zero lot line set back and 100% lot coverage.
The City would cooperate with up to 7 stories over underground parking. This would protect
the back of the property and the wetland as well as allow for more density. Mr. Devore said
as long as the Ci ty agrees to that he would agree to th e back portion being zoned single
family SR-6. Mr. Devore wanted to submit his proposal at this time and ask the Committee
to make a motion to accept and forward this to Kent City Council.
Chair Boyce asked for Mr. Devo re's understanding of the zoning changes made to the
Devore property in the proposed Zoning Ma p Amendments. Chair Boyce asked for furthe r
clarification from the City Attorney on what is being agreed on has been included in the
packet.
Assistant City Attorney, David Galazin stated that what is being agreed on is what has been
presented pertaining to the rezoning and land use map changes. Any kind of an agreement
that would coincide with those changes would be separate and not consi dered by thi s
committee at this time.
Anderson responded to Devore's concerns, stating that what is before the Committee is
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations. Any issues related to variance
in height or lot coverage or any of the development standards, if appropriate, would go
through an Administrative Variance process or t hrough the Hearing Examiner, which is not
what is before the Committee at this time.
Richard McPherson, Real E state Broker, representi ng Mr. Devore, asked Charlene
Anderson to clar ify her statement where she talks about bo th medium density and hig h
density in the same sentence. Anderson directed attention to page 90 of the packet, stating
that this takes all of the designations for the Land Use Plan Map designations and indicates
what zoning districts areal lowed in those designations. Looking at Multifamily Residential
MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. That designation accommodates Duplex,
Medium Density, High Density, Multifamily Residential, Townhouse 12 & 16.
McPherson commented what we have been trying to do is market this property, which has a
lot of constrai nts due to wetl ands, and be ing compressed up to Kent-Kangley. This
property's highest probability for marketing is for low income Senior Housing.
McPherson asked for clar ification that on the front part of the property the I and use and
zoning would allow a residential facility to be built on it and not include commercial/retail
along with the highest density available within the City of Kent. McPherson commented that
the back part of the property is not an issue at this point.
Chair Boyce asked Anderson to clarify McPherson's question of the front part of the land for
multifamily residential housing (MRH). Anderson stated that MRH is the highest density for
zoning and the commercial component; Multifamily does not have a commercial component
requirement.
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 3 of 5
4
Scott & Debbie Ward - stated that across the street a d eveloper has logged, developed,
and built houses. The trees on their 3 acre property on the border of Kent and Covington,
have fallen as a result of the I ogging. The Wards questioned how they co uld get thei r
property rezoned to SF-6. Chair Boyce stated that Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert
would assist them.
Hyung Seo - requested that her property be rezo ned to Commercial, with Chair Boyce
explaining that Matt Gilbert would also assist with her request.
David Malik - DKT 2014-6, commented on C VS Pharmacy going in on 116 th and Kent-
Kangley. He stated that no public notice board has been posted on the property which has
a wetland and creek on it. He questioned how the City of Kent did a wetland delineation.
The intersection is a high accident area and will create a problem for police. He asked that
the Council deny the zoning change on the CVS property.
Chair Boyce asked City Attorney David Galazin about the wetland comment on the property;
Galazin stated that changing the land use designation on the land use map and cha nging
the zoning would change what is allowable, but would not necessarily preempt anything.
Wetland delineation would have to be comp leted before any projec t would be done and
would have to con form to t he standards when a complet a application was submitted.
Traffic impact studies will be looked at typically for development.
Richard Leonard - DKT 2014-4, stated that he owns one of the properties adjacent to the
Star Lake Park-N-Ride. Leonard stated that he has submitted comments by email requesting
the zoning not be changed to commercial. He is concerned about people coming off t he
highway creating congestion when there are already ga s stations less than half a mi le on
the east side of the highway. With possible light rail coming to the Park-N-Ride he suggests
no changes be made till further information is known about the Park-N-Ride and the Light
Rail Station.
Phil Kitzes - Dkt 2014-4, PK Enterprises; spoke in support of the zoni ng change for the
property next to the Star Lake Park-N-Ride.
George Basmajian - Dkt 2014-6, stated that he represents Norma Yonce, that he sent an
exhibit to Charlene Anderson and would like the committee to take a look at the documents
provided by Barghausen Engineers showing the potential use of the property. The property
across the street is already zoned Commercial and they are in support of the zoning change.
Chair Boyce asked for further speakers. With no further speakers, the Public Meeting was
closed.
Berrios MOVED, to recommend to the Full City Council approval of the four
ordinances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Update to include amending
comprehensive plan text, goals and policies, amending Land Use Plan and Zoning
Districts Map Designations, and amending Kent City Code as recommended by
staff, and as amended below:
1. For Dkt-2014-4, parcel number 768280-0195, maintain the northern half of
the parcel as Low Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential
Townhouse (MRT-16) and change the southern half of the parcel from Low
Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to
Mixed Use (MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU);
2. For DKT-2014-6, change parcel number 7697900070 from Single Family
Residential/Single Family Residential (SF6/SR-6) to Mixed Use
(MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU);
3. For B1.b East Hill South, change parcel 292205-9094 from Office (0) to
Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU);
4. For B1.c East Hill Eat, parcel number 282205-9164, change the area north of
the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0) to Medium
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 4 of 5
5
Density Multifamily (MDMF)/High Density Multifamily (MR-H) and change
the area south of the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0)
to Single Family Residential (SF6)/Single Family Residential (SR-6);
S. For 132.a Valley West, parcel number 112204-9065, change the parcel's split
designations of Mobile Home Park (MHP)/ Industrial Agricultural (MA) to
Industrial (I)/Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) in its entirety.
Higgins SECONDED the Motion
Chair Boyce opened for discussion; Anderson had a clarification for #4 to be south of the
southernmost stream.
Higgins added a proposed a friendly amendment that the motion be as written on the paper
it was read from and not as spoken. Berrios agreed.
Higgins, Berrios, and Boyce thanke d staff, the LUPB Me mbers, land owners and parties of
interest for all their work on this project. Boyce directed a thank you to Charlene Anderson
for a great job in being consiste nt and fair. He stated that th is is the Committee' s
recommendation to the Full City Council.
MOTION than Passed 3-0
6. Fire Impact Fees
Captain Larry Rabel presented an overview of the process that has already taken place. Fire
Impact fees are about level of service for the Fire Department into the future. He stated
that the service area of the RFA has experienced growth rate of 9.3% on average, and have
grown from 700 people per squar e mile to 3000 people per square mile. The impacts of
traffic and development have really spread the fire stations apart a nd increased traffic has
increased the response time by 5 9 seconds since 2001. The most notable change the Fire
Department has seen is in EMS calls. The RFA does not get to col lect revenue from Sales
Tax, Permit Fee, or Real Estate tax. Impact Fees are set annually by the RFA Governance
Board, and then presented to the Kent C ity Council for review, providing input to choose to
accept or reject the proposal.
Matt Gilbert continued with the review of the annual update of the Capi tal Facilities Plan,
which will be accompanied with an analysis as to where the fees should be and which is
largely contained within the document the Committee has in front of them. The analysis was
not attached in the information only packet committee received earlier. A formula has been
developed by the RFA to calculate the impact fees.
The ordinance is similar to the ordinance committee saw at the August loth meeting.
Changes consolidate and eliminate repeated language. No major content changes have been
done since presented on August loth. Similar changes have been made to the Interl ocal
Agreement. ECD is recommending that the Committee approve and pass on to Full Council.
Higgins MOVED to recommend to the City Council to authorize adoption of the
Ordinance, amending Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new Chapter
12.15, entitled "Fire Impact Fees",: and authorizing the Mayor to sign the
interlocal agreement between the City and Kent Fire Department Regional Fire
Authority for the purposes of setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the
parties with regard to the fire impact fee program, subject to final terms and
conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Economic and Community
Development Director. Berrios SECONDED. Motion Passed 3-0
Adiournment
Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Julie Pulliam, Secretary,
Economic &Community Development Committee
jp�P:�Planning�ECDC�2015�Minutes�8-24-15_Min.doc
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 5 of 5
6
7
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
* Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
twt
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
September 8, 2015
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development
Committee
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Planner and GIS Coordinator
RE: Countywide Planning Policies Amendments, School Siting Process
Meeting of September 14, 2015
MOTION: Recommend/not recommend to the full City Council ratification of
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to outline
a process for school districts and jurisdictions to work together to identify future
school sites within the Urban Growth Area.
SUMMARY:
Initially adopted in the early 1990's, the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning
under the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This framework
ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. While the CPPs
have been amended periodically to address specific issues or revisions required by
the GMA, the first thorough update of the CPPs was adopted and ratified by the
cities in 2013 to ensure that the CPPs are consistent with VISION 2040, the GMA
and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within King County.
For that update, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) also directed
that the revised policies include countywide direction on three new policy areas:
climate change, healthy communities and social equity.
The GMPC convened the School Siting Task Force in 2011 to address the issue of
whether public schools serving primarily urban populations should be sited in rural
areas. The Task Force created a set of recommendations to address the issue, and
the CPPs contain policies pertaining to school siting.
On April 22, 2015, the GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a
new CPP regarding planning for school facilities in King County. The CPPs would
be amended to state that public school facilities are essential in meeting the
needs of growing communities and that it is important to coordinate on land use
and facility planning. A new policy would also be added, PF-19A, which would
8
require collaborative planning between school districts and local jurisdictions
regarding school facility needs. This process would include consideration of
cooperative strategies to address any facility capacity and siting shortfalls. The
policy would also require periodic review of whether the goals of the policy are
being met, and calls for corrective actions should they be necessary.
PF-19A is intended to facilitate implementation of school siting CPPs that were
created as a result of recommendations from the GMPC's School Siting Task
Force. The coordination called for in PF-19A was also a recommendation from the
Task Force, and its proposed language was drafted in collaboration with
representatives from the school districts, cities and county.
On July 23, 2015, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 18084 which
ratified GMPC Motion 15-1. Now, the new policies are presented to jurisdictions in
King County for ratification. The Countywide Planning Policies become effective
when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and
county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County
according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to have
ratified the amendments to the CPPs unless the city takes legislative action to
disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County, which in
this case is October 31, 2015.
Staff will be available at the September 14th meeting to discuss the policy
amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
HB: S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2015\Countywide_Planning_Policies\CPP_PF-19A_School
Siting_ECDC_Memo.doc
Encl: Resolution, 8/2/15 King County transmittal letter, King County Ordinance No. 18084, GMPC Motion No. 15-
1, 6/3/15 King County Council transmittal letter, 7/7/15 King County Council Staff Report
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the 2014 King
County Buildable Lands Report and amendments of
the Countywide Planning Policies defining
countywide greenhouse gas reduction targets and
establishing greenhouse gas measurement and
reporting commitments adopted by the
Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to
the Growth Management Act.
RECITALS
A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under
the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210.
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and
other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of
GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans
are consistent.
B. On December 15, 2014, the Metropolitan King County Council
approved and ratified the Buildable Lands Report and amendments of the
countywide planning policies regarding greenhouse gas reduction targets,
measurement and reporting by Growth Management Planning Council
(GMPC) Motion Nos. 14-4 and 14-5 as follows:
1 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
10
1. GMPC Motion No. 14-4: Approves the 2014 King County
Buildable Lands Report.
2. GMPC Motion No. 14-5: Amends the 2012 King County
Countywide Planning Policies EN-17 and EN-18A defining countywide
greenhouse gas reduction targets and establishing greenhouse gas
measurement and reporting commitments.
Now the 2014 Buildable Lands Report and policy amendments
are presented to jurisdictions in King County for Ratification.
C. Although supporting the new greenhouse gas reduction
target, the City questions the practicality of achieving an increased
greenhouse gas reduction target given the uncertainty about whether or
not even the existing reduction target can be met.
D. The King County Council approved and ratified the report and
policy amendments on behalf of King County pursuant to King County
Ordinances No. 17951 and 17952. The Kent Economic & Community
Development Committee reviewed the report and policy amendments at its
meeting on March 9, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1, — Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the
interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and
incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the 2014 Buildable Lands
Report and proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies as
2 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
11
adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council in King County Ordinances
No. 17951, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A and King County
Ordinance No. 17952, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit B.
