HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 01/11/2016 (4)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 4th Ave S, Kent,
98032.
For additional information please contact 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.
Economic & Community Development
Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Jim Berrios, Tina Budell, Bill Boyce, Chair
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
January 11, 2016
Time Change
4:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker(s) Time Page
1. Call to Order Bill Boyce 1 min
2. Roll Call Bill Boyce 1 min
3. Changes to the Agenda Bill Boyce 1 min
4. Approval of November 9, 2015 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 2 min 1
5. Park and Open Space Plan Emergency YES Charlene Anderson 5 min 5
Resolution
6. Code Enforcement Abatement Liens YES Matt Gilbert 5 min 11
Ordinance
7. Extension of Plat Expirations NO Matt Gilbert 10 min 47
Information Only
8. Sound Transit Update NO Charlene Anderson 15 min 49
Information Only Chelsea Levy
Eric Chipps
9. Mill Creek Historic District Design NO Charlene Anderson 5 min 51
Guidelines
Information Only
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 2015
Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Tim Higgins, Jim Berrios in
attendance
1. Call to Order
Chair Boyce called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
2. Roll Call
3. Changes to the Agenda None
4. Approval of Minutes
Committee Member Berrios Moved and Committee Member Higgins
Seconded a Motion to Approve the Minutes of October 12, 2015. Motion
PASSED 3-0.
5. Accessory Dwelling Units Zoning Code Amendment Ordinance
Long Range Planner Hayley Bonsteel stated that based on previous Committee
direction to broadly explore the issue of accessory dwelling structures, staff drafted
code amendments that will regulate all accessory structures regardless of the use
therein. The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on the amendments
on October 26, 2015 and recommended approval.
Revisions to Kent City Code Sections 15.04 and 15.08 include:
● Clarifying language that groups all accessory structures under same
regulations;
● Regulations allowing only one guest cottage or accessory dwelling unit per lot;
● A new footprint calculation where the total of all accessory buildings cannot
exceed 15% of the lot area;
● Maximum accessory building height of 23 feet, not to exceed the height of the
principal building;
● Design requirements for accessory buildings taller than 12 feet in height so
they are visually compatible with primary building in material, trim and roof pitch;
● Other revisions included in packet.
Committee Member Higgins Moved and Committee Member Berrios
Seconded a Motion to recommend to the full City Council approval of the
Ordinance amending Title 15 of the Kent City Code including new
regulations in KCC 15.08.160 regulating all accessory buildings along with
related amendments to KCC Chapters 15.02, 15.04 & 15.08. Motion
PASSED 3-0.
1
ECDC Minutes
November 9, 2015
Page 2 of 3
6. Meeker Street Design Guidelines Ordinance
Bonsteel stated that more work needs to be completed on redesigning the Meeker
Street corridor, beautifying the streetscape and strengthening the sense of place to
achieve the vision for this key corridor. In order to ensure any development in the
meantime is pedestrian-friendly, staff proposed as an interim measure, code
amendments to extend Kent’s Downtown and Multi-family Design Review to zoning
districts along Meeker Street from 64th Avenue west to Kent-Des Moines Road; and
classifying Meeker Street as a Class B pedestrian street according to the Downtown
Design Guidelines. After holding a public hearing on October 26, 2015, the Land
Use and Planning Board recommended approval of the amendments.
Committee Member Berrios MOVED and Committee Member Higgins
Seconded a Motion to recommend approval of the Ordinance amending
Kent City Code to extend Downtown Design Guidelines & Multifamily
Design Review to the zoning districts along the Meeker Street Corridor
from 64th Avenue South to Kent–Des Moines Road including designating
Meeker Street in this area as a Class B pedestrian street for the purpose of
applying the downtown design guidelines. MOTION PASSED 3-0.
7. Assisted Living Facilities Zoning Code Amendment
Bonsteel provided an update to the Committee on the project, stating that staff
received additional information on facility types and more research will be
conducted to differentiate between the types of facilities. Staff is considering
revisions that may incorporate some or all of the independent senior facilities in
Phase One of the project. Bonsteel stated she will follow up with the Committee at
a future meeting.
8. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Economic and Community Development Director Ben Wolters stated that there is a
proposal to increase the number of committee members from 7 to 9. A larger
community representation is needed because there has been major growth in the
community.
9. Sound Transit Update
Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that Sound Transit is in
the environmental and review phase of the light rail project. Meetings are being
held to define design concepts, as well as work through the engineering and
permitting process.
10. Economic Development Update
Wolters stated that a recreational vehicle (RV) rental business is looking for a
location in Kent. A pasta maker is looking to establish its business in Kent. New
Space conference is scheduled for June. Kent is working with other communities to
sponsor the conference. Maralco Aluminum is trying to find a path forward to
redevelop their 12-acre site.
2
ECDC Minutes
November 9, 2015
Page 3 of 3
11. ShoWare Update
Wolters stated that ShoWare is on pace to set a record for over 400,000 in
attendance, although the net operating income statement will still show a loss for
this year. If you include the City’s admission tax which is only collected on ticketing
activity at ShoWare and the potential settlement on the past losses related to
repairs at ShoWare, the results could show a positive outcome.
Adjournment
Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
_______________________________________
Pamela Mottram for Julie Pulliam, Secretary,
Economic & Community Development Committee
JP:pm \ P:\Planning\ECDC\2015\Minutes\11-9-15_Min.docx
3
4
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 11, 2016
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
RE: Park and Open Space Plan
For Meeting of January 11, 2016
SUMMARY: Strategic goals of the City Council include: Create neighborhood urban
centers; Create Connections for People and Places; Foster Inclusiveness; and
Beautify Kent. The update to the 2010 Park & Open Space Plan (the “Plan”) will
address these strategic goals.
The State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Funding Board distributes a
number of grants pertaining to parks and recreation. Eligibility for the grants is
based, in part, on having a state-approved parks comprehensive plan, which must
be updated every six years. RCW 36.70A.120 requires Kent to perform its activities
and make capital budget decisions in conformity with its comprehensive plan; thus
the master plan for parks must be consistent with and incorporated into the Kent
Comprehensive Plan.
In order to be eligible for the next round of grants, the City must update its Park
Plan and incorporate it into the Kent Comprehensive Plan outside of the annual
comprehensive plan update cycle. The State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) and
Kent City Code require a declaration of an emergency to amend the Kent
Comprehensive Plan outside the annual update cycle.
EXHIBITS: Draft Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: No
ca/jp S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2016\ECDC\011116_Resolution.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director
MOTION: Recommend approval of a Resolution that declares an emergency to
pursue an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Park
Plan.
5
6
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park Plan
Emergency Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION of the city council of the
city of Kent, Washington, declaring an emergency
and proposing an amendment to the Kent
comprehensive plan, separately from the annual
cycle, to incorporate the Park and Open Space Plan
into the comprehensive plan.
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Kent
comprehensive plan provides for planning activities and capital budget
decisions that are consistent with the comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.120.
B. The city council’s strategic goals include the creation of
neighborhood urban centers, connections for people and places, fostering
inclusiveness, and beautifying Kent.
C. The Parks and Recreation Element of the 2015 Kent
Comprehensive Plan anticipated that an update to the Park and Open Space
Plan would be completed in 2016.
D. The city council instead desires to proceed now with an update to
the existing Park and Open Space Plan, adopted by the city council on May 4,
2010, to reflect current park and open space opportunities.
