HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/22/1991 CITY OF MIN'T
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032
iil # Telephone (206). 859-3390
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING PROCEDURES
July 22, 1991
GENERAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. Call to order
2. Roll Call
3 . Approval of minutes
4. Added items
5. Communications
6. Notice of upcoming meetings
7. Public hearings
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Tracy Faust, Chair, 12/93
Linda Martinez, Vice Chair, 12/91
Gwen Dahle, 12/92
Christopher Grant, 12/91
Greg Greenstreet, 12/92
Albert Haylor, 12/93
Edward Heineman, Jr. , 12/93
Raymond Ward, 12/91
CITY STAFF MEMBER
James P. Harris, Planning Director
ORDER OF DISCUSSION
1. The general order of business 1 through 4 is routine and is
handled rather quickly.
2. Communications:
The public may address the Commission Chairman at this time.
Such communication shall not deal with any item that is
scheduled on the agenda as a public hearing item.
Communications may be put on the agenda as an added item by
the Chairman and discussed by the Commission members.
3 . Public Hearings:
Planning .Commission public hearings are intended to allow the
public, the staff, and the Commission members to engage in a
formal dialogue which discloses all pertinent facets of the
subject under discussion. The Commission receives testimony,
conducts an educated exchange among its members, and makes a
recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing is
conducted as follows:
a. Those who wish to speak are requested to sign up ahead of
time. (Sign-up sheets will be circulated prior to the
hearing. )
b. The Chairman will open the public hearing.
C. City staff will present the subject matter. Planning
Commission members may ask questions of the staff at this
point.
d. The Chairman will next refer to the sign-up sheet and
call those who have signed up to come forward to give
their testimony. Each person will be permitted ten
minutes to speak; during a later rebuttal period, they
will be given three minutes of rebuttal time.
e. If a large, complex proposal is before the Commission,
the Chairman may permit a longer testimony period.
f. At the conclusion of testimony and rebuttal, the
Commission Chairman will call for a vote to close the
public hearing and call upon Planning Commission members
to discuss the subject. Commission members may question
staff, those who gave testimony or elicit information
from any person present.
g. At the conclusion of this phase of the hearing, the
Chairman will entertain a motion.
h. Planning Commission approval or denial of a public
hearing item is in the form of a recommendation to the
City Council. The matter will be referred to the Council
which will deal with it on a future Council agenda.
i. If any party is not satisfied with the results of the
Planning Commission's recommendation, it is suggested the
City Council be informed in writing of any objection or
desired modification of the Commission's recommendations.
j . The minutes of the public hearing are being recorded on
the cassette tapes. It is the obligation of all
participants to provide clear and complete testimony.
This will include allowing time for change of tapes and
stating names, titles or positions, offering spelling as
required. Where unusual or technical terminology is
used, spelling will be helpful.
• If1( K I CITY OF
220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent, WA 98032
Telephone (206) 859-3390
AGENDA
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearing
July 22, 1991
This is to inform you that a scheduled Planning Commission public
hearing will be held on Monday, July 22 , 1991, at 7 : 00 P.M. in the
Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers.
The agenda will include the following items:
1. Call to order
2 . Roll call
3 . Approval of June 24, 1991 Planning Commission minutes
4 . Added items to agenda
5. Communications
6 . Notice of upcoming meetings
7 . Public Hearing:
Foster Industrial Park Lot 18 - SMP-91-1
Multifamily Design Review - ZCA-90-5
CITY OF
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
(206) 859-3390
pdP�IICC1Cd,
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 22, 1991
FILE NO: FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 18 ISMP-91-1
APPLICANT: FIRST AMERICAN, INC.
REQUEST: A request to amend the Kent Shoreline
Master Program shoreline environment from
an existing Conservancy designation to an
Urban designation.
PLANNER: CAROL PROUD
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I . GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal consists of changing an approximately
. 38 acre shoreline area that is currently
designated as a Conservancy environment to an Urban
environment. The applicant intends to provide
accessory parking for a warehouse/distribution
facility within 100 feet of the Ordinary High Water
Mark of the Green River. The request for an
amendment of the shoreline designation is necessary
because the intended parking area is not a
permitted use in the Conservancy shoreline
environment. only recreational uses or
developments are permitted in a Conservancy
shoreline environment.
B. Location
The affected property is lot 18 of the Foster
Industrial Park Subdivision which abuts SR 167 to
the west, 74th Avenue S. to the east and unimproved
S. 259th Street to the south. The subject
shoreline area is located entirely within lot 18.
The western boundary abuts SR 167, the southern
1
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
use the park as a storm detention facility,
shoreline substantial development approval was
necessary. The Hearing Examiner approved the
substantial development permit (#SMA-85-3)
August 21, 1985 subject to the applicant
landscaping the site and in effect constructing the
park.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
An environmental review of the proposed development
on lot 18 which included a review of any shoreline
considerations has been conducted pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . Potential
impacts that were identified included storm
drainage; transportation system and need for
sidewalks.
A Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) with three
mitigating conditions was issued on March 28, 1991
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The subject shoreline area is level ground
with no hydrological considerations
identified.
2 . Vegetation
The site is intermittently covered with
grasses. A large cottonwood tree is located
in the S. 259th right-of-way adjacent to the
subject property.
III. APPLICABLE LAWS, PLANS AND POLICIES
The following laws, plans and policies apply to this
proposal.
3
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
the shoreline area would require a variance
from these standards.
The Conservancy environment only permits
recreational uses within the shoreline area.
variance relief is available from development
standards but not for the specific use itself.
2. Shoreline of State-wide Significance
The Shoreline Management Act has designated
the shorelines of the Green River to be of
state-wide significance. These shorelines are
deemed to be of importance to the entire state
and because these shorelines are major
resources from which all people in the state
derive benefit, the shoreline master program
gives preference to uses which favor public
and long-range goals. Any amendment to a
shoreline environment are subject to the
criteria established in Appendix C (pursuant
to RCW 90.58. 020 and WAC 173-16-040 (5) ) of the
Kent Shoreline Master Program (Please see
appendix B of this report for complete text) .
3 . Other Relevant Goals, Obiectives, or Policies
of the Kent Shoreline Master Program
In order to determine whether the proposal
meets the above listed criteria, it is
necessary to examine other sections of the
Kent Shoreline Master Program.
The following provisions of the Master Program
are relevant to an amendment of the shoreline
environment and this proposal. The provisions
indicate that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the intent of the Master
Program:
Economic Development Element
Goal: Development of the shorelines shall be
limited to uses which are oriented to a
shoreline location, and are compatible with a
natural environment.
5
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
Policy 2 : The City' s Park and
recreation Department
shall take action to
interest State, Federal
and County government in
the City's Action Program
to acquire and develop a
regional riverfront park
system.
The application of these provisions to the
proposal is discussed in Section V below.
IV. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of
this application:
City Administrator Building Official
City Attorney Public Works Director
Fire Chief Chief of Police
In addition to the above, all persons owning property
within 300 feet of the site were notified of the
application and the public hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the State Shoreline Management Act and State
shoreline regulations, and the Kent Shoreline Master
Program. The following is a listing of all state and
local amendment criteria, followed by a discussion of
whether the proposal meets those criteria.
A. State regulations. (Please refer to Appendix A. )
1. WAC 173-16-040 (4)b.
The Conservancy environment is for those areas
which are intended to maintain their existing
character. It is also considered the most suitable
designation for those areas which present too
severe biophysical limitations to be designated as
7
i r
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
ISMP-91-1
If the full effect of the shoreline designation had
been analyzed through the subdivision review
process, it is possible that the plat could have
been modified to eliminate the present conflict
with the restrictive Conservancy designation.
However, the subdivision was approved and has been
substantially developed. It is not anticipated
that the proposed shoreline amendment and resultant
development would be detrimental to the shoreline
environment.
The requested amendment is minor in nature and is
consistent with the criteria set forth in the
Shoreline Management Act. Lot 18 is not adjacent
to the Green River and is separated from the river
bank by S. 259th Street. Retention of the
Conservancy designation from S. 259th Street to the
river ensures full protection of the shoreline and
provides opportunity for continuation of the park
and pedestrian access.
B. Provisions of the Kent Shoreline Master Program
The proposal must also be consistent with the
following principles and the guidelines set forth
at page C-1 of the Master Program for shorelines of
statewide significance. (Please refer to Appendix B
for complete text. )
(1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest
over local interest.
As noted above, the proposal has been
forwarded for comment to several City
departments. Public notice requirements have
been met. Any comments from the public either
written or verbally presented at the Planning
Commission public hearing will be included in
the final recommendation forwarded to the City
Council. The Council will also conduct a
public hearing on the matter as required by
the Kent Shoreline Master Program. The
proposal will be forwarded to the Department
of Ecology for comment prior to final approval
by the City Council. Any statewide interest
that has not been included or considered for
9
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
sediment control. The applicant will be
required to construct a bio-filtration system
for storm water detention further protecting
the shoreline environment.
(5) Increase public access to publicly-owned areas
of the shorelines.
Public access will not be restricted as a
result of the proposed amendment. As
presented, the proposed warehouse building
will be located at the north end of lot 18
outside of the 200 foot shoreline area.
Proposed accessory parking and landscaping
will not impede access to the shoreline area,
as proposed.
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the
public on the shorelines.
Again as previously mentioned, the applicant
must provide a minimum three public parking
spaces for recreational users of the shoreline
area. Possible additional parking may be
provided as space warrants and approval is
obtained from the Department of Public Works.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of this application and the applicable
criteria for granting an amendment to the Shoreline
Master Program, the City staff recommends APPROVAL of the
change in shoreline designation from a Conservancy
environment to an Urban environment. (Staff wishes to
note that the approval of this change in shoreline
designation does not authorize in any way the site and
development plans submitted for said application, which
is dependent on pending master program amendments or
obtaining a variance from current use regulations. A
separate shoreline substantial development permit will be
required in order to authorize eventual development of
the site) .
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July il, 1991
ch:c:sW911rpt
11
Staff Report
Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18
#SMP-91-1
APPENDIX A
SEE ATTACHED
WAC 173-16.040 (4)B
WAC 173-19.060
12
173-16-040 loorelines—Development of Master Progra*
the use of citizen involvement and measurement on con- shoreline uses, systematically as belonging to these ge-
currence should be included. neric classes of activities, the policies and goals in the
(i) Public notice shall include: master programs can be clearly applied to different
(i) Reference to the authority under which the rule is shoreline uses. In the absence of this kind of specificit?
proposed. in the master programs, the application of policy and use
(ii) A statement of either the terms or substance of regulations could be inconsistent and arbitrary.
the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and is- The plan elements are:
sues involved. (a) Economic development element for the location
(iii) The time, place and manner in which interested and design of industries, transportation facilities, port
persons may present their views thereon (as stated in facilities, tourist facilities, commercial and other devel-
RCW 30.04.025 [34.04.025]). opments that are particularly dependent on shoreland
(2) Policy statements. Each local government shall locations.
submit policy statements, developed through the citizen (b) Public access element For assessing the need for
involvement process, regarding shoreline development as providing public access to shoreline areas.
part of its master program. Because goal statements are (c) Circulation element for assessing the location and
often too general to be useful to very specific decision extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
problems, the policy statements are to provide a bridge transportation routes, terminals and other public facili-
for formulating and relating use regulations to the goals ties and correlating those facilities with the shoreline use
also developed through the citizen involvement process. elements.
In summary, the policy statements must reflect the in- (d) Recreational element for the preservation and ex-
tent of the act, the goals of the local citizens, and spe- pansion of recreational opportunities through programs
cifically relate the shoreline management goals to the of acquisition, development and various means of less-
master program use regulations. than-fee acquisition.
