HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 01/08/2018 (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 East, 220 Fourth Ave S,
Kent, WA 98032.
No public testimony is taken at LUPB workshops; however, the public is welcome to attend.
For additional information, contact Pamela Mottram via email at pmottram@KentWA.gov or by
phone at 253-856-5454.
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: Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Shane
Amodei; Frank Cornelius; Dale Hartman; Paul Hintz; Ali Shasti
JANUARY 8, 2018
7 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Call to order Vice Chair Jones 1 min
2. Roll call Vice Chair Jones 1 min
3. Changes to the Agenda Vice Chair Jones 3 min
4. Urban Separators Preliminary
Alternatives
NO Danielle Butsick 55 min 1
5. Adjournment Vice Chair Jones 1 min
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
December 22, 2017
TO: Vice Chair Jones and Members of the Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Long-Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
RE: Urban Separators Preliminary Alternatives
For Meeting of January 8, 2018
SUMMARY: The City received multiple requests from property owners during the 2014 and 2015
comprehensive plan amendment docket process to consider changes to zoning or allowed
development density of Urban Separator parcels. City Council approved the addition of an Urban
Separators analysis to the department’s work plan starting in 2017. Staff completed an
inventory and characterization report of existing Urban Separators parcels, and a consistency
review to assess relevant policies; the next step in the scope of work is a list of preliminary
alternatives to guide discussions with stakeholders and the public. Staff will present the
preliminary alternatives at the January 8 presentation and will request feedback from the LUPB.
BACKGROUND: Kent’s comprehensive plan and King County Countywide Planning Policies
designate certain areas in the city as Urban Separators. These areas are intended to create
visual definition within and between urban areas, buffer rural or resource lands, preserve
opportunities for recreation, and connect wildlife and critical area corridors. This designation
effectively limits development on these parcels to one residential unit per acre, as all Urban
Separators are zoned SR-1, the lowest density allowed under Kent’s zoning code.
In response to docket requests received in 2014-2015, City Council directed staff to broadly
consider the Urban Separator land use designation, and evaluate where it may or may no longer
be appropriate in Kent. Informed by the findings in the Inventory & Characterization report and
Consistency Review report, staff has developed five preliminary policy or code amendment
alternatives to serve as a platform for discussion with stakeholders and the public. These include
1) preserving the status quo, 2) adopting a long-term policy of retaining urban separators, 3)
adopting a long-term policy for considering land use plan map amendments to urban separator
lands, 4) modifying development standards for SR-1 zoning, and 5) adopting or encouraging
enrollment in incentive-based programs to preserve urban separators. These alternatives are
not exhaustive, nor are they mutually exclusive; they will inform the discussion with
stakeholders and the public, which will result in a final set of alternatives to be considered by
City Council.
Staff will be available at the January 8 meeting to provide information about the alternatives and
next steps, answer questions, and receive feedback from the LUPB.
EXHIBITS: Preliminary alternatives; PowerPoint presentation
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
DB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_OTHER_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-2 Urban Separators\LUPB 01-08-2018\01-08-2018_LUPB_UrbanSeparators-memo-info-only.doc
CC: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager
MOTION: Information Only
1
December 4, 2017
1
URBAN SEPARATORS
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES:
Background
In 2014-2015, the city received multiple docket requests to consider amendments to the
land use plan map and zoning districts map to increase allowed development density in
urban separator areas zoned SR-1. These requests revealed the need to revisit the urban
separator land use designation and evaluate its continued relevance. Kent City Council
directed staff to begin a program in 2017 to broadly consider the appropriateness of the
urban separator designation in Kent.
Urban separator is a land use plan map designation in Kent’s comprehensive plan; the
designation is also used in King County’s Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Urban
separators are meant to protect ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space
corridors that provide visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits within and between urban
areas. Some urban separator lands in Kent are designated only on the city’s land use plan
map; others are designated both in Kent’s comprehensive plan and in the King County
CPPs. Kent’s comprehensive plan states that all urban separator lands will be zoned SR -1,
Kent’s lowest-density single family residential zoning district.
The first steps in the project were to develop an Inventory & Characterization report
documenting conditions in all of Kent’s urban separator lands, and a Consistency Review
describing relevant policies and how they apply to Kent’s urban separators. This document
represents the third phase of the project, in which a list of preliminary alternatives is
developed to provide context and guide discussion during the stakeholder outreach phase.
The following descriptions of potential alternatives are meant to establish a long-term
comprehensive strategy for Kent’s urban separator lands.
Note these alternatives are not intended to be all-encompassing or comprehensive, nor are
they intended to be mutually exclusive. The city may ultimately decide to implement
portions of these alternatives, entirely new alternatives, or modifications/combinations
thereof. These alternatives are simply meant to be thought-provoking; they should provide
context and a “jumping off point” for discussions with the public and stakeholders about
urban separators.
2
December 4, 2017
2
1) Preserve the status quo. Make no amendments to the land use plan
map, no amendments to the zoning districts map, and no amendments to
Kent City Code. Staff would recommend denial of any land use plan map
amendments or rezones in urban separators based on their failure to meet
comprehensive plan amendment review standards in KCC 12.02.050 and
their inconsistency with Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) and the purpose
of the urban separator designation.
Discussion: This alternative would preserve existing urban separators as designated in
Kent’s land use plan map and King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs); it would
affirm the city’s position on comprehensive plan policies to maintain SR -1 zoning in urban
separator lands. Staff would recommend denial of land use plan map amendment or rezone
requests in urban separator lands based on their inability to meet the comprehensive plan
amendment review standards in KCC 12.02.050. This includes failure to demonstrate
changing circumstances since the comprehensive plan’s adoption that warrant plan
amendments, or that the amendments will result in long-term benefits to the community as
a whole.
King County’s 2014 Buildable Lands analysis and Kent’s 2015 development capacity analysis
demonstrate that Kent has sufficient vacant and redevelopable land to accommodate
population growth targets through 2035. Therefore there is no demonstrated need to
amend land use plan map designations for urban separator lands to allow higher-density
zoning.
As further reasoning for denial of the docket requests, t hese amendments would be
inconsistent with adopted CPPs and Kent’s comprehensive plan policies. The King County
CPPs establish the subject areas for both of the 2014 and 2015 docket requests as urban
separators, and Kent’s comprehensive plan policies state that all urban separators should be
zoned SR-1. Any amendments to the land use plan map designations or zoning of these
areas would therefore be in conflict with policies in the CPPs and Kent’s comprehensive plan.
This alternative would be the fastest to implement, as it would require no amendments to
comprehensive plan text, the land use plan map, or the zoning districts map, nor would it
require amendments to the King County CPPs.
3
December 4, 2017
3
2) Adopt a clear long-term policy of retaining urban separator
properties under that land use plan map designation, which could be
reconsidered when vacant and redevelopable land can no longer
accommodate projected growth or growth targets. Establish a new “reserve
zoning” overlay district that identifies certain urban separator lands to be
considered for increased density in the future, if additional developable land
is needed.
Discussion: This alternative would preserve existing urban separator lands, including those
designated in the CPPs and those designated only on Kent’s land use plan map. It would
establish policies in Kent’s comprehensive plan stating that urban separator lands shoul d
retain their land use plan map designation. Policy guidance would include a provision to
strategically designate portions of urban separator lands under a “reserve zoning” overlay to
be considered if at some point in the future Kent’s vacant and redevel opable land cannot
accommodate its projected growth targets.
King County has used the model of “reserve” zoning, stating as its purpose:
“…to phase growth and demand for urban services, and to reserve large tracts of
land for possible future growth in portions of King County designated by the
Comprehensive Plan for future urban growth while allowing reasonable interim
uses of property...”
“...this zone is appropriate in urban areas, rural towns or in rural city expansion
areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan, when such areas do not have
adequate public facilities and services or are not yet needed to accommodate
planned growth, [or] do not yet have detailed land use plans for urban uses and
densities…”
Not all of Kent’s urban separator lands would be included in the reserve zoning overlay
district; they would be considered for reserve zoning based on criteria in the Inventory &
Characterization and Consistency Review reports, including overall scores for consistency
with urban separator policies. Those with lower relative scores that show the most potential
for successful development in the future will be included in the reserve zoning overlay.
Until these lands are needed to absorb additional growth, they would remain under the
urban separator land use designation. Lands that score the lowest in the Inventory &
Characterization Report in terms of overall consistency with urban separator policies
nevertheless provide important benefits in one or more categories. Even the lowest-scoring
urban separator lands still contain critical areas, connect wildlife corridors, or preserve low-
density development to prot ect at-risk watershed subbasins. This alternative would maintain
these benefits until the land is needed to accommodate new growth.
This alternative would establish policies to revisit the reserve zoning only if it is determined
through a GMA-compliant buildable lands analysis that Kent does not have sufficient vacant
and redevelopable land to accommodate its 20-year growth targets.
