HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 01/07/1997 1
City of Kent
Cit Councl
l Meeting
v
Agenda
CITY OF
i
1
Mayor Jim White
Council Members
Christi Houser, President
Jim Bennett Jon Johnson
Tim Clark Leona Orr
Connie Epperly Judy Woods
January 7, 1997
Office of the City Clerk
CITY OF )Ite\��W ITLL
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
vtivnm�,, January 7 , 1997
Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Christi Houser, President
Jim Bennett Tim Clark Connie Epperly
Jon Johnson Leona Orr Judy Woods
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
,X'� State of the City Address
R: Employee of the Month
lf� Way Back Inn Presentation
2 . PI�ALIC HEARINGS
Moratorium on Commercial Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities - Resolution
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of Minutes
Approval of Bills
2 Agricultural Preservation - Position Statement
-H! Saar Street Vacation - Ordinance
�?! Canyon Crest Estates - Bill of Sale
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
Stillwater Shadows Final Plat FSU-96-23
B' Mixed Use Zoning - Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-96-5
C' 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-96-3 (A-G) and
Zoning Map Changes CPZ-96-1-5
Administrative Variance Procedures - Zoning Code
Amendment ZCA-96-7
5 . BIDS
None
6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Property Acquisition
Labor Negotiations
8 . ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in
the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of
this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the
City in advance for more information. For TDD relay service call
1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent (206) 854-6587 .
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) State of the City Address
B) Employee of the Month
C) Way Back Inn Presentation
r
y �
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 . 1996
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: MORATORIUM ON COMMERCIAL WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider a
moratorium upon the issuance of land use and development
permits for commercial wireless telecommunication facilities.
City staff have received an increasing number of permit
applications for these facilities. The purpose of the
moratorium is to allow the City time to consider the impacts
and the different options available before issuing permits for
these telecommunications facilities.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and Planning Committee minutes of
12/10/96
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember .._moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Resolution No. imposing a moratorium upon the
issuance of land use and development permits for commercial
wireless telecommunication facilities.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
December 10, 1996
MORATORIUM ON COMMUNICATION TOWERS (T. Brubaker)
City Attorney Tom Brubaker passesd out a draft Resolution and explained that the City of Kent is
facing a telecommunications revolution. Similar to what has happened over the past ten years with
personal computers. The development of fiber optic cables and wireless communication devices and
wide open competition is going to explode on the scene. Cable providers will be providing
telephone service and telephone providers will be providing cable service. All the providers will be
providing data transmitters to allow communication between computers. Power companies may get
into play. There is wide open competition. A lot of the City's authority has been trimmed
significantly by a law passed earlier this year by the Federal Government.
Mr. Brubaker explained that one of the major issues is the siting of wireless telecommunication
facilities. The concern is with the imminent antennas that will begin to appear throughout the region.
This is a new issue. In order to move forward in the telecommunication era companies are going
to need to erect antennas on buildings and hilltops as well as stand alone towers. There exists a
public safety and health concern as well as an aesthetic concern.
Mr. Brubaker stated that the purpose of the Moratorium is to allow the City some time to consider
the impacts and to consider the different options available.
Committee member Tim Clark questioned the exclusion of short wave radios. Mr. Brubaker stated
that it should be clarified in the Resolution to exclude them. Mr. Clark also questioned homeowners
purchasing direct satellite. Mr. Brubaker explained that it would not be a part of this moratorium
because a homeowner would not need a land use development permit to obtain a personal satellite
dish.
Chair Leona Orr questioned whether Mr. Brubaker would be available to present a small bit of
information to the Council that evening to explain the need for this Moratorium. Mr. Brubaker
stated that he would be available. Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Chair Leona Orr
SECONDED a motion to bring this item to the City Council under "other business" to set a public
hearing date. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, imposing a moratorium on the
issuance of land use and development permits for
commercial wireless telecommunication facilities.
WHEREAS, city staff have seen a significant increase in applications for
commercial wireless telecommunications facilities, specifically including, without
limitation, building and rooftop-mounted antenna systems and stand-alone antenna
towers, within the city limits of the City of Kent as well as within adjacent areas of
unincorporated King County; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the City will, in the near future, receive a large
number of applications to install various wireless telecommunications facilities, such as
television and radio transmission towers and monopoles, towers, satellite dishes, micro-
dishes, communication node cabinets, above-ground pedestal cabinets, antennas and relay
station facilities for personal pagers, cellular phones, personal communications services
(PCS), and enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESWR) facilities: and
WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 addresses State
and Local ability to regulate commercial wireless telecommunications facilities; and
1
WHEREAS, operation of the City's public safety and emergency
communications networks (911 and 800 MHz systems) may be functionally impaired either
by direct interference or by dramatically increased background noise levels as a result of this
increased presence of commercial wireless telecommunications facilities; and
WHEREAS, these facilities are being constructed because of unprecedented
growth in a new branch of telecommunications technology, and the City's Land Use and
Development Regulations do no adequately address the various impacts to public health and
safety and to aesthetics that these facilities present; and
WHEREAS, it appears that a limited number of potential sites exist that
would be acceptable for the construction and installation of commercial wireless
telecommunication facilities; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of radio frequency emissions may affect the
location, configuration and final city approval of commercial wireless telecommunications
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent values the existence of this new technology
within its corporate boundaries and wants to support the presence of these businesses within
the City, but believes that its citizens and these businesses would be best served if these
facilities were designed and located so as to serve each business' needs while at the same
time addressing health, safety and aesthetic coneems. and
WHEREAS, the development and construction of these commercial wireless
telecommunications facilities form part of a rapidly changing technology that may, in certain
instances, allow for less invasive or obtrusive facilities than those initially proposed for
construction without burdening commercial wireless telecommunications facilities providers:
and
WHEREAS, because of potential impacts to the public health and safety and
to neighborhood aesthetics, it may be appropriate to develop incentives or regulations that
will encourage co-location of commercial wireless telecommunications facilities; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Kent would be well served if city staff more fully
addressed and understood the potential health and safety hazards and potential aesthetic
impacts of these facilities on neighboring properties and on the community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent, with the assistance of current and future
wireless telecommunications providers, needs time to study impacts to public health and
safety and to neighborhood aesthetics, as well as issues related to siting, design, and co-
location of these facilities. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Recitals Incorporated. The above listed recitals are
incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2: Findings of Fact. The Kent City Council hereby adopts the
following findings of fact:
A. The City of Kent is a diverse suburban South King County community with
approximately sixty thousand three hundred eighty (60,380) citizens. That part of Kent that
lies in the Green River Valley involves primarily commercial, industrial, and warehouse land
uses, but the remainder of the city is primarily residential in nature. Moreover, a significant
proportion of the remaining undeveloped properties within the Green River Valley are being
developed for residential use.
B. For purposes of this resolution, the term, "commercial wireless
telecommunication facilities," shall be defined to include tower and monopole facilities for
3
television and radio transmission and towers, monopoles, satellite dishes, micro-dishes,
communication node cabinets, above-ground pedestal cabinets, antennas and relay station
facilities for personal pagers, cellular phones, personal communications services (PCS), and
enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESWR) facilities, plus any and all necessary structures
or facilities appurtenant to, or related to, these various telecommunications facilities.
Because the telecommunications industry is subject to rapid and continuously evolving
technology;and because it is the intent of the City that this city-wide moratorium apply to
all commercial wireless telecommunication facility development and land-use applications,
the City's Planning Director shall have the authority to determine whether new technology
or other technology not contemplated in the above-referenced definitional list should be
included as a "commercial wireless telecommunication facility" and be subject to this
moratorium.
C. Acceptable sites for the construction of commercial wireless
telecommunications facilities may be limited by public health, safety and aesthetic factors.
D. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 affects the City's ability to
regulate commercial wireless telecommunications facilities, and the City needs additional
time to more fully understand and review the impacts of this Act on a state and local level.
E. Rapid changes in wireless telecommunications technology, when coupled
with the increased demand for wireless telecommunications services, have created a
significant increase in the demand for the installation and construction of commercial
wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Kent.
F. The unparalleled increase in the number of applications to construct
commercial wireless telecommunications facilities in and near the City of Kent raises
significant concerns regarding potential health and safety hazards and regarding aesthetic
impacts to neighboring properties and communities. These concerns merit further review
to protect the interests of the citizens of Kent.
G. The operation of the City's public and safety emergency communications
networks (e.g., "911" and 800 MHz systems) may be functionally impaired either by direct
interference or by dramatically increased background noise levels as a result of this increased
4
presence of commercial wireless telecommunications facilities. The City must analyze these
potential impacts in order to preserve its existing emergency and public safety systems.
H. Information from the telecommunications industry and from other
governmental entities indicates that commercial wireless telecommunications facilities can
be designed and installed in ways that will address health, safety and aesthetic concerns.
I. The environmental impacts of radio frequency emissions may affect the
location, configuration and final city approval of commercial wireless telecommunications
facilities.
J. The City needs time to study the appropriateness of(1) locating commercial
wireless telecommunications facilities, (2) encouraging consolidation or co-location of
various commercial wireless telecommunications facilities, (3) reviewing the various
technological options available to commercial wireless telecommunications service providers
to develop and utilize less invasive facilities wherever possible, and (4) limiting the impacts
to public health, safety and aesthetics when approving land use and development applications
to construct, install and operate commercial wireless telecommunications facilities.
SECTION 3: Moratorium imposed.
A. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, the Kent City Council, after providing
appropriate notice, held a public hearing at a regularly scheduled council meeting at 7:00
p.m., January 7, 1997, on the matter of imposing a moratorium on the issuance of land use
or development permits for the construction, installation, and operation of commercial
wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Kent.
B. The City Council adopts the foregoing Findings of Fact and finds them to be
true and correct in all respects.
C. The City of Kent shall issue no land use and development permits for the
installation. construction or operation of commercial wireless telecommunications facilities
until new regulations pertaining to these permits have been developed and adopted by the
City. Nothing in this moratorium resolution, however, shall prohibit any person or entity
5
from applying for a land use or development permit to install,construct or operate a wireless
telecommunications facility,except that no vested rights shall accrue to any application made
or filed during the effective term of this moratorium, including any extensions.
D. This moratorium shall not apply to personal wireless telecommunication
facilities used primarily for residential, noncommercial purposes, including without
limitation, shortwave radio facilities and residential television satellite systems.
E. This moratorium shall not apply to the construction,installation and operation
of public safety and emergency (e.g., "911" and 800 MHz) wireless telecommunications
facilities.
F. City staff are directed to work with telecommunications providers, local
businesses, and City residents to determine the impacts and the appropriate use and location
of these facilities.
G. This moratorium shall expire six months from the effective date of this
resolution, unless renewed by further council action.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
day of 1997.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of
1997.
JIM WHITE. MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK
6
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent. Washington, the day of
1997.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
V'RESOLUTETELECOMM.RES
7
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember (�
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through E be approved.
Discussion
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
December 10, 1996 .
3B_. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through December 16
and paid on December 16, 1996, after auditing by the Operations
Committee on December 18, 1996.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/16/96 177275-177892 $1, 868, 586. 20
Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16 through
November 30, 1996 and paid on December 5, 1996; also checks
issued for payroll for December 1 through December 15, 1996 and
paid on December 20, 1996 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/5/96 Checks 216020-216366 $ 251, 062 . 29
12/5/96 Advices 40485-41070 611, 653 .47
$ 862 ,715.76
12/20/96 Checks 216367-216637 $ 238, 296 . 12
12/20/96 Advices 41071-41539 613 ;866 . 67
$ 852 , 162 . 79
Amendment to advice numbers reported for November 20, 1996:
11/20/96 Advice # 40028-40484
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
December 10, 1996
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Present: Councilmembers
Bennett, Clark, Epperly, Orr and Woods, Operations Director/Chief
of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Manager
Satterstrom, City Engineer Gill, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief
Crawford, Parks Director Hodgson, Finance Director Miller, and
Human Resources Director Viseth. Approximately 15 people were at
the meeting.
PUBLIC Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor Pro
COMMUNICATIONS Tem Johnson introduced Judie Sarff and Rose E.
Galaz, the Mayor' s appointees to the Human
Services Commission. He also noted that Council
President Houser will be the Council
Representative.
Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson
announced that Jim Limric, Senior Center Van
Driver, has been selected as Employee of the
Month for December. He noted that Limric
demonstrates his caring attitude toward seniors
on a daily basis by transporting them wherever
they need to go. Lea Bishop stated that Limric
is a compassionate and responsible employee who
truly cares about the seniors. She noted that he
and his wife open their home at holiday time for
a party in the seniors ' honor. Johnson presented
Limric with the Employee of the Month plaque.
Regional Justice Center Update. No report was
given, as the representative from the Regional
Justice Center was unable to attend tonight' s
meeting.
Executive Session. McFall requested that a
matter regarding litigation be added to the
executive session.
CONSENT BENNETT MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through Y be approved, with the exception of Item
N which was removed. Orr seconded and the motion
carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of
the special Council meeting of November 26 , 1996.
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
AMENDMENT Single Family Residential Zoning District
Regulations ZCA-96-6. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 3327 amending the Zoning Code regarding
single family residential development standards.
1
December 10, 1996
ZONING CODE This was approved by the City Council on
AMENDMENT November 26, 1996 .
PLATS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Stillwater Shadows Final Plat FSU-96-23 . SET
January 7 , 1997, as the date for a public meeting
to consider the Stillwater Shadows Final Plat.
The preliminary subdivision was approved by King
County and upon annexation of the Meridian area,
the final plat came under Kent' s jurisdiction.
This plat is 4 . 89 acres in size, consists of 21
lots, and is located at 132nd Avenue SE and SE
261st Street.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
Canyon Crest Estates Final Plat FSU-94-6. This
date has been set to consider the Canyon Crest
Estates Final Plat. The plat is located at 9612
S. 222nd in Kent, and is 9 . 44 acres in size. The
preliminary plat was approved by King County and
came under Kent' s jurisdiction upon annexation to
the City.
ORR MOVED to approve the staff' s recommendation
of approval for the Canyon Crest Estates Final
Plat according to King County Ordinance No. 10697
and File No. S90Poo31, and to authorize the Mayor
to sign the final plat mylar. Bennett seconded
and the motion carried.
PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Y)
Lease Agreement - City and South Valley
Associates. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign
the Lease Agreement with South Valley Associates,
as recommended by the Public Works Committee.
This is a renewal of an existing agreement which
allows South Valley Associates to utilize a
portion of City property for parking and storage.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
(ADDED BY OPERATIONS DIRECTOR MCFALL)
Quit Claim Deed and Easement - Regional Justice
Center. Assistant City Attorney Brubaker
explained that Council authority is required for
the Mayor to sign a Quit Claim Deed and an
Easement in regard to construction of the
Regional Justice Center . He noted that one of
the documents grants King County access to have a
card entry device for their parking garage which
would be in the City right-of-way, and the other
grants back a sliver of land that was previously
2
December 10 , 1996
PUBLIC WORKS granted to the city for ingress and egress when
construction was commenced.
CLARK MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign the
referenced Quit Claim Deed and Easement granting
certain ingress/egress and access rights to
Metropolitan King County for the Regional Justice
Center in Kent. Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
(ADDED BY cOUNCILMEMBER ORR)
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities -
Moratorium. Assistant City Attorney Brubaker
stated that the City has received a number of
permit review applications for the construction
of monopole towers for wireless telecommunica-
tions devices throughout the city. He explained
that the towers improve the reception for the on-
coming PCS wireless digital telephone networks.
He said this has been considered by staff and
that it may be appropriate to declare a mora-
torium on construction, in order to determine the
impact on neighborhoods and public health and
safety concerns. He requested that a public
hearing be held at the first Council meeting in
January to address the issue, inform the Council
and possibly pass a moratorium ordinance.
ORR MOVED to set Tuesday, January 7 , 1997 , for a
public hearing to consider adopting a resolution
imposing a moratorium upon the issuance of Land
Use and Development permits for wireless tele-
communications facilities. Woods seconded.
Clark stated that since the passage of the 1996
Telecommunications Law, there will be more
competition and more services, and that the City
wants to ensure that the community and the
integrity of neighborhoods is protected. He
emphasized that the intent is not to try to block
this type of development, and that the purpose of
the public hearing is to bring more of the issues
to light, to allow public input, and to educate.
Orr' s motion to set a public hearing date then
carried.
3
December 10, 1996
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Council Absences. APPROVAL of an excused absence
for Councilmember Tim Clark from the November 26 ,
1996, City Council meeting, and approval of an
excused absence for Council President Houser from
the December 10, 1996, City Council meeting, as
they were unable to attend.
PUBLIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
DEFENDER Public Defenders Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the
Mayor to sign an agreement in substantially the
same form as shown in the agenda packet between
the City of Kent and the law firm, Stewart &
Goss, P. S. , for public defense services for
indigent criminal defendants charged with
criminal violations of City of Kent ordinances
through 1998 .
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Human Services Commission. CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor' s reappointment of Judie Sarff to continue
serving as a member of the Kent Human Services
Commission. Ms. Sarff' s new appointment will
continue until 1/1/2000 .
CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s appointment of Rose
E. Galaz to serve as a member of the Human
Services Commission. Ms. Galaz will represent
the "User of Services" category and will replace
Lucyle Wooden. She is a Kent resident and is
currently attending school to further her
education. She is bilingual and as she seeks a
career change, she is hoping to find a position
where she can utilize her proficiency with the
Spanish language. Ms . Galaz ' appointment will
become effective 1/1/97 and continue to 1/1/2000 .
CONFIRMATION of Council President Christi
Houser' s appointment of herself to serve as the
non-voting City Council representative to the
Kent Human Services Commission. This is a one-
year term and will continue to 1/1/98 .
MAINTENANCE (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
Centennial Center Custodial Services. On
December 4th, the Operations Committee recom-
mended award of a three-year custodial contract
for the Centennial Center to the low bidder,
Varsity Contractors for $56 , 625 . 49 . Bids were
opened November 20 , 1996 .
4
December 10 , 1996
MAINTENANCE ORR MOVED that the three-year Centennial Building
custodial contract be awarded to Varsity
Contractors for the bid amount of $56, 625. 49 .
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
(BIDS - ITEM 5B)
Centennial Center Tenant Improvements. Bids were
opened on November 27 for tenant improvements at
the Centennial Center. The Operations committee
recommends award of the bid to the second lowest
bidder, H&S Construction, Inc. , in the amount of
$54 . 999 . 00.
ORR MOVED that H&S Construction, Inc. , be awarded
the contract for tenant improvements at the
Centennial Center in the amount of $54 , 999 . 00.
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
HUMAN (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 31)
RESOURCES 1997 Safety Awards Program. APPROVAL of the 1997
Safety Award Program utilizing revised safety
awareness publications and local vendors for
safety incentives .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Workers' Compensation Claims Handling. APPROVAL
of the contract with Scott Wetzel for Workers'
Compensation Claim Administration with the fee
schedule outlined in the agenda packet.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
1996 97 "Working Together" Drug Elimination Grant
Contract. APPROVAL for the Mayor to sign the
1996-97 "Working Together" Drug Elimination Grant
contract to furnish services to the residents of
the King County Housing Authority communities of
Valli Kee Homes and Springwood Apartments . The
contract has been approved and signed by the City
Attorney, and was approved by the Public Safety
Committee on 12/3/96 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
Amendment to Jail Services Contract with the City
of Normandy Park. APPROVAL for the Mayor to sign
an amendment to the jail services contract with
the City of Normandy Park to expand jail services
to include Electronic Home Detention and Work
Release Programs for those individuals who would
qualify for the programs .
5
December 10, 1996
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
(REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER EPPERLY)
Tattooing of Minors. This item was removed from
the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Epperly,
who requested that it be sent to the Public
Safety Committee for further review. There was
no objection from Council and it was so ordered.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3X)
Parking ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 3328 which inhibits parking any motor or
other vehicle between the hours of 10: 00 p.m.
and 6: 00 a.m. on the north side of SE 276th
Place, adjacent to Springwood Park, as approved
by the Public Safety Committee.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
RECREATION Adopt-A-Park Revenue. ACCEPT and establish a
budget for Adopt-A-Park Revenue. From September
1995 to date, the Parks Development Division has
received small service club donations totaling
$1, 208 as listed below. The revenue will be
expended on various Adopt-A-Park projects.
DONOR TOTAL
Kent Lions Club $100 . 00
S. KC RE Roundup $100 . 00
Sun Sportswear $100. 00
Kent Downtown partnership $325 . 00
Kiwanis $100. 00
Friends of the Library $100. 00
Soroptomist $200. 00
Kent Rotary $158 . 00
$1, 208 . 00
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
Sale of Surplus House. ACCEPT and establish a
budget for $6 , 510 for revenue from the sale of
the surplus house located at 14608 S. 288th
Street, Kent. On October 4 , 1996 , the Parks
Department sold the surplus house (Armstrong
Residence) to the highest bidder. Mr. Jerry
Hanson purchased the house for $6 , 510 . The
revenue will be used for future park
improvements.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q)
Plan Sales. ACCEPT and establish a budget for
the sale of plans from the Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 bid
in the amount of $120 . In September 1996 the
Parks Department bid the Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 Park
6
December 10, 1996
PARKS & Improvements Project. Each set of plans distri-
RECREATION buted had a non-refundable fee of $25. The total
sale of plans was $120. The revenue will be used
for miscellaneous park improvements.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3R)
Russell Road Pump Project. ACCEPT as complete
the Russell Road Pump Project and release
retainage to contractor NW Industrial, upon
standard releases from the state.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3S)
Skate Park Construction. ACCEPT as complete the
Skate Park Project and release retainage to
contractor T. F. Sahli Construction, upon standard
releases from the state.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3T)
Tudor Square/Slaughter House Demolition Project.
ACCEPT as complete the Tudor Square/Slaughter
House Demolition project and release retainage to
contractor Shear Transport, upon standard release
from the state.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3U)
Skate Park Fence Project. ACCEPT as complete the
Skate Park Fence Project and release retainage to
contractor All Around Fence, upon standard
releases from the state.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3V)
Russell Road Fence Project. ACCEPT as complete
the Russell Road Fence Project and release
retainage to contractor Bailey Fence (dba Rite-
Way Inc. ) , upon standard releases from the state.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3W)
Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Proposed
Annexation P-341 Petition. AUTHORIZATION for the
Mayor to sign the Soos Creek Water and Sewer
District Proposed Annexation P-341 Petition. The
City of Kent owns approximately 30 acres of park
property in the proposed annexation area. When
the park property is developed in the future,
sewer availability may be desired. This petition
only places the property within the sewer
boundary areas and will not create a tax or other
financial impact until the property is developed.
7
December 10, 1996
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through November 27 and paid on
November 15 and November 27 , after auditing by
the Operations Committee on December 4 , 1996.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/15/96 176256-176801 $2 , 697, 259. 62
11/27/96 176802-177274 $2, 335, 455. 14
Approval of checks issued for payroll for
November 1 through November 15 and paid on
November 20, 1996 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/20/96 Checks 215709-216019 $ 251, 062 . 29
11/20/96 Advices 39565-40027 611 , 653 . 47
$ 862 , 715. 76
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Accounts Receivable Write-Off. AUTHORIZATION to
write-off $5, 084 . 06 of miscellaneous accounts
receivable (primarily uncollectible 1995 traffic
accident accounts involving City property) and
$10 , 563 for parking violations (uncollected
amounts for 1992 and 1993) , as recommended by the
Operations Committee at their December 4 meeting.
Per the State auditor, accounts deemed uncol-
lectible should be removed from the books
annually.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
LID 345 - S. 218th Street Improvements - Bond
Sale and Purchase Agreement. At their December 4
meeting, the Operations Committee recommended
adoption of a bond ordinance related to the
issuance of $781, 624 . 64 in LID 345 bonds and
authorization for the Mayor to sign the Bond
Purchase Agreement with Dain Bosworth, Inc.
Finance Director Miller stated that prepayments
totalled $220 , 566 . 41, leaving a bond amount of
$781 , 624 . 64 . She said that the average coupon
bond was 5 . 29% and the true interest cost was
5 . 43% .
Joel Ing of Dain Bosworth distributed a Post Sale
Analysis and noted that the bonds were priced on
December 3rd, which was perfect timing for very
low interest rates .
8
December 10, 1996
FINANCE CLARK MOVED to adopt Bond Ordinance No. 3329 for
the issuance of $781, 624 . 64 in LID 345 bonds
and to authorize signing of the Bond Purchase
Agreement with Dain Bosworth, Inc. Orr seconded
and the motion carried.
BUDGET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
1996 Budget Adjustment Ordinance and CDBG Line of
Credit. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3326, the
technical budget adjustment ordinance for adjust-
ments made between June 1, 1996 and December 31,
1996, totaling $43 , 761, 146 ; and approval of a
line of credit in an amount not to exceed
$150, 000 to cover Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) costs at year-end until they are
reimbursed by King County, as recommended by the
Operations Committee at their December 4 meeting.
REPORTS operations Committee. Johnson noted that the
Operations Committee will not meet in December.
Public Works Committee. Clark noted that no
meeting has been scheduled for December, but that
a meeting could be called if needed.
Planning Committee. Orr noted that the next
meeting is scheduled for January 21, 1997 .
Public Safety Committee. Bennett noted that the
December 17 meeting has been cancelled and the
next meeting will be in January.
Parks committee. Woods noted that the next
meeting will be on the first Tuesday in January.
Administrative Reports. McFall announced that
the annual Council Retreat will be held at the
West Hill Fire Station on January 3 and 4 .
McFall stated that information has been received
from King County regarding the total assessed
value. He noted that the assessed value on
existing property continues to decline for the
third year in a row, and said staff is pursuing
an explanation for that. He noted that the final
property tax levy took advantage of 104 . 9% rather
than the 106% allowed . He said that he is not
recommending that the levy be changed, as it is
sufficient to balance the budget, but that
$145 , 000 in additional property tax revenue could
have been assessed. He said staff will continue
9
December 10, 1996
REPORTS to work with the King County Assessor' s Office
and other cities on this issue. He said it
appears that the assessed values of commercial
and industrial properties are in a state of
decline, while residential properties are staying
the same or going up, resulting in a shift in who
is paying the taxes.
EXECUTIVE At 7 : 30 p.m. , McFall announced that the executive
SESSION session will take approximately 15 minutes.
The meeting reconvened at 7 : 55 p.m.
(Labor Labor Negotiations. BENNETT MOVED to authorize
Agreement) the Mayor to sign a three year labor agreement
between the City and the Kent Police Officer' s
Association, effective January 1, 1996 through
December 31, 1998 ; and in addition, to authorize
a budget change for 1997 for approximately
$311, 000 from General Fund balance. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
(Sloan) Litigation. WOODS MOVED to approve the settle-
ment offer based on terms presented by Sloan
Building Company in a letter dated December 10,
1996 , relating to the Code Enforcement action and
resulting litigation involving the thrift build-
ing, subject to final approval of the terms by
the City Attorney . Orr seconded and the motion
carried.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at: 7 : 58 p.m.
Brenda Jacober/ CMC
City Clerk '
10
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION - POSITION STATEMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the Position Statement on
Agricultural Preservation, as recommended by the Planning
Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS: Agricultural Preservation Position Statement and
Planning Committee minutes of 12/10/96
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
WHEREAS, Goal LU-27 of the Kent Comprehensive Plan encourages the conservation and
enhancement of agricultural areas through regulation, acquisition and other methods; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-27.1 discourages urban development of designated, long-term
agricultural areas; and
WHEREAS, Policv LU-27.2 discourages incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to
designated agricultural lands; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-27.3 seeks to reduce adverse environmental impacts to agricultural
lands which are caused by urban development; and
WHEREAS, Policy LU-27.4 encourages the City of Kent to work with King County to
provide for purchasing or transferring the development rights of agricultural lands identified as
having long-term commercial significance; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan Map of the Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain
valley floor lands located both within the Citv of Kent and in unincorporated King County for
agricultural use; and
WHEREAS, land use conversion pressures continue to bear upon agricultural Iv-designated
properties which have not had their development rights purchased and, applications for land use
conversion have continued to be submitted to King County government for the past several years;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has maintained an interest in the outcome of these deliberations
and has submitted comments and letters of support for the retention of agricultural lands to the King
County Executive and Metropolitan Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Kent does declare its continued
support for the preservation of designated agricultural lands within the City of Kent and its
unincorporated potential annexation area (PAA) as shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map
and, furthermore, encourages the County Executive and Metropolitan Council to consider this
position in its review of land use amendments which would threaten the continuation and viability
of these agricultural lands.
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
December 10, 1996
POSITION ON AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained the position statement written that was in the agenda
packet regarding the Council members stand on the preservation of agriculture lands. Mr.
Satterstrom identified existing policy statements in the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
Committee member Tim Clark questioned the City's process for acquiring agricultural lands.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the City of Kent does not have a program established to purchase
development rights.
Satterstrom stated that State law requires City's to have either a purchase of development rights
program (PDR) or a transfer of development rights program (TDR) if the City designates land for
long term agriculture use. The City has formally requested the County to reinstate the PDR program
so properties in the Kent valley will be eligible. The County responded that some money has been
set aside for purchase of property in the lower Green River valley. Purchase of property within the
City limits would not be eligible; however, the County has agreed to work with the City to establish
a TDR program.
Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and member Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to
research a purchasing development rights or transferring development rights programs. Committee
member Jon Johnson discussed his concern regarding lands in Kent's potential annexation area that
will never be farmed and he would like to have a policy established to address these issues as well.
Clark AMENDED and Johnson SECONDED the amendment to include consideration of a policy
that would establish compatible uses for lands designated for agricultural use which owners would
like development alternatives. Motion carried.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SAAR STREET VACATION - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. to
vacate a portion of Saar Street, east of Railroad Avenue, and
reserving a utility easement with related rights.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED -BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent. Washington,
relating to the vacation of streets, vacating a portion of Saar
Street, an existing public street, lying east of Railroad Avenue
in the City of Kent, but reserving a utility easement and other
related rights within the vacated portion of Saar Street.
WHEREAS. a petition was filed with the City of Kent by various owners of
property abutting the applicable portion of Saar Street, an existing public street. lying east
of Railroad Avenue in the City of Kent, King Countv, Washington. and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Director processed this petition and secured
technical facts pertinent to the question of this vacation along with a recommendation as to
approval or rejection by the Public Works Department: and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council fixed a time for a public hearing on this
petition and the hearing was held with proper notice on November 5. 1996. at 7:00 p.m. in
the Citv Council Chambers of the Kent City Hall: and
WHEREAS. the Public Works Department and Planning Director
recommended that the City Council approve the petition upon the petitioner's fulfillment of
the following conditions:
l. Only vacate the south 10 feet of the existing Saar Street right-of-way.
plus retain that portion thereof Iving on the street side of a 25 foot
radius tangent to the north property line of said southerly 10 feet and
I
the easterly right-of-way line for Railroad Avenue and the westerly
right-of-way of the alley.
2. The City shall retain utility easements over, upon and under the
property to be vacated along with rights to grant such utility
easements to other public and/or private utility companies.
3. The City shall be compensated in accordance with the City ordinance
which states that for a Class "B" right-of-way, compensation shall be
at one half the appraised value of the vacated portion of the street.
WHEREAS, after the public hearing on November 5. 1996, the City Council
approved the vacation so long as the petitioner first fulfilled all the conditions recommended
by staff and approved by Council: and
WHEREAS, the petitioner has now fulfilled all of the conditions imposed by
Council. and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the street sought to be vacated is: (1)
an open, dedicated street and presently being used as a street. (2) not abutting on a body of
water and therefore not suitable for acquisition for port purposes, boat moorage or launching
sites, park. viewpoint. recreational or education purposes, or other public use: and (3) a
vacation which is in the public interest: and
WHEREAS. the City Council has directed the preparation of an ordinance
vacating the portion of said street: NOW. THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The forgoing recitals and findings are incorporated as if fully
set forth herein.
SECTION 1. That portion of Saar Street lying east of Railroad Avenue in
the City of Kent as described in Exhibit A. which is attached and incorporated herein by this
reference, is hereby vacated subject to the retention of a utility easement over, upon and
under the property described in Exhibit A and subject to retention of the City s right to grant
utility easements to other public and/or private utility companies. Further. the use of the
word.. "utility," is intended to be expansive, not restrictive, and would, for example, include
such private operations as telecommunications, cable 'TV. data transmission and fiber optic
services, as well as electricity. electronic and natural gas utility services.
SECTION 3. No vested rights shall be affected by the provisions of this
ordinance.
SECTION4. If anyone or more sections. subsections, or sentences of this
Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid. such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 1997.
APPROVED the day of 11997.
PUBLISHED the day of 11997.
I herebv certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by
the City Council of the City of Kent. Washington. and approved by the Mayor of the City
of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
p:\ordinanc\stvac#12.pwk
That portion of Saar Street described as follows.
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 7 Block 1 in the Plat of Washington Central
Improvement Companys ist .-addition to Kent, Volume 3 Page 97 recorded in King
County Washington being the True Point of Beginning; thence on a curve to the right
in a northeasterly direction with a radius of 25.00 feet concave to the southeast an arc
distance of `'3.13 feet plus or minus to a point which lies 10.00 feet north of the north
line of said Lot 7; thence east parallel with said north line and parallel with the north line
of Lot 3 in said plat for a distance of 90.00 feet to a point on a curve; thence on a curve
to the right with a radius of 25.00 feet an arc distance of 23. 19 feet plus or minus to the
northeast comer of said Lot 3; thence west along said north line a distance of I20.00
plus or minus to the True Point of Beginning.
EXHIBIT
�BoZ.o�
�11
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CANYON CREST ESTATES - BILL OF SALE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, acceptance of the bill of sale for Canyon Crest
Estates submitted by Pans Development Corporation for
continuous operation and maintenance of 446 feet of sanitary
sewer line, 560 feet of street improvements, 1, 727 feet of
storm sewers and release of bonds after the expiration period.
This project is located at 100th Avenue South & S. 222nd
Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
m ¢ w n 247H
0'!
d 0
w h 2po TH st 1� o� W Zoe rLw SE 208TH ST �—
P'ii•___ n N W C t
PL o '¢m SE 210TH
M -• �`� m o PL S 211TH ST q10 0
r t > _ o �o
¢ y 2II
S 212TH ST t }" r 4� ^ �y •t r SE 2l TH v SE 212TH $T PL l l PL
t m SE 212T
00 m w m r m
35TN pL9 213`' c�j�l '^ 1 rn i SE 213TH 9c�Ot�
f 213 PL Ci H as CT 213 2
-- -- 213 FL 213TH SE 213TH PL ST 9�,
W 2 W to
214 P w T wTy 09 c s 214 PL �1"3.L
W
aJ. N rn 216TH T
7 m $E 216TH ST e'
T y '�L1".. sF
ST
CD
216
'1 •:�p o __.__/ ST w of SE 218TM
s
/ J
S 218TH SI 216TH 9T ? ¢ 1�� SE 219T s TX PL
l S J
\� r o - SE zlfiTn
r
1 .. 2
1 0
�+ r SE 220TH ST w 219TH
l T 222 PL >
I ¢ '� •••,,1 i�
o "" c •,\3'-y SE x 220T
OI U•�• p J W • � -� r
Gam'' 22 D $T a m ad u
222N0 ST T-� _ ^222N0 ST w - _ SE 221
c a
3 222N0 $T / Q,1._ i` �----�J F 2 N SE
N
1 SE 224TH ST o \
t f 23to PL
PROJECT LOCATION ���• 224 PL' ._
-p l` 0 224 PLC
N 9�,• 225 % SE SS ST-
�y 1 SE 225TH PL
> 225 ¢
¢ ¢ m d
226TH ST
SE 227TN o o •,
S 226TH "02 7T P
9 22TH ST 226'CT 2r2TH ST SE 228TH ST SE 2261H w
.\I t io v W ?23Th OB 2 ST F
•;Z 229
�•1 m G �� Q�' n 230 ST ..
pb~a It
SE 231 S7 230 PL N T
•�; _ 0 232X0 ST 01 32ND ST `o
0 5 232N0 ` SE 232 ST - 232N0
1C LN j / SE 232NO PL
f /k a W G
1_-• CT `I z 233 Pl. ¢p y
O 3 !
m e o J o
m 1 4 n w x t� 1� ST 5�n
S V W
1 9 SE 236TH ST ty
0
SE 236TH PL 2366 M
2371H 3T
> W
NMI) ON NRT P944•rpl, 237TH i r^ o SE 236TH STPL
I
;FORGE �f u ¢ i c o3 236TH = SE z 239TM ST �' ,s. J 2.
�VIEW CT 2 m c
W
f =) J S 240TH ST= S 239TM PL PL
I o
w ¢ $ 2LL13T 5T
0
r J ¢ S 2Y2ND ST
'IONEER ST u ¢ ,cue F i r $ 242N0'[Tc CANYON CREST ESTATES
d s m
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 , 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: STILLWATER SHADOWS FINAL PLAT FSU-96-23
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider
the Stillwater Shadows Final Plat. The plat is located at
132nd Avenue SE and SE 261st Street and is 4 .89 acres in
size. The preliminary plat was approved by King County (File
No. L94P0019) and came under Kent' s jurisdiction upon
annexation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; map; Office of the Hearing Examiner,
King County (Land Use and Services Division File No. L94P0019) ;
and King County Ordinance No. 12059
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember l,< .,_,u: r seconds
to approve Stillwater Shadows Final Plat (King County Ordinance
No. 12059 and File No. L94P0019) and to authorize the Mayor to
sign the final plat mylar, as recommended by staff.
DISCUSSION:
i
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
CITY OfrS�,J
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
January 7, 1997
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM HARRIS. PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: STILLWATER SHADOWS FINAL PLAT (FSU-96-23)
On December 11, 1995, the King County Council approved the Stillwater Shadows
Preliminary Subdivision (Land Use and Services Division File No. L94P0019), a 21-lot single
family residential plat. The plat is located at 132nd Avenue SE and SE 261st Street. Now
that the plat is located in Kent, it requires final plat approval by the Kent City Council.
Consequently, an application for final plat approval was filed by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. on
September 17, 1996.
Pursuant to Section 12.04.400 of the Kent Subdivision Code, a meeting of City staff was held
on June 27, 1996 to review the Stillwater Shadows final plat.. At this meeting it was the
decision of City staff that the proposed final plat was consistent with the requirements of the
Kent City Code (Subdivision Code) Section 12.04.400 (A) (1) and (2) relative to overall
density of the subdivision and the provision of adequate subdivision improvements.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Stillwater Shadows final plat No. FSU-96-23
according to the conditions referenced in the Land Use and Services Division File No.
L94P0019 and King County Ordinance No. 12059.
JPH/mp:c:fsu9623 fp.cc
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
^u aih AVf°. 0 KiN'T N:A1111](1TOv"+ W]-ixv< : TFLPPHO NI ]unti. .:,nn F4XaY5u-tn;1
I
p ,3lly pu7l'l o
T w
ui
.r w
to UJ V) = i
z
� m
U
cc
z �t CC
N z �L;I
4
c
NQ: -`77 \ z
V �
LL
z \ D
Q OOC z
� V
„o q
i'
4 J zz
Y _ -
; _..! w t m
� a
w
P ' e
e N
T
j0 t 133N5 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ANI) ENVIRONTIENTAL SERVICES
LAND USE SERVICES DIVISION
KING COUNTY, R'ASIUNGTON
PRELIAIINARY REPORT TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
NOVEMBER 9, 1995 - PUBLIC IIEARING AT 9:15 A.M. IN ROOM #1
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOWS FILE NO. L94POO19
PROPOSED
ORDINANCE NO. 95-671
A. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
This is a request for a subdivision of 4 .89 acres into 23 lots for
the development of detached, single-family residences. The pro-
posed lot sizes range from approximately 5, o00 to 8, 50o square
feet. See Attachment 1 for a copy of the proposed plat layout.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Developer/owner: Finkbeiner Development.
12011 Bel-Red Road, f 06
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone: 454-7777
Surveyor/Engineer: Baima & Hclmberq
100 Front Street South,
Issaquah, WA 9S027
Phone: 392-0250
STR: 2S-22-5
Location: Parcel is located cn west margin of 132nd
Avenue SE, apprex: r,atc'_y between SE 261st Place
and SE 262nd Place.
Zoning: SR 7200-P
Acreage: 4 .89 6
Number of Lots: 23
- 5000
Typical Lot Size: Ranges from approximate],,, 4r5A1) square feet to
10-0J4 square feet
g Soo
Proposed Use: Sinale-family detaches:
Sewaae Disposal: Cite of Pent.
Water Supply: Water District. I'll'_
Fire District: pine County Fire Dist:_:c:_ 137
School District: J:er.t School
Application Date: December 21 , 1494
C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND:
The Subdivision Technical Committee cf }:inu County has conducted an
on-site examination of the subject. -overt The Committee has
also discussed the proposed developren: with the applicant to
clarify technical details of the ap;licatcr., and to determine the
compatibility of this project with applic.,hle Ring County plans,
codes and other official controls roaulatinu this development.
As a result of preliminary discussi^ns: th.,• applicant presented the
Technical Committee with a revised plat cn e2tober 9 1995. The
primary modifications tc the erigin�] . :cosal include the
following:
Provision of a road stub to the kept bcundary of the site to
serve adjacent property.
Provision of a temporary turnaround on 129th Avenue S ` h' F n
CITY OF;(ENT
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
Placement of the right-of-way for the turnaround bulb for the
road on the eastern portion of the site (hereafter referred to
as SE 261st Place) entirely on the subject property_
Provision of a tract at the southwest corner of the site for
stormwater control facilities.
Following the submittal of the proposed plat application in
December, 1994 , the area within which the subject property is
located was approved for annexation to the City of Kent. This
annexation takes effect on January 1, The applicant has
elected to have the County continue its101hiew of the subject plat
application in the interim.
D. THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , RCW 43 .21C,
the responsible official of the king County Environmental Division
issued a threshold determination of non-significance (DNS) for the
proposed development on September 12 , 1995. This determination is
based on the review of the environmental checklist and other perti-
nent documents, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would
not cause probable significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required
prior to proceeding Pith the review process.
Agencies, affected Native .American tr_Ues, and the public were
offered the opportunity to comment on or appoLd the determination
during a fifteen day appeal period. 110 appualS of the
determination were filed.
E. AGENCIES CONTACTED:
1. King County Natural Resources & Parks Division: No response.
2 . King County Planning & Community Development Division: No
response.
3 . King County Fire Protection Engineer: See Attachment 2.
4 . Seattle-King County Health Department: See Attachment 3 .
5. Kent School District c415: No respensu.
6. City of Kent Public Works Department: See Attachment 4 .
7. Water District No. ill : See Attachmen"_s 5 and 6.
6. City of Kent Planning Department. Nc response.
9 . City of Auburn Planning Department: N. response.
10. Washington State Department of Ecology. No response.
11. Washington State Department of Fisheries: No response.
12 . Washington State Department of Natural resources: No
response.
13 . Washington State Department of Wildlife: No response.
14 . Washington State Department of Transportation: No response.
15. King County Conservation District : No response.
16. METRO: NC _esponse.
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
F. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1. Topography: The subject property has gentle to moderate
slopes, declining in elevation generally to the west and
southwest.
With regard to the western portion of the site, the
topographic contours shown on the plat map submitted by the
applicant indicate that the slopes which are present at the
southwest corner of the property have a maximum grade of
20 percent. The map also shows a grade change of approxi-
mately 20 feet between the east and west ends of proposed
Road A. Based on a field reconnaissance, Land Use Services
Division (LUSD) staff believe the slcpes at the southwest
corner are actually less than 15 percent, and the grade change
along Road A is approximately 12 to 14 feet.
2 . Soils: Two surface soils are present on this site, per the
King County Soil Survey, 1973 .
AqB - Alderwcod gravely, sandy loam; 0-6° slopes. Runoff is
slow and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil type has a
moderate limitation for low building foundations due to a
seasonally high water table, and severe limitations for septic
tanl: filter fields due to very slcw permeability in the
substratum.
AqC - Alderwood gravely, sandy loam; 6-15o slopes. Runoff is
slow to medium and the hazard c' erosion is moderate. This
soil has a mod-rate limitation `.c- foundations, due to a
seasonally high grater table and slope. It has a severe limi-
tation for septic tanl; filter fields due to very slow permea-
bility in the substratum.
3. Hydrography: The subject property Les within the Sees Creel:
sub-basin of the Green River drainage basin.
An evaluation of the site was prepared by the applicant's
consultant, B-twelve Associates, Inc , to determine if any
wetlands are present on the subject property. The study
concluded there is a Class 3 wetland located at approximately
the center of the site, and the stud,. described the wetland as
follows:
This wetland contains both emergent and scrub-shrub plant
communities and is 10, 649 squar, feet (0. 24 acres) in
size.
The emergent plant communi', 7a➢.es up most of the wetland
and forms a band around a central island of scrub-shrub
vecetation. Common c2ttail. (Typha 'ati.olia) dominates
the emergent plant community .
The scrub-shrub plant community consists of a small patch
of 15-_foot willows (Salix spc. ) with a single, small
western red cedar (Thuja plicat -) found within the
willows-
. . .Soils alena the edge cf tic- i.etland were saturated to
the surface. The majority of the wetland was inundated
with up to 1 foot of water .
Jon Hansen, a senior ecologist on thr, LUSD staff, has reviewed
the above-noted ,wetland study and has visited the site.
Mr. Hansen concurs, the delineation of the wetland boun-
dary (see Attachment 1 ) and the Class, 3 designation for the
wetland.
RFCFIVED
J O N Z r 1995
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
4 . Vegetation: This site is primarily covered with pasture
grasses, vines and shrubs. Scattered trees exist on the
property and are predominantly evergreens, with some deciduous
trees present.
5. Wildlife: It is expected that small birds and animals inhabit
the site. Larger species may visit it on occasion, however no
endangered species are known to exist on or near the property.
The wetland study referenced above indicated that "[w]aterfowl
occasionally utilize the wetland. . . "
6. Mapped Sensitive Areas: The Sensitive Areas Map Folio shows
the wetland described above as being present on the subject
property, and identifies this wetland as Socs Creek No. 35b.
The Folio does not identify any other hazard areas on the
site.
G. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The subject property lies in an area to the west of Lake Meridian.
This area has been undergoing a transition from rural to suburban
residential development. A. substantial portion of the area is
currently developed with single-family residential subdivisions.
v
To the south of the site is the developed plat of Stillwater
Greens, which contains 77 lots. The lots in Stillwater Greens are
comparable in size to vhcse in the subject plat.
West and southwest of the site are parcels being developed with
two, recently approved, single-family subdivisions: Roses Meadow
and Stillwaters Division '_ . Roses Meadow contains 29 lots and
Stillwaters Division 2 contains 6 lets. The lots in these plats
are also comparable in size to those in the subject proposal.
North of the subject property are 6 lots which were created by two
short subdivisions (SP 1179053 and SP 386053) . SP 1179053 contains
2 lots, 1 approximately 15, 000 square feet in size and the other
approximately 18, 000 square feet. SP 386053 contains 4 lots,
ranging in size from 38, 312 to 50, 368 square feet. These 6 lots
are developed with single-family residences.
East of the subject property is 132nd Avenue SE, an arterial
street, beyond which lies a 2 . 55-acre parcel , and a 7 . 33-acre
parcel, and the developed single-family plat cf Lake Front Estates
(20 lots) .
The subject property itself is developed with a single-family
residence and various outbuildings, all of which are located on the
eastern portion of the subject property .
H. SUBDIVISION DESIGN FEATURES:
i . Lot Pattern and Density: The applicant is relying on provi-
sions in ECC 21. 20. O50D and 21 . 08. 680 to meet the minimum lot
size requirements of the SR 7200 :one. These sections of the
Code allow for the use of lot averaging, lot clustering, and
applying area from road right-of-way established by the plat
to meet the density requirements of the zone. Preliminary
calculations indicate the proposed design is in accord with
the density and lot width requirements of the SR 7200 zone,
with the exception of Lot 14 . This lot appears to fall short
Of the 60-foot lot width requirement.
The proposed subdi•:ision also confcrm•s with the density
provisions of YCC 21. 54 . 080 concerning ncnsitive areas.
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
2. Internal Circulation: The roads within the proposed plat will
serve as local access streets.
As noted previously, Road A has been stubbed to the west
boundary of the site to serve future development on adjacent
property.
3. Roadway Section: Streets within the subject plat will be
improved to the urban standard (curbs, gutters and sidewalks) .
4 . Other Design Features: Currently, a private road adjoins the
north boundary of the site, which provides access to fwo f
the six, short plat lots lying immediately north of the sub-
ject property. This situation was reviewed by the Department
of Public Works, relative to the intersection spacing require-
ments of the king County Road Standards (Section 2. 10B) , as
applied to 132nd Avenue SE along the east boundary of the
site.
Public Works concluded no conflict with the Road Standards
would result from the development of SE 261st Place as a half-
street within the subject plat. Public Works expects that
with the development of a 20-foot-,:ide driving surface on
SE 261st Place (the half-street standard) , and fog line
striping delineating the new roadway, especially at 132nd
Avenue, traffic currently using the private road will use
SE 261st Place in the future, following development of the
subject plat.
I. TRANSPORTATION PLANS:
1. Transportation Plans: The King Count-% Transportation Plan
indicates that 132nd Avenue SE, alone ?.he cast boundary of the
site, is designated as a principal arterial . The Non-
Motorized Transportation Plan shoes bi -yc�e lanes to be
developed on 132nd Avenue.
The Regional Trails Plan does not show any trails to be
developed on or adjacent to the subject property.
2. Subdivision Access: Access to the proposed plat will be
Provided by 132nd Avenue SE and 129th ?.venue Southeast.
One-Hundred-Thirty-Second Avenue, in the vicinity of the site,
is developed with' a 22-foot-wide, asphalt driving surface and
open-ditch drainage controls. A 2-fco_-wide, asphalt paved
shoulder exists along the east side cf the roadway, and a a-
foot-wide, asphalt paved shoulder e>:is' -, ilo
of the roadway, n9 the west side
One-Hundred-Twenty-Ninth Avenue ct:rrent '_,' intersects the south
boundary of the subject property, on the western portion of
the site. This street in the adjcininO slat Of Stillwater
Greens to the south is developed with a '6-root-wide, asphalt
driving surface; concrete, rolled curbing; and sidewalks.
3 . Traffic Generation: It is expected t}ta' aporox.imately
230 vehicle trips per day will be generated with full devel-
opment of the proposed subdivision. This calculation includes
service vehicles (i.e. , mail deliver%', garbage pick-up, school
bus) which currently serve this neighborhood, work trips,
shopping, etc.
4 . Adequacy of Arterial Roads: This propo•-.al has been reviewed
under the criteria in King County code :'1 . 40 (Adequacy of
Existing Roadways and Intersections) and King County_Code ._
27. 40 (Road !:itigationand -Payment Sys`'-'
` RECEIVED
i 1996
ai , fP KrMT
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
a. King County Code 21.49: The peak-hour traffic generated
by this subdivision falls below the threshold requiring
mitigation (ten peak-hour, peak-direction trips) for any
substandard roadways which may be affected by this
development.
b. King County Code 27.40: King County Code 27.40, Mitiga-
tion Payment System (MPS) , requires the payment of a
traffic impact mitigation fee (MPS fee) and an admini-
stration fee for each single family residential lot or
unit created. MPS fees are determined by the zone or
zones in which a site is located.
The subject property is located in Zone 362, per the MPS
Zone Map. The MPS Zone/Quartersection List currently
requires a payment of $1, 837. 00 per dwelling unit for
Zone 362. MPS fees may be paid at the time of final plat
recording, or deferred until building permits are issued.
The amount of the fee, however, will be determined by the
applicable fee ordinance at the time the fee is
collected.
J. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Schools: This proposal has been revio',✓ed under RCW 55 . 17 . 110
and King County Ordinance 10162 (School Adequacy) .
a. School Facilities: The subject •Lubdivision will be
served by Meridian Elementary, 11:,ttson Junior High, and
Kentwood Senior High, all locates .:,ithin the Kent School
District.
b. School Capacity: Pursuant to the requirements of King
Countv Ordinance 10162, the Ken:. School Board has adopted
capacity figures, which are the basis for determining the
District's ability to accommodate additional students.
(These figures are provided in Attachment 7) . The
figures indicate the District has adequate capacity to
accommodate the students anticipated to be generated by
this proposal.
C. School Impact Fees: Ordinance 11569 currently requires
that an impact fee of $3, 381. 00 };cr lot be imposed to
fund school system improvements t-o serve new development
within this district. Payment o7 50% of the school
impact fee in effect when this plat is ready to receive
final approval will be required is a condition of record-
ing of the plat, pursuant to the ;;:,rcvisions of Ordi-
nance 10162 , Section 16C.
d. School Access: The District has indicated that future
students from this subdivision will be bussed to the
above-noted schools (Gwenn Esche: , 9/5/95 phone
conversation) .
2. Parks- and Open Space: The nearest county par}: to the site is
Lake Meridian Park, located approximatcly 1'_ miles southeast
of the subject property.
KCC 19 . 38 requires subdivisions of 10 acres or larger in this
zone classification to either provide on-site common_Open_.
- -- - -
a fee to the
space for a neighborhood par};, or to payParks
Division for establishment and maintenance of parks. Since
the subject property is less than ter acres in size, compli-
an�e with }:CC 19.36.is not ,required. --
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
3. Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability from
Water District Ill indicates that water is presently available
to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy the King County
Fire Flow Standards. Prior to final recording of the plat,
the water service facilities needed to serve the subdivision
must be reviewed for consistency with the Fire Flow Standards,
and approved by the King County Fire Protection Engineer.
K. UTILITIES:
1. Sewage Disposal: The applicant proposes to serve the subject
subdivision by means of a public sewer system managed by the
City of Kent. A Certificate of Sewer Availability, dated
December 14 , 1994 , indicates the City's capability to serve
the proposed development (see Attachment 4) .
The Health Department has recommended preliminary approval of
the proposed method of sewage disposal (see Attachment 3) , and
LUSD concurs with this recommendation.
2. Water Supply: The applicant proposes to serve the subject
subdivision with a public water supply and distribution system
managed by Water District 111. A Certificate of Water Avail-
ability, dated December 14, 1994 , indicates the District's
capability to serve the proposed development (see Attachment
5) .
The Health Department has recommended preliminary approval of
the proposed method of water supply, and LUSD concurs with
this recommendation.
L. COMPREHENSIVE AND COMMUNITY PLAN:
1. Comprehensive Plan: This proposal is governed by the 1985
King County Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area in
the vicinity of the site as Urban. The proposed subdivision
is not in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Community Plans: The subject subdivision is located in the
Soos Creel: Community Planning Area. The Soos Creel: Plan Land
Use Map designates the site "Single Family 1 - 8 units per
acre. " The proposed subdivision is in accord with this land
use designation, and the policies contained in the Soos Creek
Community Plan.
M. STATUTES/CODES:
The following County codes are relevant to the proposed
subdivision:
King County Road Standards
1.02 Applicability: These standards shall apply prospectively
to all newly constructed road and right-of-way facilities,
both public and private, within King County. . .
The Standards apply to modifications of roadway features of
existing facilities which are within the scope of re-
constructions, required off-site road improvements for land
development, or capital improvement projects when so required
by King County or to the extent they are expressly referred to
_ _-._in_project plans and specifications. . . ---
RECEIVED
.I'14 2 ! 1996
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DE ARTMFNT
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
1.03 Responsibility to Provide Roadway Improvements:
. . .B. Any land development abutting and impacting existing
roads shall improve the frontage of those roads in accordance
with these Standards. The extent of improvements shall be
based on an assessment of the impacts of the proposed land
development by the Reviewing Agency. . .
C. Any land development that contains internal roads shall
construct or improve those roadways to these Standards.
2.08 Cul-de-sacs and Eyebrows:
. . .D. If a street temporarily terminated at a property
boundary serves more than six lots or is longer than 150 feet,
a temporary bulb shall be constructed near the plat boundary.
The paved bulb shall be 80 feet in diameter with sidewalks
terminated at the point where the bulb radius begins. Removal
of the temporary cul-de-sac and extension of the sidewalk
shall be the responsibility of the developer who extends the
road. See Drawing No. 1-008.
3-01 Driveways:
A. Dimensions, slope, and detail shall be as indicated in
Drawing Nos. 2-001, 3-003, 3-004 , 3-005, and 3-006, as
further specified in the following subsections. . .
C. Location and width of New Driveways. Refer to Drawing
No. 3-006.
. . .3. No portion of driveway width shall be allowed within
5 feet of side property lines in residential areas. . .
N. ANALYSIS:
The Subdivision Technical Committee has identified the following
issues involved in the preliminary review of this proposal.
Road A Improvements
The applicant has indicated the nature and extent of the road
improvements proposed for Road A on the plat map his engineer
submitted. These improvements include providing a paved roadway
for Road A from the centerline of 129th Avenue SE to a point
150 feet west of the centerline (see Attachment 1) . While the
right-cf-way for Road A extends to the west boundary of the plat,
no road improvements are proposed beyond the 150-foot distance, nor
is the construction of a temporary turnaround bulb planned for
Road A.
The above-described improvements for Road A do not conform with the
requirements of the King County Road Standards. Section 1.02 of
the Standards states, "These Standards shall apply prospectively to
all newly constructed road and right-of-way facilities, both public
and private. . . " Section 1. 03C states, "Any land development that
contains internal roads shall construct or improve those roadways
_these.Standards."-- Based on -these provisions of -the Road Stan- ---
dards, Road A must be improved as a minor access street from 129th
Avenue to the west boundary of the site, unless a variance from the
Standards is sought _from the County Road En,,;neer, and granted. In
"addition; since Section 2 . 08D of the Standards requires the place-
men'. of a temporary turnaround bulb at or near the terminus of
_-Road .A. in-the subject plat, a temporary turnaround must also be -
provided unless a variance is granted.
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
Access to Lots 14 and 15
With the current design proposed for Lots 14 and 15, vehicular
access to these lots will be from a future road in Tract C, across
a portion of each lot which is 13 feet in width. This 13-foot
dimension, however, conflicts with the King County Road Standards,
and must be widened to a minimum of 20 feet for the following
reasons.
King County Road Standards Drawing 3-006 stipulates that residen-
tial driveways must be a minimum of 10 feet in width. Section
3.01C3 of the Standards indicates that residential driveways must
be located at least five feet from adjoining property lines.
Consequently, if a minimum 10-foot-wide driveway is provided for
each of Lots 14 and 15, and the driveways are placed 5 feet from
the adjacent property lines, a minimum 20-foot-wide lot dimension
is required where a driveway enters each lot. Thus, a revision of
Lots 14 and 15 is required.
O. CONCLUSIONS:
The subject subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives
of the King County Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the
subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land use controls
of King County, if the conditions recommended below are
implemented.
P. RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the subject subdivision, revised and
received October 9, 1995, be granted preliminary approval subject
to the following conditions of final approval:
vV_-1. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the
King County Code.
