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 - 10/13/2014 (3)
• Economic & Community Development KENT Committee Agenda ��To� Councilmembers: Dennis Higgins • Jim Berrios • Bill Boyce, Chair AGENDA October 13, 2014 5:00 P.M. Item Description ActionSpeaker(s) Time Pace 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 the September 8, 2014 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 2 min 1 5. Countywide Planning Policies/Ratification YES Charlene Anderson 10 min 5 6. Sound Transit Update NO Charlene Anderson 10 min 31 Informational Only and Cathal Ridge 7. Urban Land Institute Technical Panel - NO Charlene Anderson 10 min 71 Light Rail Extension Informational Only 8. School Districts Capital Facilities Plans NO Charlene Anderson 10 min 87 Informational Only 9. LEAN Process Improvements and NO Brennan Taylor 10 min 93 Civil Construction Permits Update Informational Only 10. Economic and Community Development NO Ben Wolters 5 min Report Informational Only Unless otherwise noted, the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 2nd Monday of each month at 5:00 p.m. in Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, 98032-5895. For information on the above item(s), the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at http://kentwa.igm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1025 on Thursday, October 9, 2014 or contact Julie Pulliam, Pam Mottram or the respective project planner in the Planning Division at (253) 856-5454 or as indicated on the agenda. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at(253) 856-5725 in advance. ForTDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. 4' KENT ECONOMIC &COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 Committee Members Committee Chair Bill Boyce, Dennis Higgins, and Jim Berrios. Boyce called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Changes to the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Higgins Moved and Berrios Seconded a Motion to approve the Minutes of August 11, 2014. Motion PASSED 3-0. S. Recreational Mariivana Zoning Regulations Fred Satterstrom, Planning Director, advised that a moratorium on recreational marijuana land uses in Kent was initiated in November, 2013 and extended in May, 2014. The issue was passed to the Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB) to address land use impact issues of production, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana. The LUPB held workshops in May 2014 and a Public Hearing on June 23, 2014, where the Board voted to disallow production, processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. Satterstrom described Production as the growing operation of marijuana; Processing as the method used to process marijuana from raw and resourced natural materials than dispensed to retailers. The LUPB discussed the following options when making a decision regarding production and processing: A. Not allow it in any zoning district. B. Allow only in the M-3 zone, heavy industrial zone, north of downtown and away from protected land uses such as churches, schools, parks, etc. C. Allow only in any Manufacturing zone, MI-M3. CM-1, and CM-2. Some of these areas are within 1000 feet of the protected land use areas. The LUPB discussed the following options when making a decision regarding retail sales: A. Not allow it in any zone. B. Allow in only Gateway commercial zone, Gowe. C. Allow only in zone CM-2, South Central D. Allow only in zone MI-C, 1801h / West Valley, 2121h / West Valley, and 2281h / West Valley. Satterstrom stated that Auburn and Federal Way have moratoriums in place. Covington, Des Moines, Renton, and Tukwila, as well as King County, provided zoning to some extent to allow production, processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana. SeaTac voted to not allow production, processing, or retail sales of recreational marijuana. 2 David Galazin, Assistant Civil Attorney, spoke about how the LUPB approached and viewed recreational marijuana. The Board was unanimous in favor of disallowing retail sales in any zoning district. Production and processing were discussed in tandem as applicants who apply for these licenses are generally applying for both. Many applicants would like to grow marijuana and process it themselves. Some Board members voiced support to allow production and processing within the M-3 Zoning District. Galazin advised that the City of Fife adopted a zoning ordinance banning recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail sales in all zoning districts. Fife was then sued by a potential applicant. The attorney general's office concluded that nothing in state law pre-empts the city from exercising their zoning authority. Zoning is an inherent authority that the legislative body possesses and zoning cannot be implemented by initiative. Galazin suggested not passing any more moratoriums for the purpose of information gathering as the time the City Attorney's staff has already expended totals about 170 hours on the medical marijuana issue and half that amount of time on recreational marijuana. Higgins spoke in favor of allowing recreational marijuana in Kent. He stated that 56% of Washington's population voted in favor of initiative 502 for recreational marijuana and feels that the 120,000 people of Kent shouldn't have to go to other cities to obtain their marijuana. Higgins advised that state legislators will not share marijuana tax revenue with cities that ban marijuana and there will be an increased enforcement cost of having a ban. Galazin confirmed that if Kent approves businesses to produce and process marijuana and there are some businesses that violate the Liquor Control Board (LCB) permit, it is illegal without a state license. Satterstrom stated that the M-3 zone allows a wide variety of manufacturing uses including; storage, steel product manufacturing, hazardous waste recycling, and trucking. Galazin advised that the state will share revenue with cities that have retail stores. Boyce and Berrios spoke in opposition to allowing production, processing, and retail sales of recreational marijuana in Kent as there are too many unknowns with the state and with potential impacts related to odor, safety, and crime issues. Higgins supported recreational marijuana in the M-3 and MI-C zoning districts. Berrios MOVED and Boyce SECONDED a motion to recommend APPROVAL of the Land Use and Planning Board decision to disallow production, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana in all zoning districts of Kent. Motion PASSED 2-1 with Higgins Opposed. 6. Comprehensive Plan Update Guidance Principles Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager, advised she is seeking City Council approval of the Planning Principles which guides the Comprehensive Plan Update (CPA). The vision was taken from the City Council's Strategic Plan assumed to be valid until 2030. The CPA is due by June 30, 2015. Anderson described several Planning principles related to: growth patterns; vibrant neighborhoods and job centers; transportation growth; public facilities and services; housing for all income levels; urban design; investing in human services essential to growth, vitality, and health; Economic development to enrich neighborhoods, and protect natural resources; promote responsible stewardship of parks; provide open spaces and recreational opportunities, implement historic preservation; and provide a permit process that is fair, timely, efficient, and predictable, and include community involvement in developing and amending plans and regulatory actions. 3 Higgins MOVED and Berrios SECONDED a Motion to recommend approval of the vision and framework guidance to be used for the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. Motion PASSED 3-0. 7. Sound Transit Update Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager, gave an update on the Sound Transit stating that they are currently doing an internal review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Notifications for property owners are scheduled for an October/November timeframe with issuance of the draft EIS by the end of the year. The EIS will include an analysis of site locations. Informational Only S. Urban Land Institute Technical Panel Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager, spoke about the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Panel. Anderson advised that the ULI Technical Panel was hired to look at sites related to possible Lightrail Station locations. Staff will conduct a tour of the area sites and hold a dinner with the panel on September 09, 2014. Informational Only 9. 