Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 04/11/2016 (2)Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m. on the second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 4th Ave S, Kent, 98032. For additional information please contact Julie Pulliam 253-856-5702. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. Economic & Community Development Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Jim Berrios, Tina Budell, Bill Boyce, Chair April 11, 2016 5 p.m. Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Call to order Chair Boyce 1 2. Roll Call Chair Boyce 1 3. Changes to the Agenda Chair Boyce 1 4. Approval of Minutes, dated March 14, 2016 YES Chair Boyce 1 1 5. Sound Transit 3 Update Information only NO Chelsea Levy Eric Chipps 10 7 6. 7. 8. Metro Long Range Plan Briefing King County Department of Transportation Information Only Talbot Neighborhood Council Resolution Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Council Resolution NO YES YES Wesley Edwards Toni Azzola Toni Azzola 10 5 5 9 9. KPG, Inc. “Meet Me on Meeker” Agreement Preliminary Design & Corridor Master Plan YES Bill Ellis 5 10. M1 Industrial Park District Allowed Uses Code Amendment – Ordinance YES Jason Garnham 10 11. Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Code Amendment – Ordinance YES Hayley Bonsteel 10 12. Plat Extensions Code Amendment Ordinance YES Matt Gilbert 10 13. Economic Development Update NO Bill Ellis 5 Information Only ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES March 14, 2016 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Tina Budell, and Jim Berrios (absent). 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Budell MOVED and Boyce SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of February 8, 2016. Motion PASSED 2-0. 5. Genesis Marketing Agreement Ben Wolters, ECD Director gave a narrative of the last year and a half explaining how Genesis has been instrumental in the creation of the Marketing/Branding and website set up for the VisitKent.com campaign through the Kent Hotel/Motel Tax Advisory Committee. Genesis Marketing has been successful in putting together an ad campaign targeted at the Portland Metro Area during the Seahawks season to highlight Kent as an attractive, affordable alternative for travelers coming to the Seattle Metro area. The new agreement will be a continuation of this work. The Committee has spent around $150,000 in 2016. This $70,000 will carry the work forward for 6 months while the Committee goes through a request for proposal (RFP) process to reaffirm the selection of Genesis or pick an alternative provider for marketing services. The Committee felt the amount of funds being expended warranted a double check to see this is the right way to go. Depending upon the amount of time the RFP takes Genesis agreement could be extended past the 6 month timeframe. VisitKent.com still needs to maintain continuity, website maintenance, and the refreshing of pages during the RFP phase. As well as the social media marketing that needs to be kept ongoing and current. Council Member Budell asked if the Seahawk/Portland campaign was successful, Wolters stated yes we feel so, we don’t have a direct matric yet to track, but what the TV ad campaign did was drive people to the VisitKent.com website, in that, we succeeded and we saw a dynamic increase in traffic to the website. Budell asked if we will keep this up with the Seattle and Portland rivalry with soccer. Wolters stated we are actively looking at ways to do that. At this time some of the members of the committee wanted to pause and take a look at how we go forward, others wanted to go forward full steam ahead and build on the base we have. The 6 month agreement with Genesis is a compromise. Budell asked if we have thought about contracting with an option to track stays. Wolters said we are actively looking at doing that, and Genesis has suggested an option of doing booking through Hotels.com as a way to do more direct tracking , but we don’t have a consensus from the Hoteliers as if they want to go there yet. 1 Budell likes the proposal and the successfulness of the campaign. Wolters wanted to clarify the money that goes to fund this campaign comes from the Hotel/Motel tax not the general fund. Hotel/Motel tax is a one percent tax collected on each stay in Kent. Committee Member Budell MOVED to recommend to the full City Council approval of the 2016 marketing agreement with Genesis Marketing in the amount of $70,000 for VisitKent.com and social media sites for a 6 month term. Committee Member Boyce SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 2-0. 6. Seattle Thunderbirds Marketing Agreement – information only Wolters started by explaining to the Committee this agreement with the Seattle Thunderbirds was brought to the Committee by Andrew Hutchison, General Manager of the Best Western by the Green, a member of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee in partnership with the Seattle Thunderbirds marketing group. This proposal looks at ways to expand the exposure of the VisitKent.com website and “Kent Bringing the World home” Brand statement. The proposed items give more awareness of VisitKent.com to the audiences coming from all over the region to ShoWare Center for Thunderbird games. The Thunderbirds have proposed a number of different strategies the Committee was very receptive toward. Many of the proposed items give exposure of VisitKent.com in ShoWare and on the Thunderbirds bus that travels around the Northwest and Canada. This is a very unique way of exposing the brand to an audience we have not marketed too, stated Wolters. Wolters brought this item to the Committee because he thought it would be of interest, and showing how this agreement works in conjunction with the agreement with the Genesis agreement which was just authorized. 7. Code Enforcement LEAN - information only Matt Gilbert, Current Planning Manager presented and update from the LEAN exercise which has taken place over the last 15 weeks. The meetings have been in two and three hour meetings once a week with the assistance of the consultant Steven Thomson. On February 19, 2016 some of the early improvements were implemented as well as the new staff member, a .75 position Council approved came on board. Since February 19 th the total active cases has dropped from 140 to 88 and the backlog of sites that are waiting to be inspected for compliance have dropped by 60%. Chair Boyce asked if it is because of the .75 position or the LEAN process. Gilbert said it is because of both. There are two main groups of customers in Code Enforcement, one is the Residents who are calling us or wanting something. Then the other group is the people they are calling about. Through LEAN the general public was engaged to understand what the priorities are. Over the last three years Code Enforcement has handled an average of 800 cases a year. That is a lot for two Code Enforcement Officers to handle, so you had to prioritize. We found the Code Enforcement staff was prioritizing on the fly. Through LEAN it was recognized the need for prioritization. It was determined the community should be involved in setting the priorities. 2 There were 4 focus groups consisting of Neighborhood groups, KCDIGS, Kent Downtown Partnership, and Kent Chamber of Commerce. They were given 23 main issues and asked to prioritize them. Each group’s response data was recorded and will be presented at a Council Workshop in the future to get Council input and recommendations. For now this is serving a guide for Code Enforcement prioritization. The other group is the people who have violations on their property. The City’s goal is to get compliance and engage people to get things cleaned up. The process is to send a friendly letter to let them know they have this violation and it needs to be cleaned up. In the past this letter was very lengthy and full of code language. A group of people were asked to read the letter and interrupt it. It was determined to be not clear on what was wrong and what was needed to fix the problem. We found this out by doing a survey of the calls coming into the office. A lot of the calls were coming in from people not understanding the letter they received. With the implementation of the new letter the calls have dropped by half. One other theme is the work needs to be visible which lead to the creation of a visual management board. We can track a case much easier and know where it is in the process and to make sure cases are not falling through the cracks. Since the .75 Administrative Assistant the Code Enforcement Officers are spending more time in the field and less doing paperwork. This has made a huge impact on the case load going down. Council Member Budell asked if Compliance has gone up. Gilbert responded that the data is not conclusive since there are not good numbers from the old data, but since the new letter is now the process, over half of the cases are closed just from the letter. The goal is to get things done quickly and with the least amount of contact. Also with the creation of a reputation that in Kent code violations are taken seriously we hope we will see even more cases closed at the first letter stage. Gilbert stated we are now collecting specific performance matrix data which will eventually show the time a case takes from start to close. 8. Abandoned Grocery Carts – information only Jason Garnham, Planner presented findings on abandoned grocery carts in Kent. Responding to the interest of Council, ECD was tasked with finding alternatives with dealing with stray and abandoned grocery carts. The key finding was any solution to the problem will demand a dedicated amount of time and resources. Background on the subject found the Public Works department had a standard operating procedure (SOP) from 2002 and after a few years the effort was abandoned due to lack of resources. Many other Cities have adopted shopping cart ordinances; requiring stores to develop cart retrieval plan, procedures for City staff to pick up carts, charging stores fees. All have been found to be ineffective and go unenforced without dedicated staff and resources , and fees rarely cover the cost of the program. 3 There is a program available from an outside vendor who provides pickup and delivery of the carts. This has been found to be affective, and the Cities end up paying for over half the costs of the service. There are other solutions such as wheel locks but those decisions are made at the corporate level and the City does not have the authority to impose that solution. There has also been a volunteer system seen in other Cities, but this is also a program that would require City resources and staff time. The City of Renton just passed a new shopping cart ordinance and has dedicated staff and resources devoted to the problem of shopping carts. The City attorney clarified we are talking about the carts that have been abandoned and not being used for any specific purpose, not to include the carts used by transit individuals, that is a very separate issue. Wolters stated at this point it is a nuisance. It would take be more resources and staff than it is worth. That would be the staff recommendation. At this point we are seeking guidance from the Committee. Committee’s direction is: Chair Boyce asked if we could contact the Neighborhood program to continue to have the numbers available for residents to call as a project for Neighborhoods, as well as monitor Renton’s new process and come back in 6 months and review the progress. 9. Economic Development Report Kurt Hanson, Economic Development Deputy Director introduced William Ellis and Andrew Corona, both Economic Development Analysts for the City who will presented the usage of the Buxton tool, which gives the economic data/information, and demographics that is available for retail and commercial properties helping to bring the retail/commercial developers to Kent. 10. ShoWare Update Ben Wolters gave an update on the two capital projects happening at ShoWare Center through the no interest Capital Loan from SMG for capital projects. One project underway is the digital menu boards at the concession stands which is scheduled to be completed by March of 2016. The other project is the LED sports lighting. Those will be installed after the hockey season. This is a $148,000 project and PSE will be providing $40,000 rebate because it will lead to significant energy savings with a lower electric bill in approximately 6 years. The next area to be improved will be the lounge. The area is starting to show wear and tear, so we will be looking at the furniture first and coming back with some proposals. The concerts are doing well at ShoWare and there are three new shows that are going to be announced soon. 11. Sound Transit Update Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager updated on the link light rail project. We received interim preliminary engineering (“PE”) drawings representing 60 percent of the PE design level (or 18 percent of final design). Sound Transit has authorized work on preliminary engineering drawings all the way to Federal Way. City Staff is now reviewing the interim 4 5 PE drawings that will be analyzed in the final EIS which is proposed to be issued in late 2016. Staff comments are due to Sound Transit in early April. Anderson stated Sound Transit has approved funding for a second Sound Transit garage and City staff will be working with Sound Transit staff on the project. Wolters added that Sound Transit is finalizing the request for proposals to hire a consultant to do the site analysis for both the Kent and Auburn garages. Wolters has been asked to be on the review panel for the consultant selection process. Wolters asked Sound Transit to look at a broader area than they had previously considered for the garage. Sound Transit will need to buy land for staging of construction equipment and that area could then become a Transit-Oriented Development site, so Wolters asked Sound Transit to consider that as they purchase land. Finally, Kent has asked Sound Transit to reach out to affected property owners. Adjournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. _________________________________________ Julie Pulliam Economic & Community Development Committee jp P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Minutes\3-14-16_Min.docx 5 6 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Sound Transit 3 (“ST3”) For April 11, 2016 Meeting Information Only SUMMARY: At its meeting on March 24, 2016, the Sound Transit Board forwarded an ST3 draft plan for public review. The plan builds upon the growing Sound Transit system by investing in rail and bus rapid transit services that will move people fast and reliably throughout the region, regardless of weather or traffic. The Board directed staff to get feedback and input on the plan to help inform Board deliberations prior to final plan adoption in June. Residents are invited to attend public meetings on the plan or submit comments through an online survey at soundtransit3.org. Comments are due on April 29, 2016. Sound Transit staff will be present at the April 11th meeting to talk about the plan and projects that are relevant to Kent. EXHIBITS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None CA:jp P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Pckt Documents\4-11-16\Sound Transit\ST3 Memo.docx cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director 7 8 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Lacey Jane Wolfe, Senior Transportation Planner RE: King County Metro Long Range Plan SUMMARY: Wesley Edwards from the King County Department of Transportation will present on Metro’s update of its Long Range Plan. In drafting this update, Metro is anticipating the needs of King County through 2040. Major features of the plan include integration of bus and rail, expanded RapidRide, and more transit options. Kent staff provides input into the plan through Metro’s Technical Advisory Committee. In December of 2015, Mayor Cooke provided comments on the draft preliminary concept for King County Metro service. In the comment letter, the Mayor emphasized the need for east-west connections as well as alternative services to serve Kent’s population. EXHIBITS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None LJW:jp P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Pckt Documents\4-11-16\Metro_Long_Range_Plan_Memo.doc cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director MOTION: Information Only 9 10 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 April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Toni Azzola, Neighborhood Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Recognition of Talbot Neighborhood Council – Resolution - Recommend SUMMARY: Talbot neighborhood consists of 18 households and is located on Kent’s East Hill. On March 8, 2016, the Talbot neighborhood council submitted an official registration form to request that the city recognize their neighborhood council and allow the neighborhood to take part in the city’s neighborhood program. The neighborhood has now 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 a resolution that recognizes the Talbot Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City’s Neighborhood Program. 