7
2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park Plan
Emergency Resolution
E. The GMA requires that the city establish procedures governing
amendments to the comprehensive plan that limit amendments to once each
year unless certain circumstances exist. RCW 36.70A.130(2). The city has
established a procedure for amending the comprehensive plan in Chapter
12.02 of the Kent City Code (KCC) that permits amendments in addition to the
standard annual update if an emergency exists. An emergency is defined as an
issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public health, safety,
and general welfare of the city of Kent. KCC 12.02.010(A).
F. On January 11, 2016, the Economic and Community Development
Committee moved to direct staff to update the Park and Open Space Plan.
G. The city council finds that consideration of proposed amendments
to the comprehensive plan through revision of the Park and Open Space Plan is
an issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public health,
safety, and general welfare of the city of Kent; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. – Recitals. The recitals above are incorporated herein by
this reference.
SECTION 2. – Emergency. The update to the existing Park and Open
Space Plan, adopted by the city council on May 4, 2010, constitutes an issue of
community-wide significance that promotes the public health, safety, and
general welfare in accordance with the definition of an emergency as set forth
in KCC 12.02.010(A). The city council, therefore, declares that an emergency
exists and authorizes staff and the Land Use and Planning Board to process this
8
3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park Plan
Emergency Resolution
amendment to the comprehensive plan outside the annual amendment process
in KCC 12.02.030.
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. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in
force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular meeting of the city council of the city of Kent,
Washington this _____ day of___________, 2016.
CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent, this _____ day
of_______________, 2016.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
9
4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Park Plan
Emergency Resolution
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
________ passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, the
_____ day of______________, 2016.
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK (SEAL)
P:\Civil\Resolution\Comp Plan Incorporate Park Plan.doc
10
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 6, 2016
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager
RE: Dangerous Building Abatement funding under RCW 35.80
For Jan 11, 2016 Meeting
Motion: Recommend Council adopt an ordinance amending the Kent City Code to
repeal the City’s adoption of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings by amending sections 14.01.010 and repealing section 14.01.080, to
adopt a new chapter 14.02, entitled “Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures” to
create an additional enforcement tool for code violations involving unfit dwellings,
buildings, and structures, and amending sections 14.08.040, 14.08.060, and
14.08.200 to reference the newly adopted chapter 14.02.
SUMMARY: This proposed ordinance will enable Kent to recoup costs incurred by
abating dangerous buildings and properties while increasing due process
protections for owners of dangerous properties.
BACKGROUND: From time to time city staff becomes aware of dwellings that are
unfit for human habitation as well as buildings, structures, and premises that are
unsafe for use because dilapidation and structural defects have increased the
chance of fire, accidents, or other calamities. Problems such as inadequate
ventilation, uncleanliness, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate
drainage, overcrowding, and other conditions that are harmful to the health and
welfare of the residents of the City are not uncommon. Unfortunately, the owners
of those properties are often unwilling or unable to correct these conditions.
CURRENT AUTHORITY: When such conditions are discovered and voluntary
compliance efforts fail, the City is authorized to act to abate the problem. Action is
authorized through the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
(UCADB), which is adopted by reference with other building-related codes. The City
may attempt to recoup abatement costs from the owner by filing a lien against the
property. However, abatement liens are typically junior to other creditor’s liens,
and are not typically an effective means for the City to recover its costs.
Accordingly, if the City chooses to abate a dangerous situation, abatement costs are
paid from the general fund and seldom recovered. Because of this limitation, it has
been historically rare for the City to undertake this type of direct abatement.
STATE AUTHORITY: RCW 35.80 gives cities authority to more reliably recoup
costs associated with abating dangerous dwellings, buildings and structures by
11
adding the cost to the annual tax rolls of violating properties. If unpaid, the
abatement costs have top priority for payment, like unpaid taxes. This statute also
contains significant due process protections for the owners of properties in
violation. In order to adopt this authority, the City must establish a process that
ensures every reasonable step has been taken to achieve voluntary compliance.
Clear definitions of dangerous problems, owner notification requirements, formal
meeting requirements and appeal processes must all be established to ensure that
owners are well informed of their obligations and have time to act before the City
adds abatement costs to their property tax bill. To avoid redundancy, if the
provisions of RCW 35.80 are implemented, the UCADB should be repealed. The
proposed ordinance mimics the currently adopted UCADB such that no major
change in what the City considers dangerous is included. Rather, the change would
be limited to the added due process provisions and to creating a more self-
sustaining funding model for the City’s abatement efforts.
Staff will be at the January 11th meeting to provide additional details and answer
questions regarding this proposed change.
MG:jp P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Pckt Documents\1-11-16\1 11 16 Abatement Memo.docx
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
12
1 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending the Kent City
Code to repeal the City’s adoption of the Uniform
Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings by
amending sections 14.01.010 and repealing
section 14.01.080, to adopt a new chapter 14.02,
entitled “Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and
Structures” to create an additional enforcement
tool for code violations involving unfit dwellings,
buildings, and structures, and amending sections
14.08.040, 14.08.060, and 14.08.200 to reference
the newly adopted chapter 14.02.
RECITALS
A. The city council finds that there are, within the city of Kent,
dwellings that are unfit for human habitation, and buildings, structures,
and premises or portions of premises that are unfit for other uses due to
dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing the hazards of
fire, accidents, or other calamities, inadequate ventilation and
uncleanliness, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage,
overcrowding, or other conditions that are harmful to the health and
welfare of the residents of the City. Unfortunately, the owners of those
properties are often unwilling or unable to correct these conditions.
B. Chapter 35.80 of the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”)
authorizes cities to adopt ordinances enabling them to address these
13
2 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
conditions fairly, effectively, and with substantial assurance that the city
can recover its costs incurred to abate these conditions. The City adopts
this ordinance so that staff can use the code enforcement process provided
for within Chapter 35.80 RCW to eradicate dwellings and other buildings or
structures that are unfit or otherwise harmful.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Amendment – KCC 14.01.010. Section 14.01.010 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Building codes—Adopted,” is amended to
repeal the City’s prior adoption of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings as follows:
Sec. 14.01.010. Building codes – Adopted. In accordance with
Chapter 19.27 RCW, the following codes (collectively, 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.
14
3 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
C. The International Residential Code, 2012 Edition, published by the
International Code Council, Inc., as amended pursuant to Chapter 51-51
WAC.
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, 1997 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. G. 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. H. 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. – Amendment - New Chapter 14.02 KCC. Title 14 of
the Kent City Code is amended by adding a new chapter 14.02, entitled
“Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures,” to read as follows:
15
4 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
Chapter 14.02
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
Sec. 14.02.010. Findings and Purpose. Pursuant to Chapter
35.80 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the city council finds that
dwellings exist within the city of Kent that are unfit for human habitation.
When all or any portion of buildings, structures, and premises become
unfit for their intended uses due to dilapidation; disrepair; structural
defects; defects increasing the hazards of fire, accidents or other
calamities; inadequate ventilation; uncleanliness; inadequate light or
sanitary facilities; inadequate drainage; overcrowding; or other conditions,
they are harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of the city’s residents.
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the process and to
acquire and exercise the powers authorized by Chapter 35.80 RCW to
address conditions such as those described above that render dwellings,
buildings, structures, and premises in the city unfit.
