Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 06/13/2016 (2)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 253-856-5702. 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 June 13, 2016 5:00 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 May 11, 2016 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 2 min 5. Patient Cooperatives YES Hayley Bonsteel 10 min Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-5) 6. Complete Streets Ordinance NO Hayley Bonsteel 10 min Information Only Lacey Jane Wolfe 7. Density Rounding NO Matt Gilbert 10 min Information Only 8. Sound Transit Update NO Hayley Bonsteel 5 min 9. ShoWare Update NO Ben Wolters 5 min 10. Economic Development Update NO Bill Ellis 10 min Andrew Corona ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES May 9, 2016 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Tina Budell, and Jim Berrios 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Committee Member Berrios MOVED and Committee Member Budell SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of April 11, 2016. Motion PASSED 3-0. 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2016 Park & Open Space Plan – Ordinance Hope Gibson stated the Park & Open Space Plan has been worked on for approximately one year. The four principal themes of the Plan include: quality public spaces, provide a high quality parks system that provides growth within the City; performance-based approach to planning and maintaining the system using a performance-based assessment tool; transformation through re-investment; and sustainable funding. Staff proposes adding a Park Systems Map to the Plan. The Plan went through an extensive public process with several outreach efforts last year, including public events with the help of the Parks Commission, an informal web-based survey, and hiring a firm to do a statistical valid survey. Updates on the Plan have been given to the Land Use & Planning Board, Parks Committee, and the Parks Commission. Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson added the Park & Open Space Plan will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan by reference. The data that are included in the Park & Open Space Plan also update the Parks and Recreation Element and the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended approval according to the draft ordinance which is in the packet. Staff is also recommending approval to include the map of the Park System in the Plan. Chair Boyce asked if the Plan came out of the Land Use & Planning Board unanimously with no concerns. Anderson responded, yes. Chair Boyce asked for a simple summary of what the Plan was before and what it is now. Gibson responded the Plan adopts a different level of service; the level of service used to be measured by acres per 1,000 residents. The new level of service 3 2 will look at quantity but also quality and performance, not looking at just the number of parks but how they are preforming. If residents would like to see a good overview, it can be found in the executive summary of the Plan. Chair Boyce asked if there is anyone who wants to speak on this item. Sandi Lynden, East Hill North resident, has concerns this is creating a tiered system and not looking equally at developed parks and open spaces, and that open space is being neglected in this Plan. She pointed out the East Hill has 35 percent of the population and is the most underserved. Lynden stated she doesn’t feel the Plan looks at the Benson area where the population is. Gibson stated the reason the tiered system was looked at was to not have the top preforming parks for recreation to over-score the open space. The City wants a well-balanced park system. In fact, the tiered system was created to protect open space. The City was also divided into regions to give each their own performance-based approach to see how each region is performing. The Park & Open Space Plan does note the North East Hill has the largest park deficit. Chair Boyce asked where the Plan goes next after it comes out of the Economic & Community Development Committee. Anderson replied, on to Parks and Human Services Committee then to full Council on June 7th. Council Member Berrios MOVED and Council Member Budell SECONDED to Recommend to the full City Council approval of amendments to the comprehensive plan to incorporate the 2016 Park and Open Space Plan with the concurrence of the Parks and Human Services Committee, along with associated amendments to the Capital Facilities Element and Parks and Recreation Element of the comprehensive plan as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board and adding a map to the Plan as further requested by staff. Motion passed 3-0. 6. Community Wide Planning Policies Strategies for Affordable Housing – Resolution Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson presented the topic to ratify an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies whereby jurisdictions may consider mandatory as well as voluntary programs as they look to provide their share of the countywide need for affordable housing. The amendment doesn’t require the City of Kent to have a mandatory program; it just states the City can do so if they wish. Chair Boyce stated we need to acknowledge and understand it isn’t a required program and we don’t have to adopt such a program. Anderson replied that is correct. Council Member Berrios MOVED and Council Member Budell SECONDEDto Recommend to the full City Council ratification of an amendment to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to provide that jurisdictions can consider the full range of programs including mandatory programs that will assist in meeting their share of the countywide need for affordable housing. Motion passed 3-0. 