Clearly stated policies are essential to the viability of (d) Shoreline use element for considering:
the master programs. The policy statements will not only (i) The pattern of distribution and location require-
support the environmental designations explained below, ments of land uses on shorelines and adjacent areas, in-
but, also being more specific than goal statements, will eluding, but not limited to, housing, commerce, industry,
provide an indication of needed environmental designa- transportation, public buildings and utilities, agriculture,
lions and use regulations. education and natural resources.
The following methodology for developing policy (ii) The pattern of distribution and location require-
statements is recommended: ments of water uses including, but not limited to, aqua-
(a) Obtain a broad citizen input in developing policy culture, recreation and transportation.
by involving interested citizens and all private and public (f) Conservation element for the preservation of the
entities having interest or responsibilities relating to natural shoreline resources, considering such character-
shorelines. Form a citizen advisory committee and con- istics as scenic vistas, parkways, estuarine areas for fish
duct public meetings as outlined in WAC 173-16- and wildlife protection, beaches and other valuable nat-
040(1) to encourage citizens to become involved in de- ural or aesthetic features.
veloping a master program. (g) Historical/cultural element for protection and
(b) Analyze existing policies to identify those policies restoration of buildings, sites and areas having historic
that may be incorporated into the master program and cultural, educational or scientific values.
those which conflict with the intent of the act. Further, (h) In addition to the above-described elements, local
identify constraints to local planning and policy imple- governments are encouraged to include in their master
mentation which are a result of previous government ac- programs, an element concerned with the restoration of
lions, existing land-use patterns, actions of adjacent areas to a natural useful condition which are blighted by
jurisdictions or other factors not subject to local control abandoned and dilapidated structures. Local govern-
or influence. ments are also encouraged to include in their master
(c) Formulate goals for the use of shoreline areas and programs any other elements, which, because of present
develop policies to guide shoreland activities to achieve uses or future needs, are deemed appropriate and neces-
these goals. sary to effectuate the Shoreline Management Act.
The policies should be consistent with RCW 90.58- (4) Environments. In order to plan and effectively
.020 and provide guidance and support to local govern- manage shoreline resources, a system of categorizing
ment actions regarding shoreline management. shoreline areas is required for use by local governments
Additionally, the policies should express the desires of in the preparation of master programs. The system is
local citizens and be based on principles of resource designed to provide a uniform basis for applying policies
management which reflect the stale-wide public interest and use regulations within distinctively different shore-
in all shorelines of state-wide significance. line areas. To accomplish this, the environmental desig-
(3) Master program elements. Consistent with the nation to be given any specific area is to be based on the
general nature of master programs, the following land existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities
and water use elements are to be dealt with, when ap- and limitations of the shoreline being considered for de-
'
propriate, in the local master programs. By dealing with velopment and the goals and aspirations of loci
citizenry. -
ICh. 173-16 wnC—p 41 (4/15/s5)
196orelines—Development of Master PrograAe 173-16-040
The recommended system classifies shorelines into the natural characteristics which make these areas
four distinct environments (natural, conservancy, rural unique and valuable.
and urban) which provide the framework for imple- The main emphasis of regulation in these areas should
menting shoreline policies and regulatory measures. be on natural systems and resources which require severe
This system is designed to encourage uses in each en- restrictions of intensities and types of uses to maintain
vironment which enhance the character of that environ- them in a natural state. Therefore, activities which may
ment. At the same time, local government may place degrade the actual or potential value of this environment
reasonable standards and restrictions on development so should be strictly regulated. Any activity which would
that such development does not disrupt or destroy the bring about a change in the existing situation would be
character of the environment. desirable only if such a change would contribute to the
The basic intent of this system is to utilize perform- preservation of the existing character.
ante standards which regulate use activities in accord- The primary determinant for designating an area as a
ante with goals and objectives defined locally rather natural environment is the actual presence of some
than to exclude any use from any one environment. unique natural or cultural features considered valuable
Thus, the particular uses or type of developments placed in their natural or original condition which are relatively
in each environment must be designed and located so intolerant of intensive human use. Such features should
that there are no effects detrimental to achieving the be defined, identified and quantified in the shoreline in-
objectives of the environment designations and local de- ventory. The relative value of the resources is to be
velopment criteria. based on local citizen opinion and the needs and desires
This approach provides an "umbrella" environment of other people in the rest of the state.
class over local planning and zoning on the shorelines. (ii) Conservancy environment. The objective in desig-
Since every area is endowed with different resources, has nating a conservancy environment is to protect, conserve
different intensity of development and attaches different and manage existing natural resources and valuable his-
social values to these physical and economic characteris- toric and cultural areas in order to ensure a continuous
tics, the environment designations should not be re- now of recreational benefits to the public and to achieve
garded as a substitute for local planning and land—use sustained resource utilization.
regulations. The conservancy environment is for those areas which
(a) The basic concept for using the system is for local are intended to maintain their existing character. The
governments to designate their shorelines into environ- preferred uses are those which are nonconsumptive of
ment categories that reflect the natural character of the the physical and biological resources of the area. Non-
shoreline areas and the goals for use of characteristically consumptive uses are those uses which can utilize re-
different shorelines. The determination as to which des- sources on a sustained yield basis while minimally
ignation should be given any specific area should be reducing opportunities for other future uses of the re-
made in the following manner: sources in the area. Activities and uses of a nonperman-
(i) The resources of the shoreline areas should be an- ent nature which do not substantially degrade the
alyzed for their opportunities and limitations for differ- existing character of an area are appropriate uses for a
ent uses. Completion of the comprehensive inventory of conservancy environment. Examples of uses that might
resources is a requisite to identifying resource attributes be predominant in a conservancy environment include
which determine these opportunities and limitations. diffuse outdoor recreation activities, timber harvesting
(ii) Each of the plan elements should be analyzed for on a sustained yield basis, passive agricultural uses such
their effect on the various resources throughout shoreline as pasture and range lands, and other related uses and
areas. Since shorelines are only a part of the system of activities.
resources within local jurisdiction, it is particularly im- The designation of conservancy environments should
portant that planning for shorelines be considered an in- seek to satisfy the needs of the community as to the
tegral part of area—wide planning. Further, plans, present and future location of recreational areas proxi-
policies and regulations for lands adjacent to the shore- mate to concentrations of population, either existing or
lines of the state should be reviewed in accordance with projected. For example, a conservancy environment des-
RCW 90.58.340. ignation can be used to complement city, county or state
(iii) Public desires should be considered through the plans to legally acquire public access to the water.
citizen involvement process to determine which environ- The conservancy environment would also be the most
ment designations reflect local values and aspirations for suitable designation for those areas which present too
the development of different shoreline areas. sever biophysical limitations to be designated as rural or
(b) The management objectives and features which urban environments. Such limitations would include ar-
characterize each of the environments are given below to eas of steep slopes presenting erosion and slide hazards,
provide a basis for environment designation within local areas prone to flooding, and areas which cannot provide
jurisdictions. adequate water supply or sewage disposal.
(i) Natural environment. The natural environment is (iii) Rural environment. The rural environment is in-
intended to preserve and restore those natural resource tended to protect agricultural land from urban expan-
systems existing relatively free of human influence. Lo- sion, restrict intensive development along undeveloped
cal policies to achieve this objective should aim to regu- shorelines, function as a buffer between urban areas, and
late all potential developments degrading or changing
(4/15/85) ICh. 173-16 WAC-p 51
173-16-040 ohorelines--Development of Master Prograo
maintain open spaces and opportunities for recreational access to the water in the urban environment should be
uses compatible with agricultural activities. accomplished in the master program. To enhance water-
The rural environment is intended for those areas front and ensure maximum public use, industrial an,'
characterized by intensive agricultural and recreational commercial facilities should be designed to permit pL
uses and those areas having a high capability to support destrian waterfront activities. Where practicable, various
active agricultural practices and intensive recreational access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized trans-
development. Hence, those areas that are already used portation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths.
for agricultural purposes, or which have agricultural po- (5) Shorelines of state—wide significance. The act des-
tential should be maintained for present and future agri- ignated certain shorelines as shorelines of state—wide
cultural needs. Designation of rural environments should significance. Shorelines thus designated are important to
also seek to alleviate pressures of urban expansion on the entire state. Because these shorelines are major re-
prime farming areas. sources from which all people in the state derive benefit,
New developments in a rural environment are to re- the guidelines and master programs must give preference
flect the character of the surrounding area by limiting to uses which favor public and long—range goals.
residential density, providing permanent open space and Accordingly, the act established that local master
by maintaining adequate building setbacks from water programs shall give preference to uses which meet the
to prevent shoreline resources from being destroyed for principles outlined below in order of preference. Guide-
other rural types of uses. lines for ensuring that these principles are incorporated
Public recreation facilities for public use which can be into the master programs and adhered to in implement-
located and designed to minimize conflicts with agricul- ing the act follow each principle.
tural activities are recommended for the rural environ- (a) Recognize and protect the state—wide interest over
ment. Linear water access which will prevent local interest. Development guidelines:
overcrowding in any one area, trail systems for safe (i) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and
nonmotorized traffic along scenic corridors and provi- individuals representing state—wide interests by circulat-
sions for recreational viewing of water areas illustrate ing proposed master programs for review and comment
some of the ways to ensure maximum enjoyment of rec- by state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions' citizen advisory
reational opportunities along shorelines without conflict- committees, and state—wide interest groups. (See Ap-
ing with agricultural uses. In a similar fashion, pendix, Reference No. 32.)
agricultural activities should be conducted in a manner (ii) Recognize and take into account state agencies
which will enhance the opportunities for shoreline recre- policies, programs and recommendations in developing
ation. Farm management practices which prevent ero- use regulations. Reference to many of these agencie,'
sion and subsequent siltation of water bodies and policies are provided in the appendix. This informatiG
minimize the flow of waste material into water courses can also be obtained by contacting agencies listed in the
are to be encouraged by the master program for rural Shoreline Inventory Supplement Number One.
environments. (iii) Solicit comments, opinions and advice from indi-
(iv) Urban environment. The objective of the urban viduals with expertise in ecology, oceanography, geology,
environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shore- limnology, aquaculturc and other scientific fields perti-
lines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive nent to shoreline management. Names of organizations
public use and by managing development so that it cn- and individuals which can provide expert advice can be
hances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of ur- obtained from the department's resource specialist
ban uses. listing.
The urban environment is an area of high—intensity (b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
land—use including residential, commercial, and indus- Development guidelines:
trial development. The environment does not necessarily (i) Designate environments and use regulations to
include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is minimize man—made intrusions on shorelines.
particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to (ii) Where intensive development already occurs, up-
extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas grade and redevelop those areas to reduce their adverse
planned to accommodate urban expansion. Shorelines impact on the environment and to accommodate future
planned for future urban expansion should present few growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to ex-
biophysical limitations for urban activities and not have tend into low intensity use or underdeveloped areas.
a high priority for designation as an alternative (iii) Ensure that where commercial timber—cutting is
environment. allowed as provided in RCW 90.58.150, reforestation
Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a lim- will be possible and accomplished as soon as practicable.
ited resource, emphasis should be given to development (c) Result in long—term over short—term benefit. De-
within already developed areas and particularly to wa- velopment guidelines:
ter—dependent industrial and commercial uses requiring (i) Prepare master programs on the basis of preserving
frontage on navigable waters. the shorelines for future generations. For example, ac-
In the master program, priority is also to be given to lions that would convert resources into irreversible uses
planning for public visual and physical access to water in or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic
the urban environment. Identifying needs and planning shorelines of state—wide significance, should be sever._
for the acquisition of urban land for permanent public limited.
