Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 01/11/2016 (3) i KEN`1` 7la:5ll a-Gt�h kEHS ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JAN UARY 11, 2016 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dana Ralph and Tina Budell I. Call to Order Chair Boyce called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda Item 9 before 8 4. Approval of Minutes Committee Member Ralph Moved and Committee Chair Boyce Seconded a Motion to Approve the Minutes of November 9, 2015. Motion PASSED 2-0. S. Park and Open Space Plan Emergency Resolution Long Range Planning Manager Charlene Anderson described incorporation of a Park and Open Space updated plan into the comprehensive plan outside of the annual cycle in order to allow future grant applications. The grant cycle occurs before June of 2016. In response to Committee Member Ralph, Anderson stated the city has allowed these actions in the past for the purpose of general health and welfare for the city. Committee Member Ralph Moved and Committee Chair Boyce seconded the Motion to approve a resolution that declares an emergency to pursue an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Park Plan. Motion PASSED 2-0. 6. Code Enforcement Abatement Liens Ordinance Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert joined by Victoria Robin, assistant city attorney relayed information. that the new ordinance basically mimics the adopted Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings except in regards to added due process for when the city can abate a dangerous building or site and the mechanism for the City to recoup abatement costs. Gilbert went on to give examples of what makes a building dangerous, such as structural damage to interior and exterior walls and also mold or ventilation problems that may cause disease. He explained that the proposed ordinance would depart slightly from the current code in that it adds site conditions to the scope of what may be deemed dangerous. For instance, junk, debris, or open pits on a site, may be addressed under this ordinance. . The ordinance specifically allows the city to take action when a building or site has been deemed dangerous and when an owner cannot or will not address a dangerous problem. Gilbert stated that the normal code enforcement process, which works well in most situations, the City takes a non-punitive, compliance-oriented and voluntary approach to code enforcement. This process begins with a letter informing an owner that their building or site is out of compliance, followed by time for compliance and stronger worded letters as necessary. Finally, assessment of fines and in rare cases, criminal citations is used to encourage compliance. This process is more geared towards violations that cause annoyance rather than danger, so there is a definite need for another category to deal with more serious violations. This is what the new ordinance provides. This ordinance allows the city's cost of abatement to be assessed as part of the following year's property taxes. If the assessment is unpaid it will constitute a lien against the property, hence the name abatement lien ordinance. In response to Committee Chair Boyce, Gilbert stated the ordinance has specific criteria for determining when a site or building is dangerous. These criteria would be used by code enforcement or building inspectors who would to make the determination of whether the building would be covered by this ordinance. Gilbert went on to explain that after determination is made that the building is dangerous, the cost would begin accruing at that point. Chair Boyce questioned the line item scratched out on page 3 of the ordinance; Gilbert states letter G is repealing the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings because the two are redundant. Committee member Ralph asked for clarification of KCC 14-02.080 where the ordinance defines dangerous elements. Ralph asked if mold qualifies as dangerous because it can cause disease. In response, Gilbert stated that is does qualify and clarified abatement, which not always mean to tear a structure down. If the problem is fixable, the ordinance allows for assessment of and appropriate action. Gilbert stated that this ordinance will strengthen the city's code enforcement process because it will helps to cut through the bureaucracy of the banks and get the attention of an owner who may be dodging the problem. The city's ability to act and recoup costs will encourage will encourage owners to take care of problems themselves. Committee Member Ralph recommended that council adopt an ordinance amending the Kent City code to repeal the cities adoption of the uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings by amending section 14.01.010 and repealing section 14.01.080 to adopt a new chapter 14.02 entitled unfit dwelling, buildings and structures to create an additional enforcement tool for code violations involving unfit dwellings, buildings and structures and amending sections 14.08.040, 14.08.060 and 14.08.200 to reference the new adopted chapter 14.02. MOTION PASSED 2-0. 7. Extension of Plat Expirations Current Planning Manager Matt Gilbert informed the committee that he will be taking this issue to the Land use and Planning Board. There is interest in making minor changes to the time the city extends to preliminary long subdivisions. The preliminary subdivision is approved by the hearing examiner and indicates that a proposed plat is feasible under the city's codes and lists conditions of approval. After that approval, the applicant's next step is to obtain permits to construct the ECDC Minutes January 11,2016 Page 2 of 6 required roads, utilities, etc. Prior to the recession, plats had about 5 years to complete the required work, which was typically plenty of time.; However, after the recession available credit dried up and plat owners struggled to complete the required work within the 5 year validity period. . In response to the collapse of the housing market, he City Council and the state legislature extended the plat validity period. Based on the extended validity timelines, plats approved in 2008 are scheduled to expire in 2016 and the city has received interested in adjusting this time frame, to allow those plats more time. There are 5 plats and 100 lots within those plats that will expire in 2016. Gilbert stated it is feasible to take the state's schedule for plat expiration and extend it a little bit for these projects, which is allowed under state law and could be adopted in the city's subdivision code. In response to Committee chair Boyce, Gilbert stated he does not believe all 5 plats will be in need and some of the projects will not be moving forward at all. However, as the housing market recovers, some of the projects become feasible again and this allows them more time to get the project completed before expiring. In response to Committee member Ralph, Gilbert stated it would be up to the council to determine if qualifying criteria would be attached to any extensions, or alternatively, across the board action is appropriate. Gilbert went on to explain that the legislature says if a project was approved prior to December 31, 2007 then it would be