The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 02/08/2016 (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 February 8, 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. 1 4. Approval of January 11, 2015 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 1 min. 3 5. Emergency Housing Code Amendment YES Erin George 15 min. 9 6. Elder Care Facilities Code Amendment YES Hayley Bonsteel 15 min. 89 7. Eastpointe Neighborhood Council YES Toni Azzola 5 min. 133 Resolution 8. Mill Creek Historic District, Funding NO Charlene Anderson 5 min. 139 7 Informational Only 9. Surface Water Design Manual NO Shawn Gilbertson 10 min. 143 Low Impact Development Update Information Only 10. Customer Service Survey NO Kimberlee McArthur 10 min. 145 Information Only 11. Abandoned Grocery Carts NO Jason Garnham 10 min. 153 Information Only Ben Wolters 12. Sound Transit Update NO Charlene Anderson 5 min. Garage Update & Temporary Lot Ben Wolters Information Only 13. ShoWare Update NO Ben Wolters 5 min. 14. Economic Development Update NO Bill Ellis 5 min. ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2016 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dana Ralph and Tina Budell 1. Call to Order Chair Boyce called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda Item 9 before 8 4. Approval of Minutes Committee Member Ralph Moved and Committee Chair Boyce Seconded a Motion to Approve the Minutes of November 9, 2015. Motion PASSED 2-0. 5. Park and Open Space Plan Emergency Resolution Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson described incorporation of a Park and Open Space updated plan into the comprehensive plan outside of the annual cycle in order to allow future grant applications. The grant cycle occurs before June of 2016. In response to Committee Member Ralph, Anderson stated the city has allowed these actions in the past for the purpose of general health and welfare for the city. Committee Member Ralph Moved and Committee Chair Boyce seconded the Motion to approve a resolution that declares an emergency to pursue an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Park Plan. Motion PASSED 2-0. 6. Code Enforcement Abatement Liens Ordinance Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert joined by Victoria Robin, assistant city attorney relayed information that the new ordinance basically mimics the adopted Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings except in regards to added due process for when the city can abate a dangerous building or site and the mechanism for the City to recoup abatement costs. Gilbert went on to give examples of what makes a building dangerous, such as structural damage to interior and exterior walls and also mold or ventilation problems that may cause disease. He explained that the proposed ordinance would depart slightly from the current code in that it adds site conditions to the scope of what may be deemed dangerous. For instance, junk, debris, or open pits on a site, may be addressed under this ordinance. . The ordinance specifically allows the city to take action when a building or site has been deemed dangerous and when an owner cannot or will not address a dangerous problem. ECDC Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Gilbert stated that the normal code enforcement process, which works well in most situations, the City takes a non-punitive, compliance-oriented and voluntary approach to code enforcement. This process begins with a letter informing an owner that their building or site is out of compliance, followed by time for compliance and stronger worded letters as necessary. Finally, assessment of fines and in rare cases, criminal citations is used to encourage compliance. This process is more geared towards violations that cause annoyance rather than danger, so there is a definite need for another category to deal with more serious violations. This is what the new ordinance provides. This ordinance allows the city’s cost of abatement to be assessed as part of the following year’s property taxes. If the assessment is unpaid it will constitute a lien against the property, hence the name abatement lien ordinance. In response to Committee Chair Boyce, Gilbert stated the ordinance has specific criteria for determining when a site or building is dangerous. These criteria would be used by code enforcement or building inspectors who would to make the determination of whether the building would be covered by this ordinance. Gilbert went on to explain that after determination is made that the building is dangerous, the cost would begin accruing at that point. Chair Boyce questioned the line item scratched out on page 3 of the ordinance; Gilbert states letter G is repealing the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings because the two are redundant. Committee member Ralph asked for clarification of KCC 14-02.080 where the ordinance defines dangerous elements. Ralph asked if mold qualifies as dangerous because it can cause disease. In response, Gilbert stated that is does qualify and clarified abatement, which not always mean to tear a structure down. If the problem is fixable, the ordinance allows for assessment of and appropriate action. Gilbert stated that this ordinance will strengthen the city’s code enforcement process because it will helps to cut through the bureaucracy of the banks and get the attention of an owner who may be dodging the problem. The city’s ability to act and recoup costs will encourage will encourage owners to take care of problems themselves. Committee Member Ralph recommended that council adopt an ordinance amending the Kent City code to repeal the cities adoption of the uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings by amending section 14.01.010 and repealing section 14.01.080 to adopt a new chapter 14.02 entitled unfit dwelling, 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 new adopted chapter 14.02. MOTION PASSED 2-0. 7. Extension of Plat Expirations Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert informed the committee that he will be taking this issue to the Land use and Planning Board. There is interest in making minor changes to the time the city extends to preliminary long subdivisions. The preliminary subdivision is approved by the hearing examiner and indicates that a proposed plat is feasible under the city’s codes and lists conditions of approval. After that approval, the applicant’s next step is to obtain permits to construct the ECDC Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 3 of 6 required roads, utilities, etc. Prior to the recession, plats had about 5 years to complete the required work, which was typically plenty of time.; However, after the recession available credit dried up and plat owners struggled to complete the required work within the 5 year validity period. . In response to the collapse of the housing market, he City Council and the state legislature extended the plat validity period. Based on the extended validity timelines, plats approved in 2008 are scheduled to expire in 2016 and the city has received interested in adjusting this time frame, to allow those plats more time. There are 5 plats and 100 lots within those plats that will expire in 2016. Gilbert stated it is feasible to take the state’s schedule for plat expiration and extend it a little bit for these projects, which is allowed under state law and could be adopted in the city’s subdivision code. In response to Committee chair Boyce, Gilbert stated he does not believe all 5 plats will be in need and some of the projects will not be moving forward at all. However, as the housing market recovers, some of the projects become feasible again and this allows them more time to get the project completed before expiring. In response to Committee member Ralph, Gilbert stated it would be up to the council to determine if qualifying criteria would be attached to any extensions, or alternatively, across the board action is appropriate. Gilbert went on to explain that the legislature says if a project was approved prior to December 31, 2007 then it would be valid for10 years. If approved between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 there’s a different number, so these are just dates that the state has set up, but the city has the right to extend beyond these dates. In response to Committee member Ralph, Gilbert stated that if there is a plat extension and the plat is allowed to record, the development standards in effect at the time the plat was filed would apply. David Galazin, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that the city could set up an extension in a number of different ways. Possible options might include an automatic extension where nothing needs done by applicant; or the city could require the applicant to request an extension to be granted without any additional approval needed; or the city could require an applicant to request an extension and provide some kind of evidence that they are proceeding with the project. Future development within these plats would be whatever was proposed in the preliminary plat approval. In response to concerns of Committee member Ralph, Assistant City Attorney Galazin explained that there are some development regulations to which future homes within valid preliminary plats are vested and other codes such as fire code, building code and health and safety codes which they would not be vested. Assistant City Attorney Galazin and Planning Manager Gilbert advised the board that they will be able to bring back more options and more information at a later time and will start at the LUPB board. 8. Mill Creek Historic District Design Guidelines Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager sought guidance regarding Mill Creek Historic District Design Guidelines. The city adopted a landmark designation code and an interlocal agreement with King County to administer that ordinance. King County and the Landmarks Commission issue Certificates of Appropriateness for changes to buildings or properties in the Historic District. The interlocal agreement with King County provides for reimbursing King County for their work on ECDC Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 4 of 6 the City’s behalf. Previous work pertained to city-owned properties but the Mill Creek Historic District is comprised mainly of private properties. Anderson asked whether the design guidelines should be codified and staff administer them even when a permit is not required. Furthermore, should the city pass those costs on to the property owner, establish a budget for them or absorb the cost. In response to Chair Boyce, Anderson stated that typically City costs are paid by the developer or homeowner, as directed by the City Council. Committee Member Budell stated the cost of $145 per Certificate of Appropriateness does not seem unreasonable. Committee Member Ralph clarified this is more about private property owners than developers. ECD Director Ben Wolters stated we have reached a point where there are challenges for the city to assist the community in implementing the historic preservation program. Challenges going forward are the design requirements that don’t require a city permit and tracking specific permits that apply only to certain areas under certain conditions. In Response to Committee Member Ralph, Anderson stated staff has heard from the community that it is a benefit to the City to have this historic district and that it is the right thing for the City to do to absorb that cost. However, it does require staff knowledge of the design guidelines and resolution of issues that have arisen around this. Michael Johnson from the Mill Creek Historic District states he is writing the design guidelines for the District. His opinion as a homeowner is that the COA cost should be absorbed by the City and he would like the Committee to take it into consideration. Committee Member Ralph asked if the neighborhood grant program could absorb the cost. Mill Creek could then apply to have money for the process. Chair Boyce asked staff to develop options and return to the Committee. 9. Sound Transit Update Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager, stated the State legislature recently granted Sound Transit additional taxing authority so Sound Transit is evaluating candidate projects for their next regional transit package. Chelsea Levy, Sound Transit Government Relations Officer, explained to the Committee that Sound Transit’s district is made up of 52 jurisdictions and over 3 million people, about 40% of the State’s population who are all looking to have capital and service improvements out of ST3. In 2014, Sound Transit carried 32 million riders and projects an increase of 101 million riders by the year 2025. 2016 is a big year for Sound Transit because it is opening light rail between UW and Downtown Seattle in a few months; and in the south end, by the end of the year, it will be open light rail to S 200th, the Angle Lake station. In 2021, it will open light rail to Northgate. 2023 is the end of the ST2 capital program; by then, Sound Transit will have light rail to Bellevue, Lynnwood and the Kent-Des Moines Highline College area. The Puget Sound Regional Council expects an increase in population of 100 million by the year 2040. This is the heart of ST3. ECDC Minutes January 11, 2016 Page 5 of 6 The Sound Transit Long Range Plan was updated in 2014; in January, 2015, Sound Transit began to seek revenue authority from the legislature and was successful in doing so. Sound Transit is currently working on systems planning and wants ST3 on the ballot for November, 2016. ST3 pulls projects from the long range plan and puts them into a financially-constrained package that will be put before the voters. Breaking news is that the Kent Station access improvements project, which was set back due to the recession, is awaiting a decision from the Sound Transit Board this month to move forward under ST2 funding rather than await ST3 voting. (Update: The Board approved this action on January 28th.) Eric Chipps mentioned several candidate projects in ST3 that are of interest for the Kent area; light rail, Kent/Des Moines to Redondo/Star Lake (272nd), expanding Sounder South Train Platform to 8 cars to increase capacity, additional south Sounder platform extensions and additional south Sounder services. In order to add capacity, Sound Transit continues to work with Burlington Northern, who owns the tracks. Adding capacity could essentially mean an additional track going through the Kent Station area in the future. In response to Committee Member Ralph, Levy stated jurisdictions individually must initiate requests to be added to the Sound Transit District. Committee Member Budell requested Sound Transit’s thoughts on mirroring SR 405 to go through Tukwilla and Renton instead of just I-90. Chipps explained how some of the ST2 expansion will cover that along with an additional project which will traverse the SR 405 corridor. ECD Director Ben Wolters stated these projects will support the future growth and quality of life in Kent. Adjournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:06 p.m. _______________________________________ Julie Pulliam, Admin Assistant, Economic & Community Development Committee JP:aw \ P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Minutes\1-11-16_Min.docx ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 February 1, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee FROM: Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Emergency Housing Zoning Code Amendment [ZCA-2016-1] For February 8, 2016 Meeting SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on January 25, 2016, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended approval of Zoning Code amendments to allow emergency housing facilities in conjunction with a church in the Duplex Multi-Family (MR-D) zoning district, with a Conditional Use Permit and several additional criteria. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: City administration, council members and staff have recently been contacted by human service organizations regarding the increasing need for emergency housing in Kent. Currently, emergency housing is allowed only in commercial and industrial zones by Conditional Use Permit. As currently defined in the Zoning Code, emergency housing is a public or private facility providing housing for individuals or families who are otherwise homeless and have no immediate living options available to them. Such facilities may provide support services, food, and sanitation and may not exceed a 90-day period per individual or family. In recent years, emergency housing providers have tried unsuccessfully to open new facilities in downtown Kent. In some cases, community opposition has been a factor in the decision to not move forward. As with any land use, emergency housing may include unique impacts to the surrounding neighborhood that need to be considered. These impacts are reviewed during the conditional use permit process, which is currently required for all new emergency housing facilities. Proper management of these facilities may further minimize impacts. Staff review concluded that there may be areas suitable for expanding zoning to allow emergency housing in more locations. As shown on the attached map, Duplex MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval/denial/modification of amendments to KCC 15.04.020 and 15.04.030, Residential Land Uses, as recommended by the Land Use & Planning Board. Multi-Family (MR-D) zoned properties are located in a few areas of the City, all near commercial zones that are transit-accessible and where related social services are available or could be located. Representatives from Kent First Presbyterian Church have suggested that the presence and oversight of a church on a site with an emergency housing facility could provide a solution to address neighborhood concerns about impacts. Given that most churches are established institutions that frequently include social service components and are located on large parcels of land (in the MR-D zone), allowing emergency housing in conjunction with churches may be appropriate. Eight individuals spoke at the public hearing, all expressing their support for the proposed code amendment and emphasizing the need for additional emergency housing in Kent. Representatives from Kent HOPE, Union Gospel Mission and Kent First Presbyterian Church spoke about their existing homeless ministries as well as a specific proposal to construct a facility for 30 women and children on the Kent First Presbyterian Church property. Allowing emergency housing in the MR-D district in conjunction with churches and with a Conditional Use Permit would provide a minor expansion of the land area where emergency housing facilities could locate, while providing operational oversight to monitor the facility and minimize unwanted impacts. Under this approach, other limitations are appropriate to ensure that these facilities remain subordinate uses to churches and integrate with surrounding uses. The proposed amendments are attached. Staff will be available at the meeting to answer questions. EG:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-1 Emergency Housing\ECDC\2-8-16 ECDC_memo Emergency Housing.doc Attach A: Draft Ordinance Attach B: Map of Existing Churches & Vacant/Redevelopable Land in Multifamily Zoning Districts Attach C: LUPB 1/25/16 hearing exhibits Attach D: SEPA Checklist Attach E: SEPA Decision Document Attach F: Determination of Non-Significance cc: Merina Hanson, Human Services Manager File 1 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code, entitled “District Regulations,” to add provisions for emergency housing. RECITALS A. Cities throughout King County are experiencing an increasing need for emergency housing facilities. In recent years, human service providers have considered locating these types of facilities in downtown Kent, but have encountered community opposition. This opposition has led providers to request that the City expand the area of the city where these facilities are allowed. B. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the growing need for homeless services and contains policies to ensure that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs. This plan also indicates that in seeking to help address the challenges of Kent’s homeless residents, the City will collaborate with churches, employers, businesses, schools, and nonprofit agencies in the community. C. Staff presented information regarding emergency housing to the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) at a workshop meeting on 2 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations January 11, 2016, where the LUPB authorized staff to proceed to a hearing. D. On January 19, 2016, the City requested expedited review under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce regarding the City’s proposed amendments. The Washington State Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on February 3, 2016. No comments were received from State agencies. E. The City’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official conducted an environmental analysis of the impacts of the proposed amendments and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on January 20, 2016. F. On January 25, 2016, after holding a public hearing, the LUPB made its recommendations regarding the proposed code amendments to the City Council. G. The Economic and Community Development Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-scheduled meeting on February 8, 2016, and recommended to the full City Council ___________ of the proposed code amendments. H. At its regularly scheduled meeting on _________________, the City Council voted to adopt the amendments to portions of Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code, pertaining to emergency housing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE 3 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 15.04.020, entitled “Residential land uses,” is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.04.020 Residential land uses. Zoning Districts Key P = Principally Permitted Uses S = Special Uses C = Condition al Uses A = Accessory Uses A- 10 AG SR -1 SR -3 SR - 4. 5 SR -6 SR -8 M R- D M R- T1 2 M R- T1 6 M R- G M R- M M R- H M HP NC C CC DC DC E MT C- 1 MT C- 2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 One single- family dwelling per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A ( 1 ) A ( 1 ) A ( 1 ) A ( 1 ) One duplex per lot P ( 2 7 ) P ( 2 7 ) P ( 2 7 ) P One modular home per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P Duplexe s P ( 2 7 ) P ( 2 7 ) P ( 2 7 ) P ( 2 2 ) P P P P P Multifam ily townhou se units P ( 2 7 ) P ( 2 7 ) P ( 2 7 ) P ( 1 9 ) ( 2 0 ) P ( 1 9 ) ( 2 0 ) P P P P ( 2 ) P ( 4 ) C ( 5 ) P P P P P ( 2 ) Multifam ily dwelling s P ( 2 6 ) P ( 2 6 ) P P P P ( 2 ) P ( 4 ) C ( 5 ) P P P P P ( 2 ) Mobile homes and P 4 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations Zoning Districts Key P = Principally Permitted Uses S = Special Uses C = Condition al Uses A = Accessory Uses A- 10 AG SR -1 SR -3 SR - 4. 5 SR -6 SR -8 M R- D M R- T1 2 M R- T1 6 M R- G M R- M M R- H M HP NC C CC DC DC E MT C- 1 MT C- 2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 manufac tured homes Mobile home parks P ( 1 3 ) P ( 1 3 ) P ( 1 3 ) P ( 1 3 ) P ( 1 3 ) P ( 1 3 ) P Group homes class I-A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P C Group homes class I-B P P P P P P P P P P C P P C C C Group homes class II- A C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class II- B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class II- C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class III C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) C ( 2 3 ) Secure commun ity transitio n facilities2 3. 24 Rebuild/ accessor y uses for existing dwelling s P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) P ( 6 ) Transitio nal P ( P ( P ( P ( P ( P P P P P ( P ( 5 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations Zoning Districts Key P = Principally Permitted Uses S = Special Uses C = Condition al Uses A = Accessory Uses A- 10 AG SR -1 SR -3 SR - 4. 5 SR -6 SR -8 M R- D M R- T1 2 M R- T1 6 M R- G M R- M M R- H M HP NC C CC DC DC E MT C- 1 MT C- 2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 housing 2 9 ) 2 9 ) 2 9 ) 2 ) 4 ) C ( 5 ) 7 ) C ( 3 0 ) 7 ) C ( 3 0 ) Rooming and boarding of not more than three persons A A A A A A A A A A Farm worker accomm odations A ( 1 7 ) A ( 9 ) A ( 1 7 ) Accessor y uses and structur es customa rily appurte nant to a permitte d use A A A ( 8 ) ( 1 8 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 8 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 8 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 8 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 8 ) A ( 1 8 ) A ( 1 8 ) A ( 1 8 ) A ( 1 8 ) A ( 1 8 ) A ( 1 8 ) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Accessor y dwelling units and guest cottages A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) A ( 8 ) ( 1 0 ) Accessor y living quarters A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) A ( 1 4 ) Live- work units P ( 2 8 ) 6 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations Zoning Districts Key P = Principally Permitted Uses S = Special Uses C = Condition al Uses A = Accessory Uses A- 10 AG SR -1 SR -3 SR - 4. 5 SR -6 SR -8 M R- D M R- T1 2 M R- T1 6 M R- G M R- M M R- H M HP NC C CC DC DC E MT C- 1 MT C- 2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 Home occupati ons A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) A ( 1 1 ) Service buildings A Storage of recreatio nal vehicles A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A ( 1 6 ) A Drive-in churches C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Emergen cy housing; emergen cy shelter C ( 3 1 ) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Assisted living facilities C C C C C P ( 2 9 ) P ( 2 9 ) P ( 2 9 ) P ( 2 ) P ( 4 ) C ( 5 ) P P P P C C P ( 2 ) Resident ial facilities with health care C C C C C P ( 2 9 ) P ( 2 9 ) P ( 2 9 ) P ( 2 ) P ( 4 ) C ( 5 ) P P P P C C P ( 2 ) Designat ed manufac tured home P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) P ( 2 5 ) SECTION 2. – Amendment. Section 15.04.030, entitled “Residential land use development conditions,” is hereby amended as follows: 7 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations Sec. 15.04.030. Residential land use development conditions. 1. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one per establishment, for security or maintenance personnel and their families, when located on the premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted. 2. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed, shall be permitted only in the mixed use overlay when included within a mixed use development. 3. [Reserved]. 4. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed, when established in buildings with commercial or office uses, and not located on the ground floor. 5. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed, when not combined with commercial or office uses. 6. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired, and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory buildings for existing dwellings may be constructed subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160. 7. Transitional housing facilities, limited to a maximum of 20 residents at any one time, plus up to four resident staff. 8. Accessory structures composed of at least two walls and a roof, not including accessory uses or structures customarily appurtenant to agricultural uses, are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160. 8 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations 9. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the housing of farm owners, operators, or employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 10. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in calculating the maximum density. Accessory dwelling units are allowed only on the same lot with a principally permitted detached single-family dwelling unit, and are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160 and 15.08.350. 11. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.040. 12. [Reserved]. 13. Subject to the combining district requirements of the mobile home park code, Chapter 12.05 KCC. 14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of KCC 15.08.359. 15. [Reserved]. 16. Recreational vehicle storage is permitted as an accessory use in accordance with KCC 15.08.080. 17. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 9 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations 18. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. 19. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to be rezoned at the time of application for a rezone to an MR-T zone: SR-8, MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, NCC, CC, GC, DC, or DCE. 20. All multifamily townhouse developments in an MR-T zone shall be recorded as townhouses with ownership interest, as defined in KCC 15.02.525.1, prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city. 21. [Reserved]. 22. One duplex per lot is permitted. 