4 3 7. Building & Fire Code Codes Adoption and Amendments – Ordinance Building Official Kimberlee McArthur recommended adoption of the two ordinance for the new building codes which go into place July 1, 2016. The codes to be adopted are the International Building Code, Residential Code, Fire Code, Energy Conservation Code, Property Maintenance Code, Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, along with statewide amendments that have been approved by the legislature which will replace the 2012 editions to these codes which occur every 3 years. Most of the amendments are housekeeping and minor in nature. Chief Napier stated the fire code is also being updated on the 3 year cycle. Sky lanterns have been banned the model code allows them to be tethered. The recommendation is we still ban them. Commercial development need to have access points being far apart we have added language if operations agrees there is enough connectivity on both sides of the activity point and the access point is wide enough a single access point would be usable. That has been built into the code and will go into effect July 1, 2016. There were 2 projects affected by the old code and we will reach out to them to see if we can help re-establish forward movement of the project. The last item is a development issue; the rural area north of the golf course on Frager Road. There was a project which wanted to build some houses but the water main was all the way out on Meeker Street. Code did not allow us to issue building permits where there were no hydrants. We have found some criteria and alternative mitigation we can use if they are willing, and we will be able to issue building permits for those homes. This just allows us to add some flexibility. Council Member Budell MOVED and Council Member Berrios to Recommend adoption of the two ordinances amending various sections of Chapters 13.01 and 14.01 of the Kent City Code to adopt the 2015 editions of the International Building, Existing Building, Residential, Mechanical, Energy Conservation and Fire Codes, and the Uniform Plumbing Code, together with the City’s local amendments to those codes as depicted in these ordinances, to revise Section 14.08.020 to refer to changes to the adopted codes, and to make other housekeeping amendments. Motion passed 3-0 8. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Appointment – Bryan Powell Economic Development Analyst Andrew Corona brought forward the appointment of Bryan Powell, General Manager of the Ramada Inn to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Mr. Powell has served on a Lodging Tax Committee in the past. The position Mr. Powell has accepted is one of the new positions approved by the Council to increase the membership of the committee to align better with the increased population of the City. Council Member Berrios MOVED and Council Member Budell 2nd recommended to full Council the appointment of Bryan Powell to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Motion passed 3-0 5 4 9. Draft Transportation Improvement Program Sr. Transportation Planner, Lacey Jane Wolfe presented the updates to the 6 year Transportation Improvement Program and gave a brief review of the program and summarize the recommended changes that have been put together for Public Works Committee and Council for review and look at the timeline for moving forward. The Transportation Improvement Program is a 6-year short range planning document, by state law it has to be updated every year, and reflect projected funding capacities and clearly identify sources of funding. It doesn’t represent all the City’s goals, or needs just the ones where funding is allocated or a reasonable assurance that funding allocated to the projects, as well as fit into the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Budget. Projects Staff Propose for Addition  Transportation Master Plan Update  132nd Avenue Pedestrian Improvements  Meeker Street Redesign (Meet Me on Meeker)  76th Avenue South  Willis Street Roundabout (Propose/plan for allow access to Naden) Projects Staff Propose for Removal  Improvements at Neely O’Brien, Daniel, Meadow Ridge and Horizon Elementary Schools  South 212th Street and 72nd Avenue Intersections Improvements  James Street Bicycle Lanes Proposed Changes to Programs  Quiet Zone classified as project  Bicycle System Improvements classified as projects  Community Circulating Shuttles moved to operations (913, 914, and 916) Other Projects  Southeast 248th Street Improvements  South 212th Street Grade Separation The 2017 – 2022 6-year TIP  19 Street Capital Projects: $89 million  5 Citywide Programs: $93 million  Total: $182 million Next Steps  May 16, 2016 going to Public Works Action Item  Public Hearing  Council adoption by Resolution by July 1, 2016  Transmit to the state by August 1, 2016 Information Only 10. Patient Cooperatives – Zoning Code Amendment [ZCA-2016-5] Assistant City Attorney David Galazin spoke to the topic. State legislature has responded to physician statements made by the Federal Government. We know the collective garden system is a failing system and Kent was the first City to recognize that and pass legislation. The City took that to the state supreme court and were successful in upholding that finding. We have just went again a few months ago to get an injunction for another who tried to violate the ordinance and we were successful in getting the injunction. It is very clear through the state constitute 6 5 authority to the City stating we can set up zones and zoning districts describing what can and can’t be done in these certain zones. The Federal Government has said they recognize the State of Washington has passed by initiative the recreational marijuana system and it has been tasked to the State Liquor Cannabis Board. The Federal Government expects the State to rein everything in. Right now there is a recreational system that is highly regulated as well as a medical system. In response the State Legislature has adopted a couple of bills. In Senate Bill 5052 which established patient corporative