The purpose of this chapter is not to create or otherwise establish or
designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be
especially protected or benefited by the terms of this chapter.
Sec. 14.02.020. Definitions. The definitions contained in KCC
1.04.020 and KCC 14.08.020 will also apply to this chapter. In addition,
the following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, will
have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the
context clearly indicates a different meaning.
A. Abandoned means any property, real or personal, that is unattended
and either open or unsecured so that, in the case of real property,
admittance may be gained without materially damaging any portion of the
property, or which reasonably appears not to be presently possessed by
16
5 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
any person. Examples of real or personal property that may reasonably
appear abandoned include, without limitation, dwellings, buildings,
structures, and other premises where utilities are disconnected, debris is
accumulated, uncleanliness or disrepair is evident, or where items of
personal property are located in places where those items are not normally
kept or used.
B. Appeals Commission means the office of the hearings examiner as
created in Chapter 2.32 KCC.
C. Boarded-up building means any unoccupied building the exterior of
which is closed by extrinsic materials or devices installed on a long-term,
rather than brief temporary basis, giving to the building the appearance of
non-occupancy or non-use for an indefinite period of time. Appendix A of
the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), adopted for use and
enforcement within the city, provides criteria that regulates how dwellings,
buildings, and structures may be properly secured against unlawful entry,
and otherwise maintained to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
and the provisions and purposes of this chapter.
D. Building means all or any portion of any building, dwelling,
structure, mobile home, or factory-built house built for the support,
shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind.
E. Costs means the city’s actual expenses incurred to correct illegal
conditions pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, plus any applicable
administrative fee.
F. Director means the city’s director of the Economic and Community
Development Department or the director’s designee.
G. Imminent danger means an immediate exposure or liability to
injury, harm, or loss.
17
6 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
H. Improvement officer means the person authorized by the director to
conduct a review hearing pursuant to this chapter.
I. Nuisance means: (a) a nuisance defined by statute or ordinance; (b)
a nuisance at common law, either public or private; (c) an attractive
nuisance, whether realty, fixture, or chattel, in or on a building, a building
premises, or an unoccupied lot, that might reasonably be expected to
attract children and constitute a danger to them, including without
limitation, abandoned wells, ice boxes or refrigerators with doors and
latches, shafts, basements or other excavations, abandoned or inoperative
vehicles or other equipment, structurally unsound fences or other fixtures,
lumber, fencing, vegetation or other debris; (d) uncleanliness or other
condition that is dangerous to human life or detrimental to health; (e)
overcrowding; or (f) abandoned as defined in this chapter.
J. Subject property means the dwelling, building, structure, or
premises that is the subject of investigation or an enforcement action
pursuant to this chapter.
K. Unfit means a dwelling, building, structure, or premises that has any
or all of the defects enumerated in KCC 14.02.080 and is therefore unfit
for human habitation or other uses.
L. Value means the amount assessed upon a dwelling, building,
structure, or premises for purposes of general taxation.
Sec. 14.02.030. Duties of the code enforcement officer. The
code enforcement officer’s duties and powers include:
A. Investigating dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises the
officer, pursuant to this chapter, has reasonable grounds to believe are
unfit; and
18
7 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
B. Preparing, serving, and posting of notices and orders according to
the provisions of this chapter regarding subject properties that the officer
has reasonable grounds to believe, pursuant to this chapter, are unfit; and
C. Doing all things necessary and proper to carry out and enforce this
chapter.
Sec. 14.02.040. Duties of the improvement officer. The
improvement officer’s duties and powers include:
A. Conducting review hearings pursuant to RCW 35.80.030 to consider
notices and orders issued by code enforcement officers with other evidence
that may be received from code enforcement officer or other parties and
persons; and
B. Preparing, serving and posting a Summary of Decision, including
findings of fact in support of the improvement officer’s determination,
pursuant to KCC 14.02.140(D); and
C. Doing all things necessary and proper to carry out and enforce this
chapter.
Sec. 14.02.050. Duties of the hearing examiner. The hearing
examiner is the appeals commission for purposes of this chapter. In
addition to the powers conferred through ch. 2.32 KCC, the Hearing
Examiner shall:
A. Conduct administrative hearings pursuant to KCC 14.02.170 to
consider notices and orders issued by the code enforcement officer or the
improvement officer together with other evidence that may be received
from the improvement officer, code enforcement officer, or other parties
and persons, and where appropriate, affirm, modify, or overturn the
notices and orders by written decision; and
19
8 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
B. Do all things necessary and proper to carry out and enforce this
chapter.
Sec. 14.02.060. Rules and regulations. The director may
establish rules and procedures to reasonably and fairly administer the
provisions and achieve the purposes of this chapter. The improvement
and code enforcement officers shall recognize and give appropriate effect
to special and extenuating circumstances that, in order to do substantial
justice in specific cases, warrant the exercise of discretion to adjust the
timeframes, standards, and other provisions of this chapter. Examples of
circumstances that may warrant an exercise of discretion include without
limitation: medical illness or disability affecting the ability of the person
responsible for the violation to respond to orders or appear at hearings,
and bona fide insurance coverage disputes that create a definite risk that
enforcement of this chapter would unfairly result in a substantial economic
loss to the property owner or the person responsible for the violation.
The building official, improvement officer, or code enforcement
officer is authorized to exercise all powers, consistent with the provisions
of this chapter that may be necessary or convenient to reasonably and
fairly achieve its purposes. When authorized by consent of the owner or
other party in possession of a subject property, or if consent to enter
either cannot be requested because the owner or party in lawful
possession is not available, or consent to enter is refused or revoked, and
when authorized by judicial warrant or other legal authority, the building
official, code enforcement officer, or designee, may enter upon a subject
property to investigate violations or to enforce the provisions of this
chapter. When authorized entry occurs, the building official, code
enforcement officer, or designee, will take reasonable steps to minimize
inconvenience to persons in lawful possession of the property.
20
9 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
Sec. 14.02.070. Determination of unfitness. The code
enforcement officer, improvement officer, or hearing examiner may
determine that a dwelling, building, structure, or premises are unfit if
conditions exist in the dwelling, building, structure, or premises that are
dangerous or injurious to the health or safety or welfare of the occupants
of the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, the occupants of
neighboring dwellings, or other residents of the city.
Sec. 14.02.080. Standards for determination of unfitness.
Dwellings, buildings, structures, or other premises that have any or all of
the following defects may be deemed dangerous or unfit:
A. Interior walls or other vertical structural members that list, lean, or
buckle to an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity
falls outside the middle third of its base.
B. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that, exclusive of the
foundation, show 33 percent or more of damage or deterioration of the
supporting member or members, or 50 percent of damage or deterioration
of the non-supporting enclosing or outside walls or covering.
C. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that have improperly distributed
loads upon the floors or roofs, or in which are overloaded, or which have
insufficient strength to be reasonably safe for the purpose used.
D. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that have become damaged by
fire, wind, or other causes so as to have become dangerous to the
occupants or to the general public health, safety, or welfare.
E. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that have become or are so
dilapidated or decayed or unsafe or unsanitary that they are unfit, or are
likely to cause sickness or disease, so as to work injury to those living or
who may enter within or to the general public health, safety, or welfare.
21
10 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
F. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that have inadequate light, air,
or sanitation facilities, including the lack of running potable water, to
protect those who live or who may enter within or to protect the general
public health, safety, or welfare.
G. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that do not comply with the
applicable fire code for means of egress in case of fire or panic or that
have insufficient stairways, elevators, fire escapes, or other means of
escape.
H. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that have attached parts that
may fall and injure any person or damage any property.
I. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that, because of their condition,
are unsafe or unsanitary, or dangerous to those living or who may enter
within or the general public health, safety, or welfare.
J. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that have any exterior cantilever
wall, or parapet, or appendage attached to or supported by an exterior
wall of the building located adjacent to a public way or to a way set apart
for exit from a building or passage of pedestrians, if that cantilever,
parapet, or appendage is not so constructed, anchored, or braced as to
remain wholly in its original position in event of earthquake capable of
producing a lateral force equal to 0.2 of gravity.
K. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that in whole or in part are
erected, altered, remodeled, or occupied contrary to the ordinances
adopted by the city and create a risk of harm to person or property.
L. Dwellings, buildings, and structures that have any exterior wall
located adjacent to a public way or to a way set apart for exit from a
building or passage of pedestrians, if that wall is not so constructed,
22
11 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
anchored, or braced as to remain wholly in its original position in event of
an earthquake capable of producing a lateral force equal of 0.2 of gravity.
M. Premises that constitute a public nuisance pursuant to KCC 8.01.030
and are dangerous or injurious to the occupants, the occupants of
neighboring premises, or the general public health, safety, or welfare.
N. Premises that have any number of unsecured vehicles, cars, trucks,
bikes, farm equipment, construction equipment, boats, trailers,
snowmobiles, jet skis, or other machinery or implements that meet the
definition of junk vehicle provided in KCC 8.08.020 and that create a risk
of harm to person or property.
O. Premises that are unsecured and unsafe due to conditions that pose
a hazard or attractive nuisance including without limitation sink holes,
exposed underground vaults, pipes or wires, trenches, unstable slopes, or
hazardous materials.
P. Developed premises that have over 50 percent of the area covered
in blackberries or other noxious vegetation constituting a nuisance under
KCC 8.07.050.
Sec. 14.02.090. Standards for repair, vacation, or demolition.
The following standards shall be followed in substance by the improvement
officer and the hearing examiner when ordering repair, remediation,
vacation, or demolition of dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises:
A. If the dangerous or unfit dwelling, building, structure, or premises
can reasonably be repaired or remedied so that it will no longer exist in
violation of the terms of this chapter, the improvement officer or hearing
examiner shall order repair or remediation.
23
12 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
B. If the estimated cost to repair the dangerous or unfit dwelling,
building, structure or premises is 50 percent or more of the current
assessed value, it will be demolished.
C. If the dangerous or unfit dwelling, building, structure, or premises
cannot be reasonably repaired or remedied so that it will no longer exist in
violation of the terms of this chapter, it will be demolished.
D. If the dangerous or unfit dwelling, building, structure, or premises is
a fire hazard and that condition violates any provision of this chapter or
any other ordinance of the city or the laws of the state, the unfit dwelling,
building, structure, or premises shall be demolished or abated, unless the
owner eliminates the fire hazard within 10 days, but the improvement
officer or hearing examiner, for good cause shown, may grant additional
time to remedy the violation.
Sec. 14.02.100. Security of unoccupied dwellings, buildings,
structures, or premises.
A. The code enforcement officer, improvement officer, or hearings
examiner may determine that an unoccupied property is unfit for reasons
including without limitation:
1. It is not secure against unauthorized entry by children,
trespassers, vagrants, or other persons;
2. It is not secure against infestation by insects or animals;
3. It is not secure against deterioration as a result of exposure
to vandalism, weather, or the elements; or
4. It is inadequately maintained and repaired as evidenced by
broken windows, overgrown vegetation, graffiti, or other conditions.
B. In making this determination, the code enforcement officer will
consider and document with photographs and written accounts the factors
24
13 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
that in his or her judgment reasonably bear on the determination,
including without limitation:
1. The physical condition of the subject property and whether it
reflects ongoing maintenance and repair, including the presence of broken
windows or evidence of vandalism, overgrown vegetation, the presence of
insect or animal pests, deterioration due to weather or exposure to the
elements, and whether graffiti, when it occurs, is painted over promptly.
2. The length of time the subject property has been unoccupied.
3. The subject property is being actively marketed for sale or
lease.
4. Other facts that demonstrate that the subject property has
been or will likely be subject to hazards and circumstances contrary to the
public health, safety, and welfare.
5. Other considerations established by this chapter.
C. In addition to any other powers authorized by this chapter, the
improvement officer may order the person responsible for the violation to
perform any or all of the following on or before a stated compliance
deadline:
1. Secure all exterior openings of the subject property in
accordance with Appendix A of the International Property Maintenance
Code, or if the property owner requests otherwise in writing, by using
alternative materials or methods that the code enforcement officer or
improvement officer determines are adequate to make the dwellings,
buildings, structures, premises weather-tight and secure against
unauthorized entry.
2. To disconnect all utilities including electricity, gas, and water.
3. To remove any graffiti and to keep the property free of
graffiti.
4. To maintain the premises generally free of any vegetation or
other matter that may constitute a nuisance or a fire hazard.
25
14 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
D. The improvement officer may modify orders issued under KCC
14.02.100(C) from time to time in response to new information or changed
circumstances regarding all or a portion of the dwelling, building,
structures, or premises.
E. The code enforcement officer may monitor compliance of any
unoccupied dwelling, building, structures, or premises that has been the
subject of orders issued under this chapter. Monitoring may include
regular inspections at an interval determined appropriate by the code
enforcement officer based upon the subject property’s violation history.
Sec. 14.02.110. Preliminary investigation. After the city learns
of a dwelling, building, structure, or other premises that may be unfit, the
code enforcement officer will investigate whether the condition exists, and
if so, whether that condition is a violation of this chapter or other provision
of the Kent City Code. This investigation should typically include
reasonable efforts to speak with the owner of the subject property, or the
tenant if the property is rented. The code enforcement officer will make a
record of the investigation, including:
A. Identification of the subject property.
B. Documentation of inspection actions, including relevant dates,
efforts to establish identity of, and contact with owners, tenants, or others
responsible for the violations.
C. Written observations relevant to possible conditions of unfitness,
possibly including diagrams of the building or premises and photographs.
D. The officer’s conclusion of whether the dwelling, building, structure,
or other premises is unfit and the officer’s reasons for that conclusion.
26
15 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
If the code enforcement officer determines no violation exists, the officer
will note that determination for the record and the matter will be
concluded. The code enforcement officer will notify the owner or other
person responsible for the violation, or other persons who have requested
notice of the officer’s determination.
Sec. 14.02.120. Notice and order—Contents. If, after
preliminary investigation, the code enforcement officer determines that a
dwelling, building, structure, or other premises is unfit, the officer will
serve, according to the provisions of KCC 1.04.060, a notice and order that
will state, identify, or describe:
A. The subject property including at least the property address and
county assessor’s tax parcel number.
B. The condition(s) on the subject property that is illegal or that
renders one or more dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises unfit;
C. The actions needed to correct the non-compliant condition(s);
D. The deadline for correction of the condition(s), which should allow a
reasonable time for correction and must be set at least 48 hours before the
matter will be presented at a hearing before the improvement officer;
E. The cost or administrative fees that may be charged to the person
responsible for the violation as a consequence of the described non-
compliant conditions, as described in KCC 14.02.190;
F. The place and date where and when the matter will be presented to
the improvement officer, which will be at least 10 and not more than 30
days after the notice and order is served or posted.