[Ch. 173-16 WAC-p 61 (4/15/85)
• Isorelines—Development of Master Progran* 173-16-050
(ii) Evaluate the short—term—economic gain or conve- the first three sources. Most beach material in Puget
nience of developments in relationship to long—term and Sound is eroded from the adjacent bluffs composed of
potentially costly impairments to the natural glacial till.
environment. The effect of wave action on the movement and depo-
(iii) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when sition of beach material varies depending upon the size
contemplating new development, redevelopment of exist- of the material. Hence, in most cases, beaches composed
ing facilities or for the general enhancement of shoreline of different sized material are usually characterized by
areas. different slopes and profiles. The entire process of beach
(d) Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. formation is a dynamic process resulting from the effect
Development guidelines: of wave action on material transport and deposition. Ini-
(i) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain a tially, wave action will establish currents which transport
unique or fragile natural resource. and deposit material in various patterns. However, once
(ii) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would al- a particular beach form and profile is established it be-
ter the natural function of the water system. In areas gins to modify the effects of waves thus altering the ini-
where erosion and sediment control practices will not be tial patterns of material transport and deposition. Hence,
effective, excavations or other activities which increase in building beach structures such as groins, bulkheads or
erosion are to be severely limited. jetties, it is particularly important to recognize that sub-
(iii) Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas sequent changes in wave and current patterns will result
which cannot be maintained in a natural condition under in a series of changes in beach formation over time. (See
human uses. WAC 173-16-060 (6), (11), (12) and (13).)
(e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of In the process of beach formation, sand particles are
the shorelines. Development guidelines: transported up the beach by breaking waves that wash
(i) In master programs, give priority to developing onto the beach in a diagonal direction and retreat in a
paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access along vertical direction. At the same time, longshore currents
the shorelines, and to developing upland parking. are created in the submerged intertidal area by the force
(ii) Locate development inland from the ordinary of diagonally approaching waves. Beach material sus-
high—water mark so that access is enhanced. pended by the force of the breaking waves is transported
(f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in one direction or another by the longshore current.
on the shorelines. Development guidelines: Longshore drifting of material often results in the net
(i) Plan for and encourage development of facilities transportation of beach material in one direction causing
for recreational use of the shorelines. the loss of material in some areas and gains in others.
(ii) Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on The profile of a beach at any time will be determined
uplands well away from the shorelines with provisions by the wave conditions during the preceding period. Se-
for nonmotorized access to the shorelines. [Order DE vere storms will erode or scour much material away
72-12, § 173-16-040, filed 6/20/72 and 7/20/72.1 from the beaches due to the force of retreating waves.
During calm weather, however, the waves will construc-
WAC 173-16-050 Natural systems. This section tively move material back onto the beach. This destruc-
contains brief and general descriptions of the natural tive and constructive action, called cut and fill, is
geographic systems around which the shoreline manage- evidenced by the presence of beach ridges or berms.
ment program is designed. The intent of this section is to New ridges are built up in front of those that survive
define those natural systems to which the Shoreline storm conditions as sand is supplied to the beach in suc-
Management Act applies, to highlight some of the fea- ceeding phases of calmer weather. In time, the more
lures of those systems which are susceptible to damage stable landward ridges are colonized by successional
from human activity, and to provide a basis for the stages of vegetation. The vegetation stabilizes the ridges,
guidelines pertaining to human—use activities contained protects them from erosion and promotes the develop-
in WAC 173-16-060. ment of soil.
It is intended that this section will provide criteria to (b) Rocky beaches. Rocky beaches, composed of cob-
local governments in the development of their master bles, boulders and/or exposed bedrock are usually
programs, as required in RCW 90.58.030(a). steeper and more stable than sandy shores. Coarse ma-
(1) Marine beaches. Beaches are relatively level land terial is very permeable which allows attacking waves to
areas which are contiguous with the sea and are directly sink into the beach causing the backwash to be reduced
affected by the sea even to the point of origination. The correspondingly. On sandy shores a strong backwash
most common types of beaches in Washington marine distributes sand more evenly, thus creating a flatter
waters are: slope.
(a) Sandy beaches. Waves, wind, tide and geological On rocky shores a zonal pattern in the distribution of
material are the principal factors involved in the forma- plants and animals is more evident than on muddy or
tion of beaches. The beach material can usually be sandy shores. The upper beach zone is frequently very
traced to one of four possible sources: The cliffs behind dry, limiting inhabitants to species which can tolerate a
the beach; from the land via rivers; offshore wind; and dry environment. The intertidal zone is a narrow area
finally from longshore drifting of material. Longshore— between mean low tide and mean high tide that experi-
drifting material must have been derived initially from ences uninterrupted covering and uncovering by tidal
(4/15/85) [Ch. 173-16 WAC-p 71
Shoreline Management—Master Progft 173-19-061
(3) "Local government" means any county, incorpo- Washington state code reviser and the county auditor or
rated city or town which contains within its boundaries city clerk as appropriate. Copies of portions thereof, or
any lands or waters subject to this chapter; the complete set, will be provided by the department at
(4) "Master program" means the comprehensive use the expense of the party requesting the same. (Statutory
plan for a described area, and the use regulations, to- Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86-
gether with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive 06), § 173-19-050, filed 5/23/86; Order DE 74-23, §
material and text, a statement of desired goals and stan- 173-19-050, filed 12/30/74.]
dards developed in accordance with the policies enuncia-
ted in RCW 90.58.020; and WAC 173-19-060 Amendment of master programs.
(5) "State master program" is the cumulative total of The department and each local government shall period-
all master programs adopted by the department of ically review any master program under its jurisdiction
ecology. and make amendments to the master program deemed
In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new
RCW 90.58.030 shall also apply as used herein. [Statu- information, or improved data. When the amendment is
tory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW and its applicable
86-06), § 173-19-020, filed 5/23/86; Order DE 74-23, regulations, it may be approved by local government and
§ 173-19-020, filed 12/30/74.1 adopted by the department according to the procedures
established in this chapter. [Statutory Authority: Chap-
WAC 173-19-030 Master programs organized by ter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Order 86-06), § 173-19-
county. The master programs have been assigned section 060, filed 5/23/86. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58-
numbers and are listed alphabetically by county. The .030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02-123 (Order
master programs for incorporated cities and towns are DE 79-34), § 173-19-060, filed 1/30/80; 79-09-001
grouped alphabetically by section following the county (Order DE 79-6), § 173-19-060, filed 8/2/79; Order
sections. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), DE 74-23, § 173-19-060, filed 12/30/74.1
90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-02-123 (Order DE 79-34),
§ 173-19-030, filed 1/30/80; Order DE 74-23, § 173- WAC 173-19-061 Approval of master programs and
19-030, filed 12/30/74.1 amendments by local government. Prior to submission of
a new or amended master program to the department,
WAC 173-19-040 Date of adoption or approval. local government shall:
The date of adoption or approval of each master pro- (1) Conduct at least one public hearing to consider
gram by the department is set forth beside the name of the proposal;
the appropriate local government. [Order DE 74-23, § (2) Publish notice of the hearing a minimum of once
173-19-040, filed 12/30/74.] in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the
hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation
WAC 173-19-044 Local government change of ju- in the area in which the hearing is to be held. The notice
risdiction--Effect of annexation. In the event of annex- shall include:
ation of a shoreline area, the local government assuming (a) Reference to the authority under which the action
jurisdiction shall amend or develop a master program to is proposed;
include the annexed area. Such amendment or develop- (b) A statement or summary of the proposed changes
ment shall be in accordance with the procedures estab- to the master program;
lished in chapter 173-16 WAC and this chapter and (c) The date, time, and location of the hearing, and
shall be submitted to the department. Until a new or the manner in which interested persons may present
amended program is adopted by the department, any their views thereon; and
ruling on an application for permit in the annexed (d) Reference to the availability of the proposal for
shoreline area shall be based upon compliance with the public inspection at the local government office or upon
preexisting master program adopted for the area. [Stat- request;
utory Authority: Chapter 90.58 RCW. 86-12-011 (Or- (3) Consult with and solicit the comments of any Ted-
der 86-06), § 173-19-044, filed 5/23/86. Statutory eral, state, regional, or local agency, including tribes,
Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (3)(c), 90.58.120 and 90- having any special expertise with respect to any environ-
.58.200. 79-09-001 (Order DE 79-6), § 173-19-044, mental impact,
filed 8/2/79.1 (4) Where amendments are proposed to a county or
regional master program which has been adopted by cit-
WAC 173-19-050 Incorporation by reference. Due ies or towns, the county shall coordinate with those ju-
to the sheer bulk of the master programs adopted by the risdictions and verify concurrence with or denial of the
department, they are not included in the text of this proposal. The procedural requirements of this section
chapter, but rather are incorporated herein as an appen- may be consolidated for concurring jurisdictions;
dix hereto, having full force and effect as published (5) Solicit comments from the department on the
herein. Copies of the appendix are available to the public proposal;
at all reasonable times for inspection_ in the headquarters (6) Assure compliance with chapter 43.21C RCW,
of the department of ecology in Olympia, with the the State Environmental Policy Act; and
(11/22/89) (Ch. 173-19 WAC-p 31
APPENDIX B
(pages C-1 through C-3 , Kent Shoreline Master Program)
EXISTING POLICIES AND PLANS
As part of its master program, the City of Kent must submit policy
statements, developed through the citizen involvement process,
regarding shoreline development as part of its master program.
Naturally, one step in the methodology for developing these
policy statements is the identification and analysis of existing
policies by public agencies relevant to Kent's shorelines.
These existing policies should be reviewed and analyzed as follows: .
Identify policies which can be incorporated into the Master Program.
Identify policies which cannot be incorporated into the Master
Program and actually conflict with the intent of the Shoreline
Management Act. Identify policies which act as constraints to
local planning and policy implementation and which are a result
of previous government actions, existing land use patterns, actions
of adjacent jurisdictions or'other factors not subject to local
control or influence.
Existing policies relating to the Green River Shorelines have been
identified in the following areas: shoreline of state-wide signifi-
cance, zoning, open space and parks, drainage and flood control,
agriculture, and roads.
SHORELINE OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE
The Shoreline Management Act has designated the shorelines of. the
Green River to be of state-wide significance. These shorelines
are deemed to be of importance to the entire state and because
these shorelines are major resources from which all people in -the
state derive benefit, the guidelines and master programs must
give preference to uses which favor public and long-range goals.
Accordingly, the act established that local master programs shall
give preference to uses which meet the principles outlined below
in order of preference. Guidelines for ensuring that these prin-
ciples are incorporated into the master programs and adhered to
in implementing the act follow each principle.
(a) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over
local interest. Development guidelines:
(i) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and
individuals representing state-wide interests
by circulating proposed master programs for review
and comment by state agencies, adjacent jurisdic-
tions' citizen advisory committees, and state-
wide interest groups.
(ii) Recognize and take into account state agencies'.
policies, programs and recommendations in
developing use regulations.
(iii) Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individ-
uals with expertise in ecology, oceanography, geo-
logy, limnology, aquaculture and other scientific
. fields pertinent to shoreline management.
11
(b) Preserve natural character of the shore . Develop-
ment guidelines:
• (i) Designate environments and use regulations to mini-
mize man-made intrusions on shorelines.
(ii) Where inEensive development already occurs, upgrade
and redevelop those areas to reduce their adverse
impact on the environment and to accommodate future
growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to
extend into low intensity use or underdeveloped
areas.
(iii) Ensure that where commercial timber-cutting is allowed
as provided in RCW 90.58.150, reforestation will
be possible and accomplished as soon as practicable.
(c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit. Develop-
ment guidelines:
(i) Prepare master programs on the basis of preserving
the shorelines for future generations. For example,
actions that would convert resources into irre-
versible uses or detrimentally alter natural con-
ditions characteristic of shorelines of state-
wide significance, should be severely limited.
(ii) Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience
of developments in relationship to long-term and
potentially costly impairments to the natural
environment.