Lk
oq,2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject
property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication
which includes the lanquaae set forth in King County Council
Motion No. 5952 .
U\�_ 3. The area and dimensions of all lots shall meet the minimum
requirements of the SR 7200 zone classification or shall be as
shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever
is larger. In particular, documentation shall be submitted
which demonstrates Lot 14 complies t,ith the lot width require-
ments of the SR 7200 zone. Minor revisions to the plat which
do not result in substantial chances may be approved at the
discretion of the Land Use Services Division.
L 4 . The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County
Health Department.
E� 5. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads
shall be done in accordance with the King County Road
Standards, established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11167.
�L 6. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire
Protection Engineer and demonstrate compliance with the fire
hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.06
of the King County Code.
7. Final plat approval shall require full compliance-.with the --
drainage provisions set forth in King County Code 9.04 , and
the storm drainage requirements and guidelines as established
- by the Surface Water Management Division. Compliance may
- result in reducing the number and/or location"of`lots as shown
on the preliminary approved plat. Tho following conditRfW EI V E D
represent portions cf the Code and apply to all plats.
.J(!N 2 7 1996
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FIL£ NO. L94P0019
a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1994
Revised King County .Surface Water Design Manual. LUSD
approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required
prior to any construction.
b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established
by LUSD Engineering Review, shall be shown on the
engineering plans. .
C. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded
plat:
"All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from
all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways
shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as
shown on the approved construction drawings #
on file with LUSD and/or the Department of Public Works.
This plan shall be submitted with the application of any
building permit. All connections of the drains must be
constructed and approved prior to the final building
inspection approval. For those lots that are designated
for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems
shall be constructed at the time of the building permit
and shall comply with the plans on file. "
n
8. The following conditions specifically address drainage issues
for this particular plat:
a. The stormwater retention/detention (R/D) facility shall
meet the requirements of the 1990 },ing county Surface
Water Design Manual, including the November, 1992 and
November, 1994 updates.
b. Stormwater detention shall be computed using an SCS-based
hydrograph method .(or other method as approved by King
County LUSD) . The performance of the proposed facility
shall meet the release rate of 700 of the pre-developed
2-year/24-hour design storm event up to and including the
100-year/24-hour design storm event. (Note, this deten-
tion release rate requirement appears in the Soos Creek
Basin Plan, for the Socsette sub-basin. )
C. Variance L95V0095 was submitted by the applicant and
approved by King County. This variance allows a diver-
sion of site drainage for th,.- .subject plat, and the dis-
charge of that drainage at t southwest corner of the
site. Demonstration of comp..ance with the variance
conditions is required as part of the submittal of the
engineering plans for the plat.
Either off-site or on-site detention and water quality
treatment is allowed, per the above-noted variance. A
"Memorandum of Agreement, " dated September 11, 1995, has
?,{ "1" been executed between Finkbeiner Development and Lake-
ridge Development, which .provides for off-site detention-- --- --
Y �� and water quality treatment facilities for this plat.
The off-site facility, if -constructed, shall be placed on
Tract G of the Plat of Roses Meacow.
� d. If Tract E on the subject plat v: not utilized for
( stormwater control facilities, tl.is tract shall be merged
with Lot 22 . __ ---.- --- - -- _-
e. The 100-year floodplain of the or.-site wetland in Tract A
shall be delineated on the finalengineering plans and -
.-recorded' plat, per Special Requirement r8 of the surface
Water Design Manual.
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILL14ATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
f. Modification to the above drainage conditions may be
considered by King County, pursuant to the variance
procedures in the Surface Water Design Manual.
9. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included
within a franchise approved by the Metropolitan King County
Council, prior to final plat recording.
10. The following conditions specify the required road
improvements for the subject plat:
a. SE 261st Place shall be improved as an urban, subaccess
half-street. The right-of-way width of the half-street
} shall equal at least 30 feet, per Section 2. 07 of the
O , /) U) King County Road Standards (KCRS) .
This condition does not preclude the applicant from
constructing SE 261st Place to the urban, full-width,
sub-access street standard, in lieu of a half-street,
provided adequate right-of-way can be acquired consistent
with th'e Road Standards.
If a half-street is built, as opposed to a full-width
road, a striping plan shall be submitted as part of the
engineering plans for the subject plat. The striping
plan shall address the construction of SE 261st Place,
including the demarcation of SE 261st Place from Tract X
in SP 386053 .
;S,ib. One-Hundred-Twenty-Ninth Avenue Southeast shall be
0 ' improved as an urban subcollector, with the exception of
the driving surface which shall be 36 feet in width.
r1V
The frontage of the property along the west margin of
A '7 132nd Avenue SE shall be improved as a principal arter-
ial. This improvement shall includd1 sufficient paving
for a bike lane along the west .side of the roadway.
1
d. Road A shall be improved as an urban minor access road
from 129th Avenue SE to the west boundary of the subject
11 ,? plat. A temporary turnaround bulb shall also be provided
on Road A, consistent with KCRS 2 .08D.
�l e. Tracts B and C shall be improved as urban minor access
roads.
f. Modifications to the above road conditions may be
considered by King County, pursuant to the variance
procedures in KCRS 1 . 08.
11. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King
County Code 27 . 40, Ying County Road Mitigation Payment System
kV (MPS) , by paying the required MPS fe, as determined by King
(o County Public Works, plus an administration fee. The appli-
1,�o t�G( cant has an option to either: 1) pa,. the MPS fee and MPS
administration_fee_at_finaI .plat app) icati-on, or 2-
AfPS the fee and TIPS administration fee time of building
permit application. If the first on ion is chosen, a note
shall be placed on the face of the tlat that reads, "All fees
required by King County Code 27 . 40, King County Road Mitiga-
tion Payment System (MPS) , have been paid. " If the second
option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect
as-of the date of building permit application. —
12 . Lots within this subdivision are sub-;ec. to King County .
-- - ---- - Ordinance 10162 and Ordinance 21569 which ' imposed -impact fees -
" tc fund'school"system improvements needed to"serve-ne u�i
opment. As a condition of final approval , fifty percpng,4 )
-- of the impact fees due for the plat hall beassessed- an� 1 1996
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
collected immediately prior to recording, using the fee sched-
ules in effect when the plat receives final approval. The
balance of the assessed fee shall be- allocated evenly to the
dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to
building permit issuance. A note to this effect shall be
placed on the final plat.
13. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 132nd
Avenue SE from Lot 1. A note to this effect shall appear on
the final plat and engineering plans.
14 . Twenty feet of additional right-of-way for 132nd Avenue SE
�` shall be dedicated to King County along the east property line
of the site, allowing for 50 feet of right-of-way from
centerline.
�' 15. Right-of-way within the subject plat shall be dedicated to
King County for SE 261st Place, 129th Avenue SE, Road A, Tract
B, and Tract C, consistent with the King County Road
Standards'.
16. A planter island, if provided within the SE 261st Place cul-
de-sac, shall be maintained by the abutting lot owners. This
shall be stated on the face of the final plat.
n
17. The Class 3 wetland located within Tract A shall have a
minimum buffer of 25 feet of undisturbed native vegetation.
16. A minimum building setback line of 15 'eet shall be provided
from the edge of the wetland buffer.
19. The wetland and its buffer shall be placed in a Sensitive Area
Tract (SAT) .
20. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering
plan and recorded plat:
RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE
'AREA SETBACK AREAS
Dedication of a Sensitive Area Tract/Sensitive Area Setback
Area conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land
within the tract/setback area. This interest includes the
preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that
benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including
control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope
stability, visual and aural buffering, and protection of plant
and animal habitat. The Sensitive Area Tract/Sensitive Area
Setback Area imposes--upon-all present and future owners and
occupiers of the land subject to the tract/setback area the
obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King
County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation
within the easement. The vegetation within the tract/setback
area may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or
..damaged without-approval. in writing from the King County Land --- ---
Use Services Division or it successor ,igency, unless otherwise
provided by law.
The common boundary between the tract/setback area and the
area of development activity must be marked or otherwise
flagged to the satisfaction of King County prior to any
--"'---- - -clearing, grading building construction or other development
activity on a lot subject to the Sensitive Area Tract/
Sensitive Area Setbacl: "Area. The.required marking or flagging
shall remain in place until all development proposal activi-
ties in the vicinity of the sensitive ,irea are completed.
No"building foundations are' allowed be,,
cnd the required
buiIdi-,q setbacl; " ne t:nlc_". c ther r." h. -
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94P0019
21. Prior to final plat recording, the owner of the subject
property shall submit proof that a Notice on Title has been
filed for record with the Records and Elections Division, to
run with the land. The-Notice shall be approved-by LUSD and
inform the public of the presence of a sensitive area or
buffer, and that limitations on actions in or affecting such
areas or buffers may exist.
22. Prior to commencing construction activities adjacent to the
SAT, the applicant shall mark the sensitive areas in a highly
visible manner, and these areas must remain so marked until
all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the
sensitive area are completed.
23. Prior to commencing construction activities on the site,
permanent survey stakes using iron or cement markers as
established by current survey standards shall be set
delineating the boundary between adjoining property and the
SAT.
24 . Prior to final approval of construction activities on the
site, the boundary between the SAT and the adjacent land shall
be fenced and identified using signs. Fencing details and
sign specifications must be shown on the approved engineering
plans.
25. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall
be established to the satisfaction of LUSD which provides for
the ownership and continued maintenance of the SAT.
26.� The subject plat shall be modified so that the lots served by
Tract C, and in particular Lot_ 14 and 15, have access from
Tract C across an area which is at least 20 feet in width_
This modification will allow for the development of a 10-foot-
wide driveway across each lot, and the DI cement of the drive-
way at least 5 feet from adjoining lot. lies.
27. The clearing of lots in the proposed subdivision, which occurs
at the time of clearing for the development of roads and storm
drainage facilities, shall be consistent with "P" Suffix Con-
dition IB on page 148 of the Soos Creek Area Zoning_ Build-
ing envelopes shall be shown on the engineering plans, if
required by Condition IB.
28. Seasonal clearing restrictions apply to the subject plat, as
stated in "P" Suffix Condition IC of the Seos Creek Area
Zoning (pp. 149 - 150) . A note to t'ii5 effect shall appear on
the final plat and engineerinq plan.
29. Street trees shall be provided along the frontage of the
property on 132nd Avenue SE, and alone the streets within the
plat, Consistent with "P" Suffi): Condition IIA of the Sees
Creel: Area Zoning (p. 152) . A �;treef. tree plan shall be
submitted to LUSD for review and approval with the engineering
plans, and bonding shall be provided to assure the installa-
tion and one year's maintenance of the street trees. . The
amount of the bond shall be determined by LUSD.
30. The existing outbuildings located on the site shall be
removed. If the existing residence on the site is retained,
documentation shall be provided which, verifies that the
residence and paved areas meet required zoning and drn}yeyzi V F D
setbacks of the SR 7200 zone and the King County Roa C l
Standards. J Ui! Z i
Q. OTHER CCNSIDERATI0TIS: QU OF.,KEN1..
-- .. ...PLANNING DEPARTMrty
1. The subdivision shall conform to !:CC 1G. c2 relating to grading
.on private property. -- - - - -
i
PROPOSED PLAT OF STILLWATER SHADOW
FILE NO. L94POO19
2. Development of the subject property may require registration
with the Washington State Department of Licensing, Real Estate
Division.
3 . Preliminary approval of this application does not limit the
applicant's responsibility to obtain any required permit or
license from the State or other regulatory body. This may
include obtaining a forest practice permit from the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources for tree removal.
MC:LH:lm
TRANSMITTED TO PARTIES LISTED HEREAFTER:
King County Conservation District
Steven C. Townsend, P.E. , Supervising Engineer, Land Use Inspection
Section
Finkbeiner Development
12011 Bel-Red Road, ,f206, Bellevue, WA 98005
Baima & Holmberg
100 Front Street South, Issaquah, WA 98027
David W. Casey
Lakeridge Development, Inc. , P.O. Box 146, Renton, WA 98057
John L. Scott
P.O. Box 97015, Bellevue, WA 98009-9715
New Construction Services
17233 - 140th Avenue SE, ;'5, Renton, P:1. 98058
_
I
, •I
r -
\ c
c
CFI
_- -- - ATTA M E.NT
RECEIVED
CITY OF KENT -
rI_nP4Nlftr [JFRARW Pd7
1" �* CONDITIONS OF PERN,IT/APPROVAL ** DATE: 02/11/95
b�I�G COUNT)' FACE: I
f:jIr.KfJ ok"RIt04P0019 TYPE: PRE-PLAT
Lor-a�lon: 26300 132ND SE KC
FIRE CONDITIONS
F800 - Preliminary Fire Engineering approval has been granted based
upon the following information provided.
To obtain final Fire Engineering approval the following
item(s) must be submitted, reviewed and approved:
I. Certificate of Water Availability. (Provided by approp-
riate water purveyor) . Valid one year from date of
signature. Minimum acceptance flow shall be 1000 gal -
lon_: per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual .
11 . Three copies; of plans indicating:
A. 1'ire hydrant(s) location - measured by vehicular
travel distance. (K.C. Ordinance No. 5828 ) -
Residential
9. L,nU
1 . '700. ft. maximum spacing.
-.'--tlo�-mor�;.han- 3�Q_i.t.r-from-ea�H-lot,
Ii- l•ia tcrmain of accmcnt (I;.C. Ordinancc No. ' SPS )
1 . sourcc ( i .e. ) supply connect,cn.
Main s zcs idcntilied.
ctc.
C. Fire access roads (U. P.C. scc::_on i . 200
? . Plinimum :0 wide, unotst:-uctcd - I i ' C „
vert;cal cloarnncc, unnustructcd. All-woothcr
surfacc, a0le to withstans tons .
b� Fi rc access roads in excess of 1ho feet
(dead-ends) , must have a turn-around area .
Required turn-arcunds must be .. minimum Adfoot
diameter. to
3 . Fire acces roads must provide 20 foot minimum
inside turning radius and � foot outside turn-
ing radius when said roads change direction.
N, 12 o/>
4 . Fire access roads shall not exweed �vt grade.
S. The required width of anv fire apparatus access
road shall not be obsnructec in and manner, in-
cluding parking of vc;racles. Klp:mum required
widths ant clearances established under this
section shall be maintained an all times.
D. Narking when required, approved signs or other ao-
Proved nctices shall be provided and maintained for
_ ire aPparatus access roads :o ider.: fv such roads
- -- -)8ATTAC H M E NT
z
/_. OF. . 2
rF?PROVEI.
-
** CONDITIONS CF PERMIT/APPROVAL ** DATE: 01/13 /95
JANrJ 199- I PAGE: 2
�
RISRjJ�' L94P0019 TYPE: PRE-PLAT
nqE�q CARING 6300 132ND SE KC
and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both.
Sec. 10.20G U.F.C.
F805 - Final plat approval requires an inspection and approval of
the fire hydrant and watermain installation by a K.C. BALD
Commercial fire inspector, ' prior to recording. Call
296-6615; after.a permit to install has been obtained from
BALD; Fire Protection Engineering-
Lk
ATTACHMENT
.7, OF Z
RECEIVED
CITY OF KENi
��nNlnndr r,l"Anv mrn`
C. L {. G .a C -
r'H ,Ye'UGl.rIU1J REPOiiT
1 7lu-
1(Bohm! 1pPlica,lon, P;�!N/an an0 O„her Reaul;eC rD:U HEAT: I; Tnali sfe; P&VS LqATTACH A ROUTJDIRECTIONMAP FOR LOCATING THE PROPcRTY H T DH
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION SEATTLE-KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
PRL-APPLICATION RCVICIV
Complete the foltowlnC an submit wlLh Lha appmplolo la.. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ret...S120.00 plus =.Co per let - 1t crt-site llI1,0 al or, lydivtow.1 tell THIS APPLICATION 1S FOR PRELIMINARY
Fn...S pb11; sl`?r and pbltc Bator 9tvIEN' OF PROPOSED METHODS OF
Check Approplale Box: SUBDIVISION❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION❑ SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND WATER SUPPLY
APPROXIMATE STREET ADDRESS Ls� a I g F {c I r tG It7b IT 1.1"A
NAMC ANDrOR NUMBER OF B.A.L.D.APPLICATION I T-I I t- `^'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION t rILE A M\C hi I-fl
PARCEL L1,Y.,,7.,J.,c:,�ii--2, I
NUMBER OF ACRES I it F,`I I NUMDEF�Or LOTS -1,
70 BE REVIB—D V' SMALLEST LOT SIZE l cq•n•
OWNER 11= r,rin 11 ,i. Dur ADDRESS LLLLAI (ir! '1; 1 r.l i'ql 1',` !: . I Pfg0NE 14+,r-]- '7 7771
AGENT L-T- Q'vVI `li\?L I ADDRESS I h,i I= —_-. I PHONE 7777
.HE FOLLOWING INFOMMAT10N MUST DE PROVIDED;
iv-TER SLIPLY:(Complele Se.len 1 ?or 3 behty)
Seetlon 1.X Exleling Publlo Walor Supply I
Attach CorUflcate of Water Avallabill;y (Name) .
SKIIDn 2.❑ Proposed Publlc Water Supply I I
(Name)
❑ Declaration of Cov6nanl A"ached ❑ Recordino,t _ o;
❑ To be racoroi•d kiln Lnal al't' l
O Ro5Hco:ive Corcnent(a) (If eppliceblt) O ReeJf(1.ii1N or
At:ached n ❑ To be records .w;`• heal approval
❑ USe ngruemenl.I:3.h6d ❑ R2Coro;n�Y, I I ,or
O To be r,kil final approval
❑ W21Erlin6 EEsemenls Atladied ❑ Reoordic0$ . I , I ,or
J To oe Ie:,ordec wllh , h)z! approval
.Dion 3. �] Indlvldunll�'clLs (A1lnfmum lot sl;c rcpulrcd Ipr Indioidual tvoll Is 3 t�lr>j
❑ Adequat6 tvsler availabillq'to be demon,slralec prior Io final ap;>ro.al
❑ Wells Io be Ins:2116d p.ior to anal epprova!
.-:!ion 1. Exislino SEWRr Syelem I I+y -C .I- (_d 1,' I
Attach Certlficale of Sewer Aealiabili.)' (Nam6)
eUlon 2.U Individual On-Site Sew;pc Systems
Attach Soll Lop Desgripllons 1ncludin0 "I]type dcslpnellon:(Minlmim i pQr lot) _.nd
Plol Plen(to Include),I lines,lot sizes, Iocallon of ealsimo sev:ane spste.m(s) and solf log holes)
Q Ccnmunly7Larper On-Sea Sewage Syslem (ArEch Prelm:.,pry Report)
s;eby,cenlf} Ihj;Ine Inla,rte:ia-.t-,',•nn;his e�li;;;hn is x tr�r�rti ac.:�ralc ro;,:esen;a:,o.-,o::,a ec!slln;�natbns on tF.ls plot
;%31U10 Dl Onner/Apenl ll_ ( .. .t� r' �; , - ,err -,•-,,.. �Mr�r Dale
GeNflca Des4gnc• I=''"'>'"I � K.0 ID.a
;nature of Corilhad Deslpner Dale
/
r°PROV:D !.'1
C:SAPPROVED
'.IMENTS'CONDITIONS1 7r
•non+07ruvW g wy erlsler e:flnc order oI Lie 1!u' 0 ru nrq te)Aa irr^illa I,a;lor l ���:;Uv F" ALDE,a c--)
wrcp•Latr11 c1 Sr.a�n FeM.w,r1{.p'+Irm�yl N-(He^w11W..r.ry 1EC;G;a 01(CC,pi c:,o.�ncch to:.W ores "L Lj.-If - -- -
• r
DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS
UST GAT1
I:JC`HSHDR"_ I:C R T H
t I
Sr:rrrl,••hinl- G.unry Urylnrlun•nl u(.I'u Llio Ilr:rlrh
•4r
51•rrun$Isw�rt JONn1on,Ac,nO Dn•c,n
December 21, 1994
Finkbeiner Development
J. Craig Sears '
12011 Bel-Red Road
Bellevue, WA 96005
RE: Subdivision Pre-applicalion Review H94SO442
Dear nor. Sears:
The subdivision pre-application review for parcel �'2622059106 has been received by this
office. It has been reviewed in accordance \with the Code of the King County Board of Health
Title 73. Eased on this review, it has been approved with the following comments and
conditions:
There is an exlslinn septic system for 1-1 21 SE 261 si Place ay time of final subdivision
review the sysicrn for the above strunures land any other residences) must be
abandoned by a licensed septic system pumper- A carry of ;he pumpet's report will be
required by this olGce.
If there are any existing wells: b), time of fuial subdivision review all wells must be
abandoned accordin; to Department of Ecology regulations. A copy of the v,ell driller's
log of abandonment will be required,for final subdivis:o,, approval. (According to Mr.
Sears - no wells )
V,'filer Availability lrpm Kino County V%rate, D1"IfICI = t 1 IS Valid for One yC'r. .A letter
Of cOmDlellon and -cceplance of the rmprovemenis 'rom the ulrhly Or statement (hut a
bond or other similar security has been oeposilcd to guarantee completion is required.
Sewer ;availability letter from the City e' Ken; is required stating that the collection
system and improvements to serve Still\,aler Shadows have been installed and accepted
or a bond, contract or other mechanism is in place to quarantee completion.
Sincerely. ,
7S
PePPc Ol,ano, R.S. $;
m.•ircmliv ',al Health Spe'GalrSt
PO:eh
11; _ j'
%I drr S.1'. Ell Ir,.nn,I. nrnnl, G�rJ, Lm:C„ur��l \.� $ „n. „, ,. - -IUI Lr A'. .J ,,-i. v,pr1C ICPM1)•4.�-Ua i. •,Ib_:6e.L I-:AA I-Orq_'h..P I,C;
/'4TTACHMENT
3
_ - - RECEIVED_ ,
JUN 2 7 1996
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
L '
?'h.< cc::_'.`i ca to I•ro%,des :1:c• Please return to :
De,artmrr.t c: vc and .
GUILDING & LAND DEVELUPMENI
5ui]oi nc x :.andd De Dcvclnptnrnt
=l ih in:Ormation necessary LO GSD Atl nnl, D,,,Ill
,,,y
cwaluate development prepos.ils • $r,ulr n„h onto, 96104
206 144 7900
FA NG couIJ J Y CERT I F I CAT[ OF SEIdE AW1_ U'.P 1 L!TY
-------------
name
r.urtbcr
Duildi m� icrmit 1`rclioli na rq 1'lac or PUD
[] Sbo: t :.,...... .sin„ ❑ ltc none or u:!tcr- .
LO P�1FzLv�
91L � = ,i �S;ILn� I14DOWi )
rllorosl.D use �}iJ(,1_t _ �L— —C�ES.IDi1J11A1—p
D!�L_r ID1� or
LOUT 1014 C t l r n('L1 r F I N 1 CSy
1 nI S =�_ C LEGAL QE i�i —I ArrALNED
`E rn ` _-�—.—
(Ltcach mop F local cescri ptio❑ _ ni cessallyJ II If It II
Y k If f 11 II ti
SE}:%}� i+GL13C1' 1NFpGi':i+'1' 1p1:
rI Sever ser�'_ce +;ill L+e provided 1+p sid+� sewer connection c r, to
1 . a. L__ feet from the site
IJ c sic sc�•cr�__
zn c>:istinc _
stcni lens the cap,c_ ' - .o sc'cc rite }>rolutr.cc) nse .
and the rewe_ r) .
or. ,roccmenL to the sewer system of :
L, it Sewer scry cc +. i11 recui rc ❑n im}.
la::te_ci to reach Lhc si tc :
anc -cr
syst
L� (7.1 rSc cons LrucLicn of a cc_: cction cm on the sire :
cU�r.r 1L1c:cribcl��cLrC' CC1Ji L�
7, (Y.ust be cotlpleted if I b above is checAcd)
sewcr &'stem impro,cn:c::'_ is in conCorr,ancc with a Count)- approved sewer
LLL comorchcns:',c
OR
!�. D The sewer system improvcmcnt a se�'cr com}�rchensi•�c.
plan r :ocnor.cn--
n� is. � iC11 Utc ccraoratc 1_r.its of chc c'_s:ric
_ a . L� 'ihe :__epos^c o_'ojcct .
p_ ::as been crantec Dounc.ar•; Roc.e� Dcac6 a0peo•+al for cnLension
of sc rci cc outside the r.ir .ric _ c_ c:'.%
OR
1). O ;,nnc::aLicn e_ DPI', �pprovol wi 11 bu necessary to pro�•i.de sere
Scr•:_cc is scL juc: Lu Lhc fullu� inr, :
_ /��.�ti :�'liv+rt cam✓_LL-L�-
a . cennecc1011 cl). �c :u _� ✓ ~� � uJl-�,�.
+, rn•:nine:,t lsl
(� t
Yr. w.ti-LG_.. uc
r t) ti cl cnc+ 1o.lnation i. true . 1'I
: 1 hereby sort La't he n o�c • I --_ —.
si naLurc. _.
_ c�itific5 ion �,al ] I ).t) ic) liir ,-tic c u Jr� t date nf -
T ��. ,-,TTA H M E NT
_I � -
.. 'i:ns cennteale;)m,roen urc Inc County -
Depanme.nl 0, Health anC 1'l^ JcDgrtrncnl of Development
Department of Developmen:and , � and Environmental Services
Environmental Services wdh 3600.1 3GIh Place Southeast
information necessary to evaluale Dcucvuc.Washington 9000G-1400
development proposals. (206) 290-GGDo
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF 11ATEI< AVAILABILITY
ao nor ~rice in tnjs Dos
nunbc: name
❑ DuiMinc Pcrnit ❑ PreJimJ nary 1'Jat or PUD
❑ Shore Subdivision ❑ nezone or other
1.PPLICANT`S NLJE Cralc Sears (Fin1:1jci.ncr Ile Pc]<�Pntcnt)
PROPOSED USE Pc Sl Conn?] sinelc fami ) v pro"nrer? ]cts
SW Corncr of lntc_-scction of
L,DCATJOIJ - 132nc Ave S C A S 1. 261rt Placc Tax Lot ] OG
tar. Ufa ,R-z7_5
(Attach map r. lcgal..description if necessary) -
R H N 11 , , A . N F N @ If N N q
WATR PURVEYOR 11:FORMT1014 _
1. a. D water mill be crovided by service connecu c-, en_y- to en c::irtinq
vatcr main feet from the t-c. ei zc
OR
h. h:atec r.e:v_ce will_ require an improvcmer:t to the La ter n) rtem of
❑ I'_1 feet of water Main to :cech the site: and/or
�: 11) the construction of a ciistributio -ystcm onhc site: and/or
❑ i3) ct',c:- fdenoibc) F. oif
The la:cr ^, see-, i., i.n eon_o^nanec ,i:h a ce.:rt n;i :cvcd ua to eoc_:ehenni vc Pl r_n.
b. D The warp rystcm. •- cacmcnt will rccuirc a w:tc:- cgrprchcnrivc plan amendment.
-- a. Z The proposed project is within the corporate firsts of the district, or has been
cranted boundary Revic- Board approval for ezt-cession of ser+•ice outside the dist.ric
OR --
or, c:ty, o: _s within the County approved or ire area of a private water put-veyor.
b. lnnexan on or Sp_3 roproval will be ncccr'-,,-' to provide son ice.
a. Ware: is/cr will be available nt the :ate c' flo- and durrtion indicated below
no less than 10 psi m.c:surcd at the ncarcnt c hrccant feet from the
be_1c:.^.c/rreco:, (or c:rY.ed on Jre .._tach"' n.-^) •-
i.cP. i) 2
❑ lesr thrL. 500 ep- (,:pp:oz. �.-�) ❑ less than 1 hoc:
❑ SDO to 999 �-, ❑ 1 hoc_ to 2 hourc
n+ rc F'OR E) 2 hots or rare
❑ floe test of c:`n ❑ other
❑ ealculat:cn c' (3pm ICom,oCal Dufldinc Pez=itr require flow
OR
, tent c= cci cclr.tccn)
=. D ttatcr ^.v-tom _ .- cont'.lc or
C C.'-'1_N'TS/CONDITIO'1S - The ccrt,l„a5pn of Walcr AvoilabJd vat,d lo: one c•-ni !.!,rr
b:_nd. in any way to is;uc a nc,'ccrl1I„ol1on or VPaler Avallab,1It upmi Inc came (cndd�ru a;rl6oscas c'. Iorfl ht here n�o The cond. tire �dihn;re_ceements neee;;ar)•to issue a ne,•.certilleale may be substantially different Irom Ihosr set lorth herein. The Disbiel reserves its rich,a-c authoritY to amend• modify or revoke its reoutaliens and polices in the mdmar)' course of its business. This is not an application for
a:=:oval of Water to the proposed site 1,proper application rnust be filed,+iU,and arceplec'br the District before service +•ill be ro,•ided.
�•`^-I to the normal eharees and lees scl-by Water District-No.-111 --------
- - -"" - -- TTA H fib E N --
C.t-
1lerebp ce;ti th:.t he nbove r;atcs nur`. c,;c: rare: --.:,tip❑ iSJruc . This._
-tificatipn s:•all be lld fC)I-
,_1 •.. r' :: o:l r.:rtc cf ,sii; a
`0F' 1
- R-UEIVE,D
.- Alien c+•
:•.:�."� �,-: - - - --- CITY OP DENT
A NHR!�1,rrAOl-....
G• L.gyC.CVHE DwFRS W .terDxstr1C;t
DEL.AR LW.D 111 , KING COUNTY GENERAL u.HeLFn
CHARLES C.WILSON ,_ r. I AnY DMDOURY
To: Sharon Goble
i
From: Gregory G. Hill, P.E., Distritt Encinccr
RE: Fin):bicncr Availability
Date: June S, 199:
I have reviewed utc rcquircmcnts for availability on Oic propeny wiLich is located directly north of the
plat of Sullwatcr Grccns.
The rcqu::cmcros for sr.x,cc to this propcny arc as follow
T1rc dcrcloper shall conseuct an cieht inch sva:c: line to the Northca_ct corner of 0).. lot and connect to
the proposed water line Im'uch is pcndinc construction by the Plat of P.osc's Meadow. the eight inch
diameter line shall extend through dte prop-my alonr the north propene line and connect to the existing
wale: line located along li'_nd Avcnuc SE. Tnc developer shall also construct an debt inch diameter
water line from the nct% ssa;cr lint alone the north propcny line southerly to the ezisung eight inch
ciizm=. water line located _ions 12901 Avcnuc SE in the Plat of Stillwater Grccns.
I have attached an c�:hibi: x!uch shows OL reeuiremcnis schc.:aucJ!, Tic final rnc'.cs mad he altered
zs rccuircd by c^site lo, !::•roc;.
Plcasc do no: hcsit,tc to -:.il 1 n�2`. be of a:t% addiumtJ :sss::nee
r r.1r1:SLr W r-nD':
_ ;TTAC H M E NT
COMMISSIONERS
Gary C Can terDistrict
G.L.D.Im
Crones E season ..-1 11 , KING COUNITY
Aucust 2S, 1995
lLlnc Count), D.D.E.S.
3600 1360 Mace SE
BcHmic, NVIS111111-lon 9S006-1400
Alin: Lanni Hcnoch
I)IStlict
ol
Dw I.ann;.
itre tecenily discussed Y: W of Roscs hindo" and the mr,w DNcloper's LNonsion ArTCCInCnI
1)ci%x-ccu the Disirict and Dc%clopcT of ijus plat.
Thc DcNeloper s Exicrsio:i .%mmncni currcnik jncludcs 3 pTo\iw)n fcquurjnc the Dc%-c1oper to graw
the District nn mcnicy — :1 Kurt "01 Pit in IN cast mvnon ref the phli
A! their puMv nism; p aguy !I Nov the I' wyo of (Vmvn,, Q,, issue. The 1p,,(,
Ismscd the WOW o dc,clojAny a wh source Ai ws vac ximph -1 IIL- cinmed Inc In
W%isc 1hr WS"m � W al I the Qqw0w, m v mr; 0 :,cw ihc:, wit-i ip mquirc IN
%,:H shc CATCO2p: V, myAlld in IQ Ll-"Ch1w , i U - 11 " ;iiu Jh,1: d,'�!"Iwll a 11:1l,cd
upon the cc-,;-,w X�mr. L-71:% 1llall;1 ny SUAWYMS of IN I w: .1 "1 nowdic Iw mly"m; %� WI On UN
of Auburn and Cute V; 7 lwmy I o: Ienc 1crm so W: nupp T"y QAW " my) con"OTIo"I P11:11 lhi: IULCIn
chanvo in the Apmin2y o: Ecnjow\ ; proccs, 10, jr, w nmov"mr "awr nrM, "Ill hkcl\
chmmm rrou:�,-.
I wusi War thas Icncr bn v, %ou, voccrim- :jt)o.: [I,, "n,') !)"!''C[ .. nor J,c"jaj,
to comas me II roc mn w 0: am "c"Umal p"n wV
\m "Uh youo
iiLDGLS
& POTH 1W
BNO u Office
,"ATTACHMENT
R E,C R I V E D
PLANNING DEPARTWN-T
O � W
ez
G1 ` n
W M
w -
4J a cn
'L4- w ... ... ... _
LO
Ll
C � W
-
.
o = u
0
u
ti u
ry N 1
c
o In
I u
I N
l7 __
U —
--- ;':TTACHMENT
7
r
I December 7, 1995 Introduced by Rent Pullen
2 Ord95.50 Proposed No. 95-671
3
4
5 120 5 9
6
7 ORDINANCE NO.
8
9
10 AN ORDINANCE concurring with the recommendation of
11 the Hearing Examiner to approve, subject to
12 conditions, the preliminary plat of STILLWATER
13' SHADOWS, designated Land Use Services Division File
14 No. L94P0019.
15'
16
17 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF XING COUNTY:
18
19 This ordinance does hereby adopt and incorporate herein as
20 its findings and conclusions the findings and conclusions
21 contained in the report of the hearing examiner dated November
22 16, 1995, which was filed with the clerk of the council on
23 December 7, 1995, to approve, subject to conditions (modified) ,
24 the preliminary plat of Stillwater Shadows, designated land use
25 services division file no. L94P0o19, and the council does
26 hereby adopt as its action the recommendation(s) contained in
27 said report.
28 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 'ems ti?(l day of
19
29 1 5,7 II''
30 PASSED by a vote of thisz�" ay of
i
31 19 .
32 KING COUNTY COU14CIL
33 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
34
35
36
3733
39 Chair
40.
41
42 ATT ST:
43
44
45
46 Clerk of the Council
47
i
RECEIVED
JUV 2 7 1996
CITY OF KENT
'LANNING DEPAPTUENT
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 , 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: MIXED USE ZONING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-96-5
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board held
public hearings on the Mixed Use Zoning Code Amendment on
October 28 and November 25, 1996 . Due to the complexity of
this item, staff requests that this item be sent to the
Planning Committee for review prior to presentation to the full
Council for adoption.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, Work Shop staff reports dated August 19
and September 23 , 1996; Hearing staff reports dated October 28
and November 25, 1996; Land Use and Planning Board minutes
dated October 28 and November 25 , 1996
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to send the Mixed Use Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-96-5) to the
Planning Committee for review and recommendation to the full
City Council.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
CITY OF t V\LJ11V
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
January 3, 1997
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING
Attached is the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board relating to proposed
amendments to the zoning code regarding the allowance of mixed use development in certain
commercial zoning districts. The Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing on
October 28, 1996, and made its recommendation to the City Council on November 25, 1996 (see
attached minutes for both meetings). Previous to these public hearings, the Board held several
workshops on this item, one of which included a tour of mixed use development projects located
throughout the Puget Sound region.
This proposed zoning code amendment is an important component of the City's efforts to implement
the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. As outlined in the attached staff report (dated
October 28, 1996), the proposed amendments involve changes to permitted uses and development
standards for three zoning districts: General Commercial (GC), Community Commercial (CC), and
Office(0). Due to the complex nature of the project,the Planning Department hired Mark Hinshaw,
an architect and urban design consultant, to help outline alternatives for administering mixed use
development. His recommendations are also attached for your consideration (see report dated
August 8, 1996).
Because this proposed amendment involves several changes to the zoning code, staff is
recommending that the City Council refer this item to the Planning Committee for their review. At
the Planning Committee meeting, staff and the City's consultant can brief the Committee in detail
regarding the proposed changes being recommended by the Board, and address any questions and
concerns. The item would then be brought back to the full Council for consideration in February or
March.
Staff will be available at the January 7 meeting to answer any questions about the proposal, or about
the recommended action to refer the item to the Planning Committee.
KON/tb:MUCOVCC.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
1104th %VF SO. %KENT WASHINGTON9032-5895/TELEPH )AE 10hi95U-i300/FAX#Si4-M4
51
CITY O F l r)\, CS`J
Jim White, Mayor
97v�-,
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
November 25, 1996
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:00 p.m. on May 29, 1996, in Chambers West of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Tom Brotherton
Jerry Daman
Ron Harmon
Gloria LaBore
David Malik
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill. Senior Planner
Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator
Teresa Beener. Administrative Secretary
OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT:
May Miller, Finance Director
Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney
Ed White, Transportation Engineer Supervisor
Gary Gill, City Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED to approve the minutes from the October 28. 1996 meeting.
Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
ZCA-96-5 ,Wixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmenrsiZCA-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
"uaihAVE. tiO_ /KENT.WASH INGTON 9X0 I'_ i891/TELEPHONE 'Ohe 4-�100,F n.X
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director Jim Harris informed the Board of the December I Oth Workshop. There will be
no Public Hearing for the month of December.
MIXED USE ZONING#ZCA-96-5 (Continuation from 10/28/96) (K. O'Neill)
Chair Steve Dowell excused himself from the deliberations of this item due to a personal conflict
of interest. Vice Chair Brad Bell and Board member David Malik also spoke of a conflict of interest
and removed themselves for this item.
Board member Jerry Daman announced that he was also a property owner within the mixed use
designations but felt he could still vote objectively and remained.
Tom Brotherton MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to appoint Ron Harmon as the
"acting" chair. Motion carried.
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the memo written to the Board was a response from
public testimony at the October 28 public hearing. The following items were discussed:
1. Development Standards - if the Board considers changing the staff proposed standards for
site coverage the Board should also change the floor area ratio standards concurrently.
2. Phasing of Multifamily Development - stand alone residential is not allowed in the East Hill
mixed use area. therefore, residential uses could onlv be permitted if there was concurrent
commercial development.
3. Changes to Zoning Designations - there is no recommendation to amend the commercial
uses. The commercial zone already in place would still determine the permitted commercial
uses. Mixed use will allow concurrent residential development on the East Hill and stand
alone residential development on the valley floor.
Mr. O'Neill informed the Board that he had received a letter from a property owner adjacent to a
mixed use area being considered. He presented the Board with a copy of the letter and asked to
make the letter a parry of record. He pointed out the location of the parcel on the map.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the
following recommendations to the City Council:
ZCA-96-6 Mixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-RA-G) 96 Comp Plan.4mendmentsl=A-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 3
A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which
are outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C of the October 28 staff report.
B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development
standards within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use
overlay be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design
review criteria would be modeled after the City's existing multifamily design review
process, but would be supplemented as indicated in the staff report.
Ron Harmon asked for further clarification of the development standards for the current commercial
zones and the proposed changes. Mr. O'Neill explained that in the current General Commercial and
Community Commercial zones 40%site coverage is allowed where in the Office zone 30%coverage
is permitted. He also explained that if the Board considers a change from the staff recommendation
for site coverage a similar change should be made for floor area ratios.
Ron Harmon requested that the letter received by the Planning Department be admitted into record.
Board member Gloria LaBore MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to accept staff
recommendation with an amendment that site coverage and floor area ratio should remain the same
as they are now for stand alone commercial. Motion carried.
1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 4CPA-96-3 (items A - G) (K. O'Neill)
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City
Council in April 1995. The Growth Management Act encourages the constant update and review
of comprehensive plans. The City established policy which allows for annual amendments and also
established specific criteria for analyzing proposed amendments. The criteria are outlined in page
2 of the staff report.
CPA-96-3(A)/CPZ-96-1 Coblentz Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the applicants property being considered consists of
three parcels on 88th Avenue South, adjacent to the SR-167 just south of 222nd. The frontage of
two of the parcels is currently designated as Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned
Commercial Manufacturing (CM-1). The remainder of the subject property is currently designated
as SF-6 on the plan and SR-6 on the zoning map. The applicants requested to change the entire area
to commercial.
ZCA-96-5 ,Wixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmentsl=4-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 4
Mr. O'Neill explained that the easternmost parcel is so steep it is unlikely to be developed. The
Public Works Department expressed concerns with changing the land use and zoning on the entire
property, due to traffic impacts and slope stability. Their concerns were outlined in an attached
memorandum to the staff report.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned whether other parcels in the vicinity were also taken into
consideration. Mr. O'Neill explained that only the parcels listed on the application were considered.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Mike Colbentz, 22320 88th Avenue S. Mr. Colbentz explained that the primary reason for his
application came from the noise factor of SR-167 that results in his property being unmarketable.
Mr. Coblentz stated he felt there was an additional 3 acres of buildable flat land. He voiced his
displeasure with the staff report. He would like to see the entire property zoned CM-1.
Joan Longstrom, 22202 88th Avenue S. Ms. Longstrom stated that she supports the Coblentz
application. She indicated that the noise levels from the area makes the residential homes
unmarketable in this area.
Carl Longstrom, 22202 88th Avenue S. Mr. Longstrom agreed with his wife, Ms. Longstrom. He
added that their home had been on the market for two years with no avail. He supports the entire
property being zoned commercial.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned the staff recommendation. Mr. O'Neill further clarified the
reasoning behind limiting the commercial area due to the steep slope.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
The Board discussed alternatives to the staff recommendation to include more of the property in the
commercial zone. Mr. O'Neill gave input to the Board regarding various alternatives.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to approve the staff
recommendation to change the land use plan map designation to Commercial and the zoning map
to Commercial Manufacturing - 1 (CM-1) amending the boundary to move the eastern boundary to
the next parcel line. Motion carried.
ZGI-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendments ZCA-96-7 Admin Varrance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 5
4CPA-96-3(B)/CPZ-96-2 - Gould Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the parcel in question is located at the southwest comer
of 104th Avenue SE and 272nd Street. The parcel was annexed into the City during the Ramstead
East Hill Annexation in 1994 and at that time the parcel was zoned SR-1. The applicant is
requesting to change the land use designation to SF-6 and the zoning to SR-6. Staff recommends
approving the change with a land use designation of SF-6 and the zoning SR-4.5.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Robert Gould, 27233 - 104th Avenue SE. Mr. Gould agrees with staff recommendation. He is
interested in developing his property.
Bill Carlton, 10210 SE 270th. Mr. Carlton is a long time Kent resident and voiced his concern with
the rapidly increasing population. He believes Kent should slow down development. He believes
Kent should take the time to maintain natural resources and stop building more houses. Mr. Carlton
voiced his concern regarding the rapidly increasing school populations. He believes Kent should
focus more on the quality of education and living for the current residents and stop adding additional
development and continue increasing the population.
Richard Loran, 27124 104th Avenue SE. He voiced a concern over the water or sewer cost this
development could bring to his property.
Planing Director Jim Hams interjected that there is a cost involved with new development,
however,the Board is not here to consider potential costs but merely the proposed change in the land
use map designation and the zoning.
Jerry Prouty, 27608 114th Avenue SE. Mr. Prouty stated he felt that SR-6 was a more appropriate
zone for the property.
Marlin Ruge,27116- 104th Avenue SE. Mr. Ruge is concerned with what would happen to 104th
and if sewers would be required how the cost would be incurred.
Mr. Harris explained that if this property is developed they would have to get sewer and water there.
He explained that if the surrounding properties are on septic tanks it is not required that they hook
up to the sewer lines unless their septic was failing. Normally the sewer lines would be set up with
a LID. Mr. Harris explained that he does not know what would happen in this specific case. The
Board is here to consider whether the land use designations should be changed on this property.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning1CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendments,,ZCA-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 6
Frank Seareella, 10426 SE 272nd. Mr. Scarcella is a neighboring property owner. He stated that
he is against adding development in this area. He was concerned with traffic and school issues.
Board member Ron Hannon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Board member Tom Brotherton questioned staff s rationale for recommending SR-4.5 rather than
the requested SR-6. Mr. O'Neill explained that the property abuts SR-4.5 and SR-6 zones. Either
zone could be acceptable however there are some development restrictions. If the property is zoned
SR-6 it could be developed with approximately 40 lots, and SR-4.5 would allow approximately 30
lots. Due to the site restrictions and based on staff determination that the property could not handle
even the 30 lots staff recommended SR-4.5. Mr. Harmon questioned the possibility of an SR-3 zone.
Mr. O'Neill explained that it would allow approximately 24 lots.
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Board member David Malik SECONDED a motion
to accept the staff recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to SF-6 and the
zoning to SR-4.5. Board member Jerry Daman stated that these are difficult decisions to make but
he felt this was something that had to be done. Mr. Daman supports the staff recommendation.
Board member Ron Harmon supports staff recommendation of SR-4.5 over the applicants requests
for SR-6. Motion carried.
CPA-96-3(C)/CPZ-96-3 - Lewis Amendment
Mr. O'Neill explained that the map attached to the staff report had erroneously included a parcel that
is not a part of this application. He explained that the computer mapping system used by the City
did not recognize the separate parcel. Mr. O'Neill presented the Board with an updated map.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the property consists of six and a half acres and is located on the north
end of Lake Meridian off of 135th Lane SE. The property was annexed during the Meridian
Annexation on January 1, 1996. In December of 1995, the City Council adopted an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan which designated this property as SF-6 and zoned the property SR-4.5.
King County's Comprehensive Plan designation had been Urban Residential 4-12 units per acre and
the zoning was R-4, four units per acre.
Mr. O'Neill explained that this property has no direct access to 256th, the density requested is not
compatible with the surrounding properties, and one of the criteria for considering a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is the receipt of new information. Given this impact and the fact that no new
information has been presented by the applicant, staff has recommended to deny this application at
this time.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmen(siZC-t-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 7
Board member Gloria LaBore questioned the number of units that would be involved at ten traits per
acre. Mr. O'Neill explained that if the property was built out at ten units per acre it would be
approximately 65 units. He explained that the zoning requested by the applicant would allow up to
16 units per acre which would potentially allow more than 65 units.
Mr. O'Neill informed the Board that the Planning Department received three documents from
adjoining property owners and would like to submit these documents to the Board for their
consideration as part of the public hearing. Chair Steve Dowell made these documents a part of
public record. The Board took a few moments to read the documents submitted.
Chair Dowell opened the public hearing.
Marie Lewis, 25840 135th Lane SE. Ms. Lewis stated that she lived on the property being
considered for a Comprehensive Plan change. She explained that the rent collected for the cabins
on the property is less than the cost of maintaining the property. She is looking for a way to develop
the property further.
Charlie Denny, 25702 135th PI SE. Mr. Denny explained that his property abuts the property in
question. Mr. Denny voiced his concern for adding additional traffic to 135th Place SE. He believes
with all the developments already in the area that the density level has already been met. He
opposed this request.
Linda Johnson,25708 135th Pl SE. Ms. Johnson stated that the traffic on 135th Place is congested
between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. already and opposes any additional development in this area.
Donald West, 25866 136th Ave SE. Mr. West stated that f 36th Ave is only a 24' easement road
and can not accommodate an additional development. He is against changing the density for this
proposal.
Ron Tremaine, 14200 SE 272nd Street#E-203. Mr. Tremaine explained that the issue of street
accommodations were addressed in the Determination of Nonsignificance. In order for the property
to develop even one additional unit the street improvements would have to be accomplished.
Mr. Tremaine stated that he had received a bid for the street improvements for nearly a half a million
dollars. He indicated that 24 units could not support that expense; however. sixty units would.
Mr. Tremaine stated he felt the Lewis property had been down zoned since King County's
Comprehensive Plan allowed 4 - 12 units per acre. He explained that they would like to develop the
property with affordable housing.
ZCA-96-5 Axed Use Zomng1CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Como Plan Amendments;�ZCA-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 8
Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned Mr. Tremaine's position in this matter. Mr. Tremaine indicated
that he was a friend of the applicant and had no financial interest in the proposal.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned the promises that Mr. Tremaine referred to. Mr. Tremaine indicated
that it had been understood by the Lewis' that their property would not be down zoned when it was
annexed into the City of Kent. Dowell asked for clarification from staff.
Mr. Harris stated that City Council had made a zoning decision regarding this parcel during the
Meridian Annexation. He indicated that it was not appropriate for the Board to reconsider why a
decision was made but rather consider what is brought before them for consideration today.
Mr. Tremaine stated that the City Council had not considered the half a million dollars it would cost
for road improvements to develop this property.
Chair Dowell asked staff for confirmation that the public would have another opportunity to speak
before the City Council regarding this matter. Mr. Harris stated that the Board's recommendation
would be sent to the City Council. Then the Council will hold a public hearing at which the public
would be given an opportunity to speak.
Charles M. O'Brien, 13522 SE 257th Street. Mr. O'Brien stated that he purchased his house in
a neighborhood for a certain quality of life. Besides the Lewis property there has been a good
rapport between the neighbors. Mr. O'Brien has lived in this neighborhood for 18 years. He does
not want to see this type of development come into his neighborhood and have to deal with the
additional traffic constraints. Mr. O'Brien was concerned with the Lewis proposal of putting only
ten units per acre when the zone being requested is for 16 units per acre. He opposes this proposal
stating it hurts his own standard of living.
George Lewis. Mr. Lewis purchased the property 25 years ago. His parents have lived on the
property for the 25 years. His father loves the property. He stated that the reason the adjacent
property owners oppose the development is because they enjoy using the "park". He indicated that
his father keeps the grounds up on the propem, and due to medical conditions he is unable to
continue with the upkeep. Mr. Lewis stated there are presently 18 cabins on the property which are
occupied by young and middle aged persons.
Mr. Lewis requested that the Board continue this item to the next public hearing. He would like an
opportunity to respond to the staff report and have time to confer with an attorney. He felt the City
had wrongfully down-zoned his property. He also stated that he felt the Determination of
Nonsignificance and the staff report represented two very different perceptions regarding his
ZC.A-96-5 Mixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-RA-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmenty A-96-!Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 9
proposal. The Determination of Nonsignificance outlined workable conditions while the staff report
recommended denying his application.
Mr. Lewis explained that his intention was to develop ten single family units per acre. He is not
intending to build apartments and questioned staff how that could be worded better to indicate his
intention.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned Mr. Lewis' application on which he requested low density
multifamily designation. Mr. Tremaine explained that he was advised by the Planning Department
to request low density multifamily based on the intended use for the property. Mr. Harmon stated
that it is conflicting to hear testimony that the applicant would like to develop single family homes
when the application requests a multifamily designation. Mr. Tremaine explained that the intended
use is single family residences with attached walls. The City of Kent classifies attached walls as
multifamily. Mr. Lewis indicated that the verbiage used was under advisement of the Planning
Department.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned whether the Board was able to continue one item or did the entire
group of amendments have to go with one recommendation. Mr. Harris stated that the Board has
an option of continuing a specific item; however, he recommended that the Board make their
recommendation tonight and if Mr. Lewis has any future information to add he may present that
information to the City Council.
Mr. Lewis indicated that Mr. O'Neill had advised him that it was his option to request the Board to
consider continuing this item to December 9 if he felt he needed additional time to respond to the
staff recommendation.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that it is the role of the Planning Department to assist
an applicant in completing the application process. It is not assumed that the public knows the
regulations. Mr. Satterstrom explained that he was the one who assisted Mr. Tremaine with this
application. He also explained that King County has a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that
allows for cluster development of residential units in a single family zone; Kent does not. Based on
the applicant's desire to attach walls and to develop at a density of ten units per acre, Mr. Satterstrom
advised the applicant to request what was indicated on the application form.
Chair Dowell questioned whether the City of Kent has a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the City does maintain a Planned Unit Development Ordinance. It
only applies to multifamily zones. The single family PUD had been rescinded four years ago well
before the Meridian Annexation took place.
ZCA-96-5 Mlzed Use Zoning/CPA-96-30-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentS/ZCA-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 10
Carol Voss, 14610 SE 266th Street. Ms. Voss was very active in getting Lake Meridian annexed
into the City of Kent. She stated that being adjacent to the City she has always been impacted by
the policies made by the City and wanted to be an active part of the decision process. Ms. Voss
stated that it had become very clear from public testimony, staff, and the City Council that the City
was against adding any additional multifamily development especially on East Hill. The City made
a clear understanding that it was their goal to encourage single family development. She stated that
a four-plex is still multifamily development and she opposes the proposal.
George Canada, 13520 SE 258th. Mr. Canada lives in the Lake Meridian area. He stated that he
was able to purchase his home four years ago and doesn't agree with the Lewis' claim that there is
no affordable housing in the Lake Meridian area. He opposes the Lewis application.
Mr. Lewis again emphasized to the Board that the Planning Department advised him that he could
request a continuation to December 9th meeting. Mr. O'Neill explained that when Mr. Lewis came
to the Planning Department he expressed his concern with the staff recommendation and not having
adequate time to prepare for a response to the staff recommendation. Mr. O'Neill explained to Mr.
Lewis that he had the option of requesting the Board to continue the deliberations until the next
meeting.
Board member Gloria LaBore sympathized with the Lewis' position. However, the adjoining
neighbors are looking at a substantial impact adding 16 units per acre on six plus acres. That would
add 100 plus units, 200 more cars, 400 more people, 230 more children, and Ms. LaBore wonders
if that area could accommodate an increase of that magnitude.
Mr. Ron Tremaine stated that it was the applicants intention to develop the property with ten units
per acre. He offered the possibility of signing a contract with the City to hold them to their
intentions.
Walter Hazen, 315 W. Meeker. Mr. Hazen explained that even though King County allows for
cluster development it is not a guarantee. He stated that water run off at Lake Meridian is already
a problem. He strongly opposed increasing the density. He emphasized that the King County
designation of 4 to 12 units did not guarantee 12 units per acre.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brother-ton SECONDED a motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
Vice Chair Brad Bell relayed his regrets to the applicants but felt there was no reason to delay a
decision. Harmon stated that a PUD is not guaranteed. it can be denied. He emphasized that a
four-plex is still considered a multifamily development.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zonmg1CP.I-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentsiZCA-96-%Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 11
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to deny the Lewis
application (#CPA-96-3(C) & #CPZ-96-3) and Board member David Malik SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
CPA-96-3(D)/CPZ-96-4 - Robbins Amendment
Planning Director Jim Harris explained to the Board that this item was continued. The applicants
failed to post a public notice board on the site. Mr. O'Neill was in contact with the applicant's agent
who verbally informed him that the applicant did not want to move forward with this application.
Staff has attempted to make contact with the applicant both by phone and with a letter and there has
been no response to date. The Planning Department is unable to move forward with this application
due to insufficient public notice.
_CPA-96-3(E)/CPZ-96-5 - Pasko Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this amendment consists of two parcels that are
approximately nine acres in size. During the Meridian Annexation process King County had
erroneously given the staff the wrong zoning information for these two specific parcels. This
application was made by staff to return these parcels to a commercial designation concurrent with
what was in existence at the time of the annexation.
Chair Dowell opened the public hearing.
Richard Pasko, 24503 142nd Ave SE. Mr. Pasko is the property owner and supports the staff
recommendation.
Kenneth Robinson, 13236 SE 270th Street. Mr. Robinson voiced his concern regarding the private
road he indicated had been torn up by a past development. He stated that he had no feelings
regarding the commercial designation. He asked that when the property is being developed they
leave the private access road alone.
Paul Sheppard, 13256 SE 272nd Street. Mr. Sheppard stated that he had a lot of problems with
the past development. He opposes the development. He stated he would like to see Kent slow down
in the development.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. The motion carried.
Mr. Harmon MOVED to approve staff recommendation to change the parcels to commercial
designations. Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED the motion.
ZC.4-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CP.4-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan.4mendments1=I-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 12
CPA 96 30 City of Kent - Finance Dept & CPA-96-3(G) - Public Works Dent
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements of
the Comprehensive Plan need to be updated due to the Meridian Annexation. The major changes
include updating additions to inventory,projects,and financial information relating to the larger City
limits. Mr. O'Neill stated that Finance Director May Miller and City Engineer Gary Gill are
available to answer any specific questions the Board may have.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Finance Director May Miller stated that she was available to answer any question the Board may
have. After no public testimony, Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Ron Harmon
SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED to accept the staff recommended amendments for the Capital
Facilities and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the November 25
staff report. The motion was SECONDED by Board member Tom Brotherton. Motion carried.
9ZCA-96-7 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURES.
Planner Matt Jackson outlined the staff recommended proposals for administrative variances and
procedures as discussed in the staff report. The staff is recommending changing the zoning code to
implement Administrative Variance procedures, expand the use of joint use of parking facilities and
implement new transit and rideshare provisions, and increase the maximum allowable size of
detached accessory dwelling units that can be converted from existing accessory buildings.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned if there was an existing fee for variances. Mr. Jackson
explained the current fee structure ($100 for single family residential variances and S300 for other
variances). Board member Tom Brotherton questioned whether this procedure would apply with an
existing code violation. Mr. Jackson explained that the City typically tries to give a person a grace
period to either meet the standards in place or apply for a variance. If the variance is not approved
then thev are liable to code enforcement action.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Rodger Anderson,Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th Ave NE,Kirkland
Mr. Anderson is a member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce. He supports the proposal.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
ZC4-96-3 A4ized Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmen(s%ZCA-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 13
Mr. Harmon MOVED to accept the staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report for
Administrative Variance procedures. Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted.
J es P. Hams
ecording Secretary
C.`.USERS\DOC',LANDUSE\MINUTES\PCMINO5.29
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmenisl=4-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
CITY OF )0\1 '�'J
Jim White, Mavor
�7nur"TT
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P.Harris,Planning Director
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
October 28, 1996
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 1996, in Chambers West of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Thomas Brotherton
Jerry Daman
Ronald Harmon
Gloria LaBore
David Malik
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom. Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary
OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Laurie Evezich, Assistant Citv Attomev
APPROVAL OF JULY '12 1996 MINUTES
Board member Brad Bell MOVED to approve the minutes from the July 22 meeting. The motion
was SECONDED by Board member Jerry Daman. Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director James Harris informed the Board that the November Planning Board workshop
will be moved to Tuesday, November 12 due to the Veteran's Day holiday. The next public
hearing is scheduled for Monday, November 25. 1996.