stating no more than 4 members at 1 time, all 4 members either have to be a qualifying patient or a designated provider registered with the State Registry, with a provision if one member leaves there is a waiting period of 60 days before another person can join, as well as the location of the corporative has to be in the domicile of 1 of the 4 individuals; by default in a residential area. This was amended by House Bill 2136 which clarified these locations and the State Liquor and Cannabis Board cannot issue a license that is with-in 1 mile of an existing licensed retailer; the other clarification is they need to provide physical resources and contributions. The House Bill also states the State Board cannot issue a license where it is banned by any City or County Ordinance. This is why it makes sense to treat these and continue to treat these as land use issues. A qualifying corporative can grow up to 60 plants. So we are looking at going before the Land Use and Planning Board Meeting on May 9, 2016 at 7 p.m. and present them with the land use plans these gardens have with-in the residential districts. Information Only 11. Sound Transit Update Long Range Planner Hayley Bonsteel updated the Committee that Sound Transit has the comments staff submitted for the interim design review and the City Staff will meet with them by the end of May to go over those comments. In the meantime there was a meeting with Sound Transit and King County Metro to understand the need for busses in the light rail station area and the large amount of bus traffic that will be happening there, as well as looking at the compatibility of pedestrians and busses. We are continuing to work with Sound Transit and King County Metro to make sure all the users’ needs are addressed. 12. ShoWare Update Economic & Community Development Director Ben Wolters gave an update on ShoWare’s progress. This year the T-Birds are playing in the Western League Championship at ShoWare on May 10, 2016. There will be a sold out 6000 seat Dolly Pardon concert. We are showing a profit in the 1st quarter this year. The Settlement on the ice plant was settled for 50 cents on the dollar later there will be a full accounting given to the Operations Committee. We are also in a conversation with a new company wanting to purchase the naming rights and it is a very positive conversation, hopefully the Mayor will be signing that by the end of this year. 7 6 Chair Boyce gave kudos to Ben Wolters and his team on the work being done at ShoWare Center and the efforts to continue to promote ShoWare in the region which is good for the City of Kent. 13. Economic Development Update Economic Development Analyst Andrew Corona gave an update on Retail Recruitment at the Panther Lake Albertson’s retail center. Just a few months ago a company out of California united Albertson and KimCo and purchased the whole retail center. Since then Economic Development has been working with them to identify appropriate tenants for the center with the use of the Buxton tools presented to the committee at a previous meeting. They have an LOI on the Albertson Building and we should know who that is soon. Looking at the new ownership at the Market Place at Lake Meridian, Trader Joes has turned around the center and it is now a prosperous retail center. Canyon Ridge where the Top Foods is located it is currently in the pre-investment, pre re-vitalization phase more to come on that area. Adjournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. _________________________________________ Julie Pulliam Economic & Community Development Committee 8 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: May 25, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator RE: Patient Cooperatives Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-5) For Meeting of June 13, 2016 SUMMARY: Recent changes in state law will introduce a new category of medical marijuana growing operation called a “patient cooperative,” replacing the existing category of “collective garden” beginning July 1, 2016. The new category will allow up to four qualifying patients and/or designated providers to form a “cooperative” in which marijuana can be collectively grown for personal, medical use in the domicile of one of the members of the cooperative. The Liquor and Cannabis Board will have regulatory oversight of these cooperatives; however, the Board cannot register a cooperative where prohibited by a local zoning provision. A patient cooperative must be located within the domicile of one of the members; ergo, cooperatives may only exist in residential areas. The law does not specify that the domicile be owned by the member, meaning there is the potential for greater impacts to rental properties. Kent’s zoning code does not address this new category of patient cooperatives; the draft ordinance attached rectifies this by repealing the regulations related to collective gardens and adding a definition and similar zoning regulations for patient cooperatives as the Council has previously adopted for collective gardens. Given the potential impacts (particularly with respect to rental properties), as well as the administrative nature of this change (repealing one type of collective medical marijuana growing operation and replacing it with another), staff recommended that this general category of land use remain prohibited in all zoning districts. The Land Use and Planning Board recommended approval of staff’s recommendation after holding a public hearing on May 23, 2016. EXHIBITS: SEPA Checklist and Decision, Draft Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: none cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code, related to medical marijuana patient cooperatives, as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT COOPERATIVES ZONING REGULATIONS ENV-2016-15, KIVA# RPSA-2161700 ZCA-2016-5, KIVA #RPP6-2161614 Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Hayley Bonsteel I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for this project, which proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Code to prohibit a new category of medical marijuana grow operations called patient cooperatives. There is also an option to permit patient cooperatives in single family (SR-1) districts. See attached for proposed draft amendment. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Design and Construction Standards (Ordinance 3927) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts. These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Design and Construction Standards may require the deeding/ dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and Title 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 29 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took effect on May 10, 2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State Legislature in 2012. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The Proposal is unlikely to impact earth, as it prohibits a new type of indoor marijuana grow operation. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, they would be located indoors and would therefore also be unlikely to impact earth. B. Air Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to air are anticipated. Prohibiting patient cooperatives is unlikely to affect air. Were patient cooperatives permitted in SR-1 zones, it is possible that negligible odors could be created; however, SR-1 lot sizes are large and therefore any impact would be unlikely to affect the air beyond the immediate vicinity of the property. C. Water Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to water are anticipated. Prohibiting patient cooperatives is unlikely to affect water. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, it is possible that residential water use would increase—but the burden of this would fall on the resident paying the water bill, and is unlikely to affect water city-wide. D. Plants and Animals This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on plants or animals. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, an increase of up to 60 marijuana plants per residential household is possible— however, the addition of marijuana plants to indoor residences does not significantly impact existing plants or animals in any discernable way. E. Energy and Natural Resources This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on energy or natural resources. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, an increase in residential energy use is possible—however, the burden of this increase in residential energy usage would fall on the resident paying for the energy, and would have negligible impacts on city-wide systems. 30 F. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare Patient cooperatives are indoors and therefore would not be likely to have any significant effects on aesthetics, noise, light or glare, were they to be permitted in SR-1 zones as is an option. It is possible that patient cooperatives would contribute to mold or other internal property damage, but this aesthetic impact would be limited to the interior of the home and therefore not have any significant impact. However, as drafted, this Proposal prohibits patient cooperatives, so these effects are even less likely. G. Land and Shoreline Use Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts. Prohibiting patient cooperatives has no effect on land or shoreline use. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in the SR-1 zone, as is an option for this project, a new use would be introduced to the zoning code; however, the use would be internal to residences and therefore unlikely to have significant environmental impacts on land or shoreline use. H. Housing The Proposal is not anticipated to impact housing availability. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, it is possible that subsequent indoor grow operations would have negative impacts on residential structures if improperly maintained; however, the burden of this impact would mostly fall on the property owner to repair any structural damage that occurs as part of an improperly maintained patient cooperative. I. Recreation The proposal is not anticipated to impact recreation. J. Historic and Cultural Preservation Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are discovered with site work for any project action, the application must stop work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation. Given that this Proposal prohibits patient cooperatives or potentially permits them in the SR-1 zone internal to residences, no historic or cultural preservation impacts are anticipated. K. Transportation The Proposal is not anticipated to impact transportation systems. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted, a negligible increase in traffic might be expected as members travel to and from the residential cooperatives site; however, it is unlikely that this traffic would be significant. L. Public Services 31 Patient cooperatives, if permitted in SR-1 zones, could become a target for theft which could increase the number of police calls– however, since they are inside homes, they would not be as visible targets as outdoor grow operations. This lack of visibility renders any potential increase insignificant. Regardless, this amendment prohibits patient cooperatives, so impacts to public services are not anticipated. M. Utilities This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant effect on utilities. Were patient cooperatives to be permitted in SR-1 zones, an increase in residential utility use is possible—however, the burden of this increase in residential utility usage would fall on the resident paying for the utilities, and would have negligible impacts on city-wide systems. If patient cooperatives are prohibited, as proposed, there would be no impacts on utilities. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; 2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent Shoreline Master Program; 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code; 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan; 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan; 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element; 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure Improvements; 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits; 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations; 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments; 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Park; 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control; 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes; 14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning; 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227; 32 16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees; 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility; 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan; 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan; and 20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this non-project action. KENT PLANNING SERVICES May 17, 2016 CA:HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-5 Med Marijuana Patient Cooperatives\SEPA_Decision.doc 33 34 1 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 - Re: Patient Cooperatives ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 15 of the Kent City Code by repealing all sections pertaining to medical cannabis collective gardens, and adopting new regulations pertaining to medical marijuana patient cooperatives. RECITALS A. Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5052, known as the “Cannabis Patient Protection Act,” was signed into law by Governor Inslee on April 24, 2015. This Act allows qualifying patients and/or designated providers who hold valid recognition cards to form a “cooperative” in which marijuana can be collectively grown for personal, medical use, beginning July 1, 2016. The Act also repeals the existing category of “collective gardens,” as defined in RCW 69.51A.085, effective as of July 1, 2016. B. Medical marijuana patient cooperatives are limited to four or fewer members; must be registered with the state Liquor and Cannabis Board; and must be located within the domicile of one of the members of the cooperative. C. Second Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2136, signed by Governor Inslee on June 30, 2015, further clarified that the Liquor and Cannabis Board must deny the registration of a proposed patient cooperative if the location is prohibited by local zoning ordinance. 35 2 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 - Re: Patient Cooperatives D. Kent’s zoning code does not currently address this new category of patient cooperatives, requiring an amendment to the city code. E. On May 5, 2016, the City requested expedited review under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce regarding the City’s proposed code amendments. The Washington State Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on _______. No comments were received from State agencies. F. On May 9, 2016, staff gave an overview of these proposed amendments before the Economic and Community Development Committee. G. On May 9, 2016, during a workshop meeting, staff received authorization from the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) to draft an ordinance amending Kent’s zoning code to address collective gardens and patient cooperatives. H. On May 20, 2016, the City conducted and completed environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignficance for the proposed code amendments. I. On May 23, 2016, the LUPB moved to recommend to the full City Council the adoption of the draft amendments, as prepared by staff, at a regularly-scheduled public hearing. J. On June 13, 2016, the Economic and Community Development Committee considered the ordinance repealing collective gardens and addressing the new category of patient cooperatives, and recommended approval of the ordinance, as proposed by staff and 36 3 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 - Re: Patient Cooperatives approved by the LUPB. The matter was subsequently considered by the full City Council at its June 21, 2016, meeting. K. While collective marijuana growing has never been authorized in Kent, the Kent Police Department (“KPD”) has investigated numerous illegal marijuana grow operations in housing units in the City. KPD has noted that residential “grow houses” often pose multiple environmental concerns, including, but not limited to: excessive power consumption; increased mold and mildew; pervasive odors; and structural damage. L. Furthermore, these impacts are magnified by the fact that these grow houses are often rental units that are rendered uninhabitable after being used for the indoor growing and cultivation of marijuana. M. The City Council recognizes that approved medical uses of marijuana may provide relief to patients suffering from debilitating or terminal conditions, but because of the potential secondary impacts, the establishment of facilities for the collective growth, production, and processing of medical marijuana in residential units is not appropriate for any zoning district within the City. N. The City Council further understands that while the medical benefits of marijuana have been recognized by the state legislature, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and possession and use of marijuana is still a violation of federal law. O. The City Council has determined that the passage of a permanent zoning code amendment that shall prohibit the establishment of residential medical marijuana patient cooperatives in all zoning districts of the City will serve the public health, safety and welfare. 