HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 05/14/2018Land 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
May 14, 2018
7 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1.Call to order Chair Hintz 1 min
2.Roll call Chair Hintz 1 min
3.Added Items Chair Hintz 2 min
4.Communications Chair Hintz 5 min
5.Notice of upcoming meetings Chair Hintz 5 min
6.PUBLIC WORKSHOP
CPA-2017-5 – Uddin
YES Hayley
Bonsteel
20 min 2
7.PUBLIC HEARING:
Urban Separators Alternatives [ZCA-2016-2]
NO Danielle
Butsick
50 min
9.ADJOURNMENT YES Chair Hintz
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.
The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the
public hearing, provided, however, that comments shall be limited to only those items for which
the public hearing is being held. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the
proposed amendments under consideration at the public hearing may do so at the hearing or prior
to the hearing by email to Hayley Bonsteel at: hbonsteel@kentwa.gov or Danielle Butsick at:
dbutsick@kentwa.gov.
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.
16
8.SUMMER RETREAT
Scheduling NO Hayley
Bonsteel 5 min
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: May 14, 2018
To: Chair Paul Hintz and Land Use and Planning Board Members
From: Hayley Bonsteel, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Re: Outstanding 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Motion: Recommend to the City Council approval of the application for
amendment to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan land use map for CPA-
2017-5, from Single Family- 8 to Medium Density Multifamily.
SUMMARY: Three applications were submitted to the docket in 2017 requesting
land use map designation changes in the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use and
Planning Board held the public hearing for these three items on March 26, 2018,
and requested more information before acting on item CPA-2017-5. This application
for nine properties on East Hill to be redesignated from Single Familiy to Multifamily
was initially proposed to be denied by staff based on the combination of two
factors: presence of large wetlands on the northwest part of the site and lack of
property owner interest in the southeast part of the site—this combination seemed
likely to limit the quality of future development. However, after the public hearing
the applicant provided information regarding an accepted wetland delineation report
that supersedes the wetland data originally analyzed. This report shows no western
wetland. Additionally, staff sent certified mail to both properties and the applicant
provided information showing contact attempts to those properties; it appears that
one of the property owners is recently deceased. This new information has caused
staff to change the recommendation to approval, as a unified development concept
seems more likely, with less potential to negatively impact the property owners
who have not signed on to the application.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BE:pm P:\Planning\Hayley\Comp Plan\CPA LUPB
2.12.18memo.docx
Enc: Draft Ordinance with Exhibits
SEPA Addendum
Applicant’s Contact Attempt Log
cc: Kurt Hanson, Economic & Community Development
Director
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map
designations in compliance with the requirements
of the Growth Management Act (CPA-2017-4, CPA-
2017-5, CPA-2017-6).
RECITALS
A. The Washington State Growth Management Act (“GMA”) requires
internal consistency among comprehensive plan elements.
B. To assure that comprehensive plans remain relevant and up to date,
the GMA requires each jurisdiction to establish procedures whereby
amendments to the plan are considered by the city council, and
limits these amendments to once each year unless certain
circumstances exist.
C. The City of Kent has established a procedure for amending the
Comprehensive Plan in chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code, which
sets a deadline of September 1st of each year for submittal of
requests for comprehensive plan amendments.
D. The city received three timely applications to amend the
comprehensive plan’s land use designation map. The applications
involve parcels located at: (1) 25601 and 25611 100th Pl SE (CPA-
2017-4), (2) 25913, 26007, 26015, 26041 and 26047 116th Ave SE,
3
and 11404, 11426 and 11504 SE Kent Kangley Rd (CPA-2017-5),
and (3) 2526 S 272nd Street (CPA-2017-6).
E. The parcels located at 25601 and 25611 100th Pl SE are currently
designated Single Family Residential, eight units per acre (SR-8),
and the applicants are requesting a plan designation of Mixed Use
(MU) (CPA-2017-4).
F. The parcels located at 116th Ave SE and Kent Kangley are currently
designated Single Family Residential, eight units per acre (SR-8),
and the applicants are requesting a plan designation of Medium
Density Multifamily (MDMF) (CPA-2017-5).
G. The parcel located at 2526 S 272nd Street is currently designation
Mixed Use (MU) on the south half and Low Density Multifamily
(LDMF) on the north half. The applicants are requesting a plan
designation of Commercial (C) on the north half.
H. The City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board considered these
amendment requests at a regularly scheduled workshop on February
12, 2018, and at a public hearing on March 26, 2018, as well as at a
workshop on May 14, 2018. The Economic and Community
Development Committee considered the applications at its meeting
on June 11, 2018.
I. The City’s SEPA responsible official issued a SEPA Addendum for the
proposed amendments on March 8, 2018.
J. On February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of
Commerce granted expedited review for the proposed amendments.
No comments were received.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
4
SECTION 1. - Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are
incorporated herein by this reference and constitute the city council’s
findings on this matter.