"U JIh AV .SO.- /KENT.WASHLNGTON 9%Ili' iM)l+ 11 Lf I/C A.A n gC9 iiJ
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
#ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING (K. O'Neill)
Chair Steve Dowell discussed the issue regarding some of the Board members owning property
within the area being considered for mixed use zoning. The City of Attorney's Office determined
that it is legal for the Board members to participate in this vote. Chair Dowell expressed his
concern regarding his ability to remain impartial hearing this item due to the fact he personally
owns property within the area considered for mixed use zoning. Dowell declined to participate in
the mixed use hearing and stepped down leaving Vice Chair Brad Bell to preside.
Vice Chair Brad Bell felt uncomfortable presiding over the mixed use item having a vested interest
in property within the study area and also stepped down. In the absence of a Chair and the Vice
Chair, Bell instructed the remaining members to select an acting chair.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
After little discussion, Board member Jerry Daman MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton
SECONDED the motion to select Ron Harmon as the "acting" Chair. The motion carried
unanimously.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon asked staff to begin their presentation. Planning Director Jim Harris
explained that this item has been previously heard during the Land Use and Planning Board
Workshops and notices were mailed to property owners notifying them of this hearing. Mr. Harris
introduced Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill.
Mr. O'Neill presented background information regarding mixed use zoning. He explained that the
Kent Comprehensive Plan promotes mixed use activity centers and designates certain areas in the
city for mixed use development. There are three areas designated for mixed use in the
Comprehensive Plan within the City. These areas include sites on West Meeker Street.and
Washington Avenue North, North Central Avenue between James Street and SR-167, and a large
area along 104th Avenue SE from 235th to 264th including an area down Kent-Kangley.
He explained that there are several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan which support
mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, amendments must be made to the
City's Zoning Code. The proposed amendments would change the zoning in specific areas to allow
mixed use development and/or residential development. The amendments would also affect
permitted uses, development standards, and design review.
All the areas selected for mixed use are presently zoned for commercial use. The areas along West
Meeker Street and North Central are zoned General Commercial (GC), while the area along 104th
Avenue SE is zoned Community Commercial (CC) and Office (0). Currently, residential uses are
neither allowed as a principal use nor as a conditional use in the GC zone. Mr. O'Neill explained
that staff is proposing three alternatives which could allow mixed use development.
7
9ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
Alternative 1 would be to amend the existing text for the GC, CC, and the O zoning districts.
The amendments would allow mixed use or residential uses as a principally permitted use, and
would recommend different development standards. Mr. O'Neill pointed out that there are areas in
the city which are zoned GC, CC, and O that are not designated as mixed use in the comprehensive
plan and typically any zoning text amendment would affect all areas which had that zoning
designation. He explained that this alternative could result in zoning changes applying to an overly
broad area.
Alternative 2 would establish a new Mixed Use Zoning District. This alternative would amend
the zoning text and the zoning map by creating new zoning districts for the areas designated as
mixed use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill explained that this alternative would have the
advantage of creating an entirely new set of regulations for these districts, which would clearly
indicate a new direction for development in these areas. Problems arise with existing commercial
uses that are not compatable with residential uses as well as a potential to create a number of
noncomforming uses.
Alternative 3 would establish a mixed use "overlay" district. A zoning overlay combines
features of both a zoning text amendment and a zoning map amendment. The proposed overlay
would change the permitted uses and development standards of the General Commercial,
Community Commercial, and Office district. It would only apply to the areas defrted within the
overlay. With this alternative, Mr. O'Neill explained that the proposed zoning overlay could be
applied to the entire area designated as mixed use, or could be applied to only part of the area
designated for mixed use development.
Staff recommends Alternative 3 and as a first phase, the overlay not include all of the area
designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill also recommended developing
specific criteria in designating boundaries of the overlay area. The specific criteria is outlined in
the staff report. Using the criteria outlined Mr. O'Neill illistrated the staff recommended
boundaries (map labelled Attachment C in staff report). The underlying zoning designations would
still apply except for specific changes to permitted uses and development standards. Again parcels
outside the overlay boundary would not be affected.
O'Neill explained that mixed use refers to both mixed use buildings and mixed use developments.
A mixed use development might contain residential uses in a building or buildings separate from
buildings which contain commercial uses. Mr. O'Neill also expained the different designations in
the Comprehensive Plan allowing and disallowing residential development outright.
Staff is recommending changing the development standards for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
building height, lot coverage, setbacks and offstreet parking. Mr. O'Neill explained that all these
standards would be reduced for a mixed use development in order to encourage new mixed use
developments.
3
#ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
The policies in the comprehensive plan also state that design review will be implemented for new
development in these areas. The design review process is particularly important in a mixed use
development to ensure compatability of the residential and commercial uses. Mr. O'Neill outlined
the recommended design guidelines to be considered during an administrative review process.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon OPENED the public hearing.
Heath Harris, 1230 South 336th Street, Suite F, Federal Way, WA 98003. Mr. Heath is a
commercial real estate agent who is attending this meeting on behalf of the property owners of four
adjacent parcels located at the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 235th. Mr. Heath
indicated that he and his clients are in favor of the mixed use zoning. He requested that the Board
that they look hard at the site in quesiton.
The parcels are all presently zoned Community Commercial. Mr. Heath explained several
problems dealing with site access and little or no visibility. He indicated that a mixed use
development could open up opportunities that weren't already there. His clients would ultimately
like to develop the site as multifamily outright but concedes that mixed use is a step in the right
direction.
Dick Coltran, 1720 Edwards Court, Bellingham, WA 98226. Mr. Coltran owns property at 10817
Kent Kangley Road, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Coltran's property is approximately two acres and he
would like to develop this property. He is pleased with what he has heard regarding the mixed use
proposal.
He is concerned with whether or not you could have separate building developments. He indicated
that you need-to have an ability to separate the developments. (Separate the commercial and the
residential). He questioned how this situation would occur.
Mr. Coltran's parcels are currently zoned Office and he questioned if the commercial on his
property would still be limited to Office and would retail be allowed? He very much likes the idea
of mixed use and thinks it gives a great deal of flexibility for his propery. He indicated that this
could be very beneficial.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon asked for any additional input from the public. There were no more
requests to speak. Board member Jerry Daman MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton
SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. The motion carried.
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill addressed the questioned that were presented during public's
testimony. Mr. O'Neill clarified that the proposal allows mixed use development. Which allows
development to be in separate buildings on a particular site. He indicated that the consideration to
a
#ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
allow multifamily residential uses outright in the Easthill area would not be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr O'Neill further explained that there is no revision that requires the development to be a mixed
use development. The properties could still be developed within the current uses (Office, GC, CC).
Mr. O'Neill offered an opportunity to get with Mr. Coltran to inform him of the allowed uses in the
Office zone.
Board member Tom Brotherton questioned whether there was any limitation or concern with
having the mixed use development spread over a period of time. Brotherton questioned whether
the developer would have to committ to a plan.
Mr. O'Neill explained that on Easthill it would be important for the developer to committ to a plan
expecially since stand alone residential would not be allowed. Mr. O'Neill explained that in order
to allow the mixed use development to happen in the Easthill area particularly staff would have to
be certain that it would indeed be a mixed use development. The applicant would have to show a
clear obligation to build both components of the development. Mr. O'Neill indicated thhat it would
not be as big of a concern in the Valley areas because stand alone residential and stand alone
commercial would both be allowed.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon reopened the public hearing to allow for rebuttal testimony. He asked
the public if they had any input.
Steve Dowell, 4301 Glenwood Lane, Kent, WA. Mr. Dowell addressed the issue of firmer
development standards in the Commercial zones if the parcels designated for mixed use are
developed commercial outright. He voiced his concern with the ability to toughen development
standards from what is allowed outright today.
Mr. O'Neill outlined the recommended standard changes and clarified that the reason behind staff
recommending reducing standards for stand alone commercial in a mixed use overlay zone is solely
being done to promote mixed use activity. He explained that the Board has the option to
recommend to Council to keep the stand alone commercial standards at what they are today.
Chair Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member David Malik SECONDED a motion to re-open
the public hearing. Motion carried.
Bill Keppler, 9654 Rainier Avenue S, Seattle, WA 98118. Mr. Keppler owns a small piece of
property in the Valley and believes it is important to get the maximum lot coverage and the least
setback requirements. He is against any changes that would reduce the current stand alone
commercial standards.
5
4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
4ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
Heath Harris asked for further clarification of lot coverage and questioned whether there would be
a fixed ratio used to determine the allowable mix of residential to commerical.
Dick Coltran questioned the abililty to subdivide the different uses for future sale.
Jack Olson, 26220 108th Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Olson is concerned with whether he
will have the ability to develop his property. He feels mixed use could allow him better flexibilty
and an opportunity to build marketably.
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Board member Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. Motion carved.
Mr. O'Neill addressed Mr. Keppler's question regarding lot coverage. He explained that the
proposed amendment would reduce lot coverage to 25% from 40% for stand alone commercial. He
also stated that setbacks would be less restrictive. Mr. O'Neill explained that the Binding Site Plan
process segmentation that divides condiminiums for individual sale and suggested a similar process
when subdividing for future sale. Mr. O'Neill explained that the office zone would allow some
retail use and the retail use is expandable with a conditional use permit.
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED to continue the deliberations to the November 25, 1996
Planning Board meeting at 7:00 p.m. The motion was SECONDED by Board member David
Malik. Motion carried.
#ZCA 96 6 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the single family development standards had
been recently amended by Ordinances 3268 and 3290. Mr. Satterstrom explained that it was staffs
intention to reduce the standards and promote in-fill development. The single family zoning
districts were renamed establishing maximum permitted density.
A problem was brought to the attention of the Planning Department when an applicant tried to
subdivide and couldn't. Staff is recommending to calculate the maximum permitted density
without rounding. Mr. Satterstrom described the individual changes as referenced in the staff
report. He also clarified that the reason no change was recommended for the SR-1 zone was that
this zone was not effected.
Chair Steve Dowell asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Satterstrom.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to open the public hearing. Motion carried.
6
#ZCA-96-5 Alixed Use Zoning
4ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
Jim Flick, 9408 S 218th Street. Mr. Flick described his situation and explained that he is currently
unable to subdivide his property. He requested that the Board make a recommendation to accept
staff s proposed changes.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED to close the public hearing. The motion was SECONDED
by Board member Tom Brotherton. Motion carried.
Ron Harmon MOVED to recommend to City Council that they approve the staff recommended
changes to the maximum permitted densities in the single family zones. The motion was seconded
by Vice Chair Brad Bell. Motion carved.
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully,
J es P Harris
Recor ing Secretary
7
4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZC9-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
CITY OFE2 �'�,
i i
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
OCTOBER 28. 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE
AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING STUDY
INTRODUCTION
One of the central themes in the Growth Management Act, as well as in regional and countywide
planning goals, is the notion of utilizing urban land more efficiently in order to reduce urban
sprawl. One mechanism to accomplish this which is referenced in both Vision 2020 and the King
County Countywide Planning Policies is the idea of creating mixed use activity centers, which
would combine commercial and residential land uses. These areas would be designed to allow
a compatible mixture of uses to bring housing closer to jobs and commercial services, support
public transit, and increase housing options. In addition to being consistent with regional policies,
the notion of mixed use development was also supported by citizens during the Community
Forums and Visual Preference Surveys undertaken during the development of the City's Comp-
rehensive Plan.
The Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development,
meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan
Map in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central
Avenue,and 104th Avenue SE as Mixed Use(see attached Land Use Plan Map, labelled Attachment
A). The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development. In
order to implement these policies, amendments must be made to the City's zoning code. This memo
will review the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan related to mixed use
development and then will outline proposed amendments to the Kent zoning code in order to allow
220 Jth A%E.SO.. l KENT.N ASHIXGTON 9803_-5895/TELEPHONE 100 i8i9-1400/FAX x 859-3134
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 2
and encourage mixed use development in certain parts of the city. These proposed amendments
would affect permitted uses, development standards, and design review.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
As stated, the Land Use Plan Map designates the areas outlined on the attached maps for mixed use
development. There are also several policies in the Land Use Element which support mixed use
development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers. These goals and policies are
outlined below.
Goal LU-6 - Designate activity centers in portions of the city and in the annexation area. Allow in
these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development.
Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain
concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium- density
housing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional
sprawling development patterns.
Policy LU-6.2 -Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses
as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand-alone basis
in designated areas.
Goal LU-7 -Develop activity centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and public
transportation.
Policy LU-7.1 - Implement design review for development in designated activity
centers to ensure pedestrian and transit orientation.
Policy LU-7.2 - Develop site and parking design standards in activity centers
which support transit.
Policy LU-7.3 - Ensure that the City's street and construction design standards in
activity centers enhance pedestrian circulation, transit, and aesthetics.
The decision to allow for mixed use development in the comprehensive plan was driven by several
factors. In the public participation process used during the formation of the plan, citizens at
community forums expressed support for the concept of mixed use development. Furthermore,
when the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan was done, citizens were asked to
evaluate three land use alternatives: continuation of the existing plan, a plan which focussed a
large percentage of future growth in the downtown area, and a plan which focussed new growth
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 3
in several mixed use centers, including the downtown and the areas shown on the attached Land
Use Plan map. The mixed use plan alternative was strongly favored over the other two. Mixed
use development has the advantage of locating residential and commercial uses in closer proximity
to one another, therefore creating more vibrant areas and promoting transit.
In addition, one of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning
process was finding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially-
zoned areas within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of
the community and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family
areas to multi-family, which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore,
the plan outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly
changing the zoning in single-family areas. Mixed use development is one of these strategies,
along with allowing smaller single-family lot sizes, more flexible development standards for
single-family development, and accessory dwelling units.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
The following sections of the memorandum will outline the recommended amendments to the
zoning code to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which are discussed
above. The memorandum will discuss the scope of the zoning amendments with regard to the area
affected by the changes, and will then outline specific recommendations with regard to permitted
uses, density, development standards, and design review.
Due to the complex nature of this project, and the fact that it is a relatively new concept for the
City of Kent, the City hired Mark Hinshaw, an architect and urban design consultant, to help
outline recommendations regarding zoning amendments for mixed use development. Many of his
recommendations, which have been presented to the Land Use Board in workshops, have been
incorporated in the staff recommendation. His recommendations, and further background
regarding mixed use development, are outlined in a report. which is attached as an appendix to
this memorandum.
GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF MIXED USE ZONING
The attached maps (Attachment B) show the areas which are designated as mixed use in the
comprehensive plan. These areas are located along West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue,
and 104th Avenue SE. As outlined in the plan, the areas along West Meeker Street and North
Central Avenue would allow residential uses as a principally permitted use, while residential uses
would need to be part of a mixed use development in the area along 104th Avenue SE.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 4
These areas are presently zoned for commercial use. The areas along West Meeker Street and
North Central are zoned General Commercial (GC), while the area along 104th Avenue SE is
zoned Community Commercial (CC) and Office (0). Currently, residential uses are neither
allowed as a principal use nor as a conditional use in the GC zone. Residential uses can be
developed in the CC and O zones as part of a mixed use development, but also must be approved
through a conditional use permit. With regard to proceeding with zoning code amendments to
allow mixed use development, staff considered three broad alternatives. These are discussed
below.
Alternative 1--Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Zoning Districts
This alternative would amend the existing zoning text for the GC, CC, and O zoning districts.
The amendments would allow mixed use or residential uses as a principally permitted use, and
would recommend different development standards. However, there are areas in the city which
are zoned GC, CC, and O which are not designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan and
typically any zoning text amendment would affect all areas which had that zoning designation.
Therefore, this alternative could result in zoning changes applying to an overly broad area.
Alternative 2--Establish New Mixed Use Zoning District(s)
This alternative would amend the zoning text and the zoning map by creating new zoning districts
for the areas designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. This alternative would have the
advantage of creating an entirely new set of regulations for these districts, which would clearly
indicate a new direction for development in these areas. However, these are all existing
commercial areas with a variety of existing uses, some of which are presently not compatible with
residential development. This is particularly true for areas which are zoned GC, which allows
uses such as automobile sales and repair and other uses which are distinguished by outdoor storage
and high traffic volumes. A rezone to a mixed use zone would potentially create a number of
nonconforming uses, thus creating uncertainty and opposition by many property owners in these
areas.
Alternative 3--Establish Mixed Use "Overlay" District
With regard to this alternative, it is important to emphasize that the zoning code consists of both
text and a map. Amendments to the zoning text apply to any area in the city which has that
zoning. For example, changing a development standard in the GC (General Commercial) zone
such as building setback requirements would apply this standard to any parcel zoned GC. On the
other hand, zoning map amendments affect only the specific parcels which are changed.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 5
A zoning overlay combines features of both a zoning text amendment and a zoning map
amendment. The proposed overlay would change the permitted uses and development standards of
the underlying zoning districts (in this case, General Commercial, Community Commercial, and
Office). However, it would only change these standards for the area defined in the overlay. .Other
areas within these zoning districts, such as the GC area on Pacific Highway South;would not be
changed. This is the major advantage of using an overlay for this project, as opposed to simply
proposing an overall text amendment to the applicable zoning district.
Under this alternative, the proposed zoning overlay could be applied to the entire area designated
as mixed use, or could be applied to only part of the area designated for mixed use development.
The advantage of a broad overlay is that the zoning designation would mirror the comprehensive
plan designation, which conforms to the requirement in the Growth Management Act that
development regulations implement and be consistent with comprehensive plans. A narrower
overlay, on the other hand,would allow for a more "tailored" approach to implementing mixed use.
All of the mixed use areas are established commercial areas, and there is existing development which
may not be compatible with new mixed use or residential development. A smaller overlay would
allow the areas which seem best suited for this type of development to be targeted in the initial phase
of this zoning amendment. If there were successful projects constructed, or if more property owners
wanted to see the overlay apply to their properties,then the overlay could be expanded in the future.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Alternative 3, a zoning overlay, be implemented. Furthermore, staff
recommends that, as a first phase, the overlay not include all of the area designated as mixed use in
the comprehensive plan. While over time it is hoped that much of this area will redevelop in ways
which will make for a viable,vibrant mixed use community. it must be recognized that at the present
there are several areas which are not conductive to this type of development. Furthermore, there are
many new developments in these areas which will likely not redevelop in the 20-year time horizon
of the comprehensive plan.
In designing a smaller overlay area for the first phase of this zoning amendment, it is important to
develop criteria to guide the selection of the overlay boundaries. These criteria should provide
guidance to staff, the Board, and the City Council with regard to why certain parcels were selected
for the overlay while other parcels were not. It also will prevent these decisions from being made
in an arbitrary manner. Staff recommends the following criteria be used in designating the
boundaries of the overlay area:
• Subareas with the potential to aggregate vacant and/or redevelopable parcels
• Proximity to existing residential uses
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 6
• Proximity to existing commercial uses which would support residential use and help
make the commercial component of a mixed use building or development more viable
• Separation from existing, "high impact" commercial uses which would not be compatible
with housing
• Subareas with better potential to support pedestrian-oriented development
• Proximity to transit stops, existing parks, and community facilities
Based on these proposed criteria, staff has recommended boundaries for the overlay area. This is
shown an the attached maps, labelled Attachment C.
The attached maps show the areas which are proposed for the mixed use overlay. Within these areas,
the underlying zoning designations would still apply, except for specific changes which will be
recommended below. These changes relate to both permitted uses and development standards. It
is important to note, however,that all existing permitted uses in the applicable zoning districts would
still be permitted. Also, parcels located outside of the overlay boundary would not be affected.
PERMITTED USES
It should be clarified that the notion of"mixed use" refers to both mixed use buildings and mixed
use development (meaning a mix of uses located side by side, instead of in one building). This is
discussed at some length in the attached report by Mark Hinshaw. Staff recommends that the notion
of"mixed use" apply to mixed use developments, not only mixed use buildings. Therefore, a mixed
use development might contain residential uses in a building or buildings separate from buildings
which contain commercial uses. This is consistent with the existing definitions in the Kent zoning
code, which are noted below.
Mixed use building or structure(emphasis added)means a building that contains two
(2) or more separate and distinct uses permitted in the zoning district where such
building is located. (Section 15.02.259, Kent Zoning Code)
Mixed use development(emphasis added) shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses
or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site.
(Section 15.02.260, Kent Zoning Code)
This distinction is important, since the comprehensive plan states that for the area designated as
mixed use along 104th Avenue SE, residential uses should only be allowed if they are part of a
Subject: 4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 7
mixed use development. Therefore, it should be made clear that a mixed use development could
mean two or more separate buildings.
As stated earlier, the comprehensive plan makes a distinction between the mixed use areas located
in the valley (along West Meeker and North Central Avenue) and the mixed use area on East Hill
(along 104th Avenue SE). The plan states that in the mixed use areas in the valley, residential uses
may be permitted outright in a stand alone condition; while on East Hill, residential uses would be
allowed only in conjunction with a mixed use development. Therefore, the following sections will
distinguish the mixed use overlay areas in the valley with the overlay areas on East Hill with regard
to proposed zoning amendments.
In terms of permitting residential uses, the following is recommended, in conformance with the
comprehensive plan.
Use Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Multifamily Residential Permitted Permitted only as part of a
mixed use development
DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
The Kent zoning code regulates both uses and development standards within zoning districts, such
as height, setbacks, and parking. The areas designated for mixed use development are now zoned
for commercial uses, and the existing development standards within the GC, CC, and O zoning
districts are outlined to regulate primarily auto-oriented commercial development. Different
standards are appropriate for residential and mixed use developments. Furthermore, the policies in
the comprehensive plan discuss ensuring that new development in these areas enhance pedestrian
circulation, transit, and aesthetics. The following sections will outline proposed amendments to
development standards which would apply within the mixed use overlay.
Development Intensity
Typically, development intensity in commercial and industrial zoning districts is regulated by
specific development standards such as height, setbacks, and site coverage. These standards will be
explained in more detail in subsequent sections. In residential zones, development intensity is
regulated by these development standards, but also by allowing a certain number of units per acre.
For the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that development intensity, or density, be regulated
by utilizing floor area ratio, or FAR. FAR is the ratio of gross building floor area to site area.
Therefore, a building with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area on a lot consisting of 20,000 square
feet would have an FAR of 0.5. Floor area ratio provides a uniform way of measuring the allowable
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 8
intensity of both commercial and residential development (as opposed to units per acre, which is
only applicable for residential development), which is why it is appropriate in mixed use areas. It
also provides a mechanism for offering incentives for mixed use development, by providing a "base
density" for commercial development, but allowing this to be increased for mixed use development.
The recommended FARs for the mixed use overlay are outlined below.
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Floor Area Ratio .25-for commercial
.50 for commercial with residential'
1.0 for residential'-
Site Coverage
Site coverage is the portion of a lot which is covered by buildings or structures. For example, a
building with a building envelope of 10,000 square feet on a 40,000 square foot lot would have a site
coverage of 25 percent. Site coverage is one of the ways that bulk and scale are regulated in
commercial and industrial zoning districts. Currently, maximum site coverage in the GC and CC
zones is 40 percent, while maximum site coverage in the O zone is 30 percent. Similar to the FAR
standards, it is recommended that a slightly lower "base" lot coverage be established for commercial
uses, with the opportunity to expand the standard for mixed use or residential development.
Within the mixed use overlay, the following lot coverage standards are recommended:
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Site Coverage 25 percent for commercial
75 percent with residential 60 percent with residential
'Commercial floor area may be increased by one square foot for each one square foot
of residential floor area provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of .5.
'Residential FAR may be increased by .5, if parking is provided below grade, up to a
maximum of 1.5.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 9
Height
Another way that building bulk and scale is regulated in the Kent zoning code is by controlling the
maximum height of buildings. Within commercial zoning districts, building height is regulated both
by the number of stories and the total height. In the CC and O zones,the maximum building height
is three (3) stories or 40 feet, while the building height requirement in the GC zone is two (2) stories
or 35 feet. Within the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that building height be regulated by
building height (number of feet) only, as opposed to number of stories, since a "story" may be quite
different for a commercial space as opposed to a residential space. It is recommended once again
that a base building height be established for commercial uses, with the option to build higher based
on the provision of certain amenities, as noted in the footnotes.
Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Building height' 25 feet basic standard
50 feet maximum 40 feet maximum
Setbacks
Setback (also referred to as yard in the zoning code) is the distance a building must be from a
property line. Within the commercial zoning districts, there are currently front yard setback
requirements of 15 feet in the CC zone,20 feet in the GC zone, and 25 feet in the O zone. Front yard
setbacks are typically required in commercial zoning districts which allow automobile-oriented uses,
in recognition of the fact that parking lots are often developed in front of buildings. However, as
mentioned, the policies in the comprehensive plan encourage not only that residential and
commercial uses be integrated in these areas, but that new development occur in a way which is
more pedestrian- and transit-oriented. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to allow buildings
to be constructed right up to the sidewalk. This type of commercial development, which is now
found primarily in the downtown area, allows pedestrians to move comfortably between businesses
and between buildings and public sidewalks. It is recommended, therefore, that front setback
requirements be eliminated within the mixed use overlay. The recommended side and rear yard
setback requirements outlined below are no different from the ones which currently exist.
'Basic heights may be increased up to the maximum, according to the following
formula:
5 foot increase for development containing residential
5 foot increase for placing parking under the building
5 foot increase for using a pitched roof form
5 foot increase for stepping back from the top floor (min. of 5 feet)
Subject: 4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 10
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Setbacks
Front: None (0 feet)'
Rear and side: None (0 feet)'
Off-Street Parking
Off-Street parking standards are regulated in the Kent zoning code by use, and are typically uniform
throughout zoning districts. Off-street parking is regulated based on the amount of floor area for
commercial and industrial projects, and the number of dwelling units for residential developments.
Off-street parking facilities can often be used more efficiently in a mixed use area, since the peak
demand periods for commercial and residential uses are often at different times of the day. However,
the City's existing parking standards for mixed use development do not recognize this, and currently
require that when two or more uses are located in the same building, the total requirements for off-
street parking spaces be the sum of the uses computed separately (Section 15.05.040(I). Kent Zoning
Code). Therefore, within the mixed use overlay, the follow-inc, standards are recommended:
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Off-Street Parking
Retail/Office': 3.5 spaces/1,000 sf floor area 4 spaces/1,000 sf floor area
Residential:
Studio: .75/du without comm., .50/du with comm
One bedroom: 1.5/du without comm., 1.0/du with comm
Two bedroom: 2.0/du without comm.. 1.25/du with comm
'Some setback may be required in the front yard to accommodate a sidewalk which
shall be at least 10 feet in width.
5Setbacks of at least 20 feet would be required in any side or rear yards that are
adjacent to a residential zoning district.
'In order to encourage retail in mixed use developments, the first 300 square feet of
retail or office space that is part of an individual residential unit would be exempt.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 11
DESIGN REVIEW
In addition to encouraging the establishment of mixed use areas, the policies in the comprehensive
plan also state that design review be implemented for new development in these areas. Design
review of projects can help ensure that new development is well designed, and is compatible with
both the surrounding neighborhoods and prospective new development. This is particularly
important in a mixed use area, to ensure that both new residential and commercial development can
be mutually supportive.
Design review is currently implemented for all multi-family residential projects, and for all new
development in the downtown area. It is recommended that design review also be implemented for
all new development within the mixed use overlay. The following section will describe the proposed
design review process, followed by a summary of recommended design review guidelines.
Design Review Process
Design review in the City of Kent for multi-family and downtown development is done
administratively, meaning that no public hearing is required. The multi-family design review
process involves review of projects by Planning Department staff, while the downtown design
review process involves final review and approval by the downtown administrative design review
committee, which consists of representatives from the Planning, Public Works, and Parks
Departments. In both cases, design review occurs as part of the building permit review process.
Applicants submit site plans, landscaping plans, and building elevations, which
are reviewed based on specific criteria relating to site design, landscaping, and building design.
Design review is meant to be a collaborative process. where staff work with the developer to
mutually achieve a quality project.
It is recommended that design review for the mixed use overlay also be an administrative process,
meaning that prospective developers would work with city staff. This type of process offers both
flexibility and predictability, as opposed to projects being reviewed by a separate design review
board. It is also recommended that projects be reviewed administratively by Planning Department
staff, similar to the multi-family design review process, as opposed to being approved by a
committee.
Design Review Guidelines
Many of the design criteria which are presently used for multi-family design review would also be
applicable to the mixed use overlay. These are attached for your review. However, mixed use
development is different from many types of multi-family development, in that it combines
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 12
commercial uses, and would also be constructed in a more developed, urban environment.
Therefore, some different criteria need to be developed for these areas.
Mark Hinshaw has recommended that development projects in the mixed use area include the
following design features:
• Some common recreation space
-roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards
• Lighting features that are shielded, directing light downwards
• The residential portion of the building should incorporate residential details, such as
window trim, trellises, balconies, and bay windows
• The residential component should have an obvious, generous entrance, within features
suggesting a "front door", for example a lobby, trellis, gate, archway, or courtyard
The following design features are recommended for mixed use buildings:
Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments, separated by landscaping
and structures, so that parking does not dominate the site
• Ground-level commercial space should be articulated by use of different materials,
generous windows with low sill heights, "store" doors, canopies, and planters
• Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner, with stepbacks, change in
materials or color, and overhangs
• Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor commercial base and not
extend up into the residential floor facades.
In addition, the following criteria should apply to mixed use developments (or "horizontal" mired
use):
• If the residential component is located away from the main street, a landscaped
pedestrian path should be provided between the entrance and the public sidewalk
• Although the commercial and residential components may have different architectural
expressions, they should exhibit a number of elements that produce the effect of an
integrated development.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 13
• Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an amenity. Lighting
fixtures should not exceed the height of the first floor.
CONCLUSION
This memorandum summarizes the recommended zoning amendments for the proposed mixed use
overlay. The overlay boundaries and development standards should be considered as a first phase
of implementing mixed use zoning in these areas. It will be possible to expand the boundaries of
the overlay area, either now, based on public testimony, or in the future.
In summary, staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the following
recommendations to the City Council:
A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which are
outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C.
B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development standards
. within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use overlay
be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design review criteria
would be modeled after the City's existing multi-family design review process,but would
be supplemented as indicated in the staff report.
KON/tb:MULUB 102.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Tj
I �' r I
I
4
•� `i
f
E \
I
1.
II
11 y ' � �I
n� s J7 it --
v
at
�
� 1-
S
�d
f J_
O s s
J i/] Cif 171
PJ ^J
_ E
is
0
ATTACHMENT B
MIXED USE
TiWil ! ;
L: OU 5T
Itp
--.T
z
it
IT
1: wl
LLJ '
Ix
VER
u
=71 N
gnYl�Yw i .5c.'Lw'°m mxr a $ �1 n..
• b-,. ���•`e&�`.w.��'i4di���sa nW''"°
• y-+T 4 ''�„LilMr�ns f'X�'�yy. .ir Y3 �.K.'7��h 'r��eeaC`�.r"
R, � `�3 >dfii^�.1Y�'a �✓r3 �� °a R� �` � 2" �P r'Y
01 ab Sc *i';r:y x+,t pert-�{ irti•.s,'",`,.5�.� +�'v e� ���u' �'G £.
�rviv`�w��.,�SxVY���2W,�`�y➢"g'�.Cr�Z:e'4Y r'h Sit ��4uX�E'- i.- - _-r
b •
' a I
w
a
CD
0 235_P
`236 ST
u,_t— 1 � (yJ '�iT � 3 Jar G.��l � .I•i- I rr IS�� I�.� _' ` i LIMITED3Li S T
_� Sr Ii�
USE
MIXETI
¢, Nm
V,�,
�.:
i -
-
-��t� � 24
--_ .--Q —
IU r IBIS
2 4 5:
JA�a I I
p
ILSE
24171 PL7247
- v
J T I J^r� �'jiscf� r, c r-
SE �- - -- -
_
1�Jf�
Him
i I `V1
I
W.
i ATTACHMENT C
I MIXED USE
2 F n W — ou ST
_- -_-- JAMES=ST
----
— - '- _5MiTH -51 CAI
- - s
,ram
(S 246ST)
Rim �, — C
VER -- — - i
\ I
-
_ � I
MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA
I
MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY j
■
1�
i
/
I /
1 ,
/ II
11 �
i =
/
� I
t 1.
I
• •
RESTRICTED MIXED USE
-7
till
-77
L ------
ro"-1
V
SE UU. S 7
--j
-2
-7
PL 4 5
246 PL
-247 PLj
If7;
7 7-7-71
aE
T...T;:,� -
-7-
5 E
F
77
lz.-5
LSE 26
ILI
cr
'LY7
MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA
MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY
APPENDIX
City of Kent
Mixed Use Zoning:
Alternatives, Issues & Recommendations
B 4.MR.
�t
1 - --r Q -
(
August 8, 1996
Mark L. Hinshaw FAIA AICP
Table of Contents
Pase
Introduction I
Alternatives 3
Issues and Recommendations 7
Forms of Mixed Use 7
Geographic Coverage S
Standards 9
Design Review 17
Introduction
Throughout the Pacific Northwest, as well as elsewhere in the country,
communities are grappling with ways of redesigning zoning to produce more
positive results than what has been achieved over the past fifty years.
Conventional development during the post-war decades has produced a pattern
of land use that blurs the distinction between communities: single-purpose
commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt, with little opportunity for
movement except by automobile, no public spaces or amenities, and no real
sense of character other than provided by franchises. The development pattern
along West Meeker, Central Avenue and 104th Avenue are examples of this
trend.
Communities like Kent are beginning to explore ways of altering this generic
pattern by re-examining both the form of public investments and development
regulations. But accomplishing a major shift is not a simple task. Many factors
serve to maintain the current situation, such as the attitudes of financial
institutions, mainstream marketing of real estate, goods, and services,
established methods of development, and consumer behavior. Change is
possible, but needs to occur over time and with opportunities for adjustments in
the market place that are neither sudden nor risky.
The City of Kent has recognized the value of encouraging mixed use
development in its recently-adopted comprehensive plan. The Land Use Plan
Map designates several areas (cited above) as appropriate for mixed use. (These
areas are currently zoned for commercial use. The West Meeker and North
Central areas are zoned GC and the area along 104th is zoned CC and O.) The
plan identifies two designations: one allowing multifamily residential as a
permitted use, together with retail and off-ice uses and another allowing
multiple family residential only as pan of a mixed use development.
Crafting new forms of regulations that will produce a different development
pattern requires a "targeted and tailored" approach, not one than is sweeping
and massive. Few developers want to take a risk in breaking an established
form of development; business decisions can be tenuous enough without trying
to introduce new configurations and types of buildings. However, some things
can be altered or at least encouraged through incentives, bonuses, and design
guidelines. So long as there is flexibility, new development and redevelopment
can gradually adjust and accommodate itself. It may only take a few key
elements to begin to change the character of strip commercial areas; but.
regardless, the change will be incremental.
In order to implement the goals and policies of Kent's comprehensive plan,
mixed use regulations should achieve a number of objectives:
o Contribute toward meeting Comprehensive Plan target for population
increase / housing needs.
o Stimulate more efficient use of land in the vicinity of public
transportation, services and jobs.
o Encourage infill development and redevelopment by the private sector.
o Create a safe, convenient, attractive, and livable environment for
households of varying income, age and composition.
o Focus new higher density residential development in already
established, more central parts of the city, rather than in new areas at
the edges.
2
Alternatives
A number of concepts should be common to all alternatives:
o Remove procedural disincentives (CUP) / Allow residential by-right.
o Weight development potential in favor of housing.
o Offer bonuses for including housing (FAR, height, coverage).
o Offer incentives for other desired amenities and features.
o Reduce parking requirements in recognition of increased efficiency.
o Require design review and use of design guidelines.
Three distinctly different alternatives are possible. They are described, along
with their advantages and disadvantages, below.
3
Alternative 1
Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Districts to Allow/Encourage Residential
In this alternative, the current zoning would be revised to allow mixed use,
offering incentives, incorporating new standards, and adding design guidelines.
Advantages:
o Established districts that people are familiar with.
o Text amendments can be made relatively easily.
o Doesn't require new or adjusted boundaries
Disadvantages:
o Changes each district as a whole, which may be too broad.
o Could result in many incompatible uses and conditions.
o Could be controversial, given the geographic expanse.
o Might not be effective in producing a livable environment.
o Could produce scattered pockets of housing, some in undesirable
areas.
4
Alternative 2
Create Mixed Use "Overlay" District
This alternative would involve applying a special set of regulations to all or
some portion of each of the areas identified in the plan for mixed use.
Advantages:
o Allows for limited application.
o Allows for different standards (either more or less restrictive).
o Can be done through a text amendment (which can include maps).
o Can initiate long-term change by starting small and focusing.
o Involves a more "tailored" regulatory technique.
Disadvantages:
o May still require some changes to underlying district(s).
o Introduces a level of complexity.
o May be perceived as unfair if some portions of the underlying district
are treated differently than others.
5
Alternative 3
Establish New Mixed Use District(s)
In this alternative, the current zoning classifications would be removed and
replaced with a completely new classification, with unique standards, incentives
and guidelines.
Advantages:
o Dramatically signals a new desired direction.
o Allows for completely fresh regulations.
o Offers clarity for property owners desiring the new direction.
Disadvantages:
o May require more than one, to reflect different situations.
o Would involve a map change, with required notice.
o Might not be appropriate for all areas being considered.
o Perception of major change can cause uncertainty in private sector.
o Can upset property owners who don't agree with new direction.
o Could result in numerous non-conforming developments.
6
Issues and Recommendations
1. Forms of Mixed Use
In recent years, it has been popular to propose a return to a "romanticized"
version of mixed use. Specifically, this is the notion of people living above the
store. This form of mixed use -- mixed use building -- has been encouraged
through development regulations that either require or offer incentives for
developers to build both housing and commercial uses within the same
structure. While this form has been built in areas throughout the region. it has
often not been successful because of a number of factors. First, the
development industry has become specialized. Firms know how to develop
given types of uses to meet specific markets, but they rarely understand how to
design, market, and operate combinations of use. Second, building and fire
code requirements are considerably more complex when uses ("occupancies")
are mixed, driving up costs. Third, mixing uses, especially housing and
commercial, complicates maintenance, security, advertising, parkin_, ownership,
leasing, and management. Fourth, income produced by each type of use can
radically differ from what was originally anticipated and where one use does
not perform adequately, the other use suffers. Finally, for all of the above
reasons, banks are extremely reluctant to provide financing for mixed use
buildings.
Another form of mixed use that achieves virtually all of the benefits and has
few of the liabilities is mixed use development. Sometimes called "horizontal
mixed use," this places the housing component on a different pad than the
commercial component. Each could even be on parcels that are owned by
different parties, so long as their design is integrated together. Many features
could be shared, such as access, parking, open space, pedestrian connections,
security, etc. But each can also be independently financed, developed and
managed. Another advantage of this form is that the commercial component
can be placed along a busy arterial street, buffering the residential units.
A third form of development is called mixed use neighborhoods. This involves
using a finely-grained pattern of zoning to encourage different uses to be in
close proximity to one another. This is somewhat more of a fragmented
7
approach and does not always result in development that fits together well.
However, strong design guidelines and review by the city over a sustained
period of time can produce desirable results.
In fact, achieving mixed use requires using all of these forms of development.
No one technique will be sufficient. Re-introducing the concept of mixed use,
after decades of single use development, will necessitate promoting and using a
variety of forms.
It is recommended that mixed use buildings be considered only one form of
mixed use. Current code language that produces developments and
neighborhoods containing both residential and commercial uses should be
continued.
2. Geographic Coverage
To encourage the development of mired use sites and buildings, there are two
basic options with respect to land area designated for such development. One
option would be to use the already existing areas designated for GC, CC and O
zoning. However, intensive commercial use is so new or so firmly established
in some areas in which mixed use may be extremely difficult to achieve. There
would need to be a designator such as "GC/A" to indicate specific areas where
this pattern is more possible or desired. Another approach is to carve out
smaller portions of area currently zoned GC, CC and O (and designated for
mixed use in the comprehensive plan) and establish either a new zoning
designation or an overlay designation. An overlay designation could involve
different standards for various areas, if desired (eg. MU1, N1U2).
The overlay approach is recommended, for several reasons. First, not all
existing GC, CC and O areas may be appropriate for, or likely to be developed
with, mixed use. The physical characteristics and environmental qualities
necessary for an area to be conducive to living may not be present. Second, the
overlay approach allows the concept of mixed use to get a foothold in areas
that already have attributes supporting residential use. Third, the overlay
technique both sends out a clear, focused message about new development
possibilities and allows for a more tailored. area-specific set of standards and
incentives. Finally, the overlay method can be achieved through a text
amendment, which could avoid costly notices to individual property owners.
8
3. Development Standards
Mixed use, whether vertical (stacked) or horizontal (co-located), is a form of
development which used to be common in North America but has not been so
for four or five decades (outside major cities). In this time, the development
industry has become so specialized that only a very few companies understand
how to successfully mix uses. Furthermore, financial institutions have noted
failures of a number of mixed use buildings and, not wanting to incur risks,
have tended not to look favorably on such investments. Moreover, codes and
regulations have not really encouraged the mixing of uses, making this form of
development costly and procedurally complex. While local government cannot
have much direct influence over the development capabilities and financing
constraints, it can at least affect the climate for doing mixed use by
establishing standards that are clear, simple and favorable toward this form of
development.
Residential as an Outright Permitted Use
If a mixture of residential uses with commercial uses is truly desired, special
permitting involving public hearings cannot be a requirement. Such hurdles
present an additional degree of uncertainty to an already difficult and somewhat
risky form of development. Residential should simply be made an outright (or
"by-right") permitted use in areas designated for mixed use. This does not
preclude having a requirement for certain areas, such as East Hill, that
residential use must be a part of a mixed use project. However, to require that
residential must be part of a mixed use building is overly restrictive and would
not produce many examples of mixed use. Allowing the option of mixing uses
horizontally or laterally, can actually produce more immediate results. Different
developers can tackle portions of a project that they are expert in, building
code requirements apply easily to each component, and financing may be more
available. (This approach should allow for subdividing into different ownership
parcels, with cooperative parking agreements set forth in the deed of record, so
long as the project is integrated together by design.)
It is recommended that residential use be allowed outright, although in some
areas, allowed only as part of a mixed use development.
9
Allowable Residential Density
Conventional land use regulations have tended to set forth a maximum number
of units per acre as a control on density. Over time, what this has done is to
work against housing that is affordable to middle income households. (If a
developer can only build x number of units on a site, the tendency is to make
them relatively large and therefore relatively more expensive, so as to achieve a
higher financial return.) In the last decade or so, many communities have
begun to use another means of regulating the intensity of development. This is
the technique of "Floor Area Ratio" (or FAR for short).
FAR indicates the amount of development as a multiple of lot area. For
example, an allowable FAR of 1 would mean that a 20,000 square foot site
could hold a 20,000 square foot building. The built form containing this area
can be varied: it could be a one story building covering all of the lot, a two-
story building covering half of the lot, or a three story building covering a third
of the lot.
Moreover, using FAR instead of measures like "dwelling units per acre" or "lot
area per unit" allows a development to be configured to meet the needs of
smaller households (eg. singles, single-parent households, seniors) in that a
greater number of smaller units could be built. This tool allows the marketplace
to determine exact density in any given location, so long as parking
requirements and other standards are met. In practical terms, parking
requirements, along with height limits and lot coverage, pose an effective limit
on density. only so many spaces can be fitted onto a parcel. This constraint
would prevent someone from cramming a site with tiny dwelling units. But, it
provides an incentive to produce more compact, less costly units. Also, FAR
encourages developers to have a greater mix of unit types within a given
development, so that a greater range of household sizes and types are possible.
There are other reasons for using FAR as a regulatory tool. Mixing residential
and commercial uses together can be confusing if the amount of development
potential cannot be calculated on a common basis, ie, if residential potential is
based on units/acre and commercial potential is based on heights and lot
coverage. Using FAR (along with other standards of height, coverage, parking,
etc.) puts both uses on an even basis and development potential is simpler to
determine. In addition. using FAR allows the city to suggest what use is
preferable and to make use of an incentive system to encourage development to
occur in a certain form or provide public amenities. FAR, in short, provides
10
much more flexibility and is a technique that developers find very useful and
workable in more urbanized, mixed use areas.
FAR does not produce precise densities, because unit sizes can vary widely
(which is a principal advantage of using this technique). However, a range of
density relates to given FAR limits. For example:
.5 FAR would produce 10-30 units per acre
1.0 FAR would produce 25-45 units per acre
1.5 FAR would produce 40-60 units per acre
It is recommended that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be adopted as the method of
controlling the intensity of development in mixed use districts. Furthermore, in
order to encourage the development of housing within areas which are
currently dominated by commercial development, allowable FAR should be
significantly higher for residential use as compared with commercial. Finally,
as an incentive to provide residential, additional commercial FAR could be
granted in return for including housing within a project.
Height Limits
The concept of mixed use is identified by the Comprehensive Plan as
appropriate for areas now zoned GC, CC and O. Height limits for these
districts 35', 40' and 40', respectively. The code also states the number of
stories allowed in each: 2, 3 and 3, respectively. However, the zoning code
allows an additional increase of one story in GC and CC by the Planning
Director and yet another story by the Planning Commission.
There are several awkward and confusing complexities in these standards.
First, building height: as measured by feet is the most important element in
maintaining the sense of scale; the number of stories is not relevant. Setting
numbers of "stories" is not logical because there is a great difference between
floor-to-floor heights for various types of development. Commercial buildings
can have stories that are 15 feet in height, while typical residential stories are
Il
9-10 feet in height. Stories devoted to parking would be in the range of 8-9
feet. Therefore, although it is a popularly-used term, "story" as an actual
measure of building height is confusing and even counter-productive. (Eg. three
stories of residential are equal in height to two stories of commercial.) Height
limits should be established by number of feet only.
Second, the prospect of increases in stories through some special action,
introduces a degree of uncertainty that confuses developers. The allowable
envelope is a basic determinant of yield and, therefore, return on investment.
Developers need to know, up front, what they can do on a parcel of property.
A better approach would be to specify the amount of increase allowable in
return for providing a specific feature, and then allow the increase
administratively.
Third, it is not clear whether an increase in the number of stories also involves
an increase in dimension. Again, this supports using height dimensions only,
not stories.
A creative way of addressing height would be to set a basic height limit at a
relatively low point and then let it be increased through the inclusion of certain,
specified features that achieve public objectives. An increase could be given for
includins residential use. An increase could be given for concealing parking.
Increases could also be granted for using sloped roofs or stepped-back terraces
to soften the bulk of buildings. Critical to this approach is that such increases
are automatic: provide this and you receive that. This approach offers
flexibility, predictability and variety in result.
It is recommended that allowable building heights for mixed use districts have
a "basic" allowable height that is lower than what is currently allowed in any
of the above districts. Additional height would be granted according to a
specific schedule of features and increments of increase.
12
Lot Coverage
Normally lot coverage is not much of a constraint in single use development,
given that parking consumes the great majority of a site anyway. However,
when uses begin to be mixed together, particularly in a horizontal manner, lot
coverage can be a constraint. Furthermore, the increased development intensity
begins to justify placing some,or all of the parking within or under a building.
This requires a higher permissible lot coverage to accomplish. Currently, lot
coverages for the districts cited above range from 30% to 50%, all of which are
too low to encourage the mixing of uses.
Similar to height limits, coverage can be expressed in a manner that offers an
incentive to build in a particular way. Lot coverage could be increased in return
for doing a mixed use development. It could also be set lower for single use
development, as a disincentive.
It is recommended that a "basic" lot coverage of 25% be set for mixed use
districts. If residential use is included, the coverage could then be as much as
75%. A stricter variation on this is to require that a minimum percentage (eg.
30% or 50%) of the development be in residential use for the higher coverage
limit to be available.
Setbacks
One of the advantages of mixed use development is that it can create, over
time, an environment that is conducive to walking between places to live,
work, shop and recreate. One of the key factors in accomplishing this is to
allow and even encourage buildings to be directly adjacent to public sidewalks,
so that destinations are prominent and easily accessible, goods and services are
in plain view from sidewalks, and there is a high degree of continuity in
building form. Requiring setbacks prevents this from occurring. (However,
setbacks are useful in achieving a comfortable transition between more intense
commercial/mixed use development and lower intensity residential
development.)
13
There is one aspect to setbacks that is frequently overlooked for districts in
which greater intensity of development is expected and where better provisions
for pedestrians is desired. That is the need to establish wider sidewalks. The
typical 5 to 8 foot wide sidewalks found in strip commercial districts are not
adequate for pedestrian movement, safety and comfort, particularly as street
trees take up some of the width. (Street trees, with a minimum caliper of 3"
and a maximum spacing of 25-30' should be required in order to help make the
districts liveable.) While street improvement projects can purchase easements
or additional right-of-way, it is often not possible for a city to undertake such a
major project. Therefore, incremental enhancements are the principle means of
achieving a pedestrian setting.
Accordingly, setbacks should be required along street frontages for the purpose
of providing sidewalks that are at least 10 feet wide. (Widths greater than 12
feet are only necessary in downtown areas.) This may mean that some or all of
the sidewalk width is situated on private property.
It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, setbacks not be required.
Exceptions would be for sidewalks and where projects are adjacent to
residential districts. Design guidelines might also address the concept of
"maximum setback" in certain locations, to encourage retail uses to be oriented
to the street.
Parking
One of the greatest benefits of mixed use development is that area devoted to
parking is much more efficiently used. This is due to a number of reasons.
First, some trips are "internalized;" some people will walk between dwellings
and nearby retail shops and offices. This can allow for a reduced number of
households who need two cars. Second, for any use, but particularly
commercial uses, there is some degree of turnover of parking spaces, leading to
some spaces always being available. Different uses, co-located can take
advantage of this "inefficiency" (so long as commercial spaces are not
assigned). Third, different uses, such as office and residential, have different
times of peak use so that at night, the office stalls can be available to meet
some of the residential demand. Finally. conventional parking ratios have been
14
based upon peak periods of use; much of the time parking stalls around the
perimeter of a development are unused.
All of these factors suggest that combining residential with commercial uses
should allow for shared supply of parking.. However, the possibilities for
sharing have some limitation. The residential component will need a core
number of spaces that are dedicated for residents and, perhaps, even secure.
Commercial uses probably cannot depend upon access to residential stalls;
ratios might be somewhat reduced but probably not dramatically unless there is
very good access to public transportation for employees. (Some portion of
parking ratios are meant for employees; that portion might be reduced if
alternatives are available.)
Like other standards, parking ratios can also be used to induce the mixing of
residential and commercial. Normally, the provision of parking is a direct
expense to the developer with little possibility of income. If the amount of land
dedicated to parking can be reduced, and, therefore, more of it made available
for income-generating use, there will be some people interested in mixing
residential and commercial.
This concept needs to recognize two factors. however. Parking ratios cannot be
so low as to generate "spillover" demand that is met on adjacent streets or
properties. In addition, financial institutions. regardless of parkins codes, will
insist upon enough parking to make a project marketable.
Blending all of these factors together. along with recent research that suggests
that parking ratios are higher, in general, than they really need to be, it should
be possible to allow for some reduction in parking for mixing uses together.
It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, parking required for office and
retail uses be reduced to 3.5 stalls/1000 square feet. If a project includes
residential, the ratio for residential should be 1 stall/dwelling unit. However,
the ratio for developments containing only residential should be 1.5/du, since
there is no other use with which to share parking supply.
A variation on this would be to have a more complex set of ratios based on the
number of bedrooms in each unit, with lower ratios required when uses are
mixed, such as the following:
15
Residential Parking (spaces/unit)
Dwelling Size Not mixed Mixed
with Commercial with Commercial
Studio .75 .50
One Bedroom 1.5 1.0
Two Bedroom 2.0 1.25
16
4. Design Review
Requiring design review is an important consideration when encouraging mixed
use. Design rzvicw can ensure that new, more intensive development fits
comfortably within the context of the city in general and the surrounding
neighborhoods in particular. In addition, one objective of mixing uses is to
attract people to live in close proximity to jobs, shops, and services. If these
places are to be truly livable, qualities associated with desirable neighborhoods
need to be present and improve over time. A district dominated by generic,
flat-roofed commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt and punctuated
by large, glaring signs by will not likely be seen as a good place to live.
Therefore design review can help direct the character of both new residential
and commercial development to be mutually supportive.
This will require the use of design guidelines to inform the decisions of private
developers as well as public officials. The City of Kent has a set of guidelines
that govern multiple family projects and many of these can apply to mixed use
development. However, it will be necessary to add other guidelines addressing
conditions involving the mixture of uses. Guidelines should also be specifically
devised for stand-alone commercial buildings so that the total effect reinforces
the desired character.
Finally, design review should be an administrative process to make sure that
the overall permitting process is expeditious. Both the public sector and the
private sector must recognize that design review is a collaborative process, not
an adversarial one. This is particularly the case if mixed use districts are to
merge and thrive and become decent, healthy places in which to both live and
conduct business.
17
Design Guidelines for Mixed Use Development
Design guidelines are currently used by the City in the review of projects within
downtown and multiple family districts. Because the mixed use districts are a
hybrid of relatively intense commercial uses and relatively dense residential uses,
neither set of existing guidelines is entirely sufficient to address the conditions
associated with mixed use.
However, many of the guidelines used for multiple family development are
appropriate. All but three guidelines are applicable. Two guidelines (l.c. and 2.c.)
indicate a need for an open space network. In denser, mixed use areas, this is
difficult to achieve. Another guideline (3.a.) suggests maintaining neighborhood
scale. Because mixed use is contemplated for areas that are now mainly strip
commercial,design attention would need to be directed toward helping to establish
a new type of neighborhood rather than being compatible with the surroundings.
As described in previous sections, mixed use can occur either within the same
building (vertical mixed use) or within the same site (horizontal mixed use).
A. Guidelines for All Mixed Use Development
All mixed use development, regardless of the configuration, should include the
following design features:
1. Some common recreation space.
eg. roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards
d S
0 \
O
Is
Is
ti.I
2. Lighting fixtures that are shielded, directing light downward.
3. Residential portion should incorporate residential details.
ea. window trim, trellises, balconies, bay windows
�T
-ri
4. The residential component should have an obvious, generous
entrance, within features suggesting a "front door."
eg. lobby, trellis, decorative gate, archway, courtyard
17
5. Any walls fronting on public streets should contain endows,
irrespective of the use at the level.
ea. at least 20% of the ground floor facade must be clear glass
(a combination of decorative grillwork, art, and landscaping may
be substituted)
A
B. Guidelines for Vertical Mixed Use Development
In addition to meeting guidelines in section A. above, vertical mired use should
include the following:
1. Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments,
separated by landscaping and structures, so that parking does not
dominate the site.
2. Ground level commercial space should be articulated.
eg. different materials, generous windows with low sill heights,
"store" doors, canopies or awnings, planters
o
LA Lf
— o
i!I;;IIi!!I11 I i II !.! I II
it
1
3. Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner.
eg. stepbacks, change in materials/color, overhangs
OEt
8 B
6�
4. Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor
commercial base and not extend up into the residential floor facades.
, 1
C. Guidelines for Horizontal Mixed Use Development
In addition to meetiniz the guidelines in Section A. above, horizontal mixed use
should include the following:
1. If the residential component is located away from the main street,
a landscaped pedestrian path should be provided between the
entrance and the public sidewalk.
2. Although the commercial and residential components may have
different architectural expressions, they should exhibit a number of
elements that produce the effect of an integrated development.
0�
O 0000 _
i
Tl't
3. Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an
amenity. Lighting fixtures should not exceed the height of the first
floor.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director Jim Harris informed the Board of the December 10th Workshop. There will be
no Public Hearing for the month of December.
MIXED USE ZONING #ZCA-96-5 (Continuation from 10/28/96) (K. O'Neill)
Chair Steve Dowell excused himself from the deliberations of this item due to a personal conflict
of interest. Vice Chair Brad Bell and Board member David Malik also spoke of a conflict of interest
and removed themselves for this item.
Board member Jerry Daman announced that he was also a property owner within the mixed use
designations but felt he could still vote objectively and remained.
Tom Brotherton MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to appoint Ron Harmon as the
"acting" chair. Motion carried.
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the memo written to the Board was a response from
public testimony at the October 28 public hearing. The following items were discussed:
l. Development Standards - if the Board considers changing the staff proposed standards for
site coverage the Board should also change the floor area ratio standards concurrently.
2. Phasing of Multifamily Development- stand alone residential is not allowed in the East Hill
mixed use area, therefore, residential uses could only be permitted if there was concurrent
commercial development.
3. Changes to Zoning Designations - there is no recommendation to amend the commercial
uses. The commercial zone already in place would still determine the permitted commercial
uses. Mixed use will allow concurrent residential development on the East Hill and stand
alone residential development on the valley floor.
Mr. O'Neill informed the Board that he had received a letter from a property owner adjacent to a
mixed use area being considered. He presented the Board with a copy of the letter and asked to
make the letter a party of record. He pointed out the location of the parcel on the map.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the
following recommendations to the City Council:
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning%CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentsiZCA-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 3
A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which
are outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C of the October 28 staff report.
B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development
standards within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use
overlay be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design
review criteria would be modeled after the City's existing multifamily design review
process, but would be supplemented as indicated in the staff report.
Ron Harmon asked for further clarification of the development standards for the current commercial
zones and the proposed changes. Mr. O'Neill explained that in the current General Commercial and
Community Commercial zones 40%site coverage is allowed where in the Office zone 30%coverage
is permitted. He also explained that if the Board considers a change from the staff recommendation
for site coverage a similar change should be made for floor area ratios.
Ron Harmon requested that the letter received by the Planning Department be admitted into record.
Board member Gloria LaBore MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to accept staff
recommendation with an amendment that site coverage and floor area ratio should remain the same
as they are now for stand alone commercial. Motion carried.
1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 4CPA-96-3 (items A - G) (K. O'Neill)
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City
Council in April 1995. The Growth Management Act encourages the constant update and review
of comprehensive plans. The City established policy which allows for annual amendments and also
established specific criteria for analyzing proposed amendments. The criteria are outlined in page
2 of the staff report.
CPA-96-3(A)/CPZ-96-1 Coblentz Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the applicants property being considered consists of
three parcels on 88th Avenue South, adjacent to the SR-167 just south of 222nd. The frontage of
two of the parcels is currently designated as Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned
Commercial Manufacturing (CM-1). The remainder of the subject property is currently designated
as SF-6 on the plan and SR-6 on the zoning map. The applicants requested to change the entire area
to commercial.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentsiZCA-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
i
\ 1
1^ �
f
1� �p
1._
g
�� ■ �j ,z �1 _ mil J ;� �7 'i �r ,�, �' ��
e 7 i
1
411
I ITT
F <
c,Nnea avv7
Ko
,c n
r
P ri
n
II `� l : li� � . ' I�
IFFE 77,11 F-471,151-0-
�
I '
1 Fx���°y�✓ ���°ti�e�e5�i9 jy��.s(iY�
i :
�� �q''n.rtien�.+a4��.���'triF y3�'za7-n+�`�!a.":`-w;'� '•?��
Ir 1 Y���: yY�¢ Lo✓.a.. � J
p ta ���1
D-�
Men
!� awn=
r
z
■ t
_ I .