23. Secure community transition facilities are only permitted within the boundaries depicted on the following map, and only with a conditional use permit: 10 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations 24. A secure community transition facility shall also comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to Chapter 71.09 RCW. Secure community transition facilities are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for class III group homes, but they are subject to a 600-foot separation from any other class II or III group home. In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. Within line of sight means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet to be within line of sight. During the conditional use permit process for a secure community transition facility, line of sight may be considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce 11 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations the line of sight to less than 600 feet. This distance shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. For the purpose of granting a conditional use permit for a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall give great weight to equitable distribution so that the city shall not be subject to a disproportionate share of similar facilities of a state-wide, regional, or county-wide nature. 25. A designated manufactured home is a permitted use with the following conditions: a. A designated manufactured home must be a new manufactured home; b. The designated manufactured home shall be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and the space from the bottom of the home to the ground shall be enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product that can be either load bearing or decorative; c. The designated manufactured home shall comply with all city design standards applicable to all other single-family homes; d. The designated manufactured home shall be thermally equivalent to the State Energy Code; and e. The designated manufactured home shall meet all other requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. 12 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations 26. Multifamily dwellings shall be allowed only within the Kent downtown districts outlined in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and shall be condominiums recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW or similar dwelling units with ownership interest and recorded as such prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city. 27. Within subdivisions, as defined by KCC 12.04.025, vested after March 22, 2007, or altered to comply with zoning and subdivision code amendments effective after March 22, 2007, 25 percent of the total number of permitted dwelling units may be duplex or triplex townhouse structures. 28. Live-work units; provided, that the following development standards shall apply for live-work units, in addition to those set forth in KCC 15.04.190: a. The unit shall contain a cooking space and sanitary facility in conformance with applicable building standards; b. Adequate and clearly defined working space must constitute no less than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the live-work unit. Said working space shall be reserved for and regularly used by one or more persons residing there; c. At least one resident in each live-work unit shall maintain at all times a valid city business license for a business on the premises; d. Persons who do not reside in the live-work unit may be employed in the live-work unit when the required parking is provided; 13 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations e. Customer and client visits are allowed when the required parking is provided; f. No portion of a live-work unit may be separately rented or sold as a commercial space for a person or persons not living on the premises, or as a residential space for a person or persons not working on the premises; g. The multiple-family design guidelines and development standards do not apply to live-work units; h. Construct all nonresidential space, to the maximum allowed, to commercial building standards; and i. Provide an internal connection between the residential and nonresidential space within each unit. 29. Subject to the maximum permitted density of the zoning district. 30. Conditional use when the number of residents exceeds 20 at any one time or more than four resident staff. 31. Emergency housing is an allowed conditional use in the MR-D zone only in conjunction with an approved conditional use permit, and subject to the following additional conditions: a. The emergency housing facility must be located on the same lot as an actively-operating church or similar religious institution, and the lot must be a minimum of two acres in size; b. The emergency housing facility must be located within a permanent, enclosed building; 14 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations c. The building footprint of the emergency housing facility cannot exceed the building footprint of the church or similar religious institution that exists on the same lot; and d. The church or similar religious institution on the same lot as the emergency housing facility shall be primarily liable for the operation and maintenance of the facility itself, as well as the conduct of the residents of the facility on and in the immediate vicinity of the lot, to the maximum extent permitted by law, regardless of whether the organization contracts with a third party for the provision of any services related to the facility itself or its residents. e. The emergency housing facility shall comply with the setbacks and landscaping requirements for churches, as identified in 15.08.020.A. SECTION 3. – 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 4. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 5. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: 15 Amend KCC 15.04 - Re: District Regulations 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\15.04 emergency housing.docx See Map Inset SR 167 SR 5 SR 167 68 Av S 132 Av SE 116 Av SE S 212 St SE 256 St SE 240 St S 277 St SE 192 St SE 208 St Military Rd S 84 Av S 64 Av S 108 Av SESR 99 S 228 St SE 248 St S 272 St 104 Av SE Pacific Hwy S S 196 St 4 Av N SE Kent Kangley Rd Central Av S 36 Av S 76 Av S Orillia Rd S Talbot Rd S Reith Rd S 216 St W Meeker St 124 Av SE E Canyon Dr W James St S R 5 1 6 V e t e r a n s D r S 188 St S 200 St W Smith St Military Rd S 124 Av SE S 200 St 68 Av S 108 Av SE 148 Av SE S 200 St SR 99 S 200 St LAKE MERIDIAN ANGLE LAKE STAR LAKE P A N T H E R L A K E L A K E F E N W I C K CLARK LAKE GRNRA LAKEJOLIE UNNAMED LDSChurch St. James Episco pal Kent Chinese Alliance Ch urch First PresbyterianChurch Kent ChristianCenter E Canyon Dr S 248th St 94 Av S Inset:Churches inMultifamilyZones Existing Churches and Vacant/RedevelopableLand in Kent's Mulitfamily Zoning Districts µ For the purpose of analyzing the siting of emergencyshelters in the mutifamily zones All Other Multifam ilyZones MR-D, DuplexMultifamily Churches in MultifamilyZones Vacant/RedevelopableParcels > 1 Acre Parcels City Limits ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document EMERGENCY HOUSING: AMENDMENTS TO KENT CITY CODE 15.04 ENV-2016-2, KIVA# RPSA-2160153 Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Erin George, AICP 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 allow emergency housing in the Duplex Multi-Family Residential (MR-D) zone, with a conditional use permit. Additional criteria for emergency housing in the MR- D zone are provided. See attached for proposed potential amendments to Sections 15.04.020 and 15.04.030. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 4163), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance 3944) 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 Construction Standards may require the deeding/dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and 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. Decision Document Emergency Housing Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-1) ENV-2016-2 RPSA-2160153 Page 2 of 5 In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 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 All properties within the MR-D (Duplex Multi-Family Residential) zoning district will be affected by this proposal, in various locations throughout the city. Affected areas include a wide range of developed and undeveloped properties. Areas in the Kent valley are generally described as flat and properties on the east hill may be flat, slightly sloped, or have steep slopes. Individual development projects will be subject to the City of Kent standards for erosion and sedimentation controls to minimize off-site soil transport. Though erosion hazards are limited in the area, potential exists whenever soils are exposed. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be determined at the time of individual project implementation. B. Air While adoption of the proposal is a non-project action, allowing emergency housing in the MR-D zoning district is not expected to have a significant impact on air quality, dust, or vehicle vapors. Temporary emissions from equipment would be expected during construction of any facility. Following completion, vehicle emissions will be generated from employees, volunteers, service providers and some clients. The level of emissions generated may be slightly more than those that would otherwise be generated from a single family or duplex development. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be assessed at the time of application for projects. C. Water The proposal is city-wide within the MR-D zoning district, which includes various drainage basins, streams and wetlands. No MR-D zoned properties are located near shorelines of the state. Construction activities are regulated by the adopted codes of the City of Kent, currently the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. D. Plants and Animals This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on plants or animals. If applicable, specific environmental impacts and Decision Document Emergency Housing Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-1) ENV-2016-2 RPSA-2160153 Page 3 of 5 appropriate mitigation measures related to plants and animals will be determined at the time of individual development project implementation. E. Energy and Natural Resources This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on energy and natural resources. F. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare By allowing emergency housing in the MR-D district, this proposal may cause additional noise, light, glare and aesthetic impacts beyond those generated from single family or duplex developments. Current city codes, as well as the conditional use permit process, will regulate impacts to neighboring properties. Landscape buffering and screening as well as hooded or cutoff light fixtures will be required through the conditional use process, which will help to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties. G. Land and Shoreline Use Adoption of the proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposal applies to all properties within the MR-D zoning district, with a comprehensive plan land use designation of LDMF, low density multi- family. No MR-D zoned properties are located within 200 feet of a shoreline of the state. There are a variety of multi-family and single family residential uses within the MR-D district, as well as churches. Allowing emergency housing in the MR-D district will not prevent neighboring residential uses from continuing, but may cause minor noise, performance or visual impacts to neighbors. The location and size restrictions within the MR-D district, together with additional approval criteria associated with a conditional use permit will ensure some buffering and operational oversight and will further reduce impacts to neighboring uses. H. Housing The proposal will expand the available area for provision of temporary housing for homeless individuals. The number and type of individuals housed will vary according to individual proposed development projects. I. Recreation Although parks are located throughout the city, significant adverse impacts to recreation are not anticipated from this proposal. Decision Document Emergency Housing Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-1) ENV-2016-2 RPSA-2160153 Page 4 of 5 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. The conditional use permit process also requires notification of agencies with jurisdiction, which includes tribes and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. K. Transportation Significant traffic impacts are not anticipated, though emergency housing may generate slightly more traffic than single family or duplex development. Each individual development project will be required to pay a transportation impact fee and may be required to construct street improvements. L. Public Services Allowing additional emergency housing may generate the need for additional public services such as police, health care, social services and public transit, though the specific need will depend on the size and location of any proposed facilities, as well as the nature and quality of on-site facility management. M. Utilities Adoption of the proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant 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; Decision Document Emergency Housing Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-1) ENV-2016-2 RPSA-2160153 Page 5 of 5 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; 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 January 20, 2016 EG:pm\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2016\2160153_ENV-2016-2decision.doc Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 1 of 5 January 25, 2016 LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2016 1. Call to Order Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm 2. Roll Call  LUPB Members: Randall Smith, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius; Katherine Jones; and Jack Ottini were in attendance.  City Staff: Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager; Matt Gilbert, Current Planning Manager; Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner; Erin George, Senior Planner; David Galazin, Civil Attorney were in attendance. 3. Approval of Minutes Board Member Cornelius MOVED and Board Member Phillips SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of October 26, 2015. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. Added Items None 5. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None Public Hearing Elder Care Facilities Zoning Code Amendment [ZCA-2015-4] Emergency Shelters Zoning Code Amendment [ZCA-2016-1] Erin George, Senior Planner submitted two exhibits for the record; defined as Exhibit 1, an email comment letter from Pastor Carol Kirkpatrick; and Exhibit 2, an email comment letter from Dave Mitchell. Board Member Phillips MOVED and Board Member Ottini Seconded a Motion to accept the two exhibits into the record. Motion PASSED 5-0. George reported that city leadership was recently approached by human service providers with a request to consider expanding zoning options for emergency housing, citing an increasing need for such facilities in Kent. These facilities have tried to locate downtown in the past, but have encountered opposition from neighboring businesses. George stated that staff reviewed the “One Night Count” conducted on January 23, 2015, which showed 10,047 homeless people in King County; of those 3,772 people were on the street. That was a 21% increase from 2014. In Kent, 135 people were unsheltered and 36 people were sheltered. George described the existing emergency housing facilities in Kent, all of which are housed in existing churches. Holy Spirit Parish provides an overnight shelter for women with a maximum capacity of 15 women, from October through May. The rotating men’s overnight shelter is shared among a variety of churches who take turns for a month at a time, housing Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 2 of 5 January 25, 2016 up to 25 men. George visited several of these churches and found no exterior indications of homeless housing. George explained that Kent City Code (KCC) 15.02.131 defines emergency housing and emergency shelters together in one definition, and limits emergency housing to a 90-day period per individual or family. Staff is not proposing to change this code definition. Emergency housing and emergency shelters are currently allowed in all commercial and industrial zones with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff compared Kent’s regulations with Renton, Des Moines, Federal Way, Tukwila and Auburn and found that every city defines and regulates emergency housing differently; allowing them within both commercial and residential zones. Most cities limit residential to multi-family zones only, and no one requires a church association. Tukwila only allows shelter facilities for domestic violence and runaway minors. Proximity to transit and services are common requirements. In talking with planners at these other cities, she found that nearly all emergency housing in those cities is located inside existing churches. In looking at our multifamily residential districts, one zone came up as a likely candidate: Duplex Multi- Family Residential (MR-D). It’s one of the smaller zoning districts in Kent, but all MR-D areas are within close proximity to transit and commercial areas. Comments received from Pastor Kirkpatrick, Kent First Presbyterian Church expressed that liability for running the shelters should be shared between churches and those operating the shelters. Comments from the Union Gospel Mission asked for some changes to the proposed code language, including a preference for the term ‘religious organization’ versus ‘church’, ‘square footage” rather than ‘footprint,’ would like a one acre minimum requirement, allow the lot to be immediately adjacent, and request that Section D be deleted with regard to church liability. A phone call from Donna Lee (living next to Kent First Presbyterian) expressed concern about having a shelter located near her home. Staff recommends allowing emergency housing in MR-D zone with a CUP in addition to several special criteria: the emergency housing facility must be on the same lot with an actively-operating church, upon a minimum lot size of 2 acres, within a permanent enclosed building not to exceed the building footprint of the church, with the church liable for operation and maintenance of the facility as well as the conduct of the residents. Staff suggests adding one additional criterion to comply with setbacks and landscaping for churches as contained in KCC 15.08.020. In response to questions from Chair Smith, George explained that the 90 day limitation is intended for families residing in more of a traditional house setting, while a larger facility will have different residents every night and there is no good way for the City to monitor that. Galazin added that there hasn’t been an issue of individuals trying to game the system, but should the issue come up, we would address it then. Galazin stated these facilities are allowed with a conditional use within a number of different zones. All that is being proposed tonight is adding one additional zone, MR-D, a multifamily residential zone along with a couple specific conditions. This proposal is a slight expansion of what already exists in Kent City Code, is a specified need, and does not impose a wholesale change across the City. These facilities would be sited where they would least impact the community. Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 5 January 25, 2016 Board Member Ottini expressed support for staff’s recommendation. At the completion of staff’s presentation, Chair Smith Opened the Public Hearing. Patricia Gray, 14036 SE 237th Place, Kent, WA 98042 submitted her presentation for the record, defined as Exhibit 3 on Kent HOPE. She stated that Kent HOPE has been in operation since 2013 in partnership with over twenty churches, other faith-based groups, and community supporters. Their day center on Canyon Road helps a daily average of 29 homeless women and 3 children with resources and case management to lead them back to a productive life. They currently partner with churches to provide overnight shelter for 30 women, but are unable to house children at these churches. Since opening, they have helped 238 women and children find housing and helped 108 women find jobs. She stated that they are in need of a larger permanent facility to realize their vision to shelter women and children overnight. In response to a question from Board Member Phillips, Gray explained that the proposed facility would be a new, separate building located on the grounds of Kent First Presbyterian Church. In response to questions from Chair Smith, Gray explained that the day center provides showers and laundry facilities at the day center, as well as play areas for children. She also explained that no men, even fathers, are allowed on the premises for security reasons. Chair Smith expressed concerns regarding the potential need for increased police response at the facility. Board Member Jones MOVED and Board Member Phillips seconded a motion to accept Exhibit 3 from Patricia Gray into the record. Motion PASSED 5-0. Dave Mitchell, 14516 SE 266th St, Kent, WA 98042 submitted his presentation for the record, defined as Exhibit 4 related to Kent HOPE and Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (UGM). Mitchell stated that King County is experiencing a major increase in homelessness, such that Dow Constantine and Seattle Mayor Murray have both declared a state of emergency. UGM has considered sites within the Downtown DCE areas for siting their facilities which would be allowed with a conditional use permit. Business owners opposed these facilities and UGM felt it best not to pursue those locations. Mitchell showed a map of the proposed facility location at Kent First Presbyterian Church, as well as a photo of how they want the building design to look. UGM’s directive to an architect would be to have the building fit well with the surroundings. Mitchell spoke in support of staff’s recommendations with suggested modifications as submitted by UGM. To address Chair Smith’s prior question, Mitchell described the 2015 police reports for the Kent HOPE day center. Out of 15 police reports, 3 were perpetrated by clients of the day center, but in the other 12 reports the clients were the victims. None of the reports had to do with loitering, panhandling, drug use, littering or the other issues that are sometimes associated with homeless shelters. Board Member Phillips MOVED and Board Member Ottini seconded a motion to accept Exhibit 4 from Mr. Dave Mitchell into the record. Motion PASSED 5-0. Marvin Eckfeldt, 24205 116th Ave SE, #210, Kent, WA informed that in 2011 Kent City Council assembled a task force comprised of church and community leaders to look at the homelessness issue. A movement began to establish temporary shelters and permanent shelters. In 2013 Kent HOPE hosted a forum with 33 human service agencies in South County and Kent (already providing homeless services). It came to light that these agencies were able to provide services to homeless but didn’t have facilities available in central Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 4 of 5 January 25, 2016 locations. Ekfeldt stated that he spoke with Police Chief Thomas who voiced his support of this proposal and furthermore had no concerns with enforcement issues. Reverend Carol Kirkpatrick, 9425 S 248th St., Kent, WA 98030 stated that Kent First Presbyterian Church has served the community by providing shelter for men 2 months a year and women 1 month a year for 17 years. There have been no complaints from neighbors. One neighbor called to thank them, saying that when the homeless are housed on the church property, they are well supervised. Three neighboring churches support this effort and provide volunteers. Kent First Presbyterian Church is within walking distance of downtown, a public bus line and school bus stop, as well as medical and other service facilities. Layne Hammond Champion, 2408 10th Ave E, Seattle, WA stated that she oversees the Kent HOPE Day Center and several other shelter facilities for Union Gospel Mission. She spoke about the reasons why women and children end up in shelters, such as domestic violence, lack of healthcare coverage, job loss or terminated relationships.She also explained why there is a cultural stigma of fear associated with the homeless. Kent HOPE uses an intensive intake process including criminal background checks and mental health and drug use history. Jennifer Jeffries, 3802 S Othello St., Seattle, WA 98118 gave her personal testimony related to her experience of how Kent HOPE has been instrumental in giving her the tools needed to get back on her feet and become a productive member of society. Jacob Dreifus, 11328 SE Kent Kangley Road, Kent, WA spoke in support for more of these facilities, citing 500 kids in the Kent School District who are considered homeless, which includes those living in hotels or staying with a friend. Leslie Amada, 28026 189th Ave SE, Kent, WA 98042 submitted two exhibits for the record, defined as Exhibit 5 - describing the homelessness problems, and Exhibit 6 – King County One Night County 2015 Data Summary. She stated that she has been involved with the homeless for over ten years; serves as an emergency assistance director for Kent United Methodist Church, served on the Human Services Board for the City of Covington, served on the Washington State Board of Corrections in the City of Kent dealing with prisoners, incarcerations and released felons; and served a term with Kent HOPE. She spoke about the disparity with homeless people of color and other cultures. This proposal will allow expansion of these facilities without requiring any funding by the City. Board Member Phillips MOVED and Board Member Ottini SECONDED a Motion to accept Exhibits 5 and 6 from Leslie Amada into the record. Motion PASSED 5-0. Galazin announced that this item will move forward to the City Council’s Economic & Community Development Committee for further consideration. He encouraged the public to attend that meeting to make their opinions known. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Smith Closed the Public Hearing and called for a Motion. Board Member Jones MOVED and Board Member Phillips SECONDED a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of amendments to KCC 15.04.020 and Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 5 January 25, 2016 15.04.030, Residential Land Uses, as presented by staff. Motion PASSED unanimously 5-0 with all members voting YEA in favor. 7. Adjournment Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:40 pm ___________________________________________________ Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager, LUPB Board Secretary ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 February 8, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator RE: Assisted Living (Elder Care) Facilities in Commercial Zones SUMMARY: At its January 25, 2016, meeting the Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB) held a public hearing wherein staff presented an amendment introducing a new category of elder care facility, independent senior living facilities, as well as clarifying edits to other elder care facility types and a new footnote in the development conditions for all kinds of elder care facilities. The new footnote allowed the option for elder care facilities to site in commercial zones without a commercial component on site, instead fulfilling the goal of mixed use via a Conditional Use Permit requiring proximity to other amenities. The LUPB moved to approve the amendment without the requirement regarding proximity to amenities, moving instead to allow elder care facilities in commercial zones with a conditional use permit but without any mixed use requirement. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The 2014 Docket requested amendment of the definition and use table related to assisted living facilities, arguing that an Assisted Living Facility is not a residential facility subject to a requisite commercial component in the mixed use overlay under General Commercial and Community Commercial. Staff has received other requests to site assisted living facilities or other elder care facilities in commercial areas without a commercial component. Through a series of workshops and tours, staff and an LUPB subcommittee explored facilities with and without commercial MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval/ denial/ modification of the ordinance amending Title 15 of the Kent City Code (KCC) including clarifications to definitions in KCC 15.02 and amendments to use tables and development conditions in KCC 15.04 as recommended by staff/as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board. components to better understand the nature of these facilities and their residents’ needs. Testimony at the first LUPB public hearing on October 26, 2015, as well as subsequent staff research, showed that certain independent senior housing facilities are more similar to licensed assisted living facilities than multifamily dwellings, with which they are currently grouped for zoning purposes. Based on this analysis, staff developed a new category for independent senior living facilities that provide at least one meal per day, as the provision of meals is associated with a facility type more akin to assisted living facilities which are licensed by the State. Senior apartments, or other multifamily facilities that may market to seniors but do not provide meals, would still be considered multifamily dwellings, and would be subject to the existing 25% commercial requirements in commercial zones with the mixed use overlay (CC-MU and GC-MU). Staff also presented to the LUPB other zoning districts around the City where elder care facilities are principally permitted or allowed via a Conditional Use Permit without the commercial component, i.e., most multifamily and single-family zones, as well as downtown and in commercial- manufacturing zones (see attached map). Housing and land use trends, as well as best practices for the health and well-being of seniors, show that humane elder care facilities (of any type) should be located in walkable areas with services and amenities. Staff developed a list of amenity categories that would be relevant to seniors, based on this research, and proposed a requirement that elder care facilities in commercial zones that do not meet the 25% commercial requirement instead prove they are within ¼ mile of amenities in at least three of the categories. The intent of this proposal was for elder care facilities, which are residential, to have a better chance of success in commercial zones if located within walking distance of relevant commercial services. Public testimony at the LUPB, however, described the proximity requirement as too restrictive and advocated for a more market-driven approach to siting elder care facilities. The LUPB recommended approval of the modified ordinance, with the proximity to commercial services requirement removed (removed text shown in bold and highlighted in the attached ordinance). There was also a minor housekeeping modification made to the ordinance since the LUPB public hearing, to ensure density calculations are done correctly. The modification removes density calculation language from the definitions and moves the language instead to footnote 29 in the development conditions. Staff will be available at the February 8, 2016, ECDC meeting to answer questions on the project. HB: S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2015\ZCA-2015-4 AsstLvg_ElderCareFac\ECDC 3_02.08.16\ECDC memo elder care 02 08 16_final.doc Encl: Draft Ordinance; Elder Care Zoning Map; SEPA Checklist; SEPA Addendum; 1/25/16 LUPB Public Hearing Minutes cc: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager 1 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending portions of Chapters 15.02 and 15.04 of the Kent City Code, including adding a new Section 15.02.203; pertaining to the definitions and development regulations applicable to assisted living facilities and independent senior living facilities. (DKT-2014- 5.) RECITALS A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.470, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the City establish a docketing process as a means for the public to suggest changes or identify deficiencies in City plans and regulations. The docketing process is set forth in Section 12.02.025 of the Kent City Code (KCC). B. On September 2, 2014, a docket item was submitted to the City, requesting a change in how “assisted living facilities” are defined for the purpose of locating them in commercial areas without a mixed use component. This was designated Docket No. DKT-2014-5. Staff recommended that this docket item not be included in the 2015 work program for the Economic and Community Development Department (“Department”) at that time. 2 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care C. On November 10, 2014, the Economic and Community Development Committee passed a motion accepting the staff recommendation (revised to include DKT-2014-5 in the 2015 work program) to approve the 2014 Annual Docket Report as presented. D. On November 18, 2014, the City Council authorized the Mayor to accept the Economic and Community Development Committee recommendations on the 2014 Annual Docket Report. E. Kent has a growing population of seniors, and nationwide research suggests that this demographic will be healthier and more mobile than previous generations of seniors. Experts describe a trend towards senior living in walkable urban areas with nearby amenities, while isolated institutional-type facilities are considered less humane. F. Current mixed use requirements in city code reflect a policy decision that multifamily or multi-unit developments should include on-site commercial uses. G. On August 24, 2015, Department staff presented an overview of current research on aging, background on types of senior living facilities, facility design, and land use trends, to the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) at a workshop meeting. H. On October 12, 2015, Department staff recommended to the Economic and Community Development Committee that the 2014 Docket Report be amended in order to, among other things, include DKT-2014-5 in the 2015 work program. At this October 12, 2015 meeting, Department staff further presented a two-phased project scope to the Economic and 3 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care Community Development Committee: the first phase included clarification of “assisted living facilities” and adding flexible locational criteria; the second phase included addressing broader issues about mixed use requirements for multifamily developments and independent senior living facilities in commercial zones. The Committee recommended approval of this two-phased approach. I. On October 26, 2015, the LUPB held a public hearing, during which Department staff presented code amendment options, including new locational criteria, to the LUPB. At the conclusion of the hearing, the LUPB directed staff to analyze independent senior living facilities in the first phase of the project, instead of delaying it until the second phase. Furthermore, the LUPB Chair formed a subcommittee to tour a number of elder care facilities to better understand the issues involved. Staff updated the Economic and Community Development Committee on the project on November 9, 2015. J. On October 8, 2015, the City requested expedited review under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce regarding the City’s proposed code amendments related to development regulations applicable to elder care facilities. The Washington State Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on October 26, 2015. No comments were received from State agencies. K. On October 15, 2015, the City conducted and completed environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). L. On January 11, 2016, Department staff presented code amendment options, including new definitions to more clearly distinguish different elder care facility types to the LUPB, at a workshop meeting. The options included locational criteria to achieve mixed use goals through proximity to 4 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care other uses, rather than requiring a mix of uses on site. After holding a public hearing on January 25, 2016, the LUPB recommended modificationapproval of the proposed code amendments, as presented by staff, to exclude requirements to provide commercial components or nearby amenities. M. The Economic and Community Development Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-scheduled meeting on February 8, 2016, and recommended to the full City Council passage of the proposed code amendments as recommended by __________________. N. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on February 16, 2016, the City Council voted to adopt the amendments to portions of Chapters 15.02 and 15.04 of the Kent City Code, pertaining to assisted living facilities and independent senior living facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. – New Section. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City code is amended by adding a new section 15.02.203 to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.203. Independent senior living facility. Independent senior living facility means a multi-dwelling-unit facility that provides housing, communal areas, and limited basic services (including a variety of social and transportation services) to individuals 60 or more years of age who choose to live in a congregate setting. These facilities consist of individual dwelling units that contain separate bathroom facilities, and which also may contain a full kitchen, partial kitchen, or no kitchen. For 5 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care purposes of density calculations, each unit is considered one dwelling unit. Communal areas include: a dining room in which at least one meal per day is served; social and activity areas; laundry facilities; and open spaces. This definition does not include senior housing that does not provide meals, assisted living facilities, group homes, or residential facilities with health care. SECTION 2. - Amendment. Section 15.02.026.1 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: Sec. 15.02.026.1. Assisted living facility. Assisted living facility means an establishment that has the express or implied purpose of providing housing and basic services (such as laundry, housekeeping, meals, and activities), and assuming general responsibility for the safety and well-being of the residents, and that may also provide domiciliary (home or personal) care, provides living quarters and a variety of limited personal care and supportive health care monitoring to more than ten (10) individuals who may be unable to live independently due to infirmity of age, or physical or mental handicap, but who do not need the skilled nursing care of a convalescent home or a residential facility with health care. These facilities may consist of individual dwelling units, with separate bathroom facilities, a full- kitchen, partial kitchen, or no kitchen. For purposes of density calculations, each unit is considered one dwelling unit. In addition, these facilities may have communal dining areas, recreation facilities (library, lounge, game room), laundry facilities and open space. An assisted living facility is a state-licensed residential facility pursuant to Chapter 18.20 RCW, as amended, but not a group home or a residential facility with health care. SECTION 3. - Amendment. Section 15.02.125 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: 6 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care Sec. 15.02.125. Dwelling, multiple-family. Multiple-family dwelling means a residential building designed for or occupied by three (3) or more families, with the number of families in residence not exceeding the number of dwelling units provided. This definition also includes independent senior housing for individuals sixty (60) years or olderdoes not include independent senior living facilities. SECTION 4. - Amendment. Section 15.02.335.3 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: Sec. 15.02.335.3. Residential facility with health care. Residential facility with health care means a medically staffed facility intended for the long-term residential care of more than ten (10) handicapped individuals who, because of age or medical condition, are incapable of independent living. This definition also includes nursing homes, as defined in RCW 18.51.010, and continuing care retirement communitiesy, as defined byin RCW 70.38.025, but does not include group homes. For purposes of density calculations, each residential care unit is considered one dwelling unit. SECTION 5. - Amendment. Section 15.04.020 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: 15.04.020 Residential land uses. 7 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care Zoning Districts Key P = Principally Permitted Uses S = Special Uses C = Conditional Uses A = Accessory Uses A-10 AG SR -1 SR -3 SR -4. 5 SR -6 SR -8 MR -D MR -T1 2 MR -T1 6 MR -G MR -M MR -H MH P NC C CC DC DC E MT C -1 MT C -2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 One single-family dwelling per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1) One duplex per lot P (27) P (27) P (27) P One modular home per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P Duplexes P (27) P (27) P (27) P (22) P P P P P Multifamily townhouse units P (27) P (27) P (27) P (19) (20) P (19) (20) P P P P (2) P (4) C (5) P P P P P (2) Multifamily dwellings P (26) P (26) P P P P (2) P (4) C (5) P P P P P (2) Mobile homes and manufactured homes P Mobile home parks P (13) P (13) P (13) P (13) P (13) P (13) P Group homes class I-A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P C Group homes class I-B P P P P P P P P P P C P P C C C Group homes class II-A C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 8 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care Key P = Principally Permitted Uses S = Special Uses C = Conditional Uses A = Accessory Uses A-10 AG SR -1 SR -3 SR -4. 5 SR -6 SR -8 MR -D MR -T1 2 MR -T1 6 MR -G MR -M MR -H MH P NC C CC DC DC E MT C -1 MT C -2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 Group homes class II-B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class II-C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Group homes class III C (2 3) C (23) C (23) C (2 3) C (2 3) C (2 3) C (2 3) C (2 3) C (2 3) C (23) Secure community transition facilities23, 24 Rebuild/acce ssory uses for existing dwellings P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) Transitional housing P (29 ) P (29 ) P (29 ) P (2) P (4) C (5) P P P P P (7) C (3 0) P (7) C (30) Rooming and boarding of not more than three persons A A A A A A A A A A Farm worker accommodat ions A (1 7) A (9) A (1 7) Accessory uses and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use A A A( 8) (1 8) A (8) (1 8) A (8) (1 8) A (8) (1 8) A (8) (1 8) A (1 8) A (1 8) A (1 8) A (18 ) A (18 ) A (18 ) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Accessory dwelling units and guest cottages A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (10 ) A (8) (10 ) A (8) (10 ) A (8) (1 0) A (8) (1 0) Accessory living quarters A (1 4) A (14) A (14) A (1 4) A (1 4) A (1 4) A (1 4) A (1 4) A (1 4) A (14) A (1 4) A (1 4) A (1 4) A (1 4) Live-work units P (2 8) Home occupations A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (11 ) A (11 ) A (11 ) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (11) A (11) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (11) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) A (1 1) Service buildings A 9 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care Key P = Principally Permitted Uses S = Special Uses C = Conditional Uses A = Accessory Uses A-10 AG SR -1 SR -3 SR -4. 