The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-03-2012_Council Meeting Arlington City Council December 3, 2012 – 7 PM City Council Chambers 110 E. Third 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 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATIONS 1. 2012 National Impaired Driving Prevention Month ATTACHMENT A PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public to speak to the Council regarding matters NOT on the agenda. Please limit remarks to three minutes. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Minutes of the November 19 and 26, 2012 Council Meetings ATTACHMENT B 3. Accounts Payable PUBLIC HEARING 1. Amendment to AMC Title 20 regarding the Transfer of Development Rights Program ATTACHMENT C NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution authorizing Ovivo Contract Revision No. 1 ATTACHMENT D 2. Adoption of Ordinance Setting 2013 Budget ATTACHMENT E 3. Adoption of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s recommendations on the Hotel-Motel Tax Grant Awards ATTACHMENT F 4. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the LID Preformation Agreement for Island Crossing Area ATTACHMENT G 5. Authorization to sign the 2nd Amendment to the SR9 Coalition Interlocal Agreement ATTACHMENT H 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 1-800-833-8388 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required. DISCUSSION ITEMS INFORMATION ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS – OPTIONAL EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT To review all attachments, click here. CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON PROCLAMATION 2012 National Impaired Driving Prevention Month WHEREAS, 193 traffic deaths occurred in Snohomish County from 2007-2011; and WHEREAS, 103 persons died in preventable traffic crashes in Snohomish County from 2007-2011 due to a person’s choice to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and WHEREAS, 53% of traffic deaths in Snohomish County from 2007-2011 were alcohol or drug related; and WHEREAS, the Governor has proclaimed the goal of the Target Zero Project is to have zero traffic deaths and disabling injuries by the year 2030; and WHEREAS, the December holiday season is traditionally one of the most deadly times of the year for impaired driving; and WHEREAS, for thousands of families across the state and the nation, these holiday are a sad time to remember loved ones they lost due to impaired drivers during previous holiday seasons; and WHEREAS, the Arlington Police Department is proud to join forces with all other law enforcement agencies in Snohomish County as members of the Target Zero Team to make our roads and streets safer; NOW, THEREFORE I, Mayor Barbara Tolbert, do hereby proclaim December 2012 as National Impaired Driving Prevention Month in the City of Arlington, Washington and I call upon all citizens, government, agencies, business leaders, health care providers and schools to promote awareness of the impaired driving problem. I further ask for support of programs and policies to reduce the incidence of impaired driving and to promote safer and healthier behaviors regarding the use of alcohol or other drugs this December holiday season and throughout the year. Finally, I encourage all citizens celebrating the holidays this December to plan ahead and use a designated driver or arrange another safe way home whenever alcohol or drugs are part of the holiday celebration. ________________________________________ Mayor Barbara Tolbert DRAFT Page 1 of 3 Council Chambers 110 East Third November 19, 2012 City Council Members Present by Roll Call: Dick Butner, Randy Tendering, Debora Nelson, Marilyn Oertle, Chris Raezer, Ken Klein, and Steve Baker Council Members Absent: All Council members were present. City Staff Present: Mayor Tolbert, Allen Johnson, Kristin Banfield, Paul Ellis, Jim Chase, Jim Kelly, Eric Scott, Bill Blake, Monica Schlagel, Fred Rapelyea, Jan Bauer, and Steve Peiffle – City Attorney Also Known to be Present: Maxine Jenft – Volunteer Coordinator, Mike Hopson – Airport Commission, Jan Schuette, Kirk Boxleitner – Arlington Times, Sarah Arney – North County Outlook, Gale Fiege – Everett Herald Mayor Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00PM, and the pledge of allegiance to the flag followed. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Agenda. Chris Raezer seconded the motion which passed with a unanimous vote. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Presentation of APA/PAW Award by Richard Hart, City of Covington Community Development Director Public Works Director Jim Kelly introduced Richard Hart from the APA/PAW who then presented the City with a winning award for the Arlington Wetland Project. He read comments made regarding that project and presented a plaque to Mayor Tolbert. Bill Blake and Jim Kelly were also celebrated as project participants. Presentation of Department of Ecology Outstanding Performance Award Jim Kelly gave a description of the outstanding performance award and some of the conditions that must be met in regard to wastewater treatment. Fred Rapelyea, supervisor, was presented the award. PUBLIC COMMENT Phil Lane, 18016 Graywalls Drive, Arlington, inquired about the railroad lease along 67th Avenue which contains a 3% perpetual yearly fee, and he is concerned with the agreement that needed to be made for that particular easement. Mr. Lane also asked about the need for the 67th Avenue road expansion which results in additional debt for the city. Discussion and clarification followed. CONSENT AGENDA With the correction that Steve Baker did not attend the November 13 Council Workshop, as indicated in the November 13, 2012 minutes, Marilyn Oertle moved and Debora Nelson seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda which was unanimously carried to approve the following Consent Agenda items: 1. Minutes of the November 5 and 13, 2012 Council meetings 2. Accounts Payable Electronic Payments and Claims Checks #77993 through #78092 dated November 6, 2012 through November 19, 2012 in the amount of $739,921.60. Minutes of the Arlington City Council Meeting Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting DRAFT November 19, 2012 Page 2 of 3 3. Approval of Olympic Avenue Road Closure on December 1, 2012 for the annual Santa Parade 4. Approval of Short Term Interfund Loan PUBLIC HEARING 2013 Budget With the use of a power point presentation Finance Director Jim Chase gave an overview of the City of Arlington 2013 budget. He answered Council questions. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:31PM and with no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was immediately closed. Mr. Chase answered additional Council questions. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no Unfinished Business. NEW BUSINESS Adoption of Resolution Setting Property Taxes Jim Chase gave an estimate of the total that would be brought in by the levy and the EMS levy for 2013. Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Proposed Resolution adopting the 2013 property tax levy. Steve Baker seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. Amendment #1 to AECOMM Contract for Design of Airport Blvd. Phase 2 City Engineer Eric Scott reviewed the project timeline. He asked for Council approval of this Amendment. This is actually Supplement #2, correcting the given information. Debora Nelson moved to approve the Supplement No. 1 to the AECOMM contract with the City of Arlington and authorize the Mayor to sign the Supplement, pending final review by the City Attorney. Randy Tendering seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. Adoption of the Snohomish County Legislative Agenda Assistant City Administrator Kristin Banfield presented the Snohomish County Agenda which would provide a unified agenda and a unified front with many other Washington cities in Olympia. She asked for Council approval. Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Snohomish County legislative agenda and transportation project list, as presented. Dick Butner seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. Authorization for Mayor to Sign Easement for Gateway Sign in Smokey Point Ms. Banfield spoke to the grant for gateway sign installation. The location would be at 172nd and Smokey Point Drive. She asked for Council approval and answered Council questions. Marilyn Oertle moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the easement with property owners Alayar and Gitty Dabestani to install the “Welcome to Arlington” gateway sign. Debora Nelson seconded the motion that passed with a unanimous vote. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS Allen Johnson will enter into SR9 Coalition Contract negotiations, with details to follow at the next Council Workshop. MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Tolbert gave a brief report of meeting and events she had recently attended. Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting DRAFT November 19, 2012 Page 3 of 3 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS – OPTIONAL Randy Tendering, Debora Nelson, Marilyn Oertle, and Ken Klein gave brief reports, while Dick Butner, Chris Raezer, and Steve Baker had nothing to report at this time. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney announced that there would be no need for an Executive Session. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50PM. ____________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor DRAFT Page 1 of 2 Council Chambers 110 East Third Street November 26, 2012 Dick Butner, Randy Tendering, Debora Nelson, Marilyn Oertle, Chris Raezer, Ken Klein, Steve Baker, Mayor Tolbert, Allen Johnson, Kristin Banfield, Jim Chase, Fire Chief Bruce Stedman, Jim Kelly, Rob Putnam, Jan Bauer, Steve Peiffle – City Attorney Council Members Absent: All Council members were present. Also Known to be Present: Heather Logan, Mike Hopson – Airport Commission, Jan Schuette, Tom Lane – Dwayne Lane, Mary Jane Harmon, and Jessica Stickles Mayor Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00PM. Marilyn Oertle moved to approve the Agenda, and Randy Tendering seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote approving the Workshop Agenda. WORKSHOP ITEMS P NO FINAL ACTION WAS TAKEN Ovivo-CPA Contract Revisions No. 1- Reduction in Phase 3 Scope of Service City Engineer Jim Kelly noted the name change from Enviroquip and then spoke to the three contract phases and the requested amendment eliminating $37,289.68 from the Phase 3 contract. Mr. Kelly then answered Council questions. Pavement Preservation Presentation With the use of a power point presentation Jim Kelly gave an informational on the Pavement Condition Survey Update program. He spoke to the person surveying and analyzing Arlington streets, and he reviewed the road information sought, measurements and treatments for road surfaces, as well as pavement life cycles and repair costs. Mr. Kelly answered Council questions including the lack of grant opportunities for city street repairs when repairs are not being made at the present time. Prairie Creek Drainage Study – Phase 1 Results With the use of a power point presentation Jim Kelly reviewed and summarized the Prairie Creek Drainage Improvement results. He also reviewed the basin drainage via a hydrologic modeling basis, and appraised the preliminary design report including recommended improvements, estimated costs, risk analysis and failure mode. No action was requested. Mr. Kelly answered Council questions. Jan Schuette asked about businesses in a flooded area conceivably leaving because of flooding near their area and what Arlington can do to eliminate the flooding. Discussion followed. LID Performance Agreement for Island Crossing Area Community and Economic Development Director Paul Ellis, along with Tom Lane from Dwayne Lane Chevrolet, presented an LID Agreement for development and funding in the Island Crossing area. He spoke to a Preformation Agreement between Lane and the City of Arlington. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Lane answered several Council concerns and questions. Minutes of the Arlington City Council Workshop Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting November 26, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Snohomish County Special Operations Joint Policy Board (Fire/EMS) Fire Chief Bruce Stedman presented and spoke to the proposed ILA with Snohomish County and answered several Council questions. SR 9 Coalition Contract / ILA Renewal City Administrator Allen Johnson gave a brief update of the SR9 Contract/ILA Renewal. He noted that the outcome for obtaining monies from the Legislature is questionable, as there are many unknowns at this point and this agreement would be much to the City’s benefit.. 2013 Budget With the use of a power point presentation Finance Director Jim Chase reviewed the 2012 Budget, addressing capital projects, in addition to several other areas of the Budget. Rob Putnam – Airport Director and Jim Kelly answered Council questions, as well. He asked for additional questions and upcoming approval of the Budget. Review of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s Recommendations on the Hotel-Motel Tax Grant Awards Mayor Tolbert recused herself at this time and Mayor Pro Tem Marilyn Oertle stepped in as Mayor. Jim Chase spoke to the Distributions for 2013. A lengthy discussion followed. Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce member Mary Jane Harmon addressed questions regarding the 4th of July fireworks. Mayor Tolbert joined the meeting. Miscellaneous Council Items There were no Miscellaneous Council Items. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no members of the public wishing to speak on matters on the Agenda. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30PM. ____________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: PH #1 Attachment C COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Amendment to AMC Title 20 regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) code and Regional program ATTACHMENTS: Draft TDR Zoning Language, Draft Interlocal resolution, Draft Policy Statement, Draft Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, TDR 365-198 WAC for Tax Increment Financing through Regional Program DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Public Works/Community Economic Development EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: N/A BUDGET CATEGORY: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Hold a Public Hearing to receive testimony on the proposed updated TDR program. Attached are the draft code changes provided by the consultant team and reviewed by staff to incorporate the TDR program in to the West Arlington Planning Area. Included is language to utilize the 365-198 WAC that allows Arlington to participate in the regional TDR program without requiring a formal Interlocal agreement between the City and all three Counties Participating in the regional program. Participation in the regional program qualifies the City to utilize Tax Increment Financing within the TDR planning area. HISTORY: The City was awarded a Dept. of Commerce grant September1, 2010 to create a new TDR receiving area in the West Arlington Planning Area. The City contracted with a consultant (Makers) that assisted with the Public Participation process and creation of the Draft West Arlington Form based code. Makers was assisted by sub-consultants that provided an Economic Analysis as well as updated TDR regulations to include West Arlington and the regional program. The grant deadline is December 31, 2012, with a request to extend that deadline to February 15, 2013. The materials were presented at a Council Workshop on November 13, 2012. ALTERNATIVES Discussion Item RECOMMENDED MOTION: No action at this time. Title 20 - ZONING Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 6 Proposed Amendments to Arlington Municipal Code for implementation of West Arlington Subarea Plan TDR policies, and new form-based zoning. Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Sections: 20.37.005 - Definitions. 20.37.010 - Overview of requirements for transfer of development rights (TDR) receiving areas. 20.37.020 - Development approvals within the Brekhus-Beach TDR overlay zone conditioned on use of TDR certificates. 20.37.030 - Presentation and extinguishment of TDR certificates (Brekus-Beach Overlay). 20.37.040 - Number of TDR certificates required for development approvals. (Brekus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone). 20.37.050 - Development standards and application requirements for the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone. 20.37.060 Use of TDR certificates for certain development approvals within the West Arlington Subarea TDR overlay zone. 20.37.070 - Interlocal agreement for TDR receiving areas. 