WN
1 fig$
•a
aY7 az, -,v_..x� �_3s...,: �•�°. �
dt
a u�j
• Ejs^`�. ��5�XI
r
Rr+�
MulI Y
l, a'
1
Rat Sl�i3�+Id +9
FS .J�r x�t a
+��Zr�
w'kY.Y�l5F,;� w i
Rios sr� .tf� r a fi•
7 �6.m�• �`.Nfj 3cb• •�d1.T1.Y e� 'i(�a•
� � ��I4'eA<✓ �=8 9 .Sty;. -i�-aM '�•^{{l r�y�es�"[i�
.L
ATTACHMENT C
MIXED USE
el. s r
I
19,
-
O
Q
0 8 VC7- :
_ JAMES_ ST -
-s e E
J -- --�'
t _ -
rz
cr
-- _R - i - -6 •` � _-i
....� 246 �ST
FON # J -
x _
uf-
VEq
- 41, jn t
1
MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA
MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY
1
1
II � �
II
I
ate `
ayT to K'vsC.
Sr
1'1-.1 .L•.
\ 1
I_I .
I �
x.t _
p
RESTRICTED MIXED USE
a_ '
SE;'-
C 4777 a PAI y9
�'.,7 q n. 17
la"
-Ll :
ow,
�Llgtl' S T
44-
45 F
7 ILSFiII,246 BL
jb -2117 PLt
x:w- at--
L
:n
S2
SE
Ad
77-1
-7:
Ll—
SE 26 TL,
MIXED USE OVERLAY AREA
MIXED USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOUNDARY
APPENDIX
City of Kent
Mixed Use Zoning:
Alternatives, Issues & Recommendations
0
o
August 8, 1996
Mark L. Hinshaw FAIA AICP
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Alternatives 3
Issues and Recommendations 7
Forms of Mixed Use 7
Geographic Coverage 8
Standards 9
Design Review 17
Introduction
Throughout the Pacific Northwest, as well as elsewhere in the country,
communities are grappling with ways of redesigning zoning to produce more
positive results than what has been achieved over the past fifty years.
Conventional development during the post-war decades has produced a pattern
of land use that blurs the distinction between communities: single-purpose
commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt, with little opportunity for
movement except by automobile, no public spaces or amenities, and no real
sense of character other than provided by franchises. The development pattern
along West Meeker, Central Avenue and 104th Avenue are examples of this
trend.
Communities like Kent are beginning to explore ways of altering this generic
pattern by re-examining both the form of public investments and development
regulations. But accomplishing a major shift is not a simple task. Many factors
serve to maintain the current situation, such as the attitudes of financial
institutions, mainstream marketing of real estate, goods, and services,
established methods of development, and consumer behavior. Change is
possible, but needs to occur over time and with opportunities for adjustments in
the market place that are neither sudden nor risky.
The Citv of Kent has recognized the value of encouraging mixed use
development in its recently-adopted comprehensive plan. The Land Use Plan
Map designates several areas (cited above) as appropriate for mixed use. (These
areas are currently zoned for commercial use. The West Meeker and North
Central areas are zoned GC and the area along 104th is zoned CC and O.) The
plan identifies two designations: one allowing multifamily residential as a
permitted use, together with retail and office uses and another allowing
multiple family residential only as part of a mixed use development.
Crafting new forms of regulations that will produce a different development
pattern requires a "targeted and tailored" approach, not one than is sweeping
and massive. Few developers want to take a risk in breaking an established
form of development: business decisions can be tenuous enough without trying
to introduce new configurations and types of buildings. However, some things
can be altered or at least encouraged through incentives, bonuses, and design
guidelines. So long as there is flexibility. new development and redevelopment
can gradually adjust and accommodate itself. It may only take a few key
elements to begin to change the character of strip commercial areas: but.
regardless, the change will be incremental.
In order to implement the goals and policies of Kent's comprehensive plan,
mixed use regulations should achieve a number of objectives:
o Contribute toward meeting Comprehensive Plan target for population
increase / housing needs.
o Stimulate more efficient use of land in the vicinity of public
transportation, services and jobs.
o Encourage infill development and redevelopment by the private sector.
o Create a safe, convenient, attractive, and livable environment for
households of varying income, age and composition.
o Focus new higher density residential development in already
established, more central parts of the city, rather than in new areas at
the edges.
2
Alternatives
A number of concepts should be common to all alternatives:
o Remove procedural disincentives (CUP) / Allow residential by-right.
o Weight development potential in favor of housing.
o Offer bonuses for including housing (FAR, height, coverage).
o Offer incentives for other desired amenities and features.
o Reduce parking requirements in recognition of increased efficiency.
o Require design review and use of design guidelines.
Three distinctly different alternatives are possible. They are described, along
with their advantages and disadvantages, below.
3
Alternative 1
Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Districts to Allow/Encourage Residential
In this alternative, the current zoning would be revised to allow mixed use,
offering incentives, incorporating new standards, and adding design guidelines.
Advantages:
o Established districts that people are familiar with.
o Text amendments can be made relatively easily.
o Doesn't require new or adjusted boundaries
Disadvantages:
o Changes each district as a whole, which may be too broad.
o Could result in many incompatible uses and conditions.
o Could be controversial, given the geographic expanse.
o Might not be effective in producing a livable environment.
o Could produce scattered pockets of housing, some in undesirable
areas.
4
Alternative 2
Create Mixed Use "Overlay" District
This alternative would involve applying a special set of regulations to all or
some portion of each of the areas identified in the plan for mixed use.
Advantages:
o Allows for limited application.
o Allows for different standards (either more or less restrictive).
o Can be done through a text amendment (which can include maps).
o Can initiate long-term change by starting small and focusing.
o Involves a more "tailored" regulatory technique.
Disadvantages:
o May still require some changes to underlying district(s).
o Introduces a level of complexity.
o May be perceived as unfair if some portions of the underlying district
are treated differently than others.
5
Alternative 3
Establish New Mixed Use District(s)
In this alternative, the current zoning classifications would be removed and
replaced with a completely new classification, with unique standards, incentives
and guidelines.
Advantaees:
o Dramatically signals a new desired direction.
o Allows for completely fresh regulations.
o Offers clarity for property owners desiring the new direction.
Disadvantages:
o May require more than one, to reflect different situations.
o Would involve a map change, with required notice.
o Might not be appropriate for all areas being considered.
o Perception of major change can cause uncertainty in private sector.
o Can upset property owners who don't agree with new direction.
o Could result in numerous non-conforming developments.
f)
Issues and Recommendations
1. Forms of Mixed Use
In recent years, it has been popular to propose a return to a "romanticized"
version of mixed use. Specifically, this is the notion of people living above the
store. This form of mixed use -- mixed use buildings -- has been encouraged
through development regulations that either require or offer incentives for
developers to build both housing and commercial uses within the same
structure. While this form has been built in areas throughout the region, it has
often not been successful because of a number of factors. First, the
development industry has become specialized. Firms know how to develop
given types of uses to meet specific markets, but they rarely understand how to
design, market, and operate combinations of use. Second, building and fire
code requirements are considerably more complex when uses ("occupancies")
are mixed, driving up costs. Third, mixing uses, especially housing and
commercial,'complicates maintenance, security, advertising, parking, ownership,
leasing, and management. Fourth, income produced by each type of use can
radically differ from what was originally anticipated and where one use does
not perform adequately, the other use suffers. Finally, for all of the above
reasons, banks are extremely reluctant to provide financing for mixed use
buildings.
Another form of mixed use that achieves virtuallv all of the benefits and has
few of the liabilities is mixed use development. Sometimes called "horizontal
mixed use," this places the housing component on a different pad than the
commercial component. Each could even be on parcels that are owned by
different parties, so long as their design is integrated together. Many features
could be shared, such as access, parking, open space, pedestrian connections,
security, etc. But each can also be independently financed, developed and
managed. Another advantage of this form is that the commercial component
can be placed along a busy arterial street, buffering the residential units.
A third form of development is called mixed use neighborhoods. This involves
using a finely-grained pattern of zoning to encourage different uses to be in
close proximity to one another. This is somewhat more of a fragmented
7
approach and does not always result in development that fits together well.
However, strong design Guidelines and review by the city over a sustained
period of time can produce desirable results.
In fact, achieving mixed use requires using all of these forms of development.
No one technique will be sufficient. Re-introducing the concept of mixed use,
after decades of single use development, will necessitate promoting and using a
variety of forms.
It is recommended that mixed use buildings be considered only one form of
mixed use. Current code language that produces developments and
neighborhoods containing both residential and commercial uses should be
continued.
2. Geographic Coverage
To encourage the development of mired use sites and buildings, there are two
basic options with respect to land area designated for such development. One
option would be to use the already existing areas designated for GC, CC and O
zoning. However, intensive commercial use is so new or so firmly established
in some areas in which mixed use may be extremely difficult to achieve. There
would need to be a designator such as "GC/A" to indicate specific areas where
this pattern is more possible or desired. Another approach is to carve out
smaller portions of area currently zoned GC, CC and O (and designated for
mixed use in the comprehensive plan) and establish either a new zoning
designation or an overlay designation. An overlay designation could involve
different standards for various areas, if desired (ea. MU1, MU2).
The overlay approach is recommended, for several reasons. First, not all
existing GC, CC and O areas may be appropriate for, or likely to be developed
with, mixed use. The physical characteristics and environmental qualities
necessary for an area to be conducive to living may not be present. Second, the
overlay approach allows the concept of mixed use to get a foothold in areas
that already have attributes supporting residential use. Third, the overlay
technique both sends out a clear, focused message about new development
possibilities and allows for a more tailored, area-specific set of standards and
incentives. Finally, the overlay method can be achieved through a text
amendment, which could avoid costly notices to individual property owners.
8
3. Development Standards
Mixed use, whether vertical (stacked) or horizontal (co-located), is a form of
development which used to be common in North America but has not been so
for four or five decades (outside major cities). In this time, the development
industry has become so specialized that only a very few companies understand
how to successfully mix uses. Furthermore, financial institutions have noted
failures of a number of mixed use buildings and, not wanting to incur risks,
have tended not to look favorably on such investments. Moreover, codes and
regulations have not really encouraged the mixing of uses, making this form of
development costly and procedurally complex. While local government cannot
have much direct influence over the development capabilities and financing
constraints, it can at least affect the climate for doing mixed use by
establishinc, standards that are clear, simple and favorable toward this form of
development.
Residential as an Outright Permitted Use
If a mixture of residential uses with commercial uses is truly desired, special
permitting involving public hearings cannot be a requirement. Such hurdles
present an additional degree of uncertainty to an already difficult and somewhat
risky form of development. Residential should simply be made an outright (or
"by-right") permitted use in areas designated for mixed use. This does not
preclude having a requirement for certain areas, such as East Hill, that
residential use must be a part of a mixed use project. However, to require that
residential must be part of a mixed use building is overly restrictive and would
not produce many examples of mixed use. Allowing the option of mixing uses
horizontally or laterally, can actually produce more immediate results. Different
developers can tackle portions of a project that they are expert in, building
code requirements apply easily to each component. and financing may be more
available. (This approach should allow for subdividing into different ownership
parcels, with cooperative parking agreements set forth in the deed of record, so
long as the project is integrated together by design.)
It is recommended that residential use be allowed outright, although in some
areas, allowed only as part of a mixed use development.
9
Allowable Residential Density
Conventional land use regulations have tended to set forth a maximum number
of units per acre as a control on density. Over time, what this has done is to
work against housing that is affordable to middle income households. (If a
developer can only build x number of units on a site, the tendency is to make
them relatively large and therefore relatively more expensive, so as to achieve a
higher financial return.) In the last decade or so, many communities have
begun to use another means of regulating the intensity of development. This is
the technique of "Floor Area Ratio" (or FAR for short).
FAR indicates the amount of development as a multiple of lot area. For
example, an allowable FAR of I would mean that a 20,000 square foot site
could hold a 20,000 square foot building. The built form containing this area
can be varied: it could be a one story building covering all of the lot, a two-
story building covering half of the lot, or a three story building covering a third
of the lot.
Moreover, using FAR instead of measures like "dwelling units per acre" or "lot
area per unit" allows a development to be configured to meet the needs of
smaller households (eg. singles, single-parent households, seniors) in that a
greater number of smaller units could be built. This tool allows the marketplace
to determine exact density in any given location, so long as parking
requirements and other standards are met. In practical terms, parking
requirements, along with height limits and lot coverage, pose an effective limit
on density; only so many spaces can be fitted onto a parcel. This constraint
would prevent someone from cramming a site with tiny dwelling units. But, it
provides an incentive to produce more compact, less costly units. Also, FAR
encourages developers to have a greater mix of unit types within a given
development, so that a greater range of household sizes and types are possible.
There are other reasons for using FAR as a regulatory tool_ Mixing residential
and commercial uses together can be confusing if the amount of development
potential cannot be calculated on a common basis, ie, if residential potential is
based on units/acre and commercial potential is based on heights and lot
coverage. using FAR (along with other standards of height, coverage, parking,
etc.) puts both uses on an even basis and development potential is simpler to
determine. In addition. using FAR allows the city to suggest what use is
preferable and to make use of an incentive system to encourage development to
occur in a certain form or provide public amenities. FAR, in short, provides
10
much more flexibility and is a technique that developers find very useful and
workable in more urbanized, mixed use areas.
FAR does not produce precise densities, because unit sizes can vary widely
(which is a principal advantage of using this technique). However, a range of
density relates to given FAR limits. For example:
.5 FAR would produce 10-30 units per acre
1.0 FAR would produce 25-45 units per acre
1.5 FAR would produce 40-60 units per acre
It is recommended that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be adopted as the method of
controlling the intensity of development in mixed use districts. Furthermore, in
order to encourage the development of housing within areas which are
currently dominated by commercial development, allowable FAR should be
significantly higher for residential use as compared with commercial. Finally,
as an incentive to provide residential, additional commercial FAR could be
granted in return for including housing within a project.
Height Limits
The concept of mixed use is identified by the Comprehensive Plan as
appropriate for areas now zoned GC, CC and O. Height limits for these
districts 35', 40' and 40', respectively. The code also states the number of
stories allowed in each: 2, 3 and 3, respectively. However, the zoning code
allows an additional increase of one story in GC and CC by the Planning
Director and vet another story by the Planning Commission.
There are several awkward and confusing complexities in these standards.
First, building height as measured by feet is the most important element in
maintaining the sense of scale; the number of stories is not relevant. Setting
numbers of "stories" is not logical because there is a great difference between
floor-to-floor heights for various types of development. Commercial buildings
can have stories that are 15 feet in height, while typical residential stories are
11
9-10 feet in height. Stories devoted to parking would be in the range of 8-9
feet. Therefore, although it is a popularly-used term, "story" as an actual
measure of building height is confusing and even counter-productive. (Eg. three
stories of residential are equal in height to two stories of commercial.) Height
limits should be established by number of feet only.
Second, the prospect of increases in stories through some special action,
introduces a degree of uncertainty that confuses developers. The allowable
envelope is a basic determinant of yield and, therefore, return on investment.
Developers need to know, up front, what they can do on a parcel of property.
A better approach would be to specify the amount of increase allowable in
return for providing a specific feature, and then allow the increase
administratively.
Third, it is not clear whether an increase in the number of stories also involves
an increase in dimension. Again, this supports using height dimensions only,
not stories.
A creative way of addressing height would be to set a basic height limit at a
relatively low point and then let it be increased through the inclusion of certain,
specified features that achieve public objectives. An increase could be given for
including residential use. An increase could be given for concealing parking.
Increases could also be granted for using sloped roofs or stepped-back terraces
to soften the bulk of buildings. Critical to this approach is that such increases
are automatic: provide this and you receive that. This approach offers
flexibility, predictability and variety in result.
It is recommended that allowable building heights for mixed use districts have
a "basic" allowable height that is lower than what is currently allowed in any
of the above districts. Additional height would be granted according to a
specific schedule of features and increments of increase.
12
Lot Coverage
Normally lot coverage is not much of a constraint in single use development,
given that parking consumes the great majority of a site anyway. However,
when uses begin to be mixed together, particularly in a horizontal manner, lot
coverage can be a constraint. Furthermore, the increased development intensity
begins to justify placing some or all of the parking within or under a building.
This requires a higher permissible lot coverage to accomplish. Currently, lot
coverages for the districts cited above range from 30% to 50%, all of which are
too low to encourage the mixing of uses.
Similar to height limits, coverage can be expressed in a manner that offers an
incentive to build in a particular way. Lot coverage could be increased in return
for doing a mixed use development. It could also be set lower for single use
development, as a disincentive.
It is recommended that a "basic" lot coverage of 25% be set for mixed use
districts. If residential use is included, the coverage could then be as much as
75%. A stricter variation on this is to require that a minimum percentage (eg.
30% or 50%) of the development be in residential use for the higher coverage
limit to be available.
Setbacks
One of the advantages of mixed use development is that it can create, over
time, an environment that is conducive to walking between places to live,
work, shop and recreate. One of the key factors in accomplishing this is to
allow and even encourage buildings to be directly adjacent to public sidewalks,
so that destinations are prominent and easily accessible, goods and services are
in plain view from sidewalks, and there is a high degree of continuity in
building form. Requiring setbacks prevents this from occurring. (However,
setbacks are useful in achieving a comfortable transition between more intense
commercial/mixed use development and lower intensity residential
development.)
13
There is one aspect to setbacks that is frequently overlooked for districts in
which greater intensity of development is expected and where better provisions
for pedestrians is desired. That is the need to establish wider sidewalks. The
typical 5 to 8 foot wide sidewalks found in strip commercial districts are not
adequate for pedestrian movement, safety and comfort, particularly as street
trees take up some of the width. (Street trees, with a minimum caliper of 3"
and a maximum spacing of 25-30' should be required in order to help make the
districts liveable.) While street improvement projects can purchase easements
or additional right-of-way, it is often not possible for a city to undertake such a
major project. Therefore, incremental enhancements are the principle means of
achieving a pedestrian setting.
Accordingly, setbacks should be required along street frontages for the purpose
of providing sidewalks that are at least 10 feet wide. (Widths greater than 12
feet are only necessary in downtown areas.) This may mean that some or all of
the sidewalk width is situated on private property.
It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, setbacks not be required.
Exceptions would be for sidewalks and where projects are adjacent to
residential districts. Design guidelines might also address the concept of
"maximum setback" in certain locations. to encourage retail uses to be oriented
to the street.
Parking
One of the greatest benefits of mixed use development is that area devoted to
parking is much more efficiently used. This is due to a number of reasons.
First, some trips are "internalized;" some people will walk between dwellings
and nearby retail shops and offices. This can allow for a reduced number of
households who need two cars. Second, for any use, but particularly
commercial uses, there is some degree of turnover of parking spaces, leading to
some spaces always being available. Different uses, co-located can take
advantage of this "inefficiency" (so long as commercial spaces are not
assigned). Third, different uses, such as office and residential, have different
times of peak use so that at night, the office stalls can be available to meet
some of the residential demand. Finally. conventional parking ratios have been
14
based upon peak periods of use; much of the time parking stalls around the
perimeter of a development are unused.
All of these factors suggest that combining residential with commercial uses
should allow for shared supply of parking. However, the possibilities for
sharing have some limitation. The residential component will need a core
number of spaces that are dedicated for residents and, perhaps, even secure.
Commercial uses probably cannot depend upon access to residential stalls;
ratios might be somewhat reduced but probably not dramatically unless there is
very good access to public transportation for employees. (Some portion of
parking ratios are meant for employees; that portion might be reduced if
alternatives are available.)
Like other standards, parking ratios can also be used to induce the mixing of
residential and commercial. Normally, the provision of parking is a direct
expense to the developer with little possibility of income. If the amount of land
dedicated to parking can be reduced, and, therefore, more of it made available
for income-generating use, there will be some people interested in mixing
residential and commercial.
This concept needs to recognize two factors. however. Parking ratios cannot be
so low as to generate "spillover" demand that is met on adjacent streets or
properties. In addition, financial institutions. regardless of parking codes, will
insist upon enough parking to make a project marketable.
Blending all of these factors together. along with recent research that suggests
that parking ratios are higher, in general, than they really need to be, it should
be possible to allow for some reduction in parking for mixing uses together.
It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, parking required for office and
retail uses be reduced to 3.5 stalls/1000 square feet. If a project includes
residential, the ratio for residential should be l stalUdwelling unit. However,
the ratio for developments containing only residential should be 1.5/du, since
there is no other use with which to share parking supply.
A variation on this would be to have a more complex set of ratios based on the
number of bedrooms in each unit, with lower ratios required when uses are
mixed, such as the following:
15
Residential Parking (spaces/unit)
Dwelling Size Not mixed Mixed
with Commercial with Commercial
Studio .75 .50
One Bedroom 1.5 1.0
Two Bedroom 2.0 1.25
16
4. Design Review
Requiring design review is an important consideration when encouraging mixed
use. Design review can ensure that new. more intensive development fits
comfortably within the context of the city in general and the surrounding
neighborhoods in particular. In addition, one objective of mixing uses is to
attract people to live in close proximity to jobs. shops, and services. If these
places are to be truly livable, qualities associated with desirable neighborhoods
need to be present and improve over time. A district dominated by generic,
flat-roofed commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt and punctuated
by large, glaring signs by will not likely be seen as a good place to live.
Therefore design review can help direct the character of both new residential
and commercial development to be mutually supportive.
This will require the use of design guidelines to inform the decisions of private
developers as well as public officials. The City of Kent has a set of guidelines
that govern multiple family projects and many of these can apply to mixed use
development. However, it will be necessary to add other guidelines addressing
conditions involving the mixture of uses. Guidelines should also be specifically
devised for stand-alone commercial buildings so that the total effect reinforces
the desired character.
Finally. design review should be an administrative process to make sure that
the overall permitting process is expeditious. Both the public sector and the
private sector must recognize that design review is a collaborative process. not
an adversarial one. This is particularly the case if mixed use districts are to
merge and thrive and become decent, healthy places in which to both live and
conduct business.
17
Design Guidelines for Mixed Use Development
Design guidelines are currently used by the City in the review of projects within
downtown and multiple family districts. Because the mixed use districts are a
hybrid of relatively intense commercial uses and relatively dense residential uses,
neither set of existing guidelines is entirely sufficient to address the conditions
associated with mixed use.
However, many of the guidelines used for multiple family development are
appropriate. All but three guidelines are applicable. Two guidelines (l.c. and 2.c.)
indicate a need for an open space network. In denser, mixed use areas, this is
difficult to achieve. Another guideline Q.a.) suggests maintaining neighborhood
scale. Because mixed use is contemplated for areas that are now mainly strip
commercial,design attention would need to be directed toward helping to establish
a new type of neighborhood rather than being compatible with the surroundings.
As described in previous sections, mixed use can occur either within the same
building (vertical mixed use) or within the same site (horizontal mixed use).
A. Guidelines for All Mixed Use Development
All mixed use development, regardless of the configuration, should include the
following design features:
1. Some common recreation space.
eg. roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards
� c .'.J� I j
w �'
2. Lighting fixtures that are shielded, directing light downward.
3. Residential portion should incorporate residential details.
eg. window trim, trellises, balconies, bay windows
4. The residential component should have an obvious, generous
entrance, within features suggesting a "front door."
eg. lobby, trellis, decorative gate, archway, courtyard
i
I I I 1
5. Any walls fronting on public streets should contain windows,
irrespective of the use at the level.
eg. at least 20% of the ground floor facade must be clear glass
(a combination of decorative grillwork, art, and landscaping may
be substituted)
\ e °
b
I
B. Guidelines for Vertical Mixed Use Development
In addition to meeting guidelines in section A. above, vertical mired use should
include the following:
1. Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments,
separated by landscaping and structures, so that parking does not
dominate the site.
m
110
o
2. Ground level commercial space should be articulated.
ea. different materials, generous windows with low sill heights,
"store" doors, canopies or awnings, planters
i
3. Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner.
eg. stepbacks, change in materials/color, overhangs
�ES
BB
9g
4. Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor
commercial base and not extend up into the residential floor facades.
1✓;
o� V.-
IL
At
iY �
C. Guidelines for Horizontal Mixed Use Development
In addition to meeting the guidelines in Section A. above, horizontal mixed use
should include the following:
1. If the residential component is located away from the main street,
a landscaped pedestrian path should be provided between the
entrance and the public sidewalk.
Q
2. Although the commercial and residential components may have
different architectural expressions, they should exhibit a number of
elements that produce the effect of an integrated development.
A
000 0r
3. Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an
amenity. Lighting fixtures should not exceed the height of the first
floor.
CITY OF ���V
1
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P.Harris,Panning Director
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
October 28, 1996
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 1996, in Chambers West of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Thomas Brotherton
Jetty Daman
Ronald Harmon
Gloria LaBore
David Malik
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary
OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF JULY 22, 1996 MINUTES
Board member Brad Bell MOVED to approve the minutes from the July 22 meeting. The motion
was SECONDED by Board member Jerry Daman. Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director James Harris informed the Board that the November Planning Board workshop
will be moved to Tuesday, November 12 due to the Veteran's Day holiday. The next public
hearing is scheduled for Monday,November 25, 1996.
1_204th AVE.SO_ /KENT WASHINOTON 99032-589S/TELFPHONF. 1'06i859-3300/FAX#859-1114
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
#ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING (K. O'Neill)
Chair Steve Dowell discussed the issue regarding some of the Board members owning property
within the area being considered for mixed use zoning. The City of Attorney's Office determined
that it is legal for the Board members to participate in this vote. Chair Dowell expressed his
concern regarding his ability to remain impartial hearing this item due to the fact he personally
owns property within the area considered for mixed use zoning. Dowell declined to participate in
the mixed use hearing and stepped down leaving Vice Chair Brad Bell to preside.
Vice Chair Brad Bell felt uncomfortable presiding over the mixed use item having a vested interest
in property within the study area and also stepped down. In the absence of a Chair and the Vice
Chair, Bell instructed the remaining members to select an acting chair.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
After little discussion, Board member Jerry Daman MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton
SECONDED the motion to select Ron Harmon as the "acting" Chair. The motion carried
unanimously.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon asked staff to begin their presentation. Planning Director Jim Hams
explained that this item has been previously heard during the Land Use and Planning Board
Workshops and notices were mailed to property owners notifying them of this hearing. Mr. Harris
introduced Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill.
Mr. O'Neill presented background information regarding mixed use zoning. He explained that the
Kent Comprehensive Plan promotes mixed use activity centers and designates certain areas in the
city for mixed use development. There are three areas designated for mixed use in the
Comprehensive Plan within the City. These areas include sites on West Meeker Street and
Washington Avenue North, North Central Avenue between James Street and SR-167, and a large
area along 104th Avenue SE from 235th to 264th including an area down Kent-Kangley.
He explained that there are several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan which support
mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, amendments must be made to the
City's Zoning Code. The proposed amendments would change the zoning in specific areas to allow
mixed use development and/or residential development. The amendments would also affect
permitted uses, development standards, and design review.
All the areas selected for mixed use are presently zoned for commercial use. The areas along West
Meeker Street and North Central are zoned General Commercial (GC), while the area along 104th
Avenue SE is zoned Community Commercial (CC) and Office (0). Currently, residential uses are
neither allowed as a principal use nor as a conditional use in the GC zone. Mr. O'Neill explained
that staff is proposing three alternatives which could allow mixed use development.
2
9ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
9ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
Alternative 1 would be to amend the existing text for the GC, CC, and the O zoning districts.
The amendments would allow mixed use or residential uses as a principally permitted use, and
would recommend different development standards. Mr. O'Neill pointed out that there are areas in
the city which are zoned GC, CC, and O that are not designated as mixed use in the comprehensive
plan and typically any zoning text amendment would affect all areas which had that zoning
designation. He explained that this alternative could result in zoning changes applying to an overly
broad area.
Alternative 2 would establish a new Mixed Use Zoning District. This alternative would amend
the zoning text and the zoning map by creating new zoning districts for the areas designated as
mixed use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill explained that this alternative would have the
advantage of creating an entirely new set of regulations for these districts, which would clearly
indicate a new direction for development in these areas. Problems arise with existing commercial
uses that are not compatable with residential uses as well as a potential to create a number of
noncomforming uses.
Alternative 3 would establish a mixed use "overlay" district. A zoning overlay combines
features of both a zoning text amendment and a zoning map amendment. The proposed overlay
would change the permitted uses and development standards of the General Commercial,
Community Commercial, and Office district. It would only apply to the areas defined within the
overlay. With this alternative, Mr. O'Neill explained that the proposed zoning overlay could be
applied to the entire area designated as mixed use, or could be applied to only part of the area
designated for mixed use development.
Staff recommends Alternative 3 and as a first phase, the overlay not include all of the area
designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill also recommended developing
specific criteria in designating boundaries of the overlay area. The specific criteria is outlined in
the staff report. Using the criteria outlined Mr. O'Neill illistrated the staff recommended
boundaries (map labelled Attachment C in staff report). The underlying zoning designations would
still apply except for specific changes to permitted uses and development standards. Again parcels
outside the overlay boundary would not be affected.
O'Neill explained that mixed use refers to both mixed use buildings and mixed use developments.
A mixed use development might contain residential uses in a building or buildings separate from
buildings which contain commercial uses. Mr. O'Neill also expained the different designations in
the Comprehensive Plan allowing and disallowing residential development outright.
Staff is recommending changing the development standards for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
building height, lot coverage, setbacks and offstreet parking. Mr. O'Neill explained that all these
standards would be reduced for a mixed use development in order to encourage new mixed use
developments.
3
#ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
The policies in the comprehensive plan also state that design review will be implemented for new
development in these areas. The design review process is particularly important in a nixed use
development to ensure compatability of the residential and commercial uses. Mr. O'Neill outlined
the recommended design guidelines to be considered during an administrative review process.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon OPENED the public hearing.
Heath Harris, 1230 South 336th Street, Suite F, Federal Way, WA 98003. Mr. Heath is a
commercial real estate agent who is attending this meeting on behalf of the property owners of four
adjacent parcels located at the southeast comer of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 235th. Mr. Heath
indicated that he and his clients are in favor of the mixed use zoning. He requested that the Board
that they look hard at the site in quesiton.
The parcels are all presently zoned Community Commercial. Mr. Heath explained several
problems dealing with site access and little or no visibility. He indicated that a mixed use
development could open up opportunities that weren't already there. His clients would ultimately
like to develop the site as multifamily outright but concedes that mixed use is a step in the right
direction.
Dick Coltran, 1720 Edwards Court, Bellingham, WA 98226. Mr. Coltran owns property at 10817
Kent Kangley Road, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Coltran's property is approximately two acres and he
would like to develop this property. He is pleased with what he has heard regarding the mixed use
proposal.
He is concerned with whether or not you could have separate building developments. He indicated
that you need to have an ability to separate the developments. (Separate the commercial and the
residential). He questioned how this situation would occur.
Mr. Coltran's parcels are currently zoned Office and he questioned if the commercial on his
property would still be limited to Office and would retail be allowed? He very much likes the idea
of mixed use and thinks it gives a great deal of flexibility for his propery. He indicated that this
could be very beneficial.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon asked for any additional input from the public. There were no more
requests to speak. Board member Jerry Daman MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton
SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. The motion carved.
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill addressed the questioned that were presented during public's
testimony. Mr. O'Neill clarified that the proposal allows mixed use development. Which allows
development to be in separate buildings on a particular site. He indicated that the consideration to
a
4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
allow multifamily residential uses outright in the Easthill area would not be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr O'Neill further explained that there is no revision that requires the development to be a mixed
use development. The properties could still be developed within the current uses (Office, GC, CC).
Mr. O'Neill offered an opportunity to get with Mr. Coltran to inform him of the allowed uses in the
Office zone.
Board member Tom Brotherton questioned whether there was any limitation or concern with
having the mixed use development spread over a period of time. Brotherton questioned whether
the developer would have to committ to a plan.
Mr. O'Neill explained that on Easthill it would be important for the developer to committ to a plan
expecially since stand alone residential would not be allowed. Mr. O'Neill explained that in order
to allow the mixed use development to happen in the Easthill area particularly staff would have to
be certain that it would indeed be a mixed use development. The applicant would have to show a
clear obligation to build both components of the development. Mr. O'Neill indicated thhat it would
not be as big of a concern in the Valley areas because stand alone residential and stand alone
commercial would both be allowed.
Acting Chair Ron Harmon reopened the public hearing to allow for rebuttal testimony. He asked
the public if they had any input.
Steve Dowell, 4301 Glenwood Lane, Kent, WA. Mr. Dowell addressed the issue of firmer
development standards in the Commercial zones if the parcels designated for mixed use are
developed commercial outright. He voiced his concern with the ability to toughen development
standards from what is allowed outright today.
Mr. O'Neill outlined the recommended standard changes and clarified that the reason behind staff
recommending reducing standards for stand alone commercial in a mixed use overlay zone is solely
being done to promote mixed use activity. He explained that the Board has the option to
recommend to Council to keep the stand alone commercial standards at what they are today.
Chair Ron Hannon MOVED and Board member David Malik SECONDED a motion to re-open
the public hearing. Motion carried.
Bill Keppler, 9654 Rainier Avenue S, Seattle, WA 98118. Mr. Keppler owns a small piece of
property in the Valley and believes it is important to get the maximum lot coverage and the least
setback requirements. He is against any changes that would reduce the current stand alone
commercial standards.
5
#ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
Heath Harris asked for further clarification of lot coverage and questioned whether there would be
a fixed ratio used to determine the allowable mix of residential to commerical.
Dick Coltran questioned the abililty to subdivide the different uses for future sale.
Jack Olson, 26220 108th Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Olson is concerned with whether he
will have the ability to develop his property. He feels mixed use could allow him better flexibilty
and an opportunity to build marketably.
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Board member Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Mr. O'Neill addressed Mr. Keppler's question regarding lot coverage. He explained that the
proposed amendment would reduce lot coverage to 25%from 40% for stand alone commercial. He
also stated that setbacks would be less restrictive. Mr. O'Neill explained that the Binding Site Plan
process segmentation that divides condiminiums for individual sale and suggested a similar process
when subdividing for future sale. Mr. O'Neill explained that the office zone would allow some
retail use and the retail use is expandable with a conditional use permit.
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED to continue the deliberations to the November 25, 1996
Planning Board meeting at 7:00 p.m. The motion was SECONDED by Board member David
Malik. Motion carried.
#ZCA 96 6 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the single family development standards had
been recently amended by Ordinances 3268 and 3290. Mr. Satterstrom explained that it was staffs
intention to reduce the standards and promote in-fill development. The single family zoning
districts were renamed establishing maximum permitted density.
A problem was brought to the attention of the Planning Department when an applicant tried to
subdivide and couldn't. Staff is recommending to calculate the maximum permitted density
without rounding. Mr. Satterstrom described the individual changes as referenced in the staff
report. He also clarified that the reason no change was recommended for the SR-1 zone was that
this zone was not effected.
Chair Steve Dowell asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Satterstrom.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to open the public hearing. Motion carved.
6
#ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 28, 1996
Jim Flick, 9408 S 218th Street. Mr. Flick described his situation and explained that he is currently
unable to subdivide his property. He requested that the Board make a recommendation to accept
staff s proposed changes.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED to close the public hearing. The motion was SECONDED
by Board member Tom Brotherton. Motion carried.
Ron Harmon MOVED to recommend to City Council that they approve the staff recommended
changes to the maximum permitted densities in the single family zones. The motion was seconded
by Vice Chair Brad Bell. Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Respectfully,
tea,
J es P Hams
Recor ing Secretary
7
#ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning
#ZCA-96-6 Single Family Development Standards
CITY OF M1 BI
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 25, 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE
AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING STUDY--RESPONSE TO PUBLIC
TESTIMONY
On October 28, 1996, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing on proposed
zoning amendments to allow mixed use zoning in certain commercial areas within the City of Kent.
During the public hearing, several issues were raised regarding the amendments proposed by staff.
This memorandum will outline these issues, and present staffs response to each one. These will also
be presented to the Board at the November 25 meeting to aid in the Board's deliberation on this
issue.
1. Development Standards
Questions were raised regarding the proposed development standards in the mixed use
overlay. Specifically, the standards for site coverage proposed by staff would establish a
basic site coverage for commercial uses of 25 percent, with the ability to cover more of the
site for a mixed use development. This is less than the existing site coverage standard of 40
percent in the GC and CC zones and 30 percent in the O zone. The rationale for this
proposal is to try to use the smaller standard of 25 percent as an incentive to develop mixed
use projects.
A related issue is that of the proposed floor area ratios (FARs) within the overlay. The
proposed standard FAR is .25 for stand-alone commercial development. This is slightly less
than some recent commercial developments in the City, which have had FARs of slightly
greater than .30. The Board could consider raising the FAR standard to .35 for commercial,
which would provide slightly greater development potential for property owners wishing to
220 4ih AVE SO /KENT-WAS HINGTON 9804'-589�/TELEPHONE i 1061859-3300/FAX#559-:334
Mixed Use Zoning - ZCA-96-5
November 25, 1996
Page 2
develop or expand commercial uses within the overlay. Should the Board chose this option,
then it should also raise the basic site coverage limit for commercial-only development to
35%.
2. Phasing of Multi-Family Residential Development
As discussed in the staff report, the comprehensive plan makes a distinction between the
mixed use areas on the Valley Floor and the one on East Hill. On the Valley Floor, mixed
use areas would permit multi-family residential development as a principally permitted use;
on East Hill, multi-family would only be allowed as part of a mixed use development. This
distinction is reflected in the staff proposal. A question was raised at the hearing as to
whether a mixed use development could be phased on East Hill, meaning that the residential
component be constructed first, then the commercial component. Since stand-alone
residential use is not proposed to be allowed in the East Hill mixed use area, residential uses
could only be permitted if there was concurrent commercial development as well.
A question was also raised regarding dividing a property to separate the residential and
commercial elements of a mixed use development once they were developed on a site. This
could be accomplished either through a binding site plan procedure, which allows a
condominium development to be split for purposes of financing, or through the subdivision
of a parcel.
3. Changes to Underlying Zoning Designations
A request was made at the hearing that the Board consider changing the zoning for property
located along 108th Avenue SE, which is in the overlay and is currently zoned as Office.
The proposed overlay would not change the underlying zoning, but would rather add uses
and amended development standards to parcels within the overlay. All existing principally
permitted uses within the applicable zoning district (either GC, CC, or O) would still be
permitted.
Staff will be available at the November 25 hearing to discuss these issues, as well as any other
concerns the Board would like to address regarding the mixed use proposal. If you have questions
in advance of the meeting, please contact me at 850-4799.
KON/tb:MUPUBRES.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
CITY OF ��
l
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
OCTOBER 28, 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE'DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE
AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING STUDY
INTRODUCTION
One of the central themes in the Growth Management Act, as well as in regional and countywide
planning goals, is the notion of utilizing urban land more efficiently in order to reduce urban
sprawl. One mechanism to accomplish this which is referenced in both Vision 2020 and the King
County Countywide Planning Policies is the idea of creating mixed use activity centers, which
would combine commercial and residential land uses. These areas would be designed to allow
a compatible mixture of uses to bring housing closer to jobs and commercial services, support
public transit, and increase housing options. In addition to being consistent with regional policies,
the notion of mixed use development was also supported by citizens during the Community
Forums and Visual Preference Surveys undertaken during the development of the City's Comp-
rehensive Plan.
The Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development,
meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan
Map in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central
Avenue,and 104th Avenue SE as Mixed Use(see attached Land Use Plan Map, labelled Attachment
A). The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development In
order to implement these policies, amendments must be made to the City's zoning code. This me
will review the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan related to mixed use
development and then will outline proposed amendments to the Kent zoning code in order to allow
2304th AVE SO. I KENT WASHINGTON 98033-58951 TELEPHONE 1 106)959-33001 FAX#859-3334
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 2
and encourage mixed use development in certain parts of the city. These proposed amendments
would affect permitted uses, development standards, and design review.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
As stated,the Land Use Plan Map designates the areas outlined on the attached maps for mixed use
development. There are also several policies in the Land Use Element which support mixed use
development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers. These goals and policies are
outlined below.
Goal LU-6 -Designate activity centers in portions of the city and in the annexation area. Allow in
these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development.
Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain
concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium- density
housing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional
sprawling development patterns.
Policy LU-6.2 -Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses
as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand-alone basis
in designated areas.
Goal LU-7 -Develop activity centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and public
transportation.
Policy LU-7.1 - Implement design review for development in designated activity
centers to ensure pedestrian and transit orientation.
Policy LU-7.2 - Develop site and parking design standards in activity centers
which support transit.
Policy LU-7.3 - Ensure that the City's street and construction design standards in
activity centers enhance pedestrian circulation, transit, and aesthetics.
The decision to allow for mixed use development in the comprehensive plan was driven by several
factors. In the public participation process used during the formation of the plan, citizens at
community forums expressed support for the concept of mixed use development. Furthermore,
when the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan was done, citizens were asked to
evaluate three land use alternatives: continuation of the existing plan, a plan which focussed a
large percentage of future growth in the downtown area, and a plan which focussed new growth
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 3
in several mixed use centers, including the downtown and the areas shown on the attached Land
Use Plan map. The mixed use plan alternative was strongly favored over the other two. Mixed
use development has the advantage of locating residential and commercial uses in closer proximity
to one another, therefore creating more vibrant areas and promoting transit.
In addition, one of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning
process was finding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially-
zoned areas within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of
the community and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family
areas to multi-family, which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore,
the plan outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly
changing the zoning in single-family areas. Mixed use development is one of these strategies,
along with allowing smaller single-family lot sizes, more flexible development standards for
single-family development, and accessory dwelling units.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
The following sections of the memorandum will outline the recommended amendments to the
zoning code to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which are discussed
above. The memorandum will discuss the scope of the zoning amendments with regard to the area
affected by the changes, and will then outline specific recommendations with regard to permitted
uses, density, development standards, and design review.
Due to the complex nature of this project, and the fact that it is a relatively new concept for the
City of Kent, the City hired Mark Hinshaw, an architect and urban design consultant, to help
outline recommendations regarding zoning amendments for mixed use development. Many of his
recommendations, which have been presented to the Land Use Board in workshops, have been
incorporated in the staff recommendation. His recommendations, and further background
regarding mixed use development, are outlined in a report, which is attached as an appendix to
this memorandum.
GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF MIXED USE ZONING
The attached maps (Attachment B) show the areas which are designated as mixed use in the
comprehensive plan. These areas are located along West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue,
and 104th Avenue SE. As outlined in the plan, the areas along West Meeker Street and North
Central Avenue would allow residential uses as a principally permitted use, while residential uses
would need to be part of a mixed use development in the area along 104th Avenue SE.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 4
These areas are presently zoned for commercial use. The areas along West Meeker Street and
North Central are zoned General Commercial (GC), while the area along 104th Avenue SE is
zoned Community Commercial (CC) and Office (0). Currently, residential uses are neither
allowed as a principal use nor as a conditional use in the GC zone. Residential uses can be
developed in the CC and O zones as part of a mixed use development, but also must be approved
through a conditional use permit. With regard to proceeding with zoning code amendments to
allow mixed use development, staff considered three broad alternatives. These are discussed
below.
Alternative 1--Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Zoning Districts
This alternative would amend the existing zoning text for the GC, CC, and O zoning districts.
The amendments would allow mixed use or residential uses as a principally permitted use, and
would recommend different development standards. However, there are areas in the city which
are zoned GC, CC, and O which are not designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan and
typically any zoning text amendment would affect all areas which had that zoning designation.
Therefore, this alternative could result in zoning changes applying to an overly broad area.
Alternative 2--Establish New Mixed Use Zoning District(s)
This alternative would amend the zoning text and the zoning map by creating new zoning districts
for the areas designated as mixed use in the comprehensive plan. This alternative would have the
advantage of creating an entirely new set of regulations for these districts, which would clearly
indicate a new direction for development in these areas. However, these are all existing
commercial areas with a variety of existing uses, some of which are presently not compatible with
residential development. This is particularly true for areas which are zoned GC, which allows
uses such as automobile sales and repair and other uses which are distinguished by outdoor storage
and high traffic volumes. A rezone to a mixed use zone would potentially create a number of
nonconforming uses, thus creating uncertainty and opposition by many property owners in these
areas.
Alternative 3--Establish Mixed Use "Overlay" District
With regard to this alternative, it is important to emphasize that the zoning code consists of both
text and a map. Amendments to the zoning text apply to any area in the city which has that
zoning. For example, changing a development standard in the GC (General Commercial) zone
such as building setback requirements would apply this standard to any parcel zoned GC. On the
other hand, zoning map amendments affect only the specific parcels which are changed.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 5
A zoning overlay combines features of both a zoning text amendment and a zoning map
amendment. The proposed overlay would change the permitted uses and development standards of
the underlying zoning districts (in this case, General Commercial, Community Commercial, and
Office). However, it would only change these standards for the area defined in the overlay. Other
areas within these zoning districts, such as the GC area on Pacific Highway South, would not be
changed. This is the major advantage of using an overlay for this project, as opposed to simply
proposing an overall text amendment to the applicable zoning district.
Under this alternative, the proposed zoning overlay could be applied to the entire area designated
as mixed use, or could be applied to only part of the area designated for mixed use development.
The advantage of a broad overlay is that the zoning designation would mirror the comprehensive
plan designation, which conforms to the requirement in the Growth Management Act that
development regulations implement and be consistent with comprehensive plans. A narrower
overlay, on the other hand,would allow for a more "tailored" approach to implementing mixed use.
All of the mixed use areas are established commercial areas, and there is existing development which
may not be compatible with new mixed use or residential development. A smaller overlay would
allow the areas which seem best suited for this type of development to be targeted in the initial phase
of this zoning amendment. If there were successful projects constructed, or if more property owners
wanted to see the overlay apply to their properties, then the overlay could be expanded in the future.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Alternative 3, a zoning overlay, be implemented. Furthermore, staff
recommends that, as a first phase, the overlay not include all of the area designated as mixed use in
the comprehensive plan. While over time it is hoped that much of this area will redevelop in ways
which will make for a viable,vibrant mixed use community, it must be recognized that at the present
there are several areas which are not conductive to this type of development. Furthermore,there are
many new developments in these areas which will likely not redevelop in the 20-year time horizon
of the comprehensive plan.
In designing a smaller overlay area for the first phase of this zoning amendment, it is important to
develop criteria to guide the selection of the overlay boundaries. These criteria should provide
guidance to staff, the Board, and the City Council with regard to why certain parcels were selected
for the overlay while other parcels were not. It also will prevent these decisions from being made
in an arbitrary manner. Staff recommends the following criteria be used in designating the
boundaries of the overlay area:
• Subareas with the potential to aggregate vacant and/or redevelopable parcels
• Proximity to existing residential uses
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 6
• Proximity to existing commercial uses which would support residential use and help
make the commercial component of a mixed use building or development more viable
• Separation from existing,"high impact"commercial uses which would not be compatible
with housing
• Subareas with better potential to support pedestrian-oriented development
• Proximity to transit stops, existing parks, and community facilities
Based on these proposed criteria, staff has recommended boundaries for the overlay area. This is
shown an the attached maps, labelled Attachment C.
The attached maps show the areas which are proposed for the mixed use overlay. Within these areas,
the underlying zoning designations would still apply, except for specific changes which will be
recommended below. These changes relate to both permitted uses and development standards. It
is important to note,however,that all existing permitted uses in the applicable zoning districts would
still be permitted. Also, parcels located outside of the overlay boundary would not be affected.
PERMITTED USES
It should be clarified that the notion of"mixed use" refers to both mixed use buildings and mixed
use development (meaning a mix of uses located side by side, instead of in one building). This is
discussed at some length in the attached report by Mark Hinshaw. Staff recommends that the notion
of"mixed use" apply to mixed use developments, not only mixed use buildings. Therefore, a mixed
use development might contain residential uses in a building or buildings separate from buildings
which contain commercial uses. This is consistent with the existing definitions in the Kent zoning
code, which are noted below.
Mixed use building or structure (emphasis added)means a building that contains two
(2) or more separate and distinct uses permitted in the zoning district where such
building is located. (Section 15.02.259, Kent Zoning Code)
Mixed use development(emphasis added)shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses
or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site.
(Section 15.02.260, Kent Zoning Code)
This distinction is important, since the comprehensive plan states that for the area designated as
mixed use along 104th Avenue SE, residential uses should only be allowed if they are part of a
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 7
mixed use development. Therefore, it should be made clear that a mixed use development could
mean two or more separate buildings.
As stated earlier,the comprehensive plan makes a distinction between the mixed use areas located
in the valley (along West Meeker and North Central Avenue) and the mixed use area on East Hill
(along 104th Avenue SE). The plan states that in the mixed use areas in the valley, residential uses
may be permitted outright in a stand alone condition; while on East Hill, residential uses would be
allowed only in conjunction with a mixed use development. Therefore, the following sections will
distinguish the mixed use overlay areas in the valley with the overlay areas on East Hill with regard
to proposed zoning amendments.
In terms of permitting residential uses, the following is recommended, in conformance with the
comprehensive plan.
Use Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Multifamily Residential Permitted Permitted only as part of a
mixed use development
DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
The Kent zoning code regulates both uses and development standards within zoning districts, such
as height, setbacks, and parking. The areas designated for mixed use development are now zoned
for commercial uses, and the existing development standards within the GC, CC, and O zoning
districts are outlined to regulate primarily auto-oriented commercial development. Different
standards are appropriate for residential and mixed use developments. Furthermore, the policies in
the comprehensive plan discuss ensuring that new development in these areas enhance pedestrian
circulation, transit, and aesthetics. The following sections will outline proposed amendments to
development standards which would apply within the mixed use overlay.
Development Intensity
Typically, development intensity in commercial and industrial zoning districts is regulated by
specific development standards such as height, setbacks, and site coverage. These standards will be
explained in more detail in subsequent sections. In residential zones, development intensity is
regulated by these development standards, but also by allowing a certain number of units per acre.
For the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that development intensity, or density, be regulated
by utilizing floor area ratio, or FAR. FAR is the ratio of gross building floor area to site area.
Therefore, a building with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area on a lot consisting of 20,000 square
feet would have an FAR of 0.5. Floor area ratio provides a uniform way of measuring the allowable
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 8
intensity of both commercial and residential development (as opposed to units per acre, which is
only applicable for residential development),which is why it is appropriate in mixed use areas. It
also provides a mechanism for offering incentives for mixed use development, by providing a "base
density" for commercial development,but allowing this to be increased for mixed use development.
The recommended FARs for the mixed use overlay are outlined below.
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Floor Area Ratio .25 for commercial
.50 for commercial with residential'
1.0 for residential'
Site Coverage
Site coverage is the portion of a lot which is covered by buildings or structures. For example, a
building with a building envelope of 10,000 square feet on a 40,000 square foot lot would have a site
coverage of 25 percent. Site coverage is one of the ways that bulk and scale are regulated in
commercial and industrial zoning districts. Currently, maximum site coverage in the GC and CC
zones is 40 percent, while maximum site coverage in the O zone is 30 percent. Similar to the FAR
standards, it is recommended that a slightly lower "base" lot coverage be established for commercial
uses, with the opportunity to expand the standard for mixed use or residential development.
Within the mixed use overlay, the following lot coverage standards are recommended:
Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Site Coverage 25 percent for commercial
75 percent with residential 60 percent with residential
'Commercial floor area may be increased by one square foot for each one square foot
of residential floor area provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of .5.
2Residential FAR may be increased by .5, if parking is provided below grade, up to a
maximum of 1.5.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 9
Height
Another way that building bulk and scale is regulated in the Kent zoning code is by controlling the
maximum height of buildings. Within commercial zoning districts,building height is regulated both
by the number of stories and the total height. In the CC and O zones,the maximum building height
is three(3) stories or 40 feet,while the building height requirement in the GC zone is two (2) stories
or 35 feet. Within the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that building height be regulated by
building height(number of feet)only, as opposed to number of stories, since a "story" may be quite
different for a commercial space as opposed to a residential space. It is recommended once again
that a base building height be established for commercial uses, with the option to build higher based
on the provision of certain amenities, as noted in the footnotes.
Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Building height' 25 feet basic standard
50 feet maximum 40 feet maximum
Setbacks
Setback (also referred to as yard in the zoning code) is the distance a building must be from a
property line. Within the commercial zoning districts, there are currently front yard setback
requirements of 15 feet in the CC zone, 20 feet in the GC zone, and 25 feet in the O zone. Front yard
setbacks are typically required in commercial zoning districts which allow automobile-oriented uses,
in recognition of the fact that parking lots are often developed in front of buildings. However, as
mentioned, the policies in the comprehensive plan encourage not only that residential and
commercial uses be integrated in these areas, but that new development occur in a way which is
more pedestrian- and transit-oriented. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to allow buildings
to be constructed right up to the sidewalk. This type of commercial development, which is now
found primarily in the downtown area, allows pedestrians to move comfortably between businesses
and between buildings and public sidewalks. It is recommended, therefore, that front setback
requirements be eliminated within the mixed use overlay. The recommended side and rear yard
setback requirements outlined below are no different from the ones which currently exist.
'Basic heights may be increased up to the maximum, according to the following
formula:
5 foot increase for development containing residential
5 foot increase for placing parking under the building
5 foot increase for using a pitched roof form
5 foot increase for stepping back from the top floor (min. of 5 feet)
Subject: 4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 10
Standard Valley Mixed Use Area East Hill Mixed Use Area
Setbacks
Front: None (0 feet)4
Rear and side: None (0 feet)'
Off-Street Parking
Off-Street parking standards are regulated in the Kent zoning code by use, and are typically uniform
throughout zoning districts. Off-street parking is regulated based on the amount of floor area for
commercial and industrial projects, and the number of dwelling units for residential developments.
Off-street parking facilities can often be used more efficiently in a mixed use area, since the peak
demand periods for commercial and residential uses are often at different times of the day. However,
the City's existing parking standards for mixed use development do not recognize this, and currently
require that when two or more uses are located in the same building, the total requirements for off-
street parking spaces be the sum of the uses computed separately(Section 15.05.040(I), Kent Zoning
Code). Therefore, within the mixed use overlay, the follow-ing standards are recommended:
Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Off-Street Parking
Retail/Office': 3.5 spaces/1,000 sf floor area 4 spaces/1,000 sf floor area
Residential:
Studio: .75/du without comm., .50/du with comm
One bedroom: 1.5/du without comm., 1.0/du with comm
Two bedroom: 2.0/du without comm., 1.25/du with comm
4Some setback may be required in the front yard to accommodate a sidewalk which
shall be at least 10 feet in width.
5Setbacks of at least 20 feet would be required in any side or rear yards that are
adjacent to a residential zoning district.
'In order to encourage retail in mixed use developments, the first 300 square feet of
retail or office space that is part of an individual residential unit would be exempt.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 11
DESIGN REVIEW
In addition to encouraging the establishment of mixed use areas,the policies in the comprehensive
plan also state that design review be implemented for new development in these areas. Design
review of projects can help ensure that new development is well designed, and is compatible with
both the surrounding neighborhoods and prospective new development. This is particularly
important in a mixed use area,to ensure that both new residential and commercial development can
be mutually supportive.
Design review is currently implemented for all multi-family residential projects, and for all new
development in the downtown area. It is recommended that design review also be implemented for
all new development within the mixed use overlay. The following section will describe the proposed
design review process, followed by a summary of recommended design review guidelines.
Design Review Process
Design review in the City of Kent for multi-family and downtown development is done
administratively, meaning that no public hearing is required. The multi-family design review
process involves review of projects by Planning Department staff, while the downtown design
review process involves final review and approval by the downtown administrative design review
committee, which consists of representatives from the Planning, Public Works, and Parks
Departments. In both cases, design review occurs as part of the building permit review process.
Applicants submit site plans, landscaping plans, and building elevations, which
are reviewed based on specific criteria relating to site design, landscaping, and building design.
Design review is meant to be a collaborative process, where staff work with the developer to
mutually achieve a quality project.
It is recommended that design review for the mixed use overlay also be an administrative process,
meaning that prospective developers would work with city staff. This type of process offers both
flexibility and predictability, as opposed to projects being reviewed by a separate design review
board. It is also recommended that projects be reviewed administratively by Planning Department
staff, similar to the multi-family design review process, as opposed to being approved by a
committee.
Design Review Guidelines
Many of the design criteria which are presently used for multi-family design review would also be
applicable to the mixed use overlay. These are attached for your review. However, mixed use
development is different from many types of multi-family development, in that it combines
Subject: 4ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 12
commercial uses, and would also be constructed in a more developed, urban environment.
Therefore, some different criteria need to be developed for these areas.
Mark Hinshaw has recommended that development projects in the mixed use area include the
following design features:
• Some common recreation space
-roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards
• Lighting features that are shielded, directing light downwards
• The residential portion of the building should incorporate residential details, such as
window trim, trellises, balconies, and bay windows
• The residential component should have an obvious, generous entrance, within features
suggesting a "front door", for example a lobby, trellis, gate, archway, or courtyard
The following design features are recommended for mixed use buildings:
• Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments, separated by landscaping
and structures, so that parking does not dominate the site
• Ground-level commercial space should be articulated by use of different materials,
generous windows with low sill heights, "store" doors, canopies, and planters
• Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner, with stepbacks, change in
materials or color, and overhangs
• Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor commercial base and not
extend up into the residential floor facades.
In addition, the following criteria should apply to mixed use developments (or "horizontal" mixed
use):
• If the residential component is located away from the main street, a landscaped
pedestrian path should be provided between the entrance and the public sidewalk
• Although the commercial and residential components may have different architectural
expressions, they should exhibit a number of elements that produce the effect of an
integrated development.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
October 28, 1996
Page 13
• Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an amenity. Lighting
fixtures should not exceed the height of the first floor.
CONCLUSION
This memorandum summarizes the recommended zoning amendments for the proposed mixed use
overlay. The overlay boundaries and development standards should be considered as a first phase
of implementing mixed use zoning in these areas. It will be possible to expand the boundaries of
the overlay area, either now, based on public testimony, or in the future.
In summary, staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the following
recommendations to the City Council:
A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which are
outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C.
B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development standards
within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use overlay
be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design review criteria
would be modeled after the City's existing multi-family design review process,but would
be supplemented as indicated in the staff report.
KON/tb:MULUB 102.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
CITY OF wMI LS
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND
PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O-NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: 9ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As we discussed at the August 19 and September 9 workshops, the Kent Comprehensive Plan
designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development, meaning development which would
combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan
designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue, and 104th Avenue SE as
mixed use (see attached maps). At the September 9 workshop, the Board asked that the
recommended zoning changes for these areas be summarized, and also that the option of changing
the zoning for a smaller area than designated in the comprehensive plan be analyzed. This memo
will review the goals and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan related to mixed use
development, will analyze the differences between a broad and a narrow "zoning overlay" for mixed
use, and will present proposed amendments to development standards which were recommended by
Mark Hinshaw at your earlier workshops.