SECTION 2, — Public Inspection. The amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City
Clerk and placed in the planning services office so they are available for
inspection by the public.
SECTION 3, — Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 4, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2015.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
2015.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
3 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
12
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
P\a..I\R...1,t...\m-ty,,daola....9ool.a....afy9ma,no...G-��—D-
4 Countywide Planning
Buildable Lands Report
Resolution
i
13
EXHIBIT A
King County.
CEBVED
AUG 03 2090
ECON OMICAND
COh iMUNITY DEVEi OPMENT
August 2, 2015
The Honorable,.Suzette.Cooke
City.of Kent
220-4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Mayor Cooke:
We are pleased,to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed
amendment to the King County Countywide Planning-Pollcies (CPP):
On July 20,.2015, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the
amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance will
become effective Sunday, 'August 2, 2015. Copies of the transmittal letter, King
County.Council staff report; ordinance and Growth Management Planning
Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this amendment.
In accordance with the CPP, G-1, amendments become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according
to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and
amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes
'legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day
deadline for these amendments is Saturday, October 31, 2015.
if you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the
legislation by the close of business, Friday, October 30, 2015, to Anne Noris,
Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue,
St.:uie, WA 98104.
If you have any questions.about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst, King County
14
EXHIBIT A
i
Executive's Office, at 206 263-9649, or Christine Jensen, Metropolitan King
County Council Staff, at 206 477-5702.
' Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Larry Phillips, Chair Dow Constantine
Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
Zc: King County City Planning Directors
Sound Cities Association
Lauren Smith, Director, Regional Planning
Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst
Christine Jensen, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy
Committee (TREE)
15
EXHIBIT A
- KING COUNTY - 1200 King County Courthouse -
- - 516 Third Avenue
Slgnature.Report seatue.wA9a1o4
July 21, 2015
Ordinance18084
Proposed No.2015-0231.1 Sponsors Dembowski
1. AN ORDINANCE ado�tmg and ratrfymg,Growth
2 man agementPlanniug CounciIIvlotion 15=1.
3 " BE IT ORDATNEI)BY THE'COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
4 "SECTION i Find ngsi
5 A, Growth Management Planning Council Motion 15-1 recommends that a new
61 policy be added.to the 2012 King County,Countywide Planning Policies to outline a
7 process for school:districts and Junsdictions.to-work together to iden*future school
8 sites with the Urban Growth Area.
9 B, On April 22,10t5,the Growth Management Planning Council
t
10 `overwhelmingly adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends the 2012 King County
11. Countywide Planning Policies be amended to add new text and a new policy;Policy 19A;.
12 SECTION 2i The amendment to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning 1: -
1
EXHIBIT A
Ordinance 18084
13 Policies;,as shown in Attachment A to this ordinance,is hereby adopted by King County. .
14 .and ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County:
15
Ordinance 18�84 Was mfro luc'a on'6/22;/2015 and pessecl by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 7/20/2015,by the following vote
Yes 5 Iu1r Phillips,Mr Gossett,Mr McDermotR„M Dembowski
and Mr Upthegrove; r.: , .
No: 4'-Mr.don.Reichbauer,Ms.Hague,_Ivls,Lambert and Mr:Dunn .
Excused-,0'
KING COUN1 Y COLiNCII
KIN, Co WAS TO
r 1
ATTEST:
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this .L�' day of
J�~I 2015:
Dow Constantine,County Executive
Attachrnents:'A GMBC Motion No, 154
17 .
EXHIBIT A 18084
12/17/14 ATTAC>1MENT A
Sponsored By; Executive Committee .
2 . .
3 ' -i, GMPC,MOTTON.N0:.15A
4 .
5 - , =A MOTION amending-th62012 Kmg County Countywide_
6 ' Planting Policies;outlining a process:foraurisdiCtions working
together to identify future school sites within the VGA
8 ;
9 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council(GW Q convened the
10 `_ SchoolSiting'Task Foree,in 2011 to:address the.issue ofwliether public school serving
primarily urban populations`should be'sited inrural areas and"whether such facilities
_ . 12 " '_`. should be served by sewer's;;and, _
13
14 VJEIEREAS,tfie Task Force comple- , -tlietr work on March 31,2012,issuing a
15 final
report and al'recorrimendation9 toAhe King Courtly Executive;and
l7 . WHEREAS, as a reault of the work of the Task Force,two new policies.were added
18 ''' % #o th'e 2b12 King County Countywide'Plannifig Policies(C)7Ps)-PF-i 8 and 1`$49; and
20 " WHEREAS,tfi "2013 GMPC workprogram mclud'ed an itemto implement the
21 arem``Ainder-of the;Tosk Force-recommendations,_including_="The Growth Management
22 Planning Council.'(GMPC)should ide4tify policies and adopt a work'program that
23 comrmitsjurisdictlbns to working together to identify future school sites within the UGA.
24 These policies shall directjurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tool's to ensure,
25 sufficient supply,of landfor,siting schools", and
26 _
27 WHEREAS,at the'May 21,2014 GMPC meeting,staff proposed a policy to
28 directly respond to the Task Force's direction. GMPC,members reviewed the'drm policy
29 and identified the;necd to'mgre fully;address the issues of breadth,coordination between
30' .. jurisdictions and public:school districts, and the,workload impacts to the respective.
.31 - jurisdictions and school districts. GMPC members also wanted to ensure that the proposed
32 policy fully addressed the planning needs of the junsdtctions/school districts while being .
33 sedsifiVe to the impact of siting parameters anil land use regulations on curriculum needs;
34 " and 6
35
36 WHEREAS,to implement Task Force recommendation and address issues raised at
37 . the May 21,2014 GMPC meeting, a new.policy,PF-19A is being proposed.
38
18
EXHIBIT A lsosa
39 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning
40 Council of King County hereby recommends that the 2012 King County Countywide'
41 Planuing Policies be amended to add new policy PF-19A with preceding text, as follows: .
43 Public school facilities to meet the needs of growing communities are an essential part
44 of the public infrastructure. Coordination between each jurisdiction's land use plan and
45 ±egg lions and their respective school districtjsl facility needs are essential for public '
46 school capacity needs to be met The following policy applies countywide and requires
47 en amment between each school-district and each city that is served by the school
48 district The policy also applies to'Kib¢County as a iurisdiction for areas of
.49 unincorporated:Kies County that are within a schooLdistriet's service boundary: The
50 policy initiatesa periodie procedureao identify ifthere are:individual school district
51 sitimi issues.and=if so a process forthe school district and iurisdiction to cooygoa ely
52 mare strategies for resolving the issue.
53
'' 54 , PF-19A ^Plan through a cooperative process between-i�urisdictions and school
55 `districts; that public:school facilities are available;"to meet the.needs of.exis6ng and_
56. projected residential development consistent withadopted comprehensive plan
57 policies and growth forecasts. .
Cooperatively-work with each school district located within iunsdiction's
59 , boundaries to evaluate the schoohdistriafs:610 to site school facilities
60 necessary to meet the school district's identified student capacity needs. Use
61 scfiooldistrict cauaci and enrollment data and-the-exowth forecasts and
ty.' '
62 develoument data ofeach-iiid dietiomloeated witlijn the'schooI district's.
63 service boundaries By January 2016 and every two years thereafter:determine
64 it there is development capacity and the sup-portine infrastructure to site ttie
= 65 needed school facilities If not. cooperatively nrepare.a strategy to address the .:
66 aoity shoiifall Potential-sirate'leg s_ma include:
67 0".'Shared public facilities such asplay fields parkmP areas and access
v
: .: 68 -
69, o Sch681ac6i4 on or lease of appropriate public lands
70 ® . Regulatory changes such as allo-Mng schools to locate in additional
71 zones orsevised development standards
72 F a.;: School desi¢n standards that reduce laudsreq_uirements (such as multi
story'striictures or reduced footprint)-whileatill:meeflng programmatic
74
75 ", 1n 2017 and every two years thereaftet Kmt?County shall report to the GMPC
•96 ' .. on wlretlier the'goals of this policy are benig met'The CMPC shall identify
77 corrective actions as necessary to implement this policy,.
7$
79
80
81
82t �
83 Dow Constantine, Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
EXHIBIT 4
King County:' RECEIVED
Dow Constantine 7.015 JUN 10 PM 3: 49
King County Executive
401 FIfthAvAnUe;Suite 800 --- c^}rr. ,, .
'
Seattle,w ClA 9s104-late y USI=Y COU4C11
206-263-9600 Fax 206-296-0194
w"Relay: 711
w
. ww.kingcounty,gov
June 3,2015
The Honorable Larry Phillips
Chair,King County Council' '
Room 1200 -
COURTHOUSE
Dear Councilmember Phillips'
This Ietter transmits an ordinance that-will enable King County to amend the King County
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)to establish a plan for coordination between school
districts and the jurisdictions within their bouadaiies,.as recomrrlendedby the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC).
This ordinance transmits GMPC Motion 15-1=that was overwhelmingly approved by the
GMPC'on April 22;2015. The ordinance adopts and ratifies the GMPC motion on behalf of
unincorporated King County.
Motion 15-1 adds a new policy to the CPPs that is a direct response to a recommendation of the
School Siting Task Force Report,which;is included•as an appendix to.the CPPs. The new
policy states thatpublic schools are an essential and integral part of public infrastructure that is
needed to achieve successful-growth inanagement plans by:all jurisdictions inking County.
Further,this new policy sets up a'plan to facilitate colIalioration Between the jurisdictions and
the school districts, establishes guidelines for assessing school district capacityneeds, and
identifies strategies for resolving capacity issues should they be identified.
This ordinance integrates the goals of the King County Strategic Plan by recognizing the role
of land use planning in shaping environmentally sustainable and econonlically viable future for.
all people in King County. The Countys role in the GMPC fosters the ethic of working
togethonfor"One King County' :.y actively participating in regional organizations arid
defusing King County's role in regional issues. ,
There are no fiscal impacts to King Comity government as a result of adoption of this
ordinance.
'King County is as Equal Opportanity/Afftnnative Action Employer
�'®�' and complies with the Americans ivith Disobit$ites Act
20
EXHIBIT A
The Honorable Larry Phillips
June 3,2015
Page 2
If you have any questions,please contact Lauren Smith,Deputy Director for Regional
PlanninOfef Perfomance;=Strategy and Budget, at 206463-9606
Sincerely,.- i.
j
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Enclosures '
cc: . King County Couucilmembers,
ATTN: Carolyn Busch, Chief of Staff
AnneNoris,CIerk of the Council
Carrie S. Cihak, Chief of Policy.Development;King County Executive Office
Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance,Strategy and.Budget(PSB)
Lauren Smith,Deputy Director,_Regional Planning,PSB .
3
III
21
EXkM A `
King.County
Met ropolitan;.King"County Council
Transportation, Economy and,.Environment Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda`Itein: 10 . Name:.. -. Christine-Jensen -
Proposed No.: 2015-0231 ' Date: July 7, 2015
SUBJECT
A proposed ordinance adopting and ratifying Growth Management Planning: Council
Motion 151, which recommends adding a, new Countywide Planning Policy regarding
planning for school facifities in King County.
SUMMARY
Proposed Ordinance 2015 0231 would amend_ the King County Countywide Planning
Policies (CPPs)to_state that,public schoo!facilities are essential.in meeting the needs
"of
growing communities,,and that it is,jmportant;t6 coordinate on. land gse 'and,facility
,planning..-Anew CPP would also.be added„PF-19A, which would requir�_collaborative,
planning.between.school districts and.local iurisdictions,iregarding school:facilify;needs..
This process would include consideration `of cooperative strategies to address any
facility. capacity;and-siting:,shortfalls.,, The policy would also. requ ire,periodic.review of
whether the goals'of the policy are being met; and calls for corrective actions should
they be necessary.
If.adopted, all localjurMictions, including Kihig'Ccunfy, would be_required,to collaborate
on land use and facility planning with the school districts) within,its boundaries. The
County would_also_;be required to report back to the Growth, Management.Planning
Council (GMPC)- on behalf of the school districts and local Jurisdictions on the
effectiveness of the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals. According to
Executive staff, this coordinated planning and reporting would be achieved within
existing County resources.
