HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/21/2005 Planning & Economic Development
Committee Agenda
KENT Councilmembers: Ron Harmon.Bruce White.Tim Clark,Chair
__ WASMI n_G?Or�
PUBLIC HEARING—March 21, 2005
4:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of the Minutes of 2/28/05 YES 5 min 1
2. Public Hearing- YES Kim Marousek 55 min 3
Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance
Testimony and comments will be limited to
proposed changes to the wetland regulations
as well as an option to modify KCC 15.08.400,
Planned Unit Development(PUD). (#ZCA-2002-4)
Unless otherwise noted,the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3nd Monday of each month
at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,99032-5895.
For information on the above items,the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at
http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/CityCotincil/committees/vlanning.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 intentionally left blank.
z
PLANNING &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28,2005
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark,Ron Hannon,Bruce White
The special meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 p.m.
Aouroval of Minutes
Member Hannon MOVED and Member Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of
January 19, 2005. Motion Carried with Member White's concurrence.
Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO)ZCA-20024
Ms. Marousek described what has occurred to date with the CAO. She asked the Committee to
consider extending the CAO Focus Group to allow them to meet on March 2nd to consider
additional options,with the anticipation of bringing a resolution to the Committee at a continued
hearing on March 2ls`
Member Harmon moved and Member White seconded a motion to accept a letter received from
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District for the record established as Exhibit #34, and a letter from
Eric Olason with Arca for the record established as Exhibit#35. Motion Carried.
Member Hannon moved and Member White seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to
March 21, 2005. Motion Carried 3-0.
Planning Services 2005 Work Program
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson described the Planning Services proposed work program
for 2005.
Chair Clark recommended that staff review NCC Zoning as well as the issue of stacked
condominium housing in downtown. In response to Member Harmon, Ms. Anderson defined
"Built Green"as an effort to be environmentally sensitive with how projects are built. She stated
that Planner Bill Osborne is representing the city in this local and regional effort.
Adjournment
Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 4:25 pm
P&nek AdVA4,---
Pamela Mottram,
Admin Secretary, Planning Services
S:IPermi6P1an1P1anningCom ittee12005Ufinutes1022805min.doc
2
This page intentionally left blank.
3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Director
PLANNING SERVICES
11, Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
K E N T
W°s H.""'O"- Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
March 14, 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-20024) as recommended by the Land Use&Planning Board and as further amended by
[Option 1/Option 2/Option 3/Option 4] related to wetland regulations, and forward the
ordinance to the City Council for adoption.
SUMMARY: At their January 19, 2005 meeting, the Planning and Economic Development
Committee (P&EDC) directed staff to establish a group, inclusive of interested parties and
representatives from the state, to further discuss the proposed wetland regulations. This group
provided a forum to discuss the proposed regulations in an effort to develop an option based on
consensus. Although the "wetland focus group" met five times, they were unable to reach a
consensus in total. The group was able, however, to agree in concept to several elements that are
offered as a package in Options 3 and 4. Generally, the group was unable to reach consensus
with respect to the wetland buffer size.
BACKGROUND: On September 13, 2004, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public
hearing on the combined Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). There are five elements to the critical
area regulations: geologic hazard areas; frequently flooded areas; fish and wildlife conservation
areas; wetlands; and, critical aquifer recharge areas. Additionally, the CAO provides
administrative and definitions sections. The CAO was before the City Council on November 2,
2004 and remanded back to the P&EDC for further review of the proposed wetland regulations
contained within the staffs recommendation (Option 1). The balance of the proposed CAO
elements have remained unchanged from the LUPB recommendation and have not been subject
to the subsequent public hearings before the P&EDC.
Wetland Focus Group Summary: Although the group was unable to reach consensus with
respect to appropriate buffer size, they were able to agree upon several components to the
regulations which include: 1) an incentive for voluntary buffer increases; 2) a non-regulatory
city-wide habitat protection and restoration planning process; 3) an allowance to remove the
"avoidance" requirement to fill small, isolated Category 3 wetlands with replacement; 4) buffer
i
4
restoration for degraded buffers; and, 5) modifications to the proposed mitigation/compensation
ratios. These elements are represented in both Options 3 and 4.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
OPTIONS: For all options, with the exception of the wetland-related revisions, the balance of
the proposed CAO regulations remain unchanged from that which was forwarded to the City
Council by the LUPB.
Option 1: Significant portions of Option 1 are summarized below.
Buffer Widths:
Wetland Category Standard Buffer
1 125 feet
2 75 feet
3 50 feet
Buffer Reductions: Buffer reductions, with enhancement, would be permitted for degraded
buffers at a rate of 10% for Category 1 wetlands; 15% for Category 2 wetlands; and 20% for
Category 3 wetlands. In addition buffer averaging would be permitted in a manner which is
consistent with Kent's existing wetland regulations. Buffer averaging would not be permitted in
Category 3 wetlands.
Compensation Ratios: Replacement and enhancement ratios to mitigate for wetland and wetland
buffer impacts are consistent with Kent's current wetland regulations.
Option 2: This alternaltive would essentially retain Kent's existing wetland regulations.
Significant portions of Option 2 are summarized below.
Buffer Widths:
Wetland Category Standard Buffer
1 100 feet
2 50feet
3 25feet
Buffer Reductions: Buffer reductions would not be permitted. However, buffer averaging
would be permitted consistent with Kent's existing wetland regulations.
Compensation Ratios: Replacement and enhancement ratios to mitigate for wetland and wetland
buffer impacts are consistent with Kent's current wetland regulations.
Option 3: This altem4tive presents a package of elements that were developed through the
wetland focus group process. Although this option does not represent a group consensus, due to
the proposed buffer widths, the following items were agreed to in concept: a provision to allow
the fill of certain small dategory 3 wetlands when replaced; required restoration of degraded
buffers in conjunction wiM development proposals; and higher compensation ratios for wetland
and wetland buffer impacts.
In addition, this proposal includes a development incentive to encourage voluntary buffer
increases. This incentive allows for no minimum acreage requirement and density bonuses
Planning&Economic Dev.Committee Meeting
3/21/05
Page 2 of 5
5
within PUDs where larger wetland buffers are voluntarily provided. Option 3 also includes the
development and implementation of a non-regulatory component to help compensate for lower
standard buffer widths. This component is a city-wide wildlife habitat protection and restoration
plan.
Buffer Widths:
Wetland Category Standard Buffer
1 100 feet
2 50feet
3 25feet
Incentives for Voluntary Wetland Buffer Increases: Generally, the focus group felt the city
would benefit from an incentive program to encourage the development community to provide
larger buffers than required by code. This concept is further outlined in the attached proposed
revisions to Kent's Planned Unit Development(PUD) code section(KCC 15.08.400).
Currently, the use of the PUD process is limited to properties at least 5 acres in size and only
PUD projects greater than 20 acres in size can apply for a density bonus. This proposed code
revision (11.06.600.B.2), would allow an applicant to apply for a residential density bonus
through the PUD provisions in exchange for a voluntary increase to wetland buffers. Therefore,
as an incentive, properties less than five acres in size could both utilize the PUD process and
apply for a density bonus provision when larger buffers are provided. Further, properties
between 5-20 acres in size would quality for a density bonus by voluntarily providing larger
wetland buffers. With the proposed regulations, an additional 25 foot buffer could yield a 10%
density bonus and an additional 50 foot buffer could yield a 20%density bonus.
Non-Re ug latory Wildlife Habitat Protection and Restoration Plan: Because the proposed buffer
widths for all Options are either at the low end or below the Best Available Science (BAS)
requirements (primarily for certain wildlife habitat functions), the Department of Ecology(DOE)
recommended the city develop and implement a broad-scale wildlife habitat plan. This is also
referred to as a "landscape plan approach" as it refers to looking collectively at the connections
between stormwater management, wetland functions and fish and wildlife habitat areas. (This
habitat protection plan is outlined in Attachment A).
This type of planning process would first inventory wildlife-related natural resources in the city
and assess them for their wildlife function. Those resources would then be ranked in order of
need for protection and/or restoration. The ranking would typically identify those areas or
resources that provide high habitat function, special or unique wildlife areas or wildlife corridors.
Once a priority is established, the city would look to see if there are gaps in the habitat resource
needs throughout the city when evaluated against existing restoration, acquisition or on-going
programmatic activities identified in the city's capital plans. If new programs, projects or
properties for acquisition are identified through this process, those items would be brought
forward through the plan and would be noted as areas needed for future funding.
Fill and replacement of certain Category 3 wetlands: As currently drafted in the city's wetland
regulations, if an applicant proposes to impact either a wetland or wetland buffer, they must first
demonstrate avoidance of the impact. This is followed by minimization of the impact and then
Planning&Economic Dev.Committee Meeting
3/21/05
Page 3 of 5
i
6
mitigation. As further expressed in Options 3 and 4, code sections 11.06.550.B.1, for small,
hydrologically isolated, emergent category 3 wetlands an applicant would not be required to
show "avoidance" when proposing to fill this type of wetland if it is less than 5,000 square feet
in size. If an applicant chooses this option,they would be required to mitigate accordingly which
would include replacement of the wetland.
Buffer restoration for deg_t7aded wetlands: In an effort to provide the highest functioning
wetland buffers, the group agreed to provide a requirement to restore degraded wetland buffers
upon development, Options 3 and 4 section 11.06.600.D.
Compensation Ratios: The group agreed to higher replacement and enhancement ratios when
there are impacts to the wetland or wetland buffer. In many cases the creation (or replacement)
ratio was doubled from what currently exists in the city's wetland regulations.
Option 4: This alternative was the competing proposal from the wetland focus group. It
contains all of the elements described in Option 3; however, this retains the larger buffers
expressed in Option 1.
Buffer Widths:
Wetland Category Standard Buffer
1 125 feet
2 75 feet
3 50 feet
ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS:
Best Available Science
Based on the analysis provided to staff from the City's consultants, retaining the existing wetland
buffers, (Option2 or Option 3), would represent a departure from Best Available Science (BAS).
WAC 365-195-915 definles 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 city departing 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 potential risks to the functions and values of the critical area or areas
at issue and any additional measures chosen to limit such risks. State
Environmental N icy Act(SEPA)review often provides an opportunity to
establish and publish the record of this assessment.
As discussed at the January 4, 2005 council workshop, should the Council choose to adopt
critical area regulations that depart from BAS, the record will need to reflect the balancing of
other applicable GMA goads.
Potential Risks to Resources
The city's consultant evahilated the potential risks to the functions and values of wetlands should
the city's existing wetland buffer widths be retained (Options 2 or 3). That analysis was
previously distributed to the P&EDC through the revised SEPA Addendum. 41
Planning&Economic Dev.Committee Meeting
3/21/05
Page 4 of 5
7
Generally, the potential long-term risks to the wetland resource could include: degradation of
habitat for wetland related wildlife species and birds; degradation of habitat to protect salmonids
along riparian wetlands; water quality degradation in wetlands from increased fine sediment
inputs; continued water quality degradation as documented on the state 303(d) list; pollutant
loading especially in Category 2 and 3 wetlands; and a reduction in stormwater and flood water
capacity in wetlands.
There are some measures that could limit the long-term risks to the wetland resources. These
include city-wide actions or programs that would aim to protect certain wetland functions and
values that would otherwise not be protected through adopted regulations. Some of these
potential mitigation measures would include: use of more stringent water quality protection
measures during stormwater design; lower thresholds to trigger stormwater management on
properties containing wetlands; utilizing the 15-foot building setback baseline as a filter strip;
enhancement of all existing degraded buffers; requirement of stewardship plans to protect
wetlands on agricultural sites; use of low impact development strategies; acquisition of highly
sensitive or high quality wetlands; and use of voluntary conservation easements.
The proposed Options 3 and 4 contain a requirement to enhance degraded wetland buffers in
conjunction with development proposals. The development and implementation of a Habitat
Protection and Restoration Plan would further identify wetland-related habitat needs across the
city and assess options for long-term protection and restoration. This non-regulatory approach
could work to complement the wetland buffer regulations to clearly identify those areas most in
need of preservation and/or restoration to provide protection of wetland functions. Although
Options 2 and 3 present wetland buffers that depart from the BAS, this type of program could be
a measure to limit risks to the resource as noted in WAC 365-195-915, above.
Staff and the City's wetland consultant will be available at the March 21, 2005 P&ED
Committee hearing to further discuss these options and to answer any questions.
KM/pm S.lPermit)Plan IZONECODEAMEND120021CA012023123-CAOmemoPC3-21-05.dx
Enc: Attachment A—Kent CAO and Habitat Protection and Restoration Plan
Proposed PUD Modifications Incentive Program
Wetland regulations,Option 1
Wetland regulations,Option 2
Wetland regulations,Option 3
Wetland regulations,Option 4
March 14,2005 memo from Adolfson
Cc: City Council Members
Fred Satterstrom, AICP,CD Director
Tom Brubaker,City Attorney
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.Committee Meeting
3/21/05
Page 5 of 5
i
i
8
This page intentionally left blank.
9
3/10/2005 ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING & ECON DEV COMM
3121/05
Kent CAO.and Habitat Protection and Restoration Plan
In updating their CAO,the City of Kent is considering adopting wetland regulations comparable
to those now in effect. This would put existing wetland functions and values at high risk of
degradation. Buffers are too narrow,replacement ratios are too small,and the existing functions
and values of the City's wetlands would remain too little known to provide assurance against a
net loss of wetland functions. This is especially true of habitat for wetland-dependent species,
but applies to other functions as well.
This risk must be offset by implementation of a plan to protect and restore wetland and habitat
areas with high existing and potential value and through a comprehensive stormwater
management plan. These plans would incorporate but not be limited to projects already
undertaken or planned by the City for improved fish habitat, stormwater management,wetland
restoration,etc.
This summary outlines an alternative to the current regulatory framework for addressing
stormwater,wetland, and wildlife habitat issues. Using a landscape approach to understand the .
connection between stormwater runoff,wetland function, and fish and wildlife habitat provides
an opportunity for the City to develop a comprehensive program that directs minimization and
mitigation to areas where it will be most effective while reducing regulatory requirements
elsewhere.
Developing and implementing such a comprehensive program requires the support of the public
and of elected City officials,and it takes staff, funding, and technical resources. City planning
staff would need to coordinate the process ofpublic participation,planning,and adoption of the
program. Planning and implementation would also call for input and technical expertise from
Public Works and from Parks, Recreation,and Community Services.
The City would need to develop funding for the program,which could draw from such sources
as the following:
• the City's general fund;
• planning grants from CTED;
• Centennial Clean Water Fund;
• SRF Board funds;
• in-lieu fees and mitigation banks; and
• stormwater utility fees.
The program itself would be developed by the City with technical assistance from the state.
Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development(CTED),the Department of
Ecology(Ecology), and the Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife. It can be described in
four stages, each of which would be refined by adaptive management:
1. Analyzing the landscape, including surface water,wetlands, and wildlife habitat. This
would entail a comprehensive inventory of resources and an assessment of their
functions.
2. Identifying and ranking needs and opportunities for protection and restoration.
3. Implementing solutions,such as stormwater management plans, restoration projects,
conservation easements, and acquisition of priority sites from willing sellers.
4. Monitoring results to gauge the effect of protection and restoration measures.
10
3/10/2005
Confidence that the Cityl would adopt and successfully implement these plans requires that
it first do the following:
• Assisted by Ecology,perform a preliminary analysis of existing G1S data layers for land
use, surficial geology, soils, water-quality data, hydrography, and topography and the
effects of human gtivities on landscape-scale processes that affect natural resources.
• Identify the City's more significant wetlands and assess the functions and values of as
many of these wetlands for which data can be obtained,both on and off site.
• Based on a landscape-scale analysis and wetland assessments, identify priority sites and
areas for protection,restoration,and other measures to avoid impacts,correct problems,
and enhance resources.
• Draft a plan and Wnetable to implement the measures called for.
• Secure funds to acOomplish the tasks listed above and commit to allocate or obtain funds
and staff to implement an ongoing comprehensive program,including specific projects,
over the next several years, with adequate monitoring to assess the relative effectiveness
of the approach.
Ecology and CTED can pdovide funding opportunities through grant programs that could pay for
much of the work in stages 1 and 2 (above). The City would be expected to commit to
implementing certain identified solutions that are developed in the plan. This could be done in a
Capital Facilities Plan or similar public document. State and federal funds are also available for
implementation of solutions identified in the first 2 stages.
Process and Timeline to pevelop and Implement a Comprehensive Wetland Protection and
Restoration Plan
Stage Time retquired Who Cost Products
1 —Inventory& 3 montlis Consultants, --$10,000 Inventory&Report
assess resources agencies, City
2—Identify& 1-3 months Consultants, —$5,000 -Public meetings
Rank Solutions (public(process?) agencies, City -Report with prioritized
recommendations
3—Implement Ongoinlg City Ongoing Wetland acres acquired,
Solutions restored,enhanced,or
laced in easements
4- Monitor ars and 4 Consultants —$10,000 Monitoring reports
Recommend public workshops/hearings at Stage 2—City process?
11
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
Sec. 15.08.400. Planned unit development,PUD.
The intent of the PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and
creativity in site design, and protect and enhance natural and community
features. The process is provided to encourage unique developments which
may combine a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The
PUD process permits departures from the conventional siting, setback and
density requirements of a particular zoning district in the interest of achieving
superior site development, creating open space, and encouraging imaginative
design by permitting design flexibility. By using flexibility in the application
of development standards, this process will promote developments that will
benefit citizens that live and work within the city.
A. Zoning districts where permitted. PUDs are permitted in all zoning
districts with the exception of the A-10, agricultural zone;provided,however,
that PUDs in SR zones are only allowed if the site is at least one hundred
(100) acres in size, except as provided in subsection(C) of this section.
B. Permitted uses.
1. Principally permitted uses. The principally permitted uses in
PUDs shall be the same as those permitted in the underlying zoning
classifications except as provided in subsection(13)(4) of this section.
