HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Minutes - 06/02/1998 1
• COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
June 2, 1998
The regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by
Council President Orr. Present: Councilmembers Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly,
Woods and Yingling, Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall, Planning Director Harris
and City Attorney Lubovich. Approximately 15 people were in attendance at the
meeting.
Staff Present: Planning Manager Satterstrom and Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill.
Public Present: Ron McConnell of McConnell/Burke Inc., and Linda Johnson of the Kent
Downtown Partnership.
Approval of Minutes. WOODS MOVED to approve the minutes of the meeting of
May 5, 1998. Brotherton seconded and the motion carried.
Zoning Code Update Phase I. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, noted that the
zoning code was adopted in 1973 and has served the City of Kent very well for 25
years. He noted that a great amount of development has occurred in the City under
. the guidance of this Code which has been amended over 125 times with most of the
revisions taking place over the last 10 years. He also noted that in 1997 the City
Council approved a budget request under the Capital Improvements Program to do a
comprehensive update of the zoning code and that one of the primary objectives was
to streamline the Code to make it more user friendly.
Satterstrom noted that there are 30 zoning districts (33 counting the mixed use overlay
districts), and 7 commercial zones (10 counting the mixed use) which are far too many
zoning districts for a city the size of Kent. He explained that mere is a general lack of
administrative flexibility in the Code which is one of the things to be changed in the
revisions as well as updating it to reflect some changes in State law. He noted that
Regulatory Reform legislation has passed in the last two-three years and that part of
the CIP request was to update the Code and other ordinances to be consistent with the
legislation. He noted that the zoning code will be modified in phases and he explained
that Phase I basically lays the framework for the next 1 1/2 phases which is a necessary
step that can be taken fairly quickly to achieve formatting and streamlining.
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner, summarized some of the important points regarding the
zoning code update and pointed out the main objectives of the project. He explained
the process used to define the scope of the project and noted that groups of people
were brought together who are familiar with and use the Code so they could tell staff
what was good and bad about it. He noted that groups of architects, developers,
people who have been using the Code for years, planners who Implement the Code on
a daily basis, and groups from other city departments who do regulatory reviews met
Committee of the Whole June 2, 1998
• several tames to discuss the zoning code. O'Neill explained that City staff wanted to
focus in on where the Code was difficult to administer, where it was inconsistent with
either itself or other portions of the City Code, and where it was Inconsistent with
recently changed State laws. He explained that staff also wanted to look at formatting
because the current zoning code is very text intensive and that other jurisdictions use
codes where tables display information which could be an effective way to summarize
existing provisions and make it much easier for the public to use at the counter. He
noted that the Land Use and Planning Board and staff held monthly workshops from
January through May and spent at least 2 hours each meeting going through the zoning
code very thoroughly.
O'Neill then introduced Ron McConnell of McConnell/Burke Inc. who is doing consultant
work for the City on this project. He noted that Ron is also a hearing examiner for 12-
13 cities around the area so he has the perspective from both a planner position and
someone who sits on the same side of the podium as the Committee hearing land use
cases. He noted that Ron is very familiar with various codes throughout the State and
can give good suggestions on ways to improve the City's zoning code. Satterstrom
noted for Brotherton that the following phases, after Phase I, will deal with legal issues
and that Phase II will look at possibly consolidating zoning districts. He explained that
whenever two zoning districts are consolidated into one the properties are actually
being rezoned. He noted that the City will be notifying individuals of its intention not to
downzone but that property may be rezoned because of the consolidation of certain
districts. He noted for Yingling that this process will probably be completed by the
same time next year. Satterstrom reiterated that the effort is not to dramatically
change people's zoning but it's to make a more understandable, user friendly code and
consolidate zoning districts because it is getting unnecessarily complicated. O'Neill
clarified for Amodt that anything bolded or underlined in the document is the
recommended changes or addition and anything that is struck out is existing language
which is being proposed for deletion. He noted that the Land Use and Planning Board
spent a fair amount of time going through this zoning code and that the purpose of
putting this proposal forward is not to change the uses that are in the Code but rather
to reformat them. He noted that summarization has been done to some of the existing
language but in some cases the Board felt it had been summarized too much so they
added in text based language on more of what it is now.