(iii) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when
contemplating new development, redevelopment of
existing facilities or for the general enhancement
of shoreline areas.
(d) Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. Develop-
ment guidelines:
(i) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain unique
or fragile natural resource.
(ii) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would alter
the natural function of the .water system. In areas
where erosion and sediment control practices will
not be effective, excavations or other activities
which increase erosion are to be severely limited.
(iii) Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas
which cannot be maintained in a natural condi-
tion under human uses.
(e) Increase public access to Publicly-owned areas of the
shorelines. Development guidelines:
(i) Increase public access to publicly-owned areas
of the shorelines.
(ii) Locate development inland from the ordinary high
water mark so that access is enhanced.
(f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public
on the shorelines. Development guidelines.
(i) Plan for and encourage development of facilities
for recreational use of the shorelines.
(ii) Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities
on uplands well away from the shorelines with
provisions for non-motorized accesss to the shore-
lines..
12
. City of Kent - Planning Departret
f� ^
co r'
0-4 co
cc In
c �c W
V v
TQ
i
P-
G00
SCALE: 1"= 100'
URBAN
[� CONSERVANCY •
PROPOSED URBAN
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION
. City of Kent - Planning Departr*t
9
I i
0
j
e
r� c
r y r Y is s —�e.s Fans ice_
II .�:— •,••.•. ^ n�v.+rrnr�+r CQiYJLT�WTS
APPLICATION NAME: Foster Industrial Park
NUMBER: #SMP-91 -1 DATE: July 22, 1991
REQUEST: Shoreline Master Program Ammendment
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
. I
I
I �
1 i �
CITY Of
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
duvn��� July 15, 1991
MEMO TO: TRACY FAUST, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: JANET SHULL, PLA7NR
SUBJECT: MULTIFAMILY DESI IEW — ZCA-90-5
Attached for your review is the final Multifamily Design Review
report. This report will be the subject of the July 22 public
hearing. In an effort to get this in the mail in a timely manner,
you are being sent unbound copies. Bound copies of the report are
in production and will be available in time for the hearing.
If you have any questions prior to the public hearing, please call
me at 859-3390.
JS/ljh:pcmem722 .mdr
4
MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW
Kent Planning Department
July 1991
MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW
Kent Planning Department
July 1991
MAYOR: Dan Kelleher
CITY ADMINISTRATOR: Ed Chow
PROJECT STAFF:
James P. Harris Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom Planning Manager
Lauri Anderson Senior Planner
Janet Shull Lead Project Planner
Anne Watanabe Planner
Laura Yeats Planner
MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION - WHAT IS DESIGN REVIEW? 3
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND 5
History of Multifamily Development in Kent 5
Existing Design Review in Kent 7
Design Review Research 10
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS 13
No Action 13
Implement the RUGG Requests 13
Implement a Design Review Program 15
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17
Conclusions 17
Recommendations 18
I. Develop Illustrated Design Guidelines Handbook 18
IL Determine Appropriate Fees for Design Review 41
III. Increase Staffing in the Planning Department 41
IV. Amend the Zoning Code to Provide for Multifamily 41
Design Review
V. Implement an Administrative Process for Design Review 41
VI. Evaluate the Design Review Program on a Periodic Basis 43
CHAPTER FIVE: ACTION AGENDA 44
APPENDIX 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY 48
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to the request of the City Council, the Planning Commission has been considering
the proposed controls on multifamily development contained in the Petition by the Responsible
Urban Growth Group (RUGG). At its October, 1990 workshop, the Planning Commission
directed the Planning Department to do additional research on design review as a possible means
of addressing some of the issues raised in the Petition. After reviewing the information gathered
by Planning Department Staff, the Planning Commission determined that a design review process
would be the best mechanism to achieve improved multifamily development both in appearance
and function. As a result of months of workshop sessions with the Planning Commission, the
Planning Department has produced this report which outlines a recommended design review
process as well as the specific criteria which would be applied in reviewing multifamily
development.
Summary of Findings
In Kent, where the current ratio of multifamily to single-family units is approximately 65% to
35% respectively, the potential impact that multifamily development has on Kent's livability and
image as a residential community is significant. The Planning Commission and Planning
Department Staff found the following to be critical in making the decision toward design review
for multifamily development:
1. Kent citizens have been vocal in expressing concerns with both the rate and physical
form of multifamily development.
2. Current development regulations do not ensure that new multifamily buildings will be
compatible with and become a viable part of the surrounding neighborhood or will work
well for residents.
3. Development standards alone cannot address design issues as design is site- and project-
specific, whereas development standards address all like-zoned land identically.
4. Design review can go further than the specifics of the RUGG Petition in addressing
issues of RUGG concern.
5. Puget Sound communities that have opted to implement design review in permitting
multifamily development have recognized success with their programs and feel that the
design review approach has resulted in improved multifamily developments.
1
t
Summary of Recommendations
The Planning Commission has reviewed the RUGG Petition requests for changes to development
standards for multifamily development. The Planning Commission has also examined the many
recent modifications to development standards and zoning designations which preceded the
RUGG Petition. The Planning Commission questioned whether additional changes to the Zoning
Code would best control the impacts of multifamily development. The Planning Department
recommended that the Planning Commission consider a design review program which would
allow the City to better review multifamily development on a site-specific basis. Outlined below
are a series of recommendations staff has developed for the Planning Commission to consider
in implementing a design review program:
Applicability. The design review process should apply to all multifamily development
of three or more units, unless the multifamily development is located in a mixed-use
building where the housing units are not located on the ground floor.
Design Review Process. The design review process should be administrative. This
means that the process would be conducted "in house" by City staff as opposed to
through public meetings of a design review board. The process should be incorporated
within the framework of the existing permit review process.
Staffing and Fees. A staffing increase of .25 to .50 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) will
be necessary for the Planning Department to implement the Design Review Program.
Appropriate fees for design review will be established as part of a comprehensive fee
study to take place in the latter part of 1991.
Design Review Criteria. The design review process should utilize the following three
primary areas of review:
Site Design Criteria
Landscape Design Criteria
- Building Design Criteria
Design Review Manual. The design review criteria should be illustrated and published
in a Design Review Manual or "Design Guidelines". The design guidelines would then
be referenced in the Zoning Code.
These recommendations are presented in more detail in Chapter Four and are organized into an
Action Agenda in Chapter Five which is a plan of action for implementation.
2
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION - WHAT IS DESIGN REVIEW?
The terms "design review", "aesthetic controls", and "appearance review" are generally
synonymous, referring to the regulation of the design of new development. A design review
approach provides for review of individual projects according to guidelines or policies, rather
than a specific set of development standards. This review may be conducted either by a special
board appointed for this purpose or by staff as an administrative process. Proposals must meet
the underlying development standards for the district, but in addition, the board and/or staff will
evaluate the project according to design review guidelines. The guidelines address matters such
as the relationship of the structure to the site and compatibility of design with neighborhood
character. In some cases, the development standards may be waived by the board and/or staff
to better achieve the City's development objectives.
Design review can be analyzed in terms of several components, each of which is discussed
below:
Scope. The scope of design review is a major consideration. Design review can be
applied throughout a city, or only in certain areas. All types of development may be
subject to design review or only certain types, or categories within those types. Design
review has long been used in historic districts to ensure that new development will be
compatible with the unique character of the district. Many cities (for example, San
Francisco and Portland) also utilize design guidelines for development within their
downtown areas.
Design review which specifically addresses multifamily development is currently utilized
by only a few cities. The City of Bellevue's design review program initially addressed
only transitional zones adjacent to single-family development (usually multifamily areas).
They have since expanded the scope to include virtually all multifamily and commercial
development. The City of Tukwila reviews a very wide range of development projects,
including multifamily development. Minneapolis conducts a review of projects involving
nine or more multifamily units, although a developer's compliance with design
recommendations is voluntary.
Careful selection of the scope of review enables a city to target review (and therefore
staff time and resources) to the appropriate projects.
Voluntary or Mandatory Participation. The design review process may be mandatory
for those projects within the scope of review, or it may be an optional process. Cities
such as Tukwila make their process mandatory for all projects within the scope of
review. Seattle currently utilizes a voluntary design review process for multifamily
development, but is now considering mandatory design review. Kent also has a
discretionary design review process available for projects in the Multifamily Transition
Area (see Chapter Two).
3
Elements. Design review may be applied to a number of elements. Building design,
site design, landscaping, access, colors, materials, lighting and signs are just a few of
the possible subjects to which design review may be applied. The elements selected for
review depend on the goals of the review. For example, if the scale of the project in
relation to the surrounding area is the main concern, the height, bulk and scale of the
development should be the focus of design review.
Process. In some cities, design review is conducted by professional staff or by the
Planning Commission. For example, Bellevue's design review is conducted by staff.
Tukwila has designated its Planning Commission as its "Board of Architectural Review".
Some cities have set up a pubic review body for the specific purpose of performing
design review. The City of Vancouver (BC) has an Urban Design Panel to review
projects, and Portland, Oregon has a Design Review Commission. Locally, the cities
of Redmond and Mercer Island have both created design review boards. Such public
bodies often include volunteers with expertise relevant to the review process (architects,
landscape architects, urban designers, etc.).
Public Participation. Another component of design review is public involvement or
review. When should public participation occur, and in what form? In some cities, for
example, Portland, no additional public review beyond that associated with the
underlying permit approval is provided. In other cities, such as San Francisco, citizens
actually have the authority to initiate hearings on projects.
Design review is not a new concept and is currently utilized as part of the permit review process
in other Puget Sound cities. Kent has the opportunity to draw from a large selection of existing
programs in assembling the program which best meets our community goals.
4
ti
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND
HISTORY OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN KENT
The mix of housing units in Kent has changed substantially over the last twenty years. In 1970,
single family accounted for approximately two-thirds of all housing units and multifamily less
than one-third. In 1980, the housing mix was divided almost equally between single family and
multifamily units. Today, multifamily housing constitutes approximately 65 percent of the units
and single family only 35 percent, a complete reversal of the 1970 pattern. This dramatic
increase in multifamily development may be a result of many factors, including: the demand
for affordable housing due to the rising costs of purchasing a home; the numerous single parent,
elderly and non-traditional households seeking smaller living units; close proximity to Kent's
employment centers; and the amenities found in larger multifamily developments such as
recreational facilities, daycare and access to transit.
Kent's rapid growth and expanding population have impacted the City's infrastructure and its
ability to provide necessary services. Just after the major multifamily development boom in
1985 and 1986, the community began to express their concerns over the seemingly uncontrolled
growth and the projected proportion of multifamily to single-family development. In December
of 1986, the City Council passed Resolution 1123 referencing these concerns and establishing
its intent to reduce multifamily densities by 20 percent throughout the City.
Report on Multifamily Density
The first report conducted under the guidance of Resolution 1123 was the Report on Multifamily
Density, completed in July of 1987. This report, prepared by the Planning Department,
provided an in depth study of multifamily land and development patterns and found that:
- The City's housing stock is predominantly multifamily (59 percent).
- Between 1970 and 1987, there was an increase of 358 percent in the number of
multifamily units constructed.
- The rapid increase in multifamily unit construction has resulted in heavy population
growth. In 1970, the population was 16,275; it has since doubled.
- Not only has the number of units being constructed increased, the average size of
developments has grown. Prior to 1980, projects averaged less than 30 units. Since
1980, the average size is 110 units. Signature Pointe, a project just nearing completion,
contains well over 500 units.
5
- At the time of the study there were 570 acres of vacant or underdeveloped multifamily
zoned land.
The report also described six alternative approaches for accomplishing the intended 20 percent
density reduction.
