HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/19/2005 Planning & Economic Development
Committee Agenda
KENT Councilmembers: Ron Harmon#Bruce White#Tim Clark,Chair
WwSM N_y^r_QN
SPECIAL MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING—January 19,2005
4:15 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of the Minutes of 11/29/04 YES 1
2. Approval of the Minutes of 12/6/04. YES 3
3. #ZCA-2002-4 Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance. YES Kim Marousek 7
Testimony and comments are limited to proposed
changes to the wetland buffer regulations.
4. (a)#CPA-2004-1 Downtown Strategic Action YES William Osborne 37
Plan Update,Comprehensive Plan&Zoning
Amendments,and
(b)#CPA-2004-4(A-D)2004 Annual
Comprehensive Plan&Zoning Map
Amendments.
Testimony and comments are limited to
proposed changes to the Lotto/Toppano application.
Unless otherwise noted,the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3"a Monday of each month
at 4:00 p.m.in Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,98032-5895.
For information on the above items,the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at
htW://www.ci.kent.wa.us/CityCouncil/conimittees/planning.asp or contact Pamela Mottram or the respective project
• planner in Planning Services at(253)856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at
(253)856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay
Service at 1-800-833-6388.
i
This page intentionallk left blank.
i
1
PLANNING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 29,2004
C OMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark,Ron Harmon,Bruce White
The public hearing meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 5:00 P.M.
Approval of Minutes
None
Critical Areas Ordinance#ZCA-2004-4
Principal Planner Kim Marousek gave an overview of previous meetings and actions taken with regards to the Critical
Areas Ordinance. She stated that the scope for this evening focuses on the issue of wetland buffers and specifically
whether buffers could be reduced with enhancements.
Ms.Marousek addressed questions raised by Chair Clark with respect to standard buffer widths.
Ms. Marousek submitted letters for the record from: Master Builder's Association dated November I", from The Soos
Creek Water and Sewer District on November 2"d, a letter from Oberto dated November 15, and a letter from the
Washington Department of Ecology dated November 29.
Chair Clark declared the public hearing open.
Paul Morford,PO Box 6345, Kent,WA 98064 stated that buffer distances were not based on best available science and
that by increasing buffers,housing prices will increase,urging the Committee to leave the buffers as is.
Floyd Erford, 11909 SE 248'h St., Kent, WA suggested that the City consider taking 25 feet of everyone's land rather
then targeting a few people. Joe Schuler, 28014 West Valley Highway, Kent, WA stated that the City created two
ponds on his property located on Frontage Road and 441h Street. Chair Clark suggested that Kim Marousek speak with
him as his property is not inside Kent's boundaries. Bill Applegate, 24520 112'h Ave SE, Kent,WA cited examples of
why aquifers are not protected.
John Welch, 11405 SE 196'h,Kent,WA described his buffer issues,voicing opposition to an additional 25 foot buffer.
Bill Dinsdale, 13700 SE 266'h, Kent, WA stated that widening buffers will affect several of his properties citing an
estimated financial impact on one piece of property at between $750,000 and$1.1 million dollars. He stated that the city
would lose $30,000 dollars the first year in revenue with mitigation and permit fees and a $3,000 per year loss in taxes.
He suggested that,the city appoint a citizen's advisory council to make changes to the buffer in one year rather then now.
Mr. Kim Hargesheimer, 21626 107'h St. E, Buckley, WA stated that he manages the Oberto Sausage Company at 7060
S 238`h speaking on behalf of Art and Dorothy Oberto. He stated that their consideration to expand Oberto, employing an
additional 45 people would be prohibitive with new regulations and could force them to move business to Oregon.
Tom Sharp, PO Box 918, Maple Valley, WA opined that a major problem would be loss of economic opportunity and
suggested applying the PUD ordinance to properties less than five acres in size to allow people more opportunity to
develop.
Garrett Hoffman, South King County Manager, Master Builders Association submitted a letter to the record
introduced as Exhibit A. He stated that he was not confident the city and staff considered the GMA criteria of BAS. Mr.
Hoffman stated that he wants to see the city's documentation justifying what they want to do.
Chair Clark countered that the City hired consultants to meet BAS.
Sam Pace, Seattle King County Assoc of Realtors, 29839 1541h Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98042 submitted a power point
presentation and exhibit for the record. He spoke about buffer balancing, focusing on the structure of the GMA and
presented a buffer related case of W.E.A.N.vs.Island County.
Ms. Frankie Keyes, 10216 SE 2671h St, Kent, WA stated that by increasing the buffers people are losing their property
rights and in effect is the city's way of taking private property.
Richard Robohm, Washington State Dept of Ecology,Northwest Regional Office stated that one GMA goal requires
that BAS be used to protect critical areas functions and values. He stated that the city's draft proposal is at the low end of
the range of BAS, the classification system that provides a basis for establishing buffers is out of date, and compensation
ratios are half of what they need to be with regard to the loss of filling wetlands and mitigation project failures.
Gary Volchok, 16400 SouthCenter Parkway, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98188 gave a power point presentation focused
on wetlands on a specific property. He stated that he owns two acres of property that would see a reduction in the
developable portion with an increase in buffering. He stated that his original property value was $549,000 and now the
value would be $223,000.
Alan Keimig, 216 A. St. NW, Auburn, WA stated that buffering should not be considered on set criteria rather on an
individual parcel bases per BAS.
Gary Young, Polygon NW, 11624 SE 51h St., Suite 200, Bellevue, WA questioned what the City would gain by
extending buffers an additional 25 feet across the board in the three categories, stating that the cost is greater than the
gain. He urged the Committee to take a year to reconsider their decision before taking action.
2
Randy Reber,28519 136`h Ave. Sl�, Kent, WA stated that his family owns 46 acres. He stated that increased buftenng
will reduce his lot usage near Soosl tte Creek. Mr. Reber questioned the incentive to keep property with the continual
erosion of property values while still paying taxes on unused land.
Theresa Dusek, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 18215 72"d Avenue S., Kent, WA stated that she works wit
developers and cities. Ms.Dusek o6ined on buffer averaging versus buffer reduction,questioning if existing buffers of 25
feet or less cause degradation of wetland functions and values. She stated that an across the board increase buffer of 25
feet needs to be questioned.
Ms. Marousek and Ms. Lizzie Zeipke, wetland consultant with Adolfson & Associates addressed some of the concerns
raised as part of the testimony including how BAS was incorporated into the Critical Areas Ordinance for Kent. Ms.
Marousek stated that staff has looked at the Growth Management Goals with respect to the valley floor area and the
stream regulations that were brought forward.
Richard Weinman, Huckle, Weinman and Associates addressed comments made by a couple speakers with regard to
the W.E.A.N. decision, Division 1 of the Court of Appeals on June 7, 2004. He explained that while the W.E.A.N.
decision was decided recently it dogs not add more new information to the case law. The consultant team and staff have
been conscious throughout this process of the need to balance GMA goals and have been doing the same throughout the
process. The balancing of goals is What has resulted in the proposed buffers being on the lower end of the best available
science range. Weinman explained Ithat the Court in W.E.A.N. did not justify a departure from beset available science in
that case,rather the discussion of balancing GMA goals was a general statement,dicta,not a basis for the decision.
Assistant City Attorney, Kim Adams Pratt stated that the Legal Department concurs with Mr. Weinman's assessment
of the W.E.A.N. case. It is not neiv information and the City's consultants and staff have been balancing GMA goals
throughout the process. The Court in W.E.A.N. is not saying that RCW 36.70A.172 can be disregarded, which provides
that best available science shall be Included in developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of
critical areas. The Court emphasize¢l that"this means all functions and values."
Deborah Ranniger, City Council 'Member commented on Mr. Sharp's suggestion to revisit the PUD concept, on the
economic cost to the city versus thl incremental gain achieved by adding an additional 25 feet of wetland buffer and on
changing wetland criteria stating thalt the city should consider delaying a decision.
Ms. Marousek stated that the GMA mandate is December 1, 2004. She stated that the city has not prepared a detailed
cost analysis of impacts to citizens.;However, there is a cost to the city if the critical areas environment is not protecte
Ms. Marousek stated that the existing 3-tier classification system was acceptable to the city and when our consultant
looked at changing to the 4-tiered system, it wasn't much more beneficial.
Richard Weinman stated that if e city does not adopt the Critical Areas Ordinance by December 1, 2004, it will
technically be out of compliance wiM the GMA and the City will not be eligible for many State grants.
Chair Clark declared the Public Hewing Closed.
Chair Clark MOVED and Bruce White SECONDED to approve the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance, ZCA-2002-4 as
recommended by the Land Use Planning Board with the amendments recommended by staff related to the wetland buffers
and forward the ordinance to the Ci*Council for their decision.
Committee Member White suggested that the City enlist a company like Polygon to tell the city how a current regulation
development has been degraded,voking his opposition to move forward with these new regulations.
Member Harmon suggested the formation of an Ad-Hoc Committee for the duration of 60 to 90 days, to assist staff with
forming a compromise acceptable to.all parties,and then move it on to Council.
Community Development Director,)Fred Satterstrom stated that staff and consultants have been cognizant of how this
ordinance will effect land development. Mr. Satterstrom suggested that a meeting be held with the Full Council if the
Committee does not recommend this ordinance and wishes to depart from Best Available Science.
Chair Clark stated that the City is r$quired by law under the GMA to move forward with a Critical Areas Ordinance and
by not complying the City could stiffer severe consequences including ending up in court. He stated that postponing a
decision does a disservice to the conhmunity and city.
Chair Clark called for the vote. Motion failed 2 to 1 with Members Harmon and White Opposed.
Mr. Satterstrom suggested setting up a workshop with Full Council.
Adiournment
Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 7:17 p.m.
Pamela Mottram,
Admin Secretary,Planning Services.
I
Planning&Economic Development Committee Meeting)t 1/29/04 S:1Pennit\Plan\Planning Committee\2004\Mmutes\I 12904pc-min.doc
Page 2 of 2
3
PLANNING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
DECEMBER 6,2004
7—Themspecial
MITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark,Ron Harmon,Bruce White
meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 P.M.
Approval of Minutes
Committee Member White Moved and Committee Member Harmon Seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of the November 15,2004 meeting. Motion Carried 3-0.
Annual 2004 Comprehensive Plan &Zoning May Amendments#CPA-2004-4(A-D)/#CPZ-2004(3-6)
Chris Ferko, Barghausen Engineers, 18215 72"d Ave.S,Kent,WA 98032 proposed amending their Lotto
proposal to include a conditional restriction prohibiting development of gasoline service stations on the
subject site and requesting a conversion of the Single Family zoned two acre parcel to NCC in order that a
use be developed to best serve the community. Mr.Ferko urged the Committee to consider forwarding to the
Council a recommendation for approval of this application.
Russell Hanscom, 9523 S 2371h Place, Kent, WA, as executive director of Arbor Village, an 89 apartment
retirement home and assisted living community, spoke on behalf of the residents in stating that they support
an increase in zoning to four acres and a commercial development for the subject site with regard to the Lotto
Amendment.
Planner Bill Osborne stated that this year's four comprehensive plan amendment proposals need to be
considered together with the DSAP update as part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle.
Mr. Osborne described each of the four comprehensive plan amendment application proposals; stating that
the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending: Approval of the Millenium Kangley Building
Amendment proposal for Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation and Office/Mixed Use Zoning District
designation; Approval of the Kent Office Building Amendment proposal; Denial of the Lotto/Toppano
Amendment proposal; and Denial Without Prejudice of the Muth Amendment proposal.
Mr. Osborne submitted a letter from Chris Ferko with Barghausen for the record. Mr. Osborne spoke about
staff s concerns with development standards for NCC zoning and special permitted uses.
Mr. Osborne addressed questions raised by the Committee Members with respect to the Millenium-Kangley
Building amendment proposal located on 110h Avenue Southeast. Community Development Director Fred
Satterstrom addressed Member Clark's questions with respect to alternative plan or zoning designations for
the subject site. Mr. Osborne stated that the applicant submitted a revision request subsequent to his initial
application submittal requesting a change in the Comprehensive Plan Designation to Mixed Use and a
Zoning Designation change to Office/Mixed-Use; Staff and the Land Use and Planning Board are
recommending Approval of the revised application.
Mr. Osborne addressed questions raised by Member White with respect to the development rights issue
related to the Muth Amendment and staffs recommendation of Denial without Prejudice. In response to an
inquiry by Member White, Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt stated her office is of the opinion that
once King County acts on this property, the applicant would not have to wait to resubmit this proposal with
the annual comprehensive plan updates in September 2005 because the Kent City Council can declare an
emergency to look at issues considered to be of community wide significance outside of the annual
Comprehensive Plan cycle. It appears this application could be of community-wide significance because of
the City's interest in the Johnson Creek improvements. She stated that the Legal staff believes it premature
to approve this amendment until King County makes a decision concerning this site.
L
n MOVED and White SECONDED a Motion to accept the letter submitted from Chris Ferko with
ausen Engineers and the literature on the Downtown Strategic Action Plan for the record. Motion
IED.
Mr. Satterstrom addressed questions raised by the Committee with regard to the Lotto/Toppano proposal,
citing staff s rationale for their recommendation for this year's proposal.
Steve Mullen, Transportation Engineering Manager spoke to the Committee's concerns with respect to
traffic flow and access issues;for the Lotto/Toppano proposal.
Mr. Satterstrom addressed Member White's concerns with respect to what uses could be developed if the site
were increased to four acres ;with the exclusion of service stations. He cited durable business type of retail
uses, convenience type of cjommercial uses, personal and professional services would be allowed. Mr.
Satterstrom addressed Mcmb4 White's concerns with respect to how the City will work with the developer
to diminish impacts to suffo ding single family developments.
Member Harmon MOVED 4nd Member White SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use Planning
Board's recommendation of Approval with reference to Proposal A- Millenium Kangley Building
Amendment. Motion CARRIED.
Member Harmon MOVED ad Member White SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use and Planning
Board's recommendation d Approval for Proposal B — Kent Office Building Amendment. Motion
CARRIED.
Member Harmon MOVED Od Member Clark SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use and Planning
Board's recommendation of Denial for Proposal C-Lotto/Toppano Amendment. Motion CARRIED 2 to 1
with White opposed.
Member Harmon MOVED a> d Member Clark SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use and Planning
Board's recommendation 4 Denial without Prejudice for Proposal D-Muth Amendment. Motion
CARRIED.
Member Harmon MOVED axed Member White SECONDED a Motion to approve the recommendation of the
Land Use and Planning Board regarding the four Applications of the 2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendments and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Motion
CARRIED 2 to 1 with White opposed.
#CPA-2004-1 Downtown St ate is Action Plan Update
Osborne submitted two exhi its for the record; a letter from Fred High with Kent School District regarding
enrollment impacts on ten acres of multifamily zoning and a letter submitted December 6 from Joseph
Blattner with Tarragon addressed to the Planning and Economic Development Committee supporting DCE
zoning north of James. Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion to accept the
exhibits to the record. Motiob CARRIED.
Mr. Osborne stated that he would like the Committee to include Attachment F, a list of downtown projects
from 1998 — 2009 as part of their motion. He stated that the Land Use and Planning Board recommends
approving the Downtown Stgategic Action Plan document dated November 8, 2004, Attachment B-List of
Figures,approve the figures themselves and accepting substantive changes to two maps.
Mr. Osborne described that zoning code text amendments include applying Downtown Design Review to all
districts, including the North Frame District; eliminating minimum lot size requirement for multifamily
residential in all DSAP distOcts; raising surface parking cap to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. non-residential in
East and West Frame Districts with the requirement of 25%residential component of overall gross floor area
and inclusion of a 2-year sunset clause to re-evaluate.
Bruce Anderson, Bellevue, 'WA stated that he wishes to pursue a retail development project on a viable
commercial site located in the West Frame District that will complement the Kent Station and that this site
would not be conducive to residential development due to its proximity to the freeway and railroad tracks.
Planning&Economic Committee Meeting 12/6/04
Page 2 of 3
i
5
Fred High, Assistant Superintendent of Kent School District, 12033 SE 256'" St., Kent, WA and Tal
Guppy,Principal of the Neely O'Brien Elementary School, 6300 S 236`t', Kent,WA described the effects
that more multifamily residential development would have on the school district. Mr. Guppy stated that it
has been the school district's consensus that multifamily residential creates financial impacts for the district.
Mr.High submitted a letter for the record.
Mr. Guppy responded to questions raised by Member Harmon with respect to how the school has worked
with transitional students so that they can continue their education in the school without interruption. He
stated that the district employs a family advocate who supports those families and introduces them to
community resources.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a motion to adopt the letter submitted by Mr.
High,Assistant Superintendent of the Kent School District for the record. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Mr. Osborne and Mr. Satterstrom addressed questions raised by the Committee with respect to the 4.5
parking spaces cap with the 25% residential component, the 2-year sunset clause and redevelopment versus
new development opportunities in both the East and West Frame Districts. Member Harmon stated that he
favors the removal of the 25% residential development requirement with a 2-year sunset clause from the
West Frame District with Member White concurring adding that he would support removal of this
requirement from the East Frame District as well. Member Harmon proposed amending the MR-G to
MR-T 16 north of James,with Member White concurring.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion for Item #5 to change MR-G from
Cloudy to 5`"and north of Cloudy between 4 b and 5a'to MR-T16. Motion CARRIED 2 -1 with Chair Clark
opposed.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion for Item#6C to raise surface parking
cap to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. non-residential in the East and West Frame Districts and applying the 25%
residential component of overall gross floor area only to the East Frame District, exempting the West Frame
District. Motion CARRIED 2 to 1 with Chair Clark opposed.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion to approve the modifications of the
Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update and implementing regulations as recommended by the Land Use
and Planning Board to include replacement of Figure IV-3 with Attachment F-Downtown Projects 1998-
2009, to include the previously stated modifications under Items 5 and 6-C, and direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Chair Clark clarified that these items will go before Council in January.
CPA-2004-5 Urban Density Study
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that a resolution is needed declaring an emergency to pursue
revisions of the Comprehensive Plan outside of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle to ensure
compliance with regard to density in Urban Growth areas.
Member White MOVED and Member Harmon SECONDED a Motion to approve a resolution declaring an
emergency to pursue revisions of the comprehensive plan to ensure compliance with Chapter 36.70A RCW
regarding density in an urban growth area. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Adjournment
Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 5:20 pm
Pamela Mottram,
Admin Secretary,Planning Services
S_IPermilOanOanning Cammiltee12004Winutes 120604pc-min.dac
Planning&Economic Committee Meeting 12/6/04
Page 3 of 3
i
This page intentionally left blank.
i
7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KE N T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
'WASH IN G T O" Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
January 13, 2005
TO: CHAIR TIM CLARK AND PLANNING&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: KIM MAROUSEK,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT #ZCA-2002-4
PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
MOTION: I move to approve/deny/modify the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (ZCA-
2002-4) as recommended by the Land Use & Planning Board and as further amended by
[Option 1/Option 2] related to wetland buffers, and forward the ordinance to the City Council
for adoption.
SUMMARY: On November 29, 2004 the P&ED Committee held a public hearing on revisions
to the proposed wetland buffer regulations of the draft CAO, (further identified as Option 1).
These proposed revisions primarily provided for administrative reductions of wetland buffers
under certain circumstances. As revised by this option, the draft CAO was not passed out of
committee.
On January 5, 2005 staff met with the City Council during a workshop to determine the direction
Council wished to take and whether there were other options the Council would like considered.
Council directed staff to evaluate a new option that would retain the wetland buffers which
currently exist in code. This is further identified as Option 2.
Since the scope of discussions and further hearings have been limited to wetland buffers, the
balance of the draft CAO ordinance previously presented to Council at the November 2, 2004
Council meeting, has remained unchanged. Therefore, the scope of the public hearing on
January 29, 2005 will be limited to the wetland buffer discussion.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
OPTIONS:
Option 1: This consists of the draft CAO as recommended by the Land Use and Planning
Board and as further modified relative to wetland buffers as presented at the November 29, 2004
P&ED Committee public hearing. Those portions of the draft CAO that were modified by
Option 1 are attached to this memo for further clarification.
i
Option 2: This consits of the draft CAO as recommended by the Land Use and Planning
Board and further modifiled to reflect the wetland buffers currently codified. Those portions of
the draft CAO that are modified by Option 2 are also attached to this memo.
Based on the analysis provided to staff from the City's consultants,retaining the existing wetland
buffers, (Option 2), would represent a departure from Best Available Science (BAS). WAC 365-
195-915 defines a process should a jurisdiction opt to depart from BAS when adopting
regulations for the protection of critical areas. This section states,
A county or citydeparting from science-based recommendations should:
(i)Identify the information in the record that supports its decision to depart from
science-based recommendations;
(ii)Explain its rationale for departing from science-based recommendations; and
(iii)Identify pot�ntial risks to the functions and values of the critical area or areas
at issue and any kdditional measures chosen to limit such risks. State
Environmental I olicy Act(SEPA)review often provides an opportunity to
establish and pu$lish the record of this assessment.
The city's consultant had evaluated the potential risks to the functions and values of wetlands
should Option 2 be recommended. That analysis necessitated a revised SEPA addendum be
issued. That document is!attached to this memo for Council's further review.
