HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 07/26/2010 (3) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
4 PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
KF Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
AGENDA
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
HEARING
JULY 26, 2010
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: CITY STAFF
Dana Ralph, Chair Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director
Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr
Steve Dowell William D. Osborne, AICP, Planner
Navdeep Gill Kim Adams Pratt, Asst City Attorney
Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary
Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin
Barbara Phillips
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a
Public Hearing on MONDAY, JULY 26, 2010 in Kent City Hall, City Council
Chambers East and West, 220 4t" Avenue South, Kent, at 7:00 P.M. The public
is welcome to attend the public hearing and all interested persons may have an
opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments
on the proposed amendment may do so prior to or at the meeting.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the April 26, 2010 Minutes
4. Added Items to Agenda
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
1. CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 DCE HEIGHT LIMITS
Consideration of amendments to the City's Downtown Commercial
Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District, that includes a height restriction
when adjacent to single-family residential zoned properties.
2. ZCA-2010-1 ZONING DENSITY — ROUNDING CALCULATIONS
Consideration of options for calculating maximum allowable density.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information.
For TDD relay service for Braille, call 1-800-833-6385, for TDD relay service for the hearing impaired, call
1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at(253) 856-5499(TDD).
For further information or copies of the staff report(s) or text of the proposed amendment(s) contact the
Planning Division office at(253) 856-5454. You may access the City's website for documents pertaining to the
Land Use and Planning Board at:http://kentwa.igm2.com/citizensIDefault.aspx?DepartmentlD=1004.
This page intentionally left blank.
1
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 26, 2010
1. Call to Order Chair Ralph Called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Board Members Present: Chair Dana Ralph, Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell,
Navdeep Gill, Jon Johnson, Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin, and Barbara Phillips
Staff Members Present: Charlene Anderson, Gloria Gould-Wessen, Tom Brubaker,
and Pamela Mottram
3. Approval of Minutes
Ottini MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to approve the March 8, 2010
Minutes. Motion PASSED 7-0.
4. Added Items None
5. Communications None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that two items related to Comprehensive Plan
Amendments regarding the Park and Open Space Element and housekeeping issues
regarding the Transportation Master Plan will go to City Council on their May 4th Consent
Calendar.
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 CPZ-2007-2 Midway Development Regulations
Long-Range Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen submitted correspondence for the record from: 1)
Theresa Melton indicating that she does not want a change in her property's zoning
designation of MHP (Exhibit 1), 2) from Mr. Jim Seymour supporting staff's recommendation
to rezone TPN#2522040901 currently designated MR-H to High Density Commercial (Exhibit
2) and, 3) Mr. Brad Corner speaking to height limits, impervious surface restrictions, and
parking ratios for property zoned T-C 2 located east of Military and north of Kent Des
Moines/I-5 (Exhibit 3).
Johnson MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to accept the exhibits into the
record. Motion Carried 7-0.
Gould-Wessen stated that the development regulations and implementation tools are
grounded in the Envision Midway public process and in the Subarea Plan. She stated that
Envision Midway has been a year long collaborative effort with the City of Des Moines,
stakeholders who own property and have vested interests, as well as the public. Gould-
Wessen stated that the Midway Study Area extends to I-5 on the east, includes the Kent
Highlands area and extends south to 272nd. She described staff's approach to this project.
She spoke about the Draft Subarea Plan, the development of a Planned Action Ordinance,
design guidelines, and comprehensive plan land use and zoning map designations and
permitted uses.
Gould-Wessen stated that the vision in terms of development regulations was based on such
concepts such as transit supported development, quality of design, family-friendliness and
affordability, and connectivity with roads, trails and surrounding areas.
Gould-Wessen stated that proposed Land Use Option 1 recognizes transit-oriented
communities. She cited potential areas for METRO and Sound Transit station locations and
light rail alignment, stating that the Bus Rapid Transit stations should be in place within the
next year and the planning process started for Sound Transit light rail alignment and
stations within the next year and a half. She stated that the City regulations are based on
overlays, illustrating that between the overlay districts are auto-oriented areas.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Midway Transit-Community I zoning district is located along
Highway 99 and is intended to have lower density, reduced heights, auto-orientation yet
pedestrian friendly, acknowledging the highway running through the area.
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
April 26,2010
Page 1 of 3
2
Gould-Wessen stated that Midway Transit-Community II zoning district allows higher
densities, mix of uses, pedestrian orientation, low-speed streets, with aesthetic appeal by
inclusion of amenities such as trees, benches, urban landscaping, and street level shops
opening onto the sidewalks, reduction of open parking lots and elimination of blank walls.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Midway Highlands area is a Commercial/Residential zoning
district allowing high-density mixed use, auto-orientation, stand-alone residential, stand-
alone office, or mixed-used development. Consideration would be given to what the market
desires at the time that development occurs.
Gould-Wessen stated that staff proposes in Option 2 to maintain the Mobile Home Parks
(MHP) zoning for existing parks. She stated that staff proposes changing the land use in
the Midway Overlay District areas from commercial and some residential to Transit Oriented
Community (TOC). Gould-Wessen stated that park owners would have opportunity to
rezone their property at such time there is interest for development in their area with
options to develop their own property or sell to a developer.
Gould-Wessen stated that Option 1 proposes changing the General Commercial (GC) zone
to CM-2 Commercial Manufacturing allowing small scale light industrial uses such as
warehousing and commercial use for a densely auto-oriented area south of the TOC.
Gould-Wessen stated that a transit-supported area located in the southern portion of the
Midway Subarea at 272"d Street will be zoned Midway Transit Community 1 (M-TC1) and
allows a 65 foot height limit, and a mix of uses. She stated that an area located off Military
Road would change to Community Commercial (CC). There is no zone change options
created outside the Midway Subarea.
Gould-Wessen stated that key components of the regulations reflect existing and proposed
uses, parking details, and development standards, two-story minimum height requirements
and acknowledge this area as transit-oriented.
Gould-Wessen stated that the proposed TC-1 zone along the west side of Pacific Highway
abuts single family and low-density multifamily homes within the City of Des Moines. The
TC-1 development standards would limit building heights to 65 feet and mimic similar
regulations in Des Moines. She stated that the TOC areas would have reduced parking
requirements as those areas would likely be served by transit.
Gould-Wessen stated that Options 1 & 2 call for a 65 foot minimum and 200 foot maximum
height limit in the MTC-2 and in the M-CR zone with incentives.
Gould-Wessen stated that Option 3 considers lowering maximum height limits as suggested
by the Board. Option 4 considers removing height limit restrictions or limiting height based
on FAA requirements. Gould-Wessen stated that density bonuses would not be applicable if
there are no height limitations. There must be a high demand with a compressed allowed
density for density bonuses to work. Option 3 waives 2-story minimum height requirements
and allows a single tenant 'big box' building on a one-acre site.
Gould-Wessen stated that Options 1 thru 4 do not allow drive-thru food services on either
Highway 99 or 30t" Avenue. Drive-thru bank and pharmacy businesses are allowed on
Highway 99 in strip malls in Option 3. Existing drive-thru food services would be
grandfathered.
Gould-Wessen corrected her report to state that Option 3 allows an increase in the
maximum amount of impervious surface if the developer participates in a regional storm
detention or density bonus program.
Gould-Wessen stated that Kent continues to face questions and challenges with respect to
pedestrian versus auto-oriented development, drive-thru options, 2-story minimum building
heights vies -a-vies allowing big box retail, allowing parking requirements to be market-
driven rather than prescriptive, and how infrastructure would be funded. Gould-Wessen
stated that staff is not offering a recommendation other than seeking preliminary approval
on these options from the Board.
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
April 26,2010
Page 2 of 3
3
Chair Ralph declared the Public Hearing open.
Robert W M`Omber, PO Box 3113, 26448 Pacific Highway S, #101, Kent, WA 98040 stated
that he and his neighbors are concerned with future development as it relates to their
property which includes extensive wetlands located between 260th and 272nd to the south
and between Highway 99 and Interstate 5. He stated that the wetlands sustained damage
in 1983 with the placement of the Midway sewer line. He stated that wetland surveys show
the wetland to extend halfway onto his property, suggesting that staff reconsider their
commercial zoning proposal and zone the wetlands open space. He stated that the
wetlands need to be protected.
Brad Corner, 14205 SE 36th St. #100, Bellevue, WA 98006 stated that he holds a five acre
parcel of property at 23004 Military Rd South within the Midway subarea. He stated that
from a developer's perspective his clientele would like to have the maximum coverage ratio
for his site. Corner stated that he would favor a 90-100% build-out ratio rather than
limiting build-out to 70% and spoke in favor of more flexibility for the developer. Corner
stated that he would like to develop a multi-story hotel building on his site as long it does
not limit anyone's views.
City Attorney Tom Brubaker stated that height limits are subject to FAA Regulations and
would trump any regulations that the City would implement. He stated that any
development would have to meet maximum height requirements set by the FAA.
Brubaker addressed concerns from the Board with respect to wetlands stating that any
development occurring on property with wetlands must comply with the wetland or critical
areas regulations regardless of zoning.
Johnson MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to accept M°Comber's submittal
(including a wetland map) into the record. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
Johnson MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to Close the Public Hearing.
Motion CARRIED 7-0. Ralph declared the public hearing closed.
Gould-Wessen stated that McComber's property contains a substantial wetlands area. She
stated that the wetlands are part of the headwaters of Massey Creek and impact
surrounding properties.
After deliberating, Dowell MOVED and Gill SECONDED to preliminarily approve the
amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan and Kent City Code — Title 15 related
to the Midway Subarea as presented by staff; accepting Option #2 Zoning
Designation Map. Motion PASSED 7-0.
Gill MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a Motion to allow additional height above 65
feet through an incentive program to a maximum of 200 feet as specified in
Option 2 and to allow drive-thru/drive up services (i.e. banks and pharmacies) if
two-story development is within strip malls or shopping centers as specified in
Option 3. Motion PASSED 6-1 with Ottini Opposed.
Johnson MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to allow an increase in maximum
impervious surface as proposed in Option 2 if development participates in a
regional storm detention program. Motion PASSED 7-0.
Anderson stated that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a final public hearing to
consider the entire Midway package.
Johnson MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to Close the Public Hearing.
Motion PASSED 7-0.
Adiournment
Ralph declared the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Secretary of the Board
P:\Planning\LU PB\2010\Minutes\03-08-10-LU PB-Minutes.doc
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
April 26,2010
Page 3 of 3
4
This page intentionally left blank.
5
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
wA 5 H I N G T O N Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
July 19, 2010
To: Dana Ralph, Chair and Land Use and Planning Board Members
From: William D. Osborne, AICP, Long-Range Planner
Subject: DCE Height Limits [CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2]
For Hearing of July 26, 2010
MOTION: I move to recommend approval of Option 6, as described in
the staff report, which provides building height limits in the DCE
Zoning District where adjacent to single-family residential zoning, and
to forward said recommendation to the Kent City Council for adoption.
SUMMARY:
The City of Kent received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket item in 2009
from Kent resident Michael Johnson (Dkt-2009-1, see Attachment A) requesting
that the City's Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District be amended
to include a height restriction equivalent to single-family residential zoning when
located within 300 feet of single-family residential zoned properties. The Economic
& Community Development Committee unanimously moved that staff address the
docket proposal in the 2009 annual review cycle.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Strategic Action Plan
(DSAP) is to guide land use and capital improvement decisions for Downtown Kent.
Amending development regulations based on the guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan and DSAP is a Comprehensive Plan implementation action.
BACKGROUND:
The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies associated with Kent's Urban Center
(see Attachment C) provide a framework for developing and evaluating proposals
for legislative amendments. Furthermore, other south King County jurisdictions
address building heights in their urban center zoning districts when such properties
abut or are adjacent to single-family residential zoning districts. Staff has
evaluated the regulatory tools used by these other jurisdictions in its analysis.
Public Participation and Scope Refinement
On February 10, 2010, staff met with residents of neighborhoods (Mill Creek and
Scenic Hill) from which the Johnson Proposal emerged. Staff presented preliminary
research and asked attendees to identify key issues and values underpinning their
concerns about building heights. Some attendees commented on view protection,
restricting or mixing of land uses, solar access impacts of tall buildings, and
establishing an appropriate scale of development depending on proximity to single-
family residential neighborhoods. Residents felt there could be a number of
approaches to addressing issues of concern. Residents asked staff to follow up with
6
graphics of potential development scenarios for various assumed regulatory
approaches.
On May 12, 2010, staff met again with the community to discuss regulatory options
after extending another invitation to residents and property owners of DCE zoned
parcels.
The June 14th and July 12th workshops of the Land Use & Planning Board provided
an opportunity for staff to present concepts and graphics to initiate a discussion of
concerns, interests, policies and regulations associated with Kent's Urban Center,
DCE Zoning and adjacent single-family residential zones.
THE OPTIONS
The options provided for consideration (see Attachment D) are generally
understood to be within the geographic scope of the analysis of the Johnson
Proposal (see Attachment Q. The first LUPB workshop featured graphic models
created in Google SketchUp in order to highlight differences among options. Each
of the options has been analyzed in light of supporting policy language of the
Comprehensive Plan and DSAP - as well as the purpose statement of the DCE
Zoning District. For several options, a height limit of four stories has been
proposed. This height limit, particularly along building fagades situated at the back
of sidewalks has been suggested in urban design literature to provide upper floor
building occupants the opportunity to identify persons at street level (community
surveillance and interaction).
Existing Conditions
Where the DCE Zoning District is abutting or adjacent to single-family residential
zoning, the predominant land use is single-family residential, some multi-family
residential and general commercial with a substantial amount of public land
(including the Mill Creek Middle School site and Kent Senior Activity Center).
No Action (Assumed Full Build-Out)
The City of Kent would continue to have building heights throughout DCE Zoning
limited only by the Federal Aviation Administration, market viability and project
costs associated with building and fire code requirements. As DCE zoning has been
in place in the subject area for well over a decade, and during strong economic
times, full build-out is not a realistic outcome. Current regulations are generally
supported by planning policies found in the Comprehensive Plan and the DSAP,
though the question of how urban center development should coexist with adjacent
single-family residential neighborhoods is also validated by policy language in these
planning documents.
Option 1 - Johnson Proposal
The City would adopt the Johnson Proposal; thereby placing a single-family
residential height restriction on DCE zoned parcels within 300 feet of any single-
family residential parcel. No change or restrictions on specific land uses were
proposed. In its suggestion that building heights in the Downtown Commercial
Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District be equivalent to adjacent single-family residential
zoning, this proposal is substantially at odds with policies associated with
encouraging intensive, mixed-use development in the City's designated Urban
Center. Preservation of adjacent neighborhoods must also be considered in the
context of the purpose of the DCE Zoning District:
07/26/10- Land use&Planning Board Hearing
DCE Height Limits-CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2
Page 2 of 5
7
"...(T)o encourage and promote higher density development and a variety
and mixture of compatible retail, commercial, residential, civic, recreational, and
service activities in the downtown area, to enhance the pedestrian-oriented
character of the downtown, and to implement the goals and policies of the 1989
downtown plan, the Kent comprehensive plan, and the downtown strategic action
plan."
Requiring low density development is not compatible with the vision, planning nor
other regulations for Kent's Urban Center.
Option 2 - Rezone to MR-T16
The City would adopt a Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling unit per acre
(MR-T16) Zoning District designation for any DCE parcel having a portion of its area
located within 300 feet of a parcel zoned as single-family residential. This option
would significantly reduce the available height for new development in the Urban
Center adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods (30 ft., less than single-
family residential), as well as restrict the permitted land use to condominium
dwellings. As the MR-T zones are permitted within the Urban Center (UC) Land Use
Map designation, no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would
be necessary.
