HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 03/28/2011
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA
98032-5895
AGENDA
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
HEARING
MARCH 28, 2011
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: Dana Ralph, Chair; Jack Ottini, Vice Chair; Steve Dowell,
Navdeep Gill, Barbara Phillips and Jim Sturgul
CITY STAFF: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director; Charlene Anderson, AICP,
Planning Manager; William D. Osborne, AICP, Long-Range Planner; City Attorney
Tom Brubaker
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public
Hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers
East and West, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA at 7:00 P.M. The public is invited
to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak. Any person
wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed amendment may do so
prior to or at the meeting.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1 Call to order
2 Roll call
3 Approval of the December 6, 2010 Minutes
4 Added Items to Agenda
5 Communications
6 Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7 PUBLIC HEARING:
1. CPA-2010-3/CPZ-2010-1 KENTARA SHORT PLAT LOT 21
Consideration of options for changing the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map designations for Parcel Numbers 3831250210 and
3831250420. Parcel Number 3831250210 (10329 SE 273rd Place) is
split designated SF-6 (Single-Family 6 units/acre) and US (Urban
Separator).
For further information or to obtain copies of the staff report or Agenda for the proposed
amendment contact the Planning Division office at (253) 856-5454 or Email Pam Mottram at
pmottram@ci.kent.wa.us or William D Osborne at wosborne@ci.kent.wa.us. You may access the
City’s website for documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board at:
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 253-856-5725 in
advance. For TDD relay service call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at
(253) 856-5499 (TDD).
This page intentionally left blank.
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
December 6, 2010 Minutes
Page 1 of 5
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 6, 2010
1. Call to Order Chair Ralph Called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Board Members Present/Absent: Chair Dana Ralph, Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell,
Navdeep Gill and Barbara Phillips
Staff Members Present: Charlene Anderson, Gloria Gould-Wessen, Tom Brubaker and
Pamela Mottram
3. Approval of Minutes
Dowell MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to approve the September 27, 2010 Minutes.
Motion PASSED 5-0.
4. Added Items None
5. Communications None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings Planning Manager Charlene Anderson announced that the
DCE Height Limits item will be considered at the December 13th Economic & Community Development
Committee meeting.
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7.5 Midway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) & Planned Action Ordinance (PAO)
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the DEIS evaluates environmental impacts from
alternative strategies for growth throughout the city and from Midway’s Subarea Planning and
implementation actions. The DEIS provides an environmental analysis for the Planned Action in the
Midway Subarea. Anderson stated that the Board would not take action on the PAO this evening but that
public comments on the DEIS will be accepted and will be incorporated into the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
Anderson stated that the PAO identifies the type, location, and the amount of development that the city is
planning for Midway. Anderson stated that includes over 8000 residential units, 700,000 square feet of
retail & commercial development, 1.5 million square feet of office services, government and educational
facilities, and approximately 250,000 square feet of lodging.
Anderson stated that the PAO addresses mitigation measures for the effects of that development. Once
the PAO is adopted, review of future proposals for development in that area (as long as it is consistent
with what has been adopted) will be simpler and more focused as those proposals will not be required to
undergo additional environmental review.
7.1 Midway Subarea Plan
Long-Range Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen stated that text has been added reinforcing public investment
in Sound Transit’s Light Rail extension to Highline Community College (HCC). She stated that staff has
removed many of the details from the Growth Forecast section.
Gould-Wessen stated that Chapter Three: The Vision introduces the Midway Subarea Plan Land Use
Scenario 4.0 and expands it with a pedestrian and bike path framework moving through the Kent
Highlands area. She stated that the area north of Kent Des Moines Road along 30th Avenue would be
connected to the future SR-509/I-5 freight corridor project once it is fully funded.
Gould-Wessen pointed out changes to goals and policies in Chapter Four: Framework for Midway. She
spoke about added flexibility in land uses and densities that allow market transition from auto -oriented to
a more transit-oriented community. Gould-Wessen stated that policies establishing minimum and
maximum regulations for building heights have been removed. The transportation section supports
pedestrian friendly streets and manages curb cuts for business along Pacific Highway.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Land Use Map has been placed in the Subarea Plan and incorporates the
Kent Highlands area as a transit oriented-community. This expansion acknowledges the relationship
Kent Highlands has to the pedestrian-oriented transit station area around HCC. The Midway Subarea
Plan indicates that there is no change to existing land uses outside the Midway Subarea.
7.2 Midway Design Guidelines
Gould-Wessen stated that text revisions were made for brevity and clarity with a new section added on
definitions. Sign and landscape design guidelines have been moved to the development regulations in
1
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
December 6, 2010 Minutes
Page 2 of 5
the Kent City Code (KCC). Language has been added to ensure a pedestrian friendly model for new
shopping centers. Surface parking is limited to 30 stalls for development along 30th Avenue South north
of 240th Street which would result in structured parking within the m ost intense transit-oriented
development area in Midway. To implement the Midway Subarea Plan and the Design Guidelines, the
KCC must be amended.
7.3 Midway Development Regulations
Gould-Wessen stated that Title 12 of KCC- Planning & Land Development defines the process for review
of applications in Midway and in the Midway Transit-Oriented Community (TOC). Most of the proposed
changes to the development regulations are found in Title 15- Zoning.
Gould-Wessen stated that language was added to the land use tables to reflect the electric vehicle
charging stations that have recently been adopted into KCC. The original land use map has been moved
to the Subarea Plan. The district development regulations have been simplified and the original district
overlay map is obsolete and has been removed. Gould-Wessen stated that staff is recommending Option
3 which illustrates four new zoning districts and amends Option 2.
7.4 Midway Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Designations
Gould-Wessen stated that the Midway Transit Community 1 (MTC-1) zoning district encourages
moderately dense and varied retail, of fice or residential uses in support of high capacity transit to
enhance the pedestrian-oriented character along the highway commercial corridor. The Midway Transit
Community 2 (MTC-2) zoning district provides a place and creates environmental conditions to promote
the location of dense and varied retail, of fice, residential and recreational uses in support of transit and
ensures a primarily pedestrian-oriented character. The Midway Commercial Residential (MCR) zoning
district encourages location of dense and varied uses like the first two zoning districts in support of mass
transit and enhanced pedestrian-oriented character. The Commercial Manufacturing 2 (MC-2) zoning
district expands the existing auto-oriented commercial uses to include light industrial uses.
Gould-Wessen stated that Option 3 proposes to expand the MCR zoning around the Kent Highlands area
and the rest of Military Road in an effort to add continuity to the adjoining uses; and proposes to expand
the MCR zoning district south of 240th to provide flexibility and transition from the auto-oriented retail and
light industrial uses south of 246th.
Gould-Wessen stated that a revised residential land uses table within KCC Chapter 15.04 District
Regulations clarifies that transitional housing is not allowed in transit-oriented communities. Staff has
added a “live-work” land use for the auto-oriented area south of 246th where commercial and light
industrial uses are allowed in the CM-2 area.
Gould-Wessen stated that the MCR zoning district is intended to be a transitional area where autos and
pedestrians would have equal status. Retail and nonfood drive-thru’s are allowed in the MCR zoning
district as well as along Pacific Highway South in the MTC-1 zoning district. Throughout the areas
designated as TOC, staff has limited the land uses that would typically require outdoor storage like auto
sales or lumber yards. Hotels along 30th Avenue in the MTC-2 zoning district would be conditioned to
ensure there would be commercial activities on that first floor to enliven the pedestrian landscape.
Gould-Wessen stated that the minimum and maximums for floor area ratios have been eliminated from
the Development Standards. The condition for a 2-story building height minimum has been removed and
the maximum impervious surface standard has been replaced with commercial standards for maximum
site coverage which is more appropriate for an urban form. Heights are restricted to five stories or 55 feet
along Pacific Highway for the MTC-1 zone and 16 stories or 200 feet in the transit-oriented communities
of MTC-2 and MCR zones, consistent with Des Moines proposed standards for Pacific Ridge.
Gould-Wessen stated that staff has conditioned development for heights adjacent to residential zoning
districts in the MTC-1 district along Pacific Highway. Fifteen development conditions associated with
parking configurations have been added to the Parking Standards which have also been reformatted to fit
the existing standards table. Minimum parking requirements have been reduced by half in anticipation of
an excellent transit system. Surface parking is allowed throughout the areas although within the MTC-2
zoning district located along 30th Avenue, more emphasis is placed on structured parking through the
Design Guidelines.
Gould-Wessen stated that Sign regulations were removed from Design Guidelines and placed in the
Zoning Code to ensure a more prescriptive approach in support of a pedestrian orientation along Pacific
Highway. Monument and blade signs are allowed and replaces pole signs. There is no reduction in the
number of signs allowed.
Gould-Wessen stated that Landscaping regulations were removed from the Design Guidelines and
placed in the Zoning Code. The Design Guidelines continue to shape the aesthetics of the landscapes.
2
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
December 6, 2010 Minutes
Page 3 of 5
The pedestrian environment is improved as the zoning code specifies that deeper landscapes are
required for parking that abuts right-of-ways, public parks or recreational facilities.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Design Guidelines require design review for development within the TOC
land use plan designations. Language has been added to KCC Chapter 15.09 Administration for
residential design review.
7.5 Midway Planned Action Ordinance
Charlene Anderson stated that staff is asking that action be taken on all elements of the Midway project
with the exception of the PAO.
Gould-Wessen stated that comments defined as Exhibits Nos. 1 -6 received on the Midway Subarea Plan
were previously submitted to and accepted by the Board for the record. Gould-Wessen submitted
additional comments for the record defined as Exhibits Nos. 7-12; Exhibit No. 7 from Mike McMann,
Exhibit No. 8 from Chris Picard with Washington State Department of Transportation (WDSOT), Exhibit
No. 9 from Gary Kriedt with Metro Transit, Exhibit No. 10 from Bob McOmber concerning wetlands,
Exhibit No. 11 from Melvin Roberts with Kent Bicycle Advisory Board supporting Scenario 4.0, Exhibit No.
12 from Karen Williams Suburban Outreach Director with the Housing Development Consortium
proposing four recommendations for affordable housing in Midway.
Gould-Wessen submitted comments for the record received on the Midway DEIS and PAO defined as
Exhibits Nos. 1-3; No. 1 from Patrick McGraner with the Department of Ecology (DOE) Wetlands
Specialist, No. 2 from the City of Des Moines, Planning, Building & Public Works Department that included
a series of 38 comments, No. 3 from Larry Rabel with the Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority.
Gould-Wessen submitted comments for the record received on the Development Regulations defined as
Exhibits Nos. 1-2; Exhibit No. 1 from Steve Rodrigues with Olympic Forum , and Exhibit No. 2 from Karen
Williams Suburban Outreach Director with the Housing Development Consortium.
Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to accept all the Exhibits submitted into the
record. Motion Carried 5-0.
Ralph Opened the Public Hearing.
Betty Lou Kapela, 5652-132nd Ave NE, Kent, questioned if Kent or Sound Transit had reached a decision
as to where light rail would be located. She stated that she owns 13 acres behind Lowes and that the
Plan shows that over half her property would be used for a park and watershed. Kapela voiced concern
that her land would be devalued and huge tax increases would occur if rezoning of her property happens.
Jim Seymour, 800 S 249th St. Des Moines, Kent, stated that he has worked in the Midway area for 40
years. He spoke of his concerns associated with heavy traffic volumes and safety issues along 30 th
Avenue. He stated that school buses unload along that street and there are no turnout bus lanes,
sidewalks or safety crossings marked for the children. Seymour stated that 30th Avenue serves as a
conduit for hundreds of cars traveling up 240th from the college and turning north onto 30th Avenue to
reach I-5 or the Kent Des Moines Road. Board member Ottini encouraged Seymour to contact Kent’s
Public Works Department concerning these safety issues.
Bob Loeliger, 4126 S 243rd Pl, Kent, stated that he was involved with the Envision Midway Stakeholders
Group where discussion was held on the possibility for a bridge crossing over I-5 at 240th which would
impact the previous two speakers.
Karen Williams, South King County Housing Consortium (SKCHC), 1402 3rd Avenue, #709, Seattle,
stated that her agency consists of a coalition of nonprofits, city representatives and businesses interested
in making sure there is affordable housing in South King County. Williams stated that when a City is
planning for the transformation of a community like Midway, there are economic, land use, transportation
and housing goals to consider.
Williams stated that over the last 10 years the SKCHC has seen affordable housing as a goal in
communities, but unless clear provisions are in place, affordable housing goals are not being met. She
stated that Kent is expected to attract economic development and generally improve the property value
and household income as part of their investment in the Midway area.
Williams stated that it is imperative that the underlying land use provisions and policies Kent is using to
spur development and change includes provisions to ensure affordable housing. Affordable housing
provisions are important to support HCC students, seniors on fixed incomes, families with lower incomes
supporting the service industry, and current residents.
Williams stated that Kent estimates approximately 700 residents living in the planned a rea will be
displaced because their housing will be redeveloped as part of the housing density plans. She stated that
3
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
December 6, 2010 Minutes
Page 4 of 5
a plan needs to be in place for relocating these families and to ensure that affordable residential units will
be available. Kent needs to add code language for affordable housing through the Midway Subarea’s
development standards.
Williams stated that m ost cities in King County when creating a subarea plan are including a requirement
that 10 percent of all new construction be considered affordable units. Williams stated that Kent needs to
look at housing market fits when planning targets for the Midway area. In Kent about 23% of jobs are
service jobs that pay about $35,000 annually. She stated that Kent should think about matching up
affordability with salaries paid by local employers.
Williams stated that Kent should seek support from nonprofit partners. She stated that there are plenty of
nonprofit affordable housing developers who have access to capital that isn’t out there for the market
redevelopers. These developers can serve as the catalyst to launch project redevelopment and
transformation as well as ensure affordability in the community.
Bob Kapela 5652 132nd Ave NE, Bellevue, spoke about his concerns with what he define d as unintended
consequences such as property taxes increasing as a result of rezoning. He stated that he owns property
along I-5 and Highway 99 and asked the City to consider implementing some provisions to allow property
development under current zoning during the transitioning of the Midway area to other zoning.
Robert Pond, 23116 30th Ave S, Des Moines, stated that he has invested in the Kent Des Moines area
and resides on a narrow section of property north of the Kent Des Moines Road where most of the
properties are undeveloped. Pond stated that in order to retain the property north of the Kent Des Moines
Road as a residential area that would attract condominium development, it would not be affective to link
the Kent Des Moines Road to the 509 or to allow access onto 30th Avenue from those roads. A
community needs to be for people and not become a hub for traffic or parking.
Brad Corner, 14205 SE 36th St., #100, Bellevue, stated that he is a managing general partner of the
Military Road Highway Commercial Partnership and Kent Highway Commercial Partnership who owns
approximately two contiguous parcels consisting of 5 acres of land located in the northeast quadrant of
231st and Military Road in the City of Kent.
Corner thanked the Board and staff for their dedication and for listening to the public. Corner spoke in
support of Option 3 stating that he believes it provides more flexibility and addresses what the
development community and property owners were looking for under the different options. He stated that
he concurs with the former speakers with respect to unintended consequences. Corner suggested that
staff consider a mechanism (within the Planned Action Ordinance or elsewhere) to allow for the
development of parcels of land if the opportunity were given. Corner stated that developers would not be
required to undergo an additional three year exercise for dealing with zoning, design review and other
aspects associated with development were the City to allow some leeway with regard to zoning.
Dana Kapela, 24426 Highway 99, Kent, voiced her concerns with the impacts of rezoning for property
owners and her properties including a 12 acre parcel of vacant land. She spoke about her concerns on
how the rezone regulations would guide development in this down economic climate. Kapela questioned
if there was a mechanism in place for those people who want to do something with their vacant land or
who own property that they wish to redevelop. Kapela suggested that the City provide some flexibility.
Kapela stated that she supports the talk to allow current zoning to remain while giving incentives to
developers and property owners to transition their property. Kapela questioned if incentives would allow
owners to maintain and continue their current uses, as well as allow them to develop an office building
with retail down below, residential up above, and some office in between if the opportunity came along.
She stated that she does not envision her 12 acre parcel as a water retention area for the remain der of
the Midway area. Kapela questioned if she would be required to go through a conditional use permit
process to trade out trailers from a mobile home park she owns if it is rezoned.
Seeing no further speakers, Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to close the public
hearing. Motion CARRIED 5-0. Chair Ralph declared the public hearing closed.
Gould-Wessen addressed Betty Lou Kapela’s concerns regarding the placement of the light rail station
and the proposed use for her property located south of 240th. Gould-Wessen stated that the Subarea
Plan and Scenario 4.0 is conceptual in nature with respect to the placement of the light rail station,
including overpasses, new road grids, parks, bike trails and water retention areas.
Gould-Wessen addressed Dana Kapela’s concerns regarding maintaining existing uses and allowing for
transition when an economic turnaround occurs. Gould-Wessen stated that all active mobile home parks
will not be rezoned but that the Land Use Map Designation will change to TOC to facilitate rezoning in the
4
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
December 6, 2010 Minutes
Page 5 of 5
future. She stated that the TOC designation will not alter the capability for moving trailer homes to or
from sites and mobile home parks will continue to operate as they do today.
Gould-Wessen stated that after all the rezones take place, if there is a use that is not allowed, it can still
operate under the City’s grandfathering of uses. Once that business leaves, new business would have to
conform to the new zoning regulations.
Anderson clarified that most of the mobile home parks do not conform to development standards, stating
that the City has provisions to allow mobile homes to be moved to and from the parks.
Gould-Wessen stated that the King County’s Assessor’s Office calculate taxes for residential and
commercial property on the highest and best use for that property and on sales value of similar
properties. In a stagnant economy, there would be no changes to the assessed value.
Anderson clarified that the minimum development heights requirement has been removed providing more
flexibility. Gould-Wessen described Transitional Housing as housing for the homeless, group homes for
the mentally or physically impaired, and housing for the elderly. Transitional Housing is presently allowed
in CM-2 and GC zones.
Gould-Wessen stated that MHPs are regulated under the State and that Kent has regulations associated
with closing or changing MHP zoning. She stated that the City does not fund the moving of mobile homes
but helps people find resources to relocate to a new MHP. Mobile Home Park owners are required to
give mobile home owners in their parks a one year advanced notice of park closure or rezoning.
Gould-Wessen stated that Des Moines has been involved throughout the Envision Midway process,
stating that the regulations for the MTC-1 zoning district reflect conversations with the City of Des Moines.
The zoning and regulations are close to what exists in Pacific Ridge in Des Moines. She spoke about
height regulations next to residential development.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Subarea Plan edited out specifics regarding a ffordable housing. The Plan
indicates that the City will establish a Housing Task Force next year for the whole city. At that time staff
will begin to evaluate the housing issue.
Ralph stated that the purpose of the Midway Subarea Plan is to act as a guiding vision or overview for
what the City would like to see happen for the Midway area, to have the pieces in place so that it is
desirable to developers and helps to guide Sound Transit as they move forward with a plan for a light rail
station location. She stated that tonight’s action is just a recommendation.
Anderson clarified that Kent’s regulations allow group homes and that people can reside in t ransitional
housing up to 24 months.
Phillips MOVED to recommend Approval of the Midway Subarea Plan Option 2 as presented by
staff and to forward said recommendation to the Kent City Council for adoption. Gill SECONDED
the Motion which PASSED 5-0.
Ottini MOVED to recommend Approval of the Midway Design Guidelines Option 2 as presented by
staff and to forward said recommendation to the Kent City Council for adoption. Phillips
SECONDED the Motion which PASSED 5-0.
Ottini MOVED to recommend Approval of the Kent City Code Title 15 Zoning Option #3 and within
said Title 12 Planning and Land Development, KCC Chapter 15.05 Option #2 as presented by the
staff and to forward this recommendation to the Kent City Council for adoption. Phillips
SECONDED the Motion which PASSED 5-0.
Adjournment
Chair Ralph adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
_____________________________________
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Secretary of the Board
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
March 21, 2011
TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
RE: 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments [CPA-2010-3/KIVA#2102424]
For Public Hearing of March 28, 2011
SUMMARY: On September 1, 2010, the City of Kent received a Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map amendment application, as well as a Zoning Districts Map
amendment for Lot 21 of the Kentara subdivision located at 10329 SE 273rd Place in
Kent (see Attachment A). The Economic & Community Development Committee
recommended inclusion of the proposal in the 2010-11 Economic & Community
Development Department work program. The Zoning Districts Map amendment
application may proceed if and when the City Council adopts an ordinance
approving the proposed Land Use Map amendment. The applicant also indicates a
future application for a 3-lot short plat.
BACKGROUND: Staff presented the proposed amendment at the January 10th and
March 14th workshops of the Land Use & Planning Board.
Proposal― Change in Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for
property located at 10329 SE 273rd Place (Kentara Short Plat Lot #21)
Applicant (Agent): Hans Korve, DMP, Inc.
EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map
Split SF-6 (Single-Family 6 units/acre)
and US (Urban Separator)
Entirely SF-6 (Single-
Family 6 units/acre)
Approximately 0.45 acre (55.9%) of the 0.79 acre site is currently designated as
Urban Separator (US) on the Land Use Plan Map; the other 0.34 acre portion is
designated SF-6 (see Attachment B-1). The application speculates that a total of
three dwelling units could be developed on the site, if rezoned – all on the currently
US-designated portion.
Much of the site terrain can be characterized as having steep westward,
southwestward and southward slopes (see Attachment B-3).
History: The City of Kent purchased many large parcels following the Ramstead
Annexation in the 1990s in preparation for construction of the eastern leg of the S.
272nd/277th Corridor project. Following completion of grading for the corridor,
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval/denial/modification
of the staff recommendation of Option 1, a comprehensive plan land use
map designation of SF-6 Single Family Residential for the Kentara Lot 21.
7
CPA-2010-3
Kentara S.P. Lot 21
LUPB Public Hearing
March 28, 2011
Page 2 of 5
surplus portions of the parcels above the slopes were sold to private parties. The
land area of the eastern portion of Lot 21, derived from one of these large parcels,
has always been zoned in the City at one dwelling unit per acre (SR-1). When
segregated from Parcel #3222059190 and added to Parcel #3222059022 in June
2004, the eastern portion of Lot 21 had a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designation of SF-1.
The City‟s September 2004 Urban Density Study resulted in an amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation from SF-1 to Urban Separator for
the parent parcel (PIN 3222059190) containing the land area of what would
become the eastern portion of Lot 21. Recorded real estate transactions and
project-level permits associated with the Kentara subdivision neither granted nor
implied approval for future amendment of map designations.
OPTIONS
Not all locally-designated Urban Separators are included in the map of Urban
Separators (US) in the King Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Subsequent to the
regional ratification of the CPPs related to Urban Separators, the City recognized
county-designated US lands and added locally-designated US lands, most recently
with the Panther Lake Annexation land use plan map and zoning designations.
These locally-designated US lands are available for consideration of legislative
amendments by the City. However, when considering changes to the Urban
Separator designation, the City should consider consistency with local Urban
Separators policy language found in the Kent Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment
C-1). At the project review level, all Urban Separator lands within the City are
regulated the same.
No Action – Eastern Portion of Lot 21 Remains Urban Separator
This option holds that either of the following is true:
1. Based on County and City policies, the City should neither amend Urban
Separators policies nor any mapped areas without the concurrence of King
County and ratifying jurisdictions through the process of revisiting the
Countywide Planning Policies regarding Urban Separators; or
2. Though locally-designated Urban Separators could be considered for
amendment, based on substantive contemplation of City policy, the eastern
portion of Lot 21 remains a viable part of a larger Urban Separator due to its
views of the Green River Valley, proximity to steep slopes and potential
access to publicly-owned land for recreation.
Option 1 (Schneider Application) – Lot 21 Entirely Single Family
Residential, 6 Dwelling Units per Acre (SF-6)
The applicant argues that Urban Separator lands:
1. Must contain natural (non-engineered) critical areas;
2. Must not have been cleared of vegetation and graded in the past; and
3. Must not have provision of urban services for more than one dwelling unit.
Further, the application indicates that specific to Lot 21 that:
4. “The developed portion of Lot 21 would never serve as a link between, and
for the protection of, sensitive areas, public parks, open spaces, trails or
unstable slopes…”;
8
CPA-2010-3
Kentara S.P. Lot 21
LUPB Public Hearing
March 28, 2011
Page 3 of 5
5. Earlier platting activity of Kentara already contemplated provided mitigation
(see #3 above) sufficient to address the impacts of this proposed
amendment; and
6. Property acquisition records were not incorporated into the City‟s GIS in a
timely fashion, thereby improperly leading to the inclusion of the eastern
portion of Lot 21 in the Urban Density Study (see History above).
Based on these arguments, the applicant concludes that the eastern portion of Lot
21 meets none of the Urban Separator criteria, and therefore was designated by
the City in error.
Option 2A (‘No Net Loss’ – Swap) – Urban Separator Area Switched to the
Western Portion of Lot 21
Amending locally-designated Urban Separator lands may proceed with the
understanding that these locally-designated lands(see Attachments C-2 and C-3)
are not as restricted by the Countywide Planning Policies related to Urban
Separators. However, consistency with the Urban Separator Goals and Policies of
the City of Kent is applicable.
The eastern portion of Lot 21 is assumed to have value as an Urban Separator with
views of and potential open space connections to the Green River Valley along the
north side of the S. 272nd/277th Corridor. The western portion of Lot 21, though
smaller in area and containing a sensitive area easement held by the City, also has
characteristics favoring designation as Urban Separator. Like the eastern portion of
Lot 21, this portion has potential views and open space connections to the Green
River Valley down a steep, wooded slope.
Some weight has been given to the County‟s past practice of proposing swapping
an equivalent amount of designated area for non-designated area – „no net loss.‟
Option 2A would effectively swap the designations within Lot 21 so that the 0.34
acre western portion would carry an Urban Separator designation, while the eastern
0.45 acre portion would achieve the intent of the Schneider Proposal with a
designation of SF-6. Technically, there would be a slight loss of area, but not a
complete loss as with the Schneider Proposal.
Option 2B (‘No Net Loss’ – Swap & Addition) – As with Option 2A, also
adding Tract A to the West of Lot 21
This is the same as Option 2A, with the addition of the 2.774 acre City-owned
parcel to the west (PIN 3831250420). This would ensure that existing Urban
Separators are not diminished in area or provision of functions and amenities
associated with Urban Separator character. The characteristics of this parcel are
similar to the western portion of Lot 21, suitable for Urban Separator designation,
with steep, wooded slopes leading toward the Green River Valley. A net gain of 2.67
acres of Urban Separator area would result from Option 2B.
Option 2C (‘No Net Loss’ – SF-6 and Addition) – Approve the proposal and
change Tract A to US, Urban Separator
This option is similar to the other „no net loss‟ options, but changes the .45 acres
currently designated US, Urban Separator to SF-6 and designates the publicly-
owned Tract A as US, Urban Separator. A net gain of 2.32 acres of Urban Separator
area would result from this option.
9
CPA-2010-3
Kentara S.P. Lot 21
LUPB Public Hearing
March 28, 2011
Page 4 of 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW
1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely
affect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Development resulting from any of the options would not adversely affect public
health, safety and general welfare. The development would be consistent with
the rest of the Kentara subdivision, and the sensitive areas on Kentara Lot 21
and within Tract A already are protected via an easement or Tract.
Development on the remaining portion of Lot 21 would occur in compliance with
Kent City Code. One single family dwelling unit is permitted under the existing
land use plan map and zoning designations. Additional dwelling units which may
result from changing the land use plan map designation would increase housing
opportunities in support of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies LU-9, LU-9.1,
LU-10, LU-11.2, H-5, H-5.2, H-5.3, H-7, and H-7.3.
2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not
available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that
circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that
warrant an amendment to the plan.
The City‟s Urban Density Study changed the land use plan map designation of
many properties throughout the city, including large parcels in the vicinity of
and containing the eastern portion of what would become Kentara Lot 21.
Around the same time as the Urban Density Study, the City also was finishing
the work on the 277th Corridor and selling surplus property above engineered
slopes created by that project. The timing of the two projects was such that
recorded land transactions and resulting lot line configurations from the corridor
work were not the ones used in the Urban Density Study. Thus, it is appropriate
to re-evaluate the split land use plan map designation of Kentara Lot 21 using
the standard of review for amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as
a whole and is in the best interest of the community.
As proposed by the applicant, the amendment would remove an insignificant
share (less than ½ acre) of land from the larger area of Urban Separator-
designated land from which this surplus was taken. This minor adjustment of
designation would not affect the long-term benefits or interest of the community
in Urban Separator lands. In the case of this amendment proposal, increasing
the density allowance on the developable portion of the property would be in the
best interest of the community by supporting goals and policies related to infill
housing, as noted under #1, above.
4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain
concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital
facilities elements of the plan.
Except for the publicly-owned properties to the south and southwest of the site,
which are designated Urban Separator, the properties north, east and west of
the site are part of the Kentara subdivision. These areas are designated on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Districts Map for 6 single-family
residential units per acre. By their designations as sensitive area easement and
publicly-owned tract respectively, the western portion of Lot 21 and Kentara
Tract „A‟ provide linkages to and further protection of the adjacent Urban
Separator lands, in support of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies LU-31, LU-
10
CPA-2010-3
Kentara S.P. Lot 21
LUPB Public Hearing
March 28, 2011
Page 5 of 5
31.3, LU-31.7, and P&OS-3.3. The „no net loss‟ options would support the same
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Attachment C-1 lists the Comprehensive
Plan Goals and Policies regarding Urban Separators. None of the options affect
the existing concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital
facilities elements of the plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. This option meets the standard
of review for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, is an
insignificant adjustment to the Urban Separator lands, and does not set a precedent
of using publicly-owned property to offset privately-owned property in terms of land
use plan map designations (i.e., to achieve “no net loss” of urban separator).
WO/CA/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2010\CPA-2010-3 Kentara SP Lot 21\LUPB\032811\Staff_Report_CPA-2010-3_032811.doc
Att: Att A: Kentara Short Plat Lot #21 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment Application
Att B-1: Land Use Plan Map for Kentara Lot 21
Att B-2: Topography Map
Att C-1: Urban Separator Goals and Policies of King County and Kent
Att C-2: Urban Separators Map featuring Locally-Designated Areas
Att D-1: Option 1 Map
Att D-2: Option 2a Map
Att D-3: Option 2b Map
Att D-4: Option 2c Map
Att E: SEPA Checklist, Addendum and adoption documents
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Project File CPA-2010-3
11
This page intentionally left blank.
12
13ATTACHMENT A - 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing 1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTACHMENT B-1 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing 29
This page intentionally left blank.
30
ATTACHMENT B-2 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing 31
This page intentionally left blank.
32
ATTACHMENT C-1
1
CITY OF KENT URBAN SEPARATOR GOALS & POLICIES
Goal LU-31 Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally
sensitive area, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and
geologically unstable areas such as steep slopes, to
create open space corridors that provide environmental,
visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and
between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of
unusual landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and
environmentally unique areas.
Policy LU-31.1 Establish Urban Separators as low-density areas of no
greater than one dwelling unit per acre.
Policy LU-31.2: Only allow amendments to the Urban Separator policy at
the time coinciding with King County’s twenty (20) year
review of its 1994 Policy Update of the Comprehensive
Plan or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending
danger or public safety.
Policy LU-31.3 Require subdivisions within or adjacent to Urban
Separators to provide open space linkages within or to
the Urban Separator.
Policy LU-31.4 Establish Urban Separators as links between, and for
protection of, sensitive areas, public parks, open spaces
or trails, critical aquifer recharge areas, floodplains, high
value wetlands, unstable slopes, regionally or locally
significant resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat and
other unique environmental features.
Policy LU-31.5 Coordinate with appropriate South King County agencies,
adjacent cities, and unincorporated King County to create
a regional approach to Urban Separators.
Policy LU-31.6 Link Urban Separators within the City of Kent to those of
adjacent cities and unincorporated King County.
Policy LU-31.7 Encourage well-designed land use patterns, including
clustering of housing units, transfer of development
rights, zero lot lines and other techniques to protect and
enhance urban separators.
Policy LU-31.8 Consider funding options, land trusts, purchase of
development rights, and other methods for public
acquisition of Urban Separators.
33ATTACHMENT C-1 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
ATTACHMENT C-1
2
Goal P&OS-3 Establish an open space pattern that will provide
definition of and separation between developed areas,
and provide open space linkages among park and
recreational resources.
Policy P&OS-3.1 Define and conserve a system of open space corridors as
urban separators to provide definition between natural
areas and urban land uses within the Kent area.
Policy P&OS-3.2 Increase linkages of trails, in-street bike lanes, or other
existing or planned connections with natural areas and
open space within developed areas, particularly along the
Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek
corridors; around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake
Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Young; and around
significant wetland and floodways such as the Green River
Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-3.3 Preserve through acquisition as necessary,
environmentally sensitive areas as natural area linkages
and urban separators, particularly along the steep
hillsides that define both sides of the Green River Valley
and the SE 277th/272nd Street corridor.
KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICY (CPP)
CPP LU-27 – Urban separators are low-density areas or areas of little development
within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-
density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and
environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and
between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife
benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future (in
the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The
maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern.
Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations
governing these areas without King County review and concurrence.
34
ATTACHMENT C-2 3/28/11 LUPB HearingATTACHMENT C-2 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing 35
This page intentionally left blank.
36
37ATTACHMENT D-1 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
This page intentionally left blank.
38
39ATTACHMENT D-2 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
This page intentionally left blank.
40
41ATTACHMENT D-3 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
This page intentionally left blank.
42
43ATTACHMENT D-4 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
This page intentionally left blank.
44
45ATTACHMENT E 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71ATTACHMENT E 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
72
73ATTACHMENT E 3/28/11 LUPB Hearing
74
75
76
77