The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 09/27/2010 (3) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT 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 SEPTEMBER 27, 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 Erin George, AICP, Sr. Planner Jon Johnson Kim Adams Pratt, Asst City Attorney Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary Barbara Phillips This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend the public hearing and all interested persons may have opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed amendment(s) 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 July 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, including a height restriction when adjacent to single-family residential zoned properties. 2. ZCA-2010-1 ZONING DENSITY—ROUNDING CALCULATIONS Consideration of code amendments for calculating maximum permitted density. 3. ZCA-2010-2 AUTO REPAIR IN M3 ZONES Consideration of code amendments to allow auto repair in M3 zones 4. ZCA-2010-3 ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE Consideration of code amendments for defining and regulating EV infrastructure. 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 July 26, 2010 1. Call to Order Chair Ralph Called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. Board Members Present/Absent: Chair Dana Ralph, Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell, Navdeep Gill-Absent/Excused, Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin, Jon Johnson-Absent/Excused, Barbara Phillips Staff Members Present: Charlene Anderson, William Osborne, Kim Adams Pratt, and Pamela Mottram 3. Approval of Minutes Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to approve the April 26, 2010 Minutes as amended; changing a portion of Brad Corner's testimony to read "and believes it would not block any views"rather than long ,s it does of limit anyone's views". Motion PASSED 5-0. 4. Added Items None 5. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 DCE Height Limits Long-Range Planner William D. Osborne submitted the following Exhibits for the record related to Docket Item Dkt-2009-1. (Exhibit No. 1) a series of Email correspondence between Osborne and Michael Johnson (Docket 2009-1 applicant) dated May 13-191" (Exhibit No. 2) email correspondence from Julie Brown dated May 17 supporting Option 4B with further email dated May 19 requesting clarification on a couple of points, (Exhibit No. 3) email correspondence from Michael Johnson dated May 18 including a letter addressed to Fred Satterstrom ranking Height Regulation Options, indicating Mill Creek residents support of Option 4 for a transition overlay with amendments, (Exhibit No. 4) email correspondence from Dan and Sandy Ulrey, Mill Creek residents, dated May 18 favoring Option 4, (Exhibit No. 5) email correspondence from Scott Bundren, DCE property owner, dated June 15, favoring existing standards adding an amendment that would alleviate buffer concerns within single-family zoned areas, (Exhibit No. 6) email correspondence from Michael W. Johnson dated June 18 summarizing the Mill Creek residents' position on DCE Heights, (Exhibit No. 7) email correspondence from Daniel Daoura dated July 6-14 suggesting an additional Option 7 and clarifications thereto, (Exhibit No. 8) Letter from Edward H Kosnoski dated June 29 opposed to the implementation of regulations that would discourage development in the DCE zone. (Exhibit No. 9) email correspondence from Julie Brown dated July 15 with attached letter dated July 14 outlining 8 areas of concern in regards to downtown building heights and adjacency to single family residential. (Exhibit No. 10) email correspondence from Robert Slattery, Mondo Development, dated July 26, in opposition to any changes within the DCE Zone. Osborne stated that the ECDC approved a docket amendment application to be processed in the 2009 annual amendment cycle and the scope of the project was set to address possible amendment of the DCE zoning where adjacent to single family residential zoning. Planning staff researched how other jurisdictions with designated urban centers addressed similar issues and met with neighbors and property owners in two community meetings to identify key issues and values underpinning resident concerns about building heights. Some attendees commented on view protection, restricting or mixing of land uses, solar access impacts of taller buildings, and establishing an appropriate scale of development depending on the proximity to single family residential neighborhoods. Osborne stated that options were formulated within a framework that considered the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan relating to urban center Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010 Page 1 of 6 2 development. During this Board's workshop process, staff prepared graphics to highlight the comparison of options that address concerns about view protection. Osborne noted a correction in terms of the options matrix in that the ground setback for front yards on Option 4b should have the word 'lot line' instead of 'street centerline' which would be consistent with the portion with regard to upper floor setbacks. Option 4b is about distances from lot lines rather than technically from the zoning boundaries. Osborne presented the following options: Option 1 — (The Johnson docket proposal) calls for any portion of DCE zoned properties located within 300 feet of a single family residential zone to have a building height restricted to no higher than that of the adjacent single family residential zone or 35 feet for the SR-6 zone. The docket proposal did not include restrictions on permitted land uses. Option 2—This option was generated to accommodate concerns about intensive mixed use development. The Townhouse 16 dwelling unit per acre (MR-T 16) zone would be applied to whole parcels whether wholly located or partially located within a 300 foot proximity buffer as suggested by the Johnson proposal. Option 3 —This option was generated to accommodate concerns about intensive residential development. A general commercial (GC) zoning district would be applied to whole parcels whether located wholly or partially within a 300 foot proximity buffer. Option 4. 4b and 5 - share a common geographic scope in terms of applying development regulations to entire parcels within a DCE transitional overlay district whether located wholly or partially within the 300 foot proximity buffer from single family residential zoning districts. Option 4— This option has similar characteristics to that of SeaTac's regulations with ground floor setbacks and upper floor setbacks to reduce upper floor bulk. Option 4b does the same as Option 4, except that it applies a similar regulation from the lot line of parcels not from the street centerline, which would add an additional 25 perhaps 30 feet or more to the upper floor setback. Option 5 — Option 4, 4b and 5 provide for a discrete height limit within designated DCE transitional overlay areas (DCE-T) of four stories and fifty feet. These options differ primarily in how they address side yard, front yard, and upper floor setbacks. Option 5 addresses upper floor and balcony setbacks through the Downtown Design Review Guidelines by requiring upper floor setback and balcony treatments currently optional. Option 6 — This option has been established at the request of the Land Use and Planning Board, would establish an overlay for the DCE Zoning District where adjacent to single family residential zones and all parcels within the overlay would be identified as DCE-T. Special regulations of the DCE-T would only be applied within 300 feet proximity from single family residential zones. Any remaining portions of DCE-T designated parcels outside of this buffer could be developed to full DCE standards. Option 7 — This option is the result of receiving a proposal from Daniel Daoura to consider a buffer of Townhouse 16 zoning extending into single family residential zones adjacent to DCE zoning. This proposal would affect areas outside of the designated Urban Center and staff would need to amend the policies and land use map of the comprehensive plan as well as the zoning districts map and might be more appropriate to address in a separate legislative process. Option 8 — Board Member Ottini proposed an option that would retract the urban center boundary and DCE zoning to Central Avenue. This proposal would affect areas outside the geographic scope of the project and as with Option 7, the policies and land use map of the comprehensive plan would need to be amended as well as the zoning districts map. This would be more appropriately addressed in a separate legislative process. Osborne stated that staff recommends adoption of Option 6, as the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan both call for the city to consider how to address intense development adjacent to single family. The DSAP calls for us to address edge issues, particularly in the East Frame District. Staff is proposing a discrete building height limit of four stories and fifty feet which makes the connection for those people who are living in the building to have recognition of folks who are at street level. Staff is looking for more of a vertical orientation of buildings in relationship to the street. Having low density buildings in the downtown commercial enterprise zone does not make sense in terms of policy but having an extremely tall building adjacent to single family also does not make sense. Staff is offering middle ground to address that relationship between building and street and also the impact on people who are living in the community. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010 Page 2 of 6 3 Design Review Options for upper floor setbacks and balconies would be considered required components. This could provide some surety to a process already in place, would address the concerns of the neighbors and minimize some of the impacts on property owners in the Downtown Commercial Enterprise Zone, and does not exclude any uses currently allowed in the DCE zone. This also supports a more intensive development capacity than anything which has been developed over the last 20 years in downtown Kent. Kondelis-Halpin MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to enter Exhibits 1-10 into the record. Motion Carried 6-0. Chair Ralph declared the Public Hearing open. Len McCaughan, 623 E. Titus spoke in opposition to any changes and asked that the city not impose building restrictions. Mr. McCaughan referenced the letter submitted by Mr. Edward Kosnoski. Robert Slattery, Mondo Development, PO Box Box 5028, Bellevue, WA is defacto owner of 620 E. Temperance Street. He stated that he entered into a contract to buy two parcels on Smith Street; 603 and 623 E Smith Street in December 2007. In 2008 he stated that he worked with Mayor Cooke, Ben Wolters, Kurt Hanson, and several planning staff during predevelopment to ensure that any potential project that we looked at would meet the City of Kent's vision for new quality urban development including incorporating the new DDR Guidelines. He stated that toward the end of 2008, economic factors required the design to change. We compensated by adding more units to improve density and maximize the use of the site. In early 2009 we changed architects, and met with Mayor Cooke, Ben Wolters, Kurt Hanson and staff from ECD to revisit our preliminary design work. Based on that meeting, we moved forward with our current design, a 167- unit mixed-use project dubbed Station 601. On April 16, 2009, Slattery stated that he met with the Mill Creek Neighborhood Group to discuss his plans and acquire feedback. He stated that in September 2009 the state of the banking industry required him to hold off on submitting his project for construction financing. In early 2010, Slattery stated that he continued discussing the project with banks and identified a handful of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) backed lenders interested in funding the construction of Station 601. Additional details remain to be worked out. He stated that they are close to having a package ready to submit to HUD. Once the project is approved by HUD, the banks will prioritize approximately 30 million dollars for construction in the City of Kent. Slattery requested that the record be kept open to allow his attorney and planner time to submit comments by the end of next week. He voiced his opposition to any further changes to the DCE zoning district stating that further restrictions would further decrease development in Kent. Any project submittal must go through a SEPA process that allows citizens to voice their concerns at that time. Michael Johnson, 436 Jason Ave N stated that he submitted the Docket 2009-1 proposal on behalf of many of the Mill Creek residents. It requests a 300 foot buffer between the single family zone and the Downtown Commercial Enterprise zone with a height limitation of 35 feet. The principal reason for this docket request is that no other South King County city allows unlimited heights adjacent to single family dwellings; rather each one of those cities has a height restriction transition area. Johnson stated that an unlimited height building next to a single residential zone is untenable to residents of that zone. Johnson stated that their community prefers Option 1. He stated that their community would support adoption of Option 4 or 4b as a compromise, as those options were patterned after the SeaTac regulations. He stated that their community would support high density and high rises starting from the town's core area. Greg Gorder, 318 Jason Ave stated that the proposed building height in the DCE zone would completely block the view from his home. He spoke in favor of 4b. Laura Gorder, 318 Jason Ave stated that her home is located about 60 feet from the current DCE zone. She spoke in support of Option 1 but would support Option 4b. She submitted a two-page study that reflects what the effects of shadowing would be if the proposed complex was built. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010 Page 3 of 6 4 Bob Cryan, 11041 Durland Ave NE, Seattle, WA spoke in opposition to any amendments to the Zoning Code stating that the Comprehensive Plan was voted into service in 1993 and was thoroughly vetted by the community at that time. Cryan stated that the Zoning Code includes processes through SEPA and Design Review Regulations to guide and address issues with respect to development. Brad Corner, 14205 SE 36th St. Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98006 stated that he is the managing partner of Kent Military Road and Kent Highway commercial and has been a Kent land owner since 1983 holding commercial zoned property in Midway and in downtown Kent. He voiced support for the 'No Action' approach stating that SEPA and Design Review are in place to regulate development. Corner spoke in support of Mr. Slattery's proposed development Corner opined that a middle ground is possible without the need to go through the process of imposing additional development restrictions than those already in place. Corner opined the unfairness of the City not giving exemptions or grandfathering to those proponents who had submitted proposals in the last 2.5 years. Corner recommended that the City consider an amendment to grandfather in anybody who has made a submittal for a project in the transitional area in the past 2.5 years during the recession. Vern Schultz, 704 E Temperance St spoke strongly in favor of Option 1, would support Option 4b as a reasonable compromise, and strongly voiced his opposition to Option 6. Daniel Daoura, 112 Kennebeck Ave S spoke in opposition to any changes on behalf of property owners and investors within the DCE zone from whom he acquired signatures on a petition acknowledging their opposition. Daoura stated that he would favor Option 7 which would give rights to the DCE property owners and investors. Stephen Cluphf, 21805 116th Ave SE spoke on behalf of his son Jon Cluphf residing at 316 Clark Avenue N voicing opposition to any changes or restrictions that would reduce commercial property value. Ngoc Dzung Smith, 425 Jason Ave N spoke in favor of Michael Johnson's Docket Option 1 but would compromise in support of Option 4b. She encouraged the City to not jeopardize the value of historic neighborhoods and encouraged the City to build out within the downtown core area. She emphasized the need for the City to implement a responsible height restriction to protect and preserve the investment of families, of homes for those residential neighborhoods adjacent to DCE zones. Stacey Kroeze, 701 E. Temperance St. spoke in favor of manageable not unrestricted growth. She stated that she resides in a home adjacent to the proposed DCE development site, voicing concern with loss of sun exposure and encouraging the city to consider a gradual progression of development in stair step fashion, building up the downtown core first. Brian Friedle, 929 E Temperance St spoke in support of Option 4b with a 60 foot buffer and encouraged the City to consider a reasonable compromise concerning urban development. Derrick Dooley, 417 Clark Ave N opined that mixed use development in the DCE zone is not compatible with the surrounding historic neighborhood and that development of a large building would block sunshine, phone and television reception. He voiced support for a height restriction and adequate setback stating that if a 20-story development were to occur adjacent to his community and an earthquake occurred his neighborhood would be destroyed. Charlotte Kibbie, 614 Hazel Ave N spoke in favor of Option 4b and encouraged development beginning in the downtown core and not on the fringe of the DCE zone. Mary Jacob, 426 Prospect Ave N voiced her objection to high rise buildings near single family residential neighborhoods as they restrict view and create traffic congestion. John Kohler, 602 Prospect Ave N stated that he supports downtown development, voicing support for Michael Johnson's original proposal as he believes it to be an amenable compromise between the development and the rights of the people who want to build their properties and profit from it and those who live here. Ben Davenport, 106 Kennebeck Ave N voiced opposition to rezoning as it would decrease the value of his property. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010 Page 4 of 6 5 Hal O'Brien, 418 Hazel Ave voiced opposition to large development on a single family residential boundary which would decrease property values. Where is the market, where is the demand? This is speculation at its most naked. Carolyn Clayton, 604 E Temperance St. spoke in opposition to Slattery's proposed development adjacent to her community. She voiced support for Option 1 and 4b. Debbie Smith, 420 Prospect Ave N spoke in support of Option 4b and in opposition to Option 6. She stated that the City needs to implement responsible height restrictions. Dan Ulrey, 332 Alvord Ave N spoke in support of Option 4b. Kim Portera, 617 E Temperance St. stated that she lives directly across the street from the proposed Slattery development. She stated that change is inevitable but encouraged the city to consider options in terms of not diminishing property values for those homeowners adjacent to the DCE zone. Dixie Dredlow, 512 N Jason Ave encouraged the city to consider options in ways that would not create a detriment to the value and charm of the historic neighborhood community. Dowell Moved and Ottini Seconded a Motion to close the public hearing. Chair Ralph closed the public hearing. Ottini Moved and Phillips Seconded a Motion to accept two pictures submitted by Laura Gorder into the record as Exhibit 11. Motion Carried 5-0. In response to Slattery's request, Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt stated that appropriate notice of the public hearing had been given and the Board was not required to keep the record open or hold a second public hearing. Slattery and other members of the public are allowed to provide written comments to the City Council during the legislative process. The Board deliberated over Option 4b (favored as a compromise by the public) and staff's recommended Option 6. Pratt stated that were the public desirous of redefining the boundaries of the DCE zone, it would move beyond just a development regulation amendment and would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which would need to be submitted by September 1st, with anticipated review by the Board beginning in January or February, or if deemed an emergency could be considered sooner by the City Council. Osborne stated that if citizens were to submit a docket application, the Economic and Community Development Committee would determine if that docket item would be incorporated into the work program as a comprehensive plan or zoning code amendment or both, or whether that item should be put into a different work program, has already been addressed in an existing work program, or should be delayed until some future time. Chair Ralph called for a motion and hearing none, conceded to move this item to August 23rd for a second workshop to reconsider options and review additional public input. 