There is little policy support for amending DCE zoning adjacent to single-family
residential zones to MR-T16 as it would encourage development of low-rise, single-
use residential zoning within the Urban Center.
Option 3 - Rezone to GC
The City would adopt a General Commercial (GC) Zoning District for any DCE parcel
having a portion of its area located within 300 feet of a parcel zoned as single-
family residential. This option would significantly reduce the available height for
new development in the Urban Center adjacent to single-family residential
neighborhoods (35 ft., same as single-family residential, with possible allowances
for additional stories). A change to GC would also create a different set of
permitted land uses and expectations of site planning to include automobile-
oriented uses. Such uses are generally not consistent with Urban Center policies,
and have been restricted in the past to Central Avenue. However, as the GC
Zoning District is permitted within the Urban Center (UC) Land Use Map
designation, no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be
required.
There is little policy support for amending DCE zoning adjacent to single-family
residential zones to GC as it would encourage development of low-rise, auto-
oriented, single-use commercial zoning within the Urban Center that is likely more
incompatible with single-family residential use.
Option 4 - Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional Overlay Areas
(DCE-T) Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Upper Floor
Setbacks Similar to SeaTac
The City would create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District
(DCE-T) covering a full-block (300 feet or more in depth) in which a discrete
building height would be set for whole parcels - four stories (50 feet).
Furthermore, when adjacent to or abutting single-family residential zones, DCE-T
parcels would be subject to an upper floor setback requirement similar to SeaTac
Municipal Code, Section 15.35.350(A)(1). A maximum building height of 35 feet
would be applied within 50 feet distance from the zoning boundary (whether the
07/26/10- Land use&Planning Board Hearing
DCE Height Limits-CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2
Page 3 of 5
8
adjacent street centerline or lot line), inclusive of any ground-level rear or side yard
setback.
Amending the DCE Zoning District to have a transitional overlay could be seen as
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and DSAP - addressing adjacency to
single-family residential neighborhoods while preserving a significant capacity for
intensive mixed-use development within the Urban Center. However, the
application of a 50 ft. upper floor stepback would likely have a significant impact on
the development of pedestrian-oriented projects for smaller sites.
Option 4b - Amend DCE Heights as described in Option 4, Except Ground
and Upper Floor Setbacks determined only from lot lines; not street
centerlines
This option is a version of Option 4 suggested by the Mill Creek Neighborhood
Council. Option 4b would have front yard setbacks at ground and upper floor levels
measured from lot lines rather than the zoning district boundary - typically the
centerline of the adjacent street (includes entire right-of-way). This would increase
the distance between a building frontage and the back of sidewalk by a minimum of
20 feet from Option 4. If measured from the lot line, the upper floor stepback
depth would be increased by half the width of the adjacent right-of-way.
Amending the DCE Zoning District to have a transitional overlay could be seen as
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and DSAP - addressing adjacency to
single-family residential neighborhoods while preserving a significant capacity for
intensive mixed-use development within the Urban Center. The application of a
setback from frontage lot line rather than the zoning district boundary, when
combined with upper floor stepbacks on the side yard would have almost certain
significant impact on the ability to build to the vision and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and DSAP.
Option 5 - Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional Overlay Areas
(DCE-T) Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Enhanced
Downtown Design Review Requirements
The City would create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District
(DCE-T) covering a full-block (300 feet or more in depth) in which a discrete
building height would be set for whole parcels- four stories (50 feet). In addition,
an enhancement of the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines would require
balconies and/or upper floor setbacks currently written in Sections III.B and III.C.
as optional. This requirement would address bulk modulation rather than prescribed
upper floor setbacks featured in Options 4a and 4b.
Amending the DCE Zoning District to have a transitional overlay could be seen as
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and DSAP - addressing adjacency to
single-family residential neighborhoods while preserving a significant capacity for
intensive mixed-use development within the Urban Center. The requirement of
upper floor stepbacks and balcony treatments through the Downtown Design
Review process would effectively solidify a few elements featured in the City's
existing regulations as optional.
Option 6 - Amend DCE Heights for Depth of 300 Feet from Adjacent Single-
Family Residential Zones within Designated Transitional Overlay Areas
(DCE-T) - Railroad Avenue Excluded
The City would create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District
(DCE-T) covering approximately a full-block (300 feet or more) in depth where
07/26/10- Land use&Planning Board Hearing
DCE Height Limits-CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2
Page 4 of 5
9
adjacent to single-family residential zones. This overlay would clearly identify
affected parcels on the Zoning Districts Map, and code text would be amended to
include DCE-T regulations. These regulations would provide a discrete building
height of four stories (50 feet) and would be set for a depth of 300 feet. Beyond
that distance from adjacent single-family residential zones, the general
development standards of DCE would apply. As with Option 5, an enhancement of
the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines would require balconies and/or
upper floor setbacks currently written in Sections III.B and III.C. as optional.
Note that staff has removed Railroad Avenue S. parcels zoned DCE from
consideration in Option 6, as this area is separated from the single-family
residential of Scenic Hill by the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District along
Central Avenue.
Option 7 - Amend Single-Family Residential Zoning within Buffer from DCE
Zoning District (Daoura Proposal)
Mr. Daniel Daoura, a DCE property owner, has proposed that areas be rezoned to
Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR-T16) Zoning
District within a buffer of 200 or 300 feet extending from the DCE Zoning District
into adjacent single-family residential zones (see Exhibit 5).
The scope of the DCE Height Limits project is limited to addressing issues
associated with building heights in DCE Zoning. Therefore, this proposal would
require a separate Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Districts Map
amendment process - as the adjacent single-family residential zones are not
designated as multi-family residential (LDMF) or Urban Center (UC).
Option 8 - Remove Mill Creek Middle School property from DCE/Urban
Center
At the July 12th workshop, Mr. Jack Ottini, Land Use & Planning Board member,
suggested that the Urban Center designation be withdrawn to Central Avenue from
its current boundary.
This suggestion also falls outside of the scope of the present project, requiring a
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment as well as a rezone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Option 6, which would create a clearly identified DCE-T overlay
district adjacent to single-family residential zones with discrete building height
limits and requirements for upper floor bulk modulation (including stepbacks and
balconies) where abutting single-family residential zones. Option 6 is generally
consistent with Comprehensive Plan and DSAP policies relating to Urban Center
development - and significant capacity for building walkable mixed-use
development at greater intensities as seen in other Puget Sound communities
would be available throughout a DCE-T Zoning District.
If there are any questions, please contact William Osborne at 253.856.5437.
CA/WO/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\072610\StfRpt_DCE-BldgHts.docx
Att: Attachment A: Dkt-2009-1 Application (Johnson Docket Proposal)
Attachment B: Map of Affected DCE Parcels(300 ft. Buffer from Single-Family Residential)
Attachment C: Urban Center Goals&Policies and DCE Building Heights(excerpts from Comprehensive Plan &DSAP)
Attachment D: Options Matrix,July 19, 2010
Attachment E: Maps of Options
Attachment F: Exhibits 1-8 -Staff Correspondence with Interested Parties
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
Project File CPA-2009-5
Project File CPZ-2009-2
07/26/10- Land Use&Planning Board Hearing
DCE Height Limits-CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2
Page 5 of 5
10
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT A 11
7/26/10 LUPB HEARING
- Planning Services
Location:400 W.Gowe Mail to:220 4th Avenue South-Kent,WA 98032-5895
Permit Center(253)`856-5302 FAX:(253)'856-6412
KEN- - www.ci.kent.wa.us/permltcenter
WASHINGTON :
PLANNING SERVICESDocket Form for Amendments
ComprehensiveID
to the
Please print in black ink only. and Development Regulations
Application Name: _0 C E_ 91 P 6n, 1Q4M&7— Docket
OFFICE USE ONLY O ICE USE ONLY
Date Application Received: Received by:
Applicant:Name: O(E4ad CV- 'i-ah '560 Daytime Phone: �273 6YZ 4784
Mailing Address: *;6 �45oti Ave 'o- Fax Number: _
City/State/Zip: 4guiI tv/ Signature"- s --/
Professional License No: E-mail: D r o
Agent/Consultant/Attorney: (mandatory if primary contact is different from applicant)
Name: Daytime Phone:
Mailing Address: Fax Number:
City/State/Zip: E-mail:
Signature
Please provide a statement in the space provided below or on an attached sheet as needed for the
suggested change(s)to the comprehensive plan or development regulations with regards to the
relevant criteria listed below:
- Detailed statement of the proposal and reason - How the change would be compliant with the
for the amendment; Growth Management Act;
- Anticipated impacts of the change, including - How the change would be compliant with the
the geographic area affected and issues Countywide Planning Policies;and
presented; - How functional plans(e.g.subarea plans, utility
Why existing comprehensive plan and plans)and capital improvement programs(e.g.
development regulations should not continue in transportation improvement program)support
effect or why existing criteria no longer apply; the change.
Ye G&-cha e
RECEIVED
AUG 2 0 2009
CITY OF KENT
nr-RMIT —
GHl-2 PSD4098.6/30/08 p.1 of
12
Q1. Detailed statement of the proposal and reason for the amendment.
AL The proposed amendment is to add a building height restriction into the
Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zone development regulations. In
particular, a building height restriction would be added at the boundaries
between the DCE zone and single-family residential zones. Specifically, the
restriction proposed is that within 300 feet of a single-family residential
zone, building heights could be no higher than the height restriction for the
single-family residential zone.
The reason for this proposal is because the DCE zone currently has no height
restrictions and the only current way that boundary impacts on high
buildings abutting against residential buildings are addressed is through the
Downtown Design Review and Multifamily Design Review processes on a
case by case basis. Those reviews are also not public reviews. This proposed
amendment would add to the Kent City DCE regulations a height restriction
at the boundaries which is consistent with other neighboring cities such as
Federal Way, Auburn, and Renton. For example, Renton puts a regulation on
the boundary that buildings in their downtown center (CD zone) up against a
residential zone can only be 20 feet above the height restrictions of the
residential zone. A copy of some of the height restriction codes for Federal
Way, Auburn and Renton are found in the Appendix and those paragraphs
that refer to restrictions on the boundaries are underlined and bolded.
Q2. Anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area
affected and issues presented.
A2. This change would restrict building heights on the boundaries of the
DCE zone that abut a single-family residential zone. Beyond 300 feet of the
single-family residential zone into the DCE, all height restrictions would
disappear, allowing the full high-density population desired in the DCE.
13
Q3. Why existing comprehensive plan and development regulations
should not continue in effect or why existing criteria no longer apply.
A3. The current DCE regulations are completely silent on height restrictions
in the DCE zone. But there is recognition by the City of Kent that high
buildings abutting residential areas will have adverse impacts and allows
thes&to be addressed in Downtown Design Reviews on an individual case
by case basis. But these are not public reviews. On an issue with obvious
potential large impact to an abutting residential zone, there should be some
permanent public regulations that all parties can follow and depend on
consistently. And having these regulations would put Kent in line with
neighboring cities' height restriction regulations for commercial or multi-
family buildings abutting residential zones.
Q4. How the change would be compliant with the Growth Management
act.
A4. The Growth Management Act does require higher density development
in a cities downtown core. But the Act does not require every square foot of
a downtown core have unlimited building heights to get that overall density
required. With this limited change of adding building height restrictions on
the boundaries of the DCE, the Growth Management Act requirements
should easily still be met.
Q5. How the change would be compliant with the Countywide Planning
Policies.
A5. This change should not in any way be non-compliant with any County
Planning Policies on height restrictions inside the City boundary.
14
Q6. How functional plans (e.g., sub-area plans, utility plans) and capital
improvement programs (e.g., transportation improvement program)
support the change.
A6. A restriction on building heights in the DCE zone up against the single-
family residential zones will actually result in less impact to the local
infrastructure that would have been required to support very high buildings
on residential zone boundaries. Traffic would have less impact in the
neighboring residential zone as well as less extensive utilities upgrades in
the residential zone to accommodate high buildings with high population
density.
15
HEIGHT RESTRICTION CODES APPENDIX
Federal Way Code:
19.240.150 Multi-unit housing.
The following uses shall be permitted in the commercial enterprise (CE)
zone subject to the regulations and notes set forth in this section:
Maximum Height of Structure: 40 ft. above average building elevation
(AABE) to 55 ft. AABE
See notes 3 and 4
3. If approved by the director of community development services, the
height of a structure may exceed 40 ft. above average building elevation
(AABE), to a maximum of 55 ft. AABE, if all of the following criteria are
met:
a. The additional height is necessary to accommodate the structural,
equipment, or operational needs of the use conducted in the building, and/or
all ground floor spaces have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 13 ft. and
a minimum depth of 15 ft.;
b. Height complies with note 4; and
c. Rooflines are designed to avoid a predominantly flat and featureless
appearance through variations in roof height, forms, angles, and materials.
4. Building height mgy not exceed 30 ft. AABE when located between 20
ft. and 40 ft from a single-family residential zone, and may not exceed
40 ft. AABE when located between 40 ft. and 100 ft. from such zone;
and height over 40 ft. shall be set back from all other zones by one ft. for
each one ft. of height over 40 ft.
16
5. The subject property must contain at least one acre for every 22 dwelling
units.
Auburn City Code
Chapter 18.26
C-1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL M MERCIAL DISTRICT
18.26.010 Intent.
The intent and objective of this classification and its application is to provide
for the location of a grouping of uses which are considered compatible uses
having common or similar performance standards in that they represent
types of enterprises involving the rendering of services, both professional or
to the person, or on-premises retail activities. This zone represents the
primary commercial designation for small to moderate scale commercial
activities and should be developed in a manner which is consistent with and
attracts pedestrian-oriented activities. This zone encourages leisure shopping
and provides amenities conducive to attracting shoppers. (Ord. 4547 § 4
(Exh. B), 1992; Ord. 4229 § 2, 1987.)
18.26.040 Development standards.
E. Maximum building height: 45 feet. Buildings within the Auburn
North Business Area, as established by Resolution 2283, may exceed 45
feet if one additional foot of setback is provided from each property_line.
for each foot the building; exceeds 45 feet in height.
NTON CITE' CODE:
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING
DESIGNATIONS:
17
CN - 35ft.
In no case shall height exceed the limits specified in RMC 4-3-020.
CV - 50 ft., except 60 ft. if the ground floor of the building is in commercial
use.
CA - 50 ft., except 60 ft. for mixed use (commercial and residential) in the
same building.
Heights may exceed the maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit.16
In no case shall height exceed the limits specified in RMC 4-3-020.
16. The following height requests may be made:
APPLICABLE HEIGHT CHANGE REQUEST CONDITIONAL USE
ONE PERMIT TYPE
All of the CV xceed height of 50 feet FT
Zone
Exceed height of 45 feet when
abutting R-S or R-10 Zone
All of the CA Exceed maximum height AD
Zone
= Hearing Examiner
D = Administrative Conditional Use
In consideration of a request for conditional use permit for additional
building height, the Reviewing Official shall consider the following factors
18
in addition to the criteria in RMC 4-9-030, Conditional Use Permits, among
all other relevant information.
a. Location Criteria: Proximity of arterial streets which have sufficient
capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the development.
Developments are encouraged to locate in areas served by transit.
b. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shall be compatible with the
general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan,
the zoning regulations and any other plan, program, map or regulation of the
City.
c. Effect on Adjacent Properties: Building heights shall not result in
substantial or undue adverse effects on adj
acent property. When a
building in excess of the maximum height is proposed adj
acent to or
abuts a lot designated R-L R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-F, then the
setbacks shall be equivalent to the requirements of the ad acent
residential zone if the setback standards exceed the requirements of the
Commercial Zone.