Ron McConnell, Consultant from McConnell/Burke, Inc., explained some of the
reformatting proposed for the zoning code and how to use the chart in the Agenda
Packet to find out which uses are permitted in the different zones. O'Neill shared the
things that are being proposed for change and why they are being changed. He noted
that there are many new definitions and that these definitions are very important in the
day-to-day administration of the Code because everything that is administered in this
Code can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, He explained the appeals procedure
and what happens when an appeal is filed. O'Neill also explained that there were
many terms used in the Code which had no definition and that there were many other
2
Committee of the Whole June 2, 1998
terms where the City had to define because they were never found in the Code. He
also noted that there were several things which were defined such as, "Agriculture or
Comprehensive Plan" but the definition did not meet the existing State Law. Upon
Orr's question, O'Neill explained that the definition of apartment house or multi-family
dwellings is completely deleted because that was a term that was defined but never
used anywhere in the Code. He noted that Section 15.04, when it regulates multi-
family, uses the term multifamily dwelling which the City has a definition for. He noted
that "apartment house" does not appear any where else in the Code other than the
definition section so it is very confusing to have it in there. He explained a couple of
changes in the Use and Development Standard and that the current Code uses mobile
home for basically everything dealing with modular homes, mobile homes,
manufactured homes, and accessory living quarters but State Laws and the licensing of
mobile and manufactured homes have changed substantially since 1973. O'Neill noted
that the City is not changing a use but just clarifying something under existing State
Law and adding new terminology into the Code. He explained the changes in the
residential zones regarding side and rear yard provisions. He noted that the changes
are consistent with King County and that it will also be easier for people on smaller lots
to have more flexibility as to where they put their houses. He also noted that the
Planned Unit Development provision has been taken completely out and put in a
different Chapter of the Code because a PUD is more of a process that somebody goes
through to get a project approved rather than a zoning issue. O'Neill explained the
procedure for non-conforming uses and what happens if it burns down. He noted that
if it is damaged over 50% it cannot be rebuilt because the new development has to
conform with the new zoning. He noted that the Board has agreed with staff in
recommending to change that to allow a non-conforming use to be rebuilt regardless as
long as it happens within the year. O'Neill noted for Amodt that the intent is that as
long as the developer has a vested development permit in within a year then they are
fine and it would be the same amount of time as any other building permit under the
Uniform Building Code. He stressed that the purpose of this project is to bring the
zoning code into compliance with State law and that part of Ron's assignment has been
to work on the regulatory aspects of House Bill #1724. He noted that HB# 1724
relates to zoning code but it also relates to other parts of the Kent City Code too such
as the Subdivision Code, Shoreline, SEPA, and to the entire permit process. O'Neill
noted for Amodt that the Code refers to non-conforming uses as those that have been
legally established as of January 20, 1973. He noted, however, that a use could have
been legally established in 1986 and be legally non-conforming if the Code changed
anytime after that happened but under the existing definition of non-conforming, they
wouldn't be considered illegal or non-conforming. He explained for Amodt the reason
the date was deleted regarding non-conforming uses was so it wasn't tied to any
certain time because the zoning code is constantly changing. Satterstrom explained
that when the City of Kent annexed several areas, it inherited residential plats and
. situations where there are non-conforming or at least apparent non-conforming uses.
O'Neill clarified for Amodt that as long as a use or building or set-back was lawfully
established at the time they were permitted and built, there will not be a non-
3
Committee of the Whole June 2, 1998
• conforming issue and even remain if the property changes hands as long as the use
stays the same. O'Neill reiterated that the change was just to clarify that a person
could be legal and non-conforming even if it were built after June 20, 1973. Upon
Amodt's question, he stated that if someone were to purchase property with a certain
use and then didn't use it for a period of time (6 months), they would be required to
comply with the new code.
Yingling commented that he was very impressed with McConnell's ideas and with the
tables which make it much more efficient. Upon Yingling's question, McConnell
explained that several other codes were reviewed and that they borrowed from many
people because city codes are not copyrighted so they have a batch of them in the
office. He noted that sometimes ideas would come up and there would be several
alternatives to review which resulted in mixing and matching alternatives to come up
with something they liked. Upon Clarks question, McConnell noted that access to cell
phone technology, the transmission lines, and the need to have antennas available in
terms of modifications will be addressed in Phase II of this update. Satterstrom noted
that the wireless telecommunications ordinance was adopted last year by the City
Council and that there is an administrative approval process for antennas as opposed to
the public hearing process so regulations are in place which address the issue.