7.2 ZCA-2010-1 Zoning Density—Rounding Calculations Planning Manager Charlene Anderson presented six options (referencing her report) related to calculation of maximum allowable density on property. Currently the City takes the entire square footage of property and multiplies it by the allowable zoning density on a site. If you are in a SR-6 zone for example, you have a total property area times 6.05 dwelling units per acre and that is how the maximum allowable number of dwelling units is determined. All options utilize total allowable area to calculate density. Anderson stated that staff recommends Option 3 as it seems like the concern is more with the smaller number of dwelling units or lots, that it creates a greater perceived impact to neighborhoods. After deliberations, Chair Ralph opened the public hearing. Kathy Ekstrand, 26600 137t"Ave SE stated that as a Lake Meridian resident, she was actively involved in the successful 2007 down-zoning within Lake Meridian's watershed and along the lake's perimeters. At that time the city was developing residential development standards. Ekstrand stated that she felt mislead when she discovered that the residential development standards incorporated a density Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010 Page 5 of 6 6 calculator that made the downzone null and void, citing that density rounding would allow SR 4.5 zoned property to contain a number of homes equivalent to SR 6.0. Ekstrand stated that she supports Option 5 and that the current SR 4.5 and SR 3.0 zoning within the Lake Meridian Watershed and around the lake's perimeters should be retained and that density rounding should not be allowed. Brian McDonough, 26441 137th Ave SE spoke about inconsistencies with the use of density rounding calculators. Implementation of density rounding would impact two or three acre house parcels. If those parcels were broken down, a 4.5 acre zoning parcel could grow to 7.6 houses per acre. The density rounding table should be thrown out. Sally McDonough, 26441 1371h Ave SE stated that on Dec 12, 2006, the LUPB assisted in the City enacting a building permit moratorium on the Lake Meridian Watershed, Resolution 1746, as there was major concern about so much building on the lake. From January to April 2007 the City held meetings with respect to rezoning of the Lake Meridian area. Kent City Council successfully voted and adopted a downzone for the Lake Meridian area on July 6, 2007. McDonough stated that it seems that no one realized the implications of the density calculations on smaller parcels at the time that the residential development standards were passed. She stated that there are problems with the density calculation. Kent's building codes stated that you can't do a lot line adjustment to create an additional lot with the terms `Lot' and `dwelling unit' being interchanged. Kent City Code states that "that no land may be so reduced in area that it would be in violation of minimum lot size". However, we are seeing that happen with these development calculations in that a SF 4.5 zoned lot is accommodating over 6.0 dwelling units. McDonough stated that it doesn't make sense to use the density rounding calculations in the Lake Meridian watershed or for other critical areas in Kent. She stated that she would be amenable to Option 5 with the addition of adding SR 4.5 into the mix, with a reference to the watershed area. Density calculation rounding defeats the efforts the City has taken to lower densities around Lake Meridian. Sharon Bosse, 25739 135th Ave SE, Unit#41 stated that the City needs to throw out the density rounding calculations system as it is thoroughly misleading and the City's current zoning requirements should remain as they are. Dowell Moved and Ottini 2nd a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried 5-0. Chair Ralph called for a Motion. Hearing none, Chair Ralph directed this item back to workshop on August 23rd for further consideration. Adjournment Ottini Moved and Dowell 2"d a Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ralph declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board P:\Planning\LU PB\2010\Minutes\07-26-10-LUPB-Mi n utes.doc Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010 Page 6 of 6 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7 Ben Wolters, Director 4^0 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 September 20, 2010 To: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use & Planning Board Members From: William D. Osborne, AICP, Long-Range Planner Subject: DCE Height Limits [CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2] For public hearing of September 27, 2010 MOTION: I move to recommend approval/denial/modification of Option _, as described in the staff report, (to include )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) 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. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Proposed amendments of the Zoning Code are to be examined based on the following standards and criteria (per Section 15.09.050(C)): 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity; and 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; and 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; and 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City. BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies associated with Kent's $ Urban Center (see July 26, 2010 Staff Report for the Public Hearing) 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. THE OPTIONS Full descriptions of all options considered, as well as analysis and commentary on the options are available for review in the July 26, 2010 Staff Report, the Minutes from the July 26t" Public Hearing (Attachment A), written testimony received since that Hearing (Attachment B) and in the environmental review documents (see Attachment Q. At its August 23, 2010 workshop, the Land Use & Planning Board indicated a desire to choose from a menu of features from the various Options. Specifically requested was an option based on Option 4b that was enhanced to require upper floor step back and balcony treatments through Downtown Design Review (DDR). In response to this request, staff has prepared option 4c in the revised Options Matrix (see Attachment D). Option 4c (Option 4b with Upper Floor Setbacks and Balconies Required in Downtown Design Review) This option combines Option 4b with the Downtown Design Review requirements featured in Option 5. The City would create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-T) covering a full-block (300 ft. or more in depth) in which a discrete building height would be set for whole parcels - four stories (50 ft.). 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), with the exception that front yard setbacks would be required for ground and upper floor levels, measured from lot lines rather than the zoning district boundaries at adjacent street centerlines. A maximum building height of 35 ft. would be applied within a minimum of 60 ft. from any lot lines shared with single-family residential parcels; a distance inclusive of 20 ft. ground-level yard setbacks. Further, a modification suggested at the August 23rd Land Use & Planning Board workshop by Board Member Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin would enhance the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines to require balconies and/or upper floor setbacks currently written in Sections III.B and III.C. as optional - as had been proposed with Options 5 and 6. 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 60 ft. upper floor stepback at 35 ft. height from single-family residential adjacent lot lines would likely have a significant impact on the development of pedestrian-oriented projects for smaller sites. The maximum height of 50 ft. could only be achieved after sloping upward at a 1:1 ratio (451) from the 60 ft. setback depth(s). In order for one quarter (25%) of a building footprint to be developed to 50 ft. height inclusive of the upper floor setback treatment described above from front and side lot lines, the parcel would have to have a minimum dimension of 150 ft. square (22,500 sf or a little over a half-acre). 09/27/10—Land Use& Planning Board Public Hearing DCE Height Limits—CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 Page 2of3 Staff Comment: 9 Regarding Option 4c, requiring upper floor stepback and balcony treatments through the Downtown Design Review process would be generally superseded by the setback requirements of Option 4b. 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 (and front yard) would have almost certain significant impact on the ability to build to the vision and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and DSAP. Option 2 (Change to MR-T16 Zoning) While no change to this option is proposed, for clarification, primary land use in Option 2 would be restricted to ownership-interest dwellings, which includes but is not limited to condominium dwellings. 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 step backs 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/MG/WO/pm SAPe it\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\092710\StaffReport_DCE-BldgHts_092710.doc Att: Attachment A: LUPB Minutes—07/26/10 Attachment B: Exhibits 11-17: Staff Correspondence with Interested Parties following lit Public Hearing Attachment C: Determination of Non-Significance, Decision Document and SEPA Checklist Attachment D: Revised Options Matrix,September 27, 2010 cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Matthew Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner Project File CPA-2009-5 Project File CPZ-2009-2 09/27/10—Land Use& Planning Board Public Hearing DCE Height Limits—CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 Page 3of3 10 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT A LUPB HRG 9/27/10 11 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 26, 2010 1. Call to Order Chair Ralph Called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. Board Members Present/Absent: Chair Dana Ralph, Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell, Navdeep Gill-Absent/Excused, Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin, Jon Johnson-Absent/Excused, Barbara Phillips Staff Members Present: Charlene Anderson, William Osborne, Kim Adams Pratt, and Pamela Mottram 3. Approval of Minutes Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to approve the April 26, 2010 Minutes as amended; changing a portion of Brad Corner's testimony to read "and believes it would not block any views"rather than long ,s it does of limit anyone's views". Motion PASSED 5-0. 4. Added Items None 5. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 DCE Height Limits Long-Range Planner William D. Osborne submitted the following Exhibits for the record related to Docket Item Dkt-2009-1. (Exhibit No. 1) a series of Email correspondence between Osborne and Michael Johnson (Docket 2009-1 applicant) dated May 13-191" (Exhibit No. 2) email correspondence from Julie Brown dated May 17 supporting Option 4B with further email dated May 19 requesting clarification on a couple of points, (Exhibit No. 3) email correspondence from Michael Johnson dated May 18 including a letter addressed to Fred Satterstrom ranking Height Regulation Options, indicating Mill Creek residents support of Option 4 for a transition overlay with amendments, (Exhibit No. 4) email correspondence from Dan and Sandy Ulrey, Mill Creek residents, dated May 18 favoring Option 4, (Exhibit No. 5) email correspondence from Scott Bundren, DCE property owner, dated June 15, favoring existing standards adding an amendment that would alleviate buffer concerns within single-family zoned areas, (Exhibit No. 6) email correspondence from Michael W. Johnson dated June 18 summarizing the Mill Creek residents' position on DCE Heights, (Exhibit No. 7) email correspondence from Daniel Daoura dated July 6-14 suggesting an additional Option 7 and clarifications thereto, (Exhibit No. 8) Letter from Edward H Kosnoski dated June 29 opposed to the implementation of regulations that would discourage development in the DCE zone. (Exhibit No. 9) email correspondence from Julie Brown dated July 15 with attached letter dated July 14 outlining 8 areas of concern in regards to downtown building heights and adjacency to single family residential. (Exhibit No. 10) email correspondence from Robert Slattery, Mondo Development, dated July 26, in opposition to any changes within the DCE Zone. Osborne stated that the ECDC approved a docket amendment application to be processed in the 2009 annual amendment cycle and the scope of the project was set to address possible amendment of the DCE zoning where adjacent to single family residential zoning. Planning staff researched how other jurisdictions with designated urban centers addressed similar issues and met with neighbors and property owners in two community meetings to identify key issues and values underpinning resident concerns about building heights. Some attendees commented on view protection, restricting or mixing of land uses, solar access impacts of taller buildings, and establishing an appropriate scale of development depending on the proximity to single family residential neighborhoods. Osborne stated that options were formulated within a framework that considered the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan relating to urban center Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010(DCE Heights) Page 1 of 5 12 development. During this Board's workshop process, staff prepared graphics to highlight the comparison of options that address concerns about view protection. Osborne noted a correction in terms of the options matrix in that the ground setback for front yards on Option 4b should have the word 'lot line' instead of 'street centerline' which would be consistent with the portion with regard to upper floor setbacks. Option 4b is about distances from lot lines rather than technically from the zoning boundaries. Osborne presented the following options: Option 1 — (The Johnson docket proposal) calls for any portion of DCE zoned properties located within 300 feet of a single family residential zone to have a building height restricted to no higher than that of the adjacent single family residential zone or 35 feet for the SR-6 zone. The docket proposal did not include restrictions on permitted land uses. Option 2—This option was generated to accommodate concerns about intensive mixed use development. The Townhouse 16 dwelling unit per acre (MR-T 16) zone would be applied to whole parcels whether wholly located or partially located within a 300 foot proximity buffer as suggested by the Johnson proposal. Option 3 —This option was generated to accommodate concerns about intensive residential development. A general commercial (GC) zoning district would be applied to whole parcels whether located wholly or partially within a 300 foot proximity buffer. Option 4. 4b and 5 - share a common geographic scope in terms of applying development regulations to entire parcels within a DCE transitional overlay district whether located wholly or partially within the 300 foot proximity buffer from single family residential zoning districts. Option 4— This option has similar characteristics to that of SeaTac's regulations with ground floor setbacks and upper floor setbacks to reduce upper floor bulk. Option 4b does the same as Option 4, except that it applies a similar regulation from the lot line of parcels not from the street centerline, which would add an additional 25 perhaps 30 feet or more to the upper floor setback. Option 5 — Option 4, 4b and 5 provide for a discrete height limit within designated DCE transitional overlay areas (DCE-T) of four stories and fifty feet. These options differ primarily in how they address side yard, front yard, and upper floor setbacks. Option 5 addresses upper floor and balcony setbacks through the Downtown Design Review Guidelines by requiring upper floor setback and balcony treatments currently optional. Option 6 — This option has been established at the request of the Land Use and Planning Board, would establish an overlay for the DCE Zoning District where adjacent to single family residential zones and all parcels within the overlay would be identified as DCE-T. Special regulations of the DCE-T would only be applied within 300 feet proximity from single family residential zones. Any remaining portions of DCE-T designated parcels outside of this buffer could be developed to full DCE standards. Option 7 — This option is the result of receiving a proposal from Daniel Daoura to consider a buffer of Townhouse 16 zoning extending into single family residential zones adjacent to DCE zoning. This proposal would affect areas outside of the designated Urban Center and staff would need to amend the policies and land use map of the comprehensive plan as well as the zoning districts map and might be more appropriate to address in a separate legislative process. Option 8 — Board Member Ottini proposed an option that would retract the urban center boundary and DCE zoning to Central Avenue. This proposal would affect areas outside the geographic scope of the project and as with Option 7, the policies and land use map of the comprehensive plan would need to be amended as well as the zoning districts map. This would be more appropriately addressed in a separate legislative process. Osborne stated that staff recommends adoption of Option 6, as the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan both call for the city to consider how to address intense development adjacent to single family. The DSAP calls for us to address edge issues, particularly in the East Frame District. Staff is proposing a discrete building height limit of four stories and fifty feet which makes the connection for those people who are living in the building to have recognition of folks who are at street level. Staff is looking for more of a vertical orientation of buildings in relationship to the street. Having low density buildings in the downtown commercial enterprise zone does not make sense in terms of policy but having an extremely tall building adjacent to single family also does not make sense. Staff is offering middle ground to address that relationship between building and street and also the impact on people who are living in the community. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010(DCE Heights) Page 2 of 5 13 Design Review Options for upper floor setbacks and balconies would be considered required components. This could provide some surety to a process already in place, would address the concerns of the neighbors and minimize some of the impacts on property owners in the Downtown Commercial Enterprise Zone, and does not exclude any uses currently allowed in the DCE zone. This also supports a more intensive development capacity than anything which has been developed over the last 20 years in downtown Kent. Kondelis-Halpin MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to enter Exhibits 1-10 into the record. Motion Carried 6-0. Chair Ralph declared the Public Hearing open. Len McCaughan, 623 E. Titus spoke in opposition to any changes and asked that the city not impose building restrictions. Mr. McCaughan referenced the letter submitted by Mr. Edward Kosnoski. Robert Slattery, Mondo Development, PO Box Box 5028, Bellevue, WA is defacto owner of 620 E. Temperance Street. He stated that he entered into a contract to buy two parcels on Smith Street; 603 and 623 E Smith Street in December 2007. In 2008 he stated that he worked with Mayor Cooke, Ben Wolters, Kurt Hanson, and several planning staff during predevelopment to ensure that any potential project that we looked at would meet the City of Kent's vision for new quality urban development including incorporating the new DDR Guidelines. He stated that toward the end of 2008, economic factors required the design to change. We compensated by adding more units to improve density and maximize the use of the site. In early 2009 we changed architects, and met with Mayor Cooke, Ben Wolters, Kurt Hanson and staff from ECD to revisit our preliminary design work. Based on that meeting, we moved forward with our current design, a 167- unit mixed-use project dubbed Station 601. On April 16, 2009, Slattery stated that he met with the Mill Creek Neighborhood Group to discuss his plans and acquire feedback. He stated that in September 2009 the state of the banking industry required him to hold off on submitting his project for construction financing. In early 2010, Slattery stated that he continued discussing the project with banks and identified a handful of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) backed lenders interested in funding the construction of Station 601. Additional details remain to be worked out. He stated that they are close to having a package ready to submit to HUD. Once the project is approved by HUD, the banks will prioritize approximately 30 million dollars for construction in the City of Kent. Slattery requested that the record be kept open to allow his attorney and planner time to submit comments by the end of next week. He voiced his opposition to any further changes to the DCE zoning district stating that further restrictions would further decrease development in Kent. Any project submittal must go through a SEPA process that allows citizens to voice their concerns at that time. Michael Johnson, 436 Jason Ave N stated that he submitted the Docket 2009-1 proposal on behalf of many of the Mill Creek residents. It requests a 300 foot buffer between the single family zone and the Downtown Commercial Enterprise zone with a height limitation of 35 feet. The principal reason for this docket request is that no other South King County city allows unlimited heights adjacent to single family dwellings; rather each one of those cities has a height restriction transition area. Johnson stated that an unlimited height building next to a single residential zone is untenable to residents of that zone. Johnson stated that their community prefers Option 1. He stated that their community would support adoption of Option 4 or 4b as a compromise, as those options were patterned after the SeaTac regulations. He stated that their community would support high density and high rises starting from the town's core area. Greg Gorder, 318 Jason Ave stated that the proposed building height in the DCE zone would completely block the view from his home. He spoke in favor of 4b. Laura Gorder, 318 Jason Ave stated that her home is located about 60 feet from the current DCE zone. She spoke in support of Option 1 but would support Option 4b. She submitted a two-page study that reflects what the effects of shadowing would be if the proposed complex was built. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010(DCE Heights) Page 3 of 5 14 Bob Cryan, 11041 Durland Ave NE, Seattle, WA spoke in opposition to any amendments to the Zoning Code stating that the Comprehensive Plan was voted into service in 1993 and was thoroughly vetted by the community at that time. Cryan stated that the Zoning Code includes processes through SEPA and Design Review Regulations to guide and address issues with respect to development. Brad Corner, 14205 SE 36th St. Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98006 stated that he is the managing partner of Kent Military Road and Kent Highway commercial and has been a Kent land owner since 1983 holding commercial zoned property in Midway and in downtown Kent. He voiced support for the 'No Action' approach stating that SEPA and Design Review are in place to regulate development. Corner spoke in support of Mr. Slattery's proposed development Corner opined that a middle ground is possible without the need to go through the process of imposing additional development restrictions than those already in place. Corner opined the unfairness of the City not giving exemptions or grandfathering to those proponents who had submitted proposals in the last 2.5 years. Corner recommended that the City consider an amendment to grandfather in anybody who has made a submittal for a project in the transitional area in the past 2.5 years during the recession. Vern Schultz, 704 E Temperance St spoke strongly in favor of Option 1, would support Option 4b as a reasonable compromise, and strongly voiced his opposition to Option 6. Daniel Daoura, 112 Kennebeck Ave S spoke in opposition to any changes on behalf of property owners and investors within the DCE zone from whom he acquired signatures on a petition acknowledging their opposition. Daoura stated that he would favor Option 7 which would give rights to the DCE property owners and investors. Stephen Cluphf, 21805 116th Ave SE spoke on behalf of his son Jon Cluphf residing at 316 Clark Avenue N voicing opposition to any changes or restrictions that would reduce commercial property value. Ngoc Dzung Smith, 425 Jason Ave N spoke in favor of Michael Johnson's Docket Option 1 but would compromise in support of Option 4b. She encouraged the City to not jeopardize the value of historic neighborhoods and encouraged the City to build out within the downtown core area. She emphasized the need for the City to implement a responsible height restriction to protect and preserve the investment of families, of homes for those residential neighborhoods adjacent to DCE zones. Stacey Kroeze, 701 E. Temperance St. spoke in favor of manageable not unrestricted growth. She stated that she resides in a home adjacent to the proposed DCE development site, voicing concern with loss of sun exposure and encouraging the city to consider a gradual progression of development in stair step fashion, building up the downtown core first. Brian Friedle, 929 E Temperance St spoke in support of Option 4b with a 60 foot buffer and encouraged the City to consider a reasonable compromise concerning urban development. Derrick Dooley, 417 Clark Ave N opined that mixed use development in the DCE zone is not compatible with the surrounding historic neighborhood and that development of a large building would block sunshine, phone and television reception. He voiced support for a height restriction and adequate setback stating that if a 20-story development were to occur adjacent to his community and an earthquake occurred his neighborhood would be destroyed. Charlotte Kibbie, 614 Hazel Ave N spoke in favor of Option 4b and encouraged development beginning in the downtown core and not on the fringe of the DCE zone. Mary Jacob, 426 Prospect Ave N voiced her objection to high rise buildings near single family residential neighborhoods as they restrict view and create traffic congestion. John Kohler, 602 Prospect Ave N stated that he supports downtown development, voicing support for Michael Johnson's original proposal as he believes it to be an amenable compromise between the development and the rights of the people who want to build their properties and profit from it and those who live here. Ben Davenport, 106 Kennebeck Ave N voiced opposition to rezoning as it would decrease the value of his property. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010(DCE Heights) Page 4 of 5 15 Hal O'Brien, 418 Hazel Ave voiced opposition to large development on a single family residential boundary which would decrease property values. Where is the market, where is the demand? This is speculation at its most naked. Carolyn Clayton, 604 E Temperance St. spoke in opposition to Slattery's proposed development adjacent to her community. She voiced support for Option 1 and 4b. Debbie Smith, 420 Prospect Ave N spoke in support of Option 4b and in opposition to Option 6. She stated that the City needs to implement responsible height restrictions. Dan Ulrey, 332 Alvord Ave N spoke in support of Option 4b. Kim Portera, 617 E Temperance St. stated that she lives directly across the street from the proposed Slattery development. She stated that change is inevitable but encouraged the city to consider options in terms of not diminishing property values for those homeowners adjacent to the DCE zone. Dixie Dredlow, 512 N Jason Ave encouraged the city to consider options in ways that would not create a detriment to the value and charm of the historic neighborhood community. Dowell Moved and Ottini Seconded a Motion to close the public hearing. Chair Ralph closed the public hearing. Ottini Moved and Phillips Seconded a Motion to accept two pictures submitted by Laura Gorder into the record as Exhibit 11. Motion Carried 5-0. In response to Slattery's request, Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt stated that appropriate notice of the public hearing had been given and the Board was not required to keep the record open or hold a second public hearing. Slattery and other members of the public are allowed to provide written comments to the City Council during the legislative process. The Board deliberated over Option 4b (favored as a compromise by the public) and staff's recommended Option 6. Pratt stated that were the public desirous of redefining the boundaries of the DCE zone, it would move beyond just a development regulation amendment and would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which would need to be submitted by September 1st, with anticipated review by the Board beginning in January or February, or if deemed an emergency could be considered sooner by the City Council. Osborne stated that if citizens were to submit a docket application, the Economic and Community Development Committee would determine if that docket item would be incorporated into the work program as a comprehensive plan or zoning code amendment or both, or whether that item should be put into a different work program, has already been addressed in an existing work program, or should be delayed until some future time. Chair Ralph called for a motion and hearing none, conceded to move this item to August 23rd for a second workshop to reconsider options and review additional public input. Adjournment Ottini Moved and Dowell 2nd a Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ralph declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\092710\07-26-10_L1-PBminDCE.doc Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Minutes July 26,2010(DCE Heights) Page 5 of 5 16 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT B LUPB HRG 9/27/10 17 CPA-2009-2/CPZ-2009-2 DCE HEIGHT LIMITS Presented for Record at the September 27, 2010 LUPB Hearing Exhibit Submittal Submitter Description of Submittal No's: Date 1-10 Presented at the July 26, 2010 Land Use & Planning Board Hearing 11. 7/26/10 NgocDzung Smith Transcript of NgocDzung Smith's Testimony from the July 26, 425 Jason Ave. N 2010 Hearing. (1 pg) Kent, WA 98032 12. 7/27/10 Michael W Johnson Email Correspondence explaining why the residents prefer 436 Jason Ave N Option 4b. (1 pg) Kent, WA 98030 253.852.4984 13. 8/4/10 Daniel Doura Letter dated 8/4/10 addressing his concerns with Mr. Johnson's DCE Property Owner and the Mill Creek neighborhood's proposal regarding DCE Height Limits. (2 pg) 14. 8/20/10 Bill H. Williamson Cover Letter(5 pg)dated 8/18/10 submitted on behalf of Robert Land Use Attorney Slattery, the principal for Kent-Smith Street Development, LLC; Williamson Law Office states among other things - that"The Board should decline to Columbia Center Tower take any further action on the Johnson and related DCE zoning 701 5th Avenue—Suite 5500 district regulation amendment proposals" PO Box 99821 Seattle, WA 98139 Attachments include: (1) Map of DCE zone; (2)Appendix 1 comprised of a six (6 pg) page letter dated 8/23/10 from R.W. Thorpe &Associates, Inc (Robert W. Thorpe, Principal & Lee A Michaelis, AICP, Planning Director)with qualification sheets; (3)Appendix 2 comprised of City of Kent Ordinance 3922 (20 pgs); (4) Appendix 3 comprised of a two (2 pg) letter from Robert Slattery to Bill Williamson dated 7/27/10 requesting assistance with the City of Kent's Land Use & Planning Board's consideration of Michael W Johnson's docket along with a three (3 pg) Station 601 Executive Summary and Project Overview. 15. 8/23/10 Casey Routh Email Comments speaking to concerns with increased traffic 387 Hazel St. N congestion and impacts pertaining to entering and exiting the Mill Kent, WA 98032 Creek neighborhood. (1 pg) 16. 8/24/10 Julie Brown Email Correspondence Exchange initiated by Julie Brown on & 8/24/10 with Email response dated 9/1/10 from Planning Manager 9/1/10 Charlene Anderson with respect to how the height restriction docket would impact the Buildable Lands Capacity. (2 pgs) 17. 8/25/10 Toni Azzola, City of Kent Email Correspondence Exchange initiated by Toni Azzola Neighborhood Prgm Coord. informing William Osborne that she had held a conversation with Robert Slattery informing him that 489 homes existed within the Mill Creek Neighborhood; with Slattery concluding the conversation stating he had never been notified of the May Public Open House. Email response to Azzola verified that an Email Distribution Notification of the May 12, 2010 Open house occurred. Verification of the May 6, 2010 Notification attached as part of this exhibit. (5 pgs) S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMEND MENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5_DCE Bldg Heights\LUPB\092710\DCE_BldgHts_Exh List-092710.doc 18 This page intentionally left blank. TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT FOR NGOCDZUNG SMITH (425 JASON AVE N) 19 My name is NgocDzung Smith and I live at 425 Jason Ave N. • I am also in favor of Michael Johnson's docket Option 1 but would compromise to Option 4b. • As one of our neighborhood's Blockwatch Captains as well as our current Mill Creek neighborhood council president I just wanted to say a few things. As a leader in my neighborhood and in this community, I want to make it clear that our concerns as homeowners are not an attempt to impede the revitalization of Downtown Kent. In fact: 1. We, as residents and homeowners of a historic neighborhood, want to be included in the vision of a future Kent that values its historic neighborhoods and 2. we urge you to make sure the vitality and quality of life of our historic neighborhoods are not jeopardized by the existing zoning that requires no height limitations in the DCE. A responsible height restriction in areas adjacent to single family residential zones accomplishes the'following important things which in fact are clearly defined as goals in the documentation for the DCE Urban Center Goals & Policies and the DCE Building Heights Comprehensive Plan of 1992. 3. A height restriction specifically addresses the following DCE Comprehensive plan's policies: • First, In the section for the Commercial Goals and Policies, Policy LU-14.8 states that you must Ensure that commercial and mixed-use developments adjacent to existing single-family residential areas are compatible in height and scale. You must establish guidelines for design of edges where commercial and mixed-uses abut single-family use and medium and low-density residential. • Second, In the section of Urban Center Goals & Policies, Policy LU-3.4 states that you must Design the Urban Center development to preserve adjacent neighborhoods. We are asking for a responsible height restriction that protects and preserves the investment of many many families, of homes many of which are 100 years old or more, who have invested their time, money, and resources in this community and the positive qualities of the residential neighborhoods that are adjacent to DCE zones. Let our historic neighborhoods continue to be a part of the future and revitalization of Kent. Families are moving here and will continue to move to Kent because it's neighborhoods are vibrant, clean, safe and historic and easily accessible to the amenities in the Downtown core, Allowing developers to build 20 or 30 story buildings (essentially a giant brick wall) adjacent to single family homes will disconnect important and vital residential neighborhoods from the downtown and doom these areas to decay. Please prevent that from happening with a height restriction that protects those neighborhoods. Thank you. END OF TRANSCRIPT Exhlbi 32C�_ 9—af_1/M,7-5 Date Rec' ' -7--7 - n staff sbo- Land Use&Planning Board 2 City of Kent 20 This page intentionally left blank. -----Original Message----- - From: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com [mailto:Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com] 21 Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:28 PM To: Mwgolfjohnson@aol.com; theralphs4@msn.com Cc: juliembrown@qwest.net; gorders6@comcast.net; ljschultz@netscape.com; kroeze@hotmail.com; descanter@msn.com; bersaas@aol.com; nsmith@monsoonstudios.com; kimportera@comcast.net; aschultz@epkbenefits.com; gbnetworking@qwest.net; Azzola, Toni; Osborne, William; Satterstrom, Fred Subject: Re: DCE Height Restriction-LU 1313 Hearing Question from Steve Dowell Chairperson Ralphs, Mr. Dowell asked a question last night of William Osborne at the LUPB hearing on DCE height limits which I don't think got answered at the hearing. The question to Mr. Osborne was "why do .all these residents prefer Option 4b?" I would like to answer that question and so would you forward this e-mail on to him. The answer is in our Trade Study letter that was sent to you on June 18th from me and is Exhibit 6. In that trade study, we use elevation angle from an observer across the street from a DCE property as a big discriminator of the options. (In the Trade Study we refer to Option 4 but ,it is now Option 4b in Mr. Osborne's list of Options.) In the Trade Study then, the elevation angle to a 35-foot structure that is setback 20 feet from the DCE property line from an observer across the street is 18 degrees. And the elevation angle to a 50-foot structure that is setback 60 feet from the DCE property line is 19 degrees. The .difference between those two angles was judged not significant enough to discard Option 4b as a viable option. In other words, the observer in our Trade Study is not any worse off with a 35- foot building (setback 20 feet from the property line) than a 50-foot building (setback 60 feet from the property line). So for our observer situation, Option 4b is an acceptable compromise from our original docket request of a 35-foot limit for the whole 300 foot buffer. For Mr. Osborne's Option 6, which we think is thb same as Option 5 in the Trade Study as far as elevation angles go, our observer's elevation angle is 27 degrees. This is to a 50-foot building side or rear setback 20 feet from the property line (front facade on the property line is a much worse elevation angle). We think 27 degrees has significantly more impact to our observer than 19 degrees and thus is our reasoning for not being in favor of the Option 6 recommendation. -.1 s'hould say here though that if the Mill Creek residential home owners are in the end forced to choose between no height restriction at all and Option 6, then of course we will choose Option 6. Thanks Michael Johnson </HTM L> Exhibit# ,M,6 Fa�t- Date Rec'd -7-Z-7-42 Staff -U.)ith0ff_) piiMe_ Land Use&Planning Board 22 This page intentionally left blank. Exhibit# 13 Deg 0- Lli_ln"�Ms 23 Date Ree'd - -/0 Staff. U)W I dry ) 03 J�rleR D August 4, 2010 Land Use &Planning Board City of Kent Mr. William D Osborne, City of Kent Long-Range Planner 400 W. Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Osborne: I'm writing to address the comments from the Land Use & Planning Board meeting on Monday, July 26th Based on the public hearing, it seems to me that the residents of the single family dwelling community of Mill Creek had no legal basis for their recommendation for change and restricting DCE property owners' rights. Most, if not all, indicated that current DCE property owners' rights are simply an annoyance to them, and if a building were built they would lose sun, view, dish connection and that their quality of life would diminish. Some indicated their concern that they would lose their historical home, which is an unrelated matter because neither the city or the DCE property owners are suggesting we demolish their homes; we are simply insisting to keep our rights that have been in place for almost two decades! These current DCE zoning code regulations are the DCE zoned property owners' rights. The owners own these rights, unlike single family residents of the Mill Creek neighborhood whom do not own rights to a view, dish connection, and direct sun light. Some Mill Creek residents indicated that they were unaware of current DCE property rights in place for 18 years. I believe that Mr. Johnson, based on his comments on multiple occasions, was and has been fully aware of these regulations and no height limitations. Mr. Johnson took part of the Downtown Visioning workshops in 2004 for the downtown strategic action plan and is fully aware of Kent zoning laws. The residents of the Mill Creek community have been aware of zoning codes and did nothing for all these years until Mr. Slattery proposed a project that took advantage of the current DCE zoning code. It is too late and too expensive to restrict DCE property owners of their rights! If it is believed that these height regulations were a result of a flaw in the city's design and regulatory system when they were enacted in 1993, they should have been re- evaluated and corrected in 1993! The city has set a stage for residents and developers for 18 years. These DCE rights and regulations have been owned by residents, business owners, and corporations for 18 years! Throughout this process I have not heard any mention of compensation to all DCE property owners for restricting property owners of their rights, which ultimately diminishes their property values. I am a reasonable person, and I truly understand the people's concerns on both sides of this conflict. I believe that people should have a healthy and good quality way of living. The city of Kent is undergoing an inevitable transformation of growth. We are evolving and improving the city of Kent. We have many young and energetic residents that want to revive the city. The downtown commercial enterprise, as it is planned today, provides access to highway 167, interstate 5, highway 516, a newly constructed and revived train station, and so many amenities within walking distance. Have you ever been to Kent Station and didn't have a hard time finding a parking spot? Kent single family property owners near DCE zoned properties will still have sun light, even when a building is 24 constructed next door. When residents are in their homes, they will still receive sunlight through their windows. As someone mentioned at the public hearing, just go out of your home and take a walk... enjoy the outdoors and many amenities Kent has to offer. Is having a garden in the center of a growing and thriving city really a right? And why don't we want to be like Bellevue? A quick search online shows that Bellevue has over 35,000 employees and 5,000 residents. It is the 6th wealthiest of 522 communities in the state of Washington. In 2008, Bellevue was named number 1 in CNNMoney's list of the best places to live and launch a business. More recently, Bellevue was ranked as the 4th best place to live in America! So why doesn't Kent want to become like Bellevue? I can't imagine a reason. I would like to point out that one Mill Creek resident indicated at the public hearing that she had just moved from Eastgate, which is to Bellevue what Auburn is to Kent. Eastgate and Factoria might have Bellevue addresses, but they're really not considered Bellevue. With the Panther Lake Annexation, Kent is now the third largest city in King County (behind Seattle and Bellevue). Based on population alone, why wouldn't residents be more interested in promoting development within the downtown core? Things like the institutions, restaurants and retail shops at Kent Station have improved Kent tenfold in many ways. Things like the new Kent activities center, and green river community college have increased business traffic and jobs in the city of Kent. All are improvements and signs of evolution that have made property shoppers and real estate investors much more interested in the city of Kent... all looking for growth and a brighter future. If the Mill Creek residents want a transition between residential and DCE zoned properties, I propose the city give the residents more building rights as stated in option 7. 1 am more than willing to submit a new docket for addressing a 300 foot buffer zone on single family dwellings that corresponds with the current comprehensive plan. I have discussed this matter with over 30 DCE property owners that are affected, all of which are oppose to any change. There is obviously a conflict here and DCE property owners are the victims. Perhaps no height limit restrictions are unrealistic, but what about all other DCE properties outside the proposed 300 foot buffer? Is it realistic for their properties to have no height limits? There are other economics factors that control height and setback limitations. Just because there is unlimited height restriction doesn't mean that a developer could build the Sears Tower in Kent. Issues like the high water table, the cost of structured parking to meet DDR requirements, financing and others come into play when determining the height and density of a building. It is obvious that if there is a problem today, it should have been addressed and resolved 18 years ago. If the city and residents of the Mill Creek community want a resolution now, the most viable, civilized and democratic way is to opt for option 7. Give the people more rights, don't take them away! Sincerely, Daniel Daoura, DCE property owner. S:\PermitkPlan\COMP—PLAN—AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5—DCE Bldg Heights\CorrespondencelUpdatedDeouraLirToOsborne8A-10.doc 25 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE COLUMBIA CENTER TOWER 701 5'Avenue—Suite 5500 RECEIVED P.O. Box 99821 Seattle,Washington 98139 Office.(206)292-041//Fox.206.292.0313 AUG 2 o 2919 williamsonb@msn.com—www.land-useattomey.com CITY OF KENT PLANNING SERVICES August 18, 2010 City of Kent Land Use & Planning Board Dana Ralph & Board Members 220 4`' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Re: Michael W.Johnson Proposed Amendment"DCE-BLD HGTS AMDMT" Docket#DKT-2009-I/CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 Dear Chairman Ralph and Board Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of Robert Slattery, the principal for Kent-Smith Street Development, LLC. Mr. Slattery is challenging the Board's jurisdiction, under Process VI provisions of the Kent City Code, to submit a recommendation to the Council that exceeds the scope of the docket request submitted by Michael W.Johnson. In his Docket Form initially submitted to the City on August 28, 2009, Mr. Johnson requested that the Board review a proposed "building height restriction into the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zone development regulations."' If adopted, this Docketed Proposal would add height restrictions "at the boundaries between the DCE zone and single-family residential zones." The Board, in turn, requested that Kent's Economic and Community Development Staff examine alternatives and to assess the impact of the Johnson Proposal upon the City's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) for Kent's Urban Center. Staffs Report details the relationship between the City's Comprehensive Plan (inclusive of capital facilities, transportation, and utilities) and DSAP with the City's DCE zone KCC 15.03.010- Downtown Commercial Enterprise District - The purpose of this district is to 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. DCE zoning district regulations are set forth at KCC Chapter 15.04. Eathllalt#._� Slattery Letter to Kent Land Use&Planning Board la'.,9 /YY1i �S Re:Docket No.Docket#DKT-2009-1 —CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 Date Reed �-� O August 18,2010 U 1011 i Q 4 Osbo d te - Page I of 5 Land Use&Planning Board City of.Kent 26 development regulations. Other suggested DCE development regulation " followed axa result uf community meetings and comments. /\ Staff Report dated July 19, 2010 at Page 2 states that the "{Jodoo I —Johnson Proposal" "RqequihnQ |ovv density development is not compatible with the visipn, planning nor other regulations for Kanto Urban Center." Staff also reviewed "Option 7"^ from Daniel [)moura. Mr. Daoura`s Option would create a Multifamily Residential Townhouse District of 16 DU'a per acre with a 200-300 DCE Zoning District buffer. /\ Planning Board Member, }acl< Ottini, later suggested that the Urban Center designation be redrawn to Central Avenue from its current boundary. The impacts to Kent'u Urban Canter of these proposals are immediate and dramatic. They directly and adversely affect urban planning initiatives that have taken years to eotabOah, including: growth management goals and objectives such as Urban Center employment and urban transportation facilities conducive to transit use through higher mixed-use and multi- family densities. See attached letter from P0/V Thorpe &Associates. Appendix V' The Board Should Decline to Take Any Further Action on the Johnson and Related DCE Zoning District Regulation Amendment Proposals. Staff's Report ohovvo that the process leading to the Board's review of the Johnson Proposal and various Options followed from Johnson's improperly docketed proposal. All of the various and multiple options examined by Staff to nooeao and implement the Johnson proposal would require Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments, including a rezone and map amendment. Yet, none ofthe Options identified ina July |9, 2O|Q Report were initially submitted to the Board by Johnson as lawfully docketed proposals under KCC ` 12.O2.O25 - .D4Sprocedures. Kenf s clocketing procedures first required that Johnson also include proposed amendments to the City`o Comprehensive Plan, D3/\p' and comprehensive plan map. Absent |avvfu||v scoped docketing, the Board is not permitted to expand the limited Johnson "development regulation pnoposay' to now include hearings and recommendations to the Council on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and D8AP' K[C 12.02.025 procedures in this regard are clear. Johnson, and any other proponent seeking changes to DCE zoning district regulations, would have been required to include written request for a comprehensive plan amendment and map amendments that would have included on environmental checklist and applicable fees. "KCC 12'02.025 [)ocketing. A. In accordance with RCW 38.70A.470' u list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan text, area-wide comprehensive plan land use map, or developmenLIggglations shall be coordinated by the planning services office. The list shall be known as the doc and is the means to suggest a change or identify a deficiency inthe comprehensive plan or developmentiggglations. Any interested party Slattery Letter uz Kent Land Use&Planning Board Re:Docket No. Docket#[)KT-20U9-| —CPA-20O9-5ICP2'20O9-2 August |8.2O|0 Page 2ofS � . _ _ - 27 may submit items to the docket using the docket form prescribed by the planning services office. B. /\ property owner or authorized agent of the property owner shall request a site- specific amendment to the land use nnup of the comprehensive plan by submitting a complete application for comprehensive plan map amendment, an environmental checklist, and applicable fees The application will be processed