The Housing Study
In 1988, the City Council passed Resolution 1172 directing the Planning Department to conduct
a two-phased Housing Study. The first phase, the updating of the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, was completed in April of 1989. The second phase was an area-by-area
analysis of remaining vacant or underdeveloped multifamily-zoned land in the East Hill, West
Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas. While the study was underway, an interim 20 percent
reduction in multifamily development densities was enacted which was applied to all new
multifamily development in the City.
Planning Department staff conducted the area-by-area or "site-specific" analysis phase of the
Housing Study during 1989. The Planning Commission held extensive public hearings between
July and December of 1989 on the site-specific alternatives for achieving a 20 percent reduction
in the potential number of multifamily units which could be built in the City. The Planning
Commission modified the staff recommendation during the hearing process and forwarded its
proposal to the City Council. The City Council passed the site-specific reduction in February
of 1990 and lifted the interim overall 20 percent reduction.
The result of the site-specific reduction was a decrease in the potential number of multifamily
units which could be built in the City by more than 25 percent. This was achieved by rezoning
designated areas to a lesser density multifamily or a single-family designation. In some cases,
non-residential areas were rezoned to multifamily to result in a density transfer from East and
West Hill neighborhoods to areas on the Valley Floor where increased density is supported by
proximity to public transit, jobs and services.
The RUGG Petition
In June of 1990, the City Council received a petition from the Responsible Urban Growth
Group, (RUGG) which requested that the City Council consider the following:
Revisions to the current development standards for new multifamily housing;
Revisions to the PUD ordinance;
Restrictions on the number of multifamily units which may be permitted annually;
and
6
i
Elimination of any future application of the recently adopted R1-5.0(single-family
residential, 5000 square foot minimum lot size) district in the City.
The petition was signed by approximately 1600 individuals residing both within and outside of
the Kent city limits. The City Council asked the Planning Commission to review the contents
of the petition and bring back recommendations for further action.
The RUGG petition outlines 8 specific actions (a copy of the petition is included in Appendix
A). Action items 1-4 of the petition recommend changes in existing development standards for
multifamily development. The Planning Commission is addressing these items by directing
Planning Department staff to develop the design review process outlined in this report.
Chapter Three further discusses items 1-4 of the RUGG petition and compares their
implementation with a "no action" alternative and a "design review" alternative.
EXISTING "DESIGN REVIEW" IN KENT
Design review of multifamily development in Kent is not a new concept. Responding to the
concerns raised in Resolution 1123, the Mayor created the Executive Committee on City Design
Policy in July of 1986. In April of 1987, the Committee issued its Recommendations for
Multifamily Residential Design. The Committee identified several problems with multifamily
residential development and existing regulations:
- The density of certain recent multifamily developments has been high.
- Little design consideration has been given to providing privacy for residents.
- Many projects do not provide for significant degree of security for residents of
multifamily developments.
- Landscaping has not been utilized effectively to buffer residential units at street level
from activity on adjacent roadways.
- Open spaces in multifamily developments are not used effectively, either as recreational
spaces or as buffers between buildings or uses.
- Aesthetic qualities of some projects have been lacking. Special problems which were
cited included monotonous building design and layout, poor architectural treatment,
insufficient landscaping, and overall poor image quality.
- The current development standards are inflexible.
7
t
The Committee recommendations were two-fold: (1) establish higher or more stringent
development standards (including landscaping, building heights, setbacks and offsets) for
multifamily projects through a Multifamily Transition Area; and (2) establish an Administrative
Design Review process in order to permit flexibility in site development when a superior project
design is proposed.
The Planning Department developed the new Multifamily Transition Area and Administrative
Design Review guidelines and the Zoning Code was amended in March of 1988. These Zoning
Code requirements are described in more detail in the following sections.
Multifamily Transition Area. Section 15.08.215 of the Kent Zoning Code establishes
additional development standards for multifamily developments within 100 feet of a
Single-Family District or within 100 feet of an abutting public right-of-way. The purpose is to
mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses and to minimize the noise and visual impacts
of the street for residents of multifamily developments.
The additional development standards include:
1. Minimum yard requirements or setbacks depend on the classification of the abutting
right-of-way or whether the development abuts a single-family district. The yard
requirements are a minimum of 20 feet and an average of either 30 or 40 feet.
2. Buildings elevation facing a public right-of-way or single-family district must be offset
at intervals not exceeding 70 feet. The offset must be at least 20 feet in the horizontal
direction and have a depth of at least 6 feet.
3. Height within the Transition Areas is limited to two stories or 25 feet. There is an
exception to this requirement for small lots which have multiple street frontages.
4. The landscaping along public rights-of-way is increased from 10 feet to either 15 or 20
feet depending on the street classification. Parking areas that abut the street must be
bermed. A six foot, sight-obscuring fence is required where the development abuts a
single family district.
Administrative Design Review. Section 15.09.045 of the Kent Zoning Code sets up an optional
design review process for projects within the Multifamily Transition Area. Through this
process, the Planning Director may waive or modify any of the specific requirements of Section
15.08.215 indicated above. The review process may not consider "design elements that are not
directly related to site planning and layout," and elements such as building colors and textures
and siding materials are specifically excluded. The review must be completed within seven
working days. To date, there have been no projects developed using Administrative Design
Review; the reason for this is unknown.
Other design review processes are also presently available to the City. Design review is
8
t
promoted through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Landscaping Standards, as well as
through Development Plan Review and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process.
The following sections describe these design review opportunities in more detail. .
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planned Unit Development chapter, 15.04.080, while
not a set of design review standards, incorporates some of the flexible standards of a design
review approach. Density bonuses may be granted when the applicant provides additional
"amenities or design features" such as open space, native vegetation, or mixed housing types.
Landscaping. Chapter 15.07 of the Zoning Code contains the landscaping regulations. While
primarily a set of standards for landscaping, Section 15.07.010 provides that the Planning
Director may waive specific requirements or impose additional requirements in unique or special
circumstances to assure the fulfillment of the purpose of the chapter. This exemption from
specific standards, in exchange for a superior end product, is an approach similar to the design
review process. However, the emphasis here appears to be on environmental amenities. The
special conditions listed include: preservation of unique wildlife habitat; preservation of natural
or native areas; compliance with special easements; renovation of existing landscaping; and
unique site uses. As with the administrative design review option described above, few
applicants have requested an exemption based on this language.
Development Plan Review. Another section of the code that provides some site-specific
flexibility is Chapter 15.09, which states several standards that must be incorporated into every
development plan, including a pedestrian circulation system and compatibility with neighboring
existing development. However "compatibility shall not refer to architectural design features
but to siting of building and location of off-street parking". It also refers to efforts to preserve
"environmental amenities".
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The purpose of the environmental review process
is to provide information to help the applicant and the City of Kent identify impacts from the
proposal, to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, and to help the City decide whether an
Environmental Impact Statement is required. Some of the issues in the SEPA checklist relate
to design--for example, light and glare, and aesthetics.
The City can reference goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in making
SEPA findings. The Comprehensive Plan has some existing policies in support of urban design
and aesthetics:
City-Wide Comprehensive Plan. Housing Element: Goal 1, Objective 3, Policy 7 states
"Through enhanced development standards and other mechanisms, improve the
appearance and 'fit' of multifamily developments within the community."
The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan has an entire section, entitled "Urban Design
Quality", encouraging urban design awareness.
9
Therefore, it is possible that SEPA, either as currently administered by Kent, or with the
adoption of additional policies, could be an additional tool for addressing some design concerns.
However, the mitigating conditions for site and building design can only be administered through
SEPA if the proposed design would be an environmental impact.
As you can see, the City has many tools currently at its disposal for guiding the design of
multifamily development in Kent. However, the City also lacks a comprehensive procedure for
conducting design review. Currently, design review occurs in a piecemeal fashion. The City's
current authority to conduct design review is limited to the language in the PUD, Landscaping
and Development Plan Review sections of the Zoning Code and the SEPA review process to the
degree which design issues can be tied to environmental impact. Otherwise, administrative
design review is only utilized upon the request of the applicant in the Multifamily Transition
Area. Design review must become a specific area of focus in the application review process in
order to be truly effective.
DESIGN REVIEW RESEARCH
Planning Department staff collected examples of design review ordinances, procedures, and
manuals from cities throughout the nation (see listing in the bibliography) for reference in
developing a process and criteria which we felt would best serve Kent's needs. Staff also
conducted an informal telephone survey of local jurisdictions which require design review
(Bellevue, Redmond, Tukwila and Mercer Island) to learn more about how the process can be
expected to impact our current permit review process.
Potential Impacts on Permit Review Time. Interviews with staff from these cities
indicated that permit review time will be increased by the inclusion of a design review
process. The amount of time the process adds in these jurisdictions ranges from three
weeks to three months. It is difficult to separate out the time allotted strictly to design
review. Some of the projects which take a long time to go through the review process
are stalled by something other than design review. For example, an issue may come up
in SEPA review, or the project may require a rezone or variance. In other words, some
projects just take longer. If a public review component is included in design review, it
may add approximately two or three months to the process. If there is no public review
component the time frame for accomplishing design review may be more in the
neighborhood of three weeks to a month. Reasons for the time difference include the
necessity of scheduling public meetings, preparing of staff reports, mailing of agendas
and allowing for public notification and comment periods.
Staff Time Required. None of the people interviewed had tracked the number of staff
hours necessary to conduct design review. The average number of staff meetings with
a design review applicant is three. A staff report may be prepared. The staff report is
typically a separate report if the jurisdiction has a design review board. Otherwise, the
design review report may be incorporated in a general staff report covering all findings
10
t
regarding a particular project. Redmond utilizes a checklist to facilitate the staff review
process. In general, when design review is carried out by a separate review body, the
staff time required increases in that additional time is spent developing a report, typing
and mailing notices and agendas, and facilitating the meeting.
Staff Expertise Required. Bellevue was the only jurisdiction that indicated their staff
has a formal background in design. However, all jurisdictions recognize the value of a
staff with expertise in landscape architecture and architecture. It was suggested that the
staff persons conducting design review have a good understanding of building and site
design and construction techniques, have knowledge of plant materials, and be good
negotiators as much of the design review process tends to involve negotiation.
Departmental Organization. In most jurisdictions, design review is conducted by staff
in a current planning or permit review section which performs other aspects of
development plan review as well.
Survey of Design Review Participants
To better assess the potential impacts of design review on housing affordability, staff contacted
local developers and designers who have participated in design review to get a sense of what
those impacts may be. Staff also queried developers and designers as to their feelings about
design review in general.
The comments ranged from being supportive of the process to not really liking it at all. All
comments were helpful to us in developing our final design review proposal.
Impacts on Affordability. Most respondents felt that design review impacted the cost
of their projects, but that this did not directly impact rental rates. One person
commented that the things that were changed through design review were not things that
could be directly translated into higher rents. For example, the things changed were site-
related or involved exterior building design. The potential renter may not initially notice,
and therefore would not be willing to pay more for, these changes. In other words, the
market tends to govern what rents will be. The real effects of design review may be felt
most directly by the property owners/developers who may not realize as high a profit
margin.
Some commented that the design review process did not significantly affect project costs
and that if the process is expedient, there should be no real impact on costs.
How Did the Process Affect Cost? The responses to this question centered around the
time it took to go through the process and the cost of changes that were requested.
There was frustration with the process when applicants were called back again and again
to design review meetings and when these meetings were not run effectively; Le, when
11
design review board members were allowed to go on discussing one element of a project
at length, such as screening of trash receptacles.
When changes required the redrawing of plans, architectural fees would increase. One
respondent said that since design review occurs early in the permit process, the level of
design detail required up front is greater than normal and requires increased investment
in design in the preliminary design phase.
Suggestions to improve the process seemed to support an administrative process over that
of the public design review board. However, two respondents cited review processes
which utilized a board as good ones to model--specifically, Redmond and Mercer Island.
