The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-28-19 Council WorkshopSPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barb Tolbert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Barb Tolbert – Kristin APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATIONS WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN 1. Review of 2019 Comprehensive Plan docket items 1. Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan ATTACHMENT A-1 2. Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan ATTACHMENT A-2 3. Riar Rezone Request ATTACHMENT A-3 4. Tic-Toc Rezone Request ATTACHMENT A-4 Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mike Hopson 2. Right of Way Dedication for Highland Drive ATTACHMENT B Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Debora Nelson 3. Right of Way Dedication for 40th Avenue NE ATTACHMENT C Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Debora Nelson 4. Interlocal Agreement with Yakima County for Technology Services ATTACHMENT D Staff Presentation: Bryan Terry Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Debora Nelson 5.Contract for Utility Iron Raising ATTACHMENT E Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly Council Liaison: Josh Roundy Arlington City Council Workshop Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 7:00 pm City Council Chambers – 110 E Third Street SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. 6. Concession License for Legion Park Depot ATTACHMENT F Staff Presentation: Sarah Lopez Council Liaison: Sue Weiss 7.ATTACHMENT G Adjustment to Equipment Replacement Schedules for Streets and Airport Staff Presentation: Jay Downing Council Liaison: Jessica Stickles 8. Resolution Waiving Fees for the Arlington Fly-In ATTACHMENT H Staff Presentation: Dave Ryan Council Liaison: Jan Schuette 9. Miscellaneous Council Items ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council. Please limit your remarks to three minutes. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT Mayor Barb Tolbert City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A-1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan PLN#511 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Public Testimony, Planning Commission Minutes, Planning Commission Findings of Fact DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The Arlington School District is requesting that the City approve for inclusion in its Comprehensive Plan, the Districts 2018 Six Year Capital Facilities Plan. School Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact A Public Hearing was held May 21, 2019 at Planning Commission. Public testimony was taken and 1 Deny Planning Commission recommendation; remand back to staff for additional information RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the June 3, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to adopt the Arlington School District 2019 Capital Facilities Plan, and authorize the Mayor to sign the adopting ordinance.” Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 1 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 Regarding: Arlington School district Capital Facilities Plan PLN # 511 Summary: The Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan is a City initiated project that is an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. This item is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Plan docket cycle. The Planning Commission held an open public meeting on May 7, 2019 followed by an open record Public Hearing on May 21, 2019 for the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan PLN #511. The Planning Commission transmits the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: Findings: 1.State law (RCW 36.70A.130) allows Cities to amend their Comprehensive Plans once annually. The Council recently updated and clarified the docketing process for review of all proposed amendments as part of an effort to insure that these proposed changes were considered together. 2.In addition, AMC 20.96.024 establishes qualifying criteria for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that must be met for inclusion on the Docket. 3.Comprehensive Plan amendments can be proposed either by private parties, or by the City. In either case, the proposed amendment is subject to the same docketing procedures. The only exception is for emergency amendments, none of which were proposed for the 2019 docket. 4.The items included on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket all meet the submission requirements and specific criterial contained in AMC 20.96 sections 010 through 060. The subject rezone request is a privately submitted non-project action determined by council in its April 1, 2019 meeting to be consistent with the approved docketing process. 5.Proper public notice was given for both the public meeting on May 7, 2019 and the public hearing on May 21, 2019 regarding this matter. No public testimony was received at either meeting. Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 2 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 Conclusion and Recommendation: Based on the foregoing findings and testimony received at the hearing, the Planning Commission herby recommends, on a unanimous vote, that the City Council approve the proposed Arlington School district Capital Facilities Plan, PLN #511. Respectfully submitted through the Department of Community and Economic Development to the City Council this twenty second day of May 2019 by: ____________________________________________________ Bruce Angell City of Arlington Planning Commission Chair Staff Report & Recommendation Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 Community and Economic Development Planning Division 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223 Planning Commission STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION To: Planning Commission From: Josh Grandlienard, Planner II Date: March 21, 2019 Regarding: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan PLN #511 A.INTRODUCTION The Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan is a City-initiated project that is an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle. B.GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Arlington School District Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Arlington School District CFP Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council Exhibits: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan Staff Report & Recommendation Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan adoption by reference . School Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the Comprehensive plan which are used to fund new facilities only. D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing. d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the March 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting was posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald. 3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION The York Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106. E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals PL-4.2 and PP-3.1, which allows the City to ensure the Capital Facilities plans are consistent with growth and development in the area. F. ANALYSIS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption of the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan. The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan adds the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan as a document adopted by reference. G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Public meetings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and May 21, 2019. Staff Report & Recommendation Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural requirements. 3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of Arlington 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting. 4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 5. On May 7, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the May 21, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 6. The application for PLN#511 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 7. PLN#511 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. 8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act. 9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN #511, which is adopted by reference into this approval. 10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#511, furthers the public health, safety and general welfare. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Arlington City Council to adopt the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan, 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PLN #511. ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018-2023 JUNE 2018 DRAFT Adopted: ______________, 2018 ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2018-2023 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Kay Duskin, Vice President Judy Fay Dr. Jeff Huleatt, President Marc Rosson Jim Weiss SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Chrys Sweeting For information regarding the Arlington Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan, contact the Office of the Superintendent, District Administration Office, 315 N. French Street, Arlington, WA 98223. Telephone: (360) 618-6200; Fax: (360) 618-6221. Approved by the Board of Directors on ________________, 2018 Table of Contents Page Section 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................2 Section 2. District Educational Program Standards ..................................................................6 Section 3. Capital Facilities Inventory ......................................................................................9 Section 4. Student Enrollment Projections .............................................................................12 Section 5. Capital Facilities Needs .........................................................................................14 Section 6. Capital Facility Financing Plan ..............................................................................16 Section 7. School Impact Fees ................................................................................................20 Appendix A ……………………………………………...……..Population and Enrollment Data Appendix B ……………………………………………...……………Student Generation Rates Appendix C ……………………………………………...……………..Impact Fee Calculations -2- INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan The Washington State Growth Management Act (the “GMA”) includes schools in the category of public facilities and services. School districts have adopted capital facilities plans to satisfy the requirements of the GMA and to identify additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in their districts. Arlington Public Schools (the “District”) has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the “CFP”) to provide Snohomish County (the “County”) and the City of Arlington (the “City”) with a schedule and financing program for capital improvements over the next six years (2018-2023). In accordance with the Growth Management Act, the Snohomish County Ordinance Nos. 97-095 and 99-107, this CFP contains the following required elements:  Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle, and high schools).  An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities.  A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites.  The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities.  A six-year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities, which clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. The financing plan separates projects and portions of projects which add capacity from those which do not, since the latter are generally not appropriate for impact fee funding.  A calculation of impact fees to be assessed and support data substantiating said fees. In developing this CFP, the District followed the following guidelines set forth in the Snohomish County General Policy Plan:  District should use information from recognized sources, such as the U.S. Census or the Puget Sound Regional Council. School districts may generate their own data if it is derived through statistically reliable methodologies. The information must not be inconsistent with Office of Financial Management (“OFM”) population forecasts. Student generation rates must be independently calculated by each school district.  The CFP must comply with the GMA.  The methodology used to calculate impact fees must comply with the GMA. In the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state, county or cities within the District, the District in a future CFP update must identify alternative funding sources to replace the intended impact fee funding. -3-  The methodology used to calculate impact fees complies with the criteria and the formulas established by the County and the City. B. Overview of Arlington Public Schools Two-hundred square miles in area, the District encompasses the City of Arlington and portions of unincorporated Snohomish County. The District is bordered by the Conway, Darrington, Granite Falls, Lakewood, Marysville, Sedro-Woolley, and Stanwood-Camano School Districts. The District serves a student population of 5,394 (October 1, 2017 reported FTE enrollment) with four elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), one high school (grades 9-12), one alternative high school (grades 9-12), and one support facility for home schooled children (grades K-12). For the purposes of facility planning, this CFP considers grades K -5 as elementary, grades 6-8 as middle school, and grades 9-12 as high school. For purposes of this CFP, neither enrollment in the Stillaguamish Valley School (a home school support facility serving grades K-12) nor enrollment in the alternative high school (Weston) are included. The District has experienced moderate growth in recent years after a period of declining student population. For a period of years (2012-2015) the District, due to the declining student population, did not prepare an updated Capital Facilities Plan. The District prepared a CFP in 2016 in anticipation of potential growth, enrollment increases, and future capacity needs. This 2018 update builds on the 2016 CFP and identifies growth-related projects at the middle and high school levels. -4- FIGURE 1 MAP OF FACILITIES -5- -6- SECTION 2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization and scheduling requirements, and use of relocatable classrooms (portables). In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining agreements, government mandates, and community expectations also affect classroom space requirements. Traditional educational programs are often supplemented by programs such as special education, bilingual education, preschool and daycare programs, computer labs, and music programs. These programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity of school facilities. A. Districtwide Educational Program Standards Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include, but are not limited to:  APPLE (formerly named ECEAP);  Elementary program for handicapped students; and  Enhanced Learning Program/Highly Capable; and  English Language Learner Program (Eagle Creek Elementary). District educational program standards may change in the future as a result of various external or internal changes. External changes may include mandates or needs for special programs, or use of technology. Internal changes may include modifications to the program year, class sizes, and grade span configurations. Changes in physical aspects of the school facilities could also affect educational program standards. The school capacity inventory will be reviewed periodically and adjusted for any changes to the educational program standards. These changes will also be reflected in future updates of this CFP. The District educational program standards which directly affect school capacity are outlined below for the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. Each grade span has a targeted level of service (LOS) which is expressed as a “not to exceed” number. The minimum LOS for each grade span is expressed as “maximum average class size”. This figure is used to determine when another class is added. When this average is exceeded, the District will add additional classes if space is available. Only academic classes are used to compute the maximum average class size. The District moved from half-day kindergarten to full-day kindergarten in the 2014-15 school year. Available space has been a deterrent in the past. This move doubled the kindergarten FTE. The State’s implementation of reduced class sizes will further impact school capacity. Future updates to this CFP will include any necessary capacity adjustments. -7- B. Educational Program Standards for Elementary Schools  Class size for Kindergarten and grades 1-3 is targeted not to exceed 21 students, with a maximum average class size of 21 students;  Class size for grade 4 is targeted not to exceed 25 students, with a maximum average class size of 27 students;  Class size for grade 5 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average class size of 29 students;  Special Education for some students is provided in a self-contained classroom;  Music instruction will be provided in a separate classroom (when available); and  All elementary schools currently have a room dedicated as a computer lab, or have access to mobile carts with laptop computers for classroom use. C. Educational Program Standards for Middle and High Schools  Class size for grade 6 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average class size of 29 students  Class size for middle school grades 7-8 is targeted not to exceed 29 students, with a maximum average class size of 31 students;  Class size for high school grades 9-12 is targeted not to exceed 30 students, with a maximum average class size of 32 students;  It is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching station s throughout the day. Therefore, high school classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization factor in the range of 90% to 96% (based on a regular school day). Middle school classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization factor of 85%;  Special Education for some students will be provided in a self-contained classroom; and  Identified students will also be provided other programs in classrooms designated as follows: 1. Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms). 2. Learning Support Centers. 3. Program Specific Classrooms (i.e., music, drama, art, home and family education). D. Minimum Educational Service Standards The District will evaluate student housing levels based on the District as a whole system and not on a school by school or site by site basis. This may result in portable classrooms being used as interim housing, attendance boundary changes or other program changes to balance student housing across the system as a whole, while meeting the District’s paramount duties under th e State Constitution. A boundary change or a significant programmatic change would be made by the District’s Board of Directors following appropriate public review and comment. The District -8- may also request that development be deferred until planned facilities can be completed to meet the needs of the incoming population; however, the District has no control over the ultimate land use decisions made by the permitting jurisdictions. The District’s intent is to adhere to the target facility service standards noted above without making significant changes in program delivery. At a minimum, average class size in the grade K-8 classrooms will not exceed 26 students and average class size in 9-12 classrooms will not exceed 32 students. For purposes of this determination, the term “classroom” does not include special education classrooms or special program classrooms (i.e. computer labs, art rooms, chorus and band rooms, spaces used for physical education, and other special program areas). Furthermore, the term “classroom” does not apply to special programs or activities that may occur in a regular classroom or to classes held in assembly halls, gyms, cafeterias, or other common areas. The minimum educational service standards are not the District’s desired or accepted operating standard. For the school years of 2015-16 and 2016-17, the District’s compliance with the minimum level of service was as follows MINIMUM LOS# Elementary REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations. 2016-17 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 21 26 19.3 32 31.8 * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations. -9- SECTION 3 CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable levels of service. This section provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools, relocatable classrooms, undeveloped land, and support facilities. School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program standards. See Section 2. A map showing locations of District facilities is provided as Figure 1. A. Schools The District maintains four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, an alternative high school, and the Stillaguamish Valley School (a Home- School Support center). Elementary schools currently accommodate grades K-5, the middle schools serve grades 6-8, and the high school and alternative high school provide for grades 9-12. The Stillaguamish Valley School serves grades K-12. School capacity was determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building and the space requirements of the District’s adopted educational program. It is this capacity calculation that is used to establish the District’s baseline capacity, and to determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The school capacity inventory is summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The Stillaguamish Valley School and Weston High School are housed in separate District-owned facilities and are not included in this CFP for the purposes of measuring capacity or projecting enrollment. Relocatable classrooms are not viewed by the District as a solution for housing students on a permanent basis. Therefore, these facilities were not included in the school capacity calculations provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 Elementary School Inventory Elementary School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Eagle Creek 23.70 57,362 28 630 1989 Kent Prairie 10.10 57,362 28 630 1993 Presidents 12.40 60,977 31 680 2004 Pioneer 20.60 61,530 25 562 2002 TOTAL 66.62 237,231 112 2,502 -10- Table 2 Middle School Inventory Middle School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations* Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Post Middle 24.60 76,323 36 757 1993 Haller Middle 25.46 86,002 31 612 2006 TOTAL 50.06 162,325 67 1,369 *Includes a total of six special education classrooms between both schools. Table 3 High School Inventory High School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Arlington High 54.00 256,181 53 1,780 2003 B. Relocatable Classrooms Relocatable classrooms are used on an interim basis to house students until funding can be secured to construct permanent classrooms. The District currently uses seven relocatable classrooms at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity (an additional 10 relocatables are located at Stillaguamish Valley School). A typical relocatable classroom can provide capacity for a full-size class of students. The District’s relocatable classrooms have adequate useful remaining life and are evaluated regularly. Current use for the 2018-19 school year of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Relocatable Classroom (Portable) Inventory Elementary School Relocatables Interim Capacity Eagle Creek 2 58 Kent Prairie 4 84 Middle School Relocatables Interim Capacity High School Relocatables Interim Capacity TOTAL 11 287 -11- C. Support Facilities In addition to schools, the District owns and operates additional facilities, which provide operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is provided in Table 5. Table 5 Support Facility Inventory Facility Building Area (Square Feet) Site Location Administration and Special Programs 21,402 Roosevelt Building, Presidents Transportation 41,550 Leased Support Services 70,991 Old HS “A” Bldg D. Land Inventory & Other Facilities The District owns the following undeveloped sites:  A 167-acre site (“Hwy 530 Site”) located 1.5 miles from the city limits of Arlington adjacent to SR 530 and intended for use as a school and/or sports fields. The District is currently negotiating a sale of this property.  Seven sites ranging from 25 to 160 acres that are managed as forest land by a forestland manager and generally topographically unsuitable for school site development.  An additional 58.9 acres at the Post Middle School site of farmland located in a floodplain and therefore unsuitable for development. The District owns the “A” Building on the former high school campus. The “A” Building has been taken out of educational use and is no longer eligible (by OSPI) for use as for classroom space. The Stillaguamish Valley School, which supports home-schooled students, is located on the Eagle Creek Elementary site. This facility consists of 10 portable classrooms and is not considered part of the District’s permanent facility capacity. Additionally, the District leases a 33,000 square foot building on a 10 acre site near the Arlington Airport. This remodeled building houses the (alternative) Weston High School. Since this site houses only alternative educational programs, the building’s capacity is not included as part of the District’s eligible facility inventory1. 1 Students enrolled in these alternative programs are not included in enrollment numbers for the purposes of this CFP update. -12- SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS A. Projected Student Enrollment 2018-2023 Enrollment projections are most accurate for the initial years of the forecast period. In the past, the District has used the methodology from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to determine enrollment projections. The cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of students who will be attending school the following year. It uses a weighted average of the most recent years to project enrollment. The District has adjusted the OSPI projections to reflect the District’s full-time equivalent enrollment (reduction of students enrolled but not housed in District facilities). Based on this methodology, a total of 351 FTE students are expected to be added to the District by 2023 - an increase of 6.5% over 2017 enrollment levels. OFM population-based enrollment projections were estimated for the District using OFM population forecasts for the County. Between 2012 and 2017, the District’s enrollment constituted 17.47% of the total population in the District. Assuming that between 2018 and 2023 the District’s enrollment will constitute 17.47% of the District's total population and using OFM/County data, a total enrollment of 5,950 FTE is projected in 2023. See Appendix A. Table 6 Projected Student Enrollment 2023-2023 * Actual October 2017 FTE enrollment The District uses the adjusted OSPI cohort survival projections for purposes of predicting enrollment during the six years of this Plan. The District will monitor actual enrollment over the next two years and, if necessary, make appropriate adjustments in the next Plan update. Change % Change Projection 2017* 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 17-23 17-23 OFM/County 5,394 5,486 5,578 5,670 5,762 5,854 5,950 556 10.3% District/OSPI 5,394 5,507 5,552 5,604 5,674 5,713 5,745 351 6.5% -13- B. 2035 Enrollment Projections Student enrollment projections beyond 2023 are highly speculative. Based on OFM/County data for 2023 and an estimated student-to-population ratio of 17.28%, 6,832 FTE students are projected for 2035. The total enrollment estimate was broken down by grade span to evaluate long-term site acquisition needs for elementary, middle, and high school facilities. Enrollment by grade span was determined based on recent and projected enrollment trends at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. Projected enrollment by grade span for the year 20352 is provided in Table 7. Again, these estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes. Table 7 Projected Student Enrollment (Ratio Method – OFM) 2035 Grade Span Projected Enrollment Elementary (K-5) 3,074 Middle School (6-8) 1,640 High School (9-12) 2,118 TOTAL (K-12) 6,832 2 Snohomish County Planning & Development Services provided the underlying data for the 2035 projections. -14- SECTION 5 CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected student enrollment from existing school capacity (excluding relocatable classrooms) for each of the six years in the forecast period (2018-2023). Capacity needs are expressed in terms of “unhoused students.” Note that the identified capacity needs do not include growth-related capacity needs from recent development. Table 8A below shows future capacity needs assuming no new construction. Table 8A Future Capacity Needs Grade Span 2023 Projected Unhoused Students 2023 Projected Unhoused Students - Growth Elementary (K-5) 0 0 Middle School (6-8) 30 30 High School (9-12) 77 77 TOTAL (K-12) 107 107 Projected student capacity is depicted on Table 8B. This is derived by applying the projected number of students to the projected capacity. Planned improvements (if any) by the District through 2023 are included in Table 8B. It is not the District’s policy to include relocatable classrooms when determining future capital facility needs; therefore interim capacity provided by relocatable classrooms is not included. (Information on relocatable classrooms and interim capacity can be found in Table 4. Information on planned construction projects can be found in Section 6 and the Financing Plan, Table 9. -15- Table 8B Projected Student Capacity 2018 - 2023 Elementary School Surplus/Deficiency Elementary 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Existing Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 Added Capacity Total Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 Enrollment 2,435 2,425 2,453 2,461 2,480 2,508 2,489 Surplus (Deficiency) 67 77 49 41 22 (6) 13 Middle School Surplus/Deficiency Middle 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Existing Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,519 Added Capacity 150^ Total Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,519 1,519 Enrollment 1,300 1,345 1,344 1,391 1,364 1,367 1,399 Surplus (Deficiency) 69 24 25 (22) 5 152 120 ^Replacement and Expansion of Post Middle School High School Surplus/Deficiency High 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Existing Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 2,036 Added Capacity 256^ Total Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 2,036 2,036 Enrollment 1,659 1,737 1,755 1,752 1,830 1,838 1,857 Surplus (Deficiency) 121 43 25 28 (50) 198 179 ^Arlington High School Addition -16- SECTION 6 CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN In February 2018, the District presented a $107.5 million bond measure to its voters to fund the construction of a new middle school to replace Post Middle School, expand and renovate Arlington High School, make district-wide security and safety improvements, and district-wide health, educational and infrastructure improvements. The bond did not achieve the required 60% minimum for passage. The District’s Board of Directors recently voted to place the same package on the November 2018 ballot for consideration by the voters. Permanent Capacity Adding Projects:  Replacement of Post Middle School would add 150 additional student seats.  