As discussed as the January 4, 2005 workshop, should the Council choose to adopt critical area
regulations that depart from BAS, the record will need to reflect how the City Council chose to
balance the applicable G1MA goals. To assist Council with that process, I have attached to this
memo a portion of the recently updated Comprehensive Plan that outlines Kent's Planning Goals
relative to the 13 goals evressed in the GMA.
In December, documents lwere received by the city from our wetland consultant. This material,
which has been verba4 summarized to the council, has been identified as Exhibit #24
"Supplement to wetland 1)AS document,"and has been copied to the Council's file.
Staff and the City's wetland consultant will be available at the January 19, 2004 P&ED
Committee hearing to further discuss these options and to answer any questions.
KM/pm SAPermitlPlanIZONECODE.�MEND120021CAO12023123-CAOmemoPCl-19-05.doc
Enc: Revised SEPA Addendum,,January 12,2005
Revised draft CAO,Optioni 1
Revised draft CAO,OptioN 2
Kent Planning Goals,2004!Comprehensive Plan
January 12,2005 memo from Adolfson
Cc: City Council Members
Fred Satterstrom, AICP,C0 Director
Tom Bmbaker,City Attom�y
Larry Blanchard,PW Director
Gary Gill,City Engineer
Charlene Anderson,AICP,PS Manager
Bill Wolinski,Environmental Engineering Manager
Kelly Peterson,Environmental Engineering
Project File
Planning&Economic Dev.Speciai Committee Meeting
1/19/05
9
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
Phone:253-856-5454
KEN T Fax: 253-866-6454
WA3XIXOTOX
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
CITY OF KENT
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
EIS ADDENDUM(#ENV-93.51)DATED SEPTEMBER 3,2004
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Responsible Official: Kim Marousek
SCOPE
On September 3, 2004, the City of Kent in accordance with WAC 197-11, adopted the its Comprehensive
Plan EIS (#ENV-93-51) and completed an addendum to that document for proposed development
regulations to designate and protect critical areas in conformance with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act(GMA). The update consolidates and revises regulations that are currently dispersed in
multiple chapters and sections of the Kent Municipal Code, and adds regulations for additional critical
areas.
This document, which supplements that addendum, provides additional analysis specifically related to
proposed wetland buffers. The analysis provided under the September 3, 2004 addendum evaluated
wetland buffers for category 1, 2 and 3 wetlands at 125 feet, 75 feet and 50 feet,respectively (identified
as Option 1). This supplemental analysis evaluates wetland buffers for category 1, 2 and 3 wetlands at
100 feet, 50 feet and 25 feet, respectively (identified as Option 2). Option 2 reflects Kent's existing
wetland buffer regulations.
All other elements of the proposed critical area regulations evaluated under the September 3, 2004
addendum remain unchanged and therefore do not necessitate further environmental review.
BACKGROUND
The Growth Management Act(GMA)establishes a framework for local planning to manage growth. The
GMA's planning goals identify key concerns(e.g.reducing sprawl,protecting the environment,providing
services and facilities cost-effectively, involving citizens in decisions,etc.)that must be addressed in local
plans. The GMA also requires that local jurisdictions adopt development regulations to implement the
policies of their Comprehensive Plans. More specifically, the GMA requires that jurisdictions adopt
regulations to protect critical areas and to review and amend these regulations as necessary when they
revise their comprehensive plans or development regulations (RCW 36.70A.060(2) & (3)). The City of
Kent is updating its critical areas regulations to meet this requirement, and to include the "best available
science"in its regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.172.
RISKS TO WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
Retention of existing wetland buffers within the city of Kent (Option 2) would be considered a departure
from Best Available Science (BAS). Pursuant to WAC 365-195-915, if a jurisdiction elects to adopt
critical area regulations that depart from BAS, then that jurisdiction should identify potential risks to the
functions and values of that resource as well as identify potential mitigation measures to reduce that risk.
Generally, Kent has approximately 2,000 acres of inventoried wetlands within the city limits and future
annexation area. These wetlands range from 310 acres to less than 1 acre in size and contain a variety of
functions and values. There are roughly 16 wetlands that have potentially been identified as category 1
wetlands. Those larger, more complex wetlands are associated with Big Soos Creek, Soosette Creek,
i
1
ENV-2003-26
City of Kent Critical Areas Ordin nce
Comprehensive Plan EIS—Addendum
January 12,2005
Clark Lake, Upper Mill Creek, Lake Fenwick, the Green River Natural Resource Enhancement Area,
Mullen Slough and Johnson Creek. A number of these highly valued wetlands are currently within public
ownership.
Kent's wetlands provide protection for water quality, waterfowl habitat_and salmonid habitat associated
with Soosette,Big Soos Crelek and the Green River,and flood management within the city.
Potential long term risks\i4acts to the wetland resource with Option 2 could include:
• Degradation of habitat for wetland related wildlife species and birds(including amphibians);
• Degradation of habitat tolprotect salmonids along riparian wetlands;
• Continued water quality degradation in wetlands due to increased inputs of fine sediments from urban
development;
• Continued degradation of identified water quality problems as documented on the state 303d list in
areas with associated ripairian wetlands;
• Continued pollutant loading in wetlands,particularly in category 2 and 3 wetlands;and
• A reduction in stormwater and floodwater capacity in wetlands receiving sediment loading over time.
These risks reflect a continpation of existing wetland regulations and would not create new or different
impacts.
i
POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Additional measures that c ld limit the risks to wetland resources could include other citywide actions or
programs to protect wetlan jf inctions and values on a landscape level,such as:
• Use of more stringent*er quality protection measures during stormwater design to specifically
protect wetland resources;
• Reduction of thresholdsi for when stormwater management is required on sites that contain wetlands;
• Maintenance of the 15-Foot building setback area in grass or lawn to provide biofiltration outside of
the wetland buffer;
• Enhancement of all existing wetland buffers on sites pending development action;
• Requirements for stewardship plans designed to protect wetland resources in agricultural areas
adjacent to or in wetlands;
• Use of low impact development strategies(such as stormwater infiltration,etc.)that reduce the
impact of urban development on wetland resources;
• Purchase of highly sensitive or high quality wetland areas and their buffers by the City as open space
through increased stormwater utility fees or other funding;or
• Use of voluntary conservation easements or other mechanisms by the City to set-aside natural areas
containing significant Wetlands.
DECISION
This supplement to the EI$ Addendum dated September 3, 2004 adds additional analysis but does not
substantially change the analysis of significant impacts found in the original EIS prepared for the City of
Kent Comprehensive Plan(#ENV-93-51). The Comprehensive Plan EIS,Addendum and this supplement
to that addendum, adequa(ely evaluates any potential adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, a
separate threshold determination is not required. As part of a phased approach, subsequent site-specific
development proposals will be required to show consistency with appropriate environmental regulations
as well as the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance.
i
Dated: January 12,2005 Signature:
Kim M sek,AICP,Responsible Official
KM:jm%NS:Tmnil\Plan\ZONEC DEAMENIN2002\CAO\CAOaddendum(R).doc
Page 2 of 2
11
OPTION 1—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
Sec. 11.06.600. Wetland buffers and building setback lines.
A. Standard buffer widths. Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all
regulated activities adjacent to wetlands. Any wetland created, restored, or
enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also
include the standard buffer required for the category of the created,restored,
or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland
boundary as surveyed in the field. The width of the wetland buffer zone
shall be determined according to the rating assigned to the wetland.
Wetland Category Standard Buffer
1 125 feet
2 75 feet
3 50 feet
B. cnhan�ea buffer width Buffer utilization ,for landscape requirements...
Enhanced wetland buffers may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements
where the city determines that the buffer, as enhanced by the applicant, will
provide greater protection of wetland functions, and will serve the same
function and dimensional requirements as landscaping that would otherwise
be required pursuant to Ch. 15.07 KCC. Approved landscaping vegetation
must meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements.
C. Increased buffer widths. The director may require increased buffer
widths on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect
wetland functions and values based on local conditions in accordance with
recommendations of a qualified professional biologist and best available
science (BAS). This determination shall be supported by appropriate
documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the
functions and values of the wetland. The documentation must demonstrate
that:
1. A larger buffer is necessary to protect the function and values of
the wetland;
a
i
1
I
OPTION 1—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
�. A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of
existing kpecies;
3. The wetland is used by species listed by the federal government
or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive or documented priority
species Or habitats, or essential or outstanding potential habitats for those
species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or
raptor nesting trees;
4. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion
control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
5;. The adjacent land has minimal vegetation cover or slopes greater
than fift$en(15)percent.
D. !Decreased or averaged buffer widths. Buffer widths may
be decreased or averaged if an applicant receives approval as
provided in this subsection. An applicant may request either (1)
buffer alveraging, or (2) buffer reduction with enhancement. A
combination of these two buffer modification methods shall not be
used.
1. Buffer averaging. Standard wetland buffers may be modified by
averaging buffer widths. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed
only wh$re the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
a. Averaging will provide the necessary biological, chemical
and phy$ical support necessary to protect the wetland in question, taking
into acc�unt the type, intensity, scale, landscaping and the location of the
proposed land use.
b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to
existing physical characteristics which justify the averaging.
C. The proposal minimizes disturbances caused by land uses
in areas 4djacent to any buffers which are reduced.
d. Averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional
values.
i
i
13
OPTION 1—Wetland Buffers
• CAO Update
e. The total area contained within the wetland buffer after
averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to
averaging. In no instance shall the buffers for Category 2 wetlands be
reduced to less than 50 feet in width and for Category 1 wetlands less than
85 feet in width. Buffer averaging shall not be permitted for Category 3
wetlands.
f. In areas where deereased--reduced buffers occur through
buffer averaging, the director or designee shall have the ability to require an
applicant to submit and receive approval of a wetland buffer enhancement
plan to ensure wetland buffer functions are maintained.
g. The functions and values of the averaged buffer are
consistent with BAS; the buffer is planted or will be planted with native
vegetation; and no portion of the buffer averaged areas contain slopes that
are ° onsidered to be erosion or landslide hazard areas
pursuant to this code.
2. Decreased buffers with enhancement: Standard wetland
buffer widths may be reduced through buffer enhancement for
degraded buffers only. The applicant shall demonstrate that through
enhancing the entire remaining degraded buffer area, the reduced
buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer thereby
protecting the wetland from adjacent development. Buffers may be
reduced in the following manner according to wetland type:
Wetland Category Maximum Buffer Resulting Buffer
Reduction Width
1 10 percent 112 feet
2 15 percent 64 feet
3 20 ercent 40 feet
a3. Decisional Criteria. Prior to approval of a decreased or
averaged—buffer, a development application shall meet all of the
decisional criteria listed below. A decreased or modified buffer will
be approved in a degraded wetland buffer only if:
1
OPTION 1—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
ai. It will provide an overall improvement in water quality
protection for the wetland;
hii. It will not adversely affect fish or wildlife species and
will provide an overall enhancement to fish and wildlife habitat;
eiii. It will provide a net improvement in drainage and/or
storm water detention capabilities;
div. All exposed areas are stabilized with native
vegetation, as appropriate;
lev. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an
erosion)hazard; and
Ai. It will not be materially detrimental to any other real
property or the City as a whole.
4bf Buffer enhancement plan. A request to decrease or
modify a buffer shall include a buffer enhancement plan prepared by
a qualified professional. The plan shall assess the habitat, water
quality, ;storm water detention, ground water recharge, shoreline
protection, and erosion protection functions of the buffer; assess the
effects of the proposed decreased or modified buffer on those
functionp; and address the six (6) criteria listed in this subsection 3a.
above. The buffer enhancement plan shall also provide the
following: (a) a map locating the specific area of enhancement; (b) a
planting;plan that uses native plant species indigenous to this region
including groundcover, shrubs, and trees; and (c) provisions for
monitoring and maintenance throughout the monitoring period.
E. Buff4 condition. Except as otherwise specified otherwise, wetland
buffers :shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer
disturbance has occurred during construction, re-vegetation with native
• 15
OPTION 1—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
vegetation shall be required pursuant to an approved mitigation plan
consistent with this code.
F. Permitted uses in a wetland buffer. Activities shall not be allowed in a
buffer except for the following and then only when properly mitigated:
1. When the improvements are part of an approved enhancement,
restoration or mitigation plan.
2. For construction of new public roads and utilities, and accessory
structures, when no practicable alternative location exists.
3. Construction of foot trails, according to the following criteria:
a.Constructed of permeable materials.
b.Designed to minimize impact on the stream system.
c.Of a maximum width of eight(8) feet.
d.Located within the outer half of the buffer, i.e., the portion
of the buffer that is farther away from the stream, except to cross a stream
when approved by the City and all other applicable agencies.
4. Construction of footbridges and boardwalks.
5. Construction of educational facilities, such as viewing platforms
and informational signs.
6. The construction of outdoor recreation such as fishing piers, boat
launches,benches.
7. Maintenance of pre-existing facilities or temporary uses having
minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on wetlands.
These may include but are not limited to: maintenance of existing drainage
facilities, low intensity passive recreational activities such as pervious trails,
nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, short term scientific or educational
activities, and sports fishing.
8. Stormwater discharge outlets with energy dissipation structures
as approved by the city of Kent. These shall be located near the outside
portion of the buffer. Mitigation shall be required for impacts to the buffer.
9. On-going maintenance activities by the city of Kent vegetation
management division of public works and parks department shall be
16
OPTION 1—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
permitted to continue general maintenance of wetlands and associated
buffers. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to trash removal,
removal of non-native vegetation, maintenance of existing vegetation as
necessar�,restoration, enhancement and sign and fence maintenance.
G. Build�ng setback lines. A minimum building setback line of fifteen (15)
feet shall be required from the edge of a wetland buffer unless otherwise
approved by the director. Alterations of the building setback lines shall not
be permitted to create additional lots for subdivisions, but only to make
reasonabpe use of existing properties. Approval of alterations of the BSBL
shall be provided in writing by the director, or his/her designee, and may
require lmitigation such as buffer enhancement.
Section 11.06.227. Degraded wetland buffer.
Degraded wetland buffer means a buffer area which cannot adequately protect its
adiacent wetland cue to one or more of the followingexisting xistingconditions: 1) lack of
vegetative cover oh presence of bare soils (resulting from disturbance, fill, debris, or
trash): 2) s g c»ni�f a�1t cover(over fifty percent) in non-native vegetative, 3) significant
cover(over fifty Vl rcent) in invasive species or noxious weeds: or 4)presence of
existing non-conforming structures or improvements.
i
S:\Permit\Plan\zonecodeOmend\2002\CAO\11.06.600optionl.doc
i
i
!
i
17
OPTION 2—Wetland Buffers
• CAO Update
Sec. 11.06.600. Wetland buffers and building setback lines.
A. Standard buffer widths. Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all
regulated activities adjacent to wetlands. Any wetland created, restored, or
enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also
include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored,
or enhanced wetland. All buffers shalt be measured from the wetland
boundary as surveyed in the field. The width of the wetland buffer zone
shall be determined according to the rating assigned to the wetland.
Wetland Category Standard Buffer
1 12�5-100 feet
2 7-5-50feet
3 -59-25feet
B. En ,.ne a r of r wit*' Buffer utilization for landscape requirements..-
Enhanced wetland buffers may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements
where the city determines that the buffer, as enhanced by the applicant, will
provide greater protection of wetland functions, and will serve the same
function and dimensional requirements as landscaping that would otherwise
be required pursuant to Ch. 15.07 KCC. Approved landscaping vegetation
must meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements.
C. Increased buffer widths. The director may require increased buffer
widths on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect
wetland functions and values based on local conditions in accordance with
recommendations of a qualified professional biologist and best available
science (BAS). This determination shall be supported by appropriate
documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the
functions and values of the wetland. The documentation must demonstrate
that:
1. A larger buffer is necessary to protect the function and values of
the wetland;
1
OPTION 2—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
i
Z. A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of
existing species;
. The wetland is used by species listed by the federal government
or the spate as endangered, threatened, sensitive or documented priority
species or habitats, or essential or outstanding potential habitats for those
species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or
raptor nesting trees;
4. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion
control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
51. The adjacent land has minimal vegetation cover or slopes greater
than fiftoen(15)percent.
Deerea$ed-er-aiwr--aged-�rferwidM& Buunf'er widths may
p;ovideo in this subseetien. request either(1)
ouixcx cfvcxasxns, o:—Tz7 aaxxcx reda6c}en \Vlcl3 �v
eambination of these twe buff edifiemi etheds shalt of be
1. Buffer averaging. Standard wetland buffers may be modified by
i
averaging buffer widths. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed
only whore the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
a. Averaging will provide the necessary biological, chemical
and physical support necessary to protect the wetland in question, taking
into account the type, intensity, scale, landscaping and the location of the
proposeo land use.
b. The, wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to
existing physical characteristics which justify the averaging.
C. The proposal minimizes disturbances caused by land uses
in areas odjacent to any buffers which are reduced.
d. Averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional
values.
r
t9
OPTION 2—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
e. The total area contained within the wetland buffer after
averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to
averaging. In no instance shall the buffers for Category 2 wetlands be
reduced to less than 34-25 feet in width and for Category 1 wetlands less
than 85 feet in width. Buffer averaging shall not be permitted for Category
3 wetlands.
f. In areas where reduced buffers occur through
buffer averaging, the director or designee shall have the ability to require an
applicant to submit and receive approval of a wetland buffer enhancement
plan to ensure wetland buffer functions are maintained.
g. The functions and values of the averaged buffer are
consistent with BAS; the buffer is planted or will be planted with native
vegetation; and no portion of the buffer averaged areas contain slopes that
are gfeater tha-a 100 .considered to be erosion or landslide hazard areas
pursuant to this code.
2. Besreaqed a€er, with en"haneernent: Standard wetland
buffer- widths amy he reduced tl„-ough h„FF r «he«eement f r
degraded buffers only. The a ffheant shell de...e«..tr.,te th.,t th rough
enhe«eing the degraded buffer, the reduced h„ff r y.411 F„„etie« at .,
higher level ♦h.,., the st.an,l.,r,l buffer thereby preteeting the , .etlan
111�,31r1 1{i
from adjaeen4 development. Buffefs eked inthe
fellowing manner-according to wetland t„«e.
Ix.ZeAla..lGp D ol.,,lt„ IZ ifYicr
R—e r w4dth
Feet
2 64€eet
3 4A-feet
3. Deeisienal Eriteria. Prior to appYe., deer-eased E)
averaged
h„FF a ,le„ele,.meat plieetien shall meet all of the
deeisien l er;ter:e listed- hele,,. A deer-easedor- et-jA4 e.i buff r will
2
OPTION 2-Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
will •a ll 4 tef 1:4.;
- !a t S'f iaa�io�iae�cir�ivcicncn-miprv'r'csicFrLZir'w`ircGz�"'a'$rrcJ
Yaeteetion for the J
- -it will not adversely aFC et fish o wildlife speeies n
will „ .:,lea fall enhaneeme„t to fish and. wildl f hab Oat.
will yrv�auc. ,
ie. It will provide t�P t ' drainage a/ «
SCTV"IQC-LCTIeZ GITIGLIL�II-CR'CCILfCC G-CCII
I
i
Id. All-e esed ekTRiJtabiI zed'VLth'IIAtiCTve—V CeiU4e«f as appfoor-iate'..
le. It .NI-ill net lead to unstable ea«th a nditions or eate a
' ft will not he .«.atef:all.w detFifneatal to a other real
pr�..eft.;e«the City as whole
y..aL,,.,a va<
hu ffeO shall ifielude a btiffer- ..ha..eemeat plan prepfed by
qualified professional. The plan shall assess the heibiteA, water
..teetio and ; C : f h buffer-;
e pr-eteet . et e the «; the
oFF ets wF the proposed ,leer-eased or e, i-flea l h..FF« on
4h..se
ft et:.,4; and ad fens the a .. (6) ef:tef;a listed in t l.his s.. seet;e« 3
k�.,e The buffer- enha..ee...e..4 plan shall also prowide the
enhancement;
„la..t:..g!pla., 4at uses
native
pla.,4 apeeies .digeneus to this f
i
meniteri�g and main4enanee dffeugheut the monitoring period-.
E. Buffe# condition. Except as otherwise specified otherwise, wetland
buffers ishall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer
disturbance has occurred during construction, re-vegetation with native
i
• 21
OPTION 2—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
vegetation shall be required pursuant to an approved mitigation plan
consistent with this code.
F. Permitted uses in a wetland buffer. Activities shall not be allowed in a
buffer except for the following and then only when properly mitigated:
1. When the improvements are part of an approved enhancement,
restoration or mitigation plan.
2. For construction of new public roads and utilities, and accessory
structures, when no practicable alternative location exists.
3. Construction of foot trails, according to the following criteria:
a.Constructed of permeable materials.
b.Designed to minimize impact on the stream system.
c.Of a maximum width of eight(8)feet.
d.Located within the outer half of the buffer, i.e., the portion
of the buffer that is farther away from the stream, except to cross a stream
when approved by the City and all other applicable agencies.
4. Construction of footbridges and boardwalks.
5. Construction of educational facilities, such as viewing platforms
and informational signs.
6. The construction of outdoor recreation such as fishing piers, boat
launches,benches.
7. Maintenance of pre-existing facilities or temporary uses having
minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on wetlands.
These may include but are not limited to: maintenance of existing drainage
facilities, low intensity passive recreational activities such as pervious trails,
nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, short term scientific or educational
activities, and sports fishing.
