HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 06/13/2016 (2)
For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the City’s website at:
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office in advance
at (253) 856-5725. For TTY/TDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at
(800) 833-6388. For general information, contact Economic & Community Development
Department, Planning Division at
(253) 856-5454.
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 13, 2016
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: Frank Cornelius, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Jack Ottini,
Barbara Phillips, Randall Smith
CITY STAFF: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager; Hayley
Bonsteel, Long Range Planner; David Galazin, Assistant Civil Attorney.
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public
Hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will be held in
Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA. The public
is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at
the Hearing. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the
proposed amendment may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to
Hayley Bonsteel at hbonsteel@kentwa.gov.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the May 23, 2016 Minutes
4. Added Items
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPLETE STREETS ORDINANCE [CPA-2016-4] Hayley Bonsteel
This is a public hearing to consider amendments to Title 6 of the Kent City Code to
adopt a new Chapter 6.14 pertaining to complete streets.
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
MAY 23, 2016
1. Call to Order
Chair Cornelius called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm
2. Roll Call
LUPB Members: Frank Cornelius Chair; Katherine Jones Vice Chair; Barbara
Phillips, and Randall Smith were in attendance with Jack Ottini
absent/excused.
City Staff: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager; Hayley
Bonsteel, Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator; and David Galazin, Assistant
Civil Attorney were in attendance.
3. Approval of Minutes
Board Member Jones MOVED and Board Member Smith SECONDED a Motion
to Approve the Minutes of April 25, 2016. MOTION PASSED 4-0.
4. Added Items
None
5. Communications
None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
None
7. Public Hearing
Medical Marijuana Patient Cooperatives (MMPC) [ZCA-2016-5]
Bonsteel explained that State law introduced a new category of medical marijuana
growing operations called a patient cooperative, intended to replace the existing
category of “medical cannabis collective gardens” beginning July 1, 2016. This new
cooperative would be comprised of up to four members, allowing 15 plants per
member to be grown within the residence of one of the members. Bonsteel stated that
the Liquor and Cannabis Board will have regulatory oversight, but as they have not
yet proposed any rules, staff does not know what that oversight will look like. In
many ways this is an administrative change to replace collective gardens with patient
cooperatives.
Staff recommends prohibiting patient cooperatives because of previous decisions to
prohibit marijuana related uses and because of one specific aspect of the law from a
land use standpoint that may have impacts. These growing operations are not
required to be located in property actually owned by one of the patients. Many land
use impacts associated with the grow operations would be inside homes.
Allowing renters to participate brings in an additional factor in terms of property
damage; related to wiring, moisture or odor issues. Staff believes that property
owners should be the ones to decide rather than renters.
In previous discussions with the Board, members asked staff for some options of
where these cooperatives would be permitted. Bonsteel referred to a map that
illustrated single family residential zones in the City. She stated that if the Board
wished to have these cooperatives in Kent, staff would recommend that cooperatives
1
Land Use & Planning Board Minutes
May 23, 2016
Page 2 of 2
be located in the lowest density zones of SR-1. One concern is that there is no way to
know who is renting out their homes and staff feels that a renter choosing to start a
garden in a home would not have the same level of investment as a home owner and
runs the risk of not complying with whatever standards the Cannabis Board adopts.
The Ordinance is written to prohibit all uses and staff is recommending prohibition at
this time. In response to Board member Smith, Bonsteel stated that one cooperative
per tax parcel is allowed in the city according to state law.
Galazin stated that the standards for these cooperatives are set forth within RCW
69.51a.250 and will be supplemented by the Liquor and Cannabis Board. Galazin
defined some of the requirements of the RCWs, some of which are the same as
recreational marijuana is subject to.
Staff is describing something that is replacing something else that is already
prohibited. Galazin voiced his belief that the focus should be that this is more of an
administrative change with regulations set forth within RCW 69.51a.250 and as will be
supplemented by the Liquor and Cannabis Board rules which are yet to be adopted.
Board Member Jones questioned if both medical and recreational marijuana would be
approved in the same facility, depending if you come in with your medical marijuana
card, you would simply pay a different tax rate.
Galazin stated that the thrust behind this as well as other regulations have been to roll
the medical system into the recreational system creating one comprehensive system
rather than an unregulated medical and a regulated recreational system. Galazin
spoke about how medical marijuana patients can register with the state database and
show that they are a qualifying patient or designated provided and they will pay no
tax on the transaction as the law has been changed now. A 37 percent tax rate has
been implemented at the retail end. Qualifying patients would be exempt from the
tax rate, so long as they are entered in the system and have their recognition card.
In response to questions posed by Board Member Jones about the possibility to allow
medical marijuana to be grown in agricultural areas, Galazin stated that cooperatives
are not allowed anywhere where they can be seen, smelled, or otherwise detectable
on a public street or from any adjacent private property.
Concluding deliberations, Chair Cornelius opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing that there were no speakers, Chair Cornelius closed the Public Hearing and
called for a motion.
Board Member Phillips MOVED and Board Member Smith SECONDED a motion
to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments to
the Kent Zoning Code, related to medical marijuana patient cooperatives, as
presented by staff. Chair Cornelius called for the vote. Motion PASSED
unanimously 4-0 with 4 yeas.
Adjournment
Chair Cornelius adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager,
LUPB Board Secretary
2
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
June 6, 2016
TO: Chair Frank Cornelius and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planner & GIS Coordinator
RE: Complete Streets Ordinance [CPA-2016-4]
For June 13, 2016 Public Hearing
SUMMARY: Complete Streets concepts promote streets as safe, convenient and
comfortable for all users, regardless of age or ability. This mode of thinking is
becoming more crucial every day for planning and transportation projects in the
region, to ease congestion, provide more options and respond to changing trends.
To date, more than 700 agencies at the local, regional and state levels have
adopted Complete Streets Ordinances; adopting an ordinance in Kent (draft
attached) would enable the City to be more competitive for regional grants and
steer future updates to plans and standards, which would have real impacts on
implemented projects.
BACKGROUND: The City of Kent’s transportation system includes some provisions
for pedestrians and cyclists, but is incomplete and disconnected. Through planning
for Complete Streets in every roadway project through the use of the attached draft
checklist, the City can move closer to a connected network of safe and welcoming
facilities.
The City has a number of strong Complete Streets-supportive policies and plans in
place, including the Transportation Master Plan (which recognizes the need to
improve connectivity and identifies a network of streets to receive bicycle and
pedestrian facilities) and the Comprehensive Plan (which has policies in land use
and transportation chapters related to improving non-motorized access and
encouraging walking and bicycling). Complete Streets policies improve safety, lower
transportation costs, provide mobility alternatives, encourage healthy activity,
stimulate local economies, contribute to economic development goals through
creating a sense of place, improve social interaction and generally improve adjacent
property values.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached draft ordinance
and will be available at the meeting to answer questions.
HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2016\CPA-2016-4 Complete Streets Ord\06-13-16 LUPB hearing Complete Streets.doc
Encl: Draft ordinance, draft checklist
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval (or denial; or
approval, as modified) of proposed amendments to the Kent City
Code, related to Complete Streets, as presented by staff.
3
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Title 6 of the
Kent City Code by adopting a new chapter 6.14
pertaining to “complete streets”.
RECITALS
A. The complete streets concept promotes streets that are safe
and convenient for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
riders, freight haulers and motor vehicle drivers of all ages and abilities.
B. Streets constitute a large portion of public space generally,
and should be corridors for all modes of transportation.
C. Streets that support and invite multiple uses are more
conducive to the public life and efficient movement of people than streets
designed primarily to move automobiles and freight.
D. Trends in energy and transportation costs, air quality, public
health and economic development necessitate a more comprehensive
approach to mobility.
E. The City of Kent engaged residents during the Let’s Go Kent
project in 2010, which focused on improving the walking and biking
5
network. Residents repeatedly expressed the desire for better walking and
biking options.
F. There are practical limits to the expansion of roadways in
response to traffic congestion. Promoting pedestrian, bicycle and transit
travel as an alternative to automobile usage can reduce congestion, reduce
the negative environmental impacts of automobiles, and also reduce
transportation costs for residents and commuters.
G. A 2007 Washington State Department of Transportation
survey found that a lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, such as
sidewalks and bicycle lanes, is a primary reason why Washington residents
do not walk or bicycle more frequently.
H. The United States Congress and the National Association of
Local Boards of Health specifically recommend complete streets policies as
a strategy to increase pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. Complete
streets legislation has been adopted by the United States Department of
Transportation, numerous state transportation agencies, as well as cities
such as Seattle, Kirkland, Redmond, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego,
Boulder and Chicago. The complete streets concept is also supported by
the Institute of Traffic Engineers, American Planning Association, United
States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Public Health
Association and many other transportation, planning and public health
professionals. Washington State’s Complete Streets grant program is
described in RCW 47.04.320 and .325.
I. The Strategic Plan adopted by the City Council includes a
vision of a safe, connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly
diverse urban centers. Safety and connectivity can only be achieved if all
6
users’ needs are taken into account during planning and implementation of
roadway projects.
J. The Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan for
the City of Kent both contain policies and goals supportive of complete
streets concepts, including policies to promote walking and bicycling;
policies regarding level of service for pedestrians, bicycles and transit;
policies to provide non-motorized facilities; and many more.
K. Planning staff introduced a description of and the need for
complete streets at a regularly-scheduled Land Use and Planning Board
(“LUPB”) workshop on May 23, 2016, and received authorization from the
LUPB to draft a policy and ordinance to implement the complete streets
concept for new development within the City of Kent.
L. The City determined that due to the procedural nature of this
amendment (which includes no development regulations), neither
notification to the State nor State Environmental Policy Act review is
required.
M. Planning staff presented the draft ordinance and policy at a
public hearing held by the LUPB on June 13, 2016. The LUPB moved to
recommend to the City Council adoption of the ordinance and policy as
presented by staff.
N. The Economic and Community Development Committee, at its
regularly-scheduled meeting on July 11, 2016, moved to accept the
recommendation of the LUPB, and forward the matter for consideration by
the full City Council.
7
O. The full City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting on
July 19, 2016, adopted the ordinance and policy as presented by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Amendment. Title 6 of the Kent City Code is
amended by adding a new chapter 6.14, entitled “Complete Streets”, to
read as follows:
Sec. 6.14.010 Vision.
The City endorses the concept of complete streets, which promotes
roadways that are safe, convenient and attractive for all users regardless
of age and ability, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, freight
haulers and motor vehicle drivers. The vision of complete streets is a
community in which all residents and visitors can safely and efficiently use
the public right-of-way to meet their transportation needs regardless of
their preferred mode of travel.
Sec. 6.14.015 Policy.
A. The City will plan for, design, construct, operate and maintain an
appropriate and integrated transportation system that will meet the
needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users, transit riders,
freight haulers, motorists, emergency responders and residents of
all ages and abilities.
B. Transportation system facilities that support the concept of complete
streets shall include, but are not limited to: pavement markings and
signs; street and sidewalk lighting; sidewalk and pedestrian safety
improvements; Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VI
8
compliance; transit accommodations; bicycle accommodations,
including signage and markings; and, as appropriate, streetscapes
that appeal to and promote all modes of travel. The system’s design
will be consistent with and supportive of local neighborhoods,
recognizing that transportation needs vary and must be balanced in
a flexible, safe and cost-effective manner.
Sec. 6.14.020 Applicability.
Those involved in the planning and design of projects within the public
right-of-way will give consideration to all users and modes of travel from
the start of planning and design work consistent with approved plans.
Transportation system improvements shall be viewed as opportunities to
create safer, more accessible streets for all users. This shall apply to new
construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation. The City may create a
checklist that will assist in considering modes of travel in the planning and
design of transportation system improvements. Installation of ADA-
compatible ramps or other ADA-compliant improvements required for
improved accessibility are exempt from complete streets consideration, as
are ordinary maintenance activities such as mowing, sweeping, spot repair,
joint sealing, pothole filling, and installation of raised pavement markers.
Sec. 6.14.110 Plans and standards.
As City plans, guidelines and standards are updated, consideration shall be
given to complete streets concepts to ensure that new regulations and
practices comply with this chapter and the latest in applicable complete
streets research and best practices. Examples of plans and standards
include, but are not limited to the Design and Construction Standards and
the Transportation Master Plan. Resources to be referenced in developing
these standards and plans shall include, but not be limited to the latest
editions of National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban
Street Design Guide and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
9
Sec. 6.14.200 Exceptions.