ATTACHMENT B
-------;------ ARING
--------------•----. 1 19
11 jF� ! y
Legend
1-4 1
N � � Parcels
a
+ JAMES ST 300 ft. l
DCEISFR
Buffer
� N
KENT STATION
RAMSAY
U
J
TEMPERANCE MPERANCE
m '
mi
S I
W SMITH ST sNurrl +'#�•■�S`51g ■
LU
HARRISON
� � ~•~~yam.. •
MEEKER U ,� ■.ter♦.' •�•• r.frr
GOWE
w U
ok
' rnccM,., ti
f
4 i
U
a �I r IU w
t
T i {� 2 MACLYN
SAAR 1� -SAS\R ; J i•
1
G
i
FN r-N S MO-NES
a
1 a lJl Lt
a o•;��ILLIS � a—..—..—..—ti
�� : w 450 225 '+ D 45fljE� 9 DD 1u35D 1,8Dfl 2;25D
.1
Feet
20
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT C 21
7/26/10 LUPB HEARING
Urban Center Goals & Policies and DCE Building Heights
Kent Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 4)
Kent's Existing Land Use Plans
p. 4-22 "The Downtown Plan (1989)...led to substantial zoning changes in the Downtown
areas in 1992 and set the stage for designating the area as an Urban Center in
1995 under GMA."
p. 4-22 "The Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan (1998, updated 2005) serves as a basis
for developing the Urban Center and implementing the Kent Comprehensive Plan."
Urban Center Goals & Policies
p. 4-27 "The Council's policy direction for the Downtown area was reaffirmed in September
1992 when they elected to propose much of Downtown Kent as an Urban Center,
pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). The CPPs envisions (sic)
urban centers as areas of concentrated employment and housing which are served
by high capacity transit."
p. 4-28 Goal LU-3 Focus both city and regional household and employment growth
in the designated Urban Center.
Policy LU-3.1 Allow and encourage mixed-use development which combines
retail, office, and residential uses...to provide a diverse, vibrant
and well designed Urban Center.
Policy LU-3.3 Encourage medium- and high-density residential development in
the Urban Center. Emphasize design standards to provide an
attractive and high-quality residential development.
Policy LU-3.4 Enhance links between the Urban Center and adjacent
residential neighborhoods. Design the Urban Center
development to preserve adjacent neighborhoods.
Policy LU-3.5 Encourage pedestrian-oriented retail uses and development in
the Urban Center. Promote and encourage retail uses which
serve the residential population in, and adjacent to, the Urban
Center.
p. 4-29 Goal LU-4 Plan and finance transportation and other public facilities which
support the mixed-use development of the Urban Center.
Policy LU-4.3 Enhance pedestrian circulation systems and bicycle lanes in the
Urban Center. Place emphasis also on pedestrian and cyclist
circulation systems which link adjacent neighborhoods to (the)
Urban Center.
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM EN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\DCE_BldgHts_GoalsPolicies_cafs.xls 1 of 7
22
Policy LU-4.4 Take actions to ensure that adequate public parking is available
to facilitate development in the Urban Center. This includes
effiicient management of on-street spaces and future
development and enhancement of structured, off-street parking.
Goal LU-5 Emphasize the importance of good design, historic preservation,
and aesthetics for development in the Urban Center.
Policy LU-5.1 Require design review for development projects in the Urban
Center. Review projects for site design, effects upon historic
properties, landscaping design, and pedestrian-orientation.
Commercial Goals & Policies
p. 4-35 Goal LU-13 Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the
existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen
existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with
the extension of facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit
from their proximity to one another.
Policy LU-13.1 Maintain and enhance Kent's Downtown as a vital and unique
commercial district.
Policy LU-13.2 Encourage large office building development and regionally
oriented retail uses to locate in the Downtown.
Policy LU-13.3 Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in
existing commercial areas. Regulatory incentives may include
urban, mixed-use zoning and higher-density zones, planned unit
developments, transfer of density credits, planned action
ordinances, tax incentives, and streamlined permit processes.
Goal LU-14 Determine the size, function, and mix of uses in the City's
commercial districts based on regional, community, and
neighborhood needs.
Policy LU-14.1 Develop subarea plans for the Activity Centers and the Urban
Center to identify visual and physical focal points, edges, and
connections...
Policy LU-14.2 Provide opportunities for residential development within existing
business districts to provide support for shops, services, and
employment within walking distance.
p. 4-36 Policy LU-14.8 Ensure that commercial and mixed-use developments adjacent
to existing single-family residential areas are compatible in
height and scale. Establish guidelines for design of edges where
commercial and mixed-uses abut single-family use and medium-
and low-density residential.
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM EN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\DCE_BldgHts_GoalsPolicies_cafs.xls 2 of 7
23
Definition of Map Designations
p. 4-55 "Urban Center (UC) - This designation identifies a portion of the Downtown area
as an Urban Center. This designation allows high-density, mixed-use
development. Retail, office, multi-family residential, and public facility land uses
are permitted outright."
Community Design Element (Chapter 5)
Downtown Goals & Policies
p. 5-17 "By encouraging increased development intensity, promoting urban design which
enhances the public realm, improving streets and sidewalks, and encouraging
better building and site design, Downtown Kent will be reestablished as the
cultural, social, and economic center of the Kent area."
Goal CD-11 Reinforce the role of people-oriented Downtown as the focus of
community life and as a vital, people-oriented place.
Policy CD-11.2 Maintain and enhance a strong pedestrian orientation within the
Downtown through the design of buildings, streets and
sidewalks. Establish continuous building fagades with attractive
window treatments and minimal or no setback distance from
sidewalks.
Policy CD-11.3 Discourage drive-thru features in new development
redevelopment, or for a remodel within Downtown.
Policy CD-11.4 Provide for buildings which are more vertical than horizontal in
relationship to the width of adjacent streets. Encourage a
minimum building height of thirty feet to provide a better scale
relationship to the street and a greater potential for a vital
urban environment.
Policy CD-11.5 Encourage ground floor building fagade treatments and activities
that generate pedestrian interest and comfort. Large windows,
canopies, arcades, plazas and outdoor seating are examples of
such amenities.
p. 5-18 Goal CD-12 Promote urban design in the Urban Center which further defines
and enhances the character of the City and the established and
emerging special activity districts within the Urban Center, as
described in the Downtown Strategic Action Plan, and specified
in the Kent Downtown Design Guidelines.
Policy CD-12.1 Define the edges, focal points, and landmarks of the Urban
Center and the special districts.
Policy CD-12.4 Encourage the use of durable, high quality building materials to
lower maintenance and replacement needs and ensure the
aesthetic appeal of new development in the Urban Center.
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM EN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\DCE_BldgHts_GoalsPolicies_cafs.xls 3 of 7
24
Residential Development Goals & Policies (pp. 5-19 to 5-23)
p. 5-19 "Kent's residential areas are most easily described in terms of older, more
traditional residential neighborhoods in the central area and newer, more auto-
oriented development on East and West Hill. The central area's older
neighborhoods, primarily in the Downtown area, have tree-lined streets with
sidewalks and detached garages served by alley access, resulting in pedestrian-
oriented buildings."
p. 5-22 Goal CD-17 Provide multifamily building architecture and site design that
reflects positive features of the single-family home architecture.
Economic Development Element (Chapter 12)
City's Role in Economic Development (pp. 12-4 to 12-5)
p. 12-5 Policy ED-1.9 Encourage predictability and consistency in the City's land use
regulations, while also allowing for flexibility and creativity in the
site development process.
Housing (pp. 12-5 to 12-6)
p. 12-5 Policy ED-2.3 Encourage new housing development to be located closer to
existing public services and existing or planned transit service.
p. 12-6 Policy ED-2.4 Encourage a connective land use pattern that integrates housing
with natural amenities, employment and shopping opportunities,
and recreational facilities.
Commercial Development (pp. 12-6)
p. 12-6 Goal ED-3 Promote mixed-use residential and commercial development to
provide employment for citizens and services for residents, and
maintain Kent's position as an economic center in South King
County.
Policy ED-3.1 Allow for small-scale commercial establishments in
neighborhood areas to provide services for residents.
Policy ED-3.2 Promote regional office and commercial enterprises in core
areas of the City.
Policy ED-3.3 Provide for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit access along
identified transit arterials and encourage more intensive
commercial development at major nodes in the street and
transit network, to reduce dependency on automobiles.
Policy ED-3.5 Encourage mixed-use zoning to provide opportunities for
residential use in commercial areas.
Policy ED-3.6 Increase opportunities for walking between commercial
development and residential neighborhoods.
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM EN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\DCE_BldgHts_GoalsPolicies_cafs.xls 4 of 7
25
Downtown (City Center) (pp. 12-7)
p. 12-7 Goal ED-6 Promote Downtown as the primary center for the concentration
of housing, retail and office commerce, and cultural activities in
Kent.
Policy ED-6.3 Promote the concentration of housing, commercial uses and
cultural activities in Downtown with the intent of increasing and
maintaining the vitality of the community.
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM EN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\DCE_BldgHts_GoalsPolicies_cafs.xls 5 of 7
26
Urban Center Goals & Policies and DCE Building Heights
Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP)
Vision: Growing a Home Town (Chapter Two)
Figure 2-2: Downtown Kent 20 Year Vision (1998)
p. 2-4 " - Infill housing with pedestrian links to the core strengthens the area east of
Central Avenue."
Planning Concept (Chapter Three)
p. 3-6 "Enhance the periphery of the Downtown to achieve higher quality development
that supports its central activities..."
p. 3-8 "The areas to the south, east, and west of the Core Districts provide an ideal
setting for residentially oriented mixed-use development to support Core District
businesses and add life to the Downtown as well as reinforce Kent's identity as a
"home town.""
p. 3-10 "Quality: A Sense of Caring - A hometown's value to its community is reflected
in the quality of its physical setting...important will be the design quality of
development - embodied in the durability of architectural styles, features and
building materials."
Summary of Recommended Actions (Chapter Four)
pp. 4-5 "Enhance gateways into Downtown. Mark entrances to Downtown from
to 4-6 streets, trails and rails, provide artwork and amenities, and direct visitors to
special attractions. Where there is very little public land for extensive landscaping,
work with property owners to develop "signature buildings" that have high quailty
building and site design that adds character to the streetscape...Improvements
along Smith Street to connect the West Frame and East Frame will also be
important."
p. 4-7 Figure 4-1: Summary of Recommended Actions (1998) - Refine Design
Guidelines to Build Quality Residential Neighborhoods And Ensure Compatibility
With Commercial & Public Uses
Kent Downtown Districts (Chapter Five)
p. 5-16 "Design guidelines are recommended to: Increase compatibility between
commercial and residential uses through screening, site design and building bulk
regulations or guidelines; Increase security and safety in the areas by providing
lighting and pathways, reducing hazardous areas, and providing visible entries;
and Provide useful open space and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes."
"While there are few specific recommendations for the East Frame District in this
plan, the City should continue to monitor residential neighborhood conditions and
act if special problems or opportunities arise."
Additional Environmental Information (Chapter Six)
p. 6-9 Proposed planned actions are discussed below...
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM EN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\DCE_BldgHts_GoalsPolicies_cafs.xls 6 of 7
27
p. 6-21 Urban Design - Revise the Kent Zoning Code and the Downtown Design
Review Handbook to address more specific design guidelines for all of the
districts identified in Chapter S.
Discussion: ...Effective design guidelines are the most important means that the
City can use to achieve the high-quality, pedestrian-friendly design character
called for in the plan concept. They are also useful in increasing compatibility
between different activities in mixed-use zones...
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM EN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\DCE_BldgHts_GoalsPolicies_cafs.xls 7 of 7
28
This page intentionally left blank.
OPTIONS MATRIX ATTACHMENT D nr�
7/26/10 LUPB HEARING 29
Urban Center Zoning Height Restrictions Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zoning
No Action Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4a Option 4b Option 5 Option 6
Reduce Height Limit and Modified from Option 4a to Reduce Height Limit within
Apply 300 S SINGLE- Implement Upper Floor measure all setbacks from Reduce Height Limit& 300 ft.Buffer in Overlay&
Current Kent City Code FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Change to MR-T16 Zoning Change to GC Zoning Stepbacks(with SeaTac as lot lines rather than Enhance Design Review Enhance Design Review
Buffer(Johnson Proposal) model) strictly from zoning district Requirements Requirements(Excluding
Features boundaries Railroad Avenue)
Base Height Limit Unlimited(15.04.190) 35 ft.for portions of DCE 3 story/30 ft.(2 story/25 3 story/35 ft.(additional 4 story/50 ft.for DCE Same as Option 4a Same as Option 4a 4 story/50 ft.for portions
parcels within 300 ft.of ft.within 100 ft.Multifamily story may be authorized by parcels within designated of overlay-designated DCE
single-family residential Transition Area) Planning Manager, overlay(entire parcels parcels within 300 ft.of
zoned parcels additional stories may be within 300 ft.selected single-family residential
authorized by LUPB) buffer)for single-family zoned parcels
residential zoned parcels
Height Limit(when As Above As Above As Above 35 ft.max height within 60 35 ft.max height within 60 As Above,with Stepbacks As Above,with Stepbacks
adjacent or abutting ft.adjacency,up to max ft.adjacency,up to max per DDR per DDR
single-family residential zone height thereafter zone height thereafter
zone) (SMC 15.35.350(A)(1)) (SMC 15.35.350(A)(1))
Ground Setbacks(if
adjacent to single-family
residential)
None(exception regarding None(exception regarding None None
60 ft.ground&upper floor 60 ft.ground&upper floor
Front None None Min.20 ft.,Avg.30-40 ft. 20 ft. adjacency setback from adjacency setback from
street centerline to single- street centerline to single-
family residential) family residential)
Side 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Side Yard on Flanking Street
of Corner Lot (20 ft.) (20 ft.)
Rear 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Stepback/Terracing Optional above 3rd Floor Same as NO ACTION Same as NO ACTION Same as NO ACTION Upper building mass must Upper building mass must Make one or more of the Make one or more of the
(Upper Floors) (DDR):Balcony 6 ft.Deep, fit within slope of 1:1 for fit within slope of 1:1 for existing three"Options" existing three"Options"
10 ft.Wide(III.B.I.a.)OR each foot above 35 ft.from each foot above 35 ft.from associated with upper floor associated with upper floor
Upper Story Setbacks with building fagade to 60 ft. building fagade to 60 ft. setbacks and balconies in setbacks and balconies in
at least one upper story depth of abutting single- depth of abutting single- DDR a requirement DDR a requirement
setback of 6+ft.(III.6.1.g) family residential zoned family residential zoned
OR Upper Story Setback of parcel line or adjacency parcel line or along lot line
10+ft.for one or more from street centerline adjacent to single-family
stories(III.C.I.a.) residential zoned parcel
(across street).
Distance from Zoning 60 ft. 60 ft. None specified other than None specified other than
Boundary/Building ground Floor setbacks ground Floor setbacks
Impacts Permitted Land
Use(s) No No Yes Yes No No No No
Requires Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map
Amendment
No No No No No No No No
AUD_DCE_BldgHts_OptionsMatrix_072610.xls
30
This page intentionally left blank.
NO
mr
MA k
■j ! 11■1■ 11/111111 ~ 1
� �1II ■ r �
■_ o
�cc=�orw
Aft
■ ■ ■ ■r� : =■ ■■ 7■1111111►
. � ■ .I�IIIIIIIIII
MINE
■ ■� •er re r �� per ,_ ,:rr ■ rr . .rr ■■ rrr■■
32
This page intentionally left blank.
i1 j ■ , �■ �11■1■ 11/111111 ~ �
� IIII ■ r �
■ 11
� ■ ■ ■r� : =■ ■■ 711111111►
. � ■ .I�IIIIIIIIII
MIR
34
This page intentionally left blank.
x W-I w ■�
rel gill'
IN
IN
Am
r or
00 IN
", ,,,�Oo /, - o
i 0 4
00,
Z� op;•
1■.II. ■■ 11 ■ J :- - :
orr'
oil
%■ ■ .��:�► ■■ .:�Illlllll►
r; �. ■ :1111111111111
Or/ win WE
■ � ��� 1
� �� =� �i+ ■I� is �■I�LrI� ��■ ��� ■■----.... �����--
36
This page intentionally left blank.
Ali! !I^ ��Z- �-.��. ■� � ■ ■ '^
■111�
■. ■ ;r,;,, Mm
- -■ ■��IIIII��- ■
• J _iii
�■ ,"OF %� ,, C� IIIIIIIII r ■■ j�
�i/iii
'0 -
II
I0,
A
MEN ■■ �1 ii:�.�;�•�
14 0� /./ .� ■
ZZ
��z000,
■ I ..� _►��.�. ■�� .■ Olson •
■ i : ■��:�► �■ ■■ � 711111111
38
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT F - EXHIBITS 1-8 31P
7/26/10 LUPB HEARING
CPA-2009-2/CPZ-2009-2
DCE HEIGHT LIMITS
Presented for Record at the July 26, 2010 LUPB Hearing
Exhibit Submittal Submitter Description of Submittal
No's: Date
1. Email From: Michael W. Johnson Series of Email Correspondence between
5/13/10 436 Jason Ave N William D. Osborne, AICP, Long-Range
Thru Kent, WA 98030 Planner and Michael Johnson, Mill Creek
5/19/10 253,852.4984 Resident and Community Association
Docket 2009-1 Member.
(Applicant)
2. Email From: Julie Brown Email Correspondence (5/17) supporting
5/17/10 & 802 E. Temperance St. Option 4B and (5/19) asking for clarification
5/19/10 Kent, WA 98032 on a couple points. Osborne's response
attached.
3. Email Dated Michael W Johnson Email Correspondence dated 5/18/10 with
5/18/10 436 Jason Ave N attached Letter Dated 5/17/10 addressed
Kent, WA 98030 to Fred Satterstrom ranking the Height
253.852.4984 Regulation Options and indicating that the
Mill Creek residents would support staff's
Option 4 for the transition overlay with
amendments as indicated.
4. Email Dated Dan and Sandy Ulrey Email Correspondence favoring Option 4.
5/18/10 332 Alvord Ave N (Mill Creek Historical Neighborhood)
Kent, WA 98032
5. Email Dated Scott Bundren Email Correspondence favoring existing
6/15/10 (DCE area Property Owner) standards suggesting a slight deviation from
those standards to help alleviate concerns
of buffers to the single-family zoned areas.
6. Email Dated Michael W Johnson Email Correspondence summarizing the Mill
6/18/10 436 Jason Ave N Creek Resident's position on DCE Height
Kent, WA 98030 Regulations. (Attached the 5/17/10 letter).
253.852.4984
7. From: Daniel Daoura Series of Email Correspondence suggesting
7/6/10 18460 SE 143rd St. an additional Option 7 for consideration.
Thru Renton, WA (Property Owner)
7/14/10
8. 7/9/10 Edward H Kosnoski US Mail Letter dated June 29, 2010 -
610 S 239t" St. opposed to the implementation of
Des Moines, WA 98198 regulations or restrictions that may
discourage developers.
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\072610\AttF_DCE_Bldg Hts_Exh ListCvr.doc
40
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 4
-----Original Message----- C PA-go�z�15cg� 1=,7,
V11Si
From: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com [mailto:Mwgoiflohnson@aol.com] ®ate ReedRe 15d D
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:59 PM S
To: Satterstrom, Fred; Osborne, William Land Use&Pjagjfling Ekmd
Subject: Re: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-Clarifications
Mr. Satterstrom and Mr. Osborne,
Some of our Mill Creek residents met tonight to discuss the options you presented to us on
Wednesday and we decided we needed some clarifications on Option 4. If you could respond
Friday, May 14, it would be much appreciated since Julie Brown and I are on a short timeline and
we want to get a formal response back to you before next Wednesday, May 19th.
Specifically;
1. We decided we didn't really understand the Option.4 explanation for the Step back/Terra ci n g.
The phrase "Upper building mass must fit within slope of
1:1 for each foot above 35ft. from building facade to 60 ft. depth of adjacency" isn't clear.
2. We understand the DCE zone allows buildings with no setback for their
front. Can a DCE building have more than one front?
3. Option 4 has a (,20ft) in the box relative to the topic of Side yard on flanking Street of corner
lot. What does this mean?
Thanks
Michael Johnson
42
Mottram, Pamela
zulw�
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:21 PM
To: 'Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com'Cc: Satterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela
Subject: RE: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-Clarifications
Attachments: RegulatoryExample—Option4.png
Importance: High
Mr. Johnson,
In response to Questions 2: Yes, most particularly with regards to buildings with public
entrances on more than one side - particularly with buildings at street corners, but also for
buildings that span a block width/depth. The former Meeker Street Emporium (JC Penneys) in
Downtown Kent is an excellent example of the latter circumstance.
In response to Question 3, it is my understanding that the 'flanking street' is the side of a corner
parcel with the lesser classification of street (e.g. residential street is lesser than principal
arterial street). I ado appreciate your question - as it might call into question a corner parcel
where two frontages may be desired.
In response to Question 1, a picture hopefully says more than words. I have attached a few
graphics that should help explain...
Please let us know if it doesn't!
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 Direct 253-856-5437
43
9 'ji � �� ,•�a ( t e t
S (• 1 0 � •�� � �
� r
a
a I
4 i
♦Y44 '
I i
�y
YM1
� tt
J NJ k�2 Zz
If
Y �Y
a Y'Y
YtY
YY
� YY
' aIf K
t ~Y
� Y
� YY`
YY1
i
1 % Y
Y Y�Y
tl 3` k
y;
L �
w
i
r
I
1 '
y i t y
44
Mottram, Pamela
From: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 10:54 AM
To: Osborne, William; Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com
Cc: Safterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela;juliembrown@quest.net
Subject: Re: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Mr. Osborne,
Thank you for the response. I got a few more questions from the group and I would also like to
confirm your explanation for the 1:1 slope.
1. Looking at your drawing and some other examples with different facade setbacks, it looks to
us that the 1:1 slope rule supersedes the allowed 50 foot building height in Option 4 at 60 feet
setback from the street. In reality, the 1:1 rule moves the setback to 75 feet from the street
before the building can be at 50 feet, no matter what the building facade setback actually might
be. Are we interpreting this correctly? In seems odd in the regulation that a rule would
supersede a rule above it. Why not just start with a 75 setback before the 50 foot building is
allowed?
2. We assume your answer on allowed number of building fronts could mean that if a building
used an entire block, then there could be actually 4 fronts, i.e. main entrances to the building
from all 4 streets surrounding the building, and therefore no 20 foot setback of the facade on
any of the streets.
But in the case of the DCE boundary running east-west not on a street (as it is between Smith
and Temperance), we assume there would always a requirement for a 20 foot setback on that
DCE boundary. Is that correct?
3. We would like to know the ease or difficulty of a developer to succeed in expanding the DCE'
boundary into the SR zone by a rezoning request. We are assuming that the City drew the DCE
boundary without ever intending to expand it since the goal of the DCE is to form a more dense
downtown and expanding the DCE boundary would run counter to that goal. Is this a good
assumption? We again are obviously most concerned about the DCE boundary running east-west
not on a street between Smith and Temperance.
4. Same question on rezoning if we adopted Option 2 or 3, i.e. rezone the DCE transition area
on your map to either MR-T16 or General Commercial. Does this make it easier or harder for a
developer to succeed at a rezone into the residential SR zone? To put in another way, we are
assuming that if we adopt Option 1, 4, or 5, and not actually rezone the DCE, then the
possibilities of rezone are diminished greatly.
5. And finally, we are assuming that any type of rezone request would go through a public
process and all the affected parties would get an input.
Correct?
Thanks
Michael Johnson
Mottram, Pamela 45
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:01 PM
To: 'Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com'
Cc: Safterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela; 'juliembrown@qwest.net'
Subject: RE: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Attachments: SKMBT75009120413470.pdf
Mr. Johnson, thanks for your excellent questions. I'll respond to each in the order listed. Pardon
me if I use shorthand or 'Planner-ese' - please ask for clarification if needed:
1. Thanks for pointing this out. From my reading of SeaTac's municipal code in regards to
handling heights adjacent to single-family residential in their urban center, regardless of how it's
phrased, a 45% (V up/1' over) slope from a vertical 35 ft. limit may begin at the limit of the 60
ft. horizontal setback. Currently, beyond the ground level setback of 20 ft. adjacent to single-
family residential, the height proposed for Option 4 is 35 ft. I've attached a copy of a code
section scanned by SeaTac planning staff that captures what we're talking about here. The
Options Matrix language should be revised to reflect this more clearly.
b) An absolute ground level setback of 75 ft. (without any building development) per your
suggestion would be profoundly unique in magnitude. Not only in terms of the extent of urban
center zone setbacks for comparable jurisdictions, but in comparison with other commercial and
mixed-use zoning districts within the City of Kent itself.
2. Correct, and correct. It is possible that an entire block could be developed with four frontages
- though unlikely. Wherever a shared boundary with a single-family residential zone exists,
appropriate setbacks or other regulations would be applied.
3. In short, a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment would be required to expand DCE
into single-family residential areas. This could occur as part of citizen involvement in a subarea
planning effort, as with the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) update in 2005, for the area
located along James Street across from Kent Station. I should note that the effective
contraction of the Urban Center (and DCE zoning) is not necessarily compatible with the goal of
creating a more dense and walkable Downtown Kent for a significantly larger number of
households and jobs.
4. A speculative question that invites more discussion than resolution - in short, hard to answer
with an absolute affirmative. That being said, my experience has been that outside of the DSAP
(updated every 5 to 7 years), privately proposed amendments from single-family residential to
more intensive residential and to suburban commercial (Neighborhood (NCC), Community (CC)
or General Commercial (GC)) zones are much, Much more common when adjacent to areas
already zoned multi-family residential or suburban commercial than for areas adjacent to DCE.
However, that doesn't mean someone couldn't propose a multi-family residential or suburban
commercial zone adjacent to DCE within an existing area of single-family residential zoning.
Such a proposal would have to go through the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process
(docketing).
5. We are going through that process of considering zoning and development regulations now
and yes, notice will be provided per Kent City Code.
Regards,
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5437
46
Design Standards for Multi-Family Housing
F. Blank Walls.
1. `Blank walls" (building facade sections without windows or doors)
greater than twenty (20)feet in length that are visible from any right-of-
way,private road, open space, sidewalk or through-block pathway shall
be screened or treated as described in subsection(17)(2) of this section.
2. Sections of"blank walls" shall be avoided, but if necessary due to pri-
vacy or other design considerations,shall be treated in one(1)of the fol-
lowing manners:
a. Install vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or other
plant materials over at least seventy percent(70%) of the blank wall
surface that is at the ground level,and over at least thirty(30)percent
of the remainder of the blank wall surface;
b. Provide a decorative masonry pattern, or other architectural feature
as approved by the Director of Planning and Community Develop-
ment, over at least seventy percent (70%) of the blank wall surface
that is at the ground level, and over at least thirty percent (30%) of
the remainder of the blank wall surface;and/or
c. Employ small setbacks,projections,indentations,or intervals of ma-
terial change to break up the wall's surface.
In no case shall sections of blank walls forty (40) feet or more in length be
allowed.
G. Building rooftops shall be designed to effectively screen mechanical equip-
ment from street-level view through one (1) or more of the following meth-
ods:
1. A concealing roof line;
2. A terraced facade;
3. A screening wall or grillwork directly surrounding the equipment;or
4. Sufficient setback from the facade edge to be concealed from ground-
level view. (Ord. 08-1042 § 1; Ord. 01-1031 § 1; Ord. 00-1002 § 2)
15.19.230 Neighborhood Compatibility/Relation to Adjacent Development
Intent: Achieve a compatible transition between two (2) zones of differing
height, bulk and scale requirements. Consideration should be given to the scale
and design of surrounding buildings to promote compatibility and complement
or enhance the character of existing neighborhoods.
15-156.15 (Revised 3/09)
47
15.19.230 City of SeaTac ZONING CODE
A. Properties abutting a UL zone,where the UL zone has a Comprehensive Plan
designation of residential low, shall incorporate the following:
1. A maximum building height of thirty-five (35) feet shall apply to por-
tions of a structure within sixty (60)feet of a UL zone with a residential
low Comprehensive Plan designation. The thirty-five (35) foot height
shall be measured from the base elevation of the UL-zoned property to
the midpoint of any sloped roof; provided, that if the multi-family grade
elevation is higher than the single-family property, in no case shall the
height of the multi-fainily building be limited to less than thirty-five(35)
feet as measured per SMC 15.13.020(C). The base elevation of the UL-
zoned property shall be determined by the average of the elevation along
the common property line with the subject property opposite the pro-
posed multi-family building(s)at right angles from the property line.The
allowed height shall increase at no more than one (1) foot vertical for
each foot horizontal until the maximum allowed height in the zone is
reached(see Figure 15.19.230A).
2. A minimum roof pitch of six(6)feet of height for each twelve(12)linear
feet of roof shall be required for all portions of multi-family buildings
within sixty(60)feet of a UL zone with a residential low Comprehensive
Plan designation, and for all,multi-family buildings fronting on a street
directly across from a UL zone with a residential low Comprehensive
Plan designation.
tNufL�IZ IMIr50
35'-
SsEf tTPYO t1+RPN1'MAX.8W6•
4S FiT. aY 45"PNdL E
40
55 VSn1�N foci¢OF�R/Z��
i
s
t
,� TyPttAti. t
2.5RiKK �
�o e:»�i irirl+tivir �...� 35' � TfW1f1YlON PRr�
prro .xaw iln! �{T
ba•
Figure 1.5.19.230A Building height adjacent to a UL zone with a residential low
Comprehensive Plan designation is limited to thirty-five(35)feet.for the first sixty
(60)feet,then may increase at a forty-five(45)degree angle.Height is measured
per SMC 15.13.020(C).
3. A minimum side and/or rear yard building setback of twenty (20) feet
shall apply if the side or rear property boundaries are adjacent to a UL
zone with a residential low Comprehensive Plan designation. Side/rear
(Revised 3/09) 15-156.16
48
Design Standards for Multi-Family Housing
yard landscaping shall occupy all or part of the required building setback,
as specified by land use in SMC 15.14.060.
4. Scale and massing of adjacent residential development shall be consid-
ered in the design of new multi-family development. An effective archi-
tectural fit within the neighborhood shall be achieved through similarity
of design with the adjacent development in one(1)or more of the follow-
ing ways:
a. Similar building proportions, including stepbacks on upper levels;
b. Similar building articulation;
c. Similar roof lines,pitches, and shapes;
d. Similar relationship to the street for entryways and setbacks; and/or
e. Similar architectural details or features such as bay windows, dor-
mers,porches,finish materials,recessed entries, and other elements.
YES
O
Q
Figure 15.19.23OA(4) The building on the right shows how a multi-family
structure can be designed to complement an existing neighborhood
through the use of similar building modulation and setbacks.The
building on the right covers roughly the same lot area as the structure
on the left,while appearing as if it"fits"in its surroundings.
B. Multi-family and mixed use projects abutting a townhouse(T)zone,or prop-
erties with a townhouse zone Comprehensive Plan designation, shall incor-
porate the following:
1.. Height Requirements within Forty-Five (45) Feet of Townhouse
Zone Property.A maximum building height of thirty-five(35)feet shall
apply to portions of a structure within forty-five(45)feet of the side and/
or rear property line of an adjacent property with a townhouse zone or
townhouse Comprehensive Plan designation.
2. Height Allowances within Forty-Five (45) Degree Plane of Town-
house Zone Property. In order to preserve opportunities for light, view
15-156.17 (Revised 3/09)
49
15.19.240 City of SeaTac ZONING CODE
and privacy of adjacent townhouses, the height of a building may
increase above thirty-five (35) feet as long as it does not project into a
forty-five(45)degree angular plane gradient measured from the side and/
or rear property line of the adjacent townhouse zone property.
3, Height Allowances Beyond Sixty-Five (65)Feet of Townhouse Zone
Property. Building height after sixty-five (65) feet can increase to the
maximum allowed by the zone within which the building is located after
the requirements in subsection (B)(2)of this section are met.
J
�rww..nwr�
65
J
35 Townhouse 35' r "Muitt-amliy guRding
s ,r'
!r
Property Line- -451-----"`--
Figure 15.19.230B Diagram showing example of height requirements
and allowances for multi-family and mixed use projects abutting townhouse
zone or townhouse properties.
(Ord. 08-1042 § 1; Ord. 01-1031 §§ 1,4;Ord. 00-1002 § 2)
15.19.240 Privacy
Intent:Respect adjacent properties by locating buildings to minimize disruption
of privacy. One consideration is the views from upper stories of new buildings
into adjacent private yards, especially in less intensive zones. Buildings should
also be designed so that units within a development have appropriate private
space.
A. Building design shall incorporate the following elements:
1. Stagger windows to avoid alignment with adjacent windows;
2. Reduce the number of windows and decks on the buildings overlooking
private yards of neighboring properties; and
3. Use landscaping and open ace to enhance privacy. Ord. 0 - ..p g p p p y { 8 1042 § 1;
Ord. 01-1031 § 1; Ord. 00-1002 § 2)
(Revised 3/09) 15-156.18
50
Mottram, Pamela
From: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:18 PM
To: Osborne, William; Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com
Cc: Satterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela;juliembrown@qwest.net
Subject: Re: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Mr. Osborne,
With regard to question 1 again on the 1:1 slope, I think you are saying that indeed, there is a
1:1 slope requirement starting at 60 foot adjacency and going up from the 35 foot height before
getting to the maximum building height of 50 feet. I have stared and stared at the Sea Tac reps
on this and I think they say the same thing.
But the figure in the regs doesn't have an example where we have a street between the single
family residence and the downtown building. So I am little unsure if the Sea Tac definition of
adjacency and your definition in Option
4 is the same.
Just so we are clear though, I am going to use your sketch from your first e-mail as the
definition of adjacency. In that sketch, you show a 20 foot setback and the 60 foot adjacency
distance which includes the 20 feet. Since setback is by very nature from the property line (can't
be from the center of the street), then your drawing says the 60 feet starts also at the property
line.
I have already done a draft of our formal response to you and Mr.
Satterstrom so that it can be reviewed by our residents in time. In the current draft, I talked
about both the case where we have a 1:1 slope up to 50 feet (that starts at 35 foot height and
60 foot adjacency distance) and the case where we can go straight to 50 foot height at the 60
foot adjacency distance. It turns out that it doesn't make that much difference to our
conclusions; i.e., the 1:1 slope requirement is not a deal breaker if we don't have it.
So in order to be more simple, I am going to drop the 1:1 slope rule and ignore it in our
response. Our response will just evaluate an Option 4 building that has a 35 foot height until
reaching a point 60 feet in from its property line where the height can go to 50 feet. And when
the 20 foot setback is required on the sides or rear, then the building will only be 40 feet deep
before it can go to the 50 feet height.
And I need to respond to your comment in 1b. I am sorry you misunderstood my language, but I
never meant to imply that you should have Option 4 say that building facade has a setback of 75
feet. I only meant that the maximum height wouldn't be reached until 75 feet with my
understanding of the 1:1 rule. The building could always start with a 35 foot height right on the
property line for front facing buildings.
So my plan is to send you our formal response Tuesday night so you will have it Wednesday. I
will again make sure I define terms and distances so we are on the same page. When I get back
from Scotland June 5th, we could meet that week before the LUPB workshop on the 14th if you
find it might be useful.
Mike Johnson
51
In a message dated 5/17/10 1:13:38 PM, WOsborneOci.kent.wa.us writes:
<< Mr. Johnson, thanks for your excellent questions. I'll respond to each in the order listed.
Pardon me if I use shorthand or 'planner-ese' - please ask for clarification if needed:
1. Thanks for pointing this out. From my reading of SeaTac's municipal code in regards to
handling heights adjacent to single-family residential in their urban center, regardless of how it's
phrased, a 45% (V up/1' over) slope from a vertical 35 ft. limit may begin at the limit of the 60
ft. horizontal setback. Currently, beyond the ground level setback of 20 ft. adjacent to single-
family residential, the height proposed for Option 4 is 35 ft. I've attached a copy of a code
section scanned by SeaTac planning staff that captures what we're talking about here. The
Options Matrix language should be revised to reflect this more clearly.
b) An absolute ground level setback of 75 ft. (without any building
development) per your suggestion would be profoundly unique in magnitude. Not only in terms
of the extent of urban center zone setbacks for comparable jurisdictions, but in comparison with
other commercial and mixed-use zoning districts within the City of Kent itself.
</HTML>
2
In a message dated 5/18/10 5:43:40 PM, WOsborne@ci.kent.wa.us writes: 52
<< Mr. Johnson,
I think we are much closer to sharing a common understanding. However, there is an item I
believe requires clarification.
In SeaTac the 60 ft. adjacency is defined from the zoning district boundary - which typically is
located along lot line(s) of abutting properties OR along the street centerline(s). Indeed, each
parcel fronting on a public street dedicates a (half) portion of the right-of-way. In Kent, street
centerlines frequently serve as zoning district boundaries.
Therefore, Option 4 is intended to reflect a 60 ft. setback treatment from the street centerline
where a frontage is located adjacent to, but across the street from a residontially-zoned
property. Depending on the right-of-way width, the distance to the centerline from the subject
lot line would likely be 25 feet or more.
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5437
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
-----Original Message----- 53
From: Mwgolflohnson@aol.com [mailto:Mwgoiflohnson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:27 PM
To: Osborne, William; Mwgolflohnson@aol.com
Cc: Satterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela; juliembrown@gwest.net
Subject: Re: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Mr. Osborne,
Since Option 4 is only patterned after Sea Tac, you can certainly choose to define the 60 foot
setback from the property line. In fact I relied 100% on your original sketch which had the 60
feet starting at the same point as the 20 foot setback, i.e. from the property boundary. And my
formal trade study to you sent Tuesday night does define the 60 feet that way, i.e. from the
property line.
All of the elevation angles of course are all wrong if the 60 feet is from the center of the street.
And if the 60 feet really is from the center of the street, then a building with a 20 feet setback
can go straight to 50 feet only 15 feet in from the setback. (This assumes a 50 foot street.) We
might as well have a 50 foot building-there is not much relief here.
If you are serious�though that this is what you want mean with Option 4, then we would have to
11
withdraw our support of that option and stick with Option 1 or Option la. The 60 foot setback
from the street centerline gives us practically no relief.
Mike Johnson
54
Mottram, Pamela
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:26 AM
To: 'Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com'
Cc: Satterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela;juliembrown@qwest.net; Anderson, Charlene
Subject: RE: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Mr. Johnson,
We can agree that Option 4 with the zoning boundary (at street centerline or otherwise)
providing the front yard setback treatment is not exactly the same as what is supported by the
neighbors. Moreover, it would be totally appropriate at this time to recognize that this is OK -
we have yet to draft a memo and packet for a Land Use & Planning Board workshop, let alone a
staff report with recommendation(s) for a public hearing to follow.
It seems to me that another option that defines all setbacks on parcel lines may be on the table
- perhaps as Option 4(b)?
Best regards,
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 Direct 253-856-5437
55
Moftram, Pamela
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 9:41 AM
To: 'Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com'
Cc: Safterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela; I u liem brown @qwest.net'; Anderson, Charlene
Subject: RE: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Actually, I was a bit too specific in the first sentence of my response - a street centerline (as the
zoning boundary) might be associated with a side yard OR front yard.
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 Direct 253-856-5437
56
This page intentionally left blank.
57
Date Rec'd qIZ�ZI-L2--20fO
fp-q--rff e-
i and Use &Planning Board
City of Kent
Moftram, Pamela
From: Julie Brown Ouliembrown@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:31 AM
To: Osborne, William; Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com
Cc: Satterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamela; Anderson, Charlene
Subject: RE: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Hello All,
At a quick glance, Option 4(b), which should require all setbacks to begin at parcel lines (rather
than street centerlines), is an acceptable Option.
I have not discussed that, though, with other concerned neighbors, and will not have time to
discuss it with them before I leave. I am leaving for Uganda today, so I look forward to hearing
about the progress on this project when I get back. I return on June 3rd. Thank you for all your
efforts.
Julie Brown
58
Exhibit
Data Rec'd
Staff-..
-----Original Message----- Land Usc & F`1;3nning Board
From: Julie Brown [mailto:juliembrown@qwest.net] City of Kent
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:19 PM
To: Osborne, William
Cc: Mwgoiflohnson@aol.com
Subject: RE: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications
Thank you William,
I hope it's OK for me to interject in the email conversation! I think in your response 1 b) you
may have misunderstood Mike's question (I don't.think he suggested an absolute setback of 75ft
with no development...). I think we were seeking clarity in the wording of Option 4. This is-how
I currently understand what Option 4 is offering: It provides a 20ft. setback from the boundary
line before any building/construction exists (the facade), which is then limited to a 35ft. height.
This 35ft height is restricted up to a 60ft. setback from the boundary line. At the 60ft. setback
point, the building can then increase in height at a 1:1 ratio. The building will consequently
reach the 50ft. height restriction at a linear 75ft from the boundary line. After this 75ft. point,
the building height is restricted to 50ft until it reaches the 300ft (full block distance) limit. After
this point, building height restrictions are removed and there is no height restriction. Is this a
correct understanding of the provisions in Option 4?
I have an additional question. The schematics we've been looking at demonstrate Residential
directly adjacent to DCE. How are these regulations in Option 4 applied when a street intercedes
the boundary lines? For instance, where do the 20ft and 60ft setbacks begin? I am assuming
there are three possibilities, 1) the residential boundary line, 2) the center of the street, and 3)
the DCE property boundary line. I would assume that it is the DCE boundary line, but I'd like to
have that confirmed.
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. We so much appreciate it!
Julie Brown
mouram, varneia
From: Osborne, William 59
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:02 PM
To: 'Julie Brown'
Cc: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com; Safterstrom, Fred; Mottram, Pamq9RhibIt#.__�a___
Subject: RE: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-More Clarifications rL
Date Rec'd__6-L-7-2r.5 to
Staffjjj5e.ShcO"hS
Ms. Brown (Julie), .and Use &Planning Board
City of Kent
Bearing in mind that these options are yet to be recommended proposals...-
I.b) Generally you are correct. The graphic was a fairly accurate reflection of SeaTac's
regulatory approach in terms of side yard issues - more on that in a few seconds. The language
in the Stepback/Terracing (Upper Floors) tell of the matrix should be revised for clarification.
Good question regarding adjacency. Other jurisdictions are all over the board on defining impact
of being 'adjacent.' Some of the jurisdictions we surveyed define parcels sharing a common lot
line as "abutting (as well as adjacent)," and any parcel located across the street as "adjacent."
The Option 4 graphic, though showing side yard setback relationships accurately is glaringly
missing how the front yard setback across from single-family residential is also 60 ft.
generally from street centerline.
Downtown Kent's DCE and DC zones discourage front yard setbacks - as walkable urbanism as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and DSAP are predicated on building to the back of
sidewalks. Option 5 captures this approach by making no specific provision aside from how DCE
already addresses setbacks (20 ft. for side and rear where adjacent single-family residential),
while including consideration of capped building heights and required upper floor stepback
treatments to address height, bulk and scale issues.
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5437
60
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit
61
Date Rec'd
Staff_1 2.dJ-i0i3q '/),s e
Pamela Land Use AP-lapoina Boat
-
City of Kent
From: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:05 PM
To: Osborne, William; Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com; Satterstrom, Fred
Cc: Mottram, Pamela;juliembrown@qwest.net
Subject: Re: Building Height Regulations in DCE Zone-Formal submittal from Mill Creek
Attachments: HeightRegulations.doc
Mr. Satterstrom and Mr. Osborne,
Attached is our formal trade study and ranking of the Height Regulation Options for the DCE
transition zone. The attached was authored by me but it had inputs and review from many Mill
Creek residents directly affected. Their names are on the back page.
The bottom line of the study is that the residents can support your Option
4 for the transition overlay even though Option 1 and Option la (the original docket submittal)
are the best obviously for us.
We do have three caveats to this support and they are;
1. A DCE zoned building must have its fronts on a DCE street and not on a residential street.
2. The DCE zone cannot be extended into the residential zone beyond its current position. We
think this is especially important for the zone line that bisects the Smith/Temperance, Jason
/Clark block on an east-west line.
3. Any DCE buildings be confined to existing parcel property lines and not be allowed to have a
footprint across existing parcels.
The study will discuss the reasoning behind these caveats and the logic behind being able to
support your Option 4.
Hopefully this study will help support your efforts in preparation for the LUPB workshop and
subsequent hearing. We plan on attending both meetings in June.
As you know, Julie Brown and I will be out of country starting this week. I am back June 5th. I
may have access to e-mail occasionally but am not counting on it. But I am here until Friday the
21st so if there are any clarifications I can provide in the next couple of days, please contact me.
Mike Johnson
</HTML>
Exhibit#_
_ -62
Date Rec'd
May 17, 2010 staff
Lang Use &Planning Soard
City of Kent,
To: Fred Satterstrom, Kent Planning Department Director
From: Michael Johnson, Mill Creek Neighborhood Resident and Treasurer of
Mill Creek Neighborhood Council
Subj: Kent City DCE Zone Height Regulations
Reference 2009 Docket Request DKT-2009-1 DCE-Building Heights
Amendment filed August 28, 2009
Dear Mr. Satterstrom,
I first would like to thank you and the City of Kent for accepting and processing our
reference 2009 Docket request for adding a height regulation to the DCE zone
boundaries next to residential zones. We also appreciate the informational meeting
you held May 12th to show us some possible other options on how to incorporate a
height restriction to the DCE boundary. And we thank you for recognizing
essentially that since the current City code is quiet on any height restrictions in the
DCE zone, it creates an untenable situation on its boundaries to residential zones
without a change to the regulations.
I and a group of very concerned Mill Creek Neighborhood residents attended your
meeting on May 12th. As we indicated at the meeting, we would like to give you a
united response from this group of residents-all of who are in close proximity to the
DCE boundary and have a very keen interest in the detail of the regulations
adopted.
We recognize that there are competing interests at play here. If there weren't then
we are sure you would adopt the regulation as we proposed it in the reference
docket; namely a 300-foot buffer transition at the edge of the DCE zone abutting
residential zones.
So we decided to give you our rankings of the proposed options presented on May
12th. And of course to do a ranking, we need to tell you our criteria.
(I apologize for this formality, it is the ex-Boeing manager in me-we were always
doing trade studies!)
First our criteria for judging the options. Essentially there is only one criterion for us
relative to this regulation, and that is visual impact. Visual impact has three
components to us.
1. Elevation-angle to the top of the structure. The lower the elevation-angle, the
better. We do need to define the parameters of this calculation though because
it depends on 3 parameters; 1) the height of the structure, 2) the height of the
observer, and 3) the distance between them. For this trade study, the height of
the observer is set at 5 feet, equivalent to a person sitting in a residence whose
floor is 2 feet above ground level.
The third parameter, distance between the observer and the top of the
structure, has 3 components. These are; 1) setback of the residence fagade
from the residential property line, 2) distance between the residential property
line and the DCE property line, and 3) setback of the DCE structure fagade from
its property line.
1 of 5
63
The setback ofthe residence fagade from its property line is set at 20-feet,
which is probably a minimum in most cases.
The distance between the residential property line and the DCE property line is
set at 50-feet. For example, this is the distance across Jason Ave. between the
inside of each opposing sidewalk. This distance will be about the same for all
the DCE to residential properties, since with only one exception the DCE zone
line is on a street abutting a residential zone. That exception is for properties
lying between Jason and Clark and Smith and Temperance. But in fairness to
this trade study, we have decided to make a ranking on the more dominant
case, namely the case with a street between the two zones.
The setback of the DCE structure fagade from the property line is a crucial
elevation parameter for these close ranges. And the number here is either zero
or 20 feet depending on the Option list but also the direction of where the
front(s) of the DCE buildings is facing. For example, if the DCE transition zone
were rezoned to either MR-T16 or GC, those zone rules call for a 20-foot fagade
setback minimum on all sides.
Options 1, 4, and 5 call for a fagade setback of 20-foot for only the side and
rear. But if we think about the actual usage of a DCE building, it is very
probable that it would never face the residential street. It would nearly always
have its front facing inward to the DCE zone since that is where the "downtown"
is and where the users of this building are most likely to be coming from, and
where the DCE building owners would want their users to be coming from.
So since the 20-foot fagade setback is so important, it seems like we should not
penalize Options 1, 4, and 5 for having no fagade setback when in practically all
cases, the residential zone will not be presented with the front of the building,
only its side or rear.
So for this trade study we are assuming this case, i.e. 20-foot fagade
setback for all Options. And the way to accept our trade conclusions as
valid is to stipulate in the future transition regulations that any DCE
building will in fact face the DCE zone and not the residential zone.
(If we did not add the 20-foot fagade setback requirement to Options 1, 4, and
5, it would increase the elevation-angle for the residential observer from 18-
degrees (for a 35-foot building with a 20-foot fagade setback) to 23-degrees (for
a 35-foot building with no fagade setback). This difference would be fairly
noticeable and substantial.)
2. Width of the structure. A massive structure taking up a whole block is much
less desired than possibly a series of smaller structures that have some spacing,
even if they individually might be higher than the massive structure.
3. Visual Esthetics of the structure. A more attractive structure fitting into our
neighborhood look is very important. Even if we have to give away some height
restriction.
So taking these above criteria, below is our ranking of the Options in reverse order
of preference. We have included comments to highlight our reasoning. We are also
including an option la, which is our original docket proposal.
Option 0: No Action.
This is a non-starter to us. The current situation, as indicated earlier, is untenable.
We filed the docket to get some regulations.
2 of 5
64
Option 3: Change to General Commercial Zone.
Although rezoning to GC does appear to limit the height to 35-feet, it appears there
is room for more stories with approval from the Planning Manager and or the LUPB.
It does not look like a very firm limit to us. And with a GC zone, the esthetics of the
likely building would likely not be in keeping with the Neighborhood at all. We think
that the requirement for a Design Review for a building inside the DCE is a very
important criterion to maintaining visual esthetics. This option has very little to
recommend it over Option 2.
Option 5: Leave as DCE Zone, 50-foot height limit with Enhanced Design
Reviews.
We do not think there is any advantage of this option over Option 4. It is less
appealing because there is no firm regulation on limiting the height to 35- feet
before reaching a 60-foot adjacency setback like in Option 4. And with a 50-foot
building starting at a 20-foot fagade setback there would be an elevation-angle of
27-degrees, a significant increase from a 35-foot building elevation-angle of 18-
degrees. We just do not like the open-ended criteria of Option 5 and the possibility
of getting a 50-foot building starting right at the 20-foot fagade setback.
Option 2: Change to MR-T16 Zone.
If we understand MR-T16, namely individual townhouses, then this has some good
features. It limits the height to 30-feet, which gives us an elevation-angle of 15-
degrees to a 30-foot building from our observer across the street as opposed to an
18-degree elevation-angle to a 35-foot building. And if MR-T16 really does mean
small townhouses with space between, then this is a definite plus to minimize the
width mass. If however MR-T16 can result in a large apartment complex or
townhouses abutting each other, there would not be any advantage of this option
over Option 4.
The esthetics of townhouses are most likely always better for the residential
neighborhood character over a DCE Office building or a GC zone building. But on
the other hand, there is no Design Review so we could get something not very
attractive. If we weigh on one side 1) the importance of a Design Review, and 2)
the small difference in angle between 15 and 18 degrees, against hoping for a good
looking set of spaced townhouses, Option 4 would likely be preferable. But it is a
close call if the MR-T16 zone really does result in spaced individual town houses. A
way to remove this close call is to insert a rule that DCE buildings cannot have a
footprint that goes outside an existing parcel property line.
Option 4: Leave as DCE Zone,, 50-foot height limit with 60-foot adjacency
setback.
The best feature of Option 4 over Option 5 is the limitation to 35-foot,height until
getting to a 60-foot adjacency setback on all sides from the residential zone. And to
make clear, we are defining adjacency setback as the distance from the DCE
property line into the property. And another good feature is the Design Review,
which makes this a better option over Options 2 and 3. But a negative feature is
that an Option 4 building could have a lot of width mass, possibly more so than the
spaced townhouse possibility in Option 2. But this is only true if the Option 4
building extends across several individual existing parcels. It would be a positive for
this option to preclude the possibility of these buildings having a footprint extending
over more than one parcel.
The 50-foot height of the Option 4 structure gives an elevation-angle of 19-
degrees for our residential observer; one degree more than the 18-degrees to the
3 of 5
65
top of the 35-foot structure fagade. This calculation uses the 60-foot adjacency
setback before the 50-foot height can start-which is really only 40-feet in from the
fagade. So the 50-foot height part of the structure will be the governing structure
for computation of the elevation-angle for our residential observer, but it is not
significant over the elevation-angle to the front edge of the 35-foot structure.
So in summary, the elevation-angle will be 19-degrees for our residential observer
and then decrease from there the further away or higher up.
A negative is that the governing elevation angle in all cases will be the 50-foot
height part of the structure instead of the 35-foot height part of the structure. For
example for someone a block away from the zone boundary, 300-feet, the elevation
angle difference between the 35-foot structure and the 50-foot structure is 2
degrees. But this is not enough to discard Option 4.
Option la-Leave as DCE Zone-Original Docket DKT-2009-1
This option is a bit different than your Option 1 which limited the height to 35-feet
in all properties in the DCE zone that have any point of the property within 300-feet
of a residential boundary. Our docket submittal was less restrictive. An owner could
build to unlimited height on any portion of a property that was not within 300-feet
of a residential zone. We understand why your Option 1 included the whole
property, just to make any regulations more clear-cut.
This option obviously we have to support as our favorite since it limits the height to
35-feet up to 300-feet away from the residential zone. But your Option 1 is even
more restrictive, so we would support it even more favorably over our original
docket submittal. This option and Option 1 would also still have the possible
negative of a large building width mass so we would include the rule as in Option 4
that no DCE building could have a footprint over an existing parcel property line.
Option 1: Leave as DCE zone-35-foot height limit on any property within
300-feet of residential zone.
As explained in the previous paragraph, this is the best option for us since it gives
us even more distance than 300-feet in some of the geometry.
Summary.
Either Option la, or your Option 1, is our preferable outcomes. They give us the
maximum distance of height limitation into the DCE zone. And with the assumption
of the same footprint rule as discussed in Option 4, they clearly are the best options
for us.
But Option 4, with the 50-foot building height allowance at an adjacency setback of
60-feet from any the residential boundary, is an acceptable option. It only adds one
more degree of elevation angle, from 18 to 19 degrees, for our residential observer.
And it only makes a difference of 2-degrees for an observer a block away.
Option 2 is a possible choice but only if it absolutely results in townhouses that
have spacing between them and are attractive buildings. And the way to forgo this
choice is to make the rule as discussed that any DCE building footprint not extend
beyond any existing parcel property lines.
Bottom Line.
We understand the desire of the City to have as much elevation height as possible
inside the existing DCE zone area. For that reason, the below residents of Mill Creek
are prepared to support the choice of Option 4 for the DCE transition overlay next
to residential zoning. The Option 4 proposal to allow a 50-foot building but only 35-
4 of 5
66
feet until reaching 60-foot adjacency setback is a reasonable height compromise to
us. And the Design Review constraint on any Option 4 building is an important
feature.
But in exchange for that support for Option 4, there are three caveats in the DCE
transition overlay we need to see to confidently support this choice.
1. The first is our stipulation that a DCE zoned building must.have its fronts on a
DCE street and not on a residential street.
2. The second is that the DCE zone cannot be extended into the residential zone
beyond its current position. We think this is especially important for the zone
line that bisects the Smith/Temperance, Jason /Clark block on an east-west line.
3. The third is that any DCE buildings be confined to existing parcel property lines
and not be allowed to have a footprint across existing parcels. This gives us
some protection against a large width mass of the building.
The residents supporting this position are listed below. If signatures are needed
they can be obtained. And if necessary, we can solicit the support of many other
Mill Creek residents who are not part of this particular submittal.
Yours Truly,
Michael Johnson
Michael Johnson & Sharon Bersaas Greg &,Julie Brown
436 Jason Ave. N. 802 E. Temperance
Stacy Kroeze Vern & Joan Schultz
701 E. Temperance 704 E. Temperance
Dick & Ruby Armstrong Angela Schultz
709 E. Temperance 715 E. Temperance
Greg & Laura Gorder Kim Portera
318 Jason Ave. N. 617 E. Temperance
Casey Routh
387 Hazel Ave. N.
5 of 5
Ex ibi.4 `7 67
G "I .-
_Date—RI 51
From: D ULREY [ma ilto:big bird93@q.com] Staffi
Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:20 AM end City
t Planning Board .
To: Osborne, William /°$Kent
Subject: DCE Building Heights Options
We were at the meeting last week at the Kent Senior Center regarding the DCE Building Heights Goals.
We are in favor of Option 4 with regards to building heights next to residential areas.
Please let us know when the next Town Meeting will be and/or the City Council meeting when this subject
will be discussed.
Thank you and have a great day!
Dan and Sandy Ulrey
Mill Creek Historical Neighborhood
i
i
I
i
68
This page intentionally left blank.
From: Scott Bundren [mailto:scott.bundren@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,June 15, 2010 12:14 PM Exhibit# 69
To: Osborne, William • - - `j
Subject: interest in DCE zoning Date Rec'd -�5 jc7
staff. I��1S� ,
Land Use&Planning Bow
Hi William, City of bent
Thanks for speaking with me yesterday about the discussion currently happening regarding certain DCE zoned
properties.
I would be interested in being on the list of interested parties as you mentioned.
As I indicated, in general, I favor the existing standards, or perhaps a slight deviation from them to help
alleviate the concerns of buffers to the single-family zoned areas. I would also like to suggest looking at
something like the City of Seattle MR(Mid-Rise) zone as a possible compromise regarding height, although of
course allowing for further commercial uses than MR allows for as it is a residential designation.
Best Regards,
Scott Bundren
cell: 831-359-9378
r
i
70
Mottram, Pamela
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:27 PM
To: Anderson, Charlene
Cc: Mottram, Pamela
Subject: FW: interest in DCE zoning
FYI...from one of the DCE property owners I spoke with on the phone yesterday(Monday).
Wm
From: Scott Bundren [mailto:scott.bundren@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Osborne, William
Subject: interest in DCE zoning
Hi William,
Thanks for speaking with me yesterday about the discussion currently happening regarding certain DCE zoned
properties.
I would be interested in being on the list of interested parties as you mentioned.
As I indicated, in general, I favor the existing standards, or perhaps a slight deviation from them to help
alleviate the concerns of buffers to the single-family zoned areas. I would also like to suggest looking at
something like the City of Seattle MR(Mid-Rise) zone as a possible compromise regarding height, although of
course allowing for further commercial uses than MR allows for as it is a residential designation.
Best Regards,
Scott Bundren
cell: 831-359-9378 `
i
II
xhibit# 71
Data Reed —
Mottram, Pamela 7s
Land Use &Planning Board
From: Anderson, Charlene City of Kent
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 1:27 PM
To: Mottram, Pamela
Cc: Osborne, William
Subject: FW: DCE Height Restriction-Mill Creek Residents Trade Study
Attachments: HeightRegulations.doc
-----Original Message-----
From: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com [mailto:Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 1:09 PM
To: theralphs4@msn.com
Cc: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com; juliembrown@qwest.net; gorders6@comcast.net;
Ijschultz@netscape.com; kroeze@hotmail.com; descanter@msn.com; bersaas@aol.com;
nsmith@monsoonstudios.com; kimportera@comcast.net; aschultz@epkbenefits.com;
gbnetworking@gwest.net; Azzola, Toni; Osborne, William; Satterstrom, Fred
Subject: Re: DCE Height Restriction-Mill Creek Residents Trade Study
Chairperson Ralphs,
I am the submitter of the docket request to add a DCE height restriction on the boundary of the
DCE next to single family residential zones. I'm assuming you have a copy of that submittal.
Also several of us Mill Creek Neighborhood residents attended the LUPB workshop meeting on
Monday, June 14th on the DCE height restriction proposed regulation change. And as
background we have been providing feedback to Mr.
Satterstrom and Mr. Osborne on this issue as they have come up with the various other options
that were presented to you on Monday night.
Mr. Osborne did a good job of presenting the options their office have come up with as a
counter proposal to our docket submittal. But it was unclear to us whether you had access to our
formal trade study response to their office on the options. For that reason, I am sending you the
attachment of that letter so that your Board can use it as you deliberate these proposed options.
And we look forward to the opportunity to further publicly respond when you do have a meeting
for public testimony on this issue.
I would like to summarize our current position that is in the letter. We of course would prefer the
City adopt our docket proposal of a 300 hundred foot buffer with no building heights greater
than that of the single family residential zone, i.e., 35 feet. But we also recognize that the City
has a goal to not diminish the effective area of high density usage in the DCE. For that reason
we believe we have made a reasonable compromise to support the Option 4b that Mr. Osborne
has in his presentation.
We know based on the comments at the Monday meeting that the LUPB is going to be concerned
about making any restriction to the current DCE zoning rules so as to "not diminish any current
DCE property owners potential investment value". But look at from our residential owners point
of view-an unlimited height building on our boundary will diminish our investment value also. So
that is why we think a compromise is warranted.