4
December 4, 2017
4
3) Adopt a clear long-term policy for considering land use plan map
amendments pertaining to urban separator lands. The policy will include
criteria and circumstances under which redesignations may be acceptable.
Prior to finalizing any amendments to land use plan map designations for
King County urban separator lands, they must first be proposed as
amendments to the urban separator maps in the King County CPPs. The
amendments to the CPPs must be finalized prior to Kent City Council’s formal
adoption of land use plan map amendments.
Discussion: This alternative would establish policy guidance to be included in the text of
the comprehensive plan which clarifies whether and under what circumstances urban
separator lands may be redesignated on the land use plan map. It would also present an
opportunity for the subsequent rezoning of urban separator lands that meet the specified
criteria and undergo amendments to their land use plan map designations. Criteria would be
based on findings of the Inventory & Characterization and Consistency Review reports.
Adoption of policies and criteria to amend both Kent-only and King County designated urban
separators would require amendments to Kent’s comprehensive plan as well as to the King
County CPPs. In order to make the most efficient use of the CPP amendment process, Kent
would likely identify urban separator lands that meet the criteria identified, regardless of
whether a request for redesignation has been received. These areas could include the two
2014 and 2015 docket request locations, if they are determined to meet the established
criteria. Urban separator lands that meet the criteria would undergo amendments to their
land use plan map designations in Kent’s comprehensive plan; prior to final adoption, any
amendments to King County designated urban separator lands would have to be proposed
as amendments to the King County CPPs. They must be approved by the King County
Growth Management Policy Council (GMPC), and ratified by King County jurisdictions.
This alternative would take the longest to implement, as adoption of amendments to the
King County CPPs can be a very lengthy process. The amendments would first have to be
presented to the Interjurisdictional Team (IJT), which provides staff support to the GMPC. If
advanced to the GMPC, the amendments must be discussed in at least two GMPC meetings,
which only occur a few times per year. Once approved by the GMPC, cities and towns in
King County must ratify the amendments, and they have 90 days to do so. The whole
process may take more than a year, and once complete the amendments would still have to
be formally adopted by Kent’s city council.
It should be noted that if no King County designated urban separator lands are determined
to meet the specified criteria, the amendment process could be substantially shorter. In this
scenario there would be no need for amendments to the CPPs, limiting the amendment
process to that required for making any other amendment to Kent’s land use plan map and
zoning districts map. While this could be achieved by simply establishing “Kent -only
designation” as a criterion, staff would recommend against this approach and would
recommend giving all urban separator lands in Kent equal consideration for redesignation.
5
December 4, 2017
5
4) Modify development standards for SR-1 to be more flexible and to more
easily facilitate development. For example, remove or modify the requirement
for “8-pack” clusters with 120-foot spacing, or consider additional flexibility in
housing types such as cottage housing, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses. This
could be similar to condition (27) in 15.04.030 Residential Development
Standards Conditions, which allows 25% of new housing developments in SR-
4.5, SR-6, and SR-8 zoning districts to be attached.
Discussion: This alternative would involve amendments to Kent’s zoning code rather than
amendments to Kent’s land use plan map or the King County CPPs . Land use plan map
designations and SR-1 zoning would remain in place for all urban separator lands; it would,
however, offer some additional flexibility in development standards within SR-1 zoning
districts without modifying the overall allowed density.
Some developers in Kent have described certain components of the clustering requirement
in SR-1 zones as cost-prohibitive. The “8-pack” cluster with mandatory 120-foot spacing is
cited as frequently making the difference between a development being cost-effective or
not. This requirement, coupled with the 50% open space set-aside for unconstrained land,
can reduce the number of lots that can be achieved when property is subdivided for
development, particularly in areas that are substantially constrained by critical areas. This
can sometimes push the development below the threshold of profitability. Modification to
this requirement, for example by reducing the spacing required or increasing the number of
clustered lots from 8 to 10 or 12 could increase the likelihood that developers may be able
to move forward with cluster developments. The 50% open space set aside could also be
modified to require 50% of the entire parcel to be set aside as open space, rather than
applying to the unconstrained area only. This would allow critical areas to be counted as
open space on properties that are significantly constrained by critical areas while ensuring
that at least half of the property is reserved for open space purposes.
Code amendments that include provisions for a percentage of cottage housing or attached
townhouses in cluster developments could also help to improve profitability and feasibility of
development in urban separator lands. Cottage housing would allow lots smaller than the
minimum 2,500 square feet, providing additional flexibility to fully accommodate the
number of lots allowed by SR-1 zoning. It should be noted, however, that cottage housing,
as codified in 2008 in Ord. 3895 Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance (since expired),
establishes parking, storage, and community building requirements, along with design
standards, which require additional space in addition to individual lots.
Existing code includes a provision to allow 25% of new subdivision developments in higher-
density single family zones to be attached single family housing such as townhomes,
duplexes, or triplexes. Code amendments extending this provision to lower-density single
family zoning districts, including SR-1, could also expand housing variety in urban separator
lands without adding additional net density. Encouraging housing variety is an important
land use goal in Kent’s comprehensive plan . The addition of an ownership interest
requirement for attached townhomes (as defined in KCC 15.02.525) could expand
ownership opportunities for middle-income Kent residents.
New homes in residential subdivisions in urban separator lands would be subject to
residential design review; this would apply to both single family homes and duplex
townhomes. For townhouse structures with three or more homes, multifamily design review
would apply. This would help to ensure that any attached housing is consistent with
residential character and compatible with adjacent properties; access to open space or trails
would further enhance the value of such developments.
6
December 4, 2017
6
5) Adopt or encourage enrollment in incentive-based programs to
preserve urban separators as private open space lands. This could include
programs like Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) similar to King County’s
“four to one” program, or use of King County’s public benefit rating system
through which taxable value of property is adjusted according to public
benefits provided by privately owned land. The purpose of adoption or
promotion of these programs would be to incentivize preservation of urban
separator lands and provide a reasonable financial return for property
owners.
Discussion: This alternative would create new or promote existing incentive-based
programs to go beyond zoning and regulation of urban separator lands. The purpose of the
programs would be to promote the preservation of undeveloped land in urban separators
while affording reasonable financial benefits to property owners.
One type of program that could be used would be the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program. Urban separator lands would be identified as “sending sites”, and other lands in
Kent (or perhaps in an adjacent jurisdiction) would be strategically identified as “receiving
sites”. Property owners could transfer or sell development rights from urban separator
lands to developers of receiving sites at a rate greater than 1 unit per acre. This could
result in greater financial opportunity for property owners of urban separator lands,
particularly for those whose land is substantially constrained by critical areas, making
development challenging or even unfeasible.
There are several challenges to implementing a TDR program in Kent. One of these would
be the presence of market demand for development rights and the willingness of developers
to purchase units from urban separator property owners. The program would necessarily be
market-driven, and the incentives would only work if there were interested buyers. A
second challenge would be that Kent’s policies and zoning code are already supportive of
density in locations that can support intensive development; it may be challenging to
identify receiving sites that could reasonably absorb densities beyond those for which they
are already zoned.
Another incentive-based program would be King County’s public benefit rating system
(PBRS), which offers a reduction in taxable value for private property that preserves a
public use or benefit including maintaining urban open space, providing an active trail
linkage, or protecting significant wildlife or salmon habitat, among a long list of available
categories. This program is already in place and available to property owners in Kent who
wish to submit an application. No code or comprehensive plan amendments would be
necessary for Kent residents to take advantage of the program. To promote more
widespread use of the program in Kent, the city could adopt comprehensive plan policies to
encourage property owners in urban separator lands to pursue enrollment in the PBRS as a
way to preserve open space and other natural and beneficial functions of urban separator
lands. An example of potential savings for a $275,000 property in Kent is shown below.
PBRS Example:
For this example, consider a home in Kent valued at $275,000. The home and
improvements, which cannot be counted in the reduced assessed value for PBRS, are
valued at $175,000. This leaves a total land value of $100,000.
After subtracting the land taken up by the house, driveway, and landscaping, 75% of the
property remains as qualifying urban open space. Urban open space earns five points in the
PBRS, the minimum points required to receive program benefits, which according to the
valuation schedule translates to a 50% reduction in assessed value for the qualifying land.
To calculate the reduction in assessed value, the total land value of $100,000 would first be
7
December 4, 2017
7
multiplied by 75% to reflect the proportion of the property that qualifies for the program.
This results in a total qualified assessed value of $75,000, which would then be adjusted by
50% (up to 90% depending on the number of points earned). The reduction in assessed
“current use” value would be $37,500. This number is then multiplied by the 2017 King
County tax rate of 1.222495% to determine the total annual savings - $458.44.
Total property value: $275,000
Points/percent reduced taxable value: 5 points = 50%
Annual tax savings: $458.44
S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_OTHER_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2016\ZCA-2016-2 Urban Separators\LUPB 01-08-2018\Preliminary alternatives_v2.docx
8
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development
URBAN SEPARATORS
Preliminary Alternatives
Land Use and Planning Board – January 8, 2018
9
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
Presentation Snapshot
Urban Separators Overview
Project Goals
Nov. Meeting Follow-Up
Preliminary Alternatives
Next Steps
2
10
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
The Role of Urban Separators
Urban Separators are intended to:
Create visual definition, “transitional space” within and between
urban growth areas, or buffer rural areas
Preserve open space for visual, recreational purposes
Connect wildlife corridors, wetlands
Protect critical areas
Buffer resource lands (agriculture, forest)
3
11
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
History of Urban Separators
Countywide designation beginning in 1992 CPPs
•In response to GMA, 1990
•Countywide effort to preserve “what makes King County special”
City of Kent Ord. 3551 in 2001
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan
Set standards for development (clustering, SR-1)
Kent Adopted additional urban separators in 2004-2007
4
12
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
5
13
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
Project Goals
1)Determine most desirable land use for Urban Separator lands
2)Develop a strategy consistent with:
•CPPs
•MCPPs
•GMA
•Kent Comprehensive Plan
•Infrastructure, transportation, CIPs
3)Implement zoning code or comprehensive plan amendments as
identified
6
14
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
Follow-Up:
Legal Mandate for Watershed Protection
•Endangered Species Act: Puget Sound Action Agenda and Salmon
Restoration Plans (WRIA 9, WRIA 8)
•WRIA-specific salmon recovery plans approved by federal agencies
•ESA is legally enforceable - if we don’t meet our goals, federal agencies
can require us to do more
•State Statute – RCW 90.71: Accountability for achieving Puget
Sound Action Agenda
•State funding implications if a jurisdiction is found to be in non-compliance
7
15
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
Preliminary Alternatives
1)Preserve the Status Quo.
2)Adopt long-term policy to retain urban separators.
3)Adopt long-term policy for considering land use plan map
amendments to urban separators.
4)Modify development standards for SR-1 zoning district.
5)Adopt or encourage enrollment in incentive-based
programs to preserve urban separators.
8
16
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
1) Preserve the Status Quo.
•No amendments to land use plan map, zoning
districts map, or Kent City Code.
•Recommend denial of docket requests based on
failure to meet comprehensive plan amendment
review standards (KCC 12.02.050) and
inconsistency with King County CPPs.
9
17
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
2) Adopt long-term policy to retain urban
separators.
•Establish policies to retain all existing urban separators.
•Create new “reserve zoning” overlay district.
•Certain urban separator lands can be considered for increased density in the future, ONLY if buildable lands analysis shows insufficient capacity for growth targets
•Not all urban separators would be eligible - criteria for reserve zoning would be based on Inventory & Characterization and Consistency Review reports
•Urban separator lands would continue to protect at-risk watersheds, and connect critical areas and wildlife corridors
10
18
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
3) Adopt long-term policy for considering land
use plan map amendments to urban separators.
•Establish criteria under which redesignation of urban
separator lands is acceptable
•Criteria based on findings of Inventory & Characterization report
•Amendments to King County urban separators would require
amendments to CPPs prior to adoption
•Presented to IJT, approved by GMPC, and ratified by local jurisdictions
•Docket requests may be approved if they meet the criteria
11
19
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
4) Modify development standards for SR-1
zoning district.
•Amendments to development standards in zoning code,
rather than to land use plan map or King County CPPs
•Intended to facilitate development and achieve planned densities (1
home per acre)
•Could include modification of cluster subdivision requirements; or
allow cottage or attached housing
•Would apply to all SR-1 zones, citywide
•No site-specific map changes to docket request
properties
12
20
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
13
Developable
Portion
Critical Area
50% Open Space
in Developable
Portion
Buildable
Developable
Portion
Critical Area as
50% Open Space
Requirement
Critical Area
Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Size
21
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
5) Adopt or encourage enrollment in incentive-
based programs to preserve urban separators.
•Incentivize preservation as alternative to development,
provide reasonable financial return for property owners
•Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program – like
King County 4:1
•Property owner sells rights to develop to developers in other areas
•Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS)
•Reduction in property tax for “public benefits” provided
14
22
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
Next Steps
1) Inventory & Characterization Report
2) Consistency Review Report
3) Preliminary alternatives analysis – land use, zoning or code
amendments
4) Consultation & Public Engagement – city leadership, other
departments, King County, and the public
5) Regulatory Compliance & Implementation
15
23
City of Kent – Economic and Community Development January 8th, 2018– Urban Separators
Questions?
16
24