11 1 Talbot Neighborhood Council Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, recognizing Talbot 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 Talbot neighborhood consists of 18 households. D. The Talbot neighborhood is located on Kent’s East Hill and is situated generally to the east of 120th Avenue S.E., to the north of S.E. 193rd Place, to the west of 121st Place S.E. and to the south of S.E. 192nd 12 2 Talbot Neighborhood Council Resolution Street. The Neighborhood is shown on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference. E. On March 8, 2016, the Talbot Neighborhood submitted an official registration form to request that the City recognize the Talbot 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 Talbot neighborhood and all those who participated in forming the Talbot Neighborhood Council. The Kent City Council hereby recognizes Talbot Neighborhood Council as an official Neighborhood Council of the city of Kent, supports Talbot Neighborhood Council community building efforts, and confers on the Talbot 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. SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. 13 3 Talbot Neighborhood Council Resolution PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, this day of April, 2016. CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this ______ day of April, 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 April, 2016. RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Resolution\Neighborhoodcounciltalbot 4-05-16.Docx 14 Exhibit A 4 Talbot Neighborhood Council Resolution 15 16 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 April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Toni Azzola, Neighborhood Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Recognition of Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Council – Resolution - Recommend SUMMARY: Meridian Firs I neighborhood consists of fifty-eight households and is located on Kent’s East Hill. On March 9, 2016, the Meridian Firs Neighborhood submitted an official registration form to request that the city recognize their neighborhood council and allow the neighborhood to take part in the city’s neighborhood program. The neighborhood has now 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 a resolution that recognizes the Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City’s Neighborhood Program. 17 1 Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Resolution RESOLUTION NO. ___________ A RESOLUTION of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, recognizing Meridian Firs I 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 Meridian Firs I neighborhood consists of 58 households. D. The Meridian Firs I neighborhood is located on Kent’s East Hill and is situated generally to the east of 145th Place S.E., to the north of S.E. 249th Street, to the west of 148th Avenue S.E. and to the south of S.E. 18 2 Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Resolution 247th Street. The Neighborhood is shown on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference. E. On March 9, 2016, the Meridian Firs I neighborhood submitted an official registration form to request that the City recognize the Meridian Firs I 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 Meridian Firs I neighborhood and all those who participated in forming the Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Council. The Kent City Council hereby recognizes Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Council as an official Neighborhood Council of the city of Kent, supports Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Council community building efforts, and confers on the Meridian Firs I 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. 19 3 Meridian Firs I Neighborhood 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 April, 2016. CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this ______ day of April, 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 April, 2016. RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Resolution\NeighborhoodcouncilMeridianFirsI 4-05-16.Docx 20 Exhibit A 4 Meridian Firs I Neighborhood Resolution 21 22 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Bill Ellis & Hayley Bonsteel, Economic Development Analyst & Planner RE: Meet Me on Meeker – KPG Contract For Meeting of 4/11/16 SUMMARY: The City of Kent is taking the next step of the place-making project “Meet Me on Meeker”—the cross-department initiative to spur vibrancy along the Meeker Street commercial corridor. With anticipated private development proposals for multiple parcels along the corridor, it is imperative the City also develop new design elements along Meeker Street and establish a look and feel of within the right-of- way that is supportive of the principles of “complete streets.” This project will create a Corridor Master Plan for the City that will build upon previous work accomplished thus far—especially the Meeker Street Transportation Study’s recent recommendations—by developing a preliminary design for the corridor. This will begin to flesh out and integrate urban design elements along the length of the corridor and show potential median, sidewalks, planters and driveway locations. This holistic picture constructed from the recommendations can be used for discussions with the community as well as presentations to prospective developers. The work by KPG can be used by the City to refine specific street standards and define frontage improvement requirements. This next stage in the project will result in illustrations of street cross sections for each segment of the corridor with representative urban design/streetscape enhancements that respond to the different land use contexts of Meeker Street. These elements include detailed sidewalk widths and treatments, crosswalks, driveways or street entrances, street trees, lighting, street furniture, and possible integrated identity/branding elements that can help establish the context and place of each segment of Meeker Street. The accompanying 10 percent design would layout these features along Meeker Street to establish the preliminary design of the corridor and assist staff in estimating costs. EXHIBITS: KPG Scope BUDGET IMPACT: $74,708.37 cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval of the 2016 Consultant Service Agreement with KPG, Inc. for Meet me on Meeker Preliminary Design and Corridor Master Plan review, not to exceed $75,000.00 23 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 1 (Over $20,000) CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT between the City of Kent and KPG, Inc. THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and KPG, Inc. organized under the laws of the State of Washington, located and doing business at 753 9th Aveune N., Seattle, WA 98109 (hereinafter the "Consultant"). I. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. Consultant shall perform the following services for the City in accordance with the following described plans and/or specifications: This is a Consultant Service Agreeement between the City of Kent and KPG, Inc to perform review on the Meet me on Meeker preliminary design and corridor master plan. Detail are attached and incorporated in the exhibit A, Scope of Work. This will be a 6 m onth agreeement not to exceed $75,000.00. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices within the Puget Sound region in effect at the time those services are performed. II. TIME OF COMPLETION. The parties agree that work will begin on the tasks described in Section I above immediately upon the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall complete the work described in Section I within 6 months. III. COMPENSATION. A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time and materials, an amount not to exceed $75,000.00, for the services described in this Agreement. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement for the work described in Section I above, and shall not be exceeded without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed amendment to this agreement. The Consultant agrees that the hourly or flat rate charged by it for its services contracted for herein shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this Agreement. The Consultant's billing rates shall be as delineated in Exhibit A. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City for work performed, and a final bill upon completion of all services described in this Agreement. The City shall provide payment within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice. If the City objects to all or any portion of an invoice, it shall notify the Consultant and reserves the option to only pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. In that event, the parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. IV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The parties intend that an Independent Contractor- Employer Relationship will be created by this Agreement. By their execution of this Agreement, and in accordance with Ch. 51.08 RCW, the parties make the following representations: 24 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 2 (Over $20,000) A. The Consultant has the ability to control and direct the performance and details of its work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. B. The Consultant maintains and pays for its own place of business from which Consultant’s services under this Agreement will be performed. C. The Consultant has an established and independent business that is eligible for a business deduction for federal income tax purposes that existed before the City retained Consultant’s services, or the Consultant is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved under this Agreement. D. The Consultant is responsible for filing as they become due all necessary tax documents with appropriate federal and state agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue. E. The Consultant has registered its business and established an account with the state Department of Revenue and other state agencies as may be required by Consultant’s business, and has obtained a Unified Business Identifier (UBI) number from the State of Washington. F. The Consultant maintains a set of books dedicated to the expenses and earnings of its business. V. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon providing the other party thirty (30) days written notice at its address set forth on the signature block of this Agreement. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant’s possession pertaining to this project, which may be used by the City without restriction. If the City’s use of Consultant’s records or data is not related to this project, it shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. VI. DISCRIMINATION. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any subcontract, the Consultant, its subcontractors, or any person acting on behalf of the Consultant or subcontractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. Consultant shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement. VII. INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Consultant's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL 25 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 3 (Over $20,000) INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. In the event Consultant refuses tender of defense in any suit or any claim, if that tender was made pursuant to this indemnification clause, and if that refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or other agreed tribunal) to have been a wrongful refusal on the Consultant’s part, then Consultant shall pay all the City’s costs for defense, i ncluding all reasonable expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys’ fees, plus the City’s legal costs and fees incurred because there was a wrongful refusal on the Consultant’s part. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VIII. INSURANCE. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit B attached and incorporated by this reference. IX. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. The City will provide its best efforts to provide reasonable accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work under this Agreement. X. OWNERSHIP AND USE OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Original documents, drawings, designs, reports, or any other records developed or created under this Agreement shall belong to and become the property of the City. All records submitted by the City to the Consultant will be safeguarded by the Consultant. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon the City’s request. The Consultant acknowledges that the City is a public agency subject to the Public Records Act codified in Chapter 42.56 of the Revised Code of Washington. As such, the Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with the City in satisfying the City’s duties and obligations under th e Public Records Act. The City’s use or reuse of any of the documents, data, and files created by Consultant for this project by anyone other than Consultant on any other project shall be without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. XI. CITY'S RIGHT OF INSPECTION. Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure satisfactory completion. XII. WORK PERFORMED AT CONSULTANT'S RISK. Consultant shall take all necessary precautions and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in th e performance of the contract work and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. XIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Recyclable Materials. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. B. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by this Agreement in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. C. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to settle any dispute, difference or claim arising from the parties’ performance of this Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court, King County, Washington, unless the parties agree in 26 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 4 (Over $20,000) writing to an alternative dispute resolution process. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party shall pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VII of this Agreement. D. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the Agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective three (3) business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. E. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by either party without the written consent of the non-assigning party shall be void. If the non-assigning party gives its consent to any assignment, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without additional written consent. F. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant. G. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement. However, should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. H. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of those operations. I. Public Records Act. The Consultant acknowledges that the City is a public agency subject to the Public Records Act codified in Chapter 42.56 of the Revised Code of Washington and documents, notes, emails, and other records prepared or gathered by the Consultant in its performance of this Agreement may be subject to public review and disclosure, even if those records are not produced to or possessed by the City of Kent. As such, the Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with the City in satisfying the City’s duties and obligations under the Public Records Act. J. City Business License Required. Prior to commencing the tasks described in Section I, Contractor agrees to provide proof of a current city of Kent business license pursuant to Chapter 5.01 of the Kent City Code. / / / / / / / / / / / / K. Counterparts and Signatures by Fax or Email. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together constitute this one Agreement. Further, upon executing this Agreement, either party may deliver the signature page 27 CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - 5 (Over $20,000) to the other by fax or email and that signature shall have the same force and effect as if the Agreement bearing the original signature was received in person. IN WITNESS, the parties below execute this Agreement, which shall become effective on the last date entered below. CONSULTANT: By: (signature) Print Name: Its (title) DATE: CITY OF KENT: By: (signature) Print Name: Suzette Cooke Its Mayor DATE: NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: CONSULTANT: John Davies KPG, Inc 753 9th Ave. N. Seattle, WA 18109 206-286-1640 (telephone) (facsimile) NOTICES TO BE SENT TO: CITY OF KENT: Bill Ellis City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (253) 856-5707 (telephone) (253) 253-856-6454 (facsimile) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kent Law Department 28 EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 1 DECLARATION CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this Agreement shall comply with the regulations of the City’s equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific Agreement to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this Agreement to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City’s sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement; The questions are as follows: 1. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. 2. During the time of this Agreement I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory, mental or physical disability. 3. During the time of this Agreement the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 4. During the time of the Agreement I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this Agreement, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. By: ___________________________________________ For: __________________________________________ Title: _________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________ 29 EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 2 CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding Agreements with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps: 1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the Agreement. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments. 1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City’s equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws, policies and guidelines. 30 EEO COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS - 3 CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the Agreement. I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contractor for the Agreement known as that was entered into on the (date), between the firm I represent and the City of Kent. I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned Agreement. By: ___________________________________________ For: __________________________________________ Title: _________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________ 31 EXHIBIT A-1 City of Kent Meet Me on Meeker Preliminary Design and Corridor Master Plan KPG Scope of Work March 9, 2016 A. Project Description / Background The City of Kent is taking the next step in developing its Meeker Street corridor into a vibrant urban corridor. With anticipated private development proposals for multiple parcels along the corridor, the City desires to develop the design elements of the Meeker Street corridor and establish the look and feel of the corridor within the right-of-way. This project will create a Corridor Master Plan for the City that will build upon the Meeker Street Transportation Study’s recommendations by developing a preliminary design for the corridor that will integrate urban design elements with the layout of the corridor, showing medians, sidewalks, planters and potential driveway locations. This holistic picture for the corridor will be used for discussions with the community and developers and can be used by the City to define street standards and frontage improvement requirements. This effort will illustrate the street cross sections for each segment of the corridor, with representative urban design/streetscape enhancements that respond to the different land use contexts of Meeker Street. These elements include sidewalk widths and treatments, crosswalks, driveways or street entrances, street trees, lighting, street furniture, and integrated identity/branding elements that will establish the context and place of each segment of Meeker Street. The Corridor Master Plan will include a 10 percent CAD layout of the corridor on an aerial map showing the lane channelization, curb locations, on-street parking locations, landscaped medians, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Products within the Corridor Master Plan would include cross-sections by corridor segment, conceptual driveway/access designs, streetscape elements, and identity/branding concepts for the corridor. The accompanying 10 percent design would layout these features along Meeker Street to establish the preliminary design of the corridor. B. Project Limits The Meeker Street corridor extends from Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) to Central Way. This segment within the downtown core has been largely developed and the focus of this study is the length of Meeker Street to the west of downtown between SR 516 and 4th Avenue. C. Assumptions In order to proceed with the Preliminary Design and Corridor Master Plan the following assumptions were made to provide direction with design:  Project base maps will be based on available aerials and parcel data to determine available right-of-way (ROW).  The project will provide a preliminary (10%) design of the Meeker Street corridor, which will establish the layout for the further design efforts.  Topographic survey of the corridor is not included. 32  Tasks related to community and stakeholder involvement will be included in a future scope of work. D. Deliverables Deliverables prepared by the Consultant are identified at the end of each task. E. City of Kent Provided Items: The City will provide/prepare the following:  City GIS including surface utilities and high resolution aerials.  AutoCAD templates illustrating City drawing standards for Consultant use.  Previously completed studies and reports.  Mailing and postage for public notices.  Meeting room arrangements. Preparation of notices and press releases. F. Scope of Work Task 1 Project Management / Coordination / Administration The estimated project phase durations for the Preliminary Design is 6 months. 1.1 The Consultant will provide continuous project management for the duration of the project, including conducting regular team meetings with internal staff and subconsultants (estimate 6 months). 1.2 The Consultant will prepare monthly progress reports identifying work completed in the previous month, work in progress, upcoming work elements, and reporting of any delays, problems, or additional informational needs. These reports will be submitted with the Consultant invoices. 1.3 The Consultant will prepare and update project schedule. 1.4 Coordinate with City staff, including preparation and attendance of up to 6 monthly coordination meetings throughout the duration of the project with 2 additional meetings to address specific topic areas as needed throughout the project. Level of effort for this task is based on an average of 2 Consultant staff at each of the following meetings:  One formal kickoff meeting at project start  Meetings at the City or KPG offices throughout the project duration (estimate 10). Deliverables  Project Schedule and necessary updates  Monthly progress reports and invoicing (6 months) 33 Task 2 Design Concepts 2.1 The Consultant will review available background documents used to inform the design process.  Meeker Street Corridor Study – 2016  Meeker Street Corridor Investment Study (SGA) - 2015  Downtown Design Guidelines – 2014  Downtown Area Subarea Action Plan – 2013  Design & Construction Standards – 2009  Draft Comprehensive Plan – 2015  Kent Valley Loop Trail Plan – 2013  Let’s Go Kent Non-Motorized Study – 2012  Kent Transportation Master Plan – 2006  Non-Motorized Transportation Plan – 2006  Conceptual design for SR 169 underpass artistic lighting installation. 2.2 The Consultant will analyze and develop initial vision for streetscape elements built around the City’s Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, the Downtown Overlay Street Standards and supplemented by analysis of the existing and future land uses and characteristics of the corridor. The task will develop conceptual urban design elements for Meeker Street that will define the character within the right-of-way. The streetscape elements will include a variety of urban design features such as sidewalk and crosswalk treatments and materials, lighting, landscaping elements, wayfinding signage, banners, and potential art that will establish the look and feel of the corridor. The Consultant will prepare a specific design for up to three (3) alternatives which will provide the general scale, colors and materials to be used in the corridor. 2.3 The Consultant will develop photo simulations to illustrate the final street design alternative at three (3) locations that apply the streetscape elements to the Meeker Street corridor. Deliverables  Alternative design elements for Meeker Street Corridor.  Photo simulations showing applied streetscape elements and character. Task 3 Conceptual Preliminary Design 3.1 Using available data, aerial maps, and assessor’s maps, the Consultant will develop a base map in AutoCAD format, showing existing curb lines, back of sidewalk, channelization, curb ramps, ROW center line, and approximate right-of-way. Surface utility line work shall be imported from City GIS. 3.2 Building on the recommendations of the Meeker Street Transportation Analysis and the corridor design concepts, the Consultant will develop up to 9 specific street cross-sections to a establish typology and defined character for section of the Meeker Street corridor. These street sections will integrate the urban design elements from Task 2 to illustrate the look, 34 feel and identity for the corridor. 3.3 Evaluate property access alternatives considering driveway consolidation/shared access, driveway relocations, and parking impacts/remedies as appropriate to achieve the City’s access goals. 3.4 A preliminary corridor layout will be developed by the Consultant showing the entire corridor (curb, gutter, sidewalk, channelization layout only) and identifying the location of each street sections. This preliminary design will be sufficient for completing planning-level cost estimates and allow the City to pursue grant funding applications. 3.5 Based on the preliminary corridor layout, three planning-level cost estimates will be prepared to assist the City in its budgeting and planning for the development of the Meeker Street corridor:  Washington Avenue to the Interurban Trail, including the Lincoln Avenue/Meeker Street intersection.  Green River Bridge to Russell Road.  Russell Road to 64th Avenue including the 64th Avenue/Meeker Street intersection. Deliverables  Electronic copies of the completed aerial photo and base map will be delivered to the City.  Two (2) Conceptual cross-sections for each corridor segment, 11x17 hard copy  Two (2) Preliminary (10 percent) corridor layout, hard copy scroll plot and electronic copy, PDF Task 4 Corridor Master Plan 4.1 Assemble the results from Tasks 2 and 3 into a draft Corridor Master Plan for Meeker Street. This document will establish the corridor’s conceptual design and establish the guidance that can be used to inform street standards. It will include discussions of potential identity and branding. 4.2 Following review by the City, the Corridor Master Plan will be finalized. Deliverables  Draft Corridor Master Plan  Final Corridor Master Plan. Task 5 Public Involvement Support (as requested) 5.1 KPG will make their project manager, senior engineer, project engineer/senior urban designer, CAD technician and urban designer available upon request by the City in support of public involvement tasks which may include, but are not limited to, the following: open house meetings (2), stakeholders meetings (4), council committee meetings (2), and/or other activities designed and assigned by City of Kent’s Economic and Community 35 Development staff. A maximum of up to $10,500 (up to 100 hours) will be added to the Base Contract to cover work elements as approved by the City’s Project Manager. G. Project Cost:  Base Contract Amount: $64,200  Public Involvement (reserved): $10,500 36 HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE Project:City of Kent Meet Me on Meeker - Preliminary Design March 1, 2016 Hours Total Fee 119.77$ 179.98$ 142.70$ 109.07$ 66.00$ 69.29$ Task Description Direct Salary Costs (DSC)45.80$ 68.83$ 54.57$ 41.71$ 25.24$ 26.50$ Task 1: Project Management 1.1 Project coordination and management 20 20 2,395.46$ 1.2 Prepare monthly progress reports 6 6 12 1,134.41$ 1.3 Prepare and update project schedule 6 6 718.64$ 1.4 Monthly Coordination Meetings 6 4 4 4 18 2,445.62$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details 51.75$ 38 4 4 4 0 6 56 6,745.88$ Task 2: Design Concepts 2.1 Background Review 2 4 6 12 1,585.15$ 2.2 Urban Design/streetscape elements 2 8 24 48 82 7,166.73$ 2.5 Photosimulations 2 8 24 34 2,816.51$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details 69.00$ 2 4 12 38 72 0 128 11,637.39$ Task 3: Conceptual Preliminary Design 3.1 Basemap Development 2 4 48 64 118 10,269.57$ 3.2 Street Cross-Sections 4 2 8 24 16 54 5,654.24$ 3.3 Property Access Evaluation 4 2 4 8 18 2,282.38$ 3.4 Prelminary Corridor Layout 2 2 8 48 56 116 10,672.32$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details 69.00$ 12 6 54 152 136 0 360 35,845.98$ Task 4: Corridor Master Plan 4.1 Draft Plan 12 4 8 32 8 2 66 7,455.52$ 4.2 Final Plan 4 4 8 4 4 24 2,463.59$ Reimbursable expenses - see breakdown for details 60.00$ 16 4 12 40 12 6 90 9,979.11$ TOTAL HOURS AND TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE 68 18 82 234 220 12 634 64,208.37$ Task 5: Public Involvement - RESERVED 5.1 Public Involvement - As requested up to $10,500 22 8 10 22 28 10 100 10,442.26$ Reimbursable expenses 57.74$ 22 8 10 22 28 10 100 10,500.00$ 90 26 92 256 248 22 734 74,708.37$ Direct Salary Costs 45.80$ 68.83$ 54.57$ 41.71$ 25.24$ 26.50$ Overhead @ 131.49%60.23$ 90.50$ 71.75$ 54.84$ 33.19$ 34.84$ 131.49% Fixed Fee @ 30%13.74$ 20.65$ 16.37$ 12.51$ 7.57$ 7.95$ 30.00% Total Labor Rate 119.77$ 179.98$ 142.70$ 109.07$ 66.00$ 69.29$ Exhibit D Labor Hour Estimate Task Total Task Totals Task Total Hourly rates are based on the following: Project Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer/ Sr Urban Designer Design Engineer/ Landscape Architect Clerical TOTAL BASE AND RESERVED HOURS AND FEE Task Total Task Total CAD Technician/ Urban Designer 37 HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE Project: City of Kent Meet Me on Meeker - Preliminary Design March 1, 2016 Reimbursable Breakdown Task 1: Project Management Mileage (est. 90 miles x 0.575 cents/mile)51.75$ Task 1 - Total 51.75$ Task 2: Design Concepts Mileage (est. 120 miles x 0.575 cents/mile)69.00$ Task 2 - Total 69.00$ Task 3: Conceptual Preliminary Design Mileage (est. 120 miles x 0.575 cents/mile)69.00$ Task 3 - Total 69.00$ Task 4: Corridor Master Plan Reproduction 60.00$ Task 4 - Total 60.00$ 249.75$ Exhibit D 38 Exhibit D FEE SUMMARY Project: City of Kent Meet Me on Meeker - Preliminary Design 3/1/2016 Description Estimated Fee Task 1: Project Management $6,745.88 Task 2: Design Concepts $11,637.39 Task 3: Conceptual Preliminary Design $35,845.98 Task 4: Corridor Master Plan $9,979.11 Task 5: Public Involvement - RESERVED $10,500.00 Total Estimated Fee $74,708.37 39 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non- owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01. The City shall be named as an Additional Insured under the Consultant’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO additional insured endorsement CG 20 10 11 85 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. 2. Workers’ Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $2,000,000 each occurrence, $4,000,000 general aggregate. 40 EXHIBIT B (Continued) C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Consultant’s insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 3. The City of Kent shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Consultant’s Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer’s liability. D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. Verification of Coverage Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for the Consultant. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Jason Garnham, Planner RE: M1 Industrial Park zoning code amendment For the April 11, 2016 Meeting SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on March 28, 2016, the Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB) recommended approval of an amendment expanding the array of land uses permitted in the M1 Industrial Park zoning district. The City of Kent is home to one of the region’s most significant industrial and warehousing districts. Retaining and attracting the businesses that rely on industrial zoning and supportive land uses is essential to the economic vitality of the City and the Puget Sound Region. Within the context of an increasingly globalized industrial economy that is ever-changing in regards to technology, methods of production, and competition for skilled labor, the needs of industrial and warehouse businesses have evolved to include proximity to an expanded array of amenities to support both business functions and the staff who work, live, and recreate in industrial areas. If the proposed zoning code amendment were approved, the land uses permitted in the M1 zoning district would be expanded to include the same uses permitted in the Industrial Park District/”C” Suffix (M1-C) zoning district:  Bakeries and confectioneries  Food and convenience stores (retail)  Apparel and accessories (retail) as an accessory use, when related to the principal use of the property  Eating and drinking establishments with drive-through  Miscellaneous retail (drugs, antiques, books, etc) as accessory uses, when related to the principal use of the property.  