20.37.005 - Definitions. For purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall apply: (1) "TDR overlay zone." A TDR overlay zone is that area depicted on the official zoning map of the city that identifies the areas impacted by the interlocal agreement authorized in Section 20.37.060 (Interlocal Agreement for TDR Receiving Areas). (2) "TDR receiving area." A TDR receiving area is that area to which development rights may be transferred from other locations, pursuant to the city’s comprehensive plan or the interlocal agreement authorized in Section 20.37.060 (Interlocal Agreement for TDR Receiving Areas). (3) “Stillaguamish Sending Area” is the TDR sending area in the Stillaguamish River Valley designated in the Snohomish County comprehensive plan Future Land Use Map as a “Pilot Sending Area.” (Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006) Title 20 - ZONING Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 6 20.37.010 - Overview of requirements for transfer of development rights (TDR) receiving areas. (a) This chapter is adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city’s comprehensive plan, including the West Arlington Subarea Plan, and any interlocal agreement between the city of Arlington and Snohomish County concerning the Transfer of Development Rights Program that may hereafter be adopted. Consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA and Arlington Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of this chapter is to: (1) Provide for urban development within portions of the Arlington Urban Growth Area that are zoned as TDR receiving areas pursuant to Section 20.36.080 (TDR Overlay Zone Established) and depicted on the city of Arlington's official zoning map. (2) Help conserve valuable agricultural lands located in the Stillaguamish River Valley that are designated as "sending areas" on the Snohomish County Future Land Use Map, an element of the county's comprehensive plan. (3) Help conserve floodplain function, agriculture and agricultural land through a variety of planning techniques, regulations, incentives, and acquisition methods, an objective identified in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan, Policy PL-19.10. (b) To further these objectives, approval of the urban development applications listed in Section 20.37.020 (Development Approvals Within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone Conditioned on Use of TDR Certificates) within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone requires the transfer of development rights from designated sending areas. Subject to the requirements of this chapter, such transfers shall occur through the use of TDR certificates, issued pursuant to Snohomish County Code Section 30.35A.050, in connection with city of approval of urban developments within the TDR Overlay Zone. (c) To further these objectives and implement the West Arlington Subarea Plan, Section 20.37,060, other provisions of this section, and the City’s form-based zoning for the subarea at Chapter 20.42, allow certain uses, densities and other development allowances, if TDR certificates are purchased and utilized in accordance with adopted city and County procedures for issuance and extinguishment of TDR certificates. (Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006) 20.37.020 - Development approvals within the Brekhus-Beach TDR overlay zone conditioned on use of TDR certificates. (a) Approval of the following urban development applications within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone requires the use of TDR certificates by the applicant pursuant to the requirements of Section 20.37.030 (Presentation and Extinguishment of TDR Certificates) and Section 20.37.040 (Number of TDR Certificates Required for Development Approvals): (1) Preliminary approvals for residential short and long subdivisions within the TDR Overlay Zone shall include a condition requiring the applicant to provide TDR certificates issued by Snohomish County pursuant to SCC Section 30.35A.050 prior to final plat approval. (2) Approval of land use permits for non-subdivision development, either residential or nonresidential, shall include a condition requiring the applicant to provide TDR certificates issued by Snohomish County pursuant to SCC Section 30.35A.050 prior to the issuance of building permits. (b) Permits for the following types of development or activities wtihin the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Title 20 - ZONING Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances Page 3 of 6 Zone are hereby exempt from this chapter (use class refers to those established in Table 20.40-2: Table of Permissible Uses): (1) Educational, Cultural, Religious, Philanthropic, Social, Fraternal uses (Use Class 5.00) (2) Emergency Services (Use Class 13.000) (3) Miscellaneous Public and Semi-Public Facilities (Use Class 15.000) Utility Facility (Use Class 17.000) (4) Cemetery and Crematorium (Use Class 21.000) (5) Bus Station, Train Station (Use Class 24.000) (6) Grading, excavation, or filling (Use Class 31.000) (7) Land clearing, logging (Use Class 32.000) (8) Uses permissible in sensitive areas as per Chapter 20.88 (Environmentally Critical Areas) (9) Single family dwellings on existing lots (Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006) 20.37.030 - Presentation and extinguishment of TDR certificates (Brekhus-Beach Overlay). (a) TDR certificates required as condition to development approval pursuant to Section 20.37.020 (Development Approvals Within the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone Conditioned on Use of TDR Certificates) shall be provided to the city, as follows: (1) For long and short residential subdivisions within a TDR Overlay Zone, the required number of TDR certificates specified in Section 20.37.040 (Number of TDR Certificates Required for Development Approvals) shall be provided at time of final plat submittal. The staff recommendation to the council on the final plat shall state whether the required number of certificates have been provided. (2) For long and short commercial subdivisions within a TDR Overlay Zone, the required number of TDR certificates specified in Section 20.37.040 (Number of TDR Certificates Required for Development Approvals) shall be provided at the time of building permit application. (3) Except as provided in Section 20.37.020(b), for all other development applications, either residential or nonresidential, the required number of TDR certificates specified in Section 20.37.040 shall be provided at the time of building permit application. [(b) Reserved.] (c) TDR certificates provided to the city pursuant to Subsection (a) of this section shall be extinguished and deemed legally void by Snohomish County pursuant to the requirements of chapter 30.35A SCC presently in effect or as hereafter amended, and pursuant to any interlocal agreement between the city of Arlington and Snohomish County which may be hereafter adopted. (d) For residential subdivisions of land the following statement shall be placed on the face of the final plat: "Upon recordation of this plat, any future subdivision of land within this plat shall be subject to the Title 20 - ZONING Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances Page 4 of 6 rules and regulation of AMC Chapter 20.37." (Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006) 20.37.040 - Number of TDR certificates required for development approvals (Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone). (a) The number of TDR certificates required to be presented for development approvals pursuant to Section 20.37.030 (Presentation and Extinguishment of TDR Certificates) shall be as follows: Table.1 Number of Required (b) Fractions that result from the calculation required by this section shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006) 20.37.050 - Development standards and application requirements for the Brekhus-Beach TDR Overlay Zone. (a) Development within TDR Overlay Zone shall be subject to the development standards and regulations for the underlying zoning classification, in addit ion to all other applicable requirements of AMC Title 20. Compliance with the requirements for development approval imposed by this chapter shall not result in additional lots or units. (b) Applications for development approvals must be accompanied by a purchase and sale agreement, or copy thereof, indicating that the applicant owns or has agreed to purchase the number of TDR certificates required for development approval under Section 20.37.020 (Development Approvals Within TDR Overlay Zone Conditioned on Use of TDR Certificates). (Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006) 20.37.060 – Use of TDR Certificates for Certain development approvals within the West Arlington Subarea TDR overlay zone. (a) As an incentive to preserve and protect the Stillaguamish Valley, the zoning and development standards for the West Arlington subarea require purchase of TDR certificates to obtain certain approvals from the City. Where TDR certificates are required, the following applies: (1) Development within the West Arlington Subarea TDR Overlay Zone shall be subject to the development standards and regulations for the underlying zoning classification, in addition to all Title 20 - ZONING Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances Page 5 of 6 other applicable requirements of AMC Title 20. (2) Applications for development approvals must be accompanied by a purchase and sale agreement, or copy thereof, indicating that the applicant owns or has agreed to purchase the number of TDR certificates required for development approval under this section. (3) The applicant shall provide the city the required number of TDR certificates, which are issued by Snohomish County pursuant to County code prior to obtaining any final plat approval, final binding site plan approval, building permit or certificate of occupancy, whichever land use approval occurs earliest. (4) Upon receiving the certificate, the city shall ensure the certificates are extinguished pursuant to County code upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (b) The permissible use tables governing development within the West Arlington Subarea area, described in AMC 20.42.220, authorize certain uses only if the applicant complies with this section. Where the use tables require compliance with this section, the applicant shall purchase TDR certificates from the Stillaguamish Valley (Pilot Sending Area) or Regional Program TDR Sending Areas and exchange purchased certificates per the ratio identified in Table.2 of this section. (c) The density and dimensional standards governing development within the West Arlington Subarea area, described in AMC 20.42.230, allow for certain specified increases in density or building height, subject to the following requirements for purchase of TDR certificates: (1) Where additional density is allowed through use of the TDR bonus, the City shall permit the purchaser of TDR certificates to exchange those certificates and obtain bonus densities at the ratios identified in Table. 2 of this section. (2) Where additional building height is allowed through use of the TDR bonus, the City shall permit the purchaser of TDR certificates to exchange those certificates at the ratios identified in Table. 2 of this section, up to the maximum heights specified in AMC 20.42.230. (3) [Reserved: Requirements within Master Planned Areas] Table. 2 West Arlington Receiving Area TDR program Exchange Rates – – Title 20 - ZONING Chapter 20.37 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Arlington, Washington, Code of Ordinances Page 6 of 6 Snohomish County regional program areas. (Not Pilot Sending Area) Ordinances area ft. of gross floor area SD – Single Purpose Residential from Pierce County. See current County Ordinances 1 Certificate=1,800 sq. ft. of gross floor area 1 Certificate=900 sq. ft. of gross floor area West Arlington T3 and T4 from King or Snohomish county Regional Program. (Not Pilot Sending Area) See current County Ordinances 2 Additional Units/acre/Certificate 1 Additional Units/acre/Certificate West Arlington T3 and T4 from Pierce County Regional program. See current County Ordinances 1 unit additional Unit/acre/Certificate 0.5 unit additional Unit/acre/Certificate T = Transect SD = Special District 20.37.070 - Interlocal agreement for TDR receiving areas. (a) Subject to approval by the city council, the mayor is authorized to negotiate and execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with Snohomish County for the purpose of ensuring that the use of TDR certificates is required as a condition to development approvals within TDR receiving areas following annexation, as provided in this chapter. (b) An interlocal agreement executed pursuant to Subsection (a) of this section shall require the city to adopt development regulations that: (1) Require the use of TDR certificates issued by the county as provided in this chapter within TDR receiving areas following annexation; and (2) Include requirements that are substantially consistent with the requirements of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 1391 § 1(part), 2006) 1 RESOLUTION No. ___ A RES0LUTION RELATING TO CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH USE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to adopt by reference the Washington State Department of Commerce interlocal terms and conditions for transferring development rights from counties to cities, under the regional Transfer of Development Rights program for the central Puget Sound region, thereby further allowing such transactions between the City and King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties; and, WHEREAS, the transfer of development rights (TDR) is one tool available to Washington communities to encourage the preservation of working agricultural and forest land while also promoting higher-density, infill development within incorporated cities, consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, and as provided in the Regional Transfer of Development Rights Program, Chapter 43.362 RCW; and, WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature affirmed the regional TDR program in 2009 by directing the Washington State Department of Commerce to establish a regional TDR program in Central Puget Sound; and, WHEREAS, to further the goals set forth in the City of Arlington comprehensive plan and development regulations, it is important to preserve working agricultural and forest land and land whose conservation meets other state and regionally adopted priorities; and, WHEREAS, the City’s participation in a regional TDR program would qualify the City to use tax increment financing for targeted infrastructure improvements; and, WHEREAS, RCW 43.362.050 authorizes cities in central Puget Sound to adopt by reference interlocal agreement terms and conditions now adopted by the Washington State Department of Commerce in Chapter 365-198 WAC in order to transfer development rights from any in the central Puget Sound region to the City, as the alternative to entering into interlocal agreements with those counties for transfer of development rights; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted comprehensive plan policies and development regulations specifying the manner in which TDR credits may be used within the City; and, WHEREAS, prior to adoption of this Resolution, the City Council held a public hearing on ____________, 2012. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council supports the transfer of development rights from sending areas designated by the central Puget Sound counties under the City’s TDR program, consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, and as provided in the Regional Transfer of Development Rights Program, Chapter 43.362 RCW, subject to the policies and regulations in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Section 2. The City hereby adopts by reference the interlocal terms and conditions as set forth in WAC 365-198-040 and 060 effective on the effective date of this Resolution (copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference), thereby providing a mechanism for the transfer of development rights from King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties (“Counties”) to the City, with additional definitions of “sending areas” and “receiving areas” set forth in the Arlington City Code, in addition to and complementary with those in WAC 365-198- 030. Section 3. The City has adopted policies or regulations for sending and receiving areas as shown in Ordinance Nos. _____________ and ______________, copies of which are attached to this resolution (the “Ordinances -- TDR”); Section 4. The City has made efforts at good faith consultation with the Counties, by sending them a letter informing them of: (i) Designated receiving areas in the City within which transferable development rights or development rights credits may be used; (ii) Specified receiving area ratios; (iii) A process to notify the transferring county when the City has approved the use of TDRs or development rights credits for a specific project in the designated receiving area, to allow the transferring county to track and extinguish credits as they are used; and (iv) An adopted procedure for consulting with the transferring county to ensure the validity of the TDR or development rights credit, prior to development approval, as specified in the Ordinances – TDR. Section 5. The City’s agreement to the indemnification and hold harmless provisions against the City in WAC 365-198-040 and 060 are agreed to on the assurance that that the Counties provide reciprocal protections in favor of the City. Section 6. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cooperate with representatives from the Counties to accomplish the policies set forth in this resolution and to promote the development and overall effectiveness of the City’s TDR program. Section 7. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon passage with respect to those Counties that have also adopted resolutions incorporating WAC 365-198 by 3 reference. Nothing in this resolution is intended to preclude the City from utilizing a non- regional TDR process in the event this Resolution is determined to be invalid in whole or in part, or in the event it does not take effect with respect to one of more of the Counties. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this ___ day of _________, 2012. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk PL-16.92 The West Arlington Subarea is designated as a new TDR receiving area within the City's Urban Growth area. Incentives for purchase of TDR certificates from landowners in the Stillaguamish Valley and Regional program shall be included in the City's development code for the subarea. These may include expanded uses within a particular zone, additional density, reduced minimum lot sizes, increased building heights, changes in parking and other development standards or other incentives. This incentives approach is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan policies for implementation of a TDR program and preservation and protection of the Stillaguamish Valley. WEST ARLINGTON SUBAREA Chapter 7: Land Use Element 7.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER .................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 MAJOR LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 7-1 7.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 7-222 7.3.1 Land Use Designations .................................................................................. 7-222 7.3.2 Residential Land Capacity Analysis (Buildable Lands) ................................... 7-888 7.3.3 Residential Density ................................................................................... 7-101010 7.3.4 Household Size ......................................................................................... 7-101010 7.3.5 Employment Land Capacity Analysis (Buildable Lands) ............................ 7-101010 7.3.6 Jobs/Housing Ratio ................................................................................... 7-101010 7.4 PROJECTED NEEDS ........................................................................................ 7-101010 7.4.1 2025 Population Target ............................................................................. 7-101010 7.4.2 Residential Land ....................................................................................... 7-101010 7.4.3 Employment Land ..................................................................................... 7-111111 7.4.4 Public Land ............................................................................................... 7-121212 7.5 WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE ............................................................... 7-131313 7.5.1 UGA Expansion ........................................................................................ 7-131313 7.5.2 Revised Land Use Map ............................................................................. 7-202019 7.5.3 Protection of the Stillaguamish River Valley .............................................. 7-212119 7.5.4 Subarea Plans .......................................................................................... 7-222220 7.5.5 Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation ……………………………………7-25 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 1 December 2011 7 Land Use Element 7.1 PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER ―How shall we grow?