Expansion of Arlington High School would add 256 additional student seats. Temporary Capacity Projects:  The District plans to add portable facilities during the six year planning period of this CFP. Property Acquisition:  The District plans to acquire land for an elementary school site. In the event that planned construction projects do not fully address space needs for student growth and a reduction in interim student housing, the Board could consider various courses of action, including, but not limited to:  Alternative scheduling options;  Changes in the instructional model;  Grade configuration changes;  Increased class sizes; or  Modified school calendar. Funding for planned improvements is typically secured from a number of sources including voter approved bonds, state school construction assistance program funds, and impact fees. Each of these funding sources is discussed in greater detail below. -17- B. Financing for Planned Improvements 1. General Obligation Bonds Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital improvement projects. A 60% voter approval is required to approve the issuance of bonds. Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes. In March 2000, the voters passed a $54 million bond issue for school construction and site acquisition. The March 2000 bond issue added a replacement high school, a new elementary school, a new middle school, and a replacement elementary. The funds from this bond have been the primary source of funding for the capital improvement projects listed in previous versions of this Plan. As discussed above, the District plans to submit a bond proposal to its voters in November 2018 for a replacement/expanded middle school, high school expansion, and various district- wide projects. 2. State School Construction Assistance Funds State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School Construction Fund. The State deposits revenue from the sale of renewable resources from State school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889 into the Common School Account. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the Legislature can appropriate General Obligation Bond funds or the Superintendent of Public Instruction can prioritize projects for funding. School districts may qualify for State School Construction Assistance funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. The District is currently eligible for state school construction assistance funds at the 61.75% level for eligible projects. 3. Impact Fees Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. 4. Six-Year Financing Plan Table 9 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2018-2023. The financing components include a bond issue, impact fees, and other future sources. Projects and portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for impact fee funding. Thus, impact fees will not be used to finance projects or portions of projects which do not add capacity or which remedy existing deficiencies. -19- Table 9 Capital Facilities Financing Plan Improvements Adding Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy State Match Impact Fees Elementary None Middle School Post Middle School Replacement and Expansion $24,279 $24,279 $24,279 $72.838 X X X High School Arlington High School Expansion $2.443 $4.887 $2.443 $9.774 X X X Improvements Adding Temporary Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy State Match Impact Fees Relocatables $2.18 $2.18 $2.18 X X Noncapacity Improvements (Costs in Millions) Project 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy State Match Impact Fees1 Elementary Eagle Creek El Improvements Kent Prairie El Improvements Pioneer El Improvements Presidents El Improvements $2.769 $2.012 $0.950 $1.548 $2.769 $2.012 $5.538 $4.024 $0.950 $1.548 X X X X Middle School Haller MS Improvements $2.372 $2.372 $4.744 X High School Arlington High School Renovation Weston High School Building Improvements $1.394 $0.808 $1.394 $0.808 $1.394 $0.808 $4.181 $2.424 X X X SV Learning Center $0.046 $0.046 X Transportation Center $1.939 $1.939 X -20- SECTION 7 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES The GMA authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement funding of additional public facilities needed to accommodate new development. Impact fees cannot be used for the operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities used to meet existing service demands. A. School Impact Fees in Snohomish County The Snohomish County General Policy Plan (“GPP”) which implements the GMA sets certain conditions for school districts wishing to assess impact fees:  The District must provide support data including: an explanation of the calculation methodology, a description of key variables and their computation, and definitions and sources of data for all inputs into the fee calculation.  Such data must be accurate, reliable and statistically valid.  Data must accurately reflect projected costs in the Six-Year Financing Plan.  Data in the proposed impact fee schedule must reflect expected student generation rates from the following residential unit types: single family; multi-family/studio or 1-bedroom; and multi-family/2-bedroom or more. Snohomish County and the City of Arlington’s impact fee programs require school districts to prepare and adopt CFPs meeting the specifications of the GMA. Impact fees are calculated in accordance with the formula, which are based on projected school facility costs necessitated by new growth and are contained in the District’s CFP. B. Methodology and Variables Used to Calculate School Impact Fees Impact fees are calculated utilizing the formula in the Snohomish County Impact Fee Ordinance. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per dwelling unit to purchase land for school sites, make site improvements, construct schools, and purchase/install relocatable facilities that add interim capacity needed to serve new development. A student factor (or student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the average number of students generated by each housing type (single -family dwellings and multi- family dwellings of one bedroom and two bedrooms or more). A description of the student methodology is contained in Appendix B. As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account for State School Construction Assistance funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects that do not add capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, because -21- the impact fee formula calculates a “cost per dwelling unit”, an identical fee is generated regardless of whether the total new capacity project costs are used in the calculation or whether the District only uses the percentage of the total new capacity project costs allocated to the Districts growth-related needs, as demonstrated in Table 8-A. For purposes of this Plan, the District has chosen to use the full project costs in the fee formula. Furthermore, impact fees will not be used to address existing deficiencies. See Table 9 for a complete identification of funding sources. The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:  A capacity addition at Arlington High School.  A capacity addition at the replacement Post Middle School Please see Table 11 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project. C. Proposed Arlington School District Impact Fee Schedule Using the variables and formula described in subsection B, impact fees proposed for the District are summarized in Table 10. See also Appendix C. Table 10 School Impact Fees 2018 Housing Type Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single Family $4,756 Multi-Family (1 Bedroom) No fee ($0) Multi-Family (2+ Bedroom) $6,790 -22- Table 11: Impact Fee Variables Student Generation Factors – Single Family Average Site Cost/Acre Elementary .283 N/A Middle .157 Senior .166 Total .606 Temporary Facility Capacity Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (1 Bdrm) Capacity 22 Elementary .000 Cost $109,250 Middle .000 Senior .000 State Match Credit Total .000 Current State Match Percentage 61.75% Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (2+ Bdrm) Construction Cost Allocation Elementary .000 Current CCA 225.97 Middle .214 Senior .071 District Average Assessed Value Total .286 Single Family Residence $340,872 Projected Student Capacity per Facility District Average Assessed Value Arlington HS (expansion) - 256 Post Middle School (replacement and expansion) – 150 added capacity (for total new capacity of 907) Multi Family (1 Bedroom) $91,988 Multi Family (2+ Bedroom) $136,499 Required Site Acreage per Facility SPI Square Footage per Student Facility Construction/Cost Average Elementary 90 Middle 108 Arlington HS (expansion) $9,773,649 Post Middle School (repl/expansion) $72,837,480 High 130 District Debt Service Tax Rate for Bonds Current/$1,000 $1.369 Permanent Facility Square Footage General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Elementary 237,231 Current Bond Buyer Index 3.85% Middle 162,325 Senior 256,181 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities Total 98.61% 655,737 Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 5,034 Middle 3,356 Senior 839 Total 1.39% 9,229 Total Facility Square Footage Elementary 242,265 Middle 165,681 Senior 257,020 Total 100.00% 664,966 APPENDIX A POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA A-1 APPENDIX B STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW B-1 B-2 B-3 APPENDIX C SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS C-1 Single Family Multi-Family 1 Br Multi-Family 2 Br+ Arlington $4,756 $0 $6,790 Lakewood $857 $0 $1,037 Lake Stevens $6,624 $0 $3,678 Arlington School District Calculations Grades Matches Only 2 BR Rate K-5 0 14 0 6th - 8th 3 14 0.214285714 9th -12th 1 14 0.071428571 K - 12 4 14 0.285714286 Using 2br and 3+ Br K-5 0 28 0 6th - 8th 3 28 0.107142857 9th -12th 1 28 0.035714286 K - 12 4 28 0.142857143 ((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Factor)x(perm/totalsqft) Construction Cost Capacity Elem 98.61%0 /0 x 0 =$0.00 Mid 98.61%72837480 /907 x 0.107143 =$8,484.61 High 98.61%9773649 /256 x 0.035714 =$1,344.56 total $9,829.17 Elem 98.61%0 /0 x 0 =$0.00 Mid 98.61%72837480 /907 x 0.107143 =$8,484.61 High 98.61%9773649 /256 x 0.035714 =$1,344.56 total $9,829.17 SFR $5,377.00 SFR $3,813.00 2 Br only $3,789.17 MF 1 BR $0.00 MF 1 BR $1,029.00 2 Br+$3,789.17 MF 2+ BR $4,513.00 MF 2+ BR $1,527.00 With 50% State Match 2 Br only $1,894.58 2 Br+$1,894.58 Total Fee = Impact Fee Calculation - (SSFAC + TPC) Student Factor%perm/Total sqft Multi-Family Impact fee Calculation using 2 Br Multi-Family Impact fee Calculation using 2+ Br State School Construction Funding Assistance Credit Tax Payment Credit May 21, 2019 Planning Commission Public Hearing Summary of Testimony Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – PLN#511 1. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive  Is in favor of anything that will improve our schools Gill Riar Family Rezone – PLN#518 1. Robert Cameron, 17407 73rd Avenue, Arlington  Has lived at this address for 13 years and is opposed to this rezone  Within the City Comprehensive Plan the livability is something that should be taken into consideration  Traffic on Hwy 531 is already overburdened  Trying to get in and out of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek development is not safe  When the train is blocking the roadway traffic backs up to the development and people taking a left turn heading west on 67th Avenue will get tired of waiting and cut into the other lane potentially causing a head-on collision  School levies haven’t passed and continually fail, and our schools are already overburdened  Concerned about water runoff and what could occur if the site is logged  Gleneagle was logged and it flooded a factory, and Gleneagle and the developer were sued, and there’s a pending lawsuit with the City  Crossing at Edgecomb Creek Homeowner’s association is responsible for the basketball court and pays for the liability insurance  If 90 new units are built then a lot of new people will be using the basketball court that wouldn’t be sharing in the liability cost 2. Steven Tenision, 17504 73rd Drive, Arlington  Two years ago in 2017 it was voted no  In January 2019 Clay White got ahold of the people that spoke at the 2017 hearing and called them into a meeting and tried to convince the attendees that this was a good thing  We said no then too, each and every one of us  We stand here to today and we say no again  Traffic is horrible  We need to take a breather from all this high density and focus on getting roads fixed 3. Steve Leifer, 12715 State Avenue, Marysville  Is an advocate for many members of the community all of which need housing  Spoke on behalf of the project and is in favor of  His grandson and grandson’s wife came into the market to purchase a first home and it took 13-14 months to finally locate a home to buy  The home that they were able to purchase was half the size of their dream and had to get additional funds from family to purchase  Purchasing the home was a tremendous struggle for them  Grew up in the valley and is understanding of the positions of those in opposition of the rezone  Used to be able to pull out onto the roads no problem and now it’s a struggle and doesn’t like it  But people are coming this way and people are having kids and grandkids and they are going to be here  Anything that we do that restricts the growth hurts those kids and makes it more expensive to buy  Follow what’s going on in Olympia and how they keep upgrading the requirements for higher density and in-fill and then pass it along to the Regional Council and then allocates population growth to the County then the County to the Cities  The City has an urban growth boundary that it has to allow for growth and it’s their responsibility legally to do so  Serves on the Marysville planning commission and the joint project of the AMMIC is a high priority creating jobs and those people need to housing 4. Nancy Denney, 6107 72nd Drive, Marysville  A senior loan officer with Fairway Mortgage Company  Spoke on behalf of the high density project because she sees it every single day  Teaches classes for Washington State Housing Finance Commission  These are our families moving into these homes, our future generation of neighborhoods created with children going to school and keeping our communities young  The average three bedroom home in Arlington according Trulia and Zillow for the first half of 2019 is $385,000 to $395,000 up $11,000 from last year  Our children can’t afford this price of home and are being forced to rent with the average rent in Arlington being $2,375, and there’s a shortage of rentals as well  It may be a burden on schools and streets, but these homes bring tax dollars that help, and are filled with younger families that will start voting levies in so schools can be expanded  The average household medium income for this group of people is $69,000 to $70,000  These borrowers would qualify with approximately 3% down, that’s the average down payment these borrowers are coming in with and they’re coming in with assistance money and gift money from families  The price point due to the shortage of homes just keeps increasing forcing these people to go further north  Now there is a huge project (AMMIC) that’s bringing in a huge number of employers, where are these people going to go if we don’t give them affordable housing  Make sure that everyone understands that we can’t always have our children moving away from us, it doesn’t create a united community and memories, and that’s what communities are all about 5. Jacob Davis, 9414 State Avenue, Marysville  Spoke on behalf of the project  Owns a small real estate firm in Maryville  At any given time he has 20-30 qualified buyers that can’t find property  Manages 6 residential properties and 3 homeowner’s associations  Grew up on 30 acres in Marysville and has seen the growth  Not going to stop the growth, all we can do is grow responsibly  Understands that being a neighbor the concerns for traffic  Have to have more properties available for purchase or rent for those to remain close to relatives in the area  All for the project as long as long as it is done responsibly and is fair for all involved 6. Fernando Murillo, 9911 48th Drive Unit #B, Marysville  For more housing in Arlington because there isn’t enough selection 7. Ryan Campbell, 27406 102nd Street, Stanwood  For this project as more reasonably priced housing is needed  Doesn’t want to move further out of the area 8. Eyleen McCluskey-Shouman, 7607 W Country Club Drive, Arlington  Oppose to the development as she was two years ago  Remains opposed because nothing essential has changed  The Riar family continues to want to put high density housing in a low to medium density neighborhood  Sent an email on April 4, 2017 stating reasons for opposition to the rezone and spoke at the public hearing  Received a two page letter for Clay White with an invitation to the information meeting, attended the meeting with 30-40 others who were all opposed to the rezone  The letter sent by LDC mentioned the differences between the 2017 request and the current request, but many of the attendees of the meeting felt that they were not only placating them but also misleading them  Building 94 dwelling units on 7.23 is intense  In the LDC said the landowner wouldn’t build apartments on the property, but said nothing about condos which could be the same 94 units if they were apartments with the same number of residence  Does not agree with LDC’s statement that 13 dwelling units per acre is similar density to existing multi-family units in the Gleneagle neighborhood  Gleneagle has two multi-family areas which are set on about 4.5 acres in the 300 acre neighborhood and consist of 19 apartments on 2.3 acres for density of about 9 ½ dwelling units per acre, only 2/3 of what the Riar family is proposing and the condo complex consist of 15 dwelling units on about 2 acres for a density of 7 ½ units per acre  The mutli-family units in Gleaneagle have ample parking  Paying the traffic mitigation fees for the project doesn’t fix the road which is a state highway 9. Scott Tomkins, 17812 Oxford Drive, Arlington  Been through this many times and nothing has changed  It’s still a spot rezone but have taken away some of the other spots that were to be rezoned in 2017 have been removed  Moved to Arlington in 2001 after retirement to get away from the zoo that became Kirkland  172nd is a nightmare and he has to time when he can leave  Everything leads to interstate 5, doctors and shopping are all in that area and traffic gets caught up at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street  The improvements are going to end at 67th Avenue and not continue to highway 9 and it’s not going to be looked at for improvement until 2025  The traffic mitigation is nonsense because 172nd Street is a state road  Has had to turn around on 67th Avenue and go back to 180th Street to get around traffic many times  Gregory Park, the development to the north of Gregory Park and the AMMIC all converges at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street and it’s going to be an absolute zoo 10. Michael Seehaas, 17423 72nd Drive, Arlington  Those that are for the rezone are not from here and only care about the money aspect  It’s a bad plan that limits development to townhomes, a mobile home park, fire station and police station and they’re not going to build any of these besides townhomes  It’s going to create a bigger nightmare for 172nd Street and a nightmare for the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek neighborhood  A $300,000 townhome is not a starter home 11. Chip Peterson, 7019 172nd Street, Arlington  Same issues as before with 95 units of townhomes each with two cars  Traffic situation is already terrible  The apartments at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street were originally going to be mixed commercial and residential and now it’s going to be all residential which will add an additional 400 vehicles  If they kept the original proposal of single family homes it will keep with the quality of life of the area  Not a good idea to put the project at this location and no way to support this with the existing roads  Would like Council to support people that are here now not what may or may not come in the future 12. George Edgerton, 17410 73rd Drive, Arlington  President of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek homeowner’s association  Submitted a petition from the residents of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek neighborhood  Many neighbors are oppose to the rezone  The City got it right with zoning that area residential moderate density  Would like to keep with the original plan for single family homes 13. Bruce Kinney, 7023 172nd Street, Arlington  Asked if the goal is to cram as many people in this area as we possible with the use of high density rezones  This proposal comes dangerously close to a contract rezone and his understanding is that it’s illegal  Asked who stands to financially benefits from this, then answered Riar and this is at the expense of those that live in the area  Concerned about the quality of life for the existing residence  Asked why rezones aren’t being talked about in the industrial areas to rezone to high density 14. Judy Castanares, 17506 72nd Drive, Arlington  Submitted a letter with the intent of mirroring what LDC proposed  Concerned that it’s the same plan as in 2017  Read through Section 1: Findings. The City Council adopts the following findings as required by AMC Chapter 20.96 of her letter submitted – see attached letter  Read Section 2: The City Council denies the Riar Family Land Use Map and Concurrent Rezone (PLN#292)  Concerned that nothing has changed in the past two years  Arlington can do nothing about the state route for years  Heard at City Council that they want to change the title of contract rezone to development agreement because she feels they are trying to make it sound better to the citizens 15. Dwan Kinney, 7023 172nd Street, Arlington  Lives directly across the private drive from the proposed rezone  Concerned about the critical areas report that was completed with the previous owner when the development was called Glen Hawk Estates  Concerned that ¼ of her property is natural growth protection and at the base of the Peterson’s property is an area that is natural growth protection  Nothing has been mentioned about completing a State Environmental Policy Act for the proposal  The critical areas report that was complete was in 2007 and it was only for building 26 single family homes, and now there is no talk about doing an environmental review for the proposal  Many people are building east of highway 9 and use 172nd Street and that’s a huge reason to complete an environmental review because traffic is two or three times more than it was in 2007  Feels that the applicant isn’t ready because it’s not finalized of what’s being built  When the applicant is talking about how many buildings are proposed and the height, how can that be a non-project  Thinks it’s shady about the wording being changed from contract rezone to development agreement 16. William Wilbur, 18430 Newport Drive, Arlington  Lived here since 2001 and grew up in Kirkland  It was done right last time in 2017 when it was voted down  If you want to know what Arlington is going to look like, go to Kirkland  When the upper half of 172nd Street is complete they’ll put in stop lights which will slow traffic down  Not in favor of this rezone 17. Ruth Gonzales, 6823 211th Place, Arlington  Oppose to this rezone  Reported that Arlington has approximately 43 acres of vacant high density land already, so why rezone  Thinks that there is currently plenty of high density property 18. Robert Wagy, 9015 186th Street, Arlington  Just moved to the Arlington area from Lake Stevens and used to live in Bothell  Thinks Bothell is a train wreck because of the high density with no infrastructure  If going to put in high density then what is being done about infrastructure and what is the plan to mitigate for issues such as traffic  What’s being done to widen roads or add roadways to get people in and out of the area  People working at the AMMIC will bring in additional traffic  If rezoned and sold it will mess up the housing market because the overall matrix increases because vacant properties are going for more money  When development like this occurs what does it do to the overall property values 19. Marcela Cravioto, 17419 72nd Drive, Arlington  Feels that the applicant isn’t thinking about the people that live here  The proposal will cause environmental damage  The quality of life will not be the same 20. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Questioned what consists of a unit when referring to 13 units per acre 21. Susan Edgerton, 17410 73rd Drive, Arlington  Shared an experience of traveling in the area and how it took 45 minutes to get to the UW clinic in Smokey Point during the day  Shared an experience of traveling in the area on a Saturday afternoon and how when traveling to Marysville traffic was backed up getting out of her development  Noticed in Arlington that there’s a lot of land with nothing around it and that would be a better place to build high density  Asked why there isn’t more shopping in other areas so not everyone is going in one direction to one place Tic Toc, LLC Rezone – PLN#523 1. William Wilbur, 18430 Newport Drive, Arlington  Thinks that a high density rezone on ½ acre lot is ridiculous 2. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Asked if there is no information on the project then how can citizens decide  There is nothing in writing for the developer to stick to what is proposed  Thinks the City should change the policies on how they look at these proposals  Thinks that the applicant should have a project proposal and it should be in writing that if rezoned the developer has to stick to that project and if the property is sold it should go back to its original zoning 3. Neils Kjargaard, 1014 E Robinhood Drive, Arlington  Regularly transits Highland Drive and it’s busy now, what will it be if high density is built  Thinks the existing zoning is right with high density at the back of the property and moderate at the front  Appreciated that he received a notice postcard but wished it included an address  Was surprised to see this rezone again and thought that if a decision was already made then it should be made and not kicked around again and again until they get a yes  Once built then it can’t be undone  High density developments are not going to solve Arlington’s problems of growth, to help solve growth then the City shouldn’t have created jobs  Growth should have been planned for to occur slowly and not at a fast pace 4. Robert Wagy, 9015 186th Street, Arlington  Challenges the proposal at hand with rezoning only ½ acre which creates housing prices to increase 5. Mike Rouleau, 709 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives across from the rezone  The strip of property that runs along Highland Drive is supposed to be a buffer from the existing residential to the high density at the back of the property  Thinks the high density is inappropriate at the street because it’s an existing old neighborhood  There are still the same problems that there was the previous time they wanted to rezone but traffic is worse  The letter to the City from the developer is vague  Thinks that the access to Portage Street to the south will not be utilized  With 52 units and 2 cars per unit, people will be parking in the street causing problems 6. Ruth Gonzales, 6823 211th Place, Arlington  Oppose to the spot rezone  On the Planning Commission when the property was zoned medium density on the front and high density on the back  The medium density on the front is to act like a buffer to the residential area and the high density down the hill  Old Town has a specific designation to keep the integrity of the area  The accumulation of vacant property currently zoned high density is 43 acres  There is 23 plus acres that only has 3 houses and is 5 lots  Need to use the high density properties that we have before creating more  Need to maintain the quality of life in this town  The newest house in the adjacent area is 51 years old and others are older 7. Jamie Stupey, 530 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives in a home built in 1967 directly next to this property  Changing the zoning on the front of the property will add approximately 10 units on a road with no sidewalks  Children will be walking on a street that is extremely busy because there is no school bus transportation available in the area  There is not enough parking and street parking will occur and people will not be able to get out of their driveways  Thinks it is a spot rezone that isn’t a good idea 8. Matt Guentz, 810 Portage Street, Arlington  Moved here in 1991 to get out of metropolis and that is exactly what he is seeing here  Looking straight out his front window now he sees tall evergreens but with high density he’ll see cramped apartments  The area is already overly impacted  Has watched this town grow exponentially  House is close to being paid off and now this will impact his property value  Votes no for this rezone 9. Mike Evan, 18719 3rd Avenue, Arlington  Against the proposal  Moved to the area 51 years ago from Lynnwood  This area is turning in to Lynnwood  As more people move to the area housing prices increase not decrease and also rent  The appeal of Arlington has gone out the window  Wants to have trees and open spaces  More congestion around the hospital isn’t a good idea  Used to pay baseball in the field behind the existing home on the site and is concerned where the kids of this proposal are going to play  Hopes the Commission listens to the citizens 10. Vikki McMurray, 208 Joann Lane, Arlington  Moved here in 1989 and there were about 6,000 residents at that time  Is against the rezone  The stop light cycle at highway 9 and highland is a quick cycle  Counts a minimum of an additional 200 cars with this proposal added to a small two lane road  Concerned that Highland is the only way to the hospital and additional traffic could cause problems  Thinks it’s a bad spot to change any of the density and thinks it’s the perfect old town neighborhood  Thinks that the area on 204th would be a good place for high density 11. Mae Lanier, 704 Highland Drive, Arlington  Not against a couple of duplexes in the front of the property  If the rezone goes through she envisions the building like the new one on Olympic Avenue  Will be frustrated if cars park in front on of her home 12. Ruth Manizza, 625 Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives right across from where the entrance to this proposal will be  Stated that with the hospital, churches, cocoon house, daycare, preschools and nearby schools the roads are constantly busy  It’s a dangerous street that you can barely pull out on to 13. Harry Sinanian, 8635 215th Place, Arlington  There’s a 7-Eleven down the street and a new 7-Eleven just went in, because of the current density of population in the area, it will support two 7-Elevens within a mile of each other  The population density in this area is enough ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2019--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE ARLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens as a way of controlling the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City, and has gone through its periodic review and update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the Comprehensive Plan was a proposed update to the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered these amendments at their May 21, 2019 public hearing and the City Council considered the same, along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their workshop meeting May 28, 2019, and at a regular meeting conducted on June 3, 2019 and determined approving the amendments was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and finds the same to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan Amended. The City of Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to include the version of the “Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan 2018-2023” approved by the Arlington School District on August 13, 2018 as part of the Capital Facilities Element (CF) of the Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take e ffect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 3rd day of June, 2019. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 2 Attest: ______________________________ Erin Keator, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A-2 Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact fees on new development as it occurs. A Public Hearing was held May 21, 2019 at Planning Commission. Public testimony was taken and 1 Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 1 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 Regarding: Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan PLN # 512 Summary: The Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan is a City initiated project that is an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. This item is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Plan docket cycle. The Planning Commission held an open public meeting on May 7, 2019 followed by an open record Public Hearing on May 21, 2019 for the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan PLN #512. The Planning Commission transmits the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: Findings: 1. State law (RCW 36.70A.130) allows Cities to amend their Comprehensive Plans once annually. The Council recently updated and clarified the docketing process for review of all proposed amendments as part of an effort to insure that these proposed changes were considered together. 2. In addition, AMC 20.96.024 establishes qualifying criteria for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that must be met for inclusion on the Docket. 3. Comprehensive Plan amendments can be proposed either by private parties, or by the City. In either case, the proposed amendment is subject to the same docketing procedures. The only exception is for emergency amendments, none of which were proposed for the 2019 docket. 4. The items included on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket all meet the submission requirements and specific criterial contained in AMC 20.96 sections 010 through 060. The subject rezone request is a privately submitted non-project action determined by council in its April 1, 2019 meeting to be consistent with the approved docketing process. 5. Proper public notice was given for both the public meeting on May 7, 2019 and the public hearing on May 21, 2019 regarding this matter. No public testimony was received at either meeting. Conclusion and Recommendation: Based on the foregoing findings and testimony received at the hearing, the Planning Commission herby recommends, on a unanimous vote, that the City Council approve the proposed Lakewood School district Capital Facilities Plan, PLN #512. Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 2 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 Respectfully submitted through the Department of Community and Economic Development to the City Council this twenty second day of May 2019 by: ____________________________________________________ Bruce Angell City of Arlington Planning Commission Chair Staff Report & Recommendation Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan – Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 Community and Economic Development Planning Division 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223 Planning Commission STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION To: Planning Commission From: Josh Grandlienard, Planner II Date: March 21, 2019 Regarding: Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan PLN #512 A.INTRODUCTION The Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan is a City-initiated project that is an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle. B.GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Property Rezone Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council Exhibits: Application and Narrative Staff Report & Recommendation Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan – Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan adoption by reference. School Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact fees consistent with the Comprehensive plan which are used to fund new facilities only. D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing. d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the March 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting was posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald. 3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION The York Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106. E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals PL-4.2 and PP-3.1, which allows the City to ensure the Capital Facilities plans are consistent with growth and development in the area. F. ANALYSIS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption of the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan. The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan adds the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan as a document adopted by reference. G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Public meetings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and May 21, 2019. 2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural requirements. Staff Report & Recommendation Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan – Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of Arlington 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting. 4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 5. On May 7, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the May 21, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 6. The application for PLN#512 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 7. PLN#512 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. 8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act. 9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN #512, which is adopted by reference into this approval. 10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#512, furthers the public health, safety and general welfare. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Arlington City Council to adopt the Riar Rezone, 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PLN #518. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2019--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens as a way of controlling the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City, and has gone through its periodic review and update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the Comprehensive Plan was a proposed update to the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered these amendments at their May 21, 2019 public hearing and the City Council considered the same, along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their workshop meeting May 28, 2019, and at a regular meeting conducted on June 3, 2019 and determined approving the amendments was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and finds the same to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan Amended. The City of Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to include the version of the “Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan 2018-2023” approved by the Lakewood School District on August 1, 2018 as part of the Capital Facilities Element (CF) of the Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take e ffect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 3rd day of June, 2019. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 2 Attest: ______________________________ Erin Keator, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A-3 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Gill Riar Family, LLP - Rezone Request PLN#518 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Public Testimony, Planning Commission Minutes, Planning Commission Findings of Fact DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to rezone a property at 7103, 7115, and 7127 172nd St. SE from a Residential Low to Moderate Density zoning to a Residential High Density zone of an approximately 7.23 acre lot HISTORY: Applicant is requesting the rezone of the subject properties and is offering the use of a development agreement to limit the allowable uses of the property if the rezone request is approved. A Public Hearing was held May 21, 2019 at Planning Commission. Public testimony was taken and Deny Planning Commission recommendation; remand back to staff for additional information RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the June 3, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the ordinance denying the Gill Riar Family, LLC Rezone request, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.” Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Gill Riar Family Rezone Page 1 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 Regarding: Riar Rezone PLN#518 Summary: Gill Riar Family, LLP is requesting a land use designation change and rezone of 7.23 acres from Residential Low to Moderate Density (RLMD) to High Density Residential (RHD). The application consists of three parcels; 7103, 7115, and 7127 172nd St SE. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on May 7, 2019, followed by an open record Public Hearing on May 21, 2019 for the Riar Rezone, PLN#518. The Planning Commission transmits the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: Findings: 1.State law (RCW 36.70A.130) allows Cities to amend their Comprehensive Plans once annually. The Council recently updated and clarified the docketing process for review of all proposed amendments as part of an effort to insure that these proposed changes were considered together. 2.In addition, AMC 20.96.024 establishes qualifying criteria for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that must be met for inclusion on the Docket. 3.Comprehensive Plan amendments can be proposed either by private parties, or by the City. In either case, the proposed amendment is subject to the same docketing procedures. The only exception is for emergency amendments, none of which were proposed for the 2019 docket. 4.The items included on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket all meet the submission requirements and specific criterial contained in AMC 20.96 sections 010 through 060. The subject rezone request is a privately submitted non-project action determined by Council in its April 1, 2019 meeting to be consistent with the docketing requirements. 5.During the open record Public Hearing on May 21, 2019 considerable opposition to this rezone was expressed in testimony by residents living in the area potentially affected by the rezone. Conclusion and Recommendation: The commission had difficulty reconciling the two land use zones available to us (RMD and RHD) with the stated intent of the applicant and objections of neighboring property owners. In addition, without specific development conditions attached to the rezone, the Commission is concerned about the potential lack of any binding connection between this Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Gill Riar Family Rezone Page 2 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 non-project rezone and future development. The Comprehensive Plan is specific about the distribution of a variety of housing types through existing residential zones, however it is less specific about the compatibility of the resultant built form. In order to meet GMA mandated growth projections, the City has to build new housing at an average density of 15 dwelling units per acre. This level of intensity will require us to provide a place for a sufficient supply of “missing middle” housing (duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, etc.). We currently do not have an adequate zone for that. It is the opinion of the Commission that we do not currently have the land use tools necessary to accomplish this residential intensity without generating unacceptable levels of neighborhood resistance. Based on the foregoing findings, Commission discussion and testimony received at the hearing along with written comments to the Community Development Department, the Planning Commission, recommends, on a unanimous vote, that Council disapprove the Riar family rezone, PLN #518. It is also recommended that Council direct staff to examine current and potential zoning mechanisms for use as land use tools to be employed in support of Comprehensive Plan growth requirements. Respectfully submitted through the Department of Community and Economic Development to the City Council this twenty-second day of May 2019 by: ____________________________________________________ Bruce Angell City of Arlington Planning Commission Chair Staff Report & Recommendation Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 Community and Economic Development Planning Division 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223 Planning Commission STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION To: Planning Commission From: Josh Grandlienard, Planner II Date: March 28, 2019 Regarding: Gill Riar PLN #518 A.INTRODUCTION The Applicant is proposing to rezone a property at 7103, 7115, and 7127 172nd St. SE from a Residential Low to Moderate Density zoning to a Residential High Density zone for an approximately 7.23 acre lot. This request if granted would be an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended. The Plan is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle. B.GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Gill Riar Family, LLP Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Property Rezone Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council Exhibits: Application and Narrative Staff Report & Recommendation Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION The applicant is requesting the rezoning of an approximately 7.23 acre Lot from Residential Low to Moderate Density to Residential High Density. Approval by the City Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is granted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended. D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing. d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the March 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting was posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald. 3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION The Gill Riar Family, LLC Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106. E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals: PH-1.1, PH-2.1, PH-2.3, PL- 7.1, and PL-7.2. This means that based on the submittal that the rezone will contribute to a variety of housing types and densities, located near commercial and employment centers. F. ANALYSIS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption, the rezoning of tax parcel 310523003011700, 3105230301400, 31052301800 from Residential Low to Moderate Density zoning to Residential High Density by City Council. G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Public Hearings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and May 21, 2019. 2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural requirements. Staff Report & Recommendation Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of Arlington 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting. 4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 5. On May 7, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the May 21, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 6. The application for PLN#518 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 7. PLN#518 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. 8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act. 9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN #518, which is adopted by reference into this approval. 10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#518, furthers the public health, safety and general welfare. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Arlington City Council to adopt the Riar Rezone, 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PLN #518. PROJECT NARRATIVE City of Arlington January 11, 2019 GILL RIAR FAMILY LLP. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND CONCOMITANT REZONE APPLICATION Residential Low/Moderate Density to Residential High Density 1 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICANTS AND PROJECT TEAM 2 APPLICATION AND SITE INTRODUCTION 2 PROJECT SUBMITTAL 3 PROJECT APPLICATION BACKGROUND 3 CONCOMITANT REZONE PROPOSED CONDITIONS/ANALYIS 4 IMPLEMENTING THE AMMIC GOALS AND POLICIES 7 REZONE MAP REQUST/CRITERIA 9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP REQUEST/CRITERIA 14 CONCLUSION 19 2 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application APPLICANTS AND PROJECT TEAM Applicant/Owner Gill Riar Family, LLP C/O Supinder Gill 1242 State STE I, PMB 330 Marysville, WA 98270 Project Representative Clay White, Director of Planning LDC Inc. 20210 142rd Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 APPLICATION AND SITE INTRODUCTION Gill Riar Family, LLP. is requesting a land use designation change and rezone of 7.23 acres from Residential Low to Moderate Density (RLMD) to High Density Residential (RHD). The application consists of three parcels (310523003011700, 3105230301400, and 31052301800) and the property addresses are 7103, 7115, and 7127 172nd St. SE. We are requesting that this application be processed through the formal docket process as outlined in Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) 20.96. The request for a rezone falls under SMC 20.96.026. While this is a non-project proposal and no project action is being submitted or evaluated under this application, we want to be open and transparent with interested parties about possible future uses for the property (should the application be approved or not be approved by the Arlington City Council). This allows us to have an open conversation and address comments that were received when a similar application was previously submitted. As part of this application we are asking that the city condition our land use and zoning map approval through the use of a concomitant agreement. This will allow several proposed conditions to be applied to this non-project action in order to ensure any future use of the property syncs well with surrounding properties and provides a natural transition of land uses. Under the agreement we are proposing, density for a future project would be limited and apartments would not be allowed. Further, we are asking that future possible uses on the property be severely limited. We have provided a Table 1 within this application to highlight the uses currently allowed with the existing zoning versus what would be allowed if this application were approved. If this application is approved, almost all of the high intensity uses currently allowed on the property would be eliminated as possible future uses for the site. Project/Site Description overview Property Addresses: 7103, 7115, and 7127 172nd St. SE Arlington, WA. 98223 Parcel Number: Parcel Numbers – 310523003011700, 3105230301400, 31052301800 Current Zoning/Land Use: RLMD – Residential Low to Moderate Density Proposed Zoning/Land Use: RHD – High Density Residential Total property: 7.23 acres Request for concomitant rezone: Although this is a non-project application, we are asking that conditions be placed on the rezone in order to limit future uses and densities on the subject property in order to ensure a future project is compatible with residential uses in the area. This would be executed through a concomitant rezone agreement. 3 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application It is also worthy to note that approval of this non-project action does not authorize a townhouse project or any other use. A future townhome project, in addition to a subdivision/site plan approval and SEPA compliance, would require a conditional use permit subject to the requirements of AMC 21.16. This process would require public notice, a public hearing with the City of Arlington Hearing Examiner, and the requirement that any future proposal meet the CUP and subdivision review criteria listed in code. This will not be the last opportunity to comment. As our application demonstrates, this proposed non-project action meets the criteria for both a land use and zoning map change as outlined in AMC 20.96.026 and 20.96.060. Tables 2 and 3 are provided to demonstrate how the project complies with City of Arlington requirements for a land use and zoning map change. The project conditions being proposed are being provided to help ensure that any future development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. PROJECT SUBMITTAL In addition to the project narrative, the submittal package for this application includes the following materials:  Land use map/rezone application  SEPA checklist  Site Plans PROJECT APPLICATION BACKGROUND In 2017, a similar application was submitted to the City of Arlington as part of the annual docket application process. That application was subsequently amended by the City to include some additional parcels to the west of the subject property. While we are open to those parcels being included once again, we are not requesting that as part of this application. While City of Arlington staff found that our application met all of the land use map amendment criteria in AMC 20.96.060 and the criteria for rezone approval in AMC 20.96.026, the application was ultimately not approved by the Arlington City Council. This seemed due primarily to concerns expressed by neighboring properties about future uses and the transportation impacts of those uses if the land use/zoning change was approved. The application is focused on the land use and zoning maps change request. This is not a project submittal. If a project is proposed on the site in the future, either under the current or proposed zoning, it will be reviewed at that time for project specific impacts. However, because of the previous application process, we have focused on finding ways to mitigate some of the concerns that were previously raised. We understand the concerns that have been expressed and this application proposes to mitigate those concerns through the use of a concomitant rezone that would limit future uses and density on the subject properties. We are proposing a concomitant rezone expressly because of the comments that were previously submitted. This should bridge the gap between this non-project proposal and a possible future project proposal. In review of the previous record, very few comments focused on the criteria for a land use map change in SMC 20.96.060 but focused on possible future impacts of a project proposal. A concomitant rezone is a mechanism to address project level concerns at the non-project stage. We would like to be partners with the surrounding neighborhoods and the City as this proposal is evaluated and focus on solutions if concerns or questions are raised. 4 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application CONTRACT REZONE PROPOSED CONDITIONS/ANALYSIS As part of our application, we are asking that the City of Arlington approve our land use change and rezone from RLMD to RHD. In addition, we ask that the City consider placing the following (or similar) conditions, as part of the approving legislation. This would be executed by a concomitant agreement attached to the enabling ordinance:  Limit the uses allowed on the RHD property to those identified within Table 1 - This will make it clear that uses such as apartments, nursing homes, and police/fire stations would not be allowed in the future when a project is proposed. Further, we have provided Table 1 to outline the uses currently allowed or conditionally allowed under the current RLMD zoning. We hope this shows that many uses currently allowed under the RLMD zoning code could have substantial impacts beyond what would be allowed under the concomitant rezone we are seeking. By limiting RHD uses, this provides a great compromise and zoning transition leading to the church and commercial property directly west of the site  Limit future density - The RHD zone allows unlimited density as long as the rest of the code requirements are met (parking, open space, screening, maximum lot coverage, setbacks, ect.). We are asking for a condition that would limit the subject site to no more than 13 dwelling units per acre. While the zoning would still be RHD, the proposed density cap would ensure that high density housing would not occur in the future if housing was proposed. Table 1 below has two purposes. First, it provides a comparison of uses between the current zoning of RMLD and the proposed RHD zoning to outline uses that are currently allowed on the property vs. what uses may be allowed if a land use and zoning map change were approved. Second, the table outlines those uses we are volunteering to restrict on the subject property in the future should the application be approved. Between limiting uses and density on the site, we are proposing a land use and zoning map change that would allow fewer and less intense uses than are currently permitted. Arlington Municipal Code 20.40.020 outlines the designations Z, S, C in table of permissible uses.  "P" means that the use is permissible with a valid city business license.  "ZV" means that the use is permissible with a zoning verification approval.  "Z" means that the use is permissible in the indicated zone with a zoning permit issued by the community development director. Under this proposal, uses such as apartments would not be allowed when a future project is proposed even though there are apartments currently located within the Gleneagle development just north of this site. Townhomes, similar to those located within the Gleneagle development (shown above), would be permitted with a conditional use permit. However, we are requesting density restrictions to ensure any future project fits into the community. Any future project would be required to mitigate for any impacts such as traffic. 5 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application  "S" means a special use permit must be obtained from the community development director or hearing examiner, and the letter  "C" means a conditional use permit must be obtained from the hearing examiner.  A blank column means the use is not allowed When used in connection with residential uses:  "ZSC" means that such developments of less than twenty dwelling units must be pursuant to a zoning permit, developments of twenty or more but less than fifty dwelling units need a special use permit, and developments of fifty or more dwelling units require a conditional use permit. When used in connection with nonresidential uses:  "ZS" or "ZC" means that such developments require a zoning permit if the total area to be developed is less than four acres in size, and a special or conditional use permit, respectively, if the total area is four acres or larger in area. In addition:  A strikethrough indicates a use that is allowed or conditionally under the proposed RHD zoning but that we are asking the City Council to specifically restrict as part of the rezone request. Uses allowed Current zoning - RLMD Proposed zoning - RHD Site built and modular structures ZV Class “A” mobile home ZV Class “B” mobile home ZV Mobile Home Park ZSC Two family conversion ZV ZV Accessory Dwelling units ZV ZV Duplex ZV ZV Multi-family conversions ZSC Multi-family townhomes ZSC Multi-family apartments ZSC Homes for handicapped or informed C C Nursing care, intermediate care homes C C Special needs child care C C Halfway house C C Adult family homes Z Z Table 1 –allowed uses under the current vs. proposed zoning 6 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application Homes for handicapped or infirm C Nursing care, intermediate care homes C Special needs child care homes C Halfway house C Adult family homes Z Z Rooming houses, boarding houses Z Z Tourist homes and other temporary residences renting by the day or week Z Z In-home Child day care P P Transient merchant sales (food truck, ice cream truck, etc.) P P Colleges, universities, community colleges C C Religious assembly as a principal onsite use ZS ZS Religious assembly as an assessory use P P Libraries, museum, art galleries, and similar uses within previous single family home Z Z Libraries, museum, art galleries, and similar uses within any building C C Private outdoor recreation facilities C C Publically owned and operated recreational facilities ZS ZS Gold driving ranges C ZS Nursing care institutions C C Institutions for the mentally ill C ZS Electric vehicle infrastructure ZS ZS Police stations C C Fire stations C C Rescue squad, ambulance services C C Civil defense operation ZS ZS Temporary mobile or modular structures used for public services Z Z Cemetery ZS ZS Commercial nursery school; day care centers S S 7 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application TIMING OF A FUTURE PROJECT IN RELATION TO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON SR-531 - ROAD WIDENING/REHABILITATION PROJECTS The land use map and rezone being requested is a non-project action. Any future project on the site would be required to be approved by the City of Arlington. The time it takes from permitting to construction typically takes several years which means any future project would not be completed until about 2022. This times well with the SR-531 widening and rehabilitation and signalization projects that are on the City of Arlington 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The 39,000,000 widening project would widen SR 531 (172nd Street) between 43rd and 67th ave (just west of the application site). Project funding for this project comes from the Connect Washington program and will be managed by the Washington State Department of Transportation. The 1,300,000 SR-531 roadway and corridor improvements on SR 531 (172nd St) would eliminate left turn pockets and install a solid median, improve sidewalks and pedestrian and bike facilities. According to the City of Arlington, construction on this project will begin in 2021. These projects coupled with any traffic improvements from a future project on the site and traffic mitigation fees, will be a positive impact on the community. To be clear, any future project submitted to the City of Arlington will be required to mitigate traffic impacts associated with that project IMPLEMENTING THE ARLINGTON-MARYSVILLE MAJOR INDUSTIRAL CENTER (AMMIC) SUBAREA PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Although still moving through the approval process, it is worthy to show how the proposed land use and zoning map change is consistent with the vision for the City as it implements the MIC and plans for thousands of new jobs in the region. According to the AMMIC Subarea Plan prepared for the Cities of Arlington and Marysville, the “…Subarea Plan articulates a vision for the Arlington-Marysville Subject property 8 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application Manufacturing/Industrial Center’s future, as well as goals and policies that provide a roadmap to guide public and private investments. The Subarea Plan reflects the city and community aspirations for the center and plans for anticipated growth.” The City of Arlington portion of the MIC consists of 2,291 acres and includes the 737- acre airport which is owned by the City. As the Subarea Plan outlines, outreach and citizen engagement was an important part of the project and the output of those meetings informed the vision, guiding principles, and goals and policies of the Subarea Plan. One of the primary themes of this outreach was “Location of affordable workforce housing. Many businesses citied the supply of affordable workforce housing in Arlington and Marysville as a key asset and need. Approximately 45% of AMMIC employees live less than 10 miles of the subarea, reflecting the appeal of the immediate vicinity for employees.” The Riar family property is located approximately 1000 feet from the MIC boundary, which provides a mixture of general and light industrial directly adjacent to the site. Further, there is commercial property just west of the Riar property (borders east boundary of MIC) that is scheduled for development in early 2019. RHD zoning could provide an opportunity for more affordable, single-family housing options, for those working within the MIC. The location of the property would also reflect the desire to provide jobs in close proximity to where people live. Conditions proposed as part of this application would help balance the need to implement the MIC Subarea Plan while also ensuring any future development harmonizes with the existing development in the area. MIC boundary Subject property Subject property 9 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application The Sub-area plan also outlines infrastructure improvements to be emphasized as part of Plan implementation. Major roadway improvements are designated for 172nd (HWY 531) along the site frontage. A future development project (under the current or proposed zoning) would provide some of those improvements, pay impact fees, and offset costs for these improvements in order to assist the City in implementing this vision. These future improvements would also connect the project site to Centennial Trail. REZONE MAP REQUEST/CRITERIA AMC 20.96.026 outlines the criteria that must be met in order for a zoning text or map change to be approved. Table 2 below outlines each of the six criteria and demonstrates how this proposal is consistent and implements each of them. Selection and decision criteria – text and zoning map amendments Response – how proposed zoning map change meets all six criteria The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. This proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Arlington comprehensive plan. The following are goals, objectives, and policies that support this land use change. A brief analysis is provided for each policy listed. GO-3 – Work towards promoting and maintaining an urban environment within the City that enhances livability for its residents. Response: This proposal would promote urban densities in the City while proposing restrictions on density to ensure livability is enhanced for residents. This proposal would also increase livability by providing opportunities for housing near jobs (MIC) that would be affordable for residents. GH-1 – Diversify the City’s housing stock. Response: This proposal would help diversify the City’s housing stock and provide a great transition from single family housing to the north and east to commercial uses to the west. Further, proposed Subject property Centennial Trail Table 2 –rezone request approval criteria 10 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application application restrictions would ensure any future residential densities are appropriate for the neighborhood. GH-2 – Ensure the development of new multi-family housing and small single-family housing units occur within close proximity to commercial areas within the City. Response: This proposal would be adjacent to Commercial property located at the corner of 172nd St NE and 67th Ave NE which is scheduled to be developed in 2019. Further, the site is located just east of a church and approximately 1,500 feet from industrially zoned lands. GH-5 – Encourage a quality housing stock within the City. Response: Our application would remove apartments as a use for the site. Any future single family development would most likely be attached single family homes. This would increase the variety of housing types but provide quality housing, especially for people wanting to work and live within the City of Arlington. Further, any future development would be required City design standards. GH-8 – Promote and facilitate the provision of affordable housing in all areas and zoning districts of the City. Response: If a future housing project were proposed, it would provide housing that could be affordable for people wanting to live and work in the City. However, it would still be high quality single family development in character with surrounding neighborhoods and City requirements. Proposed application mitigation would ensure this balance. GL-4 – Accommodate new development in a manner that supports a growth rate consistent with the goals of the State Growth Management Act but also preserves and enhances Arlington’s quality of life, its natural environment, and its historical and cultural amenities. Response: This rezone and land use change would be consistent with growth the City is focused on accommodating and would support the MIC. However, by limiting future densities, we would also preserve and enhance Arlington’s quality of life, its natural environment, and its historical and cultural amenities. GL-7 – Encourage a mix of residential densities throughout the City. Response: This rezone and land use map change would help facilitate a mix of residential densities throughout the City. PO-6.1 – Site design and build architecture in residential and commercial developments should be human-scaled (i.e. pedestrian friendly) and conducive to social interaction). 11 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application Response: Any future development would be required to be designed to meet or exceed City of Arlington design guidelines and standards to ensure this is implemented. PH-1.1 – A variety of housing types and densities should be encouraged on lands with a residential land-use designation. Response: This land use and zoning map change would help implement this policy and help provide transition zoning between single family detached homes to the north and east and commercial and industrial lands to the west. PH-2.1 – Multi-family housing should be located close to commercial and employment centers, transportation facilities, public services, schools, and park and recreation areas. Response: This is a great location for Multi-family residential housing. The site is located adjacent to commercial property and industrial zones lands. The Centennial Trail is adjacent to the site and schools are very close as well. PH-5.1 – The City should develop and maintain Development Design Guidelines/Standards that address aesthetic and environmental design issues for single family and multi-family development. Response: Any future use would be required to comply with the City of Arlington design standards. PH-8.1 – The City should work to ensure that housing options for low and moderate income families households are: a) Dispersed throughout the City to discourage a disproportionate concentration of such housing in any one geographical area of the City; b) Are located near amenities such as commercial and employment areas, transportation facilities, and recreational opportunities and; c) Are inclusive of a variety of housing types. Response: This proposal perfectly implements this policy. This land use and zoning change would help ensure there are housing options throughout the city, would provide a location near commercial areas and jobs, and could help supply an inclusive housing type while still balancing well with the neighborhood. PL-4.3 – The City should adopt and maintain development regulations that ensure that growth is consistent with State laws and the Community Vision. Response: This project would ensure that growth is consistent with State laws and the Community Vision. This includes the new MIC subarea plan which emphasizes the need for housing near where jobs 12 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application are being created. This also emphasizes the GMA goal to provide urban densities within cities but our application balances this need with the need to protect existing neighborhoods. PL-4.8 - The City should plan for balanced mix of land uses based on land availability and the capacity to provide public services. Response: This land use map and zoning change would help provide a balanced mix of land uses. Any future development would be required to ensure project impacts are mitigated, City of Arlington code is implemented, and any impact to public services are paid for through impact fees. PL-7.2 – Higher density residential uses should be located around commercial uses. Response: If residential uses were proposed in the future, they would be located adjacent to a church and commercially zoned property. Further, we are proposing a concomitant rezone to limit future densities to ensure this property provides a great transition of uses. PL-8.1 – The City should develop design standards to ensure the orderly transition and compatibility of adjacent residential uses. Response: Any future development would be required to comply with City of Arlington design standards. Our application also proposes use and density restrictions to ensure this occurs. PT-1.9 – Require developers to construct those streets directly serving new development and pay a fair-share for specific off-site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. Response: Any future development would be required to construct those streets directly serving new development and pay a fair-share for specific off-site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. PE-2.2 – The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to housing ratio. Response: If a residential use is proposed in the future, it would help implement the MIC Sub-area plan and would provide opportunities to help ensure a jobs/housing balance. The proposed amendment is consistent with the scope and purpose of the city's zoning ordinances and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for. The proposed amendment is consistent with the scope and purpose of the city's zoning ordinances and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for. As outlined in AMC 20.36.010, “The Residential high density (R-HD) district is designed primarily to accommodate higher density multi-family developments and recreational, quasi-public, and public uses that customarily serve 13 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application residential development in areas served by public sewer and water facilities.” This property is served by public water and sewer. Further, while a number of uses are allowed in the RHD zone, we are proposing to limit the number of uses are possible future density in order to balance this appropriate land use and zoning change with existing development. This should help ensure any future development harmonizes well with existing development while still providing future uses that implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning map or district to warrant the proposed amendment. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning map or district to warrant the proposed amendment. The City is working to accommodate new job growth within the MIC boundaries. Further, housing affordability has become a huge issue in our region and there is strong need to provide a variety of housing types and uses near where jobs are created (jobs/housing balance). However, we believe that unlimited density on this site and some of the uses in the current and proposing zoning may not be appropriate directly adjacent to the residential uses. Therefore, we are proposing a contract rezone that would recognize the need to implement the comprehensive plan policies and recognize changed circumstances while still ensuring that any future development harmonizes with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the uses and zoning of surrounding property. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the uses and zoning of surrounding property. As outlined in Table 1, most of the uses allowed in the current zoning are also allowed in the proposed zoning. However, we are asking that possible uses for this property be restricted in the future to ensure compatibility. As highlighted in the report, there are uses currently allowed in the underlying zoning that may not be a good fit for the existing neighborhood and could have impacts beyond what would be allowed under this proposal. We are proposing a compromise that would address compatibility to ensure a future use will work well. The topography of the site and City imposed height limits will also help ensure there is visual compatibility with existing residential uses The property that is the subject of the amendment is suited for the uses allowed in the proposed zoning classification. The property that is the subject of the amendment is suited for the uses allowed in the proposed zoning classification. As proposed, this amendment would proposes future uses for the site that would have less impact than some of the uses currently allowed. We are proposing to eliminate many uses if the RHD zoning is approved and limit densities to make sure the amendment is appropriate. Adequate public services could be made available to serve the full range of proposed uses in that zone Adequate public services are available to serve the full range of proposed uses in the proposed zone. 14 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP REQUEST/CRITERIA AMC 20.96.060 outlines the criteria that must be met in order for a zoning text or map change to be approved. Table 2 below outlines each of the four criteria and demonstrates how this proposal is consistent and implements each of them. Selection and decision criteria – Comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments Response – how proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps change meets all four criteria The amendment represents a matter appropriately addressed through the comprehensive plan, and the proposed amendment demonstrates a public benefit and enhances the public health, safety and welfare of the city. The amendment does represents a matter appropriately addressed through the comprehensive plan process as we are seeking a land use map change paired with a rezone. The docket process is required for this amendment. The proposed amendment demonstrates a public benefit and enhances the public health, safety and welfare of the city. We agree with the previous City analysis on public health, safety, and welfare. We believe the following findings by city staff are further enhanced by the project conditions we are proposing for this land use map and rezone request. The amendment does not raise policy or land use issues that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing work program approved by the city council. The amendment does not raise policy or land use issues that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing work program approved by the city council. This application is appropriately being submitted as part of the annual docket process. Further, through this process we Table 3 – Comprehensive Plan approval criteria 15 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application are able to balance site specific circumstances that may not be present for all properties zoned RHD. As an example, we feel it is appropriate to limit future potential uses and densities for this site to balance the transition of uses with existing development. This would probably not be needed for all RHD properties. This process allows us to focus on this particular area. The proposed amendment addresses significantly changed conditions since the last time the pertinent comprehensive plan map or text was amended. "Significantly changed conditions" are those resulting from unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy, or changed conditions on the subject property or its surrounding area, or changes related to the pertinent comprehensive plan map or text, where such change has implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole. The proposed amendment addresses significantly changed conditions since the last time the pertinent comprehensive plan map or text was amended. "Significantly changed conditions" are those resulting from unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy, or changed conditions on the subject property or its surrounding area, or changes related to the pertinent comprehensive plan map or text, where such change has implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole. The City is working to accommodate new job growth within the MIC boundaries. Further, housing affordability has become a huge issue in our region and there is strong need to provide a variety of housing types and uses near where jobs are created (jobs/housing balance). However, we believe that unlimited density on this site and some of the uses in the current and proposing zoning may not be appropriate directly adjacent to the residential uses. Therefore, we are proposing a contract rezone that would recognize the need to implement the comprehensive plan policies and recognize changed circumstances while still ensuring that any future development harmonizes with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other goals and policies of the city, the countywide planning policies, the Growth Management Act, other state or federal law, and the Washington Administrative Code and other applicable law. The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other goals and policies of the city, the countywide planning policies, the Growth Management Act, other state or federal law, and the Washington Administrative Code and other applicable law. The City Comprehensive Plan implements the requirements outlined in state law and the CPPs. The following demonstrates how our proposal complies with those policies and in turn is consistent with state and regional laws and policies. GO-3 – Work towards promoting and maintaining an urban environment within the City that enhances livability for its residents. 16 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application Response: This proposal would promote urban densities in the City while proposing restrictions on density to ensure livability is enhanced for residents. This proposal would also increase livability by providing opportunities for housing near jobs (MIC) that would be affordable for residents. GH-1 – Diversify the City’s housing stock. Response: This proposal would help diversify the City’s housing stock and provide a great transition from single family housing to the north and east to commercial uses to the west. Further, proposed application restrictions would ensure any future residential densities are appropriate for the neighborhood. GH-2 – Ensure the development of new multi-family housing and small single-family housing units occur within close proximity to commercial areas within the City. Response: This proposal would be adjacent to Commercial property located at the corner of 172nd St NE and 67th Ave NE which is scheduled to be developed in 2019. Further, the site is located just east of a church and commercial property and approximately 1,500 feet from industrially zoned lands within the MIC. GH-5 – Encourage a quality housing stock within the City. Response: Our application would remove apartments as a use for the site. Any future single family development would most likely be attached single family homes very similar to those located within the Gleneagle Development. This would increase the variety of housing types but provide quality housing, especially for people wanting to work and live within the City of Arlington. Further, any future development would be required City design standards. GH-8 – Promote and facilitate the provision of affordable housing in all areas and zoning districts of the City. Response: If a future housing project were proposed, it would provide housing that could be affordable for people wanting to live and work in the City. However, it would still be high quality single family development in character with surrounding neighborhoods and City requirements. Proposed application mitigation would ensure this balance. GL-4 – Accommodate new development in a manner that supports a growth rate consistent with the goals of the State Growth Management Act but also preserves and 17 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application enhances Arlington’s quality of life, its natural environment, and its historical and cultural amenities. Response: This rezone and land use change would be consistent with growth the City is focused on accommodating and would support the MIC. However, by limiting future densities, we would also preserve and enhance Arlington’s quality of life, its natural environment, and its historical and cultural amenities. GL-7 – Encourage a mix of residential densities throughout the City. Response: This rezone and land use map change would help facilitate a mix of residential densities throughout the City. PO-6.1 – Site design and build architecture in residential and commercial developments should be human-scaled (i.e. pedestrian friendly) and conducive to social interaction). Response: Any future development would be required to be designed to meet or exceed City of Arlington design guidelines and standards to ensure this is implemented. PH-1.1 – A variety of housing types and densities should be encouraged on lands with a residential land-use designation. Response: This land use and zoning map change would help implement this policy and help provide transition zoning between single family detached homes to the north and east and commercial and industrial lands to the west. PH-2.1 – Multi-family housing should be located close to commercial and employment centers, transportation facilities, public services, schools, and park and recreation areas. Response: This is a great location for Multi-family residential housing. The site is located adjacent to commercial property and industrial zones lands. The Centennial Trail is adjacent, the property abuts a major arterial and schools are very close as well. PH-5.1 – The City should develop and maintain Development Design Guidelines/Standards that address aesthetic and environmental design issues for single family and multi-family development. Response: Any future use would be required to comply with the City of Arlington design standards. 