2. Conditional uses. The conditional uses in PUDs shall be the
same as those permitted in the underlying zoning classification. The
conditional use permit review process may be consolidated with that of the
PUD pursuant to procedures specified in subsection(F)of this section.
3. Accessory uses. Accessory uses and buildings which are
customarily incidental and subordinate to a principally permitted use are also
permitted.
4. Exceptions. In residential PUDs of one hundred (100) acres
or more located in SR zones, and in residential PUDs of ten (10) acres or
more located in other zoning districts, commercial uses may be permitted.
Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the neighborhood
convenience commercial district. In PUDs of one hundred (100) acres or
more in size located in SR zones, attached dwelling units are permitted only
Page 1 of 16
s:�mitmi.n�oncc a m<natawx,cnrni 5n9-4410 ednnd—d aoc
12
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
if they are condominiums created in accordance with the Washington
Condominium Act, Chapter 64.34 RCW; provided, that if a proposed PUD in
a single-family zoning district includes such attached condominiums, the
density bonus!provisions outlined in subsection (D) of this section shall not
apply, and further provided that no condominium building may exceed two
(2) stories.
C. Development standards. The following development standards are
minimum requirements for a planned unit development:
1. Minimum lot size exclusion. The minimum lot size
requirements of the districts outlined in this title shall not apply to PUDs.
2. Minimum site acreage. Minimum site acreage for a PUD is
established according to the zoning district in which the PUD is located, as
follows:
Minimum
Zones Site Acreage
Multifamily (MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, MRT 12, MRT None
16)
Commercial,office and manufacturing zones None
SR zones (SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8) consisting 5 acres
entirely of detached single-family dwellings as defined in
KCC 15.02.1115
SR zones (SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8) consisting 0 acres
entirely of detached single-family dwellings as defined in
KCC 15.02.115 and if providing increased wetland buffers
pursuant to KCC I t.06.600(B)(2).
SR zones (SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8) not 100 acres
comprised entirely of detached single-family dwellings as
Page 2 of 16
s-ne,aaoo�o�a�ooezwrcnoa s-nn.aoownVoamoa.ao
13
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
defined in KCC 15.02.115
3. Minimum perimeter building setback. The minimum
perimeter building setback of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily
transition area requirements shall apply to any multifamily developments (as
provided in KCC 15.08.215), except where specifically exempted by
administrative design review (as provided in KCC 15.09.045). The hearing
examiner may reduce building separation requirements to the minimum
required by the building and fire departments according to the criteria set
forth in subsection (17)(1) of this section. If an adjacent property is
undevelopable under this title, the hearing examiner may also reduce the
perimeter building setback requirement to the minimum standards in the city
building and fire codes.
4. Maximum height of structures. The maximum height of
structures of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily transition area
requirements shall apply to any multifamily developments (as provided in
KCC 15.08.215) except where specifically exempted by administrative
design review (as provided in KCC 15.09.045). The hearing examiner may
authorize additional height in CC, GC, DC, CM, M1, M2 and M3 zones
where proposed development in the PUD is compatible with the scale and
character of adjacent existing developments.
5. Open space.
a. The standard set forth in this subsection shall apply to
PUD residential developments only. Each PUD shall provide a minimum of
thirty-five (35) percent of the total site area for common open space. In
mixed use PUDs containing residential uses, thirty-five (35) percent of the
area used for residential use shall be reserved as open space.
b. For the purpose of this section, open space shall be
defined as land which is not used for buildings, dedicated public rights-of-
way, traffic circulation and roads, parking areas, or any kind of storage.
Open space includes but is not limited to privately owned woodlands, open
fields, streams, wetlands, severe hazard areas, landscaped areas, trails
through parks and sensitive areas (not including required sidewalks), gardens,
Page 3 of 16
S'�ermitplanzonccodcamend\?IM12\CAO\IS-0B-0OOwcdavdrtwddee
14
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
courtyards or lawns. Common open space may provide for either active or
passive recreation.
c. Open space within a PUD shall be available for common
use by the residents, tenants or the general public, depending on the type of
project.
6. Streets. If streets within the development are required to be
dedicated to the city for public use, such streets shall be designed in
accordance with the standards outlined in the city subdivision code and other
appropriate city standards. If streets within the development are to remain in
private ownership and remain as private streets, the following standards shall
apply:
a. Minimum private street pavement widths for parallel
parking in residential planned unit developments. Minimum private street
pavement widths with and without parallel parking in residential planned unit
developments are as follows:
No Parking Parking
Parking One Side Both Sides
(feet) (feet) (feet)
One-way streets 20 29 38
Two-way streets 22 31 40
The minimum widths set out in this subsection may be modified upon review
and approval by the city fire chief and the city traffic engineer providing they
are sufficient', to maintain emergency access and traffic safety. A
maintenance agreement for private streets within a PUD shall be required by
the hearing examiner as a condition of PUD approval.
b. Vehicle parking areas. Adequate vehicular parking areas
shall be proved. Vehicular parking areas may be provided by on-street
parking or off+street parking lots. The design of such parking areas shall be
in accordance;with the standards outlined in Ch. 15.05 KCC. In single-
Page 4 of 16
5-\pertnit�lanYoaxoMeamend\]lMl2',CAOI SA&4Wx¢Oandmod.Joc
15
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
family PUDs, parking shall be provided at a ratio of 1.8 parking stalls per
dwelling unit; garages are excluded from the parking circulation. The
planning manager may recommend for hearing examiner approval additional
parking based upon site design and project land uses; the recommendation
may include a requirement for on-street parking.
c. One-way streets. One-way loop streets shall be no more
than two thousand(2,000) feet long.
d. On-street parking. On-street parking shall be permitted.
Privately owned and maintained "no parking" and "fire lane" signs may be
required as determined by the city traffic engineer and city fire department
chief.
7. Pedestrian walkways. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided
to connect residences to public walkways and streets and shall be constructed
of material deemed to be an all-weather surface by the public works director
and planning manager.
8. Landscaping.
a. Minimum perimeter landscaping of the underlying zone
shall apply. Additional landscaping shall be required as provided in Ch. 15.07
KCC and KCC 15.08.215.
b. All PUD developments shall ensure that parking areas are
integrated with the landscaping system and provide screening of vehicles
from view from public streets. Parking areas shall be conveniently located to
buildings and streets while providing for landscaping adjacent to buildings
and pedestrian access.
c. Solid waste collection areas and waste reduction or
recycling collection areas shall be conveniently and safely located for onsite
use and collection, and attractively site screened.
9. Signs. The sign regulations of Ch. 15.06 KCC shall apply.
10. Platting. If portions of the PUD are to be subdivided for sale
or lease, the procedures of the city subdivision code, as amended, shall apply.
Page 5 of 16
S:NcimitNlaoWorecMumend31g2'CAOI 548.4W—tland—dA-
16
Proposed PUD Modifications ,
Incentive program
Specific development standards such as lot size, street design, etc., shall be
provided as outlined in subsection(E) of this section.
11. Green River Corridor. Any development located within the
Green River corridor special interest district shall adhere to the Green River
corridor special interest district regulations.
12. View regulations. View regulations as specified in KCC
15.08.060 shall apply to all PUDs.
13. Shoreline master program. Any development located within
two hundred (200) feet of the Green River shall adhere to the city shoreline
master program regulations.
14. Design review. PUDs shall be subject to administrative
design review in KCC 15.09.045. PUDs of only single-family detached
residences sh4l be evaluated using the review criteria of KCC 15.09.045(C),
multifamily design review.
D. Density bonus standards. The density of residential development for
PUDs will bet based on the gross density of the underlying zoning district
with density blonuses allowed as described below. PUDs under twenty (20)
acres in size located in SR zones shall not be allowed density bonuses except
as provided b� (D)(8), below. For all other PUDs, the hearing examiner may
recommend a dwelling unit density not more than twenty (20) percent greater
than that pernhitted by the underlying zone upon findings and conclusions
that the amenities or design features which promote the purposes of this
subsection, as follows, are provided:
1. Open space. A four (4) percent density bonus may be
authorized if In least ten (10) percent of the open space is in concentrated
areas for passive use. Open space shall include significant natural features of
the site, including but not limited to fields, woodlands, watercourses, and
permanent and seasonal wetlands. Excluded from the open space definition
are the areas within the building footprints, land used for parking, vehicular
circulation or rights-of-way, and areas used for any kind of storage.
Page 6 of 16
5'''peMIlplanvonec amend`,2INI+\CAOV5-09-41l1ly dandmA doe
17
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
2. Active recreation areas. A four (4) percent density bonus
may be authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes, including but not limited to jogging or walking trails,
pools, children's play areas, etc. Only that percentage of space contained
within accessory structures that is directly used for active recreation purposes
can be included in the ten(10)percent active recreation requirement.
3. Stormwater drainage. A two (2) percent density bonus may
be authorized if stormwater drainage control is accomplished using natural
onsite drainage features. Natural drainage features may include streams,
creeks,ponds, etc.
4. Native vegetation. A four (4) percent density bonus may be
authorized if at least fifteen(15)percent of the native vegetation on the site is
left undisturbed in large open areas.
5. Parking lot size. A two (2) percent density bonus may be
authorized if off-street parking is grouped in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or
less. Parking areas must be separated from other parking areas or buildings
by significant landscaping in excess of type V standards as provided in KCC
15.07.050. At least fifty(50)percent of these parking areas must be designed
as outlined in this subsection to receive the density bonus.
6. Mixed housing types. A two (2) percent density bonus may
be authorized if a development features a mix of residential housing types.
Single-family residences, attached single units, condominiums, apartments
and townhomes are examples of housing types. The mix need not include
some of every type.
7. Project planning and management. A two(2) percent density
bonus may be granted if a design/development team is used. Such a team
would include a mixture of architects, engineers, landscape architects and
designers. A design/development team is likely to produce a professional
development concept that would be consistent with the purpose of the zoning
regulations.
8. Increased wetland buffer widths. A ten (10) percent density
bonus may be granted for a wetland buffer that is increased by twenty-five
Page 7 of 16
Sy Lt ionucn�r�e=m�2W2CAo'.i5-os-40owen.ne�e
18
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
(25) feet. A Menty (20) percent density bonus may be granted for a wetland
buffer that is ipereased by fifty (50) feet. All other requirements of the PUD
standards shall apply.
These standards are thresholds, and partial credit is not given for
partial attainmjent. The site plan must at least meet the threshold level of each
bonus standar$ in order for density bonuses to be given for that standard. In
no case shall gny of the density bonus provisions be combined to create a
total bonus g_r ater than twenty(20)percent.
E. Master plan approvals. The master plan process is intended to allow
approval of al generalized, conceptual development plan on a site which
would then b@ constructed in phases over a longer period of time than a
typical planned unit development. The master plan approval process is
typically apprbpriate for development which might occur on a site over a
period of several years, and in phases which are not entirely predicable.
1. Submittal requirements. The distinguishing characteristic
between a master plan development application and a planned unit
development application is that a master plan development proposal is
conceptual inlnature. However, the master plan application shall provide
sufficient detail of the scope of the development, the uses, the amount of land
to be developed and preserved, and how services will be provided. The
specific submitttal requirements are noted below:
a. A written description of the scope of the project,
including total anticipated build-out (number of units of residential, gross
floor area for commercial), and the types of uses proposed;
b. A clear vicinity map, showing adjacent roads;
c. A fully dimensional site plan, which would show the
areas upon which development would occur, the proposed number of units or
buildings in each phase of the development, the areas would be preserved for
open space or protection of environmentally sensitive features, and a
generalized circulation plan, which would include proposed pedestrian and
bicycle circulation;
Page 8 of 16
9'pennity Ian voneeadeemendAIMIWAOAISD 400aieezndmod aoc
19
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
d. A generalized drainage and stormwater runoff plan;
e. A site map showing contours at not greater than five (5)
foot intervals and showing any wetlands, streams, or other natural features;
f. A description of the proposed phasing plan;
g. Documentation of coordination with the Kent school
district;
h. Certificates of water and sewer availability;
i. Generalized building elevations showing the types of uses
being proposed.
2. Density. The gross density of a residential master plan
project shall be the same as the density allowable in the underlying zoning
district.
3. Open space. The criteria in subsection (C)(5) of this section
shall apply.
4. Application process. The application process for a master
plan application shall be as outlined in subsection(F) of this section.
5. Review criteria. The review criteria for a master plan
application shall be the same as those outlined in subsection (G) of this
section.
6. Administrative approval of individual phases. Once a master
site plan PUD has been approved pursuant to subsection (F) of this section,
any individual phase of the development shall be reviewed and approved
administratively, as outlined in Ch. 15.09 KCC; provided, that for each phase
of development that includes a residential condominium, the applicant shall
submit a copy of the condominium declaration recorded against the property,
and as outlined in RCW 64.34.200.
7. Time limits. The master plan approved by the hearing
Mexaminer or city council, as provided in subsection (F) of this section, shall
Page 9 of 16
S:Vp=itHlan\7nrecMf inend�2W21CA( 15-ON-400weJ nd�d.&c
20
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
be valid for a;period of up to seven (7) years. At the end of this seven (7)
year period, development permits must be issued for all phases of the master
plan development. An extension of time may be requested by the applicant.
A single extension may be granted by the planning manager for a period of
not more thanitwo (2)more additional years.
8. Modifications. Once approved, requests for modifications to
the master plan project shall be made in writing to the planning manager.
The planning manager shall make a determination as to whether the requested
modification i5 major or minor as outlined in subsection(I) of this section.
F. Application process. The application process includes the following
steps: informal review process, compliance with the State Environmental
Policy Act, community information meeting, development plan review, and
public hearing before the hearing examiner.
1. Informal review process. An applicant shall meet informally
with the planning department at the earliest possible date to discuss the
proposed PUD. The purpose of this meeting is to develop a project that will
meet the needs of the applicant and the objectives of the city as defined in
this title.
2. SEPA compliance. Compliance with the State Environmental
Policy Act and regulations and city SEPA requirements shall be completed
prior to development plan review.
3. Development plan review. After informal review and
completion of the SEPA process, a proposal shall next be reviewed by city
staff through the development plan review process. Comments received by
the project developer under the development review process shall be used to
formalize the proposed development prior to the development being
presented at a public hearing before the hearing examiner.
4. Community information meeting.
a. A community information meeting shall be required for
any proposed PUD located in a residential zone or within two hundred (200)
feet of a residential zone. At this meeting, the applicant shall present the
Page 10 of 16
S•pen ikV]an oaee ameam2oa2'rnOal"&400�u ndimd.dot
21
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
development proposed to interested residents. Issues raised at the meeting
may be used to refine the PUD plan. Notice shall be given in at least one (1)
publication in the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to all property owners
within a radius of not less than two hundred (200) feet of the exterior
boundaries of the property subject to the application. Any alleged failure of
any property owner to actually receive the notice of hearing shall not
invalidate the proceedings.
b. Nonresidential PUDs not located within two hundred
(200) feet of a residential zone shall not require a community information
meeting.
5. Public notice and hearing examiner public hearing. The
hearing examiner shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on the proposed
PUD and shall give notice thereof in at least one (1) publication in the local
newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Written notice
shall be mailed first class to all property owners within a radius of not less
than two hundred (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property subject
to the application. Any alleged failure of any property owner to actually
receive the notice of hearing shall not invalidate the proceedings.
6. Consolidation of land use permit processes. The PUD
approval process may be used to consolidate other land use permit processes,
which are required by other sections of this title. The public hearing required
for the PUD may serve as the public hearing for the conditional use permit,
subdivision, shoreline substantial development, and rezoning if such land use
permits are a part of the overall PUD application. When another land use
permit is involved which requires city council approval, the PUD shall not be
deemed to be approved until the city council has approved the related land
use permit. If a public hearing is required for any of the categories of actions
listed in this subsection, the hearing examiner shall employ the public hearing
notice requirements for all actions considered which ensure the maximum
notice to the public.
7. Hearing examiner decision. The hearing examiner shall issue
a written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of the hearing.
Page 11 of 16
s-yKoaHi.e ooWea�oa¢�rozcnrnisax-aoowai.oamoa.az
22
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
Parties of record will be notified in writing of the decision. The decision is
final unless notice of appeal is filed with the city clerk within fourteen (14)
days of receipt by the developer of the decision. For PUDs which propose a
use which is not typically permitted in the underlying zoning district as
provided in subsection (13)(4) of this section, the hearing examiner shall
forward a recommendation to the city council, which shall have the final
authority to approve or deny the proposed PUD. For a proposed residential
PUD that includes condominiums as outlined in subsection (13)(4) of this
section, a condition of approval by the city council shall be that for each
development phase the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of the
covenants, conditions, and restrictions recorded against the property. Within
thirty(30) days of receipt of the hearing examiner's recommendation, the city
council shall, at a regular meeting, consider the application.
8. Effective date. In approving a PUD, the hearing examiner
shall specify that the approved PUD shall not take effect unless or until the
developer files a completed development permit application within the time
periods required by this title as set forth in subsection(G) of this section. No
official map or zoning text designations shall be amended to reflect the
approved PUD designation until such time as the PUD becomes effective.
G. Review criteria for planned unit developments. Upon receipt of a
complete application for a residential PUD, the planning department shall
review the application and make its recommendation to the hearing examiner.
The hearing examiner shall determine whether to grant, deny, or condition an
application based upon the following review criteria:
1. Residential planned unit development criteria.
a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect
upon the community and users of the development which would not normally
be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and shall not be detrimental
to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the
comprehensive plan.
b. The proposed PUD project shall be compatible with the
existing land Use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from the
Page 12 of 16
S:\p mil''plan'zo a dcam�lW21 AO\15-a84W cilandnw.doc
23
Proposed PUD Modifications
. Incentive program
subject property. The term compatibility includes but is not limited to
apparent size, scale, mass, and architectural design.
c. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site
shall be preserved, maintained, and incorporated into the design to benefit the
development and the community.
d. The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of
openness by using techniques such as clustering, separation of building
groups, and use of well-designed open space and landscaping. Open space
shall be integrated within the PUD rather than be an isolated element of the
project.
e. The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and
innovation in site and building design, and shall include architectural and site
features that promote community interaction, such as porches, de-emphasized
garages, sidewalks/walkways and adjacent common areas. Buildings in
groups shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast
shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials,
architectural detailing,building scale, and orientation.
f. Building design shall be based on a unified design
concept,particularly when construction will be in phases.