valid for10 years. If approved between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 there's a different number, so these are just dates that the state has set up, but the city has the right to extend beyond these dates. In response to Committee member Ralph, Gilbert stated that if there is a plat extension and the plat is allowed to record, the development standards in effect at the time the plat was filed would apply. David Galazin, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that the city could set up an extension in a number of different ways. Possible options might include an automatic extension where nothing needs done by applicant; or the city could require the applicant to request an extension to be granted without any additional approval needed; or the city could require an applicant to request an extension and provide some kind of evidence that they are proceeding with the project. Future development within these plats would be whatever was proposed in the preliminary plat approval. In response to concerns of Committee member Ralph, Assistant City Attorney Galazin explained that there are some development regulations to which future homes within valid preliminary plats are vested and other codes such as fire code, building code and health and safety codes which they would not be vested. Assistant City Attorney Galazin and Planning Manager Gilbert advised the board that they will be able to bring back more options and more information at a later time and will start at the LUPB board. S. Mill Creek Historic District Design Guidelines Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager sought guidance regarding Mill Creek Historic District Design Guidelines. The city adopted a landmark designation code and an interlocal agreement with King County to administer that ordinance. King County and the Landmarks Commission issue Certificates of Appropriateness for changes to buildings or properties in the Historic District. The interlocal agreement with King County provides for reimbursing King County for their work on ECDC Minutes January 11,2016 Page 3 of 6 the City's behalf. Previous work pertained to city-owned properties but the Mill Creek Historic District is comprised mainly of private properties. Anderson asked whether the design guidelines should be codified and staff administer them even when a permit is not required. Furthermore, should the city pass those costs on to the property owner, establish a budget for them or absorb the cost. In response to Chair Boyce, Anderson stated that typically City costs are paid by the developer or homeowner, as directed by the City Council. Committee Member Budell stated the cost of $145 per Certificate of Appropriateness does not seem unreasonable. Committee Member Ralph clarified this is more about private property owners than developers. ECD Director Ben Wolters stated we have reached a point where there are challenges for the city to assist the community in implementing the historic preservation program. Challenges going forward are the design requirements that don't require a city permit and tracking specific permits that apply only to certain areas under certain conditions. In Response to Committee Member Ralph, Anderson stated staff has heard from the community that it is a benefit to the City to have this historic district and that it is the right thing for the City to do to absorb that cost. However, it does require staff knowledge of the design guidelines and resolution of issues that have arisen around this. Michael Johnson from the Mill Creek Historic District states he is writing the design guidelines for the District. His opinion as a homeowner is that the COA cost should be absorbed by the City and he would like the Committee to take it into consideration. Committee Member Ralph asked if the neighborhood grant program could absorb the cost. Mill Creek could then apply to have money for the process. Chair Boyce asked staff to develop options and return to the Committee. 9. Sound Transit Update Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager, stated the State legislature recently granted Sound Transit additional taxing authority so Sound Transit is evaluating candidate projects for their next regional transit package. Chelsea Levy, Sound Transit Government Relations Officer, explained to the Committee that Sound Transit's district is made up of 52 jurisdictions and over 3 million people, about 40% of the State's population who are all looking to have capital and service improvements out of ST3. In 2014, Sound Transit carried 32 million riders and projects an increase of 101 million riders by the year 2025. 2016 is a big year for Sound Transit because it is opening light rail between UW and Downtown Seattle in a few months; and in the south end, by the end of the year, it will be open light rail to S 200t", the Angle Lake station. In 2021, it will open light rail to Northgate. 2023 is the end of the ST2 capital program; by then, Sound Transit will have light rail to Bellevue, Lynnwood and the Kent-Des Moines Highline College area. The Puget Sound Regional Council expects an increase in population of 100 million by the year 2040. This is the heart of ST3. ECDC Minutes January 11,2016 Page 4 of 6 The Sound Transit Long Range Plan was updated in 2014; in January, 2015, Sound Transit began to seek revenue authority from the legislature and was successful in doing so. Sound Transit is currently working on systems planning and wants ST3 on the ballot for November, 2016. ST3 pulls projects from the long range plan and puts them into a financially-constrained package that will be put before the voters. Breaking news is that the Kent Station access improvements project, which was set back due to the recession, is awaiting a decision from the Sound Transit Board this month to move forward under ST2 funding rather than await ST3 voting. (Update: The Board approved this action on January 28tn ) Eric Chipps mentioned several candidate projects in ST3 that are of interest for the Kent area; light rail, Kent/Des Moines to Redondo/Star Lake (272nd), expanding Sounder South Train Platform to 8 cars to increase capacity, additional south Sounder platform extensions and additional south Sounder services. In order to add capacity, Sound Transit continues to work with Burlington Northern, who owns the tracks. Adding capacity could essentially mean an additional track going through the Kent Station area in the future. In response to Committee Member Ralph, Levy stated jurisdictions individually must initiate requests to be added to the Sound Transit District. Committee Member Budell requested Sound Transit's thoughts on mirroring SR 405 to go through Tukwilla and Renton instead of just I-90. Chipps explained how some of the ST2 expansion will cover that along with an additional project which will traverse the SR 405 corridor. ECD Director Ben Wolters stated these projects will support the future growth and quality of life in Kent. Adjournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:06 Julie Vulcm, Admin Assistant, Econ & Community Development Committee JP:aw\P;\P/arming\ECDC\2016\Minutes\1-11-16 Min.docx ECDC Minutes January 11,2016 Page 5 of 6