The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 06/25/2018Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Agenda Board Members: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Gwen Allen-Carston; Shane Amodei; Frank Cornelius; Dale Hartman; Ali Shasti June 25, 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.Approval of 3/26/18 Minutes YES Chair Hintz 1 min 1 4.Added Items Chair Hintz 2 min 5.Communications Chair Hintz 2 min 6.Notice of upcoming meetings Chair Hintz 5 min 7.PUBLIC HEARING: Urban Separators Alternatives [ZCA-2016-2] YES Danielle Butsick 60 min 8.Adjournment Chair Hintz 1 min 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. Land Use and Planning Board March 26, 2018 Minutes Kent, Washington Pending Approval Date: March 26, 2018 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers Attending: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Dale Hartman; Gwen Allen-Carston; Ali Shasti; Shane Amodei; Danielle Butsick, Long Range Planner; Hayley Bonsteel, Long Range Planning Manager; Tammy White, Deputy City Attorney Agenda: 1.Call to Order Vice Chair Jones called the meeting to order at 7:11 P.M. 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Minutes Vice chair Jones made a motion to approve the minutes of February 26, 2018. Motion seconded by Chair Hintz. Motion passed 6-0. 4.Added Items None. 5.Communications None. 6.Notice of Upcoming Meetings None. Chair Hintz Opened the first Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 7.Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments [CPA-2017-(4-6)] Hayley Bonsteel proceeded to explain the distinctions between each of the comprehensive plan amendments, how they fit in to the comprehensive plan, and explained why these proposals were being considered. Each proposal received consideration individually and were given a staff recommendation. CPA-2017-4 and CPA-2017-6 both received a staff recommendation for approval. CPA-2017-5 did not receive a staff recommendation for approval. After the conclusion of Hayley Bonsteel’s staff report at 7:19 P.M., the hearing was opened for public comment. Each comprehensive plan amendment received public comment on a case-by-case basis. At 8:24 P.M. Chair Hintz closed the public comment period and called for a motion. Ali Shasti motioned to postpone the recommendation until comments could be reviewed. Motion was not seconded, approved, or denied. Page 1 of 3 Land Use and Planning Board March 26, 2018 Minutes Kent, Washington Pending Approval Hartman moved to approve the recommendations for CPA-2017-4, to deny recommendations for CPA-2017-5, and approve the recommendations for CPA-2017-6 as recommendations by staff motion was not seconded, approved, or denied. Discussion opened for CPA-2017-5 prior to action on the prior motions. Members Hartman, Shasti, Allen-Carston and Jones expressed concern for lack of outreach to two of the land owners who had not signed on to the application. Chair Hintz pointed out that a large audience of the public had managed to make it to this hearing despite not being directly affiliated with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and that even if outreach efforts are made, nothing can be done if the property owners do not respond. Discussion was closed by Chair Hintz. Tammy White, Deputy City Attorney interceded on a procedural basis to clarify that there was already a motion in place demanding a second and a vote. Vice Chair Jones reiterated a motion to recommend to approve the amendments for CPA-2017-4 AND CPA-2017-6, and postpone a decision for CPA-2017-5 until more research could be done, including a traffic study. Chair Hintz made an amendment to Vice Chair Jones’ motion on the basis that a traffic study is impossible before knowing what would be built. Ali Shasti Seconded the motion. Vice Chair Jones adopted the amendment to the motion, and the motion passed 6-0. At 8:40 P.M. Chair Hintz closed the hearing on [CPA-2017-(4-6)] opened the hearing for Urban Separators Preliminary Alternatives. 8. Public Hearing Urban Separators Preliminary Alternatives [ZCA-2016-2] Daniel Butsick began her presentation of Urban Separators. The presentation covered definitions, scope, locations, and backgrounds for the project. She explained the current uses and options for future uses regarding these lands. The purpose of this hearing was informational with the intent of acquiring public comment as to the best use for Kent’s urban separators. No action was to be taken for this public hearing. The hearing was opened for public comment at 9:10. With the exception of one property owner, all speakers came out against future development or easement of development restrictions for lands designated as urban separators. Jamieson Nelson, a property owner and public commentor handed documents to the board. Vice Chair Jones motioned to include the items Page 2 of 3 Land Use and Planning Board March 26, 2018 Minutes Kent, Washington Pending Approval distributed to the board to be submitted as exhibits. Motion was seconded by Shane Amodei. Motion passed 6-0. After the public comments, Daniel Butsick approached the podium to clarify a few misconceptions expressed during the comment period. She clarified firstly that we have enough vacant and developable land to accommodate the projected growth for our municipality. Secondly, both applications were placed by current Kent City residents who live on urban separator property, rather than out-of-town developers as many of the public believed had begun this study. Adjournment Chair Hintz seeing no further business adjourned the meeting at 9:54 P.M. Samuel M Maloney Planning Technician Economic and Community Development Page 3 of 3 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kurt Hanson, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 June 10, 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 Public Hearing June 25, 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 recommends alternative 3, amend clustering requirements and allowed uses in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district. 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 Kent’s comprehensive plan policies require all Urban Separators to be 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 MOTION: Recommend Council adopt, as presented by staff, policy alternative: No. 1: to take no action regarding Urban Separators. No. 2: to amend the land use plan map and zoning designations for a portion of the urban separator area west of Panther Lake along 108th Avenue SE, as proposed in “Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance”. No. 3: to amend clustering requirements and allowed uses in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district, as proposed in “Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance”. 2 designations for 8 parcels (6623400339, 6623400340, 6623400350, 6623400351, 6623400352, 6623400353, 6623400354, and 6623400355) in the 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 recommends Alternative 3 for the following reasons: 1)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. 2)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. 3)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 its population growth targets through 2035. Per the criteria established in KCC 12.02.050, circumstances have not changed, and no additional information has become available, such that additional density is warranted in urban separator lands. Therefore there is no demonstrated need to amend land use plan map designations for urban separator lands to allow higher-density zoning. 4)Overwhelmingly, public opinion indicated a preference to retain urban separators as they are and to promote the use of incentive programs to support preservation of open space and natural beneficial functions on private property. However, Policy LU-7.1 in Kent’s 2015 comprehensive plan states that the city will “ensure residential development achieves a substantial portion of the allowable maximum density on the net buildable acreage.” Only a single cluster subdivision has been completed in Kent since clustering requirements for urban separators were established in 2001. Staff believes Alternative 3 helps achieve this policy goal by removing overly burdensome requirements without compromising the intent of the urban separator designation. 5)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. Alternative 3 would establish clustering requirements that are more consistent with those of Kent’s neighboring jurisdictions. Staff will be available at the June 25 hearing to provide information, answer questions, and receive feedback from the public and the LUPB. EXHIBITS: Draft ordinances (Alternative 2 and Alternative 3); PowerPoint presentation BUDGET IMPACTS: None Urban Separators Proposed Alternatives LUPB Hearing – June 25, 2018 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 Separators Overview 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 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 Example Cluster Subdivision •Red = critical areas + buffers •Green = 50% open space set-aside •Purple = new lots (2,500 square feet) For illustration purposes only. 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. 