HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 02/08/2016 (3) O
KENT
W A S H I N G T O N
ECONOMIC &COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
February 8, 2016
Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Tina Budell and Jim Berrios.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Changes to the Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
Berrios MOVED and Budell SECONDED a Motion to Approve the Minutes of January
11, 2016. Motion PASSED 3-0.
5. Emergency Housing Code Amendment f ZCA-2016-11
Erin George, Senior Planner stated that King County, including Kent, is experiencing an
increase in homelessness. On a visit to some churches in Kent that house the homeless,
there were no outward indications that homeless are being housed there. Comparing
surrounding cities, staff concluded that every city defines and regulates homeless facilities
differently, but in general allows them in both residential and commercial zones with some
criteria. Staff recommends allowing emergency housing in the MR-D zoning district with a
conditional use permit and several additional criteria that require the facilities to be
associated with and subordinate to a church use.
Carol Kirkpatrick, pastor at Kent First Presbyterian Church voiced concern about the liability
criteria. Assistant City Attorney David Galazin explained that liability language is included to
assure that liability for these facilities does not fall back on the City, stating that the church
can have a contractual agreement with a third party as the primarily liable party. Dave
Mitchell, a Kent resident, spoke of his concerns/restrictions around the language of a few
items. Assistant City Attorney David Galazin explained the specifics surrounding the
language in the proposal.
Committee Member Berrios MOVED to recommend to the full City Council approval
of amendments to KCC 15.04.020 and 15.04.030 residential land uses as
recommended by the Land Use planning Board Committee Member Budell
SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 3-0.
6. Elder Care Facilities Code Amendment rZCA-2015-41
Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator described the two versions of the
draft proposed amendment. Bonsteel explained that both versions address commercial
requirements for assisted living facilities as well as, per the Land Use and Planning Board
(LUPB), independent senior living facilities. Staff proposed a new category for independent
senior living facilities that provide at least one meal per day, separated from other types of
independent senior housing and multifamily housing. Assisted living and residential facilities
with health care would retain their categories with a few clarifying edits. Staff
recommended a new conditional use permit option; that if a facility does not include 25%
commercial uses, then it must be within 1/4 mile of amenities in at least three categories.
The LUPB recommended a conditional use permit without any commercial or amenity
components. Bonsteel explained that the amendment as proposed by staff ties in with the
City's vision and the Strategic Plan. JB Ruth, Kent resident, encouraged the Committee to
adopt the LUPB's recommendation to remove the 1/4 mile proximity to amenities component
and allow elder care facilities to be placed in the CC-MU zone with a conditional use permit.
April Mackoff, attorney at McCullough Hill Leary, spoke in opposition of the 1/4 mile
proximity to amenities component as requiring a conditional use permit adds enough
requirements. Committee Member Berrios asked Galazin to address the significant
difference between what staff is recommending vs. the LUPB recommendation. Galazin
referred to KCC 2.57.040 for an explanation of LUPB, staff and ECDC's roles,
recommendations and approvals. Bonsteel explained that the amenities came from what
the World Health Organization recommended for how to house seniors in a changing world
for quality of life. Committee Chair Boyce posed the question to Mr. Ruth of whether it
would make a difference if the distance was 1/2 mile instead of 1/4 mile. Ruth stated that he
opposed any kind of proximity requirement, regardless of distance. April Mackoff stated
that 1/2 mile proximity requirement could potentially work for her client's project. Bonsteel
described the difference between a 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile proximity requirement in terms of
walkability and expectations/perceptions of safety and convenience.
Committee Member Berrios MOVED to recommend the full City Council approval of
the ordinance amending Title 15 of the KCC including clarifications to definitions
in KCC 15.02 and amendments to use tables and development conditions in KCC
15.04 as recommended by staff with the amended recommendation to increase
the radius from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile radius. Committee Member Budell SECONDED
the Motion. Motion PASSED 3-0.
7. East Pointe Neighborhood Council
Toni Azzola, Neighborhood Program Coordinator, along with Kathy Herbert Vice President of
East Pointe Neighborhood Homeowners Association, spoke regarding the East Pointe
Neighborhood Council. The community is 9 years old and includes 97 homes. There is an
East and a West side divided by wetlands and the perimeter of the community is fenced.
Committee Member Budell MOVED that council adopt the resolution that
recognizes the East Pointe Neighborhood Council, supports its community building
efforts, and confers all opportunities offered by the City's Neighborhood Program.
Committee Member Berrios SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 3-0.
S. Mill Creek Historical District
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager, spoke about the Mill Creek Historic
District design guidelines. Staff will be requesting a line item budget during the 2017-2018
budget cycles for reimbursing King County for landmark services in accordance with the
City's interlocal agreement with King County. The Mill Creek Historic District design
guidelines will not be codified in Kent City Code (KCC) nor will City staff administer those
guidelines. Before issuing permits for work within the Mill Creek Historic District, Permit
Center staff will require applicants to provide a copy of the approved King County
Certificate of Appropriateness or written correspondence from King County staff stating that
no Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the work. Economic and Community
Development (ECD) staff will monitor the cost reimbursements to King County for landmark
services and report back to the committee if costs exceed $1500 per year. The cost for
enforcement of the design guidelines or for appeals from the determination on a Certificate
of Appropriateness would be processed through the City's hearing examiner and costs
would be reimbursed by the property owner rather than the City. Costs for applications for
a Kent Landmark designation will also be borne by the applicant.
Information Only
ECDC Minutes
February 8,2016
Page 2 of 3
9. Surface Water Design Manual Update
Shawn Gilbertson, Public Works Environmental Engineering Supervisor, discussed some
changes coming regarding storm water management standards to the Kent surface water
design manual and how the State's laws and permits have required the City to update our
standards. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting
system which is part of the Federal Clean Water Act to prevent pollution of storm water and
surface water. It is a Federal program but in Washington State it is delegated to the
Washington department of Ecology. NPDES permits cover industrial facilities, construction
projects, and municipal cities and counties. There are several requirements to be covered
under the NPDES permits in the City of Kent. By January 1, 2017 the City will be required
to have an updated version of our storm water management standards. One notable update
will be implementation of low impact development. Items being updated will consist of KCC
chapters: 7.05, 7.07, 12.02, 12.06, 15.04, 15.05, 15.07, and 15.09.
Information Only
10. Customer Service Survey
Kimberlee McArthur, Building Services Manager, stated that the survey sent out to
customers showed their suggestions relate mostly to technology and Development
Engineering. Surveys on average only get a 15% response from those sent the survey;
however, we are currently receiving a 40-45% response rate on our surveys. We are
consistently improving in terms of how the customer feels about us. The changes we are
making in the permit process as a result of the survey are working. We will continue to
send out surveys to increase customer service. McArthur stated that the City responds to
everyone that received a survey by email, providing them with various information The
most heard issue is that our technology is behind the times.
Information Only
Adiournment
Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
Qa��
Ponornic
ulliam,
& Community Development Committee
aw�P:�Planning�ECDC�2016�Minutes�2-8-i6 Min.docx
ECDC Minutes
February 8,2016
Page 3 of 3