2. Nonresidential planned unit development criteria.
a. The proposed project shall have a beneficial effect which
would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and not
be detrimental to present or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the
comprehensive plan.
b. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site
shall be preserved,maintained, and incorporated into the design to benefit the
development and the community.
c. The proposed project shall provide areas of openness by
the clustering of buildings, and by the use of well-designed landscaping and
Page 13 of 16
24
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
open spaces. Landscaping shall promote a coordinated appearance and break
up continuous�expanses of building and pavement.
d. The proposed project shall promote variety and
innovation in site and building design. It shall encourage the incorporation of
special design features such as visitor entrances, plazas, outdoor employee
lunch and recreation areas, architectural focal points, and accent lighting.
e. Building design shall be based on a unified design
concept,particularly when construction will be in phases.
H. Time pimits.
I_ Application for development permit. The applicant shall
apply for a development permit no later than one (1) year following final
approval of thje PUD. The application for development permit shall contain
all conditions of the PUD approval.
2. Extensions. An extension of time for development permit
application may be requested in writing by the applicant. Such an extension
may be granted by the planning manager for a period not to exceed one (1)
year. If a development permit is not issued within two (2) years, the PUD
approval shalf become null and void and the PUD shall not take effect.
I. Modifications of plan. Requests for modifications of final approved
plans shall bemade in writing and shall be submitted to the planning services
office in the manner and form prescribed by the planning manager. In
commercial, office, industrial, and manufacturing zoning districts, where a
master plan is consistent with a planned action ordinance and a development
agreement, the determination of whether a proposed modification is minor or
major shall be made at the sole discretion of the planning manager; provided,
however, that[the planning manager's determination must be consistent with
criteria established in either the planned action ordinance or the development
agreement. If the planned action ordinance or the development agreement
does not establish such criteria, the planning manager's determination shall
be consistent`with the criteria stated in subsections (I)(1) and (I)(2) of this
section. Thecriteria for determining minor and major modifications in all
other cases shall be as stated in subsections (1)(1) and (1)(2) of this section.
Page 14 of 16
S:%p mitlplan'zome tl amn 2102CAO',l5-08-40 vetlnndmud.doc
25
Proposed PUD Modifications
• Incentive program
The criteria for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those
criteria covering original approval of the permit which is the subject of the
proposed modification.
1. Minor modifications. Modifications are deemed minor if all
the following criteria are satisfied:
a. No new land use is proposed;
b. No increase in density, number of dwelling units, or lots
is proposed;
c. No change in the general location or number of access
points is proposed;
d. No reduction in the amount of open space is proposed;
e. No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed;
f. No increase in the total square footage of structures to be
developed is proposed; and
g. No increase in general height of structures is proposed.
Examples of minor modifications include but are not limited to lot
line adjustments, minor relocations of buildings or landscaped areas, minor
changes in phasing and timing, and minor changes in elevations of buildings.
2. Major modifications. Major adjustments are those which, as
determined by the planning manager, substantially change the basic design,
density, open space, or other similar requirements or provisions. Major
adjustments to the development plans shall be reviewed by the hearing
examiner. The hearing examiner may review such adjustments at a regular
public hearing. If a public hearing is held, the process outlined in subsection
(F) of this section shall apply. The hearing examiner shall issue a written
decision to approve, deny, or modify the request. Such a decision shall be
final. Any appeals of this decision shall be in accordance with KCC
12.01.040.
Page 15 of 16
s''menlew�.eaooeowem<oa;nwz�enoas-ns-awwoiad,bd dz
i
26
Proposed PUD Modifications
Incentive program
Page 16 of 16
s��n�ia���m��oavoox�cnrnu-oeano�rcaa�a�a.aoo
27
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. En need bg r ,.it*&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;
Page 1 of 6
s,ba�aNlaavoa�m—a Iknoui.o6.6ampu.,m-noa
28
OPTION I—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
2. A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of
existing species;
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 netting 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 fifteen(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 averaging, or (2) buffer reduction with enhancement. A
combinatpon 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 where 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
proposed'iland 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 adjacent to any buffers which are reduced.
d. Averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional
values.
Page 2 of 6
S%per itHWo�oneaAeamevS2002',CAO\11A6.6M1gpUm1.do
29
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 decreased—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 grea4er than 109/o-considered 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 Resultin Buffer
uffer
Reduction Width
1 10 percent 112 feet
2 15 ercent 64 feet
3 20 percent 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:
Page 3 of 6
S:%Vermiiblankoceuoaeamend�^_002CAO\I 1.05.hWo Iinn Idrc
30
OPTION 1—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
ai. It will provide an overall improvement in water quality
protection for the wetland;
bii. 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;
nv. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an
erosion hazard; and
fvi. It will not be materially detrimental to any other real
property or the City as a whole.
4b. 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
functions; 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. Buffer' 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
Page 4 of 6
5-'Ocemi`yLnkonecaleamend'�0021G011.06.60Doptiun I.duc
31
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
Page 5 of 6
s-\P mitlpinm coe<.mnna002Cnow.%.w opeml dn�
32
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
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
approvedby the director. Alterations of the building setback lines shall not
be permitted to create additional lots for subdivisions, but only to make
reasonablle 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 mitigation such as buffer enhancement.
Sectipn 11.06.227. Degraded wetland buffer.
Degraded wetland(buffer means a buffer area which cannot adequately protect its
adjacent wetland d�e to one or more of the following existing conditions: 1 lack of
vegetative cover or presence of bare soils(resulting from disturbance, fill, debris, or
trash); 2) significaot cover(over fifty percent) in non-native vegetative; 3) significant
cover(over fifty percent) in invasive species or noxious weeds; or 4) presence of
existing non-conforming structures or improvements.
5:\Perm it\PI an\zonecodealm end\2002\CAO\11.06.600option 1.doc
Page 6 of 6
S'pemaaiaa�o�odoamoas2662�nO'11.06.WWimm.aaa
33
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 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 42-5-100 feet
2 7-5- 50feet
3 30-25feet
B. Buffer utilization ;`or 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;
Page l of 6
s:N�„Ib�.�a�eemaavwoncnoa i oar,�npn„a.ax
34
OPTION 2-Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
2.' A larger buffer is necessary to maintain a viable population of
existing species;
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;
4.1 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 fifte$n(15)percent.
D. Deereased or-averaged r widdis. auf-f . .:a•"^ ffiffy
be deefemed or averaged if an appliewit r-eeeives appfovai as
p ovided n this sub-Seetien. An applic-axtt nay request either-)
bu�i aveFa (2) ••Fief-zedHstien Eyith enl3�uk3ee�33ei�t A
s==="s-of--�z�--�
1. B{ffer averaging. Standard wetland buffers may be modified by
averaging buffer widths. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed
only whete 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
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 adjacent to any buffers which are reduced.
d. Averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional
values.
Page 2 of 6
S^gennWpdnUu -dea�ndaD02CAO�11.06600Vianl.
• 35
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 W25feet 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 decreased—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
Msuant to this code.
2. Deer-eased btiff�r-s with enhancement: Standafd . etlan 1
vm-tct—widths may-ve -ic.......... ..,..,..b.. ......... ......»...,......,... ..,.
degraded buffers only. The ..pplip-ant shall dit-am th.,♦ th«eugh
buffer,
higher level ♦han the standard buffer thereby p feteeti.,., the wetl�...7
am adjaeentElevelopment. Btf «SW.11-Yhe Fe.l,,..ed iftthe
Wetl...,,1 Gate....«.. MaximumResulting
D cx
idth
4 C^ ` ^et
-3 24Tffeent ` 04eet
e ,.e.l hCF , ,l.. eyelepfnefA pfiea4ien shall eet all e f the
decisional eritefia listed below. n decreased , modified buffer
Page 3 of 6
.S Nn '&nl..—dezmend'�W2',CAOII 1.06.600,6.2.&k
36
OPTION 2—Wetland Buffers
CAO Update
a. it will provide a-H evenill improvenient in water q*ajity
..teetio for the wetland;
b. It will net—a&e-sely affeet fish speeies ana
.ill p ,ide an overallwildlife enhaneefnent to fish and habitat;
e. it will provide a et improvement in drainage nd/„r
stn.ffn site~detention n abilities.
f
,
as "pr-opfia4e;
e. 7t will net lead to «stable earth ., nditions of onto ..
erosion ha.,ard•f and
F It will net be materially detrif ental to a other- real
property or the City a a whole
4. Buffer- ephanee.nent plan A request to deerease e ediF.,
buff-~'shall inelude a buffer «haneement plan pfepared by
"ali ed+pry essienal.. The plan shall-assess the habitat, water
quality, storm water detention,gretind water reeharge, .e
reteetiet. and erosion reteetien funeti„ns of the b,.FF r• asses s the
�
FFeets of the proposed deer-eased or modified- buffer em these
f,.netienn• and address the s h (6) or-iteria listed in this subseetie,. 2
e
The buffer- nhaneement plan shall also pfavide the
following: (a) a p leeating the s ei fie area of enhaneement• (b) a planting ,plan that uses native plant speeies indigenous to this region
e
«iterir and-m- ntepanae throughout the monitoring period.
E. Buffer 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
Page 4 of 6
s: �b�a���aoar�me�mswaK:noa 1066WPvtionl.aoc
37
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
Page 5 of 6
S:p nml\pIan%mucodeamend',2002'%(AO\I 1.WbWop"u .d
38
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 mitigation such as buffer enhancement.
veeetati nee of bare soils_(resultine ffem disturbanee, fill, debris, o.
S:\Permit\Plan\zonecodealnend\2002\CA0\11.06.600option2.doc
Page 6 of 6
S,pemil\plaWzun-cndeamend WICA0',11.06600opiionl.0oc
39
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
Chapter 11.06
CRITICAL AREAS
Article 1. Procedural& Administrative Provisions
Sec. 11.06.010. Title.
This code shall be hereinafter known as the city of Kent critical areas
code.
Sec. 11.06.020. Purpose and Intent.
A. The city of Kent contains numerous areas that can be identified and
characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the city
include wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic hazard areas,
frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
B. The city finds that these critical areas perform a variety of valuable and
beneficial biological, physical and economic functions that benefit the city and
its residents. Alteration of certain critical areas may pose a threat to public
safety, private property and the environment. The city finds, therefore, that
identification, regulation and protection of critical areas is necessary to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare. The city further finds that the
functions of critical areas, and the purpose of these regulations, include the
following:
1. Wetlands. Wetlands perform a variety of functions that include
maintaining water quality; storing and conveying stormwater and floodwater;
recharging groundwater; providing important fish and wildlife habitat; and
providing areas for recreation, education, scientific study and aesthetic
appreciation.
Wetland buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce
sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain
desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect wetland
resources from harmful intrusion.
Page 1 of 30
S Ten,iIRkn2ONF.COD AMLNDCW2CAOIW.U..d U,,,-3dc
40
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
The primary goals of wetland regulation are to avoid wetland impacts; to
achieve no net loss of wetland function and value, acreage may also be
considered in achieving the overall goal; to provide levels of protection that
reflect the sensitivity of individual wetlands and the intensity of proposed land
uses; and to restore and/or enhance existing wetlands,where possible.
The City of Kent's program for wetland protection is a combination of
regulatory and non-regulatory programs, designed to collectively provide for
protection ofwetland functions and values in a manner which is consistent with
Best Available Science and the other goals and objectives of the Growth
Management,,Act, RCW ch. 37.70A.
Protection of the water quality and hydrologic functions of wetlands is
accomplished in Kent by a combination of stormwater management controls
(including both water quality controls and flow controls) regulated pursuant to
KCC ch 7.07, and wetland buffers imposed pursuant to this ordinance. Taken
together thesle programs will provide adequate water quality and hydrologic
protection to meet Best Available Science requirements.
2. Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
a. Streams and their associated riparian corridors provide
important fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for threatened and
endangered species; help maintain water quality; store and convey stormwater
and floodwaRer; recharge groundwater; and serve as areas for recreation,
education, scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Stream buffers serve to
moderate stormwater runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical
nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water
temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect stream resources from
harmful intrusion.
. The primary goals of stream regulation are to avoid or otherwise
mitigate significant impacts to streams and associated riparian corridors; to
protect threatened and endangered species; to protect water quality through
appropriate management techniques; and, where possible, to provide for stream
enhancement;and rehabilitation.
Page 2 of 30
S:\Pen,it Pl.gONECODEAMEHDQINI?CAOI We4.nd O lion 3_A c
41
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
b. Wildlife habitat provides opportunities for food, cover,
nesting, breeding and movement for fish and wildlife within the city; maintains
and promotes diversity of species and habitat within the city; integrates habitat
protection with elements of the city's open space system; helps maintain air and
water quality; helps control erosion; serves as areas for recreation, education
and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation
The primary goals of wildlife habitat regulations are to identify
and protect fish and wildlife habitat; to avoid impacts to critical habitats for fish
and wildlife; to implement the goals of the Endangered Species Act; to promote
connectivity between habitat areas to allow for wildlife movement; to provide
multi-purpose open space corridors; and where possible to enhance and
rehabilitate wildlife habitat.
3. Geologic Hazard Areas. Geologic hazard areas include land
characterized by geologic, hydrologic and topographic conditions that render
them susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landslides, erosion, seismic or
volcanic activity.
The primary goals of regulating geologic hazards are to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to life and property; to regulate land uses where
necessary; and to conduct appropriate levels of analysis to ensure sound
engineering and construction practices to address identified hazards.
4. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas provide
a source of potable water and contribute to stream discharge/flow during
periods of low flow. The city finds that certain locations are susceptible to
contamination of water supplies by infiltration of pollutants through soil to
groundwater aquifers.
The primary goals of aquifer recharge regulations are to protect critical
aquifer recharge areas and groundwater quality by avoiding or limiting land use
activities that pose potential risk of aquifer contamination; and to minimize
impacts to significant aquifer recharge areas through the application of
performance standards.
Page 3 of 30
5"Sermil�Plao�ZOVECODEAMEND�OD3CA0�WCYand Optiov 3-doc
42
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
5. Specific Flood Hazard Regulations. This section of the Kent
City Code, and other sections as incorporated by reference, contain standards,
procedures, criteria and requirements intended to identify, analyze and mitigate
potential impacts to the city's critical areas and to enhance and restore degraded
resources where possible. The general intent of these regulations is to avoid
impacts to critical areas. In appropriate circumstances, impacts to specified
critical areas•resulting from regulated activities may be minimized, rectified,
reduced andAor compensated for, consistent with the requirements of this
chapter.
Sec. 11.06.030. Regulated Activities.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any regulated activity that
potentially aMects a critical area or its buffer unless otherwise exempt by these
regulations. Applicable activities are as follows:
1. i Removing, excavating, disturbing or dredging soil, sand, gravel,
minerals, organic matter or materials of any kind.
2. Dumping, discharging or filling with any material.
3. Draining, flooding or disturbing the water level or water table, or
diverting or impeding water flow.
4. Driving pilings or placing obstructions.
5. Constructing, substantially reconstructing, demolishing or
altering the size of any structure or infrastructure.
6. Destroying or altering vegetation through clearing, grading,
harvesting, shading or planting vegetation that would negatively affect the
character of ai critical area.
7. Activities that result in significant changes in water temperature,
physical or chemical characteristics of water sources, including quantity and
pollutants.
8. Any other activity potentially affecting a critical area or buffer
not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this chapter as determined by the
department.
Page 4 of 30
S''o nifflan\ZDVE(ODEAMEVDl2(02`(KAMWnbM Dplim 3dnc
43
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
9. The construction of new recreation trails within the buffer, which
shall be low intensity, designed and constructed of permeable materials which
protect water quality, allow adequate surface water and groundwater
movements, do not contribute to erosion, and are located where they do not
disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas, and designed to avoid or reduce the
removal of trees.
Where a regulated activity would be partly within and partly outside a
critical area or its buffer, the entire activity shall be reviewed pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter.
B. To avoid duplication, all permits and approvals identified in KCC 12.01
shall be subject to, and coordinated with, the requirements of this chapter.
C. Non-project actions, including but not limited to rezones, comprehensive
plan map amendments, annexations, and the adoption of plans and programs,
shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. However, the department
may at its discretion, permit any studies or evaluations required by this chapter
to use methodologies and provide a level of detail appropriate to the action
proposed.
D. Activities within the Green River Natural Resources Area shall be
subject to this chapter with the exception of activities allowed by Resolution
922, adopted by the City of Kent in March 1981.
Sec. 11.06.040. Exemptions.
A. The following activities performed on sites containing critical areas as
defined by this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of these regulations:
1. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish and
other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the
critical area.
2. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, as defined in this
chapter.
3. Activities involving artificially created wetlands or streams
intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to, grass-
Page 5 of 30
S:U ermit�PlanI ONGCODEAMfND 2tI 21CAO\WeilaM Option J.Aoe
44
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, retention or detention facilities,
and landscape features, except wetlands or streams created as mitigation or that
provide critical habitat for anadromous fish.
4. Operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of existing
structures, roads, trails, streets, utilities and associated structures, dikes, levees
or drainage systems, provided that reconstruction of any facilities or structures
is not "substantial reconstruction" may not further encroach on a critical area or
its buffer, and shall incorporate Best Management Practices.
5. Normal maintenance, repair and reconstruction of residential or
commercial Structures, facilities and landscaping, provided that reconstruction
of any structures may not increase the previous footprint, and further provided
that the provisions of this chapter are followed.