18 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application PH-8.1 – The City should work to ensure that housing options for low and moderate income families households are: d) Dispersed throughout the City to discourage a disproportionate concentration of such housing in any one geographical area of the City; e) Are located near amenities such as commercial and employment areas, transportation facilities, and recreational opportunities and; f) Are inclusive of a variety of housing types. Response: This proposal perfectly implements this policy. This land use and zoning change would help ensure there are housing options throughout the city, would provide a location near commercial areas and jobs, and could help supply an inclusive housing type while still balancing well with the neighborhood. PL-4.3 – The City should adopt and maintain development regulations that ensure that growth is consistent with State laws and the Community Vision. Response: This project would ensure that growth is consistent with State laws and the Community Vision. This includes the new MIC subarea plan which emphasizes the need for housing near where jobs are being created. This also emphasizes the GMA goal to provide urban densities within cities but our application balances this need with the need to protect existing neighborhoods. PL-4.8 - The City should plan for balanced mix of land uses based on land availability and the capacity to provide public services. Response: This land use map and zoning change would help provide a balanced mix of land uses. Any future development would be required to ensure project impacts are mitigated, City of code is implemented, and any impact to public services are paid for through impact fees. PL-7.2 – Higher density residential uses should be located around commercial uses. Response: If residential uses were proposed in the future, they would be located adjacent to a church and commercially zoned property. Further, we are proposing a contract rezone to limit future densities to ensure this property provides a great transition of uses. 19 Gill Riar Family LLP – Comprehensive Plan map and rezone application PL-8.1 – The City should develop design standards to ensure the orderly transition and compatibility of adjacent residential uses. Response: Any future development would be required to comply with City of Arlington design standards. Our application also proposes use and density restrictions to ensure this occurs. PT-1.9 – Require developers to construct those streets directly serving new development and pay a fair-share for specific off-site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. Response: Any future development would be required to construct those streets directly serving new development and pay a fair-share for specific off-site improvements necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts determined through the review to be created by the development. PE-2.2 – The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to housing ratio. Response: If a residential use is proposed in the future, it would help implement the MIC Sub-area plan and would provide opportunities to help ensure a jobs/housing balance. SUMMARY Planning for growth is a difficult task. While advocating for economic development and jobs that help a community thrive is so important, it is often difficult to provide housing solutions that meet the needs of a community. In 2017, we appreciated hearing from the community about issues of concern and have now applied for this land use and zoning map change with balance in mind. A variety of housing choices are sorely needed and supported by the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan but they must also harmonize with the existing community. This is why we have asked for a concomitant (contract) rezone that would allow RHD zoning but mitigate future impacts of a project by limiting future density and uses. It is also important to note that this is a non-project action. Most uses in the RHD zone would require public notice, a public hearing, and would require mitigation for any impacts associated with a future project, such as traffic. We stand ready to work with the City and communicate with the neighborhood in order to find solutions during this application process that will work for everyone. We know that planning takes great coordination and communication. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning map change being proposed meet the City of Arlington code requirements for approval and we ask that you approve our application with the proposed conditions associated with the rezone application. 178TH PL NE 168TH ST NE 67TH AVE NE 176TH PL NE OSPREY RD TROONCT MUIRFIELD CT IRONWOODST 175TH PL NE 79TH AVE NE 82ND DR NE 179TH PLNE 177TH PLNE 172NDPLNE PERREGRINE PL AMBLESIDECT HUNTERPL ABBEY PL CONDOR DR NE NEWPORTDR VINEWAYPL 174TH PL NE HILLSIDE CT 72ND DR NE 74TH DR NE CARLISLEPL 75TH AVE NE TOPPER CT 73RDDRNE 73RD AVE NE CAMBRIDGE DR HAWKSVIEWDR 81ST DR NE 59TH DR NE WOODBINEDR 71STDRNE 59TH AVE NE OXFORDDR BOVEE LN WOODLANDS WAY GREYWALLSDR 83RD DR NE REDHAWK DR SCEDARBOUGHLOOP UPLAND DR GLENEAGLE BLVD 80TH DR NE MCPHERSON RD 79TH DR NE 180TH ST NE HIGHLANDVIEW DR EAGLEFIELD DR ECOUNTRYCLUB DR W COUNTRY CLUBDR 172ND ST NE SR 531GC GI P/SP P/SP LI GI LI NC R MDLAF SR GC 1.0 FIGURE: PROJECTION: WASHINGTON STATE PLANE, NORTH ZONE, NAD 83 HARN, FEET JOB NUMBER: 17-185 DRAWING NAME: 17-1851.0 DRAWING BY: M.COVERT DATE: 12-26-18 SCA LE: AS SHOWN JURISDICTION: ARLINGTON DES IGNER: T. REV ISION: SOURCE INFORMATION DESCRIPTION SOURCE AGENCY AreaZoningMap.mxd | MOD: 12/26/2018 | mcovert VICINITY MAP AK A L R I D G E P R O J E C T RI A R F A M I L Y L A N D U S E AN D R E Z O N E A P P L I C A T I O N AR E A Z O N I N G M A P KING COUNTY GIS CONTOURS - GENERATED FROM BARE EARTH LiDAR (KING COUNTY). THIS DATA HAS A STATED VERTICAL ACCURACY OF APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT. CITY OF REDMOND GIS SEWER, WATER, STORM SYSTEMS 166TH AVE NE NE 92ND PL Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and Rezone Area Legend Proposed Rezone Area Tax Parcels Zoning AF = Aviation Flightline GC = General Commercial GI = General Industrial LI = Light Industrial NC = Neighborhood Commercial P/SP = Public/Semi-Public (Parks) RLMD = Low to Moderate Density Residential ³ 700 0 700350 Feet 176TH PL NE TROONCT MUIRFIELD CT TOPPER CT UPLAND DR 74TH DR NE72ND DR NE 73RDDRNE 73RD AVE NE WCOUNTRY CLUBDR HIGHLAND VIEW DR 67TH AVE NE SR 531 172ND ST NE P/SP GI NC RMD GC 1.1FIGURE: PROJECTION: WASHINGTONSTATE PLANE, NORTH ZONE,NAD 83 HARN, FEET JOB NUMBER: 17-185DRAWING NAME: 17-1851.0 DRAWING BY: M.COVERTDATE: 12-26-18SCALE: AS SHOWNJURISDICTION: ARLINGTON DES IGNER: T. REV ISION: SOURCE INFORMATION DESCRIPTION SOURCE AGENCY AreaZoningMap.mxd | MOD: 12/27/2018 | mcovert VICINITY MAP AKAL RIDGE PROJECT RIA R FA MILY LA ND U SE AN D R EZON E A PPLIC ATION DE TAILE D ZONING MAP KING COUNTY GIS CONTOURS - GENERATED FROM BARE EARTH LiDAR (KING COUNTY). THIS DATA HAS A STATED VERTICAL ACCURACY OF APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT. CITY OF REDMOND GIS SEWER, WATER, STORM SYSTEMS 166TH AVE NE NE 92 ND PL Proposed ComprehensivePlan Map and Rezone Area Legend Proposed Rezone Area Tax Parcels Zoning ³ 250 0 250125 Feet GC = General Commercial GI = General Industrial NC = Neighborhood Commercial P/SP = Public/Semi-Public (Parks) RLMD = Low to Moderate Density Residential Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limitedto warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety of sources which m ay containerrors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. U sers agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmlessthe City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness ofthe data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. Gill Riar Family ± City of Arlington Date: File: Cartographer: Scale:GillRiar8.5x11_19 4/12/2019 kdh 1 inch = 3 75 fe et Gill R iar FamilyRezone to R HD BNSF Railroad 173RDPLNE 176TH PL NE SHADY GROVEPL MUIRFIELD CT WOODBINEDR AMBLESIDECT HILLSIDE CT 72ND DR NE 74TH DR NE TOPPER CT 73RD DRNE EAGLEFIELD DR 73RD AVE NE SCEDARBOUGHLOOP OXFORD DR BOVEE LN UPLAND DR HIGHLAND VIEW DR W COUNTRY CLUB DR SR 531 172NDSTNE 67TH AVE NE P/SP GI NC RMD GC Legend Existing Zoning Rezone to RHD City Limits Public Right of Way Assessor P arcels P/SP = Public/Semi-Public GI = General Industrial GC = General Commercial NC = Neighborhood Commercial RMD = Moderate Density Residential May 21, 2019 Planning Commission Public Hearing Summary of Testimony Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – PLN#511 1. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive  Is in favor of anything that will improve our schools Gill Riar Family Rezone – PLN#518 1. Robert Cameron, 17407 73rd Avenue, Arlington  Has lived at this address for 13 years and is opposed to this rezone  Within the City Comprehensive Plan the livability is something that should be taken into consideration  Traffic on Hwy 531 is already overburdened  Trying to get in and out of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek development is not safe  When the train is blocking the roadway traffic backs up to the development and people taking a left turn heading west on 67th Avenue will get tired of waiting and cut into the other lane potentially causing a head-on collision  School levies haven’t passed and continually fail, and our schools are already overburdened  Concerned about water runoff and what could occur if the site is logged  Gleneagle was logged and it flooded a factory, and Gleneagle and the developer were sued, and there’s a pending lawsuit with the City  Crossing at Edgecomb Creek Homeowner’s association is responsible for the basketball court and pays for the liability insurance  If 90 new units are built then a lot of new people will be using the basketball court that wouldn’t be sharing in the liability cost 2. Steven Tenision, 17504 73rd Drive, Arlington  Two years ago in 2017 it was voted no  In January 2019 Clay White got ahold of the people that spoke at the 2017 hearing and called them into a meeting and tried to convince the attendees that this was a good thing  We said no then too, each and every one of us  We stand here to today and we say no again  Traffic is horrible  We need to take a breather from all this high density and focus on getting roads fixed 3. Steve Leifer, 12715 State Avenue, Marysville  Is an advocate for many members of the community all of which need housing  Spoke on behalf of the project and is in favor of  His grandson and grandson’s wife came into the market to purchase a first home and it took 13-14 months to finally locate a home to buy  The home that they were able to purchase was half the size of their dream and had to get additional funds from family to purchase  Purchasing the home was a tremendous struggle for them  Grew up in the valley and is understanding of the positions of those in opposition of the rezone  Used to be able to pull out onto the roads no problem and now it’s a struggle and doesn’t like it  But people are coming this way and people are having kids and grandkids and they are going to be here  Anything that we do that restricts the growth hurts those kids and makes it more expensive to buy  Follow what’s going on in Olympia and how they keep upgrading the requirements for higher density and in-fill and then pass it along to the Regional Council and then allocates population growth to the County then the County to the Cities  The City has an urban growth boundary that it has to allow for growth and it’s their responsibility legally to do so  Serves on the Marysville planning commission and the joint project of the AMMIC is a high priority creating jobs and those people need to housing 4. Nancy Denney, 6107 72nd Drive, Marysville  A senior loan officer with Fairway Mortgage Company  Spoke on behalf of the high density project because she sees it every single day  Teaches classes for Washington State Housing Finance Commission  These are our families moving into these homes, our future generation of neighborhoods created with children going to school and keeping our communities young  The average three bedroom home in Arlington according Trulia and Zillow for the first half of 2019 is $385,000 to $395,000 up $11,000 from last year  Our children can’t afford this price of home and are being forced to rent with the average rent in Arlington being $2,375, and there’s a shortage of rentals as well  It may be a burden on schools and streets, but these homes bring tax dollars that help, and are filled with younger families that will start voting levies in so schools can be expanded  The average household medium income for this group of people is $69,000 to $70,000  These borrowers would qualify with approximately 3% down, that’s the average down payment these borrowers are coming in with and they’re coming in with assistance money and gift money from families  The price point due to the shortage of homes just keeps increasing forcing these people to go further north  Now there is a huge project (AMMIC) that’s bringing in a huge number of employers, where are these people going to go if we don’t give them affordable housing  Make sure that everyone understands that we can’t always have our children moving away from us, it doesn’t create a united community and memories, and that’s what communities are all about 5. Jacob Davis, 9414 State Avenue, Marysville  Spoke on behalf of the project  Owns a small real estate firm in Maryville  At any given time he has 20-30 qualified buyers that can’t find property  Manages 6 residential properties and 3 homeowner’s associations  Grew up on 30 acres in Marysville and has seen the growth  Not going to stop the growth, all we can do is grow responsibly  Understands that being a neighbor the concerns for traffic  Have to have more properties available for purchase or rent for those to remain close to relatives in the area  All for the project as long as long as it is done responsibly and is fair for all involved 6. Fernando Murillo, 9911 48th Drive Unit #B, Marysville  For more housing in Arlington because there isn’t enough selection 7. Ryan Campbell, 27406 102nd Street, Stanwood  For this project as more reasonably priced housing is needed  Doesn’t want to move further out of the area 8. Eyleen McCluskey-Shouman, 7607 W Country Club Drive, Arlington  Oppose to the development as she was two years ago  Remains opposed because nothing essential has changed  The Riar family continues to want to put high density housing in a low to medium density neighborhood  Sent an email on April 4, 2017 stating reasons for opposition to the rezone and spoke at the public hearing  Received a two page letter for Clay White with an invitation to the information meeting, attended the meeting with 30-40 others who were all opposed to the rezone  The letter sent by LDC mentioned the differences between the 2017 request and the current request, but many of the attendees of the meeting felt that they were not only placating them but also misleading them  Building 94 dwelling units on 7.23 is intense  In the LDC said the landowner wouldn’t build apartments on the property, but said nothing about condos which could be the same 94 units if they were apartments with the same number of residence  Does not agree with LDC’s statement that 13 dwelling units per acre is similar density to existing multi-family units in the Gleneagle neighborhood  Gleneagle has two multi-family areas which are set on about 4.5 acres in the 300 acre neighborhood and consist of 19 apartments on 2.3 acres for density of about 9 ½ dwelling units per acre, only 2/3 of what the Riar family is proposing and the condo complex consist of 15 dwelling units on about 2 acres for a density of 7 ½ units per acre  The mutli-family units in Gleaneagle have ample parking  Paying the traffic mitigation fees for the project doesn’t fix the road which is a state highway 9. Scott Tomkins, 17812 Oxford Drive, Arlington  Been through this many times and nothing has changed  It’s still a spot rezone but have taken away some of the other spots that were to be rezoned in 2017 have been removed  Moved to Arlington in 2001 after retirement to get away from the zoo that became Kirkland  172nd is a nightmare and he has to time when he can leave  Everything leads to interstate 5, doctors and shopping are all in that area and traffic gets caught up at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street  The improvements are going to end at 67th Avenue and not continue to highway 9 and it’s not going to be looked at for improvement until 2025  The traffic mitigation is nonsense because 172nd Street is a state road  Has had to turn around on 67th Avenue and go back to 180th Street to get around traffic many times  Gregory Park, the development to the north of Gregory Park and the AMMIC all converges at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street and it’s going to be an absolute zoo 10. Michael Seehaas, 17423 72nd Drive, Arlington  Those that are for the rezone are not from here and only care about the money aspect  It’s a bad plan that limits development to townhomes, a mobile home park, fire station and police station and they’re not going to build any of these besides townhomes  It’s going to create a bigger nightmare for 172nd Street and a nightmare for the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek neighborhood  A $300,000 townhome is not a starter home 11. Chip Peterson, 7019 172nd Street, Arlington  Same issues as before with 95 units of townhomes each with two cars  Traffic situation is already terrible  The apartments at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street were originally going to be mixed commercial and residential and now it’s going to be all residential which will add an additional 400 vehicles  If they kept the original proposal of single family homes it will keep with the quality of life of the area  Not a good idea to put the project at this location and no way to support this with the existing roads  Would like Council to support people that are here now not what may or may not come in the future 12. George Edgerton, 17410 73rd Drive, Arlington  President of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek homeowner’s association  Submitted a petition from the residents of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek neighborhood  Many neighbors are oppose to the rezone  The City got it right with zoning that area residential moderate density  Would like to keep with the original plan for single family homes 13. Bruce Kinney, 7023 172nd Street, Arlington  Asked if the goal is to cram as many people in this area as we possible with the use of high density rezones  This proposal comes dangerously close to a contract rezone and his understanding is that it’s illegal  Asked who stands to financially benefits from this, then answered Riar and this is at the expense of those that live in the area  Concerned about the quality of life for the existing residence  Asked why rezones aren’t being talked about in the industrial areas to rezone to high density 14. Judy Castanares, 17506 72nd Drive, Arlington  Submitted a letter with the intent of mirroring what LDC proposed  Concerned that it’s the same plan as in 2017  Read through Section 1: Findings. The City Council adopts the following findings as required by AMC Chapter 20.96 of her letter submitted – see attached letter  Read Section 2: The City Council denies the Riar Family Land Use Map and Concurrent Rezone (PLN#292)  Concerned that nothing has changed in the past two years  Arlington can do nothing about the state route for years  Heard at City Council that they want to change the title of contract rezone to development agreement because she feels they are trying to make it sound better to the citizens 15. Dwan Kinney, 7023 172nd Street, Arlington  Lives directly across the private drive from the proposed rezone  Concerned about the critical areas report that was completed with the previous owner when the development was called Glen Hawk Estates  Concerned that ¼ of her property is natural growth protection and at the base of the Peterson’s property is an area that is natural growth protection  Nothing has been mentioned about completing a State Environmental Policy Act for the proposal  The critical areas report that was complete was in 2007 and it was only for building 26 single family homes, and now there is no talk about doing an environmental review for the proposal  Many people are building east of highway 9 and use 172nd Street and that’s a huge reason to complete an environmental review because traffic is two or three times more than it was in 2007  Feels that the applicant isn’t ready because it’s not finalized of what’s being built  When the applicant is talking about how many buildings are proposed and the height, how can that be a non-project  Thinks it’s shady about the wording being changed from contract rezone to development agreement 16. William Wilbur, 18430 Newport Drive, Arlington  Lived here since 2001 and grew up in Kirkland  It was done right last time in 2017 when it was voted down  If you want to know what Arlington is going to look like, go to Kirkland  When the upper half of 172nd Street is complete they’ll put in stop lights which will slow traffic down  Not in favor of this rezone 17. Ruth Gonzales, 6823 211th Place, Arlington  Oppose to this rezone  Reported that Arlington has approximately 43 acres of vacant high density land already, so why rezone  Thinks that there is currently plenty of high density property 18. Robert Wagy, 9015 186th Street, Arlington  Just moved to the Arlington area from Lake Stevens and used to live in Bothell  Thinks Bothell is a train wreck because of the high density with no infrastructure  If going to put in high density then what is being done about infrastructure and what is the plan to mitigate for issues such as traffic  What’s being done to widen roads or add roadways to get people in and out of the area  People working at the AMMIC will bring in additional traffic  If rezoned and sold it will mess up the housing market because the overall matrix increases because vacant properties are going for more money  When development like this occurs what does it do to the overall property values 19. Marcela Cravioto, 17419 72nd Drive, Arlington  Feels that the applicant isn’t thinking about the people that live here  The proposal will cause environmental damage  The quality of life will not be the same 20. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Questioned what consists of a unit when referring to 13 units per acre 21. Susan Edgerton, 17410 73rd Drive, Arlington  Shared an experience of traveling in the area and how it took 45 minutes to get to the UW clinic in Smokey Point during the day  Shared an experience of traveling in the area on a Saturday afternoon and how when traveling to Marysville traffic was backed up getting out of her development  Noticed in Arlington that there’s a lot of land with nothing around it and that would be a better place to build high density  Asked why there isn’t more shopping in other areas so not everyone is going in one direction to one place Tic Toc, LLC Rezone – PLN#523 1. William Wilbur, 18430 Newport Drive, Arlington  Thinks that a high density rezone on ½ acre lot is ridiculous 2. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Asked if there is no information on the project then how can citizens decide  There is nothing in writing for the developer to stick to what is proposed  Thinks the City should change the policies on how they look at these proposals  Thinks that the applicant should have a project proposal and it should be in writing that if rezoned the developer has to stick to that project and if the property is sold it should go back to its original zoning 3. Neils Kjargaard, 1014 E Robinhood Drive, Arlington  Regularly transits Highland Drive and it’s busy now, what will it be if high density is built  Thinks the existing zoning is right with high density at the back of the property and moderate at the front  Appreciated that he received a notice postcard but wished it included an address  Was surprised to see this rezone again and thought that if a decision was already made then it should be made and not kicked around again and again until they get a yes  Once built then it can’t be undone  High density developments are not going to solve Arlington’s problems of growth, to help solve growth then the City shouldn’t have created jobs  Growth should have been planned for to occur slowly and not at a fast pace 4. Robert Wagy, 9015 186th Street, Arlington  Challenges the proposal at hand with rezoning only ½ acre which creates housing prices to increase 5. Mike Rouleau, 709 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives across from the rezone  The strip of property that runs along Highland Drive is supposed to be a buffer from the existing residential to the high density at the back of the property  Thinks the high density is inappropriate at the street because it’s an existing old neighborhood  There are still the same problems that there was the previous time they wanted to rezone but traffic is worse  The letter to the City from the developer is vague  Thinks that the access to Portage Street to the south will not be utilized  With 52 units and 2 cars per unit, people will be parking in the street causing problems 6. Ruth Gonzales, 6823 211th Place, Arlington  Oppose to the spot rezone  On the Planning Commission when the property was zoned medium density on the front and high density on the back  The medium density on the front is to act like a buffer to the residential area and the high density down the hill  Old Town has a specific designation to keep the integrity of the area  The accumulation of vacant property currently zoned high density is 43 acres  There is 23 plus acres that only has 3 houses and is 5 lots  Need to use the high density properties that we have before creating more  Need to maintain the quality of life in this town  The newest house in the adjacent area is 51 years old and others are older 7. Jamie Stupey, 530 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives in a home built in 1967 directly next to this property  Changing the zoning on the front of the property will add approximately 10 units on a road with no sidewalks  Children will be walking on a street that is extremely busy because there is no school bus transportation available in the area  There is not enough parking and street parking will occur and people will not be able to get out of their driveways  Thinks it is a spot rezone that isn’t a good idea 8. Matt Guentz, 810 Portage Street, Arlington  Moved here in 1991 to get out of metropolis and that is exactly what he is seeing here  Looking straight out his front window now he sees tall evergreens but with high density he’ll see cramped apartments  The area is already overly impacted  Has watched this town grow exponentially  House is close to being paid off and now this will impact his property value  Votes no for this rezone 9. Mike Evan, 18719 3rd Avenue, Arlington  Against the proposal  Moved to the area 51 years ago from Lynnwood  This area is turning in to Lynnwood  As more people move to the area housing prices increase not decrease and also rent  The appeal of Arlington has gone out the window  Wants to have trees and open spaces  More congestion around the hospital isn’t a good idea  Used to pay baseball in the field behind the existing home on the site and is concerned where the kids of this proposal are going to play  Hopes the Commission listens to the citizens 10. Vikki McMurray, 208 Joann Lane, Arlington  Moved here in 1989 and there were about 6,000 residents at that time  Is against the rezone  The stop light cycle at highway 9 and highland is a quick cycle  Counts a minimum of an additional 200 cars with this proposal added to a small two lane road  Concerned that Highland is the only way to the hospital and additional traffic could cause problems  Thinks it’s a bad spot to change any of the density and thinks it’s the perfect old town neighborhood  Thinks that the area on 204th would be a good place for high density 11. Mae Lanier, 704 Highland Drive, Arlington  Not against a couple of duplexes in the front of the property  If the rezone goes through she envisions the building like the new one on Olympic Avenue  Will be frustrated if cars park in front on of her home 12. Ruth Manizza, 625 Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives right across from where the entrance to this proposal will be  Stated that with the hospital, churches, cocoon house, daycare, preschools and nearby schools the roads are constantly busy  It’s a dangerous street that you can barely pull out on to 13. Harry Sinanian, 8635 215th Place, Arlington  There’s a 7-Eleven down the street and a new 7-Eleven just went in, because of the current density of population in the area, it will support two 7-Elevens within a mile of each other  The population density in this area is enough ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2019--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DENYING THE GILL RIAR ARLINGTON LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCURRENT REZONE (PLN #518) WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City, and is in the process of its periodic annual review and update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the Comprehensive Plan was a series of proposed amendments to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered the proposed Gill Riar Family, LLP Land Use Map amendment and Concurrent Rezone (PLN #518) and conducted an open record public hearing on May 21, 2019 and recommended denial to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same at a workshop held on May 28, 2019, and considered them along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their public hearing conducted on June 3, 2019; and the City Council having determined denying said amendment was in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed Gill Riar Family, LLP comprehensive plan amendment and concurrent rezone and finds it is not in the overall best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the following findings: a. The subject property is already suitable for development in general conformance with existing land use and the surrounding development pattern, and with zoning standards under the existing zoning classifications. b. While the amendment may be consistent with certain provisions of the comprehensive plan, it is inconsistent with others. c. When weighing the proposed amendment, the following factors weigh most heavily in favor of denial of the proposed amendment at this time: i. PL 7.1—" recommended changes in residential densities should be based on the following: a) The overall impact to surrounding properties”. ii. GL-8—" Preserve and promote the character, scale, and quality of existing neighborhoods as new development occurs”. d. Following a balancing of the interests of the property owner, the neighboring property owners, and the citizens of Arlington, the City Council concludes that, at this point in time, the land use map amendment and concurrent rezone is not in the best interests of the citizens, and the property that is the subject of ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 2 the amendment should not be rezoned; provided, however, this should not be viewed as preventing future consideration of a rezone at a later date or in future updates of Arlington’s comprehensive plan. Section 2. The City Council denies the Gill Riar Family, LLP Land Use Map Amendment and Concurrent Rezone (PLN #518). Section 3. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Effective Date. The title of this Ordinance, which summarizes the contents of this ordinance, shall be published in the official newspaper of the City. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 3rd day of June, 2019. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Erin Keator, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A-4 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Tic Toc LLC - Rezone Request PLN#523 ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Public Testimony, Planning Commission Minutes, Planning Commission Findings of Fact DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to rezone a property at 606 Highland Dr. from a Residential Low to Moderate Density zoning to a Residential High Density zone of an approximately 0.5 acre lot HISTORY: Applicant is requesting the rezone of the subject property to allow an additional 6 units to be included in his proposed apartment buildings in lieu of the proposed two duplexes affronting Highland Dr. Workshop; discussion only. At the June 3, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the ordinance denying the Tic Toc, LLC Rezone request, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.” Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Tic Toc, LLC Rezone Page 1 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 Regarding: Tic-Toc Rezone PLN #523 Summary: The applicant is proposing to rezone a property at 606 Highland Drive from a Residential Medium density zone (RMD) to a Residential High Density zone (RHD) zone for an approximately 0.5 acre lot. The Planning Commission held an open public meeting on May 7, 2019 followed by an open record Public Hearing on May 21, 2019 for the Tic-Toc Rezone, PLN# 523. The Planning Commission transmits the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: Findings: 1.State law (RCW 36.70A.130) allows Cities to amend their Comprehensive Plans once annually. The Council recently updated and clarified the docketing process for review of all proposed amendments as part of an effort to insure that these proposed changes were considered together. 2.In addition, AMC 20.96.024 establishes qualifying criteria for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that must be met for inclusion on the Docket. 3.Comprehensive Plan amendments can be proposed either by private parties, or by the City. In either case, the proposed amendment is subject to the same docketing procedures. The only exception is for emergency amendments, none of which were proposed for the 2019 docket. 4.The items included on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket all meet the submission requirements and specific criterial contained in AMC 20.96 sections 010 through 060. The subject rezone request is a privately submitted non-project action determined by council in its April 1, 2019 meeting to be consistent with the approved docketing process. 5.During the open record Public Hearing on May 21, 2019 considerable opposition to this rezone was expressed in testimony by residents living in the area potentially affected by the rezone. In addition, written public comments were received by the Community Development Department which are part of the record that was considered in this matter. Findings of Fact City of Arlington Planning Commission Tic Toc, LLC Rezone Page 2 of 2 City of Arlington Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 18204 59th Avenue NE, #B Arlington, WA 98223 Conclusion and Recommendation: The Commission had difficulty reconciling the two land use zones available to us (RMD and RHD) with objections of neighboring property owners. The subject property is in a neighborhood with a wide range in intensity of uses. Buffers and transitions should be carefully considered to avoid negatively impacting existing housing. Placing higher density housing in existing residential neighborhoods is mandated by our Comprehensive Plan, but in the opinion of the Commission that will require a precision of land use tools currently unavailable. Based on the foregoing findings, Commission discussion and testimony received at the hearing along with written comments to the Community Development Department, the Planning Commission, recommends, on a unanimous vote, that Council disapprove the Tic- Toc rezone, PLN #523. It is also recommended that Council direct staff to examine current and potential zoning mechanisms for use as land use tools to be employed in support of Comprehensive Plan growth requirements. Respectfully submitted through the Department of Community and Economic Development to the City Council this twenty Second day of May 2019 by: ____________________________________________________ Bruce Angell City of Arlington Planning Commission Chair Staff Report & Recommendation Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 Community and Economic Development Planning Division 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223 Planning Commission STAFF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION To: Planning Commission From: Josh Grandlienard, Planner II Date: March 21, 2019 Regarding: Tic Toc LLC PLN #523 A.INTRODUCTION The Applicant is proposing to rezone a property at 606 Highland Drive from a Residential Medium Density zoning to a Residential High Density zone for an approximately 0.5 acre lot. This request if granted would be an amendment to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended. The Plan is submitted under the 2019 Comprehensive Update docket cycle. B.GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Tic Toc LLC Project Description: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Property Rezone Requested Action: Make a recommendation of approval to the Arlington City Council Exhibits: Tic Toc Application and Narrative Staff Report & Recommendation Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 C. DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION The applicant is requesting the rezoning of an approximately 0.5 acre Lot from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density. Approval by the City Council is required for all rezone applications. If the request is granted, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Official Zoning Map would need to be amended. D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 1. SEPA COMPLIANCE: The amendment of a comprehensive plan amendment is subject to provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 20.98 of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/INVOLVEMENT a. Presentations and/or updates to the Planning Commission will occur on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. b. Two Public Hearings will be held at Planning Commission, located at Arlington City Chambers on the following dates, March 19, 2019 and May 21, 2019. c. The City will present information and advertise the Public Hearings regarding the Planning Docket in the Everett Herald, and via area wide mailing. d. A Notice of Public Hearing for the March 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting was posted at the Arlington and Smokey Point Post Offices, The Arlington Library and City Hall. The Notice was also published in the Everett Herald. 3. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOTIFICATION The Tic Toc, LLC Rezone, along with the additional docket items will be submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC), and the DOC will notify the City that if it is in procedural compliance with RCW 36.70A.106. E. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff has reviewed the draft findings during review of the project and finds that the applicant has met the intent of all applicable requirements and standards. The plan supplements the Comprehensive Plan, through planning goals: PH-1.1, PH-2.1, PH-2.3, PL- 7.1, and PL-7.2. This means that based on the submittal that the rezone will contribute to a variety of housing types and densities, located near commercial and employment centers. F. ANALYSIS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend for approval and adoption, the rezoning of tax parcel 31051100401700 from Residential Moderate Density zoning to Residential High Density by City Council. G. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Public Hearings will be held on March 5, 2019, March 19, 2019, and May 21, 2019. 2. The Planning Docket and associated staff reports will be submitted to the DOC in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and the submittal will meet all DOC’s procedural requirements. Staff Report & Recommendation Grandview North Rezone – Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 3. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission will review a draft of the City of Arlington 2019 Comprehensive Plan Docket at their workshop meeting. 4. On February 19, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the March 19, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing was posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 5. On May 7, 2019 a Notice of Public Hearing for the May 21, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing will be posted at Arlington City Hall, Arlington Post Office, Smokey Point Post Office and the Arlington Public Library. 6. The application for PLN#523 has been reviewed for consistency with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and for internal consistency and the 2019 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with, and internally consistent with, the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. 7. PLN#523 has been reviewed in accordance with, and is consistent with, the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies. 8. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments were prepared in accordance with the Washington State Enabling Legislation (RCW 35A.63) and the Growth Management Act. 9. Documentation supporting the findings of fact is located in the file PLN#523, which is adopted by reference into this approval. 10. Adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, PLN#523, furthers the public health, safety and general welfare. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Arlington Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Arlington City Council to adopt the Tic Toc Rezone, 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PLN#523. Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limitedto warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. Map data are com piled from a variety of sources which m ay containerrors and users who rely upon the information do so at their own risk. U sers agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmlessthe City of Arlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy or correctness ofthe data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. Tic Toc, LLC ± City of Arlington Date: File: Cartographer: Scale:TicTocLLC8.5x11_19 4/12/2019 kdh 1 inch = 1 67 fe et Tic To c LLCRezone to R HD E JACKSON ST E UNION ST S FRENCH AVE E HIGHLAND DR RMD MS P/SP RHD OTRD RMD Legend Existing Zoning Rezone to RHD City Limits Public Right of Way Assessor P arcels OTRD = Old Town Residential DistrictP/SP = Public/Semi-Public RMD = Moderate Density ResidentialRHD = High Density Residential MS = Medical Services May 21, 2019 Planning Commission Public Hearing Summary of Testimony Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan – PLN#511 1. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive  Is in favor of anything that will improve our schools Gill Riar Family Rezone – PLN#518 1. Robert Cameron, 17407 73rd Avenue, Arlington  Has lived at this address for 13 years and is opposed to this rezone  Within the City Comprehensive Plan the livability is something that should be taken into consideration  Traffic on Hwy 531 is already overburdened  Trying to get in and out of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek development is not safe  When the train is blocking the roadway traffic backs up to the development and people taking a left turn heading west on 67th Avenue will get tired of waiting and cut into the other lane potentially causing a head-on collision  School levies haven’t passed and continually fail, and our schools are already overburdened  Concerned about water runoff and what could occur if the site is logged  Gleneagle was logged and it flooded a factory, and Gleneagle and the developer were sued, and there’s a pending lawsuit with the City  Crossing at Edgecomb Creek Homeowner’s association is responsible for the basketball court and pays for the liability insurance  If 90 new units are built then a lot of new people will be using the basketball court that wouldn’t be sharing in the liability cost 2. Steven Tenision, 17504 73rd Drive, Arlington  Two years ago in 2017 it was voted no  In January 2019 Clay White got ahold of the people that spoke at the 2017 hearing and called them into a meeting and tried to convince the attendees that this was a good thing  We said no then too, each and every one of us  We stand here to today and we say no again  Traffic is horrible  We need to take a breather from all this high density and focus on getting roads fixed 3. Steve Leifer, 12715 State Avenue, Marysville  Is an advocate for many members of the community all of which need housing  Spoke on behalf of the project and is in favor of  His grandson and grandson’s wife came into the market to purchase a first home and it took 13-14 months to finally locate a home to buy  The home that they were able to purchase was half the size of their dream and had to get additional funds from family to purchase  Purchasing the home was a tremendous struggle for them  Grew up in the valley and is understanding of the positions of those in opposition of the rezone  Used to be able to pull out onto the roads no problem and now it’s a struggle and doesn’t like it  But people are coming this way and people are having kids and grandkids and they are going to be here  Anything that we do that restricts the growth hurts those kids and makes it more expensive to buy  Follow what’s going on in Olympia and how they keep upgrading the requirements for higher density and in-fill and then pass it along to the Regional Council and then allocates population growth to the County then the County to the Cities  The City has an urban growth boundary that it has to allow for growth and it’s their responsibility legally to do so  Serves on the Marysville planning commission and the joint project of the AMMIC is a high priority creating jobs and those people need to housing 4. Nancy Denney, 6107 72nd Drive, Marysville  A senior loan officer with Fairway Mortgage Company  Spoke on behalf of the high density project because she sees it every single day  Teaches classes for Washington State Housing Finance Commission  These are our families moving into these homes, our future generation of neighborhoods created with children going to school and keeping our communities young  The average three bedroom home in Arlington according Trulia and Zillow for the first half of 2019 is $385,000 to $395,000 up $11,000 from last year  Our children can’t afford this price of home and are being forced to rent with the average rent in Arlington being $2,375, and there’s a shortage of rentals as well  It may be a burden on schools and streets, but these homes bring tax dollars that help, and are filled with younger families that will start voting levies in so schools can be expanded  The average household medium income for this group of people is $69,000 to $70,000  These borrowers would qualify with approximately 3% down, that’s the average down payment these borrowers are coming in with and they’re coming in with assistance money and gift money from families  The price point due to the shortage of homes just keeps increasing forcing these people to go further north  Now there is a huge project (AMMIC) that’s bringing in a huge number of employers, where are these people going to go if we don’t give them affordable housing  Make sure that everyone understands that we can’t always have our children moving away from us, it doesn’t create a united community and memories, and that’s what communities are all about 5. Jacob Davis, 9414 State Avenue, Marysville  Spoke on behalf of the project  Owns a small real estate firm in Maryville  At any given time he has 20-30 qualified buyers that can’t find property  Manages 6 residential properties and 3 homeowner’s associations  Grew up on 30 acres in Marysville and has seen the growth  Not going to stop the growth, all we can do is grow responsibly  Understands that being a neighbor the concerns for traffic  Have to have more properties available for purchase or rent for those to remain close to relatives in the area  All for the project as long as long as it is done responsibly and is fair for all involved 6. Fernando Murillo, 9911 48th Drive Unit #B, Marysville  For more housing in Arlington because there isn’t enough selection 7. Ryan Campbell, 27406 102nd Street, Stanwood  For this project as more reasonably priced housing is needed  Doesn’t want to move further out of the area 8. Eyleen McCluskey-Shouman, 7607 W Country Club Drive, Arlington  Oppose to the development as she was two years ago  Remains opposed because nothing essential has changed  The Riar family continues to want to put high density housing in a low to medium density neighborhood  Sent an email on April 4, 2017 stating reasons for opposition to the rezone and spoke at the public hearing  Received a two page letter for Clay White with an invitation to the information meeting, attended the meeting with 30-40 others who were all opposed to the rezone  The letter sent by LDC mentioned the differences between the 2017 request and the current request, but many of the attendees of the meeting felt that they were not only placating them but also misleading them  Building 94 dwelling units on 7.23 is intense  In the LDC said the landowner wouldn’t build apartments on the property, but said nothing about condos which could be the same 94 units if they were apartments with the same number of residence  Does not agree with LDC’s statement that 13 dwelling units per acre is similar density to existing multi-family units in the Gleneagle neighborhood  Gleneagle has two multi-family areas which are set on about 4.5 acres in the 300 acre neighborhood and consist of 19 apartments on 2.3 acres for density of about 9 ½ dwelling units per acre, only 2/3 of what the Riar family is proposing and the condo complex consist of 15 dwelling units on about 2 acres for a density of 7 ½ units per acre  The mutli-family units in Gleaneagle have ample parking  Paying the traffic mitigation fees for the project doesn’t fix the road which is a state highway 9. Scott Tomkins, 17812 Oxford Drive, Arlington  Been through this many times and nothing has changed  It’s still a spot rezone but have taken away some of the other spots that were to be rezoned in 2017 have been removed  Moved to Arlington in 2001 after retirement to get away from the zoo that became Kirkland  172nd is a nightmare and he has to time when he can leave  Everything leads to interstate 5, doctors and shopping are all in that area and traffic gets caught up at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street  The improvements are going to end at 67th Avenue and not continue to highway 9 and it’s not going to be looked at for improvement until 2025  The traffic mitigation is nonsense because 172nd Street is a state road  Has had to turn around on 67th Avenue and go back to 180th Street to get around traffic many times  Gregory Park, the development to the north of Gregory Park and the AMMIC all converges at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street and it’s going to be an absolute zoo 10. Michael Seehaas, 17423 72nd Drive, Arlington  Those that are for the rezone are not from here and only care about the money aspect  It’s a bad plan that limits development to townhomes, a mobile home park, fire station and police station and they’re not going to build any of these besides townhomes  It’s going to create a bigger nightmare for 172nd Street and a nightmare for the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek neighborhood  A $300,000 townhome is not a starter home 11. Chip Peterson, 7019 172nd Street, Arlington  Same issues as before with 95 units of townhomes each with two cars  Traffic situation is already terrible  The apartments at 67th Avenue and 172nd Street were originally going to be mixed commercial and residential and now it’s going to be all residential which will add an additional 400 vehicles  If they kept the original proposal of single family homes it will keep with the quality of life of the area  Not a good idea to put the project at this location and no way to support this with the existing roads  Would like Council to support people that are here now not what may or may not come in the future 12. George Edgerton, 17410 73rd Drive, Arlington  President of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek homeowner’s association  Submitted a petition from the residents of the Crossing at Edgecomb Creek neighborhood  Many neighbors are oppose to the rezone  The City got it right with zoning that area residential moderate density  Would like to keep with the original plan for single family homes 13. Bruce Kinney, 7023 172nd Street, Arlington  Asked if the goal is to cram as many people in this area as we possible with the use of high density rezones  This proposal comes dangerously close to a contract rezone and his understanding is that it’s illegal  Asked who stands to financially benefits from this, then answered Riar and this is at the expense of those that live in the area  Concerned about the quality of life for the existing residence  Asked why rezones aren’t being talked about in the industrial areas to rezone to high density 14. Judy Castanares, 17506 72nd Drive, Arlington  Submitted a letter with the intent of mirroring what LDC proposed  Concerned that it’s the same plan as in 2017  Read through Section 1: Findings. The City Council adopts the following findings as required by AMC Chapter 20.96 of her letter submitted – see attached letter  Read Section 2: The City Council denies the Riar Family Land Use Map and Concurrent Rezone (PLN#292)  Concerned that nothing has changed in the past two years  Arlington can do nothing about the state route for years  Heard at City Council that they want to change the title of contract rezone to development agreement because she feels they are trying to make it sound better to the citizens 15. Dwan Kinney, 7023 172nd Street, Arlington  Lives directly across the private drive from the proposed rezone  Concerned about the critical areas report that was completed with the previous owner when the development was called Glen Hawk Estates  Concerned that ¼ of her property is natural growth protection and at the base of the Peterson’s property is an area that is natural growth protection  Nothing has been mentioned about completing a State Environmental Policy Act for the proposal  The critical areas report that was complete was in 2007 and it was only for building 26 single family homes, and now there is no talk about doing an environmental review for the proposal  Many people are building east of highway 9 and use 172nd Street and that’s a huge reason to complete an environmental review because traffic is two or three times more than it was in 2007  Feels that the applicant isn’t ready because it’s not finalized of what’s being built  When the applicant is talking about how many buildings are proposed and the height, how can that be a non-project  Thinks it’s shady about the wording being changed from contract rezone to development agreement 16. William Wilbur, 18430 Newport Drive, Arlington  Lived here since 2001 and grew up in Kirkland  It was done right last time in 2017 when it was voted down  If you want to know what Arlington is going to look like, go to Kirkland  When the upper half of 172nd Street is complete they’ll put in stop lights which will slow traffic down  Not in favor of this rezone 17. Ruth Gonzales, 6823 211th Place, Arlington  Oppose to this rezone  Reported that Arlington has approximately 43 acres of vacant high density land already, so why rezone  Thinks that there is currently plenty of high density property 18. Robert Wagy, 9015 186th Street, Arlington  Just moved to the Arlington area from Lake Stevens and used to live in Bothell  Thinks Bothell is a train wreck because of the high density with no infrastructure  If going to put in high density then what is being done about infrastructure and what is the plan to mitigate for issues such as traffic  What’s being done to widen roads or add roadways to get people in and out of the area  People working at the AMMIC will bring in additional traffic  If rezoned and sold it will mess up the housing market because the overall matrix increases because vacant properties are going for more money  When development like this occurs what does it do to the overall property values 19. Marcela Cravioto, 17419 72nd Drive, Arlington  Feels that the applicant isn’t thinking about the people that live here  The proposal will cause environmental damage  The quality of life will not be the same 20. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Questioned what consists of a unit when referring to 13 units per acre 21. Susan Edgerton, 17410 73rd Drive, Arlington  Shared an experience of traveling in the area and how it took 45 minutes to get to the UW clinic in Smokey Point during the day  Shared an experience of traveling in the area on a Saturday afternoon and how when traveling to Marysville traffic was backed up getting out of her development  Noticed in Arlington that there’s a lot of land with nothing around it and that would be a better place to build high density  Asked why there isn’t more shopping in other areas so not everyone is going in one direction to one place Tic Toc, LLC Rezone – PLN#523 1. William Wilbur, 18430 Newport Drive, Arlington  Thinks that a high density rezone on ½ acre lot is ridiculous 2. Lindsay Dunn, 735 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Asked if there is no information on the project then how can citizens decide  There is nothing in writing for the developer to stick to what is proposed  Thinks the City should change the policies on how they look at these proposals  Thinks that the applicant should have a project proposal and it should be in writing that if rezoned the developer has to stick to that project and if the property is sold it should go back to its original zoning 3. Neils Kjargaard, 1014 E Robinhood Drive, Arlington  Regularly transits Highland Drive and it’s busy now, what will it be if high density is built  Thinks the existing zoning is right with high density at the back of the property and moderate at the front  Appreciated that he received a notice postcard but wished it included an address  Was surprised to see this rezone again and thought that if a decision was already made then it should be made and not kicked around again and again until they get a yes  Once built then it can’t be undone  High density developments are not going to solve Arlington’s problems of growth, to help solve growth then the City shouldn’t have created jobs  Growth should have been planned for to occur slowly and not at a fast pace 4. Robert Wagy, 9015 186th Street, Arlington  Challenges the proposal at hand with rezoning only ½ acre which creates housing prices to increase 5. Mike Rouleau, 709 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives across from the rezone  The strip of property that runs along Highland Drive is supposed to be a buffer from the existing residential to the high density at the back of the property  Thinks the high density is inappropriate at the street because it’s an existing old neighborhood  There are still the same problems that there was the previous time they wanted to rezone but traffic is worse  The letter to the City from the developer is vague  Thinks that the access to Portage Street to the south will not be utilized  With 52 units and 2 cars per unit, people will be parking in the street causing problems 6. Ruth Gonzales, 6823 211th Place, Arlington  Oppose to the spot rezone  On the Planning Commission when the property was zoned medium density on the front and high density on the back  The medium density on the front is to act like a buffer to the residential area and the high density down the hill  Old Town has a specific designation to keep the integrity of the area  The accumulation of vacant property currently zoned high density is 43 acres  There is 23 plus acres that only has 3 houses and is 5 lots  Need to use the high density properties that we have before creating more  Need to maintain the quality of life in this town  The newest house in the adjacent area is 51 years old and others are older 7. Jamie Stupey, 530 E Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives in a home built in 1967 directly next to this property  Changing the zoning on the front of the property will add approximately 10 units on a road with no sidewalks  Children will be walking on a street that is extremely busy because there is no school bus transportation available in the area  There is not enough parking and street parking will occur and people will not be able to get out of their driveways  Thinks it is a spot rezone that isn’t a good idea 8. Matt Guentz, 810 Portage Street, Arlington  Moved here in 1991 to get out of metropolis and that is exactly what he is seeing here  Looking straight out his front window now he sees tall evergreens but with high density he’ll see cramped apartments  The area is already overly impacted  Has watched this town grow exponentially  House is close to being paid off and now this will impact his property value  Votes no for this rezone 9. Mike Evan, 18719 3rd Avenue, Arlington  Against the proposal  Moved to the area 51 years ago from Lynnwood  This area is turning in to Lynnwood  As more people move to the area housing prices increase not decrease and also rent  The appeal of Arlington has gone out the window  Wants to have trees and open spaces  More congestion around the hospital isn’t a good idea  Used to pay baseball in the field behind the existing home on the site and is concerned where the kids of this proposal are going to play  Hopes the Commission listens to the citizens 10. Vikki McMurray, 208 Joann Lane, Arlington  Moved here in 1989 and there were about 6,000 residents at that time  Is against the rezone  The stop light cycle at highway 9 and highland is a quick cycle  Counts a minimum of an additional 200 cars with this proposal added to a small two lane road  Concerned that Highland is the only way to the hospital and additional traffic could cause problems  Thinks it’s a bad spot to change any of the density and thinks it’s the perfect old town neighborhood  Thinks that the area on 204th would be a good place for high density 11. Mae Lanier, 704 Highland Drive, Arlington  Not against a couple of duplexes in the front of the property  If the rezone goes through she envisions the building like the new one on Olympic Avenue  Will be frustrated if cars park in front on of her home 12. Ruth Manizza, 625 Highland Drive, Arlington  Lives right across from where the entrance to this proposal will be  Stated that with the hospital, churches, cocoon house, daycare, preschools and nearby schools the roads are constantly busy  It’s a dangerous street that you can barely pull out on to 13. Harry Sinanian, 8635 215th Place, Arlington  There’s a 7-Eleven down the street and a new 7-Eleven just went in, because of the current density of population in the area, it will support two 7-Elevens within a mile of each other  The population density in this area is enough ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2019--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DENYING THE TIC TOC LLC LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCURRENT REZONE (PLN #523) WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the authority to regulate land uses within the City, and is in the process of its periodic annual review and update of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the Comprehensive Plan was a series of proposed amendments to the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered the proposed Tic Toc LLC Land Use Map amendment and Concurrent Rezone (PLN #523) and conducted an open record public hearing on May 21, 2019 and recommended denial to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same at a workshop held on May 28, 2019, and considered them along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their public hearing conducted on June 3, 2019; and the City Council having determined denying said amendment was in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed Tic Toc LLC comprehensive plan amendment and concurrent rezone and finds it is not in the overall best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the following findings: a. The subject property is already suitable for development in general conformance with existing land use and the surrounding development pattern, and with zoning standards under the existing zoning classifications. b. While the amendment may be consistent with certain provisions of the comprehensive plan, it is inconsistent with others. c. When weighing the proposed amendment, the following factors weigh most heavily in favor of denial of the proposed amendment at this time: i. PL 7.1—" recommended changes in residential densities should be based on the following: a) The overall impact to surrounding properties”. ii. GL-8—" Preserve and promote the character, scale, and quality of existing neighborhoods as new development occurs”. d. Following a balancing of the interests of the property owner, the neighboring property owners, and the citizens of Arlington, the City Council concludes that, at this point in time, the land use map amendment and concurrent rezone is not in the best interests of the citizens, and the property that is the subject of the amendment should not be rezoned; provided, however, this should not be ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 2 viewed as preventing future consideration of a rezone at a later date or in future updates of Arlington’s comprehensive plan. Section 2. The City Council denies the Tic Toc, LLC Land Use Map Amendment and Concurrent Rezone (PLN #523). Section 3. Severability. If any provision, section, or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Effective Date. The title of this Ordinance, which summarizes the contents of this ordinance, shall be published in the official newspaper of the City. The Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 3rd day of June, 2019. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Erin Keator, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #2 Attachment B COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Conveyance of Real Property for Right of Way Purposes ATTACHMENTS: Legal description including exhibit map with area highlighted depicting the proposed deeded property related to the Special Delivery Birthing Center project (Charlotte Lacseul). DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Conveyance of real property on East Highland Drive described in Exhibit A for the purpose of widening and improving the existing roadway. HISTORY: Conveyance of property for Right of Way purposes related to new development is typically dedicated through the Land Use process, pursuant to 20.56.170 AMC. ALTERNATIVES: Remand back to staff for additional information RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the June 3, 2019 council meeting the recommended motion will be, “I move to accept the dedication of the portion of the Special Delivery Birthing Center real property as Right of Way for the purposes of roadway widening.” Special Delivery Birthing Center ROW Dedication Exhibit A±City of Arlington Date: File: Cartographer: Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, either express orimplied, including but not lim ited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. M apdata are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon theinformation do so at their own risk. Users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City ofArlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy orcorrectness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. Scale:BirthingCenter_8.5x11_19 4/2 /20 19 akc 1 inch = 7 5 fee tLegend ROW Ded ication E HIGHLAND DR SOLYMPICAVE S COBB AVE FIR LN S HAZEL ST SR 9 ROW Ded ication Pa rce ls City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #3 Attachment C COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Conveyance of Real Property for Right of Way Purposes ATTACHMENTS: Legal description including exhibit map with area highlighted depicting the proposed deeded property, 40th Ave. NE, related to the Baker-Mor mixed use project. DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community & Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Conveyance of real property, 40th Ave. NE, as described in Exhibit A. 40th Ave. NE has been fully constructed, except for the final lift of asphalt, which has been bonded for installation at a later date. HISTORY: Conveyance of property for Right of Way purposes related to new development is typically dedicated through the Land Use process, pursuant to 20.56.170 AMC. A development agreement was approved in 2018 allowing traffic impact fees to be utilized in the construction of roadway and purchase of real property for 40th Ave. NE. ALTERNATIVES: Remand back to staff for additional information RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the June 3, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to accept the dedication of the portion of the Baker-Mor real property as Right of Way for the purposes of a public roadway.” City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #4 Attachment D the Mayor to sign the agreement, subject to final approval by the City Attorney.” City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #5 Attachment E (bid amount for 4 years, 2019-2022) BUDGET CATEGORY: Water / Sewer / Storm Capital Funds BUDGETED AMOUNT: $30,000 (2019), $30,000 (2020) Years 2021 and 2022 will be budgeted accordingly LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Recommendation to contract with Northwest Infrastructure for Utility Iron Adjustment Services for 2019, 2020, and 2021, 2022. HISTORY: The City of Arlington owns and operates a water distribution system, a sanitary sewer collection system, and a stormwater sewer system. Over the years, infrastructure components that are in road surfaces, such as inlet grates, manhole ring & covers and valve boxes, suffer damage from breakage, wear and road settlement. The infrastructure components in the road surface are collectively referred to as utility iron; repairing and adjusting this utility is an annual maintenance project. The 2019-2021 Utility Iron Adjustment Project was publicly advertised for bid using the MRSC Small Works Roster as a unit priced public works contract for repair and rehabilitation of settling manholes, inlets, and valve cover boxes. Only one bid was received, that was from Northwest Infrastructure. The proposed contract with Northwest Infrastructure is a three-year unit-priced agreement that includes an City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #6 Attachment F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Concession License for the Depot at Legion Park ATTACHMENTS: Two Proposals, Requests for Proposal for Concession License for the Depot at Legion Park, and Draft Agreement DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Administration; Sarah Lopez, Community Revitalization Manager 360-403-3448 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The City received two proposals for a concession license for the Depot at Legion Park: 1. Blues Brew, owner Stacy Bautista 2. Stilly Valley Youth Dynamics Blues Brew 21010 67th Ave Ne Arlington WA 98223 425-210-5424 bluesbrew@outlook.com Depot Visitor Center at Legion Park Proposal We believe that “Blues Brew” would be an ideal concession for the depot at Legion Park. With our existing customer base from our espresso stand located in Arlington, this expansion would help bring my previous customers, and bring in new customers to this location. We have converted a bikini stand into a family friendly stand, and we’re all about customer service, and we take pride in the drinks we serve the community. We plan on selling these items: • Coffee; hot and iced • Energy drinks, such as red bull chargers and lotus energy drinks • Granita (coffee slushy) and frozen lemonade • Pre-packaged ice cream, and pre-packaged frozen yogurt, from blues frozen yogurt in Lake Stevens WA • Bottled Drinks; water, orange juice, cans of red bull • Snacks; muffins, cookies, power bars, store bought sandwiches Contract Agreements: • 10% of gross monthly sales would go to the City of Arlington for rental. Payable every 5th of the month while we occupy the building. • We will provide signage, all necessary licenses, all of our equipment for espresso machine, coffee grinder, freezers and refrigerators, and a point of sale system. • We will need access to electricity and water and 3 compartment sink. • We will provide visitor information to the public, hand out brochures, and answer any questions to the public who visits. • Operating Schedule: - Start operating; as soon as June 1st, or earlier – possibly year long - Open 7 days a week, initial hours would be 8 am – 7 pm, we are willing to open at 7 am and close at 8 pm if there is a need. We believe Blues Brew would be a great addition to have Legion Park, it would be convenient for anyone who is using centennial trail to stop for a quick drink and a snack, or for anyone who is hanging out at the park and would like to get a drink or some ice cream or frozen yogurt. We believe that Blues Brew would be very successful at this Depot. I have also included a short price list of some of the things we would sell. Thank you for considering us. Feel free to email me or call me for any further questions. Thank you, Stacy Bautista Owner Coffee: Americano: $2.50 (16 oz.) / $3.00 (24 oz.) Latte: $3.00 (16 oz.) / $3.50 (24 oz.) Mocha: $3.75 (16 oz.) / $4.00 (24 oz.) White Chocolate Mocha: $4.00 (16 oz.) / $4.50 (24 oz.) Frozen Drink: Granita (coffee slushy): 16 oz. $3.50, 24 oz. $4.00 Frozen Lemonade: 16 oz. $3.00, 24 oz. $3.50 Milkshake: 16 oz. $4.00, 24 oz. $4.50 Frappe: $4.00 (16 oz.) / $4.50 (24 oz.) Yogguchino (yogurt based drink): $3.25 16 oz., $3.75 24 oz. Energy Drink: Redbull Charger: 16 oz. $4.00, 24 oz. $4.50 Lotus Energy: 16 oz. $4.00, 24 oz. $4.50 Bottled Drink: Bottled water: $1.00 Red bull can $2.75 Orange Juice/ apple juice: $2.00 Snacks Cookies: $2.00 Muffins: $2.00 Power Bars: $2.00 Sandwiches: $4.00 Ice Cream / Frozen Yogurt Ice cream scoop w/ toppings: $4.00 Frozen Yogurt: w/ toppings $4.00 Stilly Valley Youth Dynamics PO Box 627 Arlington, WA 98223 Contact: Jessica Ronhaar (Director) Cell: 425‐879‐7633 Office: 435‐0170 Youth Dynamics has been reaching out to Teens in Arlington, Stanwood, Lakewood and surrounding communities through building relationships and providing life‐changing experiences since 1994. We do this by running our 3 drop‐in centers in Arlington, Stanwood and Oso, as well as, partnering with school districts, churches and community organizations. We also take students on life changing adventures. This joining together has allowed us to broaden our efforts to care for teens in the Stilly Valley. Our successes have been significant, measured by the changed lives of individual teens. As our community grows, there is a continuous increase in the number of youth with needs and Stilly Valley Youth Dynamics is committed to serving these youth in our community. Stilly Valley Youth Dynamics would like the opportunity to use the depot building in Legion Park as our office occupying the space on a year round basis. Having this space as our office would allow us to serve students in a more effective manner as our office would be assessible to them whenever anyone was in the office allowing for more one on one relationship building, mentorship and homework help. We would also offer cold beverages, pre‐wrapped ice cream and pre‐wrapped snacks on a suggested donation bases with proceeds going toward student scholarships. In order for this to happen we would need a beverage refrigerator and chest freezer. To make this to be our office space we would need to bring in desks, chairs and tables for meetings and conferences. We would need water, electricity, and restroom access. We would also need high speed internet and phone service. For parking needs we would have personal staff vehicles and additional parking for our Youth Dynamics Vans. We would like to have some storage space to keep gear, tables and other items if avaliable. We would also like to have signing that allows people to know where our office is located. We would operate Monday through Friday 9:30 to 4pm depending on staff availability and weekends when available. We have been vendors for the RSVP bike ride for 2 years and plan on doing so again this year, as well as the 4th of July pancake breakfast at Haller Park. We plan on opening during various events and offering service when we are able to staff the building. We also are willing to stock tourist information and answer questions when needed. Since we are not selling goods and services payment for the building will be based on the discretion of the City of Arlington understanding that Youth Dynamics is a non‐profit working with youth in our community. Youth Dynamics is willing to offer service in order to cover additional expenses. Stilly Valley Youth Dynamics also understands that business operations will be conducted by Stilly Valley Youth Dynamics and not a third party without prior knowledge of the City of Arlington. April 30, 2019 To Whom it May Concern, I am writing to help to verify financial stability of Youth Dynamics of Stilly Valley as under the care of Jessica Ronhaar. I worked with Jessica Ronhaar for several years when I was the Finance Director of Youth Dynamics. Jessica had a great understanding of finances and a great common sense approach to being sure that all things financially related were well cared for. She always had her invoices paid for in a timely manner as well as being careful to always have the funds to cover any expenses that came up in the course of her running the Arlington/Stanwood area Youth Dynamics. I'd be happy to discuss any questions you might have in regards to this matter. Respectfully, Carmen Bruner 360-391-2502 carmenbbooks@gmail.com City of Arlington Request for Proposal FOR Concession License for Recreation Services and/or Food Services Haller Park and Legion Park Issue Date March 27, 2019 Due Date: May 1, 2019 City of Arlington 238 North Olympic Ave Arlington, WA 98223 Phone: 360-403-3448 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Notice is hereby given that proposals will be received by the City of Arlington, Washington, for: Concession License for Recreation and/or Food Services at Haller Park and Legion Park. File with Community Revitalization Project Manager, Administration Department, City Hall, 238 N Olympic Ave., Arlington, WA 98223 Proposals received later than 2:00 p.m. on May 1, 2019 will not be considered. A copy of this Request for Proposal (RFP) may be obtained from City’s web site at http://www.arlingtonwa.gov/ . Click on the “Doing Business” tab at the top of the page and then click on the “RFP/RFQ/Bid Requests” link. The City of Arlington reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, and to waive irregularities and informalities in the submittal and evaluation process. This RFP does not obligate the City to pay any costs incurred by respondents in the preparation and submission of a proposal. Furthermore, the RFP does not obligate the City to accept or contract for any expressed or implied services. A Service Provider response that indicates that any of the requested information in this RFP will only be provided if and when the Service Provider is selected as the apparently successful Service Provider is not acceptable, and, at the City’s sole discretion, may disqualify the proposal from consideration. The City of Arlington assures that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. The City of Arlington further assures that every effort will be made to ensure non-discrimination in all of its programs and activities. In addition to nondiscrimination compliance requirements, the Service Provider(s) ultimately awarded a contract shall comply with federal, state and local laws, statutes and ordinances relative to the execution of the work. This requirement includes, but is not limited to, protection of public and employee safety and health; environmental protection; waste reduction and recycling; the protection of natural resources; permits; fees; taxes; and similar subjects. 3 Background Information The City of Arlington is located in northern Snohomish County. It is a rural city, north of Everett and Marysville and south of Mount Vernon. The City is near several major transportation routes including Interstate 5, State Route 530 and State Route 9. These routes connect the City economically and socially to the greater Seattle area. The current estimated population is 19,300. 1. Haller Park: Address is 1100 West Avenue, Arlington. Haller Park is a community park located on the Stillaguamish River. It is approximately 3.6 acres. The park has a new splash pad that will open in May of 2019. There is also play equipment, river and trail access, and a restroom facility. The park is not staffed. The maintenance crew visits the park daily to clean, pick up trash, and perform inspections. The restroom facility has a concession area in the interior of the building. a. Concession Area: The concession area is approximately 301 square feet, 8ft 9in by 16ft 4 inches. 2. The “Depot” Visitor Center: Address of facility is 104 N Olympic Avenue. The Depot is located at the edge of Legion Park next to the public parking lot and adjacent to the Centennial Trail. The park is not staffed. The maintenance crew visits the park and restrooms daily to clean, pick up trash, and perform inspections. The Depot building includes two separate restroom areas and a main area that may be used for concessions. The lobby area will include visitor information brochures as part of the agreement. a. The concession area is approximately 272 square feet, 8ft wide by 28ft plus 4ft by 12ft tip-out. Lobby area is approximately 8ft by 17ft (136 square feet). Purpose This REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) represents a publicly advertised and competitively awarded solicitation by the City of Arlington for seasonal recreation services and/or food services within Haller Park and at the Depot Visitor Center. The City is seeking, and will select a Licensee that best demonstrate the ability to provide innovative, affordable and reliable products and services to park patrons. Applicants are encouraged to offer products and services that would be complementary to existing visitors, but the City also encourages applicants to propose new and unique offerings that would enhance visitor’s experience. Performance Schedule Concession Agreement award will be for 2019 season , with an option by the City to extend the agreement with the Licensee on an annual basis for a potential total of two additional years (through 2021). The City reserves the right to approve or disapprove any proposed business activity. The City of Arlington will not be liable for any expense or cost associated with the preparation and/or submittal of a Vendor’s response to this RFP. 4 If you are awarded a License Agreement, license rights may NOT be sold, transferred or given to anyone else without full disclosure to the City of Arlington and without obtaining prior written permission from the City of Arlington Community Revitalization Project Manager or their designee. You must operate the license awarded to you. Scope of Work Haller Park: 1. Dates: possible as early as May 25 through as late as October 31. 2. A License Agreement provides the on-site vendor the right to be included in Special events held at Haller Park 3. Special events may bring in outside mobile vendors 4. The Concession stand must be made available for July 4th Community Pancake Breakfast. Depot Visitor Center: 1. Dates: possible year-around 2. Special events at Legion Park and Legion Parking lot may bring in outside mobile vendors 3. As part of the contract, vendor will provide minimum visitor information services to the public who visit facility, including handing out brochures and answering questions. Contract Requirements and Fees If your proposal is accepted, the following fees and requirements will be due upon award, prior to issuance of your License agreement: 1. City of Arlington Business License: The Licensee/contractor shall obtain and maintain for the duration of the agreement, a City of Arlington Business License. 2. Insurance Coverage and Proof of Policy a. The Licensee/contractor shall obtain and maintain for the duration of the agreement, policies of commercial general liability insurance with combined single limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate with an insurer having no less than a Best’s rating of A VII and authorized to do business in the State of Washington. b. If Licensee is offering water based activities (paddleboard rentals, tube rentals, etc.), then the Licensee/contractor shall obtain and maintain for the duration of the agreement, policies of comprehensive general liability insurance with combined single limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $3,000,000 general aggregate with an insurer having no less than a Best’s rating of A VII and authorized to do business in the State of Washington. c. A $2,000,000 products/completed operations aggregate is also required for contractors that prepare food. d. The insurance policy shall be written on an occurrence basis. 5 e. The City of Arlington shall be named as Additional Insured and a copy of the Additional Insured Endorsement naming the City as Additional Insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. f. The Certificate of Insurance and Additional Insured Endorsement shall be filed with the City a minimum of two weeks prior to the contractor providing services. 3. Health Permit a. It will be the contractor’s responsibility to contact, arrange and comply with specific Snohomish Health District requirements for proposed concession site(s). A copy of a current Snohomish Health District permit must be provided a minimum of two weeks prior to opening. It is the responsibility of the Vendor to verify adequate water, restroom and electrical service is accessible to support the equipment they intend to operate at a particular location. Any modifications or improvements to concession area(s) shall be at the sole expense of the successful vendor and will require advance written approval from the City of Arlington 4. Contract Agreement (Not Lease) a. The contractor understands and agrees City of Arlington will only grant Licenses by contract and not by lease. License Agreement(s) will only confer permission to occupy and use the premises described for concession purposes. A successful contractor’s expenditure of capital and/or labor in the course of use and occupancy will not confer any interest or estate in the premises by virtue of said use, occupancy and / or expenditure of money thereon. City of Arlington will only grant successful contractors an individual, revocable and non-transferable privilege of use in the premises for the License granted. A sample, “Agreement for License” is included for review; it will provide the basis for the contract ultimately entered into with the successful proposer. Minimum Submittal Requirements Proposals should be prepared simply, providing straight forward, concise descriptions of the applicant’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the request. Proposals must include the following: 1. A description of the proposed equipment to be used for operation; 2. A complete list and description of all product(s) and services you intend to offer; 3. Visual aids/pictures describing business operations, mobile cart and service equipment; 4. Detailed information on the prices proposed for each service or product and any variation for non-routine services inclusive of Washington State sales tax and any other applicable governmental charges; 5. Season opening and closing dates; 6. Days and hours of operation; 7. A brief overview of bidders’ professional history that conveys their expertise and experience with the activity or service proposed; 6 8. A minimum of three references each for the following categories: business operations; financial stability; and customer satisfaction; 9. A statement outlining proposed compensation to the City of Arlington and how the payment schedule will be structured, and the company’s documentation and reporting process for revenues and expenditures. Standard percentage based remittance ranges from 15-40% of gross receipts, before sales tax; 10. Tenant improvements – list any and all desired improvements. Include items such as power, water, security, and restroom needs, service area enhancements, customer seating, signage, storage, etc.; a. It is to be understood any modifications or improvements desired by the bidder shall be installed at the sole expense of the bidder and requires advance written approval from the City of Arlington. All improvements shall become the property of the City of Arlington upon completion of installation; provided the vendor shall be entitled to utilize the modifications and improvements in accordance with this Agreement while this agreement is in effect. 11. A definition of parking needs for owner and/or staff; 12. A description of on-site storage needs, if any. 13. A written confirmation that business operations are to be directly conducted by the applicant as subletting is not allowed without full disclosure to the City and without obtaining prior written permission from the City of Arlington.  Contracts will be awarded for one 2019 season. If operations prove to be satisfactory to the City of Arlington the contract may be renewed on an annual basis for a total of two additional years, through 2021.  Applicants are encouraged to visit desired site(s) prior to submitting a proposal. Guided tours will be provided, contact Sarah Lopez at 360-403-3448.  