Liquor stores  Computers and electronics (retail)  Hotels and motels  Auto repair and washing services (including body work)  Performing and cultural arts uses, such as art galleries/ studios MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval/ denial/ modification of the ordinance amending Kent City Code (KCC) 15.04 to expand the land uses permitted in the M1 Industrial Park zoning district, as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board. 49 The M1-C zoning district would be retained; staff believes its minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet would allow those nodes of commercial activity to be developed at a higher density than in the M1 zoning district. The M1 zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre, encourages retention of the larger land areas required by industrial business uses, while the proposed amendment would accommodate limited service and retail businesses that are supportive of modern and high-quality industrial enterprises and their employees. Staff will be available at the April 11, 2016, ECDC meeting to answer questions on the proposal. EXHIBITS: M1 Industrial Park Amendment Ordinance SEPA Environmental Checklist SEPA Environmental Review Report SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance BUDGET IMPACT: None cc: Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director JG P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Pckt Documents\4-11-16\M1 Zoning\4-11-16 ECDC_memo M1 zoning code.doc 50 1 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code, to expand the uses permitted in the M1 Industrial Park zoning district to include those uses currently permitted only in the M1-C zoning district. RECITALS A. Section 15.03.010 of the Kent City Code (“KCC”) establishes that the purpose of the Industrial Park (M1) zoning district is to provide an environment for a broad range of industrial, office, and business park activities, while also allowing certain limited commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area through application of the “C” suffix (M1-C). B. The M1-C zoning designation applies to several limited areas in the industrial valley, concentrated near major street intersections and highways. C. In the context of technological changes and global competition, proximity to supportive services and amenities is increasingly important to industrial enterprises and for their need to attract and retain highly-skilled employees. 51 2 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code D. Policy LU-12.3 of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan is to provide for a mix of land uses that are compatible with manufacturing, industrial, and warehouse uses, such as office, retail, and service in the area designated Industrial. The Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan establishes expanding allowable zoned uses as a key strategy for raising the amenity level and supporting employers in the Kent Industrial Valley. E. On October 20, 2015, the City Council approved a staff- recommended docket item that proposed to expand commercial opportunities at strategic locations in the industrial area. F. On March 14, 2016, Planning staff presented a draft code amendment to expand commercial uses in the M1 zoning district to the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) at a workshop meeting. G. On March 2, 2016, the City requested expedited review under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce regarding the City’s proposed code amendment expanding the permitted land uses in the M1 zoning district. The Washington State Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on March 17, 2016. No comments were received from State agencies. H. 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 March 22, 2016. I. At its regularly-scheduled public meeting on March 28, 2016, the LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendments related to expanding commercial uses in the M1 zoning district. After 52 3 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code considering the matter, the LUPB voted to recommended adoption of the proposed amendments to the City Council. As a matter of clarification, it should be noted that two ordinances amending different portions of the same land use table in KCC 15.04.090 were considered at the same meeting, albeit after separate public hearings. J. On April 11, 2016, the Economic and Community Development Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council adoption of the proposed code amendments. K. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on April 19, 2016, the City Council voted to adopt the amendments to portions of Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code, pertaining to M1 Industrial Park zoning districts. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 15.04.070 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Wholesale and retail land uses,” is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.04.070 Wholesale and retail land uses. [Table on following page] 53 4 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code 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 t CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 Bakeries and confectioneries P P P P P P P Wholesale bakery P P Bulk retail P (26 ) P (26 ) P P P P (1) P (1) Recycling centers C P Retail sales of lumber, tools, and other building materials, including preassembled products P P P P Hardware, paint, tile, and wallpaper (retail) P P (11 ) P P P P P P P Farm equipment P P General merchandise: dry goods, variety, and department stores (retail) P P (11 ) P P P P P P Food and convenience stores (retail) P P P (11 ) P P P P P P S (12) P P S (12 ) Automobile, aircraft, motorcycle, boat, and recreational vehicles sales (retail) P P P Automotive, aircraft, motorcycle, and marine accessories (retail) P P P P P P P (13) P (13 ) P (5) (13 ) Gasoline service stations S (6) S (6) S (6) S (6) S (6) S (6) S (6) S (6) S (6) Apparel and accessories (retail) P P (11 ) P P P P P P A(8) A (8) Furniture, home P P P P P P P P P 54 5 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code 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 t CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 furnishing (retail) (11 ) Eating and drinking establishments (no drive- through) P P P (11 ) P P P P P P P P P P (5) Eating and drinking establishments (with drive- through) S (6) (20 ) C (7) (20 ) P S (6) (20 ) P(20 ) P (20 ) Eating facilities for employees P P P A A A A Planned development retail sales Drive- through/drive- up businesses (commercial/ret ail – other than eating/drinking establishments) C (22 ) P (20 ) P (20 ) P (24 ) P (24 ) P (20 ) P (20 ) Miscellaneous retail: drugs, antiques, books, sporting goods, jewelry, florist, photo supplies, video rental, computer supplies, etc. P P P (11 ) P P P P P P A(8) A (8) Liquor store P P P (11 ) P P P P P P P P Farm supplies, hay, grain, feed, fencing, etc. (retail) P P P Nurseries, greenhouses, garden supplies, tools, etc. P P P P Pet shops (retail and grooming) P P P P Computers and electronics (retail) P P P P P P P 55 6 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code 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 t CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 Hotels and motels P (11 ) P P P (25 ) P P P P P Complexes which include combinations of uses, including a mixture of office, light manufacturing, storage, and commercial uses P P Outdoor storage (including truck, heavy equipment, and contractor storage yards as allowed by development standards, KCC 15.04.190 and 15.04.195) P (19 ) P (19 ) A (19 ) A (19) A (19 ) A (19 ) P (19 ) Accessory uses and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use A A A (9) (27 ) A (27 ) A (27 ) A (27 ) A (27 ) A A A A A A A (16 ) A (16 ) A (17 ) A (17 ) A (17 ) A (17 ) A (17 ) A (16 ) A (16 ) A (16 ) A A A A Agriculturally related retail C (21 ) Battery exchange station S (23 ) S (23 ) A (23 ) A (23 ) A (23 ) A (23 ) A (23 ) S (23 ) S (23 ) S (23 ) S (23) S (23 ) S (23 ) A (23 ) 56 7 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code SECTION 2. - Amendment. Section 15.04.090 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Service land uses,” is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.04.090 Service land uses. 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 Finance, insurance, real estate services P (22 ) P P (1) (12 ) P P P P P P P P P (2) Personal services: laundry, dry cleaning, barber, salons, shoe repair, launderettes P (22 ) P P (12 ) P P P P P P P (10 ) P (10 ) P (2) (10 ) Mortuaries P (12 ) P P P Home day- care P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Day-care center C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Business services, duplicating and blue printing, travel agencies, and employment agencies P (12 ) P P P P P P P P P (2) Building maintenance and pest control P P P P P P P (2) Outdoor storage (including truck, heavy equipment, and contractor storage yards as allowed by development P P A A A A C (9) P 57 8 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code 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 standards, KCC 15.04.190 and 15.04.195) Rental and leasing services for cars, trucks, trailers, furniture, and tools P P P P P P P (2) Auto repair and washing services (including body work) C P P P P P P P (21 ) (23 ) Repair services: watch, TV, electrical, electronic, upholstery P P (12 ) P P P P P P P (2) Professional services: medical, clinics, and other health care-related services P (20 ) P P P P P P P P P P (2) Heavy equipment and truck repair P P P C (9) P Contract construction service offices: building construction, plumbing, paving, and landscaping P (16 ) P P P (16 ) P (17 ) P (17 ) P (2) (17 ) P Educational services: vocational, trade, art, music, dancing, barber, and beauty P P P P P P P P P (2) Churches S (4 ) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) 58 9 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code 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 Administrati ve and professional offices – general P P (12 ) P P P P C P P P P P (2) Municipal uses and buildings P (13 ) P (13 ) P P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (2) (13 ) P (13 ) Research, development , and testing P C P P P P P P (2) P (14 ) Accessory uses and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use A A A (7) (24 ) A (24 ) A (24 ) A (24 ) A (24 ) A A A A A A A (18 ) A (18 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (18 ) A (18 ) A (18 ) A A A A Boarding kennels and breeding establishme nts C C C Veterinary clinics and veterinary hospitals C P (8) P (8) P (8) P (8) P (8) Administrati ve or executive offices which are part of a predominant industrial operation P P P P P Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of a principally permitted use A A A A A 59 10 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code SECTION 3. - Amendment. Section 15.04.110 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Cultural, entertainment, and recreation land uses,” is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.04.110 Cultural, entertainment, and recreation land uses. 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 Performing and cultural arts uses, such as art galleries/studios P (3) P P P P P P P P Historic and monument sites P P Public assembly (indoor): sports facilities, arenas, auditoriums and exhibition halls, bowling alleys, dart- playing facilities, skating rinks, community clubs, athletic clubs, recreation centers, theaters (excluding school facilities) P P C C P P P (2) P (2) P (2) Public assembly (outdoor): fairgrounds and amusement parks, tennis courts, athletic fields, miniature golf, go-cart tracks, drive-in theaters, etc. C P P Open space use: cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses, and other recreation facilities, including buildings or structures associated therewith C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P (6) C P (6) C C (9) C (9) C (9) C P (7) C P (7) C C C C C Employee recreation areas A A A A Private clubs, fraternal lodges, etc. C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P (5) C C P (5) C C C P (5) C C C C C Recreational vehicle parks C Accessory uses and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use A A (10) A (10) A (10) A (10) A (10) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Recreational buildings in MHP A 60 11 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code SECTION 4. – 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 5. – 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 6. – 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 61 12 Amend KCC 15.04 Re: M1 Industrial Park Zoning Code 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\M1 Zoning Code Amendment_draft.docx 62 GH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 1 of 22 Planning Services Location: 400 W. Gowe • Mail to: 220 4thAvenue South • Kent, WA98032-5895 Permit Center (253) 856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412 www.KentWA.gov/permitcenter Environmental Checklist Application Form Public Notice Board and Application Fee…See Fee Schedule Please print in black ink only. To be completed by Staff: Application # ENV-2016-6, ZCA-2016-4 KIVA # RPSW -2160841, RPP6-2160749 Received by: Date: Processing Fee: A. Staff review determined that project: Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signature of Responsible Official Date B. Comments: C. Type of Permit or Action Requested: D. Zoning District: 63 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 2 of 22 To be completed by Applicant: A. Background Information: 1. Name of Project: Zoning Code Amendment to M1 Industrial Park District 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Planning Services MailingAddress: 220 4th Ave S, Kent, WA 98032 3. Contact Person: Jason Garnham Telephone: 253-856-5439 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above unless a project contact is designated here and on Page 2 of application.) 4. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): City of Kent Department of Economic & Community Development 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). All M1 (Industrial Park) zoned properties, in various locations throughout the city. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (If lengthy, attach as separate sheet.): N/A b. Tax identification number: N/A 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (If necessary, attach a separate sheet.). Most of the properties in M1 zoned areas are developed with various warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, and service business facilities. A limited number of non-conforming residential properties are also within the M1 zoning area. The M1 zoning area is concentrated on predominantly flat land in the Green River Valley, and is located between the Green River to the west, Kent City limits to the north, 72nd Avenue S. to the east, and (just north of) James St. to the south. Another M1 area lies to the south, bound by the Green River to the west, S 259th St. to the north, and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way to the east. The M1 zoning area also includes floodplain and wetlands associated with Lower Mill Creek, including the Green River Natural Resources Area. A network of industrial collector and arterial public streets serves the area and provides access to/ from nearby State highway 167 and Interstate 5. 8. SiteArea: N/A Site Dimensions: Approximately 1.5 X 3.25 miles. 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): The proposed zoning code amendment would broaden the types of commercial uses permitted in the M1 Industrial Park District to include: 15.04.070 Wholesale and retail land uses:  Bakeries and confectioneries  Food and convenience stores (retail)  Apparel and accessories (retail) as an accessory use, under the condition (8) where development plans 64 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 3 of 22 demonstrate a relationship between this and the principally permitted use of the property  Eating and drinking establishments with drive-through  Miscellaneous retail (drugs, antiques, books, etc) as accessory uses, under the condition (8) where development plans demonstrate a relationship between this and the principally permitted use of the property  Liquor stores  Computers and electronics (retail)  Hotels and motels 15.04.090 Service land uses  Auto repair and washing services (including body work) 15.04.110 Cultural, entertainment, and recreation land uses  Performing and cultural arts uses, such as art galleries/ studios The separate M1-C Industrial Park/Commercial zoning designation would be retained and would allow those nodes of commercial activity to be developed at a higher density than in the M1 zoning district. The development standards in Kent City Code 15.04.190 specify a minimum lot area in M1-C of 10,000 square feet, whereas the minimum lot size in the M1 zoning district is one acre (43,560 square feet). ECD staff believes that maintaining the zoning distinction between M1 and M1-C encourages retention of the larger land areas required by industrial business uses, while the proposed zoning change in the M1 zoning district supports limited service and retail businesses that are supportive of modern and high-quality industrial enterprises and their employees. 