6. The addition of floor area within an existing building which does
not increase the building footprint.
7. j Site investigative work and studies that are prerequisite to
preparation of an application for development including soils tests, water
quality studies, wildlife studies and similar tests and investigations, provided
that any distgrbance of the critical area shall be the minimum necessary to carry
out the work or studies.
8. Educational activities, scientific research, and outdoor
recreational activities, including but not limited to interpretive field trips,
birdwatching, boating, swimming, fishing and hiking, that will not have a
significant effect on the critical area.
9. The harvesting of wild crops and seeds to propagate native plants
in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and
provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, or
alteration of the critical area by changing existing topography, water conditions
or water sources.
10. Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to
public health, safety, property or the environment which requires immediate
Page 6 of 30
S_VPermit%Pl nION CODP.AMENDOM12tCAO\WcOand Optic I&c
45
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter as
determined by the department.
11. Development of lots vested and/or legally created through a
subdivision, short subdivision, or other legal means and approved prior to the
effective date of this chapter.
12. Previously legally filled wetlands or wetlands accidentally created
by human actions prior to July 1, 1990. The latter shall be documented through
photographs, statements and/or other conclusive evidence and be agreed to by
the director.
13. Removal of invasive plants and planting of native vegetation in
wetland and stream buffers for the purpose of enhancing habitat values of these
areas pursuant to an approved mitigation plan.
14. Stabilization of sites where erosion or landsliding threatens public
or private structures, utilities, roadways, driveways or publicly maintained trails
or where erosion or landsliding threatens any lake, stream, wetland or shoreline.
Stabilization work shall be performed in a manner which causes the least
possible disturbance to the slope and its vegetative cover. This activity shall be
performed in accordance with approved site stabilization plans.
15. Minor activities not mentioned above and determined in advance
and in writing by the director to have minimal impacts to a critical area.
B. Notwithstanding the exemptions provided by this subsection, any
otherwise exempt activities occurring in or near a critical area or its buffer shall
comply with the intent of these standards and shall consider on-site alternatives
that avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts. Emergency activities shall
mitigate for any impacts caused to critical areas upon abatement of the
emergency.
C. With the exception of emergency actions, and existing and ongoing
agricultural activities, no property owner or other entity shall undertake exempt
activities prior to providing fourteen (14) days notice to the director and
receiving confirmation in writing that the proposed activity is exempt. In case
of any question as to whether a particular activity is exempt from the provisions
Page 7 of 30
S:d'em t\PIan\ZONECODEAMENDL(*2 CAO',Wet nd[ tion 3.doc
46
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
of this section, the director's determination shall prevail and shall be confirmed
in writing.
D. Legally established uses, developments or structures that are
nonconforming solely due to inconsistencies with the provisions of this chapter,
shall not be considered nonconforming pursuant to KCC 15.08.100.
Reconstruction or additions to existing structures which intrude into critical
areas or them buffers shall not increase the amount of such intrusion except as
provided by section 10(A) of this title. Once a non-conforming use is
discontinued for a period of one-year, that use cannot be re-established.
E. The exemptions established by this section shall apply only to activities
that are otherwise permitted by federal, state and/or local laws.
Sec. 11.06.050. Critical areas maps.
The approximate location and extent of critical areas within the city are
shown on thk critical areas inventory maps. These maps shall be used for
informational, purposes and as a general guide only, for the assistance of
property owners and other interested parties; the boundaries and locations
shown are generalized. The actual presence or absence, type, extent,
boundaries, and classification of critical areas on a specific site shall be
identified in the field by a qualified consultant and confirmed by the
department, according to the procedures, definitions and criteria established by
this chapter. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location or
designation shown on the city's maps and the criteria or standards of this
section,the criteria and standards shall prevail.
Sec. 111.06.060. Relationship to other regulations.
A. These l critical area regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition
to zoning, land use and other regulations established by the city of Kent. In the
event of any'conflict between these regulations and any other city regulations,
those regulations which provide greater protection to environmentally critical
areas shall apply, as determined by the director.
Page 8 of 30
S:WemitlPlan ZONFCOOFAMP.VD�W2`CAO�Act¢M Ogian 3.o
47
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
B. Areas characterized by specific critical areas may also be subject to other
regulations established by this chapter due to the overlapping or multiple
functions of some critical areas. Wetlands, for example, may be defined and
regulated according to the wetland, wildlife habitat and stream management
provisions of this chapter. In the event of any conflict between regulations for
particular critical areas in this chapter, the regulations which provide greater
protection to environmentally critical areas shall apply, as determined by the
director.
Sec. 11.06.070. Critical area review process and application
requirements.
A. Pre-Application Conference.
1. For those projects subject to Environmental Review pursuant to
SEPA, the pre-application requirements of KCC 12.01 shall apply.
2. For projects which are subject to this chapter but are exempt from
the SEPA requirements, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the city prior
to submitting an application.
3. The purpose of these meetings shall be to discuss the city's
critical area requirements, processes and procedures; to review any conceptual
site plans prepared by the applicant; to identify potential impacts to critical
areas and appropriate mitigation measures; and to the extent it can be
determined, generally inform the applicant of any known federal or state
regulations or approvals applicable to the subject critical area. Such conference
shall be for the convenience of the applicant, shall not constitute legal advice or
scientific opinion, and any recommendations shall not be binding on the
applicant or the city. It shall be the applicant's sole responsibility to identify
and secure all necessary permits from any agencies with jurisdiction
notwithstanding that the city of Kent may also have the authority to issue a
permit.
Page 9 of 30
S:V=it'&Ia 1ZONDCOD'CANIENDVM2',CAD%%e11eMOWinn J.Ac
48
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
B. Application Requirements.
1. Timing of Submittals. Concurrent with submittal of a SEPA
checklist, or concurrent with submittal of an application for projects exempt
from SEPA, a critical area report must be submitted to the city for review. The
purpose of the report is to determine the extent, characteristics and functions of
any critical ateas located on or potentially affected by activities on a site where
regulated activities are proposed. The report will also be used by the
department to determine the appropriate critical area rating or classification,
where applicable, and to establish appropriate buffer requirements.
2. Report Contents. Reports and studies required to be submitted by
this chapter shall contain, at a minimum, the information indicated in the
attachments to this chapter applicable to each critical area. The department may
tailor the information required to reflect the complexity of the proposal and the
sensitivity ofcritical areas that may potentially be present.
C. Critical Area Consultants - Qualifications & City Review. All reports
and studies required of the applicant by this section shall be prepared by a
qualified consultant as defined in these regulations. The department may, at its
discretion, retain a qualified consultant to review and confirm the applicant's
reports, studies and plans. Such review shall be paid for by the applicant.
D. Review Process. This section is not intended to create a separate critical
area review permit process for development proposals. To the extent possible,
the city shall consolidate and integrate the review and processing of critical
area-related iaspects of proposals with other land use and environmental
considerations, reviews and approvals. Any permits required by separate codes
or regulations, such as Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, shall
continue to be required.
Sec. 111.06.080. Procedural provisions.
A. . Interpretation and Conflicts. The director of the department or his/her
designee shall have the authority to administer the provisions of this chapter, to
make determinations with regard to the applicability of the regulations, to
Page 10 of 30
S Tem it\Plan ONECODEAMEND�W2CAO\\Veftnd Option 3Aw
49
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
interpret the intent of unclear provisions, to require additional information, to
determine the level of detail and appropriate methodologies for critical area
reports and studies, to prepare application and informational materials as
required, to promulgate procedures and rules for unique circumstances not
anticipated by the standards and procedures contained within this section.
B. Penalties and Enforcement. Compliance with these regulations and
penalties for their violation shall be enforced pursuant to the procedures set
forth in KCC 1.04.
C. Appeals from Critical Area Review Decisions. Appeals from critical
area review decisions shall be governed by the procedures set forth in KCC
12.01.190 and KCC 2.32.
D. Burden of Proof. The burden of proving that a proposed activity meets
the standards established by this chapter shall be on the applicant.
Sec. 11.06.090. Reasonable use provision.
• A. The standards and requirements of these regulations are not intended,
and shall not be construed or applied in a manner, to deny all reasonable use of
private property. if an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the hearing
examiner that strict application of these standards would deny all reasonable
use of a property, development may be permitted subject to appropriate
conditions.
B. Applications for a reasonable use exception shall be processed as a
Process III application,pursuant to KCC 12.01.
C. An applicant requesting relief from strict application of these standards
shall demonstrate that all of the following criteria are met:
1. No reasonable use with less impact on the critical area and its
buffer is possible.
2. There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the
activities proposed, considering possible changes in site layout, reductions in
density and similar factors, that would allow a reasonable economic use with
fewer adverse impacts.
Page 11 of 30
S'd'ee itTlan2ONGCODFAM[ND�U)2TAO1%Vedand Option 3.doc
50
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
3. The proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the
minimum possible impacts to affected critical areas, considering their functions
and values acid/or the risks associated with proposed development.
4. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or
assured.
5. 'The inability to derive reasonable economic use is not the result of
the applicant's actions or that of a previous property owner, such as by
segregating oa dividing the property and creating an undevelopable condition.
6. Any alteration of a critical area approved under this section shall
be subject to appropriate conditions and will require mitigation under an
approved mitigation plan.
D. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for
any other petmit or approval otherwise required for a proposal by applicable
city regulations.
Sec. 11.06.100. Variances.
A. Applications for variances from the strict application of the terms of this
chapter to a specific property may be submitted to the city. All variances except
administrative variances per subsection B shall be considered by the hearing
examiner as a Process Ill application, pursuant to KCC 12.01.040. Approval of
variances from the strict application of the critical area requirements shall be
consistent with the following criteria:
1. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the
affected property which makes it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with
the provisions of this section.
2. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the
building footprint and access.
3. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values
of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase a risk to the
public healthy safety and general welfare, or to public or private property.
Page 12 of 30
S'.Te.RIPI..VONFCODFAMF.ND�MIMAO`Wllk.dOPtiun3d-
51
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
4. The proposed variance would not adversely affect properties
surrounding the subject site.
5. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are
minimized.
6. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are
not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owner.
7. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege.
B. Other minor buffer modifications may be permitted by the director, as
outlined in the provisions of this chapter.
Article I11. General Mitigation and Monitoring
Sec. 11.06.550. Mitigation standards.
A. Mitigation sequencing shall be avoidance, minimization, and then
mitigation. Any proposal to impact a critical area shall demonstrate that it is
unavoidable or will provide a greater function and value to the critical area.
B. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and values shall be mitigated.
Mitigation actions shall be implemented in the preferred sequence identified in
this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory
mitigation shall demonstrate that:
1. All feasible and reasonable measures have been taken to reduce
impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is
required by these regulations, provided that avoidance is not required where an
applicant proposes to fill and replace a hydrologically isolated emergent Class 3
wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size pursuant to KCC 11.06.610(C). For
the purposes of this section a hydrologically isolated wetland shall be
determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will at a
minimum be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces.
Page 13 of 30
S:TP it�PIan MNCCODF.AMFND�lOU2\CAO'�Wct]aM Ogion 3Aw
52
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
3. :In the case of wetlands and streams, no overall net loss will occur
in wetland ors stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally
equivalent to'the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological,
physical and Chemical functions.
Sec. 11.06.560. Location and timing of mitigation.
A. Mitigation shall be provided on-site where possible, unless the director
agrees that a,higher function and value can be accomplished off-site within the
same drainage basin. Mitigation may be allowed off-site only when it is
determined, through the SEPA review process, that on-site mitigation is not
scientificallyi feasible or practical due to physical features of the property. The
burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot
be provided on-site.
B. When mitigation cannot be provided on-site,mitigation shall be provided
in the same drainage basin as the permitted activity on property owned, secured
or controlled_by the applicant where such mitigation is practical and beneficial
to the critical area and associated resources. Mitigation sites shall be located
within the citly, unless otherwise approved by the director.
C. In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant
demonstrates, and the director concurs, that greater function and value can be
achieved through out-of-kind mitigation.
D. When wetland, stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these
regulations on-site or off-site, the mitigation project shall occur near an
adequate water supply (river, stream, or groundwater) with a hydrologic
connection to the critical area to ensure a successful mitigation or restoration.
A natural hydrologic connection is preferential as compared to one which relies
upon manmade features requiring routine maintenance.
E. Any agreed upon mitigation plan shall be completed prior to issuance of
a building or construction permit, unless a phased or concurrent schedule that
assures completion prior to occupancy has been approved by the department.
Page 14 of 30
9:NennitlPlanIZOM1ECOOFANENDKW2�AO\W4.W Op[im3.&w
53
Draft wetland buffer regulations
• Option 3
See. 11.06.570. Mitigation monitoring.
A. For any actions permitted by this chapter which require a mitigation
plan, a monitoring program shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant
to evaluate the success of the mitigation project and to determine necessary
corrective actions. This program shall determine if the original goals and
objectives of the mitigation plan are being met. The monitoring program shall
be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the department as a part of the
mitigation plan.
B. The monitoring program shalt include a contingency plan in the event
that implementation of the mitigation plan fails to satisfy the approved goals
and objectives. A performance and maintenance bond or other acceptable
security device is required to ensure the applicant's compliance with the terms
of the approved mitigation plan. The amount of the performance and
maintenance bond shall equal 125 percent of the cost of the mitigation project
for the length of the monitoring period.
C. The following elements shall be incorporated into monitoring programs
prepared to comply with this chapter and shall be a part of the approved
mitigation plan:
1. Appropriate, accepted, and unbiased qualitative or precise and
accurate quantitative sampling methods to evaluate the success or failure of the
project.
2. Quantitative sampling methods that include permanent photopoints
installed at the completion of construction and maintained throughout the
monitoring period, permanent transects, sampling points (e.g., quadrants or
water quality or quantity monitoring stations), and wildlife monitoring stations.
3. Clearly stipulated qualitative and quantitative sampling methods.
4. Appropriate qualitative and/or quantitative performance standards
that will be used to measure the success or failure of the mitigation. These will
• include, at a minimum, standards for plant survival and diversity, including
Page 15 of 30
S:\Pcmit,Pln ZONFCODFAMF..ND'�W2,CAO�WctlaM Option 3
54
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
structural diversity, the extent of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and habitat
types and requirements as appropriate.
5. Monitoring programs shall be for a period of at least five years
and include at a minimum: preparation of an as-built plan; annual monitoring
and preparation of annual monitoring reports following implementation; and a
maintenance plan. More stringent monitoring requirements may be required on
a case-by-casie basis for more complex mitigation plans.
6. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the department at
intervals identified in the approved mitigation plan. A schedule for the
submittal of monitoring reports and maintenance periods shall be described in
the approved) mitigation plan. The reports shall be prepared by a qualified
consultant and must contain all qualitative and quantitative monitoring data,
photographs,land an evaluation of each of the applicable performance standards.
If performance standards are not being met, appropriate corrective or
contingency 'measures must be identified and implemented to ensure that
performance standards will be met.
7. The director may extend the monitoring period beyond the
minimum tinteframe if performance standards are not being met at the end of
the initial five-year period; and require additional financial securities or bonding
to ensure that any additional monitoring and contingencies are completed to
ensure the success of the mitigation.
Article IV. Wetlands
Sec. 11.06.580. Wetlands rating system. The following rating system
is hereby adopted for the purpose of determining the size of wetland buffers and
for the review of permits under this chapter. For the purposes of this section, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79-31 (Cowardin et al., 1979) contains
the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses.
Page 16 of 30
5\Pe milTingONE,CODEAMEND�CKIN AO�Wellend Option3 Mc
r
55
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
A. Category I wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following
criteria:
1. The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the
federal or state government as endangered, threatened, or other species
identified by the State Department of Natural Resources through its natural
heritage data or by the State Department of Wildlife as a priority species, or the
presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species.
2. Wetlands equal to or greater than two (2) acres in size having
forty (40) percent to sixty (60) percent permanent open water in dispersed
patches with two (2) or more classes of vegetation.
3. Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and
having three (3) or more wetland classes, one of which is open water.
4. The presence of bogs or fens.
B. Category 2 wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following
criteria, and which are not category 1 wetlands:
1. Wetlands greater than one(1) acre in size.
2. Wetlands equal to or less than one (1) acre in size and having
three (3) or more wetland classes.
3. Wetlands equal to or less than one (1) acre, but greater than 1000
sq. ft.,that have a forested wetland class.
4. Wetlands that contain the documented presence of heron
rookeries or raptor nesting sites.
C. Category 3 wetlands. Wetlands which meet the following criteria, and
which are not category 1 or 2 wetlands.
1. Wetlands that are equal to or less than one (1) acre in size and
that have two (2)or fewer wetland classes.
Sec. 11.06.590. Determination of wetland boundary by delineation.
A. Delineations shall be required when a development is proposed on
property containing wetlands identified on the city of Kent wetland inventory or
• Page 17 of 30
.S.0 m.l,\Pl.n\ZONECODEAMEND\W2CAO\Wcd..dOp[inn3d-
56
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
when any other credible evidence may suggest that wetlands could be present.
Delineations ;shall also be performed when the evidence suggests that buffers
from wetlands on adjacent properties may impact the proposed development.
B. The exact location of the wetland boundary shall be determined through
the performance of a field investigation applying the wetland definition of this
chapter. An!applicant may request the department to perform the delineation,
provided the applicant pays the department for all necessary expenses
associated with performing the delineation. The department shall consult with
qualified professional scientists and technical experts or other experts as needed
to perform the delineation. Where the applicant has provided a delineation of
the wetland boundary, the department shall verify the accuracy of, and may
render adjuMnents to, the boundary delineation. The decision of the
department may only be appealed pursuant to procedures outlined in this
chapter.
C. The delineation shall contain the following information:
1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of wetlands and
buffers within 100-feet of the project area, including the following information
at a minimurp: all known wetland inventory maps (including a copy of the city
of Kent Wetland Inventory Map); wetland delineations and required buffers;
existing wetland acreage; wetland category; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic
characteristics; soil and substrate conditions; and topographic data.