The issues outlined in this memorandum will be presented and discussed at your September 23
workshop.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
As stated,the Land Use Plan Map designates the areas outlined on the attached maps for mixed use
development. There are also several policies in the Land Use Element which support mixed use
development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers. These goals and policies are
outlined below.
Coal LU-6 - Designate activity centers in portions of the city and in the annexation area. Alloiv in
there areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development.
Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain
concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium- density
!rousing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional
sprawling development patterns.
- I04hA\'G_,111, / KFN 1',MAN I II\(;'ION 9RIli`.W)S/'Ili!"I'.PI F)6 I. C0b11i911110/ \X\.XHX59.1334
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 - Mixed Use Zoning Study
September 23, 1996
Page 2
Policy LU-6.2 -Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses
as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand-alone basis
in designated areas.
Goal LU-7 - Develop activity centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and public
transportation.
Policy LU-7.1 - Implement design review for development in designated activity
centers to ensure pedestrian and transit orientation.
Policy LU-7.2 -Develop site and parking design standards in activity centers which
support transit.
Policy LU-7.3 - Ensure that the City's street and construction design standards in
activity centers enhance pedestrian circulation, transit, and aesthetics.
The decision to allow for mixed use development in the comprehensive plan was driven by several
factors. In the public participation process used during the formation of the plan, citizens at
community forums expressed support for the concept of mixed use development. Furthermore,when
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan was done, citizens were asked to evaluate
three land use alternatives: continuation of the existing plan, a plan which focussed a large
percentage of future growth in the downtown area, and a plan which focussed new growth in several
mixed use centers, including the downtown and the areas shown on the attached map. The mixed
use plan alternative was strongly favored over the other two. Mixed use development has the
advantage of locating residential and commercial uses in closer proximity to one another, therefore
creating more vibrant areas and promoting transit.
In addition, one of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning
process was finding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially-
zoned areas within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of the
community and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family areas
to multi-family,which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore,the plan
outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly changing the
zoning in single-family areas. Mixed use development is one of these strategies, along with allowing
smaller single-family lot sizes, more flexible development standards for single-family development,
and accessory dwelling units.
GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF MIXED USE ZQNTNG
At the Board's September 9 workshop, there was a significant amount of discussion with regard to
the area which should be affected by any zoning changes which would allow mixed use
development. These discussions have focussed on using a zoning "overlay"to implement mixed use
zoning. The next sections of the memo will generally discuss what a zoning overlay is, and then
outline the relative advantages of designating a broad overlay versus a narrow overlay.
Explanation of Overlay Concept
It is important to emphasize that the zoning code consists of both text and a map. Amendments to
the zoning text apply to any area in the city which has that zoning. For example, changing a
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 - Mixed Use Zoning Study
September 23, 1996
Paae 3
development standard in the GC(General Commercial)zone(such as building setback requirements)
would apply this standard to any parcel zoned GC. On the other hand, zoning map amendments
affect only the specific parcels which are changed.
In a sense, a zoning overlay combines features of both a zoning text amendment and a zoning map
amendment. The proposed overlay would change the permitted uses and development standards
of the underlying zoning districts (in this case, General Commercial, Community Commercial, and
Office). However, it would only change these standards for the area defined in the overlay. Other
areas within these zoning districts, such as the GC area on Pacific Highway South, would not be
changed. This is the major advantage of using an overlay for this project, as opposed to simply
proposing an overall text amendment to the applicable zoning district.
Advantages of a Broad Overlay
Planning Department staff has recommended that a zoning overlay be implemented so that the
overlay boundary corresponds exactly with the areas designated for mixed use in the Land Use Plan
Map. The primary reason for this is that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that
development regulations implement and be consistent with the comprehensive plan; therefore,
ideally the zoning code and map should be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map. Also, one of the
goals of the mixed use designation is to give property owners and prospective developers greater
options with regard to how property is developed; the larger the overlay, the larger number of
property owners there would be who could potentially take advantage of the change. Furthermore,
if a smaller overlay is implemented,property owners whose property is designated as mixed use but
is not part of the overlay may feel aggrieved.
Advantages of a Narrower Overlay
Another option which has been discussed at earlier workshops and in the report prepared by Mark
Hinshaw is the idea of applying the proposed zoning overlay to only part of the area designated for
mixed use development. This would allow for a more "tailored" approach to implementing mixed
use. All of the mixed use areas are established commercial areas, and there is existing development
�,v hich may not be compatible with new mixed use or residential development. A smaller overlay
v,-ould allow the areas which seem best suited for this type of development to be targeted in the
initial phase of this zoning amendment. If there were successful projects constructed, or if more
property owners wanted to see the overlay apply to their properties, then the overlay could be
expanded in the future.
Overlay Discussion
Ii a smaller overlay area is the preferred option, then staff recommends that criteria be adopted to
�7uide the selection of the overlay boundaries. These criteria would provide guidance to staff, the
Board, and the City Council with regard to why certain parcels were selected for the overlay while
other parcels were not. If would also prevent these decisions from being made in an arbitrary
manner. Suggested criteria are outlined below.
— Subareas with the potential to aggregate vacant and/or redevelopable parcels
— Proximity to existing residential uses
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 - Mixed Use Zoning Study
September 23, 1996
Page 4
— Proximity to existing commercial uses which would support residential use and help make
the commercial component of a mixed use building or development more viable
— Separation from existing, "high impact" commercial uses which would not be compatible
with housing
— Subareas with better potential to support pedestrian-oriented development
— Proximity to transit stops, existing parks, and community facilities
Based on these proposed criteria, staff is examining which parcels should be included in a smaller
overlay area. This will be discussed at the September 23 workshop.
PERMITTED USES
As discussed at earlier workshops, it is recommended that the notion of"mixed use" apply to mixed
use developments,not only mixed use buildings. Therefore,a mixed use development might contain
residential uses in a building or buildings separate from buildings which contain commercial uses.
The definitions in the Kent zoning code already make this distinction. These are noted below.
Mixed use building or structure (emphasis added) means a building that contains two (2) or
more separate and distinct uses permitted in the zoning district where such building is
located. (Section 15.02.259, Kent Zoning Code)
Mixed use development (emphasis added) shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses or
.conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site. (Section
15.02.260, Kent Zoning Code)
This distinction is important, since the comprehensive plan states that for the area designated as
mixed use along 104th Avenue SE, residential uses should only be allowed if they are part of a
mixed use development. Therefore, it should be made clear that a mixed use development could
mean two or more separate buildings.
With regard to residential uses, the following is recommended, in conformance with the
comprehensive plan.
Use Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Multifamily Residential Permitted Permitted only as part of a
mixed use development
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
As discussed at the September 9 workshop, there are several specific development standards which
could be amended as part of the mixed use zoning overlay. These will b,esummarized below, as
recommended by Mark Hinshaw. At the Board's request, Mark has drafted a summary of the
rationale behind his recommendations, which is attached.
Development Intensity
It is recommended that development intensity, or density, be regulated within the mixed use overlay
by utilizing floor area ratio, or PAR. FAR is the ratio of gross floor area to site area. Therefore, a
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 - Mixed Use Zoning Study
September 23, 1996
Paae 5
building with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area on a lot consisting of 20,000 square feet would
have an FAR of 0.5. Floor area ratio provides a uniform way of measuring the allowable intensity
of both commercial and residential development (as opposed to units per acre, which is only
applicable for residential development), which is why it is appropriate in mixed use areas. It also
provides a mechanism for offering incentives for mixed use development, by providing a "base
density" for commercial development,but allowing this to be increased for mixed use development.
The recommended FARs for the mixed use overlay are outlined below.
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Floor Area Ratio .25 for commercial
.50 for commercial with residential'
1.00 for residential'
Lot Coverage
Within the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that lot coverage be regulated as follows:
Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Lot Coverage 25 percent for commercial
75 percent with residential 60 percent with residential
Height
Within the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that building height be regulated as follows:
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Building height' 25 feet basic standard
50 feet maximum' 40 feet maximum'
Setbacks
Within the mixed use overlay, it is recommended that setbacks be regulated as follows:
'Commercial floor area may be increased by one square foot for each one square foot
of residential floor area provided up to a maximum commercial FAR of .5.
Residential FAR may be increased by .5, if parking is provided below grade, up to a
maximum of 1.5.
'Basic heights may be increased up to the maximum, according to the following
formula:
5 foot increase for development containing residential
5 foot increase for placing parking under the building
5 foot increase for using a pitched roof form
5 foot increase for stepping back from the top floor (min. of 5 feet)
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 - Mixed Use Zoning Study
September 23, 1996
Page 6
Standard Valley Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Setbacks
Front: None (0 feet)'
Rear and side: None (0 feet)5
Parking
Parking standards are typically uniform throughout zoning districts, and are regulated by use.
Since parking can often be used more efficiently in a mixed use area, the following standards are
recommended for the mixed use overlay.
Standard Vallev Mixed Use Areas East Hill Mixed Use Area
Off-Street Parking
Retail/Office': 3.5 spaces/1,000 sf floor area 4 spaces/1,000 sf floor area
Residential:
Studio: .75/du without comet., .50/du with comm
One bedroom: 1.5/du without comm., 1.0/du with comm
Two bedroom: 2.0/du without comm., 1.25/du with comm
DESIGN REVIEW
In addition to encouraging the establishment of mixed use areas, the policies in the comprehensive
plan also state that design review be implemented for new development in these areas. Design
review of projects can help ensure that new development is well designed, and is compatible with
both the surrounding neighborhoods and prospective new development. This is particularly
important in a mixed use area, to ensure that both new residential and commercial development
can be mutually supportive.
Design review is currently implemented for all multi-family residential projects, and for all new
development in the downtown area. It is recommended that design review also be implemented
for all new development within the mixed use overlay. The following section will describe the
proposed design review process, followed by a summary of recommended design review
guidelines.
4Some setback may be required in the front yard to accommodate a sidewalk which
shall be at least 10 feet in width.
6Setbacks of at least 20 feet would be required in any side or rear yards that are
adjacent to a residential zoning district.
6In order to encourage retail in mixed use developments, the City could exempt the
first 300 square feet of retail or office space that is part of an individual residential unit.
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 - Mixed Use Zoning Study
September 23, 1996
Page 7
Design Review Process
Design review in the City of Kent for multi-family and downtown development is done
administratively, meaning that no public hearing is required. The multi-family design review
process involves review of projects by Planning Department staff, while the downtown design
review process involves final review and approval by the downtown administrative design, review
committee, which consists of representatives from the Planning, Public Works, and Parks
Departments. In both cases, design review occurs as part of the building permit review process.
Applicants submit site plans, landscaping plans, and building elevations,.which are reviewed based
on specific criteria relating to site design, landscaping, and building design. Design review is
meant to be a collaborative process, where staff work with the developer to mutually achieve a
quality project.
It is recommended that design review for the mixed use overlay also be an administrative process,
meaning that prospective developers would work with city staff. This type of process offers both
flexibility and predictability, as opposed to projects being reviewed by a separate design review
board. It is also recommended that projects by reviewed administratively by Planning Department
staff, similar to the multi-family design review process, as opposed to being approved by a
committee.
Design Review Guidelines
Many of the design criteria which are presently used for multi-family design review would also
be applicable to the mixed use overlay. These are attached for your review. However, mixed use
development is different from many types of multi-family development, in that it combines
commercial uses, and would also be constructed in a more developed, urban environment.
Therefore, some different criteria need to be developed for these areas.
Mark Hinshaw has recommended that development projects in the mixed use area include the
following design features:
- Some common recreation space
- roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards
- Lighting features that are shielded, directing light downwards
- The residential portion of the building should incorporate residential details, such as
window trim, trellises, balconies, and bay windows
- The residential component should have an obvious, generous entrance, within features
suggesting a "front door", for example a lobby, trellis, gate, archway, or courtyard
The following design features are recommended for mixed use buildings'
- Parking lots, if used, should be divided into small increments, separated by landscaping
and structures, so that parking does not dominate the site
- Ground-level commercial space should be articulated by use of different materials,
generous windows with low sill heights, "store" doors, canopies, and planters
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 - Mixed Use Zoning Study
September 23, 1996
Page 8
- Residential floors should be expressed in an obvious manner, with stepbacks, change
in materials or color, and overhangs
- Commercial signs should be contained within the first floor commercial base and not
extend up into the residential floor facades.
In addition, the following criteria should apply to mixed use developments (or "horizontal" mixed
use):
- If the residential component is located away from the main street, a landscaped pedestrian
path should be provided between the entrance and the public sidewalk
- Although the commercial and residential components may have different architectural
expressions, they should exhibit a number of elements that produce the effect of an
integrated development.
- Surface parking should be generously landscaped to serve as an amenity. Lighting
fixtures should not exceed the height of the first floor.
CONCLUSION
This memorandum summarizes the recommended zoning amendments for mixed use which have
been presented at your earlier workshops. These include the use of a zoning overlay, amended
permitted uses, development standards, and the implementation of an administrative design review
process. These will be discussed at your September 23 workshop, along with alternatives for a
smaller zoning overlay area.
If you have any questions prior to the workshop, please contact me at 850-4799.
KON/tb:MULUB923.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Mark Hinshaw
j �3eKy�� g_C flrtC
� SkbF{S 4 s
�a r
rt
s-
♦ Ir �
�S - I� a�"t3�-s-ce_�. .� r; t,.�.a t"5 �' 1�-t�•i
#,.r'F#� '! ,3T*i}rsa�9agr.�i.1 ay ...,}L �s � tI y � i f."? �• t� F + a. r �� _ ' g+:
1tr x Fa' x y l i a r�
• yy��w�� ¢ 1 1l iryl. � 5.v.� �12y' i S '1 �1'�j
j -Yi
CZr-
co :; >w - --- --
S 228 ST
I
i N �,�� aLS "'/�A
—N=—_I .mow o�.k,"t. Sz n� x �``...�e `���"`
L h E
fAM
x
rry Y�
t� 4
t 61
--
1d �
L in
-- — _ — ,., c, ----
�� h� � BOULDRON WT_-
_ yJ 0
LLJ
—a
wl --- - of
fu f L �I
T
E-7-7,77 a
�nr ��n�s�fsta C e ✓+��7
y �k • .R� I I I I I I�
' b
00,
�LS4a p5.`iis.ki yi:yy^l�)k +CG v � 5A
• � 1._u
i F \"ter
/ 77 N
r �
obi ;Vm
r• n fi
i
R
' to'.1Ya.
STda L aLcLN�a �� ••
b
C' y 1 ti
iN
• y�.� ��y„�ur�•!CA bpi �,��5.�
-
a e A
o €S p yk
Ir
W T•wl Mark L. Hinshaw FAIR AICP
. � COMMUNnY PLANNING
URBAN
,�.`' CIVII AR Htn'EC"TURE
Maritime Bldg.,911 Western Avenue
Seattle,WA 98104
MANOR (206)622-1162 FAX(206)292-8624
September 10, 1996 RECEIVED
Planning Board SEP 1 21996
City of Kent CITY OF NT
220 Fourth Avenue S. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Kent, WA 98032
At your meeting on September 9, I was asked what the rationale was for specific numbers
contained within the standards for the proposed mixed use regulations.
In general, the numbers are similar to those used in mixed use zoning for mid-sized cities
within this region. No numbers were merely copied from another city, rather some judgement
was used, based upon the scale and "texture" of Kent and the policies contained in its
Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, numbers were selected that would not cause a sudden change
in development patterns, but rather result in an gradual transition to a more intensive mixture
of uses.
Beyond that, selecting numbers is not a precise science, but involves arriving at a "comfort"
level. Many standards already contained within regulations are as much derived from this
perspective as a technical one. Moreover, there is nothing that causes certain numbers to be
"the best" (for example, 40 rather than 39). It is simply more convenient (and readable) to
pick numbers that use certain increments.
Finally, it can be expected that some of these numbers will be changed over time, as
generations of development occur. The City should review the standards every few years to
see if revisions are needed.
Nevertheless, I have attempted to list the reasoning behind some numbers in the text. These
are in order of the individual standards.
Floor Area Ratios (FAR)
.25 corresponds to the FAR of most recent commercial development outside of
downtown Kent.
.50 represents the intensity of commercial development likely to occur in these areas
during the next 5-10 years.
1.0 is what it would take to make housing "competitive" with commercial development
in these areas, ie, allow sufficient density to match land values.
1.5 represents the additional residential yield necessary to offset the higher cost of
underground parking.
Height Limit
25' -- few commercial projects exceed this now.
50' -- allows any of these options:
4 stories of residential over 1 story of commercial or parking.
3 stories of residential over 1 story of parking over 1 story of
commercial.
3 stories of commercial.
50' also matches what the Uniform Building Code allows with respect to
economical frame construction.
5' increases simply allow a developer to reach the maximum limit in increments. 6'
increments could work just as well.
.Lot Coverage
25% is somewhat lower than what is theoretically allowed by zoning currently,
but most "strip" development doesn't get above 25% anyway.
75%/60% is set high enough to serve as an inducement to include residential uses,
and, perhaps, parking contained within a building rather than on a huge surface lot.
Setbacks
10 feet (fn4) -- is the minimum width that works for an urban sidewalk.
20 feet (fn5) -- is taken from existing code for transition conditions.
Parking
All ratios reflect results of recent studies, nationally and locally, that have concluded
that parking requirements are too high for typical use patterns. The parking ratios
proposed for residential reflect research done for suburban communities.
300' (fn6) -- is generally the size of a one-person office or very small retail user.
500' (fn7) -- is about the maximum distance most people will readily walk.
20% (fn7) -- is a level that might cause people to use it but not produce negative
impacts.
I hope that these explanations contribute to your deliberations on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark Hinshaw
ZONING § 15.09.047
review shall not include design elements that are implement and give effect to the compre-
not directly related to site planning and layout. hensive plan, its policies or parts thereof
Examples of excluded items are building colors through the adoption of design criteria for
and textures, siding materials and the like. multifamily development relative to site
B. Application and review process. The appli- layout,landscape architecture and exterior
cant for a multifamily development may propose structure design. It is the intent of the city
to modify any of the multifamily transition area that this process will serve to aid appli-
requirements set forth in section 15.08.215. Such cants in understanding the principal expec-
proposal shall be made by application to the plan- tations of the city concerning multifamily
ning department for administrative design re- design, and encourage a diversity of imag-
view on forms provided by the planning depart- inative solutions to development through
ment. The administrative design review may run the planning department review and appli-
concurrently with the SEPA environmental re- cation of certain criteria. These criteria
view process.To the maximum extent practicable, have been formulated to improve the de-
;ae planning department shall complete its re- sign, siting and construction of multifamily
view of an administrative design review applica- development so as to be compatible, both
tion within seven (7) working days of receiving visually and otherwise, with the topo-
the complete application. graphic, open space, urban or suburban
C. Required findings. In order to modify or characteristics of the land or adjacent prop-
waive any multifamily transition area require- erties, while still maintaining allowable
densities to ment, the planning director must find that all of applied in a manner es, -th e
the following criteria have been met: tent with established land use policies, the
comprehensive plan,this title, and commu-
1. The proposal will accomplish the same or nity development goals of the city.
better protection of an abutting single-
family district from impacts of noise,traffic, 2. The adoption t design criteria is an use,and other environmental intrusions which
of the city s regulation of land use,
caused by the multifamily development. which is statutorily authorised.procAppless of the multifamily design process to
2. The proposal will accomplish the same or the design criteria adopted in this section
better transition between the multifamily is established as an administrative func-
development and abutting streets,including tion delegated to the planning department
adequate buffering of the multifamily de- pursuant to RCW Title 35A, therefore, in
velopment from the street, and vice versa. implementing the multifamily design re-
3. The proposal is compatible with sur- view process, the planning director may
rounding uses. Compatibility includes but adopt such rules and procedures as are nec-
is not limited to site layout,size,scale,mass e=_sary to provide for expeditious review of
and provisions for screening and buffering. proposed projects.Further rules may be pro-
and planning director shall issue a report mulgated for additional administrative re-
of his findings, conclusions and determina- view.
tion for each proposal under this section. 3. All multifamily development of three (3)or
D. Appeals. The decision of the planning di- more units will be subject to the provisions
rector is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to of this section unless the multifamily units
section 15.09.070. are in a mixed use building where the
housing units are not located on the ground
Sec. 15.09.047. Multifamily design review. floor. The multifamily design review pro-
cess is distinct from the administrative de-
A. Purpose and scope. sign review process set forth in section
1. Multifamily design review is an adminis- 15.09.045,and applications for multifamily
trative process, the purpose of which is to development may or may not be subject to
1283
§ 15.09.047 KENT CITY CODE
the provisions of both sections. An appli- e. The site plan should provide safe and
cant may request at time of application that convenient pedestrian circulation.
review under both be completed simulta- 2. Landscape design.
neously. a. The landscape plan should integrate
4. The development and landscape plan should with and enhance the surrounding
be consistent with the applicable policies of neighborhood landscape.
the comprehensive plan. In the downtown b. The landscape plan should incorporate
area,the visual and urban design relation- existing natural features of signifi-
ships between existing buildings, open cance.
spaces and proposed development should be c. The landscape plan should enhance the
maximized. planned open space network.
d. The landscape plan should enhance the
B. Application and review process. The multi- parking and utility areas on the site.
family design review process is administrative and e. The landscape plan should enhance
is conducted as part of the permit review process. building forms and orientation.
The applicant must make application for the de- f. The landscape plan should indicate the
sig-i review process on farms provided by the plan- use of plant species suited to the mi-
ning department. Upon receipt of an application croclimate of the site -and should pro-
for design review, the planning director shall cir- vide for maintenance of these plants.
cuiate the application to the public works director, 3. Building design.
building official and the city administrator for re-
view. Prior to making a final decision, the plan- a. The buildings in the development
ring director shall review any comments sub- should, where appropriate, maintain.
-ni:�ted for consideration. In the administration of neighborhood scale and density.
t process, the planning director may develop b. The buildings in the development
Supplementary handbooks for the public, which should be oriented to provide for pri-
s all pictorially illustrate and provide additional vacy of residents.
dance on the interpretation of the criteria set c. The exterior design of all buildings in
forth in subsection C. of this section, as well as a the development should provide for in-
de._led explanation of the design review process. dividual unit identity.
D. Appeals. The decision of the planning di-
C. Design review criteria. The planning depart- rector to condition or reject any application under
ment shall use the following criteria in the eval- the multifamily design review process is final un-
uation and/or conditioning of applications under less an appeal is made to the hearing examiner
the multifamily design review process: within ten (10) days of either the issuance of the
1. Site design. director's conditional approval under this section
of any application, or the director's written deci-
a. The site plan for the development sion rejecting any application under this section.
should be integrated with the sur- Appeals to the hearing examiner shall be as set
rounding neighborhood. forth in chapter 2.32. The decision of the hearing
b. The site plan should take into consid- examiner shall be final unless an appeal is made
er ation significant environmental con- to the city council within ten (10) days after the
siderations and the lay of the land. hearing examiner's decision. The appeal shall be
c. The site plan should provide an open in writing to the city council and filed with the
space network which will accommodate clerk.
a wide variety of activities, both semi- (Ord. No. 3014, § 3, 12-3-91) "
public and private.
d. The site plan should accommodate ve-
hicular access and parking in a manner
which is convenient,yet does not allow
the automobile to dominate the site.
1284
CITY 0' i�� CSV 1
Jim White, Mayor
�b
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 350-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST 19, 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND
PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING STUDY
Introduction
One of the central themes in the Growth Management Act, as well as, in regional and countywide
planning goals, is the notion of utilizing urban land more efficiently in order to reduce urban sprawl.
One mechanism to accomplish this which is referenced in both Vision 2020 and the King County
Countvwide Planning Policies is the idea of creating mixed use activity centers. which would
combine commercial and residential land uses. These areas would be designed to allow a compatible
mixture of uses to bring housing closer to jobs and commercial services, support public transit, and
increase housing options. In addition to being consistent with regional policies. the notion of mixed
use development was also supported by citizens during the Community Forums and Visual
Preference Surveys undertaken during the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The comprehensive plan supports mixed use development in certain locations within the city. This
memorandum will outline the goals and policies in the plan regarding mixed use development, and
explain some of the rationale behind these policies. In order to implement these policies.
amendments must be made to the City's zoning code. The Planning Department has contracted with
Mark Hinshaw, an architect and urban design consultant. to make recommendations regarding
zoning code amendments to allow mixed use development. Mark has prepared a report (attached)
outlining some of the issues involved with zoning for mixed use, and recommending some
amendments to the Citv's zoning code. At the August 19 workshop, staff will review the policy
background for mixed use development which is contained in the plan. and then Mark will present
the issues and recommendations outlined in his report regarding proposed zoning amendments.
"DR ?l AA 6 1U 11;1_\-r 'IV-\.�IIIV(;TrYN QN0Z, 'Y"" 1'I1 1'Pllt>M. •u„ y<a.„C0 1 1:.\.. 1 .;•
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
August 19, 1996
Page 2
Background
As stated above, the Land Use Element contains a number of goals and policies regard^ ag the
establishment of activity centers which would allow a mixture of commercial and residential uses.
These policies are listed below, and are also found on pages 4-16 and 4-17 of the plan.
Goal LU-6 -Designate activity centers in portions of the city and in the annexation area. Allow
in these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development.
Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain
concentrations of comrnercial development with surrounding medium- density
housing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional
sprawling development patterns.
Policy LU-6.2 -Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential rises
as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand-alone basis
in designated areas.
Goal LU-7.-Develop activity centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and public
transportation.
Policy LU-7.1 - Implement design review for development in designated activity
centers to ensure pedestrian and transit orientation.
Policv LU-7.2 - Develop site and parking design standards in activity centers
which support transit.
Policy LU-7.3 - Ensure that the City's street and construction design standards in
activity centers enhance pedestrian circulation, transit, and aesthetics.
In addition to goals and policies, the Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan contains a
Land Use Plan Map which outlines the location and density of different types of the land uses
throughout the city. The map shows three areas in the city designated for mixed use development.
along West Meeker Street west of the downtown; the area along North Central north of the
downtown; and the area along 104th Avenue SE between SE 235th and SE 264th Streets. The
two mired use areas in the valley would allow stand-alone multi-family residential uses, while the
mixed use area on East Hill would only allow multi-family uses as pan of a mixed use
development. All of these areas are currently zoned for commercial use: the areas along West
Meeker Street and North Central Avenue are zoned General Commercial (GC), and the area along
104th Avenue SE is zoned Community Commercial (CC) and Office (0). All of these areas are
Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning Study
August 19, 1996
Page 3
fairly well-established commercial areas which have multi-family residential development Iccat-A
within close proximity.
Rationale for Mixed Use
One of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning process was
fmding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially-zoned areas
within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of the community
and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family areas to multi-
family, which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore, the plan
outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly changing the
zoning in single-family areas. These strategies include allowing smaller single-family lot sizes,
more flexible development standards for single-family development, accessory dwelling units, and
mixed use development. As stated, mixed use development also has the advantage of locating
residential and commercial uses in closer proximity to one another, therefore creating more
vibrant areas and promoting transit.
Conclusion
Since the creation of mixed use activity centers is an important priority identified in the
comprehensive plan, the zoning amendments to implement these policies must be carefully
considered. As is discussed in the attached report, there are several alternative ways to implement
these policies. Also, this project is complex in that it deals with several components of the zoning
code, such as permitted uses, allowable density, development standards, and design review.
Planning Department staff and Mark Hinshaw will be prepared to discuss the issues discussed in
this memorandum and the attached report at your August 19 workshop.
KON/tb:zca96-5.rpt
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Mark Hinshaw
City of Kent
Mixed Use Zoning:
Alternatives, Issues & Recommendations
y
a
el-
V
August 8, 1996
Mark L. Hinshaw FAIA AICP
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction I
Alternatives 3
Issues and Recommendations 7
Forms of Mixed Use 7
Geographic Coverage 8
Standards 9
DesiL,n Review 17
Introduction
Throughout the Pacific Northwest, as well as elsewhere in the country,
communities are grappling with ways of redesigning zoning to produce more
positive results than what has been achieved over the past fifty years.
Conventional development during the post-war decades has produced a pattern
of land use that blurs the distinction between communities: single-purpose
commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt, with little opportunity for
movement except by automobile, no public spaces or amenities, and no real
sense of character other than provided by franchises. The development pattern
along West Meeker, Central Avenue and 104th Avenue are examples of this
trend.
Communities like Kent are beginning to explore ways of altering this generic
pattern by re-examining both the form of public investments and development
regulations. But accomplishing a major shift is not a simple task. Many factors
serve to maintain the current situation, such as the attitudes of financial
institutions, mainstream marketing of real estate, goods, and services,
established methods of development. and consumer behavior. Change is
possible, but needs to occur over time and with opportunities for adjustments in
the market place that are neither sudden nor risky.
The City of Kent has recognized the value of encouraging mixed use
development in its recently-adopted comprehensive plan. The Land Use Plan
Map designates several areas (cited above) as appropriate for mixed use. (These
areas are currently zoned for commercial use. The West Meeker and North
Central areas are zoned GC and the area along 104th is zoned CC and 0.) The
plan identities two designations: one allowing multifamily residential as a
permitted use, together with retail and office uses and another allowing
multiple family residential only as part of a mixed use development.
Crafting new forms of regulations that will produce a different development
pattern requires a °targeted and tailored" approach, not one than is sweeping
and massive. Few developers want to take a risk in breaking an established
form of development; business decisions can be tenuous enough without trying
to introduce new configurations and types of buildings. However, some things
can be altered or at least encouraged through incentives, bonuses, and design
guidelines. So long as there is flexibility. new development and redevelopment
can gradually adjust and accommodate itself. It may only take a few key
elements to begin to change the character of strip commercial areas; but,
regardless, the change will be incremental..
In order to implement the goals and policies of Kent's comprehensive plan,
mixed use regulations should achieve a number of objectives:
o Contribute toward meeting Comprehensive Plan target for poouiution
increase / housing needs.
o Stimulate more efficient use of land in the vicinity of public
transportation, services and jobs.
o Encourage infiIl development and redevelopment by the private sector.
o Create a safe, convenient, attractive, and livable environment for
households of varying income, age and composition.
o Focus new higher density residential development in already
established, more central parts of the city, rather than in new areas at
the edges.
r
Alternatives
A number of concepts should be common to all alternatives:
o Remove procedural disincentives (CUP) / Allow residential by-right.
o Weight development potential in favor of housing.
o Offer bonuses for including housing (FAR, height, coverage).
o Offer incentives for other desired amenities and features.
o Reduce parking requirements in recognition of increased efficiency.
o Require design review and use of design guidelines.
Three distinctly different alternatives are possible. They are described, along
with their advantages and disadvantages, below.
3
Alternative 1
Amend Existing GC, CC, and O Districts to Allow/Encourage Residential
In this alternative, the current zoning would be revised to allow mixed use,
offering incentives, incorporating new standards, and adding design guidelines.
Advantages:
o Established districts that people are familiar with.
o Text amendments can be made relatively easily.
o Doesn't require new or adjusted boundaries
Disadvantages:
o Changes each district as a whole, which may be too broad.
o Could result in many incompatible uses and conditions.
o Could be controversial, given the geographic expanse.
o Might not be effective in producing a livable environment.
o Could produce scattered pockets of housing, some in undesirable
areas.
4
Alternative 2
Create Mixed Use "Overlay" District
This alternative would involve applying a special set of regulations to all or
some portion of each of the areas identified in the plan for mixed use.
Advantages:
o Allows for limited application.
o Allows for different standards (either more or less restrictive).
o Can be done through a text amendment (which can include maps).
o Can initiate long-term change by starting small and focusing.
o Involves a more "tailored" regulatory technique.
Disadvantages:
o May still require some changes to underlying district(s).
o Introduces a level of complexity.
o May be perceived as unfair if some portions of the underlying district
are treated differently than others.
Alternative 3
Establish New Mixed Use District(s)
In this alternative, the current zoning classifications would be removed and
replaced with a completely new classification, with unique standards, incentives
and guidelines.
Advantages:
o Dramatically signals a new desired direction.
o Allows for completely fresh regulations.
o Offers clarity for property owners desiring the new direction.
Disadvantages:
o May require more than one, to reflect different situations.
o Would involve a map change, with required notice.
o Might not be appropriate for all areas being considered.
o Perception of major change can cause uncertainty in private sector.
o Can upset property owners who don't agree with new direction.
o Could result in numerous non-conforming developments.
6
Issues and Recommendations
1. Forms of Mixed Use
In recent years, it has been popular to propose a return to a "romanticized"
version of mixed use. Specifically, this is the notion of people living above the
store. This form of mixed use -- mixed use buildings -- has been encouraged
through development regulations that either require or offer incentives for
developers to build both housing and commercial uses within the same
structure. While this form has been built in areas throughout the region, it has
often not been successful because of a number of factors. First, the
development industry has become specialized. Firms know how to develop
given types of uses to meet specific markets. but they rarely understand how to
design, market. and operate combinations of use. Second, building and fire
code requirements are considerably more complex when uses ("occupancies")
are mixed, driving up costs. Third, mixing uses, especially housing and
commercial, complicates maintenance, security, advertising, parking, ownership,
leasing, and management. Fourth, income produced by each type of use can
radically differ from what was originally anticipated and where one use does
not perform adequately, the other use suffers. Finally, for all of the above
reasons, banks are extremely reluctant to provide financing for mixed use
buildings.
Another form of mixed use that achieves virtually all of the benefits and has
few of the liabilities is mixed use development. Sometimes called "horizontal
mixed use," this places the housing component on a different pad than the
commercial component. Each could even be on parcels that are owned by
different parties, so long as their design is integrated together. Many features
could be shared, such as access, parking, open space, pedestrian connections,
security, etc. But each can also be independently financed, developed and
managed. Another advantage of this form is that the commercial component
can be placed along a busy arterial street. buffering the residential units.
A third form of development is called mixed use neighborhoods. This involves
using a finely-grained pattern of zoning to encourage different uses to be in
close proximity to one another. This is somewhat more of a fragmented
7
approach and does not always result in development that fits together well.
However, strong design guidelines and review by the city over a sustained
period of time can produce desirable results.
In fact, achieving mixed use requires using all of these forms of developmeilL
No one technique will be sufficient. Re-introducing the concept of mixed use,
after decades of single use development, will necessitate promoting and using a
variety of forms.
It is recommended that mixed use buildings be considered only one form of
mixed use. Current code language that produces developments and
neighborhoods containing both residential and commercial uses should be
continued.
2. Geographic Coverage
To encourage the development of mired use sites and buildings, there are two
basic options with respect to land area designated for such development- One
option would be to use the already existing areas designated for GC, CC and O
zoning. However, intensive commercial use is so new or so firmly established
in some areas in which mixed use may be extremely difficult to achieve. There
would need to be a designator such as "GC/A" to indicate specific areas where
this pattern is more possible or desired. Another approach is to carve out
smaller portions of area currently zoned GC, CC and O (and designated for
mixed use in the comprehensive plan) and establish either a new zoning
designation or an overlay designation. An overlay designation could involve
different standards for various areas, if desired (eg. MU1, MU2).
The overlay approach is recommended, for several reasons. First, not all
existing GC, CC and O areas may be appropriate for, or likely to be developed
with, mixed use. The physical characteristics and environmental qualities
necessary for an area to be conducive to living may not be present. Second, the
overlay approach allows the concept of mixed use to get a foothold in areas
that already have attributes supporting residential use.�Third, the overlay
technique both sends out a clear, focused message about new development
Possibilities and allows for a more tailored, area-specific set of standards and
incentives. Finally, the overlay method can be achieved through a text
amendment, which could avoid costly notices to individual progeny owners.
8
3. Development Standards
Mixed use, whether vertical (stacked) or horizontal (co-located), is a form of
development which used to be common in North America but has not been so
for four or five decades (outside major cities). In this time, the development
industry has become so specialized that only a very few companies understand
how to successfully mix uses. furthermore, financial institutions have noted
failures of a number of mixed use buildings and, not wanting to incur risks,
have tended not to look favorably on such investments. Moreover, codes and
regulations have not really encouraged the mixing of uses, making this form of
development costly and procedurally complex. While local govemment cannot
have much direct influence over the development capabilities and financing
constraints, it can at least affect the climate for doing mixed use by
establishing standards that are clear, simple and favorable toward this form of
development.
Residential as an Outright Permitted Use
If a mixture of residential uses with commercial uses is truly desired. special
permitting involving public hearings cannot be a requirement. Such hurdles
present an additional degree of uncertainty to an already difficult and somewhat
risky form of development. Residential should simply be made an outright (or
"by-right") permitted use in areas designated for mixed use. This does not
preclude having a requirement for certain areas, such as East Hill, that
residential use must be a part of a mixed use project. However, to require that
residential must be part of a mixed use buildin; is overly restrictive and would
not produce many examples of mixed use. Allowing the option of mixing uses
horizontally or laterally, can actually produce more immediate results. Different
developers can tackle portions of a project that they are expert in, building
code requirements apply easily to each component, and financing may be more
available. (This approach should allow for subdividing into different ownership
parcels, with cooperative parking agreements set forth in the deed of record, so
Iona as the project is integrated together by design.)
It is recommended that residential use be allowed outright, although in some
areas, allowed only as part of a mixed use development.
9
Allowable Residential Density
Conventional land use regulations have tended to set forth a maximum number
of units per acre as a control on density. Over time, what this has done is to
work against housing that is affordable to middle income households. (If a
developer can only build x number of units on a site, the tendency is to make
them relatively large and therefore relatively more expensive, so as to achieve a
higher financial return.) In the last decade or so, many communities have
begun to use another means of regulating the intensity of development. This is
the technique of "Floor Area Ratio" (or FAR for short).
FAR indicates the amount of development as a multiple of lot area. For
example, an allowable FAR of 1 would mean that a 20,000 square foot site
could hold a 20,000 square foot building. The built form containing this area
can be vaned: it could be a one story building covering all of the lot, a two-
story building covering half of the lot, or a three story building covering a third
of the lot.
Moreover, using FAR instead of measures like "dwelling units per acre" or "lot
area per unit" allows a development to be configured to meet the needs of
smaller households (eg. singles, single-parent households, seniors) in that a
greater number of smaller units could be built. This tool allows the marketplace
to determine exact density in any given location, so long as parking
requirements and other standards are met. In practical terms, parking
requirements, along with height limits and lot coverage, pose an effective limit
on density; only so many spaces can be fitted onto a parcel. This constraint
would prevent someone from cramming a site with tiny dwelling units. But, it
provides an incentive to produce more compact, less costly units. Also, FAR
encourages developers to have a greater mix of unit types within a given
development, so that a greater range of household sizes and types are possible.
There are other reasons for using FAR as a regulatory tool. Mixing residential
and commercial uses together can be confusing if the amount of development
potential cannot be calculated on a common basis, ie, if residential potential is
based on unitslacre and commercial potential is based on heights and lot
coverage. Using FAR (along with other standards of height, coverage, parking,
etc.) puts both uses on an even basis and development potential is simpler to
determine. In addition, using FAR allows the city to suggest what use is
preferable and to make use of an incentive system to encourage development to
occur in a certain form or provide public amenities. FAR, in short, provides
10
much more flexibility and is a technique that developers find very useful and
workable in more urbanized, mixed use areas.
FAR does not produce precise densities, because unit sizes can vary widely
(which is a principal advantage of using this technique). However, a range of
density relates to given FAR limits. For example:
.5 FAR would produce 10-30 units per acre
1.0 FAR would produce 25-45 units per acre
1.5 FAR would produce 40-60 units per acre
It is recommended that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be adopted as the method of
controlling the intensity of development in mixed use districts. Furthermore, in
order to encourage the development of housing within areas which are
currently dominated by commercial development, allowable FAR should be
significantly higher for residential use as compared with commercial. Finally,
as an incentive to provide residential, additional commercial FAR could be
granted in return for including housing within a project.
Height Limits
The concept of mixed use is identified by the Comprehensive Plan as
appropriate for areas now zoned GC, CC and O. Height limits for these
districts 35', 40' and 40', respectively. The code also states the number of
stories allowed in each: 2, 3 and 3, respectively. However, the zoning code
allows an additional increase of one story in GC and CC by the Planning
Director and yet another story by the Planning Commission.
There are several awkward and confusing complexities in these standards.
First, building hLighl as measured by feet is the most important element in
maintaining the sense of scale; the number of stories is not relevant. Setting
numbers of "stories" is not logical because there is a great difference between
floor-to-floor heights for various types of development. Commercial buildings
can have stories that are 15 feet in height, while typical residential stories are
11
9-10 feet in height. Stories devoted to parking would be in the range of 8-9
feet. Therefore, although it is a popularly-used term, "story" as an actual
measure of building height is confusing and even counter-productive. (Eg. three
stories of residential are equal in height to two stories of commercial.) Height
limits should be established by number of feet only.
Second, the prospect of increases in stories through some special action,
introduces a degree of uncertainty that confuses developers. The allowable
envelope is a basic determinant of yield and, therefore, return on investment.
Developers need to know, up front, what they can do on a parcel of property.
A better approach would be to specify the amount of increase allowable in
return for providing a specific feature, and then allow the increase
administratively,
Third, it is not clear whether an increase in the number of stories also involves
an increase in dimension. Again, this supports using height dimensions only,
not stories.
A creative way of addressing height would be to set a basic height limit at a
relatively low point and then let it be increased through the inclusion of certain,
specified features that achieve public objectives. An increase could be given for
including residential use. An increase could be given for concealing parking.
Increases could also be granted for using sloped roofs or stepped-back terraces
to soften the bulk of buildings. Critical to this approach is that such increases
are automatic: provide this and you receive that. This approach offers
flexibility, predictability and variety in result_
It is recommended that allowable building heights for mired use districts have
a "basic" allowable height that is lower than what is currently allowed in any
of the above districts. Additional height would be granted according to a
specific schedule of features and increments of increase.
12
Lot Coverage
Normally lot coverage is not much of a constraint in single use development,
given that parking consumes the great majority of a site anyway. However,
when uses begin to be mixed together, particularly in a horizontal manner, lot
coverage can be a constraint. Furthermore, the increased development intensity
begins to justify placing some or all of the parking within or under a building.
This requires a higher permissible lot coverage to accomplish. Currently, lot
coverages for the districts cited above range from 30% to 50%, all of which are
too low to encourage the mixing of uses.
Similar to height limits, coverage can be expressed in a manner that offers an
incentive to build in a particular way. Lot coverage could be increased in return
for doing a mixed use development It could also be set lower for single use
development, as a disincentive.
It is recommended that a "basic" lot coverage of 25% be set for mixed use
districts. If residential use is included, the coverage could then be as much as
75%. A stricter variation on this is to require that a minimum percentage (eg.
30% or 50%) of the development be in residential use for the higher coverage
limit to be available.
Setbacks
One of the advantages of mixed use development is that it can create, over
time, an environment that is conducive to walking between places to live,
work, shop and recreate. One of the key factors in accomplishing this is to
allow and even encourage buildings to be directly adjacent to public sidewalks.
so that destinations are prominent and easily accessible, goods and services are
in plain view from sidewalks, and there is a high degree of continuity in
building form. Requiring setbacks prevents this from occurring. (However,
setbacks are useful in achieving a comfortable transition between more intense
commercial/mixed use development and lower intensity residential
development.)
13
There is one aspect to setbacks that is frequently overlooked for districts in
which greater intensity of development is expected and where better provisions
for pedestrians is desired. That is the need to establish wider sidewalks. The
typical 5 to S foot wide sidewalks found in strip commercial districts are not
adequate for pedestrian movement, safety and comfort, particularly as street
trees take up some of the width. (Street trees, with a minimum caliper of 3"
and a maximum spacing of 25-30' should be required in order to help make the
districts liveable.) While street improvement projects can purchase easements
or additional right-of-way, it is often not possible for a city to undertake such a
major project. Therefore, incremental enhancements are the principle means of
achieving a pedestrian setting.
Accordingly, setbacks should be required along street frontages for the purpose
of providing sidewalks that are at least 10 feet wide. (Widths greater than 12
feet are only necessary in downtown areas.) This may mean that some or all of
the sidewalk width is situated on private property.
It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, setbacks not be required.
Exceptions would be for sidewalks and where projects are adjacent to
residential districts. Design guidelines might also address the concept of
"maximum setback" in certain locations. to encouraee retail uses to be oriented
to the street.
Parking
One of the greatest benefits of mixed use development is that area devoted to
parking is much more efficiently used. This is due to a number of reasons.
First, some trips are "internalized;" some people will walk between dwellings
and nearby retail shops and offices. This can allow for a reduced number of
households who need two cars. Second, for any use, but particularly
commercial uses, there is some degree of turnover of parking spaces, leading to
some spaces always being available. Different uses, co-located can take
advantage of this "inefficiency" (so long as commercial spaces are not
assigned). Third, different uses, such as office and residential, have different
times of peak use so that at night, the office stalls can be available to meet
some of the residential demand_ Finally, conventional parking ratios have been
14
based upon peak periods of use; much of the time parking stalls around the
perimeter of a development are unused.
All of these factors suggest that combining residential with commercial uses
should allow for shared supply of parking. However, the possibilities for
sharing have some limitation. The residential component will need a core
number of spaces that are dedicated for residents and, perhaps, even secure.
Commercial uses probably cannot depend upon access to residential stalls;
ratios might be somewhat reduced but probably not dramatically unless there is
very good access to public transportation for employees. (Some portion of
parking ratios are meant for employees; that portion might be reduced if
alternatives are available.)
Like other standards, parking ratios can also be used to induce the mixing of
residential and commercial. Normally, the provision of parking is a direct
expense to the developer with little possibility of income. If the amount of land
dedicated to parking can be reduced, and, therefore, more of it made available
for income-generating use, there will be some people interested in mixing
residential and commercial.
This concept needs to recognize two factors, however. Parking ratios cannot be
so low as to generate spillover demand that is met on adjacent streets or
properties. In addition, financial institutions, regardless of parking codes, will
insist upon enough parking to make a project marketable.
Blending all of these factors together. along with recent research that suggests
that parkin° ratios are higher, in general, than they really need to be, it should
be possible to allow for some reduction in parking for mixing uses together.
It is recommended that, for mixed use districts, parking required for office and
retail uses be reduced to 3.5 stalls/1000 square feet. If a project includes
residential, the ratio for residential should be I stall/dwelling unit. However,
the ratio for developments containing only residential should be 1.5/du, since
there is no other use with which to share parking supply.
A variation on this would be to have a more complex set of ratios based on the
number of bedrooms in each unit, with lower ratios required when uses are
mixed, such as the following:
15
Residential Parking (spaces/unit)
Dwelling Size Not mixed Mixed
with Commercial with Commercial
Studio .75 .50
One Bedroom 1.5 1.0
Two Bedroom 2.0 1.25
16
4. Design Review
Requiring design review is an important consideration when encouraging mixed
use. Design review can ensure that new, more intensive development fits
comfortably within the context of the city in general and the surrounding
neighborhoods in particular. In addition, one objective of mixing uses is to
attract people to live in close proximity to jobs, shops, and services. If these
places are to be truly livable, qualities associated with desirable neighborhoods
need to be present and improve over time. A district dominated by generic,
flat-roofed commercial buildings surrounded by seas of asphalt and punctuated
by large, glaring signs by will not likely be seen as a good place to live.
Therefore design review can help direct the character of both new residential
and commercial development to be mutually supportive.
This will require the use of design guidelines to inform the decisions of private
developers as well as public officials. The City of Kent has a set of guidelines
that govern multiple family projects and many of these can apply to mixed use
development. However, it will be necessary to add other guidelines addressing
conditions involving the mixture of uses. Guidelines should also be specifically
devised for stand-alone commercial buildings so that the total effect reinforces
the desired character.
Finally, design review should be an administrative process to make sure that
the overall permitting process is expeditious. Both the public sector and the
private sector must recognize that design review is a collaborative process. not
an adversarial one. This is particularly the case if mixed use districts are to
meree and thrive and become decent, healthy places in which to both live and
conduct business.
Design Guidelines
Design guidelines are currently used by the City in the review of projects
within downtown and multiple family districts. Because the mixed use districts
are a hybrid of relatively intense commercial uses and relatively dense
residential uses, neither set of existing guidelines is entirely sufficient to
address the conditions associated with mixed use.
17
However, many of the guidelines used for multiple family development are
appropriate. All but three guidelines are applicable. Two guidelines (l.c. and
2.c.) indicate a need for an open space network. In denser, mixed use areas,
this is difficult to achieve. Another guideline Q.a.) suggests maintaining
neighborhood scale. Because mixed use is contemplated for areas that are now
mainly strip commercial, design attention would need to be directed toward
helping to establish a new type of neighborhood rather than being compatible
with the surroundings.
As described in previous sections, mixed use can occur either within the same
building (vertical mixed use) or within the same site (horizontal mixed use).
Regardless, mixed use should include the following design features:
o Some common recreation space.
ea. roofs, terraces, indoor rooms, courtyards
o Lighting fixtures that are shielded, directing light downward.
o Residential portion should incorporate residential details.
ea. window trim, trellises, balconies, bay windows
o The residential component should have an obvious, generous entrance,
within features suggesting a "front door."
eg. lobby, trellis, decorative ;ate, archway, courtyard
o Any walls fronting on public streets should contain windows,
irrespective of the use at the level.
ea. at least 20% of the ground floor facade must be clear glass
(a combination of decorative grillwork. art, and landscaping may
be substituted)
18
A�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 , 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-96-3 (A-G)
AND ZONING MAP CHANGES CPZ-96-1-5
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On November 25, 1996, the Land Use and
Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the proposed
1996 annual Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments. Five
sites were recommended for approval by the Board (Coblentz
CPA-96-3 (A) & CPZ-96-1; Prouty/Ruth CPA-96-3 (B) & CPZ-96-2 ;
City of Kent Planning Department CPA-96-3 (E) & CPZ-96-5; City
of Kent Finance Department CPA-96-3 (F) ; and City of Kent Public
Works Department CPA-96-3 (G) ) . One site was recommended for
denial (Lewis applications CPA-96-3 (C) and CPZ-96-3) , and one
set of applications was withdrawn (Robbins CPA-96-3 (D) and
CPZ-96-4) .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; Work Shop staff reports dated
September 9 and November 12 , 1996; Hearing staff report dated
November 25, 1996, and Land Use and Planning Board minutes
dated November 25, 1996
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YEST
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember la � }� seconds
to adopt the recommendations of the Land Use and Planning Board
for the 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning Map
Changes, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance (s) .
DISCUSSION: '
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
CITY OF �
CITY OF KENT
PLANN��I�N��G�� DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
January 7, 1997
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-96-3 (A-G)/#CPZ-96-(1-5) - 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS
Attached is the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board relating to the proposed
1996 amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (#CPA-96-3 (A-G)/#CPZ-96-(1-5)). The
Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing on this item on November 25, 1996
(see attached minutes).
As outlined in the attached staff report, the City received a total of seven proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Five of these were amendments to the Land Use Plan
Map. These proposed amendments are being reviewed in conjunction with proposed changes
to the zoning map which would correspond with the respective plan map changes.
The Land Use and Planning Board considered these applications at their November 25
hearing. A summary of each application is provided below, followed by the Board's
recommended action on the plan map amendment and corresponding zoning:
Proposal A - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Residential (SF-6) to Commercial
for property located at 22320 88th Avenue South (Coblentz - CPA-96-3(A)
& CPZ-96-1).
The Board is recommending that a portion of the applicants' property be
redesignated as Industrial in the comprehensive plan and CM-1 on the zoning
map, as shown on the attached maps. (Attachments A and B).
Proposal B - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-1 to SF-6 for property located
at the southwest corner of 104th Avenue SE and SE 272nd Street (Prouty
CPA-96-3(B) & CPZ-96-2).
The Board is recommending that the applicants' property be redesignated as SF-
6 in the comprehensive plan and SR-4.5 on the zoning map
"111th Ay ;;yW 3 I , 0
Memo To: Jim White, Mayor, and City Council Members
Subject: 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - #CPA-96-3 (A-G)/#CPZ-96-(1-5)
Page 2
Proposal C - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-6 to Low Density Multi-
Family Residential on property located at 25840 135th Lane SE (Lewis
CPA-96-3(C) & CPZ-96-3).
The Board is recommending that the proposed redesignation of the applicants'
property to Low Density Multi-Family Residential on the comprehensive plan
and MRG on the zoning map not be approved.
Proposal D - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-6 to Neighborhood Services
for property located at the northeast corner of 116th Avenue SE and Kent
Kangley Road (Robbins CPA-96-3(D) & CPZ-96-4).
This application was withdrawn due to lack of proper public notice by the
applicant. Hence, there was no action taken by the Board on this application.
Proposal E - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Multi-Family
Residential to Commercial for property located at the southeast corner of
132nd Avenue SE and SE 270th Street (Kent Planning Department CPA-96-
3(E) & CPZ-96-5.
The Board is recommending that the applicant's property be redesignated as
Commercial in the comprehensive plan and CC, Community Commercial on the
zoning map.
Proposal F - Amendments to the Capital Facilities Element to update capital facilities
inventories, financial information and project summaries (Kent Finance
Department CPA-96-3(F).
The Board is recommending that the Capital Facilities Element be amended as
outlined by the Finance Department.
Proposal G - Amendments to the Transportation Element to update financial information
and project summaries (Kent Public Works Department CPA-96-3(G).
The Board is recommending that the Transportation Element be amended as
outlined by the Public Works Department.
Staff will be available at the January 7, 1997 City Council meeting to discuss the Board's
recommendations on these proposals and answer any questions about these applications.
JPH/KON/mp:a:cpa963cc.mem
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
City of Kent - Planning Department
Lj
171
�.
L5
� - I LFS�''x �-,�'.°'»w';'x J•7''�` "�`1�,.7".-f�"*i��rflN:�. - -� .�
d
r
al L'DM' F
APPLICATION NAME: Coblentz
NUMBER: #CPA-96-3, Proposal A /A7TACHfv�C—.NT a
RFQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND A
; ;,• w Application site N
Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation Plan bcurdary
City limits
Proposed extension of Industrial boundary
City of Kent - Planning Department
11F .
1, .r t
Y
- - h _ Crtll
_ - - -
x ,
e � '� ifx�r �i'"3..,��' t�}f��.�trllr j�1r • - - -.
IJ
vt
MR. G
I
17
Lj-
I
J a
jyr
i r
APPLICATION NAME: Coblentz
NUMBER: #CPA-96-3, Proposal A ATT,4\C-HMENT 8
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND A
Application site N
�Y
Existing Zoning Zoning boundary
City limits
�,�� Proposed extension of CM-1 boundary
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 3
A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which
are outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C of the October 28 staff report.
B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development
standards within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use
overlay be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design
review criteria would be modeled after the City's existing multifamily design review
process, but would be supplemented as indicated in the staff report.
Ron Harmon asked for further clarification of the development standards for the current commercial
zones and the proposed changes. Mr. O'Neill explained that in the current General Commercial and
Community Commercial zones 40%site coverage is allowed where in the Office zone 30%coverage
is permitted. He also explained that if the Board considers a change from the staff recommendation
for site coverage a similar change should be made for floor area ratios.
Ron Harmon requested that the letter received by the Planning Department be admitted into record.
Board member Gloria LaBore MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to accept staff
recommendation with an amendment that site coverage and floor area ratio should remain the same
as they are now for stand alone commercial. Motion carried.
1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS #CPA-96-3 (items A - G) (K. O'Neill)
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City
Council in April 1995. The Growth Management Act encourages the constant update and review
of comprehensive plans. The City established policy which allows for annual amendments and also
established specific criteria for analyzing proposed amendments. The criteria are outlined in page
2 of the staff report.
CPA-96-3(A)/CPZ-96-1 Coblentz Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the applicants property being considered consists of
three parcels on 88th Avenue South, adjacent to the SR-167 just south of 222nd. The frontage of
two of the parcels is currently designated as Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned
Commercial Manufacturing (CM-1). The remainder of the subject property is currently designated
as SF-6 on the plan and SR-6 on the zoning map. The applicants requested to change the entire area
to commercial.
ZCA-96-3 Mixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendments1ZCA-96 Admtn Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 4
Mr. O'Neill explained that the easternmost parcel is so steep it is unlikely to be developed. The
Public Works Department expressed concerns with changing the land use and zoning on the entire
property, due to traffic impacts and slope stability. Their concerns were outlined in an attached
memorandum to the staff report.
Board member Ron Hannon questioned whether other parcels in the vicinity were also taken into
consideration. Mr. O'Neill explained that only the parcels listed on the application were considered.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Mike Colbentz, 22320 88th Avenue S. Mr. Colbentz explained that the primary reason for his
application came from the noise factor of SR-167 that results in his property being unmarketable.
Mr. Coblentz stated he felt there was an additional 3 acres of buildable flat land. He voiced his
displeasure with the staff report. He would like to see the entire property zoned CM-1.
Joan Longstrom, 22202 88th Avenue S. Ms. Longstrom stated that she supports the Coblentz
application. She indicated that the noise levels from the area makes the residential homes
unmarketable in this area.
Carl Longstrom, 22202 88th Avenue S. Mr. Longstrom agreed with his wife, Ms. Longstrom. He
added that their home had been on the market for two years with no avail. He supports the entire
property being zoned commercial.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned the staff recommendation. Mr. O'Neill further clarified the
reasoning behind limiting the commercial area due to the steep slope.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
The Board discussed alternatives to the staff recommendation to include more of the property in the
commercial zone. Mr. O'Neill gave input to the Board regarding various alternatives.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to approve the staff
recommendation to change the land use plan map designation to Commercial and the zoning map
to Commercial Manufacturing - 1 (CM-1) amending the boundary to move the eastern boundary to
the next parcel line. Motion carried.
ZC I-9h-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(a-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentsiZCA-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 5
9CPA-96-3(B)/CPZ-96-2 - Gould Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the parcel in question is located at the southwest corner
of 104th Avenue SE and 272nd Street. The parcel was annexed into the City during the Ramstead
East Hill Annexation in 1994 and at that time the parcel was zoned SR-I. The applicant is
requesting to change the land use designation to SF-6 and the zoning to SR-6. Staff recommends
approving the change with a land use designation of SF-6 and the zoning SR-4.5.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Robert Gould, 27233 - 104th Avenue SE. Mr. Gould agrees with staff recommendation. He is
interested in developing his property.
Bill Carlton, 10210 SE 270th. Mr. Carlton is a long time Kent resident and voiced his concern with
the rapidly increasing population. He believes Kent should slow down development. He believes
Kent should take the time to maintain natural resources and stop building more houses. Mr. Carlton
voiced his concern regarding the rapidly increasing school populations. He believes Kent should
focus more on the quality of education and living for the current residents and stop adding additional
development and continue increasing the population.
Richard Loran, 27124 104th Avenue SE. He voiced a concern over the water or sewer cost this
development could bring to his property.