8. Stormwater discharge outlets with energy dissipation structures
as approved by the city of Kent. These shall be located near the outside
portion of the buffer. Mitigation shall be required for impacts to the buffer.
9. On-going maintenance activities by the city of Kent vegetation
management division of public works and parks department shall be
2
OPTION 2—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
permitted to continue general maintenance of wetlands and associated
buffers. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to trash removal,
removal of non-native vegetation, maintenance of existing vegetation as
necessary,restoration, enhancement and sign and fence maintenance.
G. Building setback lines. A minimum building setback line of fifteen (15)
feet shall be required from the edge of a wetland buffer unless otherwise
approved by the director. Alterations of the building setback lines shall not
be permitted to create additional lots for subdivisions, but only to make
reasonable use of existing properties. Approval of alterations of the BSBL
shall be provided in writing by the director, or his/her designee, and may
require rhitigation such as buffer enhancement.
eever(ever fi_fv_§§,jer-eet#) in inva!' Okieus weeds� or 4)or-esenee f
S:\Permit\Plan\zonecodolamend\2002\CAO\11.06.600option2.doc
i
23
CITY OF KENT 2004 Comprehensive Place
bxh'bit#
Rec.d6q - -05 Pt?f DG
Lae
CitY off Ka�9`8oartt--
KENT PLANNING GOALS
In September 1992, the Kent City Council adopted framework planning goals for the City.
These goals were reviewed by the Planning Commission(this body has since been functionally
replaced by the Land Use and Planning Board), and City Council concurrent with their review
of the Countywide Planning Policies. The Human Services Commission also reviewed the
planning goals related to human services. The goals were developed to be consistent with the
State planning goals in the Growth Management Act,the Countywide Planning Policies,and the
results of the Kent Community Forum and Visual Preference Survey. In adopting the goals
(Resolution 1325), the Council stated that they were to be used as the policy framework for the
preparation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Kent planning goals are organized to be as consistent as possible with the goals outlined in
the Growth Management Act. There are some issues,such as human services and urban design,
for which the GMA does not outline specific goals. However, these are important local issues,
and planning goals related to these issues also were adopted by the Council. These goals,
therefore,also have been used extensively in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The planning goals are listed as follows,by subject matter:
Framework Policies 3-5
CITY OF KENT 2004 Comprehensive P._,- 2
Urban Growth
1. A future growth and development pattern shall be encouraged which minimizes urban
sprawl. In partikular, the conversion of undeveloped land not presently in the City into
low-density urba> development shall be discouraged
2. The City's Urban Growth Area boundary shall be coordinated with King County and
surrounding jurisdictions, and will reflect the regional growth vision as expressed in
VISION 2020, the subsequent Destination 2030 transportation plan update and the
Countywide Planning Policies. The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to
accommodate at I least twenty years of residential, commercial, and industrial growth,
and will represent the City's future annexation area.
3. Growth should cVcur first in areas already served by public infrastructure,particularly
roads, water, and;,sewer systems.
4. Areas shall be designated within the City's planning area for medium- to high-density
development, in order to preserve existing neighborhoods and open space areas and
enhance transit opportunities.
S. Mixed-use development shall be encouraged in designated areas within the planning
area.
6 Kent shall maintain the designation of its Urban Center within which Center-
appropriate land,, uses, employment, housing infrastructure, and transit improvements
shall be concentrated.
7. The City and neiighborhood groups shall cooperatively develop neighborhood plans
addressing land#{se, mobility,parks, safety, and public facilities and services to foster a
stronger sense of community identity and citizen participation throughout Kent.
Transportation
1. The City shall develop a safe transportation network which promotes a variety of
mobility options, kncluding private automobile,public transit, bicycling, and walking.
2. The City shall continue to support public transit, including expanded Sounder commuter
rail service. Tr4sit service shall be focussed in designated medium- and high-density
centers within the City.
3. The City shall promote and encourage programs which reduce the impact of traffic
congestion.
4. The City's translortadon system shall be coordinated with the State of Washington,
METRO, King unty, and all surrounding jurisdictions. The City's transportation
planning will reflect regional priorities as established in VISION 2020, in Destination
2030, and the Coirrttywide Planning Policies.
Framework Policies 3-6
I
CITY OF KENT 2004 Comprehensive
Public Facilities
1. The provision of public facilities shall be closely coordinated with the Comprehensive
Plan. Emphasis for extension and improvement of public facilities will be placed in
those areas of the City designated for medium-and high-density development.
2. Development shall not occur in areas unless there are public facilities and services in
place or planned which are adequate to accommodate that development. Level-of-
service standanis should be established for public facilities which ensure the adequacy
of services while at the same time facilitating the land use goals of the Comprehensive
Plan.
3. Provision of public facilities shall be phased in 6-10 year increments. The initial phase
shall focus on providing and enhancing service to areas which are already urbanized.
4. Public facilities planning shall be coordinated with adjacent jurisdictions and special
districts. Within the City's designated annexation area, as time and conditions warrant,
the City may assume urban services which are presently provided by special districts.
Housing
1. Preserve, maintain, and improve the City's existing single-family and multifamily
residential neighborhoods.
2. Guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities
are available, and in a manner which is compatible with existing neighborhoods.
3. Encourage an adequate and balanced supply of safe housing units offering a diversity of
size, densities, age, style and cost. Assure that opportunities for a diversity of housing is
available to all income levels.
4. Ensure environmental quality in residential areas.
S. Ensure housing opportunities for persons with special needs, such as senior citizens, the
homeless, mentally and developmentally disabled, and low- and moderate-income
persons and families.
6. Encourage residential development in designated medium-and high-density commercial
and mixed-use areas.
7. Ensure opportunities for affonlable housing in close proximity to employment, public
transportation,and human services.
Framework Policies 3-7
CITY OF KENT 2004 Comprehensive pi_.. 26
Urban Design
1. The City shall develop an urban design strategy which reflects the desired community
vision, its environmental and historical setting, and which maintains and enhances the
livability, vitality dmd identity of the community.
2. Through development of an urban design strategy, the City shall ensure that the
Comprehensive flan, implementing policies, and development regulations reflect the
desired visions of the citizens of Kent.
3. The urban design strategy shall communicate the desired visions on a citywide as well
as a neighborhood scale.
i
4. The City shall uti�ize visual images to better communicate City goals to the development
community and the public.
S. The City shall p►vpnote citizen awareness of urban design issues.
Human Services
1. The City shall ►maintain and enhance the quality of life for all citizens through the
provision and support of effective and accessible human services.
2. The City shall incorporate consideration of the social and human development needs of
its citizens in all areas of physical planning.
3. The City shall continue its commitment to human services by allocating funding, staff,
and other resour+co to address the needs of its residents.
4. The City shall en*re the fairest distribution and most effective use of its human services
resources, consistent with adopted priorities and criteria.
S. The City shall maintain information on current community human service needs and
available resources.
6. The City shall support the long-term stability and viability of the community based
human services sylstem.
7. The City shall tale an active role in regional and sub-regional human services issues
and form partnerships to effectively address human service needs.
8. The City shall educate the community and promote awareness of human service needs.
9. The City shall proW de for the full spectrum of human services needs through the support
of programs that oddness emergency needs,preventative services, and life enhancement
services;
Framework Policies 3-8
27
CITY OF KENT 2004 Comprehensivt . w,*
10. The City shall promote and support human services which are culturally relevant and
physically accessible to all populations.
Economic Development
1. An adequate supply of land shall be designated for commercial and industrial
development to accommodate at least the next twenty(20)years ofgrowth.
2. Additional qfflce and retail development shall be encouraged,particularly in designated
centers which can be served by transit.
3. Public infrastructure, transportation, and transit service enhancements shall be utilized
to focus economic development in designated medium and high-density areas.
Natural Resource Industries
1. The City shall ensure the support of productive agricultural land through regulation.
2. Lands designated for long-term commercial agricultural use shall not be considered for
urban development.
3. The City shall discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands.
4. The City shall maintain agricultural support land uses to ensure nearby agricultural
resource lands are sustained.
Open Space And Recreation
1. The City shall preserve and enhance significant open space, including environmentally
sensitive areas such as wetlands,fish and wildlife habitat, areas prone to flooding or
geological hazards, and stream corridors. The City shall also preserve and maintain its
active and passive recreational areas, cultural resource areas, scenic vistas, and areas
which serve as physical or visual bu-Qers.
2. The City shall inventory its significant open spaces and develop a comprehensive
management plan for those spaces.
3. The City shall seek to acquire open spaces that contribute to the preservation and
enhancement of regional eco-systems.
4. The City shall identify and designate open space corridors that will connect and protect
environmentally sensitive areas, viewsheds, designated recreational corridors, or other
areas where a contiguous system would provide greater benefit than a series of isolated
areas.
5. The City shall regularly update its Comprehensive Park Plan for use as a tool in
inventorying and planning current and future active and passive recreational open
spaces;
Framework Policies 3-9
2
CITY OF KENT 2004 Comprehensive Plan
Historic Preservatio4
1. Kent's cultural,p�ysical, and environmental heritage shall be preserved and protected.
i
2. Buildings having(historic significance shall be preserved. Enhancement and renovation
of historic buildirkgs shall be encouraged, using appropriate methodologies that do not
threaten the statu*of historical character.
Environment
1. The City shall protect and enhance the natural environment, including critical areas,
endangered species habitat,air and water quality and aquifer recharge.
I
2. The City shall ensure that its land use and transportation policies protect the City's
critical areas, entangered species habitat, air and water quality.
3. The City shall develop and implement a comprehensive water quality plan that will
protect and restore riparian habitat and water quality and aquifer recharge.
4. The City shall participate in regional plans and programs to protect and restore regional
air quality, water quality and aquifer recharge areas.
S. The City shall de{elop a comprehensive water resources plan that will ensure adequate
supplies of water within the next twenty years.
6. The City shall use the best available science (BAS) when considering and implementing
measures to prot4ct and enhance the natural environmental functions of critical areas
and habitat.
7. The City shall entourage the development of large scale natural resource enhancement
sites and program4s that provide multi-species and multi functional values.
Property Rights
1. Private property sjhall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
2. The property righi of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions.
3. In developing po*ies,plans and regulations, the City shall minimize impacts on private
property rights, w�en feasible and consistent with the public's interest.
4. The City shall protect the rights of private property owners from arbitrary and
discriminatory actions while continuing to make land use and zoning decisions which
regulate the use of land to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens ofxent
Framework Policies. 3-10
CITY OF KENT 2004 Comprehensive _ ._29
• Permits
1. The City shall process permit applications in a fair and timely manner, while ensuring
that the public's health,safety and welfare are not compromised.
2. The City shall allocate adequate resources to the permit review process.
3. The City shall establish and utilize policies and procedures for permit review, in order to
ensure that the review process is consistent and predictable.
Community Involvement
1. The City shall provide for public participation in the development and amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan and regulations and policies implementing such plans.
CONCLUSION
While these goals discuss a wide range of issues, they represent a cohesive and comprehensive
set of planning and policy goals which have been used in preparing the Comprehensive Plan.
City Council adoption of these goals has helped ensure that elements within the Comprehensive
Plan are consistent with one another, and that the City's local planning goals are consistent with
state and regional growth management planning policies.
i
Framework Policies 3-11
3
i
This page intentionally left blank.
i
i
31
00 00",
�d
MEMORANDUM
LAN
v • o e L r a e r
DATE: January 12,2005 .�iwiranrnenrd So"rw
TO: Kim Marousek, Sr. Planner
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
FROM: Teresa Vanderburg, Director of Natural Sciences
CC: Kelly Peterson, Environmental Planner
RE: Risks to Wetland Functions and Values from Retaining Existing Wetland
Buffers, City of Kent,Washington
Adolfson Associates,Inc. (Adolfson)is pleased to provide this memorandum to the City of Kent
(City)to assist in the City's critical areas ordinance update. The 1995 amendment to the Growth
Management Act(GMA)requires that cities and counties in Washington include"best available
science"when developing their critical areas policies and regulations. Further, protection of all
. the"functions and values" of critical areas, including wetlands,is required as a mandate under
the GMA. Adolfson provides this memorandum for consideration by the City Council in
evaluating the scientific information used during review of the wetland regulations in the City's
update of its Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO). The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the
risks to the functions and values of wetlands as critical areas resulting from retaining the current
buffer widths outlined in the existing CAO with respect to the"best available science"
documented in the record.
Wetlands in the City of Kent
The City of Kent contains wetland resources unique to its local setting within the Green River
Valley and the Soos Creek Drainage basin. Approximately 2,000 acres of wetland are mapped
within the City and its urban growth area. A total of 336 wetlands were identified in the City by
Shannon&Wilson (2001). These wetlands ranged in size from large wetlands (310 acres)to
small(less than an acre). Sixteen of these wetlands were ranked higher in function and value and
considered potentially Category 1 wetlands in the inventory. Higher value wetlands are
associated with Big Soos Creek, Soosette Creek,Clark Lake,Upper Mill Creek,Lake Fenwick,
the Green River Natural Resource Area, Mullen Slough, and Johnson Creek, among others.
Due to their position in the landscape, wetlands in the City of Kent are particularly important for
protection of water quality, waterfowl habitat and salmonid habitat associated with Soosette,Big
Soos Creek and the Green River,and flood management within the City. Several of the largest
wetlands and highest value wetlands are held in public ownership within City parks such as the
Green River Natural Resource Area, Lake Fenwick Park, and Clark Lake Park.
ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES,INC. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW,Suite 200 Seattle,WA 98107
Tel 206 789 9658 www.adolfson.Com Fax 206 789 9684
3
City of Kent Memorandum
January 12,2005
Page 2
i
I
Function of Wetland Buffers in Kent
Based upon the type of wMands in the City, there are specific wetland functions that should be
considered when determiiing appropriate buffets for the long-term protection of these natural
resources. Specific to Kent, there is a particular need to provide fish and wildlife habitat
protection,water quality protection through the removal of sediments and pollutants, and flood
management. These specjfic functions,relative to the urbanizing environment in Kent, call for
wetland buffers that are gteater than those currently adopted in Code. Therefore, retaining
Kent's existing wetland b(tffers (100 feet, 50 feet and 25 feet for category 1, 2,and 3 wetlands,
respectively) would be a departure from the recommendations found in the "best available
science"to maintain habit t, water quality, and flood management functions specific to Kent's
local environmental circustances.
i
Results of Scientific Research on Wetland Protection and Buffers
In order to determine the Vpropriate range of buffer widths for wetlands in the City of Kent, we
have relied upon the greator body of scientific information, including the Washington State
Department of Ecology, Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1—A Synthesis of
the Science(Sheldon et al.j August 2003). That analysis was then reviewed in light of the local
conditions that exist in Kett. In urban areas, the scientific literature recognizes a general range
of appropriate wetland buffers from 50 to 300 feet,depending upon the function evaluated.
According to the scientific research, Castelle et al. (1992)recommended a range of 49 feet to 98 Ig
feet for minimal wetland protection. Desbonnet recommends wetland buffer widths of
approximately 98 feet(mi imum)to 164 feet(maximum)for high intensity lands uses, such as
urban development. McKllan(2000) and Ecology(2004)recommend a case-by-case approach
tailored to the specific wetland and its adjacent land use intensity. For urban areas, minimum
buffer widths of 50 feet to �00 feet are recommended by Ecology for low to high value wetlands
(2004).
In order to arrive at a reconhmendation for a specific jurisdiction, it is necessary to interpret that
documentation in light of soecific local resources, existing degradation and water quality
problems, the intensity of current and future land uses,and resource protection needs. Adolfson
evaluated the scientific literature and, working with planning staff,developed recommendations
for minimum protection of j vetlands through use of buffers.
Adolfson recommended thajt standard wetland buffers be no smaller than 50 feet wide based
upon this review. Although effective in removal of coarse sediments and marginally effective in
nutrient removal such as nitrogen and phosphorus, buffers less than 50 feet were not effective for
removal of fine sediments(pr protection of wetland wildlife habitat(Desbonnet et al., 1994).
Ecology's publicationWetl4nd Buffers: Use and Effectiveness(pub.#92-010)concludes that
buffers less than 50 feet in �idth are generally ineffective for protection of most wetland
functions (Castelle et al., 19,92).
j
i
- 33
city o►Kent Memorandum
January 12,2005
Page 3
While the literature recognizes a minimum buffer of 50 feet to protect many wetland functions,a
larger buffer is necessary to protect wildlife habitat and remove fine sediments, among other
functions. The Department of Ecology recommends that wetlands supporting important habitat
for waterfowl and wildlife, such as Category I and II wetlands (according to the State's wetland
rating system)be protected with buffers of 100 feet or wider. Retaining a 50-foot buffer on
Category 2 wetlands in the City of Kent provides less than adequate protection for many wildlife
species according to the scientific literature.
The buffer area closest to the wetland provides the highest degree of function in most cases;
therefore, as buffer widths increase above 100 to 150 feet, a decreasing amount of extra
protection is provided.Larger buffers (from approximately 100 to 150 feet) are considered
effective in providing large woody debris, shading,habitat for certain birds, and water quality
improvement. Even larger buffers (from approximately 200 feet or wider) are necessary for
providing habitat for certain species of wildlife and removal of fine sediments. Buffer needs
vary significantly for wetland-related wildlife species in the scientific literature. For example,
buffer widths of 50 feet were considered minimum protection for certain bird species (Milligan
1985)while amphibians in King County Washington are documented to use uplands as far away
as 1,640 feet from the wetland(Richter and Azous, 2001). Because of the habitat potential and
other functions associated with Kent's Category 1 wetlands,retention of the existing 100-foot
setback would not provide adequate protection in many cases.
Risks to Wetiand Resources from Existing Buffers
In the existing City of Kent wetland regulations,wetland buffers are 100, 50 and 25 feet for
Category 1,2 and 3 wetlands,respectively. Based upon the scientific record and the wetlands
located in the City of Kent,Adolfson and planning staff recommended that wetland buffers be
increased a minimum of 25 feet for each category of wetland. These recommendations were
based on an evaluation that many of the wetlands in Kent are of a high quality and maintaining
functions and values of habitat protection, water quality and flood management would benefit
from increased buffers based upon the scientific literature. These recommendations recognize
the science, which establishes that 50 feet is the minimum buffer able to protect most wetland
functions and that even larger buffers are necessary to protect wetland water quality and wildlife
functions and values. Risks to the functions and values of wetlands may result from continued
use of the City's existing wetland buffers. The potential risks include:
• Degradation of habitat for wetland-related wildlife species and birds (including
amphibians);
• Degradation of riparian wetlands that protect salmonids and their habitat;
• Continued water quality degradation in wetlands due to increased inputs of fine
sediments from urban development;
• Continued pollutant loading in wetlands,particularly Category 2 and 3 wetlands; and
• A reduction in stormwater and floodwater storage capacity in wetlands receiving
sediment loading over time; and
• Continued water quality degradation in streams within the City of Kent, which are
already documented on the State 303d list of impaired waters.
3
Gty of Kent Memorandum
January 12,2005
Page 4
Should the City Council dhoose to retain the existing wetland buffers,risks to wetland resources,
as described above,could)occur over time in the City. In our professional opinion, use of the
existing buffers would be!considered a departure from the"best available science"for Category
2 and 3 wetlands,and could be considered a departure for Category 1 wetlands in the City of
Kent,particularly for water quality improvement and wildlife habitat functions. Therefore,
retaining the existing wetland buffers should be documented as a departure from the science.
The risks to wetland resources should be offset by use of other programs or other measures as
outlined below to protect the City's wetland resources.
Departures from the Befit Available Science
Should the City Council choose to retain the existing wetland buffer widths, the rationale for its
decision should be documented in the record as per WAC 365-195-915. Any non-scientific
information used(including legal, social,cultural,economic and political information) as a basis
for critical area policies and regulations that depart from recommendations from the best
available science must be documented. The record should identify potential risks to functions
and values resulting from the decision-making. The record must also demonstrate the use of any
"additional measures"chosen to limit such risks in the City.
Additional measures for the Council to consider that limit the risks to wetland resources could
include other citywide actiins or programs to protect wetland functions and values on a
landscape level, such as:
• Use of more stringent water quality protection measures during stormwater design to
specifically protect Wetland resources;
• Reduction of threshblds for when stormwater management is required on sites that
contain wetlands; i
• Maintenance of the 15-foot building setback area in grass or lawn to provide biofiltration
outside of the wetland buffer in new developments;
• Enhancement of all existing wetland buffers on sites pending development action;
• Requirements for stt wardship plans designed to protect wetland resources in agricultural
areas adjacent to or in wetlands;
• Use of low impact development strategies(such as stotrwater infiltration, etc.) that
reduce the impact of urban development on wetland resources;
• Purchase of highly sjensitive or high quality wetland areas and their buffers by the City as
open space through increased stormwater utility fees or other funding; or
• Use of voluntary conservation easements or other mechanisms by the City to set-aside
natural areas contaitling significant wetlands
i
35
City of Kent Memorandum
January 1Z 2005
Page 5
References Cited
Castelle,A.J.,C. Conolly,M. Emers,E.D. Metz, S. Meyer,M. Witter, S.S. Cooke,D. Sheldon,
and D.Dole, 1992a. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Adolfson Associates,Inc.
for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. Wash. Department of Ecology.,
Olympia,Wash.