2014 ECD Work Plan Progress Report Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director, introduced the 2014 Economic and Community Development (ECD) Work Plan Progress. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Director, advised that the Work Program was originally introduced in February, 2014 (see Staff Report, pg.41). Satterstrom spoke about complete projects and about projects that are currently underway. Satterstrom estimated that 70% of Staff hours went into processing permits. From the beginning of the year through August, 2,538 permits were processed with a total building evaluation of $189,000,000. Wolters stated that there are a variety of ongoing projects which include Economic Development and improvement of the permitting system. Wolters touched on Public Disclosure fulfillment processes and advised that there will be discussions on how to make the process more efficient and cost effective by using the time and resources available. Wolters spoke about projects that weren't under the regional program that ECD took part in. These projects include; the marijuana zoning, Trader Joes recruitment, Lake Meridian Shopping Center, and the development of KIVA, the city's tracking permit software, to provide greater usability for the Code Enforcement Officers. Wolters also addressed Code Enforcement signage issues. Informational Only 10. Economic Development Report Update No Report Given Adiournment Chair Boyce adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Pamela Mottram, Secretary Economic & Community Development Committee al\P:\Planning\E DC\2014\Minutes\09-08-14 Min.docx 4 5 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager KENT wnen,neror+ Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 October 8, 2014 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Countywide Planning Policies/Ratification King County Council Ordinance No. 17861 Meeting of October 13, 2014 MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend to the full Council ratification of amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to: 1) transfer the Klahanie Potential Annexation Area (PAA) from Issaquah to Sammamish, 2) clarify criteria for expansion of the Urban Growth Area, 3) add the urban portion of the area known as the Rainier Ridge Four- to-One to the Urban Growth Area and amend the PAA map to add the same area to the Maple Valley PAA. SUMMARY: The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. On August 18, 2014, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified amendments of the Potential Annexation Areas map, the Urban Growth Area and criteria DP-17 in the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Now, the amendments a re presented to jurisdictions in King County for ratification. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The City of Kent ratified the original CPPs on September 15, 1992, with Resolution No. 1326, ratified Phase II amendments to the CPPs on November 16, 1994, and ratified a comprehensive update of the CPPs on February 19, 2013. Over the years, the City has ratified other proposed amendments. Through the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC), 6 jurisdictions within King County work together to plan for economic and population growth in King County, including consideration of CPPs. The Countywide Planning Policies become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution of at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the established Interlocal Agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the amendments to the CPPs unless the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments within 90 days of adoption by King County, which in this case is December 7, 2014. The following GMPC motions to amend the CPPs were approved and ratified by the Metropolitan King County Council on August 18, 2014. GMPC Motion No. 14-1: Amends the Potential Annexation Areas map in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies to transfer the Klahanie PAA from Issaquah to Sammamish. GMPC Motion No. 14-2: Amends the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policy DP-17 to clarify criteria for expansion of the Urban Growth Area. GMPC Motion No. 14-3: Amends the Urban Growth Area map in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies to add the urban portion of the area known as the Rainier Ridge Four-to-One to the Urban Growth Area and amends the Potential Annexation Areas map to add the same area to the Maple Valley PAA. Staff will be available at the October 13th meeting to discuss the amendments. CA\PREP:\P1anning\ECDC\2014\Pkt Documents\10-1314\CPP Update Memo.rtf Enc: Att A: King County letter dated 8/8/14 Att B: King County Signature Report for Ordinance 17861 Att C: GMPC Motion No.14-1 with map Att D: GMPC Motion No. 14-2 Att E: GMPC Motion No. 14-3 with 4 maps Att F: King County staff report dated 7/29/14 Att G: Resolution cc: Ben Wolters,Economic &Community Development Director Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Project File"Misc." ATTACHMENT A 7 September 8, 2014 The Honorable Suzette Cooke City of Kent 220-4th Avenue South Kent, VVA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor Cooke: We are pleased to forward for your consideration and ratification the enclosed amendments to the icing County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). On August 18, 2014, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified the amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County. The ordinance will become effective September 8, 2014. Copies of the King County Council stag report, ordinance and Growth Management Planning Council motions are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments. In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FVV-1, Step 9, amendments become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will be deemed to have ratified the CPP and amendments unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for this amendment is Sunday, December 7, 2014. If you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the legislation by the close of business, Monday, December 8, 20147 to Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104. 8 U you haw: ,-n-.y c.pjcst.ons abot"i-t 'he, arr.endnnenio or Oroness, pieasr,' a Wayl Am Wull SenAr Iffategy and Pr9n"o +�-,,rce AQW, Nq CouNY Ufike, at 205 26TY9649, or ChvisJn,„ jtri >(;m, King ALKY COUPICH FA&f.", al: 20S 4/7 6702. AM You frw yr,'L�v E3rc,,rnp.6. aidcerlon '!.o lh �-:; niatteiv. 1 arg Phlos, CAP Dow Constandne Metropolhvn Ang Courty Coundl king County Decuove Enclosures cc: King Counqi City Plamn�n- Dimc,"ors Sound Was Assodajon John starb-lrz% Dilrsckx, De�)a,mnen� oi Perroit',ing and E'nvironrnc-ital Roview fkDPFP,') Karen V'Voll-7, Z4 VI w &rategy an Peftrrnur.ce AmAysi ChdsJne Janwi, Councl 7ransponatbn, ---nviroinv%nem and Ecconcrny CommAtte,s (TIR-LO ATTACHMENT B 9 -u C ,1� y j ° 12I0 Kin.,,County Courthouse MNI . a+ S 161 bird Avenue Seattle NA 99104 I < aA :'n A2ugurt 18, 2'ai14 Otod,N 4san-le 17 861 Proposed No. 2014-0275.1 Sponsors Derribcwsld and I am_berr 1 AN 01U)INANC:E adopting Growth Nnanagement Planning 2 Council Motions 14-1, 14-2 and 14-3 and ratifying Motions 3 14-1, 14-2 and i 4-3, fbr unincorporated King County. 4 BE IT ORDAINED BY T1IE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 5 SECTION 1. Fmd!.ings� 6 A. Growth Management Planning Council Motion 14-1 recommends that the 7 Potential Annexation Areas map in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies 8 be amended to transfer the area known as Kahane PAA from Issaquah to Sammamish. 9 B. Growth Management Planning Council Motion 14-2 recommends that King 10 County Countrywide Planning Policy DP-17 be amended so that proposals to expand the 11 Urban Growth Area under the FOnr-t0-0ne Program are not required to be based on a 12 need for increased capacity. 13 C. Growth Management Plaiming Council Motion 14-3 recommends that the 14 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies be amended to add the urban portion of 15 the area known as the Rainier Ridge Four-to-One to the Urban Growth Area and that the 16 Potential Annexation Areas Map be amended to add the same area to the Maple Valley 17 PAA. 10 Orimance 17861 -16 On r4 a y 21, 2014 the ('Yrow t1l,a4ana g---f-lent 't 1 ai irt i 11 g Co uf)ci I un animousily 19 adopted Motions !4-1, 14-2, and 14-3 arnending, the 2012 King County C'ountyvvide am 'ri g 20 1 1 m Policies. 21 SECTION 2. The amendments to the 2012 King County Countywide Planning 22 Policies, as shown in Attachtnents A, B and C to this ordinance, Fit--hereby adopted and 23 rati tic u, On behalf ot"the population of unincorporated King County. 