65 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 4 of 22 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). Land Use and Planning Board workshop, March 14, 2016. Land Use and Planning Board public hearing on March 28, 2016. City Council vote on April 5, 2016. 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. Agency Permit Type Date Submitted* Number Status** N/A *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. N/A 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. N/A 66 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 5 of 22 B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Evaluation for Agency Use Only Properties in the M1 zoning district are in generally flat areas within and adjacent to the Green River valley. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Varies c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Varies d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Varies e. Describe the purpose, type, total affected area, and approximate quantities of any filling, excavation or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No ground disturbing activities are currently proposed. Any future impacts will be analyzed prior to issuance of development permits. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No ground disturbing activities are currently proposed. Any future impacts will be analyzed and subject to erosion control requirements prior to issuance of development permits. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. No ground disturbing activities are currently proposed. Any future impacts will be analyzed and subject to erosion control requirements prior to issuance of development permits. 67 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 6 of 22 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result fromthe proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction, operations, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Temporary emissions from construction equipment and increased employee and customer vehicular emissions would be expected with any new development authorized by the proposed zoning code amendment. The level of vehicle emissions may increase subsequent to development of land uses generating higher rates of use and visitation, such as hotels or drive-thru restaurants. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Co-location of supportive services may reduce the length and number of vehicle trips in the Industrial area. 3. Water a. Surface Water: i. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Much of the M1 zoning area is near the Green River, Lower Mill Creek and associated floodplain and wetland areas. ii. Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No impacts to said streams and wetlands are proposed at this time. Impacts and mitigation will be analyzed for compliance with the Critical Areas regulations and Shoreline Master Program at the time of development plan review. iii. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 68 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 7 of 22 iv. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Evaluation for Agency Use Only N/A v. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Portions of the M1 district lie within a 100-year floodplain along the eastern bank of the Green River between 228th Street to the south and 188th Street to the north. Any future development proposals within the floodplain will be required to comply with the City’s Flood Hazard regulations, and to analyze and mitigate for floodplain impacts, prior to the issuance of development permits. vi. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground Water: i. Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. N/A ii. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground fromseptic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. _ N/A c. Water Runoff (including storm water): i. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No new impervious surfaces or impacts to wetlands, rivers, or stormwater conveyance and storage systems are proposed at this time. Impacts to storm water systems and waterways will be analyzed and mitigated at the time of development plan review. 69 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 8 of 22 ii. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Evaluation for Agency Use Only N/A iii. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Development proposals will be required to comply with the city’s stormwater regulations. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: No new impervious surfaces or impacts to stormwater conveyance and storage systems are proposed at this time. Impacts to storm water systems and waterways will be analyzed and mitigated at the time of development plan review. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: varies  Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other  Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other  Shrubs  Grass  Pasture  Crop or grain  Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops  Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other  Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other  Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No removal of vegetation is currently contemplated. Future development may impact existing plants and will be analyzed during development permit review. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. According to the USFWS Critical habitat map and related resources, the Green River is considered Critical habitat. The only plant species included in the list of species that “could potentially be affected” by proposals in this area is Golden Paintbrush. Individual development proposals will be required to analyze potential impacts and mitigation to threatened or endangered species at the time of permit review. 70 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 9 of 22 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Evaluation for Agency Use Only No disturbance to existing plants is currently proposed. Future development will be required to comply with the landscaping and tree retention requirements in Kent’s zoning code. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. N/A 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Varies Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. According to the USFWS Critical habitat map and related resources, the Green River is considered Critical habitat for Chinook Salmon, and as many as 7 endangered species and 12 species of migratory birds live in or visit the area. Endangered species that “could potentially be affected by activities” in this area are: Oregon Spotted Frog (amphibian), Marbled Murrelet, Streaked Horned lark, Yellow-billed Cuckoo (birds), Bull Trout (fish), Golden Paintbrush (flowering plant), and Canada lynx. Migratory birds that “could potentially be affected” b y activities in this area are: Bald Eagle, Black Swift, Calliope Hummingbird, Caspian Tern, Fox Sparrow, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Peregrine Falcon, Purple Finch, Rufous Hummingbird, Short-eared Owl, Western Grebe, and Willow Flycatcher c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes – Many species of anadromous salmon including those mentioned above as well as coho, pink and chum use the Green River and its tributaries as a migration corridor. Mill Creek, listed as a Type II stream, is a tributary of the Green River, and is considered salmonid- bearing. The Green River valley is also within the Pacific Flyway migratory bird route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Landscaping is typically required as part of development to promote wildlife habitat where feasible. The city also has a critical areas ordinance that addresses impacts to wildlife habitat. These impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be considered at the time of individual development permit review. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. N/A 71 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 10 of 22 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project’s energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A. No development is currently proposed. Future development in the subject area will use energy for a range of industrial, commercial, office and/or residential uses. 72 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 11 of 22 Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Evaluation for Agency Use Only No. Building heights are limited by Kent City Code. b. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The entire City of Kent is located within the Department of Ecology’s Tacoma Smelter Plume study area. Based on the map at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/smeltersearch/ the site is located within an area where arsenic levels were detected at a rate of less than 20 parts per million. DOE recommends soil testing in areas where arsenic levels have been detected at more than 20 parts per million. i. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. See 7.a. ii. Describe existing hazardous chemical conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. N/A iii. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. N/A iv. Describe special emergency services that might be required. The site is served by the Kent Regional Fire Authority and the Kent Police Department. Impacts to these services will be considered at the time of development plan review. 73 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 12 of 22 v. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Evaluation for Agency Use Only N/A b. Noise i. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Noise from traffic on roadways, trains on the nearby Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and air traffic is pervasive in the area. Noise from airplanes associated with nearby Sea-Tac International Airport is pervasive in the area. Noise ii. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A. Noise impacts will be considered at the time of development plan review. iii. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Landscape buffering and screening is required as part of development plan review. Timing of construction activities is limited to certain hours of the day. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Properties in M1 zoning are currently used for a variety of manufacturing, warehousing, residential and related service and retail businesses. b. Has the project site been used or working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. Much of the valley land in Kent was used for agriculture until development for industrial uses during the 1970s and 1980s. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be connected to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not yet been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to non-farm or non-forest use? N/A 74 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 13 of 22 i. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling and harvesting? If so, how: Evaluation for Agency Use Only N/A c. Describe any structures on the site. Various industrial, warehouse, retail, office, and residential buildings currently occupy M1 zoned properties. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No buildings or other structures are currently proposed to be removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M1 Industrial Park. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? I – Industrial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline master program jurisdiction extends to all areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River and associated wetlands and floodways, affecting all properties at the western boundary of the M1 zoning district. Shoreline jurisdiction also applies to the Green River Natural Resources Area and associated wetlands, affecting properties in the vicinity of S. 226th St., 64th Ave S., S. 212th St, and Russell Rd. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. The area is significantly impacted by wetlands and seismic instability. Steep slopes and floodplain areas are prevalent along the banks of the Green River. Geotechnical and biological assessment is required for development proposals in designated Critical areas, and in Shoreline areas as noted in (g). i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Will vary according to individual proposed development projects. Development of new housing is not permitted in M1 zoning. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A 75 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 14 of 22 k. Proposed measures toavoidor reduce displacement impacts, if any: Evaluation for Agency Use Only N/A l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Kent City Code restricts the uses and development types permitted in Industrial zones to ensure compatibility with existing and future land uses and minimize conflict between incompatible uses. Allowing supportive services in the M1 zoning district is compatible with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for industrial areas. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long term commercial significance, if any: N/A 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Development of housing is not permitted in M1 zoning. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Building height is limited in the M1 zoning district to 35 feet, or up to 60 feet with additional yard setbacks. Permission for additional building height may be granted by the economic and community development director and land use and planning board. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No new buildings are currently proposed. 76 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 15 of 22 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. None proposed at this time. Aesthetic impacts will be considered and subject to buffering and landscaping requirements at the time of development plan review. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is currently unknown as no development is proposed at this time. Light and glare impacts will be considered at the time of development plan review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A N/A c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Kent City code requires submittal of lighting plans that minimize glare and associated impacts on surrounding properties and rights-of-way with development proposals. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Two multi-use paths (Green River Trail, Interurban Trail) traverse through or near the area. The Boeing Employees Tennis Club is open to the public, and several gymnastics and fitness centers are in operation in the area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No development is being proposed at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. N/A 77 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 16 of 22 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Maddocksville Landing, near Van Dorens Park on the Green River, is listed on the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s online database at https://fortress.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. Historic use by Indian tribes or settlers is known in this area, particularly near the Green River, but no material evidence or artifacts are known at this time. Some tribal fishing areas are located on the Green River. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. During future development activities, should archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools, beads, ceramics, old bottles, hearths, etc.) or human remains be observed during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity will stop to allow for consultation with state and tribal archaeological officials. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The subject area lies between Interstate 5 and State Highway 167. A network of arterial, collector, and local streets serves the area, including 68th Avenue (Route 181), South 196th, 212th, and 228th Streets. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? According to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan, the subject area is served by King County Metro bus routes 150, 154, 247, 180, and 918. Commuter rail service is accessible nearby via the Sounder at Kent Station and the Link Light Rail at Sea-Tac International Airport. The nearest Park & Ride facility is located at the intersection of Interstate 5 and State Highway 516. 78 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 17 of 22 c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non- project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? Evaluation for Agency Use Only No specific site development proposal is currently contemplated for the site. Parking will be provided as required by the Kent zoning code. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). This proposal and any consequent redevelopment is unlikely to require any new roads or streets. Roadways and intersections within the subject area were subject to Level of Service analysis as part of the 2008 City of Kent Transportation Master Plan. Transportation infrastructure improvements will be made in the area accordingly, and future development of the properties within the M1 area will likely be required to participate financially and/or construct portions of any transportation system improvements deemed necessary. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Tracks owned by the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railways carry freight and passenger rail traffic just east of the subject area. Sea-Tac International Airport is located a few miles west of the area. Goods and persons may travel to and/ or from the area via these modes of transport. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (Such as commercial and non- passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?. Industrial zoning districts are designated as such in part to permit efficient travel of freight on associated roadways. By permitting a wider array of service and retail uses in the M1 zoning district, the proposed zoning amendment has the potential to lead to increases in passenger vehicle traffic, resulting from redevelopment of properties with hotels, drive-thru restaurants, and/or various retail and service establishments. This would adversely impact the nature and purpose of the comprehensive plan, zoning, and Transportation Master Plan designations for related roadways. However, analysis of the proposed zoning code amendment by both economic development and public works transportation planning staff conclude that the proposed amendment is likely to engender redevelopment of only a very limited number of properties. Significant increases or changes in vehicular traffic are thus considered unlikely resulting from this proposal. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement or agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe? N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Future development will be required to identify project-specific traffic impacts, and consider the need for mitigation measures beyond those identified in the TMP. The future development project will be required to 79 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 18 of 22 pay transportation impact fees and will likely financially participate in and/or construct any necessary improvements. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. While the proposed zoning code amendment will not directly result in an increased need for public services, permitting a wider variety of commercial uses in M1 zoning may ultimately increase demand for public services in accordance with the ultimate use of the site b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Will vary based on individual projects 80 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 19 of 22 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. No new utilities are needed or proposed. C. Signature I swear under penalty of perjury that all information provided on this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Printed Name: Jason Garnham Position and Agency/Organization: _Planner, City of Kent _______________________ Date: 3/15/2016 81 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 20 of 22 DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Evaluation for Agency Use Only Permitting a wider array of service and retail uses in the M1 industrial park zoning district may lead to redevelopment of properties with uses that attract higher levels of vehicular traffic, which could increase emissions to air. Conversion of undeveloped parcels to any of the range of permitted land uses through development could increase stormwater discharges, however, impacts to wetlands and stormwater infrastructure will be analyzed and minimized at the time of development plan review. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Individual development proposals will require payment of stormwater system development fees. Noise will have to comply with the city’s noise ordinance. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Certain areas within the M1 zoning district are impacted by wetlands and floodplain areas, and/ or are adjacent to Lower Mill Creek and the Green River. Development in these areas could potentially affect plants, animals, or fish that reside, breed, visit, or migrate through these natural areas, some of which are considered Critical habitat. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Biological, wetland, and geotechnical assessment and mitigation is required with any project proposal in accordance with Critical Areas, Flood Hazard and Shoreline Master Program ordinances. Impacts to rivers and wetlands will also be mitigated through stormwater review and compliance with Design and Construction standards. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Development of service and retail land uses may attract a higher number of visitors to the M1 industrial area, which may increase fuel consumption through increased automotive trips. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None 3. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, 82 WH1-1 psd4008_5_15 p. 21 of 22 threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Evaluation for Agency Use Only Environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands, floodplains, and critical wildlife habitat are common in the M1 zoning district, especially along the Green River. Development proposals could potentially impact these areas through stormwater emissions, vegetation removal and pollution. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Biological, wetlands, and geotechnical assessment and analysis of project proposals and compliance with critical areas, flood hazard and shoreline ordinances will be required at the time of development plan review. Criti 4. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed zoning code amendment permits a slightly wider variety of service and retail uses in the M1 zoning district, some of which lies within Shoreline jurisdiction associated with the Green River and the Green River Natural Resources Area. It potentially encourages development in the Industrial area that is supportive of industrial land uses but not of an industrial character, potentially altering the traffic volumes and services required in the area. The proposed code amendment could also affect the number and types of projects proposed within said Shoreline and/ or wetlands areas. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Shoreline impacts will be avoided or minimized by requiring any development proposals to perform biological, wetlands, and/ or geotechnical assessment and address critical areas and shoreline regulations per Kent City Code. Land use impacts are anticipated to be minimal due to the limited extent of change forecasted by economic and transportation staff analysis. Impacts of specific development proposals will be analyzed and addressed in accordance with the standards and procedures in Kent zoning and land use codes. 5. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed zoning code amendment has the potential to increase the variety of business and development types in M1 zoning districts, which would potentially lead to increased vehicular traffic, visitors, and demand for public services such as police and fire, and demand for utilities. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Impacts to transportation and utilities infrastructure will be analyzed at the time of development project review for specific proposals. Impact fees and road and utilities improvements may be required prior to issuance of permits. 6. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal 83 laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The City has adopted critical areas, flood hazard and shoreline regulations in compliance with state and federal laws. Requiring specific development proposals to comply with these ordinances will prevent conflicts with these requirements. 84 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document M1 INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING REGULATIONS ENV-2016-6, KIVA #RPSA-2160841 ZCA-2016-4, KIVA #RPP6-2160749 Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Jason Garnham, Planner I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a proposal to amend the City of Kent Zoning Code to permit a wider variety of service, retail, and cultural land uses in M1 Industrial Park zoning districts. See attached for proposed amendments to Kent City Code Sections 15.04.070, 15.04.090, and 15.04.110. 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. 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 85 Decision Document M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4) ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841 Page 2 of 5 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 M1 (Industrial Park) zoning district will be affected by this proposal. Located in generally flat areas within and adjacent to the Green River valley, properties in the M1 zoning district are a diverse mix of undeveloped natural, wetlands, and open space uses, and developed with a mix of industrial, commercial, and some residential uses. Individual development projects will be subject to the City of Kent standards for erosion and sedimentation controls. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be determined at the time of individual development permit review. B. Air While adoption of the proposal is a non-project action, a limited expansion in the array of service, retail, and cultural land uses in the M1 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 new development. Following completion, vehicle emissions will be generated from employees and customers. The level of emissions generated may increase subsequent to development of land uses generating higher rates of use and visitation, such as hotels or drive-thru restaurants. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be assessed at the time of application for development permits. C. Water The proposal is city-wide within the M1 zoning district, which abuts the Green River and includes Lower Mill Creek and various associated drainage basins and wetlands. All lands within the Green River Natural Resources Area, within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River, and impacted by associated wetlands are within Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction. If individual development proposals impact wetlands or streams, mitigation will be required in accordance with the City’s Critical Areas regulations contained in Kent City Code Section 11.06. Construction activities are regulated by the adopted codes of the City of Kent, currently the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, and the 2009 Shoreline Master Program. Impacts to associated waterways and wetland areas will be analyzed and mitigated at the time of development permit review. 86 Decision Document M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4) ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841 Page 3 of 5 D. Plants and Animals The Green River is considered critical habitat for a number of threatened and migratory species. This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on plants or animals. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to plants and animals will be determined at the time of individual development permit review. 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 a wider variety of service and retail uses in the M1 zoning district, this proposal may lead to increased development and associated traffic and noise. Current city codes regulate and minimize impacts to neighboring properties by requiring landscape buffering and screening, limiting building size and height, and regulating lighting of parking and outdoor areas. Specific impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be determined at the time of individual development permit review. 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 M1 zoning district, with a comprehensive plan land use designation of I, Industrial. Shoreline jurisdiction applies to all M1 properties located within 200 feet of the Green River, and to areas associated with the Green River Natural Resources Area. There are a variety of industrial, commercial, service, retail, and residential uses within the M1 district. The proposed increase in the types of uses permitted in M1 zoning is intended to facilitate co-location of land uses that are supportive of modern industrial enterprises. Impacts from associated development are anticipated to be limited, but will be considered at the time of individual development permit review. H. Housing This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on housing. I. Recreation While several City parks and multi-use paths lie within the M1 zoning district, significant adverse impacts to recreation are not anticipated from this proposal. 87 Decision Document M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4) ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841 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. K. Transportation Development resulting from the proposed increase in permitted land uses in the M1 district may increase vehicular traffic on area roadways. Because the scope of related development is anticipated to be minimal, significant traffic impacts are not anticipated. Each individual development project will be required to pay a transportation impact fee and may be required to construct street improvements. L. Public Services Additional demand for fire, police, and other public services may result from development associated with this proposal. Impacts to public services are anticipated to be minimal, and will be reviewed at the time of development permit review. M. Utilities Properties in the M1 zoning district are predominantly developed and served by City of Kent water and sewer 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; 88 Decision Document M1 Industrial Park Permitted Land Uses Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-4) ENV-2016-6 / RPSA-2160841 Page 5 of 5 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations; 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments; 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Park; 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control; 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes; 14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning; 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227; 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 March 22, 2016 JG:pm\S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2016\2160841_ENV-2016-6decision.doc 89 CITY OF KENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2016-6 Project: M1 Industrial Park Zoning #RPSA-2160841 #ZCA-2016-4 #RPP6-2160749 Description: The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a proposal to amend the City of Kent Zoning Code to permit a wider variety of service, retail, and cultural land uses in M1 Industrial Park zoning districts. See attached for proposed amendments to Kent City Code Sections 15.04.070, 15.04.090, and 15.04.110. Applicant: Jason Garnham, Planner, City of Kent Planning Services Lead Agency CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. ____ There is no comment period for this DNS. __X_ This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14-day comment period. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m., April 5, 2016. This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Responsible Official Erin George, AICP_________________ ______________________ Position/Title Senior Planner / ACTING SEPA OFFICIAL Address 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253) 856-5454 Dated March 22, 2016 Signature _______________________ APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE JG:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2016\2160841_ENV-2016-6_749_ZCA-2016-4_DNS_M1 Industrial Park ZCA.doc 90 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic and Community Development Committee FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator RE: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Zoning Code Amendment [ZCA-2016-3] For Meeting of April 11, 2016 SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on March 28, 2016, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended approval of Zoning Code amendments to regulate Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities (“OSTF”). The proposed amendments restrict these facilities to the Commercial-Manufacturing I (CM-1) zone and require a conditional use permit with a variety of documentation to ensure the City has adequate information about any potential project. State law places responsibility for certification and approval of OSTF under the jurisdiction of the Department of Social and Health Services, which may only certify facilities in accordance with local land use ordinances. Given that such facilities are not currently defined or addressed in Kent’s zoning code, staff developed a new definition and associated development conditions to regulate these facilities. Kent City Code currently permits OSTF under the category “professional services: medical, clinics, and other health care-related services” in nearly every commercial, manufacturing or industrial district in the City. However, OSTF can have differing impacts from other medical offices, particularly due to high levels of pedestrian queueing and potential for graffiti, litter or other impacts to adjacent businesses. MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval/denial/modification of amendments to Title 15 of the Kent City Code related to opiate substitution treatment facilities, including a new definition in KCC 15.02 and amendments to the use tables and development conditions in KCC 15.04, as recommended by the Land Use & Planning Board. 