27
16 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
G. Advise that at the improvement officer hearing, the improvement
officer will be requested to:
1. Affirm the code enforcement officer’s determination of
unfitness;
2. Authorize the city to proceed to abate the described non-
conforming conditions on the subject property, if those conditions are not
corrected before the deadline or otherwise corrected by the person
responsible for the violation; and
3. Affirm that the owner will pay administrative fees plus the
costs incurred by the city, through the date of the code enforcement
officer’s determination of the non-conforming conditions, together with all
reasonable costs that the city subsequently incurs to abate the non-
conforming conditions, together with all administrative fees incurred for
the subsequent abatement.
H. That all parties responsible for the violation shall be given the right
to file an answer to the notice and order, to appear in person or otherwise,
and to give testimony at the time and place for the improvement officer’s
review stated in the notice and order;
I. That city policy allows the improvement officer to waive the city’s
costs or administrative fees, or both, for a first offense if the non-
conforming conditions are corrected at least 48 hours prior to the
improvement officer’s hearing;
J. Invite the cooperation of the person(s) responsible for the violation
and inform the violator(s) that city policy allows first offenders to negotiate
a voluntary correction agreement consistent with the provisions of KCC
1.04.070 in which, among other things, the person responsible for the
violation:
1. Admits that the non-conforming condition(s) exist(s);
28
17 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
2. Promises to correct the non-conforming condition(s) by an
agreed deadline;
3. Understands that he or she: (i) may refuse consent to enter,
(ii) may limit the scope of any consent to enter to certain areas, (iii) may
withdraw at any time any consent to enter once consent is given, (iv) must
allow entry by representatives of the city or persons under contract with
the city to correct any non-conforming condition(s) that the violator fails to
correct by the required deadline; and (v) acknowledges that any evidence
discovered during the consent to entry may be used against the person
responsible for the violation in the existing proceeding or in other
proceedings, including criminal proceedings; and
4. Agrees to pay the city’s costs to abate the illegal conditions if
the owner fails to abate, pursuant to KCC 14.02.190.
K. If the subject property is lawfully occupied by someone other than
the person responsible for the violation and if the person(s) responsible for
the violation has not corrected the violations by the required deadline, no
voluntary correction agreement will be offered unless the persons lawfully
occupying the property also consent to entry by either the city or persons
under contract with the city to correct the illegal condition(s);
L. Advise the violator(s) that if the non-conforming conditions are not
timely corrected, the city may pursue the matter further by civil or criminal
enforcement, or both, in addition to further proceedings authorized under
this chapter; and
M. Advise the violator(s) that city policy is to criminally prosecute
repeat offenders.
Sec. 14.02.130. Service of notice and order—Filing with
county auditor. If, after a preliminary investigation of any dwelling,
building, structure, or premises, the code enforcement officer determines
29
18 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
that it is unfit, he or she will serve, all parties responsible for the violation,
either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. The officer
must also post at one or more conspicuous places on the subject property,
a copy of the notice and order stating, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 14.02.120, in what respects the dwelling, building, structure, or
premises is unfit. If the whereabouts of the violator(s) is unknown and
cannot be ascertained by the officer in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
and the officer makes an affidavit to that effect, then the serving of the
notice and order upon the violator(s) may be made either by personal
service or by mailing a copy of the notice and order by certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to each violator at the address
of the building involved in the proceedings, and mailing a copy of the
notice and order by first class mail to any address of each violator in the
records of the county assessor or the county auditor. A copy of the notice
and order must also be filed with the county recorder’s office, and filing the
notice and order shall have the same force and effect as other lis pendens
notices provided by law.
Sec. 14.02.140. Improvement officer hearing to review
notice and order.
A. Unless, prior to the time fixed in the notice and order for a hearing
before the improvement officer, the property owner has entered into a
voluntary correction agreement, or city staff have determined that the
nonconforming conditions have been corrected, the improvement officer
will hold a hearing to review the notice and order and determine the
immediate disposition of any nonconforming conditions existing at the
subject property. The hearing will be canceled if the code enforcement
officer approves the completed corrective action at least 48 hours before
the scheduled hearing, and the code enforcement officer will provide notice
of satisfactory correction to the owner, complainants, and other interested
30
19 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
persons, and to the county recorder’s office if a notice of the enforcement
action was previously filed.
B. The improvement officer shall conduct a hearing pursuant to any
rules adopted by the director. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of
law or equity shall not be controlling in hearings before the improvement
officer. The code enforcement officer, the person(s) subject to the
violation, and other parties entitled to be served with the notice and order
may participate as parties in the hearing, and each party may call
witnesses. The city has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance
of the evidence that the subject property is unfit and that the required
corrective action stated in the notice and order is reasonable. When
considering the evidence, the code enforcement officer’s determination of
unfitness and order to correct nonconforming conditions shall be accorded
substantial weight.
C. If the cited violator or other parties fail to appear at the scheduled
hearing, the improvement officer may affirm the notice and order by
finding that the subject property is unfit as determined by the code
enforcement officer. The improvement officer may further authorize the
city to assess costs and administrative fees according to the provisions of
this chapter.
D. If persons appear and provide testimony, then the improvement
officer will consider evidence and argument submitted by the code
enforcement officer, the party responsible for the violation, and the
complainant(s). The improvement officer will then determine whether the
subject property is unfit for human habitation or other use and, if so
determined, issue a summary of decision according to the provisions of
this section. Within 5 business days following the date of hearing, the
summary of decision shall be served, either personally or by certified mail,
with return receipt requested, upon the person responsible for the violation
31
20 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
and other persons entitled to notice of the notice and order, and shall be
posted in a conspicuous place on the subject property. The summary of
decision will include at least the following:
1. Findings of fact in support of the improvement officer’s
decision affirming the notice and order; and
2. Either:
a. That the compliance deadline under the notice and
order was reasonable and has passed without satisfactory correction of the
illegal conditions; or
b. That the compliance deadline under the notice and
order should be extended until a date certain by which time the illegal
conditions must be corrected.
3. An accounting of the city’s costs and administrative fees
which, as of the date of the hearing, have been incurred as a consequence
of the illegal conditions, and that those costs and fees will be charged to
the owner and shall be specially assessed and shall constitute a lien
against the real property if they are not paid timely.
4. Direction that, after exhaustion of any appeal rights, if the
owner or responsible parties fail to comply with the notice and order as
confirmed by the improvement officer, the city may, with judicial warrant
or other legal authority, directly or by private contract, correct the illegal
conditions, and the costs incurred by the city for that correction, including
administrative fees as authorized by this chapter, will be charged to the
person determined to be responsible for the violation and will be specially
assessed and that special assessment will constitute a lien against the real
property if not paid timely.
E. The summary of decision shall state that the person responsible for
the violation is entitled to appeal the improvement officer’s decision to the
hearing examiner within 30 days and, unless he or she does appeal or
correct the illegal conditions, the city has the power, when authorized by
32
21 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
judicial warrant or other legal authority, to secure the subject property, to
do any act required of the person responsible for the violation in the notice
and order, to charge costs and administrative fees incurred to correct the
illegal conditions to the person responsible for the violation, and to assess
those costs and fees against the property.