24 Ordinance 17861 was introduced on 7/14/2014 and passed by the Metropolitan-King County Council on 80/18120114, by the following vote: Yes: 8 - Mr. von Reichlbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, i\/fs. Lambert, Mr. Dunn, W McDcri-nott, Mr. Dembowsl6 and Mr. Upffiegrove No: 0 Excused: I Mr. Phillips KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LAy Phillip, Chair ATTEST: Antie Noris, Clerk of the Council n: Z:11 Ili APPROVED this:?Akday of g a 4 11� Dow Const title Couniv Executive Attachments: A. GWC Motion 14-1, K GN4PC Motion 14-2, C. G1\/FPC Motion 14-3 2 ATTACHMENT C AttAxhmm ptit A 5/2 /i4 Sponsored Ey: Executive Committee 1 IVIPC IW(DTIIGN F13. 14-1 2 3 4 A MOTIM-4 to amend to the Potential Annexation Areas map in 5 the 2OT2 King County Countywide Planning Policies to transfer 6 the Klahanie PAA from Issaquah to Sammamish. 7 d W> E EAS,BP-23 calls for urban areas that are within a city's Potential 9 Annexation Area(PAA)to be annexed to cities; and 10 11 WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, the cities of Sammamish and Issagran signed an 12 Intex_local Agreement on the future status of the Klahanie PAA, and 13 14 WHEREAS, on April 25, 2014,the cities of Sammamish and issequah submitted=. 15 the signed lnterlocal Agreemient with a request for the GMPC to adopt a motion 16 transferring the PAA, from Issaquah to Sammamish. 17 ]8 NO'kkr'i 11FR-tT'O1U3 BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning 19 Council of Ding County hereby recommends that the Potential Annexation Areas snap n 20 the 2.012 King County Courtyvaide Planning Policies be amended to'za;nsfer the area 21 knowa as 'lie Klahanie PAA frown Issaquah to Sammamish. 22 23 24 .K 25 26 Bow Co st tine, Chair, Growth Manage nent Planning Council 27 28 Attachment A: Amendment to PAA Map "'i rin rf s _P_i L ,41hrul 11, Kill, 0111 .-1,, In lr1I1r1tMlnr1 rl wa narn. ff— Or plirA, Ir I' —pliArn— 'nfin,ma- 76' din, ainpr I in rlij"! In, rise 'r" 'rdnl- id lnQW.nl,1. n Urban Growth Boundany Redesignat�d PA-11 .1n1c rI try, Idnri,rrIll.An,1,V Ilr, ,-,,I r Irrim.1kin I ill, rrh Id Ili aeIII. pr—Ir,If Kra C—t, co.. o PrO.Dosed Urban I f 1co FPC)i at 3 C A:-Ca S ')Ve. lay 6,2014 Growth eoundany ni�_�a.t,,,par 0 5511 1,3M MICOMBSP Fenn /N fj L SE - LTV ...... S'c T' L 4 2.- Ini �j enna ation Area .4: _z' T�1111:.�A' Y. 12�v- LA x A .......... a a ds. PAA Gap j IV " —Issaquah 0 Z k J ATTACHMENT D 13 A t sitl nehit 15 5/21/14 vo nsoed Fv: Executive Committee GNTC M07110N f.'`Uo 14-2 2 3 4 A Ivza"2TION to amend King County Countywide Planning policy 5 - ---DP-17'to-clarify criteria-for expansion of tire kr Jrban Gro-wth A..rea. 6 7 g WHEREAS, the 2012 Uountywide Funning Policies clarified the procedures for 9 amending the Urban Grovath Area yLJGA.); and 10 11 "JtlldvMEAS, in accordance with Policy DP-16, the UGA can be amended only if 12 one of the thrce criteria is mete (1) land is needed to expand capac;ty:u order to 13 accommodate projected growth; or (2) land is part of the Four-to-fine Program with at 14 least four times the;acreage o r:me land added to the UGA is dedicated as permanent open 15 space; or(3) the area is a-King County park being transferred to a city or the park land is 16 less than 30 acres in size and has been owned by the city since 1994; and 7 is WtfE;REAS, The ability to add land enrolled in the Four-to-One Program or land 19 serving as a park was meant to serve as exceptions to the capacity requirement; and 20 21 WHERE AS, as currently written, DP 17a sets up a situation by which even the 22 proposals under the Four-to-One Program would have to meet the capacity requlrcment. 23 24 NOW i IIEREFORE EF IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning 25 Council of King County hereby recommends that King County Countywide Planning 26 Policy DP-17 be amended as follows so that proposals to expand the UCLA under the Four- 2 7 to-One Program are not required to be based on a need for increased capacity: 28 29 D -117 if expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria 30 in DP-1 6(a) or DP-1.6(b), add land to the Urban Gro--Mh Area only if it meets all of 31 the following criteria: 32 a) Is adjacent to the cxisting Urban Growth Area((and;)), 33 b) For expansions based on DP-16(al only. is no larger than necessary to 34 promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth 35 needs-, 36 c) Cann be efficiently provided with urban services and does not require 37 supportive facilities located in the Rural Area; 38 d) Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as 39 rivers and ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, 40 such as watersheds, that impede the provision of urban services; I 14 C 4p �. e) fs not n..tr~entt dcEig a e as F5 s ar : Land; C 42 rs std Uciently free of eta tl o mental consttoi Its t3 be able t supper 4,3 'S ai" an development 7,6f1houi sigillL ant ad e'.st env if ilrlei2tZei impacts, I i 4!4 unless 9bP arce is de,,igma cl as an Urban Scpa2atcr hil interlecad 45 agreement be v cen K ng Courty and the an e ing city and 46 !! g) 1s subject to an agreement deox -tn King County and the city or teen 4-1 !i adf acei}t to fl3e a.ea ill at t h ?n-ca ill be ad ec: iG Ohe t tiff s Potent-.S, Annexation Area. Upork ratifical,'on of the ar`end-me tt t_be Countywide 49 i'� Planning Policies wHI reflect both the Urban Grouch Area change and 5- j'�I', Potential Anne catien Area change. g 52 P 54 55 Dow Constantine, Ch&, Growth N/1'anage-nent Phund ig Council 56 57 PI i N �i u tld 15 ATTACHMENT E 5/21/14 A-Itachxneni C Sponsot'ed By` Executive Committee 1 f it lli'?' NIND'it-9,01`4 NO 14-3 2 3 4 to iv O'l'lO2-t to amend tl ie Urban t rovAll Area reap in tl?,c 2012 5 '_roing County Countywide Planning Policies to add the urban 6 portion of the area known as the Rainier Ridge Four-to Olie to the, 7 Urban.Growth Area and to amend the Potential Annexation Areas 8 map to add the same area to the Maple Valley PAA. 9 10 11 WHEREAS, The King County pour-to-One Program allows limited expansions of 12 the Urban Growth Area(UGA,t For each acre of land added to the UGA. foFar acres of 13 rural land roust be dedicated as permanent, dedicated open space; and 14 15 `- EREAS, the Rainier Ridge Four-to-One would add fourteen acres to the UGA 16 adjacent to the City of Maple Valley in exchange for 56 acres dedicated as permanent open 17 spacc; and 18 19 WHEREAS,AS, This Rainier Ridge Hour-to-Onc proposal was approved by the King 20 County Council's Transportation, ]Economy, and Environment Committee on April 1.2014 21 and will be considered by the King County Council for final action on May 19, 2014. 22 23 NOW 1`1 EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Growth Management Planning 24 Council of King County hereby recommends that the Urban Growth Area reap in the 2612 25 King County Countywide Planning Policies be amended to add the urban portion of the 26 area]mown as the Rainier Ridge Four-to-One to the Urban Growth Area and to amend the 27 Potential Annexation Areas reap to add the same area to the Maple Valley PAA. 28 29 R 3© �;,;;// 31 �_. Sfi --- �a 32 Dow Constantine,Chair, Growth Management Planning Council 33 34 35 36 Attachments: (1) Map depicting the UGA expansion for urban portion of the Rainier 37 Ridge Four-to-One; (2)map depicting the addition of the UGA expansion area to the Maple 38 Valley PAA; (3) map depicting the dedicated open space; and (4)vicinity map of the 39 Rainier Ridge Four-to-One proposal 40 16 ![ d1 >s"� w p�,�7i7>1C I7 I rea mf—A.n "do°o° on Ina may no, noon o+mpnau oy ingot r ;. K,aC-,f°r-k- an°asutfeotfo change cyiNou. n - IGng GsonM ^mlus r, �wrtars(a"lonx °oew ant s. wprzss o. ImVlietl, vs to a moy, campledne¢x, agv,o 1 ato a t y p °uvt. H 9 C ry M1 II ! t M. Yrj" .,d ° ''° °°"-' " P'"" °` .-'`,, Recommended PAA a t tl " r -v t P omn m d + .fin uxe I,tfL1e"A❑ OrO�M1IEh E�iO00d2C�! f lt. F i -tl on p P y sa 0le N p of.'".. tr.