Planning Director Jim Harris interjected that there is a cost involved with new development.
however, the Board is not here to consider potential costs but merely the proposed change in the land
use map designation and the zoning.
Jerry Prouty,27608 114th Avenue SE. Mr. Prouty stated he felt that SR-6 was a more appropriate
zone for the property.
Marlin Ruge,27116- 104th Avenue SE. Mr. Ruge is concerned with what would happen to 104th
and if sewers would be required how the cost would be incurred.
Mr. Harris explained that if this property is developed they would have to get sewer and water there.
He explained that if the surrounding properties are on septic tanks it is not required that they hook
up to the sewer lines unless their septic was failing. Normally the sewer lines would be set up with
a LID. Mr. Harris explained that he does not know what would happen in this specific case. The
Board is here to consider whether the land use designations should be changed on this propem.
ZC.4-96-5 ,Waxed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentslWA-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 6
Frank Scarcella, 10426 SE 272nd. Mr. Scarcella is a neighboring property owner. He stated that
he is against adding development in this area. He was concerned with traffic and school issues.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. Motion carved.
Board member Tom Brotherton questioned staffs rationale for recommending SR-4.5 rather than
the requested SR-6. Mr. O'Neill explained that the property abuts SR-4.5 and SR-6 zones. Either
zone could be acceptable however there are some development restrictions. If the property is zoned
SR-6 it could be developed with approximately 40 lots, and SR-4.5 would allow approximately 30
lots. Due to the site restrictions and based on staff determination that the property could not handle
even the 30 lots staff recommended SR-4.5. Mr. Harmon questioned the possibility of an SR-3 zone.
Mr. O'Neill explained that it would allow approximately 24 lots.
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Board member David Malik SECONDED a motion
to accept the staff recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to SF-6 and the
zoning to SR-4.5. Board member Jerry Daman stated that these are difficult decisions to make but
he felt this was something that had to be done. Mr. Daman supports the staff recommendation.
Board member Ron Hannon supports staff recommendation of SR-4.5 over the applicants requests
for SR-6. Motion carried.
CPA-96-3(C)/CPZ-96-3 - Lewis Amendment
Mr. O'Neill explained that the map attached to the staff report had erroneously included a parcel that
is not a part of this application. He explained that the computer mapping system used by the City
did not recognize the separate parcel. Mr. O'Neill presented the Board with an updated map.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the property consists of six and a half acres and is located on the north
end of Lake Meridian off of 135th Lane SE. The property was annexed during the Meridian
Annexation on January 1, 1996. In December of 1995, the City Council adopted an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan which designated this property as SF-6 and zoned the property SR-4.5.
King County's Comprehensive Plan designation had been Urban Residential 4-12 units per acre and
the zoning was R-4, four units per acre.
Mr. O'Neill explained that this property has no direct access to 256th, the density requested is not
compatible with the surrounding properties, and one of the criteria for considering a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is the receipt of new information. Given this impact and the fact that no new
information has been presented by the applicant, staff has recommended to deny this application at
this time.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Ainendments/ZCA-96-i Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 7
Board member Gloria LaBore questioned the number of units that would be involved at ten units per
acre. Mr. O'Neill explained that if the property was built out at ten units per acre it would be
approximately 65 units. He explained that the zoning requested by the applicant would allow up to
16 units per acre which would potentially allow more than 65 units.
Mr. O'Neill informed the Board that the Planning Department received three documents from
adjoining property owners and would like to submit these documents to the Board for their
consideration as part of the public hearing. Chair Steve Dowell made these documents a part of
public record. The Board took a few moments to read the documents submitted.
Chair Dowell opened the public hearing.
Marie Lewis, 25840 135th Lane SE. Ms. Lewis stated that she lived on the property being
considered for a Comprehensive Plan change. She explained that the rent collected for the cabins
on the property is less than the cost of maintaining the property. She is looking for a way to develop
the property further.
Charlie Denny, 25702 135th Pl SE. Mr. Denny explained that his property abuts the property in
question. Mr. Denny voiced his concern for adding additional traffic to 135th Place SE. He believes
with all the developments already in the area that the density level has already been met. He
opposed this request.
Linda Johnson,25708 135th Pl SE. Ms. Johnson stated that the traffic on 135th Place is congested
between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. already and opposes any additional development in this area. .
Donald West, 25866 136th Ave SE. Mr. West stated that 136th Ave is only a 24' easement road
and can not accommodate an additional development. He is against changing the density for this
proposal.
Ron Tremaine, 14200 SE 272nd Street 4E-203. Mr. Tremaine explained that the issue of street
accommodations were addressed in the Determination of Nonsignificance. In order for the property
to develop even one additional unit the street improvements would have to be accomplished.
Mr. Tremaine stated that he had received a bid for the street improvements for nearly a half a million
dollars. He indicated that 24 units could not support that expense; however, sixty units would.
Mr. Tremaine stated he felt the Lewis property had been down zoned since King County's
Comprehensive Plan allowed 4 - 12 units per acre. He explained that they would like to develop the
property with affordable housing.
ZCA-96-5 Axed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmentsl=4-96-7, Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 8
Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned Mr. Tremaine's position in this matter. Mr. Tremaine indicated
that he was a friend of the applicant and had no financial interest in the proposal.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned the promises that Mr. Tremaine referred to. Mr. Tremaine indicated
that it had been understood by the Lewis' that their property would not be down zoned when it was
annexed into the City of Kent. Dowell asked for clarification from staff.
Mr. Harris stated that City Council had made a zoning decision regarding this parcel during the
Meridian Annexation. He indicated that it was not appropriate for the Board to reconsider why a
decision was made but rather consider what is brought before them for consideration today.
Mr. Tremaine stated that the City Council had not considered the half a million dollars it would cost
for road improvements to develop this property.
Chair Dowell asked staff for confirmation that the public would have another opportunity to speak
before the City Council regarding this matter. Mr. Harris stated that the Board's recommendation
would be sent to the City Council. Then the Council will hold a public hearing at which the public
would be given an opportunity to speak.
Charles M. O'Brien, 13522 SE 257th Street. Mr. O'Brien stated that he purchased his house in
a neighborhood for a certain quality of life. Besides the Lewis property there has been a good
rapport between the neighbors. Mr. O'Brien has lived in this neighborhood for 18 years. He does
not want to see this type of development come into his neighborhood and have to deal with the
additional traffic constraints. Mr. O'Brien was concerned with the Lewis proposal of putting only
ten units per acre when the zone being requested is for 16 units per acre. He opposes this proposal
stating it hurts his own standard of living.
George Lewis. Mr. Lewis purchased the property 25 years ago. His parents have lived on the
property for the 25 years. His father loves the property. He stated that the reason the adjacent
property owners oppose the development is because they enjoy using the "park". He indicated that
his father keeps the grounds up on the property and due to medical conditions he is unable to
continue with the upkeep. Mr. Lewis stated there are presently 18 cabins on the property which are
occupied by young and middle aged persons.
Mr. Lewis requested that the Board continue this item to the next public hearing. He would like an
opportunity to respond to the staff report and have time to confer with an attorney. He felt the City
had wrongfully down-zoned his property. He also stated that he felt the Determination of
Nonsignificance and the staff report represented two very different perceptions regarding his
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmentsl=4-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 9
proposal. The Determination of Nonsignificance outlined workable conditions while the staff report
recommended denying his application.
Mr. Lewis explained that his intention was to develop ten single family units per acre. He is not
intending to build apartments and questioned staff how that could be worded better to indicate his
intention.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned Mr. Lewis' application on which he requested low density
multifamily designation. Mr. Tremaine explained that he was advised by the Planning Department
to request low density multifamily based on the intended use for the property. Mr. Harmon stated
that it is conflicting to hear testimony that the applicant would like to develop single family homes
when the application requests a multifamily designation. Mr. Tremaine explained that the intended
use is single family residences with attached walls. The City of Kent classifies attached walls as
multifamily. Mr. Lewis indicated that the verbiage used was under advisement of the Planning
Department.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned whether the Board was able to continue one item or did the entire
group of amendments have to go with one recommendation. Mr. Harris stated that the Board has
an option of continuing a specific item; however, he recommended that the Board make their
recommendation tonight and if Mr. Lewis has any future information to add he may present that
information to the City Council.
Mr. Lewis indicated that Mr. O'Neill had advised him that it was his option to request the Board to
consider continuing this item to December 9 if he felt he needed additional time to respond to the
staff recommendation.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that it is the role of the Planning Department to assist
an applicant in completing the application process. It is not assumed that the public knows the
regulations. Mr. Satterstrom explained that he was the one who assisted Mr. Tremaine with this
application. He also explained that King County has a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that
allows for cluster development of residential units in a single family zone; Kent does not. Based on
the applicant's desire to attach walls and to develop at a density of ten units per acre, Mr. Satterstrom
advised the applicant to request what was indicated on the application form.
Chair Dowell questioned whether the City of Kent has a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the City does maintain a Planned Unit Development Ordinance. It
only applies to multifamily zones. The single family PUD had been rescinded four years ago well
before the Meridian Annexation took place.
ZC.4-96-3 Mixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Pian Amendmentsl=,1-96-%,4dmin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 10
Carol Voss, 14610 SE 266th Street. Ms. Voss was very active in getting Lake Meridian annexed
into the City of Kent. She stated that being adjacent to the City she has always been impacted by
the policies made by the City and wanted to be an active part of the decision process. Ms. Voss
stated that it had become very clear from public testimony, staff, and the City Council that the City
was against adding any additional multifamily development especially on East Hill. The City made
a clear understanding that it was their goal to encourage single family development. She stated that
a four-plex is still multifamily development and she opposes the proposal.
George Canada, 13520 SE 258th. Mr. Canada lives in the Lake Meridian area. He stated that he
was able to purchase his home four years ago and doesn't agree with the Lewis' claim that there is
no affordable housing in the Lake Meridian area. He opposes the Lewis application.
Mr. Lewis again emphasized to the Board that the Planning Department advised him that he could
request a continuation to December 9th meeting. Mr. O'Neill explained that when Mr. Lewis came
to the Planning Department he expressed his concern with the staff recommendation and not having
adequate time to prepare for a response to the staff recommendation. Mr. O'Neill explained to Mr.
Lewis that he had the option of requesting the Board to continue the deliberations until the next
meeting.
Board member Gloria LaBore sympathized with the Lewis' position. However, the adjoining
neighbors are looking at a substantial impact adding 16 units per acre on six plus acres. That would
add 100 plus units, 200 more cars, 400 more people, 230 more children, and Ms. LaBore wonders
if that area could accommodate an increase of that magnitude.
Mr. Ron Tremaine stated that it was the applicants intention to develop the property with ten units
per.acre. He offered the possibility of signing a contract with the City to hold them to their
intentions.
Walter Hazen, 315 W. Meeker. Mr. Hazen explained that even though King County allows for
cluster development it is not a guarantee. He stated that water run off at Lake Meridian is already
a problem. He strongly opposed increasing the density. He emphasized that the King County
designation of 4 to 12 units did not guarantee 12 units per acre.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
Vice Chair Brad Bell relayed his regrets to the applicants but felt there was no reason to delay a
decision. Harmon stated that a PUD is not guaranteed; it can be denied. He emphasized that a
four-plex is still considered a multifamily development.
ZCA-96-5 ,Lfixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentsiZCA-96-%Admin variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 11
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to deny the Lewis
application (#CPA-96-3(C) & #CPZ-96-3) and Board member David Malik SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
CPA-96-3(D)/CPZ-.96-4 - Robbins Amendment
Planning Director Jim Harris explained to the Board that this item was continued. The applicants
failed to post a public notice board on the site. Mr. O'Neill was in contact with the applicant's agent
who verbally informed him that the applicant did not want to move forward with this application.
Staff has attempted to make contact with the applicant both by phone and with a letter and there has
been no response to date. The Planning Department is unable to move forward with this application
due to insufficient public notice.
CPA-96-3(E)/CPZ-96-5 - Pasko Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this amendment consists of two parcels that are
approximately nine acres in size. During the Meridian Annexation process King County had
erroneously given the staff the wrong zoning information for these two specific parcels. This
application was made by staff to return these parcels to a commercial designation concurrent with
what was in existence at the time of the annexation.
Chair Dowell opened the public hearing.
Richard Pasko, 24503 142nd Ave SE. Mr. Pasko is the property owner and supports the staff
recommendation.
Kenneth Robinson, 13236 SE 270th Street. Mr. Robinson voiced his concern regarding the private
road he indicated had been torn up by a past development. He stated that he had no feelings
regarding the commercial designation. He asked that when the property is being developed they
leave the private access road alone.
Paul Sheppard, 13256 SE 272nd Street. Mr. Sheppard stated that he had a lot of problems with
the past development. He opposes the development. He stated he would like to see Kent slow down
in the development.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. The motion carried.
Mr. Harmon MOVED to approve staff recommendation to change the parcels to commercial
designations. Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED the motion.
ZC.1-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan,-lmendmentsiZCA-96-7,-ldmin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 12
CPA 96 3(F) City of Kent - Finance Dept& CPA-96-3(G) - Public Works Dept
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements of
the Comprehensive Plan need to be updated due to the Meridian Annexation. The major changes
include updating additions to inventory,projects,and financial information relating to the larger City
limits. Mr. O'Neill stated that Finance Director May Miller and City Engineer Gary Gill are
available to answer any specific questions the Board may have.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Finance Director May Miller stated that she was available to answer any question the Board may
have. After no public testimony, Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Ron Harmon
SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED to accept the staff recommended amendments for the Capital
Facilities and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the November 25
staff report. The motion was SECONDED by Board member Tom Brotherton. Motion carried.
#ZCA-96-7 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURES.
Planner Matt Jackson outlined the staff recommended proposals for administrative variances and
procedures as discussed in the staff report. The staff is recommending changing the zoning code to
implement Administrative Variance procedures, expand the use of joint use of parking facilities and
implement new transit and rideshare provisions, and increase the maximum allowable size of
detached accessory dwelling units that can be converted from existing accessory buildings.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned if there was an existing fee for variances. Mr. Jackson
explained the current fee structure (S 100 for single family residential variances and 5300 for other
variances). Board member Tom Brotherton questioned whether this procedure would apply with an
existing code violation. Mr. Jackson explained that the City typically tries to give a person a grace
period to either meet the standards in place or apply for a vanance. If the variance is not approved
then they are liable to code enforcement action.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Rodger Anderson,Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th Ave NE,Kirkland
Mr. Anderson is a member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce. He supports the proposal.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
ZCA-96-5 Nixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(4-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendments1ZC.I-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
CITY OF LQ„\a�ISV
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P.Harris,Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 25, 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE
AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN ONEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-96-3 (A-G)/#CPZ-96-(1-5) - 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS
INTRODUCTION
In April, 1995,the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The plan was prepared
and adopted under the provisions of the Growth Management Act(GMA). The GMA requires that
comprehensive plans combine land use,transportation,capital facilities, and other elements in a way
which is both internally consistent and consistent with plans from other jurisdictions in the region.
The GMA also requires that a city's development regulations implement and be consistent with the
plan.
The GMA authorizes and encourages jurisdictions to amend their comprehensive plans in order to
keep the plans current. However, the GMA establishes procedures for the amendment of plans, and
stipulates that plans can only be amended once a year. Pursuant to the provisions in the GMA, the
City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance#3237) outlining procedures for the amendment of
the City's plan. These procedures are now outlined in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code. The
City's procedures ordinance establish September 1 of each calendar year as the deadline for
applications to be submitted to the Planning Department for proposed amendments to the plan.
1996 AMENDMENTS
As of September 1, 1996, the Planning Department received seven applications for amendments to
the comprehensive plan. Four of these applications were initiated by private property owners, and
three of the applications were initiated by the City. These proposed amendments are summarized
below:
2204th AVE.SO. /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-33(N)/FAX 0 859-3111
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 2
1. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Residential (SF-6) to Commercial for
property located at 22320 88th Avenue South(Coblentz).
2. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-1 to SF-6 for property located at the
southwest comer of 104th Avenue SE and SE 272nd Street(Prouty).
3. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-6 to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential from property located at 25840 135th Lane SE (Lewis).
4. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-6 to Neighborhood Services for
property located at the northeast comer of I I6th Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road
(Robbins).
5. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Multi-Family Residential to
Commercial for property located at the southeast comer of 132nd Avenue SE and SE
270th Street (Kent Planning Department).
6. Amendments to the Capital Facilities Element (Kent Finance Department).
7. Amendments to the Transportation Element (Kent Public Works Department).
It should be noted that any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan Map will also be reviewed
concurrently with corresponding amendments to the zoning map.
This memorandum will present information about each proposed amendment. Maps have been
prepared, and are attached, for each area which would be affected by the proposed changes to the
Land Use Plan Map and zoning map(Attachment A). Each proposed amendment will be analyzed,
followed by a staff recommendation.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Section 12.02.050 of the Kent City Code outlines the standards of review which must be used by
staff and the City Council in analyzing any proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Proposed
amendments are to be examined based on the following criteria:
1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 3
of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the
plan that warrant an amendment to the plan; and
3. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and
that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and
capital facilities elements of the plan.
The proposed plan amendments have been analyzed by staff based on these criteria.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Proposal A- Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 22320
88th Avenue South
Applicant: Michael and Betty Coblentz
Existing Plan Designation: SF-6/Industrial Proposed Plan Designation:
Commercial/Industrial
Existing Zoning: SR-6/CM-1 Proposed Zoning:
Commercial/Manufacturing
Background
The applicants' property consists of three parcels which total approximately 12.25 acres. The
frontage of two of the parcels is currently designated as Industrial in the comprehensive plan, and
zoned Commercial Manufacturing-1 (CM-1). The applicants also own another small parcel of land
along 88th Avenue South which is presently zoned CM-1. The remainder of the subject property
is currently designated as SF-6 on the plan and SR-6 on the zoning map. The applicants seek to have
the entire property redesignated to commercial.
The site is located directly to the east of State Route 167. 88th Avenue South runs parallel to SR-
167. The parcels to the south of the site are zoned CM-1 and MRG (Multi-Family Residential, 16
units per acre), while the parcels to the north and east are zoned for single-family residential use.
The subject property currently contains one single family residence, and is otherwise vacant. The
property is heavily wooded. The eastern portion of the applicants' property is also distinguished by
steep west-facing slopes.
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 4
Anal
The applicants state that the noise from SR-167 makes the property unfeasible for residential uses.
They also state that the site is appropriate for commercial use since there is commercial zoning
adjacent to the site. At this point, the zoning and plan designations for the property are somewhat
confusing, since two of the applicants' parcels have two different zoning designations, CM-1 and
SR-6. The zoning code states that when a zoning district boundary line divides a lot in single
ownership, the planning director may permit the extension of the zoning regulations for either
portion of the lot, not to exceed 50 feet beyond the portion of the district boundary line (Section
15.03.030, Kent Zoning Code).
Commercial zoning on a somewhat larger portion of the applicants'property seems appropriate,due
to the proximity of the property to SR-167, the adjacent commercial zoning, and the fact that a
portion of the property is already zoned commercial. Furthermore, the hillside to the east and
northeast of the subject property, which is zoned residential, is so steep that it is unlikely.to be
developed, thus minimizing the development of future residential uses which could potentially be
impacted by commercial uses on the site. However, this same slope makes the applicants' eastern-
most parcel impractical for commercial development. Furthermore,the existing commercial zoning
and plan designations do not extend this far to the east either to the north or south of this property.
The Public Works Department has also expressed concerns with regard to changing the land use and
zoning designations for the entire property,due to traffic impacts and slope stability. These concerns
are outlined in the attached memorandum from Don Wickstrom, the City's Public Works Director
(Attachment B).
Recommendation
Amending the plan and zoning for the entire property would not be consistent with the standards of
review, particularly Criteria Number 1, due to the environmental constraints on the eastern portion
of the property. However, since the zoning and plan designations do bisect two of the parcels, it is
recommended that the zoning and plan designations on Parcel 97757800220 be changed so that the
entire parcel is designated as CM-1 and Industrial, respectively. This is the parcel on which the
applicants' house is located, and the portion of land which would be changed is fairly level.
However, it is not recommended that any other portion of the property be changed.
Proposal B- Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 27233
104th Avenue Southeast
Applicant: Jerry Prouty and Bill Ruth
Existing Plan Designation: SF-1 Proposed Plan Designation: SF-6
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 5
Existing Zoning: SR-1 Proposed Zoning: SR-6
Background
This property consists of 6.74 acres, and is located at the southwest corner of SE 272nd Street and
104th Avenue Southeast. The parcel was brought into the city as part of the Ramstead area
annexation in 1994, and was zoned RA (now SR-1) as part of the Ramstead annexation initial
zoning,which was adopted in January, 1995. The comprehensive plan designates this property as
SF-1.
The parcel currently contains one single-family residence, along with two accessory buildings. The
western portion of the parcel is distinguished by very steep west-facing slopes which contain heavy
vegetation. The eastern portion of the property is fairly level. The property is surrounded by single
family residential development to the north and east. There is no development directly to the west
and south of the parcel due to steep slopes.
Analysis
The area to the north and west of the subject property is designated as SF-6 in the comprehensive
plan. The area to the north on the west side of 104th Avenue SE is zoned SR-4.5, while the area to
the east of the property on the east side of 104th Avenue SE is zoned SR-6. The area to the south
and southwest of the parcel was zoned RA (now SR-1) as part of the Ramstead annexation area
zoning, principally due to the steep slope of the property. The western portion of the subject
property has extremely steep slopes, and shares this characteristic with the properties to the west and
southwest; the eastern half of the property is fairly level. While development on the western portion
of the property would be prohibited due to the slope, it would be possible to place single-family
development on the eastern portion of the site. This would be consistent with the land use
designations on the adjacent properties to the east and the north. Properties to the south and west
of the parcel would likely not be affected by a change in land use on this parcel, since future
development is highly unlikely to occur in these areas due to the slope of the property.
One of the prevailing themes in the comprehensive plan involves trying to meet as much of the City's
housing target as possible with new single-family residential development. In the past year,the City
Council has adopted ordinances which revise development standards in single-family residential
zones, and change the way that density in single-family residential zones is calculated. Allowing
higher density single-family residential development in appropriate locations is another way in
which the city can meet its expected housing demand.
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 6
Recommendation
This proposed amendment appears to be consistent with the standards of review outlined in Section
12.02.050 of the Kent City Code. Staff recommends that the comprehensive plan designation be
changed to SF-6. Staff recommends that the zoning designation be changed to SR-4.5, which is
consistent with the zoning designation to the north of the parcel along the west side of 104th Avenue
SE. Also,staff feels that the overall constraints of the site may not be appropriate for SR-6 zoning,
as requested by the applicants.
Proposal C - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 25840
135th Lane Southeast
Applicant: George Lewis
Existing Plan Designation: SF-6 Proposed Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-
Family Residential
Existing Zoning: SR-4.5 Proposed Zoning: MRG (Multi-Family Residential,
16 units per acre)
Background
This property consists of 6.52 acres,and is located at the southeast comer of 135th Lane Southeast
and Southeast 258th Street. The property abuts the northern boundary of Lake Meridian. The parcel
was brought into the city as part of the Meridian area annexation in 1996. In December, 1995, the
City Council designated the property as SF-6 on the comprehensive plan, and R1-9.6 (now SR-4.5)
on the zoning map, as part of the Meridian annexation area comprehensive plan amendment and
initial zoning.
The property currently consists of several cabins and a single-family residence. The parcel is
surrounded by a mobile home park to the west, a condominium development and single-family
residential development to the east,and single-family residential development to the north and south.
The applicants state that they would plan on developing the property at overall densities of 10 units
per acre or less, although MRG zoning allows development at up to 16 units per acre.
Analysis
Prior to annexation by the City of Kent, this parcel was designated in the King County
Comprehensive Plan as Urban Residential, 4-12 units per acre. The parcel was zoned as R-4, which
allowed development of 4 dwelling units per acre. The area to the north and east of the parcel along
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 7
the northern edge of Lake Meridian was designated in a similar fashion. When the property was
annexed to the City of Kent, the parcel, along with the general area on the north side of Lake
Meridian, was designated as SF-6 on the plan and R1-9.6 (now SR-4.5) on the zoning map. This
zoning is consistent from a density standpoint with the previous King County zoning.
During the deliberations by the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Meridian area
plan and zoning amendments in 1995,the applicant requested a plan and zoning designation which
would allow approximately 10 units per acre. After considering this request, the Council elected to
zone the property as R1-9.6, per the previous King County zoning. The applicant states that the
requested zoning and plan designation would provide opportunities for affordable housing on Lake
Meridian, in the form of townhouse condominiums. There are two condominium developments in
the general vicinity of this parcel; one borders the property to the east, the other is located to the
northwest of the parcel. Both of these projects are located adjacent to SE 256th Street, and were
developed as Planned Unit Developments in King County under a zoning designation of SR-9600.
One of the concerns with regard to this proposal is access to the property. The parcel does not
directly abut SE 256 Street, and access to the site is from 135th Avenue SE, which abuts several
single-family residences. These residences would likely be impacted by increased traffic to the site.
The Public Works Department has expressed concern about higher development densities on this
site, with regard to traffic and storm water runoff. These concerns are outlined in more detail in
Attachment B.
Recommendation
As noted previously, one of the standards of review for reviewing plan amendments is that new
information that was not available at the time of adoption of the plan, or that circumstances have
changed since adoption of the plan to warrant an amendment. The plan and zoning designations for
this property were adopted less than one year ago, and the Council deliberated on the request for
higher density on this parcel at that time. Based on this, as well as the other concerns previously
identified for higher density on this parcel, it does not appear that this proposed is consistent with
the standards of review outlined in the City Code, and it is recommended that it not be approved.
Proposal D - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at the
northwest corner of 116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road
Applicant: John Robbins
Existing Plan Designation: SF-6 Proposed Plan Designation: Neighborhood Services
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 8
Existing Zoning: SR-6 Proposed Zoning: Community Commercial or
Neighborhood Community Commercial
Backg or and
This property consists of.75 acres at the northwest corner of 116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley
Road. The parcel was brought into the City as part of the Meridian annexation area in 1996. In
December, 1995,the City Council designated the property as SF-6 on the comprehensive plan, and
R1-7.2 (now SR-6)on the zoning map, as part of the Meridian annexation area comprehensive plan
amendment and initial zoning.
The property is currently vacant. The parcel is surrounded by single-family residential development
to the north and east. A child care center is located across 116th Avenue SE to the west of the
parcel, and the parcel to the south of the property across Kent-Kangley Road is vacant. A small
grocery store is located to the southeast of the site along Kent-Kangley Road.
Analysis
The applicant states that he wishes to locate an espresso stand on the parcel,which would not attract
additional trips to the site, but rather accommodate existing commuters. The applicant argues that
this site is not appropriate for single-family residential use due to its location at the busy intersection
of 116th Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road, and the limited depth of the site. Also, the City's
planned route for the 272nd/277th corridor proceeds south along 116th Avenue SE south of the
intersection of 116th and Kent Kangley Road, which will likely result in expanded traffic volumes
at that intersection.
The City's 272nd/277th corridor project is intended to provide convenient access from East Hill to
the major north-south routes (Interstate 5 and State Route 167) which are located to the west. The
Public Works Department (see Attachment B) has expressed strong concerns about locating
commercial land uses anywhere along this corridor, since commercial land uses generate
significantly higher traffic volumes than the existing single-family designation would. Furthermore,
the size constraints of the site would make ingress/egress very difficult, which would further impact
traffic flow at the intersection of 116th and Kent Kangley Road. From a land use perspective, a
commercial use at the subject site would likely impact the adjacent single-family residences to the
north and east, which are located in close proximity to the parcel. Although the applicant has stated
the intent to place an espresso cart on the site, a zoning change to NCC or CC would permit a
number of other uses, including grocery stores, restaurants, and gasoline stations.
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 9
Recommendation
As noted, one of the standards of review for reviewing changes to the plan is that a proposed
amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities
elements of the plan. The Public Works Department has raised serious concerns as to whether the
proposed amendment could maintain concurrency between the land use and transportation element.
Furthermore, the proposed change would likely result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties.
Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed amendment not be approved.
Proposal E - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at the
southeast corner of 132nd Avenue SE and SE 270th Street
Applicant: City of Kent Planning Department
Existing Plan Designation: Low Density MF Proposed Plan Designation: Commercial
Existing Zoning: MRG Proposed Zoning: Community Commercial
Background
This property consists of two parcels which total approximately .89 acres. The parcels were brought
into the City as part of the Meridian annexation area in 1996. In December, 1995, the City Council
designated the property as Low Density Multi-Family Residential on the comprehensive plan, and
MRG (Multi-Family Residential, 16 units per acre) on the zoning map, as part of the Meridian
annexation area comprehensive plan amendment and initial zoning. The property currently contains
two single-family residential units. A condominium development is located to the east of the
property, and single family residential uses are located to the north, on the north side of SE 270th
Street. A large shopping center is located on the west side of 132nd Avenue SE,while the properties
to the south are vacant. The properties to the south and west are currently zoned Community
Commercial.
Analysis
In February, 1996, the City received correspondence from the King County Department of
Development and Environmental Services which stated that these properties had been zoned
Community Business Center as part of the County's adopted comprehensive plan in 1994. However,
the King County zoning maps showed the property as zoned for multi-family residential use. The
City of Kent,therefore, relied on erroneous information in making comprehensive plan and zoning
decisions for these parcels as part of the Meridian annexation area plan amendment and initial
zoning. This site appears to be an appropriate location for commercial uses,as previously designated
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 10
in King County, since it is located adjacent to existing commercial land and has direct access to
132nd Avenue SE.
Recommendation
As stated,the City relied on erroneous information in making planning and zoning decisions for this
property as part of the Meridian annexation area plan and zoning amendments in 1995. The notice
received from King County in February provided new information to the City which was not
available at the time of the adoption of initial plan and zoning designations for the Meridian
annexation area. The site also appears to be an appropriate location for commercial uses. Therefore,
it is recommended that this amendment be approved, and that the plan designation be changed to
Commercial and the zoning designation be changed to Community Commercial.
Proposal F - Update of Capital Facilities Element
Applicant: City of Kent Finance Department
Background
The Capital Facilities Element in the comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1995 contains a
great deal of information relating to inventories of existing capital facilities, estimated costs of
anticipated future facilities, and projected revenues to fund these facilities. These components of
the Capital Facilities Element are all required under the Growth Management Act (GMA). This
information now needs to be updated based on the growth of the city which occurred as a result of
the Meridian area annexation earlier this year.
The City's Finance Department has been working with the City Council on updating the City's
Capital Improvements Program(CIP), and developing updated information for the Capital Facilities
Element. This information is attached in Attachment C. The updated information relates to the
capital facilities inventories, analysis of financial impacts of proposed facilities for the next 6 years,
and anticipated revenue sources. The financial information is being reviewed by the City Council
as part of the update to the City's CIP. The Finance Department is currently evaluating the level of
service standards in the element, and may propose amendments to these in 1997.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Land Use Board recommend approval to the City Council of the updates
to the Capital Facilities Element as prepared by the Finance Department, and as shown in
Attachment C.
Subject: 4CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 11
Proposal G-Update of Transportation Element
Applicant: City of Kent Public Works Department
Background
In addition to a Capital Facilities Element,the GMA also requires that comprehensive plans contain
a Transportation Element. Transportation elements are required to include financial, revenue, and
project information, similar to the requirements for the capital facilities element. Due to the
Meridian area annexation,the financial and projects data in the current Transpiration Element is also
out of date.
The Public Works Department has been working with the Finance Department to develop updated
information of transportation projects and financing for the updated Capital Improvements Program.
This information is attached in Attachment D. The information updates the financial impact of
proposed projects, and summarizes the project list for the next 6 years. The Public Works
Department is currently updating the traffic forecast model for the City's transportation network,
which may also result in revisions to the level of service being proposed in 1997.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Land Use Board recommend approval to the City Council of the updates
to the Transportation Element as prepared by the Public Works Department, and as shown in
Attachment D.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the staff recommendations for the seven proposed plan amendments are as follows:
Proposal A - Recommend that a portion of the applicants' property be redesignated as Industrial
in the comprehensive plan and CM-1 on the zoning map
Proposal B - Recommend that the applicants' property be redesignated as SF-6. in the
comprehensive plan and SR-4.5 on the zoning map
Proposal C - Recommend that the proposed redesignation of the applicants' property not be
approved
Proposal D - Recommend that the proposed redesignation of the applicants' property not be
approved
Subject: #CPA-96-3 (A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 25, 1996
Page 12
Proposal E - Recommend that the applicant's property be redesignated as Commercial in the
comprehensive plan and Community Commercial on the zoning map
Proposal F - Recommend that the Capital Facilities Element be amended as outlined by the
Finance Department in Attachment C
Proposal G- Recommend that the Transportation Element be amended as outlined by the Public
Works Department in Attachment D
If you have any questions prior to the November 25 public hearing, please contact me at 850-4799.
KON/tb:CPA963 PH.MEM
Attachments
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Cliff Craig, Financial Planning Manager
Barbara Engstrom, CFP Analyst
Gary Gill, City Engineer
Ed White, Transportation Engineering Supervisor
Kristen Langley, Assistant Transportation Engineer
ATTACHMENT A
City of Kent - Planning Department
oc ----- ,-y. I .
�dQOQU�UUucZ. l/� �/ �_� ;! r II I I (j}I`ll !�r►�,-. .a �_ r�� � 11r:;
C`- V. -
I I Q r /• r 1� � fr s�,v lj(�-�Ir iil1 ` ^•� / � .I \\. �\..
IT
JS
Cr
r I _
!N� I 1 Pti l'II i \1 nfY{I ��^ Ir ♦ . _� l Imo--^
'e r. /. 1 I T C l.1P 1, \♦ � �� �'
1}{1, fll / � � rT I I ! nb r ItL`�Jyl� ♦
t � I r \; `�Il1I�} II \ ���•
e �. \ ♦ ♦,i� .I i I'll I I'- ` r `11L}t1 Il Id,
-
\\
IF
I C ..\ r •^^/t: rl rlly lZS�� II' Ilrl P.
APPLICATION NAME: Coblentz
NUMBER: #CPA-96-3, Proposal A
RF'IUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND A
Application site 1V
xisting Comprehensive Plan Designation Plan boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
®m
((]] U4 �� � � I /ri/ i tail• � l ' ,`:�.
go00000!/U o1/UO.� —, -�.% '� , , " , �;�.. �p�-• .-� ���.`.�ti.
. 1 111 ; •I .
pIII
T.
i G
I
a103is
III I k -- ,
vl •1 I .
r
-� 4 `.� � I I �' � i! 4- 1 I' \n .v � I%• 11y1 I 1 ,��! 1 t'1�+ \ U
C It ! Py� l Y� ,II ! Ni1111 161i Ilil �
APPLICATION NAME: Coblentz
NUMBER: #CPA-96-3, Proposal A
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND A
Application site N
Existing Zoning Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
N\
\N
L
NJ
- Et 1
C3
X
*121
Lg
Y71-IN
1 i.
=0" ,7
AA,
rz-
"M
I
d I
---gj
S F'
10
APPLICATION NAME: Prouty and Ruth
NUMBER: #CPA.-96-3, Proposal B
RF')UEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND AAMA,
Application site N
-xisting Comprehensive Plan Designation Plan boundary
rlrlrlrlrlrlrr City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
0
A 110\N C�
YJ
z
CZ=
i.
oa i H—z�--
4R,
-6
DO
S-R
. I .. ......
APPLICATION NAME: Prouty and Ruth
NUMBER: #CPA.-96-3, Proposal B
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND
Application site
Existing Zoning Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
E7
rt=s�O____ 5B X
SE
s
4
1 ii i
M E R I D IAN
APPLICATION NAME: Lewis Rer i-e L LJ
NUMBER: #CPA-96-3, Proposal C
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND A
}�� ^~ Application site N
-��,..
Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation Plan boundary
City limits
{•,-I•,-r-r T
City of Kent - Planning Department
SE Z6171
r� Q��_-� _• ems_— '.. 1�_ - ... _
- -- " K L -
-- -- �(1
MERIDIA
APPLICATION NAME: Lewis
NUMBER: #CPA-96-3, Proposal C
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND A
0 Application site N 6
Existing zoning Zoning boundary
City limits
r,-r�-rrrr
City of Kent - Planning Department
it
0) L1
0
0
ALI;,
Ll
APPLICATION NAME: Robbins
NUMBER: #CPA.-96-3, Proposal D
Rl- *IUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND A
Application site
Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation Plan boundary
rlrlrlrl7lrlrlr City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
�o a
o
o
u O J V IG `\
�,11
I c rrc c -
APPLICATION NAME: Robbins
NUMBER:- #CPA-96-3, Proposal D
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND AAN6.
Application site N
Existing Zoning Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
NJ
C:la
-Fj
rLDIMF
CD
?7?N T
cl
j -
APPLICATION NAME: City of Kent Planning Department
NUMBER: #CPA.-96-3, Proposal E
RFQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND Ak
Application site N
Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation Plan boundary
City limits
r7-r4-rT"r-r
City of Kent - Planning Department
C
ID
fl
J
C35 DF.
;=�72::P2
Ell
APPLICATION NAME: City of Kent Planning Department
NUMBER: #CPA-96-3, Proposal E
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment LEGEND AAM.
Application site N
Existing Zoning Zoning boundary
City limits
ATTACHMENT B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 12, 1996
TO: James Harris, Director of Planning
FROM: Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
I would like to take the opportunity to provide additional comments and information on the proposed
private development Comprehensive Plan Amendments [ C. P. A.'s J. Specifically, we would desire that
the following additional information -- related to C. P. A.. Proposals "A," "C." and "D" - be provided
to the Board members at tonight's meeting.
PROPOSAL "A"
As you are aware, the location of C. P. A. Proposal "A" is along the easterly side of 88th Avenue South.
88th Avenue South is the City's adopted alignment for the South 224th/ 228th Street Corridor. As noted
in the SEPA checklist for this proposal, and as part of the proponents' justification for the change. the
fronting roadway -- 88th Avenue South-- abuts State Route 167 to the west of the site. The public right-
of-way for State Route 167 extends easterly to include the existing improved portion of 88th Avenue
South. The roadway itself is outside the State's limited access area, however. Eventually, the City will
require the owner of this property to deed all of the additional right-of-way required to widen this key
east-west [ though, running north-south adjoining this site J, arterial -- from the current 22-foot wide
( nominal ] roadway to the fully-improved 68-foot width [ within an 88-foot right-of-way. as measured
from the Limited Access line ] with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. As we noted in the MDNS
for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the anticipated trip generation from the site will more than
double from the maximum theoretical development yield to the potential trip generation under the new
designation.
The proposed redesignation will have consequences to both stormwater runoff and hillside stability. We
would like to note that the hillside that comprises the easterly portion of this site is very steep and has
unstable slopes. Alteration of the hillside: clearing, grading, construction operations, for example could
cause serious landslide potential and serious erosion of the hillside. This impacts the adjoining property
owners. It also creates significant water quality impacts as the eroded hillside material washes down into
the downstream tributaries of Mill Creek and Garrison Creek.
Subsequent development of the site will also result in significantly increased stormwater runoff.
Typically, we see a net doubling of the impervious surface when comparing two otherwise identical
developed properties, between a "residential" designation and development and a "commercial"
designation and development.
Because of this slope stability issue, and these right-of-way requirements for the widening of 88th Avenue
South [ the South 224th/ 228th Street Corridor J, it is our opinion this property may, in fact, might be
singularly unsuited to this type of development.
it is our judgment that the mitigation conditions, as stated in the MDNS, for the impacts of the
development of the site, under this proposed land-use, may be so great as to preclude any "CM", or
even higher density redevelopment of the site. Furthermore, it would inevitably lead to similar
redesignation of the adjoining properties -- and create potentially unmitigable impacts to the
transportation system in the immediate area.
PROPOSAL "C"
C. P. A. Proposal "C" adjoins the northerly end of Lake Meridian. The traffic generated from the site
of Proposal "C" would impact the intersection of 132nd Avenue Southeast at Southeast 256th Street. The
Public Works Department has previously identified potential measures in the SEPA MDNS for mitigation
of the traffic impacts of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, we have not fully evaluated
the off-site roadway improvements that will be required to mitigate the impacts of a development of this
scope, under the existing land-use designation, and at this location. Further assessment to address the
incremental impacts to the local transportation system cannot be done until a specific development
proposal is provided. However, as we noted in the MDNS for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the
anticipated trip generation from the site will more than double from the maximum theoretical
development yield to the potential trip generation under the new designation.
Stormwater runoff quantity impacts from the site of Proposal "C" would also impact Lake Meridian,
which has a documented high water problem, and its downstream tributaries. The Stormwater conveyance
system in the immediate area is already over-capacity. Properties in the area experience localized
flooding during minor storms. Subsequent development of the site under the existing land use designation
will result in significantly increased stormwater runoff. And, typically, we see a net doubling of the
impervious surface when comparing two otherwise identical developed properties, between a "single
family residential" designation and development and a "multi-family" designation and development.
Obviously these water ninoff quantity issues could have the potential to preclude the development of the
site under the increased land-use density.
The impacts to water quality is an obvious concern with any property abutting Lake Meridian. Increases
in land-use density will result in increased levels of water pollutants: motor oils, pesticides, gasoline, etc.
into the stormwater runoff, in addition to the stormwater runoff quantity problems noted previously.
PROPOSAL "D"
The location of C. P. A. Proposal "D" is at the northeasterly corner of the intersection of l l6th Avenue
Southeast and the Kent-Kangley Road/ State Route 516. This is one of the critical intersections within
the East Hill and Soos Creek Plateau area -- as well as one of the critical intersections within South King
County. This intersection is the easterly terminus of the City's South 272nd/ 277th Street Corridor. As
such, the efficient operation of this intersection is of vital importance to the effectiveness of the Corridor.
itself. The intent of the Corridor was the construction of an efficent and operationally-"more desireable"
route bypassing the congested arterials through downtown Kent. This effort, and the $26.000.000
expended to construct same, will be wasted if this intersection becomes inordinately congestion as a
result of abutting development. A 'failure' level-of-service at this intersection, furthermore, will hinder
future development within the area bounded by 116th Avenue Southeast and the easterly City Limits, on
the west and east, respectively, south of Southeast 240th Street.
The zonal levels-of-service in this area were approved to encourage commercial development along the
Benson Highway corridor, and discourage continued commercial 'sprawl ' along the Kent-Kangley Road
corridor. These adopted levels-of-service must be maintained to meet the Concurrency requirements of
the Growth Management Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we are obviously y=
concerned about any redesignation of the site, based upon the potential consequences to the area levels-
of-service.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will result in a significant -- potentially 5 0 --
increase in trip generation from the site. It is our judgement that this level of increase will invalidate our
previous work on providing adequate levels-of-service upon our roadways in the area. It is also
reasonable to foresee that the change in land-use for this site. and the subsequent development thereof.
will result in unmiti;able congestion at this intersection.
There are also significant growth-inducement issues that must be addressed. Redesignation of this site
to 'Commercial', as noted, will increase the trip generation of the site by 1500%. Based upon recent
experience, it is entirely reasonable for us to foresee that the redesignation of this site will lead to similar
changes for the properties at the northwesterly and southeasterly corners of the intersection. as well.
Although we cannot precisely determine the cumulative trip generation of the redesignation of the three
sites at this time, our preliminary calculations indicate an increase from approximately 25 PM peak hour
trips ( cumulatively, from all three properties ) to nearly 500 P.M. peak hour trips. This represents a
potential increase in the net trip generation at this critical intersection -- depending upon the precise mix
and amount of commercial land uses being analyzed -- of nearly 2000%. This estimate does not represent
a 'worst case' scenario of the PM peak hour trip increases. PM peak hour trip generation from these
three sites could be even higher than this 2000% increase -- assuming they were redesignated to
'Commercial ' -- depending upon the specific land uses which might be proposed.
Development of the site will also result in significantly increased stormwater runoff. Typically, we see
a net doubling of the impervious surface when comparing two otherwise identical developed properties.
between a "residential" designation and development and a "commercial" designation and development.
In this instance, this site would very nearly be entirely covered with impervious surface after the
development of the site, if developed as a retail/ commercial use.
Finally, we would note that approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment would violate the specific
terms of the Road Establishment agreement with King County, and the City of Kent Council Resolution
authorizing same, under which the City initiated the South 272nd/ 277th Street Corridor project.
Specifically, it was agreed that the construction of the Corridor would not be used as justification for
redesignation of any abutting/ adjoining property to a 'Commercial' use or designation. This is, in fact,
precisely what the project proponent has done -- and what the City had previously agreed that it would
not do.
We continue to recommend that due to ( a ) the existing agreement between the City and King County
by which the South 272nd/ 277th Street Corridor was approved, ( b ) the City Council Resolution
precluding commercial development adjoining/ abutting the Corridor. ( c ) the potentially unmitigable
increases in trip generation resulting from this specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. and ( d ) the
potential changes in the land use designation of other underdeveloped/ undeveloped properties adjoining
the intersection, that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment of the site be denied.
RESOLUTION NO. 13 7 9
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, concerning the
property adjacent to or affected by the City's
proposed 272/277 Corridor, concurring with the
single-family zoning designation in the King
County's Soos Creek Community Plan as that
plan affects that property, finding that the
City's East Hill Plan is consistent with the
Soos Creek Plan as it affects that property,
and indicating that the anticipated zoning for
that property will be single family
residential if that property becomes annexed
to the City.
WHEREAS , the City of Kent ("City") has received a valid and
sufficient annexation petition to annex an area lying generally
east of and contiguous to the City's present boundaries (the "East
Hill Annexation Area") (see Map attached as Exhibit A) ; and
WHEREAS, a substantial portion of the East Hill Annexation
Area lies within the Soos Creek Plateau in unincorporated King
County ("County") ; and
WHEREAS, the County' s Soos Creek Community Plan (the "Soos
Creek Plan") designate the current land use and zoning for that
portion of the East Hil Annexation Area that lies within the Soos
Creek Plateau; and
WHEREAS, the City's comprehensive plan for the annexation area
(the "East Hill Plan" has classified the land use for the East
Hill Annexation Area, should that area become annexed to the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City intends to construct a roadway, the
11272/277th Corridor" that crosses the Soos Creek Plateau through a
portion of the proposed East Hill Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the County' s Soos Creek Plan designates single-family
zoning (S-R(7200) -P) and growth reserve with potential single
family- zoning _ (GR-2.5-P) as the predominant land use on the
property adjacent to or affected by the 272/277th Corridor within
the East Hill Annexation Area (see zoning map attached as Exhibit
B) ; and
WHEREAS, The -City's East Hill Plan designates single-family
zoning (SF-6, 4-6 single family units per acre) as the predominant
land use on the property adjacent to or affected by the 272/277th
Corridor within the East Hill Annexation Area (See East Hill Area
Land Use map, attached as Exhibit C) ; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that, upon annexation to the City,
the City will zone the East Hill annexation area consistent with
the City's comprehensive land use Plan and similarly consistent
with the County' s Soos Creek Plan. NOW, THEREFORE,
The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, does hereby
resolve as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by this
reference and made a part hereof.
Section 2 . The City Council concurs with the land use and
zoning designation in the County' s Soos Creek Plan as that plan
affects the property adjacent to or affected by the 272/277th
Corridor within the East Hill Annexation Area.
Section 3 . The City Council finds that its comprehensive land
use plan, as it affects the property adjacent to or affected by the
2
272/277th Corridor within the East Hill Annexation Area, reflects
single family zoning designations similar to and consistent with
the County' s Soos Creek Plan.
Section 4 . The City Council anticipates that, in accord with
the City' s East Hill Plan, it will designate single family zoning
for the property adjacent to or affected by the 272/277th Corridor
within the East Hill Annexation Area.
Passed at a regular meeting of th City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, this I day of , 1993 .
Concurred in by the Mayor of the _City of Kent, this day
of �Q , 1993 .
MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOB , C Y CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVI TY ATTO EY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. , passed by the C' y Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, on the _� day of , 1993 .
EAL)
CITY CLERK
27ZRE5#1.puk
3
701
97
MA
0/1111A
go
r•7M11 O
i l�-t.l l-i-{r}"i'�C�-i� R^ �• --\._ _._— _—._�-'1�r�T �j�t� �� �.'-`_' T _
MRG
60
J 1 pe--
i�'�f'�'r�yA. `G.t; lh 'µ .�� "°� � +5 ,*11.+1aYd"1 • � ...1 �' •,.� I I I I �� III I
�IT i
es�f f ' �yyJ�J:�.J —.��}••~ 31 III
I `I - 11111 :. J
i i r .
-I
r a
pp
—���\ •1 O •�\ � '•h II - �� iifin
\\ ,� i�'r lI^ C�u �'a4IY t�33' .•f'i ' ��W 't{�`-1a� I t ® - �
tk-
\\ ? tys ,�.t^'^a+ �A'aBP, 1 I�S �7� >•r� c +srw
7
f
ItF� 4 N ZaTM-ril
SO(ee o) r
Y•O OYM.MM.N M.Y� I • _. ______
__ 1� -JI
r -.l"i- T ?
SC.2BI5:i.. r.
r -. •L.l_l._�G..u-1-JL L
--}...� T
cc fr...la c....�N+ � F -+ -I+I----{-- '{�y4E � + �.. � :.r__1__—._�1r-T'T'Tlf"TTT1•
I I --" •-: N�rrli• f• I�-�-'{">'-�{-'"rL�SE taurn rI f sTI -I- -
---"-\ F -_�.._r- r•� --y 'i n i .. i.._._
slop camp 2uwq f1.,.1 t {l I .� `/ -T T'T f'T T i"lf'T--T
N..w aJ.... -\ f rr r r
LNIillaaa fwgaM.lww �\\1 - QI TI { _1Jf�_.1-_.� �
,Iaa1,.aG.G a�f.rrr. I I I �yfuI r' 1 I 1 , •
awela.rna s•a rN"^- 6Ei2illtl L.sriiL" ••
11141W Y.4.wOYY.
WRY Oti•9
w iNlpO..a.
W4aJ 4w.MM.I _
FZaww.
•NrF.n.r r
O...saw..r Mq
Cs r:CwMI
PROPOSED EAST; HILL ANNI;XATIO
i XISTING ZONING
,. .. . SCALE: I•'=I000' _..
LEGEND NORTI,
Irnrtimmmm=rm EXISTING KCNT CITY LIMITS
PROPOSED ANNEXATION SIIOWN AS SIIADED AREA
onnpncrn ALIGNMENT 272ND1277TH STREET CYL-11RIT F
..3 TO:f
U
4
r...i
A u.1 1 i:V4
-L' A
-------
27
AIm
L-4--—--- Li I LLU
T-r-T
'SLEW
72HO
ljl
!I& g 5! qjljI
7qTlI
L-i
Q lW i0il
7 Mill
.14 LLLIT.7 11
-7—
LEGEND is
Til .11
vF 12 it.........
MP 2-
m.w 61
LC
cm
0 o'... f �T-T4—i tit
CF C.—
p 11 --- r T T-T-11
I-T-
L'L J 1-j
'I r- IT'T—71 -T,---T
FT
r T r irC
....IL- T -JI
-r T F r T 1'7-11 7'
I J L
It
r I - .: . Ar—,.. . :1i
PROPOSED; EAST ,HILL ANNEXATI 0 N
EAST HILL!LAND USE,,PLAN
LEGEND SCALE: I"=1000'
nffrmrr v EXISTING KENT CITY LiNuTs NORTH
PROPOSED ANNEXATION SHOWN AS SHADED AREA
csaw
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT 272ND1277T11 STREET
NORTH CORRIDOR
ATTACHMENT C
Date: November 12, 1996
To: Land Use & Planning Board Members
From: Mayene Miller, Finance Director
V
Subject: Proposed Changes to Capital Facilities Element of Kent Comprehensive Plan
The following is a summary of the proposed changes to the Capital Facilities Element of the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan.
Introduction / Background and Analysis
The only change proposed on pages 8-1 thru 8-5 is to update the six year plan period from 1994-
1999 to 1997-2002. The proposed changes on page 8-6 show the actual process used to select a
specific level of service to be the adopted standard.
Current Facilities Inventory
Several changes are necessary to update the Current Facilities Inventories on pages 8-7 thru 8-12.
The increases in inventory are primarily due to property acquired as a result of the Meridian
annexation and additional purchases since the Comprehensive Plan was developed and adopted.
Corrections Facility
No Changes
Fire and Emergency Services
The City has acquired two fire stations from King County Fire District#37, increasing the total
number of stations owned by the City to six. Station 72 has two fire/aid units in service and a
capacity for three and Station 75 has one fire/aid unit in service and capacity for three. King
County Fire District #37 now owns only one fire station, Station 77, within the unincorporated
Urban Growth Area of Kent..
Police/Fire Training Center
No Changes
City Administrative Office - General Government
The Centennial Building and Municipal Court facility are no longer leased. The City purchased
the Centennial Building (71,949 square feet) and the Municipal Court facility (4,251 square feet)
in June 1996.
City Administrative Offices - Police Headquarters
No Changes
City Maintenance Facilities
No Changes
Parks and Recreation Facilities
The City of Kent now owns and manages 147.2 acres of neighborhood park land and 972.0 acres
of community park land within the current City limits, which is an overall increase of 210.7
acres. The number of acres within the current City limits owned by King County decreased from
6.1 acres to 0.5 acres. Within the unincorporated Urban Growth Area(UGA) of Kent, King
County owns 720.3 acres of park land, which is a reduction of 87.5 acres. These acres are now
included in the City of Kent inventory as a result of the Meridian annexation.
Golf Courses
No Changes
Sanitary Sewer Facilities
No Changes
Stormwater Management Facilities
The total drainage area of the City has increased from 19 square miles to 25.42 square miles.
Water Supply,Distribution, and Storage Facilities
No change to the water service area of 27 square miles. The last paragraph on page 8-11 has
been changed to mention the update of the Water System Comprehensive Plan that is scheduled
in 1997.
Transportation Facilities
The City's current road system inventory has increased from 164 total land miles to 254.9 total
land miles and is divided into four major categories of roads; 40.5 miles of principal arterials;
91.0 miles of minor arterials; 94.4 miles of collector arterials, and 29.0 miles of local roads. The
pedestrian transportation inventory will be updated after a physical inventory of the Meridian
annexation area is completed.
The following maps are currently being revised to show the above inventory changes:
Figure 8.1 Public Services and Facilities
Figure 8.2 Sewer System
Figure 8.3 Storm Drainage Service Area
Figure 8.4 Water System
Figure 10.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities (Parks Element of Comprehensive Plan)
Figure 10.2 Existing Trails (Parks Element of Comprehensive Plan)
Analysis of Impacts
Tables 8.1 and 8.2 in the Analysis of Impacts section (pages 8-13 and 8-14) are updated to reflect
the 1997-2002 Capital Facilities Plan. Total project costs have increased from $129,319,000 for
1994-1999 to $181,516,000 for 1997-2002. Revenue sources have increased from $131,292,000
for 1994-1999 to $181,516,000 for 1997-2002.
Level of Service Consequences of the CFP on page 8-15 are currently being evaluated.
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITTES ELEMENT
f�
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The capital facilities element contains a summary of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) for
the City of Kent. The element consists of the following information: (1) statements of
requirements, level-of-service (LOS) standards, guidelines, and criteria that are used to
develop and implement the CFP; (2) inventories of existing facilities; (3) maps showing
the locations of existing facilities; and (4) a list of proposed capital projects, including
a financing plan, future operating costs, and reconciliation of project capacity and LOS
standards. The complete CFP and supporting documents are available for review at the
City of Kent Planning Department.
The CFP is a required element of the City's comprehensive plan, mandated by the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires cities and
counties to approve and maintain a CFP which includes requirements for specific types
of capital facilities, LOS standards, financial feasibility, and assurance that adequate
facilities will be provided as development occurs.
As required by the GMA, the CFP is a 6-year plan for capital improvements that support
the City's current and future population and employment growth. It contains LOS
standards for each public facility, and requires that new development is served by
adequate facilities. The CFP also contains broad goals and specific policies that guide
and implement the provision of adequate public facilities. The capital facilities element
is the element that makes real the rest of the comprehensive plan. By establishing LOS
t as the basis for providing capital facilities and for achieving concurrency, the CFP
determines the quality of life in the community. The requirement to fully finance the
CFP provides a reality check on the vision set forth in the comprehensive plan. The
capacity of capital facilities that are provided in the CFP affects the size and
configuration of the urban growth area.
The purpose of the CFP is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public
facilities in a manner consistent with the land use element and at a time concurrent with
IE'NT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-1
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
(or prior to) the impacts of development. These capital facilities propose to achieve and
maintain adopted standards for LOS in order to maintain the quality of life for existing
and future development. The plan fulfills the GMA requirement for facilities planning;
but, in addition, the plan serves as a base for good city management and establishes
eligibility for grants and loans. It provides coordination among the City's many plans
for capital improvements, including other elements of the comprehensive plan, master
plans of departmental service providers, and facilities plans of the state, the region, and
adjacent local jurisdictions.
Requirements of the Growth Management Act
The GMA requires the CFP to identify public fai ilQs that will be required during the
six years following adoption of the new plan R494 through )999 The CFP must
include the location and cost of the facilities, and the sources of revenue that will be used
to fund the facilities. The CFP must be financially feasible; in other words, dependable
revenue sources must equal or exceed anticipated costs. If the costs exceed the revenue,
the City must reduce its level of service, reduce costs, or modify the land use element
to bring development into balance with available or affordable facilities.
Other requirements of the GMA mandate forecasts of future needs for capital facilities
and the use of standards for levels of service of facility capacity as the basis for public
facilities contained in the CFP [see RCW 36.70A.020 (12)]. As a result, public facilities
in the CFP must be based on quantifiable, objective measures of capacity, such as traffic-
volume capacity per mile of road and acres of park per capita.
One of the goals of the GMA is to have capital facilities in place concurrent with I
development. This concept is known as concurrency (also called "adequate public
facilities"). In the City of Kent, concurrency requires 1) facilities which serve the
development to be in place at the time of development (or for some types of facilities,
a financial commitment to be made to provide the facilities within a specified period of
time) and 2) facilities which serve the development to have sufficient capacity to serve '
the development without decreasing LOS below minimum standards adopted in the CFP.
The GMA requires concurrency for transportation facilities. The GMA also requires all
other public facilities to be "adequate" [see RCW 19.27.097, 36.70A.020, 36.70A.030,
and 58.17.110]. Concurrency management procedures will be developed to ensure that
sufficient public facility capacity is available for each proposed development.
8-2 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
After the CFP is completed and adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, the City must
adopt development regulations to implement the plan. The development regulations will
provide detailed regulations and procedures for implementing the requirements of the
plan.