F. If no appeal is filed, a copy of the summary of decision will be filed
with the recorder’s office of King County and the notice and order will be
final.
Sec. 14.02.150. Enforcement. The summary of decision may
prescribe times other than times stated in the notice and order within
which correction of nonconforming conditions must be commenced or
completed. If the required corrective action is not commenced or
completed within the prescribed time, or if no time is prescribed within the
time for appeal, the code enforcement officer may, after the period for
appeal has expired, begin the legal process to obtain a warrant to abate
the nonconforming conditions. If satisfactory progress has been made and
sufficient evidence is presented that the nonconforming conditions will be
corrected within a reasonable time, the code enforcement officer or
improvement officer may extend the time for completion of the work. If
the time for appeals to the hearing examiner under KCC 14.02.170 and
petition to the court under KCC 14.02.180 has passed, the person
responsible for the violation may, for good and sufficient cause beyond his
or her control, request in writing an extension of time. The improvement
officer may grant a reasonable extension of time only if the officer finds
that the delay was due to extenuating circumstances beyond the control of
the person responsible for the violation, as evidenced by supporting
documentation or other reliable information. There shall be no appeal or
petition from the improvement officer’s ruling on an extension of time.
33
22 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
Sec. 14.02.160. Appeal of improvement officer’s decision.
A. The owner or any party responsible for the violation, as those terms
are defined in KCC 1.04.060, may file an appeal of the improvement
officer’s decision within 30 days from the date of service and posting. The
appeal must be filed with the director.
B. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by an appeal fee as set
by the city council, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant’s name, address, phone number, and email
address;
2. Appellant’s statement describing his or her standing to
appeal;
3. Identification of the summary of decision which is the subject
of the appeal;
4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts
upon which the appeal is based;
5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent;
and
6. A statement affirming that the appellant has read the appeal
and believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant’s signature.
C. Any appeal of the improvement officer’s decision will be heard by
the city’s hearing examiner. Notice of the time and place of the hearing
shall be served by regular first class mail to the address of the party who
filed the appeal. The matter of the appeal will be scheduled for public
hearing before the hearing examiner so as to allow 10 days’ notice of the
hearing to the appellant and all responsible parties and to permit final
decision thereon to be made within 60 days after the filing of the appeal.
The filing of the notice of appeal shall stay the notice and order as
confirmed by the improvement officer, except so much thereof as requires
34
23 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
temporary measures, such as securing of a building to minimize any
emergent danger to the public health or safety.
Sec. 14.02.170. Hearings before the hearing examiner.
A. Upon timely appeal, the hearing examiner shall review the
proceedings and decisions of the improvement officer and determine
whether to affirm, modify, or vacate those decisions.
B. The hearing examiner’s review shall be on the record as prepared
before the improvement officer, not de novo. In the absence of new
information or changes in circumstances outside the parties’ control, the
hearing examiner will not accept new evidence or evidence not made
available to the improvement officer. At the appeal hearing, the hearing
examiner shall consider the file of the proceedings before the improvement
officer and such other evidence as the hearing examiner may permit in
accordance with this section. Unless other rules or guidelines are set by
the hearing examiner at the time of the hearing, each party will be given
15 minutes to present oral argument to the hearing examiner.
C. The hearing examiner shall review the record, oral argument of the
parties and such supplemental evidence as is permitted under KCC
14.02.170(B). The hearing examiner may grant relief only if the party
seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the
following standards has been met:
1. The improvement officer or code enforcement officer engaged
in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the
error was harmless;
2. The improvement officer’s decision is an erroneous
interpretation of the law;
35
24 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
3. The improvement officer’s decision is not supported by
evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record
before the hearing examiner;
4. The improvement officer’s decision is a clearly erroneous
application of the law to the facts;
5. The improvement officer’s decision is outside the authority or
jurisdiction of the improvement officer;
6. The improvement officer’s decision or the code enforcement
officer’s notice and order violates the constitutional rights of the party
seeking relief; or
7. Special and extenuating circumstances exist that, in order to
do substantial justice, warrant the grant of relief from the improvement
officer’s summary of decision.
D. After the hearing, the hearing examiner may affirm, modify, or
vacate the decision of the improvement officer, or may continue the
matter for further deliberation or presentation of additional evidence.
E. A record of the proceedings shall be made and kept in accordance
with the state records retention schedule and applicable to local
governments.
F. The hearing examiner shall prepare a written order that contains
findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the record before the
hearing examiner that includes the following information:
1. For each alleged violation of the city code, a statement
indicating whether the violation has been found committed;
2. For violations found committed, the monetary penalties and
costs to be assessed pursuant to this chapter;
3. For violations found committed, any required corrective
actions;
36
25 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
4. For violations found committed, a finding that abatement of
the violations by the city is authorized, at the expense of the violator(s);
5. A statement notifying the violator(s) that the violator(s) may
be subject to additional civil and/or criminal penalties if the violation(s) is
not corrected or abated.
6. A statement that the violator(s) has the right to petition the
King County superior court for appropriate relief within 30 days from the
date the order was issued.
G. The hearing examiner’s findings, conclusions, and order shall be
served upon the same persons in the same manner as the summary of the
improvement officer’s decision.
H. The hearing examiner must file the order within 60 days after the
filing of a notice of appeal, unless continued with consent of the owner or
occupant.
I. The appeal hearing will be recorded and a copy of the recording will
be made available to the violator or other party. Should the violator or
other party request a transcript of the appeal hearing, in lieu of the
recording, a transcript will be made available at the requestor’s expense.
J. The findings, conclusions, and orders of the hearing examiner on
appeals of decisions issued by the improvement officer shall be reported in
the same manner and shall bear the same legal consequences as if issued
by the improvement officer, and shall be subject to review only in the
manner and to the extent provided in KCC 14.02.180.
Sec. 14.02.180. Appeals to superior court. Pursuant to KCC
14.02.170, any person affected by the hearing examiner’s order may,
within 30 days after the posting and service of the order, petition the
superior court for an injunction restraining the city from carrying out the
provisions of the order.
37
26 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
Sec. 14.02.190. Costs of abatement and administrative fees.
A. The costs of abatement, repair, alteration, or improvement, or
vacating and closing, or removal or demolition, when those actions are
performed at the city’s cost, will be assessed against the real property
upon which those costs were incurred unless paid within 30 days after
billing by the city, or unless alternative payment arrangements are made
within 30 days after billing. The building official will forward a report of
any unpaid costs of abatement and administrative fees to the city finance
director, who will certify them to the county treasurer for assessment on
the tax rolls, as provided by RCW 35.80.030(h).
B. The cost of “vacating and closing” as referenced in subsection A will
include:
1. The amount of relocation assistance payments that a property
owner has not repaid to the city or other local government entity that has
advanced relocation assistance payments to tenants under RCW
59.18.085; and
2. All penalties and interest that accrue as a result of the failure
of the property owner to timely repay the amount of these relocation
assistance payments under RCW 59.18.085.
C. The city must use a licensed contractor when bidding to correct
nonconforming conditions. Contract documents must provide that the
value of the materials and other salvage of the property will be credited
against the costs of the corrective action. The contract documents may
require bidders to estimate the salvage value of the property and, by
claiming the salvage, reduce the amount of the contractor’s bid
accordingly. After the city accepts the bid, the contractor may not adjust
the bid to reflect the actual salvage value. Bids may be let prior to the
time for compliance or appeal, but cannot be binding or accepted until the
order for corrective action is final.