91 The proposed amendments would restrict OSTF to the CM-1 zone with a conditional use permit and various other requirements, including execution of a “good neighbor” contract agreement and a 500-foot spacing requirement. Staff will be present at the April 11, 2016 meeting for discussion. Note that two ordinances amending different portions of the land use table in KCC 15.04.090 are being considered at the April 11th committee meeting. EXHIBITS: Draft Ordinance; Map of Existing Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities; SEPA Checklist; SEPA Decision Document; Determination of Non- Significance BUDGET IMPACT: None S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-3 Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities\ECDC Memo 4 11 16 OSTF_ca_edits.doc cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director 92 1 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapters 15.02 and 15.04 of the Kent City Code, to define “opiate substitution treatment facilities” and adopt appropriate land use controls to regulate them. RECITALS A. The state of Washington has declared that while opiate substitution drugs used in the treatment of opiate dependency are addictive substances, they nevertheless have several legal, important, and justified uses and that one of their appropriate and legal uses is, in conjunction with other required therapeutic procedures, in the treatment of persons addicted to or habituated to opioids. B. Because opiate substitution drugs used in the treatment of opiate dependency are addictive and are listed as a schedule II controlled substance in chapter 69.50 RCW, the state of Washington has the legal obligation and right to regulate the use of opiate substitution treatment. The state of Washington has declared its authority to control and regulate, in consultation with counties and cities, all clinical uses of opiate substitution drugs used in the treatment of opiate addiction. 93 2 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions C. Washington state law places responsibility for the licensing and location approval of opiate substitution treatment facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Social and Health Services. Pursuant to RCW 70.96A.410, the Department may only certify clinics that are in compliance with local land use ordinances. D. The Kent City Code (“KCC”) does not currently define “opiate substitution treatment facilities” or provide any specific land use regulations related to the zoning of these facilities beyond those generally applicable to all medical and other health-care related clinics. E. Opiate substitution treatment facilities have land use impacts that differ from those associated with other types of medical clinics, including, but not limited to: a high volume of patients receiving daily medical treatment during a short window of time; the distribution of medications that have the potential for unauthorized re-distribution by their intended recipients; and increased loitering in and around the facilities themselves. F. RCW 70.96A.410(1)(b) specifically provides that cities may require conditional or special use permits, with reasonable conditions, related to the location and operation of opiate substitution treatment facilities. G. On February 8, 2016, Planning staff presented the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) with an overview of the need for a new definition and associated regulations at a workshop meeting, and received authorization to proceed with an amendment proposal. H. On March 7, 2016, the City requested expedited review under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce 94 3 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions regarding the City’s proposed code amendments related to development regulations applicable to opiate substitution treatment facilities. The Washington State Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on March 22, 2016. No comments were received from State agencies. I. On March 14, 2016, Planning staff presented draft code amendments to the LUPB at a workshop meeting and answered questions about the proposed zoning, the City’s role in regulation, and the proposed documentation requirements for the conditional use permit. J. On March 21, 2016, the City conducted and completed environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the code amendments. K. At its regularly-scheduled public meeting on March 28, 2016, the LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendments related to opiate substitution treatment facilities. After considering the matter, the LUPB voted to recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. As a matter of clarification, it should be noted that two ordinances amending different portions of the same land use table in KCC 15.04.090 were considered at the same meeting, albeit after separate public hearings. L. On April 11, 2016, the Economic and Community Development Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council adoption of the proposed code amendments. M. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on April 19, 2016, the City Council voted to adopt the amendments to portions of Chapters 15.02 and 95 4 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions 15.04 of the Kent City Code, pertaining to opiate substitution treatment facilities. N. The Kent City Council declares and finds that it is appropriate and necessary, and in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, to define and classify opiate substitution treatment facilities and adopt land use controls to regulate these 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, entitled “Definitions,” is hereby amended to add a new section 15.02.307, entitled “Opiate substitution treatment facility,” to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.307. Opiate substitution treatment facility. Opiate substitution treatment facility means an agency, business, clinic or other facility that administers opiate substitution treatment services, including the dispensing of approved opioid agonist treatment medication used in the treatment of opiate dependency, in accordance with RCW 70.96A.400 through 420, and WAC 388-877B-0400, et seq. SECTION 2. – Amendment. Chapter 15.04.090 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Service land uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows: 96 5 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions Sec. 15.04.090 Service land uses 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 Finance, insurance, real estate services P (22 ) P P (1) (12 ) P P P P P P P P P (2) Personal services: laundry, dry cleaning, barber, salons, shoe repair, launderettes P (22 ) P P (12 ) P P P P P P P (10 ) P (10 ) P (2) (10 ) Mortuaries P (12 ) P P P Home day- care P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Day-care center C C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Business services, duplicating and blue printing, travel agencies, and employment agencies P (12 ) P P P P P P P P P (2) Building maintenance and pest control P P P P P P P (2) Outdoor storage (including truck, heavy equipment, and contractor P P A A A A C (9) P 97 6 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions 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 storage yards as allowed by development standards, KCC 15.04.190 and 15.04.195) Rental and leasing services for cars, trucks, trailers, furniture, and tools P P P P P P P (2) Auto repair and washing services (including body work) C P P P P P P (21 ) (23 ) Repair services: watch, TV, electrical, electronic, upholstery P P (12 ) P P P P P P P (2) Professional services: medical, clinics, and other health care-related services P (20 ) P P P P P P P P P P (2) Opiate substitution treatment facility C(3 ) Heavy equipment and truck repair P P P C (9) P Contract construction service P (16 ) P P P (16 ) P (17 ) P (17 ) P (2) (17 P 98 7 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions 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 offices: building construction , plumbing, paving, and landscaping ) Educational services: vocational, trade, art, music, dancing, barber, and beauty P P P P P P P P P (2) Churches S (4 ) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4 ) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) S (4) Administrati ve and professional offices – general P P (12 ) P P P P C P P P P P (2) Municipal uses and buildings P (13 ) P (13 ) P P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (13 ) P (2) (13 ) P (13 ) Research, development , and testing P C P P P P P P (2) P (14 ) Accessory uses and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use A A A (7) (24 ) A (24 ) A (24 ) A (24 ) A (24 ) A A A A A A A (18 ) A (18 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (19 ) A (18 ) A (18 ) A (18 ) A A A A Boarding kennels and breeding establishme nts C C C Veterinary clinics and C P (8) P (8) P (8) P (8) P (8) 99 8 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions 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 veterinary hospitals Administrati ve or executive offices which are part of a predominant industrial operation P P P P P Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of a principally permitted use A A A A A 100 9 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions SECTION 3. – Amendment. Section 15.04.100 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Service land use development conditions,” is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.04.100 Service land use development conditions. 1. Banks and financial institutions (excluding drive-through). 2. Uses shall be limited to 25 percent of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which exceed the 25 percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis. 3. [Reserved].Opiate substitution treatment facilities are permitted only with a conditional use permit, and must provide indoor waiting areas of at least 15 percent of the total floor area. In addition to the general requirements of KCC 15.08.030, all applications shall contain and be approved by the city based on the following information: a. A detailed written description of the proposed and potential services to be provided, the source or sources of funding, and identification of any applicable public regulatory agencies; b. A written statement of need, in statistical or narrative form, for the proposed project currently and over the following ten-year period; 101 10 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions c. An inventory of known, existing or proposed facilities, by name and address, within King County, or within the region, serving the same or similar needs as the proposed facility; d. An explanation of the need and suitability for the proposed facility at the proposed location; e. An analysis of the proposed facility’s consistency with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, and plans and policies of other affected jurisdictions, including but not limited to the King County Countywide Planning Policies; f. Documentation of public involvement efforts to date, including public and agency comments received, and plans for future public participation; and g. A proposed “good faith” agreement for neighborhood partnership. This agreement shall state the goals of the partnership and address loitering prevention steps the facility owner/operator will take as well as frequency of planned maintenance and upkeep of the exterior of the facility (including, but not limited to, trash and litter removal, landscape maintenance, and graffiti). The agreement shall serve as the basis for a partnership between the city, the facility, and local businesses, and will outline steps partners will take to resolve concerns. No opiate substitution treatment facility may be located within 500 feet of an existing opiate substitution treatment facility. 4. Special uses must conform to the development standards listed in KCC 15.08.020. 102 11 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions 5. [Reserved]. 6. [Reserved]. 7. 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. 8. Veterinary clinics and animal hospitals when located no closer than 150 feet to any residential use, provided the animals are housed indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. 9. Those uses that are principally permitted in the M3 zone may be permitted in the M2 zone via a conditional use permit. 10. Personal services uses limited to linen supply and industrial laundry services, diaper services, rug cleaning and repair services, photographic services, beauty and barber services, and fur repair and storage services. 11. [Reserved]. 12. The ground level or street level portion of all buildings in the pedestrian overlay of the DC district, set forth in the map below, must be pedestrian-oriented. Pedestrian-oriented development shall have the main ground floor entry located adjacent to a public street and be physically and visually accessible by pedestrians from the sidewalk, and may include the following uses: a. Retail establishments, including but not limited to convenience goods, department and variety stores, specialty shops such as 103 12 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods, home and home accessory shops, florists, antique shops, and book shops; b. Personal services, including but not limited to barber shops, beauty salons, and dry cleaning; c. Repair services, including but not limited to television, radio, computer, jewelry, and shoe repair; d. Food-related shops, including but not limited to restaurants (including outdoor seating areas and excluding drive-in restaurants) and taverns; e. Copy establishments; f. Professional services, including but not limited to law offices and consulting services; and g. Any other use that is determined by the economic and community development director to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the district, pursuant to KCC 15.09.065, Interpretation of uses. 104 13 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions 13. Except for such uses and buildings subject to KCC 15.04.150. 14. Conducted in conjunction with a principally permitted use. 15. [Reserved]. 16. Contract construction services office use does not include contractor storage yards, which is a separate use listed in KCC 15.04.040. 17. Outside storage or operations yards are permitted only as accessory uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property or structure. 18. Includes incidental storage facilities and loading/unloading areas. 105 14 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions 19. Includes incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, and loading/unloading areas. 20. Shall only apply to medical and dental offices and/or neighborhood clinics. 21. Auto repair, including body work, and washing services are permitted only under the following conditions: a. The property is also used for heavy equipment repair and/or truck repair; and b. Gasoline service stations that also offer auto repair and washing services are not permitted in the M3, general industrial zoning district. 22. Any associated drive-up/drive-through facility shall be accessory and shall require a conditional use permit. 23. Auto repair, including body work, and auto washing services shall be allowed in the general industrial (M3) zoning district as follows: a. For adaptive reuse of existing site structures, all of the following conditions must apply: i. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and ii. Existing site structures do not have dock high loading bay doors, where the finished floor is generally level with the floor of freight containers; and iii. All ground-level bay doors of existing structures have a height of less than 14 feet, which would generally impede full access to freight containers; and 106 15 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions iv. Existing site structures have a clear height from finished floor to interior roof trusses of less than 20 feet; and v. Maximum building area per parcel is not greater than 40,000 square feet. b. For proposed site development, all of the following conditions must apply: i. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and ii. Based on parcels existing at the time of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, the maximum parcel size is no greater than 40,000 square feet. 24. 