- p Is"ohitt tl ept ey wnRZP [•m" p Incorporated RrC--as to M y 7 N l9 - J•- tlglsnesriPrgectsWdesl20 4 CorapPl M{.roieclslRainierFtidga_gmpc_loczmr.mxd �` Exis lnq Potential Annexation.v.7e2 VIgisnssriPre,ecisWdesl2014_CompPIar lApmjedslRainia Ridge_gmpc_lccetocpdf MCCOMBSP ¢ Covington Ke�s4 1 ! Maple VaHey \ 1 t Kent s i I i A i re Black Diamond Black Uamond tr, _ e i j a�3 : pityji,pRe r�,u G:aW0 sIC7 cL 1 1 17 It r_J oJ The Iofonroflon inautlatl to Ina map bar. bell, oompile4 r, Kr,I to SaM1 from5.oral,of sou,oss.antl it off,o.io fro,h so vnf t o Y C ry t ..fol N1,, —ro 'I f es ._.._,r Incorporated Areas h Incsc ry,o to me of m nc,rm1von. rd Rural Cities Urban Gravdh Aroa Jnee� r^ Thls eoau»onf to on4aa bra survey prodad. K C fy b 0 I b I'bl r r� y 8 "f, epeoal, l a l l .n u l 1 m, a n,y,bm not ra Rural Area f a 1s, lost lfvoQ,, or last p nw —ult off ffooi mn n Urban Growth Boundary N f 4 nfo t tl o h p.wto cafe of m a ro +ice n n' erne ola rl up dnon pA Py'4, 'Urban Res., Medium G-1 Gd U/acre r rf( see b,. ( eo , Proposed Urban Date M. e 2014 ' Growth Boundary tAglsnasiVPrgedsNdtl U014_Comppi ipr j ctaURainferRldge gmpc_luow.mxd AglsnasllPrgecfsldtl U014_CompPianiprojwctsURainierRldge gmpc_Iubw.pdF u M of00 MCCol i 7 �I Valley �. rs urn Black Diamond ' X'� 88 I rx Tv � n I f I i f I i �� t y� 9 I q h[p r �k top ` I l ra —I I j / f: 18 x :R.� a I '�.�' Ir p, i� t,ME orn prehomsive9I Land U i!e in I/ a f..0 il o nap Yeas 6aan .11p nU by " n do r King Cowry tzHfmm a vailety of souwns on43 mujeoM trvange Wanom � ;one Courry makes n tope_ssnYation> o t prxss pl d. s om y pl teness, a � ngrr � s s � ,cnn. Re A Urban AAA Growth 6ound2nJ Th d t Is [ M tl d (oru V prodnvt. ICing County shall not be Ilable i coy general, ryeofal, ;. y m + p c m E r ua Recommended Open Space R Incorporated Areas y fi' If a t- a A, l f pe' 1 t P r tis mflP�PrhY tl- p -w tu � _or2n 9 Existing Sting Coun.y Parks J Fxis2ing AAA t o e mey zz.zoo , A gisnasl WrojesWdest 014 CompPlarlpsoJe slRatnierRi0ge_oa_locttor nxa rVg I5n891Wrojedc�sWtlest20i4�CompPlanlprojecLslRainierRi0ge_oa_loca¢or_pdf MCCOMBSP Keni � n i y-1 j Mapa e a vapey Kent � � e Remaa arty t?url \rea ` e - t h Ki v a ti s 17� l \ i e \ I s• Nark Damond t.` tf It` 4 t 19 -O ,O-w, Rg(,,,jd Ui CN-D 1-1,brnova s-A(cm, j(d of Man The plan—Am mass. .1 this my, hop, llmn not,lb,il I ,naadoomy 1pholi lion,a, In' C-oh, my,"', no 'o,"-pit tat oris o,I prni, 1,11-a, m,Ihn a in Im Vhs "'Is to the a'. an an d. plamothin, Th. dy,mml-' is ma not to, us.an a ....h, odimi. Kh, C-1, shin It Is noble to, , ,,IM, fpI....I f—da nt" of sp,"nosm,harsh'-ind's,im,soft not notWood b, Is, ,anpa, s, If "Q515 —1hra, hon the m. Recommended PAA Urban Grootfith Boundary.,mpsas I#,a `prpQn—i-od a,,this map.Any sale of ^ N I.,mal or mysto"to a on this map s,prolootbad esiaept by bripay 1�"hat of hat,sation, rlo Dab May 6,2014 1 P posed Urban �g,yy,ah,l\P,p,baaVJdm,',2014 f3rowth Boundary AllY bg,yr,aslT,,jechrdd,ai';2014 CompP[anAprojeds\Ra,nieRidge_grppLpaabw,pof 1 75 Y50 MCCOMBSP -=1 Fibyt A Wa, L -up i4l I • an a, is, sy, r. a, -ii lit y, o so % a- s. 'a- .A a, Is s o,a', 'Att, -y 1 sv. A oll p? n a As A b—, nnexabon re 1, A, A a o. a.;.411 A .-o a. %.evtr o'.0 % h q a. so A. 44. s., o.. o. no y, S- "a A-.1 :A to ai a �o s. E- tIosi I o p.- s so "A op 20 ���� ���� � �� n n ���°n nn'n �~n� n n 71 S��rilq Om00�� E`cnncarny arid ���Y^���00��� �~���Tr''ttpe STAFF REFIOFlT Proposed No:: 21014-0275 Dud to- 1rivited: Karen Wolf, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Performance, Strategy and SUBJECT A proposed ordinance adopting Growth Management Planning Council recommended revisions to the King County Countvwide Planning Policies, including changes to the Potential Annexation Area map and approval 0fo Four-to-One proposal. SUMMARY On May 21' 2014` the Growth Management Planning Council /GMPC\ unanimously approved the following motions: n GMPC 88ofion 1,4-1 (Attachm0cQt A): /\pVK}veS the transfer of the K|8h8nie Poh3Oti0| /\nnemeti0n/\n93fn}n1 [heCik/ of |sS8qU8htotheCityOfSannrnanliSh ° GMPC Motion 14-2 (Attachment 8): Approves a technical correction to CPP [)P-17tn allow expansions of the Urban Gr0vvthArea for F0u/-to-[}noprojects. » (SfNPC Motion 14~3 (AttmchnnemtC): Approves the Rainier Ridge Four-to-One proposal, which would add fourteen acres to the Urban Growth Area in exchange for the dedication 0f fifty-six acres aS permanent open space, and adds the new urban portion to the Potential Annexation Area for the City of Maple Valley. Consistent with Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) adoption requirements, Proposed Ordinance 2014'0275 fun0a[dS these onoorn/nendatiODS to the County Council for consideration for approval. The proposed ordinance would also ratify the change On behalf of the population of unincorporated King County, and begin the ratification process hy the cities. 1nf5 KING COUNTY COUND| AUGUST 18. 2Oi4 88 22 Lii I � -Jtt.lw the GIVIPC is a formal body comprised of elected officials from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, other cities and 'towns in King County, and special purpose districts. The GIAPC was created in 1992 by interloeal agreement in response to a provision in the Vrlashingion State Growth Management Act (GMA)'' requiring cities and counties to work together to adopt Countywide Planning Policies CPPs. Under the GIVIA, the CPPs seine as the framework for each individual jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, and ensure countywide consistency with respect to land use planning efforts. As provided for in the interloeal agreement, the GMPC developed and recommended the CPPs, -which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by the cities. Subsequent amendments to the CPPs follow the same process, which is outlined in CPP G-1: recommendation by the GIMPC, adoption by the King County Council, and ratification by the cities. Arnendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by ordinance or resolution by at least 30% of the city and county governments representing at least 70% of the population of King County. A city shall be deemed to have ratified an amendment to the CPPs unless, within 90 days of adoption by King County, the city disapproves it by legislative action. AI, At YSIS MROC Motion 34.1 �Xlaharire Potential Annexation Area) This motion amends the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) map located in the CPPs to reflect an agreement between the cities of Issaquah and Sammamish for a boundary modification of the Klahanie PAA. This modification -would transfer the Klahanie PAA, from the City of Issaquah to the City of Sammamish. Klahanie is an area of unincorporated area of urban King County adjacent to both the cities of Issaquah and Sammamish. The land area is approximately 1 ,240 acres with an estimated population of 10,840 people. It is currently designed as a PAA for the City of Issaquah. A vote to annex the PAA to Issaquah failed earlier this year. Following a discussion at the February 26, 2014 meeting of the GIMPC, an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between the cities of Issaquah and Sammamish was signed by both cities on April 22Id, 2014 to transfer the PAA to the City of Sammamish so that Sammamish can pursue annexation of the area.2 Consistent with the ILA, in order for the City of Sammamish to propose annexation of the Klahanie PAA, it must first be transferred from the City of Issaquah to the City of Sammamish. This action requires an amendment to the PAA map, which is included in the CPPs. The City of Sammamish has expressed its intention to initiate the annexation RCw 36.70A 210. " ...shall adopt a countywide planning policy in cooperation with the cities-_' See Attachment 2 to the staff report for: 1) a letter to the County from the cities of Issaquah and Sam mamish regarding the PAA transfer; and 2) a copy of the referenced ILA Page 2 of 6 KING COUNTY COUNCIL AUGUST 18, 2014 89 23 proceedings as soon as possible, but needs this amendment to the PAt-A map as a first step. While this legislation does not ensure 'hat annexation of Klahanie actually occurs; it does keep the possibility of annexation moving forward. if the City of Sarnmarnish is successful in annexing Klahanie, King County would no longer be the provider for local government services for this neighborhood. This shift would be consistent with regional and state policy guidance calling for cities to be the providers of urban local services. Additionally,, this would allow the county to more appropriately focus its role on being the provider of regional services and local services to the Rural ,Area,3 vlloving forward with the annexation of these types of remaining pockets of unincorporated urban areas is supported and encouraged by all levels of planning (the GMA, VISION 2040, the CPPs, and the County's Comprehensive Plan). In that vein, King County's approval of this proposed PAA map change is consistent with the growth and annexation policies that the region and the county have adopted, and would be a reasonable decision. GI'ifpPC Motion 14-2 (Fourr=lic-One policy) In 2012, the CPPs underwent a significant update to ensure consistency with the GMA and Vision 2040, as well as to reflect current terminology and