37 4 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 - Re: Patient Cooperatives NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Repealer. Section 15.02.074 of the Kent City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. - Repealer. Section 15.08.290 of the Kent City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. - Amendment. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new section 15.02.326 to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.326 Patient cooperative, medical marijuana. Medical marijuana patient cooperative means a group of four or fewer qualifying patients and/or designated providers who share responsibility for producing and processing marijuana only for the medical use of the members of the cooperative, pursuant to, and in accordance with, all the terms and conditions of RCW 69.51A.250. SECTION 4. - Amendment. Chapter 15.08 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new section 15.08.295 to read as follows: Sec. 15.08.295 Patient cooperatives. A. Medical marijuana patient cooperatives, as defined in KCC 15.02.326, are prohibited in the following zoning districts: 1. All agricultural districts, including A-10 and AG; 38 5 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 - Re: Patient Cooperatives 2. All residential districts, including SR-1, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8, MR-D, MR-T12, MR-T16, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, MHP, PUD, MTC-1, MTC-2, and MCR; 3. All commercial districts, including NCC, CC, CC-MU, DC, DCE, DCE-T, CM-1, CM-2, GC, and GC-MU; 4. All industrial districts, including M1, M1-C, M2, and M3; and 5. Any new district established on or after July 1, 2016. B. Any violation of this section is declared to be a public nuisance per se, and shall be abated by the city attorney under applicable provisions of this code or state law, including, but not limited to, Chapter 1.04 KCC. C. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize, legalize or permit the establishment or operation of a use that violates any city, county, state or federal law or statute. SECTION 5. – 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. SECTION 6. – 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. 39 6 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.08 - Re: Patient Cooperatives SECTION 7. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on July 1, 2016, which is more than five days from and after its publication, 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. 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\Patient Cooperatives Ordinance.docx 40 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: June 6, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Lacey Jane Wolfe, Senior Transportation Planner and Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator RE: Complete Streets Ordinance For Meeting of June 13, 2016 SUMMARY: Complete Streets is a policy and design approach that requires streets to be planned, designed, operated and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable access for all users, regardless of age or ability. Complete Streets concepts are becoming more crucial every day for planning and transportation projects in the region, as traffic congestion worsens, transportation costs rise and public health initiatives strive to increase people’s activity levels. To date, more than 700 agencies at the local, regional and state levels have adopted Complete Streets Ordinances; adopting such an ordinance in Kent would enable the City to be more competitive for regional funding and steer future updates to plans and standards, which would have real impacts on implemented projects. The City of Kent’s existing pedestrian and bicycle network consists of sidewalks, pathways, trails, bike lanes, shared off-street paths and striped shoulders. In the past, many sidewalks and bicycle lanes have been constructed as part of individual development projects. This has resulted in gaps, missing connections and inconsistencies in the design and quality of facilities. The City has a number of strong Complete Streets-supportive policies and plans in place, including the Transportation Master Plan (which recognizes the need to improve connectivity and identifies a network of streets to receive bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and the Comprehensive Plan (which has policies in land use and transportation chapters related to improving non-motorized access and encouraging walking and bicycling). Complete Streets policies improve safety, lower transportation costs, provide mobility alternatives, encourage healthy activity, stimulate local economies, contribute to economic development goals through creating a sense of place, improve social interaction and generally improve adjacent property values. EXHIBITS: Draft Complete Streets Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: none cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director Information Only 41 42 1 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 6 of the Kent City Code by adopting a new chapter 6.14 pertaining to “complete streets”. RECITALS A. The complete streets concept promotes streets that are safe and convenient for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, freight haulers and motor vehicle drivers of all ages and abilities. B. Streets constitute a large portion of public space generally, and should be corridors for all modes of transportation. C. Streets that support and invite multiple uses are more conducive to the public life and efficient movement of people than streets designed primarily to move automobiles and freight. D. Trends in energy and transportation costs, air quality, public health and economic development necessitate a more comprehensive approach to mobility. E. The City of Kent engaged residents during the Let’s Go Kent project in 2010, which focused on improving the