Other suggestions included making sure the applicant is well informed about the process
and that criteria are made clear up front. It was felt that design review meetings could
benefit from the presence of an effective staff facilitator who could keep things on track
and in perspective. The goal seemed to be fewer and more effective meetings, especially
in the case where there is a public review board. Some thought the process needed to
be more flexible so that an applicant could get some requirements waived when being
asked to provide other design features.
Overall Effect on Project Quality. Responses to questions about the impact of design
review on quality ranged from claims that design review definitely improved a project
to design review having no significant effect on quality. No one claimed that the process
made their project design worse--even if the process frustrated them in some way. When
projects were felt to be improved, the biggest improvements were realized in site design--
amenities such as parking, circulation and landscaping were improved. One person even
stated that the improvements to site planning helped to "sell" the project. Another person
(an architect) thought the process made the project significantly better because it forced
the client to think about issues with greater sensitivity. The guidelines provided the
architect with material to convince the client that certain changes would improve the
design.
Staff reviewed the results of the informal telephone surveys with the Planning Commission in
workshop session. The potential impacts on permit processing time and housing affordability
versus the merits of design review were discussed. The recommendation that design review in
Kent be an administrative process was solidified by this discussion as it would mean that the City
could conduct the process in the shortest time possible and keep it closely tied to the existing
permit process.
12
i •
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS
In this chapter the pros and cons of three alternatives, No Action, RUGG Petition, and Design
Review, are presented in discussion form.
A. No Action
The City of Kent last revised its multifamily development standards in March of 1988 by adding
the Multifamily Transition Area and Administrative Design Review sections (see description in
Chapter Two) to the Zoning Code. If the City decides to adopt the No Action option for
responding to the RUGG petition, we will continue to rely on the tools we currently have in
place for permitting multifamily development and influencing its physical form.
While the City seems to be realizing improved quality in multifamily development as a result
of the 1988 Zoning Code amendments, there is question as to whether, overall, we're getting
housing which is a source of pride in our community. By taking the No Action approach, we
may be sending a negative signal to members of the community who feel that recent revisions
to multifamily development standards and rezoning of multifamily areas to lesser density
designations have not done enough to control multifamily development.
With current regulations, the City is limited in its ability to affect the physical form of
multifamily housing development. We can control density, building height, and amount of open
space. We cannot review the aspects of design which determine the livability of multifamily
development for future residents, nor can we effectively evaluate their contribution to the
livability of the community.
As growth continues in our region, suburban cities like Kent will continue to develop an
increasingly urban character, unless we choose to endorse sprawl. The No Action alternative
would limit Kent's ability to shape new, higher-density growth, to the detriment of all of the
City's residents.
B. Implement the RUGG Requests
The RUGG Petition proposes changes to our existing multifamily development standards.
Figure 1 shows the effect of Action Items 1-4 of the RUGG petition on existing multifamily
regulations in comparison form. In general, the petition calls for increased setback and
landscape areas and a decrease in maximum height for each of the three multifamily zoning
districts. It also calls for expanded application of the Multifamily Transition Area requirements
(from the current 100' to 250') and for greater setback and landscaping requirements within the
transition area.
13
v
u
E
Figure 1
0
"s
z
u
9
Y
L
O
Y
w
9
Y
L
u
C_
•
u
Y
U
a 3
L V
w
N
g 6
w J J H y
N K W W W
W V M y N N M NM M N It N .
g n tl N W W Y v� y
V V S ~T O �rc( 4 O N 4 �
N w x w O O N.O w O O N O w O S S O O O O O O w M
�-
K
u
u
s
`o
a
L O N O M Q H N
M W M W H W W
W Z
-
6
K
L
' O
q w
M
L M
r m ° ° u u a v
a e e U U g
p p r y Y Y
yyCg = yC u Y V `O \4 J : : U
S • C 6 V C 9 8 q y u u Y y.0 U U
q • • L • 9 • V � q • • L 5 @] 9 yuy
V. �1 y C' Lq C y y G Lq C y y E • p
V iY
V
W Y�
14
The RUGG requests would result in multifamily development which occupies less net lot area,
is lower in height, and may be screened by more landscape elements. However, with these
changes applied, there is no reason to believe that multifamily development will look much
different than it does today or be any better accepted by the community. It will only look
smaller and be set back further from property lines.
Although staff agrees that there has been significant growth in multifamily development and feels
that the RUGG group's concerns regarding multifamily development are legitimate, we feel
uncomfortable implementing more restrictive development standards for multifamily housing as
a solution to those concerns. By further restricting the area within which developers have to
work to produce housing, we will be limiting our own options for effectuating quality housing
development. Staff feels that the City will be better served by retaining our current level of
flexibility in development standards, but then asking the development community to work with
the City to design and build liveable neighborhoods for our residents, both present and future.
C. Implement a Design Review Program
The advantage of a Design Review Program is that it allows for a dynamic, project-specific
review that addresses the complexities of ensuring a quality project. Whether landscaping, size,
and other design features may be desirable in a given case often depends on the specific features
of the project and its surroundings. While comprehensive standards can lead to good projects,
such standards may not anticipate the special problems or features that are often a part of every
project. For example, in Kent we require a six foot sight obscuring fence to screen multifamily
development from major arterials and single family development. One unanticipated problem
with this requirement, in application, is that pedestrian access to and from the multifamily
development becomes restricted, which limits the potential for multifamily developments to be
served by public transit. This is unfortunate as higher density development normally can take
advantage of public transit and limit the amount of automobile traffic generated by each unit.
The disadvantages of a design review approach are that it requires more review time by staff
and/or by a review board than would the application of established standards; and in the absence
of clear guidelines and good communication between staff and applicants, it can lead to an
unpredictable process for applicants. The choice which City officials must make regarding
whether or not to implement a design review process hinges on weighing the costs associated
with permit review time against the benefits to the community, which could be realized in better
quality housing development.
Below, three alternative processes for conducting design review are examined. Staff is
recommending that the design review process be administrative--conducted in-house by Planning
Department staff. This process is outlined on the following pages in relation to the existing
permit review process. The two additional options which have been examined are: an
administrative process with a public comment period, and design review by a design review
board. Each of these options is discussed in comparison to the preferred administrative process.
15
Existing City of Kent Permit Process.
The average review time within the Planning Department for a multifamily permit
application in Kent at the present time is approximately three to four months inclusive
of the SEPA review process. Projects requiring development plan modification or other
environmental impact mitigation actions may take longer. The three to four month
average does not include projects that apply for a variance or rezone which could add
approximately six months to permit review time.
The first step in the permit review process is environmental review under the State
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) in which the applicant is required to complete an
environmental checklist and obtain SEPA threshold determination. The Planning, Public
Works and Building/Fire Departments review the checklist which takes approximately
four weeks (unless additional information is required or any environmental impact
statement [EIS] is required). One to two weeks after the environmental review process
is completed, a development plan review meeting is scheduled. At this meeting, City
staff meet with the applicant to review preliminary site plans in light of relevant code
regulations and imposed SEPA conditions for the proposed property use. After the
development plan review meeting, the applicant may submit formal permit applications.
It is important to note that certain projects are exempt from the environmental review and
development plan review steps in the permit review process. In the case of multifamily
developments, projects with fewer than 12 units (or those projects generating ten
PM-peak-hour trips or less) are exempt. Further, if an applicant is requesting a rezone,
conditional use permit and/or variance, hearings and decisions on these issues must take
place prior to the development plan review meeting.
Option Cl: Preferred Option - Administrative Design Review
Outlined below is a summary of the proposed permit review process which incorporates
the steps associated with administrative design review:
First Meeting: The first meeting will be an informal meeting to go over the
requirements to be fulfilled by design review. (This could take
place on a walk-in basis at the Planning Department counter.)
Second Meeting: During the second meeting, staff will meet with an applicant to
discuss preliminary building and site design drawings and outline
any changes which are necessary to meet the goals of design
review.
SEPA Review: Once the applicant has met with staff the second time, SEPA
review will commence and take place concurrent with the
16
remainder of the design review process so that any significant
findings may be coordinated.
Pre-Development
Meeting: The third meeting where design review will take place will be the
pre-development meeting itself. If all necessary revisions have
been incorporated in a development proposal at this time, the
applicant will be able to proceed with the permit process.
Note: The design review process must be initiated and substantial
progress made prior to the pre-development meeting. To show
substantial progress in design review, the applicant must have met
with staff at least two times to discuss their development
intentions.
Additional
Meetings: Additional design review meetings may be required with staff
depending on the nature of any changes required, the complexity
of a project and any further issues which may surface in the pre-
development meeting.
Public Hearings: No additional public hearings will be required through the design
review process.
Appeals: Any appeal of a design review determination will be heard by the
Hearing Examiner.
Option C2: Administrative Design Review with a Public Comment Period
This process would be similar to the process outlined above with a public comment
period built in. The comment period could take place concurrent with the SEPA
comment period. Public notification would include publishing notice in local
newspapers, posting of the site and/or notification by mail to neighboring property
owners. Within a specified time period, public comment could be submitted to the City.
For example, Bellevue has a 17-day public comment period and notifies by mail all
property owners within a 200' radius. An appeal process would need to be established
for anyone who submitted a written comment and wished to call a public hearing.
Appeals could be heard by the hearing examiner.
The advantage of this alternative is that it allows for public review and comment on all
design review projects. The disadvantages are that additional time would be required by
staff to prepare and mail public notices, and if a project is appealed, additional time
would be required to schedule and hold a public hearing. There are other costs (in
17
addition to time) associated with this option. For example, notification costs would
increase, particularly if a public hearing was held. Such costs may need to be reflected
in fees. Applicants may also be uncomfortable with the uncertainty associated with a
potential appeal.
Option C3: Design Review with a Design Review Board
If design review is conducted by a separate body, either a public meeting or hearing
would be held in place of the second meeting with staff in the administrative process.
However, the public meeting/hearing would need to be held after SEPA determination.
Staff would still conduct its administrative review and in addition, be required to prepare
a report for the design review board. This report would likely include an analysis and
recommendations. The composition of the board would likely include design
professionals and citizens. (In Redmond, residency is not a prerequisite for board
appointment but they do have citizen representation.) The board meeting could be
conducted as a public hearing or a public meeting; the difference being level of public
participation. For example, Redmond invites the public to its design review meetings
but the public does not participate by giving testimony. A record of the meeting would
need to be kept and notification of the meeting would be required.
The advantage of this process is similar to that of Option C2 in that it allows for citizen
input plus review by design professionals in addition to City staff. The disadvantages
are also similar to those of Option C2 in that additional time and money would be
required to facilitate the review board. Additional staff time would be required to
prepare and mail report material to the board and to facilitate their meetings. The City
would also need to allow for scheduling meetings with the board as they typically have
set meeting dates and times. Depending upon the complexity of the project, there may
be the necessity for more than one board meeting. Permit review time would likely be
extended.
The following chapter presents the recommended process and criteria for implementing
multifamily design review. The recommendations call for illustrated design guidelines coupled
with the administrative process (Cl) described in this chapter. Staff feels that this combination
will ensure a level of predictability and timeliness which should lessen the potential
disadvantages associated with design review and highlight the advantages.
18
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Multifamily housing development can provide an important alternative to suburban sprawl. We
may wish we could go back in time to 1970 when most Kent residents lived in single family
homes, but simple economics, geography and land availability do not permit this. As a
community, we must focus our energy on determining the overall livability and quality of our
residential areas, both multifamily and single-family.
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element goals, policies and objectives speak to improving the fit
of multifamily development within our community. One approach to achieving a better fit of
multifamily development is to focus on density (the City in fact took this approach with the
Housing Study). The shortcoming with this approach is that once development takes place at
the lower densities, it is not necessarily evident that density has been reduced. In other words,
the building will still be a multifamily building,just with fewer housing units. Perceived density
is often more significant than actual density. Further, limiting density on a site limits the
development community's ability to produce site and building amenities which add up to a
quality project.