‖ is a recurring theme in communities throughout the United States. Growth can take many forms: more people, more homes, new job opportunities, higher standards of living, increased family wealth and so on. This Element is con- cerned primarily with the accommodation of the City of Arlington's spatial growth; that is, the increased use and the mix of land uses for urban activities. This Land Use Element has been devel- oped in accordance with RCW 36.70A.070 of the Growth Management Act to address land use issues in the City of Arlington and the adjacent Urban Growth Area that are expected to arise over the next 20 years. This Element, which is the City's policy plan for growth, describes how the goals in the other elements of this Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through land use poli- cies and regulations. Therefore, it is a key element in implementing Arlington's Com- prehensive Plan. This Element has also been developed in accordance with the County-Wide Planning Policies, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure internal consistency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. A matrix showing the consistency be- tween the countywide policies and Arling- ton's Comprehensive Plan policies is locat- ed in Appendix A of this plan. This section inventories and analyzes the distribution and location of existing land uses and con- siders the appropriate intensity and density of future development. 7.2 MAJOR LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS The biggest consideration that will arise at every 10-year update of this plan, including this one, will be: How do we want to grow? Under the GMA, we will be obligated to plan for and accommodate 20-years‘ worth of projected growth, regardless of what local sentiments are. The only control we have over development is what it will look like. Therefore, if we don‘t want to expand our boundaries (if we want to remain the same physical size), we will have to increase den- sities. However, if we don‘t want to increase densities in existing neighborhoods, then we will have to expand our boundaries. In all likelihood, we will end up doing a little of both. Whatever we end up doing, the other big issues will normally be:  What infrastructure will be needed to accommodate the growth, what‘s its cost, and how will it be paid for? Where should new roads go? What about sew- er, water, or storm drainage mains?  What do we want development to look like? Standard suburban plats? Tradi- tional neighborhoods like Old Town? Uniformly developed commercial areas? Clean industrial areas? Where do we want new commercial or job centers if we grow?  What Levels of Service do we want to provide? How many police officers? What response time for fire service? What type and how many parks, recrea- tional, or cultural amenities? And, how much does it all cost and are we willing to pay for it?  What‘s our strategy for economic growth, and are we obtaining it? Is there something we can do better? City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 2 December 2011  Is our housing stock adequate in num- bers and diversity to provide choices in lifestyle and/or affordable housing? If not, is there something we can do about it? 7.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 7.3.1 Land Use Designations The following is a list and descriptions of the Land Use Designations in Arlington. Table 7-1: Land Use Designation Size by Subar- ea, Existing (pre-2005 Update) Land Use MapTable 7-1: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Existing (pre-2005 Update) Land Use MapTable 7-1: Land Use Desig- nation Size by Subarea, Existing (pre-2005 Update) Land Use Map provides the num- ber of acres of each and, page 7-555, pro- vides a map of these designations prior to this plan update. 7.3.1.1 Residential Designations 7.3.1.1.1 Suburban Residential SR is a new designation, intended for sin- gle-family residential, recreational, commu- nity and public/quasi-public uses serving those residential uses. These are areas that typically have sewer and water facilities. SR allows single-family (1 du/lot) and two-family (duplex) residential and residential accesso- ry uses with a maximum gross density range of 4 dwelling units per acre. There currently are no areas with this land use designation. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated RLMD and still retain compatibility with the comprehensive plan include the Suburban Residential zoning district (to be created) as well as the Pub- lic/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Man- agement, and Planned Neighborhood De- velopment Districts. 7.3.1.1.2 Residential Low/Moderate Density (RLMD) RLMD is intended for single-family residen- tial, recreational, community and pub- lic/quasi-public uses serving those residen- tial uses. These are areas that typically have sewer and water facilities. RLMD al- lows single-family (1 du/lot) and two-family (duplex) residential and residential accesso- ry uses with a maximum gross density range of 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre. In 2005 Arlington had 1,561 acres of Resi- dential Low/Moderate Density, only 436 acres of which was available for develop- ment. (As of December 2005 most of this had already been developed or was under application for development). Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated RLMD and still retain compatibility with the comprehensive plan include the Residential-Low/Moderate Den- sity zoning district as well as the Pub- lic/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Man- agement, and Planned Neighborhood De- velopment Districts. Formatted: Check spelling and grammar City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 3 December 2011 Table 7-1: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Existing (pre-2005 Update) Land Use Map Within City Limits & UGA Total % Subarea SR RLMD RMD RHD OTRD NC OTBD1 OTBD2 OTBD3 GC HC BP LI GI P/SP MS AF MPN Airport Industrial 20.8 38.6 29.2 46.5 1058.6 673.2 29.3 1896.1 32.7% Arlington Bluff 251.0 67.2 8.2 32.8 155.3 31.5 546.0 9.4% Burn Hill 0.0 0.0% OTBD 1 5.1 36.0 41.0 0.7% OTBD 2 0.5 46.0 46.4 0.8% OTBD 3 45.6 45.6 0.8% Hill Top 1030.9 15.3 25.9 1072.0 18.5% Island Crossing 0.0 0.0% Kent Prairie 45.3 76.9 98.9 6.9 47.4 17.7 12.0 305.2 5.3% Old Town 143.7 52.4 49.8 234.9 29.7 6.1 95.7 612.3 10.6% SmPt / SR 531 Corridor 77.3 282.2 229.0 78.1 666.6 11.5% SmPt Neighborhood 331.3 331.3 5.7% South Fork Neighborhood 69.8 69.8 1.2% West Bluff 165.2 165.2 2.8% Total 0.0 1561.3 566.4 148.8 247.3 52.6 65.7 46.0 45.6 204.0 282.2 0.0 1608.2 775.1 194.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5797.5 % of City 0.0% 26.9% 9.8% 2.6% 4.3% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8% 3.5% 4.9% 0.0% 27.7% 13.4% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Source: Arlington ArcView 7.3.1.1.3 Residential Moderate Den- sity (RMD) RMD is intended for single-family residential (detached and attached), recreational, community and public/quasi-public uses serving those residential uses. These areas have sewer and water facilities. RMD allows single-family (1 du/lot) and two-family (du- plex) residential and residential accessory uses with a maximum gross density of 6 dwelling units per acre. In 2005 Arlington had 566 acres of Residen- tial - Moderate Density, only 167 acres of which was available for development. (As of March 2004, most of this had already been developed or was under application for de- velopment). Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated RMD and still retain com- patibility with the comprehensive plan in- clude the Residential Moderate Density zon- ing district as well as the Public/Semi- Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Dis- tricts. 7.3.1.1.4 Residential High Density (RHD) RHD is intended for higher density multi- family developments as well as recreational, community and public/quasi-public uses serving those residential uses. These areas have sewer and water facilities. RHD allows any form of single-family, two-family, and multi-family residential and residential ac- cessory uses (detached, attached, 1 du/lot, more than 1 du/lot, conversions, mo- bile/manufactured homes, accessory apartments, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, duplexes, group homes, special care homes, tourist homes, hotels, motels, etc.) with no density limits, provided that the project meets the site requirements of the Land Use and other pertinent codes and adopted development guidelines. In 2005 Arlington had 149 acres of Residen- tial - High Density, only 22 acres of which was available for development. However, a substantial portion (37 acres near the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 4 December 2011 OTBD) is considered underdeveloped. This undeveloped area contains older, single- family residential uses. Theoretically these areas could be redeveloped. However, the fact that redevelopment is not already oc- curring indicates that the market is probably not there yet. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated RHD and still retain com- patibility with the comprehensive plan in- clude the Residential High Density zoning district as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Dis- tricts. 7.3.1.1.5 Old Town (OT) OT is intended primarily for single-family residences. OT allows single-family (1 du/lot) and two-family (duplex) residential and residential accessory uses with a max- imum gross density of 10 dwelling units per acre. It also allows limited public/semi- public, community, and recreational uses. One of the urban design goals of this desig- nation is to preserve the historic quality of the traditional town center by promoting res- idential development that is in character with the older, existing homes in the area. In 2005 Arlington had 247 acres of Old Town, 180 acres of which was developed. However, there is opportunity for in-fill de- velopment as many of the older houses sit on 2 to 3 lots. This zone also allows for ac- cessory dwelling units, which would aid in in-fill. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated OT and still retain com- patibility with the comprehensive plan in- clude the Old Town zoning district as well as the Medical Services, Public/Semi- Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Dis- tricts. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 5 December 2011 Figure 7-1: Pre-Update Land Use Map (1995-2005) City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 6 December 2011 7.3.1.2 Commercial Designations 7.3.1.2.1 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) This designation allows retail and service businesses that serve the daily convenience shopping and personal service needs of the immediate surrounding neighborhood. In 2005 Arlington had 53 acres of Neighbor- hood Commercial, 47 acres of which was available for development. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated NB and still retain com- patibility with the comprehensive plan in- clude the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Dis- tricts. 7.3.1.2.2 Old Town Business District (OTBD) This designation allows customer-intensive retail, dining, entertainment, personal ser- vices, and similar businesses that are con- ducted primarily indoors. Mixed-use (com- mercial/high density residential) uses are also allowed in this district. It is intended that the OTBD remain, and in fact expand, its role as a business and social hub for Ar- lington, servicing residents while attracting people outside the City as well. The OTBD is further broken into three sub- districts: OTBD-1, 2, and 3. OTBD-1 is in- tended to cover N. Olympic—Arlington‘s historic downtown. OTBD 2 and 3 allow a slightly larger range of commercial uses, including those more automobile-oriented, while OTBD 3 has a larger range of residen- tial uses. Special requirements, such as his- toric design guidelines, have been adopted in order to help implement the City‘s eco- nomic development strategy for the OTBD. In 2005 Arlington had 157 acres of OTBD, only 16 of which was available for develop- ment. However, a substantial portion (espe- cially in OTBD 2 and 3) contains single- family residential uses that at one time the City hoped would redevelop into commercial uses. Obviously the market is not yet ripe for such redevelopment in Arlington. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated OTBD and still retain compatibility with the comprehensive plan include the Old Town Business District zone as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Flood- way, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Districts. 7.3.1.2.3 General Commercial (GC) This designation follows a suburban model and allows more automobile-oriented retail and service uses than allowed in the OTBD. It is intended that this designation be placed along arterials to cater to commuters or as a transition in some areas between a Highway Commercial zone and a residential zone. General commercial uses may require some outdoor display of merchandise. In 2005 Arlington had 204 acres of General Commercial, 144 acres of which was avail- able for development. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated GC and still retain com- patibility with the comprehensive plan in- clude the General Commercial zoning dis- trict as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Spe- cial Purpose District, Floodplain and Flood- way, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Districts. 7.3.1.2.4 Highway Commercial (HC) This designation allows high-intensity, large- scale, automobile-oriented commercial uses that typically locate on major highways, need larger sites, are used not only by local residents but by those of other communities as well, and should have more separation from residential uses. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 7 December 2011 In 2005 Arlington had 282 acres of Highway Commercial, 109 acres of which was avail- able for development. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated HC and still retain com- patibility with the comprehensive plan in- clude the Highway Commercial zoning dis- trict as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Air- port Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Dis- tricts. 7.3.1.3 Industrial Designations 7.3.1.3.1 General Industrial (GI) This land use designation allows manufac- turing (in particular resource-based), as- sembly, and processing uses that involve a great deal of activity and storage outside of buildings. In 2005 Arlington had 775 acres of General Industrial, 430 acres of which was devel- oped or under permit for development and 355 of which was available for development. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated GI and still retain compat- ibility with the comprehensive plan include the General Industrial zoning district as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Airport Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Districts. 7.3.1.3.2 Light Industrial (LI) Formerly called Airport Industrial (AI), the Light Industrial (LI) designation allows man- ufacturing, assembly, processing uses, and storage that are completely inside of build- ings. It is intended to have a cleaner, more orderly environment than one would find in a General Industrial district. In 2005 Arlington had 1,682 acres of Light Industrial, 952 acres of which was devel- oped or under permit for development, leav- ing 228 acres available for development. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated LI and still retain compati- bility with the comprehensive plan include the Light Industrial, Public/Semi-Public, Air- port Protection District, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, and Planned Neighborhood Development Dis- tricts. 7.3.1.3.3 Business Park (BP) The Business Park designation allows of- fice, high technology research and devel- opment, and related uses in a master- planned, park-like setting. In 2005 Arlington had 0 acres of the Busi- ness Park land use designation, though 270 acres the Airport Industrial was zoned Busi- ness Park, 268 acres of which was unde- veloped. However, 124 acres is under per- mit for development, leaving 144 available for additional development. Zoning districts that may be applied within areas designated BP and still retain compat- ibility with the comprehensive plan include the Business Park zoning district as well as the Public/Semi-Public, Floodplain and Floodway, Shoreline Management, Airport Protection District, and Planned Neighbor- hood Development Districts. 7.3.1.4 Miscellaneous Designations 7.3.1.4.1 Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) Formerly called Existing Public Use, the Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) designation is intended to accommodate public and semi- public uses, such as schools, government services and facilities, public utilities, com- munity facilities, parks, etc. on publicly owned land. Compatible zones include Pub- lic/Semi-Public and Airport Protection Dis- trict. In 2005 Arlington had 194 acres of Pub- lic/Semi-Public. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 8 December 2011 7.3.1.4.2 Aviation Flightline (AF) This is a new designation and is intended to cover the portions of the airport devoted to aviation-related uses. It allows only aviation related uses proximate to airport runways and taxiways. Aviation related uses include any uses related to supporting aviation that require direct taxiway access as a neces- sary part of their business operations, such as aviation services, manufacturing of avia- tion-related goods, general services whose primary customers would be those engaged in aviation-related activities (e.g., restau- rants primarily catering to pilots, employees, or passengers), or other uses that are clear- ly related to aviation. Compatible zones in- clude Aviation Flightline, Airport Protection District, and Public/Semi-Public. 7.3.1.4.3 Master Planned Neighborhood Master Planned Neighborhood (MPN) is a new land use designation intended to be placed on large tracts of land (25 acres or more) that are proposed to be brought into the UGA where detailed planning would benefit the public as well as all property owners involved by allowing them to propor- tionately share infrastructure planning and financing. It achieves this by requiring that a Master Development Plan be developed for all contiguous parcels within a particular overlay before any one parcel can be de- veloped, and then that any parcel devel- oped be so according to that plan. The im- plementing zone for this designation shall be Planned Neighborhood Development, subject to AMC §20.36.050 (Planned Neighborhood Development Districts Estab- lished) and AMC §20.44.030 (Planned Neighborhood Developments). The master plan should address how the roads, sewer, water, and other services and utilities would be provided and paid for, determine the types of uses would be allowed and at what densities (including at least 50% in Subur- ban Residential (4 du/ac)), and whatever other issues need to be worked out prior to development. 7.3.2 Residential Land Capacity Analysis (Buildable Lands) To determine the amount of capacity for growth left in the UGA, the City has used the 2002 SCT Buildable Lands Report.1 Al- most all cities in Snohomish County worked jointly on this report, and each city, including Arlington, reviewed and agreed to the in- formation prior to publishing. For information on the method and assumptions used, please refer to that report or its companion, the SCT Buildable Lands Procedures Re- port. Both can be found on Snohomish County‘s Planning & Development Services web page at http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departme nts/PDS. It should also be noted that there were two versions of the Buildable Lands Report, the SCT one (Scenario A), and an alternative analysis done by the County Council (Sce- nario B). The Arlington City Council moved to accept Scenario B. The results of that report were that as of April 2001 (baseline date from when data was collected), the Arlington UGA (including city) could accommodate another 5,775 people from the population of 13,347 (for a total of 19,122). See Table 7-2: Additional Residential Capacity (BLR Scenario A). 