City of Kent. 2004. Geographic Information System data. Kent Public Works Department.
Desbonnet,A.,P.Pogue,V.Lee,and N.Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal Zone.
Coastal Resources Center,Rhode Island Sea Grant,Univ.of Rhode Island.
McMillan, A. 2000. The science of wetland buffers and its implications for the management of
wetlands. Master's Thesis. The Evergreen State College.
Richter and Azous. 2001. Amphibian Distribution,Abundance, and Habitat Use In Wetlands
and Urbanization: Implications for the Future.,Azous and Horner,Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton,Florida. 2001.
Shannon &Wilson,Inc. April 2001. City of Kent Wetland Inventory, Kent,Washington. 7 pp.,
plus 338 inventory data sheets.
Sheldon,D.,T. Hruby,P. Johnson,K. Harper, A. McMillan,S. Stanley,and E. Stockdale. 2003.
Draft Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science.
Washington Department of Ecology Publication#03-06-016,Olympia,WA.
i
3
This page intentionally left blank.
i
i
37
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
R L N
W AS H IN O T O N Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
January 13, 2005
To: Chair Tim Clark and Planning&Economic Development Committee Members
From: William Osborne,Long Range Planner
Regarding: A. Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update#CPA-2004-1 and
B. Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
#CPA-2004-4(A-D)/#CPZ-2004(3-6)
MOTION: Approve/Deny/Modify the recommendations of the Land Use & Planning Board
regarding 1) the Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update, including implementing
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map and Text amendments, as modified by the Planning &
Economic Development Committee on December 6, 2004, and 2) the four applications for 2004
Annual Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments; and direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinances.
SUMMARY: At the January 4, 2005 public meeting, the City Council requested additional analysis
specifically regarding the Lotto/Toppano Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal (CPA-2004-
4(C)/CPZ-2004-5), for the property located at 11644 Southeast 240`h Street. The three(3) issues raised
by the Council for specific consideration were:
• Three (3) acres of Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) Zoning at the site, rather
than four(4) acres as proposed in the original application;
Provision of a buffer of indeterminate distance between an expanded commercial zone and the
adjacent single-family residential zone; and
Use of design review (regulations and process) to control for negative aesthetic and land use
impacts.
As a point of reference, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update, including Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map and Text amendments, and the four applications for 2004 Annual Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Map amendments together represent the allowable 2004 annual update and should be
considered and decided together by the Council. At the December 6`h special meeting, the Planning &
Economic Development Committee unanimously recommended approval of a modified Board
recommendation on the DSAP update and implementation and unanimously recommended approval of
all but the Lotto/Toppano 2004 Annual amendment (2:1 vote). Reference the December 20, 2004 staff
memos in the January 4 Council agenda packet.
BUDGET IMPACT:None
3
I
BACKGROUND: As of January 6, 2005, the applicant for the Lotto/Toppano proposal submitted a
memo and site plan forjthe record indicating a willingness to accept certain conditions in order to
receive a staff endorsem$nt for approval of the Lotto/Toppano proposal(see Attachment B).
The November 15, 2004 staff report on the 2004 Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map
Amendments includes consideration of the proposed four acre and existing two acre NCC-
designated area. As noted in the report (pages 21-23) and the staff presentation, staff believes
the existing NCC development regulations do not provide for the intended neighborhood-
oriented characteristics ifor neighborhood commercial development, that previous Council
decisions set a preeeden� of zoning two acres for NCC at the site, and that neither existing
conditions nor developmjent regulations have changed sufficiently to satisfy the standards of
review [Kent City Code 12.02.050(2) & 15.09.050(C)(4)] for granting an amendment.
Staff noted also in the public hearing that future reconsideration of all commercial zoning district
development regulations 1lnight address the issue; consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal LU-
14, and Policies LU-14.5 find 14.8 (see page 18).
Staff believes the issues 4nd conditions posed most recently by the applicant and Council for
consideration would be considered more appropriately in a comprehensive manner for general
zoning text amendments I outside of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
process. Should Council:choose to consider inclusion of such conditions as part of an action
taken at this time, the Council should provide findings establishing the uniqueness of this
property in view of other properties with the same zoning,per Kent City Code 12.02.070.
WO/pm S:1PermitlPlanlCompPlanAmdtnen&,2004\2042937-cpa20044a-d-PEDCspecmtgc.doc
Enc: December 20,2004 staff mettlos to Council(2)DSAP&2004 Annual CPA's
Minutes of 12/6/04 P&EDC npeeting
LUPB Staff Report for Public llearing of November 22,2004
Barghausen memo and proposed buffer site plan(116105)
cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Punning Manager
Parties of Record(Attached)
Project files
i
Planning&Economic Dev.Committed Special Meeting
1/13/05
Page 2 of 2
39
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Director
0 PLANNING SERVICES
`� KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
w.5„,„a T o„ Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
DECEMBER 20, 2004
To: Mayor Jim White, Council President Julie Peterson And City Council Members
From: William Osborne,Long Range Planner
Through: Mayor Jim White
Subject: Proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan And Zoning Map Amendments#CPA-2004-
4(A-D)/#CPZ-2004(3-6)
MOTION: Approve/Deny/Modify the recommendations of the Planning & Economic
Development Committee regarding the four applications for 2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map amendments, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances.
SUMMARY: In this agenda packet are the recommendations of the Planning & Economic
Development Committee regarding the 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments.
These recommendations are presented to you from the Committee's December 6`h special meeting.
The proposed amendments were introduced to the Council at a November 16`h workshop prior to the
Land Use&Planning Board public hearing of November 22na
BUDGET IMPACT:None
BACKGROUND: The City received a total of four requests for Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map and corresponding Zoning Map changes (see the attached staff report and maps), classified as
Proposals A through D:
Proposal A: MILLENIUM-KANGLEY BUILDING: CPA-2004-4(A)/CPZ-2004-3 (ENV-2004-53(A))
Change in Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at
26056— 116TH Avenue Southeast
Applicant(Agent): Joel Kessell, Engineered Solutions, LLC
Board P&ED Committee
Existing Designation Requested Change Recommendation Recommendation
Comprehensive APPROVAL OF APPROVAL OF
Plan LAND USE SF 6(Single-Family NS(Neighborhood MIXED-USE MIXED-USE(MU)
Ma 6 units/acre) Services) MU
NC
(Neighborhood APPROVAL OF APPROVAL OF
ZONING Districts SR-6(Single-Family Convenience OFFICE, OFFICE,MIXED-USE
Map 6.05 units/acre Commercial) MIXED USE(O- (O-MU)
4
PROPOSAL B: KENT OFFICE BUILDING: CPA-2004-4(B)/#CPZ-2004-4 (ENV-2004-53(B))
Change in Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at
20651 —84th Avenue Sduth/East Valley Highway
Applicant(Agent): Ed! Linardic, LDG Architects
Existincj Designation Requested Change Board P&ED Committee
*ZONINGDistricts
Recommendation Recommendation
MIC (M 3nufacturing/ C(Commercial)Industrial Center) ) APPROVAL APPROVAL
M2 (Limited GWC(Gateway
Industnol) Commercial) APPROVAL APPROVAL
PROPOSAL C. LOTTO/TOPPANO: CPA-2004-4(C)/CPZ-2004-5 (ENV-2004-53(C))
Change in Comprehenslive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at
11644 Southeast 240th Street
Applicant(Agent): Jerome Carpenter, Inslee, Best Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
Existing esignation Requested Change Board P&ED Committee
dation Recommendation
Recommen
Comprehensive SF-6 S n I
Plan LAND USE ( f g e-Family NS (Neighborhood
Me 6 units/a fire) Services) DENIAL DENIAL
ZONING Districts SR-6 (Single-Family NCC(Nelnce DENIAL DENIAL
Map 6.05 unitvacre)
Commercial
PROPOSAL D. MUTH: CPA-2004-4(D)/CPZ-2004-6 (ENV-2004-53(D))
Change in Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at
21320—42nd Avenue South
Applicant(Agent): Richard Rawlings, Polygon, LLC
isting[;resignation gle-Family
Change Board P&ED Committee
Recommendation Recommendation
*a.
-R
(Agricultural le-Family DENIAL WITHOUT DENIAL WITHOUT
source�Land) PREJUDICE PREJUDICE
0 (agricultural, DENIAL WITHOUT DENIAL WITHOUT
acres/ nit) PREJUDICE PREJUDICE
i
WO/pm S:\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdnjents\2004\2042937-cpa2004-4a-d_CCmtg_010405.doc
Eric: Attachment A:LUPB Staff Ref tort for Public Hearing of November 22,2004
Attachment B:City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure 6-3(Access Management)
Attachment C:Urban Land Ins itute,Ten Principles for Reinventing America's Suburban Strips,pages 8-9
Attachment D:Puget Sound Regional Council,2002 Regional Growth Centers Report:Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Attachment E:Maps of 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Attachment F:Summary Matti of 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Attachment G:SEPA Adoption Notice and Addendum
Attachment H:Env.Review R Ipon—Decision Document
Attachment I:RCW 35A.63.071&072
cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CID Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Parties of Record(Attached)
Project files
City Council Meeting
1/4/05
Page 2 of 2
i
41
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
w.s H ar o NPhone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
December 20, 2004
To: Mayor Jim White, Council President Julie Peterson And City Council Members
From: William Osborne, Long Range Planner
Through: Mayor Jim White
Subject: Comprehensive Plan& Zoning Amendments#CPA-2004-1
Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update
MOTION: Approve/Deny/Modify the Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update and implementing
regulations as recommended by the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances.
SUMMARY: In this agenda packet are the recommendations of the Planning & Economic Development
Committee regarding the Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update and implementing regulations. These
recommendations are presented to you from the Planning & Economic Development Committee December
6th special meeting. There were four public participation workshops on the update held in May and June
2004, followed by two workshops and four public hearings of the Land tUse & Planning Board. Staff
introduced these proposed amendments to the full Council at a November 16 workshop.
BUDGET IMPACT:None
BACKGROUND: The Planning&Economic Development Committee recommendations are as follows:
1. Approve DSAP document dated 11/8/04
2. Approve Attachment B (list of figures)
3. Approve Attachment C figures,but replace & incorporate with figures in Attachments D, E and F
4. Attachment D,Figure III-2: Delete "and unsightly"
5. #1 Map Change — north of James between 1st & 5th: Urban Center/DCE — south 8.4 acres; Low
Density Multifamily/MR-T 16—north to Cloudy and 5 parcels north of Cloudy between 4th& 5th
#2 Map Change—one parcel depth both sides of Central between Smith& Gowe: GC-MU
6. Zoning Code Text Amendments:
a. Require Downtown Design Review in all districts including North Frame District;
b. Eliminate minimum lot size requirement for MFR in all DSAP districts;
C. Raise surface parking cap to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s.£ non-residential use in the East Frame
District;
• Require 25%residential component of overall gross floor area
• Include 2-year sunset clause to re-evaluate.
d. Raise surface parking cap to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. non-residential in the West Frame
District;
• Include 2-year sunset clause to re-evaluate.
wo/pm S:\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2004\2041242-CPA-2004-1_CCMtg_010405.docd
Ene: Attachment A:LUPB Staff Report for Continued Public Hearing of 11/8/04 cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Attachment B:Draft Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update Charlene Anderson,AICP,Plug Mgr
Tom Brubaker,Legal Dept
Attachment C: 1998 DSAP List Figures(Original) Parties of Record(Attached)
Attachment D:1998 DSAP Figures(Original) project File
Attachment E:2004 Draft Revised Figures
Attachment F:Downtown Projects:Past,Present and Planned(1998-2009)
Attachment G August 17'Attachment Description Memo
Attachment H:SEPA Adoption Notice&Addendum
Attachment L RC W 35A.63.071&072
i
This page intentionally left blank.
i
i
43
PLANNING& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
DECEMBER 6,2004
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark,Ron Harmon,Bruce White
The special meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 P.M.
Approval of Minutes
Committee Member White Moved and Committee Member Harmon Seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of the November 15,2004 meeting. Motion Carried 3-0.
Annual 2004 Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map Amendments#CPA-2004-4(A-D)/#CPZ-2004(3-6)
Chris Ferko, Barghausen Engineers, 18215 72""Ave. S,Kent,WA 98032 proposed amending their Lotto
proposal to include a conditional restriction prohibiting development of gasoline service stations on the
subject site and requesting a conversion of the Single Family zoned two acre parcel to NCC in order that a
use be developed to best serve the community. Mr.Ferko urged the Committee to consider forwarding to the
Council a recommendation for approval of this application.
Russell Hanscom, 9523 S 237`b Place, Kent,WA, as executive director of Arbor Village, an 89 apartment
retirement home and assisted living community, spoke on behalf of the residents in stating that they support
an increase in zoning to four acres and a commercial development for the subject site with regard to the Lotto
Amendment.
Planner Bill Osborne stated that this year's four comprehensive plan amendment proposals need to be
considered together with the DSAP update as part of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle.
Mr. Osborne described each of the four comprehensive plan amendment application proposals; stating that
the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending: Approval of the Millenium Kangley Building
Amendment proposal for Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation and office/Mixed Use Zoning District
designation; Approval of the Kent Office Building Amendment proposal; Denial of the Lotto/Toppano
Amendment proposal;and Denial Without Prejudice of the Muth Amendment proposal.
Mr. Osborne submitted a letter from Chris Ferko with Barghausen for the record. Mr. Osborne spoke about
staff s concerns with development standards for NCC zoning and special permitted uses.
Mr. Osborne addressed questions raised by the Committee Members with respect to the Millenium-Kangley
Building amendment proposal located on 1161h Avenue Southeast. Community Development Director Fred
Satterstrom addressed Member Clark's questions with respect to alternative plan or zoning designations for
the subject site. Mr. Osborne stated that the applicant submitted a revision request subsequent to his initial
application submittal requesting a change in the Comprehensive Plan Designation to Mixed Use and a
Zoning Designation change to Office/Mixed-Use; Staff and the Land Use and Planning Board are
recommending Approval of the revised application.
Mr. Osborne addressed questions raised by Member White with respect to the development rights issue
related to the Muth Amendment and staff s recommendation of Denial without Prejudice. In response to an
inquiry by Member White, Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt stated her office is of the opinion that
once King County acts on this property,the applicant would not have to wait to resubmit this proposal with
the annual comprehensive plan updates in September 2005 because the Kent City Council can declare an
emergency to look at issues considered to be of community wide significance outside of the annual
Comprehensive Plan cycle. It appears this application could be of community-wide significance because of
the City's interest in the Johnson Creek improvements. She stated that the Legal staff believes it premature
to approve this amendment until King County makes a decision concerning this site.
Harmon MOVED and White SECONDED a Motion to accept the letter submitted from Chris Ferko with
Barghausen Engineers and the literature on the Downtown Strategic Action Plan for the record. Motion
CARRIED.
4
Mr. Satterstrom addressed 411estions raised by the Committee with regard to the Lotto/Toppano proposal,
citing staff s rationale for their recommendation for this year's proposal.
Steve Mullen, Transporta ion Engineering Manager spoke to the Committee's concerns with respect to
traffic flow and access issue for the Lotto/Toppano proposal.
Mr. Satterstrom addressed Member White's concerns with respect to what uses could be developed if the site
were increased to four acres{with the exclusion of service stations. He cited durable business type of retail
uses, convenience type of dommercial uses, personal and professional services would be allowed. Mr.
Satterstrom addressed Member White's concerns with respect to how the City will work with the developer
to diminish impacts to Burro ding single family developments.
Member Harmon MOVED 4nd Member White SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use Planning
Board's recommendation of Approval with reference to Proposal A- Millenium Kangtey Building
Amendment. Motion CARRIED.
Member Harmon MOVED a*d Member White SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use and Planning
Board's recommendation of Approval for Proposal B — Kent Office Building Amendment. Motion
CARRIED.
Member Harmon MOVED ar�d Member Clark SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use and Planning
Board's recommendation of IDenial for Proposal C-Lotto/Toppano Amendment. Motion CARRIED 2 to 1
with White opposed.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member Clark SECONDED a Motion to accept the Land Use and Planning
Board's recommendation of Denial without Prejudice for Proposal D-Muth Amendment. Motion
CARRIED.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion to approve the recommendation of the
Land Use and Planning Board4 regarding the four Applications of the 2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map Amendments aid direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Motion
CARRIED 2 to 1 with White opposed.
#CPA-2004-1 Downtown Str to is Action Plan Update
Osborne submitted two exhibits for the record; a letter from Fred High with Kent School District regarding
enrollment impacts on ten actes of multifamily zoning and a letter submitted December 6 from Joseph
Blattner with Tarragon addressed to the Planning and Economic Development Committee supporting DCE
zoning north of James. Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion to accept the
exhibits to the record. Motion CARRIED.
Mr. Osborne stated that he would like the Committee to include Attachment F, a list of downtown projects
from 1998 — 2009 as part of their motion. He stated that the Land Use and Planning Board recommends
approving the Downtown Strategic Action Plan document dated November 8, 2004, Attachment B-List of
Figures,approve the figures themselves and accepting substantive changes to two maps.
Mr. Osborne described that zoning code text amendments include applying Downtown Design Review to all
districts, including the North Frame District; eliminating minimum lot size requirement for multifamily
residential in all DSAP district$; raising surface parking cap to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. non-residential in
East and West Frame Districts v�ith the requirement of 25%residential component of overall gross floor area
and inclusion of a 2-year sunset clause to re-evaluate.
Bruce Anderson, Bellevue,WA stated that he wishes to pursue a retail development project on a viable
commercial site located in the Vest Frame District that will complement the Kent Station and that this site
would not be conducive to residential development due to its proximity to the freeway and railroad tracks.
Planning&Economic Committee Meeting 12/6/04
Page 2 of 3
45
Fred High, Assistant Superintendent of Kent School District, 12033 SE 2561h St., Kent, WA and Tat
Guppy,Principal of the Neely O'Brien Elementary School,6300 S 236`h,Kent,WA described the effects
that more multifamily residential development would have on the school district. Mr. Guppy stated that it
has been the school district's consensus that multifamily residential creates financial impacts for the district.
Mr.High submitted a letter for the record.
Mr. Guppy responded to questions raised by Member Harmon with respect to how the school has worked
with transitional students so that they can continue their education in the school without interruption. He
stated that the district employs a family advocate who supports those families and introduces them to
community resources.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a motion to adopt the letter submitted by Mr.
High,Assistant Superintendent of the Kent School District for the record. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Mr. Osborne and Mr. Satterstrom addressed questions raised by the Committee with respect to the 4.5
parking spaces cap with the 25% residential component, the 2-year sunset clause and redevelopment versus
new development opportunities in both the East and West Frame Districts. Member Harmon stated that he
favors the removal of the 25% residential development requirement with a 2-year sunset clause from the
West Frame District with Member White concurring adding that he would support removal of this
requirement from the East Frame District as well. Member Harmon proposed amending the MR-G to
MR-T16 north of James,with Member White concurring.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion for Item #5 to change MR-G from
Cloudy to 5th and north of Cloudy between 4`h and 5`h to MR-T16. Motion CARRIED 2 -1 with Chair Clark
opposed.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion for Item#6C to raise surface parking
cap to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. non-residential in the East and West Frame Districts and applying the 25%
residential component of overall gross floor area only to the East Frame District, exempting the West Frame
District. Motion CARRIED 2 to 1 with Chair Clark opposed.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a Motion to approve the modifications of the
Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update and implementing regulations as recommended by the Land Use
and Planning Board to include replacement of Figure IV-3 with Attachment F-Downtown Projects 1998-
2009, to include the previously stated modifications under Items 5 and 6-C, and direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Chair Clark clarified that these items will go before Council in January.
CPA-2004-5 Urban Density Study
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that a resolution is needed declaring an emergency to pursue
revisions of the Comprehensive Plan outside of the annual comprehensive plan amendment cycle to ensure
compliance with regard to density in Urban Growth areas.
Member White MOVED and Member Harmon SECONDED a Motion to approve a resolution declaring an
emergency to pursue revisions of the comprehensive plan to ensure compliance with Chapter 36.70A RCW
regarding density in an urban growth area. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Adjournment
Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 5:20 pm
Pamela Mottram,
Admin Secretary,Planning Services
S:IPermitlM=Tlanning Committee120041Minutes1120604pc-min.Joc
It
Planning&Economic Committee Meeting 12/6/04
Page 3 of 3
4
i
This page intentionally left blank.
47
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,C.D. Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
KENT Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
WASHIKOTON Kent,WA 98032-5895
November 15, 2004
TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING
BOARD
FROM: WILLIAM D. OSBORNE, LONG-RANGE PLANNER
RE: 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
#CPA-2004-4(A-D)/#CPZ-2004-(3-6)
Land Use & Planning Board Public Hearing — November 22, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The City received four (4) applications this year submitted by private property owners for
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. At the Land Use &
Planning Board workshop held October 13", staff introduced each proposed amendment to the
Board for discussion and questions. Planning Services staff facilitated a Land Use & Planning
Board tour of the sites on October 9`"
The four (4) proposed amendments have been classified as Proposals A through D. This staff
report includes a detailed analysis of the merits of each proposal, maps of each site and a staff
recommendation, based upon the following standards of review.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Sections 12.02.050 and 15.09.050(C) of the Kent City Code outline the standards of review, which
must be used by staff and the City Council in analyzing proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map and Zoning District Map amendments. Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map are to be examined based on the following criteria:
1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health,
safety, and general welfare; and
2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or that circumstances have changed since the
adoption of the Plan that warrant an amendment to the Plan; and
3. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and
that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the Land Use, Transportation, and
Capital Facilities Elements of the Plan.