relevant references. One of the changes from this update clarified the procedures for amending the Urban Growth Area (UGA) in polices DP-16 and DP-17i DP-16 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following criteria is met. a) A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment growth targets, including institutional and other non- residential uses, and there are no other reasonable measures; such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban land, that' would avoid the need to expand the Urban Growth Area; or b) A proposed expansion of the or Growth Area is accompanied by dedication of permanent open space to the King County Open Space System, where the acreage of the proposed open space: 1) is at least four tinges the acreage of the land added to the Urban Growth Area, 2) is contiguous with the Urban Growth Area with at least a portion of the dedicated open space surrounding the proposed Urban Growth Area expansion; and King County Comprehensive Plan Policy U-201 "In order to meet the Growth Management Act and the regionally adopted Countywide Planning Policies goal of becoming a regional service provider for all county residents and a local service provider in the Rural Area, King County shall encourage annexation of the remaining urban unincorporated area. ..." Page 3 of 6 KING COUNTY COUNCIL A!!GUQT 18, 2ci A 90 24 3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that contribute to the bend of permanent open space aicng the edge of the Urban Growth Area; or c) The area is currently a King County park being transferred to a city to be maintained as a park in perpetuity or is park land that has been owned by a city since !394 and is less than thiit�v acres in srre. oP-'i I if expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria in DP-16(a) or DP-96(b), add land to the Urban Growth Area only if it meets all of the following criteria; a) Is adjacent fo the existing Urban Growth Area and is no larger than necessary to promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs; b) Can be efficiently provided with urban services and does not require supportive facilities located in the Rural Area; c) Follows topographical features that form .natural boundaries, such as rivers and ridge lines and does ,not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that impede the provision of urban services; d) is not currently designated as Resource Land; e) Is sufficiently tree of environmental constraints to be able to support urban development without significant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is designated as an Urban Separator by intedocal agreement bett.veen King County and the annexing city; and fj is subject to an agreement between King County and the city or toia,n adjacent to the area that the area will be added to the city's Potential Annexation Area. Upon ratification of the amendment, the Countywide Planning Policies will reflect both the Urban Growth Area change and Potential Annexation Area change. The purpose of DP-16 \Alas to provide the ability for land to be added to the UGA through any one of the tree methods listed: if needed for housing and job capacity, as part of a Four-to-One proposal, or for certain types of parks. Specifically, DP-16(b) allows for Four-to-One proposals to be separate and exempt from the capacity requirement outlined in DP-16(a). However, language in DP-1 7(a) would still require all Proposals to meet the capacity requirement — including Four-to-One proposals that are exempt from capacity requirements as allowed for in DP-16(1b). As a result, in 2013, The King County Hearing Examiner denied a Four-to-One proposal due to the capacity requirement in DP-17(a). In light of this contradiction between the two policies. and because the intent of DP-16 was to provide more flexibility, the GMPC adopted Motion 14-2, which recommends a technical amendment to DP-17 to clarify that Four-to-One proposals are exempt from the capacity requirement: Page 4 of 6 KING COUNTY COUNCIL AUGUST 18, 2014 91 25 DP-1T It expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria in DP-16(a) or DP-16(b), add land to the Urban Growth Area only if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Is adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area((ond)),_ J For expansions based on DP-16(a) only is no larger than necessary to promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs, ((b))f) Can be efficiently provided with urban services and does not reaufre supportive facilities located in the Rural Area: ((s))a') Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as rivers and ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that impede the provision of urban services; ((d))e is not currently designated as Resource Land; ((a))t_) Is sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban development without significant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is designated as an Urban Separator by interiocal agreement between King County and the annexing city; and ((�)g) Is subject to at? agreement between King County and the city or town adjacent to the area that the area will be added to the city's Potential Annexation Area. Upon ratification of the amendment, the Countywide Planning Policies will reflect both the Urban Growth Area change and Potential Annexation Area change. This proposed minor policy change would be consistent with the original intention in the crafting of DP-16, which was to provide flexibility for Four-to-One proposals. The benefit the County receives for this flexibility is a higher return of open space preservation in exchange for only minor UGA expansion. This permanent conservation of new Four-to-One open space land also results in limiting the further expansion of the urban growth boundary line in the future. This proposed change to DP-17 would help continue to provide the ability and incentive for use of the Four-to-One program. GMPC motion 14-3 (Painter Ridge Four-to-One) The King County Four-to-One program allows for limited expansions of the UGA, provided that for each acre of urban land added at least four acres of rural land must also be dedicated as permanent open space4. The Rainier Ridge Four-to-One proposal would add fourteen acres to the UGA adjacent to the City of Maple Valley, while preserving an additional fifty-six acres of permanent open space adjacent to the Black Diamond Natural Area. This GMPC motion amends the UGA to include these fourteen acres of new urban land, and would also add that same land into the Maple Valley PAA. The City of Maple Valley has stated its intent in writing to annex the newly created urban area if the proposal is approved. CPP DP-16(b) Page 5 of 6 KING COUNTY CCOUNCIL A!iG!;ST 18, 201A, g2 26 Tile Couirty Council already approved zoning, land use, and PAA map amendments for this Lour-to-One proposal in June, 2014 as parr of the this years tang County Comprehensive Plan Update. This GMPC motion approves the necessary companion amendments to the UGA and PAA maps that are included in the CPPs. Approval of these proposed map amendments would be consistent with the Council's previous affirmative action on the Rainier Ridge proposal .'€"TTACHHMENTS 1. Proposed Ordinance 20 14-02-1.. with attachments a. Attachment A, GKVC Motion 14-1 b. Attachment B, GMPC Motion 14-2 c. Attachment C, GMPC Motion 14-3 2. Letter from the cities of Issaquah and Sammamish and copy of ILA 3. Transmittal letter dated June 20, 2014 Countywide Planning Policies: http:liwww.kingcountKLgovlpEo ep rtyi�ermitslcodeslgrowthlGMPC1CPPs King County Comprehensive Plan: http:llwnnN.kint7cou!nh .gov/proper DermitslcodeslgrowthlCompPlanl2012Adopted.asox #complete Page 6 of 6 KING COUNTY COUNCIL AUGUST 18, 2014 93 27 ATTACHMENT G RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, ratifying the King County Countywide Planning Policies adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council and pursuant to the Growth Management Act. RECITALS A. The adoption of countywide planning policies is required under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) provide a framework for Kent and other cities in King County to conduct planning under the requirements of GMA. This framework ensures that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent. B. On August 18, 2014, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and ratified an amendment to the CPPs approved by Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) Motion Nos. 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3 as follows: 1. GMPC Motion No. 14-1: Approves an amendment of the Potential Annexation Areas map in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies to transfer the area known as Klahanie PAA from Issaquah to Sammamish. 