38
27 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
D. In addition to actual abatement costs, the city may assess the
following administrative fees and collect those fees in the same manner as
for the collection of actual abatement costs:
1. If the code enforcement officer approves the abatement
before the improvement officer’s hearing, the administrative fee will be
two hundred dollars ($200.00), except that this fee will not be required for
a first offense if the abatement required in the notice and order is
complete at least 48 hours prior to the improvement officer’s hearing.
2. Where the abatement required in the notice and order is
accomplished less than forty-eight hours before the improvement officer’s
hearing as provided for in KCC 14.02.140, the administrative fee will be
three hundred dollars ($300.00).
3. When abatement is accomplished after breach of a voluntary
correction agreement between the property owner and the city, the
administrative fee will be six hundred dollars ($600.00).
4. Where abatement is accomplished after the issuance of the
improvement officer’s summary of decision or following material breach of
a voluntary correction agreement, the administrative fee will be one
thousand dollars ($1,000).
5. Where abatement is accomplished following the issuance of
the hearing examiner’s order, the administrative fee shall be one thousand
two-hundred-fifty dollars ($1,250).
6. Where abatement is accomplished following the issuance of
an order from the Superior Court or higher appellate court, the
administrative fee will be one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500).
E. The improvement officer or the hearing examiner may, upon
recommendation from the code enforcement officer, modify the amount,
methods, or time of payment of these administrative fees as the condition
of the property and the circumstances of the owner may warrant. In
determining any adjustments, the hearing examiner may reduce the costs
39
28 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
to an owner who has acted in good faith and would suffer extreme financial
hardship. The hearing examiner may, upon recommendation from the
code enforcement officer, increase the administrative fees if evidence is
presented in an appeal under KCC 14.02.170 that the scheduled fees are
inadequate to make the city whole with respect to a particular unfit
dwelling, building, structure, or other premises.
Sec. 14.02.200. Assessment and lien on the real property.
A. All costs incurred by the city to abate illegal conditions pursuant to
this chapter, including administrative fees, will be charged against the
owner of the subject property, will be specially assessed, and will
constitute a lien against the subject property unless those amounts are
timely paid.
B. The finance director, or designee, will certify to the county treasurer
any unpaid costs to correct nonconforming conditions as a special
assessment due and owing to the city. Pursuant to RCW 35.80.030, the
county treasurer will enter the amount of the special assessment upon the
tax rolls against the property for the current year and the same will
become a part of the general taxes due for that year and will be collected
at the same time and with interest at the rates and in the manner provided
for in RCW 84.56.020, as now enacted or subsequently amended, for
delinquent taxes. When collected, the proceeds will be deposited to the
credit of the city’s abatement project fund. If the city removes all or part
of the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, the city will, if possible,
sell the materials removed and credit the proceeds against the cost of
removal. If any balance remains, the improvement officer will determine
the appropriate parties to receive the balance, after deducting the city’s
costs and administrative fees incident thereto.
40
29 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
C. The assessment will constitute a lien against the property that will
be of equal rank with state, county, and municipal taxes.
14.02.210 – Abatement Project Fund.
A. The city council establishes a special revolving fund to be designated
as the abatement project fund. The director may require that payments
from this fund to defray the costs and expenses that the city incurs when
conducting work necessary to abate dangerous or unfit buildings,
structures, or premises.
B. The city council may transfer to the abatement project fund those
sums it determines are necessary to expedite the performance of the work
or repair or demolition. Any sum so transferred will be deemed a loan to
the abatement project fund and will be repaid out of the proceeds of the
collections made to the fund. All funds collected will be paid to the city
and the finance director will credit them to the abatement project fund.
SECTION 3. Amendment – 14.08.040. Section 14.08.040 of the
Kent City Code, entitled “Administration and enforcement” is amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 14.08.040. Administration and Enforcement.
A. It shall be the duty of the building official to enforce the building
codes in the manner generally described in each of the respective building
codes, and as more particularly described in this chapter, Ch. 14.02 KCC,
and in Ch. 1.04 KCC.
B. The obligation of complying with the requirements of the building
codes shall fall upon any person or entity defined under KCC 1.04.020(K)
as a “person responsible for the violation,” and shall expressly include an
41
30 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
the owner, occupier, or other person responsible for the condition of the
buildings, structures, dwelling units, or premises within the scope of the
building codes.
C. In case of conflict between the provisions of the building codes and
of this chapter, the provisions of this chapter shall be controlling. In the
case of any conflict between this chapter and Ch. 1.04 KCC, this chapter
shall control.
SECTION 4. Amendment – KCC 14.08.060. Section 14.08.060 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Investigation and Notice of Violation” is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 14.08.060. Investigation and notice of violation.
A. The building official shall investigate any building, structure,
dwelling unit, or premises which the building official reasonably believes
does not comply with the standards and requirements of the building
codes.
B. If, after investigation, the building official determines that the
standards or requirements of the building codes have been violated, the
building official may seek compliance and serve a notice of violation on a
person responsible for the violation or may otherwise enforce the building
codes pursuant to this chapter, Ch. 14.02 KCC, and Ch. 1.04 KCC.
SECTION 5. Amendment – KCC 14.08.200. Section 14.08.200 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Violations” is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 14.08.200. Violations.
42
31 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
A. It shall be unlawful to intentionally fail to comply with a notice of
violation, final order, emergency order, or stop work or stop use order, or
any other notice, complaint or order issued pursuant to this chapter, Ch.
14.02 KCC, or Ch. 1.04 KCC.
B. It shall be unlawful to remove or deface any sign, notice, complaint
or order posted by the building official in accordance with his enforcement
duties under this chapter, Ch. 14.02 KCC, or Ch. 1.04 KCC.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally obstruct, impede
or interfere with any lawful attempt to serve any notice of a violation, final
order, emergency order, stop work or stop use order, or any other notice,
complaint or order, or intentionally obstruct, impede or interfere with any
lawful attempt to comply with any notice of violation, final order,
emergency order, or stop work or stop use order, or any other notice,
complaint or order issued pursuant to this chapter, Ch. 14.02 KCC or Ch.
1.04 KCC.
SECTION 6. – Repealer – KCC 14.01.080. Section 14.01.080 of the
Kent City Code, entitled “Amendments to the Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings” is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 7. – Savings. The existing sections of the Kent City Code
that are repealed by this ordinance, KCC 14.01.010(G) and KCC
14.01.080, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of
this ordinance.
SECTION 8. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
43
32 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
SECTION 9. – 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;
or references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 10. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2016.
APPROVED: day of , 2016.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2016.
44
33 Ordinance Amending Title 14 KCC—
Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures
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:\civil\ordinance\35.80_draft_12.28.15 kak.docx
45
46
1
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 7, 2016
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager
RE: Preliminary Plat Validity Periods
For Meeting of January 11, 2016
SUMMARY: 2012 legislation lengthened the validity period for preliminary plats in
order to ease the effects of the recession on the building industry, and allow more
time for these larger division of land to be completed. Some of the projects that
benefitted from the extension are unfinished and approaching expiration. The
Council may want to consider further extension of the validity period.