The successful bidder will be expected to abide by all State laws, Snohomish County laws, City of Arlington ordinances, and all business licensing requirements, City of Arlington insurance requirements, and Washington State Department of Public Health Food Service requirements.  The City of Arlington reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive irregularities and informalities in the submittal and evaluation process. This RFP does not obligate the City to pay any costs incurred by respondents in the preparation and submission of a proposal. Furthermore, the RFP does not obligate the City to a ccept or contract for any expressed or implied services.  Prior to the commencement of work, the City and the selected vendor will meet to finalize agreement on contract details.  All proposals become the property of the City of Arlington. 7 Proposal Submittal Instructions Please note: The following general requirements are mandatory for all proposals. Proposals submitted after the deadline date and time or lacking one or more of the following requirements will not be accepted. 1.All proposals sent electronically must be in the form of a PDF or MS Word document. 2.Paper proposals may be submitted. 3.Please include your name, business name, business address, email address, and phone number. 4.All proposals must include the legal name of the organizat ion, firm, individual or partnership submitting the RFP. Include the address of the principle place of business, phone numbers and primary contact person. 5.The proposal must be signed by an official who is legally authorized to bind the organization. 6.Complete, sign and submit all RFP forms provided by the Department. 7.To be evaluated, a proposal must address all requirements and instructions contained within. 8.Provide all references and materials required by the RFP instructions within. Questions: Questions regarding the scope of work or evaluation process must be submitted in writing and should be addressed to Sarah Lopez, Community Revitalization Project Manager, slopez@arlingtonwa.gov 360-403-3448. Submittal Instructions: Proposals must be received by no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 1, 2019. Proposals may be emailed to Sarah Lopez slopez@arlingtonwa.gov As an alternate to email, proposals can be mailed or delivered to: Arlington ATTN: Sarah Lopez 238 N Olympic Ave. Arlington, WA 98223 8 Selection Criteria A panel of City staff will review the qualified bids and qualifications as submitted in this RF P process. The panel will score the RFP submittals, determine the highest qualified applicants, conduct interviews as necessary, and make a final recommendation to the Director regarding the award for each site. The criteria contained within the Submittal Requirements section above will be used to evaluate RFP submittals. Evaluation/review will be of proposals which: 1. Answer and complete the requirements detailed within; 2. Provide the longest duration of business season(s); 3. Provide the best and most days and hours of operation; 4. Provide the best products and services to be offered to the public – prices, quality and nutritional value; 5. Provide products and services which are complimentary to the existing uses of the park and its business neighbors; 6. Provide the most concession experience and meet or exceed the minimum number of positive business references required; 7. Meet professional appearance, quality of unit/business, and character/theme attributes; 8. Meet licensing and insurance requirements; 9. Confirm operations are to be conducted by the applicant, as subletting is not permissible without full disclosure and without prior written consent from the City of Arlington. A selection committee will review all proposals, select finalists and may conduct interviews prior to making the final selection of the consultant. The City reserves the right not to award any portion or all of the project if it finds that none of the proposals submitted meets the specific needs of the project. A letter notifying the vendor of the City’s award will constitute notice to proceed. The City is not responsible for any costs incurred by the vendor in the preparation of the proposal. Once submitted to the City, all proposals will become public information. Contract The Vendor and the City will execute a City of Arlington License Agreement substantially in the form attached as Attachment A. 9 Cooperative Purchasing Chapter 39.34 RCW allows cooperative purchasing between public agencies in the State of Washington. Public agencies which have filed an Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with the City may purchase from City contracts, provided that the consultant agrees to participate. The City does not accept any responsibility for contracts issued by other public agencies, however. Public Disclosure Once submitted to the City, proposals shall become the property of the City, and all proposals shall be deemed a public record as defined in "The Public Records Act," chapter 42 .56 of the RCW. Any proposal containing language which copyrights the proposal, declares the entire proposal to be confidential, declares that the document is the exclusive property of the proposer, or is any way contrary to state public disclosure laws or this RFP, could be removed from consideration. The City will not accept the liability of determining what the proposer considers proprietary or not. Therefore, any information in the proposal that the proposer claims as proprietary and exempt from disclosure under the provisions of RCW 42.56.270 must be clearly designated as described in the “Proprietary Material Submitted” section above. It must also include the exemption(s) from disclosure upon which the proposer is making the claim, and the page it is found on must be identified. With the exception of lists of prospective proposers, the City will not disclose RFP proposals until a bid selection is made. At that time, all information about the competitive procurement will be available with the exception of: proprietary/confidential portion(s) of the proposal(s), until the proposer has an adequate opportunity to seek a court order preventing disclosure. The City will consider a proposer’s request for exemption from disclosure; however, the City will make a decision predicated upon RCW 42.56. 10 IMAGES OF CONCESSION AREA AND HALLER PARK 11 12 13 IMAGES OF CONCESSION AREA AT THE DEPOT VISITOR CENTER, LEGION PARK 14 15 ATTACHMENT A LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of May 2019, by and between CITY OF ARLINGTON, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("City"), and _______________________, a ____________________, ("Licensee"). In consideration of the mutual promises stated herein, each of the parties hereto agrees as follows: 1. License. City hereby grants to Licensee a nonexclusive license to sell ice cream, sundry products, water, soda pop, popcorn, candy, ice, etc., from a concession unit at _____________________ (the “Premises”) in accordance with this Agreement. Refer to Schedule A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for exact dates and times of operation, products, prices and pictures identifying the type of temporary concession unit that will be used to sell the products. 2. Duration. This Agreement shall commence ________, 2019, and shall continue in effect until ____________, 2019 at ________________ unless earlier terminated as provided below. The agreement term may be renewed annually in writing from ____________ through ______________ respectively for a maximum of two (3) additional one-year terms at the sole discretion of the City. 3. License Fee. The Licensee shall pay the City for the Haller Park concession , $ ____ for June , $_______ for July, $________ for August, on or before the 15 th day of each succeeding month. (Depending on agreement) 4. Licensee’s Duties. a. Licensee and its employees shall comply with all rules and regulations of the City and Snohomish County Health District relating to the use of, and conduct at the Premises. Licensee and its employees shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws while acting under this license. Licensee shall be liable to the City for loss or damage it or its employees, cause to the Premises during the periods of use of this license. 16 b. Licensee shall maintain and operate the concession unit in a commercially reasonable manner. The unit shall cleaned to its original state at the terminat ion of this Agreement. c. If the Licensee wishes to make capital improvements to the permanent concessions unit, the area surrounding the unit, or wants to construct a permanent or temporary unit, Licensee must propose the improvements or constructi on to the City in writing. This proposal must include site plans and specific construction drawings. The City may approve or disallow the improvements. If the proposal is approved by the City a separate written agreement will be developed between the City and the Licensee. The Licensee will be responsible to apply for and obtain all necessary permits that may be required by the City, the Health District or other regulatory agencies. At such time as the Agreement is terminated, the improvements become the property of the City. d. Insurance Requirements. Maintenance of insurance as required herein shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage provided by insurance or to limit the City’s recourse. The Licensee shall obtain and maintain continuously, at its own expense, the following primary insurance appropriate to the activity and necessary to protect the public for the term of the Agreement: 1. Commercial general liability insurance including Product- Completed Operations coverage with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence and endorsed to include City of Arlington, its officers, elected officials, agents, and employees as an additional insured. Claims-made Commercial General Liability insurance will not be accepted. 3. The Licensee shall provide or purchase workers’ compensation insurance coverage to meet the Washington State Industrial Insurance regulations. The City will not be responsible for payment of workers’ compensation premiums or for any other claim or benefit for the Licensee, its employees, consultants, or subcontractors which might arise under the Washington State Industrial Insurance laws. All insurance shall be placed with insurance carriers licensed to do business in the state of Washington and with carriers subject to approval by the City. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of the required insurance policies and to approve all deductibles. Insurance shall not be reduced or canceled without thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the City. 17 Upon execution of this agreement, at least two weeks in advance of operation, the Licensee shall provide the City with a certificate of insurance outlining the requ ired coverage’s, limits and additional insured endorsement. Approval of insurance is a condition precedent to approval of this Agreement by the City Risk Manager. e. Licensee shall obtain all other permits and licenses required by law. By executing this document, the City does not warrant whether any other permits or licenses are necessary. 4. Hold Harmless. Licensee shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at its own expense, City of Arlington, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents, from and against any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of this license, including claims by Licensee's employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City of Arlington its officers, elected or appointed officials, employees or agents. 5. Non-discrimination. The Licensee shall comply with the Snohomish County Human Rights Ordinance and federal, state, or local laws against discrimination. 6. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving at least ten (10) days’ written notice of termination to the other party, except that the City may, at its election, terminate this Agreement at any time if Licensee fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement. In such event, City may retain any advanced payments. 7. Non-assignment. The Licensee shall not assign any of the rights, duties or obligations covered by this Agreement without the prior express written consent of the City. 8. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and any lawsuit regarding this Agreement must be brought in Snohomish County, Washington. 9. Severability. Should any clause, phrase, sentence or paragraph of this Agreement be declared invalid or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the complete expression of the terms and conditions hereunder. Any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are specifically excluded. 18 “CITY” “LICENSEE” City of Arlington By: By: Owner Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: _________________ REVIEWED BY RISK MANAGEMENT Approved ( ) Other ( ) ________________________________ Date Signed: _________________ 19 Schedule A MERCHANDISE HOURS OF OPERATION CONCESSION LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR HALLER PARK THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made this 3 day of June 2019, by and between CITY OF ARLINGTON, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("City"), and Stacy Bautista, owner of Blues Brew ("Licensee"). In consideration of the mutual promises stated herein, each of the parties hereto agrees as follows: 1. License. City hereby grants to Licensee a nonexclusive license to sell ice cream, sundry products, water, soda pop, popcorn, candy, ice, etc., from a concession unit at Haller Park (the “Premises”) in accordance with this Agreement. Refer to Schedule A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for exact dates and times of operation, products, prices and pictures identifying the type of temporary concession unit that will be used to sell the products. 2. Duration. This Agreement shall commence June 10, 2019, and shall continue in effect until December 31, 2019 at 12:00 am unless earlier terminated as provided below. The agreement term may be renewed annually in writing from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 respectively for a maximum of two (3) additional one-year terms at the sole discretion of the City. 3. License Fee. The Licensee shall pay the City for the Depot at Legion Park concession a fee equal to 10% of the monthly gross sales, payable by the 5th of the following month. Licensee shall also provide a summary of monthly sales at the time of payment. 4. Licensee’s Duties. a. Licensee and its employees shall comply with all rules and regulations of the City and Snohomish County Health District relating to the use of, and conduct at the Premises. Licensee and its employees shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws while acting under this license. Licensee shall be liable to the City for loss or damage it or its employees, cause to the Premises during the periods of use of this license. b. Licensee shall maintain and operate the concession unit in a commercially reasonable manner. The unit shall cleaned to its original state at the termination of this Agreement. c. If the Licensee wishes to make capital improvements to the permanent concessions unit, the area surrounding the unit, or wants to construct a permanent or temporary unit, Licensee must propose the improvements or construction to the City in writing. This proposal must include site plans and specific construction drawings. The City may approve or disallow the improvements. If the proposal is approved by the City a separate written agreement will be developed between the City and the Licensee. The Licensee will be responsible to apply for and obtain all necessary permits that may be required by the City, the Health District or other regulatory agencies. At such time as the Agreement is terminated, the improvements become the property of the City. d. Insurance Requirements. Maintenance of insurance as required herein shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage provided by insurance or to limit the City’s recourse. The Licensee shall obtain and maintain continuously, at its own expense, the following primary insurance appropriate to the activity and necessary to protect the public for the term of the Agreement: i. Commercial general liability insurance including Product-Completed Operations coverage with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence and endorsed to include City of Arlington, its officers, elected officials, agents, and employees as an additional insured. Claims-made Commercial General Liability insurance will not be accepted. ii. The Licensee shall provide or purchase workers’ compensation insurance coverage to meet the Washington State Industrial Insurance regulations. The City will not be responsible for payment of workers’ compensation premiums or for any other claim or benefit for the Licensee, its employees, consultants, or subcontractors which might arise under the Washington State Industrial Insurance laws. iii. All insurance shall be placed with insurance carriers licensed to do business in the state of Washington and with carriers subject to approval by the City. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of the required insurance policies and to approve all deductibles. Insurance shall not be reduced or canceled without thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the City. iv. Upon execution of this agreement, at least two weeks in advance of operation, the Licensee shall provide the City with a certificate of insurance outlining the required coverage’s, limits and additional insured endorsement. Approval of insurance is a condition precedent to approval of this Agreement by the City Risk Manager. v. Licensee shall obtain all other permits and licenses required by law. By executing this document, the City does not warrant whether any other permits or licenses are necessary. 4. Hold Harmless. Licensee shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at its own expense, City of Arlington, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents, from and against any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of this license, including claims by Licensee's employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of City of Arlington its officers, elected or appointed officials, employees or agents. 5. Non-discrimination. The Licensee shall comply with the Snohomish County Human Rights Ordinance and federal, state, or local laws against discrimination. 6. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving at least ten (10) days’ written notice of termination to the other party, except that the City may, at its election, terminate this Agreement at any time if Licensee fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement. In such event, City may retain any advanced payments. 7. Non-assignment. The Licensee shall not assign any of the rights, duties or obligations covered by this Agreement without the prior express written consent of the City. 8. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and any lawsuit regarding this Agreement must be brought in Snohomish County, Washington. 9. Severability. Should any clause, phrase, sentence or paragraph of this Agreement be declared invalid or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the complete expression of the terms and conditions hereunder. Any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are specifically excluded. CITY LICENSEE City of Arlington Stacy Bautista By: By: Mayor Owner Date Signed: _________________ Date Signed: _________________ SCHEDULE A: Dates and times of operation: Open 7 days a week, initial hours would be 8 am – 7 pm, we are willing to open at 7 am and close at 8 pm if there is a need. Menu: • Coffee; hot and iced • Energy drinks, such as red bull chargers and lotus energy drinks • Granita (coffee slushy) and frozen lemonade • Pre-packaged ice cream, and pre-packaged frozen yogurt, from blues frozen yogurt in Lake Stevens WA • Bottled drinks; water, orange juice, cans of red bull • Snacks; muffins, cookies, power bars, store bought sandwiches Arlington visitor brochures will be offered in the Depot. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #7 Attachment G COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Adjustment to Equipment Replacement Schedules for Streets and Airport ATTACHMENTS: Detailed summary of staff’s request including a chart of what was originally budgeted for replacement in 2019 and what staff is requesting to replace/purchase in 2019. DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Maintenance & Operations – Jay Downing 360-403-4642 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $68,000 BUDGET CATEGORY: Streets and Airport Equipment Replacement Funds BUDGETED AMOUNT: $230,000 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Staff is requesting approval to adjust the Street and Airport Fund’s Equipment Replacement Schedules for 2019 and authorize an increase in spending. HISTORY: The Streets replacement schedule budgeted $230,000 in 2019. The Airport replacement schedule budgeted $0 in 2019. Staff is requesting a total budget increase of $68,000, $8,000 Streets and $60,000 Airport. The airport replacement fund will be paying for 50% of the costs for the excavator and brush mower, which is $60,000. The streets replacement fund will pay for the remaining costs, which is Workshop; discussion only. At the June 3, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the adjustment of the Streets and Airport Fund’s Equipment Replacement Schedules and authorize the proposed $68,000 increase in spending for 2019.” Staff is requesting approval to adjust the Street and Airport Fund’s Equipment Replacement Schedules for 2019 and authorize an increase in spending. The Streets replacement schedule budgeted $230,000 in 2019. The Airport replacement schedule budgeted $0 in 2019. Staff is requesting a total budget increase of $68,000, $8,000 Streets and $60,000 Airport. Below is a summary of what was originally budgeted for replacement in 2019 and what staff is requesting to replace/purchase in 2019. The airport replacement fund will be paying for 50% of the costs for the excavator and brush mower, which is $60,000. The streets replacement fund will pay for the remaining costs, which is $238,000. Total $230,000 $298,000 • Kubota KX080-4SS3, or equivalent, Excavator - $100,000 (Split with Airport) o Replacing S-34 Backhoe. Excavators are compact and distribute weight evenly to limit surface damage. They also rotate 360 degrees for added versatility. o Primary use: brush clearing on the Airport and other areas of the City, small construction projects, and the Sidewalk Replacement Program. • EX50HDR Excavator Rotary Brush Mower - $20,000 (Split with Airport) o New purchase. The City currently owns a New Holland T6030 tractor with Rotary mower attachment, primarily used for roadside mowing. However, the existing equipment is not capable of effectively clearing brush in the forested areas of the Airport. o Primary use: An attachment for the excavator, brush clearing on the Airport and other areas of the City. • Truck Mounted 4.25 Yard Patch Body – 2013 Freightliner – $100,000 o Replacement. The City’s existing patch body is a 1994 mounted on a 1975cab and chassis. The truck is underpowered and unsafe to travel atspeeds above 35 mph. Staff was still able to use the truck when asphaltwas available at an Arlington distributer, but that is no longer an optionand the closest asphalt distributor is located in Everett. o Primary use: For medium to large pothole repair and small pavingprojects. Maintenance program in conjunction with PavementPreservation program. •Billy Goat DL3700V Debris Loader W/Trailer - $10,000 o New purchase. Approximately 500 City staff labor hours, 250 streetadditional sweeper hours, and 400 department of corrections work crewhours are spent picking up leaves each year. Staff estimates theequipment will save approximately half of the labor hours and most ofthe additional sweeper hours. o Primary use: leaf cleanup.Staff recognized the need for these items prior to Council approving the 2019/2020 budget. However, the purchases were mostly contingent on securing a grant and receiving approval from the Department of Ecology to purchase a street sweeper. The grant would free up existing funds in the Streets replacement schedule, minus 20% of the overall cost of the sweeper for the match-funding requirement. The Department of Ecology just recently issued approval to move forward with the purchase of the street sweeper, allowing for the purchase of the above equipment without affecting future scheduled purchases. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #8 Attachment HCOUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019 SUBJECT: Resolution to waive Fly-In fees ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Airport Commission Findings DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Airport; Dave Ryan, Director 360-403-3474 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0- BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Each year the airport is required to bring to the City Council a resolution to waive land use fees for the annual Fly-In. Part of the resolution details the finding of fact supporting the decision to waive fees for this event. The Airport Commission approved the findings of this resolution at their May 14, 2019 regular commission meeting and bring it to the City Council for final approval. HISTORY: In 2016, City Council voted to approve waiving fees for the Arlington Fly-In with FAA approval. The FAA did agree that this use was consistent with the grant assurances for the airport. The Airport Commission was tasked with providing “Findings of Fact” to support this resolution (attached) and is required to bring them before Council every year. ALTERNATIVES: Take no action RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. At the June 3, 2019 council meeting, the recommended motion will be, “I move to approve the resolution to waive Fly-In land use fees, and authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to sign the resolution.” RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XXX RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON ADOPTING FINDINGS REGARDING THE WAIVER OF FEES FOR THE 2019 ARLINGTON FLY-IN EVENT WHEREAS, the City of Arlington adopted Ordinance No. 2016-011 on June 20, 2016, creating a mutual benefit agreement process for certain events to be held at the Arlington Municipal Airport; and WHEREAS, the Arlington Airport Commission held a public meeting on May 14, 2019 to discuss the requested waiver of fees for the 2019 Arlington Fly-I n Event; and WHEREAS, the Airport Commission’s Findings of Fact and recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt required findings in support of the waiver of fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: 1.The Arlington City Council makes the following written findings relating to the 2019 Fly-In event, as required by AMC 14.08.065 and Ordinance No. 2016-011, adopted by the City Council on June 20, 2016: (a) The 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event enhances public acceptance of the airport in the community in the immedia te area of the airport; (b) The subject property will be put to a desired public recreational or other community use by the community in the immediate area of the airport during the 2019 Arlington Fly-In event; (c) The desired community use and the community goodwill that would be generated by 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event serves the business interest of the airport in ways that can be articulated and demonstrated; (d) The 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event does not adversely affect the capacity, security, safety, or operations of the airport; (e) At the time the 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event is contemplated, the subject property would not reasonably be expected to produce more than de minimis revenue; (f) The 2019 Arlington Fly-In does not preclude reuse of the subject property for airport purposes; (g) Airport revenue does not support the capital or operating costs associated with the 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event; RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XXX (h) The 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event is not to a for-profit organization or for the benefit of private individuals; (i) The permit, license or contract for the 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event complies with RCW 14.08.120(5); (j) The permit, license or other contract for the 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event does not exceed five (5) years; (k) The permit, license or other contract for the 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event does not exceed one year; (l) The proposed 2019 Arlington Fly-In Event use agreement and proposed waive of fees has been provided to the FAA for the opportunity to review and comment; (m) If the proposed use is within the airport operations area, it may only be used for an approved aeronautical use; and (n) The proposed permit, license or agreement complies with the city’s federal grant assurance obligations. 2.The Arlington City Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Airport Commission’s findings of fact and the recommendation made by the Airport Commission May 14, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit A. ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor Pro Tem this ____ day of ___________, 2019. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Marilyn Oertle, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: ________________________________ Erin Keator, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney