HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/04/2005 KENT
WASHINGTON
CITY OF KENT
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council Planning and Economic
Development Committee will hold a Special Meeting at 4:00 p.m. on Monday,
April 4, 2005 in Council Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4"'Avenue South, Kent.
Agenda item(s) are:
1. Approval of Minutes of March 21, 2005 P&EDC meeting.
2. Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (#ZCA-2002-4). Committee will
consider four proposed options related to wetland regulations as part of a
greater Critical Areas Ordinance update. This may include changes to KCC
15.08.400, Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on this application may do so prior to
the meeting or at the meeting. Although the public is invited to attend, this is not a public
hearing. Therefore, there will be no public input at this meeting. 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://www.ci.kent.wa.us/CityCouncil/Comittees/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.
S:iPerminl`lanlPlanning Committee 0005Tublic Notices 1040405-Notice-of-Special-PEDC-Mtg.doc
i
• Planning & Economic Development
Committee Agenda
KENT Councilmembers: Ron Harmon.Bruce White.Tim Clark, Chair
WAS
SPECIAL MEETING—April 4, 2005
4:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Approval of the Minutes of 3/21/05 YES 5 min 1
2. Special Meeting: (#ZCA-2002-4) YES Kim Marousek 55 min 3
Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance
Options will be considered for proposed
changes to the wetland regulations as well
as an option to modify KCC 15.08.400,
Planned Unit Development(PUD)
•
Unless otherwise noted,the Planning and Economic Development Committee meets the 3"d Monday of each month
at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,98032-5895.
For information on the above items,the City of Kent's Website can be accessed at
http://www.ei.kent.wa.us/CityCouncil/committees/Tlanning.asp or contact Pamela Mottram or the respective project
planner in Planning Services at(253)856-5454.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at
(253)856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay
Service at 1-800-833-6388.
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
MARCH 21,2005
• COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Tim Clark, Ron Harmon, Bruce White
The special meeting was called to order by Chair Clark at 4:00 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Member White MOVED and Member Harmon SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of
February 28, 2005. Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Chair Clark adjourned the meeting for a ten minute executive session. City Attorney Tom
Brubaker explained that the purpose for holding this executive session was to discuss potential
mitigation issues that could arise from the adoption of any of the options.
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) ZCA-2002-4
Ms. Marousek described four options under consideration for the CAO which includes a
proposed PUD Modifications Incentive Program as well as a Habitat Protection and Restoration
Plan. She explained that a CAO Focus Group was established and held a series of meetings. She
stated that their recommendations are embodied in Options 3 and 4. Kim Marousek responded to
concerns raised by the Committee with regard to compensation issues and mitigation
requirements.
Member White MOVED and Member Harmon SECONDED a motion to open the Public
Hearing. Motion CARRIED.
The following people spoke in support of Option 3:
Bob Johns, Master Builders Association, 1500 114" SE#102, Bellevue, WA;
Gary Young, 11624 SE 51", #200, Bellevue, WA stated that he would like to see the city revisit
Option 3 in two years.
Garrett Huffman, Master Builders Association, 1500 114`" SE #102, Bellevue, WA submitted a
letter for the record established as Exhibit 937.
Paul Morford, Post Office Box 6345, Kent, WA 98064 spoke to balancing housing costs with
landowner rights.
Randy Reber, 28519 136`h Ave. SE, Kent, WA
Robert O'Brien, 1131 Seattle St., Kent, WA
Sam Pace, Housing Specialist, Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 29839 154`" Ave
SE, Kent, WA submitted a "Draft of Recommended Actions" for the record established as
Exhibit 938.
Gary Volchok, 16400 South Center Pkwy, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA
John Mauro, Liveable Communities Coalition, 1617 Boylston Ave, Suite 201, Seattle, WA
stated that as the only community advocate in the focus group, he believes the city's
recommendations are unbalanced and that he sees problems with inconsistencies in Kent's code.
Mr. Mauro stated that it seems the city is trading a regulatory approach for a non-regulatory
approach. Mr. Mauro submitted a letter for the record established as Exhibit#39
Ron Novak, 29226 1181" Ave. SE, Auburn, WA 98092 explained why he supports increasing
buffer distances.
Richard Robohm, Wetland Specialist, DOE, 3190 1601" Ave. SE, Bellevue,WA stated that he
endorses Option 4 if coupled with a comprehensive landscape-based approach with the City's
full involvement to balance the risk of narrower buffers. He stated that he supports a non-
regulatory approach. Mr. Robohm submitted a letter for the record established as Exhibit 940
Ray Moyer, 22845 1351h Ave. SE, Kent, WA stated that he represents a property owner with
2.5 acres located at 22201 68`" Ave. S. He stated that he believes the City's present wetland
system works and that a more restrictive ordinance would not be in the best interest of property
owners. He stated that it is possible to enhance current wetlands without increasing wetland
widths. He spoke about economic feasibility issues.
Becky Stanley, Conservation Chair for Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, 4108 481h S.,
Seattle, WA 98118 stated that there are over 37,000 members in Washington State with a large •
active group in Kent. She voiced concern that only one conservation group was invited to this
process, the Liveable Communities Coalition. Ms. Stanley stated that the five to one business
ratio representation has resulted in a poor CAO proposal. She stated that the Department of Fish
and Wildlife was not represented at the table resulting in a host of problems that need to be
addressed; most alarmingly being that streams were not part of the focus group's discussion.
Ms. Stanley stated that Kent has Soos Creek and the Soos Creek drainage basin, an important
creek for salmon habitat in the Green River Water Shed.
Ms. Stanley voiced her concern that Kent is trading a regulatory approach for a non-regulatory
approach with no evidence that this will work. She stated that Kent needs to implement both
regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to protect water quality.
John Welch, 11405 SE 196th, Kent, WA submitted a Summary of Significant Comments for the
record established as Exhibit 441. He questioned if adequate studies have been undertaken to
determine if wetlands were being degraded and challenged the city to consider the cost to benefit
ratio for the landowner.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a MOTION to close the public
hearing. Motion CARRIED. Chair Clark declared the Public Hearing Closed.
Chair Clark announced that the Committee would hold a special meeting on Monday, April 4, at
4:00 p.m. to vote on a recommendation at that time. He stated that this would not be a public
hearing and therefore there will be no public input.
Member Harmon MOVED and Member White SECONDED a MOTION to accept the material
submitted for the record; citing letters submitted by; Mr. Huffman concerning housing targets,
from Mr. Pace, from Liveable Communities dated 3/21/05, from the Department of Ecology
dated 3/21/05. . Motion CARRIED 3-0.
Adjournment
Chair Clark adjourned the meeting at 5:36 p.m.
Pamela Mottram,
Admin Secretary, Planning Services
S.'PermitTlanlPlanning Committee.2005'Minutes'032I05min.doe
•
Planning&Economic Development Committee Meeting
03/21/05
Page 2 of 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
• Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KE N T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
March 30, 2005
TO: CHAIR TIM CLARK AND PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT #ZCA-2002-4
PROPOSED CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
MOTION: I move to approve/deny/modify the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance
ZCA-2002-4) as recommended by the Land Use & Planning Board and as further amended by
[Option 1/Option 2/Option 3/Option 4] related to wetland regulations, and forward the
ordinance to the City Council for adoption.
Attached is a copy of the staff memorandum provided for the March 21, 2005 Planning and
• Economic Development Committee which outlines the proposed options related to wetland
buffer regulations.
Staff and the City's wetland consultant will be available at the April 4, 2005 P&ED Committee
meeting to answer any questions.
KM/pm S:IPermitlPlanIZONECODEAMENDI20021CAO12023123-CAOmemoPC4-5-05.do
Enc: March 21,2005 P&EDC Memo
Cc: City Council Members
Fred Satterstrom, AICP,CD Director
Tom Brubaker,City Attorney
Lary Blanchard,PW Director
Gary Gill,City Engineer
Charlene Anderson,AICP,PS Manager
Bill Wolinski,Environmental Engineering Manager
Kelly Peterson,Environmental Engineering
Project File
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
. Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP,Director
PLANNING SERVICES
KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager
WASHINGTON
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 staff's 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
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 alternative 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 alternative 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 category 3 wetlands when replaced; required restoration of degraded
buffers in conjunction with 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
I �
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 Categoty 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-Regulatory 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
� 1
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 MW
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 degraded 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, (6ption2 or Option 3), would represent a departure from Best Available Science (BAS).
WAC 365-195-915 defines a process should a jurisdiction opt to depart from BAS when
adopting regulations for the protection of critical areas. This section states,
A county or 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 Policy 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 goals.
Potential Risks to Resources
The city's consultant evaluated 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.
Planning&Economic Dev.Committee Meeting
3/21/05
Page 4 of 5
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.TermitlPlanIZONECODEAMEND120021CA012023123-CAOmemoPC3-21-05.doc
Eric: 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
Weiland 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