SECTION 2. – Amendment. The Kent Comprehensive Plan is
hereby amended to establish new land use plan map designations for the
following parcels:
A. For the property located at 25601 and 25611 100th Pl SE, from a
land use designation of Single Family Residential, eight units per
acre (SF-8) to a land use designation of Mixed Use (MU), as
depicted in the map attached and incorporated as Exhibit “A”
(CPA-2017-4), with the following condition: construction of a
private street to provide safe access (meeting the requirements
of the City of Kent Design and Construction Standards) to the
public ROW (101st Ave SE) for the subject parcels and other 8
single family lots to the south, and removal of the private street
connection to 256th Street.
B. For the properties located at 25913, 26007, 26015, 26041 and
26047 116th Avenue SE, and at 11404, 11426 and 11504 SE
Kent Kangley Road, from a land use designation of Single Family
Residential, eight units per acre (SF-8) to a land use designation
of Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF), as depicted in the map
attached and incorporated as Exhibit “B” (CPA-2017-5).
C. For the property located at 2526 S 272nd Street, from a land use
designation of Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to a land use
designation of Mixed Use (MU), as depicted in the map attached
and incorporated as Exhibit “C” (CPA-2017-6).
SECTION 3. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
5
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
SECTION 5. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
6
7
8
9
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
May 5, 2018
TO: Chair Hintz and Members of the Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Sr. Long-Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
RE: Urban Separators Project
For Meeting of May 14, 2018
SUMMARY: The City received 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, a consistency review to assess relevant policies,
and conducted public outreach in a variety of formats and venues. Based on the
results of the public outreach process and consistent with Kent’s comprehensive
plan policies, staff has developed three policy alternatives: 1) no changes; 2)
amend land use plan map and zoning designations for a portion of the urban
separator area west of Panther Lake along 108th Avenue SE; and 3) amend
clustering requirements and allowed uses in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning
district. Staff will present the alternatives at the May 14 meeting.
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 open space and 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. Subdivisions in urban
separators must be “clustered”; among other requirements, this means that 50% of
the unconstrained portion of the parcel must be set aside as permanent open
space.
City council directed staff to comprehensively review the urban separator
designation and evaluate its continued relevance in Kent. The three alternatives
presented by staff are informed by comments received during one-on-one
interviews, two public open houses, and a public hearing, as well as the results
from an online public survey. The alternatives include 1) a no action alternative (no
changes), 2) amendments to the land use plan map and zoning designations for the
MOTION: None
10
westernmost portion of the Panther Lake urban separator, and 3) amendments to
the use tables and clustering requirements for urban separators and SR-1 zoning
district.
Staff will be available at the May 14 workshop to provide information, answer
questions, and receive feedback from the LUPB.
EXHIBITS: Draft ordinances (A and B); PowerPoint presentation
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
11
Urban
separators
Proposed Alternatives
LUPB – May 14, 2018
12
It’s a land use designation in
the City’s comprehensive
plan meant to:
Preserve open space
Connect wildlife corridors
Protect natural and resource
areas (steep slopes, wetlands,
agriculture/forest)
It does this through ZONING.
Urban Separator Overview 13
14
Zoning in Urban Separators:
Urban Separators in Kent
are all zoned “SR-1”.
One single family house
per acre (overall
density)
Requires “clustering”
when subdivided
15
Cluster Subdivisions:
Concentrates new development on a portion of
the property
Leaves at least 50% open space (half
developable + undevelopable areas)
Small minimum lot size – 2,500 square feet
Requires groups of 8 with 120ft. in between
16
Example Cluster
Subdivision
Red = critical areas + buffers
Green = 50% open space set-aside
Purple = new lots (2,500 square feet)
For illustration
purposes only.
17
Urban Separator Project:
What is the best use for Kent’s urban separators?
City council was asked to consider changing the rules so
that developers can build more houses than is currently
allowed.
The whole region needs more housing, but urban
separators also provide important environmental benefits.
Any changes have to work with other city, state, county,
and regional policies.
18
Outreach:
1:1 Interviews – 13 Interviews/Comments
Open Houses (2) – 85+ participants
Public Hearing – 33 attendees; 15 verbal testimony; 28
written comments
Online Survey – 281 respondents
19
A few things we heard:
Nothing has changed
since the policies were
established - leave
them as they are.
Keep it low density –
our infrastructure is
already overloaded.
Developers shouldn’t
get an advantage at
a cost to nearby
property owners and
the city as a whole.
One way to make
housing more affordable
is to provide more of it.
People should be
able to capitalize on
their investments –
reduce restrictions so
I can sell for more.
Development
causes loss of
trees and sound
buffering and
brings traffic.
20
A few things we heard:
This might be a good time for
Kent to add more restriction
rather than just considering
loosening the requirements.
We need to get serious
about global warming. We
need more consideration
for water, drainage, and
the change in weather and
habitat impacts.
We shouldn't be considering
changes for such a small
number of requests.
Differentiate between
different types of urban
separators – increase
density where you can, and
leave it where you can’t. Don’t save them unless there is
a budget for safe/useable
space for people.
21
Outreach Results:
Top Policy Options:
Option 1: Don’t make
any changes.
Option 2: Find ways to
support land owners
preserving open space.
Option 1
49%
Option 2
27%
Option 3
6%
Option 4
4%
Option 5
2% Other ideas
12%
Source: Urban Separators Online Survey
22
Alternative #1
No Action.
Preferred option in outreach.
No plan, code, or CPP amendments needed.
23
Alternative #2
Code Amendments.
50% open space set aside from whole
parcel (including critical areas/buffers)
25% of subdivision may be duplex or
townhomes with ownership interest
Critical areas/buffers must be put in
permanent open space tract
24
Alternative #3
Amend Land Use and Zoning Designations for a portion of the Panther Lake urban separator
New information since 2015 comp plan: no direct connection to Renton’s urban separators
Not clear that it will result in long-term benefits or is in the best interest of the community
Not consistent with other policies of the comp plan re: transportation, land use
Buildable Lands Study, 2014 shows sufficient capacity to meet growth targets
25
= Panther Lake Urban
Separator
= Docket Parcels
Alternative #3 26
27
Next Steps:
Data gathering and reports
City staff policy ideas
Public outreach – meetings, interviews
Proposed alternatives and staff recommendations
City and county adoption of new policies
28
CAPTURING THE COMMUNITY’S VOICE ON URBAN SEPARATORS
MARCH-APRIL, 2018
URBAN SEPARATORS OUTREACH
29
ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS
•Interview requests mailed
to 60 random households
within 300ft. of urban
separators
•A total of 16 responses,
and 13 individuals
interviewed or responded
with comments
30
WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE
(OR BUY PROPERTY) HERE?
31
WHAT SHOULD THE CITY DO WITH
URBAN SEPARATORS?
“Don’t save them unless there is a budget
for safe/useable space for people.
Nothing has changed since the policies were
established - leave them as they are.
Leave it as it is, but give people credit for
preserving their land. I like the idea of
incentives.
Keep it low density – our infrastructure is
already overloaded.
Leave it the way it is – it costs too much to
bring services here (replace septic/wells).
Developers shouldn’t get an advantage at a cost to nearby property
owners and the city as a whole – look at the overall benefits.
People should be able to capitalize on their
investments – reduce restrictions so I can sell for more.
Cities need density – I love density.
You have to leave some open space – this area is unique
and the value is in the large lots, the character.
32
INFORMAL PUBLIC MEETINGS
Two meetings:
•Panther Lake Elementary School - March 8, 2018: 50+ participants
•Sunnycrest Elementary School - March 14, 2018: 35+ participants
33
INFORMAL PUBLIC MEETINGS
Dot Voting:
Option 1
31%
Option 2
34%
Option 3
3%
Option 4
8%
Option 5
21%
Other Ideas
3%
Option 1: Don’t make any changes.
Option 2: Find ways to support land owners.
Option 3: Find areas in urban separators
that could be used for more housing in the
future.
Option 4: Change the rules for how houses
in urban separators can be built.
Option 5: Find areas in urban separators
that could be used for more housing now and
redesignate them.
34
INFORMAL PUBLIC MEETINGS (CONT.)
Other Ideas:
•Building moratorium
•Flood mitigation programs for frequently flooded areas
35
A FEW KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
Fix transportation and infrastructure first.
You should differentiate between different types of urban separators
– increase density where you can, and leave it where you can’t.
This might be a good time for Kent to add more restriction rather
than just considering loosening the requirements.
We need to get serious about global warming. We need more consideration for
water, drainage, and the change in weather and habitat impacts.
One way to make housing more affordable is to provide more of it.
Development causes loss of trees and sound buffering and brings traffic.
We shouldn't be considering changes for such a small number of requests.
36
PUBLIC HEARING – MARCH 26, 2018
Attendance: 33 signed
in for urban separators
Written Comments: 28
Testimony: 15 individuals
37
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT CATEGORIES
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Maintain urban separators as they are - consistency with regional policies.
Maintain urban separators as they are - environmental concerns.
Maintain urban separators as they are - infrastructure concerns.
Maintain urban separators as they are - quality of life.
Maintain urban separators as they are - existing land capacity is sufficient.
Maintain urban separators as they are - personal economic concerns.
Increase incentives to promote preservation of private land.
Make changes to facilitate development - consistency with existing development.
Make changes to facilitate development - consistency with state/regional policies.
Make changes to facilitate development - critical areas restrictions.
Make changes to facilitate development - lack of funding for quality open space.
Make changes to facilitate development - land scarcity.
Make changes to facilitate development - personal economic concerns.
Make changes to facilitate development - setbacks and impervious surface.
Make changes to facilitate development - types of uses.
Modify development standards - clustering requirements.
38
URBAN SEPARATORS ONLINE SURVEY
Promoted through:
•Email to community organizations
•Postcard mailings (300ft. radius)
•Flyers
•Kent’s social media (Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor)
•Kent’s website
•Public meetings
Total respondents: 281
39
DO YOU LIVE IN OR NEAR AN
URBAN SEPARATOR AREA?
39%
61%
No Yes
Rent
6%
Own
93%
No
answer
1%
DO YOU OWN OR RENT
YOUR HOME?
Less than
one year
7% 1 to 5 years
20%
6 to 10
years
14% 10 to 15
years
16%
More than
15 years
43%
HOW LONG HAVE YOU
LIVED IN YOUR HOME?
SURVEY RESULTS - RESIDENCY
40
WHAT DO YOU VALUE MOST
ABOUT WHERE YOU LIVE?