2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands
that were degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity.
3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that
addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions.
D. A wetland delineation which has been confirmed by the department
pursuant to SEPA review for a proposed project shall be binding upon the city
and the applicant. If a wetland delineation report has not gone through SEPA
review as a part of the application process, and the city has approved a wetland
Page 18 of 30
s,wN, k\P].n=NFCODFAMHA M2CAO'Wd..d option I.eo,
57
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
delineation report for another purpose, the wetland delineation report shall be
valid for a period of two (2)years from the date of the approved report.
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
1 100 feet
2 50 feet
3 25 feet
B. Increased buffer widths.
1. The director may require increased buffer widths on a case-by-
ease basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect species listed by the
federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive or
documented priority species or habitats. Such increased buffers shall be based
on recommendations by a qualified professional biologist, and if applicable,
best management practices for protection of the species adopted by an agency
with jurisdiction.
2. Applicants for development permits may volunteer to provide
increased buffers pursuant to the following procedures:
a. If an applicant provides a buffer which is permanently
protected pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and is at
least 25 feet wider than the buffers required pursuant to KCC
11.06.600(A), the applicant may apply for a ten (10) percent
increase in the number of residential units permitted per acre
Page 19 of 30
5:V'mniiPlanIZONLCODGAM��U\2q1?\CAU\W elanJ Option 3.J
58
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
pursuant to the requirements of KCC 15.08.400, Planned Unit
Development.
b. If an applicant provides a buffer which is permanently
protected pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and is at
least 50 feet wider than the buffers required pursuant to KCC
11.06.600(A), the applicant may apply for a twenty (20) percent
increase in the number of residential units permitted per acre
pursuant to the requirements of KCC 15.08.400, Planned Unit
Development.
C. Buffer averaging.
1. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed where the applicant
demonstrates!the following:
a. The ecological functions and values of the buffer after
averaging is!equivalent to or greater than the functions and values before
averaging as determined by a qualified consultant and as approved by the city.
Properly functioning buffers shall not be reduced through buffer averaging
except in exceptional circumstances, such as a need to gain access to property or
other similar circumstances, to be approved by the director.
b. Averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functions
and values.
c. The total area contained within the wetland buffer after
averaging shall be no less than the total area contained within the standard
buffer prior to averaging.
d. At no point shall the buffer width be reduced by more than
fifty(50)percent of the standard buffer or be less than twenty-five (25) feet.
C. The additional buffer shall be contiguous with the standard
buffer and located in a manner to provide buffer functions to the wetland.
f. If the buffers are degraded pursuant to KCC 11.06.227,
they shall be restored pursuant to an approved restoration/enhancement plan.
Page 20 of 30
S:TcmilWkn2ONGCODFAM FND�(KQ CAO\Wetland Option 3.dz
59
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
g. If restoration or enhancement of the buffer is required in
order to establish a suitable growth of native plants, maintenance and
monitoring of the buffer for a period of at least three years shall be provided
pursuant to an approved monitoring plan as required by KCC 11.06.570.
D. Buffer restoration required. If the buffers, including both standard buffers
and buffers which are averaged, are degraded, they shall be restored during
development pursuant to an approved restoration plan. If the plan includes
establishing a suitable growth of native plants, maintenance and monitoring of
the buffer for a period of at least three years shall be provided pursuant to an
approved monitoring plan as required by KCC 11.06.570. Where it can be
demonstrated that there will be no impacts from the proposed development to
the wetland or wetland buffer, the director shall have the authority to waive or
modify this requirement.
E. Required report for buffer averaging and/or reduction. A request to buffer
. average pursuant to KCC 11.06.600(C) shall be supported by a buffer
enhancement/restoration 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
functions; and address the applicable criteria listed in this section. A buffer
restoration and/or enhancement plan shall also provide the following: (a) a map
locating the specific area of restoration and/or 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.
F Buffer condition. Except as otherwise allowed by this section, wetland
buffers shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbance
has occurred during construction, re-vegetation with native vegetation shall be
required pursuant to an approved restoration/enhancement plan consistent with
this code.
Page 21 of 30
S- cmit�Plan�ZONfCODEAMEND�W2CAO%Weiland( tion3 doc
60
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
G. Buffer,utilization for landscape requirements. Enhanced wetland buffers
may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements in Ch. 15.07 KCC where all of
the following criteria are satisfied:
1. The buffer, as enhanced by applicant, will provide equivalent or
greater protection of wetland functions.
2. The enhanced buffer will meet the landscaping requirements as
outlined in Ch. 15.07 KCC. The proposed landscape vegetation satisfies
wetland buffer vegetation requirements.
3. The enhanced buffer is of the full landscape width required by Ch.
15.07 KCC.
H. 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 or private roads and utilities, and
accessory strµctures,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. Where feasible, 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 and except
as appropriate to provide outlook points or similar locations for educational,
scientific and other purposes which will not adversely affect the overall
functions and values of the wetland.
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.
Page 22 of 30
S:Nero,Plan'MNECOOEAMENO`2W2`,CAO�WctaMOpdi 3.Juc
61
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
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. Unless otherwise approved by the director,
these shall be located as close to the outer perimeter of the buffer as allowed
by proper design and function of the discharge system. To the extent that
construction of such outlets impacts vegetation in the buffer, restoration of the
vegetation shall be required.
9. On-going maintenance activities by the city of Kent vegetation
management division of public works and parks department shall be 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.
I. Building setback lines. A minimum building setback line of fifteen (15)
feet shall be required from the edge of a wetland buffer provided the director
may reduce the building setback limit by up to 5 feet if construction, operation,
and maintenance of the building do not and will not create a risk of negative
impacts on the adjacent buffer area. Alterations of the building setback lines
shall not be permitted to create additional lots for subdivisions. Approval of
alterations of the BSBL shall be provided in writing by the director, or his/her
designee, and may require mitigation such as buffer enhancement.
Sec. 11.06.610. Avoiding wetland impacts. Regulated activities shall
not be authorized in Category 1 wetlands except where it can be demonstrated
that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary as described below, or that all
reasonable economic uses are denied.
Page 23 of 30
S.'Pa—,,�Ul 20?-.CUOF.AMF.ND'3W1KAOIWedl MOpium 3.o
62
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
A. Where water-dependent activities are proposed, unavoidable and
necessary impacts may be permitted where no reasonable alternatives exist
which would,not involve wetland impacts; or which would not have less of an
adverse impaict on a wetland; and that would not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences.
B. Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed, the applicant must
demonstrate that:
1. The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished
using an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant.
2. A reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the
project as proposed; and all alternative designs of the project as proposed that
would avoid,for result in less adverse impacts on a wetland or its buffer will not
accomplish the basic purpose of the project.
3. In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the
project as proposed due to constraints such as zoning, deficiencies of
infrastructure, or parcel size, the applicant has made reasonable attempt to
remove or accommodate such constraints.
C. Filling of a hydrologically isolated emergent Class 3 wetland less than
5,000 square feet in size shall be permitted, provided a replacement wetland
area is created pursuant to KCC 11.06.660(D)(2)(a). For the purposes of this
section, a hydrologically isolated wetland shall be determined by the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
Sec. 11.06.620. Limits of impacts to wetlands.
A. For wetlands where buffers are not connected to riparian corridors,
(Category 3 wetlands, and Category 2 wetlands which are not Category 3
wetlands only because they exceed one (1) acre in size) the following applies:
regulated activities which result in the filling of no more than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet of a wetland may be permitted if mitigation is provided
consistent with the standards.
Page 24 of 30
-N'mniV PlanZONFCODF.AMF.ND'2IW21CAO�Wail�nd Option 3.doe
63
Draft wetland buffer regulations
• Option 3
B. In computing the total allowable wetland fill area under this subsection,
the director shall include any areas that have been filled since January 1, 1991.
For example, if five thousand (5,000) square feet of a wetland were filled in
February, 1991, future applicants would only be allowed a maximum of five
thousand(5,000) additional square feet under this subsection. Any proposed fill
over ten thousand (10,000) square feet must demonstrate unavoidable and
necessary impacts.
Sec. 11.06.630. Fencing and signage. All development and
subdivisions to which this chapter applies shall construct a wildlife passable
fence along the entire buffer edge, unless otherwise approved by the director.
Wetland Sensitive Area Signs must also be attached to the fence or located just
inside the wildlife passable fence attached to a 4 x 4 cedar post (or other non-
pressure treated materials approved by the city). Signs must be located at a rate
of one sign per residential lot and one sign per 100 feet for all public rights of
• way, trails, parking areas, playgrounds and all other uses located adjacent to
wetlands and associated buffers.
Sec. 11.06.640. Sensitive area tracts/easements.
A. Condition of approval. As a condition of approval pursuant to this
chapter, the director shall require creation of a separate sensitive area tract
containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer. Sensitive
area tractsleasements are separate tracts containing wetlands and wetland
buffers with perpetual deed restrictions requiring that the tract remain
undeveloped. Sensitive area tracts are an integral part of the lot in which they
are created, are not intended for sale, lease or transfer, and may be included in
the area of the parent lot for purposes of subdivision method and minimum lot
size.
B. Protection of sensitive area tracts. The director shall require that a
sensitive area be protected by one(1) of the following methods:
• Page 25 of 30
s Temu,Plan°'wNFCODEAMrND�Ou 2�CAO,wenam Opu doe
64
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
1. The applicant shall dedicate to the city or other public or
nonprofit entity specified by the director, an easement or tract for the protection
of native vegetation within a wetland and/or its buffer; or
2. The applicant shall record against the property, a permanent and
irrevocable deed restriction on all lots containing a sensitive area tract or tracts
created as a condition of approval. Such deed restriction(s) shall be approved
by the director and the city attorney and prohibit in perpetuity the development,
alteration, or disturbance of vegetation within the sensitive area tract except for
purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has
received pricer written approval from the city and any other agency with
jurisdiction over such activity.
Sec. 11.06.650. Notice on title. The owner of any property with field
verified presence of wetlands or wetland buffers for which a permit application
is submitted !shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the
existence of Wch wetland or wetland buffer against the property with the King
County Recorder's Office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the
city attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the
right to challenge this notice and to have it released if the wetland designation
no longer applies, however the applicant shall be responsible for completing a
wetland delineation report which will be subject to approval by the director.
Any unapproved alterations of a wetland will result in a code violation and will
be enforced to the fullest extent of Kent City Code.
Sec. 111.06.660. Compensating for wetland impacts.
A. Condition of approval. As a condition of any approval allowing
alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action, the
director shall require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or
enhancement; of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts
resulting from the applicant's or violator's actions. The applicant shall develop
a plan thaYi provides for construction, maintenance and monitoring of
Page 26 of 30
S:PemitTlnIONCCODCAML D1002\CAO�Wetiand Wian 3 dac
65
Draft wetland buffer regulations
• Option 3
replacement wetlands and/or buffers and, as appropriate, land acquisition that
re-create as nearly as practicable or improves the original wetlands in terms of
acreage, function, geographic location and setting.
B. Goal. The overall goal of any compensatory mitigation project shall be
no net loss of overall wetland acreage or function and to replace any wetland
area lost, with wetland(s) and buffers of equivalent functions and values.
Compensation shall be completed prior to wetland destruction, where
practicable. Compensatory mitigation programs shall incorporate the standards
and requirements contained in sections 11.06.550 and 11.06.560, above.
C. Restoration and creation of wetlands and wetland buffers. Any person
who alters wetlands shall restore or create wetlands of equivalent functions and
values to those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. Any created
or restored wetlands shall be protected by the provisions of this chapter.
D. Acreage replacement and enhancement ratio. Wetland alterations shall
be replaced or enhanced using the formulas below, however the director may
• choose to double mitigation ratios in instances where wetlands are filled or
impacted as a result of code violations. The first number specifies the acreage
of wetlands requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of
wetlands altered. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from
illegal alterations.
1. Compensation for alteration of Category 1 wetlands shall be
accomplished as follows:
a. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of six (6) to one (1);
b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1)
and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of ten(10)to one (1); or
c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and
enhancement of existing wetlands within the range of the ratios set out in
subsections (a) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one (1) to one (1) creation
ratio is met (for example, creation of new wetlands at a one and one-half(1.5)
to one (1) ratio along with enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of five
(5)to one(1) may be acceptable).
Page 27 of 30
S:�TcrmiLTianIONCCODCAMPNDV. 2CAO\Wetland Oplinn 3drc
66
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
2. Compensation for alteration of Category 2 wetlands shall be
accomplished as follows:
a. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of three (3)to one(1);
b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1)
and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of four(4)to one (1); or
c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and
enhancement of existing wetlands within the range of ratios set out in
subsections (g) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one (1) to one (1) creation
ratio is met.
3. Compensation for alteration of Category 3 wetlands shall be
accomplished as follows:
a. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one and one-half
(1.5)to one (1);
b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1)
and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1); or
c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and
enhancement of existing wetlands within the range of ratios set out in
subsections (u) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one (1) to one (1) creation
ratio is met.
E. Decreased replacement ratio. The director may decrease the required
replacement ratio where the applicant provides the mitigation prior to altering
the wetland, land a minimum acreage replacement ratio of one (1) to one (1) is
provided. In such a case, the mitigation must be in place, monitored for three
(3)growing seasons and be deemed a success prior to allowing any alterations.
F. Wetland/Habitat Bank. Mitigation may be allowed within a
Wetland/Hablitat Mitigation Bank located within the City of Kent once a bank is
formed. Proposed developments must continue to demonstrate avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation prior to being allowed to mitigate using a wetland
bank site. A, review of the feasibility of on-site mitigation will be required to
be prior to allowing mitigation credits from a mitigation bank.
Page 28 of 30
6-WennifiPlan�ZONL'CO�!?AMFNO�21N12CAO1W e�aM Option},yK
67
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
G. Wetland type. In-kind compensation shall be provided except that, out-
of-kind compensation may be accepted where:
1. The wetland system to be replaced is already significantly
degraded and out-of-kind-replacement will result in a wetland with greater
functional value.
2. Technical problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in
watershed hydrology make implementation of in-kind compensation
impracticable.
3. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals
(e.g.,replacement of historically diminished wetland types).
H. Location. On-site compensation shall be provided except where the
applicant can demonstrate that:
1. The hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those
who benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially
damaged by the onsite loss.
On-site compensation is not feasible due to problems with hydrology,
soils, or other factors.
2. Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impacts
from surrounding land uses.
3. Existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration
are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values.
4. Adopted goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or
other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of
compensatory measures at another site.
I Off-site compensation. Off-site compensation shall occur within the
same drainage basin as the wetland loss occurred, unless the applicant can
demonstrate extraordinary hardship.
J. Off-site compensation site selection. In selecting compensation sites for
creation or enhancement, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of
preference:
• Page 29 of 30
SWemiit`J`I,n90NECODEAMCND`2W2'CAU,W I.M Opfinn 3Ad
68
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 3
1. Upland sites which were formerly wetlands and/or significantly
degraded wetlands. Such wetlands are typically small; have only one (1)
wetland class; and have one (1) dominant plant species or a predominance of
exotic species.
2. Idle upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative
cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds, or emergent
vegetation.
3. Other disturbed upland.
K. Timing. Where feasible, compensatory projects shall be completed prior
to activities that will disturb wetlands, or immediately after activities that will
temporarily disturb wetlands, or prior to use or occupancy of the activity or
development iwhich was conditioned upon such compensation. Construction of
compensation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and
flora.
L. Completion of mitigation construction. On completion of construction,
any approves( mitigation project must be signed off by the applicant's qualified
consultant and approved by the department. A signed letter from the consultant
will indicate, that the construction has been completed as approved, and
approval of the installed mitigation plan will begin the monitoring period if
appropriate.
Sec. 11.06.670 Non-regulatory protections of Critical Areas
The City shall produce by December 31, 2005, a work plan for the development,
funding and implementation of a Non-Regulatory Critical Areas Program for the
City of Kent to acquire and preserve significant critical areas within the City.
Section 11.06.127. Degraded wetland buffer.
Degraded wetland buffer means a buffer area which cannot adequately protect its
Jacent wetland due to one or more of the following existing conditions: 1) lack of
vegetative cover or presence of bare soils (resulting from disturbance, fill, debris, or
trash); 2) significant cover(over fifty percent) in non-native vegetative; 3) significant
cover(over fifty percept) in invasive species or noxious weeds; or 4)presence of existing
non-conformings truct(_ires or improvements.
S:ApermWplan,ZON ECODEAMENUv2002AC O0Kent WMlands—Dmft2-20-05M.)
Page 30 of 30
S TemjtT, n MNECOD2AMEND�MZ CAUWdI MOptio 3 -
69
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
Chapter 11.06
CRITICAL AREAS
Article I. Procedural&Administrative Provisions
Sec. 11.06.010. Title.
This code shall be hereinafter known as the city of Kent critical areas
code.
Sec. 11.06.020. Purpose and Intent.
A. The city of Kent contains numerous areas that can be identified and
characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the city
include wetlands, streams, wildlife and fisheries habitat, geologic hazard areas,
frequently flooded areas, and aquifer recharge areas.
B. The city finds that these critical areas perform a variety of valuable and
beneficial biological, physical and economic functions that benefit the city and
its residents. Alteration of certain critical areas may pose a threat to public
safety, private property and the environment. The city finds, therefore, that
identification, regulation and protection of critical areas is necessary to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare. The city further finds that the
functions of critical areas, and the purpose of these regulations, include the
following:
1. Wetlands. Wetlands perform a variety of functions that include
maintaining water quality; storing and conveying stormwater and floodwater;
recharging groundwater; providing important fish and wildlife habitat; and
providing areas for recreation, education, scientific study and aesthetic
appreciation.
Wetland buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce
sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain
desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect wetland
resources from harmful intrusion.