1 Snohomish County Tomorrow, ‗2002 Growth Monitoring/Buildable Lands Report,‘ January 2002. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 9 December 2011 Table 7-2: Additional Residential Capacity (BLR Scenario A) Additional Misc. Market Additional Total Unbuildable Buildable Housing Unit Pub. Purp Availability Population Acres Acres Acres Capacity Redx (0%) Redx (0%) Capacity City - Vacant Building Lots 186.9 15.7 171.8 1,026.0 1,026.0 1,026.0 2,757.0 City - Remaining Vacant Parcels 140.1 50.9 89.6 478.0 455.0 387.0 867.0 City - Partially-Used Parcels 305.3 84.5 220.8 513.0 488.0 342.0 875.0 City - Redevelopable Parcels 15.2 1.6 13.5 66.0 63.0 44.0 92.0 Subtotal - City 647.4 152.7 495.7 2,083.0 2,032.0 1,799.0 4,591.0 UGA - Vacant Building Lots 48.3 11.4 36.9 196.0 196.0 196.0 546.0 UGA - Remaining Vacant Parcels 32.7 0.4 32.4 107.0 102.0 86.0 241.0 UGA - Partially-Used Parcels 72.1 15.3 56.7 174.0 165.0 116.0 322.0 UGA - Redevelopable Parcels 18.3 5.9 12.4 41.0 39.0 27.0 76.0 Subtotal - UGA 171.3 33.0 138.4 518.0 502.0 425.0 1,185.0 Total 818.7 185.7 634.0 2,601.0 2,534.0 2,224.0 5,776.0 Table 7-3: Additional Employment Capacity (BLR Scenario A) AddtnlEmpCap AddtnlEmpCap Additional w/ Misc. w/ Market Total Unbuildable Buildable Employment Pub. Purp. Availability Acres Acres Acres Capacity Redx (5%) Redx (15%) City - Vacant Parcels 807.6 61.1 746.5 10,386.0 9,866.0 8,388.0 City - Partially-Used Parcels 352.8 170.5 182.2 3,339.0 3,172.0 2,220.0 City - Redevelopable Parcels 23.2 0.8 22.3 196.0 186.0 131.0 Subtotal - City 1,183.6 232.5 951.1 13,921.0 13,224.0 10,739.0 UGA - Vacant Parcels 70.2 2.7 67.5 1,171.0 1,113.0 946.0 UGA - Partially-Used Parcels 156.8 42.2 114.6 2,166.0 2,058.0 1,440.0 Subtotal - UGA 227.0 44.9 182.1 3,337.0 3,171.0 2,386.0 Total 1,410.6 277.4 1,133.2 17,258.0 16,395.0 13,125.0 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 10 December 2011 7.3.3 Residential Density During the period after the implementation of the GMA (1995-2000), residential land has developed at the densities listed in Ta- ble 7-4: Residential Net Density Achieved, 1995 - 2000Table 7-4: Residential Net Density Achieved, 1995 - 2000Table 7-4: Residential Net Density Achieved, 1995 - 2000. Table 7-4: Residential Net Density Achieved, 1995 - 2000 Zone Net Density (du/ac) RLMD 5.3 RMD 5.2 RHD 23.25 OT 23.23 From the 2002 SCT Growth Moni- toring Report 7.3.4 Household Size The average household size in Arlington is 2.72. Of owner-occupied units, the average household size is 2.82; of renter-occupied units the average household size is 2.54. The average household size is expected to fall to 2.52 people per household in 2025 (combined owner- and renter-occupied). 2 7.3.5 Employment Land Capaci- ty Analysis (Buildable Lands) The 2002 SCT Buildable Lands Report also included an analysis of employment land (commercial, industrial, business park, pub- lic, etc.) capacity. (See Section 7.3.2 for links to this document.) The results of that report were that as of April 2001 (baseline date from when data was collected), the Arlington UGA (including city) could accommodate another 13,123 jobs from the employment population of 2 Based on conversations with Mark Simonson, Puget Sound Regional Council, January 19, 2005 and SCT projections. 9,521 (for a total of 22,644). See Table 7-3: Additional Employment Capacity (BLR Sce- nario A)Table 7-3: Additional Employment Capacity (BLR Scenario A)Table 7-3: Addi- tional Employment Capacity (BLR Scenario A). 7.3.6 Jobs/Housing Ratio Arlington has a job/housing ratio of 2.22. (See §10.2.3, Jobs to Household Ratio, for further information.) 7.4 PROJECTED NEEDS 7.4.1 2025 Population Target Arlington‘s population target for the year 2025, as allocated through the SCT pro- cess, accepted by City Council, and adopt- ed by the County Council, is 30,538. Our adopted revised 2012 population target is 13,608, and according to the 2002 SCT Buildable Lands Report we could accom- modate another 5,775. Thus, we would only have to make room for another 11,155 peo- ple in this plan. Table 7-5: Additional Population to Plan For High 2025 Population Target 30,538 Adopted Revised 2012 Tar- get 13,608 Need to Find Room For: 16,930 Remaining Capacity (SCT BLR) 5,775 Need to size UGA for an additional: 11,155 7.4.2 Residential Land Based on our average household size, the above population target equates to 6,981 dwelling units. How much additional land we need will depend on what land use designa- tion is used (with its associated achieved density) and whether we could increase City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 11 December 2011 densities within the existing UGA. At our historic (1995 – present) achieved density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre in our SFR zones, the high projection need would roughly equate to 1,342 new acres if we do not increase any existing densities. Were we to create a new zone with a minimum parcel size of 9,600 square feet (3.5 du/ac), we would need 1,195 acres. Were we to have a mix of densities (9,600 to multi- family, ~6.01 du/ac) we would need 1,162 acres. 7.4.2.1 Single-Family Residential Arlington has no shortage of single-family residences; it‘s our predominant form of housing, comprising 70.6% of the current housing stock. City Council has expressed a desire, how- ever, to encourage more ―high end‖ hous- ing. The average value of all owner- occupied dwelling units in Arlington in 2000 was $168,200, according to the U.S. Cen- sus, compared to a median of $188,600 for all of Snohomish County. There is a per- ceived lack of higher end housing, causing families moving up on the economic ladder to move away from Arlington. Council would like there to be more choices so that fami- lies are not forced to look elsewhere as their income increases. To this end, Council has expressed a desire to create a new land use designation and zone with a minimum par- cel size of 9,600 square feet, believing this will aid their goal. 7.4.2.2 Multi-Family Residential Multi-family residential uses comprise 23% of Arlington‘s housing stock. This compares to 23.8% for all of Snohomish County, about the same. However, among the develop- ment community there is a perceived lack of multi-family zoned property, meaning that the market is demanding more. We still have about 37 acres designated RHD that predominantly contain single-family resi- dences and could be redeveloped, but the ratio of property to structure value is not high enough to cause this to happen. The other part of the mix that seems to be missing is ―upper end‖ multi-family residen- tial. Most multi-family residential uses are rental apartments; there are very few own- er-occupied multi-family units (e.g., condo- miniums). 7.4.2.3 Mixed Use There is very little mixed-use development in Arlington. What little there is is in the OTBD; a few of the older buildings contain apartments above non-residential uses. One of the ways to increase the success of businesses in commercial areas, as well as to increase densities within the UGA without affecting existing single-family neighbor- hoods, is to allow and encourage mixed- uses in commercial areas. This ―builds in‖ customers for the commercial uses, in- creases the liveliness of the area, and ex- tends the hours a commercial area is used since more people are around at more hours. Thus, there is a desire on Arlington‘s part to increase mixed uses in many of our com- mercial areas. Council has already adopted a land use code that permits mixed use in most commercial zones. Ways should now be found to encourage such projects to be built. 7.4.3 Employment Land 7.4.3.1 Buildable Lands Estimate Arlington‘s employment target for the year 2025 ranges from 12,920 to 14,730 jobs. Our adopted revised 2012 target is 8,932. And according to the 2002 SCT Buildable Lands Report we could accommodate an- other 17,194. Thus, we would still have room in our current UGA for another 11,396 – 13,206 employees (the negative number in the table implies that the UGA doesn‘t need to be enlarged). City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 12 December 2011 Table 7-6: Additional Employment to Plan For BLR Scenar- io A BLR Scenar- io B Adopted Revised 2012 Target 8,932 8,932 2025 Employment Target 14,730 14,730 Actual # of 2002 Jobs 9,886 9,886 Need to Accommodate: 4,844 4,844 Remaining Capacity (BLR) 8,639 8,452 Need to size UGA for an additional: -3,795 -3,608 Therefore, we do not need to increase the size of the UGA or designate more land as commercial/industrial to meet either the low or the high employment projection. 7.4.3.2 Alternative Method of As- sessment Please refer to §10.4.1, Employment Land, for a different approach to determining em- ployment land need. In a nutshell, if we as- sume continuing the same job density (em- ployees/acre) and the same jobs/housing ratio, then we would need to start adding employment land once we reach a popula- tion of about 21,000. 7.4.3.3 Commercial Land Commercial uses are defined as sales and rental of merchandise, office uses, services, and restaurants. These uses are permitted in general in the NC, OTBD, GC, and HC zones. There are 861 acres currently in the- se zones in the City – 533.8 of these acres are available for development. Another 72.3 acres would be added under the plan for UGA expansion, for a total of 933 acres of commercial property. The current ratio of employment to residen- tial land is 1.063. An additional 581 acres of residential land, 72.3 acres of commercial land, and no industrial land is proposed to be added to the UGA. That would result in a ratio of 0.894 for the planning period. If the 3 Ratio of residential to commercial = 0.25; ratio of residential to industrial = 0.81 4 Ratio of residential to commercial = 0.23; ratio of residential to industrial = 0.67 City wanted to retain the same 1.06 ratio of residential to employment land then another 555 acres of employment land (for a total of 616 would need to be added, or we should only take in a total of 57 residential acres. Table 7-7: Land Zoned for Employment Uses NC OTBD GC HC BP LI GI City – Vacant 41.9 10.5 21.5 78.0 268.1 81.2 245.3 City - Partially Used 4.9 1.8 18.8 28.6 18.3 109.8 City – Rede- velopable 3.5 2.2 UGA – Vacant 37.3 30.2 UGA - Partially Used 16.8 97.8 UGA – Rede- velopable Subtotal Build- able Acres 46.8 15.7 94.4 108.8 268.1 227.5 355.1 Total Acres in Zone 60.0 113.9 238.1 283.1 269.7 1179.1 786.1 Total Dev'd Acres 13.2 98.2 143.7 174.3 1.6 951.6 431.0 Source: Arlington ArcView & SCT 2003 Buildable Lands Report 7.4.3.4 Industrial Land Industrial uses are defined as manufactur- ing, processing, and assembling of goods, merchandise and equipment. These uses are permitted in general in the LI, GI, BP and AF zones. There are 2,089 acres cur- rently in these zones in the City – 582.6 of these acres are available for development. No industrial land is proposed to be added to the UGA. 7.4.4 Public Land 7.4.4.1 Municipal Uses Municipal uses (other than parks) currently occupy approximately 66.8 acres of land with City limits. Please see Figure 2-2: City Owned Property for a map of these proper- ties. Were we to maintain the same ratio of public to non-public land as we grew, we would need an additional 16 acres, for a City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 13 December 2011 total of 83, to serve the entire proposed UGA. 7.4.4.2 Parks There are 102.4 acres of city parks currently as well as 8.6 miles of trails. Please refer to Chapter 9, Parks, Recreation & Open Space for an analysis of park needs. 7.4.4.3 Non-City Public Utilities Public utilities not operated by the City in- clude solid waste (contracted), electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. Only a few acres are used for these purposes, typically the substations. 7.4.4.4 Airport The airport owns another 1,149 acres, but much of this is available for lease for devel- opment. It is not anticipated that the airport will expand except to purchase some prop- erties at the ends of runways so as to miti- gate or reduce hazards. 7.4.4.5 Schools Arlington School District No. 16 provides public education throughout the planning area, except Smokey Point, which is served by Lakewood District No. 16. There are 59.3 acres of school facilities currently in the planning area – most operated by the Ar- lington School District. The remainder is op- erated by the Lakewood School District. The Arlington School District anticipates that it will need two more elementary schools, each on 9-10 acres, within the next ten years to accommodate the growth in that period (schools are on a six year planning cycle and have not projected beyond the ten years).5 5 Dr. Warren Hopkins, Asst Superintendent, Aug 2005 7.5 WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE 7.5.1 UGA Expansion 7.5.1.1 Residential Land The City Council has chosen to support ap- proximately 520 acres of residential land being added to the UGA. A list of these properties/areas is shown in Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council for Inclu- sion in the UGATable 7-8: Properties Sup- ported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA- Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA. Whether these ar- eas get drawn in will be up to the Snohomish County Council, who will not make a final decision until late summer of 2005. Nevertheless, these properties are being included in this document for analysis. Inclusion of these lands will give the City a planning population of approximately 24,487 to 30,538 (depending on the land use des- ignations and zones applied), 3,767 to 9,818 more than the population target of 20,720 from the SCT 2003 Buildable Lands Report, for which we would only need an additional 92 acres (see §7.4.1, Projected Needs, Residential Land). 7.5.1.2 Employment Land The City Council has chosen to support ap- proximately 60.7 acres of employment land being added to the UGA. A list of these properties/areas is shown in Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council for Inclu- sion in the UGATable 7-8: Properties Sup- ported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA- Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA. Whether these ar- eas get drawn in will be up to the Snohomish County Council, who will not make a final decision until late summer of 2005. Nevertheless, these properties are being included in this document for analysis. Inclusion of these lands will give the City an employment target of approximately 14,800, City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 14 December 2011 about 60 more than the employment target of 14,730 from the SCT 2003 Buildable Lands Report (see §7.4.3, Projected Needs, Employment Land). 6 7.5.1.3 Island Crossing Subarea The City has supported the Island Crossing subarea coming into the UGA and City since the first CompPlan adopted in 1995. The City has always viewed this area as a part of the Arlington Community, and feels for the plight of the farmers who say that farming is no longer economically viable in this area. In addition, there are some exist- ing businesses at the I-5 x SR-530 inter- change, and City sewer and water serve the area. Through this CompPlan update, the City reaffirms its position that this area (as shown in Figure 2-3: Land Use Map) should be included in the UGA and annex to the City. 7.5.1.4 Transfer of Development Rights Program The City has supported continued use of the Stillaguamish Valley for farming and other low intensity uses, through adop- tion of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) policies and regulations, and par- ticipation in Snohomish County’s TDR program. Under these programs, the Valley is a designated “TDR Sending Ar- ea.” Property owners in the Valley TDR Sending Area have the opportunity to sell their deve lopment rights in the form of TDR certificates, recording a TDR easement on their properties through procedures established in the Snohomish County Code and through an interlocal agreement with the City. The TDR certificates are then redeemable for development credits in the City and 6 Based on the assumption that these areas will achieve 6.3 jobs per acre average (except for Smokey Point which will achieve 9.6/acre and the OTBD which will achieve 19.4/acre). See the Economic Development Element for discussion of the jobs per acre. elsewhere, in designated “TDR Receiv- ing Areas.” The City continues to place a high priority on the sending of TDR credits from the Valley and creation of incentives within City receiving areas for the purchase of these Valley develop- ment rights. The City supports the regional TDR pro- gram providing the ability to exchange certificates with King and Pierce County at a determined ratio. The additional TDR participants may provide additional re- sources to purchase development rights from the Stillaguamish sending area, or utilize certificate to support economic redevelopment of the West Arlington planning area. Part I. Brekhus/Beach Receiving Area. Earlier, the Council has indicated, through a motion, a willingness and desire to partici- pate with Snohomish County in their fledg- ling Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. As of the date of writing of this plan, the The County hads created half of the program, an ordinance designating sending areas within the Stillaguamish Val- ley and setting up the purchase of develop- ment rights. The County and the City sub- sequently designated Later this year they plan on developing the other half of the program, the ordinance designating receiving areas and allowing for how the purchased development rights can be used. The concept that has been discussed, and is found in the County‘s draft plan, is to des- ignate the Brekhus Arlington Group and Beach7 areas as receiving areas, leave them out of the UGA at this time, but allow- ing the purchase of development rights at 7 At the time of adoption, the City Council has also supported the Johnstone and Foster pro p- erties being included in the program; however, the County did is not supporting these properties being in the UGA. and they are not found in their draft plan. Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Comment [b1]: Do we need to mention re- gional program increased requirement of certifi- cates? Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: No underline City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 15 December 2011 which time these areas would be drawn into from Valley farmers as a prerequisite to ur- ban developmenti within this portion of the Arlington UGA. The City and County action created this Councils motion reads as follows, ―Partici- pate in the County‘s Transfer of Develop- ment Rights pilot program for the Stil- laguamish Valley, with the intent of includng other properties as receiving areas, follow- ing subsequent planning. [Note: Update Policies 16.66 through 16.68 for Burn Hill?] Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 16 December 2011 Part II. West Arlington Sub-Area. In February 2011, the City Council adopted the West Arlington Sub Area Plan, as an element of the City‘s Comprehensive Plan, following compliance with state law for envi- ronmental review. The subarea plan estab- lished the West Arlington Subarea as a se- cond, new TDR receiving area, for use in the City, and County and Regional TDR programs, subject to City adoption of TDR implementing regulations for this subarea. In __________, 2012, the Council adopted a Form-Based zoning code for the West Ar- lington Subarea. One of the purposes of this new code is to implement the West Ar- lington Subarea TDR Receiving Area pro- gram, by identifying development credits and authorizations that may be obtained by purchasing TDR certificates from properties within the Stilliguamish Valley TDR Sending Area. Through this action, the City contin- ues to support the sending of TDR credits from the Stilliguamish Valley, as a method for preserving farming as the primary use within the Valley, at the Gateway to the City of Arlington. See, Section 7.5.3, below. From time to time, it may be necessary for the City to amend its regulations or policies to promote the success of the TDR pro- gram. agreeing to designate the Brekhus Arlington Group‘s property, the upland portion of the Beach property, the Johnstone property, and the upland area of Foster‘s property as receiving areas under that program. We do this understanding that these properties would not be included in the UGA until such time as the property owners transferred de- velopment rights from identified sending ar- eas in the Valley.‖ Comment [b2]: Do we need a paragraph on the regional program? City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 17 December 2011 Table 7-8: Properties Supported by Council for Inclusion in the UGA Name of Request Residential 7,200 Residential Mixed Density Residential 9,600 Commercial Property Owner APN acres* du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop Acres Beach Beach, Vernon 31051200100500 17.57 5.2 91 2.72 249 6.01 106 2.72 287 3.5 61 2.72 167 Beach, Vernon 31051200101300 1.43 5.2 7 2.72 20 6.01 9 2.72 23 3.5 5 2.72 14 Subtotal 2 19.00 99 269 114 311 67 181 0.00 Brekhus, et al. Steen, Fred 31051200300100 39.09 5.2 203 2.72 553 6.01 235 2.72 639 3.5 137 2.72 372 Putnam, Robert E 31051200402300 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Putnam, Robert E 31051200400200 19.41 5.2 101 2.72 275 6.01 117 2.72 317 3.5 68 2.72 185 Harvey, William C 31051200400300 10.00 5.2 52 2.72 141 6.01 60 2.72 163 3.5 35 2.72 95 Putnam, Larry D 31051200401000 5.91 5.2 31 2.72 84 6.01 36 2.72 97 3.5 21 2.72 56 Steen LLC 31051200300500 40.00 5.2 208 2.72 566 6.01 240 2.72 654 3.5 140 2.72 381 Putnam, Robert M 31051200400400 39.68 5.2 206 2.72 561 6.01 238 2.72 649 3.5 139 2.72 378 Osborn, Everett D, Jr 31051300200300 6.57 5.2 34 2.72 93 6.01 39 2.72 107 3.5 23 2.72 63 SnoCo PUD #1 31051300202100 0.12 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0 Meyers, Wayne C & Audrey J 31051300202400 15.00 5.2 78 2.72 212 6.01 90 2.72 245 3.5 53 2.72 143 SnoCo PUD #1 31051300201700 4.24 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0 0 0 2.72 0 Meyers, Wayne C & Audrey J 31051300202500 14.90 5.2 77 2.72 211 6.01 90 2.72 244 3.5 52 2.72 142 Heigert, Jody R 31051300202600 13.98 5.2 73 2.72 198 6.01 84 2.72 229 3.5 49 2.72 133 Brekhus, Donald B 31051300100200 39.99 5.2 208 2.72 566 6.01 240 2.72 654 3.5 140 2.72 381 Phillips, Robert M 31051300201500 11.44 5.2 59 2.72 162 6.01 69 2.72 187 3.5 40 2.72 109 Brekhus, Donald B 31051300100300 19.70 5.2 102 2.72 279 6.01 118 2.72 322 3.5 69 2.72 188 West Coast, Inc (Robinett) 31051300100400 19.70 5.2 102 2.72 279 6.01 118 2.72 322 3.5 69 2.72 188 Subtotal 17 304.73 1562 4,248 1,805 4,910 1,051 3,221 0.00 Galway Larson, Oscar & Barbara 31051600302000 15.76 5.2 82 2.72 223 5.2 82 2.72 223 5.2 82 2.72 223 Subtotal 1 15.76 82 223 82 223 82 223 0 Deones, et al (Area South of 172nd) Robertson, Paul E & Kari A 31052600100300 10.00 5.2 52 2.72 141 6.01 60 2.72 163 3.5 35 2.72 95 Sweet, Robert D 31052500200500 9.85 5.2 51 2.72 139 6.01 59 2.72 161 3.5 34 2.72 94 Schelbrack, Gerald H & Jean L 31052600100100 4.72 5.2 25 2.72 67 6.01 28 2.72 77 3.5 17 2.72 45 Markezinis, John J & Kelly J 31052600102300 6.59 5.2 34 2.72 93 6.01 40 2.72 108 3.5 23 2.72 63 Ervin, Gerald W 31052600101700 5.01 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Deones, Randy J & Gloria E 31052600102000 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Hale, David P 31052600102100 5.72 5.2 30 2.72 81 6.01 34 2.72 94 3.5 20 2.72 54 Markezinis, John 31052600102200 6.11 5.2 32 2.72 86 6.01 37 2.72 100 3.5 21 2.72 58 Lindsay, William & Joan 31052500200600 9.85 5.2 51 2.72 139 6.01 59 2.72 161 3.5 34 2.72 94 Carlson, Greg M & Pamela A 31052600100800 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Leger, Ken R & Judith A 31052600101800 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 18 December 2011 Name of Request Residential 7,200 Residential Mixed Density Residential 9,600 Commercial Property Owner APN acres* du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop du/ac # of du's people/du pop Acres Basmic, Virl & Dianna M 31052600100200 5.01 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 VanWyck, Denise 31052600100400 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Brooks, Donald & Cynthia 31052600101500 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Pearson, Charles M 31052600101400 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Pearson, Charles M 31052600101900 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Subtotal 16 97.86 509 1,384 588 1,600 343 932 0.00 SR-9 x SR-531 (Hilltop/Thompson) Smith, Geoffrey B, Estate of 31052500201900 7.04 23.25 164 2.72 445 23.25 164 2.72 445 23.25 164 2.72 445 Judy, Michael 31052500201600 7.06 23.25 164 2.72 446 23.25 164 2.72 446 23.25 164 2.72 446 Lindell, Bill 31052500102200 1.00 23.25 23 2.72 63 23.25 23 2.72 63 23.25 23 2.72 63 Evelyn Zahradnik Family 31052400300800 7.50 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474 Evelyn Zahradnik Family 31052400300700 7.50 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474 23.25 174 2.72 474 Allen, Charlene 31052400301000 2.50 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158 Allen, Charlene 31052400300900 2.50 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158 23.25 58 2.72 158 Smith, George B Test Trust 31052500201800 9.42 9.42 Charron, Debra 31052500200100 7.36 7.36 Thompson, James R 31052400300500 14.40 14.40 Hilltop Sports, LLC 31052500200400 19.70 19.70 Lee, Yong Ho & Yung Soon 31052500201200 0.83 0.83 Hilltop Sports, LLC 31052500200300 2.30 2.30 Subtotal 13 residential 35.10 816 2,220 816 2,220 816 2,220 54.01 commercial 54.01 Johnstone, Jack SR-92 Associates (Johnston) 31052400201200 5.00 5.2 26 2.72 71 6.01 30 2.72 82 3.5 18 2.72 48 Reneau, Thomas 31052400200400 4.90 5.2 25 2.72 69 6.01 29 2.72 80 3.5 17 2.72 47 Subtotal 2 9.90 51 140 59 162 35 94 0.00 Foster Foster, Laurin 31051000300100 6.7 18.89 Subtotal 1 commercial 6.7 18.89 TOTAL 52 residential 482.35 3,119 8,484 3,465 9,425 2,393 6,871 72.9 commercial 60.71 SCT Pop Allocation 20,720 20,720 20,720 Acres Needed to Accommodate SCT Allocation -65.00 5.2 -338 2.72 -919 6.01 -391 2.72 -1,063 3.5 -228 2.72 -619 Pop w/ Council Supported Re- quests 30,123 31,208 28,209 * Total acres does not include roads, only area of parcels as derived from SnoCo Assessors data. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 19 December 2011 Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map Current City Limits Current UGA UGA Expansion Subarea SR RLMD RMD RHD OTRD NC OTBD1 OTBD2 OTB3 GC HC BP LI GI P/SP MS AF RLMD RHD LI P/SP RLMD RHD GC HC MPN Acres % of Total Airport Industrial 8.4 112 143 83.4 764.1 36 749.4 1896.3 29.3% Arlington Bluff 194.3 77.8 15.6 28 16.9 34.1 171.2 1.5 7.5 546.9 8.4% Burn Hill 230.1 230.1 3.6% OTBD 1 37.6 37.6 0.6% OTBD 2 34.5 5.5 40.0 0.6% OTBD 3 37.8 8.9 46.7 0.7% Hill Top 946.1 16.3 19 90.8 40.2 64.8 100 1277.2 19.7% Island Crossing 122 122.0 1.9% Kent Prairie 44.5 72 93.6 3.1 72 14.6 5.1 304.9 4.7% Old Town 61.9 37.2 230.6 2.8 4.6 91.6 14.7 141.2 27.1 611.7 9.4% SmPt / SR 531 Corridor 41.1 2.3 197 274.6 148 40.8 703.8 10.9% SmPt Neighborhood 305.2 23.9 1.7 330.8 5.1% South Fork Neighborhood 69.1 96.6 165.7 2.6% West Bluff 139.2 24.9 164.1 2.5% Total 0 1184.9 558 157 233.7 40.3 37.6 34.5 37.8 436.3 274.6 143 231.4 826.4 277.7 19.8 749.4 381.5 27.1 139.2 24.9 1.5 40.2 72.3 122 426.7 6477.8 100.0% % of current City 0.0% 22.6% 10.6% 3.0% 4.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 8.3% 5.2% 2.7% 4.4% 15.8% 5.3% 0.4% 14.3% 66.5% 4.7% 24.3% 4.3% 0.2% 6.1% 10.9% 18.4% 64.4% % of City, UGA, & UGA Exp 0.0% 18.3% 8.6% 2.4% 3.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 6.7% 4.2% 2.2% 3.6% 12.8% 4.3% 0.3% 11.6% 5.9% 0.4% 2.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 1.9% 6.6% City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 20 December 2011 7.5.1.5 Master Planning New Areas and the Use of Development Agreements Regarding the new areas being considered for inclusion in the UGA Council has made two motions expressing their desire to have the areas master planned. Motion 1: ―The City supports the requests from the [Brekhus Arlington Group, Beach, and Deones, et al.], but the area[s] should be planned using the Planned Neighbor- hood Development tool found in the Land Use Code. Additionally, the City should de- velop a new land use designation and zone with a minimum parcel size of 9,600 square foot for use in these areas. We should con- sider a mix of densities in these new areas, including some multi-family residential areas as well as these new larger lots. We should also pre-plan the transportation system, ar- eas for community parks, utilities, and other necessary infrastructure and land uses. The City should enter into some sort of devel- opment contract with the property owners to implement this goal.‖ Motion 2: ―Work toward entering into a de- velopment agreement between the City, County, and Brekhus Arlington Group prop- erty owners, and another with Mr. Beach, that would: a. Prohibit premature development of the area (until such time it was brought into the UGA and annexed), b. Require that the property be devel- oped pursuant to a master plan, c. Make the property eligible as a re- ceiving area for the TDR program which would allow it to come into the UGA before the next 10-year up- date, d. Specify how the population justifica- tion and reasonable measures re- quirements are met, e. Spell out how the roads, sewer, wa- ter, and other services and utilities would be provided and paid for, in- cluding the construction of 186th Street from Crown Ridge Boulevard to McElroy. f. Provide the types of uses would be allowed and at what densities, and g. Whatever other issues that arise.‖ The Council has several concerns. They are very concerned about how these areas could develop were they to stay in the County, and this is one of the main reasons for bringing them into the UGA. Were they to develop into 5-acre tracts or as rural clus- ter developments it would make it very diffi- cult to bring into them into the UGA at a lat- er date and to plan for the utility, parks, and transportation systems necessary to support urban development. (Typically, people who have just moved into an area oppose more development, since they just moved in for how it looks when they bought.) As mentioned in the Housing Element, Council is also concerned that Arlington does not have enough higher-end housing for people to move up into, thus the reason for creating a new 9,600 sf lot. Council also wants to make sure that the infrastructure is in place for the potential these areas have for growth, and that the general taxpayer isn‘t subsidizing the growth by helping to pay for improvements that solely benefit development of these ar- eas. And lastly, we currently know that additional work will need to be done on our water and sewer systems, and we‘ll need to find more water in order to serve these areas. We be- lieve that the property owners, in exchange for working with the City on achieving these goals, would want some sort of guarantee that we‘ll serve them; thus the reason for development agreements. 7.5.2 Revised Land Use Map The City hereby adopts Figure 2-4: Land Use Map as its official land use map. Zoning des- ignations shall be consisted with this map. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 21 December 2011 The sizes of the designations, by subarea, are shown in Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map Table 7-9: Land Use Designation Size by Subarea, Proposed Land Use Map. 7.5.3 Protection of the Stil- laguamish River Valley A major concern of the City Council is the long-term protection of the Stillaguamish River Valley from further development. Their concerns are many-fold: They are con- cerned for the well being of the farmers and their ability to continue viable agricultural endeavors. They are concerned for protect- ing the critical areas, including habitat and endangered species. They are concerned for the aesthetic attributes the valley affords the City. They are concern about protecting property rights. They are concerned about flooding impacts. And they are sensitive to the Stillaguamish Tribe‘s desire for econom- ic development and self-reliance. Given this range of concerns, and the num- ber of groups also interested in these is- sues, the City proposes that a joint planning effort be undertaken amongst all concern parties to develop a master plan for the val- ley. These parties would probably include the City, Snohomish County, the Stil- laguamish Tribe, the farmers, Futurewise, the Diking Districts, and property owners. Besides the Transfer of Development Rights program, which is also working toward this end (see §7.5.1.4), another idea germinat- ing, but still needs discussion, is the use of the GMA designation of ―Open Space Corri- dor.‖8 Under this scenario, the City and 8 RCW 36.70A.160 Identification of open space corridors -- Pur- chase authorized. Each county and city that is required or chooses to prepare a comprehensive land use plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall identify open space cor- County could designate the valley (or por- tions thereof) as an open space corridor and obtain sufficient interest in key properties to protect them from urban development. What ―sufficient interest‖ means or how it would be obtained still needs to be worked out. In creating such a master plan, especially with so many varied and interested parties, we realize that for everyone to obtain the best ―deal‖ for the valley, each party may have to make concessions. It may be that certain parts of the valley are recognized as developable in order to protect the majority of it. It may be that the taxing structure needs to be modified. Or it may be that cer- tain properties are key to sustaining endan- gered species. The point is there are end- less visions and solutions for the valley, and just like in Eastern Europe, each interested party is going have to have an open mind, and make their resources available, in order to create an overall solution to this long- standing land use issue. ridors within and between urban growth areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030. Identifica- tion of a corridor under this section by a county or city shall not restrict the use or management of lands within the corridor for agricultural or fo r- est purposes. Restrictions on the use or man- agement of such lands for agricultural or forest purposes imposed after identification solely to maintain or enhance the value of such lands as a corridor may occur only if the county or city acquires sufficient interest to prevent develop- ment of the lands or to control the resource de- velopment of the lands. The requirement for ac- quisition of sufficient interest does not include those corridors regulated by the interstate co m- merce commission, under provisions of 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1247(d), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1248, or 43 U.S.C. Sec. 912. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to alter the authority of the state, or a county or city, to regulate land use activities. The city or county may acquire by donation or purchase the fee simple or lesser interests in these open space corridors using funds autho r- ized by RCW 84.34.230 or other sources. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 22 December 2011 7.5.4 Subarea Plans (Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed listing of all proposed amendments to the land use designations.) 7.5.4.1 Old Town Subarea Old Town is fairly well built out, and no new subdivisions are anticipated (though a few short plats are possible on a few lots). How- ever, there is opportunity for infill develop- ment with either accessory dwelling units or new homes on existing lots. Such infill de- velopment should be encouraged, since the necessary infrastructure is already in place (though some of it is in need of repair or re- placement due to age). Increased densities in the Old Town will also assist in the Old Town Business District‘s revitalization, as they would create more customers for the downtown. Because the Old Town has a unique char- acter (having the historic grid and alley street system and the older homes in town), care should be given to maintaining this character. No changes are proposed to the existing plan for the Old Town subarea. However, desire has been expressed to try to reverse the trend of this area becoming more and more of a rental area, and try to encourage more home ownership. Strategies that could be used would be:  Revitalize the Old Town Business Dis- trict, so that the Old Town Residential District becomes more desirable to homeowners.  Develop a program of rehabbing some of the older, dilapidated streets, add sidewalks where there are none, and plant street trees throughout. Public in- vestment in the streetscape of neigh- borhoods often leads to private invest- ment in private properties.  Develop some sort of incentives for re- habbing some of the older, more run- down structures. 7.5.4.2 Old Town Business District Subarea No land use changes are expected or pro- posed to the existing plan for the Old Town Business District subarea. However, several action items or programs have been identi- fied in the Economic Development Plan to help revitalize the downtown and encourage more development. Please refer to §10.5.3 Specific Actions from the Economic Devel- opment Plan, for a list of those programs. 7.5.4.3 Arlington Bluff Subarea No significant land use changes are ex- pected or proposed to the existing plan for the existing portion of the Arlington Bluff subarea. However, the City is proposing to add some properties to the UGA that would be included in this subarea, and to amend some properties‘ land use designation from residential to Neighborhood Commercial to conform to existing uses and/or the zoning map. It is anticipated that the Arlington Bluff will remain predominantly a residential district, with some commercial uses along 67th Ave- nue and SR-530. Much of the residential portion of the Arling- ton Bluff is already built out. However, there are portions remaining where additional de- velopment can occur, though these are still in the unincorporated portion of the UGA (north of 188th Street, west of 47th Avenue). Care should be given to ensure that the neighborhoods match the rest of Arlington in terms of the design. Care also needs to be given to protect the environmentally critical areas, especially the steep slopes and the trees/habitat they support. There are also significant wetlands at the base of these slopes. This subarea includes some commercially designated areas. Most of these commercial properties (located along 67th Avenue) are already built, though there is opportunity for some additional development. However, the commercial properties along SR-530 remain City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 23 December 2011 undeveloped. It is anticipated that typical General Commercial uses (suburban-style strip malls, a medium-sized box or grocery store, gas station(s), and/or some office space) would locate here. Because SR-530 is a limited access highway, an internal road system should be planned—running from 59th Avenue to 211th Avenue—so as to manage access and get customers to all the properties as best as possible. The new property proposed to be included in the UGA and this subarea is the Foster properties (SW corner of SR-531 X 59th). It is proposed to be General Commercial. 