Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 07/11/2016 (3)
Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m. on the second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 4th Ave S, Kent, 98032. For additional information please contact Julie Pulliam at 253-856-5702. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 253-856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. Economic & Community Development Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Jim Berrios, Tina Budell, Bill Boyce, Chair July 11, 2016 5:00 p.m. Item Description Action Speaker(s) Time Page 1. Call to Order Bill Boyce 1 min 2. Roll Call Bill Boyce 1 min 3. Changes to the Agenda Bill Boyce 1 min 4. Approval of June 13, 2016 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 2 min 1 5. Landscape Easement - Dwell YES Brennan Taylor 5 min 7 6. Preservation of Trees Code Amendment YES Jason Garnham 5 min 27 (ZCA-2016-6) 8. Sound Transit Update NO Ben Wolters 5 min Information Only 9. ShoWare Update NO Ben Wolters 5 min Information Only 10. Economic Development Update NO Bill Ellis 10 min Information Only Andrew Corona ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES June 13, 2016 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Tina Budell, Jim Berrios absent 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Committee Member Budell MOVED and Committee Chair Boyce SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of May 11, 2016. Motion PASSED 2-0. 5. Patient Cooperatives Code Amendment (ZCA-2016-5) Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner presented an overview of changes to the state law which repealed the category of collective gardens and replaced it with a new category called patient cooperative. Patient cooperatives are intended to be small operations, 15 plants per person for up to four people, 60 total in the domicile of one of the members. The Liquor and Cannabis Board does have oversight and will propose some rules, but the City doesn’t know yet what those rules will be. One of the gaps staff sees in the law is it doesn’t require the domicile be owned; it could possibly be a rental. Staff is recommending prohibition consistent with the City’s direction for all other cannabis operations. The Land Use and Planning Board also recommended prohibition. The City code has been written to be somewhat easily changed in the future if that would be desired. Council Member Budell stated her concern about preventing cannabis grow by the people who have the legal medical certificate and legitimate need. Budell understands the state’s right to go in and do inspections to make sure of compliance. Cooperatives will be signing an agreement with the State stating they will not violate the order of the cooperative and they are subject to inspections. Budell questioned how to move forward on the operations that are not in compliance and let the ones with the medical need grow what they have a certification for. She stated we need to find a way to allow this for the medical purpose it was intended for. David Galazin, Assistant City Attorney commented the City has seen the effect of what state legislative action has produced regarding collective grow operations, and it has provided an undesirable result for many cities. Even though Kent has prohibited it, the City has had to go to court to ask for judicial action in order to shut things down. The City does allow legitimate grows for qualified patients registered with the state. and the patient will not be caught up within this regulation. As a land use issue, the City is concerned with allowing multiple people 1 to congregate within a singular location with not only 60 plants but also 72 ounces of product or the amount that is allowed to be processed and finding people that will be pushing those boundaries in residential areas and rental houses. In the past 5 years in Kent the City has seen the maximum amount of plants and product allowed, and regulating this under the state law is very difficult. The City has had a consistent message with collective gardens; the City Council considered them and decided they be prohibited in all seven residential zoning districts. Effective July 1, 2016, collective gardens go away and patient cooperatives replace them. This ordinance tries to simply respect that change, not trying to create new policy or direction, but simply responding to the changes in state law. The City would regulate patient cooperatives the same way it regulated collective gardens in the past. Chair Boyce questioned whether a person with a card from the state is authorized to grow in his/her house for personal use. Galazin responded the City does not regulate what someone does inside their own house for themselves. Once you bring more people into it and dedicate the use of the structure for a cooperative that becomes a land use. That is the point the City has regulatory authority over it. Resident Sandi Lynden spoke in favor of the use of marijuana as medicine for people who are registered and need it. She questioned whether the City does not allow it and passed such legislation because it is not liking the idea of marijuana because of the taboo reputation. She mentioned other cities around Kent see it also as a new revenue source. This becomes an emotional issue but it is also a medicine for people. Lynden stated Kent should have a store that can allow the medical use and sale of marijuana as the state has allowed. She stated it is time for the Kent City Council to manage this responsibility and she would like to see the Council be progressive on this issue. Budell would like to see the issue go on Other Business at the next Council meeting. Council Member Budell moved to recommend to the City Council approval of proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code related to medical marijuana patient cooperatives as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board. Chair Boyce seconded. Motion passed 2-0 and is to be put on Other Business at the next Council meeting to continue the dialog. 