4
Proposed amendments ';to the Zoning District Map are to be examined based on the following
criteria:
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with
development in the vicinity; and
3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with signlificant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; and
4. Circumstances hive changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning
district to warrant the proposed rezone; and
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the Cit}-
The staff review and recommendation for each of the proposals is presented separately.
Background information ,about the subject site and the intent of each proposal are provided,
followed by staff review. (Staff review includes the citation of relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals
and Policies and commonts on the relationship of each proposal to cited goals and policies,
organized into sections by Element. The Standards of Review listed above for Comprehensive Plan
Land Use and Zoning amendments are then addressed for each proposal prior to the
recommendation. A mall depicting each proposal is included in Attachment D, and a summary
matrix of the proposals is Also provided as Attachment E.
PROPOSAL A MILLENIOM-KANGLEY BUILDING
#CPA-2004-4(A)/#CPZ-2004-3 (KIVA#2042950)
#ENV-2004-53(A) (KIVA#2042947)
Change in Comprehensilve Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at 26056
- 116th Avenue Southeast
Applicant (Agent): Joel Kessell, Engineered Solutions, LLC
Existing Designation Proposed Change
Comprehensive Plan LAND SF-6 (Single-Family 6 NS (Neighborhood
Use Mapunits/acre) Services
ZONING Districts Map SR-6 (Single-Family 6.05 NCC (Neighborhood
units/acre) Convenience Commercial
Background: The 0.68 scre Site consists of one (1) tax parcel and is located at the northeast
corner of 116th Avenue Southeast and Kent-Kangley Road Southeast, and contains no structures.
The terrain of the Site can be characterized as generally flat, mostly covered with gravel, and
having groundcover vegetation along the east and southeast. The parcel is currently designated as
Single-Family Residential,; Six (6.05) Units per Acre for land use and zoning (SF-6 and SR-6,
respectively), as are most parcels abutting the northern and eastern boundaries of the Site. To the
south of the Site across Kent-Kangley Road, parcels are designated Mixed Use (MU)for land Use,
and Community Commercial — Mixed Use (CC-MU) for zoning. Parcels located directly across
116th Avenue SE from the'Site are designated as Single-Family Residential, Eight (8.71) Units per
Acre for both land use and zoning (SF-8 and SR-8, respectively). The southwest corner of the
Kent-Kangley/116th AvenidIae SE intersection is designated for low-density multi-family residential for
both land use and zoning (�DMF and MR-G, respectively).
Land Use and Planning Board P�blic Hearing 41
November 22,2004
Page 2 of 27
49
• Issues: Site access restrictions, on-site parking (and possible vehicular queuing), site
drainage and utilities locations are some of the issues of concern. The fact that Kent-Kangley Road
is also a State Route (S.R. 516) means that vehicular access of the Site is restricted. To maintain
traffic flows on Kent-Kangley Road/S.R. 516, the preferred access would be on 116th Avenue SE,
but the north boundary of the Site is less than one hundred fifty feet (150') north of the intersection.
The City of Kent Public Works Development Assistance Brochure, Access Management (DAB 6-3)
(see Attachment A, page 6), establishes a minimum corner clearance standard of three hundred
feet (300'), with driveways being allowed only when alternative access is not available. The status
of a water feature indicated by the City geographic information system (GIS) as bisecting the Site
could also affect site access and developable area. A sanitary sewer service connection crossing
Kent-Kangley Road will be required.
RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS & POLICIES
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies relating to
neighborhood commercial development, activity centers and commercial, facilitating multi-modal
transportation, and protection of wetlands. The Plan distinguishes between small neighborhood
service areas and larger activity center areas.
Overall (LU) Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements
the Community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and
enhances the quality of life of all Kent residents.
Goal LU-2 Establish a land use pattern throughout the Potential Annexation Area
that will facilitate a multi-modal transportation system and provide
efficient public facilities. Ensure that overall densities in the Potential
Annexation Area are adequate to support a range of urban services.
Policy LU-2.1 Establish transportation levels-of-service which will help guide
development into desired areas.
Policy LU-2.2 Concentrate development in order to promote public transit.
Policy LU-2.4 Give funding priority to capital facility projects which are consistent
with the City's Land Use Element.
Goal LU-3 Focus both city and regional household and employment growth in the
designated Urban Center.
Policy LU-3.2 Focus office employment growth in the Urban Center as a percentage of
overall mixed-use development.
Goal LU-6 Designate Activity Centers in portions of the City and in the Potential
Annexation Area. Allow in these areas a mix of retail, office, and
residential development.
Policy LU-6.1 Locate Activity Centers in areas which currently contain con-
centrations of commercial development with surrounding medium-
density housing. Intensify these areas to support public transit to
increase housing options.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 3 of 27
5
Policy LU-6.2 A#ow residential uses in Activity Centers. Develop residential uses as
port of a commercial area in a mixed-use development or on a'stand-
al4ne basis in designated areas.
Goal LU-7 Develop Activity Centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian,
cyclist, public transit, and vehicular circulation.
Policy LU-9.4 Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close
proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near
hu I lman and community services.
Goal LU-13 Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing .
commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing
corinmercial districts, to minimize costs associated with the extension of
facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one
another.
Goal LU-14 Determine the size, function, and mix of uses in the City's commercial
districts based on regional, community, and neighborhood needs.
Policy LU-14.2 Provide opportunities for residential development within existing
business districts to provide support for shops, services, and
employment within walking distance.
Policy LU-14.5 Encourage commercial design elements which will minimize impacts to
surtounding established residential uses for all new development and
redevelopment in the existing Neighborhood Commercial zoning
district. Ensure that projects are pedestrian-oriented and developed
with minimum parking provisions.
Policy LU-14.6 Discourage expansion of Neighborhood Service land uses in areas
where the adjacent land use designation is predominately single-family.
Policy LU-14.7 Promote redevelopment of existing commercial properties by limiting
the conversion of residential land uses to commercial land uses.
Policy LU-14.8 Ensure that commercial and mixed-use developments adjacent to
existing single-family residential areas are compatible in height and
scale. Establish guidelines for design of edges where commercial and
mixed--uses abut single-family use and medium- and low-density
residfential.
Goal LU-24 Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce
dependency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water
quality and conserve energy resources. Establish mixed-use
commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient
opportunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle.
Policy LU-26.2 Prot�ct wetlands not as isolated units, but as ecosystems, and essential
elements of watersheds. Base protection measures on wetland
functions and values, and the effects of on-site and off-site activities.
Staff Comment
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing is
November 22,2004
Page 4 of 27
i
51
The Comprehensive Plan articulates policies to discourage expansion of Neighborhood Services
land uses in areas where the adjacent land use is predominantly single-family residential (Policies
LU-14.6 and LU-14.7). Also, the Comprehensive Plan includes policy language (Goals LU-3 and
LU-13, and Policies LU-3.2, LU-13.3 and LU-13.4) to encourage orderly and efficient commercial
growth in existing commercial districts, particularly in Kent's designated Urban Center (Downtown).
Additionally, a 2001 Urban Land Institute publication entitled Ten Principles for Reinventing
America's Suburban Strips (see Attachment B) previously provided to the Board, recommends
limiting expansion of commercial zones when existing commercially-zoned land is underdeveloped.
The buildable lands inventory for housing (population growth) might also need to be revised to
reflect a decrease in capacity of approximately four (4) single-family detached units.
In response to the standards of review, the application cites positive goals and policies in specific
reference to Activity Centers (Goals LU-6 and LU-7, and Policy LU-6.1). The application also claims
the Site is not predominantly surrounded by single-family residential land use. Staff comments that
a significant amount of area to the west, north, northeast and east of the Site is in single-family
residential use — a few adjacent dwelling units include day care operations — but these operations
are not intensively"commercial" in zoning or use.
While one could certainly argue that the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies favoring
the qualities of the area around the intersection of 1161h Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road as an
"Activity Center," this area does not currently carry such a designation. An important consideration
in the designation of Activity Centers is the existence of a concentration of commercial development
and surrounding medium-density housing (Policy LU-6.1). The descriptive parameters for an
existing 'concentration of commercial development and surrounding medium-density housing' have
not been established by the City; but could be considered in the future.
This application provides compelling testimony about the context surrounding the Site, particularly
of the relationship between land uses and the recently completed and planned future road
improvements of 116`h Avenue SE near the Kent-Kangley Road intersection. Given these
conditions, staff agrees in principle with the claim that single-family residential development is not
desirable at this location. Development of an automobile-oriented use permitted under NCC
Zoning, however, would be less desirable and more impacting on public health and safety —
generating more traffic circulation, air quality, and pedestrian safety issues (Goals LU-7 and LU-24,
Policy LU-14.5). Moreover, the key theme in the Land Use Element goal and policies regarding the
development of Activity Centers is the inclusion of housing, whether as part of mixed-use
developments or on a stand-alone basis (Goal LU-6, and Policies LU-6.1 and LU-6.2, and LU-10.1).
The application suggests subsequent office development of the Site. Such a use would likely be
less impacting than the uses allowed in NCC Zoning. Office-Mixed Use Zoning (O-MU)would allow
for the intended use described in this application, while restricting the uses allowed in other
commercial zones.
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
The Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies
relating to the aesthetic impacts of commercial development, on- and off-site improvements,
circulation patterns, and vehicular and pedestrian access:
Goal CD-1 Establish street and circulation patterns that encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use.
Goal CD-2 Incorporate amenities and features along neighborhood residential and
commercial streets that accommodate safe motor vehicle, pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit use.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 5 of 27
i
5
Policy CD-2.1 Establish, particularly in conjunction with new development, distinctive
ceswalks at major street intersections in neighborhood mixed-use
nters, commercial corridors, transit stops, in proximity to parks, and
sc i i►oo/sites.
Policy CD-2.3 De[sign intersections with appropriate signage and traffic control
deices to safely accommodate pedestrian, bicyclists, and vehicular
tragic. Construct intersections with the minimum dimensions and
turning radii necessary to maintain established levels of service per the
coocurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act
Goal CD-3 Establish site design standards that encourage pedestrian and bicycle
us$. Consider equally during site design all modes of transportation
access, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle.
i
Policy CD-3.1 Establish design standards which ensure that commercial, industrial,
residential, and public building sites provide convenient, direct access
for(pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy CD-3.3 Encourage development to orient around existing and proposed transit
stops and to provide pedestrian amenities and convenient access to the
tra sit stops.
Goal CD-4 Design new commercial projects to accommodate pedestrians,
bic�clists, transit users, and motor vehicles.
Policy CD-4.1 Encourage site and building access that considers the needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists by providing the most direct pedestrian
acgss from sidewalks and parking areas to building entrances while
min mizing conflicts with motor vehicle traffic.
Policy CD-4.5 Loc to motor vehicle parking at the rear of buildings to help block the
vie of the parking from the street and to enable more convenient
acc ss to the front of the buildings. Where it is not possible to provide
part ing behind a building, parking may be located along the side.
Sig4age for parking should be a recognized standard to be
distAnguishable for motorists, unless otherwise specified in district
desIFn guidelines.
Policy CD-5.2 Where possible, encourage developers to infill buildings along vacant
sections of the street edge to improve the environment for pedestrians.
Goal CD-6 Provide scale, layout, and character of commercial development which
is complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood and
accdmmodating to pedestrians.
Policy CD-7.1 Work with the business community and neighborhood residents to
mak# aesthetic and functional improvements to commercial areas.
Improved image and appeal will increase sales potential and enhance
the character of the City.
Policy CD-15.1 Whekever possible, encourage a land use pattern wherein churches,
stores, services, parks,jobs, entertainment, transportation, and schools
are *ithin walking distance of a person's place of residence.
Staff Comment
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 6 of 27
53
The application cited several goals and policies supporting pedestrian-oriented commercial
. frontage. Development consistent with the proposed designation change might improve the
appearance of the existing underdeveloped Site, which currently stores used vehicles for sale.
However, automobile-oriented land uses discussed in the staff comment on applicable Land Use
Element goals and policies would also be allowed under NCC Zoning — in conflict with several
Community Design Element goals and policies (Goals CD-1, CD-2, CD-3, CD-4, and CD-6, and
Policies CD-3.1 and CD-4.1). The Site acreage and limited access from 110h Avenue SE would
likely minimize aesthetic impacts, and NCC Zoning does provide opportunities for development of
an integrated, walkable community, with commercial uses in close proximity to moderate density
residential use.
It should be noted again however, that NCC Zoning would also allow uses typically generating high
numbers of automobile trips: gas station (with special use permit), sit-down restaurant, commercial
drive-thru (excluding fast food, i.e. bank with Conditional Use Permit) and convenience store. The
Site layout will be influenced by the single restricted access driveway on 116th Avenue SE. Due to
the designation of Kent-Kangley Road (State Route 516) as a road of statewide significance, and
the proximity of the north parcel boundary to the 1161h Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road intersection,
ingress and egress of the Site will be restricted to right-in and right-out turning movements. An
automobile-oriented use would impact pedestrian safety, aesthetics and exacerbate existing traffic
issues in the vicinity.
HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT
The Human Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan, contains a policy relating to accessibility
of services— including the medical office suggested by the applicant:
Policy HS-1.4 Encourage services to become accessible to all members of the
community.
Staff Comment
Accessibility to human services for the entire community is generally positive in view of the
Comprehensive Plan. The large number of considerations of "accessibility" and "human services'
are beyond the scope of this Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning District Map designation
amendment proposal. Thus, the proposed amendment, as a non-project action, will not be
analyzed strictly for the use suggested by the applicant — a medical office building. Further, if any
level of approval of the amendment proposal for this Site is adopted by ordinance, such
circumstances do not confer nor construe any approval(s) for project-level permit applications
subsequently filed.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating
to coordination of development and road improvements, and the relationship between commercial
land use and the transportation system:
Policy TR-1.1 Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses that generate
high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections
of principal or minor arterials or around freeway interchanges.
Policy TR-1.2 Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with
transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is
sufficient to accommodate the new development, or a financial
commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years,
before allowing it to proceed.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 7 of 27
i
i
Policy TR-1.5 Esure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that
la d use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible.
Policy TR-1.7 lnOure the transportation system is developed consistent with the
anticipated development of the land uses, and acknowledge the
influence of providing transportation facilities to accelerate or delay the
development of land uses, either by type or area.
Policy TR-1.8 Promote land use patterns which support public transportation and
inure the development includes transit-friendly features.
Policy TR-3.4 Utilize adopted Access Management techniques to preserve the flow of
traic on the road system while providing adequate access to adjacent
land uses. These could include: limit the number of driveways (usually
onO per parcel); locate driveways away from intersections; and connect
p#king lots and consolidate driveways to create more pedestrian-
oriented street design and encourage efficiency of both land uses and
they adjacent transportation system.
Policy TR-4.1 insfure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on
regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads
from increased traffic volumes.
Policy TR-4.2 Whiere overflow traffic from the regional system significantly impacts
nei#hborhoods, protect the residential area.
Policy TR-5.3 Arterial improvements inside or adjacent to neighborhoods should
employ Content Sensitive Design strategies to balance the mobility
neepls of the community with neighborhood cohesiveness.
Policy TR-5.4 Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential
devglopments, neighborhood commercial centers, recreation areas, and
to serve as an alternative to automobile use.
Goal TR-7 lmp�ove the non-motorized transportation system for both internal
circidation and linkages to regional travel, and promote the use of non-
motorized transportation.
PolicyTR-7.2 Use; incentives or regulations to encourage new construction to
promote pedestrian and bicycle connections to schools, . parks,
community centers, public transit services and facilities, and
neighborhoods and other services.
f
Policy TR-7.8 Whe ever practical, using Incentives or regulatory means, encourage
bicy�ie storage facilities with adequate lighting at residential
development projects, park and rides lots, employment and industrial
cent ors, schools, Activity Centers and retail areas.
i
Policy TR-8.2 Emp, asize transit investments that provide mobility and access within
the Community and make it possible for citizens to access local
servies and support local businesses while reducing auto-dependent
trave .
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 8 of 27
55
Goal TR-9 Pursue funding for transportation improvements from all potential
• sources in an efficient and equitable manner.
Policy TR-9.1 Allow for funding of growth-related traffic improvements
proportionately by impact fees or other mechanisms that apportion
costs in relation to impact charged to new development.
Staff Comment
The additional trip generation impacts from development consequent to a Neighborhood
Convenience Commercial (NCC) Zoning designation could cause significant deterioration of arterial
level-of-service, and automobile-oriented commercial development would likely attract most of its
market from outside the neighborhood via automobile trips. An Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) Zoning
designation would likely generate traffic impacts from trip ends more specific to an office use
suggested in the application — rather than a convenience store use allowed under NCC Zoning.
The vehicular access issue is addressed above in the staff comments on Community Design.
APPLYING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health,
safety, and general welfare. [KCC 12.02.050(1) & 15.09.050(C)(5)]
Staff Comment
Designating the 0.68 acre subject parcel Neighborhood Services and Neighborhood Convenience
Commercial (NCC) would allow development that would significantly impact adjacent residents,
particularly if the development served automobiles — as with gas stations, convenience stores, and
drive-thru banks. These potential impacts include increased traffic generation, access conflicts,
• reduction of residential privacy, as well as aesthetic (noise, light and glare) conflicts. Single-family
residential development at this location is not necessarily desirable— nor has the land development
market been responsive to the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation. A Mixed-Use
(MU) Comprehensive Plan designation with an Office-Mixed Use (O-MU) Zoning District
designation would be less impacting on the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the
Plan that warrant an amendment to the Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(2) & 15.09.050(C)(4)]
Staff Comment
The most significant changes of circumstance in regards to this proposed designation amendment
is that road improvements have been, and will be made by the City of Kent Public Works
Department for 116th Avenue SE. The west boundary of the subject parcel is anticipated to yield
ten (10) feet width for 116th Avenue SE right-of-way improvements. The Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning designations for properties extending east from the southeast corner of Kent-Kangley Road
and 116th Avenue SE were recently amended from Commercial/Neighborhood Convenience
Commercial to Mixed-Use (MU) Comprehensive Plan Land Use, and Community Commercial,
Mixed-Use (CC-MU) Zoning.
The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and
that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital
Facilities Elements of the Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(3) & 15.09.050(C)(1)]
Staff Comment
The designation of Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) Zoning at this Site could impose
significant unavoidable negative impacts likely to diminish the levels-of-service of adjacent roads.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 9 of 27
Additionally, any commercial redevelopment of the Site would require to connect to utilities across
Kent-Kangley Road.
The proposed re4one is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(2)]
Staff Comment
Rezoning the 0.68 acrd parcel to Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) would allow
development that could Significantly impact adjacent residents and adjacent roads — depending on
the subsequently developed use. These potential impacts include increased traffic generation,
access conflicts, reduction of residential privacy and safety for adjacent day care operations, as well
as land use and aesthetic (noise, light and glare) conflicts. The potential scope and extent of these
impacts are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with significant aldverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(3)]
Staff Comment
Given arterial traffic spends and a lack of pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Site, the City
would require significant improvements for pedestrian travel and public transit use upon
development of the Sito. The trips generated by an automobile-oriented use allowed by
Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) Zoning could cause greater impacts on the
transportation system. Ah office use, as suggested in the application, would generate a relatively
small number of trips.
Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of the request to redesignate the subject 0.68
acre parcel as proposed tQ Neighborhood Services (NS) Land Use and Neighborhood Convenience
Commercial (NCC) Zoning. However, if proposed, staff would recommend approval for a
Comprehensive Plan Map designation change to Mixed-Use (MU), with a Zoning District Map
designation change to Offie-Mixed Use (O-MU)for the Site.
f
PROPOSAL B KENT OFOICE BUILDING
i
#CPA-2004�4(B)/#CPZ-2004-4 (KIVA#2042938)
#ENV-200&53(B) (KIVA#2042937)
Change in Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at 20651
—84th Avenue South/Easlt Valley Highway
i
Applicant (Agent): Edi Qinardic, LDG Architects
Existing Designation Proposed Change
Comprehensive Plan LAND MIC C (Commercial)
USE Map (Manufacturing/Industrial
Center
ZONING Districts Map M2 (Limited Industrial) GWC (Gateway
Commercial
Background: The 6.26 acre Site consisting of two (2) tax parcels is located southwest from the
intersection of 84th Avenuel South (East Valley Highway) and South 208th Street, extending south
along the west side of 84th Avenue S to slightly less than four hundred feet (400')from South 212th
Street. The northern parcel of the Site includes a portion of the S 208th Street roadway. The
terrain of the Site is generally flat and is almost entirely impervious, with a large single-story
structure (approximately 94000 gross square feet — King County Assessor) and asphalt parking
Land Use and Planning Board Pul lic Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 10 of 27
57
surface located thereon. The Site and most parcels in the vicinity north of S 212th Street are
• designated for Manufacturing/Industrial Center land use (MIC) and Limited Industrial (M2) zoning.
The parcels directly south (a McDonald's restaurant) and southeast(including a strip mall and drive-
thru espresso stand) across 84th Avenue SE of the Site are designated for Commercial (C) Land
Use and Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning.