7.5.4.4 Kent Prairie Subarea There are still a number of undeveloped parcels, both commercial and High Density Residential, though quite a few of them al- ready have approved development permits and should be developing soon. Kent Prairie is well on its way to being a well-integrated neighborhood of various use types, including commercial, public, single- family residential, and multi-family residen- tial, built around the significant environmen- tally critical areas (streams and wetlands) found there. Some changes are proposed to the existing land use plan for the Kent Prairie subarea. On the top of the bluff south of Highland Avenue there are some fairly large, unde- veloped or underdeveloped lots that are cur- rently designated Residential/Moderate Density. It is proposed that these properties be re-designated to Residential High Densi- ty to allow for multi-family residential (con- dominiums or apartments) (Appendix A, No. 3). Obviously the slopes would have to be protected, for which the current Environ- mentally Critical Area regulations provide. Another significant change would be to change the land use designations of the properties at the northwest corner of SR-9 x 204th from General Industrial to General Commercial (No. 8). There have been long- standing, on-going incompatible land use issues between the residents on top of the bluff and proposed industrial uses below. Changing this area to commercial would alleviate these issues and both parties (res- idents and industrial property owners) sup- port this solution. Some minor changes would be:  Changing the land use designation of the medical services properties to Medi- cal Services (No. 1)  Changing some existing multi-family residential properties from single-family residential to High Density Residential (No. 5)  Changing a portion of the school‘s prop- erty from residential to Public/Semi- Public (No. 6)  Making the boundary between the in- dustrial and residential properties follow property lines (No. 9)  Changing some of the High Density Residential properties to General Com- mercial (they‘re already zoned for and developed as commercial (No. 10)  Changing an existing single-family resi- dential neighborhood from High Density Residential to Residential Low/Moderate Density (No. 11)  Changing the Haggens site from Gen- eral Industrial to General Commercial (No. 12) 7.5.4.5 Airport/Industrial Subarea While the airport accounts for more than half of the land in this subarea, the subarea is comprised of both privately and publicly owned land. The character of this subarea is dominated by the Arlington Municipal Air- port. The Airport/Industrial Subarea is envi- sioned, and well on its way to being, the City‘s primary family-wage employment ar- ea. It has always been and will continue to provide adequate land for general and light industrial uses. Having a high jobs to hous- ing ratio is one of the main ways in which City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 24 December 2011 Arlington remains a traditional community, where people are involved to a higher de- gree than in most bedroom communities because of the time savings in not having to commute long distances and because the community affects their business (and vice- versa). The impetus for originally designating the area for industrial uses was the fact that it was adjacent to the Arlington Airport. (Hav- ing a rail line traverse the area is an added benefit.) The airport is still seen as a major asset in attracting job-producing business- es, and the City wishes to continue to foster synchronicity between it and the employ- ment lands. At the same time, the airport wishes to promote only aviation-related businesses on those lands with direct run- way access. The Aviation Flightline zone was created for this purpose. This area has been designated for industrial uses for many years, long before the resi- dential areas grew up around it, and the Council has been very protective of it in terms of allowing the types of uses envi- sioned to continue to grow, oftentimes to the consternation of these newer residential neighbors. It is anticipated that such protec- tiveness will continue. The siting of incompatible land uses adja- cent to the airport is discouraged. See Land Use Goals and Policies GL-34. A few changes are proposed for the Air- port/Industrial Subarea. These changes in- clude:  Change the area bordered by 59th Ave- nue, 188th Street, 67th Avenue, and 195th Street from Light Industrial to General Industrial. (No. 32)  Change the designations on the private- ly owned Light Industrial parcels directly north of the airport to General Industrial. (No. 16)  Change the designation on the parcels at the NW corner of SR-9 x 211th Street from General Industrial to General Commercial, and put this area in the Kent Prairie subarea. (No. 8)  Changing most of the area to the north- east of 204th x 67th from Neighborhood Commercial to General Industrial to con- form to the existing uses and zoning map. (No. 14)  Changing the residential area south of the cemetery from Residential Moderate Density to General Industrial, and the County maintenance yard from Existing Public Use to General Industrial. (No. 15)  Changing the Airport 37 industrial plat from Residential Moderate Density to General Industrial. (No. 17)  Changing the airport property east of 47th Avenue from Residential Moderate Density to Light Industrial (No. 19)  Changing the Airport business park property from Airport Industrial to Busi- ness Park. (No. 20)  The property owners to the north of 172nd between 59th and 67th have also requested changing from General Indus- trial to General Commercial (Nos. 24 & 25)  Changing the property on the northwest corner of 172nd x 67th (Lumberman‘s) from Neighborhood Commercial to General Industrial as per the zoning map. (No. 27)  Possibly changing the westerly the properties north of 211th Street (Enter- prise Lumber) from General Industrial to Light Industrial. 7.5.4.6 Smokey Point/SR-531 Cor- ridor Subarea This subarea is seen as being one of the primary entrances to Arlington, an important east-west arterial for the City‘s and County‘s road system, and a major generator of sale tax revenue for the City, which will eventual- ly build out into a major commer- cial/industrial/aviation boulevard stretching from I-5 to 67th Avenue NE allowing small to large-scale commercial and industrial uses. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 25 December 2011 Concern has been raised by existing prop- erty owners, and supported by Council, for developing a subarea plan that includes a unified design ―theme‖ for development along this corridor, consideration of the mix of uses, and an appropriate urban design for SR-531. Proposed land use changes in this area in- clude:  Changing the land use designation on all of National Food‘s property from Light Industrial to General Commercial (currently only the portion fronting on 172nd has this designation, though all of it is zoned General Commercial). (No. 23)  Crown Properties has requested that almost all of their property be re- designated as GC. (No. 26) 7.5.4.7 Smokey Point Neighbor- hood Subarea This subarea was inherited through annexa- tion (1999). It is planned to continue to be a predominately single-family residential neighborhood. Only one land use change is proposed to the existing plan for the Smokey Point Neighborhood subarea:  Change the designation on the Smokey Point Mobile Home Park from Residen- tial Moderate Density to Residential High Density. (No. 33) 7.5.4.8 West Bluff Industrial Subar- ea It is envisioned that this area will become a light industrial area. This is seen as appro- priate since it lies at the end of the Airport‘s Runway number 11/29. General Industrial does not seem appropriate since it is adja- cent to a residential neighborhood and may become a connecting route between the Smokey Point Neighborhood and Island Crossing (if it ever comes into the UGA/City and develops as a commercial area). No changes are proposed to the City‘s plan for the West Bluff Industrial subarea. 7.5.4.9 Hilltop Neighborhood Sub- area The Hilltop subarea is rather large and sev- eral components are planned for the subar- ea. The plan for the majority of the area is for it to be a predominately single-family residential neighborhood, though some as- sociated commercial and public uses exist and are planned for. However, around the intersection of 172nd Street x SR-9 the Council would like to see an ―urban village.‖ This would include commercial, mixed use, and multi-family residential development at high densities on the corner parcels. The UGA is proposed to expand to include areas to the south of 172nd and around the 172nd x SR-9 intersection. It is also antici- pated that future growth (for the next 100- 200 years) will go, in part, to this subarea (toward the south and east of the current city limits). This is assumed since the City is constrained by floodplains, rivers, and Marysville UGA on all other sides. Eventual- ly, Arlington‘s city limits could encompass our current water service area (Coordinated Water System Plan area, see Figure 2-5: Coordinated Water System Plan and Water Service Area). Planning now for such an eventual extension of city growth and ex- pansion of this subarea would be prudent. This would place the intersection of SR-9 x SR-531 in the center of those future city lim- its, surrounded by residential (and potential- ly other) development. At the same time, both of these state highways are planned to be five-lane. Thus, this intersection should be planned as an urban village. There should be a com- mercial core large enough to support the future residential development, which could be comprised of mixed uses (commercial, business, high-density residential). Sur- rounding this commercial center should be more high-density residential uses, then City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 26 December 2011 transitioning to medium-density residential neighborhoods. For the area south of 172nd (Deones, et al.) Council has discussed the creation of a new land use designation and zone that would allow 4 dwelling units per acre (9,600 sf lots). Attention would need to be paid to properly pre-planning the transportation and park systems. Adequate arterials, collectors and local streets should be pre-planned in as much of a grid system as possible. Given that SR-9 is a limited access highway, ac- cess to this road should and can only be from arterials. The location of these access- es should be laid out now. Likewise, preferred locations for community parks should be identified now so that the capital planning can be done to ensure the properties are obtained prior to their devel- opment. These parks ought to be centrally located to the future major neighborhoods, easily accessible from the arterials and col- lectors. There are also a lot of environmentally criti- cal areas, including streams, wetlands, slopes, etc, that will need to be protected and planned around. Infrastructure is in good shape—at least within the City limits—as this is one of the newer developed areas in Arlington. How- ever, it is anticipated that both state high- ways will be widened within the next ten years or so. There are quite a few streams that run through this area, as well as wetlands. Prai- rie and Portage both have their headwaters here. There are also some steep slopes along some of the creeks‘ ravines. For these reasons, Council has moved to require that the area be master planned pri- or to its development (see Section 7.5.1.5). 7.5.4.10 Southfork Subarea It is anticipated that this subarea shall re- main a single-family residential neighbor- hood. No land use changes are proposed. However, much of it is currently developed as rather large lots and low densities and is not annexed to the City. The city should develop a plan to provide a second access to this area so as to allow it to develop to it‘s full, urban potential. Additionally, perhaps the City ought to be proactive in promoting the annexation and development of this neighborhood. In the future it may be that this subarea gets expanded to include areas to the east, along the edge of the Stilly Southfork. 7.5.4.11 Burn Road Subarea This would be a new neighborhood to Ar- lington, as it is currently in the County but proposed to be brought into the UGA through the Transfer of Development Rights program (see Section 7.5.1.4). Council envisions this area to be master planned and predominately a single-family residential neighborhood; though they have said they would consider some higher den- sity residential and some neighborhood commercial development (see Section 7.5.1.5). Additionally, before this area could develop, the City would have to make major up- grades to its sewer treatment plant and find additional water. We would also need to construct a new east-west arterial connect- ing the area to SR-9. This is planned for 186th Street, just south of the Arlington High School. 7.5.4.12 Island Crossing Subarea The Council has long supported Island Crossing being drawn into the UGA and an- nexed to the City, and it is still their intent. The plan has been, and remains, for it to be designated and zoned as Highway Com- mercial. City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Background Materials 7 - 27 December 2011 It is recognized that there are development hurdles to overcome, most notably the fact that much of the area is within the 100-year floodplain. However, the City has adopted FEMA‘s model flood ordinance and believes we could better manage development of this area than other agencies. There would also have to be substantial infrastructure im- provements made; but under the City‘s rules these must be borne by the developers. It should be noted that it is believed that if Island Crossing does not become part of the City, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians could purchase it and lease it back to the same people who are currently trying to de- velop it. If it were placed in trust there would be no local zoning, building, or other envi- ronmental regulations with which the devel- opment would have to adhere. 7.5.4.13 West Arlington Subarea The City adopted a subarea plan for the West Arlington portion of the Urban Growth Area. This area is characterized by close proximity to Interstate-5, the freeway on and off ramps at 172nd Street, and close proximi- ty to both the developing airport area and rural areas near the Stillaguamish River. The subarea plan provides guidance on fu- ture development for this area, consistent with form-based zoning, transfer of devel- opment rights, and other innovative tech- niques for achieving urban densities while also maintaining the unique character of this area. 7.5.5 Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation The Arlington-Smokey Point Manufactur- ing/Industrial Center (MIC) is a locally- designated area with which includes all in- dustrially-zoned land, the Arlington Munici- pal Airport, Airport Business Park, and some limited areas of commercial along 172nd St. NE (SR 531). The boundaries of this area are shown in Figure 2-21 of the Comprehensive Plan. The area encompasses approximately 2,291 acres, most of which is either zoned General Industrial or Aviation Flightline. The designation of this area as a MIC sup- ports concentrated uses for high intensity light and heavy manufacturing, while limiting large areas of retail and residential. MIC‘s are intended to accommodate a significant amount of regional employment and should be protected from incompatible uses. By locally designating the area as a MIC, the City will have access to Infrastructure Coor- dinating Committee (ICC) funding, which provides planning, funding and implementa- tion of infrastructure and transportation sys- tems. A joint-MIC, including industrial areas within the cities of Arlington and Marysville, may be considered in the future for County and regional designation once specific criteria established by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) are met. Formatted: Not Highlight Comment [b3]: Do we have to modify the above references to Smokey Point, West Bluff, etc.? Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Highlight Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Not Highlight City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #1 Attachment D COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Resolution concerning a contract amendment with Ovivo, Inc. to eliminate Phase III of the contract for the construction of the Water Reclamation Facility and making written findings re same ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Letter proposal from Ovivo with proposed modification terms DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Public Works – Jim Kelly EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: - $37,710.32 (a contract savings) BUDGET CATEGORY: WWTP Fund (fund 408) LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to reduce the amount of work and cost associated with Phase 3 of the Ovivo contract to supply materials and support for the Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR). HISTORY: The City contracted with Ovivo (formerly Enviroquip) for the procurement, provision, and support of the new MBR system for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). There are three phases to this contract, phase 1 was for design, phase 2 was for fabrication-delivery-startup, and phase 3 was for one year of extended warranty and support. Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the contract were performed as planned; however there was difficulty getting phase 3 of the contract started monitoring. Phase 3 of the contract has a contract value of $75K and has still yet to be performed. Ovivo wanted to execute the contract several months ago but we have been running the new plant for over two years and feel this is not necessary. Ovivo and the City came to an agreement where the City would purchase $37,710.32 worth of spare parts and polymer from Ovivo, and we also agreed to eliminate $37,289.68 of contracted work. ALTERNATIVES - Do not approve the contract modification - Table for further discussion RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the proposed Resolution concerning a contract amendment with Ovivo, Inc. to eliminate Phase III of the contract for the construction of the Water Reclamation Facility and making written findings re same. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-XXX 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-XXX A RESOLUTION CONCERNING A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH OVIVO, INC. TO ELIMINATE PHASE III OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY AND MAKING WRITTEN FINDINGS RE SAME WHEREAS, the City Council previously entered into a contract for the construction of a membrane bio-reactor (“MBR”) as a part of its Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) upgrade and expansion project with Enviroquip, a Division of Eimco Water Technologies, LLC, now known as Ovivo USA, LLC (“Ovivo”); and WHEREAS, Enviroquip/Ovivo was the low bidder and successfully constructed the MBR, known as Phases I and II of the contract, for an original contract price of $9,523,045.00; and WHEREAS, Enviroquip/Ovivo and the City had contracted for Phase III of the MBR, which consisted of “Maintenance and Testing Services for a one (1)-year period following the Substantial Completion Date [and a] Long-Term System Performance Test” for an additional contract price of $71,000 plus tax; and WHEREAS, the Maintenance and Testing Services were not performed and the City has determined them no longer to be necessary for the facility, which is operating successfully; and WHEREAS, the City is contractually obligated to pay for the services, and Ovivo is contractually obligated to render the services which have not been provided, and WHEREAS, the parties desire to avoid any disputes or litigation concerning the contract and wish to amend the contract to substitute the provision of certain parts and supplies for the Phase III services under the project; and WHEREAS, the contract amendment will result in a lower overall cost to the taxpayers; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington Washington does hereby find and resolve as follows: 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: a. The City entered into an agreement with Enviroquip, a Division of Eimco Water Technologies, LLC, for the construction of a membrane bioreactor as part of its water reclamation facility; b. Enviroquip was the low bidder for the project and successfully completed Phases I and II of the project, which had been contracted at the sum of RESOLUTION NO. 2012-XXX 2 $9,523,045.00; c. The City and Enviroquip had contracted for Phase III of the project for $71,000 plus sales tax for maintenance and testing services, which have not been performed and which the City has determined to be unnecessary; d. The City and Ovivo wish to amend the contract to reduce the services to be provided by Ovivo and to substitute the provision of parts and supplies, the majority of which were bid on and supplied in the original contract except for two items which meet the original contract bid specifications but are from a different manufacturer, but those items have a combined cost of less than $3,750.00; and e. The contract amendment will result in a savings to the taxpayer, and avoid potentially costly litigation. 2. Declaration. Pursuant to the preceding findings of fact, the Mayor is authorized to enter into an amendment of the original contract in the form attached as Exhibit “A”. APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this ______ day of ____________, 2012. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #2 Attachment E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance Setting the 2013 Budget ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance adopting the 2013 Budget 2013 Draft Budget DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Finance – Contact Jim Chase, 360-403-3422 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: -0- BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The City Council is required, following public hearing, to adopt the City’s budget by December 31st of each year. The City Council will be requested to adopt the 2013 budget by ordinance at the December 3, 2012 City Council meeting. HISTORY: The City Council received the preliminary 2013 budget on September 29, 2012 and the draft budget on November 13, 2012. The Council and City staff have discussed the 2013 budget at Council workshops, including most recently on November 13, 2012. ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the proposed ordinance setting the 2013 budget for the City of Arlington. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #3 Attachment F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Hotel Motel Tax Distributions for 2013 ATTACHMENTS: 1) Spreadsheet listing applications and funding recommendations 2) Applications 3) Minutes from the October 24th 2013 Committee meeting 4) Sample Contract DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Finance EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $77,929 BUDGET CATEGORY: Hotel-Motel Tax Fund LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: For the 2013 funding process, 13 applications were received totaling $131,853. The Lodging Tax Committee met on October 24th to review and make recommendations for funding. 8 applications were approved for funding totaling $77,929. Organizations who are awarded the funds will be required to enter into a contract with the City and abide by the terms. The City received $73,394 in 2011 and is projected to receive about $75,000 in 2012. HISTORY: The City began collecting a 2% Hotel-Motel Tax in 2005. Revenues generated from the tax are to be used for tourism promotion and tourism-related facilities. ALTERNATIVES 1) Table for additional Review 2) Take no action RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the Hotel-Motel Tax Grant Awards as recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. H o t e l / M o t e l Pr o j e c t P r o j e c t T o t a l S p o n s o r T a x 6 6 . 6 7 % L i m i t C o m m i t t e e Sp o n s o r / C o n t r a c t o Ti t l e P r o j e c t M a t c h R e q u e s or r e q u e s t e d R e c o m m e n d s Ar l i n g t o n E A A F l y - i n P r o m o t i o n / a d v e r t i s i n g f l y - i n 5 7 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 2 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ar l i n g t o n A r t s C o u n c i l A A C ' s p o p u l a r m u s i c c o n c e r t ' s a t B P A C 2 2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ar l i n g t o n / S m o k e y P o i n t C o f C 4t h o f J u l y E v e n t s ( C a r n i v a l a n d F i r e w o r k s Sh o w ) , P e d d l e P a d d l e P u f f T r i a t h l o n a n d P a r a d e 1 2 , 4 5 3 . 0 0 $ 3 , 7 5 3 . 0 0 $ 8 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 $ 8 , 2 9 3 . 7 0 $ 8 , 2 9 4 . 0 0 $ Ar l i n g t o n / S m o k e y P o i n t C o f C S m o k e y P o i n t B B Q C o o k - O f f a n d M a r k e t P l a c e 1 0 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 4 4 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 4 4 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 4 4 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 4 4 0 . 0 0 $ Ar l i n g t o n / S m o k e y P o i n t C o f C V i s i t o r I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t e r 1 7 , 0 1 8 . 0 0 $ - $ 1 4 , 0 1 8 . 0 0 $ 1 1 , 3 3 3 . 9 9 $ 5 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ar l i n g t o n / S m o k e y P o i n t C o f C D A B A E v e n t s 1 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ar l i n g t o n / S m o k e y P o i n t C o f C S e l f - G u i d e d C y b e r T o u r o f A r l i n g t o n 1 3 , 5 1 0 . 0 0 $ 8 , 3 5 5 . 0 0 $ 5 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 $ 5 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 $ 5 , 1 5 5 . 0 0 $ Ol y m p i c B a l l e t T h e a t r e T h e N u t c r a c k e r i n A r l i n g t o n 7 0 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $ 6 6 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ - $ Ci t y o f A r l i n g t o n E a g l e F e s t i v a l 8 , 7 7 2 . 0 0 $ 3 , 5 7 2 . 0 0 $ 5 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ 5 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $ - $ Ci t y o f A r l i n g t o n E n t r y w a y S i g n s i n t o A r l i n g t o n 2 2 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 7 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 4 , 9 1 8 . 4 0 $ - $ Ci t y o f A r l i n g t o n H a l l e r P a r k A c c e s s t o t h e C e n t e n n i a l T r a i l 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ - $ Ci t y o f A r l i n g t o n S u m m e r E v e n t s i n t h e P a r k s 9 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 , 2 6 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 3 4 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 3 4 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 3 4 0 . 0 0 $ Ci t y o f A r l i n g t o n W a y f i n d i n g S i g n s 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ TO T A L S 29 7 , 6 8 3 . 0 0 $ 1 6 2 , 8 3 0 . 0 0 $ 1 3 1 , 8 5 3 . 0 0 $ 1 2 8 , 6 8 1 . 0 9 $ 7 7 , 9 2 9 . 0 0 $ Es t i m a t e d a m o u n t a v a i l a b l e t o F u n d P r o j e c t s 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $ Ho t e l / M o t e l F u n d i n g A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r 2 0 1 3 Meeting of the Arlington Lodging Tax Committee October 24, 2012 Meeting called to order at 4:00 pm Present at the meeting: Chris Raezer, Chairperson – City Councilmember, Laura Kuhl, Mary Ann Monty, Jessica Stickles – Committee members Allen Johnson, City Administrator Jim Chase, Finance Director Absent: Marilyn Kirkpatrcik, Committee member Mr. Chase had previously forwarded the applications electronically to all members. The applications were reviewed and discussed. Discussion was had regarding what could actually be called tourism promotion and what was not. In the publication – A Revenue Guide for Washington Cities, tourism promotion is defined as: Activities, operations, and expenditures designed to increase tourism, including but not limited to advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists; developing strategies to expand tourism; operating tourism promotion agencies; and funding marketing of or the operating of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists. There was over $126,683 in total applications with only $80,000 available to spend. Legislation regarding the operations of tourism promotion facilities is scheduled to end in June 2013. The legislature may elect to extend that date, but at this time we do not know that. In the past we have provided funds to the Visitors Information Center (VIC) to pay the monthly rent and operate the facility. Funding below for the VIC is half of what was requested. The 2013 Eagle Festival’s funding is already in place since that applications was approved in April 2012. The 2014 application will be reviewed with the rest of the applications in the fall of 2013. The Committee approved funding for the following; Fly-In for $25,000, Arlington Art Council’s Music concerts at BPAC for $15,000, Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for the 4th of July activities for $8,294, Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for the BBQ Cook-Off and Market Place for $5,440, Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for the V.I.C. for $5,700, (In 2007 the Legislature expanded the use of the tax to include the operation of tourism related facilities and their operation. This expanded use will expire on June 30, 2013. The VIC requested more funding but we could not accommodate the request due this restriction.) D.A.B.A. Events for $7,000, Arlington-Smokey Point Chamber of Commerce for Self-Guided Cyber Tour of Arlington for $5,155, City of Arlington Recreation for the Summer Events in the Park, $6,340. These applications total $77,929. Not funded due to availability of funds were the following: Olympic Ballet Theatre for the Nutcracker performance, $4,000. Not funded due to the committees interpretation of tourism promotion. The committee felt several applications did not meet that definition. Those not receiving funding were; City - Entryway Signs into Arlington, $14,918, City - Haller Park Access to the Centennial Trail, $15,000, and City - Wayfinding Signs, $6,000. Although nice to have, they did not specifically promote tourism. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm. Signed, Jim Chase, Finance Director 1 (27-415 SJP/pb) CONTRACTOR: ADDRESS: PROJECT: AMOUNT: $ FUND SOURCE: City of Arlington Hotel Motel Tax TERMINATION: December 31, 2013 CONTRACT FOR HOTEL/MOTEL FUND PROJECTS THIS AGREEMENT between the City of Arlington (“City”) and Xxxxxx (“Contractor”); WITNESSETH, that the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services to be Performed by Contractor. As defined in Attachment A appended hereto. 2. Time of Performance. The Contractor is to complete the work required by this Contract no later than December 31, 2013. 3. Compensation. The City will pay the Contractor for services as set forth in Attachment A, appended hereto. On completion of the work, the Contractor will submit properly executed invoices indicating hours expended and/or work performed as appropriate and consistent with the schedule of work outlined in Attachment A, “Scope of Work”. Total charges on this project shall not exceed $. 4. Credit. Any publications or advertising produced as a result of this project will prominently feature the following credit: MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY OF ARLINGTON HOTEL-MOTEL TAX FUND. 5. Copyrights. Where activities supported by this contract produce original books, articles, manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the Contractor may copyright such materials upon obtaining the prior written approval of the City: PROVIDED that the City receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or use such material. Where such license is exercised, appropriate acknowledgment of Contractor's contribution will be made. 6. Changes. This Contract may be modified as to terms of performance, terms relating to compensation, or other matters upon mutual agreement of the parties, and shall become effective only upon written amendment to this Contract, such amendment to be executed by both parties. 2 (27-415 SJP/pb) 7. City Review/Approval. Upon submittal of any report or other information required by the scope of the work, the City may, following review by the City, accept such work or reject it, or request such modification or additions as it deems appropriate. Payment for such work will not be made until the work is accepted by the City. 8. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the books and records of the Contractor relating to the performance of this Contract. 9. Hold Harmless. The Contractor shall protect, save harmless, indemnify and defend, at its own expense, the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of this Contract, including claims by Contractor's employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. 10. Legal Requirements. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in performing this Contract. 11. Termination. a. If the Contractor breaches any of its obligations hereunder, and fails to cure the same within ten (10) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may terminate this Contract, in which case the City shall pay the Contractor only for the costs of services accepted by the City prior to the City's notice of termination, in accord with the schedule referenced in section 3. b. The City may terminate this Contract upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Contractor for any reason other than stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which case the City shall pay the Contractor for all costs incurred by the Contractor in performing the Contract in accord with the schedule referenced in section 3. c. Termination shall not affect the rights of the City under section 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 hereunder. 12. Exercise of Rights or Remedies. Failure of either party to exercise any rights or remedies under this Contract shall not be a waiver of any obligation by either party and shall not prevent either party from pursuing that right at any future time. 13. Records. Contractor must maintain adequate records to support billings. Said records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after completion of this Contract by the Contractor. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents or papers and records of the Contractor which are directly related to this Contract for the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts or transcripts. Expenditures under this Contract which are determined by audit to be ineligible for reimbursement and for which payment has been made to the Contractor shall be refunded to the City by the Contractor. 3 (27-415 SJP/pb) 14. Independent Contractor. Contractor agrees that Contractor will perform the services under this agreement as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee or servant of the City. The parties agree that the Contractor is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by employees of the City. Contractor specifically has the right to direct and control Contractor's own activities in providing the agreed services in accordance with the specifications set out in this agreement. 15. Consent to Delegate. The Contractor shall not subcontract, assign or delegate any of the rights, duties or obligations covered by this agreement without the prior express written consent of the City. 16. Entire Agreement. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. CONTRACTOR: _____________________________________ Date: _________________________ CITY OF ARLINGTON _____________________________________ Date: _________________________ James W. Chase, Finance Director 4 (27-415 SJP/pb) ATTACHMENT A ______________________________ PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET CONTRACTOR: PROJECT: SCOPE OF WORK 1. Xxxxx (“Contractor”) will receive from City of Arlington (“City”) the amount of $ . Funds will reimburse the Contractor for eligible expenses incurred in executing the project more fully described in Attachment B appended hereto. Funds will reimburse the Contractor for eligible expenses incurred in executing the project more fully described in Attachment B appended hereto. 2. The period of this Contract shall run through December 31, 2013. 3. The Contractor will ensure that a substantial amount of any promotional materials underwritten in whole or in part by City funds will be directed at recipients outside of City of Arlington to ensure that out-of-city visitors are attracted. This will be accomplished by mailing materials out of the city and/or by placing appropriate materials with the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau. Any electronic advertising funded by this contract will be substantially directed at audiences outside of City of Arlington. 4. For the purposes of this project, expenses eligible for reimbursement are defined as those listed in the “CITY” column of the budget below. Invoices to the City from the Contractor will include itemized receipts for all eligible expenditures for which the Contractor seeks reimbursement. In addition, if City funds underwrite in whole or in part any printed materials, print advertising or broadcast medium advertising, the Contractor will submit with the Contractor's reimbursement request for associated costs incurred: three (3) copies of printed materials; one copy of each print advertisement as printed; and one copy of the text of each broadcast medium advertisement. City funds will not be used to reimburse any expenses incurred by the Contractor which provide direct promotional benefit to a specific private business entity. In order to ensure timely closeout of this project, the Contractor will submit final invoicing to the City for this project no later than December 31, 2013. Also, by December 31, 2013, the Contractor will provide to City a final report summarizing project activity and summarize how grant funds have enhanced cultural tourism in the City of Arlington. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #4 Attachment G COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Island Crossing Local Improvement District Preformation Agreement ATTACHMENTS: Final Draft Agreement DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development, Contact – Paul Ellis, 360-403-4603 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: None LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Lane Property LLC and adjacent property owners intend to petition the City of Arlington requesting the creation of a Local Improvement District to fund potential construction of water, sewer, drainage and traffic improvements in the Island Crossing area. The proposed Preformation Agreement between Lane Property LLC and the City of Arlington would allow Lane’s to move forward with the preliminary studies leading to the formation of the Local Improvement District and be reimbursed for expenses related to the studies when the Local Improvement District is formed and the bonds are issued. HISTORY: The area of Island Crossing interested in forming a Local Improvement District is between Smokey Point Blvd and I-5 on the South side of SR530. Many of the property owners in this area have been working with the City as we have made recent updates to the planning tools for this area since the annexation was finalized in 2009. ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign the Preformation agreement. PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PREFORMATION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT This Preformation Reimbursement Agreement (“Agreement”), entered into as of the _______ day of _________, 20__ between the City of Arlington, Washington (the "City") and Lane Properties LLC (the "Owner"), owner of record of certain real property located in the City of Arlington, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); W I T N E S S E T H 1. WHEREAS, the Owner seeks the construction , installation, and implementation of water, sewer, drainage, and transportation improvements for the Property and for adjacent properties in an area known as Island Crossing; and 2. WHEREAS, the Owner along with other adjacent property owners in the Island Crossing area, intend to file a petition with the City requesting that the City create a local improvement district (the "LID") to assist in the financing of the costs of such improvements; and 3. WHEREAS, the Owner will pay costs mutually agreed to by the Owner and the City for the preparation of a benefit analysis, engineering plans, specifications and cost estimates, surveys, traffic and other environmental studies, appraisals, legal services and other analysis, consultants and administrative expenses associated with the improvements that Washington state law will allow to be financed by the proposed LID. 4. WHEREAS, the City and/or its representatives will provide administrative services, primarily by the Director of Public Works, City Engineer and City Clerk, and legal services by the City Attorney and bond counsel for the City, for the creation of the proposed LID and related expenses; and 5. WHEREAS, as authorized by RCW 35.43.184, the Owner wishes to be reimbursed for such mutually-agreed-to preformation costs from the proceeds of LID bonds when and if issued by the City to finance the improvements in the proposed LID; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and the Owner agree as follows: -2- 38036-4 Section 1. If the City forms an LID that includes the Property, and if the City issues LID bonds to finance improvements in the LID, the City shall reimburse the Owner for the costs of preformation expenses, as described in paragraph 3 and paragraph 5 of the recitals above, which expenses are incurred after the date of this agreement, plus interest at a rate equal to the estimated net interest rate of the LID bonds (calculated from the date such expenses were incurred through the date that is 60 days after approval of the final assessment role by the City Council) subject to any limitations under the law of the State of Washington and the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. If the Owner is no longer the owner of record of the Property at the time of reimbursement, the City shall reimburse such costs to the owner or owners of the Property on the records of Snohomish County. Section 2. The Owner and the City agree that any preformation work shall be mutually agreed to by the Owner and the City and shall be conducted only under the direction of the City Engineer and/or the City Public Works Director. The Owner and the City also agree that Owner shall be reimbursed only from LID bond proceeds and no other sources, and that if the proposed LID including the Property is not created or LID bonds are not issued, the Owner shall not be reimbursed for such expenses. In addition, the Owner shall not be entitled to any reimbursement payments under this agreement if the proposed LID including the Property is not formed within six years of the date of this agreement. Section 3. For reimbursement hereunder, the Owner shall submit to the City Public Works Director detailed invoices showing the costs incurred, a description of the services performed, and the person or persons performing such services. The Owner shall submit such invoices to the City prior to the City's calculation of the final assessment role for the LID. The City shall determine what costs may be reimbursed hereunder. Section 4. In the event more than one LID is formed to construct the improvements described herein (e.g., one LID for drainage improvements and one LID for traffic improvements), the Owner and the City shall agree on a fair allocation of the costs of preformation expenses applicable to each LID. WHEREFORE, the parties hereto indicate their acceptance of this agreement by their signatures below. CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON ____________________________ Mayor Barbara Tolbert ATTEST: _______________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk -3- 38036-4 LANE PROPERTIES LLC By____________________________ Its:____________________________ Date:__________________________ -4- 38036-4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Barbara Tolbert is the person who appeared before me, and s/he acknowledged that s/he signed this instrument, on oath stated that she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Arlington, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this ____ day of _______________________, 2012. _________________________________ [Signature of Notary] _________________________________ [Print Name of Notary] Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at ______________ My commission expires: ____________ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and s/he acknowledged that s/he signed this instrument, on oath stated that s/he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the _______________________ of Lane Properties LLC, a limited liability corporation, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this ____ day of _______________________, 2012. _________________________________ [Signature of Notary] _________________________________ [Print Name of Notary] Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at ______________ My commission expires: ____________ -5- 38036-4 Exhibit A (Legal Description of the Property) THE SOUTH 742.5 FEET AS MEASURED ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 31 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., LYING EASTERLY OF STATE ROUTE 5. EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH 644.43 FEET THEREOF AS CONVEYED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 151 OF DEEDS ON PAGE 242 AND EXCEPT THE SESBY ROAD (27TH AVE. N.E./SMOKEY POINT BOULEVARD) Tax Parcel No. 31050800301000 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #5 Attachment H COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Extension of the SR9 Coalition Interlocal Agreement through December 31, 2013 ATTACHMENTS: 2nd Amendment to ILA for SR9 Coalition Memo outlining Contract & Scope of Work from Strategies 360 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Executive EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $6,750 BUDGET CATEGORY: GF - Other General Government Services LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: As previously discussed with the Council, the City entered into an Interlocal Agreement to jointly fund the costs of lobbying activities for the SR 9 Coalition. The parties to the agreement are the cities of Arlington, Lake Stevens, Marysville, and Snohomish. The parties wish to extend the agreement and the contract with Strategies 360 through December 31, 2013. The costs of the agreement will change to $3,000 during the Legislative Session and 1 month preceding and succeeding the session, and $1,500 for the six months outside of the Legislative Session. The costs for the services are split equally between the participating cities. The City has budgeted for this service. HISTORY: The City has been a participant in the SR9 Coalition since its formation. The Council approved an amendment to the agreement in July 2011 and in April 2012. The SR 9 Coalition was formed in order to secure funding for the necessary improvements to SR 9 and ensure that our best interests are represented in the decision-making processes of the Washington State Legislature and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Council member Nelson and Public Works Director Jim Kelly serve on the SR 9 Coalition. ALTERNATIVES Do not authorize the extension. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign the 2nd Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for the SR9 Coalition. ILA Lobbying Services Second Amend Exhibit A2 2013 Page 1 of 4 SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LOBBYING SERVICES ADDING “EXHIBIT A2 - 2013 SCOPE OF WORK – SR 9 COALITION” THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LOBBYING SERVICES (“Amendment”) is made and is entered into by and between the City of Arlington, a Washington municipal corporation (“Arlington”), the City of Marysville, a Washington municipal corporation (“Marysville”), the City of Lake Stevens, a Washington municipal corporation (“Lake Stevens”), and the City of Snohomish, a Washington municipal corporation (“Snohomish”) (collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Cities”) as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.34, the Cities entered into the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LOBBYING SERVICES (“Agreement”) dated 10/12/2010; and, WHEREAS, the Cities have agreed to add to existing “Exhibit A” of the Agreement, the additional “Exhibit A2-2013 Scope of Work – SR 9 Coalition” necessitating the second amendment of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and promises contained herein, Cities mutually agree as follows: 1. “Exhibit A2 -2013 Scope of Work – SR 9 Coalition” is adopted and added to the Agreement which shall be effective January 1, 2013 and shall be as attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. 2. This Second Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each which shall be considered same as an original. 3. Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LOBBYING SERVICES thereto remain in place and ILA Lobbying Services Second Amend Exhibit A2 2013 Page 2 of 4 shall be unchanged by this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this _____ day of ________________, 2012. CITY OF ARLINGTON CITY OF LAKE STEVENS ____________________________ ___________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Vern Little, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________ _____________________________ Kristin Banfield, City Clerk Norma Scott, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM ______________________________ ____________________________ Steven Peiffle, City Attorney Grant K. Weed, City Attorney CITY OF MARYSVILLE CITY OF SNOHOMISH ____________________________ ___________________________ Jon Nehring, Mayor Larry Bauman, City Manager ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________ _____________________________ April O’Brien, Deputy City Clerk Torchie Corey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM ______________________________ ____________________________ Grant K. Weed, City Attorney Grant K. Weed, City Attorney ILA Lobbying Services Second Amend Exhibit A2 2013 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit A2 Scope of Work-SR9 Coalition (Larger Effort-$3000 per month) January thru April 2013 1. Schedule meetings with Senate and House Transportation Committee leadership to understand their approach to the session and building a transportation budget for special projects. 2. Schedule meetings with other members of the Transportation Committees and key committee staff to educate them about the project and its needs. 3. Work with SR 9 Coalition leadership to ensure written materials and visual materials are current. 4. Work with SR 9 leaders to identify the most successful packaging of an SR 9 request for inclusion in the transportation package. 5. Plan and schedule a visit by SR 9 Coalition members to Olympia on a day during the first few weeks of the Legislative session. Schedule individual meetings with legislators from the Transportation Committees, focusing on legislators from the surrounding areas. Choreograph the entire day, including preparation of materials for the meetings with legislators. Provide important background information to SR 9 Coalition participants. 6. Continue to attend regular meetings of SCCIT, WHUF and other transportation groups to monitor events and to continue to ensure SR 9’s position as a preferred project. 7. Continue to stay in touch with key WSDOT staff as the budget is developed. 8. Look for a hearing or other opportunity to bring SR 9 Coalition members back to Olympia an additional one or two times to keep pushing for SR 9 inclusion in the transportation package. 9. Prepare a news story around WSDOT’s actual geotechnical testing, which is likely to be in early 2013. Positive publicity keeps the project in front of the public and legislators. Include quotes form SR 9 leaders. 10. Participate, to the extent possible, in Transportation Partnership meetings and activities. 11. Meet with all legislators from legislative districts surrounding the SR 9 corridor to ensure they are familiar with the project. 12. Provide updates at least weekly and a monthly written summary of activities and important events. 13. Monitor federal activities for important news and grant opportunities. (Smaller effort - $1500 per month) May thru November 2013* 1. Stay in touch with key legislators from the Transportation Committees to monitor developments; meet with them periodically. 2. Stay in touch with legislators from Snohomish County legislative districts and surrounding districts to keep SR 9 needs in front of them. ILA Lobbying Services Second Amend Exhibit A2 2013 Page 4 of 4 3. Report key events to the SR 9 Coalition, both in writing and at Coalition meetings. 4. Continue to attend SCCIT, WHUF and other transportation meetings. 5. Begin ramping up contacts with key legislators in October for the 2014 session. 6. Revise any written materials as needed. 7. Look for other opportunities for news stories about SR 9. 8. Monitor federal activities for important news and grant opportunities. (Larger Effort-$3000 per month) December 2013 1. Schedule meetings with Senate and House Transportation leadership to understand their view of the 2014 session, and to remind them of SR 9 Coalition priorities. 2. Schedule meetings with local legislators to remind them of SR 9 Coalition priorities. 3. Work with SR 9 Coalition leadership to clarify or reaffirm the top funding priorities of the Coalition. 4. Work with SR 9 Coalition leadership to update any materials as needed. 5. Schedule one or more trips to Olympia for the 2014 session for SR 9 Coalition members. *Consultant will bill at $3000 per month during special session, if called. November 21, 2012 To: Larry Bauman, Gloria Hirashima, Jan Berg, and Allen Johnson FR: Al Aldrich and Mary Swenson RE: 2013 SR 9 Coalition Contract Following the meeting yesterday, Gloria is preparing the new contract for Strategies 360 to continue representing the SR 9 Coalition for lobbying and government affairs work in 2013. Gloria is doing it because the previous contracts have utilized Marysville’s standard contract as the base document (rather than a Strategies 360 base contract, for example). I understand that she will then turn it over to Jan, since Jan and Lake Stevens will be doing the contract administration in 2013. At the meeting yesterday, we agreed to a one-year contract for calendar year 2013. We also agreed to a payment schedule that is a little different from what was in the prior contracts. Previously, the contract called for $1,750 a month under the smaller effort scenario and $3,500 a month under the larger effort scenario. For a variety of reasons, even though we were clearly working under the larger effort scenario at various times, particularly during the Legislative session, the change of rate was never invoked. That was despite securing $650,000 in funding last year for the geotechnical work for the proposed new bridge over the Snohomish River. The new contract calls for monthly payments of $3,000 when the Legislature is in session and in December as we ramp up the workload to prepare for the 2014 session. The 2013 regular Legislative session will run January through April. Based on history, there is some possibility of a special session after the regular session ends. In the other months, the monthly payment drops to $1,500 a month in recognition of the fact that some work still goes on but the level of effort is less than during the session and just prior to a session. We all have a pretty good idea of how that works based on the last couple of years. Turning to some context for our work next year, we now know that the Senate Transportation Committee will have a new chair, because Sen. Haugen was not re-elected. In addition, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Committee, Rep. Armstrong, was not re-elected. In addition to those key changes, Sen. Swecker was not re-elected. He was the longest serving Republican on the Senate Transportation Committee. Also, Rep, Billig, one of the two vice chairs of the House Transportation Committee, has moved up to the Senate. Other changes include a new Governor and almost certainly a new director of WSDOT. There remains a strong interest by many parties in assembling a package of transportation projects and revenue sources to fund the projects. The package will likely go to voters, since it is unlikely a 2/3 vote of the Legislature can be accomplished on the revenue part of the package, e.g. increased gas taxes. With the key personnel changes, accomplishing that task got somewhat harder, but the needs remain and so legislators will take up the task when the Legislature convenes in January. At next week’s Legislative Committee days on November 28-30, we may get some insights into the current thinking. Also, the various caucuses will be naming their committee chairs, ranking members and membership on committees in the next few weeks. Please contact us if you have specific questions and expect a report from us following the Committee days meetings next week.