28 2. GMPC Motion No. 14-2: Approves an amendment of the King County Countywide Planning Policy DP-17 so that proposals to expand the Urban Growth Area under the Four-to-One Program are not required to be based on a need for increased capacity. 3. GMPC Motion No. 14-3: Approves an amendment of the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies to add the urban portion of the area known as the Rainier Ridge Four-to-One to the Urban Growth Area and amend the Potential Annexation Areas Map to add the same area to the Maple Valley PAA. Now the amendment is presented to jurisdictions in King County for Ratification. C. The King County Council approved and ratified these amendments on behalf of King County pursuant to King County Ordinance No. 17861. The Kent Economic & Community Development Committee reviewed these amendments at its meeting on October 13, 2014. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION SECTION 1, — Amendment. The City of Kent, acting pursuant to the interlocal agreement among King County, the City of Seattle, and incorporated suburban cities, hereby ratifies the proposed amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council in King County Ordinance No. 17861, attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A. 29 SECTION 2, - Public Inspection. The amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies adopted herein shall be filed with the City Clerk and placed in the planning services office so they are available for inspection by the public. SECTION 3, — Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 4, — Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 5, — Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of 12014. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 12014. SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR ATTEST: RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK 30 APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY P AovilAaesoW5onACoonprvdd,p I,I I I I ppolieesa5i A,g,42014=Ap dDoc: 31 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 October 8, 2014 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Sound Transit Update Meeting of October 13, 2014 MOTION: None Required — Information Only SUMMARY: Staff continues to update the Committee on Sound Transit's Federal Way Link Extension (FWLE), including a station in the Kent-Des Moines area. The following activities occurred during the month of September: Interagency Working Group Sound Transit (ST) held a regular meeting of jurisdictions and agencies involved in the South Corridor. Discussions included public outreach information scheduled to be sent to potentially affected property owners early in October. If property owners contact the City, they should be referred to Tralayne Myers, ST Community Outreach Specialist-206-398-5014 or tralayne.mvers@soundtransit.org. Sound Transit also presented their methodology for determining availability of land for transit-oriented development, to be used in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Sound Transit will be present at the October 131h meeting to discuss the methodology. DEIS Workshop Staff attended a Sound Transit workshop on how to navigate the Draft Environmental Impact Statement once it is released. Staff was provided an administrative review draft of the DEIS to determine data errors or incompleteness before the draft is released to the public. Public release is anticipated in fourth quarter 2014 or January 2015. CA/pm P:�Planning�South_Corndor�City_Council�10132014_ECDCMemo_Update.doc Att: PowerPoint cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney 32 File R { y } ^\ \ SHIP \ )\ �LU \ / \ law \ � \ . � 62 m, � � y _ » i \ \ 0 PW NIN 006 ss _ , i W --- _ In �y pYldl I o N u .N PAS J e w �cron , rswwti Po�WW (/ f1I5 NVps,tlu. R ��� r _ 1 a r u ' um�aea54a09L4 •�� i c � 6 � f � LL � � s uoRerswai¢s � v � o � uai ' 1.sAV /'% Sol 01 R . : % ............ cz / \ \ a \ } \ , \ E i \ \ ± R ; « � . y� . . . . . . \\� ........... p . . . \ RAM 0 00 ------------- co � c c Q - m °I r � n 4Mk � r�('�✓ QJ"P , , ✓ � � � I r. e .� a v c � a, r yj . � / 4 Y G' ' T Y: L � 5 ul; e e Vil „ ✓ pimp I •, -------------- IT if � r'a 6/tl l n r_ 9 . « . . \ \ \ } \ \ RAM \ " � �) ■ ■ ■ � } .� . . . : . \\ ® ) f § \ 0 v p Tf�YAPRrmrr�rtrmmrcrglrtl�frtf�-' rn E tt .6' � m rn � r w 4 � Ad G1* 0 a i yM1n � ry ,e ,q .ter+ 0 0 0 AS RAM cc 1 W n w � s ® n a, F X> ) All ----------- Hill ( ■ } � � \\ m\� d :S RAM \ 0 v C W E a We o m 4 O C W AF AS RAM cc G rn E GW ii b,l • I 9y t h IIIII Y 4 6 a G z v M as t d a Sm cv — / au M a G c t! m c K n7� ', U p. U A vi M a r Ron w RAM cc � Q aw 9 iw q � ƒ . y , : . z { . » » mg ^ <»ƒ 2 2 / ll ; v �w LLJ clt ° ✓ uj Me ,µ yN^I �Cl.ufl.e% I% LU vc aoge r rpr i er / m -ca w 1110[0 � � \ . « . of, \ � � � \ \ % \7% \ » f J \ \ < ; \ \ \ _ � £ / 9 - IW / \ > q2 /\. % 'W \7% � y , § \ , t \ / . ~ / v ,,,, j / A / U/up 1/ O a r' 00, i Ile f 1 tt J �tiro% fffff feel /f it Nfr ,a � err Jvu«o„ ram.. w r , �'jjraie t b ir�o, S ■ , f < WU £ 7 « 141 CCIS E « . �f i r r Nf„ o t� umuaao� r3�.1 � j,i Ott U� �����)���I � IN! d � o N N �w � 1 r � d%b yR' UN/2 MI � Nrys 4b I � xtimmw //f �ry . uwu 1� Wiii � 0. F p Yi �m l � ��IIIIIll� // �/IIIILLh� /�i� �puwuuue fill �r R0 M L6 io- G m. \°� r a � \§� 62� I � � ` � :0\ , / U S > 2 90 t / ^~ / 3 \~ ' ? \ m w2 \ � � \7% � LA.i 2 c : C E L _ q � M En / ^~ / L LO ww. h w All h I r �iaaaiayl J j »» LU ;j/a uuiwuvx� � C'C arrri� r� � �r �mdl VI C7 LLJ t/1 H w vnJ w H aG LU CS. E �rarcmv, ^ ✓ J 0 � � um i i um�r ryy 14 mug q 4y LO fa kn ro C IIGu°f 1..0 ? na n 'a ,uu✓�j t4 C,. irmmrne ,� ww w 0 y- M IU ��11N1N�01� c� r LL l� /' 'n FI iTM i I 4 l j //�j �IVJ�1%AII; y,l � R l t.E n 'a �d�mnr IoW � k la,ni LLJ pqp �Ik yW/ �J co R OOi LL ( S . \ 'ell � NO a � - � %7 0 - . _ v \ A ± \ e ry- : ^ /v Al . . 1 ! � / z LO 4a r om - ®r AL IM. IkPl Iku ,a d 4 r� r V .. ��.�r�` (.d ... v r ,7 �` iCf Cfl LLJ :01w �� .. .. �✓ - '' �.,' I w R M LIJ d u 0 �wn' err ;:1 krb r 2 � [ : �^ All � � . : © § , Q 11, ` \ »y% \ - ? � \ fj » - } \ \ 0 0 - £ , \ M in \ . o . / \ \ G e < < \ , ! . . . / - � � - 2 LU _ \ LU f2 ? ~ . _ qun ~ i R . . \{ � 4 � �§ � ( . G . _ ! . 3 MP : y 2 d ; jjj \ *61/0111 . . \ 1 - 2 \ LLJ �. LLJ LLJ � D \ £ § CD � R . . \% z < �u ®l ; ro i oi3 r� m xxun fl, c r�r / jar .cC .® W �uww fliiyilJ� I-- �'1 � GC r�rrs. 0CIO «i II11IIIlll111111 G7 �711 �IJJI�U�UD i� '�'N ,f r bail �Jx, 1W1 JJJ// � III���NII � Arl mr ramv l y'^a iJl Lon Yflxutfxi wfY°,., J/ryuai�l �, s'�a R u, : 0 oepx 1' J L16 l� 1 LO WWOU LAJ 1-5 I Lon IS rri � v. I4 j P �w JJJ I.(UL 9 t d"� D rtrJ . J ifff0000i�1) .., I k .�[LJL. LLJ ac eI CIO .D +0 4 l i l a• r/////i r Y//�irii�'%/%� �' yam iagp s /% Lu It e �m r d^ � r f°Yr w 1 � d j C> q, �o ANN), Yew f •� I � l; � Ln D Mu y- � rrrrfrfrfrrrffffffff f<< LL r ! r j A% i ^w ULJ LAU f �j fY i w �I fid/Pre rc = ge lM lot I. LW � J �uuu°i�l) �jRr g,""jo w (lam L , Z W Ott f�t�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr� ,yv�,�n '>rng VonrJ l4[ ..a L U u 2 a \ : ~ \ 4Moo \ § � • - 7 y , �� � . �w\ i MA \ � \ RAM \ 0 1 III rf I ) 1 l �Mq u 1 I k+ {I j �{ 14 7 Irr� I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1{I{ + + +� %� 911111111111111111111111111 { [�+11 N��III 111+ '1 I{Uq O 71 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 October 8, 2014 TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Urban Land Institute Technical Panel — Light Rail Extension Meeting of October 13, 2014 MOTION: None Required — For Information Only. SUMMARY: City staff contracted with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to determine the pros and cons for transit-oriented development (TOD) surrounding light rail station alternatives in the Midway Subarea. After receiving a detailed briefing packet of the Midway area, including the Midway Subarea Plan and development regulations, Sound Transit alternative station locations, a tour of the area, and a staff presentation, the ULI technical panel presented their verbal recommendations to staff and elected officials on September 181h. The recommendations included analysis of the alternative station locations, an alternative guideway path, market perspectives, and minor code amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: $20,000 from existing 2013-14 budget BACKGROUND: ULI is a nonprofit research and education organization. The City contracted with a ULI Technical Assistance Panel to assess light rail station alternatives as catalysts for TOD. The ULI