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 Alternative #1 •No Action. Preferred option in outreach. No plan, code, or CPP amendments needed. Alternative #2 •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 through 2031 Alternative #2 = Panther Lake Urban Separator = Docket Parcels Alternative #3 (Staff Recommendation) •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 For illustration purposes only. For illustration purposes only. Red = critical areas + buffers Green = 50% open space set-aside Purple = new lots (2,500 square feet) Support for Alternative #3: •Straight forward process - no need for comprehensive plan or CPP amendments •Urban separators would continue to serve important environmental purposes that benefit the public as a whole •Buildable lands study shows sufficient capacity under current zoning (planned density) •Public interest in preserving designation; policy support for achieving planned density •Consistency with neighbor jurisdictions – 50% open space from whole parcel 15 Next Steps: •Data gathering and reports •City staff policy ideas •Public outreach – meetings, interviews •Staff and LUPB recommendations •City Council adoption of amendments Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map for properties at the northeast side of the intersection of 108th Avenue 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. 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. 1 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance 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. 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. 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance H. On April 19, 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 __________________. I. On May 31, 2018, the City conducted and completed environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non- Significance 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 3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance SECTION 1. – Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are incorporated herein by this reference and constitute the city council’s findings in this matter. SECTION 2. – Amendment – Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map is hereby 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 (parcels 6623400339, 6623400340, 6623400350, 6623400351, 6623400352, 6623400353, 6623400354, and 6623400355) from US to SF-6 as set forth in Exhibit A. SECTION 3. – Amendment – Kent Comprehensive Plan Zoning Districts Map. 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 intersection of 108th Ave. SE and SE 200th Street (parcels 6623400339, 6623400340, 6623400350, 6623400351, 6623400352, 6623400353, 6623400354, and 6623400355) from SR-1 to SR-6 as set forth in Exhibit B. SECTION 4. – 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 5. – 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; 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 2 Draft Ordinance or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTION 6. – 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: KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted Date Published APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY 5 Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators Alternative 2 Exhibit A – ZCA-2016-2, Urban Separators DRAFT – April 19, 2018 Urban Separators Alternative 2 Exhibit B – ZCA-2016-2, Urban Separators DRAFT – April 19, 2018 Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 12.04.263, entitled “Clustering in urban separators”; Section 15.04.020 entitled “Residential land uses”; Section 15.04.030, entitled “Residential land use and development conditions” of the Kent City Code; and adding 15.02.144.1, entitled “Duplex with ownership interest”; 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. 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 1 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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. 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 2 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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 “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. 3 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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 May 31, 2018, the City conducted and completed environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non- Significance 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 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. 4 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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: Sec. 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 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 5 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance interest and townhouses with ownership interest are also permitted uses within subdivisions, pursuant to KCC 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 6 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers. The remainder of the nonconstrained area remaining fifty 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 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 be placed in separate tracts and shall not be included in the area of individual lots. not be used in determining lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision or short subdivision. 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; andor 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. 7 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance SECTION 2. – Amendment – New KCC 15.02.144.1. Chapter 15.02 of the Kent City Code, entitled “Definitions,” is amended to add a new section 15.02.144.1, entitled “Duplex with ownership interest,” as follows: Sec. 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: Sec. 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 -T1 2 MR -T1 6 MR -G MR -M MR -H MH P NC C CC DC DC E MT C -1 MT C -2 MC R 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 8 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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 -T1 2 MR -T1 6 MR -G MR -M MR -H MH P NC C CC DC DC E MT C -1 MT C -2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 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) C (5) P P P P P (2) 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 existing dwellings P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (6) P (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 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 9 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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 -T1 2 MR -T1 6 MR -G MR -M MR -H MH P NC C CC DC DC E MT C -1 MT C -2 MC R CM -1 CM -2 GC M1 M1 -C M2 M3 appurtenant to a permitted use 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 (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (14) A (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 (3) P (4) C (5) P P P P C C P (2) C (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) SECTION 3. – 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: Sec. 15.04.030. Residential land use development conditions. 10 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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); 11 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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 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. 12 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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. 14. Accessory living quarters are allowed per the provisions of KCC 15.08.359. 15. [Reserved]. 13 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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: 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 14 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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 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 15 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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: 16 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance a. The unit shall contain a cooking space and sanitary facility in conformance with applicable building standards; 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. 17 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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; 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 18 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance 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. SECTION 4. – 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 5. – 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 6. – 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: 19 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators Urban Separators – Alternative 3 Draft Ordinance KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted Date Published APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHUR “PAT” FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY 20 Amend Kent City Code - Re: Urban Separators ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kurt Hanson, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document URBAN SEPARATORS ENV-2018-5, KIVA #RPSA-2182087 ZCA-2016-2, KIVA #RPP6-2160444 Erin George, AICP Responsible Official I. PROPOSAL The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a proposal to: a)amend the land use plan map designation for 8 parcels at the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 200th Street and 108th Ave. SE from “Urban Separator” to “SF-6”, and amend the zoning designation for these 8 parcels from SR-1 to SR-6; and b)amend sections 12.04.263 Clustering in urban separators; 15.04.020 Residential land uses; and 15.04.030 Residential land use and development conditions; and add section 15.02.114.1 Duplex with ownership interest; pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development standards in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district. The proposed amendments better align Kent’s cluster subdivision requirements with those of neighboring jurisdictions, allow 25% of new housing units to be duplex and townhouse, and require critical areas in cluster subdivisions to be permanently reserved in open space tracts. II.BACKGROUND INFORMATION 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 alternatives Decision Document Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2) ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087 Page 2 of 7 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 a) amendments to the land use plan map and zoning designations for the westernmost portion of the Panther Lake urban separator, and 2) amendments to the use tables and clustering requirements for urban separators and SR-1 zoning district. These alternatives may be adopted independently or jointly. Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 4163), the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance 3944) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts. These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Construction Standards may require the deeding/dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective July 3, 2016), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took effect on May 10, 2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State Legislature in 2012. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The proposal impacts lands which have documented slopes of greater than 75%. There are many areas in Kent’s urban separators which contain identified erodible soils and landslide hazard areas. Erosion could occur as a consequence of new construction in urban separator areas, although no development is proposed at this time. Erosion risk will depend on the exact location and character of future development. All future development will be subject to Kent’s Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07), and Landscaping Regulations (KCC 15.07), which establish requirements and procedures for minimizing erosion impacts. B. Air The proposed amendments could result in additional development beyond what is currently achievable in urban separator areas due to Decision Document Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2) ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087 Page 3 of 7 changes to cluster subdivision regulations. This could result in impacts typical of residential subdivision development, including emissions from construction equipment, and additional emissions from private automobiles from new residents. These impacts would be minimal for the proposal retaining the SR-1 zoning designation, as net density would remain at 1 dwelling unit per acre. The proposed amendments (Alternative A) to the land use plan map and zoning district designations for 8 parcels in the Panther Lake urban separator (Urban Separator to SF-6, and SR-1 to SR-6) could result in greater automobile emissions impacts, as this proposal increases the allowed density on these parcels. Emissions mitigation measures should be developed specific to individual development proposals, consistent with Washington’s Air Quality Law. C. Water Surface waters are present in many locations throughout Kent’s urban separator lands. These water bodies include, but are not limited to, the Green River, Panther Lake, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Soosette Creek, Johnson Creek, and McSorely Creek. Many other unnamed streams and wetlands exist within Kent’s urban separators. Portions of Kent’s urban separator lands are within the FEMA-identified 100-year floodplain. All future development in urban separators is subject to the requirements of Kent’s Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07). D. Plants and Animals According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species map, streams in Kent’s urban separator lands are habitat or breeding grounds for endangered fish species including pink salmon (during odd-numbered years), coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon, bull trout, and resident coastal cutthroat trout. Inventoried bald eagle nests are also present in some locations. New development facilitated by this proposal may contribute to the overall pattern of habitat fragmentation and encroachment; however, clustering requirements in urban separators require open space corridors to remain in place in such a way that connects wildlife habitat areas. Any future development resulting from this proposal will be subject to the requirements in Kent’s Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), which establishes standards for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to wildlife habitat areas. E. Energy and Natural Resources New development facilitated by this proposal would require the connection of new residences to electrical, natural gas, and water resources. Per KCC 14.01.010, all new development in Kent is subject to the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code, 2015 Edition. Decision Document Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2) ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087 Page 4 of 7 F. Environmental Health Many of Kent’s urban separator lands contain inventoried critical areas and buffers. These include wetlands, steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, erodible soils, wildlife habitat areas, and seismic hazard areas. Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent’s permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent’s development regulations and consistency with existing plans. G. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare Any new development resulting from this proposal would be single- family or duplex/townhome structures and would be subject to development standards and height maximums. It is likely to create noise, light, and glare typically associated with residential development and accompanying automobile traffic. In areas which were previously undeveloped, this could be perceived as a negative impact by neighbors. Residential areas in Kent are subject to the restrictions and maximum permissible environmental noise levels in the city’s Noise Control Ordinance (KCC 8.05), and KCC 15.08 contains performance standards prohibiting land uses which cause objectionable conditions, including direct or sky-directed glare.. H. Land and Shoreline Use This proposal would retain residential use designations for all urban separator areas; Alternative B would not amend land use or zoning district designations, while Alternative A would increase the allowed residential density from one unit per acre to six units per acre for eight parcels. Alternative A would result in a small segment of land which is zoned differently from adjacent areas, creating a “zoning island” effect. This is typically considered undesirable from a land use planning perspective. Within Kent’s urban separator shorelines, there are two types of shoreline designations as identified in Kent’s Shoreline Master Program: “Urban Conservancy – Low Intensity” (UC-LI), and “Urban Conservancy – Open Space” (UC-OS). Shorelines include those along the Green River, Panther Lake, Big Soos Creek, and Springbrook Creek. New development would be required to comply with Kent’s Shoreline Master Plan. I. Housing This proposal’s impact on the number of new housing units available is expected to be modest. Its effect will likely be at the margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. Based on existing development in urban separators, demolition of existing housing units is likely to be minimal and result in the loss of at most one single family home per new subdivision. Existing housing in urban separator lands tends toward high-income housing, and new units will likely follow this pattern. However, Decision Document Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2) ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087 Page 5 of 7 Alternative B provides for 25% of new lots/units in an SR-1 subdivision to be duplex or townhome units, which tends to be a more affordable housing type for middle income families. J. Recreation Soos Creek Park falls within Kent’s urban separator lands, as do many informal recreation opportunities within privately owned lands. New subdivisions facilitated by this proposal may displace informal recreation opportunities on developable portions of privately owned land; however, existing cluster subdivision requirements contain provisions for an open space set-aside of 50% of the developable portion of the parent parcel, which could be used by new residents for recreation. The amendments contained in this proposal call for this 50% open space set-aside to come from the entire parcel, while preserving all critical areas and buffers as open space, which could also be used for recreation purposes. K. Historic and Cultural Preservation According to the State of Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database, there are no inventoried historic or cultural resources in urban separator lands. Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are discovered during work for any project action, the applicant must stop work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation. L. Transportation The expected additional trips per day resulting from the code amendments in Alternative B would be expected to be minimal, as they do not increase the allowed net density beyond one unit per acre. Its effects on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. The total area included in Proposal A is approximately 4.3 acres and currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment changing these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow roughly (not accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a maximum additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 = 24). According to the 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual, this would add approximately 1 new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak trips. New subdivisions in urban separator lands facilitated by this proposal would likely require new internal roads, depending on the number and location of new lots relative to the existing road network. M. Public Services Decision Document Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2) ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087 Page 6 of 7 New development facilitated by this proposal may result in a minor increase in demand for public services, including fire protection, police, health care, and schools. The effects of Alternative B on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. It would therefore have an insignificant impact on demand for public services. The amendments proposed in Alternative A would increase the demand for public services to the extent additional housing units are added. Multiplying 16 new units by Kent’s average household size (2.9 people), results in slightly more than 46 new people requiring access to public services in this 4.3-acre area. N. Utilities Most of Kent’s urban separator lands are within water and sewer service areas and are served with public utilities, although there are some exceptions. Several properties in Kent’s urban separators currently have no established connections to a water or sewer system. Some have difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas, which would add to the difficulty and expense of connection to this infrastructure. Other utilities, including electricity and natural gas, are available with established connections in many urban separator areas, while some would require new connections to be made for new development. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; 2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent Shoreline Master Program; 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code; 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, and current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan; 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan; 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water System Plan; 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure Improvements; 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits; 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations; 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments; Decision Document Urban Separators (ZCA-2016-2) ENV-2018-05 / RPSA-2182087 Page 7 of 7 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Park; 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control; 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes; 14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning; 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227; 16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees; 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility; 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan; 19. City of Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan; and 20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas. 21. Department of Ecology Tacoma Smelter Plume Model Remedies Guidance (Publication Number 12-09-086-A) B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this non-project action. KENT PLANNING SERVICES KENT WÂsHrñôtôñ CITY OF KENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. ENV-2018-5 RPSA-2182087 zc\-2016-2 RPP6-2160444 Project: Urban Separators Description: The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a proposal to: A) Amend the land use plan map designation for B parcels at the Northeast corner of the intersection of SE 20Oth St, and 1O8th Ave. SE from "Urban Separator" to "SF-6," and amend the zoning designation for these B parcels from SR-1 to SR-6; and B) Amend sections 12.04.263 Clustering in Urban Separators; 15.04.020 Residential Land Uses; and 15.04.030 Residential Land Use and Development Conditions; and add section 15.02,L14.L Duplex with Ownership Interest; pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development standards in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district, The proposed amendments better align Kent's cluster subdivision requirements with those of neighboring jurisdictions, allow 25Vo of new housing units to be duplex and townhouse, and require critical areas in cluster subdivisions to be permanently reserved in open space tracts, Location: These proposed amendments impact areas throughout Kent which are designated as urban separators on the City's comprehensive land use plan map, Applicant: City of Kent, 220 4th Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032 Lead Agency CIry or Krrur The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency, This information is available to the public on request. X This DNS is issued under L97-LL-340(2), The lead agency will not act on this proposal for Í4 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a I$-day comment period, Comments must be submitted by 4:3O p.ffi., June 15, 2018. This MDNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03,520. Responsible Official Position/Title Lctinq Current Planninq Manaqer l\ddress 220 S. Fourth Avenue, Kent. WA 98032 Dated Mav 29, 2018 Signatu APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NON NIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11,03.520. DB/sm S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2018\2182087_ENV-2018-5_Urban Separators_DNS.docx 2of2 May 29,2OtB KENT Location:400 w. Gowe o Maitto: 220 4thAvenue."rt*t?lllTrg^sf#rfr"; Permit Center (253-856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412 www.ci. kent.wa. us/permitcenter Environmental Checklist Application Form WAsHTNGToN Public Notice Board and Application Fee...See Fee Schedule TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF APPLICATION #: #: KIVA RECEIVED BY: DATE PROCESSING FEE A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental lmpact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental lmpact Statement for this project has already been prepared. Signature of Responsible Official Date B. COMMENTS C TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTE D. ZONING DISTRICT:SR.1 1 2 City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Name of Proj anf 'I lrhan Qanarafnr Frnionf Name of Applicant: Citv of Kent Mailing Address: 220 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Contact Person: Danielle Butsick, Sr. Lonq Ranqe Planner Telephone 25 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Sr. Lonq Ranqe Planner, Planninq Services 4. Name of Legal Owne N/A Telephone:_ Mailing Address 5 Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section. township and ranqe). These proposed amendments impact areas throughout Kent which are designated as urban separators on the city's comprehensive land use plan map. Leqal description and tax identification number a. Leqal description (if lenqthv. attach as separate sheet) N/A b. Tax ide n number: N/A Existinq conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). 6. 7 Urban separator lands in Kent contain varying degrees of existing development and access to City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 3 infrastructure. They range from entirely vacant with large undivided lots to primarily developed with many smaller parcels. All of Kent's urban separator lands are within water service areas; properties that are not within the City of Kent's retail water service area are within the service area of one of several neighboring water purveyors including Highline Water District, District 111, or Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. Most urban separator lands, with some small exceptions, are also within a public sewer service area. Several properties in Urban Separator focus areas, however, currently have no internal established connections to a water or sewer system and are served only by private wells and septic systems. By their nature, some urban separator lands have difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas, which would add to the difficulty and expense of connection to this infrastructure. All urban separator lands have some degree of access to the city road network; some are directly served by minor or major arterials or residential collectors, while others are served only indirectly through local streets. A small number of urban separator areas are connected to the road network only at their external borders and lack internal access roads. Transit service is limited in most urban separator lands, and typically consists of one or two routes; some of these are peak-only routes or dial-a-ride transit. Most urban separators do have some level of commercial or retail service within one to two miles, although few have these amenities within one-quarter mile, the typical distance people are expected to be willing to walk to accomplish daily tasks. The concentration of services in these areas is generally low compared to more dense urban areas. Nearly all of Kent's urban separator lands fall within watershed subbasins in Kent that exceed thresholds for impervious surface (greater than 10%) and for tree canopy (less than 65%), as recommended by the 2000 University of Washington report, "Forest Cover, lmpervious Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization lmpacts in King County, Washington". Even with severe degradation, valuable habitat and species are present in streams in Kent, many of which drain into rivers containing endangered species. Site Area: Citywide: 1,431 acres desiqnated urban separator Site Dimensions: NiA Proiect description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): Alternative A: This proposal amends the land use plan map designation for 8 parcels at the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 200th Street and 108th Ave. SE from "Urban Separator" to "SF-6". The proposal also amends the zoning designation for these 8 parcels from SR-1 to SR-6. Alternative B: This proposal amends sections 12.04.263 Clustering in urban separators;15.04.Q20 Residential land uses; and 15.04.030 Residential land use and development conditions; and adds section 15.02.114.1 Duplexwith ownership interest; pertaining to permitted uses, subdivision requirements, and development standards in urban separators and the SR-1 zoning district. The proposed amendments better align Kent's cluster subdivision requirements with those of neighboring jurisdictions and allow 25oh of new housing units to be duplex and townhouse 8. 9. City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 4 structures, consistent with allowed uses in other single family residential districts. 10.Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). N/A (This is a non-project action) 11 Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? fi yes, explain. Adoption of proposal #2 andlor #3 may result in future development proposals beyond those that would have occurred under existing regulations. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. AGENCY PERMIT TYPE DATE SUBMITTED-NUMBER STATUS** *Leave blank if not submitted "*Approved, denied or pending 13 Environmental lnformation: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An lnventory and Characterization Report was developed in 2Q17 by the City of Kent, which documents existing environmental conditions based on best available GIS data. 14 Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? lf yes, explain. None known c. City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 5 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a.General description of the site (circle one): ft!, Ig!!i4g, hillv, steepglgg, mountainous, oth All of the above conditions, excluding "mountainous", are found in Kent's urban separator lands. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Slopes in urban separator lands are documented in exceedance of 75o/o slope. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? lf you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The following soil types are found in Kent's urban separator lands . Alderwood and Kitsap Soils (very steep). Tukwila muck (prime farmland if drained). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8-15% slope, prime farmland if irrigated). Aldenruood gravelly sandy loam (15-30% slope, farmland of statewide importance). Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (0-8% slope, prime farmland if irrigated),. Norma sandy loam (prime farmland if drained). Bellingham silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Oridia silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Everett very gravelly sandy loam (0-8% slope, farmland of statewide importance)r Everett very gravelly sandy loam (8-15% slope, farmland of statewide importance)o Everett very gravelly sandy loam (15-30% slope, farmland of statewide importance)o lndianola loamy sand (5-15% slope, prime farmland if inigated). Seattle muck (prime farmland if drained)r Briscot silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Urban land (not prime farmland). Snohomish silt loam (prime farmland if drained). Renton silt loam (prime farmland if drained)o Pits (not prime farmland)o Woodinville silt loam (prime farmland if drained and protected from EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 6 flooding or not frequently flooded during growing season) . Puyallup fine sandy loam (prime farmland) . Newberg silt loam (prime farmland). Puget silty clay loam (prime farmland if drained and protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during growing season) . Arents, Aldenruood material (6-150/0 slope, not prime farmland) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? lf so, describe. There are many areas in Kent's urban separators which contain identified erodible soils and landslide hazard areas. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. lndicate source of fill. No fill or grading is proposed Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? lf so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a consequence of new construction in urban separator areas, although no development is proposed at this time. Erosion risk will depend on the exact location and character of future development. g About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? All existing lots in urban separator areas are subject to the SR-1 zoning district development standards, which limit impervious surface to 40% of the lot area (up to 10,000 square feet). Clustering is required for new subdivisions, which allows a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet and up to 75o/o impervious surface (per development standards for SR-8). This proposal does not make any changes to impervious surface maximums, so these standards will remain in place for future development facilitated by this proposal. Any future development would be subject to permitting requirements and SEPA environmental review. f h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 7 the earth, if any No development is proposed at this time. All future development will be subject to Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07), and Landscaping Regulations (KCC 15.07), which establish requirements and procedures for minimizing erosion impacts. 2. Air What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? lf any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The proposed amendments could result in additional development beyond what is currently achievable in urban separator areas due to changes to cluster subdivision regulations. This could result in impacts typical of residential subdivision development, including dust from grading/filling, emissions from construction equipment, and additional emissions from private automobiles from new residents. These impacts would be minimal for the proposal retaining the SR-1 zoning designation, as net density would remain at 1 dwelling unit per acre. The proposed amendments (Alternative A) to the land use plan map and zoning district designations for 8 parcels in the Panther Lake urban separator (Urban Separator to SF-6, and SR-1 to SR-6) could result in greater automobile emissions impacts, as this proposal increases the allowed density on these parcels. The exact impacts of this proposal cannot be estimated at this time, as no development has been proposed. However, the following simple equation may give a rough scale of the impact. The total area included in the proposal is approximately 4.3 acres and currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment changing these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow roughly (not accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a maximum additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 = 24). According to the 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual, this would add approximately 1 new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak trips. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? lf so, generally describe. None known EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 8 c.