A. The public works director and the economic and community
development director may jointly determine that there are
exceptions to the provisions for these facilities, under the following
circumstances:
1. The project would require the accommodation of street uses
prohibited by law;
2. The accommodation of a specific use is expected to have adverse
impacts on environmental resources such as streams, wetland
floodplains, or on historic structures or sites, above and beyond
the impacts of currently existing infrastructure;
3. Topographic challenges make accommodation of a specific use
infeasible;
4. Their establishment would be contrary to public safety;
5. The cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or
probable future use; or
6. Their inclusion in a small project would create a very short
section of improvements with problematic transitions on either
end or unlikely similar improvements at either end.
B. Where the above exceptions allow complete streets facilities to be
omitted from a roadway project, the City shall consider whether
bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users and persons of all abilities can
be accommodated by nearby facilities, and strive to provide
complete streets connections to those facilities.
Sec. 6.14.240 Intergovernmental cooperation.
The City will cooperate with other transportation agencies, including the
Washington State Department of Transportation, King County Metro and
Sound Transit to ensure the principles and practices of complete streets
10
are embedded within their planning, design, construction and maintenance
activities. The City will specifically cooperate to ensure the transportation
network flows seamlessly between jurisdictions in accordance with local
and regional road, transit, bicycle and pedestrian plans.
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
11
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
12
Complete Streets Checklist
DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes Only Updated 5/25/2016
Intent
The City of Kent will plan for, design and construct all new City transportation
improvement projects to provide appropriate and safe accommodation for autos,
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, freight, and persons of all abilities. These
“Complete Streets” may be achieved through single projects or incrementally
through a series of smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time.
Project Name:
Average Daily Traffic:
Pedestrian Counts: __________________________
Bicycle Counts: _____________________________
Truck Volumes: _____________________________
Street Classification:
Is the street a cul de sac? Yes/No
Designated Freight Corridor (Identify designating agency): Yes/No ___________
Projects and Plans
Is this project or a related project(s) included in the
Comprehensive Plan via one of the following:
Transportation Master Plan (TMP), Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Midway
Subarea Plan, Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP)
or Economic Development Plan? Please describe
specific recommendations that would apply to
‘Complete Streets’ (For example: Bike lanes, sidewalk
improvements, transit, etc.):
Yes No
13
Complete Streets Checklist
DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes Only Updated 5/25/2016
Transit
Transit
Is the facility on an existing or future planned transit route? Yes No
No
If “yes,” please describe the existing conditions, plans for transit in the future,
ridership volumes and how the physical environment supports or detracts from
transit usage.
Safety
Have collision data been collected and evaluated within
the past five years at this location? If “Yes” please
describe below.
Yes No
Non-Motorized Conditions and Place-Making
Do continuous sidewalks exist within ¼ mile of the
project?
Are existing sidewalks within ¼ mile of the project in
good condition?
Yes
Yes
No
No
If “No” will they be repaired as part of this
project?
Yes No
If not, is there a plan to repair in the near
future?
Yes No
14
Complete Streets Checklist
DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes Only Updated 5/25/2016
Do continuous bike facilities exist within ½ mile of the
project?
If “yes,” are existing bike facilities within ½ mile
of the project in good condition?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Is the facility within ¼ mile of senior/disability care
facilities, schools or park?
Do street trees exist within ¼ mile of the project
location?
If “yes,” are existing street trees within ¼ mile of
the project location in good condition?
Does pedestrian-scale lighting exist within ¼ mile of
the project?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Describe the implications of the above non-motorized condition assessment. How
could the project contribute to a continuous network of safe and welcoming
sidewalks and bike facilities, either within the existing scope or if the scope were
expanded? How could place-making be improved?
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Are there ITS recommendations within the project
area? If “Yes” please describe below.
Yes No
15
Complete Streets Checklist
DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes Only Updated 5/25/2016
Funding
Please describe impacts to funding or other commitments that would result from
incorporating Complete Streets elements:
Exemptions
Would Complete Streets result in significant adverse
environmental impacts to streams, wetlands, steep
slopes, or other critical areas?
Yes No
Would Complete Streets result in significant adverse
impacts on neighboring land uses, including impacts
from right-of-way acquisition?
Yes No
Would the provision of Complete Streets be contrary to
public safety?
Yes No
Director Recommendations
Do the Directors of Public Works and Economic and Community Development have
any specific recommendations on Complete Streets for this project? If so, please
describe:
16
Complete Streets Checklist
DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes Only Updated 5/25/2016
Staff Recommendation
Based on the information gathered and described in this checklist, what is your
professional recommendation for incorporating Complete Streets into this project?
17