BACKGROUND
The GMPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from Kmg County, Seattle
Bellevue, `other cifie^ Viand"towns in King County, and spec ial'purpose"`districts. The
GMPC was created ;n' 1992 by intsdocal agreement' in response to a provision.in the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work
together to adopt CPPs.z Under-the GMA, the CPPs serve as the framework for each
Motion 8733 -
z RCW 36.70A.210 '
EXHIBIT A 22
local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan which ensures countywide consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts
As provided for in the interlocal agreement, the GMPE•developed: and recommended ,
the original CPPs, which were adopted by the King County Council3 and ratified by.the
cities in'1992. Subsequent'`amendments to:`the'GPPs follow the 'sairie adoption
process, which is now outlined in CPP ,G-14 and includes: recommendation by the.
GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities.
Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by
at least 30 percent:of the city and county governments representing at least:70 percent
of the population of King County. A city shall be 11 deemed to have ratified an amendment
to the CIPPs unless the city-disapprove`s it by legislative acfion within 90 days'of
adoption by King County.
ANALYSIS
-GMPC'Mofion 95 9"`
Proposed `Ordhan'ce 2015=0231' would adopt -'and ratify GMPC Motion 15-11 which
recommends adding a new CPP regarding planning for'schooFfacilittes in'King County.
If adopted, the CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities_ are
essential. in meeting'the needs of growing communities and that it is irop'ortant ao
coordinate on land use and facility planning A new policy would also be.added, PF-
19A, which would 'require c_olla, oratibe planning between school districts and local .
jurisdicfions regarding school fad i needs This process woultl inclutle consideration'of
cooperative-strategies to addYessany'facllity capacity and siting shortfalls rThe policy
would also require periotllc review ofiwiiether tMe goats'of the policy are being met,-and
' calls for corrective actions should they!f?'e heoessary � • ` � '
PF'19A is intended to facilitafe implementation of school'stting GPPs thatwere adopted
in 201`2,6'whlch wefe`creafed'as'a result of recommendations from'the GMPC's School
Siting Task. Force. These 2012 policies, PF-18.and PF-19, prohibit schools serving
primarily urban populations from being located in the rural area and generally require
schools serving rural populations to be located`in neighb6nng cities and rural towns s
Tfie coordinafion called for 1n PF 19A was also a recommentlation'from the Task Force;
and its proposed language was drafted in-collaboration'wlth Pepresentatves'from the
school districts, cities, and county
3 Ordinance 10450
'2012 King County.Countywide Planning Policies, as amended: .
http:l/www.kinocounty gov/property/permits/codes/growtlUGMPC/GPPs aspx .
.'Including: shared public facilities; school acquisition/lease'of public lands, regulatory or development
standard chap`,-; dbsign;changes:= '
Ordmance`1'T•186 '
?Created by the GMPC-in 2011 to address theJssue 4fwhetherpublicschools serving primarily urbane
populations'should be sited In,rural,areas and whethersuch facilities should be served by sewers.
Except for: community facilities and services dependent upon rural location and if their size and scale
support rural character; and sites listed in 2012 School Siting Task Force Report:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/-/media/exec/constantine/documents/2012/SchoolSitingTaskForce/FinaID6c(i
ments/Fi nalRepoMnd Recommendations
23
EXHIBIT A
If adopted, PF-1.9A would apply to the cities and school districts in King_County, as well
as the County itself as a local jurisdiction. As a result, the County would be required to
coordinate land use and facility planning with the school districts that have populations
within unincorporated areas of King County. Additionally, starting in 2017 and every two.
years thereafter, the County would be required to report back to the GMPC on behalf of
the school districts and local jurisdictions on the effectiveness of -the cooperative
process in meeting the policy goals. Executive staff have noted that this increased
workload for County staff would be able to be achieved within existing resources, which
is reflected in the fiscal note attached to the legislation.
GMPC action
On April 22, 2015, the .GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which is a non-binding
recommendation to the County Council to-adopt PF-19A.. Consistent with CPP adoption
requirements, Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 forwards this GMPC,recommendation to
the County.Council for consideration and possible approval. If adopted by the Council,
the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County, and would begin the ratification process by the cities.
There is no deadline for Council action 'on the proposed CPP amendment; however,
both the school districts and the local jurisdictions are eager to begin implementation of
the proposed policy given the time that has passed since adoption of the school siting .
policies.in 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance 201.5-0231
2. Transmittal Letter
3. Fiscal Note
4. GMPC Staff Report dated-April 22, 2015
INVITED
1. Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget
24
25
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
K NT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
September 9, 2015
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager
RE: International Property Maintenance Code
Meeting of September 14, 2015
MOTION: Recommend adoption of the ordinance amending title 14 of the Kent City
Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code
together with the City's local amendments depicted in this ordinance.
SUMMARY: In July of 2015, members of the Law and ECD offices presented
information on the City's Code Enforcement program at a council workshop. Part of
this presentation covered tools that would help make code enforcement in Kent
more efficient and more effective. One of these tools is the International Property
Maintenance Code (IPMC). Staff now presents this code for the committee's
consideration.
BACKGROUND: When buildings are constructed or altered, ECD staff reviews plans
and inspects the work to ensure the buildings are safe, sanitary and meet
applicable codes. However, when an owner or occupant fails to maintain a building,
problems that impact public health, safety and welfare can arise, and code
enforcement is required. The IPMC is useful in resolving these problems.
The IPMC is unique from other building codes in its use of very clear and direct
language to address common maintenance problems. The code does not impose
significant new responsibilities on building owners, as most of the maintenance
requirements can be inferred from other adopted codes. The clarity provided in the
IPMC is valuable however because when code requirements must be inferred,
enforcement efforts are hampered. With the IPMC, maintenance violations are easy
to cite and communicate to responsible parties.
Examples of requirements in the IPMC include: protecting the exterior of a building
from the elements with paint or other covering; keeping structural members of a
building free from deterioration, replacing broken windows, and fixing cracks in a
building's foundation. In addition to buildings, the IPMC addresses the exterior
property around a building.
The IPMC is developed and updated every three years by the International Code
Council (ICC), the same group who develops other building-related codes that the
City has adopted by reference (i.e. International codes for building, plumbing,
mechanical systems, etc.). The codes are designed to work together to address
26
public health safety and welfare while not unnecessarily increasing construction
costs or limiting innovation in construction methods and materials. Like these other
codes, the IPMC is written so as to be adopted by reference by local jurisdictions.
Local amendments are included in the attached ordinance that clarify administrative
roles, eliminate conflicts with the City's enforcement process and eliminate
references to rubbish and garbage, which are addressed elsewhere in City code.
Staff recommends adoption of this useful code and will be available at the
September 14th meeting to answer questions.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
27
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 14 of the
Kent City Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the
International Property Maintenance Code to
regulate and govern the conditions and
maintenance of all property, buildings, and
structures and to provide standards for utilities,
facilities, and other physical things and conditions
essential to ensure that structures are safe,
sanitary, and fit for occupation and use.
RECITALS
A. As set forth in Title 14 of the Kent City Code, the City Council
enacted Ordinance No. 4081 on May 21, 2013, which adopted the 2012
edition of the International Building Code.
B. Section 101.4.4 of the International Building Code adopts the
International Property Maintenance Code in a limited capacity, only to the
extent the International Property Maintenance Code is referenced within
the International Building Code.
C. It is necessary to adopt the International Property
Maintenance Code in its entirety, with local amendments, to ensure that all
1 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
28
property, buildings and structures within the City of Kent are safe, sanitary
and fit for occupation and use.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 14.01.010 of the Kent City
Code, entitled "Building Codes — Adopted," is amended as follows:
Sec. 14.01.010. Building Codes — Adopted. In accordance with
Chapter 19.27 RCW, the following codes (collective, the "building codes")
together with any additions, deletions, and exceptions currently enacted or
as may be amended from time to time by the state of Washington through
its Building Code Council pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code
("WAC), and as further amended in this chapter, are adopted by
reference:
A. The International Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-50
WAC.
B. The International Existing Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by
the International Code Council, Inc., but its application is limited as
provided for in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code, and as
amended pursuant to WAC 51-50-480000 through 51-50-481500.
C. The International Residential Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-51
WAC.
2 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
29
D. The International Mechanical Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-52
WAC.
E. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, including
the Uniform Plumbing Code Standards (Appendices A, B, and I to the
Uniform Plumbing Code) as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-56 WAC.
F. The Uniform Housing Code, 197 Edition, published by the
International Conference of Building Officials.
G. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997
Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials.
H. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2012 Edition,
published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to
Chapters 51-11C and 51-11R WAC.
I. The International Property Maintenance Code, 2012 Edition,
published by the International Code Council, Inc., including the Boarding
Standard (Appendix A to the International Property Maintenance Code).
One (1) copy of each of these codes is on file with the city's building
official.
SECTION 2. — New Section. Chapter 14.01 of the Kent City Code is
amended to add a new section 14.01.087, entitled "Amendments to the
International Property Maintenance Code," as follows:
Sec. 14.01.087. Amendments to the International Property
Maintenance Code. The following local amendments to the International
3 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
30
Property Maintenance Code are adopted and incorporated into the
International Property Maintenance Code:
A. All references to the "code official" in the International Property
Maintenance Code shall be substituted with the words "building official."
B. Fees. Section 103.5 of the International Property Maintenance
Code, entitled "Fees," is amended by substituting Section 103.5 with
the following:
Sec. 103.5. Fees shall be assessed as set forth in Section
14.01.090 of the Kent City Code.
C. Violations. Section 106 of the International Property Maintenance
Code, entitled "Violations," is amended by substituting Section 106 with
the following:
Sec. 106. Violations.
106.1. Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any
person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish,
equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure
or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of
this code.
106.2. Violation penalties. Any person who violates a
provision of this code or fails to comply with any of its
requirements, or who erects, constructs, alters or
repairs a building or structure in violation of: (a) the
approved construction documents, (b) a directive of the
building official, or (c) a permit or certificate issued
under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to
penalties as set forth in Chs. 14.08 and 1.04 KCC or as
otherwise provided by law.
4 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
31
D. Notices and Orders. Section 107 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Notices and Orders," is amended by
substituting Section 107 with the following:
Sec. 107. Notices of Violation. Whenever the building official or his
designee determines that there has been a violation of this code or
has grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, the code
enforcement officer may issue a notice to any person responsible for
the violation, pursuant to Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code.
E. Board of appeals. Section 111 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Means of Appeal," is amended by substituting
Section 111 with the following:
Sec. 111. Board of appeals. The City of Kent hearings
examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear
and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations
made by the building official relative to the suitability of
alternate materials, design, and methods of construction and
appeals of the reasonable application and interpretation of the
building codes. Appeals shall be made as set forth in section
14.01.100 of the Kent City Code.
F. Failure to comply. Section 112.4 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Failure to Comply," is amended by
substituting Section 112.4 with the following:
Sec. 112.4. Failure to Comply. Any failure to comply with a
stop work or stop use order shall constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed
5 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
32
by the court of not more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine in
an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine,
pursuant to KCC 1.04.090, 1.04.100, and 1.04.110.
G. Rubbish and Garbage. Section 308 of the International
Property Maintenance Code, entitled, "Rubbish and Garbage," is
deleted in its entirety.
H. Electrical Facilities. Section 604 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Facilities," is deleted in its
entirety.
I. Electrical Equipment. Section 605 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Equipment," is deleted in its
entirety.
3. Elevators, Escalators and Dumbwaiters. Section 606 of the
International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Elevators,
Escalators and Dumbwaiters," is deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 3, — Severabilitv. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall maintain its full force and effect.
SECTION 4, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section or subsection numbering;
6 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
33
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication as
provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
7 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
34
PASSED: day of 2015.
APPROVED: day of 2015.
PUBLISHED: day of 2015.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P'.ACivilAOrdinanceAIntematlonal Property Maintenance Code.doc:
8 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
35
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
September 8, 2015
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
RE: Sound Transit Paid Parking Program
Meeting of September 14, 2015
MOTION: None Required — Information Only
SUMMARY:
After testing permits during a 2014 pilot project, Sound Transit is considering
offering reserved parking permits at its busiest facilities, including the Kent Station
parking garage. The permits would work as follows:
• Transit customers must have and use a valid ORCA card to apply for a
permit.