walking and biking 43 2 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets network. Residents repeatedly expressed the desire for better walking and biking options. F. There are practical limits to the expansion of roadways in response to traffic congestion. Promoting pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel as an alternative to automobile usage can reduce congestion, reduce the negative environmental impacts of automobiles, and also reduce transportation costs for residents and commuters. G. A 2007 Washington State Department of Transportation survey found that a lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes, is a primary reason why Washington residents do not walk or bicycle more frequently. H. The United States Congress and the National Association of Local Boards of Health specifically recommend complete streets policies as a strategy to increase pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. Complete streets legislation has been adopted by the United States Department of Transportation, numerous state transportation agencies, as well as cities such as Seattle, Kirkland, Redmond, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Boulder and Chicago. The complete streets concept is also supported by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, American Planning Association, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Public Health Association and many other transportation, planning and public health professionals. Washington State’s Complete Streets grant program is described in RCW 47.04.320 and .325. I. The Strategic Plan adopted by the City Council includes a vision of a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers. Safety and connectivity can only be achieved if all 44 3 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets users’ needs are taken into account during planning and implementation of roadway projects. J. The Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan for the City of Kent both contain policies and goals supportive of complete streets concepts, including policies to promote walking and bicycling; policies regarding level of service for pedestrians, bicycles and transit; policies to provide non-motorized facilities; and many more. K. Planning staff introduced a description of and the need for complete streets at a regularly-scheduled Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) workshop on May 23, 2016, and received authorization from the LUPB to draft a policy and ordinance to implement the complete streets concept for new development within the City of Kent. L. The City determined that due to the procedural nature of this amendment (which includes no development regulations), neither notification to the State nor State Environmental Policy Act review is required. M. Planning staff presented the draft ordinance and policy at a public hearing held by the LUPB on June 13, 2016. The LUPB moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the ordinance and policy as presented by staff. N. The Public Works Committee, at its regularly-scheduled meeting on June 20, 2016, moved to accept the recommendation of the LUPB, and forward the matter for consideration by the full City Council. O. The full City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 19, 2016, adopted the ordinance and policy as presented by staff. 45 4 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. – Amendment. Title 6 of the Kent City Code is amended by adding a new chapter 6.14, entitled “Complete Streets”, to read as follows: Sec. 6.14.010 Vision. The City endorses the concept of complete streets, which promotes roadways that are safe, convenient and attractive for all users regardless of age and ability, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, freight haulers and motor vehicle drivers. The vision of complete streets is a community in which all residents and visitors can safely and efficiently use the public right-of-way to meet their transportation needs regardless of their preferred mode of travel. Sec. 6.14.015 Policy. A. The City will plan for, design, construct, operate and maintain an appropriate and integrated transportation system that will meet the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users, transit riders, freight haulers, motorists, emergency responders and residents of all ages and abilities. B. Transportation system facilities that support the concept of complete streets shall include, but are not limited to: pavement markings and signs; street and sidewalk lighting; sidewalk and pedestrian safety improvements; Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VI compliance; transit accommodations; bicycle accommodations, including signage and markings; and, as appropriate, streetscapes 46 5 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets that appeal to and promote all modes of travel. The system’s design will be consistent with and supportive of local neighborhoods, recognizing that transportation needs vary and must be balanced in a flexible, safe and cost-effective manner. Sec. 6.14.020 Applicability. Those involved in the planning and design of projects within the public right-of-way will give consideration to all users and modes of travel from the start of planning and design work consistent with approved plans. Transportation system improvements shall be viewed as opportunities to create safer, more accessible streets for all users. This shall apply to new construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation. The City may create a checklist that will assist in considering modes of travel in the planning and design of transportation system improvements. Installation of ADA- compatible ramps or other ADA-compliant improvements required for improved accessibility are exempt from complete streets consideration, as are ordinary maintenance activities such as mowing, sweeping, spot repair, joint sealing, pothole filling, and installation of raised pavement markers. Sec. 6.14.110 Plans and standards. As City plans, guidelines and standards are updated, consideration shall be given to complete streets concepts to ensure that new regulations and practices comply with this chapter and the latest in applicable complete streets research and best practices. Examples of plans and standards include, but are not limited to the Design and Construction Standards and the Transportation Master Plan. Resources to be referenced in developing these standards and plans shall include, but not be limited to the latest editions of National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Street Design Guide and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Sec. 6.14.200 Exceptions. 