Clark voiced concern that the City will begin to block some of those access points
because buildings can destroy the waves and the ability to capture the signals.
McConnell noted that the wireless telecommunications industry watches the city
ordinances and that they were included in the development of the WTF ordinance so
they know what's permitted and what's not permitted. O'Neill noted for Clark that the
Planning Department worked with the City's Environmental Engineering group and that
on Page 15 of the document in the packet there are a few additions to the general
revisions for landscaping requiring the use of native and drought resistent plantings.
He noted that landscaping is not required in the zoning code but irrigation plans are
required and water usage is being incorporated into the zoning code as a result.
Brotherton suggested that some concepts be considered to see if there are
recommendations for adjustment of densities or other facilities regarding traffic
congestion. He noted that there may be some modifications to the Land Use and
Planning that the Council can be looking at in Phase II to at least memorize the growth
and traffic congestion and try to improve it. Satterstrom noted that traffic congestion
is the kind of issue that was at the very heart of the Comprehensive Plan but the
question is, " at what time should the policies of the Comprehensive Plan be revisited?"
Woods noted that the timing for Council to begin discussing what kind of city they want
to be in terms of the Comprehensive Plan could become a very radical issue.
Satterstrom noted that the Zoning Ordinance will implement the Comprehensive Plan
and make it consistent. Planning Director Harris noted that it might be very crucial to
discuss this issue at the next Council Retreat in 1999 with perhaps the top priorities
around more of where the Council sees the City going as it is headed for the 100,000
population mark. He noted that Phase II gets into things which address the
4
Committee of the Whole June 2, 1998
Comprehensive Plan and he concurred with Woods that the Council should begin to
discuss the Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible because Kent Is rapidly moving
ahead.
Orr thanked staff and the consultant for their hard work in putting this document
together. She expressed approval with the format and noted that she is real impressed
because it is easy to read and understand. Upon Ores question, Harris noted that the
Land Use and Planning Board has made their decision and spent enough time on the
issue to feel comfortable enough to send it on for Council approval so he suggested
that it be placed on the next Agenda of June 16th under Other Business. Satterstrom
clarified for Amodt that if there aren't some uses listed in the Code, the Planning
Director will make the interpretation. Woods requested that those who have worked on
this zoning code update come to the next meeting for recognition because so seldom
do the folks who actually do the commission or board work that benefits the Council
and citizens, ever get the recognition they deserve. Orr suggested that perhaps a
special invitation could be extended for them to come to the Council meeting the night
this is presented. O'Neill noted that the public hearing on this item was just held on
May 26th and the Land Use and Planning Board did make some slight modifications that
will be incorporated into the document when it is presented to the Council for approval.
The Committee concurred with staff to bring this item to the next Council meeting on
• June 16th for approval.
,Council Code of Ethics. City Attorney Lubovich distributed a package of statutes to
the Committee and explained that the Operations Committee gave him direction
approximately a month ago to prepare a Code of Ethics ordinance for the City Council.
He noted that it was based on the Federal Way code because that code was the most
definitive and easiest to deal with. He also noted that he talked about some of the
statutes dealing with public officials at that time but since then he has found some
additional statutes that relate to conduct, performance and duties of public officials
which has just been distributed to the Committee. He explained that it is hard to
capitalize on all of the different statutes, provisions, duties and obligations and
incorporate them into the Code. He further explained that it hasn't been done yet
because he wanted to discuss how to deal with some of those issues. He briefed the
Committee on what's out there and what's in the Code itself. He noted that he will
answer any questions or concerns of the Committee and then share in how to relate
some of those provisions and additions into the Code of Ethics.