In the long term, focussing on quality of housing stock will be of more value than focussing on
the quantity of units. To look at it from another angle, one could argue that if we had a greater
percentage of single-family housing in Kent, but that housing was poorly built and of low
quality, we would not feel any better about our community image.
In thinking about the fit of multifamily development in our community, it is natural to think in
terms of design. Often design review is utilized by a community primarily to ensure that
passersby, when looking at a development, will find it pleasing, feel that it belongs in the
neighborhood, or at the very least, find it acceptable. Design also comes into play in terms of
livability for the residents.
In Kent, it is important that multifamily design review go further than just addressing building
character and scale. Realizing that so many of our residents live in multifamily housing and
many of them for years at a time, it is important the housing be pleasant and safe to live in.
Families with young children and elderly persons live in multifamily housing. Will they feel
and be safe? Will there be places to play or to gather outside with friends? Will there be the
opportunity to walk to transit, schools, and neighborhood services? These are all important
questions which design review can address.
One common concern with our rapid multifamily growth is that it increases the number of cars
on local arterials. Although all new development undeniably results in increased automobile
traffic, it is interesting to note that the average multifamily housing unit produces fewer trips per
household than the average single family housing unit. There are also greater opportunities to
19
utilize public transit with multifamily densities. However, this can only happen if site design
allows residents to comfortably walk to the nearest bus stop.
Increased transit ridership is only one of the opportunities we can focus on in the design review
process. By adopting design review for multifamily development, the City can send a message
of expectation for community excellence, as well as one of flexibility and cooperation with the
development community in the effort to achieve community goals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are specific recommendations for implementation of a design review process in
Kent.
I. Develop an Illustrated Multifamily Design Guidelines Handbook.
The Design Guidelines are presented on the following pages in three major categories: Site
Design, Landscape Design and Building Design. Each of the major categories has a series of
criteria which would be used to evaluate multifamily projects. Each criteria is presented in
bullet form followed by a discussion of that criteria's purpose and one or more illustrations.
Sample illustrations for approximately half of the criteria are presented below. Illustrations for
each criteria would be produced for the final document. The design guidelines handbook would
also include an outline of the design review process as presented in Recommendation W" on
page 41.
20
4 � •
SECTION A: SITE DESIGN
Al. Integrate site plan with the surrounding neighborhood.
It is important to think of each new housing development as contributing to a
larger neighborhood whole. The site design should complement and provide
connection with neighborhood amenities such as parks, schools, shopping, transit
routes, etc. The site design should take clues from the relationship of street, lot
and building patterns in the surrounding neighborhood as these relationships
dictate the scale and texture of a neighborhood.
Suggested]Illustrations:
Example of neighborhood where adjacent developments do not complement each other.
Example of neighborhood where adjacent developments do complement each other.
21
i •
A2. Site plan should take into consideration environmental conditions and the lay
of the land.
Kent has many steeply sloping sites which are zoned for housing development.
The site plan should utilize the natural topography, and every effort should be
made to avoid major grading and filling and use of large retaining walls.
Sensitivity to topographical situations will result in a site which better
accommodates pedestrian circulation while saving on engineering and construction
costs associated with extensive grading, filling and large retaining walls.
The site design should consider the local microclimate--sun, wind and rain
exposure. Will buildings and open space receive adequate sunlight or will
residents and landscape materials broil in the summer sun? To what extent can
the site be designed to shelter residents from rain and wind conditions?
The site design should protect and enhance natural amenities such as large trees,
waterways, wetlands, wildlife habitat and views. These natural amenities, which
exist on the site, should be viewed as opportunities for a site design which will
result in a desirable place for people to call home.
• D U D
0 0
2Ela
oar a
To be avoided: The use of extensive cutting and filling and large retaining walls to develop a sloping site.
22
ry
q � d nn
and
ap anon
a � DU
Preferred: Design with the natural topography. The relationship between neighboring buildings is improved, and it
would be easier for the residents to walk around the site.
Suggested Illustrations:
Example of site design that has properly considered sun exposure, wind patterns, and climate
conditions.
23
A3. Provide an open space network which will accommodate a wide variety of
activities—both semi-public and private.
Each element of the open space network should be designed with a use in mind
or in association with a residential unit. Activity opportunities for all ages
residing in the housing should be anticipated in the site design.
The open space network should provide private or semi-private open spaces which
are accessible from each residential unit. This can be achieved with balconies,
screened patios or small shared courtyards. The open space network should
provide for privacy of residents while allowing for security and surveillance from
residential units. The open space network should be well lit at night.
Suggested Illustrations:
Example of open space network which is well defined and related to the buildings it serves.
Example of open space network which is not well defined and not well used.
24
25
A4. Accommodate vehicular access and parking in a manner which is convenient,
yet does not allow the automobile to dominate the site.
Parking areas should be located to the rear or side yard so that parking areas do
not dominate the streetscape. Plan for many small lots as opposed to few large
ones. Parking areas should be convenient to and safely accessed by the buildings
served. Utilize many small lights as opposed to few large lights in order to
illuminate parking areas. (Large lights tend to "spill" into people's homes.)
Locate parking and automobile circulation so as not to conflict with children's
play areas.
To be avoided: Parking
configurations which -- ---------- ----
dominate the site by
being large and centrally
located.
i
26
Preferred: A parking
configuration which
-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - provides about the same
number of stalls, but
— breaks them up into
smaller groupings
!!! , located on the periphery
F •r of the site. This scheme
v J also provides a better
potential for well-defined
useable open spaces.
i
I � _
I -
I -
1 —
I1
i
1
Mom.
27
A5. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian circulation.
In Kent, commercial and residential growth has resulted in increased automobile
traffic. Each new housing development should do its share to provide alternatives
to the automobile through the design of pedestrian circulation paths between the
site and surrounding neighborhood amenities such as parks, schools, and
shopping.
The scale of a housing development may make a new transit stop feasible at the
site. Pedestrian pathways which link the site with existing or planned transit
stops should be provided. Within the site, pedestrian pathways which connect
each unit with the parking, open space and site amenities designed to serve it
should be provided. Locate pedestrian pathways in the normal day-to-day view
of residents and passersby. Pedestrian pathways should be well lit at night.
To be avoided: Site plan and — - - - — - -
circulation system that limits P�
mobility of pedestrians. t
i
i
i
I
i
I
a
28
- Preferred: A circulation system that
t ` promotes pedestrian movement and access
1 �✓ _L 1 1 1 1 1 1
to area amenities such as open space and
transit stops.
- �
a000 = a
= 1
TTff
J� T "�r<JY T T T T T
29
B. LANDSCAPE DESIGN
B1. Landscape plan should integrate with and enhance the surrounding
neighborhood landscape.
Dominant landscape features in the neighborhood should be reflected in landscape
plan. Dominant neighborhood landscape features may be natural or man made.
These features include retention of mature trees or other native vegetation, a
greenbelt or other open space corridor, a trail system, or formal landscaping
along a public right-of-way. Street trees should be incorporated in the landscape
plan when they exist in the neighborhood. This is one simple way to integrate
a new housing development into an existing neighborhood.
SUGGESTED ILLUSTRATIONS:
Severe disruption of a neighborhood's valued landscape amenities in the wake of new
development.
Incorporation and enhancement of neighborhood landscape quality in new development.
30
i •
31
B2. Landscape plan should incorporate existing natural features of significance.
The landscape plan should enhance existing topographical conditions. The
landscape plan should incorporate significant natural amenities such as waterways,
wetlands, large trees and wildlife habitat. The landscape plan should preserve
and enhance view corridors.
LU
to
I! Q o
) Q
5
a
To be avoided: Example of landscape plan which ignores natural features.
32
m
W
ann•
Preferred: Example of landscape plan which works with natural features.
33
B3. Landscape plan should enhance the planned open space network.
Large expanses of open space, when ill-defined, are often little used by residents.
People feel more comfortable in spaces when there is a certain sense of enclosure
and privacy. This is particularly true when planned activities are passive such as
sitting under a tree reading a book or talking in a small group.
Landscape elements should help define open space activity areas but not hinder
planned activities. For example, will large trees, planted too close, shade and
drop leaves into a swimming pool? Landscape elements should provide
opportunities for shade and wind protection for public spaces. The landscape plan
may include an area for gardening if residents will likely utilize this space.
To be avoided: Open ------. -- -- — --- -
spaces without any
provision for privacy
screening. When open
spaces are not enclosed r�=Jc
by buildings or
landscape elements, t' _
there is less chance that f �l•r —
the residents will feel �V f
comfortable or safe
using them.
1
1 1 -- ..
IYY
�1 vu�
- - - - j-- `__
34
<
<
Preferred: By simply
providing a few trees
and shrubs to the same
_ -- site plan, one can start
i r r , to make a "place" of a
"space". We can
imagine the large area
being used by all
residents for active
recreation and the
dR' smaller spaces between
buildings being used by
the residents who inhabit
- � the units adjacent to
those spaces.
C1
Suggested Illustrations:
Example of landscape elements hindering activities.
35
B4. Landscape plan should enhance parking and utility areas.
Landscaping should be utilized to help break up and screen parking areas.
Landscaping should also screen utility areas such as garbage dumpsters and
mechanical equipment.
Suggested Mustrations:
Examples of ways landscaping can screen site elements which are typically unattractive.
36
B5. Landscape plan should enhance building forms and orientation.
Landscape elements surrounding buildings should be in scale with the building
with mature plant size taken into consideration. Trees and shrubs can be planted
to enhance entryways and in groupings which relate to building modulation.
Landscape elements should provide for shading of buildings and sun exposure
where desirable.
UIV
IgUASe" CW4ts GNEM,(
To be avoided: Maturation and spacing of landscaping must be considered. For example,incense cedar grow tall and
thin and must be planted close together to provide a screen. Some types of cherry trees may never
grow to be in scale with the building.
i
t
fr �;
❑ ❑ Q
Preferred: Plant type and species can be selected to enhance the building's form. Deciduous trees, such as this
maple, provide shade in the summer and allow sunlight to penetrate in the winter when solar access
is most desirable for energy efficiency. Coniferous trees provide a year-round screen, excellent for
creating privacy and security.
37
B6. Landscape plan should indicate use of plant species suited to the microclimate
of the site and should provide for their maintenance.
Plant materials should be chosen which can withstand traffic and our local
climate. Select the species which require the least maintenance and are most
likely to survive. Select related landscape materials such as paving, seating, etc.
which are durable and easy to maintain.
Suggested IIlustrations:
Provide a recommended plant species list or list of sources.
Provide a list of sources for landscaping materials which are durable and easy to maintain.
38
39
C. BUILDING DESIGN
C1. Maintain neighborhood scale and density.
The perception of density is almost more important than actual density. This is
particularly important for infill development where neighborhood residents may
feel it's getting a little crowded. The applicant must pay particular attention to
building scale and modulation on sites which are adjacent to single-family or
other smaller scale development. Building scale, massing, and modulation can
reduce the perceived density of a development if handled well in the design of a
project.
To be avoided: This multifamily
building has been built on a site
surrounded by single family
development. The building bears
no resemblance to the existing
buildings which surround and
looks out of place.
a aQ ,s,w
' a
40
Preferred: This is a multifamily building
which has been built on an identical site,
but whose design has taken clues from the
neighborhood. This building covers
roughly the same lot area and provides for
the same number of units while appearing
as if it 'fits" in its surroundings.
Q a ' • ,�I�I
Q \
Da ,�
41
C2. Buildings should be oriented to provide for privacy.