panelists are volunteer real estate, planning, and development experts who provide unbiased, pragmatic advice for addressing complex land use and development issues. Staff and some elected officials were present on September 181h when the ULI technical panel presented their preliminary findings, which staff will review with the Committee on October 131h. ULI ultimately will deliver a final report to the City. For Kent, the analysis will assist in determining which light rail station location will best promote the TOD envisioned in the Midway Subarea Plan. CA/pm P:\Planning\South_Corridor\City_Council\10132014_ECDCMemo_ULI.doc Att: Powerpoint cc: Ben Wolters,Economic&Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager David GalaAn,Assistant City Attorney Hie 72 o, 11 i N Q.......... �1 Sri N OO J ff l a--� N s O N l N } I i W � l do i ffff�I711 ooui� Wuuuumuu fmmu I N ; 14ijlliy I Ili�,i I 4^N� fl r � i I � , l ! d ° a w / i� % � k r U i o Q M o �o U o _ Q) cB y cB cB CL � W a�i o r3 a�i � a> a) O J O cVi� UM :L-, F- 2 Cc CC) y `! r "� G1 dl u L — d t _ — G1 i t 0 _ () G1 I nnLV d N N N ,nnm�� _ cc cc d _d Q o o N t9 w a a I- CI- O SeO Cll 2 � Cu C Cu O ca � � o 0 a� a� 0 o � o - o CII o -- Cu 0 ca ca M O o T 0 — 0 0 muoi � O C- Cu _ O Cll — O > U -— +� Ca Cll U IlN� O cn CAI C'7 1��, I ����� Wuuuumminnnm � 0 R :... { / f \ \ \ / \ / t \ } G f 3 / \ ; [!r; f » / MEMO N \ . . \ter . . . a ` « >mm \mm/ . . . u011els sau 2 sao-juaN LO , f I O O Cl) N L� N O� N N O N N �U U Q � � N p '� N N Q O `n }' E (� +� U N E Q O L- _0 � a N p O O a--� O U a--� i Q O O(B 0 i U E N }, O C N N U Cl) CO O +-� _ - O u � � muo CA U „ - NO N O CN A M a--� Q i O N _ O U - i (B N (B N Q « 0 0 N 00 s. i �f r is 11107 R, vp Co Q O a""' N CO fA i - c� c ) o 2 %„ �� N N +� a--j i O c� 4 yj CA (n gm co C •� L� + O � O a N N — U ,,r 0) (� W Wuuuummi� I O L� (B O . , EZ iji to 4-1 N N loll O O i i Q U i N � N ` C „��� N O to . N — —N }, � .N — N O O > 70 `� A N IIIIIIIIIIII — �? � O . . O1 fn — = J CO 0- O � co a � � U N O N Q CIS p� L� 0 ��������� •- H N N �Y E O N .i O Q Q N :E 0 N ;r 00 N LLLL +-% (B L� O N O - .N U a-- O Cl) a-- N N N N O � N � � N O U N i O CO L+- Q a--� N O N i O 70 CO N N +� a--� O N N U LL • • 8 ME 10 Will 1111011111111110 W Itmm II 00 ff NTIT �r� ^�wimr I y �!� � p �� ,AAA ,��, � �% fIF+ F, .w.. f. '� '4ii i. '�'ii ,�'.✓�ivo 1 - d IIII �� rn ca CT) a) o Cl� N O � N Ca N �' O X N F= _ O O Q N mn N U Ca N +� N N 70 t N 0-Z3 O N (B O L� O Q L� v� N N N — N � U E N -0 °� CQ •� 70 �> CQ N (B i Q N N Umuoi"���,Hn (a O N ^ N O fA Q a--j N a--� O N (B — .� U) U O CQ 0) cr O N � F }, N > O N N fn O O N x N —`C U Q J U N mff l i! Wwuommimmm i ire _ CD 00 f tlf��iiuf � fit',' mn N i 0 E U U mn � .— Q � O Na--� — cn c� Ck 70 Co M N i N O i 0 0E � O N o L� O — Q }�� o ^, — V/ V/ W EZ ♦� 1. v J }I � `v � •— mmimmi i O W iiiiwl N (B L N m mn � N N N U N }, M U i p M N .— wlu Q CT O > N M -o ::D - oo �_ • • • �' IN aco fy w Wuuuumminnnm I W r; 3 p kld'� � QCDL � = i 7�P O 70 (B N O -1--, �i: Lo ( , a--, l � o o � � a) ,y wr O �orxr > a--� O N — Q _0 L� N i a-9 0) O O N E }, EZ /D •1 N/�� of L L� L N 5 Q �Y N N N N a--� N `~ +' m U •N O N 0 U) U mn N Q N (� N >< LU 1wi/m/211 U N 00 % r ivJ�' N ////irl//ir�� j ,/ii,/i>//G :a Cn c 3 CD0 i r ,--: U /ir l r / i ✓✓!c '/ i i a � (O r mm p (�E N U � �mn IIII llllrllllllllllllllllll���J /fwf/ f Wuuuumminnnm I LO 00 0 00 87 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director • PLANNING SERVICES KENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director W^5 H I N GTO N Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 October 8, 2014 To: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee From: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Subject: School District Capital Facilities Plans Meeting of October 13, 2014 MOTION: None Required — For Information Only SUMMARY: Kent City Code authorizes school impact fees on behalf of any school district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan; the plan is adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated capital facilities plans. The City Council will be holding the public hearing on the school district plans at the same time as the public hearing for the budget. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: One of the planning goals under the Growth Management Act is to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate and timely to serve the development without decreasing current service levels below minimum standards. The Act also requires the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to inventory existing capital facilities, forecast future needs and provide for financing of those facilities. RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the Growth Management Act to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. As a result, the City currently assesses school impact fees on behalf of the Kent, Auburn, Federal Way and Highline School Districts. Each of those districts have submitted to the City their updated plans, including proposed changes to impact fees resulting from new student population generated by new single family and multifamily residential development. The Kent School District proposes to maintain their existing school impact fees for single family units of $5,486 and for multifamily units of $3,378. The Federal Way School District proposes to decrease their existing school impact fees for single family units from $5,363 to $5,171 (a decrease of $192 or 3.6%) and decrease their fees for multifamily units from $1,924 to $1,834 (a decrease of $90 or 4.7%). 88 The Auburn School District proposes to decrease their existing school impact fees for single family units from $5,398.93 to $4,137.21 (a decrease of $1,261.72 or 23.4%) and increase their fees for multifamily units from $3,387.84 to $3,518.17 (an increase of $130.33 or 3.8%). The only area in Kent where Auburn School District's impact fees are applied is the Verdana or Bridges Planned Unit Development on the former impoundment reservoir site. The Highline School District proposes to decrease their existing school impact fees for single family units from $7,412 to $6,328 (a decrease of $1,084 or 14.6%) and increase their fees for multifamily units from $3,251 to $3,761 (an increase of $510 or 15.7%). The Highline School District covers the northern section of the Midway Study Area. CA\pmS:f ert itAPlanACOMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2014VCPA 2014-2_Schl Distncts6-VrCapFacPlans\CityCouncilACPA 20142capfaalities_ECDC.doc Att: Capital Facilities Tables 1, 2, 3 cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Parties of Record Project Files CPA-2013-1/KNA#2133039 10/15/13 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 2 89 0 v � o °' oor r- CD CD r oa� v00 � v00 a� 00 NO N �o ,� ,� r- ,- �o � oy' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' N . . . . x v v v v v rl� rl� rl� x x x x x x x x x x x x x � v �oNN v oc — oo N . N '" � � � ror � � ov'oo rim � 0oor- 000o0000v � vi00. o0. N M M M 00 oo �o N M cn + � � 00 � N �, 0oNzzzz NVON vesvesv � � � � N 'o oor OO v N �000 -� N � �o �o � � N � vv M - oo t vv rcm r00 > 00m m �o00 0om vN cn — cam M M --i M M N o0 Vmi M h CD O X Vo O X -1� CO 41 M N �--i '� M x X O CO x M o0 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 � .. .. .. .. �--i h VO CO � 41 41 O CO CO h i.. -- -- --� --� N .� 69 69 69 69 69 N . . --� N w � 00 00 00 00 00 ♦+ N \O \O � O N M 't 41 41 41 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD r3 O O O O O O O O O O C Ql� Ql� Ql� Q O C1 O O C1 N 00 Cl O ct CD �--i o0 N CD h M \ N a M N --i CD41 CO h \O �/l M N --i CD O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 'O rn N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w v3 es v3 es v3 es v3 es v3 es v3 es y x 00 N N . . . . . . . . . . . . . u u Ql ZQl Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 � a � Ma, oM CD CD N C1 O M M O r0000Co0000 � n N nC000 .. � r00 r �o � v � � ,M�' �doo. . o � Ma nI'D o noon N . . . . v, vv, o ,ten na� v, �000nv, � MM �o �oc� v, ZZZZ O M v M M Q' v vi vi vi Q6 vi vi vi vi v viM v3 v3 v3 v3 v3 �n x bs v �oo v es v es v es es es es I'DN � MooMooal � � CD ram, w M o 0 0 00 0 00 o cn 00 N 00 �o M .� Q6Q6Q,� Q, cQ, vririririririririri y w U " o0 00 00 00 00 � CD CD 00 r— o0o00 \o N h N N N a10 — Nr- r �, w �, vvvvvMM ,� a1 CD oN — r- r- � � � � � v v v v v ri ri ri � . . MN . 