HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 03/11/2019 (2)Unless otherwise noted, the Land Use and Planning Board meets at 7 p.m. on the second and
fourth Mondays of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers West and East, 220 Fourth Ave
S, Kent, WA 98032.
Documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board may be accessed at the City’s website:
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 253-856-
5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-
800-833-6388.
Land Use and Planning Board
Workshop Agenda
Board Members: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair;
Gwen Allen-Carston; Shane Amodei; Frank Cornelius;
Dale Hartman; Ali Shasti
March 11, 2019
7 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1.Call to order NO Chair Hintz 1 min
2.Roll call NO Chair Hintz 1 min
3.Approval of 2/25/19 Minutes YES Chair Hintz 1 min 1
4.Added Items NO Chair Hintz 1 min
5.Communications NO Chair Hintz 1 min
6.Notice of Upcoming Meetings NO Chair Hintz 1 min
7.Shoreline Master Program NO Danielle
Butsick
20 min 3
8.Adjournment NO Chair Hintz 1 min
Land Use and Planning Board February 25, 2019
Minutes Kent, Washington
Pending Approval
Page 1 of 2
Date: February 25, 2019
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
Attending: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Ali Shasti; Frank
Cornelius; Matt Gilbert, ECD Deputy Director, Hayley Bonsteel, Long-Range Planning
Manager
Agenda:
1.Call to Order
Chair Hintz called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
2.Roll Call
Dale Hartman out sick, Frank Cornelius Jr. absent, excused. All other members
present
3.Approval of the Minutes
Kathi Jones voted to approve the minutes. Motion passed 5-0.
4.Added Items None.
5.Communications None.
6.Notice of Upcoming Meetings None.
Chair Hintz opened the public hearing at 7:00
7.Public Hearing
ECD Deputy Director Matt Gilbert introduced a aoning amendment in the
Downtown Commercial Enterprize zone to allow clean advanced manufacturing
uses. Uses include laboratory research and development, hardware and robotics
testing, training facilities for industrial machinery, electronics and aerospace
products, and materials manufacturing. Specifically prohibited would be
recycling distribution or collection, and heavy industries. Design guidelines
would be tailored to require attractive frontage as viewed from the street and
sidewalks.
A motion was made by Kathi Jones to approve the ordinance to allow advanced
manufacturing in the DCE zone.
The public hearing on the DCE ordinance was closed, and Chair Hintz then
opened a public hearing for the Self-Storage ordinance.
Page 1
Land Use and Planning Board February 25, 2019
Minutes Kent, Washington
Pending Approval
Page 2 of 2
8.Self Storage Mini-Warehouse Ordinance
Deputy Director Gilbert introduced the Mini-Warehouse Ordinance to the
Board, and Hayley Bonsteel followed up with the details regarding the
restriction to developments of new mini-warehouse storage facilities within the
City of Kent, citing that they are a low-performing use of land. Mini-
warehouses provide few low-skill, low paying jobs, very little tax revenue,
are a poor use of land, and last for long periods of time. It was also
mentioned that storage facilities reduce attractiveness for businesses
looking to move to the area. One public speaker registered to be heard in
front of the board. Some back and forth took place between the board and
the registered speaker before putting the issue to rest. Kathi Jones presented a motion to approve the staff recommended ordinance to
regulate mini-warehouses 4-0 with an abstainance from Gwen Allen-Carston.
Adjournment
8:05 Chair Hintz seeing no further business motioned to adjourned the meeting.
Samuel M Maloney
Planning Technician
Economic and Community Development
Page 2
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: March 11, 2019
To: Chair Paul Hintz and Land Use and Planning Board Members
From: Danielle Butsick, AICP, Sr. Long Range Planner
Re: Shoreline Master Program Update
Motion: Info Only
SUMMARY: The city’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP), adopted by Kent City
Council in 2009, is due for a required periodic review by June 30, 2019. The
update is expected to be minor, and will ensure consistency between the
SMP and Kent’s Comprehensive Plan, updated development regulations, and
state regulations adopted since the plan was developed.
A gap analysis has been completed to summarize changes necessary to
maintain consistency. Proposed changes include: updated references to City
of Kent critical areas regulations, updates to definitions and substantial
development cost thresholds, and inclusion of language pertaining to
exemptions from local review for certain projects, as specified by the State
of Washington. Additional revisions include minor adjustments to provisions
regarding vegetation conservation and use conflicts, removal of references
to the Panther Lake Potential Annexation Area, fixing a mapping error in
Shoreline Environment Designations, and minor edits to improve
functionality and readability.
Staff will be available at the March 11 meeting to present information and
answer questions about the SMP update.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
Enc: PowerPoint Presentation, Gap Analysis Report
cc: Kurt Hanson, Economic & Community Development Director
Page 3
City of Kent
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Periodic Update, 2018-2019
Land Use and Planning Board
March 11, 2019
Page 4
The SMP is a set of policies and
regulations required by state law
The SMP is required by the state’s Shoreline
Management Act, which has three basic goals:
1)Encourage shoreline development that makes sense, and
emphasize water-dependent uses like docks, marinas, and
recreation.
2)Protect natural resources and character of the shoreline –like
water, plants, and wildlife.
3)Promote public access and opportunities to enjoy the shoreline.
Page 5
SMP Rules Apply only within Shoreline
Jurisdiction
Shoreline jurisdiction is within 200 feet of large bodies of
water –lakes at least 20 acres, streams at least 20 cubic feet per second –and their connected wetlands,
floodplains, and floodways.
In Kent, these include:
•Green River
•Lake Meridian
•Lake Fenwick
•Panther Lake
•Jenkins Creek
•Springbrook Creek
•Big Soos Creek
•Green River Natural
Resources Area
Page 6
Certain Activities are Regulated Under
SMP Rules
SMP rules apply to these land use activities within shoreline jurisdiction:
New/expanded/redeveloped structures like houses, sheds, or decks
New/expanded/redeveloped in-and over-water structures like docks, buoys, boat launches
Land development/alteration like clearing,grading, dredging, or filling
Other activities, like restoration, trail construction, and public access
Rules are meant to meet No Net Loss standards
Page 7
“Substantial Development” Activities
Require Permits
Substantial Development Permits identify and enforce
the rules that apply to the project, such as:
setbacks,
vegetation conservation,
public access, and
protection of critical areas and archaeological
resources.
Other projects require a Conditional Use Permit or a Shoreline Variance, approved by the Hearing Examiner
Page 8
Periodic Reviews Are Required To
Ensure Consistency
A periodic review is required every 8 years –updates as
needed to ensure No Net Loss
Periodic reviews should focus on:
New/updated state laws since the SMP was adopted
Changes to codes and plans (especially critical areas and flood hazard regulations)
Revisions to maps and references
Page 9
Periodic Reviews do NOT:
Re-evaluate the ecological baseline which was
established as part of the 2009 comprehensive update
Extensively assess no net loss criteria other than to
ensure that proposed amendments do not result in
degradation of the baseline condition
Change shoreline jurisdiction or environment designations
Rewrite the Restoration Plan
Page 10
We engaged the public early.
Website/Video –an opportunity to learn about
SMPs and the periodic update
Online Survey –a chance to share candid
thoughts on permitting experiences
Open House –a place to ask questions and
learn about the SMP update
Page 11
Some early comments include:
Maximize habitat restoration and recreation access.
Reduce development on the shoreline.
Increase flood storage.
Incentivize restoration by private property owners.
Manage vegetation to promote visibility and access.
Page 12
Some early comments include:
Ensure access for fishermen.
Increase shade from trees to reduce water
temperatures for fish.
Remove exemptions for existing development.
Focus on ecological health and reducing pollution.
Page 13
The proposed changes to the SMP
include:
Reference to the most recent critical areas regulations adopted in 2017
Updated definitions, thresholds, and exemption rules
Vegetation conservation provisions specific to potential use conflicts with regional trails
Remove Panther Lake PAA references
Fix mapping error –amend Shoreline Environment Designation for two parcels on Frager Road
Minor edits to improve functionality and readability (e.g. removing unused definitions, updated maps and diagrams, clarifying language)
Page 14
The State of Washington Sets a
Deadline for Cities’ Periodic Reviews
We anticipate a joint public hearing with Ecology March
25, 2019
The City of Kent’s Shoreline Master Program review and
update is due by June 30, 2019
Page 15
Contact Information
Danielle Butsick
Planning Services | Economic & Community Development
City of Kent
(253) 856-5443
dbutsick@kentwa.gov
Page 16
City of Kent Shoreline Master Program
Gap Analysis Report
Prepared on behalf of:
City of Kent
Economic and Community Development Department
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
Prepared by:
October 2018
The Watershed Company Reference Number:
180507
Page 17
Page 18
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Consistency with State Laws ................................................................................................... 2
3. Integration of Current Critical Areas Regulations ................................................................. 10
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other Development Regulations ........................ 12
5. Other Issues to Consider ....................................................................................................... 13
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document. ..................................................................... 2
Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions. 2
Table 3-1. Summary of gaps in consistency with current critical areas regulations and
associated recommended SMP revisions. ............................................................. 11
Table 4-1. Summary of recommended SMP, KCC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to
improve consistency. ............................................................................................. 12
Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP. ............ 13
Page 19
Page 20
The Watershed Company
October 2018
1
1. Introduction
In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local jurisdictions with
“Shorelines of the State” are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master
Programs (SMPs) (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26-090). The periodic review is
intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws, changes to local plans and
regulations, changes in local circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
Shorelines of the State in the City of Kent (City) include: Green River, Big Soos Creek, Lake
Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Green River Natural Resources Area Pond, Springbrook Creek, and
Jenkins Creek.
The City’s most recent update of its SMP took place in 2009 (Ordinance No. 3931). The City’s
SMP outlines goals and policies for the shorelines of the City, and also establishes regulations
for development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction. The City’s current SMP incorporates
by reference the City-wide critical areas regulations of Ordinance No. 3805 (2006), with some
exceptions.
Since adoption of the SMP, the City-wide critical areas regulations have been amended by
multiple ordinances (Ordinance No. 4019 [2011], Ordinance No. 4159 [2015], and Ordinance No.
4249 [2017]). The City-wide critical areas regulations are currently codified as Kent City Code
(KCC) Chapter 11.06 Critical Areas. The City anticipates referencing the most recent version of
the City-wide critical areas regulations in the updated SMP.
As a first step in the periodic review process, the City’s current SMP was reviewed by City staff
and consultants. The purpose of this Gap Analysis Report is to provide a summary of the
review and inform updates to the SMP. This report is organized into the following sections:
• Section 2 identifies gaps in consistency with state laws. This analysis is based on a list of
amendments between 2007 and 2017 as summarized by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) in its Periodic Review Checklist.
• Section 3 identifies issues with integrating the City’s most recent (2017) critical areas
regulations into the updated SMP.
• Section 4 identifies gaps in consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
implementing development regulations other than critical areas regulations.
• Section 5 identifies other issues to consider as part of the periodic update process to
produce a more effective SMP.
This report includes several tables that identify potential revision actions. Where potential
revision actions are identified, they are classified as follows:
• “Mandatory” indicates revisions that are required for consistency with state laws.
Page 21
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
2
• “Recommended” indicates revisions that would improve consistency with state laws,
but are not strictly required.
This document attempts to minimize the use of abbreviations; however, a select few are used to
keep the document concise. These abbreviations are compiled below in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Abbreviations used in this document.
Abbreviation Meaning
City City of Kent
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
KCC Kent City Code
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SMP Shoreline Master Program
WAC Washington Administrative Code
2. Consistency with State Laws
Table 2-1 summarizes potential revisions to the City’s SMP based on a review of consistency
with amendments to state laws identified in the Periodic Review Checklist provided by
Ecology. Topics are organized broadly by SMP subject area.
Only a limited number of revisions in Table 2-1 are classified as “mandatory.” Further, the
revisions classified as “mandatory” are anticipated to be minor in effect.
Table 2-1. Summary of consistency with amendments to state laws and potential revisions.
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
Applicability
1 Office of Financial
Management adjusted the
cost threshold for
substantial development to
$7,047. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 1 Introduction to the
SMP / D. How the
Shoreline Master Program
is Used / 1. When Is a
Permit Required? (p. 8)
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Substantial
Development” (p. 116)
Review:
In Chapter 1, the SMP references an
outdated cost threshold ($5,000) for
substantial development; however, the
SMP indicates that the cost threshold is
updated every five years. The definition of
“Substantial Development” in Chapter 6
references the definition in the RCW
90.58.030.
Action:
Recommended: Update the language in
Chapter 1 to refer to the most recent cost
threshold, or just reference the WAC
exemption for development not meeting
Page 22
The Watershed Company
October 2018
3
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
the cost threshold and the location where
the cost threshold can be found. (Note:
City anticipates doing the latter.)
2 Ecology permit rules
clarified the definition of
“development” does not
include dismantling or
removing structures. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 1 Introduction to the
SMP / D. How the
Shoreline Master Program
is Used / 1. When Is a
Permit Required? (p. 7)
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Development” (p. 107)
Review:
The SMP does not clarify that removing
structures does not constitute
development.
Action:
Recommended: Revise definition of
“Development” to clarify that removing
structures does not constitute
development. Example language from
Ecology is available.
3 Ecology adopted rules
clarifying exceptions to
local review under the
Shoreline Management
Act. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development /
1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not refer to exceptions to
local review under WAC 173-27-044 or -
045 (though it does refer to exemptions
under WAC 173-27-040).
Action:
Recommended: Create a new section that
clearly sets forth exceptions to local
review. Example language from Ecology is
available.
4 Ecology amended forestry
use regulations to clarify
that forest practices that
only involves timber cutting
are not Shoreline
Management Act
“developments” and do not
require Substantial
Development Permits.
(2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations (p. 77)
Review:
The SMP indicates that forest practices are
prohibited and contains no provisions
specific to forest practices.
Action:
None necessary: This change is not
applicable to Kent, as forest practices are
prohibited by the SMP.
5 Ecology clarified the
Shoreline Management Act
does not apply to lands
under exclusive federal
jurisdiction. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch.1 Introduction to the
SMP / C. Geographic
Applications of the SMA /
1. Applicable Area (p. 5)
Review:
The SMP does not address lands with
exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Action:
Recommended: If City faces questions
about the applicability of the SMP on lands
Page 23
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
4
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
with exclusive federal jurisdiction, consider
adding clarifying language.
6 The Legislature created a
new shoreline permit
exemption for retrofitting
existing structure to comply
with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. (2016)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development
/ 1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
7 The Legislature raised the
cost threshold for requiring
a Substantial Development
Permit for replacement
docks on lakes and rivers to
$20,000 (from $10,000).
(2014)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development
/ 1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
8 The Legislature clarified
options for defining
"floodway" as either the
area that has been
established in Federal
Emergency Management
Agency maps, or the
floodway criteria set in the
Shoreline Management Act.
(2007)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 6 Definitions /
“Floodway” (p. 107)
Review:
The definition of “floodway” in the SMP is
based on the floodway criteria set in the
Shoreline Management Act. This definition
is essentially a biological definition.
Action:
Recommended: If the City typically uses
Federal Emergency Management Agency
maps to define the floodway, consider
revising the definition of “floodway” to
reflect this. Example language from
Ecology is available. (Note: City anticipates
defining the “floodway” as the area
established in Federal Emergency
Management Agency Maps adopted by the
City.)
Page 24
The Watershed Company
October 2018
5
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
9 Ecology amended rules to
clarify that comprehensively
updated SMPs shall include
a list and map of streams
and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
(2007)
Current SMP:
• Ch.1 Introduction to the
SMP / C. Geographic
Applications of the SMA /
1. Applicable Area / Figure
1. Shoreline Management
Act jurisdiction in the City
of Kent. (p. 6)
• Ch.2 Environment
Designation Provisions /
C. Policies and Regulations
(p. 11)
Review:
While the SMP appears to refer to all
streams and lakes in shoreline jurisdiction,
particularly in Chapter 2, a concise list of
jurisdictional streams and lakes is not
provided. Chapter 1 of the SMP includes a
map of streams and lakes in shoreline
jurisdiction.
Action:
Recommended: Provide a concise list of
jurisdictional streams and lakes. Update
map as needed.
10 Ecology’s rule listing
statutory exemptions from
the requirement for a
Substantial Development
Permit was amended to
include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions
of Revised Code of
Washington (RCW)
77.55.181. (2007)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / B.
Substantial Development
/ 1. Exemptions from a
Substantial Development
Permit (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP references the Substantial
Development Permit exemptions in WAC
173-27-040 as amended, which include this
revised exemption language.
Action:
None necessary: Because the SMP
references the exemptions in the WAC as
amended, the SMP already reflects this
revised exemption language.
Use and Development
11 Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance
including implementation
guidance for the 2014
wetlands rating system.
(2016)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.580.A
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.580.A
Review:
The current SMP critical areas regulations
refer to the 2004 Ecology wetlands rating
system. The critical areas regulations
proposed for inclusion in the updated SMP
refer to 2014 Ecology wetlands rating
system. Other review findings related to
compliance with updated wetlands critical
area guidance are provided in Section 3 of
this report.
Action:
Mandatory: Include implementation
guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating
system in the updated SMP, which would
be achieved by including the proposed
critical areas regulations.
Page 25
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
6
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
12 The Legislature created a
new definition and policy
for floating on-water
residences legally
established before
7/1/2014. (2014)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 4 Shoreline
Modification Provisions /
C. Policies and Regulations
/ 3. Over-Water Structures
- Including Piers and
Docks, Floats, Boardwalks
and Boating Facilities (p.
58)
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations / 3. Boating
Facilities (p. 79)
Review:
City has no floating homes. Residential
development is prohibited over water.
Moorage of floating homes is prohibited.
Action:
None necessary: Not applicable.
13 Ecology adopted a rule
requiring that wetlands be
delineated in accordance
with the approved federal
wetland delineation
manual. (2011)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.530
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.230
Review:
The current SMP critical areas regulations
refer to the Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manual
(1997). The critical areas regulations
proposed for inclusion in the updated SMP
refer to “the approved federal wetland
delineation manual and applicable regional
supplements.”
Action:
Mandatory: Require wetlands be
delineated in accordance with the
approved federal wetland delineation
manual, which would be achieved by
including the proposed critical areas
regulations.
14 Ecology adopted rules for
new commercial geoduck
aquaculture. (2011)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations (p. 77)
Review:
City has no saltwater shorelines.
Action:
None necessary: This change is not
applicable to Kent.
15 The Legislature created a
new definition and policy
for floating homes
permitted or legally
established prior to January
1, 2011. (2011)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations / 8.
Review:
The SMP prohibits residential uses over
water and does not contain provisions for
such uses, including floating homes. The
term “floating home” is used in the SMP;
however, it is not defined.
Page 26
The Watershed Company
October 2018
7
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
Residential Development
(p. 88)
Action:
None necessary: This change is not
applicable to Kent.
16 The Legislature created new
“relief” procedures for
instances in which a
shoreline restoration
project within an Urban
Growth Area creates a shift
in Ordinary High Water
Mark. (2009)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 4 Shoreline
Modification Provisions /
C. Policies and Regulations
/ 6. Shoreline Restoration
and Ecological
Enhancement (p. 69)
Review:
The SMP does not address such relief
procedures.
Action:
Recommended: Reference the relief
procedures in Shoreline Restoration and
Ecological Enhancement section of the
SMP (though the relief process is still
available even if not included). Example
language from Ecology is available.
17 Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland
mitigation banks. (2009)
Current SMP critical areas
regulations (2006):
• KCC 11.06.660.F
Proposed SMP critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.660.G
Review:
Both current and proposed critical areas
regulations allow the use of mitigation
banks. The proposed critical areas
regulations make it clear that mitigation
banks must be certified.
Action:
Recommended: Continue to allow the use
of mitigation banks, which would be
achieved by including the proposed critical
areas regulations.
Nonconformance
18 Ecology clarified “default”
provisions for
nonconforming uses and
development. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Procedures / E.
Nonconforming Uses (p.
123)
Review:
The SMP adopts by reference the
nonconforming use and development
provisions in WAC 173-27-080, with one
exception.
Action:
Recommended: Review the revised WAC
173-27-080 to determine whether or how
to modify how nonconforming use and
development is regulated in the City.
(Note: City anticipates continuing to adopt
by reference the nonconforming use and
development provisions in WAC 173-27-
080, with one exception [existing timing
Page 27
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
8
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
restrictions for exception anticipated to be
removed]).
19 SMPs may classify legally
established residential
structures and appurtenant
structures as conforming
even if they do not meet
dimensional or bulk
standards. Redevelopment,
expansion, and
replacement consistent
with the SMP would be
allowed (2011)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 5 Shoreline Use
Provisions / C. Shoreline
Use Policies and
Regulations / 8.
Residential Development
(p. 88)
Review:
The SMP does not exercise this option.
Action:
Recommended: The City may wish to
review these provisions and consider
revising to more clearly classify existing
structures as conforming. This change is
optional. (Note: City does not anticipate
exercising this option.)
Administration
20 Ecology amended rules
clarifying permit filing
procedures consistent with
a 2011 statute. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / B. Substantial
Development / 2.
Substantial Development
Permit Process / f. Filing
with Department of
Ecology (p. 120)
Review:
The SMP does not describe the filing
process, but indicates that filing with
Ecology shall be done pursuant to WAC
173-27-130.
Action:
None necessary: SMP consistent with
statute.
21 Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that
allows for a shared
local/state public comment
period. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / G.
Amendments to This
Shoreline Master Program
(p. 123)
Review:
The SMP does not include language
regarding the process for SMP
amendments.
Action:
Recommended: If the City anticipates using
the optional SMP amendment process, the
City should confirm that there are no local
impediments to using it; additionally,
language could be added to the SMP to
identify and explicitly allow the optional
process, though this is not required. (Note:
City anticipates using the optional
amendment process.)
22 Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the
scope and process for
conducting periodic
reviews. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions / G.
Amendments to This
Review:
The SMP does not include language
specific to conducting periodic review of
the SMP pursuant to RCW 90.58.080 and
WAC 173-26-090.
Page 28
The Watershed Company
October 2018
9
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
Shoreline Master Program
(p. 123)
Action:
None necessary: Description of the scope
and process for conducting periodic
reviews is not required in SMP.
23 Submittal to Ecology of
proposed SMP
amendments. (2017)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
SMP does not include a description of the
SMP amendment submittal process.
Action:
None necessary: Description of the SMP
amendment submittal process not
required.
24 The Legislature adopted a
90-day target for local
review of Washington State
Department of
Transportation projects.
(2015)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not address this target.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending
Chapter 7 to define special procedures for
Washington State Department of
Transportation projects to help ensure the
SMP is implemented consistent with
statute. Example language from Ecology is
available.
25 The Legislature amended
the Shoreline Management
Act to clarify SMP appeal
procedures. (2012)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not address SMP appeal
procedures (the SMP addresses appeals of
shoreline permit decisions, but not the
SMP itself).
Action:
None necessary: Description of SMP
appeal procedures not required in SMP.
26 The Legislature adopted
Growth Management Act –
Shoreline Management Act
clarifications. (2010)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 3 / B. Policies and
Regulations / 3. Critical
Areas (p. 28)
Review:
SMP does not clearly indicate that critical
areas in shorelines must be regulated to
assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
function. See Section 3 of this report for
further discussion.
Action:
Recommended: Revise the language in
relevant location identified at left to
Page 29
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
10
# Summary of Change
(Amendment Year) Relevant Location(s)1, 2 Review & Action
indicate that regulation of shoreline critical
areas must assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological function.
27 The Legislature added
moratoria authority and
procedures to the Shoreline
Management Act. (2009)
Current SMP:
• Ch. 7 Administrative
Provisions (p. 119)
Review:
The SMP does not address moratoria.
Action:
None necessary: Moratoria procedures not
required to be included in SMP. City may
rely on statute.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location (s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
2 Locations in italics indicate that the location does not actually address the specific content described in the
Summary of Change column; these locations are listed to indicate where generally related content is found.
3. Integration of Current Critical Areas Regulations
The City’s current SMP incorporates by reference the City-wide critical areas regulations of
Ordinance No. 3805 (2006), with some exceptions. Since adoption of the SMP, the City-wide
critical areas regulations have been amended by multiple ordinances, most recently in 2017 by
Ordinance No. 4249. These critical areas regulations are codified as KCC Chapter 11.06 Critical
Areas. Therefore, the City’s current SMP includes critical areas regulations that are out of date
and no longer consistent with the critical areas regulations that currently apply in non-shoreline
areas of the City.
Accordingly, the City anticipates referencing the current City-wide critical areas regulations in
the updated SMP. However, as with the 2006 critical areas regulations, these critical areas
regulations include some regulations that are inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act.
The inconsistent regulations need to be identified and resolved as part of the periodic SMP
update process.
Table 3-1 below summarizes issues to be resolved in order to properly reference the City’s
current critical areas regulations into the updated SMP. The table is organized by critical areas
regulations subject area.
Page 30
The Watershed Company
October 2018
11
Table 3-1. Summary of gaps in consistency with current critical areas regulations and associated
recommended SMP revisions.
# Issue Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
Applicability
1 Non-applicable sections of
critical areas regulations
Current SMP:
• Chapter 3, General
Provisions, Section B.3,
Critical Areas
Review:
Chapter 3, Section B.3 currently references
the 2006 CAO ordinance (No. 3805). While
most of the exceptions to the critical areas
regulations currently listed in Section B.3
are still applicable, subsection B.3.2.e
could be modified since the reference to
Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek is
outdated.
Action:
Mandatory: Given the City’s intention to
reference the critical areas regulations, the
SMP will need to be updated to correctly
reference the most recently adopted
critical areas regulations. The exclusions
currently included in SMP Chapter 3,
subsection B.3.2 should be carried forward
although subsection B.3.2.e could be
modified as noted above.
2 Amendments to the Growth
Management Act and
Shoreline Management Act
clarified that critical areas in
shorelines must be
regulated to “assure no net
loss of shoreline ecological
function” as provided in
Ecology’s SMP Guidelines.
Current SMP:
• Chapter 3, General
Provisions, Section B.3,
Critical Areas
Review:
In the context of critical areas, the phrase
“no net loss” is not used in Chapter 3,
subsection B.3.
Action:
Recommended: Revise the language in
subsection B.3 to indicate that regulation
of shoreline critical areas must assure no
net loss of shoreline ecological function.
Wetlands
3 Ecology modified the
habitat ranges in their
wetland buffer tables.
Current critical areas
regulations:
• KCC 11.06.600, Wetland
buffers and building
setbacks
Review:
Ecology provided revised wetland buffer
guidance in July of 2018. The revised
guidance indicates that wetlands scoring 5
habitat points may use the same standard
buffer width as wetlands scoring 3-4
habitat points, and standard buffers for
wetlands scoring 6-7 habitat points may be
set at 110 feet rather than 165 feet.
Page 31
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
12
# Issue Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
Action:
Recommended: Consider revising the
existing wetland buffer provisions in KCC
11.06.600 of the critical areas regulations
for consistency with Ecology guidance
related to habitat scores and wetland
buffers. (Note: City anticipates revising
SMP wetland buffer provisions after the
next required update to its City-wide
critical areas regulations.)
4. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan & Other
Development Regulations
Table 4-1 below summarizes recommended revisions to the City’s SMP based on a review of
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the KCC. The Kent Comprehensive Plan contains
a Shoreline Element (Chapter 10) which includes the goals and policies originally established in
the 2009 comprehensive SMP update.
The KCC (Chapter 11.04) adopts the SMP by reference and does not directly integrate the SMP
regulations into its code. Table 4-1 below summarizes changes that can improve the consistency
and administration of the SMP.
Table 4-1. Summary of recommended SMP, KCC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to improve
consistency.
# Topic Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
1 Shoreline element • Comprehensive Plan
(2015)
Review:
Section 3, Critical Areas under General
Policies in the Shoreline Element includes
the original reference to Critical Areas
Regulations, Ordinance No 3805. This
reference should be updated to the most
recent set of critical areas regulations.
Action:
Recommended: Revise the adopting
ordinance number when the City adopts
the most recent critical areas regulations.
2 KCC cross references Current SMP:
• Chapter 6 – Definitions
Review:
SMP references to Ordinance No. 3805
(2006 Critical Areas Regulations) should be
updated to reflect the most recent
Page 32
The Watershed Company
October 2018
13
# Topic Relevant Location(s) Review & Action
ordinance. Such references are included in
the following locations.
• Definition of
o Buffer and buffer area
o Compensatory mitigation
o Critical Areas Regulations
o Wetland or wetlands
o Wetland category
o Wetland delineation
o Wetland rating system
Action:
Recommended: Search, verify, and correct
references to the KCC in the SMP.
3 Definitions Zoning Code:
• KCC 15.02 Definitions
SMP:
KCC Chapter 6 - Definitions
Review:
KCC 15.02 (zoning code) and SMP Chapter
6 form a complementary set of definitions
that comprehensively apply within
shoreline jurisdiction. This relationship is
not defined in either section.
Action:
Recommended: Consider introducing
Chapter 6 of the SMP with the following
text or similar: “Unless otherwise defined
in this chapter, the definitions provided in
KCC Chapter 15.02 shall apply. If there is a
conflict, the definitions in this section shall
govern.”
5 . Other I ssues to Consider
In addition to the issues discussed in the previous sections of this report, several other issues in
the current SMP could be addressed as part of the periodic update process to produce a more
effective SMP. These other issues are described in Table 5-1 below.
Table 5-1. Other issues that could be addressed to produce a more effective SMP.
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
General
1 Definitions Current SMP:
• Chapter 6 – Definitions
Review:
The following definitions are not used in
the SMP and can be deleted:
• Average grade level
Page 33
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
14
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
• Berm
• Littoral drift
• Nonpoint pollution
• Shoreline sub-unit (duplicative to
definition of “sub-unit”)
Action:
Recommended: Verify and remove
unnecessary terms.
Use and Development
2 Setbacks – can clarity be
included (i.e. diagram) to
help in the determination of
setbacks
Current SMP:
• Chapter 5 – Table 7
• Chapter 5 – Subsection
C.8.c.
• Chapter 6 – Definitions
(see Building Setback and
Setback)
Review:
Two definitions (setback and building
setback) help define what a setback is
intended for and how it is calculated.
There is an existing diagram in the
Residential section Chapter 5, subsection
C.8.c, but more clarity could be included in
relation to setbacks identified in Table 7.
Action:
Recommended: Assess utility of adding
additional diagram in association with
Table 7.
3 Vegetation Conservation –
specific to potential use
conflicts with regional trails
Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.11.c.6
Review:
In the context of a recreational area (e.g.
trail or park facility), there may be few
native plant species that meet project
requirements in regards to future
maintenance, human safety, or shading.
Action:
Recommended: Provide clarity on when
native revegetation is required and when it
may be waived due to infeasibility or
incompatibility.
4 Setback for public
developments
Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.1.c.7.b
Review:
Add recreation spaces and trails to the list
of public developments.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
Page 34
The Watershed Company
October 2018
15
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
5 Flood Hazard Reduction and
River Corridor Management
Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.5.b.1
Review:
Add the Park and Open Space Plan and the
Kent Valley Loop Trail Master Plan to the
list of ordinances and activities.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
6 Public Access Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.7.a
Review:
Add reference to future park
developments (e.g. Panther Lake
Community Park).
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
7 Public Access Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.7.b
Review:
Consider adding language about the
aesthetics of development along the Green
River Corridor and ensuring that things like
flood walls will not detract from the
natural beauty of the corridor.
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding emphasis
to Policy 7.b.6 to ensure that shoreline
modifications do not degrade aesthetic
conditions.
8 Public Access Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.7.c.7
Review:
Include language to encourage public
access, where feasible and required, across
shoreline jurisdiction, potentially across
landward parcels.
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding emphasis
to encourage such access.
9 Vegetation Conservation Current SMP
• Chapter 3 – subsection
B.11.c
Review:
Public safety issues. Ensure language exists
that allows for cleanup of camps as well as
vegetation removal (not tree removal) to
improve visibility into problem areas.
Page 35
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
16
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
Action:
Recommended: Consider allowance for
selective vegetation removal for such
purposes under provision B.11.c.10.
10 Overwater Structures Current SMP
• Chapter 4 – subsection
C.3.c.37
Review:
Per Parks Department, it is difficult to
reconfigure docks due to permitting
hurdles. Consider adding flexibility to allow
reconfiguration.
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding a new
provision which would allow
reconfiguration of conforming public docks
and piers. If the proposal is to reconfigure
a non-conforming structure, require
significant reduction of non-conformity
with the reconfigured structure.
11 Overwater Structures Current SMP
• Chapter 4 – subsection
C.3.c.38
Review:
Existing language would preclude a new
pier where one didn’t already exist.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending to
allow for new public piers based on
demand of the site rather than use of an
existing structure.
12 Dikes and Levees Current SMP
• Chapter 4 – subsection
C.7.c.5
Review:
Emphasis could be added to this
subsection to ensure consideration of
aesthetic impacts of levee project in
relation to public access.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending
regulation 5 of this subsection to include
emphasis on aesthetics.
13 Agriculture Current SMP
• Chapter 5 – subsection
C.2.b.2
Review:
Shade could be added as an additional goal
provided by vegetation between
agricultural lands and waterbodies. Many
such areas are on the south side of the
river where shade is most critical.
Page 36
The Watershed Company
October 2018
17
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
Action:
Recommended: Consider adding “shade”
as a factor provided by vegetation.
14 Recreational Development Current SMP
• Chapter 5 – subsection
C.7.b.6.c
Review:
Consider adding the term such as
“significant” or “substantial” in relation to
structural shoreline stabilization or
vegetation removal.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
Mapping
15 Shoreline Environment
Designation (SED) Maps
Current SMP
• SED maps
Review:
Consider adjusting the following:
• Several privately owned parcels west of
Frager Road were mistakenly grouped in
with the golf course for the Urban
Conservancy-Open Space (UC-OS)
designation, but should've been Urban
Conservancy-Low Intensity (UC-LI).
• If any of the Marquee on Meeker
development is within 200 feet of the
river, consider re-designating from UC-OS
to Shoreline Residential. If, however, the
entire 200 feet is trail, no change needed.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending maps
as noted. Additionally, consider removing
the tables in Chapter 2 that describe the
locations of environment designations as
high-resolution mapping makes these
tables unnecessary.
16 Shoreline Environment
Designation (SED) Maps
Current SMP
• SED maps
Review:
Recent zoning changes should be reviewed
to ensure consistency with the SEDs.
Action:
Recommended: Consider reviewing maps
for consistency, but not necessarily
included in periodic update.
Other
Page 37
City of Kent SMP Periodic Update
Gap Analysis Report
18
# Issue Relevant Location(s)1 Review & Action
17 Introduction Current SMP
• Chapter 1 – subsection C
Review:
Reference to “Chapter 2 Section B.1”
should really be to “Chapter 2 Section B”.
There is no subsection 1.
Action:
Recommended: Consider amending as
noted.
18 Development Standards
table
Current SMP
• Chapter 5 – Table 7
Review:
Presentation of information in Table 7
could be clearer.
Action:
Recommended: Consider ways in which
Table 7 could be revised to better convey
information to the user.
19 Panther Lake Potential
Annexation Area (PAA)
Current SMP
• Various locations
Review:
Since the current SMP went into effect, the
Panther Lake PAA has been annexed by the
City, making references to it obsolete.
Action:
Recommended: Remove all references to
the Panther Lake PAA in the SMP.
20 Geographic application Current SMP
• Chapter 1 – subsection C
Review:
This subsection includes unclear language
regarding associated wetlands and the
100-year floodplain.
Action:
Recommended: Clarify language regarding
associated wetlands and the 100-year
floodplain.
1 This column attempts to capture the primary relevant location(s) of content related to the item described in
the Summary of Change column; however, due to length of the SMP, all relevant locations may not be listed.
Page 38