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Mitigation measures should be developed specific to individual development proposals, consistent with Washington's Air Quality Law. 3. Water a. Surface: 1)ls there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? lf yes, describe type and provide names. lf appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Surface waters are present in many locations throughout Kent's urban separator lands. These water bodies include, but are not limited to, the Green River, Panther Lake, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, Soosette Creek, Johnson Creek, and McSorely Creek. Many other unnamed streams and wetlands exist within Kent's urban separators. Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? lf yes, please describe and attach available plans. No work over, in, or adjacent to surface waters is proposed at this time. 3)Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. lndicate the source of fill material. N/A 4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 2) N/A EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 9 5)Does the proposal lie within a 1OO-year floodplain? lf so, note location on the site plan. Portions of Kent's urban separator lands are within the FEMA-identified 100-year floodplain. 6)Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? lf so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: 1)Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. N/A 2)Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? lf so, describe. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? lf so, generally describe. NiA 2) EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 10 N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: All future development in urban separators is subject to the requirements of Kent's Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07). 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site _X_Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other _X_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _X_Shrubs X Grass X Pasture _X_Crop or grain _X_Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other ater plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _X_Other types of vegetation All of the above types of vegetation may be found in various locations throughout Kent's urban separator lands. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Any vegetation removal that occurs as part of future development subsequent to this proposal will vary as to type, amount and location, depending on the exact development project. Some amount of vegetation loss is expected, as this proposal will facilitate some development beyond what is currently achievable in areas that are now vegetated and undeveloped or underdeveloped relative to allowed density. Alternative A would result in rezoning of I parcels constituting approximately 4.3 acres, which currently contain 8 single family homes and EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 11 associated structures. These parcels are currently designated US/SR-1. This proposal would amend their land use and zoning designations to SF- 6/5R-6, possibly resulting in redevelopment that would remove existing vegetation and increase the percentage of impervious surface. Existing vegetation on these properties is primarily grass and conifers. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site According to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritaoe Proqram Element Occurrence Map, there are no known threatened or endangered plant species in Kent's urban separator lands. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Requirements in Kent's Landscaping Regulations (KCC 15.07) will apply to any new development resulting from this proposal, which require the use of a variety of native and droughttolerant plant species. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: @h, @, gg!g, sonqbirds, other:_ Mammals: 9!ggl, bear, elk, beaver, oth raccoons. covotes Fish: bass, g!q, !q!, herring, shellfish, other:_ The animals indicated above were sighted by residents and neighbors within urban separator areas, and described during public outreach events. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prioritv Habitat and Species map, streams in Kent's urban separator lands are habitat or breeding grounds for endangered fish species including pink salmon (during odd-numbered years), coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon, bull trout, and resident coastal cutthroat trout. lnventoried bald eagle nests are also present in some locations. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 12 c. ls the site part of a migration route? lf so, explain. The City of Kent is within the Pacific Flyway, as identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Audubon Societv lmportant Bird Areas (lBAs) map shows no specific migration locations within Kent's urban separator lands. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Any future development resulting from this proposal will be subject to the requirements in Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), which establishes standards for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to wildl ife habitat areas. 6. Enerqvand Natural Resources What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. New development facilitated by this proposal would require the connection of new residences to electrical, natural gas, and water resources. All use of natural resources would be for residential purposes. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? lf so, generally describe. N/A What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Per KCC 14.01.010, all new development in Kent is subject to the requirements of the lnternational Energy Conservation Code, 2015 Edition. 7. Environmental Health Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? lf so, describe. c. a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 13 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required NiA 2)Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise 1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? N/A 2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long{erm basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? lndicate what hours noise would come from the site. Any new development resulting from this proposal is likely to create noise typically associated with residential development and accompanying automobile traffic. ln areas which were previously undeveloped, this could be perceived as a negative impact by neighbors. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Residential areas in Kent are subject to the restrictions and maximum permissible environmental noise levels in the city's Noise Control Ordinance (KCC 8.05). 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Lands under the urban separator land use designation are primarily single family residential use or undeveloped, with the exception of a 118-unit mobile home park and a commercial property containing a farm and feed store, veterinarian, and equestrian facilities. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 14 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? lf so, describe Some of Kent's urban separator lands have been used for agriculture in the past; a small number of properties are currently used for farming, including strawberries and family kitchen gardens. c. Describe any structures on the site Structures in Kent's urban separator lands are primarily single family homes; size, age, type of construction, and condition vary widely. d. Will any structures be demolished? lf so, what? Existing structures may be demolished to facilitate subdivision and redevelopment of properties in urban separator lands; this proposal could result in more subdivisions than may occur under current regulations. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? All urban separator lands are zoned SR-1. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? All lands affected by this proposal are designated as Urban Separator g. lf applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Within Kent's urban separator shorelines, there are two types of shoreline designations: "Urban Conservancy - Low lntensity" (UC-L|), and "Urban Conservancy - Open Space" (UC-OS). Shorelines include those along the Green River, Panther Lake, Big Soos Creek, and Springbrook Creek. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? lf so, specify. Yes. Many of Kent's urban separator lands contain inventoried critical areas and buffers. These include wetlands, steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, erodible soils, wildlife habitat areas, and seismichazard areas. No critical areas or buffers are present on seven of the eight properties in Alternative A. The easternmost parcel could fall within a critical area buffer, depending on a delineation study. There are inventoried wetlands on parcels directly to the south, as well as an 83-acre inventoried wetland body (Panther Lake), less than 500 feet from the nearest property. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 15 N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A I Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent's permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent's development regulations and consistency with existing plans. 