Issues: Limiting expansion of non-industrial commercial land uses in the Manufacturing/Industrial
Center, the Center designation as requested by the City in the early 1990s and designated by the
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), is an important concern (see Attachment C, 2002 Regional
Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturinglindustrial Center, page 4). Access to 84th Avenue S
will be restricted or prohibited, with a possible requirement of off-site revisions for S 208th Street
(private)to address the anticipated increase in traffic volumes at the traffic signal on 84th Avenue S.
A buffer associated with an inventoried wetland located on the McDonald's parcel to the south
might encroach on the Site.
RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS & POLICIES
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies relating to
commercial development, manufacturing/industrial centers, facilitating regional freight mobility, and
protection of wetlands. Designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are intended to maintain the
existing manufacturing and industrial land uses and promote freight mobility.
Overall (LU) Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements
the community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and
enhances the quality of life of all of Kent residents.
Goal LU-13 Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing
commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing
commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with extension of
facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one
another.
Goal LU-15 Preserve a portion of the Valley Floor Industrial Area as a
Manufacturing/Industrial Center for manufacturing and related land
uses.
Policy LU-15.1 Define the Manufacturing/Industrial Center as that area within which the
most intensive manufacturing, industrial and warehouse uses should
locate. Ensure the boundaries reflect accessibility to truck and rail
corridors.
Policy LU-15.2 Discourage and limit land uses other than manufacturing, high
technology and warehousing within the boundaries of the
Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
Goal LU-16 Plan and finance in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center those
transportation and infrastructure systems which can accommodate
high-intensity manufacturing, industry and warehouse uses.
Staff Comment
The recently updated Comprehensive Plan articulates policies to preserve the designated
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (Goal LU-15, and Policies LU-15.1 and LU-1.2) by discouraging
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 1 I of 27
58
and limiting uses neitheF associated with manufacturing, high technology nor warehousing. While
the buildable lands inventory for industrial use (employment growth) would also need to be
analyzed to reflect any anticipated changes for employment, the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) would not be opposed in principle to a change as proposed in this application. The
designation would allow department store retail.
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEIIIIENT
The Community Design !Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies
relating to the aesthetic impacts of commercial development, on- and off-site improvements,
circulation patterns, and vehicular and pedestrian access:
Goal CD-1 Es tablish street and circulation patterns that encourage walking,
bidycling, and transit use.
Goal CD-2 InOorporate amenities and features along neighborhood residential and
commercial streets that accommodate safe motor vehicle, pedestrian,
biclycle, and transit use.
Policy CD-2.3 De$ign intersections with appropriate signage and traffic control
devices to safely accommodate pedestrian, bicyclists, and vehicular
traff'fic. Construct intersections with the minimum dimensions and
turking radii necessary to maintain established levels of service per the
concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act.
Policy CD-2.7 In General, construct sidewalks on both sides of all new streets. In
industrial districts, sidewalks may not be appropriate, unless significant
pedestrian traffic is projected, the absence of a sidewalk poses a public
saf�ty risk, or the streets are on existing or planned transit routes.
Goal CD-3 Est$blish site design standards that encourage pedestrian and bicycle
use; Consider equally during site design all modes of transportation
access, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobile.
Policy CD-3.1 Est4blish design standards which ensure that commercial, industrial,
residential, and public building sites provide convenient, direct access
for(pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy CD-3.3 Encourage development to orient around existing and proposed transit
stops and to provide pedestrian amenities and convenient access to the
tra*t stops.
Goal CD-4 Design new commercial projects to accommodate pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicles.
Policy CD-6.2 Encourage developers of large-scale retail stores to provide smaller-
scale retail shops with separate entrances along the perimeter of the
building to provide interest, easy access, and more diverse shopping
opp rtunities.
Policy CD-6.4 Encourage ground floor building facade treatments and activities that
gene] ate pedestrian interest and comfort. Large windows, canopies,
arcades, plazas and outdoor seating are examples of such amenities.
Policy CD-7.1 Wor! with the business community and neighborhood residents to
make aesthetic and functional improvements to commercial areas.
Land Use and Planning Board Pudic Hearing is
November 22,2004
Page 12 of 27
59
Improved image and appeal will increase sales potential and enhance
the character of the City.
Staff Comment
Given the height and scale of the existing building and the size of the Site in relation to its
surroundings, the proposal is not likely to introduce development that is incompatible in design
(height, bulk, and scale) and intensity of use. Any aesthetic impacts will likely relate to the
treatment of vehicular access from 208th Street, as well as ensuring safe and attractive
improvements for pedestrian and bicycle access.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating
to coordination of development and road improvements, and the relationship between industrial and
commercial land uses and the transportation system:
Policy TR-1.1 Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses that generate
high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections
of principal or minor arterials or around freeway interchanges.
Policy TR-1.2 Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with
transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is
sufficient to accommodate the new development, or a financial
commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years,
before allowing it to proceed.
Policy TR-1.4 Manage access along all principal and minor arterial corridors, and
access points to residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Consolidate access points during development review, as part of road
improvement projects, or as part of land use redevelopment projects.
Policy TR-1.5 Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that
land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible.
Policy TR-1.7 Promote land use patterns which support public transportation.
Policy TR-1.8 Promote land use patterns which support public transportation and
insure the development includes transit-friendly features.
Goal TR-2 Provide a balanced transportation system that recognizes the need for
major road improvements to accommodate multiple travel modes.
Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable
circulation for all users throughout the City.
Policy TR-2.2 Coordinate implementation of street construction standards for each
functional classification with policies in the Transportation Element to
provide attractive, safe facilities that complement the adjacent land use.
Goal TR-3 Reduce disruptions which degrade the safety and reasonable
functioning of the local transportation system.
Policy TR-3.3 Establish a network of heavy commercial freight routes to insure the
mobility of goods and services, as well as of people, and to improve the
reliability of freight mobility.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 13 of 27
Policy TR-3.5 (Mork with major institutions, Activity Centers, and employers via -
COmmute Trip Reduction Program and the promotion of alternatives to
single occupancy vehicle (SOt9 use to reduce congestion and enhance
safety.
Goal TR-7 Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal
cirfculation and linkages to regional travel, and promote the use of non-
m0torized transportation.
Policy TR-7.4 Esitablish a network of bicycle routes within the City to connect those
/arid uses likely to produce significant concentrations of bicycle usage.
Work with interested parties in the planning of such a network.
Policy TR-7.6 Whenever practical, provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists
to transit stops.
Policy TR-7.8 Whenever practical, using incentives or regulatory means, encourage
bic�cle storage facilities with adequate lighting at residential
deg a/opment projects, park and rides lots, employment and industrial
centers, schools,Activity Centers and retail areas.
Staff Comment
The existing office development and the extensive amount of surface parking space on the Site is
underutilized. Access to 84"' Avenue S (East Valley Highway) would be restricted or prohibited.
The additional trips generated impacting the existing intersection of S 208"' Street and 84"' Avenue
S (East Valley Highway) ( Ould need to be addressed with signalization improvements as well as
off-site street improvements for the privately-owned S 2081h Street.
APPLYING THE STAND4RDS OF REVIEW
The amendment v4ill not result in development that will adversely affect the public health,
safety, and general welfar6. [KCC 12.02.050(1) & 15.09.050(C)(5)]
Staff Comment
A 6.26 acre parcel designoted for commercial land use and zoning would allow for more intensive
use of an underutilized office building, or subsequent redevelopment of the Site. The amendment
would not result in developlment having significant adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
The amendment i� based upon new information that was not available at the time of
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the
Plan that warrant an amendment to the Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(2) & 15.09.050(C)(4)]
Staff Comment
The Site has been in office use since it was developed in 1968 (King County Records). The
designation of the Site from manufacturing/industrial use to commercial use is not anticipated to
significantly reduce the caiDacity of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)-recognized Kent
Manufacturing/Industrial CeInter as an engine for economic development and international trade.
The amendment is 6onsistent with other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and
that the amendment will mointain concurrency between the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital
Facilities Elements of the Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(3) & 15.09.050(C)(1)]
Staff Comment
Land Use and Planning Board Pu4lic Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 14 of 27
61
The existing use of the Site is non-conforming with the Manufacturinglindustrial Center designation.
• The eventual redevelopment of the Site to Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning could provide
synergistic benefits by encouraging redevelopment of an underutilized office building site. Several
of the above listed goals and policies are supportive of locating commercial activity in close
proximity to manufacturing and freight distribution uses. Other goals and policies listed above
indicate that considerable weight should be given to the protection of adjacent industrial uses from
negative impacts associated with intensive commercial development. GWC zoning is intended to
serve the purpose of these particular Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies—to limit the intensity
and negative impacts of commercial development on adjacent industrial uses.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(2)]
Staff Comment
Rezoning the Site to Gateway Commercial (GWC)would allow commercial development that would
respect the character and scale of adjacent industrial uses, although the uses would have to
respect the functions of the designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(3)]
Staff Comment
Improvements to the intersection of S 2081h Street and 84`h Avenue S, extending to serve the Site
are anticipated to improve access. Given arterial traffic speeds and a lack of pedestrian facilities in
the vicinity of the subject site, the City would require improvements for pedestrian travel and public
transit use upon development of the site. The subject site could be developed to commercial use in
a manner consistent with the proposed designations, as well as in a character fitting the
surrounding non-commercial uses.
• Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of this request to designate the subject parcel
as proposed to Commercial (C) Land Use and Gateway Commercial (GWC)Zoning.
PROPOSAL C LOTTOITOPPANO
#CPA-2004-4(C)/#CPZ-2004-5 (KIVA#2042961)
#ENV-2004-53(C) (KIVA#2042960)
Change in Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at 11644
Southeast 240`h Street
Applicant(Agent): Jerome Carpenter, Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
Existing Designation Proposed Change
[USE
mprehensive Plan LAND SF-6 (Single-Family 6 NS (Neighborhood
Ma unit/acre Servicesod
ING Districts Map SR-6 (Single-Family 6.05 Nborhood
CC (Neigh Commercial
unit/acre)
Background: The four (4) acre Site, recently created from a lot line adjustment affecting a
reduction of a 7.92-acre parcel, consists of one tax parcel located at the northeast corner of
Southeast 240"' Street and 1161h Avenue Southeast. A two (2) acre square at the southwest corner
of the parcel was zoned Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) and the remainder of the
parcel has been zoned Single-Family Residential, 6.05 Units per Acre (SR-6) since June 2002,
when the City Council reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and
established initial zoning for the DeMarco Annexation area. The Site is generally flat, containing a
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 15 of 27
number of temporary anti permanent structures associated with an existing commercial landscaping
nursery use. The strut frontage of SE 2401h Street is currently constructed to existing street
standards, while the str�et frontage along 116`h Avenue SE north of SE 240`h Street is not currently
improved to its design standards.
The Site and parcels tc the north, east, south, west and southeast generally are zoned SR-6,
although approximately 0.2 acres located directly south of the site at the southeast corner of the
intersection of SE 240`h Street and 1161h Avenue SE are zoned NCC. A parcel at the southwest
corner of the intersection also is zoned NCC, although intended to be developed as a park. As
noted above, the southwlest portion of the subject site parcel is currently zoned NCC. The subject
site and parcels in the ivicinity are underdeveloped in regard to current land use and zoning
designations.
Prior to annexation into tl�1e City of Kent in 2001, the Land Use and Zoning district designations for
an eight (8) acre parceh containing the Site changed with the adopted Year 2000 King County
Comprehensive Plan Update (Map Amendment #19). The King County Land Use designation
changed from Urban Residential High to Commercial Outside of Centers, and the Zoning
designation changed froth R-18 (18 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Business. These
designations were adopted by King County for the purpose of recognizing the existing commercial
(nursery) use on-site (sed King County Comprehensive Plan (December 2002), Chapter 2— Urban
Land Use, page 2-14). The Demarco Annexation comprehensive plan amendment and initial
zoning process considered several options that would have effectively adopted equivalent Kent
designations for the entirO eight (8) acres. In summary, these options were not recommended by
the Land Use and Planning Board for adoption — and the City Council adopted a reduced-area (2
acres) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Zoning District at the northeastern corner of SE
2401h Street& 1161h Avende SE.
Issues: The conditjons of the Site and vicinity parcels were considered during the Demarco
Annexation comprehensij a plan amendment and initial zoning (AZ-2001-1) process. Split
designations for the parceu that includes the present Site were adopted by the Kent City Council in
May 2002 after thorough consideration of public comment. Staff analysis from the Demarco
Annexation Zoning Staff Deport, issued on May 21, 2001, relating to the intersection bounding the
subject site of this amendrl ent proposal reads:
"[D]esignating addiirional commercial parcels other than the existing commercial property at
the southeastern corner of this intersection [SE 2401h Street & 116a' Avenue SE] would
create additional land use pressure to further erode the residential character of this area,
and could jeopardie the policy for "corner store" retail. The surrounding neighborhood
generally is single family residential, including low densities of one or three dwelling units
per acre to the southeast and southwest of the annexation. A zoning designation of MRT-16
at the northeastern corner would bolster the viability of the neighborhood business
designation at the southeastern corner, would promote additional homeownership
opportunities, would promote a land use pattern that supports public transportation, and also
would create a Buffer from the impacts of the intersection on the lower density
neighborhoods to the north and east. It also encourages developing the three parcels
designated MRT-16 as a unified development proposal with better management of the
sensitive areas on the sites.'
Concern about expanding the amount of commercial area at the intersection of SE 240`h
Street/1161h Avenue SE was addressed by limiting the neighborhood commercial designation of the
subject site to two (2) acres. A lot line adjustment effected a reduction in size of the site from the
7.92 acres last year to fopr (4) acres this year, with the remaining 3.92 acres included in an
application for a single-family residential planned unit development(PUD).
RELEVANT COMPREHgNSIVE PLAN GOALS & POLICIES
is
Land Use and Planning Board Pul lic Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 16 of 27
63
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies relating to
neighborhood commercial development, activity centers and commercial, facilitating multi-modal
transportation. The Plan distinguishes between small neighborhood service areas and larger
activity center areas.
Overall (LU) Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements
the Community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and
enhances the quality of life of all Kent residents.
Goal LU-2 Establish a land use pattern throughout the Potential Annexation Area
that will facilitate a multi-modal transportation system and provide
efficient public facilities. Ensure that overall densities in the Potential
Annexation Area are adequate to support a range of urban services.
Policy LU-2A Establish transportation levels-of-service which will help guide
development into desired areas.
Policy LU-2.2 Concentrate development in order to promote public transit.
Policy LU-2.4 Give funding priority to capital facility projects which are consistent
with the City's Land Use Element.
Goal LU-3 Focus both city and regional household and employment growth in the
designated Urban Center.
Policy LU-3.2 Focus office employment growth in the Urban Center as a percentage of
overall mixed-use development.
Goal LU-6 Designate Activity Centers in portions of the City and in the Potential
Annexation Area. Allow in these areas a mix of retail, office, and
residential development
Policy LU-6.1 Locate Activity Centers in areas which currently contain con-
centrations of commercial development with surrounding medium-
density housing. Intensify these areas to support public transit to
increase housing options.
Policy LU-6.2 Allow residential uses in Activity Centers. Develop residential uses as
part of a commercial area in a mixed-use development or on a stand-
alone basis in designated areas.
Goal LU-7 Develop Activity Centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian,
cyclist, public transit, and vehicular circulation.
Policy LU-9.4 Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close
proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near
human and community services.
Goal LU-13 Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing
commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing
commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with the extension of
facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one
another.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 17 of 27
6
Goal LU-14 Deltermine the size, function, and mix of uses in the City's commercial
districts based on regional, community, and neighborhood needs.
Policy LU-14.2 Provide opportunities for residential development within existing
bu#iness districts to provide support for shops, services, and
employment within walking distance.
i
Policy LU-14.5 Encourage commercial design elements which will minimize impacts to
surrounding established residential uses for all new development and
redevelopment in the existing Neighborhood Commercial zoning
disitrict. Ensure that projects are pedestrian-oriented and developed
wito minimum parking provisions.
Policy LU-14.6 DisPourage expansion of Neighborhood Service land uses in areas
where the adjacent land use designation is predominately single-family.
Policy LU-14.7 Proknote redevelopment of existing commercial properties by limiting
the conversion of residential land uses to commercial land uses.
Policy LU-14.8 Endure that commercial and mixed-use developments adjacent to
exfslting single-family residential areas are compatible in height and
scale. Establish guidelines for design of edges where commercial and
mixed-uses abut single-family use and medium- and low-density
residential.
Goal LU-24 Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce
dep¢ndency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water
quality and conserve energy resources. Establish mixed-use
commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient
oppgrtunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle.
i
Staff Comment
Kent City Code Section 15.02.010, Establishment and designation of districts, provides the
following purpose statemenit for the Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Zoning District (NCC):
"it is the purpose of the NCC district to provide small nodal areas for retail and personal
service activities co venient to residential areas and to provide ready access to everyday
convenience goods for the residents of such neighborhoods. NCC districts shall be located
in areas designated I or neighborhood services in the comprehensive plan."
This proposal, particularly irk regards to the scale of neighborhood-oriented commercial use, is more
consistent with the cited Land Use Element Goals and Policies than in past proposals, primarily
through the reduction of thelsize of the Site (see CPA-2003-4(8), Lotto). Specifically, this proposal
conflicts less with Goal LU-113, which encourages "orderly and efficient commercial growth...in order
to maintain and strengthens, existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with the
extension of facilities, and t0 allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another." Yet,
the existing Neighborhood Oonvenience Commercial (NCC) Zoning districts in the vicinity of the
Site have still not been developed since their designation. Expanding the area of this zoning district
at the northeastern corner of SE 240"' Street & 116t" Avenue SE beyond the existing two (2) acre
portion bypasses the initial s ep of redeveloping commercial uses in an area already designated for
Neighborhood Services, an could therefore be seen as conflicting with Policies LU-14.6 and LU-
14.7. Additionally, a 2001 Urban Land Institute publication entitled Ten Principles for Reinventing
Land Use and Planning Board Pubic Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 19 of27
65
America's Suburban Strips (see Attachment B) previously provided to the Board, recommends
• limiting expansion of commercial zones when existing commercially-zoned land is underdeveloped.
The buildable lands inventory for housing (population growth) might also need to be revised to
reflect a decrease in capacity of approximately twelve (12) single-family detached units. Policy LU-
14.8 focuses on the "design of edges" and "compatibility of height and scale" where commercial
uses and adjacent residential (whether single-family or multifamily) uses meet. Aesthetic and
privacy conflicts are anticipated with the height, bulk and scale of commercial development, which
is also discussed briefly in the Community Design Element section.
The potential for the development of a mix of commercial uses appropriately located in proximity to
residential uses, is desirable in the view of several Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. If the
area around the intersection of SE 240'h Street & 116`h Avenue SE is designated as an Activity
Center, this will be especially true (Goals LU-6 and LU-7, Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, and LU-9.4). At
present, the development regulations and standards of the City do not provide meaningful
differentiation of Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) Zoning from Community
Commercial (CC) Zoning — particularly in regards to the scale of development, permitted uses and
mixing of uses to include residential. Future consideration of Activity Centers may address some of
the issues relating to differentiation of the appropriate scale of commercial development based on
zoning, and whether the commercial area serves a regional, local, or neighborhood market.
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
The Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies
relating to the aesthetic impacts of commercial development, on- and off-site improvements,
circulation patterns, and vehicular and pedestrian access:
Goal CD-1 Establish street and circulation patterns that encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use.
Goal CD-2 Incorporate amenities and features along neighborhood residential and
commercial streets that accommodate safe motor vehicle, pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit use.
Policy CD-2.1 Establish, particularly in conjunction with new development, distinctive
crosswalks at major street intersections in neighborhood mixed-use
centers, commercial corridors, transit stops, in proximity to parks, and
school sites.
Policy CD-2.3 Design intersections with appropriate signage and traffic control
devices to safely accommodate pedestrian, bicyclists, and vehicular
traffic. Construct intersections with the minimum dimensions and
turning radii necessary to maintain established levels of service per the
concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act.
Policy CD-3.3 Encourage development to orient around existing and proposed transit
stops and to provide pedestrian amenities and convenient access to the
transit stops.
Goal CD-4 Design new commercial projects to accommodate pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicles.
Policy CD-4.1 Encourage site and building access that considers the needs of
pedestrians and bicyclists by providing the most direct pedestrian
access from sidewalks and parking areas to building entrances while
minimizing conflicts with motor vehicle traffic.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 19 of 27
6
Policy CD-4.5 Lgcate motor vehicle parking at the rear of buildings to help block the
yr w of the parking from the street and to enable more convenient
access to the front of the buildings. Where it is not possible to provide
Perking behind a building, parking may be located along the side.
Si�nage for parking should be a recognized standard to be
di$tinguishable for motorists, unless otherwise specified in district
d�sign guidelines.
Goal CD-6 Provide scale, layout, and character of commercial development which
is complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood and
accommodating to pedestrians.
Policy CD-7.1 Wbrk with the business community and neighborhood residents to
m�ke aesthetic and functional improvements to commercial areas.
Improved image and appeal will increase sales potential and enhance
the character of the City.
Policy CD-15.1 Whenever possible, encourage a land use pattern wherein churches,
stores, services, parks,jobs, entertainment, transportation, and schools
are within walking distance of a person's place of residence.
