HomeMy WebLinkAbout3771Ordinance No. 3771
(Amending or Repealing Ordinances)
CFN=131 - Zoning Codes
Passed - 11/15/2005
Urban Density Comp Plan - Land Use Element
ORDINANCE NO. 37'7/
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of
the city of Kent, Washington, amending the City
of Kent Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Element
to eliminate reference to SR -2 and adding the
urban land use designation of SF -4.5 as a result of
the City's Urban Density Study (#CPA -2004-5).
RECITALS
A. The City of Kent passed Ordinance No. 3698, an update to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, on July 20, 2004, per the requirements of the Growth
Management Act (GMA). RCW 36.70A.130(4). To address the issue of providing
appropriate urban densities within the City, the City Council passed Resolution No.
1680 on June 15, 2004, requesting that Planning Services analyze this issue in
accord with the update to the Comprehensive Plan. Recognizing the importance of
this issue, the City Council then passed Resolution No. 1694 on December 14, 2004,
declaring an emergency to pursue revision to the Comprehensive Plan in regard to
the urban density study.
B. The urban density study involved considering amendments to parcels
of real property with Comprehensive Plan land use map designations of Single
Family one (1) unit per acre (SF -1) and Single Family three (3) units per acre (SF -
3). The study also involved reviewing parcels of real property with zoning map
1 Urban Density
Comp Plan — Land Use Element
designations of Single Family one (1) unit per acre (SR -1), Single Family two (2)
units per acre (SR -2), and Single Family three (3) units per acre (SR -3). The parcels
reviewed were located throughout the City, but were categorized for ease of
reference into four study areas: Area A — Green River, Area B — North East Hill,
Area C — South East Hill, and Area D — Lea Hill. These study areas were in turn
divided into sub areas.
C. On May 12, 2005, August 16, 2005, and September 7, 2005, the city
provided the required sixty (60) day notification under RCW 36.70A.106 to the state
of Washington regarding the city's urban density study. Comments from the state
were incorporated into the record.
D. The City's State Environmental Policy Act responsible official issued
a Determination of Nonsignificance (#ENV -2005-38) for the proposed land use and
zoning map amendments as well as corresponding text amendments on August 12,
2005.
E. The urban density study began its public participation campaign with
a series of open houses to apprise citizens of the issues surrounding the study and
obtain input from citizens regarding the issues to be addressed by the study. These
open houses were held at various locations throughout the City on November 4,
2004; November 9, 2004; November 10, 2004; and January 6, 2005.
F. Also as part of the information gathering process for the urban
density study, workshops were held by the City's Land Use and Planning Board on
the following dates to review land use history, environmentally sensitive areas,
infrastructure, building capacity, urban separator maps, and other topics related to
analyzing appropriate urban densities: October 25, 2004; January 10, 2005; January
24, 2005; February 28, 2005; and June 13, 2005. The Land Use and Planning Board
also held public hearings on the following dates to solicit comments from the public
2 Urban Density
Comp Plan — Land Use Element
regarding the urban density study in general and specifically the various land use
and zoning map options being considered as well as the corresponding text
amendments: March 28, 2005; April 4, 2005; August 22, 2005; and September 12,
2005. On September 19, 2005, the Land Use and Planning Board made
recommendations on appropriate urban densities to the City Council for all four
study areas.
G. During the urban density study, the City's Planning and Economic
Development Committee was provided information regarding the study during its
meetings on August 15, 2005; September 19, 2005; and October 17, 2005. The
Committee considered the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation at its
meeting on October 17, 2005, and forwarded its own recommendations to the full
City Council.
H. Prior to a final vote on the urban density issue, the full City Council
held workshops regarding the urban density study on October 18, 2005 and
November 1, 2005. At its regularly scheduled meeting on November 1, 2005, the
City Council voted to adopt amendments to the land use and zoning maps as well as
corresponding text amendments.
I. These amendments reflect the City Council's understanding that the
concept of urban density is driven by GMA's goals related to urban growth,
reducing sprawl, and ensuring the availability of affordable housing. RCW
36.70A.020(1), (2), and (4). At the same time GMA recognizes the importance of
open space, protecting the environment, and providing a variety of residential
densities. RCW 36.70A.020(4), (9) and (10). The Council takes very seriously its
duty to the citizens of Kent to harmonize these goals in planning for the future of the
City of Kent given the particular needs and circumstances of the City of Kent. With
this Ordinance, the City Council has exercised its statutorily granted discretion
while staying within the framework provided by GMA. RCW 36.70A.3201. This
3 Urban Density
Comp Plan — Land Use Element
ordinance eliminates from the Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element the low
density zoning designation of SR -2 and adds the urban land use designation of SF -
4.5.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. — Amendment. The City of Kent's 2004 Comprehensive Plan —
Land Use Element is amended as shown in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. — Amendment. Table 4.1 of the Comprehensive Plan — Land
Use Element is to be amended to reflect the "area (acres)" and "% of Total Acres"
after the City adopts new land use and zoning designations as part of the urban
density study.
SECTION 3. — Savin s. The existing element of the City of Kent's
Comprehensive Plan, which are amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force
and effect until the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. — Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance and the same
shall remain in full force and effect.
4 Urban Density
Comp Plan — Land Use Element
SECTION S. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty (30) days from and after passage as provided by law.
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBE , CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PASSED: — 1.15 day of November, 2005.
APPROVED: 15 day of November, 2005.
PUBLISHED: / `% day of November, 2005.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. 5-77/
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the
Mayor of tlx�-Cty oOEgnt as hereon indicated.
AB.
.D.(SEAL)
A JACOB R, CITY CLERK
P \Ctvt[\ORDINANCE\Urb."n-stty--CompP]a LadUseEle em doc
5 Urban Density
Comp Plan — Land Use Element
EXHIBIT'A'
CHAPTER FOUR
LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element outlines the proposed general distribution and location of various
uses of land within the Planning Area, which consists of the City of Kent and the Potential
Annexation Area, which is the area within unincorporated King County that is Kent's
designated annexation area. The element consists of two major components: (1) a map that
illustrates the general location of land use designations; and (2) goals and policies that guide
future development. In addition, there are reviews of existing land use trends, including
future development potential and a review of policy decisions, which together have laid the
foundation for the goals and policies in the element.
More important than the components of the element, however, is the purpose that the
element serves. The Land Use Element will guide all decisions about where development
takes place. It also will guide when development takes place, because land use policies
determine the scheduling of capital improvement expenditures. In addition, it will guide the
character of the development pattern of the Kent area. The Land Use Element is not only a
critical part of the Comprehensive Plan, but it is a required component of the plan under the
Growth Management Act.
Requirements of the Growth Management Act
When the State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act (GMA), they found that
"...a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise
use of our lands pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and
the health, safety and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public
interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and
coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning." (RCW 36.70A.010).
This finding, which summarizes the intent of the GMA, emphasizes the central role of the
Land Use Element.
The Act requires the Land Use Element to designate the general distribution, location, and
extent of land for various land uses, including resource lands, housing, commerce, industry,
Land Use Element 4_I
parks and open space, and public facilities. This element considers all these land uses, with
the exception of public facilities, which is considered in detail within the Capital Facilities
Element. The Land Use Element shall consider population densities, building densities, and
estimates of future population growth. It also shall provide for protection of the quality and
quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies, and consider and nutigate the
impacts of storm water runoff both in the immediate area and in surrounding jurisdictions.
Most importantly, however, the GMA requires that other elements of the Comprehensive
Plan relate back to the Land Use Element. For example, the Act specifically requires both
the Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements to be coordinated and consistent with the
Land Use Element. It also states that the entire Comprehensive Plan shall be internally
consistent, and that all elements shall be consistent with the Land Use Map. Additionally,
the GMA requires that planning efforts for regional growth centers, such as Urban Centers
or Activity Centers be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the GMA puts
the Land Use Element in the central role of defining the direction of the Comprehensive
Plan, and thereby defining the vision of the community.
The focus of the Land Use Element is the Goals and Policies and the Land Use Map. The
goals and policies found in the Land Use Element are the product of both existing conditions
and plans and policies which previously have been adopted.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
As noted in the introductory chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, Kent has undergone a
number of changes since the 1977 Comprehensive Plan was adopted, as the City and the
Puget Sound region have experienced unprecedented growth over the past decades. This
section analyzes the extent of existing land uses in the City, and outlines the growth, which
is expected to occur within the City and the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) within the
next ten (10) to twenty (20) years. This analysis sets the stage for the level of growth and
development, which this plan will accommodate.
Urban Growth Area Boundary
The GMA mandates each county to designate an urban growth area (UGA) within which
urban growth is to be encouraged, and outside of which urban growth and annexations may
not occur. The UGA must contain enough land to accommodate twenty (20) years of
projected residential growth, as determined for each county by the State Office of Financial
Management. The entire city limits of each city must be included in the UGA, and
Land Use Element 4_2
unincorporated areas also may be included. However, the GMA states that an urban growth
area may include land outside of a city only if this land is "...already characterized by urban
growth or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth..." (RCW
36.70A.110).
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPB) adopted and ratified in 1992 included an urban
growth boundary for King County. The Kent Planning Commission and City Council also
considered an urban growth area for the City of Kent. The primary purpose of this process
was to delineate a planning area for the Comprehensive Plan. The UGA also was intended
to help define the City's future annexation area. After considering several alternatives, the
Kent City Council designated an Interim Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary in November
1992 (Resolution #1334). In the 2002/2004 Update, the UGA was superseded by a final
boundary delineation of Kent's Potential Annexation Area.
Potential Annexation Area
In addition to urban growth areas which are mandated by the GMA, the King County CPPs
discuss future annexation areas. The CPPB state that within the County's UGA boundary,
each city shall identify land needed for its growth during the twenty (20) year horizon of the
Comprehensive Plan. The policies further state that although the GMA does not explicitly
equate urban growth areas with municipal annexation areas, the urban growth areas around
cities may be considered their expansion area.
Following this reasoning, and to facilitate intergovernmental planning efforts, the policies
direct cities to establish Potential Annexation Areas. The policies state:
In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and Kang County, and an
consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a
Potential Annexation Area. Each Potential Annexation Area shall be speck to
each city. Annexation areas shall not overlap. (CPP, LU -19)
King County established a Potential Annexation Areas Subcommittee in January 1993 to
coordinate a regional process for the designation of municipal annexation areas. As a result
of the work of this subcommittee and in coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, the Kent
City Council adopted an Interim Potential Annexation Area (PAA) in May 1993, (Resolution
#1360). The Council amended the boundaries in March 1995 as a result of negotiations
with adjacent jurisdictions. In May 2003 revisions to the CPPB were ratified, removing the
Lower Green River Agricultural Production District from the Urban Growth Area. Both the
Land Use Element 4_3
GMA (RCW 36.70A.110), and Countywide Planning Policies (LU -2 and LU -7), prohibit
urban expansion through annexation into designated rural areas. The 2002/2004 Update
reflects the new Potential Annexation Area (PAA) for Kent (see Figure 4.1). Kent city limits
and the PAA together form the Planning Area for the City's Land Use Map and for all the
elements in the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Zoning Pattern
The City of Kent has five general categories of zoning districts: agricultural, single-family
residential, multifamily residential, commercial, and industrial. Within each of these general
categories, there are several zoning districts, which allow varying levels of land uses and
bulk and scale of development. Table 4.1 shows the land area of each of these zoning
categories and Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of these zoning districts.
In the unincorporated area within the northeastern portion of the Potential Annexation Area
(PAA), the predominant land use is single-family residential. Most of the residential land is
zoned either R-6 or R-8, which are generally comparable to the City's SR -6 and SR -8 zones.
There is one (1) commercial and multifamily residential node in the unincorporated area,
located at SE 208th and 108th Avenue SE. The zoning for the unincorporated area was
adopted in 1991 as part of the Soos Creek Community Plan, and was amended on
November 5, 2001, by Ordinance #14241 as part of King County's process to update their
comprehensive plan. The southern portion of Kent's PAA is located adjacent to King
County's Lower Green River Agricultural Production District. King County's land use for
the area to the west is R-4 (i.e., single-family 4 dwelling units per acre) and to the east is I
(industrial) where an existing wrecking yard is located and R-1 where steep slopes dominate
the landscape.
Inventory of Critical Areas & Resource Lands
The Growth Management Act requires cities to inventory, designate and protect through
development regulations all critical areas and designated resource lands. "Critical Areas"
are defined as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
frequently flooded areas, and geologic hazard areas. Designated "Resource Lands" within
Kent are agricultural in nature and are considered to have long-term commercial
significance. The development rights for the Agricultural Resource Lands in Kent were
purchased under King County's Agricultural Preservation Program during the 1980's,
ensuring they will remain in agricultural land use in perpetuity.
Land Use Element 4-4
FIGURE 4.1
FRONT
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.1 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-5
FIGURE 4.1
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.1 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-6
FIGURE 4.2
EFORTINTO
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.2 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4_7
FIGURE 4.2
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.2 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-8
Table 4.1
2004 CI'T'Y OF KENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
LAND AREA % OF ALLOWED
USE (ACRES) TOTAL AREA ZONING
a;n1,€_�_ AG-R 51.3 03 A-10
Pt '➢^3
Y' Rie1 5z
��'' AG-S 221.0 1.2 AG
y
EN 4x1'
US 290.6 1.6 SR-1
SF4 579-7 94 SR-4
„641 i6 aiNd',,
SF -3 935.2 5.1 SR-1, SR-2-SR-3
ti=°SF-4.5 SR4.5
SF-6 6,304.6 34.4 SR-1,SR-2,-SR-3,SR-
��,,>#{ 4.5, SR-6
� pp� SY SF-8 305.8 1.7 SR-1, SR-2,-SR-3, SR-
", i,i f «'j 4.5, SR-6, SR-8
a rr bP ;'?'
MHP 115.0 0.6 MHP
�,
- .� w.�-�
LDMF 710.3 3.9 SR-8, MR-D, MR-G,
MRT-12 MRT-16
aIR
' s �aii;fl MDMF 756.7 4.1 MR-M, MR-H,
P MRT-12,MRT-16
®� MU 670.1 3.7 GC, CC, O
NS 7.2 0.04 NCC,MRT-12,
MRT-16
C 856.5 4.7 GC, GWC, CC,
O, CM-1, CM-2,
MRT-12, MRT-16
f 'UC 292.4 1.6 DC DCE GC
MRT-12 MRT-16
OE
..,e'&ya az- i_ i.r ��?1�19 r9
III I 2,232.2 12.2 MA Ml, M2 M3
d� N
wry ,1ih,;x+,y MI-C
'° NEC 1,968.6 10.7 M2, M3
POS 2,030.8 4.7 Not Applicable
yam. Nw,>.',
Land Use Element 4-9
The City already has adopted policies and development regulations to protect critical areas.
Because critical areas have a major effect on how land uses are distributed throughout the
City and the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), their general location will be described in
this section. There are many notable natural features in Kent. Kent is distinguished by the
Green River Valley, which runs north to south through the center of the City. To the east and
west of the valley are East Hill and West Hill, respectively. One of the most significant
natural features is the Green River, which extends through a major portion of the City. The
Green River is considered a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and falls under the
jurisdiction of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), which places
restrictions on shoreline development. Lake Meridian located on East Hill is also a
Shoreline of Statewide Significance with similar restrictions. There are two additional
significant water bodies located in Kent city limits: Clark Lake and Lake Fenwick. While
Clark Lake and Lake Fenwick do not meet the parameters for protection under the Shoreline
Master Program, they are significant natural resources. In the PAA, Panther Lake is also a
significant natural resource but does not meet the SMA parameters for protection. However,
these three (3) smaller lakes will be protected by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Due to the
natural drainage patterns of the valley and upland, and the amount of development that has
taken place over the past thirty (30) years, there are a significant number of wetlands located
in the City of Kent. These wetlands have been inventoried and encompass over 2,414 acres
of the planning area. The hydrology of Kent also includes several major creeks, including
Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, Springbrook Creek, and Big Soos Creek and its tributaries. Big
Soos Creek serves as the eastern boundary of the planning area and the City of Kent, and a
portion of this creek is provided protection under the SMA. Many of these creeks, wetlands
and the Green River corridor are fish and wildlife habitat areas. Two notable habitat sites
are publicly owned: The Green River Natural Resources Area (304 acres) and Clark Lake
Park (125 acres).
In addition to the water -related natural constraints to development, the other predominant
natural feature in Kent is steep slopes. Slopes in excess of 25% are found along both East
Hill and West Hill. There also are several ravines that typically are associated with creek
beds. These hillsides along East Hill and West Hill provide a natural, wooded border to the
more developed Green River Valley area, and they are a distinct part of the City's natural
landscape.
Environmentally Critical Areas are shown on Figure 4.3 (i.e., Hazard Areas) and Figure 4.4
(i.e., Inventoried Wetlands). These natural features are valued by the community and must
Land Use Element 4-10
be protected as part ofthe comprehensive planning process. The protection of these areas
Land Use Element 4-11
FIGURE 4.3
FRONT
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordmance
this Figure 4.3 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-12
FIGURE 4.3
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.3 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element
4-13
FIGURE 4.4
FRONT
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.4 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-14
FIGURE 4.4
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.4 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-I5
will constrain development. Therefore, it is important to note their location and consider
their influence on the location and density of future land uses.
Additional constraints are placed on Agricultural Resource Land. When the development
rights are purchased from Agricultural Resource Land, covenants dictate uses and some
development standards. Because Agricultural Resource Land is protected for fanning only,
the GMA requires that adjacent property owners who propose development must be notified
of the Agricultural Resource Land protected status to ensure there are no conflicts between
land uses. Kent's Agricultural Resource Land and the County's Lower Green River
Agricultural Production District are illustrated in Figure 4.5.
Analysis of Development Capacity
A final, but critical measure of existing conditions and future development potential is the
analysis of development capacity. Development capacity refers to an estimate of the amount
of development, which could be accommodated on vacant and redevelopable land in Kent if
it were developed. The level of development, which could occur on a particular parcel of
land is influenced by the size of the parcel, the zoning district in which the parcel is located,
and any environmental constraints that restrict development. Development capacity shows
the estimated amount of development, which could be accommodated under existing
zoning, considering recent market activity. It serves as a benchmark from which to gauge to
what extent current land use and zoning policies can accommodate growth.
In 1991, the City estimated capacity for residential, commercial, and industrial development.
The City updated the information in 1993, 1997, and again in 2001. King County estimated
capacity for the unincorporated area located within the City's Potential Annexation Area A
detailed explanation of the 1993 and 1997 methodology and assumptions used for
estimating capacity can be found in the supporting documents. In brief, vacant land and
land deemed appropriate for redevelopment were aggregated for each zoning district. The
overall development potential of each zone then was calculated, taking into consideration
reductions for critical areas, land which was unlikely to develop or redevelop (such as parks,
churches), and right-of-way and other public purpose dedications.
The 2001 methodology to estimate capacity was based on the Buildable Lands Program and
differs from earlier work. The Buildable Lands Program was established by a legislative
amendment to the GMA in 1997 (RCW 36.70A.215). Under Buildable Lands, the City is
required to implement a review and evaluation program for the purpose of determining the
adequacy of the current supply of "lands suitable for development" to accommodate future
Land Use Element 4-16
growth needs for housing and employment and to evaluate the effectiveness of local plans
and regulations. In order to accomplish this, the Buildable Lands Program requires annual
data collection to determine the amount and density of recent development, an inventory of
the land supply suitable for development, and an assessment of the ability to accommodate
expected growth for the remainder of the twenty (20) year planning horizon.
It is important to note that these estimates of capacity represent maximum potential build
out; they are not projections of expected growth. In the 1995 Comprehensive Plan, the City
used a methodology which was developed by the King County Data Resources Technical
Forum. This methodology projected maximum theoretical buildout in most residential,
commercial and industrial zoning categories. This methodology was revised countywide
with the implementation of the 1997 Buildable Lands Program. Revisions reflect the
statutory requirement that projections of future capacity reflect the actual densities of recent
development projects. The resulting Buildable Lands analysis gives a January 2001
snapshot of land supply and development capacity throughout Kent. Both methodologies
are consistent with those used by other jurisdictions in the county. Figure 4.6 shows the
location and extent of vacant and redevelopable sites in Kent based on the Buildable Lands
Analysis. Table 4.2 summarizes the residential household capacity for the City of Kent
based on Buildable Lands Analysis,
Table 4.2
CITY OF KENT 2001 RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY
Residential Zones
Vacant Capacity
Redevel. Capacity
Total
Single -Family
1,956 households
3,725 households
5,681 households
Multifamily
832 households
903 households
1,735 households
CITY TOTALS:
2,788 households
4,628 households
7,416 households
In 1995, King County staff estimated capacity for the unincorporated area based on the
adopted zoning in the Soos Creek Community Plan. The 2002 update of capacity used the
King County Zoning Atlas and recent data from the King County Assessor's Office. The
summary of King County's estimated capacity for Kent's PAA is found in Table 4.3. This
Land Use Element 4-17
FIGURE 4.5
FRONT
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.5 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-18
FIGURE 4.5
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.5 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-19
FIGURE 4.6
FRONT
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.6 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-20
FIGURE 4.6
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.6 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4.21
capacity is based upon King County land use and zoning designations and could change
once the area is annexed to the City of Kent.
Table 4.3
UNINCORPORATE 2002 KING COUNTY
RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY WITHIN KENT'S PAA
I)rpe of Housing
Vacant Capacity
Redevel. Capacity
Total
Single -Family
702 households
821 households
1,523 households
Multifamily
193 households
47 households
240 households
TOTAL HOUSING
1 895 households
868 households
1,763 households
Kent's 2001 Buildable Lands Program also provided estimates of commercial and industrial
capacity expressed in number of employees. Staff did not report capacity for the
unincorporated area because the amount of land zoned for these uses in this area is minimal.
Estimating non-residential capacity is similar, in part, to the methodology used for
residential capacity. Recent projects provide the projected potential floor area in
commercial and industrial zoning districts based on floor -area -ratios (FAR = building square
feet/parcel square feet). Projected employment is based on an analysis of current building
occupancy rates (building square feet/employee), which is divided into the calculated FAR's
of commercial or industrial capacity. Table 4.4 shows the results expressed in both building
floor area and number of potential employees.
Evaluation of Development Capacity & Growth Targets
As stated in the Community Profile Chapter, the City's residential target is 4,284 households,
and its employment target is 11,500 employees to the year 2022. The residential target for
the unincorporated area within the Citys Potential Annexation Areas is 619 households and
the employment target is 44.
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan development capacity analysis differs from the methodology
devised in 1993 by the inter urisdictional King County Data Resources Technical Forum
discussed earlier. The Buildable Lands Program, implemented in 1997, provided a more
accurate assessment of household and employment capacity because it was based on a five
Land Use Element 4_22
Table 4.4
CITY OF KENT 2001 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY
LAND USE
Vacant Capacity
Redevel. Capacity
Total
Commercial
1,765,788 sq ft
1,886,245 sq ft
3,652,033 sq ft
Industrial
5,512,676 sq ft
2,251,166 sq ft
7,763,842 sq ft
CITY TOTALS:
7,278,464 sq ft
4,137,411 sq ft
11,415,875 sq ft
EMPLOYMENT
Commercial
3,237 employees
3,447 employees
6,684 employees
Industrial
5,513 employees
2,251 employees
7,764 employees
CITY TOTALS:
8,750 employees
5,698 employees
14,448 employees
(5) year (1996-2000), analysis of development trends. A review of development trends
caused the commercial and residential splits for mixed-use development to be adjusted,
much of which was downward. In 2000, a vacant and redevelopable land inventory was
conducted within Kent's Urban Center that accurately accounted for potential capacity,
further adjusting the numbers downward. Lastly, continued development within the City
resulted in additional downward adjustments to both household targets and capacity, as well
as adjustments to employment targets and capacity. In spite of all the adjustments, the City
of Kent has a generous amount of capacity to absorb the 2022 housing and employment
targets as shown in Table 4.5.
However, targets are not inherently a reflection of market trends in a specific city. It is likely
that with limited capacity in other areas of the County, the next wave of development will
occur incrementally in various South County cities. Demand could far exceed targets and
absorb capacity very quickly.
With regard to employment and household growth in the unincorporated area, there appears
to be more than adequate capacity to meet growth targets. The 1,763 household capacity is
more than enough to absorb the 619 household target for Kent's PAA. The jobs target for
the PAA of 44 employees also can be accommodated. However, once again the capacity
figures would be affected by decisions made upon annexation.
Land Use Element 4.23
Table 4.5
EVALUATION OF HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT
CAPACITY TO MEET TARGETS FOR CITY OF KENT
Residential Target:
4,284 households
Residential Capacity:
7,416 households
Employment Target:
11,500 employees
Employment Capacity:
14,448 employees
This updated table shows that the City of Kent continues to have enough capacity to meet
the City's housing target with a 73% cushion and the employment target with a 25%
cushion. Additional housing capacity was added after the 2001 Buildable Lands report, as a
result of a lengthy study in 2001 of the remnant agricultural lands located along the Green
River. The study determined that the land did not meet the GMA definition of Agricultural
Resource Land by having "long-term commercial significance". The zoning of approxi-
mately 635 acres changed from Agricultural (A-1, 1 unit/acre), to Single -Family Residential
(SR -1 and SR -3). Much of the land is encumbered with wetlands or within the 100 -year
floodway. There is, however, the potential for 453 additional units, which have been added
to Kent's capacity.
POLICY BACKGROUND
The previous section provided the technical background which will influence the City's
future land use decisions. There also are many policy decisions which were made in past
years by state, regional, and local elected officials along with additional public input on
innovative housing forms. The decisions will have a substantial effect on the land use
policies contained in this element. The policy documents referenced in this section are
provided in more detail as supporting documents in the appendices. However, it is
important to briefly review these policy documents here in order to provide a better
understanding of the rationale behind many of the goals and policies in this element.
Land Use Element 4-24
Kent's Existing Land Use Pians
The 1977 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map guided the City's current policies on
overall land use. In 1995, the Comprehensive Plan was substantially updated, and since
then, the Land Use Map has been amended several times. The amended map provides the
starting point for the Land Use Map, which is part of this element.
In addition to the overall citywide Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, there are four
subarea plans, each of which contains goals, policies, and a Land Use Map. These plans are
the Valley Floor Plan, the East Hill Plan, the West Hill Plan, and the Downtown Plan. These
plans were adopted in 1979, 1982, 1984, and 1989, respectively. The Downtown Plan
deserves special mention, because it was completed just prior to passage of the Growth
Management Act (GMA). It led to substantial zoning changes in the Downtown area m
1992 and set the stage for designating the area as an Urban Center in 1995 under GMA. In
an effort to translate the Downtown Plan's general objectives into a redevelopment strategy,
the City Council adopted the Kdnt Downtown Strategic Action Plan in 1998. The Action
Plan serves as a basis for developing the Urban Center and implementing the Kent
Comprehensive Plan. In a very real sense, the Downtown Plan was the springboard for
many of the recommendations in this element, as they relate to the Downtown area. The
Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Downtown Plan guide future development in the
Downtown area.
State Growth Management Policies
The Growth Management Act (GMA) lists thirteen (13) planning goals which summarize
the policy intent of the Act. These goals guide the development and adoption of
comprehensive plans, and set the framework for local comprehensive plans. Several of
these goals relate to land use planning. For example, the goals encourage development in
already urbanized areas where adequate public facilities and services exist, and conversely
discourage the conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.
The goals also encourage the conservation of resource lands, the retention and preservation
of open space areas, and protection of the natural environment. The goals and policies in
this element were prepared to be consistent with these, and other, State planning goals.
Regional Policies
There are two regional policy documents which were adopted and ratified by local
governments in the Puget Sound area: VISION 2020 and the Countywide Planning Policies.
VISION 2020, which was adopted in 1990, is the result of a four -county regional planning
Land Use Element
4-25
process undertaken by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (the predecessor agency to
the Puget Sound Regional Council). After an extensive review of regional land use and
transportation alternatives, the General Assembly of the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (PSCOG), which consisted of elected officials from many jurisdictions
including Kent, adopted a regional plan which emphasized targeting growth to major and
minor centers throughout the region. VISION 2020 subsequently has served as the
framework for many other planning efforts, such as the Regional Transit Project and the
Countywide Planning Policies for Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and King Counties.
Destination 2030, published in 2001, adds to VISION 2020 by refining regional
transportation goals based on projected land uses.
The impetus for Countywide Planning Policies came from the 1991 amendments to the
Growth Management Act. These amendments require all counties planning under the GMA
to prepare countywide planning policies. These policies must address several issues,
including the designation of urban growth areas, promotion of "contiguous and orderly
development and provision of urban services to such development", affordable housing, and
policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas. In King County, the
Countywide Planning Policies were developed by the Growth Management Planning
Council (GMPC), a group of fifteen (15) elected officials from Seattle, King County, and
suburban cities. The policies were adopted by the County Council and ratified by the cities
(including Kent), in 1992, and amended in 1994. According to the GMA, the intent of these
policies is to establish a framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are
developed, and to ensure that county and city plans are consistent. Therefore, these policies
have a significant impact on Kent's local land use policies. The Countywide Planning
Policies incorporated the VISION 2020 concept of directing growth to centers.
Kent Growth Management Planning Goals
In the summer of 1992, in conjunction with the City's review and ratification of the
Countywide Planning Policies, the City adopted local growth management planning goals.
These goals were based on the state goals in the Growth Management Act and the regional
goals outlined in the Countywide Planning Policies and VISION 2020. The City's 2002-
2004 Comprehensive Plan Update has integrated goals and policies of Destination 2030, a
regional transportation plan produced by Puget Sound Regional Council in 2001.
More importantly, the local growth management policy goals are based on local priorities as
reflected in the City's Growth Management Public Participation Program (see the
Introduction chapter). During the 2002-2004 update of the Comprehensive Plan, particular
Land Use Element ¢_26
attention was paid to housing forms, initiating an additional public participation opportunity.
The results have been incorporated into the Land Use Element.
In September 2002, staff facilitated an "Innovative Housing Workshop" to determine what
Kent residents thought of cottage, cluster, and attached single-family housing forms. Design
professionals specializing in these housing forms made a presentation, followed by a
question and answer period. The workshop concluded with a survey intended to determine
if innovative housing forms would be appealing and whether or not these housing forms
would "fit into" the neighborhoods of Kent.
Of the forty-six (46) housing workshop participants, thirty-nine (39) completed the survey,
and of those, thirty-three (33) identified themselves as Kent residents. Looking only at the
surveys of Kent residents, 67% responded "yes", 21% responded "maybe", and 2%
responded "no" when asked whether they could see themselves, or other family members, at
some point in their lives living in a cottage or clustered housing development. When asked
the same question about attached single-family housing development 39% responded "yes,
30% responded "maybe", and 27% responded "no". When asked whether cottage or cluster
housing would fit into their neighborhood, 61% responded "yes", 6% responded "maybe",
and 27% responded "no". When asked the same question about attached single-family
housing, 36% responded "yes", 15% responded "maybe", and 42% responded "no". Many
of those who thought these housing forms would not fit in their neighborhood were site
specific in their reasoning (e.g., "there was no vacant land", "the area was restricted by
slopes", "wrong style of home"). Some were concerned about the units being "rented" or
felt that `Everyone needs a little elbow room". Respondents that were positive toward
attached single-family housing presently live in a condominium or "given my future living
requirements, I may need attached housing" while others said single-family attached would
be a good addition if they were well designed or "the architectural details blend with the
existing housing". Generally, the public's reaction was positive toward all of the innovative
housing forms presented, opening the way toward providing a wider range of housing types
for home ownership.
Together, these local and regional planning goals, and the results from various public
participation programs, provide an overall framework for the goals, policies, and objectives,
which are included in the Comprehensive Plan and this element. Several of the goals found
in the Framework Policies chapter relate specifically to land use, including:
Land Use Element 4-27
■ A future growth and development pattern shall be encouraged which minimizes
urban sprawl, particularly the conversion of undeveloped land not presently in the
City into low-density urban development. (UG -1)
■ Areas shall be designated within the City's planning area for medium to high-
density development, in order to preserve existing neighborhoods and open space
areas and enhance transit opportunities. (UG -4)
■ Mixed-use development shall be encouraged in designated areas within the
planning area. (UG -5)
■ The City shall ensure that its land use and transportation policies protect the City's
critical areas, endangered species habitat, air and water quality. (E-2)
There are several other planning goals which provide a framework for the policies and
objectives in this element. These goals will be referenced throughout the element; they are
listed in their entirety in the Framework Policies chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary
The Land Use Element provides the vision for the City's growth for the next twenty (20)
years. The vision is established in both the Land Use Map and the Land Use Goals and
Policies. It reflects the state, regional, and local policy framework previously identified, as
well as the City's policy documents and capacity analysis. More importantly, it reflects the
preferences and views of the citizens as they were expressed in the City's public
participation process. The Land Use Element is divided into two major sections: Goals and
Policies, and a description of the Land Use Map.
LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
The Land Use Goals and Policies cover a broad spectrum of issues. They are divided into
several sections to make it easier for the reader to find the policies relating to a specific
issue, such as housing or environmental protection. However, it is important to note that all
of the Goals and Policies function together as a coherent and comprehensive vision of future
growth in the community. This is reflected in the overall goal of the Land Use Element,
which is:
Land Use Element 4-28
Overall Goal: Encourage a future growth and development pattern which implements the
Community's vision, protects environmentally sensitive areas, and enhances the quality of
life of all Kent residents.
URBAN GROWTH GOALS & POLICIES
The Land Use Element provides the overall comprehensive vision of future growth for the
community. As mandated by the Growth Management Act, it is fundamentally important to
establish the policy framework for managing this growth, particularly with regard to
controlling and discouraging urban sprawl. The following Goals and Policies establish and
reinforce that framework:
Goal LU -1:
Designate a Potential Annexation Area which will define the City's planning area and
projected city limits for the next twenty (20) years.
Policy LU -1.1: Provide enough land in the City's Potential Annexation Area to
accommodate the level of household growth projected to occur in the next twenty
(20) years.
Policy LU -1.2: Monitor the Potential Annexation Area as build -out occurs.
Policy LU -1.3: Refine the Potential Annexation Area, working with King County,
adjacent cities, and citizens in Unincorporated King County.
Policy LU -1.4: Do not propose or approve any annexations which are outside of
the Potential Annexation Area.
Goal LU -2:
Establish a land use pattern throughout the Potential Annexation Area that will facilitate a
multi -modal transportation system and provide efcient public facilities. Ensure that overall
densities in the Potential Annexation Area are adequate to support a range of urban
services.
Policy LU -2.1: Establish transportation levels -of -service which will help guide
development into desired areas.
Policy LU -2.2: Concentrate development in order to promote public transit.
Land Use Element 4.29
Policy LU -2.3: Emphasize in development regulations and design review processes
site design standards which facilitate public transit, cyclist and pedestrian
circulation.
Policy LU -2.4: Give funding priority to capital facility projects which are
consistent with the City's Land Use Element.
Policy LU -2.5: Via a public participation process, allow certain public and private
infrastructure, community, open space, and social service facilities that serve the
general population the freedom to locate throughout the City. Such uses may
include utility, transportation and communication facilities; schools; public
facilities; open space uses such as cemeteries, golf courses, and so forth; and
retirement homes, convalescent facilities and certain other welfarefacilities.
URBAN CENTER GOALS & POLICIES
Kent's Downtown area has been a focus of the City's planning and policy development for
some time. Over the past decades, several citizen committees have made recommendations
to the Mayor and City Council to improve the function of Kent's downtown as a city and
regional Urban Center. The culmination of the work of these committees was the adoption
of the Downtown Plan by the City Council in 1989. This plan established a policy
framework for creating a vibrant downtown community with an abundance of employment,
housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. The City took important steps toward
implementation of this plan when it adopted zoning changes in 1992, and in 1995,
completed studies of downtown parking management and infrastructure capacity. The
Downtown Kent Strategic Action Plan, adopted in 1998, further helps guide development
within the Downtown area and is incorporated into this document by reference.
The Council's policy direction for the Downtown area was reaffirmed in September 1992,
when they elected to propose much of Downtown Kent as an Urban Center, pursuant to the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). The CPPB envisions urban centers as areas of
concentrated employment and housing which are served by high capacity transit. Using the
updated minimum targets standards from VISION 2020 for urban center employment and
housing targets, Kent's Urban Center would need to accommodate 7,437 employees and
2,975 households, which is quite ambitious. The target assigned Kent's Urban Center from
VISION 2020 is 11,500 employees and 2,500 households by 2010. The Buildable Lands
Analysis illustrates the market trend in Downtown Kent has been slow to capitalize on the
zoning district's openness to increased residential development. The 2000 Census further
illustrates this trend, reporting only 877 households within the Urban Center. Understanding
Land Use Element 4-30
that the Urban Center CPPs targets are not expected to be reached within the twenty (20)
year horizon of this plan, other criteria for urban centers are applicable to the Downtown
area. These include: convenient access to the Sound Transit commuter rail and other
regional transit opportunities; a bicycle and pedestrian -oriented streetscape; zoning which
encourages a mixture of uses at high densities with an emphasis on superior urban design;
historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places; proximity to facilities to meet
human services needs; and a local commitment to fund infrastructure and public
improvements in the area.
Because the 1989 Downtown plan establishes policy direction which is consistent with the
Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies, the goals, policies, and
objectives in that plan are incorporated herein (see appendices). The Goals and Policies
listed below are designed to summarize the goals in the Downtown Plan, to reflect actions
which have occurred since its adoption, and in part, to reflect the "Center Plan Checklist"
recently developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Collectively, goals for the Urban
Center are placed in the context of the overall Land Use Element.
Goal LU -3:
Focus both city and regional household and employment growth in the designated Urban
Center.
Policy LU -3.1: Allow and encourage mixed-use development which combines
retail, office, and residential uses, or as a portion of the total mixture of uses, to
provide a diverse, vibrant and well designed Urban Center.
Policy LU -3.2: Focus office employment growth in the Urban Center as a
percentage of overall mixed-use development.
Policy LU -3.3: Encourage medium- and high-density residential development in
the Urban Center. Emphasize design standards to provide an attractive and high-
quality residential environment.
Policy LU -3.4: Enhance links between the Urban Center and adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Design the Urban Center development to preserve adjacent
neighborhoods.
Policy LU -3.5: Encourage pedestrian -oriented retail uses and development in the
Urban Center. Promote and encourage retail uses which serve the residential
population in, and adjacent to, the Urban Center.
Land Use Element
J�_
4-31
Goal LU -4:
Plan and finance transportation and other public facilities which support the mixed-use
development of the Urban Center.
Policy LU4.1: Establish transportation levels -of -service (LOS) which facilitate
medium to high-density development in the Urban Center that is consistent with
concurrency requirements.
Policy LU4.2: Focus future public transportation investments in the Urban Center.
Policy LU4.3: Enhance pedestrian circulation systems and bicycle lanes in the
Urban Center. Place emphasis also on pedestrian and cyclist circulation systems
which link adjacent neighborhoods to Urban Center.
Policy LU4.4: Take actions to ensure that adequate public parking is available to
facilitate development in the Urban Center. This includes efficient management of
on -street spaces and future development and enhancement of structured, off-street
parking.
Policy LU4.5: Plan and finance city water and sewer systems to ensure that
adequate capacity exists to support medium- and high-density development in the
Urban Center.
Policy LU4.6: Develop park and open space areas to serve both residents and
employees in the Urban Center.
Policy LU4.7: Support public art projects to enhance the Urban Center,
particularly along the Sound Transit corridor.
Policy LU4.8: Locate civic buildings and facilities in the Urban Center.
Policy LU4.9: Locate facilities and services that meet the Community's human
service needs to be near the Urban Center.
Goal LU -5:
Emphasize the importance of good design, historic preservation, and aesthetics for
development in the Urban Center.
Policy LU -5.1: Require design review for development projects in the Urban
Center. Review projects for site design, effects upon historic properties, landscaping
design, and pedestrian orientation.
Land Use Element 4-32
Policy LU -5.2: Ensure that the City's street and construction design standards
enhance pedestrian, cyclist, transit, and aesthetic objectives throughout the Urban
Center.
Policy LU -5.3: Continue to undertake beautification projects to the Urban Center,
includingpedestrian amenities, street trees, andparks.
ACTIVITY CENTER GOALS & POLICIES
One of the fundamental themes behind many of the state, regional, and local planning goals
is the idea of using urban land more efficiently in order to reduce sprawl of residential and
commercial development into rural areas. In the past decade, several commercial areas in
Kent have seen a large amount of new development. These areas, which are located on East
Hill, West Hill, and in the Valley adjacent to Downtown, have an existing base of retail and
office uses, and typically are surrounded by medium -density residential areas. The idea
behind the Activity Center concept is to encourage more development in these areas,
because infrastructure to support growth is already in place, and to allow a mixture of uses
(residential and commercial), which brings housing closer to jobs and shopping, and which
supports public transit. Allowing a mixture of uses in the community also will increase
housing options. This concept is consistent with VISION 2020, Destination 2030 and the
Countywide Planning Policies, and has also been supported by citizens during the
Community Forums and Visual Preference Survey undertaken for this plan.
Goal LU -6:
Designate Activity Centers in portions of the City and in the Potential Annexation Area.
Allow in these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development.
Policy LU -6.1: Locate Activity Centers in areas which currently contain con-
centrations of commercial development with surrounding medium -density housing
Intensify these areas to support public transit to increase housing options.
Policy LU -6.2: Allow residential uses in Activity Centers. Develop residential uses
as part of a commercial area in a mixed-use development or on a stand-alone basis
in designated areas.
Goal LU -7:
Develop Activity Centers in such a way as to facilitate pedestrian, cyclist, public transit, and
vehicular circulation.
Policy LU -7.1: Implement design review for development in designated Activity
Centers to ensure pedestrian, cyclist and public transit orientation.
Land Use Element 4-33
Policy LU -7Z: Develop site and parking design standards in Activity Centers
which support public transit.
Policy LU -73: Ensure that the City's street and construction design standards in
Activity Centers enhance pedestrian and cyclist circulation, public transit, and
aesthetics.
Goal LU -8:
Emphasize the importance ofgood design and aesthetics in private development and public
facilities in Activity Centers.
Policy LU -8.1: Implement design review for development in designated Activity
Centers.
Policy LU -8.2: Encourage development of public spaces in all civic areas.
Policy LU4.3: Encourage development of public or semi-public spaces in all
retail, office, and residential areas.
HOUSING GOALS & POLICIES
As noted in the earlier sections of the Land Use Element, accommodating the demand for
housing may be the greatest land use challenge confronting the City of Kent. There are
many factors which influence the development of housing in the community. These are
explained in detail in the Housing Element. From a land use standpoint, the central issue is
accommodating the City's housing target by supporting the diversity of households found in
the community (i.e., household size, age, marital status, income) with housing types that are
acceptable to the community, and that efficiently utilize the remaining land within Kent and
its PAA. The Innovative Housing Workshop suggests that the public supports innovative
housing forms that would increase the opportunity for a variety of housing sizes, styles, and
densities within Kent.
Since 1995, there have been some measurable successes in providing a housing balance.
There is a balance in the number of single-family and multifamily dwelling units. New
housing development has typically utilized land efficiently, maximizing allowable densities.
However, over a quarter of all existing single-family homes within Kent are on lots of one-
quarter to one acre in size. There is a need to balance estate housing with housing that is
affordable to young professionals and their families. Housing on large lots, while desirable,
is not affordable for most families in Kent.
Land Use Element
I
4-34
The 2000 Census illuminates the disparity between income and housing costs (see the
Housing Element for more details). Of the approximately 70% of homeowners in Kent
earning incomes at or above the King County median income, 15% spend 30% or more of
their income on a mortgage. Approximately 24% of homeowners in Kent are considered to
have a "moderate" income (i.e., 50% - 80% of median income), and of those, 57% spend
30% or more of their income on a mortgage. Sixteen percent (16%) of all housing within
Kent is affordable (i.e., 30% of household income), to the median income (i.e., $46,046
median household income). There is a need for housing that is affordable to first time home
buyers, and particularly those single professionals, single parents, and retirees wanting to
downsize who have been identified as the fastest growing populations in the region. The
ultimate goal of the housing policies is to create a policy framework that will support a wide
variety of housing choices.
Goal LU -9:
Provide adequate land and densities to accommodate the adopted twenty (20) year housing
target of 4,284 new dwelling units within the existing city limits, and through an interlocal
agreement with King County, adopt the housing target of 619 new dwelling units within
Kent's Potential Annexation Area.
Policy LU -9.1: Where appropriate, establish urban residential densities of at least
four (4) units per net developable acre in order to adequately support urban
densities.
Policy LU -9.2: Establish flexible regulatory methods, such as shadow platting and
minimum densities, to ensure future land division that supports urban densities.
Policy LU -9.3: Plan and finance transportation and capital facilities to
accommodate the City's housing targets. Coordinate with King County on the
phasing ofpublic services and expenditures in the unincorporated area.
Policy LU -9.4: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close
proximity to employment, shopping, transit, and where possible, near human and
community services.
Goal LU -10:
Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities throughout the
City and the Potential Annexation Area to meet the housing needs of the Regions changing
demographics.
Policy LU -10.1: Allow and encourage high to medium density residential
development in the Downtown and designated Activity Centers.
Land Use Element 4-35
Policy LU -10.2: Allow and encourage a variety of molt family housing forms, such
as townhouses, residences above businesses, triplexes, fourplexes, duplexes, and
attached single-family units in multifamily districts, and within designated
commercial mixed-use land use areas.
Policy LU -10.3: Allow accessory dwellings in all residential districts, subject to
design and development standards, to ensure minimal impact to surrounding
properties.
Policy LU -10.4: Allow single-family housing on a variety of lot sizes. Locate
smaller lot sizes within close proximity to the Urban Center or Activity Centers
wherever possible.
Policy LU -10.5: Allow cottage housing in all multifamily land use areas and high-
density single-family land use areas (e.g., SF -8, MRT-12, and MRT-16), and as
demonstration projects as infill on small parcels in other single-family land use
areas,
Policy LU -10.6: Allow cluster housing in all multifamily and single-family land use
areas to protect environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, steep slopes,
streams), and when open space retention is desirable.
Policy LU -10.7: Allow attached single-family housing within multifamily land use
areas (e.g., MRT-12 and MRT-16), and as demonstration projects in mixed-use land
use areas.
Goal LU -11:
Revise development regulations to encourage single-family and multifamily development
that is moreflexible and innovative in terms of building, street standards for private roads,
and site design.
Policy LU -11.1: Support the achievement of allowable density in single-family
developments through flexibility and creativity in site design.
Policy LU -11.2: Allow clustering of housing units in subdivisions and multifamily
development in order to maximize allowable build -out while preserving open space
and environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy LU -11.3: Allow moreflexibility :n single-family and multifamily residential
setbacks, vehicle access, and parking, particularly on small lots, to encourage more
compact infill development and innovative site design.
Land Use Element 4-36
Policy LU -11.4: Allow modular housing on single-family lots, subject to the
Uniform Building Cade requirements as administered through Washington State
Labor and Industry.
Policy LU -11.5: Adopt minimum density requirements for residential development.
Policy LU -11.6: Allow more flexibility for private street standards to encourage a
variety of compact innovative residential developments.
Goal LU -12:
Encourage high-quality site and building design for all residential developments.
Policy LU -12.1: Establish a design review process for multifamily residential
development projects. Focus design review on integrating multifamily development
into surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LU -12.2: Promote residential streetscape patterns which foster more
opportunities for pedestrians and community interaction. Such measures include
narrower paved roadways, smaller front yard setbacks, and a pattern of streets,
sidewalks and pathways that encourages connectivity between neighborhoods.
Policy LU -12.3: Design subdivisions and residential site plans to maximize solar
access and protection of view.
Policy LU -12.4: Develop design standards for compact innovative single-family
housing (e.g.. cottage, cluster, and attached), where allowed, to ensure high quality
development integrates well into surrounding neighborhoods in terms of bulb scale
and design.
COMMERCIAL GOALS & POLICIES
Kent's major centers of commercial activity are located Downtown which is identified in the
"Kent Strategic Action Plan" and includes the Urban Center: on East Hill along the 104th
Avenue SE corridor; and along Pacific Highway on West Hill. Downtown businesses are
dispersed widely along General Commercial zoned corridors north and west of the Urban
Center. At this time, opportunities exist for infill development of vacant and redevelopable
properties within the Urban Center and with the larger Downtown area as defined in the
"Kent Strategic Action Plan". Commercial developments located adjacent to major arterials
west and north of the City Center and on East Hill and West Hill are composed of
predominantly one-story buildings with large surface parking lots which are accessed by
Land Use Element 4-39
separate driveways from the arterials. At key points along these corridors, opportunities
exist to develop pedestrian and transit -oriented Activity Centers. The Activity Centers
would incorporate commercial, office, and residential development.
Goal LU -13:
Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in
order to maintain and strengthen existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated
with the extension offacilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one
another.
Policy LU -13.1: Maintain and enhance Kent's Downtown as a vital and unique
commercial district.
Policy LU -13.2: Encourage large office building development and regionally
oriented retail uses to locate in the Downtown.
Policy LU -13.3: Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in
existing commercial areas. Regulatory incentives may include urban, mixed-use
zoning and higher -density zones, planned unit developments, transfer of density
credits, planned action ordinances, tax incentives, and streamlined permit processes.
Policy LU -13.4: Develop City investment incentives to encourage infill
development in existing commercial areas. Investments may include improved
sidewalks and outdoor public spaces such as urban parks or small public squares.
Other public investment incentives include facilities such as a performing arts
center, permanent public market space, daycare facilities, libraries, and community
centers.
Goal LU -14:
Determine the size, function, and mix of uses in the City's commercial districts based on
regional, community, and neighborhood needs.
Policy LU -14.1: Develop subarea plans for the Activity Centers and the Urban
Center to idents visual and physical focal points, edges, and connections. Reserve
open space and select target areas for development and public infrastructure.
Identify pedestrian -oriented streets and paths, and links with multi -modal
transportation facilities.
Policy LU -14.2: Provide opportunities for residential development within existing
business districts to provide support for shops, services, and employment within
walking distance.
Land Use Element 4-38
Policy LU -14.3; Subject to City review and approval, add color and life to
commercial districts by allowing appropriate commercial uses to be conducted on
sidewalks and in other public spaces. Examples include sidewalk cafes, public
markets, espresso stands, flower pushcarts, and sidewalk sales or outdoor retail
displays.
Policy LU -14.4: Allow home occupations in all residential districts, subject to
criteria which will ensure compatibility with neighboring residences.
Policy LU -145: Encourage commercial design elements which will minimize
impacts to surrounding established residential uses for all new development and
redevelopment in the existing Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Ensure
that projects are pedestrian -oriented and developed with minimum parking
provisions.
Policy LU -14.6: Discourage expansion of Neighborhood Service land uses in areas
where the adjacent land use designation is predominately single-family.
Policy LU -14.7: Promote redevelopment of existing commercial properties by
limiting the conversion of residential land uses to commercial land uses.
Policy LU -14.8: Ensure that commercial and mixed-use developments adjacent to
existing single-family residential areas are compatible in height and scale. Establish
guidelines for design of edges where commercial and mixed -uses abut single-family
use and medium- and low-density residential.
MANUFACTURINGANDUSTRIAL CENTER GOALS & POLICIES
The Countywide Planning Policies (CPPB) state that Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are
key components of the regional economy. These centers are defined as areas with a
significant amount of manufacturing, industrial, or other related employment (at least 10,000
employees). The Kent North Valley Industrial Area clearly meets this criterion. This
industrial area, which is over 6 square miles in size, has been well-established over the past
two decades, and is home to dozens of companies which employ over 33,000 people. This
North Valley Industrial Area is an extremely important part of both the City's and the
Region's economic and employment base, and 3.1 square miles of this industrial area has
been designated as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
Goal LU -15:
Preserve a portion of the Valley Floor Industrial Area as a Manufactunng/Industrial Center
for manufacturing and related land uses.
Land Use Element 4-39
Policy LU -15.1: Define the Manufacturing/Industrial Center as that area within
which the most intensive manufacturing, industrial and warehouse uses should
locate. Ensure the boundaries reflect accessibility to truck and rail corridors.
Policy LU -15.2: Discourage and limit land uses other than manufacturing, high
technology and warehousing within the boundaries of the ManufacturinglIndustrial
Center.
Goal LU -16:
Plan and finance in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center those transportation and
infrastructure systems which can accommodate high-intensity manufacturing, industry and
warehouse uses.
Policy LU -16.1: Facilitate mobility to and within the Manufacturing/Industrial
Center for goods, services, and employees. Work with the Regional Transit
Authority and King County to enhance public transit service to and within the
Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
Policy LU -16.2: Upgrade water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater management
facilities as necessary to support development in the Manufacturing/Industrial
Center.
Goal LU -17:
Utilize development standards in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center to create an attractive
employment center and to mitigate the impacts of manufacturing and warehouse uses.
Policy LU -17.1: Utilize setbacks and landscaping to protect wetlands, shorelines,
and streams from adjacent manufacturing and warehouse development.
Policy LU -17.2: Ensure development standards for the Manufacturing/Industrial
Center are conducive to transit. Place emphasis on building setbacks, the location
of parking areas, and revise parking standards to support commute trip reduction
goals and multi -modal forms of transportation.
Policy LU -173: Discourage or minimize parking lots between the building and the
sidewalk when manufacturing and warehouse development is located on a public
transit corridor.
Policy LU -17.4: Utilize development standards that create an attractive street-
scape, including street trees.
Poficy LU -17.5: Utilize development standards and code enforcement that supports
a distinctive and orderly character along the Sound Transit Corridor.
Land Use Element 4-40
INDUSTRIAL GOALS & POLICIES
Nearly one-quarter of land in Kent is zoned for industrial use; this industrial area accounts
for most of the City's employment and tax base. Therefore, the existing and future
development pattern and potential, in this area is very important to the economic health of
the community. This Land Use Element designates a portion of Kent's Valley Floor
Industrial Area as Industrial, which will support the Manufacturing/Industrial Center, but
will also allow business and office parks and bulk retail. The following goals and policies
apply to all areas in the City designated as Industrial.
Goal LU -18:
The Industrial land use designation within the Valley Floor Industrial Area will be an
employment center for both the City of Kent and South King County.
Policy LU -18.1: Encourage a mix of land uses which are compatible with
manufacturing, industrial, and warehouse uses. These shall include office develop-
ment, retail uses which serve the surrounding manufacturing and office park uses,
and retail uses which require large parcels of land that may not be available in
commercial districts.
Policy LU -18.2: Zone adequate land for manufacturing and warehouse uses to
accommodate the City's anticipated employment growth in these sectors. Do not
zone additional land for these uses, however, unless it is demonstrated that more
manufacturing land is needed for future employment growth.
Policy LU -18.3: Expand retail opportunities to provide necessary personal and
business services for the Valley Floor Industrial Area, by implementing the
recommendations of the West Valley Industrial Study regarding potential areas for
expanded retail opportunities within the MI and MI -C Industrial Park zoning
districts.
Goal LU -19:
Utilize development standards to create an attractive employment center and to mitigate the
impacts of manufacturing and warehouse uses, business and office parks, and bulk retail
uses.
Policy LU -19.1: Revise parking standards to support commute trip reduction goals
and to discourage reliance on commuting via single -occupancy vehicles.
Policy LU -19.2: Consider appropriate amenities for cyclists to support commute
trip reduction goals.
Land Use Element 4-41
Policy LU -19.3: Utilize setbacks and landscaping to protect wetlands, shorelines,
and streams from adjacent industrial development and impervious surfaces.
Policy LU -19.4: Ensure development standards for industrial, warehousing,
business and office parks are conducive to transit. Place emphasis on building
setbacks and the location ofparking areas with pedestrian access to retail uses.
Policy LU -19.5: Discourage or minimize parking lots between the building and the
sidewalk when a business or offlce park is located on a public transit corridor.
Policy LU -19.6: Utilize development standards that create an attractive street-
scape, including street trees.
Policy LU -19.7: Utilize development standards and code enforcement that supports
a distinctive and orderly character along the Sound Transit Corridor.
PARKING GOALS & POLICIES
During the Community's visioning process (see full explanation in the Community Design
Element), the citizens of Kent wanted a place less dominated by automobiles and parking
lots, and instead a community that was more accommodating to pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users. The Land Use Element, as well as the Housing, Transportation, and
Community Design Elements support this vision that seeks to focus growth within
urbanized areas to encourage more pedestrian and transit oriented development. To achieve
these goals, parking as a land use must be considered.
While parking may be linked to mobility, it is considered a land use issue because it is
integral to land development patterns. Whether it is commercial, industrial, or housing
development, all must accommodate the vehicle by providing parking. The goals and
policies found in this section apply to all forms of development and are intended to promote
land development patterns that are less auto -dependent and that better support travel options.
They recognize that compact large- and small-scale site design close to services and transit
will reduce vehicular trips, many of which may occur through transit, ridesharing, bicycling,
or walking.
Goal LU -20:
Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand.
Land Use Element 4-42
Policy LU -20.1: Develop parking ratios which take into account existing parking
supply, minimums and maximums, land use intensity, and transit and ride -sharing
goals.
Policy LU -20.2: Incorporate ground -level retail and/or service facilities into any
parking structures that are constructed within the downtown Urban Center.
Policy LU -203: Provide an option for developers to construct the minimum
number of parking spaces on-site or pay an in -lieu fee to cover the cost of the City's
construction and operation ofparking at an off-site location.
Policy LU -20.4: Evaluate the parking requirements for all uses within the DC and
DCE zones on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the following factors:
a) the potential of shared parking and transit facilities in proximity to the site;
b) the employee profile of a proposed site, including the number and type of
employees and the anticipated shifts;
c) the potential for "capture" trips that will tend to reduce individual site
parking requirements due to the aggregation of uses within concentrated
areas;
d) the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation report and
other publications which provide parking generation indices; and
e) any studies of similar specific uses conducted either by the City of Kent or
the applicant. The City of Kent parking coordinator, with the Planning
Manager's concurrence, will prepare a report recommending specific
parking requirements.
Policy LU -20.5: Require reduced allowable parking ratios for development projects
that are in close proximity to intermodal transu/commuter rail facilities. A
development project may provide up to 50% of the applicable maximum parking
standard if the development is located within five hundred (500) feet of a designated
intermodal transit/commuter rail facility. Such project may provide up to 75% of the
applicable parking standard if the development is located between 500 and 800 feet
of an intermodal facility.
Policy LU -20.6: Develop bicycle parking standards for remodel and new
commercial, ofi'ice, or industrial development.
NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
The natural environment of the Green River Valley, and adjacent hillsides and plateaus,
provide a unique and distinctive character to the City of Kent. The major hydrologic feature
is the Green River which encompasses a system that consists of associated creeks and
Land Use Element 4-43
wetlands. Some of the creeks in the Green River system, such as Mill Creek and Garrison
Creek, flow through steep ravines into the valley floor. While Big Soos Creek, Springbrook
Creek and Meridian Valley Creek flow at lower grades, they also contribute habitat.
Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas within this system support local and regional fish
and wildlife resources. These include smaller streams and their associated wetlands, and
several small lakes, namely Fenwick, Clark and Panther. While these lakes are not regulated
by the State Shorelines Act, they are protected through local Critical Areas regulations.
In 2002, the City of Kent began revising Critical Areas regulations as required by the GMA,
using best available science standards tailored specifically for Kent. Once complete, the
final regulations will guide future development in and near sensitive areas that will protect
the ecological functions and values of critical areas from cumulative adverse environmental
impacts. Designated critical areas include aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas,
geologic hazard areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. In
addition to protecting and preserving critical areas through regulations, a number of other
programs work cooperatively to form a systematic approach toward Kent's natural resource
policies. These other programs include: stormwater regulation, environmental capital
improvement projects, inter jurisdictional collaborative efforts, and the support of the
adjacent King County's Lower Green River Agricultural Production District and the
"Agricultural Resource" land within Kent.
As a complement to new Critical Areas regulations, Kent's 1999 Shoreline Master Program
provides for the management and protection of local shoreline resources by planning for
reasonable and appropriate uses. The goals, policies, and regulations in the Shoreline
Master Program apply to activities in all lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). The goals and policies of Kent's
Shoreline Master Program are incorporated herein (see appendices).