Each year, the City must update the CFP. The annual update will be
P completed before
the City's budget is adopted in order to incorporate into the budget the capital
improvements from the updated CFR
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
LOS (SCENARIO-DRIVEN) METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Explanation of Levels of Service
Levels of service usually are quantifiable measures of the amount of public facilities that
are provided to the community. Levels of service also may measure the quality of some
public facilities.
Typically, measures of LOS are expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand (i.e.,
actual or potential users).
J�
The following chart lists examples of LOS measures for some capital facilities.
oa Capital Facili
Type of C
p t3' Sample LOS Measures
Corrections Beds per 1,000 population
Fire and Rescue Average response time
Hospitals Beds per 1,000 population
Law Enforcement Officers per 1,000 population
Library Collection size per capita
Parks Building square feet per capita
Acres per 1,000 population
Roads and Streets Ratio of actual volume to design
capacity
Schools Square feet per student
Sewer Gallons per customer per day
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
8-3
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
Effluent quality
Solid Waste Tons (or cubic yards) per capita or per
customer
Surface Water & River Levees Design storm (i.e., 100-year storm)
Runoff water quality
Transit Ridership
Water Gallons per customer per day
Water quality
Each of these LOS measures needs one additional piece of information: the specific
quantity that measures the current or proposed LOS. For example, the standard for
parks might be 5 acres per 1,000 population; but the current LOS may be 2.68 acres per
1,000, which is less than the standard.
In order to make use of the LOS method, the City selects the way in which it will
measure each facility (i.e., acres, gallons, etc.). It also identifies the amount of the
current and proposed LOS standard for each measurement.
There are other ways to measure the LOS of many of these capital facilities. The
examples in the previous chart are provided to give greater depth to the following
discussion of the use of LOS as a method for determining the City's need for capital
facilities.
Method for Using Levels of Service
The LOS .method answers two questions in order to develop a financially-feasible CFP.
The GMA requires the CFP to be based on standards for service levels that are
measurable and financially feasible for the six fiscal years following adoption of the plan.
The CFP must meet the City's capital needs for the fiscal years 1994 through 1-999
fqq-- ;)�a-
The two questions that must be answered in order to meet the GMA requirements are:
(1) What is the quantity of public facilities that will be required by the end of the 6th
year (i.e., 1999�)?
�:0-6-
(2) Is it financially feasible to provide the quantity of facilities that are required by
the end of the 6th year (i.e., 1.999)?
�a-
I
8-4 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
The answer to each question can be calculated by using objective data and formulas.
Each type of public facility is examined separately (i.e., roads are examined separately C
from parks). The costs of all the types of facilities then are added together in order to
determine the overall financial feasibility of the CFR A detailed explanation of the
formulas used is contained in the Capital Facilities Plan. One of the CFP support
documents, Capital Facilities Requirements, contains the results of the use of this
method.
Setting the Standards for Levels of Service
Because the need for capital facilities is determined largely by the adopted LOS, the key
to influencing the CFP is to influence the selection of the LOS standards. LOS standards
are measures of the quality of life of the community. The standards should be based on
the community's vision of its future and its values. Traditional approaches to capital
facilities planning rely on technical experts (i.e., staff and consultants) to determine the
need for capital improvements. In the scenario-driven approach, these experts play an
t important advisory role, but they do not control the determination. Their role is to define
and implement a process for the review of various scenarios, to analyze data, and to
make suggestions based on technical considerations.
The final, legal authority to establish the LOS rests with the City Council because the
City Council enacts the LOS standards that reflect the community's vision. The City
Council's decision should be influenced by recommendations of the 1) Planning
Commission; 2) providers of public facilities (i.e., local government departments, special
j districts, private utilities, the State of Washington, tribal governments, etc.); 3) formal
advisory groups that make recommendations to the providers of public facilities (i.e.,
community planning groups); 4) the general public through individual citizens and
community civic, business, and issue-based organizations that make their views known
or are sought through sampling techniques.
The scenario-driven approach to developing the LOS standards provides decision-makers
and anyone else who wishes to participate with a clear statement of the outcomes of
various LOS for each type of public facility. This approach reduces the tendency for
decisions to be controlled by expert staff or consultants, opens up the decision-making
process to the public and advisory groups, and places the decisions before the City
Council.
1
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8_5
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
Selection of a specific LOS to be by a 12-step process: the "adopted standard" ts�Qs
r accomplished
(1) The "current" (1993), actual LOS�calculated.
WLV(2) Departmental service providerse given national standards or guidelines and
examples of LOS from other local governments.
►'2s�a.vcl.u-d
(3) Departmental service providers Feseareh local standards from City studies, master
plans, ordinances, and development regulations.
re[omrns.r�d.ad
(4) Departmental service providers reeemmertd a standard for the City of Kent's
CFP.
-(prt CQ6�
(5) The first draft of Capital Facilities Requirements foreeasts needed capacity and
approximate costs of two LOS scenarios (e.g., the 1993 actual LOS and the
department's recommended LOS).
V1L\Li LL&6 Cc^wv,�r-- d
(6) The City Council reviews and comments on the first draft of Capital Facilities
Requirements.
p,Q
(7) The Operations department a o ow-up Capital Facilities Level of
Service/Cost Options report which lees ve alternative LOS options, or
scenarios, to forecast the amount of capital facilities that would he most
appropriate for the City of Kent during the 6-year growth period VO14- 1494. This
report complements Capital Facilities Requirements, which was reviewed with the
City Council November 30, 1993, and not only identifies LOS options but also
includes specific recommendations from the Operations department.
rL\1i Wu:J czy d
(8) The City Council reviews and c on Capital Facilities Level of
Service/Cost Options and 1COtes�ferences for LOS and noncapacity
capital projects to be included in the fast draft of the CFP.
(9) Departmental service providers p especific capital improvements projects and
estimates of related maintenance and operating costs to support the City Council's
preferred LOS and noncapacity projects.
�s f(10) The first-draft CFP-is-prepared using the City Council's referred LOS and
noncapacity projects. The LOS in the fist-draft CFP ��as the basis for
capital projects, their costs, and a financing plan necessary to pay for the costs.
U, aeS
(11) The draft CFP -is- reviewed/discussed during City Council and Planning
Commission workshop(s) prior to formal reading/hearing of the CFP by the City F
Council.
8-6
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
pL1 p�kLj
(12) The City Council formally adepts LOS as part of the CFP.
Every year, as required by the Growth Management Act, department service
providers reassess Iand use issues, level of service standards, and projected
revenues to determine what changes, if any are needed.
CURRENT FACILITIES INVENTORIES
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
The Kent Correction Center is managed by the Kent Police Department. The current
inventory of the Correctional Facility totals 130 beds. The Center is located at 1201
Central in the City. An intergovernmental contract with the Federal Marshall's Office
currently allows the City to provide approximately 20 beds for Federal prisoners.
The geographic location of the Correctional Facility is found on Figure 8.1.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Kent Fire Department is responsible for delivering fire protection and emergency
medical services to the City, and to the geographic area within Wcy County fire District
#37.The City owns�4-f1re stations: Station 71 (south);R Station west); Station 74
'+S (2asr) a+
(east) an "Station 76 (north). Each station is equipped with"one fire/aid unit which
consists of a pumper truck with emergency medical service/rescue equipment and
manpower, and each station has a future capacity for three units.
The table below lists each station, fire/aid units in service, total capacity, and average
response time:
Name of Fire/Aid Units Total Capacity Location
Station in Service (Bays)
est
Setiu-74 5 tl* 3 East
Stauon 76 1 33 ' orth
*Ladder Truck
King County Fire District #37 owns fire stationr , tWe
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8_7
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
Station 77 (Kentridge), with one fire/aid unit in service
and capacity for two.
The geographic locations of the Fire and Emergency Services facilities are found on
Figure 8.1. cY--
POLICEIFIRE TRAINING CENTER
The Police/Fire Training Center is located on East Hill at 24611 116th Avenue SE. The
Center, housed in an 8,000 square foot building, provides audio and visual equipment
and other facilities for in-service training for City of Kent police officers and fire
fighters. Instruction is conducted by Kent Police and Fire Department personnel, and
by nationally known instructors from organizations such as the International Association
of Police Chiefs and the State Fire Service. In addition to providing a facility for
training city of Kent personnel, the training center also accommodates a satellite training
program sponsored by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training commission.
The geographic locations of the police/fire training facilities are found on Figure 8.1.
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The City of Kent Operations Department manages several facilities and buildings I
necessary to the administrative and maintenance functions of the City. These include City
Hall and the City Council Chambers, the Centennial Center, the I
Municipal Court facility, and City maintenance shops. The table below lists the name,
location and capacity of each facility:
NAME LOCATION CAPACITY I
(Square Feet)
City Hall 220 4th Avenue South 33,100
Centennial Center 400 West Gowe �,Q4
Municipal Court 302 West Gowe 4,251
The geographic locations of the City administrative facilities are found on Figure 8.1.
8-8 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMERT
CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICES - POLICE HEADQUARTERS
The inventory of City administrative offices for the Police Department headquarters totals
18,000 square feet, and is located at 232 4th Avenue South in downtown Kent.
The geographic location of the Police Headquarters is found on Figure 8.1.
CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
The total area of city government maintenance facilities totals 22,558 square feet, and
includes the Public Works maintenance shops (17,173 square. feet) and Park and
Recreation Department maintenance shops (5,385 square feet). The Police Vehicle
Storage facility (3,600 square feet), which is an open, uncovered yard is not included in
this inventory.
The geographic location of the City Maintenance facilities is found on Figure 8.1 ay—
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
ILV:I-. D- e1q;-L)
The City of Kent owns and manages 1284 acres of neighborhood park land and 79-r
acres of community park land within the current City limits. King County owns *s;;c .�
a� �3 Within the unincorporated Urban Growth Area (UGA) of Kent, King county owns
8 acres of park land, d the-Eirt ems-7-2-aw, he Park and Recreation
Department manages a wide variety of facilities located on park land, including the
Senior Center, Kent Commons, Special Populations Resource Center, play fields, and
trails. A detailed inventory of current parks and recreation facilities is contained in the
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan.
The geographic locations of the parks and recreational facilities are found
on Figures 10.1 and 10.2 of the parks element.
GOLF COURSES
The inventory of current City golf courses includes the following:
NAME LOCATION CAPACITY (HOLES)
Par 3 Golf Course 2030 West Meeker 9
18 Hole Golf Course 2019 West Meeker 18
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-9
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
The geographic locations of the golf course facilities are found on Figure 10.1 of the
parks element. 6'
SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES
The sewer service area of the City of Kent encompasses 23 square miles, and includes
most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated
King County. Since the existing collection system already serves most of the City's
service area, expansion of this system will .occur almost entirely by infrll development,
which will be accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local
improvement districts. In general, the existing sewer system is sized based on existing
standards which will carry peak flows which will be generated by the service area for
ultimate development. However, the City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan has
identified various undersized lines, as well as others that require rehabilitation.
A complete inventory of Sanitary Sewer facilities is found in the City of Kent
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan.
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) has assumed the responsibility for
interception, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and its i
neighboring communities. Therefore, the City does not incur any direct capacity-related
capital facilities requirements or costs for sanitary sewer treatment. The voluminous
inventory of current Sanitary Sewer facilities is on file with the City's Department of
Public Works.
The geographic locations of the sanitary sewer facilities are found on Figure 8.2.0y--
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
The City of Kent lies primarily within the Green River Watershed, w�ch encompasses
480 square miles and the total drainage area of the City is>A'sgl"ra e i les which
includes most of the incorporated city, as well as the adjacent franchise areas within
unincorporated King County. The eight major watershed areas include (1) Green River;
(2) Lake Fenwick; (3) Midway; (4) Mill Creek (Kent); (5) Mill Creek (Auburn); (6)
Mullen Slew; (7) Springbrook-Garrison Creek; (8) Stu Lake. The City has operated a
stormwater utility since 1981 as a means of financing the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the surface water management program. Conveyance systems in both the
"hillside" and "valley" areas must convey at minimum the 25 year storm event. The
8-10 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
standards include requirements to provide water quality control recommended by the
"State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual". The voluminous
inventory of current stormwater management facilities is on file with the City's
Department of Public Works.
The geographic locations of the stormwater management facilities are found on Figure
8.3. oV--
WATER SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, AND STORAGE FACILITIES
The water service area of the City encompasses 27 square miles. This area includes
most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated
King County. To the east, the service area boundary coincides with the boundary of
Water District No. 111 and Soos Creek Sewer and Water District. To the north, the
service area boundary coincides with the mutual Kent/Renton and Kent/Tukwila city
limits. je-the west, it coincides with Highline Water District's boundary, and to the
south, the City's service area boundary coincides with the City of Auburn, and Federal
` Way Sewer and Water District. The principal sources of water supply for the City's
water system are Kent Springs and Clark Springs. During high demand periods, the
capacity of these two sources is exceeded, and supplemental well facilities are activated.
These sources are adequate to meet peak day demands; however, during an extreme
dry/hot spell, the City purchases water from adjacent purveyors. Water system interties
are presently available with Highline Water District, Tukwila, and Renton during such
emergency situations; however, these sources are not considered to be dependable for
meeting long-term demand requirements. A new open storage reservoir is proposed to
be located on a site near 124th Avenue SE and SE 304th Street. The City also plans a
future intertie with Tacoma's pipeline 5 project. The water distribution system exists
throughout most of the City's service area. Expansion will take place almost entirely
through infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through developer
extensions. Most of the remaining projects in the City's most recent water system Plan
consist primarily of water main replacements and upsizing in older portions of the
system.
A Comprehensive Water System Plan update is required by the Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) every five years. The City's most
recent Water System Plan (completed in 1988 and amended in 1990) has been approved
�-t-.
by DSHS.' This plan was completed in conjunction w�snh the Critical Water Supply Plan
for the South King County area.-,,A detailed inventory of current water system facilities,
r� �\
�n Sal-,eG
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-I1
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
and City water rights records are on file with the City's Department of Public Works.
The voluminous inventory of current stormwater management facilities is on file with the
City's Department of Public Works.
The geographic locations of water distribution facilities are found on Figure 8.4.cyL
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
;,4.9
The City's road system current u4a ry consists of approximately � total land miles
for 4 major categories of roads; miles of principal arterials; 28-3 miles of minor
94-14
arterials; U 8 miles of collector arterials, and iS miles of local roads. There are 9
bridges in Kent.
1�11 1993,'hansportation networks for pedestrians"include:
Widened shoulder 19.35 miles
Gravel Paths 28.31 miles
Asphalt sidewalks 4.69 miles
Concrete sidewalks 108.56 miles
Pathways 21.0J miles
-i rrortspb to ti� ttw¢n�or�b t,��ll i�t�pc�{2c1 c� ��,� a_phy5cca.� cr.�lErt c rt� c f-4's—
The geographic locations of major transportation facilities are found on Figure 9.1 of the lS
transportation element. Gi__
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES
Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District. 'Fhe Renton
School District serves students from an area of Kent near the north City limits, and Kent
students from a section of the West Hill of Kent attend Federal Way Schools. Detailed
inventories of school district capital facilities are contained in the capital facilities plan
of each school district
The geographic locations of schools in Kent are found on Figure 8.1. DE-
PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES I
The City of Kent is served by the King County Library system in the Kent Library
building at 212 2nd Avenue West, which was built in 1992. Detailed information
regarding the King County Library System is contained in the King County Library
System, The Year 2000 Plan, September 1992.
The geographic location of the Kent Library building is found on Figure 8.1. DL—
8-12 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER EIGHT CAPFIAL FACILFITES ELEM£N<
ANALYSIS OF IlVIPACTS
CAPITAL COSTS 64Y
. Table 8.1
1994-1999 Capital Facilities Plan
Project Cost Statistics
(In 000's)
SUMMARY 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 TOTAL
NON UTILITY PROJECTS
TRANSPORTATION
Corridors 1,982 7.511 8.877 3,734 13.529 13.163 48,796
Arterials 115 6,550 2,189 11 3,040 2.200 14.105
Intersection Improvements 265 350 150 765
Other Improvements 584 100 510 792 425 2.411
Subtotal Transportation 2,631 14.426 11,576 4,887 17,144 15.363 66,077
PUBLIC SAFE Y
Correctional Facility 35 105 90 230
Fire&Emergency Services 63 185 231 479
Police/Fire Training Facility 60 577 637
Police Administrative Offices 274 55 145 474
Subtotal Public Safety 95 1,019 330 145 231 1.820
Parks&Recreation
Neighbrhd Park/Rec Land 100 100 200 200 600
Community Park/Rec Land 814 5,086 1,836 86 86 886 8.794
Neighborhood Rec Facilities 80 101 207 432 410 563 1.793
Community Rec Facillities 745 866 320 3.267 254 107 5.559
Golf Courses 1.000 300 200 1.500
Subtotal"Parks &Recreation 1,539 7.153 2.763 4,185 750 1.756 18.246
General Government Facilities
City Administrative Offices 400 675 200 200 200 200 1,875
City Maintenance Facilities 50 55 60 1.765 125 2.065
Subtotal General Government 400 735 255 260 1,965 325 2.940
Total Non Utility 4,815 23,333 14,924 9.332 20.003 17,675 90,082
UTILITY PROJECTS
Sanitary Sewer 200 769 175 250 260 270 1,924
Stonrnrater Management 2,662 11,265 4,363 3,013 2,793 3,072 27,168
Water Supply&Distribution 2,344 2,264 244 1,754 1,764 1.775 10.145
Total Utility Projects 5.206 14,298 4,782 5.017 4,817 5.117 39.237
Total CIP 10.021 37.631 19.70E 14.349 24.820 Z2.792 129.319
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8-13
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS -
CAPITAL COSTS
Table 8.1
1997 -2002 Capital Facilities Plan
Project Cost Statistics
(In 000's)
SUMMARY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL
NON UTILITY PROJECTS
TRANSPORTATION
Corridors 13,393 13,529 13,163 3,085 5,479 1,180 49,828
Arterials 3,188 2,863 5,962 108 109 2,457 14,687
Intersection Improvements 55 350 149 554
Other Improvements 1.294 1,030 757 848 879 1.530 6.338
SUBTOTAL TRANSPORTATION 17,930 17,771 19,883 4,189 6.467 5,167 71,408
PUBLIC SAFETY
Correctional Facility 118 25 143
Fire and Emergency Services 2,985 601 721 521 496 496 5,820
Police/Fire Training Center
Police Administrative Offices
SUBTOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 3,103 626 721 521 496 496 5,963
PARKS AND RECREATION
Neighborhood Park Recreational Land
Community Park Recreational Land 1,200 1,200
Neighborhood Recreational Facilities 1,185 495 735 910 210 210 3,745
Community Recreational Facilities 1,069 4,857 30,220 295 479 295 37,215
Golf Complex 100 350 350 800
SUBTOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION 2,354 5,702 32,505 1,205 689 505 42,960
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Information Services/Automation 6,072 6,072
Government Facilities-Buildings/Mtc 2,310 150 8,290 150 1,650 250 12,800
Other 127 55 59 62 66 70 439
SUBTOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 8,509 205 8,349 212 1,716 320 19,311
TOTAL NON UTILITY PROJECTS 31,896 24,304 61,458 6,127 9,368 6,488 139,642
UTILITY PROJECTS
Sanitary Sewer 2,813 1,259 5,589 281 291 303 10,536
Stormwater Management 5,941 4,669 3,154 949 460 478 15,651
Water Supply&Distribution 1,320 11,625 375 286 897 1,184 15,687
TOTAL UTILITY PROJECTS 10,074 17,553 9,118 1,516 1,648 1,965 41,874
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 41,970 41,858 70,576 7,643 11,016 8,453 181,516
L D
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT CHAPTER EIGHT
FINANCING
The revenue sources that are available to the City of Rent for capital facilities include
taxes, fees and charges, and grants. Some sources of revenue for capital facilities can
also be used for operating costs. A comprehensive list of revenue sources and a
discussion of limitations on the use of each revenue source is contained in the Capital
Facilities Plan. Existing City revenues are not forecast, nor are they diverted to capital
expenditures from maintenance and operations.
The fmancing plan for these capital improvements includes the revenues listed in the pie
chart below. The chart Iists the major categories of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
revenue sources and the amount contributed by each source.
—� ,'c�L yv v
Table
CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
(In 000's)
Gott&Utility Frees 31.725 24.20. Transportahon 20.975 16.00%
/ General CIP Revenue 2.959 7.E%
Sale of Property 4,763 3.506
L!Os 22.058 16.8%
X
Bonds&Grants 41.802 31.8b
REVENUES BY SOURCE
1994.1999
Total S131,292
TOTAL REVENUES (in OUO's)
Detailed project lists and financing plans are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan.
8-14 KENT COMPREHENSIVE PL-0'
Table 8.2 MHFF
City of Kent, Washington
Capital Facilities Plan
(In 000's)
REVENUES BY SOURCE
1997-2002
C1P Revenues 10,451 5.8%
Golf 8 Utiliry Fees 26,514 14.6% Sale of Property/Misc 2,721 1.5%
Transportation 23,528 13.0%
LIDS 15,693 8.6%
Bonds d Grants 102.603 56.5%
TOTAL REVENUE: $181.516
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMEAT
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CFP
The CFP will enable the City of Kent to accommodate 15.1% growth during the next 6
years (48,144 people in 1999) while maintaining the 1993 LOS for the following public
facilities:
k\� Facility LOS Units 1993 LOS CFP LOS
PROPOSED
Fire/Emergency Services Units/1,000 pop. 0.096 0.096
Neighborhood Rec. Facilities Investment/Capita $151.52 $151.52
Community Rec. Facilities Investment/Capita $496.26 $496.26
Sanitary Sewer Per DOE and METRO
Regulations
Stormwater Management Per State Regulations/King
County Stds.
Transportation N/A
Water System Per DSHS Regulations/King
County Stds
The level of service for the following facilities will be increased as a result of the CFP:
Facility LOS Units 1993 LOS CFP LOS
PROPOSED
City Maintenance Facilities Sq. Ft./1,000 pop. 539.0 625.0
The level of service for the following facilities will be reduced as a result of the CFP:
t
Facility LOS Units 1993 LOS CFP LOS
PROPOSED
�w Correctional Facility Beds/1,000 pop. 3.11 2.70
Police/Fire Training Center Sq. Ft./Emplovee 32.5 28.3
City Admin. Offices Sq. Ft./1,000 pop. 1,525.0 1,325.0
- General Government
j� City Admin. Offices Sq. Ft./1,000 pop. 430.0 396.0
- Police Headquarters
Neighborhood Park/ Acres/1,000 pop. 2.59 2.53
Recreational Land
Community Park/ Acres/1,000 pop. 18.80 18.19
Recreational Land
Golf Courses Holes/1,000 pop. 0.65 0.56
KENT.COMPREHENSNE PLAN 8-15
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply throughout this Capital Facilities
Plan:
"Capital improvement means land, improvements to land,
structures (including design, permitting, and construction) ,
initial furnishings and selected equipment . Capital
improvements have an expected useful life of at least 10 years
other "capital" costs, such as motor vehicles and motorized
equipment, computers, and office equipment, office
furnishings, and small tools are considered to be minor
capital expenses in the City' s annual budget, but such items
are not "capital improvements" for the purposes of the
Comprehensive Plan, or the issuance of development permits .
"Cateaory of public facilities" means a specific group of
public facilities, as follows :
Category A public facilities are facilities owned or
operated by the City of Kent that will be subject to
requirements for adequacy and concurrency.
Catecrory B public facilities are facilities owned or
operated by the City of Kent that will not be subject to
requirements for concurrencv. The established standards
for levels of service are for planning purposes only, and
shall not apply to developmenz permits issued by the
City.
Cateaory C public facilities are facilities owned or
operated by Federal, State, County and other City
governments , independent districts, and private
organizations .
"Development permit " means anv document granting, or granting with
conditions , an application for a rezone , plat, planned unit
development , conditional use permi: , shoreline substantial
development permit , building permit , or anv other official action
of the Citv having the effect of authcrizinc the development of
land.
"Final development permit " means a building permit, or any other
development permit which results in an Immediate and continuing
impact upon public facilities .
"Preliminary development permit" means a rezone, plat , planned unit
development , conditional use permit , or shoreline substantial
development permit .
"Public facility" means the capital improvements and systems of
each of the following facilities and/or services :
Citv government (including administrative offices , maintenance
facilities and training facilities)
Fire protection and emergency services
Law enforcement and correctional facilities
Law enforcement and correctional facilities
Parks and recreational facilities
Roads (including related sidewalks, lighting
Sanitary sewer
Schools
Solid waste
Storm water
Transit
Water
7R4NSPORTATION ELEMENT ATTACHMENT D
CHAPTER NINE
Regional Action 2 - Improve- connections with Pierce Transit, especially if
commuter rail is not implemented, to provide a regional bus line from Pierce
County to Kent, via Auburn.
The recent Downtown Parking Study suggested that there is an imbalance in long- and
short-tens parking in the downtown area. It is also agreed that the existing downtown
park-and-ride is too far from downtown for employees to use, and that existing transit
service from that lot to downtown is inconvenient. Conversion of the area near the BN
tracks to long-term transit/commuter parking would require relocation of some existing
long-term, general-use parking. If the area is not appropriately sized, on-street parking
in downtown could be affected by spillover as a result of increased use of transit.
System Management Alternatives - The City currently is involved in two projects to
improve system operation in the valley. One is a multijurisdictional examination and
review of signal timing and coordination for valley anerials that cross jurisdictional
bounds. The outcome of this project should be improved flow on major roads and the
ability, via computer technology, to adjust signal cycles as demand warrants. The second
project is within the City and includes installing a new master computer for the City's
signal system. This will allow the City to adjust signal cycles as demand varies.
As technology improves over the next 10 to 20 years, a system of surveillance, control,
and driver information (SC&DI), similar to that operated by WSDOT on 1-5, 1-90, and
SR 520, would be appropriate for the principal arterials in south King County. This
would allow drivers to be notified where back-ups are occurring and what alternate
routes may be available. It also would provide a wav to meter traffic entering congested
facilities.
EMYROVEMENT PROGRAMS
Six-Year Program
Every year, the City adopts a transportation improvement program aimed at showing
improvements and expenditures over the next six years. The program adopted for 199#-
200,X generally provides adequate levels of service and corrects existing deficiencies, as
defined by the City's service standard. Elements of this action plan 11include road ) 1
anC� Of��STr is
widening and deveoppment o ew corridors,
a
i_—PC 6;cKc(c � W c!a off» � t
and support for neighborhood
traffic control.
9-22 !CENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER NINE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
2010 Improvements
As new development occurs, additional improvements will be needed to maintain the
proposed LOS standards. A number of projects have been identified, including road
widening for general purpose traffic and for HOV lanes, completion of the regional
network, and conversion of lanes for peak-period HOV use. E,.eh ef-the- ,,,,,tt 3--
'f in r.x t; So the p 9 f]e I "I.11 oa r+-o2i�3aicL.a:fie
2020 Improvements
A similar project list has been identified for implementation between 2010 and 2C 0,
assuming growth occurs at the rate identified in the land use�es,- These projects
include more widening, primarily to serve HOV users.
TRANSPORTATION FINANCING &
E"PLEMENTATION PLAN
The creation of a financing and implementation plan is critical to the overall development
of the transportation element. In turn the transportation element is a critical element of
the comprehensive plan. Development of a fu=cing and implementation plan involves
the examination of a number of issues including, improvements to the street system,
transit, parking, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A key too] of the examination was the
development of a computer forecast model which simulates the future year travel
patterns on the City's transportation system. A key parameter in determining the needs
of the system was service levels. Under Growth Management service levels or degree
of congestion is a local discretion subject however to consistency at jurisdictional
boundaries. The methodology used to develop the financing plan was consistent with
that of the coun?ywide planning policies.
This section is a critical component of the transportation element, and as such plays a
important part in enabling growth to occur in concert with the land use projections. -4t--
b' While the
KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9-23
Table 9.4
Six Year Capital Improvement Program (1997 - 2002)
(in Thousands)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Revenues
Fuel Tax-Unrestricted 928 948 964 980 992 1,005
Fuel Tax-Arterial 434 443 450 458 464 470
Motor Vehicle Registration Fee 449 456 464 471 477 484
Utility Tares 1,708 1,789 1,879 1,958 2,034 2,112
Interest Income 204 166 166 166 166 167
Sale of Land 1.000
Total Revenues 4,723 3,804 3,924 4,034 4,134 4.238
Expenditures
Debt Service 464 469 462 383 381 379
Street Utility Operations 341 352 362 373 384 396
Total Expenditures 805 820 824 756 766 774
Net Available for Capital Projects 3,918 2,983 3,100 3,278 3,368 3,463
Sources of Funding
Net Available for Capital Projects 2,925 2,983 3.100 3,278 3,368 3.463
Sale of Property 1.000
Total Sources of Funding 3,925 2,983 3,100 3,278 3,368 3,463
Capital Project Requests
Corridors
196th Street West 47 1286
196th Street Middle 1,449 1,913 1,771
272nd Comdor - 930 2.422 4,414 739
228th Street Corridor 441
Total Corridor 2,426 1286 4,335 1,771 4,414 1.180
Artenals
West Meeker Widening 109 657
72nd Avenue Extension 194 108
SE 256th Improvements(I l6th-132nd) 223 262
212th Street Pavement Rehabilitation 300
Total Arterials 223 756 108 109 657
Intersection Improvements
Military Road Improvements 149
James&Central Right Turn Lane 70
42nd&Reith Road Pedestrial Signal 55
Total Intersection Improvements 55 70 149
Other Improvements
Canyon Drive Sidewalk/Bike Lanes 408 268
South Central Pavement Rehabilitation 350
Sidewalk Rehabilitation 300 300 300 300 300 300
Bike Paths 100 100 100 100
Miscellaneous Asphalt Overlays 337 347 357 368 379 390
Kent Shuttle Service 60
Street Lighting Wiring Upgrades 60 60
Traffic Signal Operational/Safety Improvements 30
42nd Avenue South Reconstruction 75
Road and Railroad Separation Study 100
Traffic Signal Controller Cabinet Replacements 40 40 20 40 40
GIs Software Conversion 19
Total Other Improvements 1,294 1,030 757 848 879 1.180
Total Street Fund Projects 3.775 2.609 5.948 2,876 5,402 3,017
Revenues over(under)Expenditures 143 374 (2,749) 402 (2.034) 446
Beginning Fund Balance
Unrestnctcd 223 736 513 650 582 644
Restncted 79 376 455 10 218 433
Street Utility 226 3.242 3.760 1,320 1.582 (730)
Corridor Improvement Balance Available 3.676
Beginning Fund Balance 4205 4,354 4,728 1,980 2,381 347
Ending Fund Balance
Unrestricted 736 513 650 582 644 419
Restricted 376 455 10 218 433 105
Street Utility 3.242 3,760 1.320 1.582 (730) 271
Ending Fund Balance 4.354 4.728 1.980 2.381 347 794
FIGURE 9.3
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
6 YEAR CIP PROJECT COSTS
Non-motorized&Maint Imps(8.88°/n)
Intersections(0.78%)
Arterials(20.57%)
i
Corridor Projects(69.78%)
III
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
6 YEAR CIP REVENUES
LIDS(21.98%)
I
Existing Sources(38.33%)
r
Grants(39.70
Existing sources include cash on hand, M V fuel tax, MV registration fee and ctfieet-utility tv
i
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CHAPT"cR NINE
transportation element incorporates an improvement program for 2010 and 2020, the
CLP
critical component is he Six Year4kuisgeraatrea Improvement Program. The
recommended 6 Year X.I.P. is shown on Table 9.3. It is critical because Growth
Management mandates that all plans be financially sound and implementable with respect
to concurrency.
C.=P. $ ter,poo,000
The 6 Year ` 1. outlines over-S7•?;9A9,,998-in improvement, o whic�i proximately
I ,000,
$50,00 ,000 is to be spent on corridor grojects, more than " 999 on arterials,
600,000 1G,000 000
almost n intersections and everS�966,660 on non-motorized and maintenance
improvements. It should be noted thayo new revenue sourcfs aarre contemplated. The
26,oco,mo I(�,ocn,000
bulk of the revenue comes from Grants {$3. 9@Bj, LIDS ( and existing
27,COO,000
sources such as Cash on Hand, MV Fuel Tax, MV Registration Fee and
1 % 7a,c.
- Utility., Both proic io costs and anticipated revenues are shown on Figure 9.1.
With respect to Grants, thereof are existing commitments with the
IT z,ogo)000
balance ($8 935@@9 related to highly eligible type projects.
90%,
Similarly so with respect to LIDS where ($14,147, OO�zertains to the corridor
projects for which adequate covenants exist. The balance �, � involves projects
that due to a combination of low assessment level and adjacent high density land use
should be supportable.
The implementation schedule which is equally important with respect to Growth
Management and the assemblage of funds is reflected in Table 9.4. The crucial projects
such as the 196th Street Corridor, Orillia to West Valley Highway, and West Valley
Highway to East Valley Highway, and the 272nd Street Corridor are anticipated to be
opened in 1998, 2000 and 1999 respectively.
9-24 KEAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Table 9.3
Six Year Capital Improvement Projects (1997 - 2002)
(in Thousands)
Corridor Projects
196th Street West (Orillia Road to West Valley Highway) 11,419
272nd Corridor (Auburn Way North to SR516) 20,190
196th Street Middle (West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway) 17,779
228th Street Corridor (54th Avenue to SR516) 441
Total Corridors 49,828
Arterials
212th Street Pavement Rehabilitation (West Valley Highway to Green River Bridge) 600
Washington Ave Widening (SR516 to Smith Street) 1,000
Pacific Highway HOV - Phase I (Kent-Des Moines Road to 240th) 21188
SE 256th Improvements (116th- 132nd) 2,985
64th Ave Extension (216th to 226th) 2.200
Pacific Highway HOV - Phase II (240th to 252nd) 2,500
West Meeker Widening (Kent -Des Moines Road to Green River Bridge) 2,566
72nd Ave Extension (194th to 196th) 648
Total Arterials 14,687
Intersection Improvements
James & Central Right Turn Lane 350
Military Road Improvements (Kent-Des Moines Road to Reith Road) 149
42nd Avenue & Reith Road Pedestrian Signal 55
Total Intersection Improvements 554
Other Improvements
Miscellaneous Asphalt Overlays 2,17S
Traffic Signal Operational/ Safety Improvements 30
Sidewalk Rehabilitation 1,800
42nd Avenue South Reconstruction 75
Traffic Signal Controller Cabinet Replacements 180
Street Lighting Wiring Upgrades 120
S Central Pavement Rehabilitation 700
Canyon Drive Sidewalk / Bike Lanes 676
Bike Paths 400
Road and Railroad Separation Study 100
Kent Shuttle Service 60
GIS Software Conversion 19
Total Other Improvements 6,338
Total Capital Improvement Projects 71,408
CITY OF d r\ILI!YcSV •_S
I
i
Jim White, Mavor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE
AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-96-3 - 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
At the Board's September 23 workshop, Planning Department staff briefly reviewed the proposed
amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan which were submitted to the Department this past
summer. A total of seven amendment applications were received. Five of these amendments
propose changes to the Land Use Plan Map and zoning map (items A-E), while the other two
amendment applications were initiated by City staff. and relate to updates to the Capital Facilities
and Transportation Elements of the plan (items F and G).
This memorandum will present information about each proposed amendment. Maps have been
prepared, and are attached. for each area which would be affected by the proposed changes to the
Land Use Plan Map and zoning map. Staff will discuss each of these proposed amendments at the
November 12 workshop, in order to help prepare the Board for the November 25 public hearing on
this item.
The seven proposed amendments have been classified as proposals A through G. They will be
referenced accordingly in the summaries below.
Proposal A - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 22320
88th Avenue South
Applicant: Michael and Betty Coblentz
'__'IUlh V%I SU I FI A I %% %SIIIA(,10A 4N0:'-i805/ III.I pw,p ! i_nh h:59-t pill;14A y"�
Subject: #CPA-96-3 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 12, 1996
Page 2
Existing Plan Designation: SF-6/Industrial Proposed Plan Designation:
Commercial/Industrial
Existing Zoning: SR-6/CM-1 Proposed Zoning:
Commercial/Manufacturing (CM-1)
The applicants' property consists of three parcels which total approximately 12.25 acres. The
frontage of two of the parcels is currently designated as Industrial in the comprehensive plan, and
zoned Commercial Manufacturing I (CM-1). The applicants also own another small parcel of land
along 88th Avenue South which is presently zoned CM-1. The remainder of the subject property
is currently designated as SF-6 on the plan and SR-6 on the zoning map. The applicants seek to have
the entire property redesignated to commercial (CM-1).
The site is located directly to the east of State Route 167. 88th Avenue South runs parallel to
SR-167. The parcels to the south of the site are zoned CM-1 and MRG (Multi-Family Residential,
16 units per acre), while the parcels to the north and east are zoned for single-family residential use.
The subject property currently contains one single family residence, and is otherwise vacant. The
property is heavily wooded. The eastern portion of the applicants' property is also distinguished by
steep west-facing slopes. The applicants state that the noise from SR-167 makes the property
unfeasible for residential uses.
Proposal B - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 27233
104th Avenue Southeast
Applicant: Jerry Prouty and Bill Ruth
Existing Plan Designation: SF-1 Proposed Plan Designation: SF-6
Existing Zoning: SR-I Proposed Zoning: SR-6
This property consists of 6.74 acres, and is located at the southwest corner of SE 272nd Street and
104th Avenue Southeast. The parcel was brought into the city as part of the Ramstead area
annexation in 1994, and was zoned RA (now SR-1) as part of the Ramstead annexation initial
zoning, which was adopted in January, 1995. The comprehensive plan designates this property as
SF-1.
The parcel currently contains one single-family residence, along with two accessory buildings. The
westem portion of the parcel is distinguished by very steep west-facing slopes which contain heavy
vegetation. The eastern portion of the property is fairly level. The property is surrounded by single-
Subject: #CPA-96-3 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 12, 1996
Page 3
family residential development to the north and east. There is no development directly to the west
and south of the parcel due to steep slopes.
Proposal C - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 25840
135th Lane Southeast
Applicant: George Lewis
Existing Plan Designation: SF-6 Proposed Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-
Family Residential
Existing Zoning: SR-4.5 Proposed Zoning: MRG (Multi-Family Residential,
16 units per acre)
This property consists of 6.52 acres, and is located at the southeast corner of 135th Lane Southeast
and Southeast 258th Street. The property abuts the northern boundary of Lake Meridian. The parcel
was brought into the city as part of the Meridian area annexation in 1996. In December, 1995, the
City Council designated the property as SF-6 on the comprehensive plan, and RI-9.6 (now SR-4.5)
on the zoning map, as part of the Meridian annexation area comprehensive plan amendment and
initial zonin
The property currently consists of several cabins and a single-family residence. The parcel is
surrounded by a mobile home park to the west, a condominium development and single-family
residential development to the east, and single-family residential development to the north and south.
The applicants state that they would plan on developing the property at overall densities of 10 units
per acre or less, although MRG zoning allows development at up to 16 units per acre.
Proposal D - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at the
northwest corner of 116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road
Applicant: John Robbins
Existinu Plan Designation: SF-6 Proposed Plan Designation: Neighborhood Services
Existing Zoning: SR-6 Proposed Zoning: Community Commercial (CC) or
Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC)
This property consists of.75 acres at the northwest corner of 1 16th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley
Road. The parcel was brought into the City as part of the Meridian annexation area in 1996. In
December, 1995, the City Council designated the property as SF-6 on the comprehensive plan, and
Subject: #CPA-96-3 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 12, 1996
Page 4
RI-7.2 (now SR-6) on the zoning map, as part of the Meridian annexation area comprehensive plan
amendment and initial zoning.
The property is currently vacant. The parcel is bordered by single-family residential development
to the north and east. A child care center is located across 116th Avenue SE to the west of the
parcel, and the parcel to the south of the property across Kent-Kangley Road is vacant. A small
grocery store is located to the southeast of the site along Kent-Kangley Road.
Proposal E - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at the
southeast corner of 132nd Avenue SE and SE 270th Street
Applicant: City of Kent Planning Department
Existing Plan Designation: Low Density MF Proposed Plan Designation: Commercial
Existing Zoning: MRG Proposed Zoning:
Community Commercial (CC)
This property consists of two parcels which total approximately .89 acres. The parcels were brought
into the City as part of the Meridian annexation area in 1996. In December, 1995, the City Council
designated the property as Low Density Multi-Family Residential on the comprehensive plan, and
MRG (Multi-Family Residential, 16 units per acre) on the zoning map, as part of the Meridian
annexation area comprehensive plan amendment and initial zoning. In February, 1996, the City
received correspondence from the King County Department of Development and Environmental
Services which stated that these properties had been zoned Community Business Center as part of
the County's adopted comprehensive plan in 1994. Hwvever, the King County zoning maps showed
the property as zoned for multi-family residential use. The City of Kent, therefore, relied on
erroneous information in making comprehensive plan and zoning decisions for these parcels as part
of the Meridian annexation area plan amendment and initial zoning.
The property currently contains two single-family residential units. A condominium development
is located to the east of the property, and single-family residential uses are located to the north, on
the north side of SE 270th Street. A large shopping center is located on the west side of L32nd
Avenue SE, while the properties to the south are vacant. The properties to the south and west are
currently zoned Community Commercial.
Proposal F - Update of Capital Facilities Element
Applicant: City of Kent Finance Department
Subject: #CPA-96-3 - Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 12, 1996
Page 5
The Capital Facilities Element in the comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1995 contains a
great deal of information relating to inventories of existing capital facilities, estimated costs of
anticipated future facilities, and projected revenues to fund these facilities. These components of
the Capital Facilities Element are all required under the Growth Management Act (GMA). This
information now needs to be updated based on the growth of the city which occurred as a result of
the Meridian area annexation earlier this year.
The City's Finance Department has been working with the City Council on updating the City's
Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and developing updated information for the Capital Facilities
Element. At this point, the Finance Department is working to finalize this information. Staff from
the City's Finance Department will be at the November 12 workshop to present and distribute this
information and answer questions.
Proposal G - Update of Transportation Element
Applicant: City of Kent Public Works Department
In addition to a Capital Facilities Element, the GMA also requires that comprehensive plans contain
a Transportation Element. Transportation elements are required to include financial, revenue, and
project information, similar to the requirements for the capital facilities element. Therefore, the data
in the current Transpiration Element is also out of date based on the Meridian area annexation.
The Public Works Department has been working with the Finance Department to develop updated
information on transportation projects and financing for the updated Capital Improvements Program.
At this point, the Public Works Department is still finalizing the information. At the November 12
workshop, staff from the Public Works Department will distribute information relevant to the update
of the Transportation Element, and will present this information to you at that time.
If you have questions about these proposed amendments prior to the November 12 workshop, please
contact me at 850-4799.
Attachments
KON/tb:CPA963 WK.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Barbara Engstrom. CFP Analyst
Ed White, Transportation Engineering Supervisor
' / � � 'v 1 I � � i'1 yl' �' ill r 7800300 �
E Jllll� �l
�� � i� �%`
EBOO130 I ,-;/-, l
.�� 7 7BOOZr ✓ (!(( (( \
e 0033 0 J ,775780030 _8803
--
V 6
7717 00 Oar � �7/7 780022511i
�7 57 O 1 /� 80 221NL`
�,.
TF
� ,�:
i \,
V�U
VM
It
I r �
/
j
o' . I .V1
/ /
' 1822o5 it 1 � /
82205
O
I �
Proposal A - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for
property located at 22320 88th Avenue South
❑
1
o
�o
-1 MT
El
i
mWEEMEN
\
RE
WE
r
i
Proposal B - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for
property located at 27233 104th Avenue Southeast
Ef _
��' �
Proposal C - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for
property located at 25840 135th Lane Southeast
1
�Oc
Proposal D - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for
property located at the northwest corner of 116th
Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road
272 59 81
i
27� 05 , 9
2722059183�
ED2722059026
i 1
2722059200
289
N
M
l
2722059121
2722059017 - ,
i
i
i
2722059103
i
Proposal E - Change in Land Use Plan N1ap and zoning map for
property located at the southeast corner of 132nd
Avenue SE and SE 270th Street
CITY OF JUL22
i
Jim White, Mayor
BFfgr�?F _
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR AND LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
As you are aware, the City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan in April, 1995. The plan
was prepared and adopted under the provisions of the Growth Management Act(GMA). The GMA
authorizes and encourages jurisdictions to amend their comprehensive plans in order to keep the
plans current. However,the GMA establishes procedures for the amendment of plans, and stipulates
that plans can only be amended once a year. Pursuant to the provisions in the GMA, the City
Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 93237) outlining procedures for the amendment of the
City's plan. This ordinance established September 1 of each calendar year as the deadline for
applications to be submitted to the Planning Department for proposed annual amendments to the
plan.
As of September 1 of this year, the Planning Department received seven applications for
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Four of these applications were initiated by private property
owners, and three of the applications were initiated by the City. These proposed amendments are
summarized below:
1. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Residential (SF-6) to Commercial
for property located at 22320 88th Avenue South (Coblentz).
?. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-1 to SF-6 for property located
at the southwest comer of 104th Avenue SF. and SE 272nd Street (Prouty).
3. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-6 to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential from property located at 25840 135th Lane SE (Lewis).
"II_I II I . 111 I ki \I.�% \1IIINC I()\0,''O;' s,:„.l l l_I I11W%I '_00)i ) 1100�1
1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
September 9, 1996
Page 2
4. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from SF-6 to Neighborhood Services for
property located at the northeast comer of 116th Avenue SE and Kent
Kangley Road (Robbins).
5. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Multi-Family
Residential to Commercial for property located at the southeast corner of
132nd Avenue SE and SE 270th Street (Kent Planning Department).
6. Amendments to the Capital Facilities Element (Kent Finance Department).
7. Amendments to the Transportation Element (Kent Public Works Department).
It should be noted that any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan Map will also be reviewed
concurrently with corresponding amendments to the zoning map.
Attached is a copy of Ordinance #3237 for your review and information. At the September 9th
workshop. Planning Department staff will discuss the comprehensive plan amendment process and
further outline the proposed amendments received this year. It is anticipated that the Land Use
Board would hold a public hearing on these amendments in October or November.
KON/tb.CPA96LU.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Ed White, Transportation Engineer
Barbara Engstrom, CFP Analyst
ORDINANCE NO. 3 Q 3Z
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of Kent ,
Washington, adding a new chapter of the Kent
City Code establishing procedures for
amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan .
WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature adocted
the Growth Management Act (GMA' which requires jurisdictions
t_r_rouQheut the State o_ Wash-ngton, including the City of Ken-- , to
Drecare and adopt comcrehenS_Ve D-ans under the auide'ines and
policies set forth in the A-- ; anc
W'F-'_EREAS , the Kent City Ccuncil adapted the City of Ker_t
Comprehensive Plan on Acril 1 =Q9_ ; and
WHEREAS , the GK; states '`hat each cOmDrehe_nslve land use
p- an shall be subject to contin_. -�c evaluation and review by the
city upon adoction (RCW 36 . 70A. __ _ , �; and
WHEREAS, each jur, is required under the GMA (RCW
36 . 70A. 130 (2 ) ) to establis_- crcced'..res whereby Drocosed amendments
cr revis_ons cf the cCmpre.Rens-Ve ^lan are considered by the City
CcL'nci l no more fraouent l y a year; that all prccosals
shall be considered bV 7: C- Counc_1 concurrently se the
cumulative e_fe= of Lne var_Cus "'_'�ccosals can be ascertained; and
t1.Gt the C- _V mGV cdC:'L Gmendments or revisions to the
comprehensive - lan wreneve a_i em,e- ercy exists ; NOW THEREFCR
--- CITY COLIC = C TY OF KENT, WASH--NGTO I DO
nE..._E`_'" CRDA_�, AS FO1:OWS .
9 -
section 1 . There is hereby added a new chapter, 12 . 02 ,
to the Kent City Code as follows :
Sec . 12 . 02 . 010 . Amendments .
The City Council shall consider amendments to the Kent
Comprehensive Plan no more than once each calendar year, except as
provided in Section_ 12 . 02 . 035 .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 020 . Concurrent review.
In considering annual amendments to the comprehensive
plan, Citv staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council
shall consider all proposed amendments concurrently so as to assess
their cumulative impact .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 030 . Time of filing.
"-inual amendments to t.ie comprehensive plan shall }
submitted to the Kent Planning Department by September 1 of each
c ye�-Iendar _ . Requests for amendments shall be submitted cn forms
,
prescr-sec by tr_e Plannina Der=zmen7: . incomplete amendment
applications will not be accepted for filing. Requests receive:
e adh vear after September 1 =_=11 be considered 1n the fcllcwing
Year' S comprehensive plan amendment process .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 035 . Emergency amendments .
The City Council may consider and adopt amendments or
r=_visicns to the comprehensive p_an more than once a year if an
emergency exists . An emergenc,,, is defined as an issue of
community-wide significance _hat promotes the public health,
safety, arc general welfare . Emergencv comprehensive plan
amendments ma,, be - rccessed separately and in addition_ tc the
.:an dard
Sec . 12 . 02 . 040 . SEPA review.
After September 1 of each calendar year, the City' s
Responsible Official shall review the cumulative anticipated
environmental impact of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments ,
pursuant to the Washington State environmental Policy Act (SEPA) .
If the. Responsible Official determines that a Draft Final or
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or other
appropriate environmental review is warranted, applicants may be
responsible for a full or preperzicnate share of the costs of
preparing the EIS as determined by the Responsible Official .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 050 . Standard of review.
The Planr_ina Department may recommend and the City
Council may approve, approve with modifications or deny amendments
tO the comprehensive plan text may deslgnatlons based upon the
followinc criteria :
A. The amendmen:: will not result in development that
w111 adverse iv affect Dllbl-c nealtn, sa ety and cen_eral
welfare ; and
_. . The amendmen% �S based llDOn new 1nrOrma__In that Was
not available at the time cf adcr-t-_cn of the comprehensive plan, or
that circumstances have cnance d sl"_ce the adoption of the plan that
warrant an amendment to the plan; and
C . The amendment is con.siscent with other coals and
policies of the comprehensive plan , and that the amendment will
maintain concurrencv between t -- land use , transportation, and
capital fac111ties elements of t!: Clan .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 060 . Hearing procedures - notice recruirements .
The Plahn' nC Departme-: sna11 prepare a report and
recommendatlCn cn cr ccsea cla`1 a'Tl�nQments Which shall be presented
to the Pla_^_P_i_^.c Commiss_Cn at a __=c '^earlac . :cr Qroocsed text
amendments , notice of public hearing shall be given in at least one
(1) publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10 ) days prior
to said hearing. For plan map amendments , notice of public hearing
shall be given both by publication in the local newspaper as
prescribed above, and by notification of all property owners within
two hundred (200) feet of the affected property. Affected property
is defined as the parcels identi`__ed by the applicant , plus any
additional parcels contiguous to the applicant ' s property which she
Planning Director determines shculd also be considered for a
potential amendment . The Plar_ninC Director shall consider zhe
following in deciding whether to expand the gecgraphic sccpe of
nrcnosed amendment :
1 . The effect c= the proposed amendment on =he
surroundinc area ;
2 . The effect of the prcccsed amendment on the land use
and circulation pattern Of the area; and
The effect Oi the �:,'_c-Dosed amendment on Lhe fllt'1re
development of the area .
Following the Puy-`c hearing tv the Planning
COmmisslon, the PlanP_1nC Deuar7:7.ent ' s reccmmendatlOP_ shall be
f CrWarded tC the City Ccuncll fC- aCZ4 n .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 070 . City council action.
s_x_v (C'J ) dcv� e_f --ce-Ct c_ the PlannlnC
Deoartme= _eCCmmendatlon, the c_t`+' C011nCll Sf all eltner of=lrm,
deny, or mcd-fy cr return tr.e applicatJen to the Panning
Department =Or f'.._ _her cons ICerLttio,_ . in the event the City
Council mcdifies the recommendat_::- , -t shall make i is own findings
and Set f=:h '_:: wr-t'_nC t_nc' - _-- -__.- for the act_On taken .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 080 . Standing.
Comprehensive plan amendments may be initiated by t .e
City Planning Department or other administrative staff of t ty,
private citizens, or the City Council .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 090 . Fees .
Application fees for comprehensive plan amendments sha_-
he the same as the fee established _cr rezcnes .
Sec . 12 . 02 . 100 . Appeals .
A.apeals from a declslon cf the Kent ..: tv Council steal_ ..e
pursuant to Chapter 36 . 70A RCW.
Section 2 . Severab_- -tv. if any section, Se-tence ,
cause or phrase of this crd1I.ance s'-culd De _^__d tO be 1n7,7a11G cr
Uv a cou= of ccm-ce��T` -furl sdict-cn � 'c_
i'P_CCnStltlltlCI'ia1 � � , u
nva_1d1ty Or llnC OP.Stltlit lOTiallt'J Si.al1 not a='eCt the Vali di tV Or e
ccnsztitu: -Onai 1CV ofL any Ct-=--- Sc_" sentence , C_dL:Se
Cf this crdlnance .
Section 3 . Effective Ea`e T'r_1s ordinance s_a!1 sake
--t and De 1n fCrce t_^:1rtV �� ,�' =ca'✓s __^',:i and a-�c'_' It ">c SaCc ,
aDDroval and -cuhlicat1on as by -=W.
WH 7 TI 7 , MAYOR ---
ATTEST .
— — — ---- C T TY C=E..-_
�GnJnJF, <uJAri P,CT/lJC
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
P.OGER A. LUB VICH, (�l _ P_TTORNE'
PASSED Jr day of 1995 .
APPROVED day of
PU LISEED 7 day c`
I hereby Certify that t-_S '_S a t'_"L1e Copy of 0--dinance
No . 33,�?, �aSSed by the Cit,,, C ^- _ o= z:ne City of :pert ,
4VaSri-atcn, and azu-oVed Y?V �he of the C_tv of Kent as
71^^ _= , CITY CLERK
f�CTiNC-
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 7 . 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURES - ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT ZCA-96-7
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board proposes
an amendment to the Kent Zoning Code which would implement
Administrative Variance procedures, expand the use of joint use
of parking facilities and implement new transit and rideshare
provisions, and increase the maximum allowable size of detached
accessory dwelling units that can be converted from existing
accessory buildings.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; Work Shop staff reports dated
September 9 and October 14 , 1996 ; Hearing staff report dated
November 25, 1995; Land Use and Planning Board minutes dated
November 25, 1996
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the Administrative Variance Procedures Zoning Code
Amendment (ZCA-96-7) as recommended by the Land Use and
Planning Board, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
CITY OF of `T CITY OF KENT
wJ� N
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM Jim White, Ma.Nor
Tanuary T, 1997
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND PROCEDURES #ZCA-96-7
Attached is the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation on proposed Administrative
Variances and Procedures (#ZCA-96-7). Workshops were held on September 9, 1996 and
October 14, 1996, at which time staff was able to familiarize the Land Use and Planning Board
with the proposal. The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on November 25,
1996, and made their recommendation at the conclusion of that hearing (see attached minutes).
At the public hearing, the Land Use and Planning Board received testimony from one citizen. No
written comments were received by the Planning Department or the Board at, or prior to, the
public hearing. The Board moved to accept the staff recommendation as outlined in the staff
report on November 25, 1996.
Administrative Variances and Procedures would amend Sections 15.09.040, 15.05.040, and
15.08.350 of the Zoning Code in order to implement the following changes:
1. Give the Planning Director administrative authority to grant variances for up to
twenty-five (25) percent of the numerical zoning code standards for setbacks, lot
coverage, and building height. These types of variance requests have typically
been non-contested and approved by the Hearing Examiner. Decision criteria for
administrative variances have been incorporated into the Board's recommendation.
2. Provide more flexibility and opportunities for shared parking facilities, and
implement transit and rideshare provisions to the off-street parking and loading
requirements.
3. Amend the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations in order to increase the
maximum allowable size for converting legally constructed detached accessory
buildings to ADU's.
Planning Department staff will be available at the January 7, 1997 City Council meeting to further
explain the recommended zoning amendments and to answer any questions.
MJ/mp:p/public/cc96-7.mem
Attachments
cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
CITY OF ,7t 1I
Jim White, Mavor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
November 25, 1996
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:00 p.m. on May 29, 1996, in Chambers West of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Tom Brother-ton
Jerry Daman
Ron Harmon
Gloria LaBore
David Malik
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator
Teresa Beener. Administrative Secretar%
OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT:
May Miller, Finance Director
Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attomev
Ed White, Transportation Engineer Supervisor
Gary Gill. City Engineer
APPROVAL OF MIN[?TES
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED to approve the minutes from the October 28, 1996 meeting.
Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion_ Alotion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
ZC,4-96--5 Mixed Use Zonmg,,CP.4-96-3(A-G) 96Cornp Plan rnervdnaerus,ZC-I-96-';tdmin l arvunce Proccdure�
1104-i AA'F SO KI %I " 111_1 . 1, 111�—Z�00,I .') o 1
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director Jim Harris informed the Board of the December I Oth Workshop. There will be
no Public Hearing for the month of December.
MIXED USE ZONING #ZCA-96-5 (Continuation from 10/28/96) (K. O'Neill)
Chair Steve Dowell excused himself from the deliberations of this item due to a personal conflict
of interest. Vice Chair Brad Bell and Board member David Malik also spoke of a conflict of interest
and removed themselves for this item.
Board member Jerry Daman announced that he was also a property owner within the mixed use
designations but felt he could still vote objectively and remained.
Tom Brotherton MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to appoint Ron Harmon as the
"acting" chair. Motion carried.
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the memo written to the Board was a response from
public testimony at the October 28 public hearing. The following items were discussed:
I . Development Standards - if the Board considers changing the staff proposed standards for
site coverage the Board should also change the floor area ratio standards concurrently.
2. Phasing of Multifamily Development - stand alone residential is not allowed in the East Hill
mixed use . rea, therefore, residential uses could only be permitted if there was concurrent
commerciai development.
3. Changes to Zoning Designations - there is no recommendation to amend the commercial
uses. The commercial zone already in place would still determine the permitted commercial
uses. Mixed use will allow concurrent residential development on the East Hill and stand
alone residential development on the valley floor.
Mr. O'Neill informed the Board that he had received a letter from a property owner adjacent to a
mixed use area being considered. He presented the Board with a copy of the letter and asked to
make the letter a party of record. He pointed out the location of the parcel on the map.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the
following recommendations to the City Council:
ZC.4-96--5 Mired Use Zoning;CPA-96-3(. -G) 96 Comp Plan AmendmentsiZCA-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 3
A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which
are outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C of the October 28 staff report.
B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development
standards within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use
overlay be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design
review criteria would be modeled after the City's existing multifamily design review
process, but would be supplemented as indicated in the staff report.
Ron Harmon asked for further clarification of the development standards for the current commercial
zones and the proposed changes. Mr. O'Neill explained that in the current General Commercial and
Community Commercial zones 40%site coverage is allowed where in the Office zone 30%coverage
is permitted. He also explained that if the Board considers a change from the staff recommendation
for site coverage a similar change should be made for floor area ratios.
