Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Regular Minutes - 02/02/2021 Approved City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes February 2, 2021 Date: February 2, 2021 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: THIS IS A REMOTE MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Toni Troutner Council President Present Bill Boyce Councilmember Present Brenda Fincher Councilmember Present Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Present Marli Larimer Councilmember Present Zandria Michaud Councilmember Present Les Thomas Councilmember Present Dana Ralph Mayor Present II. PRESENTATIONS 1 Quarterly Sound Transit Update: Federal Way Link Extension Kelly Peterson 45 MIN. Link Light Rail Liaison, Kelly Peterson provided Council with an update on the Federal Way Link Extension project. He reviewed the extensive permitting packages that are required for the project and highlighted how far things have come and what permits will be issued soon. Peterson shared with Council the status of the Kent Des Moines Station Area as well as the Star Lake Station and provided a number of photos of the progress that has been made. He discussed the work that has taken place on both segments 1 and 2 and the portions of the project that will be underway this spring. Peterson discussed the artwork that has been installed at the Kent Des Moines Station site, including 58 murals. He also noted that there has been some vandalism that has occurred here and it is the duty of Sound Transit to maintain that artwork. He also shared a few artist concepts and renderings for the Kent Des Moines Station as well as some art glass renderings for the Star Lake Station. 2 Park Impact Fee Update Brian Levenhagen 45 MIN. Deputy Parks Director, Brian Levenhagen provided Council with an update on Park Impact Fees. Levenhagen reviewed the Park and Open Space Plan, how it aligns with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the following goals: Quality Public Spaces, Performance-based Approach, Transformation Through Reinvestment and Sustainable Funding. He discussed how a Park Impact Fee City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes February 2, 2021 Kent, Washington Page 2 of 2 would help pay for new/expanded Parks and Recreation facilities needed to support growth in the City. Levenhagen discussed the Park Impact Fee Study and how it will be amended into the comprehensive plan with the Park Project List. He reviewed the Park Project List in more detail and discussed where the Park Impact Fee revenue would come in to play. He noted that the Park Project List and draft Park Impact Fee Study are being amended into the Comprehensive Plan which is scheduled to go to Committee of the Whole on February 23, 2021 and then on to Council on March 2, 2021. Please note that amending the Park Project List into the Comprehensive Plan does not actually create a Park Impact Fee for Kent, that will require a separate ordinance. Levenhagen reviewed the draft Park Impact Fee Code Proposal that is currently being reviewed by the Economic and Community Development Department and Legal. He indicated that additional Park Impact Fee language was taken from Tukwila and Auburn's Park Impact Fee code and much of the code language from all three sources is taken directly from RCW 82.02.060 - RCW 82.02.100. He reviewed some of the proposed changes as they affect single-family onsite recreation requirements and changes to fee- in-lieu. Levenhagen discussed proposed next steps and timeline for adoption. Meeting ended at 5:55 p.m. Kimberley A. Komoto City Clerk Federal Way Link Extension Update Council Workshop February 2, 2021 FWLE Alignment PROJECT CORRIDOR LENGTH M 7*8Mdes OPENING FOR REVENUE SERVICE' 2 2 0 4 i 2035 DAILY RIDERSHIP --Tuw-�-361,50ORiders PROJECT CORRIDOR TRAVEL TIME 10.4 12Minutes im I I i ' V IOR PurPo OMY and are nod is 5cd e. Nc4 to Seal4 Permitting Packages Segment 1 S1.05 –KDM Early Site Work S1.06 –KDM Station S1.06a –KDM Station Foundation S1.07 –KDM Garage S1.08a –Early Utilities S1.09 –Drainage S1.11 –Roadway Site Grading and Walls S1.12 –Maintenance of Traffic S1.13 –Demo Clear and Grade Segment 2 S2.01 –Structure B S2.02 –Structure C S2.03 –Structure SL (combined w/S2.05) S2.04 –Structure Z S2.05 –Star Lake Station S2.06 –Star Lake Garage S2.07 –SL Sta. and Gar. Site Clearing, Grading and Utilities S2.08 –Not used S2.09 –Midway North (259th St.) S2.09 –Midway South (259th St.) S2.09b –Midway Landfill Civil S2.10 –Roadway and Walls at SL Station S2.11 –SL Maintenance of Traffic S2.12 –Demo Clear and Grade at SL Corridor Wide CW.01 –Track CW.02 –Systems Design CW.03a –Segment 1 Early Ductbank CW.04c –Station and Garage Specs CW.04d –Systems Specs CW.04e –Standard Drawings –Structures CW.04f –Station and Garage –Standards CW.04g -Standard Drawings –Civil CW.04h –Standard Drawings –Walls CW.04i –Standard Drawings –Drainage CW.04j –Wetland and Stream Rest. Specs CW.04k –Garage Early Specs CW.05 –Geotech Lab/Field Services CW.06 –Not used CW.07 –Landscaping CW.07a –Kent Mitigation and Restoration •Yellow –Permits Issued •Green –Permits anticipated to be issued soon •Permit revisions KDM Station Area •Dry utility work is nearly complete •PSE power poles on west side of 30th Ave will be removed soon •Water, sewer and drainage around the garage installed •Column construction completed on west side of 30th Ave S. •Caps are being constructed on top of the columns now •TESC, TESC, TESC lk- .4 = Mtn St. —looking NW from 30t" Ave. S. 1 1 e JjI jj+ t f I dim NJ-LA111WTM WE A '- _ _ r e _ • - _3 •f'.. �5 a,I ��y.ya- -- - �� -:RYA ` - - _ .. ' �y.� ��`�•... i i t ° �.•. . �'' ; ... �•>}:. �-_ ,tip ,� 'k, �.; .. s - �� r • if tt' Jam. `1�4 �2+#??:0,,��21�xx=**, 5-; 223.6, `S_t2'-- Ifool<ing.N+ V�/ from'30th Ave. S. :47:�.4.t`+:-.��1'�•i['.�-iw�37`4.`.6�yiIS;•u.�.s.-".:�1.`. _ POPP Li 'Al U ti -ter : = �:.':.;.ti. -'"+�ry�w .- - : - 3�." - - - -- _ - - _ ,_,.�.,� • ..y - _ I �i ��y+y' yY •i�i.' L + ��f "' Jan., 14 2021 — S. 238t" S.tIgolo,k�iinl• NW from 30t" Ave. S Midway Landfill Removal -Waste remove complete -Screening is complete -Barrier and backfill being installed (complete this week) -Wall construction will begin in January -Some back filling behind the wall in the summer of 2021 Legend: -Guideway -Work Area -Future I-5 Lane (SR509) N Star Lake Station Area •Clearing for the guideway has begun north of the station •Structure Z -(guideway over S. 272nd St.) •Water line needs to be relocated (3 weeks of work) •TESC, TESC, TESC Moving Forward –Segment 1 •Permitting •Finish dry utility work (remove PSE poles) •Water, sewer and drainage •Structure B •Caps –west side of 30th Ave. South •Girders, pre -cast panels and deck spans •Tower crane –KDM garage (early March) •Begin KDM garage construction (March) To be removed Moving Forward –Segment 2 •Permitting •Drilling behind Lowe’s 2nd week in February •Clearing and grading S. 252nd St. to Star Lake station •Midway Landfill –wall construction •Setting forms now •Clearing and Grading on-going (Star Lake has begun) •Utilities and all civil work to begin •Requested meeting for the Greenfield Park HOA (March) FWLE Art –KDM Station •58 Murals installed on the KDM construction fence •ST to maintains the artwork •Some vandalism has occurred Tommy SegundoGabriel MarquezJasmine Iona Brown Cecelia De Leon KDM Art Theme: “Confluence” –A weaving together of people, places and ideas S. 236th Street S. 236th Street •+r�#•I f% y.0 r /� •R�l+ Xr�,wJ a► t + rife+a� in 5 KDM Station - Artist Rendering SOUIVDTRANs1T I�hfii�.11i KDM Plaza I Artist: Michelle de la Vega Artwork: Sculpture Site: South Plaza outside garage entry Material: Fabricated aluminum, steel support structure. Dimensions: 25'H x 20'W Status: Engineering and design F1WIWIO"-000� 4 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KDM Garage Artist Chris Jordan I Artwork: Suspended sculpture Site: Garage entry Material: TBD Dimensions: TBD Status: Design development and community engagement Star Lake Art Theme: “Luminescence” –A warm welcoming glow at the edge of the forest - �• � sr E �.�' � I MAI •+ :i .. 0-0 �kw e4�� iL'fr .�+1{ 3t..➢1ai�kf17ii I I j n r-, +r :mi � i �.► • 3i !•-i �' � �V'_ �� Y.��� i1 � �.�. � vie .sue u;1� Y1� � _ - ' 15 Star Lake Station - Art Glass Rendering SouNDTRANSIT 4 46 1 r 4 � ` ~ i ' r .. ■ j - 18 V SDuNDTRANSiT Park Impact Fee for Kent City Council Workshop –February 2, 2021 Brian Levenhagen, Deputy Director Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Why a Park Impact Fee? •In 2016, the City Council adopted the Park and Open Space Plan, which directly aligns with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and emphasized the following goals: •Quality Public Spaces: Provide a high-quality park system that promotes Kent as a livable city. •Performance-based Approach: Plan and maintain the system with the help of a performance-based set of assessment tools. (Recreational Value Based Level of Service) •Transformation Through Reinvestment: Reinvest in the existing system to successfully transform it into a vibrant and relevant urban park system. •Sustainable Funding: Implement a funding model which adequately supports a Level of Service that reflects the community's priorities. •Majority of current funding bucket is prioritized for overcoming existing Parks Capital Maintenance Backlog •Park Impact Fee would mean that growth pays for growth and would supplement not supplant existing funding sources Park Impact Fee Existing Funding Sources How do we pay for new/expanded Park/Rec facilities needed to support growth? Strategic Goals and Engagement City of Kent Park & Open Space Plan 2016 •Recommended Park Impact fees as a funding source for Parks Capital. City of Kent 2020-2028 Comprehensive Recreation Program Plan •Strategy 1. B. Explore the Feasibility to create and utilize impact fees. City of Kent Parks and Recreation Commission •Passed motion supporting establishment of Park Impact Fee at Nov 2020 meeting. Strategic Goals and Engagement 5 Rally the Valley -Kent Valley Industrial Subarea Plan •Implementing Park Impact Fees help achieve 3 of 4 plan goals Outreach to King County Master Builders Association •Virtual Meeting •Draft Park Impact Fee –Fact Sheet •Discussions ongoing Outreach to NAIOP –Government Relations Committee •Reached out with Park Impact Fee Proposal •Waiting for Feedback •Will Follow up as necessary Kent already has impact fees for Traffic, Fire and three School Districts Park Impact Fee Study •Draft Park Impact Fee Study is complete •Will be amended into the comp plan with the Park Project List •Proposed Park Impact Fee Schedule Parks Impact Fee Schedule Fee Unit Single Family Residential 3,281.97$ per Dwelling Unit Multi-Family 2,451.19$ per Dwelling Unit Manufacturing 0.52$ per Sq. Ft. Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities 0.26$ per Sq. Ft. Retail 0.37$ per Sq. Ft. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 0.74$ per Sq. Ft. Services (not including food services)0.65$ per Sq. Ft. Government/Education 0.87$ per Sq. Ft. Restaurant 1.30$ per Sq. Ft. Mini-storage 0.01$ per Sq. Ft. Local Jurisdiction Comparison •Single-Family PIF lower than 9 of 11 comparable cities. •Multifamily PIF lower than 9 of 11 comparable cities. •Commercial/Industrial lower than other comparable cities. •Park Impact Fee Project List and Study are anticipated to be updated as part of the 2022-2027 City of Kent Park and Open Space Plan. Parks Impact Fee Comparison Single Family Multi-Family Office Bldg. (per sq.ft.) Issaquah 9,107.00$ 5,591.00$ 0.97$ Sammamish 6,739.00$ 4,362.00$ Kirkland 5,533.00$ 3,154.00$ Redmond 4,738.00$ 3,289.00$ 1.28$ Shoreline 4,090.00$ 2,683.00$ Puyallup 4,017.00$ 2,314.00$ 0.87$ Renton 3,946.00$ 2,801.00$ Covington 3,922.00$ 2,761.00$ Auburn 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ Kent (Calculated)3,282.00$ 2,451.00$ 0.74$ Tukwila 2,859.00$ 2,490.00$ 1.18$ Vancouver 2,379.00$ 1,739.00$ Park Project List By Category Total Cost Eligibility Eligible Cost Parks Land Acquisition 3,925,685 100.00%3,925,685 4th and Willis Greenways 864,647 14.37%124,249 Campus Park Improvements 518,785 20.90%108,406 Clark Lake Park Development 240th 3,453,232 10.13%349,969 Downtown Park Phase 1 Improvements 1,035,386 14.37%148,784 Downtown Place-Making Kherson 1,846,647 14.37%265,361 Eastridge Park Renovation 350,237 49.18%172,235 Garrison Creek Renovation 816,689 20.90%170,657 Hogan Park at RR Phase 2 287,313 48.95%140,644 Huse/Panther Lake Community Park 862,602 8.30%71,618 Kent Memorial Park Renovation 5,788,184 48.95%2,833,402 KVLT - Old Fishing Hole Improvements 805,768 22.42%180,644 KVLT - Boeing Rock 886,646 48.95%434,026 KVLT - Phase 2 1,310,262 31.69%415,268 KVLT - Riverview 2,105,951 8.30%174,849 Lake Fenwick Phase 2 Improvements 365,510 10.13%37,043 Linda Heights Renovation 753,682 20.90%157,491 Mill Creek Canyon Revitalization 1,970,598 8.30%163,611 Mill Creek Earthworks Renovation 4,295,472 22.42%962,997 Morrill Meadows Phase 2 1,100,000 22.42%246,608 NPRP - Chestnut Ridge 367,323 20.90%76,757 NPRP - Salt Air Vista 635,323 20.90%132,758 NPRP - Scenic Hill Park Renovation 522,598 20.90%109,203 Park Orchard Park Improvements 459,966 20.90%96,115 Springwood Park Renovation 2,762,293 20.90%577,214 Sun Meadows 137,910 20.90%28,818 Total Growth Benefit Cost 38,228,709$ 31.66%12,104,412$ •Up to 28% of current 6-year CIP and 31.66% of