6. Complete Streets – Ordinance Hayley Bonsteel presented the presentation on Complete Streets with the assistance of Lacey Jane Wolfe. Benefits of Complete Streets are: • Public Safety • Public Health • Traffic Congestion • Air Quality • Economic Development 2 The ordinance would codify the city’s commitment to considering all users of the transportation system when planning and designing roadway projects: pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchairs users, transit riders, freight haulers, and motor vehicle drivers. The procedure would include: • Staff complete checklist at start of planning or design of a project. • Staff would integrate complete streets with other plans, guidelines, and standards, as those are updated. Checklists would be completed with any transportation project. Public Works and Economic & Community Development and Parks Directors, in consultation with the Mayor, may jointly determine exceptions in these cases: • Prohibited by law • Environmental impacts • Topographic challenges • Public safety • Cost excessively disproportionate • Disconnected improvements This issue will go to a Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing on June 13, 2016, then to Public Works Committee for action on June 20, 2016, and finally to the City Council as an action item on July 5, 2016. Chair Boyce asked if there is a list of streets which would qualify for grants. Bonsteel responded the funding potential being researched is not a grant and that the particular grant in question is not project- or location-based, but rather an award for showing commitment. The City would need to show it is committed to complete streets through its plans and projects, and through that it would be eligible for a nomination to receive award monies for complete streets efforts. This award is more flexible in a way that a lot of grants are not; the award monies could be used in planning and design, construction or any way that would further the City’s complete streets. Bonsteel stated she did not think there would be a match required on this award. Budell was concerned this would reduce lanes of traffic and make congestion for the business owners. Bonsteel responded this will be balanced to be effective for all users and not intended to sacrifice anything. Information Only 7. Density Rounding Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert walked the Committee through density calculations. Residential Densities are assigned to the various residential zoning areas throughout the city and range from 1 unit per acre (SR1 zone) to 40 units per acre in the highest density multifamily zone. Most of the City projects are within 4.5 to 6 units per acre. Density is calculated on per lot bases, for example if you have an acre of land and it is being subdivided it would be multiplied by the acre and by the allowed density 3 in the code to figure the yield or how many units of new home would come out of that 1 acre. In cases where the calculation doesn’t come to a whole number, most of the time you will end up with a fraction. Up until 2010 if there was a fraction you would round to the nearest whole number. The current rounding density schedule states for smaller projects of 4 lots or less there is no rounding, for 4-6 lots there is a standard you have to hit .85 tenths to be able to round up, and from 7-9 you have to hit .75 to be able to round up. Planners have used this since 2010 and have not heard a complaint until recent. We have had one complaint where the applicant wanted to subdivide a piece of property under the current rounding the piece of property could not be subdivided. The question was asked to look into the current rounding density schedule. Gilbert is asking Committee for feedback. Gilbert gave a couple of ideas for what could be done; go back to the original rounding prior to 2010; or do a more targeted area density. Chair Boyce stated the system we have has been working well for some time he has a concern of impact it will have on the entire City. Gilbert stated it is not a wide spread problem but it means a lot to the people it does affect. Gilbert suggested to move forward and add this as a docket item for the end of the year bring forward to the Economic & Community Development Committee at that time with the rest of the submitted Dockets. Chair Boyce agreed to put it on as a Docket item at the end of the year. 8. Sound Transit Update Hayley Bonsteel reported the comments for review have been finished and City Staff is working on going through most of them with Sound Transit staff. City Staff meet internally on some of the street sections with goals to maximize pedestrian experience in all dimensions as well as landscaping and other measures. We are trying to maximize on street parking; minimize the impact of heavy bus use as well as possible within the infrastructure and right of way restraints. Comparable locations that have been looked and hope to learn from what has already been done are; Redmond Center, Kirkland Transit Center. We are trying to understand all the competing needs and work with Sound Transit on the scope of the project to balance all the needs. Sound Transit will be working with us on defining some of these concepts and we are making good progress together. Council Member Budell asked about a roundabout in the area of 236th right in the middle as well as a possible elevated crosswalk from the parking garage over to the plaza. Ben Wolters explained the Roundabout was brought up and considered but space requirement for roundabout did not fit well with the circumstances. Sound Transit as a region wide policy is trying to avoid sky bridges unless absolutely necessary. At this location there will be a lot going on; a light rail station, a bus transit center, and transit oriented development. Combining all these uses in one area will take a lot of thought on how to do it well. 4 9. ShoWare Update Ben Wolters presented the some of the highlights and changes in maintenance at the building. Showare Center is showing $220,000 better in budget so instead of projecting a $470,000 defect we are now projecting a $250,000 looking forward. The LED Sport Lights have been installed and will be paid for out of the capital loan from SMG. Through energy savings we are expecting a 5 year payback as well as at $40,000 rebate check from PSE so total cost for this project is $108,000. Digital Menu Boards are completed and operational that will provide more flexibility in the presentation of the food items which is shown to increase sales. Next lighting project for energy savings will be the parking lot lights which are being evaluated now. Building is going through a complete repaint on the interior. We are looking next to other improvements in; concession stands, replacement of the carpets and furniture. We will continue to watch the concrete cracks but there is nothing structurally wrong so it is just for esthetics. We are expecting a visit from Accesso to explore opportunities to extend the naming rights agreement. Showare was bought out a year ago by Accesso and some signage changes may occur. 