Page 1 of 30
S� inpiaa\maeemeamed%,froswo\wee•woptima.�
70
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
The primary goals of wetland regulation are to avoid wetland impacts; to
achieve no het loss of wetland function and value, acreage may also be
considered in achieving the overall goal; to provide levels of protection that
reflect the sensitivity of individual wetlands and the intensity of proposed land
uses; and to restore and/or enhance existing wetlands, where possible.
The City of Kent's program for wetland protection is a combination of
regulatory and non-regulatory programs, designed to collectively provide for
protection of wetland functions and values in a manner which is consistent with
Best Available Science and the other goals and objectives of the Growth
Management Act,RCW ch. 37.70A.
Protection of the water quality and hydrologic functions of wetlands is
accomplished in Kent by a combination of stormwater management controls
(including both water quality controls and flow controls) regulated pursuant to
KCC ch 7.07 and wetland buffers imposed pursuant to this ordinance. Taken
together these programs will provide adequate water quality and hydrologic
protection to meet Best Available Science requirements.
2. Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
a. Streams and their associated riparian corridors provide
important fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for threatened and
endangered species; help maintain water quality; store and convey stormwater
and floodwater; recharge groundwater; and serve as areas for recreation,
education, scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Stream buffers serve to
moderate stormwater runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical
nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water
temperatures, provide habitat for wildlife; and protect stream resources from
harmful intrusion.
The primary goals of stream regulation are to avoid or otherwise
mitigate significant impacts to streams and associated riparian corridors; to
protect threatened and endangered species; to protect water quality through
appropriate Management techniques; and, where possible, to provide for stream
enhancement and rehabilitation.
Page 2 of 30
71
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
b. Wildlife habitat provides opportunities for food, cover,
nesting, breeding and movement for fish and wildlife within the city; maintains
and promotes diversity of species and habitat within the city; integrates habitat
protection with elements of the city's open space system; helps maintain air and
water quality; helps control erosion; serves as areas for recreation, education
and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation
The primary goals of wildlife habitat regulations are to identify
and protect fish and wildlife habitat; to avoid impacts to critical habitats for fish
and wildlife; to implement the goals of the Endangered Species Act; to promote
connectivity between habitat areas to allow for wildlife movement; to provide
multi-purpose open space corridors; and where possible to enhance and
rehabilitate wildlife habitat.
3. Geologic Hazard Areas. Geologic hazard areas include land
characterized by geologic, hydrologic and topographic conditions that render
them susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landslides, erosion, seismic or
volcanic activity.
The primary goals of regulating geologic hazards are to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to life and property; to regulate land uses where
necessary; and to conduct appropriate levels of analysis to ensure sound
engineering and construction practices to address identified hazards.
4. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas provide
a source of potable water and contribute to stream discharge/flow during
periods of low flow. The city finds that certain locations are susceptible to
contamination of water supplies by infiltration of pollutants through soil to
groundwater aquifers.
The primary goals of aquifer recharge regulations are to protect critical
aquifer recharge areas and groundwater quality by avoiding or limiting land use
activities that pose potential risk of aquifer contamination; and to minimize
impacts to significant aquifer recharge areas through the application of
performance standards.
Page 3 of 30
S:%p mil'glen'iow"nmcnd�N12CAO\Wcdae Option 4.dc
72
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
5. Specific Flood Hazard Regulations. This section of the Kent
City Code, and other sections as incorporated by reference, contain standards,
procedures, griteria and requirements intended to identify, analyze and mitigate
potential impacts to the city's critical areas and to enhance and restore degraded
resources where possible. The general intent of these regulations is to avoid
impacts to critical areas. In appropriate circumstances, impacts to specified
critical areas'•resulting from regulated activities may be minimized, rectified,
reduced an&or compensated for, consistent with the requirements of this
chapter.
Sec. 11.06.030. Regulated Activities.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any regulated activity that
potentially affects a critical area or its buffer unless otherwise exempt by these
regulations. Applicable activities are as follows:
I_ Removing, excavating, disturbing or dredging soil, sand, gravel,
minerals, organic matter or materials of any kind.
2. Dumping, discharging or filling with any material.
3. Draining, flooding or disturbing the water level or water table, or
diverting or impeding water flow.
4. Driving pilings or placing obstructions.
5. Constructing, substantially reconstructing, demolishing or
altering the size of any structure or infrastructure.
6. Destroying or altering vegetation through clearing, grading,
harvesting, spading or planting vegetation that would negatively affect the
character of a critical area.
7. Activities that result in significant changes in water temperature,
physical or chemical characteristics of water sources, including quantity and
pollutants.
8. Any other activity potentially affecting a critical area or buffer
not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this chapter as determined by the
department.
Page 4 of 30
5':Nzrmi[�pluo�onecadaincnd'2WM'AO\WeilaM Optima 4.doc
73
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
9. The construction of new recreation trails within the buffer, which
shall be low intensity, designed and constructed of permeable materials which
protect water quality, allow adequate surface water and groundwater
movements, do not contribute to erosion, and are located where they do not
disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas, and designed to avoid or reduce the
removal of trees.
Where a regulated activity would be partly within and partly outside a
critical area or its buffer, the entire activity shall be reviewed pursuant to the
requirements of this chapter.
B. To avoid duplication, all permits and approvals identified in KCC 12.01
shall be subject to, and coordinated with, the requirements of this chapter.
C. Non-project actions, including but not limited to rezones, comprehensive
plan map amendments, annexations, and the adoption of plans and programs,
shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. However, the department
may at its discretion, permit any studies or evaluations required by this chapter
. to use methodologies and provide a level of detail appropriate to the action
proposed.
D. Activities within the Green River Natural Resources Area shall be
subject to this chapter with the exception of activities allowed by Resolution
922, adopted by the City of Kent in March 1981.
Sec. 11.06.040. Exemptions.
A. The following activities performed on sites containing critical areas as
defined by this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of these regulations:
1. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish and
other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the
critical area.
2. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, as defined in this
chapter.
3. Activities involving artificially created wetlands or streams
intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to, grass-
Page 5 of 30
S:Ncmiit\planVoneW amendLOUSCAO'�WeilaM Opdm 4.d ,
74
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, retention or detention facilities,
and landscap$ features, except wetlands or streams created as mitigation or that
provide critical habitat for anadromous fish.
4. Operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of existing
structures, roads, trails, streets, utilities and associated structures, dikes, levees
or drainage systems, provided that reconstruction of any facilities or structures
is not "substantial reconstruction" may not further encroach on a critical area or
its buffer, and shall incorporate Best Management Practices.
5. Normal maintenance, repair and reconstruction of residential or
commercial structures, facilities and landscaping, provided that reconstruction
of any structures may not increase the previous footprint, and further provided
that the provisions of this chapter are followed.
6. 'The addition of floor area within an existing building which does
not increase the building footprint.
7. Site investigative work and studies that are prerequisite to
preparation of an application for development including soils tests, water
quality studies, wildlife studies and similar tests and investigations, provided
that any dist4bance of the critical area shall be the minimum necessary to carry
out the work or studies.
8. Educational activities, scientific research, and outdoor
recreational activities, including but not limited to interpretive field trips,
birdwatching, boating, swimming, fishing and hiking, that will not have a
significant effect on the critical area.
9. 'The harvesting of wild crops and seeds to propagate native plants
in a mannerthat is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and
provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, or
alteration of the critical area by changing existing topography, water conditions
or water sources.
10. Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to
public health; safety, property or the environment which requires immediate
Page 6 of 30
9",pcnniiwlenleoncoodeamcndl'_W?`,CAO'WeilaM 00fi-4—
75
• Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter as
determined by the department.
11. Development of lots vested and/or legally created through a
subdivision, short subdivision, or other legal means and approved prior to the
effective date of this chapter.
12. Previously legally filled wetlands or wetlands accidentally created
by human actions prior to July 1, 1990. The latter shall be documented through
photographs, statements and/or other conclusive evidence and be agreed to by
the director.
13. Removal of invasive plants and planting of native vegetation in
wetland and stream buffers for the purpose of enhancing habitat values of these
areas pursuant to an approved mitigation plan.
14. Stabilization of sites where erosion or landsliding threatens public
or private structures, utilities, roadways, driveways or publicly maintained trails
or where erosion or landsliding threatens any lake, stream, wetland or shoreline.
• Stabilization work shall be performed in a manner which causes the least
possible disturbance to the slope and its vegetative cover. This activity shall be
performed in accordance with approved site stabilization plans.
15. Minor activities not mentioned above and determined in advance
and in writing by the director to have minimal impacts to a critical area.
B. Notwithstanding the exemptions provided by this subsection, any
otherwise exempt activities occurring in or near a critical area or its buffer shall
comply with the intent of these standards and shall consider on-site alternatives
that avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts. Emergency activities shall
mitigate for any impacts caused to critical areas upon abatement of the
emergency.
C. With the exception of emergency actions, and existing and ongoing
agricultural activities, no property owner or other entity shall undertake exempt
activities prior to providing fourteen (14) days notice to the director and
receiving confirmation in writing that the proposed activity is exempt. In case
of any question as to whether a particular activity is exempt from the provisions
Page 7 of 30
S'benni planzooewdcamcnd�gl?�CAO'Wnland Option 4.d.,
76
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
of this sectioti, the director's determination shall prevail and shall be confirmed
in writing.
D. Legally established uses, developments or structures that are
nonconformitg solely due to inconsistencies with the provisions of this chapter,
shall not be considered nonconforming pursuant to KCC 15.08.100.
Reconstruction or additions to existing structures which intrude into critical
areas or them buffers shall not increase the amount of such intrusion except as
provided by section 10(A) of this title. Once a non-conforming use is
discontinued for a period of one-year, that use cannot be re-established.
E. The eiemptions established by this section shall apply only to activities
that are otherwise permitted by federal, state and/or local laws.
Sec. t1.06.050. Critical areas maps.
The approximate location and extent of critical areas within the city are
shown on the critical areas inventory maps. These maps shall be used for
informational purposes and as a general guide only, for the assistance of
property owpers and other interested parties; the boundaries and locations
shown are generalized. The actual presence or absence, type, extent,
boundaries, and classification of critical areas on a specific site shall be
identified in the field by a qualified consultant and confirmed by the
department, according to the procedures, definitions and criteria established by
this chapter. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location or
designation shown on the city's maps and the criteria or standards of this
section,the criteria and standards shall prevail.
Sec. 11.06.060. Relationship to other regulations.
A. These critical area regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition
to zoning, land use and other regulations established by the city of Kent. In the
event of any conflict between these regulations and any other city regulations,
those regulatlions which provide greater protection to environmentally critical
areas shall apply, as determined by the director.
Page 8 of 30
s:ee�,bian�oneroa mnnduM2Cno\wctiane(*t-4d„
77
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
B. Areas characterized by specific critical areas may also be subject to other
regulations established by this chapter due to the overlapping or multiple
functions of some critical areas. Wetlands, for .example, may be defined and
regulated according to the wetland, wildlife habitat and stream management
provisions of this chapter. In the event of any conflict between regulations for
particular critical areas in this chapter, the regulations which provide greater
protection to environmentally critical areas shall apply, as determined by the
director.
Sec. 11.06.070. Critical area review process and application
requirements.
A. Pre-Application Conference.
1. For those projects subject to Environmental Review pursuant to
SEPA,the pre-application requirements of KCC 12.01 shall apply.
2. For projects which are subject to this chapter but are exempt from
the SEPA requirements, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the city prior
to submitting an application.
3. The purpose of these meetings shall be to discuss the city's
critical area requirements, processes and procedures; to review any conceptual
site plans prepared by the applicant; to identify potential impacts to critical
areas and appropriate mitigation measures; and to the extent it can be
determined, generally inform the applicant of any known federal or state
regulations or approvals applicable to the subject critical area. Such conference
shall be for the convenience of the applicant, shall not constitute legal advice or
scientific opinion, and any recommendations shall not be binding on the
applicant or the city. It shall be the applicant's sole responsibility to identify
and secure all necessary permits from any agencies with jurisdiction
notwithstanding that the city of Kent may also have the authority to issue a
permit.
Page 9 of 30
S;pcnoifplanbmuNunwndLtX13ICAO\WeIneW 0,1i,m 4.do
78
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
B. Application Requirements.
1. Timing of Submittals. Concurrent with submittal of a SEPA
checklist, or concurrent with submittal of an application for projects exempt
from SEPA, a critical area report must be submitted to the city for review. The
purpose of the report is to determine the extent, characteristics and functions of
any critical areas located on or potentially affected by activities on a site where
regulated activities are proposed. The report will also be used by the
department to determine the appropriate critical area rating or classification,
where applicable, and to establish appropriate buffer requirements.
2. Report Contents. Reports and studies required to be submitted by
this chapter ,shall contain, at a minimum, the information indicated in the
attachments to this chapter applicable to each critical area. The department may
tailor the information required to reflect the complexity of the proposal and the
sensitivity of critical areas that may potentially be present.
C. Criticpl Area Consultants - Qualifications & City Review. All reports
and studies tequired of the applicant by this section shall be prepared by a
qualified consultant as defined in these regulations. The department may, at its
discretion, ratain a qualified consultant to review and confirm the applicant's
reports, studies and plans. Such review shall be paid for by the applicant.
D. Review Process. This section is not intended to create a separate critical
area review permit process for development proposals. To the extent possible,
the city shall consolidate and integrate the review and processing of critical
area-related iaspects of proposals with other land use and environmental
considerations, reviews and approvals. Any permits required by separate codes
or regulatioms, such as Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, shall
continue to be required.
Sec. 11.06.080. Procedural provisions.
A. Interpiretation and Conflicts. The director of the department or his/her
designee shall have the authority to administer the provisions of this chapter, to
make deternninations with regard to the applicability of the regulations, to
Page 10 of 30
SV—inVlnn\=ncCodeam UdCM2(AYWeuena(Vt-4.dc
79
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
interpret the intent of unclear provisions, to require additional information, to
determine the level of detail and appropriate methodologies for critical area
reports and studies, to prepare application and informational materials as
required, to promulgate procedures and rules for unique circumstances not
anticipated by the standards and procedures contained within this section.
B. Penalties and Enforcement. Compliance with these regulations and
penalties for their violation shall be enforced pursuant to the procedures set
forth in KCC 1.04.
C. Appeals from Critical Area Review Decisions. Appeals from critical
area review decisions shall be governed by the procedures set forth in KCC
12.01.190 and KCC 2.32.
D. Burden of Proof. The burden of proving that a proposed activity meets
the standards established by this chapter shall be on the applicant.
Sec. 11.06.090. Reasonable use provision.
A. The standards and requirements of these regulations are not intended,
and shall not be construed or applied in a manner, to deny all reasonable use of
private property. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the hearing
examiner that strict application of these standards would deny all reasonable
use of a property, development may be permitted subject to appropriate
conditions.
B. Applications for a reasonable use exception shall be processed as a
Process III application,pursuant to KCC 12.01.
C. An applicant requesting relief from strict application of these standards
shall demonstrate that all of the following criteria are met:
1. No reasonable use with less impact on the critical area and its
buffer is possible.
2. There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the
activities proposed, considering possible changes in site layout, reductions in
density and similar factors, that would allow a reasonable economic use with
fewer adverse impacts.
Page 11 of 30
S:Wmui\planVe un deamvnd�ZEK12'AO\Wet land Opfinn 4elac
80
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
3. The proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the
minimum possible impacts to affected critical areas, considering their functions
and values and/or the risks associated with proposed development.
4. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or
assured.
5. The inability to derive reasonable economic use is not the result of
the applicanVs actions or that of a previous property owner, such as by
segregating or dividing the property and creating an undevelopable condition.
6. ;Any alteration of a critical area approved under this section shall
be subject to appropriate conditions and will require mitigation under an
approved mitigation plan.
D. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for
any other petmit or approval otherwise required for a proposal by applicable
city regulations.
Sec. 11.06.100. Variances.
A. Appli4ations for variances from the strict application of the terms of this
chapter to a specific property may be submitted to the city. All variances except
administrative variances per subsection B shall be considered by the hearing
examiner as a Process III application, pursuant to KCC 12.01.040. Approval of
variances from the strict application of the critical area requirements shall be
consistent with the following criteria:
1. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the
affected property which makes it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with
the provisions of this section.
2. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the
building footprint and access.
3. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values
of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase a risk to the
public health; safety and general welfare, or to public or private property.
Page 12 of 30
3:1P��'pienaawroecammM¢q�PKtAO\wnI.d 00.4.d.,
81
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
4. The proposed variance would not adversely affect properties
surrounding the subject site.
5. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are
minimized.
6. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are
not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owner.
7. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege.
B. Other minor buffer modifications may be permitted by the director, as
outlined in the provisions of this chapter.
Article III. General Mitigation and Monitoring
Sec. 11.06.550. Mitigation standards.
A. Mitigation sequencing shall be avoidance, minimization, and then
mitigation. Any proposal to impact a critical area shall demonstrate that it is
unavoidable or will provide a greater function and value to the critical area.
B. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and values shall be mitigated.
Mitigation actions shall be implemented in the preferred sequence identified in
this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory
mitigation shall demonstrate that:
1. All feasible and reasonable measures have been taken to reduce
impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is
required by these regulations, provided that avoidance is not required where an
applicant proposes to fill and replace a hydrologically isolated emergent Class 3
wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size pursuant to KCC 11.06.610(C). For
the purposes of this section a hydrologically isolated wetland shall be
determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
2. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will at a
minimum be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces.
i
Page 13 of 30
S. ematyaan�oa ,eaameae'W2rCAO�wena� Opna aaoe
82
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
3. In the case of wetlands and streams, no overall net loss will occur
in wetland on stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally
equivalent to(the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological,
physical and Oemical functions.
Sec. 111.06.560. Location and timing of mitigation.