BACKGROUND: The expiration period for a preliminary plat begins on the date it
receives approval from the Hearing Examiner. Before the recession, preliminary
plats were allowed 5 years to record, which was generally more than enough time
for developers to install roads, utilities and meet other conditions of approval before
recording the plat. When financial institutions began limiting available credit during
the recession, developers struggled to construct and record plats within the five
year window. As this issue was widespread, the state legislature intervened in
2010, then again in 2012 when it created a schedule of new, longer validity periods
designed to provide relief for developers until the housing market improved. This
schedule creates a range of validity periods for preliminary plats, based on the
approval date of an individual project. The state legislation includes a provision that
cities can allow preliminary plats more time than the state schedule indicates.
Based on this provision, Kent allows one additional year. The table below depicts
the state schedule, plus Kent’s additional year:
Approval date Total validity period
Before December 31, 2007 11 years
January 1, 2008 –December 31, 2014 8 years
January 1, 2015 forward 6 years
Per these timelines, six plats that were approved in 2008 are scheduled to expire in
2016. A total of 100 new lots are proposed in these plats. Some of these projects
continue to struggle towards recording and the City has received interest in
examining whether or not the dates and associated validity periods are appropriate
to meet the purpose of the extensions.
MOTION: For Information Only
47
2
When a preliminary plat expires, the only way for the owner to move forward with
dividing the land is to file a new preliminary plat application. This filing costs
several thousand dollars and effectively starts the city approval process from
square one. Often, some redesign of the project is necessary as current
development regulations apply; new public notice and a new public hearing are also
required.
NEXT STEPS: Since any changes to the City’s validity policy will require
amendment of the subdivision code (KCC 12.04), consideration of any changes will
begin before the Land Use and Planning Board. This issue will be discussed at their
January 11, 2016 meeting, with potential LUPB action on January 25, 2016. This
would allow a recommendation to be brought before the ECDC at its February
meeting.
Staff will be at the January 11th ECDC meeting to answer questions and gather
input on this matter
MG:pm P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Pckt Documents\1-11-16\011116_Memo Plat Expirations.doc
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
48
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 4, 2016
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator
RE: Sound Transit 3
For Jan 11, 2016 Meeting
Information Only
SUMMARY: Sound Transit is evaluating candidate projects for the next set of
regional high-capacity transit investments. Each candidate project is described in a
report, which includes a description, budget and evaluation measures. Over the
next several months, the Sound Transit Board will use these reports to develop
Sound Transit 3 (ST3), a system of capital projects and services that will be
presented to voters in November.
Several candidate projects could be significant for Kent. Some of these are deferred
projects from Sound Transit 2 that will be implemented more quickly if they are
included in a successful ST3 package. These deferred projects are the Kent Sounder
Station access improvements (including a parking garage), platform extensions for
the South Sounder stations and the extension of Link light rail to South 272nd
Street. New projects of interest include additional South Sounder service and a
regional system access program to improve non-motorized facilities at Sound
Transit stations. Sound Transit staff will be available at the January 11, 2016
meeting to discuss these projects and answer questions about ST3.
HB:jp P:\Planning\Hayley\Transpo\1.11.16 ST3 Memo for ECDC.docx
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
49
50
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 11, 2016
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
RE: Mill Creek Historic District Design Guidelines
For January 11, 2016 Meeting
SUMMARY:
On November 20, 2014, the Kent Landmarks Commission designated a portion of
the Mill Creek Neighborhood as a Historic District. Since that time, volunteers from
the district have been working with King County and City staff to develop design
guidelines. The district includes 60 properties, the majority of which are privately-
owned. The City-owned Bereiter House is located within the Historic District and
was separately designated a landmark in 2008.
At the January 11th Committee meeting, staff is seeking direction from the City
Council on historic preservation as it pertains to fees, design guidelines, and
preservation compliance. For example:
What role should City staff play in reviewing design guidelines pertaining to
the Mill Creek Historic District or other private property landmarks? Should
the guidelines be codified in Kent City Code? (Some of the design guidelines
pertain to work that would not require a City permit.)
Should the City establish a budget for services provided under the interlocal
agreement? Should private property owners reimburse the City for costs
incurred in design review and for costs incurred by King County and billed to
the City under the interlocal agreement?
BUDGET IMPACT: To be determined
BACKGROUND:
On September 5, 2006, the Kent City Council passed Ordinance No. 3809 adding a
new chapter to Kent City Code entitled Landmark Designation and Preservation.
The ordinance provided a framework for an interlocal agreement between King
County and the City related to landmark designation and protection services. The
interlocal agreement was executed on January 25, 2007.
MOTION: Information Only
51
According to the interlocal agreement, the County provides the following services
on Kent’s behalf:
1. Processes landmark nomination applications,
2. Conducts planning, training, and public information tasks necessary to
support landmarking activities in the City,
3. Reviews and decides Certificate of Appropriateness applications,
4. Acts as the Local Review Board for special valuations of historic properties
within the City boundaries, and
5. Reviews and approves applications for permits which affect landmarks, and
forwards comments to the City official responsible for issuing building and
related permits.
For those services, the City fully reimburses the County, with the rate of
reimbursement revised annually. In 2007, the reimbursement rate was in the
range of $60 - $76 per hour, depending on the individual providing the services. In
February, 2015, King County notified the City the reimbursement rates for 2015
ranged from $97 to $101 per hour. During the past four years, it appears the City
has paid King County less than $1,000 for their services under the interlocal
agreement. The primary financial impact of County services for property owners in
the Mill Creek Historic District would be obtaining certificates of appropriateness for
exterior work on houses in the district. For a typical certificate, the estimated time
spent by County staff would be 1.5 hours, for a cost of approximately $145. The
County reviewed two certificates of appropriateness for work within the district in
2015.
Staff will be available at the January 11th ECDC meeting to further discuss landmark
services.
CA:jp S:\Permit\Plan\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\2016\ECDC\011116_Mill_Creek_Design_Guidelines_Memo.doc
Attachments: 1) Interlocal Agreement 2) Service Procedures
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
SERVICE PROCEDURES FOR INTERLOCAL CITIES
Historic Preservation Program, Department of Natural Resources and Parks
201 S. Jackson, Suite 700, Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 477 -4545 | TTY Relay: 711
Updated 1/14
When any person requests King County Historic Preservation Program staff to conduct work in a
city with which the County has an interlocal agreement for historic preservation services the
following procedures shall apply:
Within five working days of a request for services the county staff person receiving the
request shall provide the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) with the following
information:
o property address;
o name and contact information for person requesting service, and their relationship
to the property;
o description of service requested (landmarking inquiry; environmental review;
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application; technical assistance*, etc.);
o a copy of any correspondence or information specific to the request; and,
o an estimate of time needed to render the service.
The HPO shall forward this information, along with an estimate of cost to complete the work,
to the designated City representative for consideration. The City shall provide the HPO with
electronic or written notification to proceed or not to proceed within two business days of
receipt of notification from the HPO.
The HPO shall provide copies of any information or correspondence generated in the process
of providing the service to the City for its files (final reports, formal correspondence,
recommendations, research data, etc.) unless otherwise agreed upon by the City and the
HPO.
In addition, the City should establish internal administrative rules on how to process a
request for historic preservation services including, but not limited to, landmark nominations,
COA applications and review, environmental review, and incentive program coordination.
* The City will not be billed nor formally notified per the above process for technical assistance inquiries or
questions, or requests for information that can be handled by phone or e-mail in 15 minutes or less. The City
representative per the above process must approve any services which will exceed 15 minutes of staff time.
65