00D0DCDCD � O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o PLO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a 90 Kent Federal Way Auburn Highline Area Cost Allowance $200.40 $200.40 $200.40 -0- State Funding Assistance % 58.14% 66.10% 62.31% 38.33% District Average Assessed Valuation SFR $245,871 $214,952 $210,210 $224,864 MFR $ 87,880 $ 88,900 $ 78,449 $ 74,566 Debt Service Capital Levy Rate/$1000 $1.68 $1.55 $2.12 $1.86 Bond Interest Rate 4.04% 4.38% 4.38% 4.38% Issues: Kent: Temporary reopening of former Kent Elementary School (now Kent Valley Early Learning Center)to house kindergarten and early child education classes for Kent and Neely-O'Brien Elementary; Voter-approved funding for Elementary School #31 reallocated to capital projects for safety and security; Expansion of Neely- O'Brien Elementary School; Replacement of Covington Elementary School Federal Way: Replace Federal Way high school; increase capacity at Decatur High. Norman Center(Employment Transition Program)financed through state- approved LOCAL program through 2020. Phased in full-day kindergarten and decreased K-3 class size create need for additional classes. Auburn: 1 Elementary School and 1 Middle School construction; Acquisition of future school site. Highline: New elementary school and two new middle schools —dependent upon voter-approved capital bonds S Te=±TlanACOMP_PLAN_AMEND =\2014VCPA-20142 SohlDistricts6-YrCVFacP1evsVC±yCoovcilACPA-20142 cep faci1itieAab1e2 doc 91 Kent Federal Way Auburn Highline Student Generation SFR Elementary .484 0.2818 0.1650 0.236 Middle .129 0.1581 0.0760 0.035 Senior High .249 0.1856 0.0890 0.093 MFR Elementary .324 0.1920 0.2230 0.121 Middle .066 0.0570 0.0910 0.024 Senior High .118 0.0680 0.0920 0.084 Headcount 2013/14 26,563 20,384 14,971 18,897 Capacity w/portables 2013/14 28,411 21,806 17,743 19,061 Class Size K - 23 K - 2 - 20 K-2 - 25 K - 24 1-3 -23 3 - 5 -25 3 -4-27 1 -3 -25 4 - 6 - 27 6 - 12 - 26 5 - 30 4-6 - 27 7 - 8 - 28 6 -12 - 30 7- 8 - 30 9- 12 -30 9- 12 -32 S Te=±TlanACOMP_PLAN_AMEND =\2014VCPA-20142 SohlDistricts6-YrCVFacP1evsVC±yCoovcilACPA-20142 cep facilLeAable3doc 92 93 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 October 8, 2014 TO: Bill Boyce, Chair and Economic & Community Development Committee FROM: Brennan Taylor, Development Engineering Manager RE: LEAN Process Improvements Update — Civil Construction Permits October 13, 2014 ECDC Meeting MOTION: None — For Information Only SUMMARY: In June of 2014, selected ECD, Fire Prevention and Public Works staff participated in a LEAN workshop which examined the Civil Construction Permit review and approval process. The overall all goal of the exercise was to improve the review timeline performance of Civil Construction permit. Additionally, we endeavored to define the role clarity of process participants, to outline improvements which would improve the efficiency of the process and define the necessary resources to implement the revised process. The workshop was attended by all invited participants and everyone was very engaged. We crafted a revised process flowchart and an implementation plan. We rolled out the new permit process the week of September 15th. Staff will give a brief overview of the outcome of the workshop, the action items necessary to implement the new process and provide an update of how the process is functioning in the initial few weeks of rollout. Also attached are a process explanation sheet, pre-submittal checklist and a survey that is given to applicants that attend the pre- submittal meeting. P:\Planning\ECOC\2014\Pkt Documents\10-13-14\ECOC Memo-LEAN Process Improvements Civil Construction Permits.doc Enc: Att A—Civil Construction Permit Process Explanation Sheet Att B— Presubmittal Checklist cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Kimberlee McArthur, Permit Center Manager 94 ATTACHMENT A 95 ,,,,�iiiii ,�,r��///%////%i /%l�, - D@vouplll!@� j;;giw�eriing Mail tor,220 AthAventte South+Kent,WA98032 N T Permit Center(253)856 5302 Fax. (253)856 6412 Kent kgov/permitcenter ECONOMIC S COMMONITL DEVELOPMENT New Civil Construction Permit Process Explanation Sheet Beginning September 15, 2014 the City of Kent will The Pre-Submittal Meeting be introducing a new process for the intake and review of Civil Construction permits.The new At the Pre-Submittal Meeting,your submittal process will include a revised intake process for materials will be compared with your customized submittals and resubmittals to the permit center. Pre-Submittal Checklist. If you have all of the materials,your application will be approved for submittal. If you do not have all of the materials, Submitting a Civil Construction you will need to schedule a new Pre-Submittal Permit to the Permit Center meeting once all of the identified items are obtained. If you would like a fee estimate prior to The initial submittal of the Civil Construction Permit your Pre-Submittal appointment, please contact the will require scheduling a Pre-submittal Meeting by Permit Center at 253-856-5300. calling the Permit Center Manager, Kimberlee McArthur at 253-856-5307 or emailing her at kmcarthur@KentWa.gov The Review and Approval You will need to bring a customized Pre-Submittal Process Checklist completed by Development Engineering The review and approval process is summarized on to the Pre-Submittal Meeting. Acustomized the attached flow chart. First Reviews will be Pre-Submittal Checklist should have been provided completed in 5 weeks and re-reviews will be to you along with the preliminary land use decision completed in 3 weeks. Prior to approval, a final plan (SEPA Decision, Hearing Examiners Decision, and finacial guarantee review process will occur. Short Subdivision Committee Decision, Etc.). If you Upon receipt of all administrative items, the review do not have a customized Pre-Submittal Checklist, process will be completed and the permit center will please contact Development Engineering at notify applicants that their permit is ready to be 253-8565569 to schedule a meeting with a issued. Development Engineer to have a customized Pre-submittal Checklist prepared. WH1-1 pwd2071_8_14 p.1 oft umuuipuuuui���°uuuuuuuq'�'��� �p 96 Final Review 1 week (Applicant t0 submit 7!NO materials toDev Eng) YES NO YES E M -T 1st Review 5 weeks m �• � • w � �... � ,m gym. : m � a : w NO _T YES Re-Submittal Review 3 weeks m NO �� m •.� YES NH1-2 pwd207l_8_l4 p.2of2 ATTACHMENT B 97 PerinI7" Center Completed by Location:400 W. Gawe Date Mail to: 220 4th Avenue S. • Kent, WA 98032 KENT (253) 856-5300 FAX(253) 856-6412 Project Name www.Kent WA.gov/permitcenter ECONOMIC & C,MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Land Use Permit Number Pre-Submittal Checklist In order to accept your application for a civil construction permit, the City of Kent requires the following information. Please call 253-856-5300 for next available meeting time (Tue. & Thur. 9-10 a.m.) -------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY...................... Plans (Provide 4 sets of plans) Supporting Documents (2 copies) ❑ Engineering Plans per Kent Design and ❑ Engineer's Cost Estimate per KDCS Appendix Construction Standards (KDCS) Chapter 1 D prepared by a licensed engineer. Including: Spreadsheet is available on ourwebsite. -Title Sheet Enter total cost (A+B+C+D) on Civil - Conditions of Approval &SEPA Conditions Construction Application. Engineer's Cost - Existing Boundary and Topo Survey Estimate will be used to determine Financial - Horizontal Control Plan (subdivisions) Guarantee/Bond Amount. -TESC Plans ❑ Letter from applicant or agent stating how each - Grading Plans condition of approval is or will be addressed - Storm Drainage Plans including: -Water and Sewer Plans - SEPA Conditions (DNS or MDNS) ❑ Street Lighting Plans per KDCS 6.14 - Short Subdivision Conditions or Hearing ❑ Final Mitigation Plans per KCC11.06 and DAB Examiner's Conditions #10-2 Electronic Documents ❑ Tree Preservation Plans per KCC 15.08.240 ❑ 1 Disk with AutoCad files of Engineering Plans. ❑ Street Tree Plans Per KDCS 6.13 AutoCad files will be reviewed to verify drawings ❑ Landscaping Plans are on City of Kent Horizontal and Vertical Control and can be inserted readily into the City's ❑ Recreation Space Plan per KCC 12.04.060 GIS system (as required by KDCS) ❑ Other Plans as required (ex. Signal Plans) ❑ Other Documents as required Technical Reports (2 copies) ❑ Technical Information Report (TIR) per Kent Surface Water Design Manual (KSWDM) 2.3 ❑ Geotechnical Report ❑ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per NPDES requirements if over 1 acre of disturbed area. ❑ Other Reports as required Application approved for Submittal: Application not approved for Submittal: Development Review Engineer Development Review Engineer Date Date *Needed information is circled BHf-1 pwd2072_9_14 p.1 of 1