It should be argued of course that this discussion should have happened when the DCE was
established and no height restriction was established for the boundaries. But it obviously didn't
1
72
and so we are where we are. The fact that all other cities in the Puget Sound region have height
restrictions on their boundaries of the downtown core tells me that Kent needs to adopt some
restrictions also as a matter of common practice.
So we hope this input on our views of these options are useful and of course if any of your board
members have any questions don't hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Michael Johnson
Treasurer Mill Creek Neighborhood </HTML>
2
73
May 17, 2010
Subject: Kent City DCE Zone Height Regulations
Reference: 2009 Docket Request DKT-2009-1 DCE-Building Heights
Amendment filed August 28, 2009
To : Fred Satterstrom, Kent Planning Department Director
From: Michael Johnson, Mill Creek Neighborhood Resident and Treasurer
of Mill Creek Neighborhood Council
Dear Mr. Satterstrom,
I first would like to thank you and the City of Kent for accepting and
processing our reference 2009 Docket request for adding a height regulation
to the DCE zone boundaries next to residential zones. We also appreciate the
informational meeting you held May 12th to show us some possible other
options on how to incorporate a height restriction to the DCE boundary. And
we thank you for recognizing essentially that since the current City code is
quiet on any height restrictions in the DCE zone, it creates an untenable
situation on its boundaries to residential zones without a change to the
regulations.
I and a group of very concerned Mill Creek Neighborhood residents attended
your meeting on May 12th. As we indicated at the meeting, we would like to
give you a united response from this group of residents-all of who are in
close proximity to the DCE boundary and have a very keen interest in the
detail of the regulations adopted.
We recognize that there are competing interests at play here. If there weren't
then we are sure you would adopt the regulation as we proposed it in the
reference docket; namely a 300-foot buffer transition at the edge of the DCE
zone abutting residential zones.
So we decided to give you our rankings of the proposed options presented on
May 12th. And of course to do a ranking, we need to tell you our criteria.
(I apologize for this formality, it is the ex-Boeing manager in me-we were
always doing trade studies!)
74
First our criteria for judging the options. Essentially there is only one
criterion for us relative to this regulation, and that is visual impact. Visual
impact has three components to us.
1. Elevation-angle to the top of the structure. The lower the elevation-
angle, the better. We do need to define the parameters of this calculation
though because it depends on 3 parameters; 1) the height of the structure,
2) the height of the observer, and 3) the distance between them. For this
trade study, the height of the observer is set at 5 feet, equivalent to a
person sitting in a residence whose floor is 2 feet above ground level.
The third parameter, distance between the observer and the top of the
structure, has 3 components. These are; 1) setback of the residence facade
from the residential property line, 2) distance between the residential
property line and the DCE property line, and 3) setback of the DCE
structure facade from its property line.
The setback of the residence facade from its property line is set at 20-
feet, which is probably a minimum in most cases.
The distance between the residential property line and the DCE property
line is set at 50-feet. For example, this is the distance across Jason Ave.
between the inside of each opposing sidewalk. This distance will be
about the same for all the DCE to residential properties, since with only
one exception the DCE zone line is on a street abutting a residential zone.
That exception is for properties lying between Jason and Clark and Smith
and Temperance. But in fairness to this trade study, we have decided to
make a ranking on the more dominant case, namely the case with a street
between the two zones.
The setback of the DCE structure facade from the property line is a
crucial elevation parameter for these close ranges. And the number here
is either zero or 20 feet depending on the Option list but also the direction
of where the front(s) of the DCE buildings is facing. For example, if the
DCE transition zone were rezoned to either MR-T16 or GC, those zone
rules call for a 20-foot facade setback minimum on all sides. Options 1,
4, and 5 call for a facade setback of 20-foot for only the side and rear.
But if we think about the actual usage of a DCE building, it is very
probable that it would never face the residential street. It would nearly
always have its front facing inward to the DCE zone since that is where
75
the "downtown" is and where the users of this building are most likely to
be coming from, and where the DCE building owners would want their
users to be coming from.
So since the 20-foot facade setback is so important, it seems like we
should not penalize Options 1, 4, and 5 for having no facade setback
when in practically all cases, the residential zone will not be presented
with the front of the building, only its side or rear. So for this trade
study we are assuming this case, i.e. 20-foot facade setback for all
Options. And the way to accept our trade conclusions as valid is to
stipulate in the future transition regulations that any DCE building
will in fact face the DCE zone and not the residential zone.
(If we did not add the 20-foot fagaade setback requirement to Options 1, 4,
and 5, it would increase the elevation-angle for the residential observer
from 18-degrees (for a 35-foot building with a 20-foot facade setback) to
23-degrees (for a 35-foot building with no facade setback). This
difference would be fairly noticeable and substantial.)
2. Width of the structure. A massive structure taking up a whole block is
much less desired than possibly a series of smaller structures that have
some spacing, even if they individually might be higher than the massive
structure.
3. Visual Esthetics of the structure. A more attractive structure fitting into
our neighborhood look is very important. Even if we have to give away
some height restriction.
So taking these above criteria, below is our ranking of the Options in reverse
order of preference. We have included comments to highlight our reasoning.
We are also including an option 1 a, which is our original docket proposal.
Option 0: No Action.
This is a non-starter to us. The current situation, as indicated earlier, is
untenable. We filed the docket to get some regulations.
Option 3: Change to General Commercial Zone.
76
Although rezoning to GC does appear to limit the height to 35-feet, it
appears there is room for more stories with approval from the Planning
Manager and or the LUPB. It does not look like a very firm limit to us. And
with a GC zone, the esthetics of the likely building would likely not be in
keeping with the Neighborhood at all. We think that the requirement for a
Design Review for a building inside the DCE is a very important criterion to
maintaining visual esthetics. This option has very little to recommend it over
Option 2.
Option 5: Leave as DCE Zone, 50-foot height limit with Enhanced
Design Reviews.
We do not think there is any advantage of this option over Option 4. It is less
appealing because there is no firm regulation on limiting the height to 35-
feet before reaching a 60-foot adjacency setback like in Option 4. And with
a 50-foot building starting at a 20-foot facade setback there would be an
elevation-angle of 27-degrees, a significant increase from a 35-foot building
elevation-angle of 18-degrees. We just do not like the open-ended criteria of
Option 5 and the possibility of getting a 50-foot building starting right at the
20-foot facade setback.
Option 2: Change to MR-T16 Zone.
If we understand MR-T16, namely individual townhouses, then this has
some good features. It limits the height to 30-feet, which gives us an
elevation-angle of 15-degrees to a 30-foot building from our observer across
the street as opposed to an 18-degree elevation-angle to a 35-foot building.
And if MR-T 16 really does mean small townhouses with space between,
then this is a definite plus to minimize the width mass. If however MR-T 16
can result in a large apartment complex or townhouses abutting each other,
there would not be any advantage of this option over Option 4.
The esthetics of townhouses are most likely always better for the residential
neighborhood character over a DCE Office building or a GC zone building.
But on the other hand, there is no Design Review so we could get something
not very attractive. If we weigh on one side 1) the importance of a Design
77
Review, and 2) the small difference in angle between 15 and 18 degrees,
against hoping for a good looking set of spaced townhouses, Option 4 would
likely be preferable. But it is a close call if the MR-T 16 zone really does
result in spaced individual town houses. A way to remove this close call is to
insert a rule that DCE buildings cannot have a footprint that goes outside an
existing parcel property line.
Option 4: Leave as DCE Zone, 50-foot height limit with 60-foot
adjacency setback.
The best feature of Option 4 over Option 5 is the limitation to 35-foot height
until getting to a 60-foot adjacency setback on all sides from the residential
zone. And to make clear, we are defining adjacency setback as the distance
from the DCE property line into the property. And another good feature is
the Design Review, which makes this a better option over Options 2 and 3.
But a negative feature is that an Option 4 building could have a lot of width
mass, possibly more so than the spaced townhouse possibility in Option 2.
But this is only true if the Option 4 building extends across several
individual existing parcels. It would be a positive for this option to preclude
the possibility of these buildings having a footprint extending over more
than one parcel.
The 50-foot height of the Option 4 structure gives an elevation-angle of 19-
degrees for our residential observer; one degree more than the 18-degrees to
the top of the 35-foot structure fagade. This calculation uses the 60-foot
adjacency setback before the 50-foot height can start-which is really only
40-feet in from the fagade. So the 50-foot height part of the structure will be
the governing structure for computation of the elevation-angle for our
residential observer, but it is not significant over the elevation-angle to the
front edge of the 35-foot structure.
So in summary, the elevation-angle will be 19-degrees for our residential
observer and then decrease from there the further away or higher up.
A negative is that the governing elevation angle in all cases will be the 50-
foot height part of the structure instead of the 35-foot height part of the
structure. For example for someone a block away from the zone boundary,
300-feet, the elevation angle difference between the 35-foot structure and the
50-foot structure is 2 degrees. But this is not enough to discard Option 4.
78
Option la-Leave as DCE Zone-Original Docket DKT-2009-1
This option is a bit different than your Option 1 which limited the height to
35-feet in all properties in the DCE zone that have any point of the property
within 300-feet of a residential boundary. Our docket submittal was less
restrictive. An owner could build to unlimited height on any portion of a
property that was not within 300-feet of a residential zone. We understand
why your Option 1 included the whole property,just to make any regulations
more clear-cut.
This option obviously we have to support as our favorite since it limits the
height to 354eet up to 300-feet away from the residential zone. But your
Option 1 is even more restrictive, so we would support it even more
favorably over our original docket submittal. This option and Option 1
would also still have the possible negative of a large building width mass so
we would include the rule as in Option 4 that no DCE building could have a
footprint over an existing parcel property line.
Option 1: Leave as DCE zone-35-foot height limit on any property
within 300-feet of residential zone.
As explained in the previous paragraph, this is the best option for us since it
gives us even more distance than 300-feet in some of the geometry.
Summary.
Either Option la, or your Option 1, are our preferable outcomes. They give
us the maximum distance of height limitation into the DCE zone. And with
the assumption of the same footprint rule as discussed in Option 4, they
clearly are the best options for us.
But Option 4, with the 50-foot building height allowance at an adjacency
setback of 60-feet from any the residential boundary, is an acceptable option.
It only adds one more degree of elevation angle, from 18 to 19 degrees, for
our residential observer. And it only makes a difference of 2-degrees for an
observer a block away.
Option 2 is a possible choice but only if it absolutely results in townhouses
that have spacing between them and are attractive buildings. And the way to
79
forgo this choice is to make the rule as discussed that any DCE building
footprint not extend beyond any existing parcel property lines.
Bottom Line.
We understand the desire of the City to have as much elevation height as
possible inside the existing DCE zone area. For that reason, the below
residents of Mill Creek are prepared to support the choice of Option 4 for the
DCE transition overlay next to residential zoning. The Option 4 proposal to
allow a 50-foot building but only 35-feet until reaching 60-foot adjacency
setback is a reasonable height compromise to us. And the Design Review
constraint on any Option 4 building is an important feature.
But in exchange for that support for Option 4, there are three caveats in the
DCE transition overlay we need to see to confidently support this choice.
I. The first is our stipulation that a DCE zoned building must have it's
fronts on a DCE street and not on a residential street.
2. The second is that the DCE zone cannot be extended into the residential
zone beyond its current position. We think this is especially important for
the zone line that bisects the Smith/Temperance, Jason /Clark block on a
east-west line.
3. The third is that any DCE buildings be confined to existing parcel
property lines and not be allowed to have a footprint across existing
parcels. This gives us some protection against a large width mass of the
building.
The residents supporting this position are listed below. If signatures are
needed they can be obtained. And if necessary, we can solicit the support of
many other Mill Creek residents who are not part of this particular submittal.
Yours Truly,
Michael Johnson
Michael Johnson & Sharon Bersaas Greg & Julie Brown
436 Jason Ave. N. 802 E. Temperance
80
Stacy Kroeze Vern & Joan Schultz
701 E. Temperance 704 E. Temperance
Dick & Ruby Armstrong Angela Schultz
709 E. Temperance 715 E. Temperance
Greg & Laura Gorder Kim Portera
318 Jason Ave. N. 617 E. Temperance
Casey Routh
387 Hazel Ave. N.
orlq.
Exhibit
- itiliTS
Date Rec'd /a-
Mottram, Pamela Staff A/ham nsL�o
From: Daniel Daoura[daniel@daoura.com] City of Kent
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:05 PM
To: Mottram, Pamela; Osborne, William
Subject: Re: Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)Workshop Packet- DCE Height Limits
I just noticed that in my note below I made a reference to Option 6, I mean Option 7 (the new one I am
proposing).
Thank you,
Daniel
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Daniel Daoura<daniel e,daoura.com>wrote:
Hi Pamela:
Would you please consider adding an additional option for this workshop as follows:
Option 7 — Rezone current single family adjacent to DCE zoning
The City would adopt a Multifamily Residential Townhouse; 16 dwelling unit per acre
(MR-T16) Zoning District designation, or similar, for any single-family residential parcel
having a portion of its area located within 300 feet of a parcel zoned as DCE. This option
would reduce the available height for new development in the Urban Center adjacent to
single-family residential neighborhoods that are beyond the 300 foot buffer (30 ft., less
than singlefamily residential), as well as restrict the permitted land use to condominium
dwellings. As the MR-T zones are permitted within the Urban Center (UC) Land Use Map
designation, no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be
necessary. This option does not reduce current DCE property owner rights, and
increases current single-family zoned property rights, within the 300 foot buffer, by
allowing them more flexibility. This option will allow for a transitional overlay within the
DCE Zoning district.
This Option 6, will address all of the Johnson Proposal's concerns regarding abutting building heights,
views, solar access impacts, etc... without taking away DCE property owner's rights with no consideration
for compensation.
Thank you,
Daniel
82
Moftram Pamela
From: Osborne, William
Gwmi 20109:39 AM '
To: Anderson, Charlene; Geftanstrom. Fred
Cc: K0oftram. Ponno|a
Subject: FVV Land Use& Planning Board (LUPB)Workshop Packet- DCE Height Umito
Importance: High
^
FYI...vve have anoption proposed bvaD[E property owner. Looks like it would expand the geographic extent ofthe
project, and most certainly require a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment as well as rezone—and perhaps
added notification to COK4 and PSRC regarding possible expansion of the designated Urban Center.
Thoughts about moving forward with consideration of this option?
William D. Osborno, AICP
Planning Division | ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 | D|reo1os3-g56-54a7
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
From: Daniel DaounaTmaiKo:danie|@daouna.conn ,
Sent:Tuesday,]ulyO6, 2010 10 05 Rq
To: Mottram, Pamela; Osborne, William
Subject: Re: Land Use&Planning Board /LUP8l Workshop Packet- DCE Height Limits
[just noticed that in my note below I made a reference to Option 6, T mean Option 7 (the new one Tam
proposing).
Thank you,
Daniel
�
. .
'
^
' ^ ~
'
`
�
| '
83
From: Daniel Daoura [mailto:daniel@daoura.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Osborne, William
Cc: Mottram, Pamela
Subject: Re: Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) Workshop Packet-
DCE Height Limits
Hi William:
Will my suggestion be added to the list of options at the
workshop?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 7, 2010, at 10:18 AM, "Osborne, William"
<WOsborne@ci.kent.wa.us>wrote:
Mr. Daoura,
Thank you for submitting your request and comments.