5 SR -6 SR -8 MR -D MR -T1 2 MR -T1 6 MR -G MR -M MR -H MH P NC C CC DC DC E MT C -1 MT C -2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 Storage of recreational vehicles A (1 6) A (1 6) A (1 6) A (1 6) A (1 6) A (1 6) A (1 6) A (1 6) A (1 6) A (16 ) A (16 ) A (16 ) A Drive-in churches C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Emergency housing; emergency shelter C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Independent senior living facilities C C C C C P(2 9) P(2 9) P(2 9) P(2)C (3) P(4)C (5) P P P P C C P(2)C (3) Assisted living facilities C C C C C P (29 ) P (29 ) P (29 ) P (2) C(3) P (4) C (5) P P P P C C P (2) C(3) Residential facilities with health care C C C C C P (29 ) P (29 ) P (29 ) P (2) C(3) P (4) C (5) P P P P C C P (2) C(3) Designated manufacture d home P (2 5) P (2 5) P (2 5) P (2 5) P (2 5) P (2 5) P (2 5) P (2 5) P (2 5) P (25 ) P (25 ) P (25 ) P (2 5) SECTION 6. - Amendment. Section 15.04.030 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: Sec. 15.04.030. Residential land use development conditions. 1. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one per establishment, for security or maintenance personnel and their families, when located on the premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted. 2. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed, shall be permitted only are only permissible in thea mixed use overlay, and must be when included within a mixed use development. 10 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care 3. [Reserved]. Assisted living facilities, residential facilities with health care, and independent senior living facilities, when not combined with commercial or office uses, require a conditional use permit and are subject to the requirements of KCC 15.09.045 for multifamily design review and mixed use design review, as well as area-specific design review, such as in Midway, Downtown and along the Meeker Street Corridor. These facilities are also subject to the following conditions: a. Must be located within one quarter mile of publicly- accessible amenities in at least three of the following categories, as determined by the economic and community development director. The distance shall be measured as the shortest straight- line distance from the property line of the proposed facility to the property line of the entities listed below: i. Public park or trail, as identified in the City’s most recently-adopted Park and Open Space Plan, or owned or maintained by any agency of the state, or any political subdivision thereof; ii. Preschool, elementary, or secondary school (public or private); iii. Indoor recreational centers (Ccommunity centers,or senior centers, recreational centers, bingo or casino halls); iv. Church, religious institution, or other place of worship; v. Cultural arts centers (theaters, concert halls, Recreational, artistic, cultural, or other similar event center; vi. Retail services, including, but not limited to: medical services; food and beverage establishments; shopping centers; or other commercial services that are relevant (reasonably useful or germane) to the residents of the 11 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care proposed facility, as determined by the City’s economic and community development director. b. Alternatively, if the facility provides amenities in one or more of the categories listed in 15.04.030(a) on the ground floor of the facility itself, oriented towards the public (meaning that they are visible, accessible and welcoming), the number of other amenities to which a quarter-mile proximity is required may be reduced at the discretion of the City’s economic and community development director. 4. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed, when established in buildings with commercial or office uses, and not located on the ground floor. 5. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed, when not combined with commercial or office uses. 6. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired, and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory buildings for existing dwellings may be constructed subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160. 7. Transitional housing facilities, limited to a maximum of 20 residents at any one time, plus up to four resident staff. 8. Accessory structures composed of at least two walls and a roof, not including accessory uses or structures customarily appurtenant to agricultural uses, are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160. 9. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the housing of farm owners, operators, or employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 12 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care 10. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in calculating the maximum density. Accessory dwelling units are allowed only on the same lot with a principally permitted detached single-family dwelling unit, and are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160 and 15.08.350. 11. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.040. 12. [Reserved]. 13. Subject to the combining district requirements of the mobile home park code, Chapter 12.05 KCC. 14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of KCC 15.08.359. 15. [Reserved]. 16. Recreational vehicle storage is permitted as an accessory use in accordance with KCC 15.08.080. 17. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 18. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. 13 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care 19. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to be rezoned at the time of application for a rezone to an MR-T zone: SR-8, MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, NCC, CC, GC, DC, or DCE. 20. All multifamily townhouse developments in an MR-T zone shall be recorded as townhouses with ownership interest, as defined in KCC 15.02.525.1, prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city. 21. [Reserved]. 22. One duplex per lot is permitted. 23. Secure community transition facilities are only permitted within the boundaries depicted on the following map, and only with a conditional use permit: 14 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care 24. A secure community transition facility shall also comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to Chapter 71.09 RCW. Secure community transition facilities are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for class III group homes, but they are subject to a 600-foot separation from any other class II or III group home. In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. Within line of sight means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet to be within line of sight. During the conditional use permit process for a secure community transition facility, line of sight may be considered to be less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than 600 feet. This distance shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. For the purpose of granting a conditional use permit for a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall give great weight to equitable distribution so that the city shall not be subject to a disproportionate share of similar facilities of a state-wide, regional, or county-wide nature. 25. A designated manufactured home is a permitted use with the following conditions: 15 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care a. A designated manufactured home must be a new manufactured home; b. The designated manufactured home shall be set upon a permanent foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and the space from the bottom of the home to the ground shall be enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product that can be either load bearing or decorative; c. The designated manufactured home shall comply with all city design standards applicable to all other single-family homes; d. The designated manufactured home shall be thermally equivalent to the State Energy Code; and e. The designated manufactured home shall meet all other requirements for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160. 26. Multifamily dwellings shall be allowed only within the Kent downtown districts outlined in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and shall be condominiums recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW or similar dwelling units with ownership interest and recorded as such prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city. 27. Within subdivisions, as defined by KCC 12.04.025, vested after March 22, 2007, or altered to comply with zoning and subdivision code amendments effective after March 22, 2007, 25 percent of the total number of permitted dwelling units may be duplex or triplex townhouse structures. 28. Live-work units; provided, that the following development standards shall apply for live-work units, in addition to those set forth in KCC 15.04.190: 16 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care a. The unit shall contain a cooking space and sanitary facility in conformance with applicable building standards; b. Adequate and clearly defined working space must constitute no less than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the live-work unit. Said working space shall be reserved for and regularly used by one or more persons residing there; c. At least one resident in each live-work unit shall maintain at all times a valid city business license for a business on the premises; d. Persons who do not reside in the live-work unit may be employed in the live-work unit when the required parking is provided; e. Customer and client visits are allowed when the required parking is provided; f. No portion of a live-work unit may be separately rented or sold as a commercial space for a person or persons not living on the premises, or as a residential space for a person or persons not working on the premises; g. The multiple-family design guidelines and development standards do not apply to live-work units; h. Construct all nonresidential space, to the maximum allowed, to commercial building standards; and i. Provide an internal connection between the residential and nonresidential space within each unit. 29. Subject to the maximum permitted density of the zoning district. For assisted living facilities, residential facilities with health care, and independent senior living facilities, each residential care unit is considered one dwelling unit for purposes of density calculations. 30. Conditional use when the number of residents exceeds 20 at any one time or more than four resident staff. 17 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care SECTION 7. – 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 8. – 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 9. – 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 18 Amend KCC 15.02 and 15.04 - Re: Elder Care 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 S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2015\ZCA-2015-4 AsstLvg_ElderCareFac\ECDC 3_02.08.16\15 02 and 15 04 Elder Care_01 27 2016_rev_LUPB.docxp:\civil\ordinance\15.02 and 15.04 elder care.docx Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 1 of 3 January 25, 2016 LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 25, 2016 1. Call to Order Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm 2. Roll Call  LUPB Members: Randall Smith, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius; Katherine Jones; and Jack Ottini were in attendance.  City Staff: Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager; Matt Gilbert, Current Planning Manager; Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner; Erin George, Senior Planner; David Galazin, Civil Attorney were in attendance. 3. Approval of Minutes Board Member Cornelius MOVED and Board Member Phillips SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of October 26, 2015. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. Added Items None 5. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. Public Hearing Elder Care Facilities Zoning Code Amendment [ZCA-2015-4] Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner, explained that the original intent of the docket request was to permit assisted living facilities without a commercial component in a commercial zone. Staff was directed by the Board to analyze independent senior living facilities (ISLF) as well. The Board formed a subcommittee, touring a number of facilities to understand the issues involved. The proposed amendment adds a new category for ISLF; separating those ISLFs (that provide at least one meal per day) from other independent senior housing. The proposed amendment also addresses the commercial component issue by providing a new conditional use option for elder care facilities to be located in commercial zones without a commercial component on-site; the applicant must show that commercial services are available within one quarter mile (walking distance) of amenities in at least three of the following categories: a public park or trail, school, indoor recreation centers, places of worship, cultural arts centers, or retail services. The intent of this proposal is to increase choices and quality of life by providing easy access to amenities and services. Staff recommends approval of amendments to Title 15 of Kent City Code (KCC) to include clarification of definitions in KCC 15.02 and amendments to use tables and development conditions in KCC 15.04. Concluding staff’s presentation, Chair Smith Opened the Public Hearing. Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 2 of 3 January 25, 2016 April Mackoff, 701 5th Avenue, Suite 6600, Seattle, WA 98104 attorney with McCullough, Hall, Leary. On behalf of Sante Partners we strongly support ZCA-2015-4, thanking the Board members and staff for their hard work regarding this matter. We look forward to adoption of this ordinance. J.B. Ruth, 420 W Smith Street, #214, Kent, WA 98032 spoke in opposition to the quarter mile distance requirements, stating that placing these facilities in CC-MU zoning districts would not work and stating that siting these facilities needs to be determined on a case by case basis. Khalid Husain, 26859 129th Avenue SE, Kent, WA stated that this is a highly regulated industry. He spoke in opposition to the restrictive regulations including the quarter mile requirement.. He recommended the addition of a category of services that would include pharmacies, dental clinics and pet clinics. Husain opined that he would like to encourage development of more adult foster home facilities for the elderly which house six or less residents as these facilities only require licensing and are not regulated by the City. Alyssa Arly, 6515 66 Street NE, Marysville, WA 98270 stated that as a consultant her primary focus is working to find placement facilities for the elderly, stating that she operated an adult and family home for close to 14 years. She stated that Kent is in need of assisted living facilities that can allow aging in place. The first baby boomers are now 70 years old and beginning to enter our facilities with the silent generation (from 71 to 93 years of age) declining from our facilities. Many of the facilities in Kent were designed as independent living facilities. She spoke in opposition to the inclusion of a quarter mile boundary. Arly asked that the City allow for more assisted living facilities to be built in Kent. With no further speakers, Chair Smith Closed the Public Hearing. Galazin explained that assisted living facilities differ from other facilities regulated within the City, such as residential facilities with health care and group homes. Currently in Kent City Code, there is a 25 percent commercial component requirement associated with assisted living facilities. Staff’s proposal includes language where that commercial component can be waived if certain amenities are provided on site or if the facilities are located within a specific proximity of a number of identified amenities. Chair Smith called for a motion. Board member Jones MOVED to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed elder care facilities zoning code amendment [ZCA-2015-4] to Title 15 of the Kent City Code including clarifications to definitions in KCC 15.02 and amendments to use tables and development conditions as presented by staff. Board Member Smith Seconded the Motion. Discussion ensued. Board member Ottini moved to amend the original motion to delete the quarter mile requirement with Board Member Phillips seconding that motion. Discussion ensued. Land Use & Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 3 January 25, 2016 Galazin addressed questions and concerns raised by the Board related to the quarter mile regulation, siting of these facilities, how best to meet the Growth Management Act requirements, and the 25 percent commercial component. Bonsteel stated that if the quarter mile requirement is removed, then Section A on page 20 requiring that the facilities be located within a quarter mile of amenities will be removed. Galazin clarified the main motion as amended for the record as: To recommend to the City Council modification of the proposed code amendments to Title 15 of the Kent City Code including clarifications to definitions in KCC 15.02 and amendments to use tables and development conditions in KCC 15.04 as presented by staff, as amended to do away with the quarter mile requirement that is on page 20 of your packet, so that the motion will read to approve assisted living facilities, residential facilities with healthcare and independent senior living facilities when not combined with commercial or office uses, require a conditional use permit and are subject to the requirements of KCC 15.09.045 for multifamily design review and mixed use design review, as well as area specific design review such as the Midway, Downtown and along the Meeker Street Corridor. Galazin stated that everything beyond that point has been stricken. The Board’s recommendations will move forward to City Council for their consideration. Chair Smith than called for the vote with Board Members Ottini, Phillips, Smith and Cornelius voting YEA and Board Member Jones voting NAY to delete the quarter mile requirement. Motion PASSED 4-1. Concluding Deliberations; Chair Smith called for the vote with Board Members Ottini, Phillips, Smith and Cornelius voting YEA approving the main motion as amended and Board Member Jones voting NAY in opposition. Motion PASSED 4-1. Adjournment Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:40 pm ___________________________________________________ Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager, LUPB Board Secretary 1 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Suzette Cooke, Mayor Phone: 253-856-5700 Fax: 253-856-6700 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA. 98032-5895 February 8, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Toni Azzola, Neighborhood Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Recognition of Neighborhood Council - Resolution SUMMARY: East Pointe neighborhood has completed the process to be recognized as a neighborhood council. BACKGROUND: The City’s Neighborhood Program is an initiative designed to foster better communication among residents in a geographic area and city government. The underlying objective of the program is to provide an avenue for residents to work together to enhance the livability of their neighborhoods. The program encourages organization of neighborhood councils, which serve as independent, non-profit organizations to promote resident-based efforts for neighborhood improvements while also establishing a partnership between City government and the neighborhoods it serves. BUDGET IMPACT: None MOTION: Recommend Council adopt the resolution that recognizes the East Pointe Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City’s Neighborhood Program. 1 East Pointe Neighborhood Council Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, recognizing East Pointe Neighborhood Council. RECITALS A. The city of Kent has developed a Neighborhood Program to promote and sustain an environment that responds to residents by building partnerships between the City and its residents. In addition, the city of Kent encourages residents to work together to form geographically distinct neighborhood councils as a means to foster communication among residents and to enhance their sense of community. B. The city of Kent recognizes and supports neighborhood councils by endorsing a process to establish neighborhood boundaries, approve neighborhood councils, and provide neighborhood grant matching program opportunities to make improvements in defined neighborhoods. C. The East Pointe neighborhood consists of ninety-seven households. D. The East Pointe neighborhood is located on Kent’s East Hill and is situated generally to the east of 116th Avenue S.E., to the north of S.E. 240th Street, to the west of 120th Avenue S.E. and to the south of S.E. 2 East Pointe Neighborhood Council Resolution 236th Street. The Neighborhood is shown on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference. E. On January 28, 2016, the East Pointe Neighborhood submitted an official registration form to request that the City recognize the East Pointe Neighborhood Council and to allow the Neighborhood to take part in the City’s Neighborhood Program. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1. – Recognition of Neighborhood Council. – The City Council for the city of Kent hereby acknowledges the effort and commitment of the East Pointe neighborhood and all those who participated in forming the East Pointe Neighborhood Council. The Kent City Council hereby recognizes East Pointe Neighborhood Council as an official Neighborhood Council of the city of Kent, supports East Pointe Neighborhood Council community building efforts, and confers on the East Pointe Neighborhood Council all opportunities offered by the City’s Neighborhood Program. SECTION 2. – 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 3. – Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. 3 East Pointe Neighborhood Council Resolution SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, this day of February, 2016. CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this ______ day of February, 2016. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 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 February, 2016. RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Resolution\Neighborhoodcouncileastpointe 2-08-16.Docx Exhibit A 4 East Pointe Neighborhood Council Resolution ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 February 8, 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 February 8, 2016 Meeting SUMMARY: At the January 11th Committee meeting, staff presented issues pertaining to the City’s role in implementation of the emerging Mill Creek Historic District design guidelines. At the Committee’s request, staff will present to the Committee a proposal for consideration, pertaining to the following issues:  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. 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. According to the interlocal agreement, the County provides the following services on Kent’s behalf: MOTION: Information Only 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, and the City expects the County to adjust their rates again in 2016. 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 and has received one additional request in 2016. Recommendation  ECD staff will request a line item budget during the 2017-18 budget cycle, for the purposes of reimbursing King County for landmark services.  The Mill Creek Historic District design guidelines will not be codified nor will Kent staff administer the guidelines.  Before issuing permits for work within the Mill Creek Historic District, Permit Center staff will require applicants to provide Certificates of Appropriateness or written correspondence from King County Historic Preservation staff that no Certificate of Appropriateness is required.  ECD staff will monitor the cost reimbursements to King County and return to the Committee should costs exceed $1,500 per year.  Costs for enforcement of historic preservation laws or for appeals of determinations made by King County Historic Preservation staff or the Landmarks Commission will be reimbursed by the property owner.  Costs for applications for landmark designation will be borne by the applicant for such designation. Staff will be available at the February 8h ECDC meeting to further discuss landmark services. CA:pm S:\Permit\Plan\HISTORIC PRESERVATION\2016\ECDC\020816_Mill_Creek_Design_Guidelines_Memo.doc Attachments: 1) Service Procedures 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 assistan ce 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. ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 February 8, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee FROM: Shawn Gilbertson, Environmental Supervisor. Public Works Department RE: New Kent Surface Water Design Manual For February 8, 2016 Meeting SUMMARY: Kent will be updating the existing Kent Surface Water Design Manual, which will adopt the new 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Though the stormwater management standards in the new King County Surface Water Design Manual are still very similar to what is already required in Kent, there will be changes; especially as related to the use of Low Impact Development techniques such as rain gardens and pervious pavement. BUDGET IMPACT: There are likely to be impacts to staff workloads as well as possible impacts to development costs related to Low Impact Development. BACKGROUND: The city of Kent is mandated by Federal and State Clean Water Act regulations to develop local stormwater management regulations that are consistent with the state stormwater standards. Kent achieves compliance through the adoption of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. New Clean Water Act rules require an update to municipal stormwater standards. Thus King County is updating its surface water design manual and Kent will be adopting this latest update. The new standards must be in place by January 1, 2017. The new King County Surface Water Design Manual contains many of the same requirements that have been a part of Kent’s design standards for at least 14 years. However, there will be new standards that will impact development in a significant way; mainly the requirement to employ Low Impact Development stormwater management practices like rain gardens and pervious pavements. Public Works staff will present on the upcoming surface water design manual effort, including details and timelines. MOTION: Information Only ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 February 8, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Kimberlee McArthur, Building Official, Building Services Manager RE: Customer Service Survey For February 8, 2016 Meeting Motion: Information Only BACKGROUND: Things Done Well  The City of Kent is the most responsive and pleasure to work with throughout the Region.  I work with several of the local City's for permits. BY FAR, Kent is the easiest to work with, and has the shortest lead times. Keep up the good work.  Keep up the great work! Thank you.  Due to our company submitting late for plan reviewing, they were helpful in getting this process quicker than normal. Thanks.  A big thanks to Dave Agnew and Drew Holcomb who helped expedite my permit.  The staff is wonderful. They made sure all my questions are answered and the permit process goes smoothly. Keep up the excellent service. Thank you.  I was pleasantly surprised with the helpfulness of all the staff I work with.  Keep up the good work!  I am the construction manager for a business that is new to Kent. We had a lot of questions relating to the use of the building and the signing of the lease was contingent upon understanding the limitations. The folks in the planning/permit department were extremely helpful and informative. Thank you for being such a positive part of the overall process.  You guys are very helpful. I learned lot of things with my new experience.  Erik Pedersen and Joel were extremely helpful in getting through the process and permit turnaround was very fast and a much easier process than anticipated.  City Engineering staff, administrative staff are very courteous and offer outstanding service. They are great!! Keep up the great service; that in turn makes our City the best.  By far one of the more pleasurable experiences around the Puget Sound.  I would like to commend all the following personnel that I have had the pleasure to work with directly. The building Officials have been thorough and VERY HELPFUL.  Reasonable to work with. They share great trade knowledge and are very good at working with builders to get the job done right without holding up schedules. The permit department has been a great experience as well. They go above and beyond in helping clients such as myself in seeking information and getting permit submittals organized. I have also had a recent encounter with the planning department. They were more than willing to work with us and had some great input in getting a common ground in order to proceed with building process. Overall my experience with the City Of Kent has been nothing but a pleasure. This is my favorite jurisdiction to build in, and I hope to continue to build a relationship with the wonderful staff from the City Of Kent. Chris Crissman Harbour Homes LLC  Has improved and is well ahead of other cities and their process.  