47 6 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets A. The public works director and the economic and community development director may jointly determine that there are exceptions to the provisions for these facilities, under the following circumstances: 1. The project would require the accommodation of street uses prohibited by law; 2. The accommodation of a specific use is expected to have adverse impacts on environmental resources such as streams, wetland floodplains, or on historic structures or sites, above and beyond the impacts of currently existing infrastructure; 3. Topographic challenges make accommodation of a specific use infeasible; 4. Their establishment would be contrary to public safety; 5. The cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable future use; or 6. Their inclusion in a small project would create a very short section of improvements with problematic transitions on either end or unlikely similar improvements at either end. B. Where the above exceptions allow complete streets facilities to be omitted from a roadway project, the City shall consider whether bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users and persons of all abilities can be accommodated by nearby facilities, and strive to provide complete streets connections to those facilities. Sec. 6.14.240 Intergovernmental cooperation. The City will cooperate with other transportation agencies, including the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County Metro and Sound Transit to ensure the principles and practices of complete streets are embedded within their planning, design, construction and maintenance activities. The City will specifically cooperate to ensure the transportation 48 7 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets network flows seamlessly between jurisdictions in accordance with local and regional road, transit, bicycle and pedestrian plans. SECTION 2. – 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. SECTION 3. – 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 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 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_. 49 8 Amend KCC Title 6 Re: _Chpt. 6.14: complete streets PUBLISHED: day of , 2016_. 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 50 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: June 7, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Matt Gilbert, Current Planning Manager RE: Density Calculations For Meeting of June 13, 2016 SUMMARY: In 2010, based on public concern regarding the impact of short plats in existing larger-lot neighborhoods, the City Council raised the density rounding threshold, which is used to determine the amount of land necessary for creation of additional lots and housing units. This change made the zoning code more restrictive for smaller developments in all single-family and multi-family zoned areas of the City. Council members and staff were recently contacted by a person in the land development industry who requested that the issue be reexamined, and that a less restrictive rounding threshold be considered. BACKGROUND: In order for any housing development project to be approved in residential zones, the land area of the development parcel must be sufficient to support the number of proposed units, according to the City's density limitations. The number of new units that can be created on a given piece of land ( i.e. density) is determined by multiplying the acreage of the existing parcel by the allowed units per acre listed in the zoning code. Prior to 2010, if the resulting number ended in a fraction of greater than .5, an additional lot could be created. In 2008, a two-lot short plat was approved where the density calculation resulted in 1.51 units allowed for the property. Neighbors of the project questioned the appropriateness of the rounding threshold, based on their concern that the new, smaller lot development would be out of character with the larger lots in the existing neighborhood. The neighbors brought this issue to the City Council, who subsequently eliminated the rounding allowance for projects of less than 4 lots, and implemented higher rounding thresholds for larger projects. While the underlying land area must be sufficient to support the proposed density of a development project, it is not the sole factor that determines whether development will occur. Physical characteristics of the land, development economics and other regulatory limitations are also part of the decision. With that said, staff estimates that over 2,000 small parcels that would have been large enough to Information Only 51 divide prior to the change in the rounding calculation were rendered undividable by the 2010 amendment. Options for revising this standard could include limiting the more restrictive method of calculating density to certain zones, changing the rounding thresholds, or going back to the pre-2010 rounding method. Staff is seeking feedback from the ECDC regarding whether or not to proceed with developing these or other options. EXHIBITS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director 52