10. Economic Development Update Andrew Cornona presented the Economic Development update and outlined some recent retail activities in the last month or so or will be coming. • To Go’s Grand opening at Kent Station • Rita’s Italian Ice opening first store in the State of Washington at Market Place at Lake Meridian next to Trader Joes • Additional quick serve restaurants at Panther Lake Shopping Center • At the Old Panther Lake Elementary there is a LOI on the site for 3 separate quick serve restaurants • RB’s at 212th and West Valley will be coming • 50,000 square foot of retail Shopping center along the 104th is under contract with a California developer that specializes in value add, they will take deteriorated sites and put in some capital to attract higher end tenants. They are looking at developing a pad out front on 104th for quick serve restaurants. • Langston Landing on Washington has been in to talk with City Staff on increasing visibility and developing another pad. Adjournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:17 p.m. _____________________________________ Julie Pulliam Economic & Community Development Committee 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 Date: July 6, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Brennan Taylor, Development Engineering Manager, ECD RE: Grant of an Easement in Public Right-Of-Way to maintain landscaping For July 11, 2016 Meeting SUMMARY: The developer of the Kent Station Phase III apartments (Dwell at Kent Station LLC) is requesting an easement over City Right-of-Way to construct, maintain and operate an enhanced landscaped planter strip between the sidewalk and roadway along the project’s frontage on 4th Ave South. The fully landscaped planter strip was modeled after the Ramsey Way planter strip and is designed to provide buffering of pedestrians from the busy traffic along 4th Ave South. The enhanced planter strip was identified and approved during the design review phase of the project. Through coordination with the Legal department, it was determined that an easement was the best mechanism to allow for the private maintenance of a landscape strip within the public Right-Of-Way. EXHIBITS: Easement document BUDGET IMPACT: None P:\Planning\ECDC\2016\Pckt Documents\7-11-16\7-11-16 ECDC Memo Dwell at Kent Station.doc cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director MOTION: Recommend to City Council approval of “Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement for Maintenance of Landscaping within Public Right-Of-Way” for the Dwell at Kent Station project 7 8 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 ATTN: PROPERTY SERVICES Grantor: CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation ___ Grantee: DWELL AT KENT STATION L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company Abbreviated Legal Description: Por. NW ¼, NE ¼, STR 24-22N-4E, W.M. Additional Legal Description: Exhibit “A” Assessor's Tax Parcel ID No._City of Kent right-of-way adjacent to Parcel No. 3830980070 Project Name: Dwell at Kent Station GRANT OF NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY The City of Kent, a municipal subdivision of the State of Washington (“Grantor”), for and in consideration of mutual benefits derived and/or other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, conveys and quit claims to Dwell at Kent Station L.L.C. (“Grantee”), and its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for the limited purpose of constructing, installing, reconstructing, replacing, repairing, operating, maintaining, relocating or removing certain landscaping improvements, as hereinafter described, subject to all the terms and conditions contained herein, across and upon that certain public right-of-way, situated in Kent, King County, Washington, legally described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Right of Way”), appurtenant to that that certain parcel of real property situated in King County, Washington, legally described in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Grantee’s Property”). 9 AGREEMENT 1. Grantee’s rights shall be limited to only those reasonably necessary to construct, install, reconstruct, replace, repair, operate, maintain, relocate or remove the following, related to the use of Grantee’s Property: landscaping and other vegetation, along with necessary appurtenances, including, but not limited to, irrigation systems and other improvements (“Grantee’s Improvements”); and Grantee shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with the same. Grantee’s Improvements shall be located approximately as shown on Exhibit “C”, attached and incorporated herein (“Easement Area”), and the uses limited as depicted and described therein, and Grantee shall have no right to enlarge or relocate any Improvements within the Easement Area without the prior express written consent of Grantor, which consent may be withheld at Grantor’s sole and absolute discretion. 2. Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area in legally permissible ways that do not interfere with Grantee’s rights under this easement. 3. If any damage is caused to the Easement Area or adjacent property by Grantee’s exercise of its rights under this easement, Grantee shall promptly restore any property so damaged to equal or better condition, as near as reasonably possible. 4. Grantor agrees not to remove or otherwise alter any of Grantee’s Improvements within the Easement Area without the prior approval of the Grantee; provided, however, that should Grantor determine, in its sole discretion, that an imminent danger to public health, safety or welfare exists, Grantor shall have the right to remove or alter any of Grantee’s Improvements without Grantee’s prior approval. 