9. Housins Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? lndicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. It cannot be estimated at this time how many new units would result from this proposal. The impact is likely to be modest, however. Alternative A would apply only to 8 parcels which are already developed at a density greater than one unit per acre and would result in a maximum net increase of 16 new units (8 existing + 16 new = 24 units). Alternative B retains an allowed density of one unit per acre, but amends code requirements to facilitate subdivision and development of unconstrained lands while providing permanent protection for sensitive areas. lts effects on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. Existing housing in urban separator lands tends toward high-income housing, and new units will likely follow this pattern. However, Alternative B provides for 25% of new lots/units in an SR-1 subdivision to be duplex or townhome units, which tends to be a more affordable housing type for middle income families. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? lndicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. No proposals exist at this time to eliminate any housing units. Future development resulting from this proposal may eliminate existing units to a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 16 facilitate subdivision and redevelopment. However, based on existing development in urban separators, this impact is likely to be minimal and result in the loss of at most one single family home per new subdivision. c Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Any new development resulting from this proposal would be single-family or duplex/townhome residential structures and would be subject to limitations in Kent's residential zone development standards. Maximum height of structures would be limited to 2.5 stories or 30ft. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? lmpacts to views cannot be known at this time. However, urban separator lands in Kent tend to be characterized by natural scenery, and neighboring properties may be negatively impacted by future development facilitated by this proposal if such development results in clearing of vegetation or building on previously undeveloped land. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any None. 11. Liqht and Glare What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Future development facilitated by this proposal would likely produce light or glare of the character and timing consistent with a residential subdivision. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare from future development facilitated by this proposal could negatively impact neighboring properties, as urban separator lands in Kent tend to be characterized by natural scenery and low-density development. a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 17 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known d. any Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if a Kent City Code 15.08 contains performance standards prohibiting land uses which cause objectionable conditions, including direct or sky-directed glare. 12. Recreation What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Soos Creek Park falls within Kent's urban separator lands, as do many informal recreation opportunities within privately owned lands. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? lf so, describe. New subdivisions facilitated by this proposal may displace informal recreation opportunities on developable portions of privately owned land; however, existing cluster subdivision requirements contain provisions for an open space set-aside of 50% of the developable portion of the parent parcel, which could be used by new residents for recreation. The amendments contained in this proposal call for this 50% open space set- aside to come from the entire parcel, while preserving all critical areas and buffers as open space, which could also be used for recreation purposes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Existing code requirements for cluster subdivisions and those contained in this proposal are intended to reduce or mitigate the recreational impacts of new development. 13. Historic and Gultural Preservation Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? lf so, generally describe. a None known per Washinqton State WISAARD database EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 18 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any N/A 14. Transportation Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. All of Kent's urban separator lands are served by the city road network; some are directly served by minor or major arterials or residential collectors, while others are served only indirectly through local streets. The parcels to which Alternative A applies are served by 108th Avenue SE, a principal arterial, and SE 200th Street, a local dead-end street. b. ls site currently served by public transit? lf not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Transit service is limited in most urban separator lands, and typically consists of one or two routes; some of these are peak-only routes or dial-a- ride transit. The properties in Alternative A are served within T, mile by transit route 169, an all-day route that runs every 30 minutes between Kent Station and the Renton Transit Center. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? a c N/A EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 19 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? lf so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). New subdivisions in urban separator lands facilitated by this proposal would likely require new internal roads, depending on the number and location of new lots relative to the existing road network. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? lf so, generally describe. N/A f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? lf known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The expected additional trips per day resulting from the code amendments in Alternative B would be expected to be minimal, as they do not increase the allowed net density beyond one unit per acre. lts effects on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. The total area included in Proposal A is approximately 4.3 acres and currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment changing these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow roughly (not accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a maximum additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 = 24). According to the 2012 IIE Trip Generation Manual, this would add approximately 1 new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any The City of Kent is authorized by KCC 12.14 to transportation impact fees for streets and roads based on the impact of new developments on public facilities. The city also requires infrastructure improvements for new developments through KCC 6.02; improvements are based on adopted standards and plans. 15. Public Services Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 20 other)? lf so, generally describe New development facilitated by this proposal may result in a minor increase in demand for public services, including fire protection, police, health care, and schools. The effects of Alternative B on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. lt would therefore have an insignificant impact on demand for public services. The amendments proposed in Alternative A would increase the demand for public services to the extent additional housing units are added. The proposal would allow for approximately 16 new single-family housing units, not accounting for site constraints or design considerations. Multiplying 16 new units by Kent's average household size (2.9 people), results in slightly more than 46 new people in this 4.3-acre area. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The City of Kent collects school impact fees (per KCC 12.13), and fire impact fees (per KCC 12.15) for any new development requiring a residential building permit. 16. Utilities Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All of Kent's urban separator lands are within water service areas; those that are not within the City of Kent's retail water service atea are within the service area of one of several neighboring water purveyors including Highline Water District, District 111, or Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. Most urban separator lands, with some exceptions, are also within public sewer service areas. Several properties in Kent's urban separators currently have no established connections to a water or sewer system. Some have difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas, which would add to the difficulty and expense of connection to this infrastructure. Other utilities, including electricity and natural gas, are available with established connections in many urban separator areas, while some would require new connections to be made for new development. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site a EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 21 or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed Chapter 6.02 in Kent City Code requires infrastructure improvements which include sewer, water, lighting, conduit, storm drainage, and other infrastructure for all new development equal to or exceeding $50,000 in value. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. 2 Date EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 22 DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed amendments could result in additional development beyond what is currently achievable in urban separator areas due to changes to cluster subdivision regulations. This could result in impacts typical of residential subdivision development, including noise, dust from grading/filling, emissions from construction equipment, and additional emissions from private automobiles from new residents. These impacts would be minimal for the proposal retaining the SR-1 zoning designation, as net density would remain at 1 dwelling unit per acre. The proposed amendments (Alternative A) to the land use plan map and zoning district designations for 8 parcels in the Panther Lake urban separator (Urban Separator to SF-6, and SR-1 to SR-6) could result in greater automobile emissions impacts, as this proposal increases the allowed density on these parcels. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: All future development in urban separators is subject to the requirements of Kent's Surface Water and Drainage Code (KCC 7.07). Emissions mitigation measures should be developed specific to individual development proposals, consistent with Washington's Air Quality Law. Residential areas in Kent are subject to the restrictions and maximum permissible environmental noise levels in the city's Noise Control Ordinance (KCC 8.05). 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 23 According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Prioritv Habitat and Soecies map, streams in Kent's urban separator lands are habitat or breeding grounds for endangered fish species including pink salmon (during odd-numbered years), coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon, bull trout, and resident coastal cutthroat trout. lnventoried bald eagle nests are also present in some locations. New development facilitated by this proposal may contribute to the overall pattern of habitat fragmentation and encroachment; however, requirements for clustering in urban separators contain provisions for connecting wildlife habitat corridors. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Any future development resulting from this proposal will be subject to the requirements in Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance (KCC 11.06), which establishes standards for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to wildlife habitat areas. Clustering requirements in urban separators require open space corridors to remain in place in such a way that connects wildlife habitat areas. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? New development facilitated by this proposal would require the connection of new residences to electrical, natural gas, and water resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are Per KCC 14.01.010, all new development in Kent is subject to the requirements of the lnternational Energy Conservation Code, 2015 Edition. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Many of Kent's urban separator lands contain inventoried critical areas and buffers. These include wetlands, steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, erodible soils, wildlife habitat areas, and seismichazard areas. No critical areas or buffers are present on seven of the eight properties in Alternative A. The easternmost parcel could fall within a critical area buffer, EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist- Page 24 depending on a delineation study. There are inventoried wetlands on parcels directly to the south, as well as an 83-acre inventoried wetland body (Panther Lake), less than 500 feet from the nearest property. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent's permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent's development regulations and consistency with existing plans. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? This proposal would retain residential use designations for all urban separator areas; Alternative B would not amend land use or zoning district designations, while Alternative A would increase the allowed residential density from one unit per acre to six units per acre for eight parcels. Alternative A would result in a small segment of land which is zoned differently from adjacent areas, creating a "zoning island" effect. This is typically considered undesirable from a land use planning perspective. Within Kent's urban separator shorelines, there are two types of shoreline designations as identified in Kent's Shoreline Master Program: "Urban Conservancy - Low lntensity" (UC-L|), and "Urban Conservancy - Open Space" (UC-OS). Shorelines include those along the Green River, Panther Lake, Big Soos Creek, and Springbrook Creek. New development would be required to comply with Kent's Shoreline Master Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Any development resulting from this proposal will be subject to Kent's permitting process and reviewed for compliance with Kent's development regulations and consistency with existing plans, including Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The expected additional trips per day resulting from the code amendments in Alternative B would be expected to be minimal, as they do not increase the allowed net density beyond one unit per acre. lts effects on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 25 not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. The total area included in Proposal A is approximately 4.3 acres and currently contains 8 single family homes. A zoning amendment changing these four acres from 1 du/acre to 6 du/acre would allow roughly (not accounting for site constraints or design considerations) a maximum additional 16 dwelling units for a total of 24 units (4 x 6 = 24). According to the 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual, this would add approximately 1 new PM peak trip per unit, or 16 total new PM peak trips. New subdivisions in urban separator lands facilitated by this proposal would likely require new internal roads, depending on the number and location of new lots relative to the existing road network. New development facilitated by this proposal may result in a minor increase in demand for public services, including fire protection, police, health care, and schools. The effects of Alternative B on the number of housing units achieved will likely be at the margins and would not be expected to result in a significant contribution of additional housing units. lt would therefore have an insignificant impact on demand for public services. The amendments proposed in Alternative A would increase the demand for public services to the extent additional housing units are added. Multiplying 16 new units by Kent's average household size (2.9 people), results in slightly more than 46 new people requiring access to public services in this 4.3-acre area. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are The City of Kent collects transportation impact fees (per KCC 12.14), school impact fees (per KCC 12.13), and fire impact fees (per KCC 12.15) for any new development requiring a residential building permit. The city also requires infrastructure improvements for new developments through KCC 6.02; improvements are based on adopted standards and plans. 7. ldentify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There are no conflicts anticipated with local, state, or federal laws resulting from this proposal. However, the amendments proposed in Alternative A are inconsistent with King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) regarding county-identified urban separator lands. The properties identified for land use and zoning district designation amendments under Alternative A are, according to the CPPs, to remain designated as urban separators. Kent's comprehensive plan states that all urban separators will EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY City of Kent Planning Services Environmental Checklist - Page 26 be zoned SR-1. lf this component of the proposal is adopted, further amendments to the CPPs will be required. P : \Pla nn i ng\ADM I N\FORM S\SEPA\SEPA_CH ECKLIST. doc ( REVISED 12/ 08) EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY CAPTURING THE COMMUNITY’S VOICE ON URBAN SEPARATORS MARCH-APRIL, 2018 URBAN SEPARATORS OUTREACH 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 WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE (OR BUY PROPERTY) HERE? 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. INFORMAL PUBLIC MEETINGS Two meetings: •Panther Lake Elementary School - March 8, 2018: 50+ participants •Sunnycrest Elementary School - March 14, 2018: 35+ participants 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. INFORMAL PUBLIC MEETINGS (CONT.) Other Ideas: •Building moratorium •Flood mitigation programs for frequently flooded areas 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. PUBLIC HEARING – MARCH 26, 2018 Attendance: 33 signed in for urban separators Written Comments: 28 Testimony: 15 individuals 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. WHAT’S NEXT •Develop alternatives and staff recommendation •Complete SEPA review •LUPB Workshop, Hearing