Windows should not be placed so that residents from one unit look directly into
another unit. When this is unavoidable, buildings should be spaced at greater
distances or utilize landscaping to provide for privacy. The number of units using
a common entrance should be minimized for security as well as privacy. Privacy
in ground floor units is especially important. Parking areas and common activity
areas should not impose upon the units' privacy.
1
1
� � `y y-t•�
To be avoided: This illustrates an example of poor design and placement of buildings. Even though each unit
has been provided with a balcony or private patio, they may not wish to use it because they can be observed
by many of their neighbors.
r� i
Preferred: This example illustrates how building placement, varying building designs, use of natural
topography and use of landscape elements can result in increased privacy for residents.
42
C3. Building design should provide for individual unit identity.
Although more and more people now live in multifamily housing and do so for
longer periods of time, most people still long for their own detached home.
Through the use of modulation, color and other architectural elements, each unit
can be given its own sense of identity. Incorporate elements such as balconies,
window boxes, private gardens or patios, and private entries which residents can
personalize.
Suggested Illustrations:
Example of a multifamily development that does not offer individuality of units or private open spaces.
Example of a multifamily development that allows for individual expression with the provision of
diverse unit types, balconies, and architectural detail.
43
U. Determine Appropriate Fees for Design Review.
The fees for zoning permits in Puget Sound cities where design review takes place are
substantially higher than zoning permit fees in Kent. For example, in Tukwila, the fee
for design review is $900. In Redmond, the fee for a zoning permit is approximately
$2000 which includes design review. In Kent the current zoning permit fee is $25. The
Planning Department plans to conduct a comprehensive fee study later this year and
recommends that appropriate fees for design review be determined as part of this study.
M. Increase Staffing in the Planning Department by a Minimum of .25 FTE.
The Planning Department estimates that the workload impact of an administrative design
review program is approximately .25 to .50 FTE (full-time equivalent). This increase
in workload may be accommodated either by an increase in staffing or an adjustment in
the Department's work program. Any work program changes would have to be
coordinated with the Council's Planning Committee.
The design review planner should have expertise in landscape architecture, architecture,
and/or urban design.
IV. Amend the Zoning Code to Provide for Multifamily Design Review.
The Zoning Code will have to be amended to reference the Design Review Guidelines
Handbook and to specify applicability.
V. Implement an Administrative Process for Design Review.
Implement the administrative design review process as presented in Chapter Three.
VI. Evaluate the Design Review Program on a Periodic Basis.
The design review program should be evaluated on a periodic basis to monitor successes
and note areas for improvement. Additionally, the illustrated Design Guidelines
Handbook should be updated to keep current with innovations in the building industry
and to incorporate examples of multifamily housing built utilizing the guidelines.
44
CHAPTER FIVE: ACTION AGENDA
Outlined below are the six primary actions which must be taken by City officials to implement
design review of multifamily housing in Kent.
Action Item I: Direct Staff to Develop an Illustrated Multifamily Design Review
Guidelines Handbook.
Note: Upon adoption of design review by the City Council, staff will
prepare the Illustrated Design Review Guidelines Handbook. This effort
will entail further developing and completing illustrations and
incorporating any additions or changes necessitated by the public hearing
process.
Action Item H: Determine Appropriate Fees for Design Review.
Action Item III: Increase Staffing in the Planning Department by a Minimum of .25
FTE.
Action Item IV: Amend the Zoning Code to Provide for Multifamily Design Review.
Action Item V: Implement an Administrative Design Review Process.
Action Item VI: Evaluate the Design Review Program on a Periodic Basis.
45
r
Appendix A: RUGG Petition
46
A PETITION FOR
RESPONSIBLE URBAN GROWTH
We, the undersigned, believe that the rapid development of multi-family
housing (apartments and other high-density housing) has seriously
affected the quality of life of everyone living in Kent by overburdening our
street and road system, fire and police protection, utilities, and the
schools our children attend. The city's infrastructure simply cannot keep
pace with the number of high-density housing units being built each year
in our city. Currently, Kent has the highest. multi-family/single-family
ratio of any city in the regioni
We believe the City Council needs to take the following steps (as detailed
on the back of this page) IMMEDIATELY to address our urgent concerns:
1 ) limit the rate of construction of multi-family housing to 500
units/year.;
2) strengthen regulations to ensure adequate roads, parks, schools.,
and other public facilities are in place before additional
development is allowed;
3) not allow any single-family land to be rezoned to multi-family
until specific requirements are met;
4) establish a minimum single-family lot size of 7,200 sq. ft.;
5) institute an open space requirement and increase landscaping
requirements for all multi-family projects;
6) disallow attached side-by-side units on single-family. projects;
7) expand the definition of "multi-family transition" areas;
8) modify existing .setback and building height requirements to reduce
overall density of multi-family projects.
Name Address
1 C_ S
2 __2
3 G aa ,Cz ZS<
4o-
5 o231C1 /lG'' t�f).5�, lce G6/n•• zrc>/
7 u� I / � ✓L GG
'(96112
10 ��-
12 ` w /L Y3 6 « 7_S z C_ /�� Gti, q rO 7/
13, A — ?�7 S5- /c" S£ 16_-� w-i
14 L Ll f7 Z S.f ZY7 5 rrew
15 - .� . 3/, U9s1 ja...I lJr `t'�G3f
17 — /OL?' 4lv S E W6 9 f03
19 4 A, �:Jy n Z3.1 .5 F /� 1 c
20 4JJ, q
21 I aZ--_ /a 21 Id, • ` ,FO!3/
22 CW P -AJ u as.E. ayyy` /CaM , W/7 9eos
23 rt �l ,�Ls—Sl 9J c i
24 rr uz 'v tn9 0'
25 t lG l 3 g'S% LS`L2��• Ary j iF'd'>'�
A FoFal of ar�rnX anaf�(cl 11000 PevsOKs slimed, &tls PGhhon ...�
Q s
RPECIFICS SUPPORTING THE PETITION FOR KENT'S
RESPONSIBLE URBAN GROVVTH
1) Re; MR-G (Garden Density MF -- up to 16 units/acre)
A) Increase side yard requirement to 20' or 20% of lot width, whichever Is greater, not to exceed
30'.
B) Increase rear yard to 25'; side yard on flanking street of corner lot 10 20',
C) Require a minimum 20' of perimeter landscaping In all multifamily (MF) developments. Breaks
In the landscaping shall be permitted to provide pedestrian and vehicular access. Breaks In the
' landscaping for vehicle access shall not exceed the width of permitted curb cuts and any
required sight triangles. Perimeter landscaping shall be Type I solid screen landscaping, as -
provided in Section 15.07.050, except that only evergreen trees and shrubs shall be used.
(Except as provided above, the landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 shall apply.)
D) Limit building height to 2 stories, not to exceed 25'.
E) Require that at minimum of 25% of the total area be left as open green space.
2) Re: MR-M (Medium Density MF -- up to 23 units/acre)
A) Same as above.
B) Same as above.
C) Same as above.
D) Limit building height to 3 stories, not to exceed 35'.
E) Same as above. _
3) Re: MR-H (High Density MF -- up 10 40 units/acre)
A) Same as above. -
B) Same as above.
C) Same as above, except 30' minimum.
D) Same as above (MR-M).
E) Same as above.
4) Re: Multifamily Transition Areas
A) Redefine "multifamily transition" areas to be an MF area within 250' of a Single-family (SF)
area, within 250' of a public street right-of-way which also abuts a SF zoning district, and/or
within 100' of any other public street right-of-way.
B) Minimum and average setbacks for frontage on an arterial or collector street shall be 30' and
45', respectively. -
C) Minimum and average setbacks for frontage on a local access slreel shall be 30' and 35',
respectively.
D) Minimum and average setbacks for the portion of a properly abutting a SF zoning district shall
be 30' and 45', respectively -
E) Limit building height to-2 stories, not to exceed 25'.
F) Increase the 20' MF perimeter landscaping requirement to 30' where a development abuts a SF
district or an arterial, collector, and/or local access street. All other landscaping
requirements same as above- .
5) Re:Planned Unit Developments .
A) Require all housing units be detached, SF.dwelling units. No longer allow attached side-by-side
units.
B) Establish a minimum lot size of 7200 sq. ft. '
6), Issue building permits for no more that 500 MF dwelling units in any calendar year, until such time
as the number of constructed and approved MF dwelling units In Kent Is equal to or less than 50% of
the total dwelling.units in the City. When the total number of MF dwelling units In the City Is equal
f to 50% of the total dwelling units In the City, the City shall not, In any calendar year, Issue
building permits for more that the number of building permits Issued In that calendar year for single
family dwelling units. Dwelling units In annexed territories shall not be included as part of the total
number of dwelling units In the City until the Initial zoning for such territories Is completed.
7) Property In SF. Districts shall not be subject to rezoning to a MF District designation until such time
as the number of constructed MF units is equal to or less than 50% of the total housing units In the
City. .
6) Establish a 7200 sq. it. minimum lot size In all SF zoning districts. The establishment of any new
SF Zoning District which permits a minimum lot area less that 7200 sq. It.-and the reclassification
of a property to any zone which permits a minimum lot area less that 7200 sq. ft. shall both be
prohibited. Properties zoned SF Residential, Rt-5, as of April, 1990, may be developed In
accordance with the minimum lot area and other requirements of the RI-5 zone.
PLEASE MAIL SIGNED PETITIONS TO:
Chris Grant; 26302 Woodland Way S.; Kent, WA 98031
a
V-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kent Planning Department Reports
Kent Zoning Code; Current Edition.
The Area Housing Studies; July 1989.
Proposal for a Housing Element Update; January 1989.
Report on Multifamily Density; July 1987.
Recommendations for Multifamily Residential Design; 1987.
Multifamily Design Review Resources
Barnett, Johathan. "Developing Urban Design Guidelines". paper prepared for AICP Planners
Training Service Conference. 1988.
City of Bellevue. " Design Guidelines:Building/Sidewalk Relationships CBD". Bellevue, WA,
1983.
Bureau of Planning, Portland. "Central City Plan Fundamental Design Guidelines". Portland,
Oregon, 1990.
City of Boston. "Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Housing". Boston, Massachusetts. 1988.
City of Edmonds. Community Development Code (Architectural Design Review Section). 1982.
City of Enumclaw. Municipal Code (Design Review Board Section). 1982.
City of Mercer Island. Development Guideline No. 12. 1989.
City of Mesa. "Design Guideline Handbook". Mesa, Arizona, 1985.
City of Olympia. Design Review Ordinance. 1988.
City of Redmond. Zoning Code (Design Review Sections).
City of Snohomish. Zoning Code (Design Review Sections). 1987.
City of Seattle. "Design Review Analysis of Options". 1988.
49
a
City of Seattle. "Summary of the Proceedings: Neighborhood Design Review Forum". 1990
City of Tukwila. "Multifamily Design Standards Update" (Draft). 1991.
Duerksen, Christopher J. "Aesthetics and Land-Use Controls: Beyond Ecology and
Economics". Chicago: American Planning Association. 1986.
Glassford, Peggy. "Appearance Codes for Small Communities". Chicago: American Planning
Association. 1983.
Gehl, Jan. "Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space". New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1987.
Marcus, Clare Cooper., and Wendy Sarkissian. "Housing as if People Mattered". Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 1986.
McCamant, Kathryn., and Charles Durrett. "Cohousing:A Contemporary Approach to Housing
Ourselves". Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press, 1989.
Alexander Cooper and Partners/Battery Park City Authority. "Design Guidelines". Battery Park
City, New York, 1987.
Pasadena Multi-Family Housing Task Force. "A City of Gardens: Pasadena Design Ordinance
for Multifamily Housing". April 1988.
Portland Chapter AIA. "The 10 Essentials for North/Northeast Portland Housing". January
1991.
San Francisco Department of City Planning. "Residential Design Guidelines". City and County
of San Francisco, 1989.
50