Staff Comment
This proposal may introOuce development that is incompatible in design (height, bulk, and scale)
and use intensity with n6ighboring residential uses, in conflict with Goal CD-6, but the size of the
Site provides for a more reasonable layout. Any aesthetic impacts will likely be compounded by the
treatment of vehicular access and parking; limiting these impacts should be addressed through
Goal CD-4, and Policies CD-4.1 and CD-4.5. Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC)
Zoning provides opportunities for development of an integrated, walkable community of commercial
uses in close proximity t moderate density residential use. However, NCC Zoning also allows for
development of convenience stores and gas stations — neither of these uses are associated
primarily with pedestriah-accessibility, and may create impacts contrary to the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding commercial development. The existing two (2) acre NCC-zoned
portion has reasonable vehicular access (see testimony of City of Kent Public Works Director Don
Wickstrom in Kent City ICouncil Meeting minutes, May 21, 2002, and electronic communication
dated May 15, 2002 fror� City Transportation Engineering Manager Steve Mullen to City Planning
Manager Charlene Anderson regarding access — cited in CPA-2003-4(8), Lotto), yet is scaled to
encourage pedestrian access to and from the existing residential neighborhood.
TRANSPORTATION ELEME T
The Transportation Elem nt of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating
to coordination of developpment and road improvements, and the relationship between commercial
land use and the transportation system:
i
Policy TR-1.1 Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily, and other uses that generate
high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections
of erincipal or minor arterials or around freeway interchanges.
Policy TR-1.2 Cojordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with
transportation projects to improve affected roadways.
Policy TR-1.5 Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that
lanjd use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible.
Policy TR-1.7 Promote land use patterns which support public transportation.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 20 of 27
i
67
Policy TR-1.8 Create land uses in the downtown and commercial areas which better
• support transit and reduce peak-hour trip generation.
Policy TR-4.1 Maximize traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on
regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads
from increased traffic volumes.
Policy TR-4.2 Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased
traffic and reducing accessibility for the City-wide road network.
Policy TR-4.3 Balance the dual goals of providing accessibility within the local street
system and protecting neighborhoods. Where overflow traffic from the
regional system significantly impacts neighborhoods, protect the
residential area.
Policy TR-4.9 Reduce the disruptive impacts of traffic related to major institutions,
activity centers, and employers via trip-reduction efforts, access/egress
controls, and provision of alternatives to SOV use.
Policy TR-7.2 Whenever practical, use incentives or regulations to encourage new
construction to promote pedestrian and bicycle movements to
pathways, transit services and arterials.
Staff Comment
The additional trip generation impacts from increasing the size of a commercial designation by two
hundred-percent (200%), from two (2) to four (4) acres could cause deterioration of arterial level-of-
service. The vehicular and pedestrian access issues, particularly noting the opportunities for the
existing two (2) acre NCC-zoned corner portion, are addressed above in the staff comments on
. Community Design,
APPLYING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health,
safety, and general welfare. [KCC 12.02.050(1) & 15.09.050(C)(5)]
Staff Comment
Designating the two (2) acre subject portion of the parcel Neighborhood Services and
Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) would allow development that would impact
adjacent residents, although the development would likely be neighborhood-oriented. The potential
impacts include increased traffic generation, access conflicts, reduction of residential privacy, as
well as land use (if the commercial development is automobile-oriented adjacent to residential use)
and aesthetic (noise, light and glare)conflicts.
The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the
Plan that warrant an amendment to the Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(2) & 15.09.050(C)(4)]
Staff Comment
The applicant has asserted the inadequacy of the existing two-acre commercial designation for
meeting current standards for driveway spacing from signalized intersections on minor arterials and
for feasibly developing NCC uses. The applicant has also stated the City Council did not take into
account locations of the existing structures and operations when it designated the two-acre
commercial area in 2002. Furthermore, the applicant asserted the July, 2003 adoption of
Ordinance No. 3648 provided new information and changed circumstances in that the ordinance
amends land uses, development standards, design techniques, signage and landscaping
. requirements in the NCC zoning district. During the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 21 of 27
process, staff found not new information substantiating a change in conditions or circumstances
since the Site was designated as Single-Family Residential, Six Units per Acre (SF-6 Land UseiSR-
6 Zoning) per the DeMa►lco Annexation Zoning Ordinance (#3605), adopted in May 2002. Staff also
argued that the refinement of NCC zoning standards in 2003 did not provide new information or
changed circumstancesi relevant for establishing additional neighborhood commercial zones.
Rather the standards roaffirmed the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan related to
neighborhood commercial areas as small scale, pedestrian-and neighborhood-oriented areas.
Since the 2003 application, the applicant has succeeded in adjusting the lot line of the parcel
containing the existing NCC-zoned portion of the Site. The applicant also recently demolished the
single-family detached Unit formerly located on the Site. These changes alone do not merit
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for the Site.
The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and
that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital
Facilities Elements of the]Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(3) & 15.09.050(C)(1)]
Staff Comment
The subject site, as proposed, totaling four (4) acres of commercially-designated property could
encourage neighborhood1oriented development. However, NCC Zoning allows automobile-oriented
development that could inn,pose significant unavoidable negative impacts likely to diminish the value
of neighboring parcels asI residential uses. The intensity of commercial development encouraged
by the amendment would�be more appropriately located in Activity Centers, as noted in Policy LU-
6.1.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(2)]
Staff Comment
Rezoning the remaining subject portion.of the four (4) acre parcel to Neighborhood Convenience
Commercial (NCC) could!allow automobile-oriented development that would significantly impact
adjacent residents. These] potential impacts include increased traffic generation, access conflicts,
reduction of residential pri*y, as well as land use and aesthetic (noise, light and glare) conflicts.
The scope and extent of these impacts, in consideration of maintaining quality residential
neighborhoods, are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the development regulations
and standards for NCC Z ning clearly limited such automobile-oriented uses and instead allowed
development consistent wish the vision of Activity Center goals and policies, the proposal would be
more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Further consideration of differentiating commercial
zoning and development standards by regional, local, and neighborhood market areas is needed to
ensure development appropriate to the vision of the Comprehensive Plan (Goal LU-14).
The proposed rezo a will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(3)]
Staff Comment
Given arterial traffic speed$ and a lack of pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the subject site, the
City would require significant improvements for pedestrian travel and public transit use upon
development of the site. The applicant's claim that the existing two (2) acre comer portion
(currently zoned NCC) doe not have sufficient frontage to locate 'convenient' driveway access for
commercial use does not gree with testimony from the City of Kent Public Works Department
given during the public hea ing on DeMarco Annexation zoning in May 2002.
Goal CD-3 calls for establishing "...site design standards that encourage pedestrian and bicycle
use. Consider equally during site design all modes of transportation access, including pedestrian,
bicycle, transit and automobile." Neighborhood Services Land Use and Neighborhood
Convenience Commercial iZoning are intended to emphasize pedestrian-scaled commercial
development design, while accommodating the automobile. A four (4) acre parcel entirely
Land Use and Planning Board Pul lic Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 22 of 27
69
designated for commercial development should encourage development at a scale similar to the
. NCC district located at the southeast corner of Southeast 24U' & 1161' Avenue Southeast.
However, the impacts of automobile-oriented uses permitted in NCC would have adverse impacts
on the transportation system.
Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of this request to redesignate the subject two (2)
acre portion of the parcel as proposed to Neighborhood Services (NS) Land Use and Neighborhood
Convenience Commercial (NCC) Zoning.
PROPOSAL D MUTH
#CPA-2004-4(D)I#CPZ-2004-6 (KIVA#2042984)
#ENV-2004-53(D) (KIVA#2042982)
Change in Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map for property located at 21320
—42nd Avenue South
Applicant (Agent): Richard Rawlings, Polygon, LLC
Existing Designation Proposed Change
Comprehensive Plan LAND AG-R (Agricultural SF-1 (Single-Family 1
USE Map Resource Land) unit/acre
ZONING Districts Map A-10 (Agricultural, 10 SR-1 (Single-Family 1
acreslunit) unit/acre
Background: The 15.35 acre Site consists of two (2) tax parcels and is located at the southeast
corner of South 212th Street and 42nd Avenue South. The terrain of the Site can be characterized
• as flat, with a substantial amount of delineated wetland area in the west. Current zoning for the
property recognizes its status as agricultural land of commercial significance. The development
rights for the entire Site were purchased by King County in the early 1980s.
Issues: Resolution of the ownership of development rights, and possible changes thereto for
the Site will be necessary for the City to consider this application further. Although the applicant
has identified stormwater detention as the sole desired use of the property, the buildable lands
inventory for housing (population growth) would also need to be revised to reflect a potential
increase in capacity.
RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS & POLICIES
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies relating to
agricultural resource land protection, recognition of natural systems, protection of wetlands, and
provision of public services.
Overall (LU) Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements
the Community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and
enhances the quality of life of all Kent residents.
Goal LU-21 Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and
systems in determining the overall environmental quality and livability
of the community.
Goal LU-22 Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-
term, sustainable relationship among local and regional natural
0 resource protection entities, for future growth and economic
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 23 of 27
7
development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and
reOreational opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection
of water quality in wetlands, aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green
Rider; provision of open space and screening to reduce impacts of
development; protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
NO, property, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat;and retention of
the unique character and sense of place provided by the City's natural
feajtures.
Policy LU-22.1 Provide incentives for environmental protection and compliance with
enWonmental regulations. Foster greater cooperation and education
am�ng City staff, developers, and other citizens. Determine the
eft ctiveness of incentives by establishing monitoring programs.
Policy LU-22.2 Cobtinue to evaluate programs and regulations to determine their
eff@ctiveness in contributing to the conservation and recovery of ESA
listed species.
Policy LU-22.3 Co0inue to participate in regional and WRIA planning efforts to support
the conservation of listed species.
Goal LU-23 Proect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption
of City regulations and programs which encourage well-designed land
use patterns such as clustering and planned unit development. Use
sucp land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use densities
and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural
features such as large wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas,
and forests.
Goal LU-24 Encpurage weft designed, compact land use patterns to reduce
dependency on the automobile, and thereby improve air and water
quality and conserve energy resources. Establish mixed-use
commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient
opportunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle.
Goal LU-25 Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply
with! state and federal environmental protection regulations regarding
air end water quality, hazardous materials, noise and wildlife and
fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for
environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement programs,
cod@ enforcement, implementation programs, development regulations,
an site plan review to ensure that local land use management is
consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals.
Policy LU-26.2 Protoct wetlands not as isolated units, but as ecosystems, and essential
elements of watersheds. Base protection measures on wetland
functions and values, and the effects of on-site and off-site activities.
Policy LU-26.3 When jurisdictional boundaries are involved coordinate wetland
protection and enhancement plans and actions with adjacent
jurisOictions and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 24 of 27
71
Policy LU-26.4 Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state. Rehabilitate degraded
• channels and banks via public programs and in conjunction with
proposed new development.
Policy LU-28.1 Encourage enhancement of existing environmental features such as
rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.
Policy LU-28.2 Promote the creation and preservation of natural corridors adjacent to
areas such as the Green River, Soos Creek, and other streams and
wetlands within the City of Kent for fish and wildlife habitat, open space
and passive recreation. Whenever possible, preservation of these lands
should link other pro-perties with similar features to create a natural
corridor.
Goal LU-30 Ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural
land via regulation, acquisition, or other methods.
Staff Comment
No comment.
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
The Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains a policy relating to the
appropriate public acquisition of open space.
Goal CD-18.1 Where appropriate, identify and acquire an open space system that
links, parks, greenbelts, wildlife habitats, stream corridors, wetlands,
• and other critical areas. Impacts on the environmental functions of
critical areas shall be considered in the development of open space
system links.
Staff Comment
No comment.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies relating
to coordination of development and road improvements, and the relationship between residential
land use and the transportation system.
Policy TR-1.2 Coordinate new commercial and residential development in Kent with
transportation projects to assure that transportation facility capacity is
suffic-lent to accommodate the new development, or a financial
commitment is in place to meet the adopted standard within six years,
before allowing it to proceed.
Policy TR-1.5 Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that
land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible.
Policy TR-1.7 Insure the transportation system is developed consistent with the
anticipated development of the land uses, and acknowledge the
influence of provid-ing transportation facilities to accelerate or delay
the development of land uses, either by type or area.
• Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 25 of 27
72
Goal TR-10 Coordinate transportation operations, planning, and improvements with
the State, the County, neighboring jurisdictions, and all transportation
planning agencies to ensure the City's interests are weft represented in
regional planning strategies,policies and projects.
Staff Comment
No comment.
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMIENT
The Capital Facilities E Dement of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies
relating to coordination of the finance and development of public infrastructure improvements.
Policy CF-1.3 To! ensure financial feasibility, provide needed public services and
facilities that the City has the ability to fund, or that the City has the
authority to require others to provide.
Policy CF-1.5 Co rdinate the review of non-City managed capital facilities plans to
en4ure consistency with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan.
Policy CF-2.3 Coordinate with other jurisdictions and providers of services and
facilities to ensure that the provision of services and facilities are
ge erafty consistent for all Kent residents, businesses, and others
enjoying City services and facilities.
Goal CF-15 Ensfure that public utilities services throughout the City, its Potential
Annexation Area (PAA) and other areas receiving such services are
adequate to accommodate anticipated growth without significantly
de&ading the levels-of-service for existing customers.
Staff Comment
No comment.
PARKS&OPEN SPACE ELE' ENT
The Parks & Open Space,Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies
relating to coordination of the finance and development of public infrastructure improvements.
Policy P&OS-1.2 Acquire and preserve habitat sites that support threatened species and
urban wildlife habitat, in priority corridors and natural areas with habitat
value such as the Green River Corridor, the Green River Natural
Resources Area (GRNRA), North Meridian Park, Soos Creek, Mill Creek,
and iVark Lake Park.
i
Goal P&OS-2 Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features,
wh0e such access does not cause harm to the environmental functions
associated with the features.
Policy P&OS-2.2 Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited public access to
envirlonmentally sensitive areas and sites that are especially unique to
the rent area, such as the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek and
Mill Creek corridors, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA),
and the shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, Lake Fenwick, and
Clary Lake.
Staff Comment
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 26 of 27
73
No comment.
• APPLYING THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health,
safety, and general welfare. [KCC 12.02.050(1) & 15.09.050(C)(5)]
Staff Comment
See following comment.
The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the
Plan that warrant an amendment to the Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(2) & 15.09.050(C)(4)]
Staff Comment
The City Council recently established the existing land use and zoning designation. The AG-R
designation recognized the fact that the development rights on the parcel had previously been
purchased by King County for agricultural and open space preservation. To date, there has been
no change to the ownership of the development rights. Therefore, redesignation of this property is
premature.
The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and
that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the Land Use, Transportation, and Capital
Facilities Elements of the Plan. [KCC 12.02.050(3) & 15.09.050(C)(1)]
Staff Comment
See previous comment.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(2)]
Staff Comment
See previous comment.
The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. [KCC 15.09.050(C)(3)]
Staff Comment
See previous comment.
Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL without prejudice of this request to redesignate
the subject 15.35 acre parcel as proposed until the issue of development rights ownership is
resolved by the applicant.
If there are any questions prior to the hearing, please contact William Osborne at(253) 856-5437.
WO1pm s:lPermitlPlanlCompPlanAmdments1200412042937-cpa2004-4a-d-LUPBpubhrg112204.doc
Eric: Attachment A:City of Kent Development Assistance Brochure 6-3(Access Management)
Attachment B:Urban Land Institute,Ten Principles for Reinventing America's Suburban Strips,pages 8-9
Attachment C:Puget Sound Regional Council,2002 Regional Growth Centers Report:Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Center
Attachment D:Maps of 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Attachment E:Summary Matrix of 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
• Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
November 22,2004
Page 27 of 27
7
This page intentiona0y left blank.
i
i
- 75
0GHA VS CNIL ENGINEERING.LAND PLANNING.SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES
�Z
January 6,2005
"4U 046 p
William Osborne,Planner
City of Kent
Planning Department
220-4th Avenue South
Kent,WA 98032
RE: Lotto Property Comprehensive Plan Map/Zoning Map Amendment Application
CPA-2004-4(C)/CPZ-2004-5(KIVA RPP6-2042961)and
ENV-2004-53,(C)/KIVA RPSA-2042960
11644 S.E.240th Street, Kent,Washington
Our Job No. 11034
Dear William:
In response to direction received from the Kent City Council on January 4,2005,we propose on behalf of
OUT client the following conditions to the Lotto Comprehensive Plan Map/Zoning Map Amendment
• application. These conditions are provided to ensure the property will develop with neighborhood
friendly uses consistent with the purpose of the NCC zone and the desire of the surrounding community.
The Lotto Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment is approved with the following
conditions:
1. Gasoline service stations are prohibfted.
Comment: We proposed this condition separately in writing on December 1,2004.
2. Future developneni of the property shall include a 25 font wide buffer with Type I
landscaping provided adjacent to the north mud east property lines.
Comment: See the enclosed exhibit for a graphic depiction of the proposed buffer. The
buffer equates to approximately 1/2 acre of land,thus limiting development of the remainder
of the site to approximately 3 1/2 acres.
The Kent City Code does not contain an architectural design review process for commercial
developments outside the downtown core; however, we are willing to discuss any and all options
available.
We respectfully request your endorsement of these conditions as part of your approval recommendation.
Our goal is to work closely with City staff for a positive recommendation for the January 19, 2005,
Planning and Economic Development Committee hearing.
10
1821572NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA98032 (425)251-8222 (426)251.8782FAX
www,barghausen.com
76
I
William Osborne,Planner
City of Kent
Planning Department -2- January 6,2005
Should you have questions or concerns, please contact me immediately. Thank you for considering this
request
Respectfully,
Chris S.Ferko,AICP
Senior Planner
CSF/vj/ath
11034c,021.doe
ene: As Noted
cc: Julie Peterson,Kent City Council(w/enc)
Tim Clark,Kent pity Council(w/enc)
Ron Harmon,Kerjt.City Council(w/enc)
Deborah Ranniger,Kent City Council(w/enc)
Debbie Raplee,K mt City Council(w/enc)
Les Thomas,Kent City Council(w/enc)
Bruce White,Kenit City Council(w/enc)
Charlene Anders,City of Kent(w/enc)
Mike Lotto,Kent East Hill Nursery(w/enc)
Angelo Toppano,XCent East Hill Nursery(w/enc)
Jerome Carpenter,Inslee,Best,Doezie&Ryder,P.S.(w/enc)
Dawn Findlay-Re ,Inslee, Best,Doezie&Ryder, P.S.(w/enc)
Eric G.LaBrie,E$M Consulting Engineers LLC(w/enc)
i
i
i
i
•
' 25' i
1
W I i 374.98' 25-FOOT
�,
TYPE I BUFFER'
W rO* E . I �' (0.45 ACRES) j
W '
I
0 50 100
Q
SCALE 1' . 100' c7 LOTTOITOPPANO PR I PERTY
AREA: 174,260± S.F.
(o (4.00± AC.) I
T I I ( M
T CN I
42'1 N
I I
\ 388.51'
�-------------- ____
17 16
_ ' . E. 240T 8-r ---
zo 21 — — — —
Seoler -
Q•GHA(/s 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH For; Job Number
O.� S Horizonfol KENT, WA 98032 LOTTO/TOPPANO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 11034
42 Z (425) 251-6222 AMENDMENT AND REZONE
awe..e ss� (425) 251-8782 FAX
Vertical _ - Title BUFFER Sheef
�'O1b= 'PO 4,b CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING,
owe 12fi/OZ N/A <"IvaENOVA SUING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES EXHIBIT 1 1
Fde:P:\110DOa\I1034\nNbit\11034-zl.E.g Dole/lime:01/06/2005 1436 kole: 1=1 jslelontik Xrefs'
1
_ CITY OF KENT ��� �LjLj
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL /
".
SUBJECT: Planning and Econ. Dev. Committee - Notices Sent Date: January 14, 2005
TO: Brenda Jacober, City-Ci�e.rk
FROM: Pamela Mottram 0 gl j�5APf�Wq � �SIGNATURE: PaHrela
. Copies of the 1/19/05 PLANNING & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE PaC�,et was distributed as follows:
NMI now I
Now
City Council Members- Full Packet*(7) Deliver to City Clerk's Office-(7) Hard Pam Mottram
Tim C, JulieP, BruceW,RonH, LesT,DeborahR,DebbieRaplee Copies)in Cncl Mmbers Mail Boxes
Tomb, RobertN, FredS,CharleneA, KimM,Gloria GouldWessen, Email Note: Distribute Hard Copies to: Pam Mottram
BrendaJacober, Bill Osborne, KimP, ReneeC Full Packet-(10) FS/CA/KP/RC/BJ >'(5)-hd copies)
Web Page -Mary Simmons Agenda&Full Packet Email: Front Page Mary Simmons
King County Journal Place in Box @-City Clerks- Full Packet FAX: 9-872-6611 >>Agenda Pam Mottram
Kent Reporter- Agenda FAX: Michelle Gisi- 9-437-6026 Pam Mottram
ip
Marcelle Pechler,Chamber of Commerce Full Packet Email: MpechlerCcilkentchamber.com Pam Mottram
Garrett Huffman,SKCtyMgr 425451-7920E>d236 Full Packet mail: ghuffmanCa�mbaks.com
Pam Mottram
Master Blders Assoc,335 1161"Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004
Don Shadier,KentCARE.S,2070North St,Seattle,WA98103 US Mail (1)
William T. Miller,827 W.Valley Hwy#95,Kent 98032 Agenda Us Mail (KBAB) Pam Mottram
Michael D. Manderville, 11415 SE 196 , Renton 98055 Agenda ' S Mail (KBAB) Pam Mottram
Dave Tervo,4319 S. 239 , Kent 98032 Agenda, S Mail Pam Mottram
Ryan Zulauf, 24502 98 A e. . nt 98030 Agenda' US Mail Pam Mottram
JStorment„EdCrawford, rom,GGill,JHodgson, Email Pam Mottram
BLopez,RGivens,KSenecaut, KSprotbery, MayorWhite, MMartin,
BColeman, BHutchinson, NTorgelson,TWhite,JSchneider, AGENDAS(37)
MHubner, SMullen, LFlemm, BBilodeau,CHolden, JMorrow,
CBarry, SHeiserman, MGilbert, CHankins, KHanson,DHooper,
RK-ry'StiansenTtrft1AAU1aV .