Lubovich noted that there are basically two major statutes that deal with public official
conduct 1) (RCW 42.20) which deals with all public officers. He noted that not all of
these provisions fit real well with the Councilmembers position; and 2) (RCW 42.23)
which deals more specifically with City officials and officers. He noted that this section
was heavily relied upon in the Code of Ethics that has been presented to the
Committee. Lubovich explained that misconduct of public officers mainly deal with
things like money, delegating authority, or discharge of duty which is hard to deal with
5
Committee of the Whole June 2, 1998
• from a Councilmember's point of view because they operate the same. He noted that
Council doesn't have individual duties to perform so delegation of duties isn't easy to
do. He noted that making false statements in reports, making false certificates knowing
that the information is incorrect such as an affidavit, knowingly allowing the payment of
money for fraudulent claim and misappropriation type functions, and a catch-all
provision that is cited as follows: "every officer who shall willfully disobey any provision
of law regulating his official conduct in cases other than those specified in this section
shall be guilty of gross misdemeanor", are not very clear. He noted that there is very
little case law dealing with these things so it's hard to add to the ordinance to
understand what they mean. He noted that Chapter 42.23 deals more specifically with
municipalities and municipal officers; Section .030 "Interest in Contracts Prohibited"
basically prohibits any official interest in a contract either directly or indirectly with the
City; and that Section .040 "Accepts Remote Interest" which are defined as a
nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corporation; employee or agent of a contracting party
where the compensation consists entirely of fixed wages or salary; the salary of a
landlord or tenant of a contracting party; and that of a holder of less than one percent
of the shares of a corporation or cooperative which is a contracting party. He noted
that these are deemed by statute to be remote interests. Lubovich explained that the
proposed Code of Ethics which has been drafted concentrates in this area quite heavily
and so it is right out of the statute.
. Lubovich noted for Brotherton that the Code of Ethics ordinance drafted deals with
contract interests, gifts, and just certain restrictions after leaving. He explained that
the reason this was dealt with in our own ethics border was so that the Council could
deal with it as far as the Board of Ethics and take the action that Council chooses. He
noted that right now the Council as a whole could probably deal with a certain situation
by writing a letter of reprimand or censor at any time but there is no basic guideline to
follow at this time. Lubovich clarified for Brotherton that the State Statute and the City
of Kent Ethics Ordinance should say the same thing which is that if a Councilmember
has a remote interest then they don't vote on that issue, it is presented to Council, the
disclosure is made a part of the record, no vote is cast on the action but the
councilmember can still have that remote interest. Lubovich noted that the best way to
cure anything that Council is concerned about regarding remote interest is to disclose it
and if somebody raises an issue with it then the Councilmember can excuse themselves
from voting on it. Lubovich agreed with Orr in that whether or not the City Council
accepts this Code of Ethics, they are still bound by the State law. Lubovich explained
that the Code will allow a mechanism to process it and it will also allow for an
independent investigation if the charge against the councilmembr is serious enough .
Lubovich noted that the Council does not have to have one of these Ethics Code
ordinances. Orr noted that it just gives the Council a local option to deal with certain
issues. Lubovich noted that the penalty for a contract interest is a $300 fine which
• would probably have to be taken to court and forfeiture of office which would have to
be done by a court order so it is not clear how it would be processed. He noted that all
of the different statutes have different mechanisms and forms which has to be
6
Committee of the Whole June 2, 1998
• approved through the court. Lubovich noted that the benefit of having a Code of Ethics
ordinance is that it provides a guideline that can be looked at and say that if it violates
a policy maybe it shouldn't be done.
Upon Orr's request, Lubovich explained that the Code of Ethics ordinance only covers
the councilmembers because of the City's form of government, the separation of
powers issue. He noted that the Mayor is elected by the people and the council,
therefore, has no jurisdiction over the Mayor. He also noted that the Mayor has no
jurisdiction over the performance of the Council. Lubovich noted that the Mayor is an
independently elected public official. He noted that with the City/Manager Form of
Government the Mayor comes from the Council and is voted Mayor by the Council and
he is part of the Council. He noted that this form of government gives some ability to
deal with ethics issues relating to the Mayor. He clarified for Orr that the Mayor,
however, is bound by the same State laws as the Council. Lubovich also noted that the
City does have an employees ethics code which was recently revised a few months ago
and it is already established so that is the reason that it was not included in this code.
He noted that the employees code of ethics deals with the employees work
environment.
Council President Orr noted that several questions have been raised and several issues
that need language changes so if anyone has additional things they would like to see
changed, please get the information to the City Attorney in the next couple of weeks
and then it can be brought back at a future meeting for final discussion and some sort
of direction.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m.
koeB - L�
Donna Swaw
Deputy City Clerk
7