Ron Harmon requested that the letter received by the Planning Department be admitted into record.
Board member Gloria LaBore MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to accept staff
recommendation with an amendment that site coverage and floor area ratio should remain the same
as they are now for stand alone commercial. Motion carried.
1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS #CPA-96-3 (items A - G) (K. O'Neill)
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City
Council in April 1995. The Growth Management Act encourages the constant update and review
of comprehensive plans. The City established police which allows for annual amendments and also
established specific criteria for analyzing proposed amendments. The criteria are outlined in page
2 of the staff report.
CPA-96-3(A)/CPZ-96-1 Coblentz Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the applicants property being considered consists of
three parcels on 88th Avenue South, adjacent to the SR-167 just south of 222nd. The frontage of
two of the parcels is currently designated as Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned
Commercial Manufacturing (CM-1). The remainder of the subject property is currently designated
as SF-6 on the plan and SR-6 on the zoning map. The applicants requested to change the entire area
to commercial.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CP.9-96-3(a-G 96 ComP Plan imendmen[.V ZC I-96--.-ldmm Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 4
Mr. O'Neill explained that the easternmost parcel is so steep it is unlikely to be developed. The
Public Works Department expressed concerns with changing the land use and zoning on the entire
property, due to traffic impacts and slope stability. Their concerns were outlined in an attached
memorandum to the staff report.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned whether other parcels in the vicinity were also taken into
consideration. Mr. O'Neill explained that only the parcels listed on the application were considered.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Mike Colbentz, 22320 88th Avenue S. Mr. Colbentz explained that the primary reason for his
application came from the noise factor of SR-167 that results in his property being unmarketable.
Mr. Coblentz stated he felt there was an additional 3 acres of buildable flat land. He voiced his
displeasure with the staff report. He would like to see the entire property zoned CM-1.
Joan Longstrom, 22202 88th Avenue S. Ms. Longstrom stated that she supports the Coblentz
application. She indicated that the noise levels from the area makes the residential homes
unmarketable in this area.
Carl Longstrom. 22202 88th Avenue S. Mr. Longstrom agreed with his wife, Ms. Longstrom. He
added that their home had been on the market for two years with no avail. He supports the entire
property being zoned commercial.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned the staff recommendation. Mr. O'Neill further clarified the
reasoning behind limiting the commercial area due to the steep slope.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED the motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
The Board discussed alternatives to the staff recommendation to include more of the property in the
commercial zone. Mr. O'Neill gave input to the Board regarding various alternatives.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to approve the staff
recommendation to change the land use plan map designation to Commercial and the zoning map
to Commercial Manufacturing - 1 (CM-1) amending the boundary to move the eastern boundary to
the next parcel line. Motion carried.
ZCA-96-5 Mired Use Zoning,CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan:Imendments ZCA-96 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 3
A. Amend the zoning code to implement a mixed use overlay, the boundaries of which
are outlined in the maps identified as Attachment C of the October 28 staff report.
B. Amend the zoning code to adopt the proposed permitted uses and development
standards within the designated mixed use overlay, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to require that new development within the mixed use
overlay be reviewed through an administrative design review process. The design
review criteria would be modeled after the Citv's existing multifamily design review
process, but would be supplemented as indicated in the staff report.
Ron Harmon asked for further clarification of the development standards for the current commercial
zones and the proposed changes. Mr. O'Neill explained that in the current General Commercial and
Community Commercial zones 40%site coverage is allowed where in the Office zone 30%coverage
L-
is permitted. He also explained that if the Board considers a change from the staff recommendation
for site coverage a similar change should be made for floor area ratios.
Ron Harmon requested that the letter received by the Planning Department be admitted into record.
Board member Gloria LaBore MOVED and Tom Brother-ton SECONDED the motion to accept staff
recommendation with an amendment that site coverage and floor area ratio should remain the same
as thev are now for stand alone commercial. Motion carried.
1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-96-3 (items A - G) (K. O'Neill)
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City
Council in April 1995. The Growth Management Act encourages the constant update and review
of comprehensive plans. The City established policy which allows for annual amendments and also
established specific criteria for analyzing proposed amendments. The criteria are outlined in page
2 of the staff report.
CPA-96-3(A)/CPZ-96-1 Coblentz Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the applicants property being considered consists of
three parcels on 88th Avenue South, adjacent to the SR-167 just south of 222nd. The frontage of
two of the parcels is currently designated as Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned
Commercial Manufacturing (CM-1). The remainder of the subject property is currently designated
as SF-6 on the plan and SR-6 on the zoning map. The applicants requested to change the entire area
to commercial.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan,4mendmo7mZCA-96 .Admm Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 5
4CPA-96-3(B)/CPZ-96-2 - Gould Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the parcel in question is located at the southwest comer
of 104th Avenue SE and 272nd Street. The parcel was annexed into the City during the Ramstead
East Hill Annexation in 1994 and at that time the parcel was zoned SR-I. The applicant is
requesting to change the land use designation to SF-6 and the zoning to SR-6. Staff recommends
approving the change with a land use designation of SF-6 and the zoning SR-4.5.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Robert Gould, 27233 - 104th Avenue SE. Mr. Gould agrees with staff recommendation. He is
interested in developing his property.
Bill Carlton, 10210 SE 270th. Mr. Carlton is a long time Kent resident and voiced his concern with
the rapidly increasing population. He believes Kent should slow down development. He believes
Kent should take the time to maintain natural resources and stop building more houses. Mr. Carlton
voiced his concern regarding the rapidly increasing school populations. He believes Kent should
focus more on the quality of education and living for the current residents and stop adding additional
development and continue increasing the population.
Richard Loran, 27124 104th Avenue SE. He voiced a concern over the water or sewer cost this
development could bring to his property.
Planning Director Jim Harris interjected that there is a cost involved with new development,
however, the Board is not here to consider potential costs but merely_ the proposed change in the land
use map designation and the zoning.
,Jerry Prouty,27608 114th Avenue SE. Mr. Prouty stated he Celt that SR-6 was a more appropriate
zone for the property.
Marlin Ruge,27116- 104th Avenue SE. Mr. Ruge is concerned with what would happen to 104th
and if sewers would be required how the cost would be incurred.
Mr. Harris explained that if this property is developed they would have to get sewer and water there.
He explained that if the surrounding properties are on septic tanks it is not required that they hook
up to the sewer lines unless their septic was failing. Normally the sewer lines would be set up with
a LID. Mr. Harris explained that he does not know what would happen in this specific case. The
Board is here to consider whether the land use designations should be changed on this property.
ZC.4-96-5 Afixed Use Zoning/CP.4-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendmet7ts;ZC-I-96--.4dmm l'ununce Procedurc.r
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 6
Frank Scarcella, 10426 SE 272nd. Mr. Scarcella is a neighboring property owner. He stated that
he is against adding development in this area. He was concerned with traffic and school issues.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Board member Tom Brotherton questioned staff s rationale for recommending SR-4.5 rather than
the requested SR-6. Mr. O'Neill explained that the property abuts SR-4.5 and SR-6 zones. Either
zone could be acceptable however there are some development restrictions. If the property is zoned
SR-6 it could be developed with approximately 40 lots, and SR-4.5 would allow approximately 30
lots. Due to the site restrictions and based on staff determination that the property could not handle
even the 30 lots staff recommended SR-4.5. Mr. Harmon questioned the possibility of an SR-3 zone.
Mr. O'Neill explained that it would allow approximately 24 lots.
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Board member David Malik SECONDED a motion
to accept the staff recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to SF-6 and the
zoning to SR-4.5. Board member Jerry Daman stated that these are difficult decisions to make but
he felt this was something that had to be done. Mr. Daman supports the staff recommendation.
Board member Ron Harmon supports staff recommendation of SR-4.5 over the applicants requests
for SR-6. Motion carried.
CPA-96-3(C)/CPZ-96-3 - Lewis Amendment
Mr. O'Neill explained that the map attached to the staff report had erroneously included a parcel that
is not a part of this application. He explained that the computer mapping system used by the City
did not recognize the separate parcel. Mr. O'Neill presented the Board with an updated map.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the property consists of six and a half acres and is located on the north
end of Lake Meridian off of 135th Lane SE. The property was annexed during the Meridian
Annexation on January 1, 1996. In December of I Q9�, the City Council adopted an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan which designated this property as SF-6 and zoned the property SR-4.5.
King County's Comprehensive Plan designation had been Urban Residential 4-12 units per acre and
the zoning was R-4, four units per acre.
Mr. O'Neill explained that this property has no direct access to 256th, the density requested is not
compatible with the surrounding properties, and one of the criteria for considering a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is the receipt of new information. Given this impact and the fact that no new
information has been presented by the applicant. staff has recommended to deny this application at
this time.
ZCA-96-5,Nfred Use Zoning/CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendments/ZCA-96- Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 7
Board member Gloria LaBore questioned the number of units that would be involved at ten units per
acre. Mr. O'Neill explained that if the property was built out at ten units per acre it would be
approximately 65 units. He explained that the zoning requested by the applicant would allow up to
16 units per acre which would potentially allow more than 65 units.
Mr. O'Neill informed the Board that the Planning Department received three documents from
adjoining property owners and would like to submit these documents to the Board for their
consideration as part of the public hearing. Chair Steve Dowell made these documents a part of
public record. The Board took a few moments to read the documents submitted.
Chair Dowell opened the public hearing.
Marie Lewis, 25840 135th Lane SE. Ms. Lewis stated that she lived on the property being
considered for a Comprehensive Plan change. She explained that the rent collected for the cabins
on the property is less than the cost of maintaining the property. She is looking for a way to develop
the property further.
Charlie Denny, 25702 135th PI SE. Mr. Denny explained that his property abuts the property in
question. Mr. Denny voiced his concern for adding additional traffic to 135th Place SE. He believes
with all the developments already in the area that the density level has already been met. He
opposed this request.
Linda.Johnson,25708 135th PI SE. Ms. Johnson stated that the traffic on 135th Place is congested
between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. already and opposes any additional development in this area.
Donald West, 25866 136th Ave SE. Mr. West stated that 136th Ave is only a 24' easement road
and can not accommodate an additional development. He is against changing the density for this
proposal.
Ron Tremaine, 14200 SE 272nd Street #E-203. Mr. Tremaine explained that the issue of street
accommodations were addressed in the Determination of Nonsiimificance. In order for the property
to develop even one additional unit the street improvements would have to be accomplished.
Mr. Tremaine stated that he had received a bid for the street improvements for nearly a half a million
dollars. He indicated that 24 units could not support that expense; however, sixty units would.
Mr. Tremaine stated he felt the Lewis property had been down zoned since King County's
Comprehensive Plan allowed 4 - 121 units per acre. He explained that they would like to develop the
property with affordable housing.
ZC.I-96-i Mixed Use ZoningiCP.I-96-3(.4-G) 96 Comp Plan.-1 i'arrance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 8
Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned Mr. Tremaine's position in this matter. Mr. Tremaine indicated
that he was a friend of the applicant and had no financial interest in the proposal.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned the promises that Mr. Tremaine referred to. Mr. Tremaine indicated
that it had been understood by the Lewis' that their property would not be down zoned when it was
annexed into the City of Kent. Dowell asked for clarification from staff.
Mr. Harris stated that City Council had made a zoning decision regarding this parcel during the
Meridian Annexation. He indicated that it was not appropriate for the Board to reconsider why a
decision was made but rather consider what is brought before them for consideration today.
Mr. Tremaine stated that the Citv Council had not considered the half a million dollars it would cost
for road improvements to develop this property.
Chair Dowell asked staff for confirmation that the public would have another opportunity to speak
before the City Council regarding this matter. Mr. Harris stated that the Board's recommendation
would be sent to the City Council. Then the Council will hold a public hearing at which the public
would be given an opportunity to speak.
Charles M. O'Brien, 13522 SE 257th Street. Mr. O'Brien stated that he purchased his house in
a neighborhood for a certain quality of life. Besides the Lewis property there has been a good
rapport between the neighbors. Mr. O'Brien has lived in this neighborhood for 18 years. He does
not want to see this type of development come into his neighborhood and have to deal with the
additional traffic constraints. Mr. O'Brien was concerned with the Lewis proposal of putting only
ten units per acre when the zone being requested is for 16 units per acre. He opposes this proposal
stating it hurts his own standard of living.
George Lewis. Mr. Lewis purchased the property 25 years ago. His parents have lived on the
property for the 25 years. His father loves the property. Ile stated that the reason the adjacent
property owners oppose the development is because they enjoy using the 'park". He indicated that
his father keeps the grounds up on the property- and due to medical conditions he is unable to
continue with the upkeep. Mr. Lewis stated there are presentl,, 18 cabins on the property which are
occupied by young and middle aged persons.
Mr. Lewis requested that the Board continue this item to the next public hearing. He would like an
opportunity to respond to the staff report and have time to confer with an attorney. He felt the City
had wrongfully down-zoned his property. He also stated that lie felt the Determination of
Nonsignificance and the staff report represented two verN different perceptions regarding his
ZC.4-96-5 Mixed Use ZoningiCPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Farrance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 9
proposal. The Determination of Nonsignificance outlined workable conditions while the staff report
recommended denying his application.
Mr. Lewis explained that his intention was to develop ten single family units per acre. He is not
intending to build apartments and questioned staff how that could be worded better to indicate his
intention.
Board member Ron Hannon questioned Mr. Lewis' application on which he requested low density
multifamily designation. Mr. Tremaine explained that he was advised by the Planning Department
to request low density multifamily based on the intended use for the property. Mr. Harmon stated
that it is conflicting to hear testimony that the applicant would like to develop single family homes
when the application requests a multifamily designation. Mr. Tremaine explained that the intended
use is single family residences with attached walls. The City of Kent classifies attached walls as
multifamily. Mr. Lewis indicated that the verbiage used was under advisement of the Planning
Department.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned whether the Board was able to continue one item or did the entire
group of amendments have to go with one recommendation. Mr. Harris stated that the Board has
an option of continuing a specific item; however. he recommended that the Board make their
recommendation tonight and if Mr. Lewis has any future information to add he may present that
information to the City Council.
Mr. Lewis indicated that Mr. O'Neill had advised him that it was his option to request the Board to
consider continuing this item to December 9 if he felt he needed additional time to respond to the
staff recommendation.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that it is the role of the Planning Department to assist
an applicant in completing the application process. It is not assumed that the public knows the
regulations. Mr. Satterstrom explained that he was the one who assisted Mr. Tremaine with this
application. He also explained that King County has a Planned Unit Development Ordinance that
allows for cluster development of residential units in a single family zone; Kent does not. Based on
the applicant's desire to attach walls and to develop at a density of ten units per acre. Mr. Satterstrom
advised the applicant to request what was indicated on the application form.
Chair Dowell questioned whether the City of Kent has a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the City does maintain a Planned Unit Development Ordinance. It
only applies to multifamily zones. The single family PUD had been rescinded four years ago well
before the Meridian Annexation took place.
ZC.4-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning/CPA-96-R-1-G) 96 Comp Plan.4mendmentsiZCA-96--Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 10
Carol Voss, 14610 SE 266th Street. Ms. Voss was very active in getting Lake Meridian annexed
into the City of Kent. She stated that being adjacent to the City she has always been impacted by
the policies made by the City and wanted to be an active part of the decision process. Ms. Voss
stated that it had become very clear from public testimony, staff, and the City Council that the City,
was against adding any additional multifamily development especially on East Hill. The City made
a clear understanding that it was their goal to encourage single family development. She stated that
a four-plex is still multifamily development and she opposes the proposal.
George Canada, 13520 SE 258th. Mr. Canada lives in the Lake Meridian area. He stated that he
was able to purchase his home four years ago and doesn't agree with the Lewis' claim that there is
no affordable housing in the Lake Meridian area. He opposes the Lewis application.
Mr. Lewis again emphasized to the Board that the Planning Department advised him that he could
request a continuation to December 9th meeting. Mr. O'Neill explained that when Mr. Lewis came
to the Planning Department he expressed his concern with the staff recommendation and not having
adequate time to prepare for a response to the staff recommendation. Mr. O'Neill explained to Mr.
Lewis that he had the option of requesting the Board to continue the deliberations until the next
meeting.
Board member Gloria LaBore sympathized with the Lewis position. However, the adjoinin<,
neighbors are looking at a substantial impact adding 16 units per acre on six plus acres. That would
add 100 plus units. 200 more cars. 400 more people. 230 more children. and Ms. LaBore wonders
if that area could accommodate an increase of that magnitude.
Mr. Ron Tremaine stated that it was the applicants intention to develop the property with ten units
per acre. He offered the possibility of signing a contract with the City to hold them to their
intentions.
Walter Hazen, 315 W. Meeker. Mr. Hazen explained that even though King County allows for
cluster development it is not a guarantee. He stated that water run off at Lake Meridian is already
a problem. He strongly opposed increasing the density. He emphasized that the King Count-
designation of 4 to 12 units did not guarantee 12 units per acre.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
Vice Chair Brad Bell relayed his regrets to the applicants but felt there was no reason to delay a
decision. Harmon stated that a PUD is not guaranteed; it can be denied. He emphasized that
four-plea is still considered a multifamily development.
ZCA-96-3 Mixed Use Zonmg1'CP.4-96-3GI-GI 96 Comp Plan.Imendmrnrs;ZC.1-96 idmin l arrance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 11
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to deny the Lewis
application (#CPA-96-3(C) & 4CPZ-96-3) and Board member David Malik SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
CPA-96-3(D)/CPZ-96-4 - Robbins Amendment
Planning Director Jim Harris explained to the Board that this item was continued. The applicants
failed to post a public notice board on the site. Mr. O'Neill was in contact with the applicant's agent
who verbally informed him that the applicant did not want to move forward with this application.
Staff has attempted to make contact with the applicant both by phone and with a letter and there has
been no response to date. The Planning Department is unable to move forward with this application
due to insufficient public notice.
CPA-96-3(E)/CPZ-96-5 - Pasko Amendment
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this amendment consists of two parcels that are
approximately nine acres in size. During the Meridian Annexation process King County had
erroneously given the staff the wrong zoning information for these two specific parcels. This
application was made by staff to return these parcels to a commercial designation concurrent with
what was in existence at the time of the annexation.
Chair Dowell opened the public hearing.
Richard Pasko, 24503 142nd Ave SE. Mr. Pasko is the property owner and supports the staff
recommendation.
Kenneth Robinson, 13236 SE 270th Street. Mr. Robinson %diced his concern regarding the private
road he indicated had been torn up by a past development. He stated that he had no feelings
regarding the commercial designation. He asked that when the property is being developed they
leave the private access road alone.
Paul Sheppard, 13256 SE 272nd Street. Mr. Sheppard stated that he had a lot of problems with
the past development. He opposes the development. He stated he would like to see Kent slow down
in the development.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion
to close the public hearing. The motion carried.
Mr. Harmon MOVED to approve staff recommendation to change the parcels to commercial
designations. Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED the motion.
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning,CPA-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan:I mendmenis,ZCa-96--Admire Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25. 1996
Page 12
CPA-96-30 City of Kent - Finance Dot& CPA-96-3(G) - Public Works Dent
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements of
the Comprehensive Plan need to be updated due to the Meridian Annexation. The major changes
include updating additions to inventory,projects, and financial information relating to the larger City
limits. Mr. O'Neill stated that Finance Director May Miller and City Engineer Gary Gill are
available to answer any specific questions the Board may have.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Finance Director Mav Miller stated that she was available to answer any question the Board may
have. After no public testimony, Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and Ron Harmon
SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED to accept the staff recommended amendments for the Capital
Facilities and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the November 25
staff report. The motion was SECONDED by Board member Tom Brotherton. Motion carried.
#ZCA-96-7 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURES.
Planner Matt Jackson outlined the staff recommended proposals for administrative variances and
procedures as discussed in the staff report. The staff is recommending changing the zoning code to
implement Administrative Variance procedures, expand the use of joint use of parking facilities and
implement new transit and rideshare provisions, and increase the maximum allowable size of
detached accessory dwelling units that can be converted from existing accessory buildings.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned if there was an existing fee for variances. Mr. Jackson
explained the current fee structure ($100 for single family residential variances and $300 for other
variances). Board member Tom Brotherton questioned whether this procedure would apply with an
existing code violation. Mr. Jackson explained that the City typically tries togive a person a grace
period to either meet the standards in place or apply for a variance. If the variance is not approved
then thev are liable to code enforcement action.
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Rodger Anderson,Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th Ave NE,Kirkland
Mr. Anderson is a member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce. He supports the proposal.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the
public hearing. Motion carried.
ZCA-96-5 ,Ilixed Use ZoningXP.4-96-31A-G 96 Comp Plan,-amendments:ZCA-96-7 Admin Variance Procedures
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 25, 1996
Page 13
Mr. Harmon MOVED to accept the staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report for
Administrative Variance procedures. Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Gloria LaBore SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted.
I �1�
Ja es P. Harris
ecording Secretary
C 1,USERSVDOC`.LANDUSEAMINUTESIPCMIN0519
ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use ZoningiCP,4-96-3(A-G) 96 Comp Plan Amendments;ZC.1-96-'Admire Variance Procedures
CITY OFa���
Jim White, Mavor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
November ?5. 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL,CHAIR AND LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON. PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: 4ZCA-96-7 - ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Department has been evaluating opportunities for administrative procedures or
variances in an effort to become more responsive to the current development climate. During the
last few years the City has made a commitment to streamlining, the permit process while still
delivering a thorough and fair review of all applications. Over time it has become apparent that
more administrative authority in some situations could save both the City and citizens valuable time
when the strict application of some development standards does not recognize unique site conditions.
innovative designs. and/or common sense.
The draft language included in this memo would allow the Planning Director to grant Administrative
Variances for up to twenty-Five percent(25%) of the numerical standard for setbacks. lot coverage,
and building height. The public would continue to be involved in this process: however, a public
hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner would not be required for these minor requests. This could
potentially save up to two months in review time for those applications which are typically non-
contested and have little impact on neighboring properties. Any project which the Planning Director
determines would benefit from a more formal quasi-judicial review could be referred to the Hearing
Examiner for a public hearing.
In addition to Administrative Variances, staff has reviewed existing parking requirements in order
to include language which reflects the City's Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) Ordinance which weiit
into effect in January 1993. State law requires large empto%ers to work with local jurisdictions in
an effort to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated bti their employees. Staff is recommending
administrative procedures which would reduce the minimum number of parking stalls required for
"04th A%E SO ;KEV"T �k %SHIM;1OA 11R0;' < ), Tu_I-NIIUVI
Subject: #ZCA-96-7 Administrative Variances and Procedures
November 25, 1996
Page 2
those businesses which have a documented commute trip reduction program. Staff is also
recommending changes to the requirements for the joint use of parking facilities between adjacent
uses. These proposed changes would allow more flexibility and would foster a better relationship
between the parking required by the Zoning Code and the actual needs of individual businesses. In
the future, the Planning Department plans to do a broader evaluation of all parking standards
including minimums, maximums, and sizes when it undertakes a zoning code revision project in
1997.
Finally, staff is proposing an amendment to the accessory dwelling unit(ADU) regulations to allow
the conversion of existing legally constructed accessory buildings to accessory dwelling units if they
do not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the size of the principal building. The existing zoning code
standard limits the size of detached accessory dwelling units to 800 square feet, or thirty-three
percent (33) of the size of the principal building, whichever is smaller. This amendment recognizes
that converting existing accessory buildings to ADUs will not create additional adverse aesthetic
impact to neighborhoods, and will have limited applicability.
The following sections of this memorandum outline recommended amendments to the zoning code
in order to implement Administrative Variances and procedures.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
Administrative Variances
Draft Administrative Variance language would update Section 15.09.040 of the zoning code.
Purpose. The Planning Director shall have the authority to grant an Administrative Variance for up
to twenty-five (25) percent of the numerical zoning code standard for setbacks, lot coverage, and
building height as provided in this title.
A. Application. The owner or his/her agent may make application for an Administrative
Variance, which shall be on a form prescribed by the Planning Director and filed with the
Planning Department.
The Planning Director shall review applications for completeness, and a notice of'
completeness will be issued within ten (10) days of submittal. Those applications deemed
incomplete shall be returned to the applicant for further action.
B. Public notice. Public notice of the application pending review shall be mailed to the
applicant, their representatives, property owners within three hundred (100) feet of the
subject property, and other agencies with jurisdiction, within fie (10) days of the date of
Subject: #ZCA-96-7 Administrative Variances and Procedures
November 25, 1996
Page 3
completeness. Comments from concerned parties will be accepted for an additional ten (10)
days. Following the end of the comment period. the Planning Director shall have ten (10)
days to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application.
C. Conditions for granting an Administrative Variance. The Planning Director may grant an
Administrative Variance if it is shown that:
1. The Administrative Variance does not detract from the desired character and nature
of the vicinity in which it is proposed:
2. The Administrative Variance enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood
or vicinity by protecting natural features, historic sites, open space, or other
resources:
3. The Administrative Variance does not interfere with or negatively impact the
operations of existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning
district it occupies: and
4. Granting the Administrative Variance does not constitute a threat to the public health,
safety, and welfare within the city.
D. Appeals. Appeals of the Planning Director's decision may be submitted within ten (10) days
of the date of the Directors decision by the applicant or any party of record. The City of
Kent Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing to consider an appeal. The Planning
Director may, under his own authority or at the request of the applicant or his agent, refer any
application for an Administrative Variance to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing.
E. Fee. The fee for an administrative variance shall he $100.
Parking Amendments
Shared Parkine
Staff is proposing an amendment to Section 15.05.040(J) of the zoning code relating to the joint-use
of parking facilities. The following proposed language would allow the Planning Director the
authority to allow shared parking facilities between two or more uses when certain conditions are
met.
Subject: #ZCA-96-7 Administrative Variances and Procedures
November 25, 1996
Page 4
A. Joint Use. The minimum amount of off-street parking required by Section 15.05.040(A)
may be reduced by the Planning Director when shared parking facilities for two or more uses
are proposed if,
1. The total parking area exceeds 5,000 square feet,
2. The parking facilities are designed and developed as a single on-site common parking
facility, or as a system of on-site and off-site facilities if all facilities are connected
with improved pedestrian facilities and located within five hundred (500) feet of the
buildings or use areas they are intended to serve;
3. The amount of reduction in off-street parking does not exceed ten (10) percent per
use unless it is documented that the peak parking demand hours of two or more uses
are separated by at least one hour:
4. The subject properties are legally encumbered by an easement or other appropriate
means which provides for continuous joint use of the parking facilities.
Documentation shall require review and approval by the City Attorney; and
5. The total number of parking spaces in the shared parking facility is not less than the
minimum required by any single use.
Transit and Rideshare Provisions
This proposed language would atnend Section 15.05.040 of the zoning code allowing the Planning
Director the authority to reduce the amount of off-street parking required for those businesses which
have a documented Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program. or include rideshare features in their
parking facilities.
A. The Planning Director may reduce the minimum number of off-street parking stalls for
businesses which have a Commute Trip Reduction program filed with the City. Based upon
a review of this program and input from other staff members. a reduction of up to twenty-five
(211R) percent of the minimum standard may be approv ed.
1. Any reduction in the amount of required parking is only valid for as loma as the
approved CTR program is in effect. An invalidated program or a change in use or
operations would result in the application of the underlying standards per Section
15.05.040 (A) of the zoning code.
Subject: 9ZCA-96-7 Administrative Variances and Procedures
November 25, 1996
Page 5
B. The Planning Director may reduce the number of required off-street parking stalls for
businesses which do not have a Commute Trip Reduction program by one (1) stall for every
two (2) car pool stalls, and/or one (1) stall for every one (1) vanpool stall if;
1. Reserved rideshare parking is located convenient to the primary employee entrance;
2. Reserved areas are clearly marked by signs for use by approved and qualified
rideshare vehicles:
3. The use of reserved areas for rideshare parking is actively enforced by the employer;
and
4. The total reduction in the number of parking stalls does not exceed ten (10) percent
of the required stalls.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Ordinance 43251, approved on November 22, 1995,amended the zoning code(4ZCA-95-3)to allow
accessory dwelling units(ADU's)on single family lots and established regulations for their approval.
thus implementing the Kent Comprehensive Plan. In the application of these new regulations, it has
come to staffs attention that some existing detached accessory buildings are unable to meet the
maximum size requirements of the zoning code. Staff is proposing that Section 15.08.350 (B)(7)
be amended by the following language in order to increase the maximum size limit for those
accessory buildings which were constructed, or approved for construction, prior to the approval date
of the accessory dwellin, unit ordinance.
A. Am, legally constructed accessory building. existing prior to November 22, 1995, may be
converted to an accessory dwelling unit provided the structure does not exceed fifty (50)
percent of the size of the principal unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This is a summary of the recommended zoning amendments to implement Administrative Variances
and procedures. There will be an opportunity to make revisions, deletions, or additions to these
proposals during and after the public hearing on November 25. 1996.
In summary, staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the following
recommendations to the City Council:
Subject: #ZCA-96-7 Administrative Variances and Procedures
November 25, 1996
Page 6
A. Amend the zoning code to implement procedures for Administrative Variances, as
outlined in the staff report.
B. Amend the zoning code to expand the use of joint use parking facilities and
implement new transit and rideshare provisions, as outlined in the staff report.
C. Amend the zoning code to increase the maximum allowable size of detached
accessory dwelling units that can be converted from existing accessory buildings. as
outlined in the staff report.
MP/tb:ZCA967.MM3
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Dick Gillesse. CTR Coordinator
CITY OFs
Jim White, Mavor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris. Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
October 14. 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL,CHAIR AND LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: 4ZCA-96-7 - ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
At the September 9th workshop. we discussed the possibility of implementing administrative
procedures or variances in order to streamline the existing permit process and allow for a mechanism
to respond to unique site and development conditions. These proposed changes have been prompted
by changes in state law which require a timely and predictable permit process, as well as provisions
to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicle trips.
A large portion of this review has been focused on the City's parking standards. Included in this
memo are various options for amending our off street parking code and staffs recommendations for
revisions and or additions. Criteria on which to base these decisions has also been added. Staff
recommended additions to the zoning code relating to parking would not require an administrative
variance, but would be achieved through extendim, the administrative authority of the Planning
Director within the existing review process.
Tire City enacted a commute trip reduction ordinance in January 1993, as required by state law,
which applies to large employers within the City of Kent. Planning Department staff has received
it'll-Lit from the City's Commute Trip Reduction Coordinator which includes research and standards
from neighboring cities. part of which has been included for your review. The CTR Coordinator
has been working with local businesses in developing various transportation programs and will
continue to be involved in any proposed changes based on CTR issues.
Stale is proposing administrative variance procedures for some development standards. These
variances would be limited in scope and would require that the applicant meet specific criteria for
,`1141h \\I vt KI \�W\C IW, )XII I I.I I'IUi 1
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND PROCEDURES - #ZCA-96-7
October 14, 1996
approval. These proposed administrative variances would not require a public hearing, but appeals
of the Planning Director's decisions would be heard in front of the Hearing Examiner.
PARKING PROVISIONS
Commute Trip Reduction Programs
Staff is recommending that administrative procedures be established which provide a reduction in
the minimum number of parking stalls required for those businesses which have a "documented"
commute trip reduction program. These CTR programs would be reviewed and approved by the
City's CTR Coordinator,and a recommendation would be forwarded to the Planning Director. Based
on this input, and additional information and policies available, the Planning Director would have
the authority to reduce the minimum number of parking stalls required. Any car pool or high
occupancy vehicle stalls would be required to be clearly labeled, and their use for such vehicles
enforced. A change in use or ownership which does not meet the provisions of the approved CTR
program would result in the nullification of that program and a parking review based on the standard
parking requirements.
For each car pool stall provided, a reduction of one required parking stall could be allowed. Sites
located near frequent and convenient transit service could be eligible for a reduction. Businesses
could receive a parking reduction for subsidizing employee transit use by providing full or partial
bus passes or constructing transit improvements such as shelters or bus turnouts. Other CTR options
include fee based employee parking or contributing to a future city proposed parking facility.
Shared Parkin
The City currently has limited provisions for joint use parking areas that require businesses to
document that they have dissimilar peak hour parking demands, or have parking areas in excess of
the minimum standards required. Proposed shared parking requirements would allow for more
flexibility in joint use situations.
The Planning Director would have the authority to allow shared parking facilities between two or
more uses when certain conditions are met. The criteria could include a minimum parking area
requirement because parking overflow problems are less likely to develop from larger facilities. A
percentage parking reduction of up to ten percent per use could be allowed outright. A reduction
greater than ten percent per use could be allowed based on documentation that peak parking demand
hours are separated by at least one hour. No reduction would be allowed which resulted in a total
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND PROCEDURES - #ZCA-96-7
October 14, 1996
number of parking stalls below the minimum required for any single use. Shared parking* areas
would be developed as a single, common, facility unless separated facilities are linked by a
pedestrian facility. Shared parking facilities would be required to locate within a radius of five
hundred feet of the buildings or uses they are intended to serve.
A shared parking agreement or covenant, approved by the Planning Director. would have to be
executed by the participating property owners and recorded with King County as a restriction on all
affected properties.
Future Considerations
Other parking issues that staff feels deserve consideration include a review of existing minimum
parking standards and the implementation of parking maximums. Research indicates that some of'
our current minimum standards may be excessive in terms of current demand levels of various types
of land uses. In addition, maximum standards will reduce the amount of excessive parking provided
by developers which will reduce the amount of land used for surface parking. As land for
development becomes more scarce in Kent and land values increase, a more efficient use of property
xvill be necessary. Finally, maximums could reduce the incentive for single occupancy drivers and
encourage more rideshare participation. As mentioned in the September 9th workshop, staff is
anticipating a potential major update to the Zoning Code in 1997, and these issues would be
appropriate for review at that time.
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES
Creating administrative variances would give the Planning Director the authority to make some
decisions that currently are reviewed in front of the hearing examiner. Staff is proposing
adr:.: -.atrative variances for setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. Minimum lot area, density,
and permitted uses would not be affected by this process. Two levels of administrative variances
are proposed. A request for Variance of less than 10 °r0 of the numerical standard in question would
be subject to a Level One review. The following procedures are proposed for Level One
applications:
1. Review and notification of completenes, within ten days.
2. Approval, approval with conditions, or denial by Planning Director within fifteen
days after application is considered complete.
3
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND PROCEDURES - 4ZCA-96-7
October 14, 1996
3. Notice of decision mailed to applicant or their representative.
4. A written appeal by an interested party must be filed with the Planning Director
within fourteen days after the mailing date of notice of decision.
5. Appeals are heard by Hearing Examiner through typical public hearing process.
A request for a Variance of between 10 % and 25 % of the numerical standard in question would be
subject to a Level Two review. The following procedures are proposed for Level Two applications:
1. Review and notification of completeness within ten days.
2. Public notice of the application pending review would be required within five
working days after notice of completion. The applicant, their representatives,
property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, and other agencies with
jurisdiction would be included in notification.
3. Written comments received by the Planning Director within fifteen days of the date
of the notice would be considered.
4. The applicant would be mailed a copy of comments received within the comment
period. and they would be allowed ten working days from the date the comments are
mailed to submit responses.
5. Within five working days after the date of applicant response, the Planning director
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Notification of this
decision would be mailed to parties of record
6. A written appeal by an interested party must be filed with the Planning Director
within fourteen days after the mailing date of notice of decision.
7. Appeals are heard by Hearing Examiner through typical public hearing process.
The granting of an administrative variance would be based on its compliance with several criteria.
First, granting the variance would not distract from the desired character and nature of the vicinity
in which it is proposed, or it enhances it by protecting natural, historic, open space or other
resources. The variance cannot interfere with or negativel,: impact the operations of existing land
4
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES AND PROCEDURES - #ZCA-96-7
October 14, 1996
uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning district it occupies. Finally, granting the
variance would not constitute a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare within the City of
Kent.
If an administrative variance is included in a project which involves a separate Land Use Permit such
as a Conditional Use, it shall be included in that application for a single review and hearing process.
The Planning Director would have the option of deferring any Level One or Two Variance to the
Hearing Examiner if it is determined that a public hearing would be more appropriate for an
application.
CONCLUSION
This memo is a summary of the staff proposed amendments to the zoning code. At the workshop
on October 14th, the Board will have the opportunity to suggest revisions, deletions, and/or
additions. If you have any questions prior to the workshop, feel free to contact me at 859-4152.
MJ/tb:ZCA967.MM2
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Dick Gillesse, CTR Coordinator
5
F*F12 rje pM �� �A2v,AJ,T J L,41►p nZS k NOD
aL �c Woeks DEfA,erMF�i, �e�FT �/6/9�
The following alternatives to blanket parking minimums standard are being used by an
increasing number of jurisdictions:
• Lowered Minimums. Parking minimums which exceed actual demand can be lowered to
a level commiserate with actual demand.
0 Reduced Minimums Based on CTR Plans. Employers with approved commute trip
reduction programs may be offered further reductions in their required parking minimums.
• Cash-out Parking Programs. Cash-out programs offer employees who use alternative
commute modes and relinquish their parking space, its cash value. Cities can encourage
cash-out programs by offering employers who implement them reduced parking
minimums.
• Fee Based Parking. Charging employees for parking is another CTR measure, which can
be encouraged by offering employers who implement them reduced parking minimums.
• Parking Maximums. To prevent developers from building excess parking, a maximum
may be imposed which limits the number of parkins spaces allowed per development.
V. Parking Regulations in Kent and Other Jurisdictions
In response to growth pressures and the state Commute Trip Reduction Program, a
number of south King County cities have undertaken reviews of their parking standards. Their
conclusions are summarized here.
A. Recommendations from Renton, Auburn, SeaTac, Federal Way
l Renton
In 1995 Renton completed a review of its parking policy code. City of Renton staff in
conjunction with consultants from Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas revie,A ed Renton's
parking regulations, actual demand rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE), and parking usage in the Renton Valley. With transportation demand management goals in
mind (TDIVI), the City adopted the following changes into its code
1. Established parking maximums as well as minimums(4-14-8)
2. Allows for substitution of a transportation management plans for parking requirements
(4-14-40). If the plan is unsuccessful, the development is obligated to provide additional
measures which may include full parking.
3. Establishes authority to require bicycle, pedestrian and HOV facilities as a part of the
site design process.
4 Expands definition of joint use parkins lot to be up to within 750 feet of developments
and allows for joint use driveways.
The implementation of parkin, maximums establishes an important precedent, though it is
questionable as to whether the current maximums are low enough to substantially assist commute
trip reduction goals. Substitution of transportation management plans for parking requirements
opens the door to coordination between parking and CTR programs, while the ability to require
additional measures if the program is unsuccessful protects the city against spillover problems.
2. Auburn
In January of 1996 David Evans and Associates completed a draft review of the City of
Auburn's parking policies, ordinances, and programs under the guidance of a team which included
City staff, King County Metro staff, a Citizen's Advisory Committee and Berk and Associates.
The report aims to create a parking plan based on estimated future demand, respond to commute
trip reduction goals, be financially feasible, sensitive to the needs of the business community, and
support the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
The draft report makes recommendations regarding the City's overall parking policy and
specific classes of parking. The recommendations by class are to:
General Recommendations
1. Allow major employers to qualify for reduced parking requirements based on
documented reductions in commute trips.
2. Establish maximum parking levels at 159 o over current demand
3. Establish a simple procedure to allow for shared parking
Residential .Areas
1. Establish downtown residential parking permits
2. Reduce multi-family & duplex parking requirements to the single family.
3. Apply lower parking rates in the CBD
Commercial
1. Allow one carpool space to substitute for 2 SOV spaces
2. Allow a five percent reduction in parking for each ten percent reduction in commute
trips.
3. Allow for shared parking.
4. Establish separated reduced requirements for downtown.
5. Require pedestrian connectivity between lots
6 Require a minimum of one bike rack.
Off-street parkin,
1. Review in lieu of fees programs
2. Reduce minimum size for stalls to 9' x 18'
If implemented, the Auburn policies like Renton would establish the precedent of parking
maximums, though again at conservative levels. The Auburn polices also allow for the
substitution of CTR programs for parking requirements, though only for existing employers with
documented reductions in commute trips. This represents a more conservative approach than
Renton's policies, which would provide greater insurance against spillover problems but also
prevent new employers from participating.
3. SeaTac
In April of 1995 the City of SeaTac Departments of Planning and Public Works issued a
draft review of local parking policies and ordinances. They sought to determine the basic parking
supply in the City for commercial office buildings and revise policies to support CTR goals.
The SeaTac study determined that a rate of one parking space per 400 gross square feet
(2.5 spaces per 1,000 gs6 of commercial office space would accommodate demand, whereas the
ten major office developments in SeaTac provide approximately one space per 300 gross square
feet, 30% more parking needed.
SeaTac's draft recommendations are that the Citv
1. Establish a uniform parking standard of 1 space per 400 szross square feet (2.5 spaces
per 1,000 gsf), but allow reductions for developments with HOV parking, bike parking,
special transit or HOV loading & unloading spaces.
2. Increase parking spaces reserved for ridesharing to 1 HOV space per 12 spaces from 1
HOV space per 15 spaces.
4 Federal Wav
The City of Federal Way like the City of Kent is in the process of reviewing its parking
policies. Conversations with City staff indicate they are examining establishing a uniform parkins
level, that would require approval for exceptions either above or below the mandated level.
B. Downtown Kent Recommendations
In 1994 KJS Associates produced a study of downtown parking for the Citv of Kent. The
study e<amined existing and future downtown parkins needs through the use of parking space
inventories, key person interviews, and employer questionnaires. It proposed ten policy options
for consideration in the downtown area
l New parking structures could be required to incorporate ground-level retail and/or
service facilities
2 The zoning code could be revised to include both minimum and maximum parking
requirements for all general and professional office and employment use.
3. No parking maximums are recommended for retail or residential uses.
4. Parking requirements for all other uses would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
5. The distinction between surface and structure parking could be eliminated in zoning
regulations.
6. Developers could have the option to pay a fee toward a City parking fund in-lieu of
building parking themselves.
7. Require reduced maximums for developments near transit facilities.
S. Require a certain ratio of parking spaces be reserved for HOV parking.
9. Require bicycle parking.
10. Eliminate current distinctions between the DCE, DC, and DLM zones within
downtown.
None of the policies proposed by the KJS study have yet been adopted by the City.
Parking maximums carefully set at sufficiently low levels could greatly support commute trip
reduction goals by eliminating excess parking. HOV and bicycle parking spaces would promote
commute trip reduction by supporting alternatives to driving alone. Mixed-use development also
has the potential to reduce automotive use by increasing the number of trips that can be made on
foot.
C. Summary
South King Countv cities are reviewing their parking policies in light of commute trip
reduction goals and changin_= land economics. Land is neither as cheap nor plentiful in south
County as it once was. One way cities can more efficiently use their land base is to minimize
space devoted to excess parking. The trend appears to be toward introducing either maximum
parking ratios or uniform parking standards. Additionally, cities are moving towards
implementing programs which allow employers to substitute commute trip reduction programs for
parking spaces. Some cities are also examining how parking policies relate to pedestrian and bike
access.
CITY OF
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
September 9. 1996
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL.CHAIR AND LAND tISE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: 4ZCA-96-7 - ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURES
In recent years, the issue of improving the permit process and communication between the
development community and staff has been a primary Focus for the city. Providing a clear,
predictable, and timely process, as well as, more flexible development standards can be achieved
while still protecting the public interest and adhering to state laws. To this end, the Planning
Department is evaluating opportunities for administrative procedures or variances which
acknowledge unique site conditions or types of' development where flexibility beyond existing
standards is reasonable and results in better development within the city. The Planning Director
would have the authority to grant administrative variances when certain situations are present or
conditions are met. Providing administrative variances should result in reduced review time in some
situations which otherwise would need to go to the Hearing Examiner for resolution. The scope of
this project will be limited. due to the fact that the Planning Department is anticipating a large scale
zoning code update in 1997.
Staff does not anticipate changes in residential standards since two ordinances passed in recent
months (93268; #3290) have resulted in more flexibility in site design including lot width, minimum
lot size, and front yard setbacks, as well as, establishing maximum permitted densities. In addition,
changes are not expected to current landscaping regulations and building height requirements since
there are existing procedures in place that give the Planning Director the authority to make
administrative decisions.
Two areas being considered for administrative variances are parking requirements and
commercial/industrial development standards. The cite has a Commute Trip Reduction Program
(CTR) which encourages large employers to provide commuting options to employees, such as car
pools, van pools. and flexible work hours. Those businesses which have a documented CTR
"n-!inVAI U FI �I UIIIA(1I � +�i. ` 'i, . IIIII'IIi rnn tnn:IAA •; 1
Administrative Variance Procedures - #ZCA-96-7
September 9, 1996
Page 2
program could be eligible for a reduction in the minimum parking requirement based on a lower
parking need.
Commercial/industrial standards have not come under a recent review, and there may be
opportunities for administrative variances.
Staff is reviewing administrative variances from other jurisdictions and anticipates additional input
from the Planning Board on this matter. Additional areas for consideration may arise through the
workshops and subsequent public hearing. Workshops are scheduled for September 9th and October
14th, and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 28th.
MJ/tb:ZCA96-7.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE k
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
t :
r
i
Atr "�.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
DECEMBER 4, 1996
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Jim Bennett, Leona Orr
STAFF PRESENT: Ken Chatwin, Becky Fowler, Charlie Lindsey, Roger Lubovich, Brent McFall,
May Miller, Kelli O'Donnell, Michael Sigsbee, Tom Vetsch, Sue Viseth, Margaret Yetter
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None.
The meeting was called to order at 4:32 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson.
Indigent Defense Counsel Contract
Director of Operations Brent McFall stated that this is a renewal contract with the current provider and
distributed a revised page noting the change would extend the proposed contract to two years. McFall
stated that the previous contract set a limit of 15,000 cases a year for the set retainer with the allowance
for additional charges on cases above the cap. The new contract raises the monthly fee to $16,500
regardless of the number of cases. He noted that the projection for extra cases for 1996 could be as high
as $30,000; the new monthly fee will only cost $12,000 more annually which is much more reasonable
than the charge for additional cases. City Attorney Roger Lubovich added that Stewart and Goss has not
claimed the excess cases for 1996 that they could have billed. Committee Chair Johnson asked how the
firm was selected. He was informed that an RFP process was done last year and the City has been pleased
with the services received. Committeemember Orr questioned the mention of transition cases from Aukeen
District Court. McFall noted that this would be for any lingering cases only. Orr then moved to
recommend approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with Stewart and Goss P.S. for
1997 and 1998 indigent defense counsel services as amended. Committeemember Bennett seconded the
motion which passed 3-0.
Safet�:Awards Program Renewal - 1997
Risk Manager Ken Chatwin reviewed the proposed changes to the 1997 safety awards program. He noted
that the program would be expanded to include health issues and local merchant gift certificates would be
utilized as incentives. Committee Chair Johnson noted that comments from employees have been good
for this program. Chatwin agreed noting that claims have remained under the 1993 level and this program
allows the City to share the rewards with employees. Committeemember Bennett moved to recommend
approval of the 1997 Safety Awards Program as proposed. Orr seconded the motion which passed 3-0.
Worleers' Compensation Claims Handling Contract
Ken Chatwin reported that at this time he would not recommend going to an RFP process since he was
very happy with the services of Scott Wetzel. He explained that a final contract has not been drawn up but
a letter outlining the proposed changes was included in the agenda packet. He noted that the costs are the
same as the previous contract except for the increase for medical and indemnity claims which is utilized
for sound level checks, etc. Ken recommended that the city stay with Scott Wetzel as the third party
administrator for 1997. Committeemember Orr moved to recommend approval of the contract with Scott
Wetzel for workers' compensation claims administration with the fee schedule outlined. Bennett seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion..
Centennial Center Custodial Bid
Facilities Manager Charlie Lindsey introduced the newly hired Assistant Facilities Manager Michael
Sigsbee to the Committee. Finance Director May Miller stated that after conducting a bid process for
custodial services at the Centennial Center it is recommended that the contract be awarded to the low
bidder. Lindsey stated that the needs for custodial services were outlined in the bid documents and the low
bidder was not the current vendor. The low bidder was a local contractor and references received high
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT.
Pecemh�r_�, 1 A�
praise for the bidder. Miller added that extra services were added to the basic custodial services such as
carpet cleaning. Orr asked if the contract was based on 100% occupancy of the building. Lindsey
responded that the contractor will be paid based on what is actually cleaned. After further discussion,
Bennett moved to recommend approval to award a three year Centennial custodial contract to the low
bidder, Varsity Contractors, for $56,625.49 with authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract; Orr
seconded the motion. Committee Chair Johnson called for a vote and the motion passed 3-0.
Centennial Center Tenant Improvements
May Miller distributed a memorandum summarizing the bids received for the project and reported that ten
bids had been received, one of which was an electrical subcontractor and was eliminated. References were
checked on the lowest accepted bid and no positive references were received so it is recommended that the
contract be awarded to the second lowest bidder. Bennett asked if this would create any legal problems.
McFall responded that he had talked with the City Attorney who believes that we have sufficient cause to
go to the second bidder. McFall noted that he would not be surprised if a claim is filed. Bennett asked if
references were required as part of the process. Lindsey noted that references were requested from the
three low bidders and all of the references from the low bidder were quite negative. McFall added that in
the bid specs the city had reserved the right to reject any and all bids. Orr moved to recommend that the
bid be awarded to the second lowest bidder H & S Construction Inc., for $54,999.00 and that the Mayor
be authorized to sign a contract for the work.
Local Improvement District 345 Bond Issue
May Miller reported that the bonds have been sold with our new underwriter, Dain Bosworth. They were
priced yesterday and it was the lowest price they have had since March. She stated how pleased she was
with the rate and added that Joel Ing will be at the Council meeting. May distributed a proposed purchase
contract which had been reviewed by the city's bond counsel and legal department and recommended
approval of the ordinance and the signing of the purchase agreement with Dain Bosworth. Bennett moved
to recommend approval of the bond ordinance related to the issuance of LID Bonds to fund street, water,
and sewer improvements within LID 345, and authorize the Mayor to sign the Bond Purchase Agreement
with Dain Bosworth, Inc. Orr seconded the motion which carried 3-0.
Accounts Receivable Write-Off
May Miller stated that this is an annual housekeeping procedure to review accounts receivable and
recommend those that should be removed from the books. The State Auditor asks that we do this once a
year. She noted that in the miscellaneous accounts area$5,084.06 should be written off. She noted these
are uncollectible. Bennett asked what the percentage is written off. Miller replied that the total of all
accounts receivable is $1,884,777 so a write-off of$5,000 is pretty small. She complimented the staff for
their follow through. The second part is related to the Court which has not had any receivables written off
since we took it over. May continued that the parking violations were reviewed with the collection agency
and it was determined that the 1992 and 1993 cases should be written off amounting to $10,563. We are
leaving on the books 1994,1995, and 1996, Miller explained, and have changed collection agencies. She
introduced Court Administrator Margaret Yetter to explain the remaining accounts collection program.
Margaret reported that the Court has been working with Renton Collections since June and in five months
over 6,000 cases have been sent to them. She stated that approximately $20,000 a month has been
collected by them. Margaret stated that based on a five year plan, Renton Collection predicts a 75%
collection rate. She recommended that we keep all of our cases with collections to give them the five years
Page 2
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT.
to collect. She added that with traffic infractions after a five year period the hold on driver's licenses is
removed. If the case is still with collections, the Court can go back and put the hold back on. Margaret
reviewed the collection process with the Committee. During further discussion, McFall noted that the
Court retains jurisdiction over the case for an extended period of time and in some cases the judge has
given the defendant a year or more to pay the fine so the account is not actually delinquent. After further
discussion Orr asked if the accounts are still collectible after they are written off. Miller responded that
they are still collectible. Bennett moved to authorize write-offs of$5,084.06 of miscellaneous accounts
receivable and $10,563.06 in parking citations.
Budget Adjustment Ordinance for Adjustments Made After Tune 1 1996• HWD Line of Credit:
May Miller stated that these are the adjustments made after the first of June. The June bond issue for the
Centennial Building, Parks Land and Lagoon Project accounts for $35 million of the total. Of the
remaining $8 million, the majority is capital projects. A small amount, $311,000, has not been previously
approved. $200,000 is Metro revenue collected and paid to Metro the remainder is collections due to
projects and internal service corrections. The last part is a line of credit for our Housing Community
Development to cover year-end expenses until they are reimbursed by the County. There being no
questions from the Committee, Orr moved to recommend approval of the budget adjustment ordinance for
adjustments made after June 1, 1996 totaling $43,761,146; and, approve a line of credit in an amount not
the exceed $150,000 to cover housing and community development costs at year end until they are
reimbursed by King County.
Reorganization of Mayor's Office
McFall reported that the incumbent in the Government Affairs position has resigned as of the end of the
year which has resulted in evaluation of the position for duties, and whether it should be restructured for
for placement in the pay plan. Brent stated after conducting that review he is recommending some changes
that will result in a substantial savings in a relatively small budget in comparison to the overall city. He
noted that a couple of elements require Council approval while some of it does not. He proposed that the
Government Affairs Manager position, as provided for in the budget, be continued and be primarily
responsible for our intergovernmental relations and affairs -- monitoring and tracking legislation issues
at King County. He noted the tremendous amount of work in needed in resolving county versus city
issues. Duties would also include tracking issues at the state level. Governmental affairs would be the
primary duty with secondary responsibility for sister city coordination and to work more and more to move
the function to the community. The final responsibility would be public information types of activities.
This would not be in the sense of a Public Information Officer. but rather someone with the time and
expertise to respond to requests for information,to develop good information such as publications to make
available to the media and other organizations such as AWC and NLC. He stated that after looking at the
revised duties it would be appropriately be put at a level 41 in the pay plan which would save almost
$31,000 on an annualized basis.
One of the items requiring Council approval would be related to the Executive Assistant Position. At last
year's retreat Council had requested support for the Council. Brent stated that after discussions with
Council on how to accomplish this, he is recommending that one half time of the Mayor's Executive
Assistant be dedicated to support of the Council. He proposed that half of the expense of the position
would be transferred to the Council budget. He noted that this would be a transfer from one general fund
account to another as a matter of bookkeeping. McFall stated that he does not anticipate a significant
Page 3
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT.
— Dec""v1996
impact on the salary of the Executive Assistant but the normal review process would be followed. He
continued that the Administrative Assistant II position in the office would take on some of the support
functions now provided by the Executive Assistant and would also take on the supervisory function of the
other portion of the proposal. He explained that out of the savings from the Government Affairs Manager
position that a one half time receptionist position be created to allow the freedom to assign the Executive
Assistant to Council and citizen affairs support by offering telephone support for routine calls. The net
affect of this reorganization is an annual savings of just over$18,000. Brent stated that he felt this would
be a prudent move by the City and address the needs that have been previously identified by the City
Council. Based on increased efficiency and costs savings he recommended the above to the Committee.
Committeemember Bennett stated that this is quite a bit to absorb in one fell swoop. He suggested that
since the retreat is just around the comer it might be better to take it there and discuss it. McFall noted that
the only Council action would be the transfer of the Executive Assistant budget amount and the addition
of a receptionist and agreed that it would be appropriate to look at the proposal at the retreat.
Committeemember Orr stated that she found it interesting that we will get a person for almost$31,000 less
than we have been paying for the last three years. She noted her amazement. Speaking of the Council
support person, Orr noted she was not sure that a person of the Executive Assistant caliber was needed for
their support. She agreed it should be looked at in the retreat and whether it should be half time was
questionable. McFall noted that it may not be half time on a daily basis. Committee Chair Johnson asked
how much time Jan and Kelli actually spend now on Council support. McFall replied that it probably
approaches a half time position now although it has not been quantified in the past. Johnson asked if the
Committee agreed that the proposal should be forwarded to the retreat. The Committee concurred.
Johnson questioned the filling of the Government Affairs Manager position. McFall noted that it does not
require Council action since it is in the budget and stated unless the Committee had a strong objection, he
would proceed with hiring the position to be ready for the legislative session as soon as possible. The
Committee agreed with filling the position. Committee Chair Johnson suggested that it would be
appropriate to move that the item be tabled until after the retreat. Orr so moved and Bennett seconded with
the motion passing by a vote of 3-0.
Added Item - Saturday Market Loan
May Miller stated that this is a housekeeping item. In July an interfund loan from the equipment rental
fund to the parks capital project was set up when the building for the Saturday Market was purchased. At
that time the amount of interest that was listed was at 7.25% . The internal interest rate at that time should
have been 5.84%. She explained that normally for internal loans the interest rate of the state pool received
for investments is used. May stated that the legal department did not feel it needed to go to the full
Council but would like a motion to show that the interfund loan had been adjusted to the appropriate
interest rate. Bennett asked if this gives the recipient any better deal than an outside agency. McFall
explained that this is an internal loan as we currently own the property and do not have a purchase and sale
agreement with the Downtown Partnership. After further discussion, Bennett moved to authorize the
approval of the revised interest rate on the Saturday Market loan from 7.25% to 5.84%. Orr seconded the
motion which passed 3-0.
October Financial Report
May Miller reported that she received the property tax information from the county on Monday. She
reported that normally in a reevaluation year you would expect your property value to go up since it has
Page 4
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT.
-- December-4,--1996. --
been two years since it has been assessed and owners have made improvements as well as land value going
up. Miller stated that for the third year in a row property values decreased. No information is received
other than one sheet with numbers. We had estimated it would be $5,100,000 and it came in at$4,800,000.
May stated that she is working with other local cities to find out why the amount has gone down. She
recommended that the levy already passed be left in place although we could raise it from 1.049 of LID
to 1.06. A discussion of the shortage followed. McFall stated that cities are seeing a decreasing of
commercial and industrial properties and an increase on residential resulting in a tax shift by the county.
Miller stated that she will continue to work with other cities to try to appeal to the county or legislature.
May reviewed page 15 of the October Financial Report with the Committee stating that November had a
one time audit adjustment revenue amounting to $620,000. She noted that retail is up 12.3%, service is
up 10%, contracting up 51%, with manufacturing mixed, and wholesaling up. She noted that the rest of
the funds are coming in as budgeted. May asked if there were any questions on the report.
DecemberQanuary Meeting Schedule
Committee Secretary Kelli O'Donnell stated that the December 18 Committee meeting would be before
there is another Council Meeting and the January 1 meeting is on a holiday. McFall suggested that the
meetings be cancelled unless a meeting is called by the Committee Chair. After further discussion,McFall
asked if it would be possible to switch to the second and fourth Wednesday. He noted that the schedule
creates a delay in getting the financial report to the Committee. Orr stated that it still would not work for
her schedule. After further discussion, it was decided to leave the regular meeting schedule on the first
and third Wednesday.
There being no further the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Page 5