• LUPB Members:Jon Johnson, Greg Worthing, Kenneth Email
Wendling,Steve Dowell, David Malik, Elizabeth Watson,Theresa AGENDAS(7)
Ferguson
Seattle Post Intelligencer(P.I.) Agenda mail:citvdesk(a�seattlepi.com Pam Mottram
Kelly Snyder, Roth Hill Engineering Agenda mail: ksnvder(& othhill.com Pam Mottram
Pam Cobley, Roth Hill Engineering Agenda mail: pcobley@rothhill.com Pam Mottram
14450 NE 29`"Pl,Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98007
Shaunta Hyde,The Boeing Co., 206-655-3640 Agenda mail: shaunta r hvdeCDboeing.com Pam Mottram
Local Gvnmt Relatns Mgr
P.O. Box 3707 MC 14-49, Seattle,WA 98124,
Ted Nixon,Campbell/Nixon Assoc. Agenda mail:ten@cn-architects.com Pam Mottram
10024 SE 2401h, Suite 102, Kent 98031
Puget Sound Energy(1-800-321-4123) Agenda Email: gnomen@puget.com Pam Mottram
Pam Mottram
Lobby of City Hall Agenda OSTED
KDP-Kent Downtown Partnership-Jacquie Alexander Agenda mail: kdp@kentdowntown.org Pam Mottram
David Hoffman, 25334 45 Ave S, Kent,98032-4223 Agenda mail: David W.Hoffmane Boeing.Com Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm:253-852-4683 Wk:253-773-2861
Melvin L. Roberts,9421 S.2415 St., Kent 98031 Agenda mail: Melvin L.Roberts@Boeing.com Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm:253-854-0952 Wk:425-865-3695
Jacob W.Grob,5408 S.236 St., Kent 98032-3389 Agenda. mail:Jacob W Grob@Boeing.com Pam Mottram
(KBAB) Hm:253-813-3809 Wk:425-234-2664
Steven M. Nuss,26220 42" Ave. S, Kent,98032 Agenda Email: SteveNussORedDotCorp.com Pam Mottram
(KBAB) H. :253-854-7561
-[-7_
' Thomas Hale,23327 115 PI SE, Kent 98031-3426 Agenda Mail: sthale2(a-comcast net Pam Mottram
(KBAB) 1Hm:253-854-0734
13-Full Packets+2 for Mtg (7 Original Letterhead Agenda Covers for CC) 4 Hd copy-Agendas (Revised list—11/22104)
SAPermitlPlanoanning Committee120D51Distribution%PC-distributlonoll905.doc
T
2004 Comp Plan Amendments 2004 Comp Plan Amendments
12/20/04 Mailing List: Mailing List:
10
ed Parties of Record List MUTH AMENDMENT— LOTTOITOPPANO AMENDMENT
ENV 2004-53(D/CPA-2004-4(D): ENV-2004-53(C) CPA-2004-4(C):
Read Down Read Down
2004 CompPlan Amendments AppllcantlContact CPA-2004-4(m:
(applicanVowner)CPA-20044(C)Lotto/Toppano Porn
Mailing List: Richard Rawlings Angelo & June Toppano
MILLENIUM-KANGLEYBLDG Silver Oak, LLC 2211 1561h Ave. NE
ENV-2004-53(A) CPA-2004-4(A): PO Box 1349 Bellevue, WA 98004
Read Down Bellevue, WA 98009
(applicant) ApplicanVOontact CPA-2004-4(D): (applicanUowner)CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano PofR
George Allen Hal P Grubb, Engr Michael &Ann Lotto
Millenium Investment Group, Inc Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc Kent East Hill Nursery
10903 Valley Ave. E 18215 72nd Ave. S 11644 SE 240th St.
Puyallup, WA 98372 Kent,WA 98032 Kent,WA 98031
(contact)CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano PofR
(property owner) Appllcanvcontact CPA-2004-4(D): Jerome D. Carpenter
Shirley Torgerson Dennis Sadtys, P.L.S., Surveyor Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
1120 2nd St. 1821572 n Ave S 777 108th Ave. NE, Suite 1900
Mukilteo, WA 98275 Kent, WA 98032 Bellevue, WA 98004
(Contact) Applicant/Contact CPA-2004-4(D): (engineer)CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano PofR
Joel Kessel, P.E. Theresa Dusek, Consultant David Markley
Engineered Solutions Barghausen Consulting Engineers Transportation Solutions, Inc
5700 100 St. SW, Suite 630 18215 72nd Ave. S 8250 165th Ave. NE, Suite 100
Lakewood,WA 98499 Kent, WA 98032 Redmond, WA 98052
en*redsolutio ns@ msn.com
(consultant) Applicant/Contact CPA-2004-4(D): (contractor)CPA-2004-4(C)LottofToppano PofR
Sara Artley, Planner Scott Dinkelman Chris S. Ferko,AICP
Meadow Creek Land Consulting Earth Consultants, Inc Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc
16851 NE 155" Place 1805 136th Place NE, Suite 201 18215 72nd Ave. S
Woodinville,WA 98072 Bellevue,WA 98005 Kent,WA 98032
2004 Comp Plan Amendments
Mailing List: CPA-2004-4(C)Lottorroppano PofR
KENT OFFICE BUILDING Tom Bankord
AMENDMENT 23702 116th Ave. SE
ENV-2004-53(B) CPA-2004-4(B): Kent,WA 98031
Read Down
(applicant/contact) 2004 Comp Plan Amendments CPA-2004-4(C)Latto/Toppano PofR
Edi Linardic Mailing List: David Markley
LDG Architects LOTTOITOPPANO AMENDMENT Transportation Solutions
1319 Dexter Ave. N, Suite 260 ENV-2004-53(C) CPA-2004-4(C): 8250 165th Avenue NE,Suite 100
Seattle,WA 98109 Read Down Redmond,WA 98052
(property owner)
William G. Williams III, Asset Manager CPi Lotto/Toppano PofR CPA-2004-4(C)Lottolroppano PofR
CA State Teachers Retirement System Marlene Kelly Russell Hanscom
Principal Real Estate Investors 23908 114th Place SE 9523 S 237th Place
520 Pike St., Suite 1515 Kent,WA 98031 Kent,WA 98031
Seattle,WA 98101
904
CPA-2004-4(C)&(D)Lotto/Toppano&IduthPofR CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano POfR
CPPofR Gary Young Eric LaBrie
Gary Volchok Polygon E.S.M. Consulting Engineers
Gary.volchok@cbre.com 11624 SE 51h,Suite 200 720 S 248" St
Bellevue,WA 98005 Federal Way,WA 98003
General Parties of Record: AnnualCPA Applicati°ns—PofR
2004 Annual CPA Applications—P of R Glenn En E Gray
2004 Annual CPA Applications George A Basmajian 20866 102nd Ave.
( across) 10903 Valley Ave E Kent,WA 98031
Puyallup,WA 98372
2004 Annual CPA Applications—P of R 2004 Annual CPA Applications—P of R 2004 Annual CPA Applications—P of R
Jeff Hurley David Koren Miguel Jensen
11225 SE 306t" Place Post Office Box 657 Post Office Box 1387
Auburn,WA 98092 Kent, WA 98035 Kent, WA 98035
gojeffhurley@comcast.net
Declaration of Delivery
On Friday, January 7, 2005, under penalty of perjury and pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, I hereby state and
declare that on this date I caused to be delivered via regular 1st Class Mail or via Email, a true and correct copy of the"City of
Kent Notice of Special Meeting and Public Hearing for Planning and Economic Dev. Committee" for Wednesday,
�anuary 19, 2005 concerning the 2004 Annual CP and Zoning Map Amendments focusing on proposed changes to the
Lotto/Toppano application. —to these parties of record.
Executed at Kent, Washington on this 7th day of January, 2005.
vyV
Declarant: Pamela Mottram
Planning & Economic Development
Committee Agenda
KEN T Councilmembers: Ron Harmon#Bruce White#Tim Clark,Chair
VVA5 H IN GTON
SPECIAL MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING—January 19,2005
4:15 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of the Minutes of 11/29/04
YES 1
2. Approval of the Minutes of 12/6/04.
YES 3
3. #ZCA-2002-4 Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance. YES Kim Marousek
7
Testimony and comments are limited to proposed
changes to the wetland buffer regulations.
4. (a)#CPA-2004-1 Downtown Strategic Action YES William Osborne
37
Plan Update,Comprehensive Plan&Zoning
Amendments, and
(b) #CPA-2004-4(A-D)2004 Annual
Comprehensive Plan&Zoning Map
Amendments.
Testimony and comments are limited to
proposed changes to the Lotto/Toppano application.
Unless otherwise noted,the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3'd Monday of each month
at 4:00 p.m.. in Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,98032-5895.
For information on the above items,the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at
http://www.ci.kent.wa,us/citycouncil/committees/planning.asi)or contact Pamela Mottram or the respective project
planner in Planning Services at(253)856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at
(253)856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay
Service at 1-800-833-6388.
T
I'
Planning 8t Economic Development
",:or Committee Agenda
KENT Councilmembers: Ron Harmon•Bruce White•Tim Clark, Chair
WASHINGTON
CITY OF KENT
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING AND
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Economic Development
Committee will hold a Public Hearing at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, January 19, 2005,
in Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4`h Avenue South, Kent.
Agenda items are:
1. Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (#ZCA-2002-4). Testimony and
comments will be limited to proposed changes to the wetland buffer
regulations.
2. A. Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update, Comprehensive Plan &
Zoning Amendments, and
B. 2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan& Zoning Map Amendments.
Testimony and comments will be limited to proposed changes to the
Lotto/Toppano application.
Please note that the regularly scheduled Planning and Economic Development Committee
Meeting for January 17, 2005 has been canceled.
Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on this application may do so
prior to the meeting or at the meeting. The public is invited to attend and all interested
persons will have an opportunity to speak. For further information or a copy of the staff
report or the text of the proposed amendment for the Critical Areas Ordinance, contact
Kim Marousek, Planning Services office, (253) 856-5454. For further information or a
copy of the staff report or the text of the proposed amendments for the Downtown
Strategic Action Plan Update and 2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map
Amendments, contact Bill Osborne, Planning Services office, (253) 856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-
856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at I-
800-833-6388.
i
Planning & Economic Development
444 Committee Agenda
1Z KENT Counciimembers: Ron Harmon#Bruce White#Tim Clark, Chair
WASH IS GTON
SPECIAL MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING—January 19, 2005
4:15 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of the Minutes of 11/29/04
YES 1
2. Approval of the Minutes of 12/6/04.
YES 3
3. #ZCA-2002-4 Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance. YES Kim Marousek
7
Testimony and comments are limited to proposed
changes to the wetland buffer regulations.
4. (a)#CPA-2004-1 Downtown Strategic Action YES William Osborne 37
Plan Update,Comprehensive Plan&Zoning
Amendments, and
• (b)#CPA-2004-4 (A-D) 2004 Annual
Comprehensive Plan&Zoning Map
Amendments.
Testimony and comments are limited to
proposed changes to the Lotto/Toppano application.
Unless otherwise noted,the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3"d Monday of each month
at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent, 98032-5895.
For information on the above items,the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at
hn://www.ci.kent.wa.us/CitvCounciI/COmmittees/planning.asp or contact Pamela Mottram or the respective project
planner in Planning Services at(253)856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at
(253)856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay
Service at 1-800-833-6388.
Planning 8t Economic Development
Committee Agenda
KENT Councilmembers: Ron Harmon•Bruce White.Tim Clark, Chair
WASHINGTON
CITY OF KENT
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING AND
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Economic Development
Committee will hold a Public Hearing at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, January 19, 2005,
in Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 41h Avenue South, Kent.
Agenda items are:
1. Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance(#ZCA-2002-4). Testimony and
comments will be limited to proposed changes to the wetland buffer
regulations.
2. A. Downtown Strategic Action Plan Update, Comprehensive Plan &
• Zoning Amendments, and
B. 2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan&Zoning Map Amendments.
Testimony and comments will be limited to proposed changes to the
Lotto/Toppano application.
Please note that the regularly scheduled Planning and Economic Development Committee
Meeting for January 17, 2005 has been canceled.
Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on this application may do so
prior to the meeting or at the meeting. The public is invited to attend and all interested
persons will have an opportunity to speak. For further information or a copy of the staff
report or the text of the proposed amendment for the Critical Areas Ordinance, contact
Kim Marousek, Planning Services office, (253) 856-5454. For further information or a
copy of the staff report or the text of the proposed amendments for the Downtown
Strategic Action Plan Update and 2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map
Amendments, contact Bill Osborne, Planning Services office, (253) 856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-
856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at I-
800-833-6388.
•
2004 Comp Plan Amendments 2004 Comp Plan Amendments
12/20/04 Mailing List: Mailing List:
) ed Parties of Record List MUTSAMENDMENT— LOTTO/TOPPANO AMENDMENT
ENV-2004-53(D/CPA-2004-4(D): ENV-2004-53(C) CPA-2004-4(C):
Read Down Read Down
2004 Comp Plan Amendments App4canUContactCRA-2004-4(l))
Mailing List: Richard Rawlings (appliaanvowner)cPA-zoo4-4(gLottoToppan"PofR
g Angelo &June Toppano
211ILLENIUM-KANGLEYBLDG Silver Oak, LLC 2211 1561h Ave. NE
ENV-200443(A) CPA-2004-4(A): PO Box 1349 Bellevue, WA 98004
Read Down Bellevue, WA 98009
(applicant) ApplicanvCootact CPA-2964.4(D): (applicantlowner)CPA-2004-4(C)LottolToppano PofR
George Allen Hal P Grubb, Engr Michael &Ann Lotto
Millenium Investment Group, Inc Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc Kent East Hill Nursery
10903 Valley Ave. E 18215 72"d Ave. S 11644 SE 240`h St.
Puyallup, WA 98372 Kent,WA 98032 Kent, WA 98031
(property owner) Applicant/Contact CPA-2004-4(0): (contact)CPA-2004-4(C)Lottorroppano PofR
Shirley Torgerson Dennis Saltys, P.L.S., Surveyor Jerome D. Carpenter
1120 2nd St. 18215 72nd Ave S Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
th
Mukilteo, WA 98275 Kent, WA 98032 777 108 Ave. NE, Suite 1900
Bellevue, WA 98004
(contact) Applicant/Contact CPA-2004-4(01: (engineer)CPA-2004.4(C)LottolToppano PofR
Joel Kessel, P.E. Theresa Dusek, Consultant David Markley
Engineered Solutions
h Barghausen Consulting Engineers Transportation Solutions, Inc
Lake 100 WSW, Suite 630 18215 72nd Ave. S 8250 165th Ave. NE, Suite 100
Lakewood,WA 98499 Kent,WA 98032 Redmond, WA 98052
en��redsolutio ns@ msn.com
(consultant) Applicant)Contact CPA-2004-4(0): (contractor)CPA-2004-4(C)LottarToppano PorR
Sara Artley, Planner Scott Dinkelman Chris S. Ferko,A1CP
Meadow Creek Land Consulting Earth Consultants, Inc Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc
16851 NE 155th Place 1805 136th Place NE, Suite 201 18215 72nd Ave. S
Woodinville, WA 98072 Bellevue, WA 98005 Kent, WA 98032
2004 Comp Plan Amendments
Mailing List: CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano PofR
KENT OFFICE BUILDING Tom Bankord
AMENDMENT 23702 116th Ave. SE
ENV-2004-53(B) CPA-2004-4(B): Kent,WA 98031
Read Down
(applicant/contact) 2004 Comp Plan Amendments CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano Po R
Edi Linardic Mailing List: David Markley
LDG Architects LOTTO/TOPPANOAMENDMENT Transportation Solutions
1319 Dexter Ave. N, Suite 260 ENV2004-53(C) CPA-2004-4(C): 8250 165th Avenue NE, Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98109 Read Down Redmond,WA 98052
(property owner)
William G.Williams III, Asset Manager CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano PofR CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano PofR
CA State Teachers Retirement System Marlene Kelly Russell Hanscom
Principal Real Estate Investors 23908 114th Place SE 9523 S 237th Place
520 Pike St., Suite 1515 Kent,WA 98031 Kent,WA 98031
Seattle, WA 98101
CPA-2004-4(C)&(0)Lotto/Toppano&Muti-PorR CPA-2004-4(C)Lotto/Toppano PofR
CPA-tU04-4(B)Kent-Cce6ldg Po(R Gary Young Eric LaBrie
Gary Volchok Polygon E.S.M. Consulting Engineers
Gary,volchok@cbre.com 11624 SE 5th,Suite 200 720 S 248"St
Bellevue,WA 98005 Federal Way,WA 98003
2004 Annual CPA Applications-P of R
General Parties of Record: 2004 Annual CPA Applications-PofR Glenn E Gray
2004 Annual CPA Applications George A Basmajian 20866 102no Ave.
aCCOSS 10903 Valley Ave E Kent,WA 98031
Puyallup,WA 98372
2004 Annual CPA Applications-P of R 2004 Annual CPA Applications-P of R 2004 Annual CPA Applications-P of R
Jeff Hurley David Koren Miguel Jensen
11225 SE 306th Place Post Office Box 657 Post Office Box 1387
Auburn,WA 98092 Kent,WA 98035 Kent,WA 98035
gojeffhurley@comcast.net
Declaration of Delivery
On Friday, January 7, 2005, under penalty of perjury and pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, I hereby state and
declare that on this date I caused to be delivered via regular 15Y Class Mail or via Email, a true and correct copy of the"City of
Kent Notice of Special Meeting and Public Hearing for Planning and Economic Dev. Committee" for Wednesday,
�nuary 19, 2005 concerning the 2004 Annual CP and Zoning Map Amendments focusing on proposed changes to the
Lotto/Toppano application. —to these parties of record.
Executed at Kent,Washington on this 7th day of January, 2005.
I
Declarant: Pamela (ottram
CITY OF KENT tv
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING 1
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AND
PUBLIC HEARING
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PLANNING&ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
PUBLIC NOTICE that the Planning and Economic
Development Committee will hold a
Lily Nguyen,being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Public Hearing at 4:15 p.m. on
Representative of the Wednesday,January 19, 2005, in
Council Chambers East, Kent City
Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent.
King County Journal Agenda items are:
1. Proposed Critical Areas
Ordinance (#ZCA-2002-4).
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general Testimony and comments will be
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date limited to proposed changes tothe wetland buffer regulations.
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language 2. A. Downtown Strategic Action
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King Plan Update, Comprehensive
Plan & Zoning Amendments,
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the and
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. B. 2004 Annual Comprehen-
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the sive Plan & Zoning Map
Amendments. Testimony and
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly comments will be limited to
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed To proposed a h inges to the Lotto/
PPano PP
notice,a Please note that the regularly
scheduled Planning and Economic
Development Committee Meeting for
Public Notice January 17,2005 has been canceled.
Any person wishing to submit oral
or written comments on this appli-
was published on Sunday, 1/9/05 cation may do so prior to the meeting
or at the meeting. The public is
invited to attend and all interested
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum persons will have an opportunity to
of $122.00 at the rate of$16.00 per inch for the first publication and N/A per copy . For further the tuff report o information a he text
inch for each s 'equant insertion. the proposed amendment for the
Critical Areas Ordinance, contact
Kim Marousek, Planning Services
office, (253) 856-5454. For further
Lily Nguyen information or a copy of the staff
Legal Adverti ng Representative,King County Journal report or the text of the proposed
Subscribed and�vonrn to me this loth day of January,2005. amendments for the Downtown
Strategic Action Plan Update and
2004 Annual Comprehensive Plan &
✓/f` , G Zoning Map Amendments, contact
Bill Osborne, Planning Services
Tom A.Meagher cR @s'•• office,(253)856-5454.
ton,Residing in RedmbndU �Sl`gYon _ Any person requiring a disability
Notary Public for the State of Washington, g : Z = accommodation should contact the
Ad Number: 858001 P.O. Number: • City Clerk's Office at 253-856-5725 in
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. pu96\ N cq _ advance. For TDD relay service call
^''• o the Washington Telecommunications
4, MAY ;2'. Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388.
Published in the King County
O F �+
i 111 I't1111��Y Journal January 9,2005.#858001