Park Project List are attributable to growth which makes them eligible costs for Park Impact Fee Revenue. •Actual Park Impact Fee revenue is likely to be a lot less than $12M over 6 years. •6-year CIP would be updated in 2022 Mid-Biennial Budget Update to include PIF. Park Project List •Park Project List and Draft Park Impact Fee Study are being amended into the Comp Plan. We’re planning to take them to COW on 2/23 and City Council on 3/2. •Amending the Park Project List into the Comp Plan does not actually create a Park Impact Fee for Kent, that will require a separate ordinance. Park Project List Selected Projects •4th and Willis Greenways •Clark Lake Park •Downtown Park Masterplan •Kherson Park/Lunar Rover •Hogan Park Phase 2 •Kent Valley Loop Trails •Panther Lake Community Park •Mill Creek Canyon •Earthworks Park •Morrill Meadows Phase 2 Panther Lake Community Park Park Project List Neighborhood Park Map •Campus Park •Chestnut Ridge Park •Eastridge Park •Garrison Creek Park •Linda Heights Park •Park Orchard Park •Salt Air Vista Park •Scenic Hill Park •Springwood Park •Sun Meadows Draft Park Impact Fee Code Proposal •Parks put together a draft Park Impact Fee code proposal •Draft is being reviewed by ECD and Legal. •When possible, language from Kent’s Transportation Impact Fee code was used. •Parks and PW are coordinating to ensure consistency in code language. •Additional Park Impact Fee language was taken from Tukwila and Auburn’s Park Impact Fee code. •Much of the code language from all three sources is taken directly from RCW 82.02.060 –RCW 82.02.100 •Park Impact Fee adjusted annually for inflation •Administrative Fee would help account for added staff time •Goal is to focus on significant new development, not small changes in use •Will have the option of a credit when there is opportunity for land dedication or park improvements that are part of the Park Plan. •Park Department has ten years to spend the park impact fees as legally allowed in the RCW 82.02.070. Draft Park Impact Fee Code Balancing the Park Impact Fee with Existing Code •Goal is to have uniform requirements for all types of development. •Balance between onsite recreation and improvements to the citywide park system. •Downtown -The Park Impact Fee requirement will replace current onsite recreation/Fee-In-Lieu requirement. •Rally the Valley added some onsite recreation requirements for industrial Single-Family Onsite Recreation Requirement Changes Currently:•Developers of Plats (10 or more) are required to dedicate and construct 450 square feet of recreation space per unit.Proposed:•Developers of Plats (20 or larger) would be required to dedicate and construct 180 square feet of recreation space per unit. (and also pay a park impact fee) Currently: •Short Plats (under 10 lots) pay a Fee-In-Lieu of providing recreation space. Proposed: •Plats under 20 lots would be exempt from dedicating onsite recreation or paying Fee-In-Lieu. (they would instead pay a park impact fee) •Developments between 20 -50 units only need to provide one recreational amenity. •Developments between 50 -100 units require an additional recreational amenity and so on. •Additional changes to the Onsite Recreation Facility requirements shared previously with King County MBA and the Land Use and Planning Board will be brought to City Council as modified above. •More clarity on recreation and landscaping requirements •Options of amenities more attractive to older residents •Emphasize value of open green space, trails, etc. Single-Family Onsite Recreation Requirement Changes Proposed Changes to Fee-In-Lieu •Fee-In-Lieu would remain an option when onsite recreation is required but we would expect it to rarely be utilized. •Majority of Fee-In-Lieu is currently paid by short plats, instead short plats and plats under 20 units will only pay a park impact fee. •Since we’re reducing the amount of dedicated onsite recreation space by 60%, Fee-In-Lieu will also be reduced by 60%. Proposed Next Steps •Continued Outreach •Interdepartmental Review and Refinement of Draft Code •Comp Plan Amendment –Park Project List Schedule •Public Hearing @ LUPB –February 8, 2021 •COW –February 23, 2021 •City Council –March 2, 2021 •Proposed Park Impact Fee Ordinance Schedule •Public Hearing @ LUPB –February 22, 2021 •COW –March 9, 2021 •City Council –March 16, 2021 Panther Lake (Huse) Mill Creek Canyon Questions? Brian Levenhagen Deputy Parks Director bjlevenhagen@kentwa.gov 253-856-5116 West Hill Park