A. Mitigation shall be provided on-site where possible, unless the director
agrees that a higher function and value can be accomplished off-site within the
same drainage basin. Mitigation may be allowed off-site only when it is
determined, through the SEPA review process, that on-site mitigation is not
scientifically feasible or practical due to physical features of the property. The
burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot
be provided on-site.
B. When Imitigation cannot be provided on-site, mitigation shall be provided
in the same drrainage basin as the permitted activity on property owned, secured
or controlledby the applicant where such mitigation is practical and beneficial
to the critical area and associated resources. Mitigation sites shall be located
within the city, unless otherwise approved by the director.
C. In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant
demonstrates, and the director concurs, that greater function and value can be
achieved through out-of-kind mitigation.
D. When wetland, stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these
regulations on-site or off-site, the mitigation project shall occur near an
adequate wafter supply (river, stream, or groundwater) with a hydrologic
connection to the critical area to ensure a successful mitigation or restoration.
A natural hydrologic connection is preferential as compared to one which relies
upon manmade features requiring routine maintenance.
E. Any agreed upon mitigation plan shall be completed prior to issuance of
a building or construction permit, unless a phased or concurrent schedule that
assures completion prior to occupancy has been approved by the department.
Page 14 of 30
s'\e mieplan'oomcodeam�2(02 cno'wana�C4u.�a.m�
83
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
See. 11.06.570. Mitigation monitoring.
A. For any actions permitted by this chapter which require a mitigation
plan, a monitoring program shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant
to evaluate the success of the mitigation project and to determine necessary
corrective actions. This program shall determine if the original goals and
objectives of the mitigation plan are being met. The monitoring program shall
be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the department as a part of the
mitigation plan.
B. The monitoring program shall include a contingency plan in the event
that implementation of the mitigation plan fails to satisfy the approved goals
and objectives. A performance and maintenance bond or other acceptable
security device is required to ensure the applicant's compliance with the terms
of the approved mitigation plan. The amount of the performance and
maintenance bond shall equal 125 percent of the cost of the mitigation project
for the length of the monitoring period.
C. The following elements shall be incorporated into monitoring programs
prepared to comply with this chapter and shall be a part of the approved
mitigation plan:
1. Appropriate, accepted, and unbiased qualitative or precise and
accurate quantitative sampling methods to evaluate the success or failure of the
project.
2. Quantitative sampling methods that include permanent photopoints
installed at the completion of construction and maintained throughout the
monitoring period, permanent transects, sampling points (e.g., quadrants or
water quality or quantity monitoring stations), and wildlife monitoring stations.
3. Clearly stipulated qualitative and quantitative sampling methods.
4. Appropriate qualitative and/or quantitative performance standards
that will be used to measure the success or failure of the mitigation. These will
include, at a minimum, standards for plant survival and diversity, including
Page 15 of 30
S:'wemiitNrlanlzoriccWoamcnd`21N12�CA0'Wnlvnd Option 4.dnc
84
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
structural diversity, the extent of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and habitat
types and requirements as appropriate.
5 Monitoring programs shall be for a period of at least five years
and include at a minimum: preparation of an as-built plan; annual monitoring
and preparation of annual monitoring reports following implementation; and a
maintenance plan. More stringent monitoring requirements may be required on
a case-by-caste basis for more complex mitigation plans.
6. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the department at
intervals identified in the approved mitigation plan. A schedule for the
submittal of monitoring reports and maintenance periods shall be described in
the approved mitigation plan. The reports shall be prepared by a qualified
consultant and must contain all qualitative and quantitative monitoring data,
photographs,:and an evaluation of each of the applicable performance standards.
If performance standards are not being met, appropriate corrective or
contingency jmeasures must be identified and implemented to ensure that
performance standards will be met.
7. The director may extend the monitoring period beyond the
minimum timeframe if performance standards are not being met at the end of
the initial fivo-year period; and require additional financial securities or bonding
to ensure that any additional monitoring and contingencies are completed to
ensure the success of the mitigation.
Article IV. Wetlands
Sec. 11.06.580. Wetlands rating system. The following rating system
is hereby ado.pted for the purpose of determining the size of wetland buffers and
for the review of permits under this chapter. For the purposes of this section, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States,FWS/OBS-79-31 (Cowardin et al., 1979) contains
the descriptions of wetland classes and subclasses.
Page 16 of 30
S:'� mttolanbunxndcamend�gl2SCAU%Walm 00-4.&o
85
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
A. Category I wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following
criteria:
1. The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the
federal or state government as endangered, threatened, or other species
identified by the State Department of Natural Resources through its natural
heritage data or by the State Department of Wildlife as a priority species, or the
presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species.
2. Wetlands equal to or greater than two (2) acres in size having
forty (40) percent to sixty (60) percent permanent open water in dispersed
patches with two (2) or more classes of vegetation.
3. Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and
having three (3) or more wetland classes, one of which is open water.
4. The presence of bogs or fens.
B. Category 2 wetlands. Wetlands which meet any of the following
criteria, and which are not category 1 wetlands:
1. Wetlands greater than one (1) acre in size.
2. Wetlands equal to or less than one (1) acre in size and having
three (3) or more wetland classes.
3. Wetlands equal to or less than one (1) acre, but greater than 1000
sq. ft.,that have a forested wetland class.
4. Wetlands that contain the documented presence of heron
rookeries or raptor nesting sites.
C. Category 3 wetlands. Wetlands which meet the following criteria, and
which are not category 1 or 2 wetlands.
1. Wetlands that are equal to or less than one (1) acre in size and
that have two (2)or fewer wetland classes.
Sec. 11.06.590. Determination of wetland boundary by delineation.
A. Delineations shall be required when a development is proposed on
property containing wetlands identified on the city of Kent wetland inventory or
Page 17 of 30
S.wM itbmoWot��ainooc;2(uncnO%Wctloa ooe�a.&�
as
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
when any other credible evidence may suggest that wetlands could be present.
Delineations !shall also be performed when the evidence suggests that buffers
from wetlands on adjacent properties may impact the proposed development.
B. The exact location of the wetland boundary shall be determined through
the performance of a field investigation applying the wetland definition of this
chapter. An;applicant may request the department to perform the delineation,
provided the applicant pays the department for all necessary expenses
associated with performing the delineation. The department shall consult with
qualified professional scientists and technical experts or other experts as needed
to perform the delineation. Where the applicant has provided a delineation of
the wetland boundary, the department shall verify the accuracy of, and may
render adjustments to, the boundary delineation. The decision of the
department may only be appealed pursuant to procedures outlined in this
chapter.
C. The delineation shall contain the following information:
1. A written assessment and accompanying maps of wetlands and
buffers within 100-feet of the project area, including the following information
at a minimum: all known wetland inventory maps (including a copy of the city
of Kent Wetland Inventory Map); wetland delineations and required buffers;
existing wetland acreage; wetland category; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic
characteristics; soil and substrate conditions; and topographic data.
2. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands
that were degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity.
3. A habitat and native vegetation conservation strategy that
addresses melthods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions.
D. A wetland delineation which has been confirmed by the department
pursuant to SEPA review for a proposed project shall be binding upon the city
and the appliicant. If a wetland delineation report has not gone through SEPA
review as a part of the application process, and the city has approved a wetland
Page 18 of 30
S:�pcfmiVpianhczc4dcmrn 2M2CAO�W&Imd Option 4A.,
87
Draft wetland buffer regulations
. Option 4
delineation report for another purpose, the wetland delineation report shall be
valid for a period of two (2)years from the date of the approved report.
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. Increased buffer widths.
1. The director may require increased buffer widths on a case-by-
case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect species listed by the
federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, sensitive or
documented priority species or habitats. Such increased buffers shall be based
on recommendations by a qualified professional biologist, and if applicable,
best management practices for protection of the species adopted by an agency
with jurisdiction.
2. Applicants for development permits may volunteer to provide
increased buffers pursuant to the following procedures:
a, if an applicant provides a buffer which is permanently
protected pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and is at
least 25 feet wider than the buffers required pursuant to KCC
11.06.600(A), the applicant may apply for a ten (10) percent
increase in the number of residential units permitted per acre
Page 19 of 30
s_r. b�,o�oeoemmea�oorenowm.aOpti—n.m
88
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
pursuant to the requirements of KCC 15.08.400. Planned Unit
Development.
b. If an applicant provides a buffer which is permanently
protected pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and is at
least 50 feet wider than the buffers required pursuant to KCC
11.06.600(A), the applicant may apply for a twenty (20) percent
increase in the number of residential units permitted per acre
pursuant to the requirements of KCC 15.08.400, Planned Unit
Development.
C. Buffer civeraging.
1. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed where the applicant
demonstrates;the following:
a. The ecological functions and values of the buffer after
averaging is equivalent to or greater than the functions and values before
averaging as .determined by a qualified consultant and as approved by the city.
Property functioning buffers shall not be reduced through buffer averaging
except in exceptional circumstances, such as a need to gain access to property or
other similar circumstances, to be approved by the director.
' b. Averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functions
and values.
c. The total area contained within the wetland buffer after
averaging shall be no less than the total area contained within the standard
buffer prior to averaging.
d. At no point shall the buffer width be reduced by more than
fifty(50)pertent of the standard buffer or be less than twenty-five (25) feet.
e. The additional buffer shall be contiguous with the standard
buffer and lo0ted in a manner to provide buffer functions to the wetland.
f. If the buffers are degraded pursuant to KCC 11.06.227,
they shall be restored pursuant to an approved restoration/enhancement plan.
Page 20 of 30
S:Vumiit'planVamc4id®mend%2(KI2�AO\Wetiand Oft-.4 aoc
89
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
g. If restoration or enhancement of the buffer is required in
order to establish a suitable growth of native plants, maintenance and
monitoring of the buffer for a period of at least three years shall be provided
pursuant to an approved monitoring plan as required by KCC 11.06.570.
D. Buffer restoration required. If the buffers, including both standard buffers
and buffers which are averaged, are degraded, they shall be restored during
development pursuant to an approved restoration plan. If the plan includes
establishing a suitable growth of native plants, maintenance and monitoring of
the buffer for a period of at least three years shall be provided pursuant to an
approved monitoring plan as required by KCC 11.06.570. Where it can be
demonstrated that there will be no impacts from the proposed development to
the wetland or wetland buffer, the director shall have the authority to waive or
modify this requirement.
E. Required report for buffer averaging and/or reduction. A request to buffer
average pursuant to KCC 11.06.600(C) shall be supported by a buffer
enhancement/restoration 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
functions; and address the applicable criteria listed in this section. A buffer
restoration and/or enhancement plan shall also provide the following: (a) a map
locating the specific area of restoration and/or 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.
F Buffer condition. Except as otherwise allowed by this section, wetland
buffers shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbance
has occurred during construction, re-vegetation with native vegetation shall be
required pursuant to an approved restoration/enhancement plan consistent with
this code.
Page 21 of 30
SiVm itblanlmnecodeame 2M2CAO%Weiland Gr000 4doe
i
90
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
G. Buffer;utilization for landscape requirements. Enhanced wetland buffers
may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements in Ch. 15.07 KCC where all of
the following;criteria are satisfied:
1. The buffer, as enhanced by applicant, will provide equivalent or
greater protection of wetland functions.
2. The enhanced buffer will meet the landscaping requirements as
outlined in Ch. 15.07 KCC. The proposed landscape vegetation satisfies
wetland buff$r vegetation requirements.
3. The enhanced buffer is of the full landscape width required by Ch.
15.07 KCC.
H. 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 or private 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. Where feasible, 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 and except
as appropriate to provide outlook points or similar locations for educational,
scientific and other purposes which will not adversely affect the overall
functions and values of the wetland.
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.
Page 22 of 30
s:done,pian��wcoeGm�lMro AO�Wmlma Ojfim a.doa
91
Draft wetland buffer regulations
• Option 4
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. Unless otherwise approved by the director,
these shall be located as close to the outer perimeter of the buffer as allowed
by proper design and function of the discharge system. To the extent that
construction of such outlets impacts vegetation in the buffer, restoration of the
vegetation shall be required.
9. On-going maintenance activities by the city of Kent vegetation
management division of public works and parks department shall be 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.
I. Building setback lines. A minimum building setback line of fifteen (15)
feet shall be required from the edge of a wetland buffer provided the director
may reduce the building setback limit by up to 5 feet if construction, operation,
and maintenance of the building do not and will not create a risk of negative
impacts on the adjacent buffer area. Alterations of the building setback lines
shall not be permitted to create additional lots for subdivisions. Approval of
alterations of the BSBL shall be provided in writing by the director, or his/her
designee, and may require mitigation such as buffer enhancement.
Sec. 11.06.610. Avoiding wetland impacts. Regulated activities shall
not be authorized in Category 1 wetlands except where it can be demonstrated
that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary as described below, or that all
reasonable economic uses are denied.
Page 23 of 30
S:Wmit\ylanvonec de tmnd¢ins,cao�wen.ad geicm aaoc
92
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
A. Where water-dependent activities are proposed, unavoidable and
necessary impacts may be permitted where no reasonable alternatives exist
which would not involve wetland impacts; or which would not have less of an
adverse impact on a wetland; and that would not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences.
B. Where non-water-dependent activities are proposed, the applicant must
demonstrate that:
1. The basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished
using an alternative site in the general region that is available to the applicant.
2. ! A reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the
project as proposed; and all alternative designs of the project as proposed that
would avoid, or result in less adverse impacts on a wetland or its buffer will not
accomplish the basic purpose of the project.
3. In cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the
project as proposed due to constraints such as zoning, deficiencies of
infrastructure; or parcel size, the applicant has made reasonable attempt to
remove or acoommodate such constraints.
C. Filling of a hydrologically isolated emergent Class 3 wetland less than
5,000 square feet in size shall be permitted, provided a replacement wetland
area is created pursuant to KCC 11.06.660(D)(2)(a). For the purposes of this
section, a hydrologically isolated wetland shall be determined by the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
See. 111.06.620. Limits of impacts to wetlands.
A. For Wetlands where buffers are not connected to riparian corridors,
(Category 3 iwetlands, and Category 2 wetlands which are not Category 3
wetlands only because they exceed one (1) acre in size) the following applies:
regulated activities which result in the filling of no more than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet of a wetland may be permitted if mitigation is provided
consistent with the standards.
Page 24 of 30
S 4cnnit\pLnbnnund®inend�2(q2',CAO\Wedend 01ion 4.&c
93
Draft wetland buffer regulations
• Option 4
B. In computing the total allowable wetland fill area under this subsection,
the director shall include any areas that have been filled since January 1, 1991.
For example, if five thousand (5,000) square feet of a wetland were filled in
February, 1991, future applicants would only be allowed a maximum of five
thousand (5,000) additional square feet under this subsection. Any proposed fill
over ten thousand (10,000) square feet must demonstrate unavoidable and
necessary impacts.
Sec. 11.06.630. Fencing and signage. All development and
subdivisions to which this chapter applies shall construct a wildlife passable
fence along the entire buffer edge, unless otherwise approved by the director.
Wetland Sensitive Area Signs must also be attached to the fence or located just
inside the wildlife passable fence attached to a 4 x 4 cedar post (or other non-
pressure treated materials approved by the city). Signs must be located at a rate
of one sign per residential lot and one sign per 100 feet for all public rights of
way, trails, parking areas, playgrounds and all other uses located adjacent to
wetlands and associated buffers.
See. 11.06.640. Sensitive area tracts/easements.
A. Condition of approval. As a condition of approval pursuant to this
chapter, the director shall require creation of a separate sensitive area tract
containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer. Sensitive
area tracts\easements are separate tracts containing wetlands and wetland
buffers with perpetual deed restrictions requiring that the tract remain
undeveloped. Sensitive area tracts are an integral part of the lot in which they
are created, are not intended for sale, lease or transfer, and may be included in
the area of the parent lot for purposes of subdivision method and minimum lot
size.
B. Protection of sensitive area tracts. The director shall require that a
sensitive area be protected by one (1) of the following methods:
Page 25 of30
s:�enniiei,nvone�ccm<nd�2M2%cnawea.m Opfm 4,o
94
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
1. The applicant shall dedicate to the city or other public or
nonprofit entity specified by the director, an easement or tract for the protection
of native vegetation within a wetland and/or its buffer; or
2. The applicant shall record against the property, a permanent and
irrevocable deed restriction on all lots containing a sensitive area tract or tracts
created as a gondition of approval. Such deed restriction(s) shall be approved
by the director and the city attorney and prohibit in perpetuity the development,
alteration, or disturbance of vegetation within the sensitive area tract except for
purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has
received prior written approval from the city and any other agency with
jurisdiction over such activity.
Sec. 11.06.650. Notice on title. The owner of any property with field
verified presence of wetlands or wetland buffers for which a permit application
is submitted ;shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice of the
existence of Such wetland or wetland buffer against the property with the King
County Recoider's Office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the
city attorney for compliance with this provision. The titleholder will have the
right to challenge this notice and to have it released if the wetland designation
no longer applies, however the applicant shall be responsible for completing a
wetland delineation report which will be subject to approval by the director.
Any unapproved alterations of a wetland will result in a code violation and will
be enforced to the fullest extent of Kent City Code.
Sec. 11.06.660. Compensating for wetland impacts.
A. Condition of approval. As a condition of any approval allowing
alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action, the
director shah require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or
enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts
resulting from the applicant's or violator's actions. The applicant shall develop
a plan thatt provides for construction, maintenance and monitoring of
Page 26 of 30
C"i.4.,�
95
Draft wetland buffer regulations
. Option 4
replacement wetlands and/or buffers and, as appropriate, land acquisition that
re-create as nearly as practicable or improves the original wetlands in terms of
acreage, function, geographic location and setting.
B. Goal. The overall goal of any compensatory mitigation project shall be
no net loss of overall wetland acreage or function and to replace any wetland
area lost, with wetland(s) and buffers of equivalent functions and values.