• Permit parking would be reserved for permit holders until 9:30 a.m. Monday
through Friday.
• On weekends and after 9:30 a.m. on weekdays, transit riders would be able
to park in permit spaces without a permit.
• Permits would be offered on a first-come, first-served basis.
• Permits would be reviewed and renewed quarterly or semi-annually.
• Renewal would require the permit holder's ORCA records to show they rode
transit at least three times per week during the previous permit term.
Flexibility will be allowed for time away (such as vacation).
• Carpool permit holders must arrive with at least two transit riders in the
permitted vehicle.
• At least 50% of parking spaces at each location would remain free and
available for transit riders on a first-come, first-served basis.
Staff will be available at the September 141h meeting to further discuss the
program. In the meantime, staff encourages everyone to complete a survey at
www.soundtransit.ora/permitparkina
EXHIBITS: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
CA: P:�Planning�South_Corridor�City_Council�09142015_ECDCMemo_Update.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic&Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney
File
Economic & Community Development
KETITeN� � Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Dennis Higgins - Jim Berrios - Bill Boyce, Chair
September 14, 2015
5 P.M.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Call to order Chair Boyce 1
2. Roll Call Chair Boyce 1
3. Changes to the Agenda Chair Boyce 1
4. Approval of Minutes, dated August 24, 2015 YES Chair Boyce 2 1
5. Countywide Planning Policies Amendment, YES Haylee Bonsteel 10 7
School Siting Process
6. International Property Maintenance Code Yes Matt Gilbert 10 25
7. Sound Transit Paid Parking No Charlene 10 35
Information Only Anderson
8. Economic Development Update NO Ben Wolters 5
Information Only
9. ShoWare Update No Ben Wolters 5
Information Only
Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m.
on the second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 41h Ave S,
Kent, 98032.
For additional information please contact either Julie Pulliam at 253-856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's
Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington
Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
1
/ter •
T M'ENl"�R
Nx siur.yx
ECONOMIC &COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING & HEARING MINUTES
AUGUST 24, 2015
Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins, and Jim Berrios. Boyce
called the meeting to order at 4:40 pm.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Changes to the Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of August
10, 2015. Motion PASSED 3-0.
S. Public Hearing-Comprehensive Plan
• Land Use Plan and Zoning district Map and Text Amendments
• Comprehensive Plan Elements and Background Reports
Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that she will present the Land Use
and Zoning District Maps amendments, then text amendments to Kent City Code, and finally
the entire C omprehensive Plan E lements, Goals, Policies, and Text; to include map
amendments presented at the August 10, 2015 meeting before the Eco nomic and
Community Development Committee (ECDC).
Anderson submitted Exhibits #41-49 for the record related to the Land Use and Zoning Map
Amendments; plus three (3) additional exhibits submitted at the meeting from Mr. Singh
and Mr. Sahota, Mr. Basmajian, and Norma Yonce and Russell Everly.
Anderson described previously considered zoning designation and land use designation map
amendment proposals for the following locations:
• Property North of 272"' next to Star Lake Park-N-Ride
• The CVS Pharmacy Site properties at Kent Kangley Road and 1161h Ave and
including two additional properties along 272"'
• L-shaped property at the northeast corner of 2641h and 1041h
• The Devore Property located at Kent Kangley Road and 2201h.
• The KOA campground site located at 2121h and Frager Road.
Five additional options before the Commi ttee for consideration include text amendments
that were included in the ECDC's August loth packet and condensed into the following nine
bullet points:
• Deleted reference to and associated notes for Office (0), Office/Mixed Use (O-MU),
Industrial Agricultural (MA) and Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning Districts.
• For Community Commercial/Mixed Use zo ned properties, allowed a reducti on in
minimum required commercial uses when residential uses are proposed: for parcels
two acres or less in size the minimum is 5% commercial rather than 25%.
• Added Secure Community Transition Facilities as a separate li ne in the Use Tables,
with a note that they are allowed only as a Conditional Use Permit and only within
the boundaries of the former GWC zoning district.
• Provide for sales of product accessory to and directly related to the manufacturing or
warehousing use on sites within the M1, MI-C, M2 and M3 zoning districts.
• Clarified that in the Limited Industrial (M2) Zoning District, the 25% limitation on
retail and services uses is a com bined total for a mu Itiple-building business park,
and an individual limitation for single building parcels.
• Broadened the uses in the Industrial Park/Commercial zoning district:
2
a. Allow retail sal es of tires, batteries an d accessories for bo th industrial and
personal vehicles and equipment.
b. Allow convenience and deli marts without limitation.
• Clarified that design review is required for mixed use development in the
Community Commercial/Mixed Use (DD-MU) Zoning District.
• Clarified that for rezones to Industrial Park/Commercial, citywide mapping proposals
may be speculative in nature.
• Incorporated housekeeping am endments such as correcting incorrect code
reference, clarifying verbiage and syntax, adding a definition of mini-warehouses.
Anderson entered into the record Comprehensive Plan Exhibits 12-15.
The Comprehensive Plan (CP) Amendments will refresh the demographics and trends of the
City. The Comprehensive Plan incorporates new goals and policies related to healthy living,
social justice, food policies, climate change and promote a variety of housing options, good
design, including street scape, and promotes protection of the environment. The CP
supports Human Services and access to opportunities.
The CP shows there is adequate capacity to accommodate our growth target and forecast to
the year 2035. It uses growth ce nters approach to accommodate growth. Kent is both an
urban center and a manufacturing industrial center in the region. Kent Do wntown, the
Industrial Center and in the future the Midway area will be des ignated as a center as
envisioned the Midway Subarea Plan for growth. The CP emphasizes safe and multi-model
transportation systems and provides a real istic picture of the needs for Parks and
Recreation.
The CP promotes conservation of natural resources and supports connectivity of Information
Technology, promotes the action plan of the Economic Develo pment Strategic Plan as well
as incorporates other master plans within it.
Growth Management requires 8 elements or chapters. Kent has added a Human Servi ce
Element and an introductory chapter. At the foundation of the plan it incorporates the City
Council's Strategic Goals and looks at Place Making as a key element of those goals.
The Capital Facilities Element requires adequate funding to meet the needs fo r
accommodating growth, with the first 6 years of the plan constrained, and with a realistic
but yet aspirational goal for the remainder of the 20 year plan.
Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a motion to incorporate exhibits #12-15
into the record and also moved to include exhibits #41-52 into the record for the
Land Use and Zoning District Text Amendments. Motion PASSED 3-0.
Chair Boyce opened the public hearing
Amy Gore with Future Wise highlighted two issues from Kent residents. 1) Affordable
Housing and the i ncreasing prices of housi ng in Kent. She was happy to see affordable
housing addressed in the CP. Ms . Gore suggested changes to Policy H4.3 that would point
out the tools which can be used to support housing development in this policy and that
these tool should be used to support both affordable housing and market rate housing. 2)
Would like Kent to include a policy to include working with other South King County City's to
plan for affordability together as well as to share resources. Workforce development was
highlighted as a need as 1 in 4 residents in Kent is an immigrant; suggested that the City
add a goal or policy 6.2.5 regarding workfo rce development programs and strategies
targeting these wide ranges of users.
Penny Ackerson - DKT 2014-6; is asking the Committee to consider including her
property which borders neighboring properties on Kent-Kangley and 116 th in the zoning
change. This is part of the recommendation to the Committee to vote on.
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 2 of 5
3
David Konen - DKT 2014-6; stated he is Penny Ac kerson's brother-in-law and owns
property on Kent-Kangley Road. As part of the staff recommendation to be re-zoned, we are
trying to include Ackerson's property. We are in a position where we have to learn to li ve
with more noise or move on and sell the property. We would like to have both properties
re-zoned together as it will make it much more attractive as a commercia I development
area with an overall acreage of about 1.76 acres.
David Devore - Stated he presented to the Commi ttee on August 18, 2015 a proposed
agreement discussed with Chair Boyce and Ben Wolters. Mr. Devore referenced letters from
residents around the area who are in agreem ent with the development. Within the letters
was a letter voicing interest from a builder but retail would kill the deal. Mr. Devore stated
that his proposal basically was that the City would agree that the northern part front on
Kent-Kangley Road to high density without any of the 25% retail required. As an agreement
with the City and Mr. Devore there would be a zero lot line set back and 100% lot coverage.
The City would cooperate with up to 7 stories over underground parking. This would protect
the back of the property and the wetland as well as allow for more density. Mr. Devore said
as long as the Ci ty agrees to that he would agree to th e back portion being zoned single
family SR-6. Mr. Devore wanted to submit his proposal at this time and ask the Committee
to make a motion to accept and forward this to Kent City Council.
Chair Boyce asked for Mr. Devo re's understanding of the zoning changes made to the
Devore property in the proposed Zoning Ma p Amendments. Chair Boyce asked for furthe r
clarification from the City Attorney on what is being agreed on has been included in the
packet.
Assistant City Attorney, David Galazin stated that what is being agreed on is what has been
presented pertaining to the rezoning and land use map changes. Any kind of an agreement
that would coincide with those changes would be separate and not consi dered by thi s
committee at this time.
Anderson responded to Devore's concerns, stating that what is before the Committee is
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations. Any issues related to variance
in height or lot coverage or any of the development standards, if appropriate, would go
through an Administrative Variance process or t hrough the Hearing Examiner, which is not
what is before the Committee at this time.
Richard McPherson, Real E state Broker, representi ng Mr. Devore, asked Charlene
Anderson to clar ify her statement where she talks about bo th medium density and hig h
density in the same sentence. Anderson directed attention to page 90 of the packet, stating
that this takes all of the designations for the Land Use Plan Map designations and indicates
what zoning districts areal lowed in those designations. Looking at Multifamily Residential
MDMF, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. That designation accommodates Duplex,
Medium Density, High Density, Multifamily Residential, Townhouse 12 & 16.
McPherson commented what we have been trying to do is market this property, which has a
lot of constrai nts due to wetl ands, and be ing compressed up to Kent-Kangley. This
property's highest probability for marketing is for low income Senior Housing.
McPherson asked for clar ification that on the front part of the property the I and use and
zoning would allow a residential facility to be built on it and not include commercial/retail
along with the highest density available within the City of Kent. McPherson commented that
the back part of the property is not an issue at this point.
Chair Boyce asked Anderson to clarify McPherson's question of the front part of the land for
multifamily residential housing (MRH). Anderson stated that MRH is the highest density for
zoning and the commercial component; Multifamily does not have a commercial component
requirement.
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 3 of 5
4
Scott & Debbie Ward - stated that across the street a d eveloper has logged, developed,
and built houses. The trees on their 3 acre property on the border of Kent and Covington,
have fallen as a result of the I ogging. The Wards questioned how they co uld get thei r
property rezoned to SF-6. Chair Boyce stated that Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert
would assist them.
Hyung Seo - requested that her property be rezo ned to Commercial, with Chair Boyce
explaining that Matt Gilbert would also assist with her request.
David Malik - DKT 2014-6, commented on C VS Pharmacy going in on 116 th and Kent-
Kangley. He stated that no public notice board has been posted on the property which has
a wetland and creek on it. He questioned how the City of Kent did a wetland delineation.
The intersection is a high accident area and will create a problem for police. He asked that
the Council deny the zoning change on the CVS property.
Chair Boyce asked City Attorney David Galazin about the wetland comment on the property;
Galazin stated that changing the land use designation on the land use map and cha nging
the zoning would change what is allowable, but would not necessarily preempt anything.
Wetland delineation would have to be comp leted before any projec t would be done and
would have to con form to t he standards when a complet a application was submitted.
Traffic impact studies will be looked at typically for development.
Richard Leonard - DKT 2014-4, stated that he owns one of the properties adjacent to the
Star Lake Park-N-Ride. Leonard stated that he has submitted comments by email requesting
the zoning not be changed to commercial. He is concerned about people coming off t he
highway creating congestion when there are already ga s stations less than half a mi le on
the east side of the highway. With possible light rail coming to the Park-N-Ride he suggests
no changes be made till further information is known about the Park-N-Ride and the Light
Rail Station.
Phil Kitzes - Dkt 2014-4, PK Enterprises; spoke in support of the zoni ng change for the
property next to the Star Lake Park-N-Ride.