95%
5%
0%
Adds value Diminishes value Neither
DOES OPEN SPACE ADD TO OR
DIMINISH YOUR PROPERTY VALUE?
SURVEY RESULTS - VALUES
41
PREFERRED POLICY OPTION
Option 1
49%
Option 2
27%
Option 3
6%
Option 4
4%
Option 5
2%
Other ideas
12%
Option 1: Don’t make any changes.
Option 2: Find ways to support land owners.
Option 3: Find areas in urban separators
that could be used for more housing in the
future.
Option 4: Change the rules for how houses
in urban separators can be built.
Option 5: Find areas in urban separators
that could be used for more housing now and
redesignate them.
42
PREFERRED POLICY OPTION (CONT.)
Other Ideas:
•Increase open space wherever possible.
•Build more densely near transit.
•Redevelop and build up, creatively.
•Allow more multi-family housing (duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes) in other areas of the city
(in the valley).
•Rezone commercial areas or industrial areas to allow residential or mixed
commercial/residential.
•Invest in roads and infrastructure first to reduce existing congestion.
•Improve the parks system with better maintenance by increasing B&O and decreasing
property taxes.
•Add taxes and fees for new development to promote sustainability of public services.
•Offer incentives for LEED development.
43
WHAT’S NEXT
•Develop alternatives and staff
recommendation
•Complete SEPA review
•LUPB Workshop, Hearing
44
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, amending the City of Kent comprehensive
land use plan map and zoning districts map for properties at
the northeast side of the intersection of 108th Ave. SE and
SE 200th Street
RECITALS
A. The urban separator land use designation is intended to protect
ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space corridors that provide
visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth
areas.
B. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs),
ratified by the City of Kent February 19, 2013, contain policies to establish
urban separators. The eastern portion of Kent’s urban separator lands, along
Soos Creek and Panther Lake are designated as urban separators in the King
County CPPs. Any zoning or land use plan map changes to these areas would
be inconsistent with the CPPs, and would therefore require amendments to
the CPPs before final adoption.
C. Per Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan, all urban separator lands
are to be low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. To
implement this policy, all urban separators in Kent are zoned SR-1 for one
single family dwelling per acre.
D. On September 9, 2014 the city received DKT-2014-2, requesting
a rezone for property at 20628 132nd Ave. SE, in the Soos Creek area and on
August 31, 2015 the city received DKT-2015-1 requesting a rezone for
properties at the southwest corner of the Panther Lake urban separator area.
45
E. On October 20, 2015 the Kent City Council approved the 2015
Comprehensive Plan Docket Report, which added the multi-year urban
separators project to the Economic and Community Development
Department’s 2016 work program.
F. In 2017, city staff completed an Inventory and Characterization
Report, and a Consistency Review Report for urban separators. These
reports document critical areas, existing development conditions, and
development capacity in Kent’s urban separators, and compare these
characteristics to existing local, regional, and state policies pertaining to
urban separators. The reports concluded that all existing urban separator
focus areas serve the intended purpose of urban separators to some degree,
as defined in Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan and/or the 2012 King County
Countywide Planning Policies.
G. Beginning in August, 2017 city staff conducted a public outreach
campaign which included one-on-one interviews with developers and
community members, two public open houses, a public hearing, and an online
public survey, to gather public opinion regarding the best use of urban
separator lands in Kent. Overwhelmingly, public opinion during the outreach
campaign indicated a preference to retain urban separators as they are,
particularly in the Soos Creek area.
H. On April 19, 2018, the City the city requested a standard 60-day
review from the State of Washington under RCW 36.70A.106 for the
proposed amendments to KCC. Comments received on xx-xx-2018 included
__________________.
I. On xx-xx-2018, the City conducted and completed
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The
46
City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a ______________for the code
amendments.
J. At its regularly-scheduled public meeting on xx-xx-2018, the
LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendments related
to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development standards in
urban separators. After considering the matter, the LUPB voted to
recommend ________of the proposed amendments to the City Council.
K. On xx-xx-2018, the Economic and Community Development
Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-
scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council ________ of
the proposed code amendments.
L. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on xx-xx-2018, the City
Council voted to ________ the amendments to the City of Kent Land Use
Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Amendment.
The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map is amended to reflect the
revised land use plan map and zoning district designations for the properties at the
northeast side of the intersection of 108th Ave. SE and SE 200th Street from US to
SF-6, respectively, as set forth in Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. – Amendment.
The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Zoning Districts Map is amended to reflect the
revised zoning district designations for the properties at the northeast side of the
47
intersection of 108th Ave. SE and SE 200th Street from SR-1 to SR-6, respectively,
as set forth in Exhibit B.
SECTION 3. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or
sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same
shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of
the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make
necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors;
ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or
federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations.
SECTION 5. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHUR FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
48
49
50
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, amending Sections 12.04.263 Clustering
in urban separators; 15.04.020 Residential land uses; and
15.04.030 Residential land use and development conditions;
pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and
development standards in urban separators.
RECITALS
A. The urban separator land use designation is intended to protect
ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space corridors that provide
visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth
areas.
B. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs),
ratified by the City of Kent February 19, 2013, contain policies to establish
urban separators. The eastern portion of Kent’s urban separator lands, along
Soos Creek and Panther Lake are designated as urban separators in the King
County CPPs. Any zoning or land use plan map changes to these areas would
be inconsistent with the CPPs.
C. Per Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan, all urban separator lands
are to be low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. To
implement this policy, all urban separators in Kent are zoned SR-1 for one
single family dwelling per acre.
D. On September 9, 2014 the city received DKT-2014-2, requesting
a rezone for property at 20628 132nd Ave. SE; and on August 31, 2015 the
City received DKT-2015-1 requesting a rezone for properties at the southwest
corner of the Panther Lake urban separator area.
51
E. On October 20, 2015 the Kent City Council approved the 2015
Comprehensive Plan Docket Report, which added the multi-year urban
separators project to the Economic and Community Development
Department’s 2016 work program.
F. In 2017, city staff completed an Inventory and Characterization
Report, and a Consistency Review Report for urban separators. These
reports document critical areas, existing development conditions, and
development capacity in Kent’s urban separators; and compare these
characteristics to existing local, regional, and state policies pertaining to
urban separators. The reports concluded that all existing urban separator
focus areas serve the intended purpose of urban separators to some degree,
as defined in Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan and/or the 2012 King County
Countywide Planning Policies.
G. Beginning in August, 2017 city staff conducted a public outreach
campaign which included one-on-one interviews with developers and
community members, two informal public meetings, a public hearing, and an
online public survey, to gather public opinion regarding the best use of urban
separator lands in Kent. Overwhelmingly, public opinion indicated a
preference to retain urban separators as they are and to promote the use of
incentive programs to encourage preservation of open space and natural
beneficial functions on private property.
H. Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan has a variety of relevant
policies related to residential development. Policy LU-19.6 states that the city
will “encourage well-designed land use patterns, including clustering of
housing units, zero lot lines, and other techniques to protect and enhance
urban separators. “ Policy LU-7 states that the city will “ensure residential
development achieves a substantial portion of the allowable maximum
density on the net buildable acreage.” Policy LU-7.4 says that the city will
52
“allow a diversity of single family housing forms and strategies in all
residential districts (e.g. accessory dwellings, reduced lot size, cottage or
cluster housing), subject to design and development standards, to ensure
minimal impact to surrounding properties.”
I. Clustering is required for subdivision of land in urban separators;
among other requirements, clustering requires fifty percent of the
unconstrained portion of the property to be set aside as an open space tract.
It also requires new lots to be clustered in groups of 8 or fewer, and clusters
must be spaced at least 120 feet apart. The minimum lot size for cluster
subdivisions in urban separators is 2,500 square feet. Only a single cluster
subdivision has been completed since clustering requirements for urban
separators were established in 2001.
J. The City of Auburn, the City of Renton, and unincorporated King
County also require cluster subdivisions within urban separator lands, but
with less stringent requirements for open space set-asides. These
jurisdictions require 50% of the entire parcel to be set aside as open space;
critical areas may be included in the 50% set-aside.
K. On April 20, 2018, the City requested a standard 60-day review
from the State of Washington under RCW 36.70A.106 for the proposed
amendments to KCC. Comments received on xx-xx-2018 included
__________________.
L. On xx-xx-2018, the City conducted and completed
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The
City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a ______________for the code
amendments.
M. At its regularly-scheduled public meeting on xx-xx-2018, the
LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendments related
53
to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development standards in
urban separators. After considering the matter, the LUPB voted to
recommend ________of the proposed amendments to the City Council.
N. On xx-xx-2018, the Economic and Community Development
Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-
scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council ________ of
the proposed code amendments.
O. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on xx-xx-2018, the City
Council voted to ________ the amendments to portions of Sections
12.04.263 Clustering in urban separators; 15.04.020 Residential land uses;
and 15.04.030 Residential land use and development conditions; pertaining
to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development standards in
urban separators.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Amendment – KCC 12.04.263. Section 12.04.263 of the Kent City
Code, entitled “Clustering in urban separators,” is hereby amended to read as
follows:
12.04.263 Clustering in urban separators.
A. All subdivisions and short subdivisions in the SR-1 zoning district shall be
required to be clustered pursuant to this section when the property is located
wholly or partially within an urban separator as designated on the city of
Kent comprehensive land use plan map.
B. Except as described in subsection (C) of this section, cluster subdivisions
and short subdivisions shall be subject to the SR-8 zoning district
development standards outlined in KCC Title 15. These standards include, but
54
are not limited to, minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking,
landscaping, signage, etc.
C. The provisions of KCC 12.04.235 through 12.04.250, as well as other
applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically exempted.
In addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered subdivisions or
short subdivisions:
1. Location. The cluster residential development shall be required in the
SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas.
2. Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option shall
include only single-family residential uses. Duplexes with ownership
interest and townhouses with ownership interest are also permitted uses
within subdivisions, pursuant to 15.04.020.
3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster
residential development.
4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted
in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of
dwelling units allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in
which it is located.
5. Lot size. The minimum lot size of individual building lots within a
cluster subdivision or short subdivision is two thousand five hundred
(2,500) square feet. New lots created by any subdivision or short
subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding eight (8)
units. There may be more than one (1) cluster per project. Separation
between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty
(120) feet.
6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a
cluster subdivision or short subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet.
7. Other development standards. Development standards other than lot
size, lot width, and density shall be the same as are required within the
SR-8 zoning district.
8. Common open space. The common open space in a cluster
subdivision or short subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent
of the nonconstrained total area of the parcel. The nonconstrained area
of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus , including critical
areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter
amended, and buffers. The remainder of the nonconstrained area of
the ing fifty (50) percent of the parcel, minus critical areas, shall be the
buildable area of the parcel. The common open space tracts created by
clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best
55
connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive
areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity
between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent
open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and
maintains scenic vistas. Critical areas and buffers shall not be used in
determining lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster
subdivision or short subdivision. Critical areas and buffers shall be
placed in separate tracts and shall not be included in the area of
individual lots. All natural features (significant stands of trees and rock
outcropping), as well as critical areas (such as streams, steep slopes,
and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved.
Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited.
Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open
space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be
altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent
environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or
resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the
open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open
spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and or impairs the recreational
benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. Such common
open spaces shall be conveyed to residents of the development,
conveyed to a homeowners’ association for the benefit of the residents
of the development, or conveyed to the city with the city’s consent and
approval.
(Ord. No. 4035, § 5, 4-17-12; Ord. No. 3551, § 5, 3-20-01; Ord. No. 3663,
§ 1, 10-7-03; Ord. No. 3906, § 1, 1-6-09)
SECTION 2. – New Section.
15.02.114.1 Duplex with ownership interest.
Duplex with ownership interest means real property formed as a duplex,
where portions are designated for separate ownership and the remainder is
designated for common ownership solely by the owners of those portions,
with an undivided interest in the common elements vested in the unit
owners. Real property is not considered a duplex with ownership interest
until after a declaration encompassing and outlining the above requirements
is recorded.
SECTION 3. – Amendment – KCC 15.04.020. Section 15.04.020 of the Kent City
Code, entitled “Residential land uses” is hereby amended to read as follows:
56
15.04.020 Residential land uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10 AG SR-1 SR-3 SR-
4.5
SR-6 SR-8 MR-
D
MR-
T12
MR-
T16
MR-
G
MR-
M
MR-
H
MHP NCC CC DC DCE MTC-1 MTC-2 MCR CM-
1
CM-
2
GC M1 M1-
C
M2 M3
One single-family
dwelling per lot
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A
(1)
A
(1)
A
(1)
A
(1)
One duplex per lot P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
One modular home per lot P P P P P P P P P P P P
Duplexes
P
(27)
(32)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(22)
P P P P P
Multifamily townhouse units
P
(27)
(32)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(27)
P
(19)
(20)
P
(19)
(20)
P P P P
(2)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P P
(2)
Multifamily dwellings P
(26)
P
(26)
P P P P
(2)
P
(4)
P P P P P
(2)
57
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10 AG SR-1 SR-3 SR-
4.5
SR-6 SR-8 MR-
D
MR-
T12
MR-
T16
MR-
G
MR-
M
MR-
H
MHP NCC CC DC DCE MTC-1 MTC-2 MCR CM-
1
CM-
2
GC M1 M1-
C
M2 M3
C
(5)
Mobile
homes and manufactured
homes
P
Mobile home parks
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
(13)
P
Group homes class I-A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P C
Group homes class I-B P P P P P P P P P P C P P C C C
Group homes class II-A C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Group homes class II-B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Group homes class II-C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Group homes class III C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
C
(23)
Secure community transition
facilities23. 24
Rebuild/accessory uses for P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
58
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10 AG SR-1 SR-3 SR-
4.5
SR-6 SR-8 MR-
D
MR-
T12
MR-
T16
MR-
G
MR-
M
MR-
H
MHP NCC CC DC DCE MTC-1 MTC-2 MCR CM-
1
CM-
2
GC M1 M1-
C
M2 M3
existing dwellings (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6)
Transitional housing
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P P
(7)
C
(30)
P
(7)
C
(30)
Rooming and boarding of not
more than three
persons
A A A A A A A A A A
Farm worker accommodations A
(17)
A
(9)
A
(17)
Accessory uses
and structures customarily
appurtenant to a
permitted use
A A A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(8)
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A
(18)
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Accessory dwelling
units and guest cottages
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
A
(8)
(10)
Accessory living quarters A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
59
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10 AG SR-1 SR-3 SR-
4.5
SR-6 SR-8 MR-
D
MR-
T12
MR-
T16
MR-
G
MR-
M
MR-
H
MHP NCC CC DC DCE MTC-1 MTC-2 MCR CM-
1
CM-
2
GC M1 M1-
C
M2 M3
(14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14)
Live-work units
P
(28)
Home occupations
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
A
(11)
Service buildings A
Storage of recreational
vehicles
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
(16)
A
Drive-in churches C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Emergency
housing; emergency shelter
C
(31)
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Independent senior living
facilities
C C C C C P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
C
(3)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P C C P
(2)
C
(3)
Assisted living facilities
C C C C C P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
C
P
(4)
C
P P P P C C P
(2)
C
60
Zoning Districts
Key
P = Principally Permitted Uses
S = Special Uses
C = Conditional Uses
A = Accessory Uses
A-10 AG SR-1 SR-3 SR-
4.5
SR-6 SR-8 MR-
D
MR-
T12
MR-
T16
MR-
G
MR-
M
MR-
H
MHP NCC CC DC DCE MTC-1 MTC-2 MCR CM-
1
CM-
2
GC M1 M1-
C
M2 M3
(3) (5) (3)
Residential facilities with
health care
C C C C C P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(29)
P
(2)
C
(3)
P
(4)
C
(5)
P P P P C C P
(2)
C
(3)
Designated manufactured
home
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
P
(25)
(Ord. No. 3439, § 2, 2-2-99; Ord. No. 3440, § 4, 2-16-99; Ord. No. 3470, § 3, 8-17-99; Ord. No. 3543, § 2, 2-20-01; Ord. No. 3600, § 3, 5-7-02; Ord. No. 3612, § 3, 8-6-02;
Ord. No. 3615, § 2, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 3753, § 2, 6-7-05; Ord. No. 3759, § 1, 9-6-05; Ord. No. 3770, § 5, 11-15-05; Ord. No. 3830, § 14, 3-6-07; Ord. No. 4011, § 7, 12-
13-11; Ord. No. 4089, § 6, 9-17-13; Ord. No. 4166, § 4, 9-1-15; Ord. No. 4174, § 5, 11-17-15; Ord. No. 4188, § 5, 2-16-16; Ord. No. 4189, § 1, 2-16-16; Ord. No. 4225,
§ 6, 12-13-16)
61
SECTION 4. – Amendment – KCC 15.04.030. Section 15.04.030 of the Kent City
Code, entitled “Residential land use development conditions” is hereby amended to
read as follows:
15.04.030 Residential land use development conditions.
1. Dwelling units, limited to not more than one per establishment, for
security or maintenance personnel and their families, when located on the
premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential use
shall be permitted.
2. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed,
are only permissible in a mixed use overlay and must be included within
a mixed use development.
3. Assisted living facilities, residential facilities with health care, and
independent senior living facilities, when not combined with commercial or
office uses, require a conditional use permit and are subject to the following
conditions:
a. Must be located within a half mile of publicly accessible amenities in
at least three of the following categories, as determined by the
economic and community development director. The distance shall be
measured as the shortest straight-line distance from the property line of
the proposed facility to the property line of the entities listed below:
i. Public park or trail, as identified in the city’s most recently
adopted park and open space plan, or owned or maintained by any
agency of the state, or any political subdivision thereof;
ii. Preschool, elementary, or secondary school (public or private);
iii. Indoor recreational center (community center, senior center,
physical recreation facility, bingo or casino hall);
iv. Church, religious institution, or other place of worship;
v. Cultural arts center (theater, concert hall, artistic, cultural, or
other similar event center);
vi. Retail services, including, but not limited to: medical services;
food and beverage establishments; shopping centers; or other
commercial services that are relevant (reasonably useful or
62
germane) to the residents of the proposed facility, as determined by
the city’s economic and community development director.
b. Alternatively, if the facility provides amenities in one or more of the
categories listed in subsection (3)(a) of this section on the ground floor
of the facility itself, oriented towards the public (meaning that they are
visible, accessible and welcoming), the number of other amenities to
which a half-mile proximity is required may be reduced, at the
discretion of the city’s economic and community development director.
4. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed,
when established in buildings with commercial or office uses, and not located
on the ground floor.
5. Multifamily residential uses, or other residential facilities where allowed,
when not combined with commercial or office uses.
6. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired, and otherwise changed for
human occupancy. Accessory buildings for existing dwellings may be
constructed subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160.
7. Transitional housing facilities, limited to a maximum of 20 residents at any
one time, plus up to four resident staff.
8. Accessory structures composed of at least two walls and a roof, not
including accessory uses or structures customarily appurtenant to agricultural
uses, are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160.
9. Farm dwellings appurtenant to a principal agricultural use for the housing
of farm owners, operators, or employees, but not accommodations for
transient labor.
10. Accessory dwelling units shall not be included in calculating the
maximum density. Accessory dwelling units are allowed only on the
same lot with a principally permitted detached single-family dwelling unit,
and are subject to the provisions of KCC 15.08.160 and 15.08.350.
11. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of
KCC 15.08.040.
12. [Reserved].
13. Subject to the combining district requirements of the mobile home
park code, Chapter 12.05 KCC.
63
14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of
KCC 15.08.359.
15. [Reserved].
16. Recreational vehicle storage is permitted as an accessory use in
accordance with KCC 15.08.080.
17. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not
accommodations for transient labor.
18. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones.
19. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property
to be rezoned at the time of application for a rezone to an MR-T zone: SR-8,
MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, NCC, CC, GC, DC, or DCE.
20. All multifamily townhouse developments in an MR-T zone shall be
recorded as townhouses with ownership interest, as defined in KCC
15.02.525.1, prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city.
21. [Reserved].