5. Grantee shall be responsible for maintaining, at its sole expense, all of Grantee’s Improvements, and shall keep the same in good and safe repair, order and condition. Such duties shall include, but not be limited to: maintenance of all vegetation in the planter strips, prompt repair to any damage or defect in the appurtenant irrigation systems, and removal or repair of obstacles or defects within the City’s right-of-way occasioned by Grantee’s Improvements. 6. Grantor, its officers, employees and contractors, shall not be liable or responsible for any and all damages to Grantee’s Improvements resulting from the public’s use of the Easement Area and the surrounding property, or from Grantor’s construction, installation, reconstruction, replacement, repair, operation, maintenance, relocation or removal of its own improvements within the Easement Area or the surrounding property, unless such damages are proximately caused by the sole negligence of Grantor, its officers, employees or contractors. 7. Grantee shall, at all times, exercise its rights under this easement in accordance with the requirements of all applicable statutes, order, rules and 10 regulations of any public authority having jurisdiction. Grantee accepts the Easement Area in its present physical condition, AS IS, and acknowledges that Grantor has made no warranties or representations concerning the conditions of the Easement Area or its suitability for the use intended to be made thereof. Grantee does hereby release, indemnify and promise to defend, and save harmless, Grantor, from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, actions and claims, including costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Grantor in connection therewith, arising directly or indirectly on account of or out of the negligent exercise by Grantee, its servants, agents, employees and contractors of the rights granted in this easement, including, but not limited to, Grantee’s failure to maintain the Easement Area and Grantee’s Improvements in a safe condition. 8. So long as this easement remains in effect, Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall procure at its own cost and expense and maintain a policy or policies of comprehensive liability insurance, on such terms as described in Exhibit “D”, attached and incorporated herein, naming the City of Kent as an additional named insured. The terms and conditions of Exhibit “D” may only be modified by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. 9. Without limiting any rights granted by this easement, the parties explicitly acknowledge that Grantor may enter the Easement Area and have unimpeded access to the same at any time as may be necessary, at Grantor’s sole discretion. 10. Grantee shall not commit or suffer any act or neglect whereby the Easement Area or any improvement thereon shall become subject to any attachment, lien, charge or encumbrance whatsoever, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from and against all attachments, liens, charges and encumbrances and all expense resulting therefrom, including but not limited to Grantor’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 11. If Grantee shall at any time completely remove Grantee’s Improvements from the Easement Area and for a period of one year thereafter fail to reinstall such improvements, or if Grantee fails to observe or perform any of the terms or conditions provided herein after having been given 90 days’ notice from Grantor of Grantee’s breach of the same, then this easement shall be terminated and be of no further force and effect, and Grantor shall be entitled to record a Termination of Easement with the King County Recorder’s Office and remove any of Grantee’s Improvements remaining within the Easement Area. 12. In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney’s fees. 13. Grantee shall, at its sole expense, cause a copy of this easement to be recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office. The rights, conditions, covenants, and provisions contained in this easement shall inure to the benefit of and are binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns and shall run with the land. 11 Dated this ______ day of ___________, 2016. GRANTOR: CITY OF KENT By: Print Name: Suzette Cooke Its: Mayor Date: GRANTEE: DWELL AT KENT STATION, L.L.C By: Print Name: Its: Date: P:\Civil\Files\Open Files\1964-Kent Station Phase III Apartments\LandscapeMaintEasement.docx 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 2016 before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared , to me known to be the ________________ of ___________________________that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of said company, for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument. -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, hereby certify that on this _____ day of ________________, 2016, personally appeared before me Suzette Cooke, Mayor of the City of Kent, and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she signed and sealed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney -Notary Seal Must Appear Within This Box- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires 14 EXHIBIT A A PORTION OF THE EASTERN HALF OF THE CITY OF KENT PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY, IDENTIFIED AS FOURTH AVENUE NORTH, BETWEEN THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT AND THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACEDNT TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: LOT B OF CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-2006-21, RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 20080825900006, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; ALSO KNOWN AS KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER 3830980070 15 EXHIBIT B LOT B OF CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-2006-21, RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 20080825900006, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; ALSO KNOWN AS KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER 3830980070 16 17 EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Insurance Grantee shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the easement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercises of the rights granted thereunder by Grantee, its agents, representatives, employees or assigns. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Grantee shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Commercial General Liability. Insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The City of Kent shall be named as an insured under the Grantee’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy, or substantially similar, or a substitute policy providing equivalent coverage. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Grantee shall maintain the following insurance limits: Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and a $2,000,000 products-completed operations aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. Grantee’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City of Kent. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City of Kent shall be excess of the Grantee’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. Grantee’s insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City of Kent. 3. The City of Kent shall be named as an additional insured on all policies and a copy of the endorsement naming the City of Kent as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City of Kent reserves the 18 right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. Grantee’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 respect 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 Grantee shall furnish the City of Kent 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 Grantee before commencement of any work within the Easement Area. F. Subcontractors Grantee 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 Grantee. 19 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD CERTIFICATE HOLDER © 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014/01) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANCELLATION DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LOCJECTPRO-POLICY GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: OCCURCLAIMS-MADE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES (Ea occurrence)$DAMAGE TO RENTED EACH OCCURRENCE $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ $RETENTIONDED CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $ AGGREGATE $ EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) INSRLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY)LIMITS PERSTATUTE OTH-ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ $ $ ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE If yes, describe underDESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below (Mandatory in NH)OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNEDAUTOSAUTOS AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ $ $ $ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSD ADDL WVD SUBR N / A $ $ (Ea accident) (Per accident) OTHER: THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: INSURED PHONE(A/C, No, Ext): PRODUCER ADDRESS:E-MAIL FAX(A/C, No): CONTACTNAME: NAIC # INSURER A : INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 4/20/2016 Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc.P.O. Box 2925Tacoma WA 98401-2925 Dwell at Kent Station L.L.C.f/k/a Kent Station Phase III L.L.C.1302 Puyallup StreetSumner WA 98390 National Fire Insurance Co of Hartf Transportation Insurance Company 20478 20494 Jennifer Greer 206-607-0946 253-572-1430 jennifer_greer@ajg.com 957538176 A Y N 4020043986 5/1/2015 5/1/2016 1,000,000 100,000 5,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 X X X B N N X X X 1068486936 5/1/2015 5/1/2016 1,000,000 A 4020043986 5/1/2015 5/1/2016 X 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 N The certificate holder is an additional insured per form G-147167-B99 (12/06) attached as respects their interest in operations of the namedinsured but only as required by written contract.RE: Landscaping Easement The insurance provided in the General Liability policy is primary and any other insurance shall be excess only, and not contributing. Policyincludes 30 days notice of cancellation, except 10 days for non-payment of premium. City of Kent220 Fourth Avenue SouthKent WA 98032 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: July 6, 2016 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Jason Garnham, Planner RE: Preservation of Trees Code Amendment [ZCA-2016-6] For Meeting of July 11, 2016 SUMMARY: After holding a public hearing on June 27, 2016, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended approval of amendments to the zoning code regulating the preservation and planting of trees during development. The amendments include a new system of requirements that better integrate trees with development by allowing both context-appropriate retention of existing trees and planting new trees. This system would replace current requirements, which specify retention of a percentage of existing trees. In addition to performing a number of ecological functions, urban trees add value to development, contribute to residents’ quality of life, and improve the function of stormwater systems. Adopted in 2007, the current tree preservation code requires retention of 15% of the diameter inches of existing significant trees on a development site. Experience has shown that this regulation is not achieving the results envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Many development sites have few to no trees to retain and, when present, existing trees often grew in a manner or location that makes them incompatible with development and prone to removal by future residents. By permitting both retention of existing trees and planting of new trees and establishing a minimum trees-per-developable-area requirement, the proposed amendment will insure consistent and context-appropriate provision of trees in new neighborhoods. Trees that are compatible with development are more likely to survive to maturity and contribute to the value, ecological function, and quality of the urban environment. The proposed amendment limits application of the tree planting and retention requirements to single-family residential and duplex types of development. Commercial, industrial and multi-family developments will be exempt from tree preservation requirements. City staff found that the well-established landscaping and design standards applied to these development types consistently achieve the intended results where intensive land uses are planned. Trees in environmentally sensitive areas within all zoning districts are protected by critical areas regulations which will not change with this proposal. EXHIBITS: SEPA Checklist and Decision, Draft Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: none JG:aw S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-6 Tree Preservation\7-11-16_ECDC_TreePreservationMemo.doc cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director Matt Gilbert, AICP, Current Planning Manager Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of proposed amendments to the Kent Zoning Code, related to the provision of trees in residential development, as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 15.02 Definitions and Chapter 15.08 of the Kent City Code pertaining to preservation of trees. RECITALS A. Kent City Code 15.08.240 establishes the purpose of retention of trees is to maintain and protect property values, to enhance the visual appearance of the city, to preserve the natural wooded character of the area, to promote utilization of natural systems, to reduce the impacts of development on the storm drainage system, and to provide a transition between various land uses in the city. B. While trees and other vegetation serve vital ecological functions when located in or near environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and steep slopes, development impacts to trees and vegetation within these areas are minimized and addressed by the regulations in Kent City Code chapters 11.06 Critical Areas and 11.04 Shoreline Master Program. C. Trees and vegetation suited to development in multifamily, commercial and industrial zoning districts are addressed in the landscaping requirements for perimeter and parking areas in Kent City Code chapters 15.05 and 15.07. 57 D. Policies LU-8.1 and LU-8.4 of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan support achievement of allowable density in single family developments and encourage infill development through flexible and innovative site design. Goal LU-8 is to revise development regulations to encourage development that is more flexible and innovative. E. Policies LU-17.2 and LU-17.7 of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan are to conserve energy resources, improve air and water quality, minimize the loss of vegetation and recognize the value of trees as new development occurs. These policies support Goal LU-17 of recognizing the role of the natural environment in shaping a sustainable community by contributing to health, environmental justice, and economic vitality. F. Goal E-5 of the 2015 Economic Development Plan is to update design standards of residential, commercial, and downtown development, in support of the City’s vision to “Beautify Kent”. G. By specifying retention of fifteen percent of the total diameter inches of existing significant trees, the tree preservation requirements adopted in 2007 have yielded inconsistent results and often not achieved the goals as intended. Few to no trees are required to be retained or planted in development of sites having little to no forest cover. On forested sites, trees proposed to be retained often have grown in a location and manner that adds little value to the developed site or the neighborhood. Such trees subsequently risk damage from wind or disease, and are often removed by City residents for reasons of safety, utility, and aesthetics. H. In the context of Comprehensive Plan and community goals supporting increasing urbanization of residential areas, the value of trees in contributing to the aesthetics, environmental quality, and function of urban infrastructure systems is becoming increasingly important. Trees 58 planted or retained in a context-appropriate manner will add perceived and functional value and be retained accordingly. Such trees will be more likely to survive to maturity and thus provide benefits to property values, neighborhood aesthetics, air and water quality, stormwater systems, and wildlife. I. On February 9, 2015, staff received direction from the Economic and Community Development Committee to explore alternatives to the City’s existing tree retention standards. J. On April 13, 2015, staff presented options for updating the requirements for tree preservation at a Land Use and Planning Board (“LUPB”) workshop meeting. Substituting the standards adopted in 2007 with a tree credit system based on net project acreage was selected from several alternatives. K. On May 9, 2016, staff presented a draft code amendment to replace the previous requirements for tree retention with a tree credit system, requiring a certain number of tree diameter credits per net acre of development, to the LUPB at a workshop meeting. L. On May 5, 2016, the City requested expedited review under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of Commerce regarding the proposed code amendment. The Washington State Department of Commerce granted the request for expedited review on May 23, 2016. M. The City’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official conducted an environmental analysis of the impacts of the proposed amendment and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on June 17, 2016. 59 N. On June 27, 2016, after holding a public hearing, the LUPB made their recommendation to the City Council on the proposed code amendments. O. On July 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 amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 15.08.240 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Preservation of trees,” is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.08.240 Preservation of trees. A. Purpose. Trees have a significant role in contributing to the quality of life in urban environments. The planting or rRetention of significant trees as required by this section is necessary to maintain and protect property values, to enhance the visual appearance of the city, to preserve the natural wooded character of the area, to promote utilization of natural systems, to reduce the impacts of development on the storm drainage system, to improve air quality, to provide habitat for wildlife, and to provide a transition between various land uses in the city. 60 B. Regulations. Application of regulations for the preservation of significant trees is as follows:General restrictions for all districts: 1. Except as provided for in this section, Oon all undeveloped property in the city, all trees of a six (6) inch caliper diameter or greater shall be retained on the property where they are growing. 2. Where it is not feasible to retain all trees on the site due to the proposed development, a site specific tree plan, drawn to scale, shall be prepared. The tree plan shall indicate the species of tree and precise location of all trees of a six (6) inch caliper or greater on the site in relation to proposed buildings, streets, parking areas, storm drainage facilities, and utilities. Trees to be retained pursuant to this section shall be marked by encircling the tree with a stripe of nontoxic paint of a color and type sufficient to remain visible during onsite construction activity. Trees to be retained shall be protected during construction, and the dripline shall be delineated with boundary markers. No grade changes or storage of materials shall be allowed within the tree dripline. Drainage patterns shall not be significantly altered that may be detrimental to the subject trees. 3. The tree plan and photograph of the trees on the property shall be submitted to the city planning services division for its review prior to the issuance of a zoning or building permit. 4. The planning services division shall review the tree plan in relation to the proposed development and make a determination of which trees will be permitted to be removed. 5. The planning services division may cause a modification of the development plan to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees. Should the applicant elect to alter the development plan in order to preserve special trees or wooded areas in a natural state, the planning 61 manager may waive specific requirements to allow for flexibility and innovation of design. 26. There shall be no clear-cutting of trees of a six (6) inch diameter or greater on undeveloped land for the purpose of preparing that site for future development. C. Applicability. 1. The requirements of this section shall be imposed in conjunction with approval ofapply to new single family or duplex development that is not subject to a previously approved tree plan, including but not limited to subdivisions, , short subdivisions, planned unit developments, development of undeveloped land, and/or when a change in the area devoted to parking and circulation is required by the Kent City Codeand development of existing lots. However, this section does not apply to a permit for a single-family dwelling, unless restrictions on the removal of significant trees on individual single-family lots have been imposed through prior city approval. 2. Multifamily, commercial, institutional, or industrial zoning developments are exempt from the requirements of this section. D. Required Review. The city planning services division shall review the proposed removal of significant trees with each application within the applicability of this section.Tree Density Credits requirements. 1. Provision of trees required for new development is measured in tree density credits. Development proposals shall provide a minimum of 20 tree density credits per net acre. Tree density credits may be achieved by preservation existing trees, planting of supplemental trees, or a combination of these. The density credit value of existing and 62 supplemental trees is shown in table A. A tree density calculation that results in a fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. a. Net area calculation: The net area to be used for tree density calculation shall include all residential building lots, recreation space, and open space tracts or easements not designated as critical areas. Public right-of-way, areas of a project site required to be dedicated as public right-of-way, critical areas and associated buffers, stormwater tracts, perimeter landscaping areas required by City code, and vehicular access or utility tracts shall be excluded from the area used for tree density calculation. b. Tree Credit value: the tree credit value that corresponds with DBH is found in Table A. 1. Existing Individual Trees: Trees proposed for retention shall be at least six inches in diameter at breast height. Diameter Breast Height (DBH) of the tree shall be measured in inches 4.5 feet from the ground. 2. For the purpose of fulfilling the required tree density, the diameter inches of Alder and Cottonwood trees proposed for retention shall be discounted by a factor of one-half in the tree density calculation. 3. Supplemental trees: Where the existing trees to be retained do not satisfy the tree density requirement, supplemental trees shall be planted to achieve the required tree density. Credit value for supplemental trees is shown in Table A. 4. Supplemental trees shall be of a type and variety that is compatible with development in the Pacific Northwest, such as those included on the City’s approved street tree list. 63 5. Street trees required by Public Works standards shall be counted to fulfill the tree density credit requirement. 6. Supplemental trees shall be planted in the following locations, in order of priority: i. On individual residential building lots ii. In private access tracts, as approved by the Public Works Department iii. In on-site recreation areas as approved by the Parks Department. 7. Trees required around stormwater ponds and in site perimeter tracts shall not be counted as supplemental trees for the purpose of achieving the required tree density credits. Table A: Tree Density Credits DBH Tree Credits DBH Tree Credits DBH Tree Credits *2.0 – 5" 1 6 – 10" 1 24" 8 38" 15 12" 2 26" 9 40" 16 14" 3 28" 10 42" 17 16" 4 30" 11 44" 18 18" 5 32" 12 46" 19 20" 6 34" 13 48" 20 22" 7 36" 14 50" 21 *Applies to supplemental trees only. Supplemental or replacement deciduous trees shall be at least two inches DBH at the time of planting. An evergreen tree shall be at least six feet in height at the time of planting. See, Kent City Code 15.08.240 (G)(3). E. Retention of significant treesTree plan. The applicant for a development permit shall submit and receive City approval of a tree plan 64 prior to permit issuance, unless waived by the planning director in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (H) of this section. The tree retention plan shall contain the following elements: a. Tree inventory: a tree inventory containing the following: 1. Size (DBH) and common genus name of trees proposed for retention, and 2. A formalized finding by a licensed arborist stating that all trees proposed for retention are healthy and growing in a condition and manner that is compatible with the proposed development. b. Site plan: a site plan drawn to a verifiable engineering scale depicting the following: 1. Accurate location of trees proposed for retention in relationship to proposed buildings, streets, parking areas, storm drainage facilities, and utilities (surveyed locations may be required); 2. Limits of disturbance (LOD) around retained trees, as recommended by a licensed arborist to ensure the health of the trees during and after construction; 3. Location, common genus name, and size of proposed supplemental trees, and 4. Location of tree protection measures to be maintained in proximity to retained trees, as recommended by a licensed arborist per b.2 of this section. 1. Perimeter landscaping area. In the required perimeter landscaping areas, as set forth in Ch. 15.07 KCC, the applicant shall retain all significant trees which will not constitute a safety hazard. Areas devoted to access and sight distance, and areas to be cleared for required roads, 65 utilities, sidewalks, trails, or storm drainage improvements are exempt from this requirement. 2. Site interior. a. In areas of the site other than the required perimeter landscape area, the applicant shall retain a minimum fifteen (15) percent of the diameter inches of the significant trees existing in this area; provided, that alder and cottonwood trees diameter inches shall be discounted by a factor of one-half (1/2). In applying the requirement for retention of significant trees, the planning manager shall consider a priority the preservation of the following types of significant trees: (1) Healthy significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height; (2) Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; (3) Significant trees which contribute to the character of the environment, and do not constitute a safety hazard; (4) Significant trees which provide winter wind protection or summer shade; (5) Groups of significant trees which create a distinctive skyline feature; and (6) Significant trees in areas of steep slopes or adjacent to watercourses or wetlands. 66 b. The planning manager may approve retention of trees which do not meet the definition of significant trees as a contribution toward the sum of the diameter inches required under subsection (E)(2)(a) of this section if a group of trees and its associated undergrowth can be preserved. 3. Exemption. The provisions of this subsection which require retention of significant trees are not applicable in any downtown land use district. 4. Reduced parking bonus. If the proposed landscape plan incorporates the retention of significant trees above that required by this section, the planning manager may approve a reduction of up to ten (10) percent of the required number of parking spaces if adequate parking will remain on the subject property, and if land area for the required number of spaces remains available for future development on the subject property. F. Protection of trees during construction. Temporary fencing shall be placed around the tree and its LOD prior to site development work, and no construction activities may be carried out within the protected area, except as allowed by permit as recommended by a licensed arborist. G. Required Review. The city planning services division shall review the tree retention plan with each application within the applicability of this section. HF. Alternative tree retentionprovision option. 1. An applicant may request a modification of the tree retention requirements set forth in subsection (E) of this section. 67 2. The planning manager director may approve a modification of the perimeter or interior tree provision retention requirements if: a1. The modification is consistent with the stated purpose of this section; and b2. The modification proposal either: (1) Incorporates the retention of significant trees equal in equivalent diameter inches or incorporates the increased retention of significant trees and naturally occurring undergrowth beyond what would otherwise be required, or (2) iIncorporates the retention of other natural vegetation in consolidated locations which promotes the quality and natural vegetated character of the site and neighborhood. including use as pasture land or for agricultural uses. 3. Where a modification proposal includes supplemental or replacement trees in lieu of retention, the applicant shall utilize plant materials from the city’s list of plants for the Pacific Northwest. IG. Replacement of removed or damaged trees. Trees removed illegally from undeveloped land or trees designated for retention which are damaged or destroyed shall be replaced as follows: 1. One (1) existing tree at a six (6) inch diameter shall be replaced by two (2) new trees. 68 2. For each additional three (3) inches of diameter, one (1) new replacement tree shall be added, up to a maximum of six (6) trees. 3. Replacement deciduous trees shall be at least two inches in diameter at the time of planting. An evergreen shall be at least six (6) to eight (8) feet in height. SECTION 2. - Amendment. Section 15.02.333 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Planning director,” is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.02.333 Planning director. Planning director means the director of the city of Kent planning economic and community development department or his/her authorized designee. SECTION 3. - Amendment. Section 15.02.529 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Tree,” is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 15.02.529 Tree. Tree means any living woody plant characterized by one (1) main stem or trunk and many branches, and having a diameter of six (6) inches or more measured at four and one-half feet above ground level. 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; 69 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: SUE HANSON, INTERIM 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. 70 (SEAL) SUE HANSON, INTERIM CITY CLERK P:\Civil\Ordinance\15.08 & 15.02-Tree Preservation.docx 71