Kent is home to four watersheds namely Big Soos Creek, Mill Creek/Springbrook, Green
River, and Puget Sound Watersheds, each with major creek systems, all with varying
degrees of urban development. The Big Soos Creek Watershed is a region of approximately
70 square miles, and within the Kent City limits, includes the Soosette, Lake Meridian, and
Meridian Valley Creek subbasins, as depicted in Figure 4.7, as well as areas draining directly
to Big Soos Creek located outside Kent's Planning Area. The system has nearly ninety (90)
miles of streams flowing into the Green River, and the basin includes many wetlands and
lakes. The Soos Creek Basin Plan, adopted by King County in January 1992, recommended
a combination of tools for basin management aimed at correcting surface water problems
Land Use Element 1
4-44
and providing protection for the basin's water resources. One of the tools recommended
was to maintain rural densities, especially in areas of the Soosette Creek subbasin.
Big Soos Creek is a major creek lying within the Green River Basin. The creek meanders in
and out of the easterly city limits of Kent and provides a natural open space corridor
between the cities of Kent and Covington and between Urban Growth Areas and Rural
Areas of unincorporated King County. Big Soos Creek provides significant habitat for fish
and wildlife, and it is an area of natural beauty that provides recreational and educational
opportunities throughout the region. The Soos Creek Trail, which runs for four (4) miles
from Gary Grant Park at SE 208u' and 137s' Avenue SE to Lake Meridian Park, provides
opportunities for walking, bicycling and horseback riding.
The east and west banks of the Green River Valley and other unique natural features such as
the Olsen Creek Canyon provide natural opportunities for Urban Separators. The eastern
plateau in particular provides a natural separation between the cities of Kent and Covington,
and between the urban and rural areas of unincorporated King County.
The Olsen Creek Canyon provides separation between a portion of Kent and Auburn. This
separation continues as a result of both natural features and existing land use preservation
within the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District of King County. In addition,
the wetlands and floodplain of the Northeast Auburn drainage ditch, Mill Creek (Auburn)
and Mullen Slough limit development potential. The result is a complete east -west corridor
of environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits.
In 1985, the City of Kent, in conjunction with the establishment of the City stormwater
drainage utility, adopted the following water quality goal: "Reduce the environmentally
detrimental effects of present and fixture runoff in order to maintain or improve stream
habitat, wetlands, particularly water quality, and protected water -related uses." Beginning in
1986, the City worked with Green River Community College to analyze samples each
month from eleven (11) stream locations in Kent for twenty-four (24) water quality
parameters. In recent years, the City of Kent has been monitoring water quality.
Documentation of water quality condition within Kent may be found in the 1999 — 2000
Ambient Monitoring "Draft' Final Report. The data collected indicate that water quality
problems continue to exist.
To address water quality problems within the City, a number of capital improvement
projects have been constructed and are being designed. Non -point source pollution is
Land Use Element 4-45
FIGURE 4.7
FRONT
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.7 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-46
FIGURE 4.7
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.7 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-47
treated at numerous public and private stormwater treatment facilities throughout the City.
One example may be found at the 304 -acre Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA).
The GRNRA provides regional treatment of surface water runoff from an 832 -acre area on
the valley floor, flood control of 100 -year flood events in the valley, wildlife habitat, and
public education opportunities. Since 1980, Kent has completed several projects to protect
the water quality of Lake Fenwick. In 1995, the City installed an aeration system to
improve Lake Fenwick's water quality. Water quality monitoring continues for all lakes
within the City.
The principal sources of water supply for the City's water system, Clark Springs, Kent
Springs, and Armstrong Springs, are located outside Kent city limits, adjacent to the
jurisdictions of unincorporated King County and the cities of Black Diamond, Covington
and Maple Valley. A Wellhead Protection Plan (Resolution #1563) has been prepared in
cooperation with Covington Water District and King County Water District #111. This plan
identifies aquifer recharge areas, potential containment sources, and management strategies
for protection of aquifers. Today these management strategies are being implemented in
cooperation with Covington Water District and King County Water District #111.
Native plants, trees and shrubs are found throughout the City. Preservation and planting of
native trees and shrubs, particularly near streams and wetlands on individual properties, in
parks, schools, and other public spaces protect and enhance environmental quality for fish
and wildlife habitat. Today preservation of open space, fish and wildlife habitat, and other
critical areas occurs through the development process using "Sensitive Area Easements".
It is the City of Kent's goal to participate in regional efforts to ensure long-term protection
of our salmonid resources to harvestable levels for today and future generations. Successful
restoration and maintenance of healthy salmon populations will require time, money, and
collaboration with tribal governments, federal, state, and local jurisdictions, as well as
private citizens, businesses, and environmental groups.
In March 1999 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Chinook salmon as
"threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In December 1999 the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Puget Sound and Coastal Bull trout as threatened
under the ESA. In the future, additional salmonid species such as Coho may also be listed
under the ESA. In accordance with the ESA, the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the USFWS issued regulations deemed necessary to provide
for the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and other salmonids. Commonly
Land Use Element 4-48
referred to as the 4(d) rule, the rule legally establishes the protective measures deemed
necessary to conserve the species. Local governments will be required to comply with these
protective measures.
In cooperation with federal, state, and tribal governments, and other major stakeholders,
local governments in the Puget Sound region have begun to identify early actions and
develop long-range strategies for the permanent conservation of the species. These
strategies are developed at the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA), which include the
boundaries of multiple jurisdictions. Kent has interest in two WRIA's: WRIA 9 (the
Green/Duwamish Watershed) and WRIA 8 (the Cedar/Sammamish Watershed).
Historically, the commercial agricultural lands in the Green River Valley have added to the
City's economic support. Today, the majority of protected agricultural resource lands in the
Valley are located south of Kent's municipal limits within King County's Lower Green
River Agricultural Production District. There are a few designated "Agricultural Resource"
lands within Kent whose development rights have been purchased and protected from
conversion to a more intensive land use. Activities within the land use designation
"Agricultural Support" (i.e., AG -S) will help sustain the agricultural community by
providing land dedicated to the processing and retailing of local agricultural production.
Kent is committed to a multi -faceted approach toward the protection and enhancement of
local and regional natural resources. As such, the City will continue to protect natural
resources through the promulgation of development standards, enhancement of natural
resources through a variety of capital improvement programs, and looking for opportunities
to support regional efforts to preserve our resources for future generations.
Goal LU -21:
Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and systems in
determining the overall environmental quality and livability of the community.
Policy 21.1: Educate City staff, developers, and other citizens on the interaction
between natural features and systems, such as wetlands, streams, and geologically
hazardous areas, and human activities
Goal LU -22:
Coordinate with appropriate individuals and entities to create a long-term, sustainable
relationship among local and regional natural resource protection entities, for future growth
and economic development, through enhancement of wildlife, fisheries, and recreational
Land Use Element 4-49
opportunities; protection of cultural resources; protection of water quality in wetlands,
aquifers, lakes, streams, and the Green River; provision of open space and screening to
reduce impacts of development, protection of environmentally sensitive areas to preserve
life, property, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat; and retention of the unique
character and sense of place provided by the City's natural features.
Policy LU -22.1: Provide incentives for environmental protection and compliance
with environmental regulations. Foster greater cooperation and education among
City staff, developers, and other citizens. Determine the effectiveness of incentives
by establishing monitoringprograms.
Policy LU -22.2: Continue to evaluate programs and regulations to determine their
effectiveness in contributing to the conservation and recovery of ESA listed species.
Policy LU -22.3: Continue to participate in regional and WRIA planning efforts to
support the conservation of listed species.
Goal LU -23:
Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption of City regulations
and programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as clustering and
planned unit development. Use such land use patterns to concentrate higher urban land use
densities and intensity of uses in specified areas in order to preserve natural features such as
large wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, and forests.
Policy LU -23.1: Create development regulations for clustering single and
multifamily residential developments that are constrained by critical areas.
Policy LU -23.2: Where practical, allow planned unit developments in single-family
neighborhoods.
Goal LU -24:
Encourage well designed, compact land use patterns to reduce dependency on the
automobile, and thereby improve air and water quality and conserve energy resources.
Establish mixed-use commercial, office, and residential areas to present convenient
opportunities for travel by transit, foot, and bicycle.
Policy LU -24.1: Incorporate bike lanes in designated roadway designs, ensure that
sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities are provided in conjunction with private
and public development, and incorporate convenient transit stations in designs for
mixed-use development.
Goal LU -25:
Ensure that the City's environmental policies and regulations comply with state and federal
environmental protection regulations regarding air and water quality, hazardous materials,
Land Use Element 4-50
noise and wildlife and fisheries resources and habitat protection. Demonstrate support for
environmental quality in land use plans, capital improvement programs, code enforcement,
implementation programs, development regulations, an site plan review to ensure that local
land use management is consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals.
Policy LU -25.1: Protect and enhance environmental quality via maintenance of
accurate and up-to-date environmental data, and by City support of environmental
management programs, park master programs, and environmental education and
incentive programs.
Policy LU -25.2: Provide to property owners and prospective property owners
general information concerning natural resources, critical areas, and associated
regulations. Ensure developers provide site-specific environmental information to
identify possible on- and off-site constraints and special development procedures.
Policy LU -25.3: Indemnify the City from damages resulting from development in
naturally constrained areas. To the extent possible or feasible, require that
developers provide to the City accurate and valid environmental information.
Policy LU -25.4: Continue a periodic storm drainage%nvironmental inspection pro-
gram to ensure constant maintenance and upkeep of storm systems and on-going
compliance with general environmental processes.
Policy LU -255: Ensure that decisions regarding fundamental site design are made
prior to the initiation of land surface modifications. Grade and fall permits, which
do not include site development plans, may be issued by the City where such
activities do not disturb sensitive areas, such as wetlands.
Policy LU -25.6: Require site restoration if land surface modification violates
adopted policy or if development does not ensue within a reasonable period of time.
Policy LU -25.7: Adopt a clearing and grading code to protect upland habitat, as
well as site designations and special restrictions relevant to Kent's construction
standards and detention criteria.
Policy LU -25.8: As additional land is annexed to the City, assign zoning designa-
tions, which wall protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy LU -25.9: Continue to support waste reduction and recycling programs in
Cityfacilities, and in the City at large, to meet State and County waste reduction and
recycling goals.
Land Use Element 4-51
Policy LU -25.10: Work cooperatively with tribal, federal, state and local
jurisdictions, as well as major stakeholders, to conserve and work towards recovery
of ESA listed threatened and endangered species.
Goal LU -26:
Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including recreation, fish and
wildlife resources and habitat, flood protection, water supply, and open space.
Policy LU -26.1: Maintain the quantity and quality of wetlands via current land use
regulation and review, and increase the quality and quantity of the City's wetlands
resource base via incentives and advance planning.
Policy LU -26.2: Protect wetlands not as isolated units, but as ecosystems, and
essential elements of watersheds. Base protection measures on wetland functions
and values, and the effects of on-site and off-site activities.
Policy LU -26.3: When, jurisdictional boundaries are involved coordinate wetland
protection and enhancement plans and actions with adjacent jurisdictions and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Policy LU -26.4: Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state. Rehabilitate
degraded channels and banks via public programs and in conjunction with proposed
new development.
Policy LU -26.5: On a regular basis, evaluate the adequacy of the existing building
setback and stream buffer requirements in relation to goals for water resource and
fisheries and wildlife resource protection. When necessary, mods the requirements
to achieve goals.
Policy LU -26.6: Coordinate with King County to produce critical area maps of the
Potential Annexation Area which are consistent with the City of Kent Critical Areas
Maps.
Policy LU -26.7: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for water
supply in accordance with the City of Kent Water Quality Program recommenda-
tions.
Policy LU -26.8: Update the City of Kent Critical Areas Maps as new information
about aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas becomes available.
Policy LU -26.9: In accordance with GMA regulations, update critical areas
development regulations to identify, protect, and preserve wildlife species and areas
of local significance
Land Use Element 4-52
Policy LU -26.10: Protect the habitat of native and migratory wildlife by en-
couraging open space conservation of beneficial habitat through public capital
improvement projects and private development.
Policy LU -26.11: Provide incentives for on-going water conservation activities and
practices, in accordance with the City of Kent Water System Plan.
Goal LU -27:
Ensure that uses, densities, and development patterns on lands adjacent to the shorelines of
the Green River are compatible with shoreline uses and resource values, and support the
goals and policies of the City of Kent's Shoreline Master Program and the Green-Duwamish
Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan.
Policy LU -27.1: Reserve appropriate shoreline areas for water -oriented uses.
Policy LU -27.2: Minimize the loss of vegetation as new development occurs.
Continue to recognize the value of trees and other vegetation in increasing the
livability of Kent.
Policy LU -27.3: Promote and support a systematic approach to enhancing the City
through carefully planned plantings and ongoing maintenance of street trees, public
landscaping, and greenbelts. Require the use of native and low water use vege-
tation.
Policy LU -27.4: Require protection of ecologically valuable vegetation, when
possible, during all phases of land use development. In cases where development
necessitates the removal of vegetation, require an appropriate amount of native or
low water use landscaping to replace trees, shrubs, and ground cover, which were
removed during development.
Policy LU -27.5: Record and protect established greenbelts to preserve existing
natural vegetation in geologically hazardous areas, along stream banks, wetlands,
and other habitat areas, and where visual buffers between uses or activities are
desirable.
Goal LU -28:
Regulate development in environmentally critical areas to prevent harm, to protect public
health and safety, to preserve remaining critical areas, and enhance degraded critical areas
in the City.
Policy LU -28.1: Encourage enhancement of existing environmental features such
as rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.
Land Use Element 4-53
Policy LU -28.2: Promote the creation and preservation of natural corridors
adjacent to areas such as the Green River, Soos Creep and other streams and
wetlands within the City of Kent for fish and wildlife habitat, open space and passive
recreation. Whenever possible, preservation of these lands should link other pro-
perties with similar features to create a natural corridor.
Goal LU -29:
Include provisions in the City's land use regulations to preserve reasonable access to solar
energy for all lots in the City where access or potential access exists.
Goal LU -30:
Ensure the conservation and enhancement of productive agricultural land via regulation,
acquisition, or other methods.
Policy LU -30.1: Establish a notification process as specified by the GMA to ensure
incompatible land uses adjacent to agricultural lands are aware of adjacent
agricultural resource land.
Goal LU -31:
Establish Urban Separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas, 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 County 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, jloodplams, 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, ad-
jacent cities, and unincorporated King County to create a regional approach to
Urban Separators.
Land Use Element 4-54
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 lanes 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.
LAND USE MAP
Along with the Goals and Policies listed above, the Land Use Element also includes the
Land Use Map. This map is a vital part of the Land Use Element and the Comprehensive
Plan as a whole, because it establishes the framework for amendments to the City's official
zoning map. It also establishes the land use and zoning framework to be used as land
currently in the Potential Annexation Area is annexed into the City.
DEFINITION OF MAP DESIGNATIONS
There are several different land use designations. They relate to various types of land uses,
such as residential, commercial, industrial, and the like. These designations are found on the
Land Use Map (Figure 4.8) and are explained below. One needs to bear in mind, however,
that there are certain types of land uses that need relative freedom of location and, thus,
should not be restricted to certain districts. These types of uses may be allowed via general
conditional use permit in many of the listed districts, whether residential, commercial or
industrial. The uses include utility, transportation, and communication facilities; schools;
public facilities; open space uses such as cemeteries, golf course, and so forth; and retire-
ment homes, convalescent facilities and certain other welfare facilities.
Single -Family Residential (SF)
The Single-family Residential designation allows single-family residential development at
varying densities and housing forms (e.g., cottage and cluster). In the city limits, there are
five €eop-single-family designations: SF -1, SF -3, SF -4.5. SF -6, and SF -8. These
designations allow development of up to 1, 3, 4.5, 6, and 8 dwelling units per acre,
respectively. It should be stressed that these designations represent a range of densities, with
the designation being the
Land Use Element 4-55
FIGURE 4.8
FRONT
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.8 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4-56
FIGURE 4.8
BACK
For purposes of the Urban Density — Comprehensive Plan — Land Use Element Ordinance
this Figure 4.8 was intentionally omitted. No changes made.
Land Use Element 4.57
maximum allowable density. For example, the SF -6 designation allows zoning which could
accommodate up to 6 units per acre; it also could accommodate less than that.
In the unincorporated area, there are two (2) single-family designations: Urban Residential,
Low (UR -1) allows one (1) dwelling unit per acre; and Urban Residential, Medium (UR4-
12) allows development at a range of four (4) to twelve (12) units per acre. On a
countywide basis, these designations have been updated since the 1991 Soos Creek
Community Plan to reflect the November 2001 amended King County designated land uses.
Multifamily Residential OM
Multifamily Residential areas allow multifamily and single-family residential development
at varying densities and housing types. In the city limits, there are two designations: Low
Density Multifamily (LDMF) and Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF). The Low
Density Multifamily designation allows densities of up to 16 dwelling units per acre, while
the Medium Density Multifamily designation allows densities of 17-23 dwelling units per
acre. In Kent's PAA of Unincorporated King County, a multifamily designation of Urban
Residential, High (UR12+) allows 18-48 dwelling units per acre.
Urban Center (UC)
This designation identifies a portion of the Downtown area as an Urban Center. This
designation allows high-density, mixed-use development. Retail, office, multifamily resi-
dential, and public facility land uses are permitted outright.
Mobile Home Park (NHP)
The Mobile Home Park designation allows mobile and manufactured homes and
recreational vehicles within existing commercial mobile home parks.
Mixed -Use (MU)
The Mixed -Use designation allows retail, office, and multifamily residential uses together in
the same area. The Mixed -Use designation is distinguished from the Urban Center
designation in that the Mixed -Use areas do not allow as much density as the Urban Center
area. All residential development within a Mixed -Use area must be a component of a retail
or office development.
Land Use Element 4_58
Neighborhood Services (NS)
Neighborhood Services allows for small nodal areas of retail and personal service activities
to provide everyday convenient goods to residential areas.
Commercial (C)
Commercial areas allow a variety of retail, office, and service uses located along major
thoroughfares that serve local residential neighborhoods or serve regional clients and
customers and consists of a contiguous strip of commercial activities. Many areas on the
Land Use Map, which were previously designated for commercial uses, now are designated
as Mixed -Use areas.
Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC)
The Manufacturing/Industrial Center is an area reserved for manufacturing, industrial, and
advanced technology uses, or those uses closely related to industrial development such as
warehousing. Office uses related to the primary land use is permitted, but they are otherwise
limited. Retail uses are also permitted, but limited in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center.
Industrial (1)
The Industrial designation is an area for manufacturing and warehouse uses. However,
office and business park development is allowed in this area, as are certain types of retail
uses which serve the surrounding manufacturing and office park uses, and bulk retail.
Agricultural Resource (AGR)
The Agricultural Resource designation is for land reserved for long-term agricultural use.
Single-family residential uses may also be allowed, but at very low densities.
Agricultural Support (AGS)
The Agricultural Support designation is reserved for agriculturally related industrial and
retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural use.
Urban Separator (US)
The Urban Separator designation is reserved for low-density lands that define community or
municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and
Land Use Element 4-59
t
environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between urban
areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits.
Parks and Open Space (POS)
The Parks and Open Space designation represents publicly owned land that is either large
active park or undeveloped or developed for passive recreation open space land that may
have environmental sensitivities.
LAND USE ELEMENT DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
The Land Use Map provides adequate capacity to meet the City's household and employ-
ment targets for the next twenty (20) years. Industrial employment and development
capacity is not expected to change, because the amount of land, which is designated for
industrial uses, is not changed from the existing plan. Commercial capacity is likely to
increase somewhat. There are areas on East and West Hill that are positioned for re-
development. Kent's large mixed-use areas, while allowing residential uses, ensure com-
mercial capacity will not be displaced by residential development. Areas currently zoned for
office uses will allow retail uses, while bulk retail uses will be permitted in the industrial
area. Capacity in the unincorporated area is not expected to change in the short term,
because the King County Comprehensive Plan designations are adopted for this area. King
County's Land Use Plan designations provide a wide variation of densities in this area and
the present zoning provides adequate capacity.
It is envisioned that this proposed element, once implemented through changes in the zoning
and subdivision codes, will increase potential for single-family residential development and
home ownership. Therefore, this plan not only will meet the City's growth targets, but it will
create more flexibility and variety of housing types. At the same time, it will preserve
single-family neighborhoods and restrict the growth of stand-alone multifamily zoning.
This increased development flexibility and variety also has important implications for
providing housing that is affordable to a broader segment of the population, as will be
discussed further in the Housing Element.
Land Use Element 4-60