George Basmajian - Dkt 2014-6, stated that he represents Norma Yonce, that he sent an
exhibit to Charlene Anderson and would like the committee to take a look at the documents
provided by Barghausen Engineers showing the potential use of the property. The property
across the street is already zoned Commercial and they are in support of the zoning change.
Chair Boyce asked for further speakers. With no further speakers, the Public Meeting was
closed.
Berrios MOVED, to recommend to the Full City Council approval of the four
ordinances pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan Update to include amending
comprehensive plan text, goals and policies, amending Land Use Plan and Zoning
Districts Map Designations, and amending Kent City Code as recommended by
staff, and as amended below:
1. For Dkt-2014-4, parcel number 768280-0195, maintain the northern half of
the parcel as Low Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential
Townhouse (MRT-16) and change the southern half of the parcel from Low
Density Multifamily (LDMF)/Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to
Mixed Use (MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU);
2. For DKT-2014-6, change parcel number 7697900070 from Single Family
Residential/Single Family Residential (SF6/SR-6) to Mixed Use
(MU)/Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU);
3. For B1.b East Hill South, change parcel 292205-9094 from Office (0) to
Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU);
4. For B1.c East Hill Eat, parcel number 282205-9164, change the area north of
the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0) to Medium
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 4 of 5
5
Density Multifamily (MDMF)/High Density Multifamily (MR-H) and change
the area south of the southernmost stream from Commercial (C)/Office (0)
to Single Family Residential (SF6)/Single Family Residential (SR-6);
S. For 132.a Valley West, parcel number 112204-9065, change the parcel's split
designations of Mobile Home Park (MHP)/ Industrial Agricultural (MA) to
Industrial (I)/Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) in its entirety.
Higgins SECONDED the Motion
Chair Boyce opened for discussion; Anderson had a clarification for #4 to be south of the
southernmost stream.
Higgins added a proposed a friendly amendment that the motion be as written on the paper
it was read from and not as spoken. Berrios agreed.
Higgins, Berrios, and Boyce thanke d staff, the LUPB Me mbers, land owners and parties of
interest for all their work on this project. Boyce directed a thank you to Charlene Anderson
for a great job in being consiste nt and fair. He stated that th is is the Committee' s
recommendation to the Full City Council.
MOTION than Passed 3-0
6. Fire Impact Fees
Captain Larry Rabel presented an overview of the process that has already taken place. Fire
Impact fees are about level of service for the Fire Department into the future. He stated
that the service area of the RFA has experienced growth rate of 9.3% on average, and have
grown from 700 people per squar e mile to 3000 people per square mile. The impacts of
traffic and development have really spread the fire stations apart a nd increased traffic has
increased the response time by 5 9 seconds since 2001. The most notable change the Fire
Department has seen is in EMS calls. The RFA does not get to col lect revenue from Sales
Tax, Permit Fee, or Real Estate tax. Impact Fees are set annually by the RFA Governance
Board, and then presented to the Kent C ity Council for review, providing input to choose to
accept or reject the proposal.
Matt Gilbert continued with the review of the annual update of the Capi tal Facilities Plan,
which will be accompanied with an analysis as to where the fees should be and which is
largely contained within the document the Committee has in front of them. The analysis was
not attached in the information only packet committee received earlier. A formula has been
developed by the RFA to calculate the impact fees.
The ordinance is similar to the ordinance committee saw at the August loth meeting.
Changes consolidate and eliminate repeated language. No major content changes have been
done since presented on August loth. Similar changes have been made to the Interl ocal
Agreement. ECD is recommending that the Committee approve and pass on to Full Council.
Higgins MOVED to recommend to the City Council to authorize adoption of the
Ordinance, amending Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new Chapter
12.15, entitled "Fire Impact Fees",: and authorizing the Mayor to sign the
interlocal agreement between the City and Kent Fire Department Regional Fire
Authority for the purposes of setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the
parties with regard to the fire impact fee program, subject to final terms and
conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and Economic and Community
Development Director. Berrios SECONDED. Motion Passed 3-0
Adiournment
Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Julie Pulliam, Secretary,
Economic &Community Development Committee
jp�P:�Planning�ECDC�2015�Minutes�8-24-15_Min.doc
ECDC Minutes
August 24,2015
Page 5 of 5
6
7
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
00 twt:' Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
rw..�
„ Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
September 8, 2015
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development
Committee
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Planner and GIS Coordinator
RE: Countywide Planning Policies Amendments, School Siting Process
Meeting of September 14, 2015
MOTION: Recommend/not recommend to the full City Council ratification of
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to outline
a process for school districts and jurisdictions to work together to identify future
school sites within the Urban Growth Area.
SUMMARY:
Initially adopted in the early 1990's, the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning
under the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This framework
ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. While the CPPs
have been amended periodically to address specific issues or revisions required by
the GMA, the first thorough update of the CPPs was adopted and ratified by the
cities in 2013 to ensure that the CPPs are consistent with VISION 2040, the GMA
and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within King County.
For that update, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) also directed
that the revised policies include countywide direction on three new policy areas:
climate change, healthy communities and social equity.
The GMPC convened the School Siting Task Force in 2011 to address the issue of
whether public schools serving primarily urban populations should be sited in rural
areas. The Task Force created a set of recommendations to address the issue, and
the CPPs contain policies pertaining to school siting.
On April 22, 2015, the GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a
new CPP regarding planning for school facilities in King County. The CPPs would
be amended to state that public school facilities are essential in meeting the
needs of growing communities and that it is important to coordinate on land use
and facility planning. A new policy would also be added, PF-19A, which would
8
require collaborative planning between school districts and local jurisdictions
regarding school facility needs. This process would include consideration of
cooperative strategies to address any facility capacity and siting shortfalls. The
policy would also require periodic review of whether the goals of the policy are
being met, and calls for corrective actions should they be necessary.
PF-19A is intended to facilitate implementation of school siting CPPs that were
created as a result of recommendations from the GMPC's School Siting Task
Force. The coordination called for in PF-19A was also a recommendation from the
Task Force, and its proposed language was drafted in collaboration with
representatives from the school districts, cities and county.
On July 23, 2015, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 18084 which
ratified GMPC Motion 15-1. Now, the new policies are presented to jurisdictions in
King County for ratification. The Countywide Planning Policies become effective
when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and
county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County
according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to have
ratified the amendments to the CPPs unless the city takes legislative action to
disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County, which in
this case is October 31, 2015.
Staff will be available at the September 14th meeting to discuss the policy
amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
HB: S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2015\Countywide_Planning_Policies\CPP_PF-19A_School
Siting_ECDC_Memo.doc
Encl: Resolution, 8/2/15 King County transmittal letter, King County Ordinance No. 18084, GMPC Motion No. 15-
1, 6/3/15 King County Council transmittal letter, 7/7/15 King County Council Staff Report
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the amendment
of the King County Countywide Planning Policies
outlining a process for school districts and
jurisdictions to work together to identify future
school sites within the Urban Growth Area adopted
by the Metropolitan King County Council and
pursuant to the Growth Management Act.
RECITALS
A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under
the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210.
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and
other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of
GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans
are consistent.
B. On July 23, 2015, the Metropolitan King County Council
approved and ratified Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motion
No. 15-1, adopted by the GMPC on April 22, 2015, to add new text and a
new policy PF-19A to the existing CPPs, outlining a process for jurisdictions
working together to identify future school sites within the Urban Growth
Area.
1
Countywide Planning
Public Schools
Resolution
C. Now the amendment and new policy are presented to
jurisdictions in King County for ratification.
D. The King County Council approved and ratified the new policy
on behalf of unincorporated King County pursuant to King County
Ordinance No. 18084.
E. The Kent City Council's Economic and Community
Development Committee reviewed the text and policy amendments at its
meeting on September 14, 2015, and recommended approval to the full
City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1, — Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the
interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and
incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the proposed amendment to
the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King
County Council in King County Ordinance No. 18084, attached and
incorporated hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2, — Public Inspection. The amendment to the Countywide
Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed
in the planning services office so they are available for inspection by the
public.
2
Countywide Planning
Public Schools
Resolution
SECTION 3, — Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 4, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, this day of , 2015.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
2015.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
FpOvIIAPaso I uton\County-d,Flz nnln9 Pu y=18®4D..
3
Countywide Planning
Public Schools
Resolution
EXHIBIT A
9
King County RECEIVED
AUG 03 2015
(;!—(OF KENT
�ONOICCO?+I"�fuNITY DEV_E ND
OPh.-0ENT
August 2, 2015
The Honorable.Suzette Cooke
City.of Kent
220-4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Mayor Cooke:
We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed
amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP):
On July 20, 2015, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the
amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance will
become effective Sunday, August 2, 2015. Copies of the transmittal letter, King
County Council staff report, ordinance and Growth Management Planning
Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this amendment.
In accordance with the CPP, G-1, amendments become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according
to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and
amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes
'legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day
deadline for these amendments is Saturday, October 31, 2015.
If you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the
legislation by the close of business, Friday, October 30, 2015, to Anne Noris,
Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98104.
If you have any questions.about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst, King County
EXHIBIT A
Executive's Office, at 206 263-9649, or Christine Jensen, Metropolitan King
County Council Staff, at 206 477-5702.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Larry Phillips, Chair Dow Constantine
Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
Lob: King County City Planning Directors
Sound Cities Association
Lauren Smith, Director, Regional Planning
Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst
Christine Jensen, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy
Committee (TREE)
EXHIBIT A
KING COUNTY 1200 King County Courthouse
LQ
- -516 Third Avenue -
S
Signature Report eatOe,WA 98104
3CmgCounRy
July 21, 2015 ,
Ordinance 18084 .
Proposed No.2015-0231.1 Sponsors Dembowski
1 AN ORDINANCE adopting and ratifying Growth
2 Management Planning Council Motion 15-1.
3 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
4 SECTION-1. Findings:
5 A. Growth Management Planning Council Motion 15-1 recommends that a new
6 policy be added to the 20.12 King,County.Countywide Planning Policies to outline a
7 process for school,districts and jurisdictions.to work together to identify future school
8 ; sites with the Urban Growth Area,
9 B. On April 22, 2015,the Growth Management Planning Council
10 overwhelmingly adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends the 2012 King County
11 Countywide Planning Policies be amended to add new text and a new policy, Policy. i 9A:.
12 SECTION 2: The amendment to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning
1
EXHIBIT A
Ordinance 18084
13 Policies;,as shown in Attachment A to this ordinance, is hereby adopted by King County
14 and ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King-County.
15
Ordinance 18084 was introduced on'6/22/2015 and passed by the Metropolitan King.
County Council on 7/20/2015, by the following vote:
Yes: 5 -Mr. Phillips, Mr. Gossett,Mr: McDermott, Mr. Dembowski
and Mr. TJpthegrove
No: 4 Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Hague,Ms. Lambert and Mr.Dunn
Excused: 0 .
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KIN CO WAS TO
Phillips, it-ATTEST-
Anne Noris,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this day of�L—� 2015:
Dow Constantine,County Executive
Attachments: A.GMPC Motion No. 15-1
2
EXHIBIT A 18084
12/17/14 ATTACHMENT A "
Sponsored By; Executive Committee
2
3 GMPC MOTION NO. 15-1
4
5 A MOTION amending the 2012 King.County Countywide
6 Planning Policies; outlining"xprocessifor jurisdictions working
7 together to identify future school sites'within the UGA.
8
9 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council(GMPC) convened the
10 School-Siting`Task Force.in2011toaddress:the.issue of whether public school serving
11 primarily urban populations should be sited in rural areas and whether such facilities "
12 should be served by sewers;and
13
14 WHEREAS,the Task Force completed.their.work-on March 31,2012,issuing a
15 f report and final recommendations wthe King County--Executive;and
17 WHEREAS, as a result of the work of the Task Force,two new policies were added
18 to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies::(CPPs)-PF-18 and PF-19; and
19
20 WHEREAS,the 2013 GMPC work program included an item to implement the
21 remainder of the Task Force recommendations;including: "The Growth Management
22 Planning Council(GMPC}should identify policies and adopt a workprogram that
23 . commits jurisdictions to working together to.identfy future school sites within the UGA.
24 These policies shall direct jurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tool's to ensure a
25 suffic ent"supply of landfor siting schools'; and
26
27 WHEREAS,at the May 21,2014 GMPC meeting, staff proposed a policy to
28 directly respond to the Task Force's direction:' GMPC members reviewed the draft policy
29 and identified the need to inofe fully address the issues of breadth, coordination between
30 jurisdictions and public school districts, and the workload impacts to the respective
.31 jurisdictions and school districts. GMP.0 members also wanted to ensure that the proposed
32 policy,fully addressed the.planning needs of the jurisdictions/school districts while being
33 serisitive to the impact of siting parameters and land use regulations on curriculum needs;
34 and
35
36 WHEREAS, to implement Task Force recommendation and address issues raised at
37 the May 21, 2014 GMPC meeting, a new policy,PF-19A is being proposed.
38
EXHIBIT A 18084
39 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning
40 Council of King County hereby recommends that the 2012 King County Countywide
41 Planning Policies be,amended to add new policy PF-19A with preceding text, as follows: .
42
43 Public school facilities to meet the needs of growing communities are an essential wart
44 of the public infrastructure Coordination between each jurisdiction's land use plan and
45 regulations and their respective school districts] facility needs are essential for public
46. school capacity needs to be met. The following policy applies countywide and requires
47 engagement between each school district and each city that is served by the school
48 district the policy also applies to King County as a jurisdiction for areas of
.49 unincorporated King County that are within school:district's service boundary. The
50 policy initiates a periodic procedure to identify if there are individual school district
51 siting-issues=and if so a process-for the school district and jurisdiction to cooperatidely
52 prepare strategies for resolving the issue.
53
54 PF719A Plan through a cooperative process between iurisdictions and school
55 districts-that public school facilities are available,to meet the needs of existing and
56 projected residential development consistent with adopted comprehensive plan
57 policies and growth forecasts. .
58 C ogperatively work with each school district located within the jurisdiction's
59 boundaries to evaluate the school:district's abiljty to,site school facilities
60 necessary to meet the school district's identified student capacity needs. Use
61 school district capacity and enrollment data.and the growth forecasts and
62 development:data of each.jurisdiction:located within the school district's.
63 service boundaries.By January 2016 and every two years thereafter, determine
64 if,there is development and the supporting infrastructure to site the
-65 needed school facilities.If not. operatively prepare a strategy to address the
66 capacity shortfall.Potential strate`ieg s_may include:
67 • ' Shared public facilities such as play fields,parking areas and access
68 drives
69 • School acquisition or lease of appropriate public lands
70 • Regulatory changes such as allowing schools to locate in additional
71 zones or revised development standards
72 • :School design.standards that reduce land requirements (such as multi-
story structures or reduced footprint)while still meeting programmatic
74 needs "
75 In 2017 and every two years thereafter, King County shall report to the GMPC
76 on whether the goals of this.policy are being met. The GMPC shall identify,
77 corrective actions as necessary to implement this policy
78
79
80
81
82
83 Dow Constantine, Chair, Growth Management Planning Council
EXHIBIT A
a
King County R E C E I V E D
Dow Constantine 7.�15 JUN 10 PM 3��th.
49 8 � �.
King County Executive
401 Fifth Avenue;suite Boo St -i^
Seattle,WA98104-1818, IJ!il�Y coociI.
206-263-9600 Fax 206-296-0194
www.kingcounty,gov
June 3, 2015
The Honorable Larry Phillips
Chair;King County Council
Room 1200 .
COURTHOUSE
Dear Councilniember Phillips:
This letter transmits an ordinance that will enable King County to amend the King County
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)to establish a plan for coordination between school
districts and the jurisdictions within their boundaries, as recommended by the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC).
This ordinance transmits GMPC Motion 154that was overwhelmingly approved by the
GMPC on April 22, 2015. The ordinance adopts and ratifies the GMPC motion on behalf of
unincorporated King County.
Motion 15-1 adds a new policy to the CPPs that is a direct response to a recommendation of the
School Siting Task Force Report, which is included as an appendix to the CPPs. The new
policy states that public schools are an essential and integral part of public infrastructure that is
needed to achieve successful growth management plans by jurisdictions in King County.
Further, this new policy sets up a plan to facilitate collaboration between the jurisdictions and
the school districts, establishes guidelines for assessing school district capacityneeds, and
identifies strategies for resolving capacity issues should they be identified.
This ordinance integrates the goals of the King County Strategic.Plan by recognizing the role
of land use planning in shaping environmentally sustainable and economically viable future for
all people in King County, The County's role in the GMPC fosters the ethic of working
together for"One King County"by actively participating in regional organizations and
defining King County's role in regional issues. .
There are no fiscal impacts to King County government as a result of adoption of this
ordinance.
King County is an Equal Opportunity/Affrtnative Action Employer
�'®"®' and complies with the Americans with Disabilitites Act
EXHIBIT A
The Honorable Larry Phillips
June 3,2015
Page 2
If you have any questions,please contact Lauren Smith, Deputy Director for Regional
Planning, Office-of Perfonnanee, Strategy and Budget,at 206-263-9606.
Sincerely,..
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Enclosures
cc: - King County.Councilmembers
ATTN: Carolyn Busch,Chief of Staff
Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council
Carrie S. Cihak, Chief of Policy Development, King County Executive Office
Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget,(PSB)
- Lauren Smith, Deputy Director, Regional Planning,PSB
_ EXtg A
King.County
Metropolitan :King 'County Council
Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 10 Name: Christine Jensen
Proposed No.: 2015-0231 Date: July 7, 2015
SUBJECT
A proposed ordinance adopting and ratifying Growth Management Planning Council
Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a new Countywide Planning .Policy regarding
planning for school facilities,in King County.
SUMMARY
Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 would amend the King County Countywide Planning
Policies,(CPPs) to state that,public.school facilities are essential in meeting the needs of
growing communities and that it• s�-Jmportant to coordinate on land use and facility
planning. A new CPP wouldr also be:added, PF-19A, which would require collaborative
planning between:school districts and local jurisdictions regarding school facility needs..
This process would include consideration of cooperative strategies to address any
facility capacity.and-siting:-shortfalls. The. policy would also: require ..periodic ;review of
whether the goals of the policy are being met, and calls for corrective actions.should
they be necessary.
If adopted, all local jurisdictions, including King County, would be required to collaborate
on land use and facility planning with the school district(s) within its boundaries. The
County would also be. required,to report back to the Growth Management.Planning
Council (GMPC) on behalf of the school districts and local jurisdictions, on the
effectiveness of the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals. According. to
Executive staff, this coordinated planning and reporting would be achieved within
existing County resources.
BACKGROUND
The GMPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County,'Seattle,
Bellevue, other cities and towns in King County, and special purpose districts. The
GMPC was created in 1992 by interlocal agreement' in response to a provision in the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work
together to adopt CPPs.Z Under the GMA, the CPPs serve as the framework for each
Motion 8733
2 RCW 36.7oA.210 :.
EXHIBIT A
local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, which ensures countywide consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts.
As provided for in the interlocal,agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended ,
the original CPPs, which were adopted by the King County CounCi13 and ratified by the
cities in '1992. Subsequent amendments-..to the CPPs follow the same adoption
process, which is now outlined in CPP G-14 and includes: recommendation by the
GMPC, adoption by the King County-'Co,uncil, and ratification by the cities.
Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by
at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing at Ieast.70,percent
of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment
to the CPPs unless the city'disapproves 'it by legislative 'action within 90 days of
adoption by King County.
ANALYSIS
GMPC Motion 15-1
Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 would adopt and ratify GMPC. Motion 15-1, which
recommends adding a new CRP regarding planning for school facilities in King County.
If adopted, the CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities are
essential in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it is important to
coordinate on land use and facility planning: . A new policy would also be added, PF-
19A; which would require collaborative "planning between "school districts and local
jurisdictions regarding school`facility need's. This process would include consideration`of
cooperative`strategies to address any facility capacity and siting shortfalls: The policy
would also require periodic review of whether the goals`of the policy are being met, and
calls for corrective actions should theybe necessary.
PF-19A is intended to facilitate implementation'of school siting•CPPs that Were adopted
in 2012,6 which were created as a result of recommendations from the'GMPC's`School
Siting Task Force.7 These 2012 policies, PF-18 and PF-19, prohibit schools serving
primarily urban populations from being located in the rural area and generally require
schools serving rural populations to be located in neighboring`cities and rural towns8
The coordination called for in`PF-19A was also recommendation from theTask'Force,
and its proposed language was drafted in-collaboration'.with `representatives'from the
school districts, cities, and county.
3 Ordinance 10450
42012 King County Countywide Planning Policies, as amended: .
http://www.kinacounty.gov/property/permits/codes/growth/GMPC/CPPs.asox
s Including: shared public facilities, school acquisition/lease of public lands, regulatory or development
standard changes, design changes:
6 Ordinance 17486
7 Created bythe GMPC in 2011 to address the issue of whether public-schools serving primarily urban
populations should be sited in rural areas and whether such facilities should be served by sewers.
Except for: community facilities and services dependent upon rural location and if their size and scale
support rural character; and sites listed in 2012 School Siting Task Force Report:
http://www.kingcounty gov/—/medialexec/constantine/documents/2012/Schoo]SitingTaskForce/FinaiDocu
ments/FinalReportAnd Recommendations
EXHIBIT A
If adopted, PF-19A would apply to the cities and school districts in King County, as well
as the County itself as a local jurisdiction. As a result, the County would be required to
coordinate land use and facility planning with the school districts that have populations
within unincorporated areas of King County. Additionally, starting in 2017 and every two .
years thereafter, the County would be required to report back to the GMPC on behalf of
the school districts and local jurisdictions on the effectiveness of the cooperative
process in meeting the policy goals. Executive staff have noted that this increased
workload for County staff would be able to be achieved within existing resources, which
is reflected in the fiscal note attached to the legislation.
GMPC action
On April 22, 2015, the GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which is a non-binding
recommendation to the County Council to adopt PF-19A.. Consistent with CPP adoption
requirements, Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 forwards this GMPC ,recommendation to
the County Council for consideration and possible approval. If adopted by the Council,
the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County, and would begin the ratification process by the cities.
There is no deadline for Council action on the proposed CPP amendment; however,
both the school districts and the local jurisdictions are eager to begin implementation of
the proposed policy given the time that has passed since adoption of the school siting
policies in 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance 201.5-0231
2. Transmittal Letter
3. Fiscal Note
4. GMPC Staff Report dated.April 22, 2015
INVITED
1. Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget
i
13
EXHIBIT A
King County.
CENED
AUG 03 2090
ECOIvOMIC AND
COMIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 2, 2015
The Honorable,Suzette.Cooke
City.of Kent
220-4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Mayor Cooke:
We are pleased,to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed
amendment to the King County Countywide Planning-Policies (CPP):
On July 20,.2015, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the
amendment on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance will
become effective Surnday, 'August 2, 2015. Copies of the transmittal letter, King
County.Council staff report; ordinance and Growth Management Planning
Council motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of this amendment.
In accordance with the CPP, G-1, amendments become effective when ratified
by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according
to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and
amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes
'legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day
deadline for these amendments is Saturday, October 31, 2015.
if you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the
legislation by the close of business, Friday, October 30, 2015, to Anne Noris,
Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue,
St,:uie, WA 98104.
If you have any questions.about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst, King County
14
EXHIBIT A
i
Executive's Office, at 206 263-9649, or Christine Jensen, Metropolitan King
County Council Staff, at 206 477-5702.
' Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Larry Phillips, Chair Dow Constantine
Metropolitan King County Council King County Executive
Enclosures
-X'c': King County City Planning Directors
Sound Cities Association
Lauren Smith, Director, Regional Planning
Karen Wolf, Senior Strategy and Performance Analyst
Christine Jensen, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy
Committee (TREE)
15
EXHIBIT A
- - KING COUNTY 1 _ h1200 King County Courthouse -
La
_.. 516 Third Avenue,
` Seattle,WA 98104
Signature.Report
Wittig�o4lnty ;
July 21, 2015
Ordinance18084
Proposed No.2015-0231.1 Sponsors Dethbowski
1. AN ORDINANCE adop,tmg and ranfymg,Growth
2 Management Planning Connc1l Motion 15=1.
3 " BB IT ORDATNEI)BY TT 'COUNCIL OF KIND COUNTY:
4 "SECTION E Findings:
5 A, Growth Management Planning Council Motion 15-1 recommends that a new
61 policy be added.to the 2012 Kg.-County-Countywide Planning Policies to outline a
7 process for school:districts andlunsdictions.to-work together to identify fature school
W .
8 sltes with the Urban Groyzth Area.� '_ '
9 B. On April 22,10t5,the Orowth Management Planning Council
10 `overwhelmingly adopted Motion 15-1, which recommends the 2012 King County
11. Countywide Pl*ning Policies be amended to add-new text and anew policy;Policy 19A .
12 SECTION 2i The amendment to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning 1: -
1
EXHIBIT A
Ordinance 18084
13 Policies;,as shown in Attachment A to this ordinance,is hereby adopted by King Co my. .
14 .and ratified on behalf of the population of unincorporated King County:
Ordinance 18�84 Was ffi6*c'a 0n'6/2?;/2015 and passe by the Metropolitan King
County Council on 7/20/2015,by the followrug vote
Yes 5 Iu1r Phillips,Mr Gossett,Mr McDermottMr Dernbowski
and Mr Upthegrove
No. 4'-Mr.don.Reichbauer,Ms.Hague,_Ivls, Lambert and Mr.Dunn
Excused-,0'
KING COUNTY CIL
KIN, CO V✓A$ TO
r 1
PhilLP's u
ATTEST:
Ariue Noris,Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this .C 1 day 2015.
Dow Constantine,County Executive
Attachments:A GMFC Motion No. 154
17 .
EXHIBIT A 18084
12/17/14 ATTACIIMENT A
Sponsored By; Executive Committee .
2 . .
3 ' -i, GMPC,MOTION NO.,154
4 .
5 - , =A MOTION arnending-the 2012 Knig County Countywide_
6 ' planning Policies;outlining a proeess:foraunsdiefions working
7 "`> together to identify future school sites within the UGA
8 .
9 WHEREAS the Growth Management Planning Council(GW Q convened the
10 Schoo2 Siting Task Force in 2011 to:addressahe.isso ofwllether public school serving
primarily urban p6j ulations`should bvsited in rural areas and"whether such facilities
12 ' ' `. should be served bysewers;;and,
13
14 VJEIEREAS,the Task Force completed.therrwork on March 31,2012,issuing a
15 report and final'recommendations tothe King Courriy Executive; and
T7 WHEREAS, as a result ofthe work of the T- ask Force,two new policies'.were added
#oth'e2012 King County Countywide`Plannifig Policies(Q.pPs)-PF-18 and PE-19; and
19
20 " VJIIEREAS,the"2013 GMPC workprogram mclud'ed an item to implement the
21 areniainder'of the;Task Force recommendations,_including "The Growth Management
22 Planning Council.(GMP0;should rdetzttfy policies and adopt a work'program that
23 cominitsjurisdict ons to working together to identify future school*sites within the UGA.
24' These policies shall direct jurisdictions to use zoning and other land use tool's to ensure a
25 suffrcientsupply,of landfor siting schools , and
26 _
27 WHEREAS,at the May 21,2014 GMPC`meeting,staff proposed a policy to
28 directly respond to the TaskForce's direction. GMPC,members reviewed the draft policy
29 and identified the;need to'more W.address the issues of breadth,coordination between
30' .jurisdictions andpublic school districts, and tha,workload impacts to the respective.
.31 - jurisdictions and'school districts. GMP.0 members also wanted to ensure that the proposed
olicy fully addressed tfie planning needs of the junsdictions/school districts while being
32 p
33 sedsitive to the impact of sit ng pazameters and land use regulations on curriculum needs;
34 " and 6
35
36 WHEREAS,to implement Task Force recommendation and address issues raised at
37 . the May 2T,2014 GMPC meeting, a new policy,PF-T9A is being proposed.
38
18
EXHIBIT A lsosa
39 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning
40 Council of King County hereby recommends that the 2012 King County Countywide'
41 Planning Policies be amended to add new policy PF-19A with preceding text, as follows
43 Public school facilities to meet the needs of growing communities are an essential part
44 of the public infrastructure. Coordination between each Jurisdiction's land use plan and
45 rega"ns and their respective school distdctjsl facility needs are essential'for public '
46 school capacity needs to be met The following policy ayplies countywide and requires
47 en aeement between each school-district and each city that is served by the school
48 district Ae policy also applies to King County as a jurisdiction for areas of
.49 unincorporated:Kies County that are within a schoolidistriet's service boundary: The
50 policy initiatesa pariodie procedureao.identify if-there are:individual school district
51 siting issues.and=if so a process forthe school district and iurisdiction to cooygoa ely
52 mare strategies for resolving the issue.
53
54 PF-19A ^Plan through a cooperative process between-i�urisdictions and school
55 districts;,that public:school:facilities are available;"to meet thomeeds of.exis ing and_
56. projected residential development consistent with adopted comprehensive plan
57 policies and zr•owth forecasts. .
Cooperatively-work with each school district located within the jurisdiction's
59 , boundaries#o evaluate the school:district's:abrlity to site school facilities
60 necessary to meet the school district's identified student capacity needs. Use
61 school district cgki and enrollment data and-tlie-gxowth forecasts and
ty.' '
62 development data of each-j6didretiomlocated witliin the'schooI district's.
63 service boundaries Sy January 2016 and every two years thereafter:determine
64 it there is development capabity and'the sup-portine infrastructure to site ttie
65 needed school facilities If not cooperafiYely nrenare.a strategy to address the .:
66, ca &city shortfall Potential-sirate'ieg S mamclude:
67 Shared public facilities such as play fields�parktnP areas and access
68drives
69 o Scho81ac6isrtton or lease of appiopriatep ic,lands
70 a . Regulatory changes such as allowing schools to locate in additional
zones or revised development standards
72' School desi¢n standards that reduce land sre nirements (such as multi-,
i 73 story'sttuctures or reduced footprint)-whileatill:meeflng prosrarnmatic
74 needs
75 In 2017 and every two years thereafter tKms Coumy shall report to the GMPC
76 `on wlietlzer the`goals of th s policy are beurg met The'Q&TC shall identify
77 coriective,actions as necessary to implement this policy.,
7$
79
80
81 f
82
83 Dow Constantine, Chair,Growth Management Planning Council
EXHIBIT 4
LIM
-
King County. RECEIVED
Dow Constantine 7. 3 G
King County Executive 015 JUN 10 PM 9
401 Fifth gvmde,Suite a0p
Seattle, WA98104-1e1a. - - is.. �QITST_y COUNCIL -
206-263-9600 Fax 206-296-0194 '..
7TY'Relay: 711 -
. www.kingcourtty,gov oun # t
June 3,2015
The Honorable Larry Phillips
Chair,King County Council' '
Room 1200
COURTHOUSE .
71
Dear Councilmember Phillips'
This letter"transmits an ordinance that-will enable King County to amend the King County
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)to establish a plan for coordination between school
districts and.the jurisdictions within their boundaries,.as recomrttendedby the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC),
This ordinance transmits GMPC Motion 15-1 that was overwhelmingly approved by the
GMPC'on April 22,2015. The ordinance adopts and ratifies the GMPC motion on behalf of .
unincorporated King County.
Motion 15-1 adds a new policy to the CPPs that is a direct response to a recommendation of the
School Siting Task Force Report,which is included•as an appendix to. CPPs. The new
Policy states that public schools are an essential and integral part of public infiastructure that is
needed to achieve successful-growth inanagement plans by:all jurisdictions in King County.
Further,this new policy sets up a plan to facilitate collaboration between the jurisdictions and
the school districts, establishes guidelines for assessing school district capacity needs, and
identifies strategies for resolving capacity issues should they be identified.
This ordinance integrates the goals of the King County Strategic Plan by recognizing the role
of land use planning in shaping environmentally sustaihablg and economically viable future for.
all people in King County. The County's role in the GMPC fosters the ethic of working
together.for"One King County':.y actively participating in regional organizations and
-defining King County's role in regional issues. .
There are no fiscal impacts to King Comity government as a result of adoption of this
ordinance.
'King County is an Equal Opportuaity/Affirmative Action Employer
"®"m' and complies with the Americans with Disabilitites Act
20
EXHIBIT A
The Honorable Larry Phillips
June 3,2015
Page 2
If you have any questions,please contae' Lauren Smith,Deputy Director for Regional
PIammng; b&cc of Performari6c;,Strategy and Budget, at 206463-9606
Sincerely,.- i.
j
Dow Constantine
King County Executive
Enclosures '
cc: . King County Councilmembers,
AT TN Carolyn Busch;Chief of Staff
AnneNoris, Clerk of the Council
Caine S. Cihak Chief of Policy Development;King County Executive Office
Dwight Dively, Director, Office of Performance,Strategy, and,Budget(PSB)
Lauren Smith,Deputy DirectorRegional Planning,PSB
r
III
21
EXkM A `
King.County
Met ropolitan;.King"CountyCouncil
Transportation, Economy and,.Envirornment Committee
STAFF REPORT
Agenda`Itein: 10 . Name: -. Christine Jensen ..
Proposed No.: 2015-0231 bate: July 7, 2015
SUBJECT
A proposed ordinance adopting and ratifying Growth Management Planning: Council
Motion 15-1, which recommends adding a, new Countywide Planning Policy regarding
planning for school facilities in King County.
SUMMARY
Proposed Ordinance 2015.0231 would amend_ the King County Countywide Planning
Policies (.CPPs)tostate that,p:ublic school,facilities are essential.in meeting the needs of
growing communities and that it is_ m,portant;to coordinate on. land use `and,facility
planning.,A new CPP would also.be added„PF719A, which would require_cofiaborative
planning.between.school districts and,,aocal jurisdictions,regarding school facility needs.:
This process would include consideration `of'cooperative strategies to "address any
facility. capacity;and=siting:;shortfalls.,, The,policy would also. require,beri9di .review of
whether the 'goals'of,the policy are being met; and calls for corrective actions .should
they be necessary.
If adopted, all localjunsdictio,ns, including King'County, would be_ egwred;to collaborate
on land use and facility planning with the school districts) within,its boundaries. The
County would also requked_to report back to.the Growth: Management.Planning
Council (GMPC) on behalf of the school districts and local Jurisdictions on the
effectiveness of the cooperative process in meeting the policy goals.` According to
Executive staff, this coordinated planning and reporting would be achieved within
existing County resources.
BACKGROUND
The GMPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle
Bellevue, other cities 'and"towns in King County, and"special purpose`districts:' The
GMPC was created ;n' 1992 by int--rlocal agreement' in response to a provision.in the
Washington State GrowthManagement Act (GMA) requiring cities and counties to work
together to adopt CPPs.z Under-the GMA, the CPPs serve as the framework for each
Motion 8733
z RCW 36.70A.210 '
EXHIBIT A 22
local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan which ensures countywide consistency with
respect to land use planning efforts
As provided for in .the interlocal agreement, the GMPE•developed: and recommended ,
the original CPPs, which were adopted by the King County Council3 and ratified by the
cities in'1992. ''Subsequent`amendmenfs to:`the°CPP8 follow`thb`tame adoption
process, which is now outlined in CPP ,G-14 and includes: recommendation by the.
GMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities.
Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by
at least 30 percent:of the city-and county governments representing at least:70 percent
of the population of King County..A city shall be 11 deemed to have ratified an amendment
to the CPPs unless the city disapproves it by legislative aetion within' 90 days'of
adoption by King County.
ANALYSIS
-GMPC Mofion 15-9-:`
Proposed `Ordtna fde 2015=0231' would adopt and ratify GMPC-:Motion 15-11 which
recommends adding a new CPP regarding planning fdr,scho01' a ilitles in'KingCounty.