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. SECTION 4. – 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 5. – 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 6. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law. 107 16 Amend KCC 15.02, 15.04 - Re: Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility Development Conditions SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2016. APPROVED: day of , 2016. PUBLISHED: day of , 2016. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK p:\civil\ordinance\amend 15.02 and 15.04 opiate treatment center.docx 108 k k k k k k k kk k Tacoma Lakewood Puyallup Fife Sumner Edgewood Bonney Lake Gig Harbor University Place Buckley Milton Auburn Fircrest Steilacoom Dupont Pacific Ruston South Prairie Seattle Kent Bellevue Auburn Renton Kirkland Federal Way Sammamish Redmond Burien SeaTac Shoreline Bothell Tukwila Issaquah Kenmore Covington Des Moines Woodinville Maple Valley Mercer Island Black Diamond Newcastle Pacific Medina Lake Forest Park Enumclaw Algona Normandy Park Clyde Hill Milton Hunts Point Beaux Arts Existing Opiate Substitution Facilities ¬«99 §¨¦5 Legend k Existing Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Date: 3/15/2016 O05102.5 Miles §¨¦5 ¬«99 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT FACILITIES ZONING REGULATIONS ENV-2016-7, KIVA# RPSW-2160849 ZCA-2016-3, KIVA #RPP6-2160370 Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official Staff Contact: Hayley Bonsteel I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for this project, which proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Code sections 15.02 and 15.04 to address zoning regulations for opiate substitution treatment facilities. See attached for proposed potential amendments to Zoning Code Sections 15.02, 15.04.090 and 15.04.100. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Design and Construction Standards (Ordinance 3927) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts. These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Design and Construction Standards may require the deeding/ dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and Title 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 129 Decision Document Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Zoning Code Regulations ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849 Page 2 of 5 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took effect on May 10, 2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State Legislature in 2012. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The Proposal may impact the Commercial-Manufacturing I zone, including a range of developed and undeveloped properties. Areas in this part of the Kent valley are generally described as flat. Development of opiate substitution treatment facilities subsequent to amendment of the zoning code may require fill and grading. Such projects are subject to appropriate local, state and federal permits which will be acquired at the time of implementation. Projects will be subject to the City of Kent standards for erosion and sedimentation controls. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be determined at the time of development permit review for individual projects. B. Air Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to air are anticipated. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be assessed at the time of development permit review for individual projects. C. Water Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, and no impacts to water are anticipated. Opiate substitution treatment facilities permitted by this zoning change will be subject to the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual at the time of development permit review for individual projects. D. Plants and Animals This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on plants or animals. If applicable, specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to plants and animals will be determined at the time of opiate substitution treatment facility development permit review. E. Energy and Natural Resources This proposal is not anticipated to have an effect on energy or natural resources. If applicable, specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to energy and natural resources will be determined at the time of opiate substitution treatment facility development permit review. 130 Decision Document Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Zoning Code Regulations ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849 Page 3 of 5 F. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare Opiate substitution treatment facilities can anecdotally be associated with increased graffiti or litter, leading to a lower quality aesthetic. One of the proposed conditions for development is a neighborhood partnership agreement that would address these impacts. Minimal impacts on noise, light and glare are anticipated with the development of opiate substitution treatment facilities. Current city codes regulate impacts to neighboring properties, and the proposed neighborhood partnership agreement is intended to outline methods for resolving conflicts with regards to impacts. G. Land and Shoreline Use Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts. The Proposal is to allow opiate substitution treatment facilities in the Commercial- Manufacturing 1 (CM-1) district with a conditional use permit. No CM-1 zoned properties are located near shorelines of the state. H. Housing The proposal is not anticipated to impact housing availability. I. Recreation The proposal is not anticipated to impact recreation. J. Historic and Cultural Preservation Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are discovered with site work for any project action, the application must stop work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation. K. Transportation Significant traffic impacts are not anticipated for potential opiate substitution treatment facilities. If applicable, opiate substitution treatment facilities would be required to pay traffic impact fees to mitigate for any additional vehicular trips at the time of building permit issuance and may be required to construct street improvements. Additionally, some opiate substitution treatment facilities experience higher-than-usual pedestrian queueing due to appointment structure. The Proposal therefore includes the requirement that a proposed facility provide an indoor waiting area of at least 15 percent of the total floor area. This requirement is intended to reduce impacts to the pedestrian realm. Applicants may also be required to accommodate transit agency needs as part of permit review. L. Public Services 131 Decision Document Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Zoning Code Regulations ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849 Page 4 of 5 Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts, though police presence may be required if the facilities become associated with illicit activity. Police will most likely be aware of facility locations, and the proposed neighborhood partnership requirement includes considerations of additional security measures. M. Utilities Utility demand will not be affected by adoption of this non-project action. Opiate substitution treatment facilities may require similar utilities to any medical office. Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; 2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent Shoreline Master Program; 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code; 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan; 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan; 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element; 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure Improvements; 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits; 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations; 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments; 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Park; 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control; 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes; 14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning; 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227; 16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees; 132 Decision Document Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Zoning Code Regulations ENV-2016-7 RPSW-2160849 Page 5 of 5 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 March 21, 2016 HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2016\ENV-2016-7_decision_Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities.doc 133 134 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: April 11, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager RE: Preliminary plat validity period extensions For Meeting of April 11, 2016 SUMMARY: After a public hearing on March 14, 2016, the Land Use and Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of an amendment to the City’s subdivision code that would allow an additional 12 months of validity for preliminary plats that were approved in 2008. A preliminary plat is the initial plan for a subdivision that creates ten or more lots. When a preliminary plat is approved by the Hearing Examiner, the validity period begins. During this period a developer may construct the roads, utilities, park, etc. as approved then record the final plat. When a validity period expires before the final plat is recorded, the only way for a subdivision project to move forward is for the owner to submit a new preliminary plat under current development rules, which may require a new design and cost of tens of thousands of dollars. Before the Great Recession, preliminary plats were allowed a five year validity period. This time period was usually enough for developers to construct required improvements and record the final plat. When banks began limiting available credit during the recession, developers struggled to complete work within the five year window. The state legislature intervened in 2012 when it created a schedule of new, longer validity periods designed to provide relief until the housing market improved. This schedule creates a range of validity periods for preliminary plats, based on the approval date of an individual project. For all preliminary plats, Kent allows one year of validity in addition to the time allowed by the state. The table below shows the state schedule, plus Kent’s additional year: MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval of amendments to Kent City Code 12.04.221 Subdivision Preliminary Plat Expiration as proposed by staff and shown in the draft ordinance. 135 Preliminary Plat approval date Total validity period Before December 31, 2007 11 years January 1, 2008 –December 31, 2014 8 years January 1, 2015 forward 6 years Per this table, the longest validity periods are granted to preliminary plats approved before the recession began in late 2007, when developers were making business decisions based on the high home and land values of the time. Preliminary plats that were approved in 2008 were initiated before the recession, in similar market conditions as those approved in 2007. Accordingly, to effect the relief intended by the original extensions, additional time for the 2008 preliminary plats is appropriate. The recommended change to Kent City Code 12.04.221 would grant, upon request of the owner, a one-year extension to preliminary plats approved in 2008. Six plats that were approved in 2008 are scheduled to expire in 2016. Three of these have made no construction progress since 2007-2008, and are likely to expire this year. The remaining three projects are proceeding towards completion. After the March 14th public hearing, a developer who testified during the hearing suggested to staff that a period of 14 months would be more appropriate towards providing relief for his project. This change from the 12 month extension recommended by the LUPB is not substantial, does not require a new hearing and may be considered by the ECDC. EXHIBITS: Draft ordinance, attached. BUDGET IMPACT: None. S:/Permit/Plan/SUBDIVISION_CODE_AMENEMENTS/2016/SCA-2016-1 Plat Extensions/ECDCmemo.docx cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director 136 1 Amend KCC 12.04.221 - Re: Preliminary Plat Expiration ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 12.04.221 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Subdivision preliminary plat expiration,” to extend the validity period for preliminary plats approved between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, for one additional year, upon the written request of the applicant. RECITALS A. In order to ease the effects of the housing market collapse on owners of subdivision development projects, 2012 state legislation lengthened the validity period for preliminary plats to provide extra time for developers to submit final plats for approval. B. RCW 58.17.140 authorizes cities, by ordinance, to adopt procedures to allow extensions of time beyond those established per state law. C. The current city code provides that subdivision preliminary plat approvals remain valid for the period of time specified in Chapter 58.17 RCW, plus one year. D. Planning Staff and the City Council have received interest from the public in examining whether or not the dates and associated 137 2 Amend KCC 12.04.221 - Re: Preliminary Plat Expiration validity periods are appropriate to meet the purpose of the extensions, as they pertain specifically to the housing market in Kent. E. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on January 11, 2016, the City Council’s Economic and Community Development Committee heard a presentation from Planning Staff regarding a narrowly-tailored amendment to the City’s current preliminary plat validity period. The Committee directed Staff to proceed with preparing an ordinance for further consideration by the Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”). F. After reviewing the matter, Staff prepared an ordinance that would grant one additional one-year extension to projects approved in 2008, provided that an applicant submit a written request for extension prior to the expiration date of the original preliminary plat approval. While Staff believes that this change is warranted in the interest of fundamental fairness, only a small handful of development projects in the city of Kent would potentially qualify for this additional extension. G. On February 19, 2016, the City requested expedited review under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce regarding the City’s proposed amendment. On March 2, 2016, the Department of Commerce determined that the notice requirements of the State’s Growth Management Act (GMA) had been met. No comments were received from State agencies. H. On March 14, 2016, the LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendment related to limited plat extensions. After considering the matter, the LUPB voted to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council. I. The Economic and Community Development Committee considered the recommendation of the LUPB at its regularly-scheduled 138 3 Amend KCC 12.04.221 - Re: Preliminary Plat Expiration meeting on April 11, 2016, and recommended to the full City Council adoption of the proposed code amendment. J. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on April 19, 2016, the City Council voted to adopt the amendment to Section 12.04.221 of the Kent City Code, allowing certain limited preliminary plat extensions. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 12.04.221 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 12.04.221 Subdivision preliminary plat expiration. A. Subdivision preliminary plat approval shall remain valid for that period of time specified in Chapter 58.17 RCW, plus one (1) year. During this period, an applicant must submit a final plat based on the preliminary plat, or any phase thereof, and meeting all of the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 58.17 RCW, to the city council for approval, or the preliminary plat shall lapse and become void. B. For preliminary plats approved between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, one extension of one year shall be granted to an applicant who files a written request for extension with the economic and community development department prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat’s validity period, as provided in subsection (A), above. C. In the case of a phased subdivision, final plat approval by the city council of any phase of the subdivision preliminary plat will constitute an 139 4 Amend KCC 12.04.221 - Re: Preliminary Plat Expiration automatic one- (1) year extension for the filing of the final plat for the next phase of the subdivision. SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage as provided by law. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 2016. APPROVED: day of , 2016. 140 5 Amend KCC 12.04.221 - Re: Preliminary Plat Expiration 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\12.04.221 Plat Extension.docx 141