22. One duplex per lot is permitted.
23. Secure community transition facilities are only permitted within the
boundaries depicted on the following map, and only with a conditional
use permit:
64
24. A secure community transition facility shall also comply with applicable
state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to
Chapter 71.09 RCW. Secure community transition facilities are not subject to
the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for class III group homes, but they are
subject to a 600-foot separation from any other class II or III group home.
In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to,
immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight
of risk-potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed
for consideration. Within line of sight means that it is possible to reasonably
visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting
a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the
hearing examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of 600 feet
to be within line of sight. During the conditional use permit process for
a secure community transition facility, line of sight may be considered to be
less than 600 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist
or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than 600 feet.
This distance shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard to
intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon
which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or
property or the land use district boundary line from which the
proposed use is to be separated. For the purpose of granting a conditional
65
use permit for a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner
shall give great weight to equitable distribution so that the city shall not be
subject to a disproportionate share of similar facilities of a statewide,
regional, or countywide nature.
25. A designated manufactured home is a permitted use with the following
conditions:
a. A designated manufactured home must be a new manufactured
home;
b. The designated manufactured home shall be set upon a permanent
foundation, as specified by the manufacturer, and the space from the
bottom of the home to the ground shall be enclosed by concrete or an
approved concrete product that can be either load-bearing or
decorative;
c. The designated manufactured home shall comply with all city design
standards applicable to all other single-family homes;
d. The designated manufactured home shall be thermally equivalent to
the State Energy Code; and
e. The designated manufactured home shall meet all other requirements
for a designated manufactured home as defined in RCW 35.63.160.
26. Multifamily dwellings shall be allowed only within the Kent
downtown districts outlined in the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and shall
be condominiums recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW or
similar dwelling units with ownership interest and recorded as such prior to
approval of a certificate of occupancy by the city.
27. Within subdivisions, as defined by KCC 12.04.025, vested after March 22,
2007, or altered to comply with zoning and subdivision code amendments
effective after March 22, 2007, 25 percent of the total number of
permitted dwelling units may be duplex or triplex townhouse structures.
28. Live-work units; provided, that the following development standards shall
apply for live-work units, in addition to those set forth in KCC 15.04.190:
a. The unit shall contain a cooking space and sanitary facility in
conformance with applicable building standards;
66
b. Adequate and clearly defined working space must constitute no less
than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the live-work unit. Said
working space shall be reserved for and regularly used by one or more
persons residing there;
c. At least one resident in each live-work unit shall maintain at all times
a valid city business license for a business on the premises;
d. Persons who do not reside in the live-work unit may be employed in
the live-work unit when the required parking is provided;
e. Customer and client visits are allowed when the required parking is
provided;
f. No portion of a live-work unit may be separately rented or sold as a
commercial space for a person or persons not living on the premises, or
as a residential space for a person or persons not working on the
premises;
g. [Reserved];
h. Construct all nonresidential space, to the maximum allowed, to
commercial building standards; and
i. Provide an internal connection between the residential and
nonresidential space within each unit.
29. Subject to the maximum permitted density of the zoning district.
For assisted living facilities, residential facilities with health care, and
independent senior living facilities, each residential care unit is considered
one dwelling unit for purposes of density calculations.
30. Conditional use when the number of residents exceeds 20 at any one
time or more than four resident staff.
31. Emergency housing is an allowed conditional use in the MR-D zone only
in conjunction with an approved conditional use permit, and subject to the
following additional conditions:
a. The emergency housing facility must be located on the same lot as an
actively operating church or similar religious institution, and
the lot must be a minimum of two acres in size;
67
b. The emergency housing facility must be located within a permanent,
enclosed building;
c. The building footprint of the emergency housing facility cannot
exceed the building footprint of the church or similar
religious institution that exists on the same lot;
d. The church or similar religious institution on the same lot as
the emergency housing facility shall be primarily liable for the operation
and maintenance of the facility itself, as well as the conduct of the
residents of the facility on and in the immediate vicinity of the lot, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, regardless of whether the
organization contracts with a third party for the provision of any
services related to the facility itself or its residents; and
e. The emergency housing facility shall comply with the setbacks
and landscaping requirements for churches, as identified in
KCC 15.08.020(A).
32. Duplexes and multifamily townhouses shall be recorded as duplexes with
ownership interest or townhouses with ownership interest, as defined in KCC
15.02.525.1, and KCC 15.02.114.1 prior to approval of a certificate
of occupancy by the city.
(Ord. No. 3439, § 2, 2-2-99; Ord. No. 3440, § 5, 2-16-99; Ord. No. 3470,
§ 4, 8-17-99; Ord. No. 3600, § 3, 5-7-02; Ord. No. 3612, § 3, 8-6-02; Ord.
No. 3615, § 2, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 3753, § 3, 6-7-05; Ord. No. 3759, § 2, 9-
6-05; Ord. No. 3761, § 2, 9-6-05; Ord. No. 3830, § 15, 3-6-07; Ord.
No. 4011, § 8, 12-13-11; Ord. No. 4089, § 7, 9-17-13; Ord. No. 4166, § 4,
9-1-15; Ord. No. 4174, § 6, 11-17-15; Ord. No. 4188, § 6, 2-16-16; Ord.
No. 4189, § 2, 2-16-16; Ord. No. 4225, § 7, 12-13-16)
68