If adopted, the CPPs would be amended to state that public school facilities_ are
essential. in meeting the needs of growing communities and that it is important to
coordinate on land use and facility planning . A new policy would also be .added, PF-
19A, which'would 'require collaborative planning between school districts and local .
jurisdicfions regarding school facility needs This process would include cori iMeration'of
cooperative-strategies5 to addYess any'facility capacity acid siting shortfalls r The policy
would also require periotlic review ofiwiiether aMe goats'of the policy are being met,-and
calls forcorrective actions should they'!f?'e necessary
PF'19A is intentled to facilitate implemerrfation of school'siting GPPs thaf+nere adopted
in 201`2,6'which wefe`creafed'as'a result of recorr mendafions from'the GMPC's School
Siting Task. Force.7 These 2012 policies, PFA8.and PF-19, prohibit schools serving
primarily urban populations from being located in the rural area and generally require
sehools serving rural populations to be located`in neighboring cities and aural towns s
The coordination called for in:PF 19A was also a recomrfiendatiomm'fro th-e Task Force,
and its proposed language was drafted imcollaborafion`wit h 'representatives'from the
school districts, cities, and county
3 Ordinance 10450
2012 King County.Countywide Planning Policies, as amended: .
http:l/www.kinocounty gov/property/permits/codes/growtlUGMPC/CPPs aspx .
'Including: shared public facilities;achool acod sition/lease`of public lands, regulatory or development
standard chars`, ; dasigri;changes.
Ordin2nce-17.186
?Created by;the GMPC-in 2011 to address theJssue ofwhether public-schoolsserving primarily urbane ;
populations should be:sited hrural,areas and whether;such facilities should be served by sewers.
Except for: community facilities and services dependent upon rural location and if their size and scale
support rural character; and sites listed in 2012 School Siting Task Force Report:
http://www.kingcou ntv.gov/-/med ia/exec/constantine/documents12012/School SitingTaskForce/FinaIDoeu
ments/Fina lReportAndRecommendatlons
23
EXHIBIT A
If adopted, PF-1.9A would apply to the cities and school districts in King_County, as well
as the County itself as a local jurisdiction. As a result, the County would be required to
coordinate land use and facility planning with the school districts that have populations
within unincorporated areas of King County. Additionally, starting in 2017 and every two.
years thereafter, the County would be required to report back to the GMPC on behalf of
the school districts and local jurisdictions on the effectiveness of -the cooperative
process in meeting the policy goals. Executive staff have noted that this increased
workload for County staff would be able to be achieved within existing resources, which
is reflected in the fiscal note attached to the legislation.
GMPC action
On April 22, 2015, the .GMPC adopted Motion 15-1, which is a non-binding
recommendation to the County Council to-adopt PF-19A.. Consistent with CPP adoption
requirements, Proposed Ordinance 2015-0231 forwards this GMPC recommendation to
the County.Council for consideration and possible approval. If adopted by the Council,
the ordinance would ratify the change on behalf of the population of unincorporated King
County, and would begin the ratification process by the cities.
There is no deadline for Council action 'ori the proposed CPP amendment; however,
both the school districts and the local jurisdictions are eager to begin implementation of
the proposed policy given the time that has passed since adoption of the school siting .
policies in 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance 201.5-0231
2. Transmittal Letter
3. Fiscal Note
4. GMPC Staff Report dated_April22, 2015
INVITED
1. Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget
24
25
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
KE
T � Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
.5 . ,.R.. > Ea�. Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
September 9, 2015
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager
RE: International Property Maintenance Code
Meeting of September 14, 2015
MOTION: Recommend adoption of the ordinance amending title 14 of the Kent City
Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code
together with the City's local amendments depicted in this ordinance.
SUMMARY: In July of 2015, members of the Law and ECD offices presented
information on the City's Code Enforcement program at a council workshop. Part of
this presentation covered tools that would help make code enforcement in Kent
more efficient and more effective. One of these tools is the International Property
Maintenance Code (IPMC). Staff now presents this code for the committee's
consideration.
BACKGROUND: When buildings are constructed or altered, ECD staff reviews plans
and inspects the work to ensure the buildings are safe, sanitary and meet
applicable codes. However, when an owner or occupant fails to maintain a building,
problems that impact public health, safety and welfare can arise, and code
enforcement is required. The IPMC is useful in resolving these problems.
The IPMC is unique from other building codes in its use of very clear and direct
language to address common maintenance problems. The code does not impose
significant new responsibilities on building owners, as most of the maintenance
requirements can be inferred from other adopted codes. The clarity provided in the
IPMC is valuable however because when code requirements must be inferred,
enforcement efforts are hampered. With the IPMC, maintenance violations are easy
to cite and communicate to responsible parties.
Examples of requirements in the IPMC include: protecting the exterior of a building
from the elements with paint or other covering; keeping structural members of a
building free from deterioration, replacing broken windows, and fixing cracks in a
building's foundation. In addition to buildings, the IPMC addresses the exterior
property around a building.
The IPMC is developed and updated every three years by the International Code
Council (ICC), the same group who develops other building-related codes that the
City has adopted by reference (i.e. International codes for building, plumbing,
mechanical systems, etc.). The codes are designed to work together to address
26
public health safety and welfare while not unnecessarily increasing construction
costs or limiting innovation in construction methods and materials. Like these other
codes, the IPMC is written so as to be adopted by reference by local jurisdictions.
Local amendments are included in the attached ordinance that clarify administrative
roles, eliminate conflicts with the City's enforcement process and eliminate
references to rubbish and garbage, which are addressed elsewhere in City code.
Staff recommends adoption of this useful code and will be available at the
September 14th meeting to answer questions.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
27
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 14 of the
Kent City Code to adopt the 2012 edition of the
International Property Maintenance Code to
regulate and govern the conditions and
maintenance of all property, buildings, and
structures and to provide standards for utilities,
facilities, and other physical things and conditions
essential to ensure that structures are safe,
sanitary, and fit for occupation and use.
RECITALS
A. As set forth in Title 14 of the Kent City Code, the City Council
enacted Ordinance No. 4081 on May 21, 2013, which adopted the 2012
edition of the International Building Code.
B. Section 101.4.4 of the International Building Code adopts the
International Property Maintenance Code in a limited capacity, only to the
extent the International Property Maintenance Code is referenced within
the International Building Code.
C. It is necessary to adopt the International Property
Maintenance Code in its entirety, with local amendments, to ensure that all
1 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
28
property, buildings and structures within the City of Kent are safe, sanitary
and fit for occupation and use.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. — Amendment. Section 14.01.010 of the Kent City
Code, entitled "Building Codes — Adopted," is amended as follows:
Sec. 14.01.010. Building Codes — Adopted. In accordance with
Chapter 19.27 RCW, the following codes (collective, the "building codes")
together with any additions, deletions, and exceptions currently enacted or
as may be amended from time to time by the state of Washington through
its Building Code Council pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code
("WAC), and as further amended in this chapter, are adopted by
reference:
A. The International Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-50
WAC.
B. The International Existing Building Code, 2012 Edition, published by
the International Code Council, Inc., but its application is limited as
provided for in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code, and as
amended pursuant to WAC 51-50-480000 through 51-50-481500.
C. The International Residential Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-51
WAC.
2 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
29
D. The International Mechanical Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-52
WAC.
E. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, including
the Uniform Plumbing Code Standards (Appendices A, B, and I to the
Uniform Plumbing Code) as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-56 WAC.
F. The Uniform Housing Code, 197 Edition, published by the
International Conference of Building Officials.
G. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997
Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials.
H. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2012 Edition,
published by the International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to
Chapters 51-11C and 51-11R WAC.
I. The International Property Maintenance Code, 2012 Edition,
published by the International Code Council, Inc., including the Boarding
Standard (Appendix A to the International Property Maintenance Code).
One (1) copy of each of these codes is on file with the city's building
official.
SECTION 2. — New Section. Chapter 14.01 of the Kent City Code is
amended to add a new section 14.01.087, entitled "Amendments to the
International Property Maintenance Code," as follows:
Sec. 14.01.087. Amendments to the International Property
Maintenance Code. The following local amendments to the International
3 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
30
Property Maintenance Code are adopted and incorporated into the
International Property Maintenance Code:
A. All references to the "code official" in the International Property
Maintenance Code shall be substituted with the words "building official."
B. Fees. Section 103.5 of the International Property Maintenance
Code, entitled "Fees," is amended by substituting Section 103.5 with
the following:
Sec. 103.5. Fees shall be assessed as set forth in Section
14.01.090 of the Kent City Code.
C. Violations. Section 106 of the International Property Maintenance
Code, entitled "Violations," is amended by substituting Section 106 with
the following:
Sec. 106. Violations.
106.1. Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any
person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish,
equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure
or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of
this code.
106.2. Violation penalties. Any person who violates a
provision of this code or fails to comply with any of its
requirements, or who erects, constructs, alters or
repairs a building or structure in violation of: (a) the
approved construction documents, (b) a directive of the
building official, or (c) a permit or certificate issued
under the provisions of this code, shall be subject to
penalties as set forth in Chs. 14.08 and 1.04 KCC or as
otherwise provided by law.
4 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
31
D. Notices and Orders. Section 107 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Notices and Orders," is amended by
substituting Section 107 with the following:
Sec. 107. Notices of Violation. Whenever the building official or his
designee determines that there has been a violation of this code or
has grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, the code
enforcement officer may issue a notice to any person responsible for
the violation, pursuant to Chapter 1.04 of the Kent City Code.
E. Board of appeals. Section 111 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Means of Appeal," is amended by substituting
Section 111 with the following:
Sec. 111. Board of appeals. The City of Kent hearings
examiner is designated as the board of appeals in order to hear
and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations
made by the building official relative to the suitability of
alternate materials, design, and methods of construction and
appeals of the reasonable application and interpretation of the
building codes. Appeals shall be made as set forth in section
14.01.100 of the Kent City Code.
F. Failure to comply. Section 112.4 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Failure to Comply," is amended by
substituting Section 112.4 with the following:
Sec. 112.4. Failure to Comply. Any failure to comply with a
stop work or stop use order shall constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in jail for a maximum term fixed
5 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
32
by the court of not more than ninety (90) days, or by a fine in
an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine,
pursuant to KCC 1.04.090, 1.04.100, and 1.04.110.
G. Rubbish and Garbage. Section 308 of the International
Property Maintenance Code, entitled, "Rubbish and Garbage," is
deleted in its entirety.
H. Electrical Facilities. Section 604 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Facilities," is deleted in its
entirety.
I. Electrical Equipment. Section 605 of the International Property
Maintenance Code, entitled "Electrical Equipment," is deleted in its
entirety.
3. Elevators, Escalators and Dumbwaiters. Section 606 of the
International Property Maintenance Code, entitled "Elevators,
Escalators and Dumbwaiters," is deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 3, — Severabilitv. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall maintain its full force and effect.
SECTION 4, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section or subsection numbering;
6 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
33
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication as
provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
7 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
34
PASSED: day of 2015.
APPROVED: day of 2015.
PUBLISHED: day of 2015.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
P'.ACivilAOrdinanceAIntematlonal Property Maintenance Code.doc:
8 Amend Chapter 14.01—Adopt
International Property
Maintenance Code
35
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
'Ti
acwt.
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
September 8, 2015
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
RE: Sound Transit Paid Parking Program
Meeting of September 14, 2015
MOTION: None Required — Information Only
SUMMARY:
After testing permits during a 2014 pilot project, Sound Transit is considering
offering reserved parking permits at its busiest facilities, including the Kent Station
parking garage. The permits would work as follows:
• Transit customers must have and use a valid ORCA card to apply for a
permit.
• Permit parking would be reserved for permit holders until 9:30 a.m. Monday
through Friday.
• On weekends and after 9:30 a.m. on weekdays, transit riders would be able
to park in permit spaces without a permit.
• Permits would be offered on a first-come, first-served basis.
• Permits would be reviewed and renewed quarterly or semi-annually.
• Renewal would require the permit holder's ORCA records to show they rode
transit at least three times per week during the previous permit term.
Flexibility will be allowed for time away (such as vacation).
• Carpool permit holders must arrive with at least two transit riders in the
permitted vehicle.
• At least 50% of parking spaces at each location would remain free and
available for transit riders on a first-come, first-served basis.
Staff will be available at the September 141h meeting to further discuss the
program. In the meantime, staff encourages everyone to complete a survey at
www.soundtransit.ora/permitparkina
EXHIBITS: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
CA: P:�Planning�South_Corridor�City_Council�09142015_ECDCMemo_Update.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic&Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney
File