Compensation shall be completed prior to wetland destruction, where
practicable. Compensatory mitigation programs shall incorporate the standards
and requirements contained in sections 11.06.550 and 11.06.560, above.
C. Restoration and creation of wetlands and wetland buffers. Any person
who alters wetlands shall restore or create wetlands of equivalent functions and
values to those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. Any created
or restored wetlands shall be protected by the provisions of this chapter.
D. Acreage replacement and enhancement ratio. Wetland alterations shall
be replaced or enhanced using the formulas below, however the director may
choose to double mitigation ratios in instances where wetlands are filled or
impacted as a result of code violations. The first number specifies the acreage
of wetlands requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of
wetlands altered. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from
illegal alterations.
1. Compensation for alteration of Category 1 wetlands shall be
accomplished as follows:
a. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of six(6) to one(1);
b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1)
and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of ten (10)to one(1); or
c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and
enhancement of existing wetlands within the range of the ratios set out in
subsections (a) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one (1) to one (1) creation
ratio is met (for example, creation of new wetlands at a one and one-half(1.5)
to one (1) ratio along with enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of five
(5)to one (1) may be acceptable).
Page 27 of 30
S bamit\planv nccMmlwnd\POOP\G\O\WellaM Optm 4,o
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
2. Compensation for alteration of Category 2 wetlands shall be
accomplished as follows:
a. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of three (3) to one (1);
b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1)
and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of four (4) to one (1); or
c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and
enhancement) of existing wetlands within the range of ratios set out in
subsections (a) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one (1) to one (1) creation
ratio is met.
3. Compensation for alteration of Category 3 wetlands shall be
accomplished as follows:
a. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one and one-half
(1.5) to one (1);
b. By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1)
and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of one (1) to one (1); or
c. By a combination of creation of new wetlands and
enhancements of existing wetlands within the range of ratios set out in
subsections (a) and (b) above, so long as a minimum one (1) to one (1) creation
ratio is met.
E. Decreased replacement ratio. The director may decrease the required
replacement ratio where the applicant provides the mitigation prior to altering
the wetland, and a minimum acreage replacement ratio of one (1) to one (1) is
provided. InI such a case, the mitigation must be in place, monitored for three
(3) growing seasons and be deemed a success prior to allowing any alterations.
F. Wetland/Habitat Bank. Mitigation may be allowed within a
Wetland/Habitat Mitigation Bank located within the City of Kent once a bank is
formed. Proposed developments must continue to demonstrate avoidance,
minimization; and mitigation prior to being allowed to mitigate using a wetland
bank site. AG review of the feasibility of on -site mitigation will be required to
be prior to allowing mitigation credits from a mitigation bank.
Page 28 of 30
S NemdOpl nu onew anwndl(OlVCAOAWedeM OF/ion 4.d
97
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
is
G. Wetland type. In -kind compensation shall be provided except that, out -
of -kind compensation may be accepted where:
1. The wetland system to be replaced is already significantly
degraded and out -of -kind -replacement will result in a wetland with greater
functional value.
2. Technical problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in
watershed hydrology make implementation of in -kind compensation
impracticable.
3. Out -of -kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals
(e.g., replacement of historically diminished wetland types).
H. Location. On -site compensation shall be provided except where the
applicant can demonstrate that:
1. The hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those
who benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially
damaged by the onsite loss.
• On -site compensation is not feasible due to problems with hydrology,
soils, or other factors.
2. Compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impacts
•
from surrounding land uses.
3. Existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration
are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values.
4. Adopted goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or
other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of
compensatory measures at another site.
I Off -site compensation. Off -site compensation shall occur within the
same drainage basin as the wetland loss occurred, unless the applicant can
demonstrate extraordinary hardship.
J. Off -site compensation site selection. In selecting compensation sites for
creation or enhancement, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of
preference:
SU,di 4AJ
Page 29 of 30
Draft wetland buffer regulations
Option 4
1. z Upland sites which were formerly wetlands and/or significantly
degraded wetlands. Such wetlands are typically small; have only one (1)
wetland class; and have one (1) dominant plant species or a predominance of
exotic species.
2. Idle upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative
cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds, or emergent
vegetation.
3. Other disturbed upland.
K. Timing. Where feasible, compensatory projects shall be completed prior
to activities tihat will disturb wetlands, or immediately after activities that will
temporarily disturb wetlands, or prior to use or occupancy of the activity or
development 'which was conditioned upon such compensation. Construction of
compensation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and
flora.
L. Completion of mitigation construction. On completion of construction,
any approved mitigation project must be signed off by the applicant's qualified
consultant and approved by the department. A signed letter from the consultant
will indicate that the construction has been completed as approved, and
approval of the installed mitigation plan will begin the monitoring period if
appropriate.
Sec. 11.06.670 Non -regulatory protections of Critical Areas
The City shall produce by December 31, 2005, a work plan for the development,
funding and implementation of a Non -Regulatory Critical Areas Program for the
City of Kent to acquire and preserve significant critical areas within the City.
Section 11.06.227. Degraded wetland buffer.
Degraded wetland buffer means a buffer area which cannot adequately protect its
adiacent wetland due to one or more of the following existing conditions: 1) lack of
vegetative cover or essence of bare soils (resulting from disturbance, fill, debris, or
trash); 2) significant cover (over fifty percent) in non-native vegetative; 3) significant
cover (over fifty Dercent) in invasive species or noxious weeds: or 4) presence of existine
non-conformin N�or improvements.
S:'p.itlplavZONECODEEWetlands —D. t 2-20-05(km)
Page 30 of 30
S bemiromavonec amnd\20C2.CAO\Wetland oaron 4. k
4*1
C�
E
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CC:
RE:
March 14, 2005
Kim Marousek, Sr. Planner, City of Kent
ErwiroYN7 enra L So4Xo"
Teresa Vanderburg, Director of Natural Sciences
Lizzie Zemke, Senior Scientist
Departures from the Best Available Science, Wetland Regulations Option 3
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 purpose of this memorandum is to describe
departures from the "best available science" and outline the risks to the functions and values of wetlands
resulting from the proposed Wetland Regulations, Option 3. Members of the City of Kent Wetlands
Focus Group developed Option 3 during several meetings occurring in February and March of 2005.
Adolfson participated as an observer in this group. Although the members of the group did not reach
consensus, a new set of wetland regulations (Option 3) was developed by the group. This new set of
regulations relies upon the wetland buffer widths in the existing critical areas ordinance.
Should the City Council choose to adopt Option 3, 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.
Adolfson has reviewed the code language in Option 3 and have determined that the following measures
may be considered departures from the "best available science" or departures from Ecology
recommendations. In our professional opinion based upon our review of the scientific record, three areas
are considered such departures: 1) the wetland rating system, 2) wetland buffer widths, and 3) wetland
buffer averaging criteria.
Wetlands Rating System
The City of Kent currently utilizes a three -tiered wetland rating system to rank or rate its wetlands from
higher to lower importance. Adolfson initiated the scientific review of the City's wetland regulations as
required under GMA in 2002. Adolfson provided our review of the "best available science" for the City
of Kent based upon scientific references available in 2002 and 2003 and the State of Washington
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) Critical Areas Assistance
Handbook (2003). The Example Ordinance provided in the Handbook recommends use of the state
wetland rating system published by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 1993.
However, Ecology was not recommending use of this older state rating system since the Department was
in the process of developing a new four -tiered rating system. Because the new Ecology rating system was
not available yet, and in order to meet the GMA deadline of December 1, 2004, the City chose to move
ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107
Tel 206 789 9658 www.adolfson.com Fax 206 789 9684
100
City of Kent Memorandum
March 14, 2005
Page 2
forward with revisions to its existing three -tiered wetland rating system. This system has worked well for
the City for many years to rank wetlands according to high, moderate and low function and value.
In addition to the requirement for use of "best available science" the WAC requires certain types of
protection for wetlands as critical areas. WAC 365-190-080 (1)(a) requires that a wetland rating system
be developed by local jurisdictions to rank wetlands according to their relative function, value and
uniqueness. As per this section of the WAC, the local jurisdiction should consider the following:
1) Washington State four -tier wetland rating system:
2) Wetland functions and values;
3) Degree of sensitivity !to disturbance;
4) Rarity; and
5) Ability to compensate for destruction or degradation.
The City of Kent elected to uSe its existing three -tiered wetland rating system in order to better rank its
wetlands. The three -tiered wetland rating system is based upon diversity of habitats, wetland size,
vegetation, and the presence or absence of heron rookeries. Therefore, the three -tiered system separates
wetlands according to habitat: function and value, degree of sensitivity to disturbance (e.g., presence of
heron rookeries) and ability to compensate for degradation (e.g., presence or absence of habitat diversity
and forested habitat). The three -tiered rating system also acknowledges wetland rarity, considering bogs
or fens as Category 1 wetlands.
The City's three -tiered rating: system is scientifically based, ranks wetlands from higher to lower function
and value, and therefore meets the requirements under WAC 365-190-180. Wetland size is used as a
proxy to rank the ability of thj City's wetlands to provide area -related functions such as stormwater
storage, flood storage and water quality improvement. Further, the City of Kent has developed a full
package of regulations and standards for wetlands (including a comprehensive wetlands inventory
commissioned in 2001) that *orks interactively with the three -tiered wetland rating system.
In August 2004, Ecology revised and published final guidance on the state's new four -tiered wetland
rating system. This new rating system results in the same number of wetland categories (Category I
through IV) as the old state rating system, but uses a scientific approach based upon the hydro -
geomorphic (water and landscape elements) or HGM functions of the wetland. This new system is
considerably more complicated to apply since it seeks to evaluate multiple functions and values of
wetlands related to its positioh in the landscape. Although the guidance arrived late in the GMA update
process, Adolfson and City planning staff reviewed the new Ecology wetland rating system.
Adolfson staff met on site with Mr. Richard Robohm and Mr. Erik Stockdale of Ecology on March 8,
2005 to compare the new Ecology wetland rating system relative to wetlands rated by the City of Kent
system Together, we rated two wetlands using both the City system and the state rating system. One
small (0.25 acre) wetland rated a Category 3 by the City's system was also a Category III using the state
rating system. A second, larger (approximately 3 acre) wetland rated a Category 2 by the City system
was rated a Category III wetland using the state rating system. Later, Mr. Robohm and Mr. Stockdale
looked at two additional wetlands in the City - one wetland along Soosette Creek was rated a Category 1/
Category I and second wetland was rated a City Category 3 and a Category IV by the state rating system.
In summary, it is my professional opinion that wetlands rated in the City using the City's three -tiered
rating system would be considered equivalent to or higher in importance relative to the state rating
system.
101
City of Kent Memorandum
March 14, 2005
Page 3
Adolfson recognizes that the new state rating system is more comprehensive in its evaluation of wetland
functions using the HGM methods. However, Adolfson and City staff recommended, due to the higher
level of complexity in the rating form and increased opportunity for subjectivity between evaluators using
the form, to continue use of the City's three -tiered system. While it is acknowledged that the new 2004
Ecology wetland rating system may be appropriate for ranking wetlands at a state or county level where
there is a wide diversity of wetland types, urbanizing areas similar to Kent find that a more simplistic
system [Hakes better practical and scientific sense given the lesser diversity of wetland types. An
assessment of wetland functions is still required in the wetland regulations as part of any proposed impact
and mitigation plan.
Adolfson and City staff believe that wetland functions and values will be protected, as mandated under
the GMA, with the City rating system. The non -scientific information used to support this decision is
outlined above, and includes City staffs need for an easily and consistently applied rating system that
minimizes staff and developer misinterpretation. Adolfson and staff do not identify any potential risks to
the functions and values of wetlands by using the revised three -tiered rating system for wetlands.
Wetland Buffer Widths
In order to determine the appropriate range of buffer widths for wetlands in the City of Kent, we have
relied upon the greater 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., August 2003). That analysis was then reviewed in light of the local conditions that exist in Kent. In
urban areas, the scientific literature recognizes a general range of appropriate wetland buffers from 50 to
300 feet, depending upon the function evaluated.
Adolfson recommended that 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 or protection of wetland wildlife habitat (Desbonnet et al., 1994). Ecology's publication
Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness (pub. #92-010) concludes that buffers less than 50 feet in width
are generally ineffective for protection of most wetland functions (Castelle et al., 1992).
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.
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.
Option 3 provides wetland buffer widths between 100 and 25 feet, on Category I through 3 wetlands,
respectively. These buffers are at the lowest end of the range in the scientific literature and are
considered a departure from Ecology recommendations and a departure from some of the best available
science in the record. This is especially true for wildlife habitat functions provided by Category 1 and 2
wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are at the highest level of risk, since these wetlands are afforded a 50-foot
buffer while still providing greater than average wetland wildlife habitat functions.
0
102
City of Kent Memorandum
March 14, 2005
Page 4
Wetland Buffer Atleraging
Option 3 provides for wetland buffer averaging on Category I and 2 wetlands, but not on Category 3
wetlands. The proposed code! in Option 3 allows for a reduction in any given place of no more than 50
percent of the standard buffer, so long as the overall buffer area is not reduced. Given the small width of
the standard buffers provided) in Option 3 relative to the scientific information in the record described
above, Adolfson believes that this provision in the code will be considered a departure from best available
science or Ecology recommeipdations.
Risks to Wetland Resources from Existing Buffers
In the existing City of Kent wetland regulations and in Option 3, 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, Adolfsonland 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 medium to 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 buffer widths. The
potential risks include:
• Degradation of habitat for wetland -related wildlife species and birds (including amphibians),
especially in Category 1 and 2 wetlands;
• Degradation of ripari4n wetlands that protect salmonids and their habitat;
• Continued water quality degradation in wetlands due to increased inputs of fine sediments from
urban development; i
• 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.
Additional Wetland Protection Measures
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. The use of these "additional measures" to limit risks to
wetlands could include citywide actions 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 thresholds for when stormwater management is required on sites that contain
wetlands;
• Maintenance of the building setback area in grass or lawn to provide biofrltration outside of the
wetland buffer in new developments;
• 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;
103
City of Kent Memorandum
March 14, 2005
Page 5
• 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
Development and implementation of a citywide wildlife habitat protection plan, as proposed by Ecology,
would integrate some of the above listed protection measures and serve to offset impacts to habitat losses,
which may occur as a result of Option 3.
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.
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.
34unu,pinn meadunmR, AOIdep , WIM 3 Mr 13 2M d
0
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Zuha Hassan, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advei tisim_
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been 1'or more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on Thursday, 3/10/05
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $114.00 at the rate of N/A per inch for the first publication and N/A per
inch for each subsequent insertion.
r
Zuha Hassan \`��� P M EA
Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal O :' Ts'ron a+;
:SLibSCI' ed d sworn to me this IOo' day of March, 2005. PcNOT AR V "
�� = cn'• PUg�\�' :'tip
Tom A. Meagher %�9j�.M4v 2;?S\���`;
Notary Public For the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, ibr 1{tYihP VAAv
Ad Number: 858507 P.O. Number:.///llllllllll\�\
Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge.
9 0
CITY OF KENT
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Planning and Economic
Development Committee will hold a
Public Hearing at 4:00 p.m. on
Monday, March 21, 2005 in Council
Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220
4th Avenue South, Kent.
Agenda item(s) are:
1. Approval of Minutes of February
28, 2005 P&EDC meeting.
2. Public Hearing - Proposed
Critical Areas Ordinance (#ZCA-
2002-4). Testimony and
comments will be limited to
proposed changes to the wetland
regulations as well as an option
to modify KCC 15.08.400,
Planned Unit Development
(PUD). This option would allow
PUD's on properties zoned
Single Family Residential that
are less than 5 acres in size if
increased wetland buffers are
voluntarily provided. KCC
15.08.400 would further be
modified to allow certain density
bonus incentives when wetland
buffers are voluntarily increased.
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. The City of Kent's Website can
be accessed at
http://Y;ww.ei.kent.wa.us/CityCouncil/
Committees/planning.asp.
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.
Published in the King County Journal
March 10, 2005. #858507
E
u
E
Critical Areas Ordinance
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Public Hearing, March 21, 2005
Scope of Public Hearing — proposed wetland
regulations
wetland focus group:
*Held five meetings
*Agreed upon several concepts in Options 3 and 4
-Could not agree to buffer size
Four Options are presented to the P&EDC
•
Option 1
Previously identified as Staff's Recommendation
Wetland Category
Buffer requirements
1
125 — feet
2
75 — feet
3
50 —feet
-Represents use of BAS
-Balancing process
-Allows buffer reductions for degraded wetlands with
enhancement
�J
1
•
Option 2
Represents retention of Kent's existing wetland
regulations
Wetland Category
Buffer requirements
1
100 — feet
2
50 — feet
3
25 —feet
from BAS for some wetland functions
0
Options 3 and 4
Non -consensus options from wetland focus group process
Wetland Category
I Option 3 buffers
Option 4 buffers
1
100 — feet
125 — feet
2
50 — feet
75 — feet
3
25 — feet
50 — feet
-Option 3 BAS departure Option 4 within BAS Range
• Incentives for larger buffers (proposed PUD Code amendment)
-Compensation (Mitigation) Ratios
-Fill and replacement of some small, isolated Category 3 wetlands
-Buffer restoration of degraded buffers with development
-Wildlife Habitat Protection and Restoration Plan
0
2
•
Proposed PUD Amendment
Incentive to voluntarily provide increased wetland buffers
If larger buffers are provided:
•No minimum acreage requirement to use the PUD
provisions
•With 25 foot larger buffer could gain 10% density bonus
•With 50 foot larger buffer could gain 20% density bonus
•Could not achieve a density bonus over 20%
Wildlife Habitat Protection
and Restoration Plan
Process:
1. Analyze "landscape" including surface water,
wetlands, and wildlife.
2. Identify and rank needs for protection/restoration.
3. Implement solutions (e.g. via stormwater
management plans, restoration, and acquisition).
4. Monitor for effectiveness.
•