Regards,
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454-1 Direct-253-856-5437
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
7
84
Mottram, Pamela
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 11:41 AM
To: 'Daniel Daoura'
Cc: Mottram, Pamela; Anderson, Charlene; Satterstrom, Fred
Subject: RE: Land Use& Planning Board (LUPB)Workshop Packet- DCE Height Limits
Mr. Daoura,
As we have already issued the July 12th workshop packet,the fact that your suggested option is anticipated from our
correspondence will be mentioned briefly during the staff presentation at the workshop.. The Land Use & Planning
Board may request further staff examination of this option and other issues for presentation at another workshop. Or
the Board may instead expect and accept your testimony(and that of other citizens) at a scheduled public hearing. Your
testimony may also be considered to include any materials you choose to submit for the public record.
Please note that Pam Mottram includes our correspondence as a public record for the DCE Height Limits project file
(CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2).
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5437
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
I
i
85
Moffram, Pamela
From: Osborne, VW|Uon`
Sent 3. 20103:41PM
To: 'Daniel Daoura'
Cc: K8ottronn, Pamela
Subject: RE: Land Use& Planning Board (LUPE)Workshop Panket- OCE Haight Limits
Good afternoon, K4c Daou,a.
Before I attempt to characterize Option 7 for the staff report, I have a few clarifying questions regarding language in
your previous message:
1\ The following language is included in your description... '
"This option would reduce the available heightfor new development in the Urban Center adjacent.to single-
familynsidentia/ne/ghbmhnnds...AstheMR-Tzonesorepermittedwithin the Urban Center(UC)Land Use Map
designation, no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be necessary."
a) Point of information-existing single-family residential zoning districts adjacent to DCE are not within the
designated Urban Center. �
b) Any amendment of single-family residential zoning anywhere within the City limits (even for an increase in
density for single-family residential use)would almost certainly require on amendment ofthe ~`
Compreh�isive Plan Land Use Map—and this would certainly betrue in this circumstance.
c\ Is the first sentence included to encourage setting height limit for DCE zoning adjacent to single-family
residential zones? It might be read thatway—it ix the same language from other Option descriptions.
Z) The following language concludes your description of Option 7:
'This option does not reduce current D[E property owner rights, and Increases current single-family zoned
property rights, within the 3O0 foot buffer, by allowing them more flexibility. This option will allow for otransitional
overlay within the DCE Zoning district."
o\ |sit your intention tohave Option 7 stand alone?
Please respond as soon as possible with clarifications and any questions you might have.
Regards,
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division | ECDDepartment
Rain 253-856-5454 | Direct 253-856-5437
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
'
^
^
. .
�
| '
From: Daniel Daoura [mailto:daniel@daoura.com] 86
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:38 PM
To: Osborne, William
Cc: Mottram, Pamela
Subject: Re: Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) Workshop Packet - DCE Height Limits
Hi William,
I have just left you a voicemail. You are right about your observations below and I concur with paragraph 2)
below. As you indicated the wording should state:
"This option does not reduce current DCE property owner rights, and increases current single-family zoned
property rights, within the 300 foot buffer, by allowing them more flexibility. This option will allow far a transitional
overlay within the DCE Zoning district."
Yes it is my intention to leave option 7 stand alone as it is completely different then all the other existing
options that favor downzoning DCE properties adjacent to single family within 300 feet.
Another point of interest I would like presented to the board is to change the 300 foot buffer to 200 feet across
all options. That should still be plenty enough for a buffer given that all other unaffected DCE zoned properties
will still have no hight restriction and retain current zoning rights. This will reduce the number of affected
DCE properties,reducing resistance from property owners.
As I mentioned to you over the phone, I am an investor and have purchased this property as an investment. I did
not only purchase land and real estate, I've purchased real property with right of no height restriction and not
setbacks. Now the city wants to make changes by reducing my building rights in turn reducing my property
value by half or more! How is the city planning on compensating for this loss of value? The future potential of
a DCE zoned property has much more growth potential than a property with any of the city's proposed options
i
1-6.
What about currently property.DCE zonedthat will retain their DCE rights. They can still block views of
i effect for almost 20 ears and investors such as myself
single family residence. This DCE zoning has been n e y Y
invest accordingly, then the city takes away those valuable rights that have a large monetary value, without
consideration.
I am only protecting my investment and interests. The single family residence owners have nothing to loose, a
building construction adjoining them is inevitable and has been for 20 years!!! DCE property owners on the
other hand have a lot to loose in monetary and time vested into their investment properties.
Please make all of the above comments and points available for the board for review.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
87
Mottram, Pamela
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:24 AM
To: 'Daniel Daoura'
Cc: Mottram, Pamela
Subject: RE: Land Use& Planning Board (LUPB)Workshop Packet- DCE Height Limits
Importance: High
Mr. Daoura,
Of course,your written comments will be included in the public record.
We should be as comprehensive as possible in capturing your intent in describing Option 7. 1 believe that we can
improve our understanding of your suggestion.
4 Is the 200 ft. Buffer into the DCE Zoning District to be included in Option 7?
® If so, do you have any proposed dimensional limitations for buildings(height,setbacks/upper floor stepbacks,
etc.) within the DCE Zoning District?
NOTE:The Single-Family Residential, 6.05 dwelling units per acre (SR-6)Zoning District is NOT within the DCE Zoning
District—these distinct zones abut one another—also,the SR-6 is NOT within the Urban Center Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map designated area.
In concluding; if we are to understand Option 7 as a 'stand alone'option, rather than a tag-on that addresses only the
single-family residential zones outside of DCE,we must have more detail from you regarding how the buffer within DCE
is addressed (as is suggested in your description—bolded sentence). Or the description you've provided may need to be
revised.
Regards,
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 I Direct 253-856-5437
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
Ii
88
Mottram, Pamela
From: Daniel Daoura [daniel@daoura.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:52 AM
To: Osborne, William
Cc: Mottram, Pamela
Subject: Re: Land Use& Planning Board (LUPB)Workshop Packet- DCE Height Limits
Good morning William,
The 200 foot buffer is a suggestion for change to be applied on options 1-7. It is not a new option. Option 7
will address the transitional overlay by allowing for a transition 200 ft along single family dwelling abutting'
DCE zoned properties. I think I just realized an error in that option seven should state a transitional overlay
within the single family zoning district abutting DCE zoned properties. Therefore:
"This option does not reduce current DCE property owner rights, and increases current
single-family zoned property rights, within the 200 foot buffer, by allowing them more
flexibility. This option will allow for a transitional overlay within the SR-6 Zoning district."
For setbacks and height limitations on new zoning for the currently zoned SR-6 properties within 200ft of DCE
zoned properties, I would leave that up for the city to decide.
Thanks for clarifying and noticing the inconsistency.
Let's discuss any further detail over the phone if there is still any confusion. We can document our conversation
over email after discussion. I tried contacting you at about 8:35 but your answering machine picked up.
Cheers,
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
_
89
Moftram Pamela
From: Donia| Doouna k@doou
Sent: Wednesday, 14. 20109:22AM
To: Osborne, William
Cc: Mottram. Famela
Subject: Re: Land Use& Planning Board (LUPE)Workshop Packet' 0CE Height UmKo .
Correct. Thank you.
Cheers,
Daniel .
Sent from myiPhone
On Jul 14 20lA a1g:04 AM. « William" wrote:
McDaoura�
�
� ~
`
r
| reviewed yourvoice mail a few minutes ago, A2OO ft. buffer into the DCE zone, rather than a3OOft.
� buffer would be addressed as a separate option (Option 8)—for discussion and possible incorporation
into other options. '
�
To confirm, Option 7 has been changed to introduce proposed MR-T16 zoning(and appropriate
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation, LDMF> 2O0 ft. rather than 3OO ft. into existing SR-6
zoning?
William D. Osborne, AIC0»
� Planning Division | E[D Department
Main 253-856-5454 | Direct 253-856-5437
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
' ^ `
`
�
90
Mottram, Pamela
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'Daniel Daoura'
Cc: Mottram, Pamela
Subject: RE: Land Use& Planning Board (LUPB)Workshop Packet- DCE Height Limits
Mr. Daoura,
You would be most certainly welcome to supplement the written record and staff report with further written and/or
oral testimony at the Public Hearing to ensure that your interests and concerns are addressed.
William D. Osborne, AICP
Planning Division I ECD Department
Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5437
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL
From: Daniel Daoura [mailto:daniel@daoura.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:30 AM
To: Osborne, William
Cc: Mottram, Pamela
Subject: Re: Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) Workshop Packet- DCE Height Limits
William,
Is there any chance I can view the packet information, or at least the additions you will be making with regard
to my suggestions prior to sharing it with the public so that I can verify you've captured my intent?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Daniel
Sent from my iPhone
91
RECEIVED
Mr. William D. Osborne, City of Kent JUL 0 9 2010
400 W. Gowe CITY OF KEN
Kent, WA 98032 PLANNIZAG SERVICES
Date Req'd June 29, 2010
Staff,tj 1i UjQYn
Land Use&Planning Board
Mr. Osborne, City®f Kent
Thank you for taking my call this morning regarding building height restrictions. Too many times I
have been forwarded to a voice mail. Thanks again. As I mentioned, I came here with my family in June
1970 and have watched the community change in various ways. In 1970, we had to go to Auburn or Renton
just to get a pizza. I had the opportunity to watch the growth from a position of Kent school board member
for 18 1/2years and helped build new schools to support the positive family growth east of Kent. I was a
member of the Chamber and Rotary for many years and tried to be a community activist for positive growth.
While the East Side grew Kent remained stagnant for many years. We had the apartment growth
along with the shipping industry growth with all of the trucks. The only real positive change occurred when
the Borden field complex and cold storage were converted into desirable shopping that would make the
community proud and people would use. I have shopped in that complex more in the last 5 years than the
cumulative years in the Kent area. It took imagination and risk to try something like that. Winning the
South King County Regional Justice Center was the start to draw people into Kent. Kent has to maintain the
positive support for 'good' growth.
I think with all of the issues facing the building industry, creating too many restrictions will hamper
growth. Especially in the economy we are living with. As to the views,most of the houses in the lower Kent
area are very old and limiting heights to preserve some form of view is not very progressive. Bellevue had
some,residential holdouts living along side 30 story buildings for years. That is their right to live in those
areas. Most of the houses in the valley area are not worth much. I have one of them and tore down several
.others.
I have built several professional buildings and the contractors complained of dealing with the City of
Kent. I even lost one contractor in the middle of building on 100"'Avenue. Another said he would never
build in the City of Kent again. One small example: My first building at 10002 had water meters facing a
certain way to be read. Several years later on the 100th Ave project, the contractor matched the meters less
than 40 feet apart only to be told by Glen Bearson of the City of Kent that he had to dig the meters up and
tam them 45 degrees even though it did not match existing meters. Somebody has to pay for these types of
issues and when your own people really do not care, it projects a bad image towards the City. It is difficult
enough to build anything with all of the new regulations and restrictions have discouraged me from any new
projects. I have walked away from one and not developed several others.
I have always defended the Kent area when asked by.friends why I lived there and have been proud
of the Kent School System. My children grew up in the Kent area and the Kent Parks were an integral part
of my family activities. I hope Kent can continue to be progressive. I spent most of my life with a Kent
address and invested thousands of donated hours to try to make it better.
Yours truly,
Edward.H.. Kosnos
J <#
f�
� {b..,
M
t!: V
�•. ••Y
3
t� uj ` tU
E W ti
li yj
O o t�t
IL)
o)< G�J
' N N
C
W� tv
0
93
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
WA5HINCTON Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
July 19, 2010
To: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use & Planning Board Members
From: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Subject: Zoning Density — Rounding Calculations [ZCA-2010-1]
For Hearing of July 26, 2010
SUMMARY: In February, 2006 staff discussed with the Land Use & Planning Board regulations
which support achievement of allowable zoning density on a site. Included in the discussion
were minimum lot sizes, easements, and rounding in density calculations. These issues
subsequently were included in the residential development standards project which began in
May, 2006. Since then, some residents have commented that utilizing the code provision for
rounding can create building lots whose size conflicts with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Following direction from the Economic & Community Development Committee
of the City Council, staff presented to the Board on July 12t" several options for code
amendments related to rounding. Additional options are included for the public hearing.
BACKGROUND: With the advent of the Growth Management Act (the "Act"), Kent is expected
to encourage urban growth and accommodate projected population and employment growth.
The Act requires review, evaluation, and adjustment of codes and ordinances to ensure the City
has sufficient suitable land to accommodate the growth projections, based on the actual
densities being achieved every five years (Buildable Lands Program). Rounding in density
calculations is one way to affect densities actually achieved and also is available as an offset to
the additional requirements imposed on subdivisions as a result of the amendments to
residential development standards. However, the City has discretion to make choices about
how growth is accommodated and is guided by other goals such as protecting property rights
and the environment, preserving existing housing stock, promoting a variety of densities and
housing types, and encouraging the availability of housing that is affordable to all economic
segments. The Kent Comprehensive Plan includes preservation and improvement of residential
neighborhoods as a housing goal.
Staff researched regulations from other cities with regard to density calculations, and the
options set forth below are informed by those regulations which provide for a narrow scope of
code amendment. Staff also looked at residential short plat applications from January 1, 2009
to about mid-June and residential long plat applications from 2007 (the last year in which
applications were submitted for long plats). Of note is that for long plats, of 203 lots allowed
by zoned density, only 168 lots were requested and only one long plat applicant requested use
of rounding to obtain one additional lot. For short plats, of 82 lots allowed by zoned density,
only 39 lots were requested and two short plat applicants requested use of rounding to obtain
one additional lot.
94
OPTIONS:
All options utilize total site area to calculate density.
1. No change to existing code. In calculating maximum allowable density, fractions of 0.5
and below are rounded down and fractions above 0.5 are rounded up.
2. Change existing code such that in calculating maximum allowable density, fractions
below 0.75 are rounded down and fractions of 0.75 and above are rounded up.
3. For short plats and subdivisions of four (4) lots or greater, and for determining
maximum allowable density for other than short plats or subdivisions, calculate
maximum allowable density according to existing code. For short plats or subdivisions
of less than four (4) lots, and for determining maximum allowable density for other than
short plats or subdivisions, use the following calculation:
a. < 2 lots, 0.85 rounds up, < 0.85 rounds down.
b. > 2 < 3 lots, 0.75 rounds up, < 0.75 rounds down.
c. > 3 < 4 lots, 0.60 rounds up, < 0.60 rounds down
4. For subdivisions of ten (10) lots or more, and for determining maximum allowable
density for other than short plats or subdivisions, calculate maximum allowable density
according to existing code. For short plats or subdivisions of nine (9) lots or less, and
for determining maximum allowable density for other than short plats or subdivisions,
use the following calculation:
a. < 2 lots, 0.85 rounds up, < 0.85 rounds down.
b. > 2 < 3 lots, 0.75 rounds up, < 0.75 rounds down.
c. > 3 < 9 lots, 0.60 rounds up, < 0.60 rounds down
5. For subdivisions located within SR-3, SR-1 or A-10 zoning districts, no rounding would
be allowed. Utilizing rounding in calculating maximum allowable density would be
deemed to have a greater effect on residential character within these larger lot zoning
districts.
6. Some combination of the above options.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Option #3. Option #3 would balance the achievement of density goals
under the Buildable Lands analysis and the perceived impacts of rounding on residential
neighborhoods. The SEPA Responsible Official has determined that the proposal is procedural
in nature and thus categorically exempt from further SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800(19)
and 11.03.200 Kent City Code.
Staff will be available at the July 261h meeting to further discuss the issue.
CA/pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2010\ZCA-2010-1 DensityRounding\0726101upb.docx
cc: Ben Wolters,ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Matt Gilbert,AICP,Principal Planner
LUPB Hearing
July 26, 2010
Page 2 of 2