Your Staff was friendly, personable and very customer service oriented. The ability to get a simple "Wall Sign" Permit while I wait is absolutely the best Customer Service out there (compared to other Municipalities).  The permit techs, especially Joel and Cindy, are all very nice to work with and always very responsive and willing to help.  Please do not change anything you currently do. I find working with the City of Kent a true delight.  Keep up the good work.  The staff has been very helpful and responsive throughout the permitting process. A great team with great knowledge and ability to provide outstanding service.  We are very satisfied with our permitting experience in Kent.  Very helpful staff. Willing to work with me to resolve any issues.  The intake staff is great to work with.  Building and front staff were great.  Staff was more than helpful in explaining their process and what was needed for plan revisions.  Thank you, for being considerate to this client on both permits recently. Suggestions  Time of processing is very unpredictable form one permit to the next.  Be friendly and clear about what you want for the permit.  I do not like that your plans reviewers request so much information to be placed on the plans. You are the worst jurisdiction in Washington State when it comes to plan requirements. Plans from home designers are specifically for Kent and then plans for the same house are made for all other jurisdictions. Due to this happening it takes longer and cost more to get permits in Kent.  My contractor would have appreciated knowing about the 3 foot wide step down, & the 3 ft. by 3 ft. paving needed, earlier in the process, so he wouldn't have need to come back another time.  The amount of questions and detail required by the permit reviewer is ridiculous. I and others I know who work in Kent do not experience this over- zealousness in any other jurisdiction. The Kent Building department has a very negative reputation throughout the industry that works in Kent. I am sure the city feels it is doing things right but it costs everyone a lot of time and money.  The city has raised fees and decreased service. The permit center is not the problem but it can give service in a timely manner. The process falls apart when the functional departments get involved primarily engineering. In a recent lot line adjustment submittal it took 8 weeks for property management to respond, this should be, but is not, unacceptable to any management team. Excuses, excuses don't fix the problem but that is all we get. I know that this will fall on deaf ears and management will do nothing. Sincerely, Tom Sharp  Under the new permit process the time has increased significantly to receive timely comments. I miss not be able to contact the staff directly to understand precisely what their concerns and comments are. Waiting for a Consolidated Letter is extremely frustrating when I know who the key reviewers are and what the critical questions will be. I really want to solve the problems and not wait for everyone else to get their ducks in order. You have extraordinary staff that are great to work with in a one-on-one contact. The new permit process hinders developing an individual professional relationship with your staff. I don't understand why the city is going down this extended paper drive permit process that has added weeks and months to the review--how is that serving your clients better?  On question #2, I am a representative of the owner's lender, which was not an option. I received the requested zoning verification letter in a timely fashion. The only suggestion I would have is updating your procedures so that it can be ordered on line and with a credit card, rather than having to write a letter and send it snail mail with a check. That is very old technology!  Stop creating regulations that don't create value and just complicate the permitting process for infill development. You can't change history (current housing stock) The architectural code interference has caused a lot of unnecessary frustration for very little gain given the remaining buildable land and regulatory constraints associated with them o Be accountable for review timelines. o Take industry feedback on ridiculous design requirements or limitations seriously. Update you base plan process for building permits to something that makes sense and works efficiently. Kent is currently the most discouraging program in existence in south king county today. Use the Master Builders association to aide you in a LEAN process. Don't go at it on your own based on staff perception. Things continue to get worse in Kent and not better. o Empower staff to make decisions. Micro management is a huge problem in engineering review.  The planning department needs training and a detriment to the city to Kent. One very bad experience can influence the entire experience.  Overall my experiences have been negative due to commercial permit intake requirements for replacement mechanical systems. The over the counter application process, site plan requirements & NREC compliance paperwork significantly increase costs to my clients and delays their system replacement, which in most cases leaves them without heat or cooling. The jurisdictions I enjoy working with allow a hand sketched site plan, written project description, product data for new equipment & product data for existing equipment, & structural calcs if there is a weight change. They allow us to submit this info online & call or email us with questions, saving time, money, fuel, & inconvenience Justin (253) 377-0836  The plan checkers are inconsistent from one to the other but individually consistent. Meeting building codes on new projects is expected on our part but meeting current codes on existing building is pretty difficult in many circumstances. The IBC does allow for existing conditions to remain as built. Our experience with other cities is that their interpretation of the Code is far more Liberal allowing existing conditions to remain in place. The Kent officials take a very hard line with these which in turn leads some of our clients to no longer apply for permits when modifying existing tenant spaces. This is a bad situation for all concerned and I believe that the City should re- evaluate their position and policies.  Permit turn-around times are too long.  While I always have a positive experience visiting the permit center, it does take time for the round trip there. That time could be better spent at my desk. The result of certain cities & jurisdictions that have switched to online permit applications is "found" time for our engineering dept. I wonder if Kent is contemplating switching to an online permitting service such as MyBuildingPermit.com  It would be helpful and save us lot of time if payment for permit can be accepted with visa over the phone and permit can be scanned to the requester. At the moment I have to pull someone from the field to physically come to your office to pay using visa and pick up the permit. Especially these days when traffic is so bad, we are spending over an hour just to pick up the permit.  There was a couple of submittal requirements (such as having stamped roof truss details for submittal instead of the typical deferred submittal) that were not listed online or on the forms which caused a delay in the City accepting my project.  More cohesive staff between permitting and engineering would be helpful. KM:jp cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Agree Disagree Neutral City staff used their code knowledge 90%4%6% Receive service in a timely matter 93%2%5% Service was consistent 88%6%6% Staff was friendly 96%1%3% Honesty and respect 97%1%2% Information provided was useful 94%1%5% Permit experience as positive 90%4%6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% City staff used their code knowledge Receive service in a timely matter Service was consistent Staff was friendly Honesty and respect Information provided was useful Permit experience as positive 90% 93% 88% 96% 97% 94% 90% 4% 2% 6% 1% 1% 1% 4% Kent Permit Process Customer Survey Jul-Sept 2015 Agree Disagree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% City staff used their code knowledge Information provided was useful Permit experience was positive Receive service in a timely matter Service was consistent Staff was friendly Customer treated with honesty and respect 80% 81% 78% 80% 78% 89% 92% 8% 3% 11% 10% 12% 3% 4% Kent Permit Process Customer Survey 2014 AGREE DISAGREE ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 February 8, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Jason Garnham, Planner RE: Stray & Abandoned Shopping Carts For Meeting of February 8, 2016 SUMMARY: The City of Kent Department of Economic and Community Development has received some interest in examining the issue of stray and abandoned shopping carts in the City and developing proposals for managing the problem. Interviews with public officials from other municipalities; with staff from the City’s police department, public works department, and mayor’s office; and with operations management from eight different stores and related businesses within the City of Kent, has shed light on the problem and its possible solutions. This memo provides an overview of these findings and presents a recommended course of action. Staff is presenting this information to ECDC for comment regarding development of an abandoned shopping cart program. BACKGROUND: Shopping carts removed from their premises and abandoned in adjacent properties and nearby rights-of-way are a general nuisance, a form of blight in the City’s commercial and nearby residential areas, and an occasional threat to public safety. Shopping carts cost businesses $150 - $250 per unit, but while their theft is a misdemeanor crime, police enforcement is impractical. Technological solutions such as installation of electronic wheel lock mechanisms are highly effective but costly, and local store operators lack the authority to make such investment decisions. While most store managers agree that cart theft is a problem, they report widely varying estimates of loss. Many businesses employ staff or hire third party individuals to collect stolen carts, but may do so rather infrequently as needed supply of carts is diminished. The City’s earlier efforts involving creation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for public works staff proved unsustainable and were gradually abandoned. Discussion with code enforcement, police, and public works officials from Kent and other municipalities reveals several approaches to managing stray and abandoned shopping carts. The most important lesson learned from this inquiry is that any proposal will require sustained commitment of resources such as time, labor, and equipment, to be successful: Many abandoned shopping cart ordinances have been adopted in the region outlining procedures, responsibilities, and fees. Some require submittal of cart plans from stores. Discussion with officials from a number of local jurisdictions MOTION: Information Only indicate that such ordinances are seldom enforced for lack of dedicated City staff, associated fees rarely cover the costs of implementation, and are unpopular with stores, who are the victims of theft and perceive the cost of such a service as a fine. Standard Operating Procedure for handling stray shopping carts was developed by the public works department in 2002 in response to a request from the mayor’s office, but led to a costly storage and logistics problem and the initiative was ultimately abandoned. Public works or other City staff could again be directed to pick up stray carts while undertaking their ordinary duties, and return them to stores as convenient. This will place an additional burden on staff and vehicles and may require dedicating space for storage of carts. Given current demands on City staff and resources, the outcome from 2002 would likely repeat. Municipalities have partnered with stores in other regions to create private, third- party businesses whose purpose is to pick up and return abandoned shopping carts. This solution is very effective but requires a financial commitment from the City and the stores, and presents the problem of how to respond to stores that will not buy into the program. Unfortunately, ECD staff was unable to reach the individuals allegedly engaged in such a business in the area to discuss the feasibility of this option. A highly successful and innovative solution to stray shopping carts is currently in operation in Federal Way. A small team of hardy and dedicated volunteers has been collecting and returning up to hundreds of carts a month using a utility trailer mounted to a retired police vehicle, with minimal direction from City staff. Discussion with City staff in Kent reveals the infrastructure is already in place to develop a volunteer program combining a targeted public information campaign and staffing a phone/ email hotline, in cooperation with City businesses. Dedication of staff and resources, combined with an element of luck, can develop this infrastructure into a more robust volunteer program. CONCLUSION: In summary, it is our belief that, to be successful, such a program must be affordable for the City to operate, must not place an undue burden on hardworking City employees, and must not be perceived as punitive by City businesses. In light of the findings from our research, ECD staff recommends pursuing an introductory volunteer-based program using existing infrastructure. This will develop a cooperative relationship with City businesses and may engender a more robust commitment from them and the City’s volunteers. While this approach is far less costly than the alternatives, implementation will require a very rough estimate of 60 hours of City staff time to implement, investment in equipment and supplies, and will likely require an additional 8-10 hours of monthly staff time to operate and maintain. The responsible department and personnel will need to be identified, and the priorities and tasks associated with the position adjusted accordingly. If this proves unsatisfactory, other courses of action may be pursued as deemed appropriate by the Council, but it must be with the full acknowledgement that doing so will cost the City in time and money and/ or will pull staff and resources away from other priorities. ECD staff is seeking Council input regarding whether to pursue this, or another course of action. BUDGET IMPACT: None JG:jp P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Word Doc Memos\1-11-16\Stray&AbandonedShoppingCartsMemo.docx