in accordance with Process VI as described in Ch. 12.01 KCC and shall be considered concurrently with the annual docket. Separate site-specific zoning district map amendments may be processed under KCC 15.09.050/A\/3\' 12.02.035 Process for review. A. Proposals for amendments to the comprehensive plan land use map that have been filed with the planning services office in accordance with KCC 12.02.025/B\ will be forwarded to the city council for action during the comprehensive plan annual cycle. � � 0. Proposals for amendments to develoRment regulations that have been filed with the planning services office in accordance with KCC 12.02.025(4) will be considered in an annual docket report which is forwarded to the city council each year. C. Proposals for amendments to the and development regulations M|ad with the planning services office in accordance with KCC 12.02.025/A\ shall be compiled by the planning services office and distributed for review and comment bothose city departments responsible for the applicable u|annant � of the comprehensive plan or development regulation. The planning services office also shall seek public comment on the comprehensive plan and any proposed comprehensive plan amendments in accordance with KCC 12.02.055." (Emphasis added). Johnson's Docket "development regu|ation° proposal contains no comprehensive plan amendment proposal and no3EFAChecklist. Johnson's "development regulation" proposal cannot be considered by the Board beyond Johnson's original submittal. To properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Board on expanded comprehensive plan policy changes, Johnson is required to reapply and submit afull and complete re-docketing ofhis proposal. He must include a complete analysis of impacts and changes in the form of proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map. and DSAP. While the Board's actions are well-meaning and intended. the Board lacks jurisdiction and authority to expand or change Johnson's defective docketing application to include affected elements of the City^o comprehensive plan. D8AF\ and plan Map. Absent jurisdiction or authority, the Board should make a recommendation tp the City Council and undertake no further action under Process \/I procedures. The Board should remove Johnson's defective docketing request from further hearing. It should decline to take any further action on the proposal unti|, and un|aso, the proposal is |avv{uUy resubmitted to include additional � Slattery Letter nu Kent Land Use&Planning Board � Re: Docket No. Docket#OKT-209-| -CPA-2OO9-5/CPZ-2UO9-2 August |8.2O|O Page of ' ' --- 28 amendments identified by Staff to the comprehensive plan and plan map to lawfully invoke the Board's jurisdiction under KCC |2.O2.O2S - .D46procedures. -jurisdiction Does Not Exist Where the Council Adopted Ordinance No. 3922 Established DCE Incentive for Urban Center Development. The CKv's annual docket evaluation criteria otKCC |2.O2.O4S provides that: A. Proposed amendments to the oznnprahenake plan tsxt, area-wide comprehensive plan land use map, and development regulations on the annual docket may be appropriate for action if the following criteria have been met: ,R** 6. The proposal has not been voted on by the city council in the last three (3) years. This time limit may be waived by the city council if the proponent establishes that there exists either an obvious technical error or a change in circumstances that Justifies the need for the amendment. � As part of its Downtown Strategic Action plan, the Council authorized a New Housing | Paradigm as part of Kent's Downtown, which will serve as a Regional Growth Center. These legislative policies will require increasing the number of residents needed to support an Urban Center. To attract higher density mixed use development'for the DC and D[E zoning districts, the Council authorized development incentives through a tax abatement for these zoning districts under RCW84' 14'020. See Ordinance 3922 at Appendix 2' Mr' Slattery relied upon these legislative initiatives while developing mixed-use and multi-family 601 Station Proposal. Downtown Design Review and Mixed Use Design Review standards already address | building heights soughtinthe Johnson proposal. KCC 15,09.045 - .048. Johnson's Proposal would result in a dafac10 amendment of these and other City Comprehensive Plan policies and elements, including Ordinance 3922 development incentives linked to increased mixed- use and multi-family densities in the [)CE zoning district. Assuming that Johnson's Proposal properly included comprehensive plan amendment provisions in his Docket proposal [which he did not], it falls to meet the three year prior | consideration period requirement ofKCC|2.O3.045 /\.6. The Board and Council would not 6e able to consider any comprehensive plan amend nnents on this subject until June 8. 2012. Johnson has provided no evidence of a "change of circumstances" warranting the abandonment of the City Cqund|`s comprehensive plan and DSAP policies and Ordinance 39Z2 tax abatement incentives. The current [JCE zoning rules allow for unlimited height restriction and zero setback requirements (unless a parcel is adjacent to a residential zoned parcel, in which case there are setback requirements). The economic damage done to Mr. 8|attmry'o mixed use � development proposal by the Johnson proposal, which has taken years to create, is Slattery Letter mo Kent Land Use&Planning Board Re:Docket No.Docket#[}KT-2¢09-| —CPA-2U09~S/CP2-3OU9-2 August 18.2010 Page 4cfS 29 demonstrated in the attached letter from Mr. Slattery.Appendix 3. There are no "change of circumstances" conditions contained in any evidence presented in the Johnson proposal that sufficiently invokes jurisdiction and which allows for Board or Council review. Conclusion Neither the Board nor the Council possesses jurisdiction to expand a legally defective proposal improperly docketed under KCC Chapter 12.02. Having failed to meet these docketing requirements, the Board and City Council should not take any further review or consideration of the Johnson Proposal or additional Options. Any further Board review should await a properly docketed proposal by Johnson. Accordingly, no final action should be taken by the Board, and no recommendation should be submitted to the Council under KCC Chapter 12.02. Sincerely, Bill H. Williamson Enclosures:Appendices 1-3 cc: Robert Slattery Slattery-Kent LU&PB Letter-081810.doc Slattery Letter to Kent Land Use&Planning Board Re: Docket No.Docket#DKT-2009-1 —CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 August 18,2010 Page 5 of 5 30 MEDowntown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) gin '+f James St: _ I - k s ' �"Nf lent 5ta St ®� Gec N MWs j on 'Ram o � a ,�, r- m �`'�^'� �` µMcMillan Slt.-=.?• �J E > SG111,th•Sf �. ��++E Smith St � Q /t��' 1 � 1N Meeker S:t ��. N RTa <Cd `� 1W TItUS St= E MR=D. P \E Dean De, CON nil Iis St�W�I Ir-- APPENDIX 32 R.W. THORPE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Seattle • Anchorage • Denver • Winthrop • Planning Landscape Environmental Economics ❖ PRINCIPALS: ASSOCIATES: Robert W.Thorpe,AICP,President Lindsay Diallo,RLA Stephen Speidel,ASLA,Of Counsel Lee A.Michaelis,AICP August 23,2010 RE C E I VT City of Kent Land Use&Planning Board �1 Dana Ralph,Chair&Board Members AUG 2 ® 2010 220 41h Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 CITY OF (CENT PLANNING SERVICES RE: Michael W.Johnson Proposed Amendment—"DCE BLDG HGTS AMDMT" Docket#DKT-2009-1/CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 Dear Chair Ralph and Board Members: This letter is being submitted in support of Mr. Robert Slattery's challenge of the applications mentioned above. On August 28, 2009, Michael W. Johnson submitted to the City of Kent a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. "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 purpose of this letter is to review the proposed amendment and to provide our professional opinion on the impacts that would result in the approval of this application and further adoption of regulations to implement the requested height restrictions. Our initial opinion parallels that of Mr. Bill Williamson in that the application is very limited in scope and completeness of the application is subjective. If review is merited based on the material submitted,then review should be limited to Mr.Johnson's request of a height restriction for those zoned Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) within 300 feet of any properties property zoned single family residential. The following details our review and opinions on how the proposed amendment is inconsistent with adopted state and city development regulations. Growth Management Act Mr. Johnson states in his application that "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 12009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application#DKT-2009-1:Page 2 705 Second Ave.Ste 710,Seattle WA 98104 1 Telephone:(206)624-6239 1 Fax:(206)625-0930 1 E-Mail:rwta@rwta.com 4- 33 Slattery Letter to Kent Land Use&Planning Board August 23,2010 Appendix 1 Page 2 of 6 this limited change of adding building height restrictions on the boundaries of the DCE, the Growth Management Act requirements should easily still be met."2 While higher density is a tool that is used to achieve the Planning Goals of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.020); Mr. Johnson fails to adequately review and determine compliance between his proposal and the 13 Planning Goals. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan'was adopted with these goals as the framework for the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Any proposed amendment would clearly need to be consistent with the 13 goals of the Growth Management Act. We find that Mr.Johnson's proposal is not consistent with Goals #1,4, and 5 listed below: "1. Urban Growth:Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." Urban Growth Areas are the preferred areas to allocate housing and employment for cities planning under the Growth Management Act. The City of Kent has used the.DCE area and its development potential to fulfill state required Employment and Housing Target Numbers. Reduction in height results in the reduction in development potential which results in the loss of jobs and housing. Adequate review has not been performed to determine to what degree these target numbers will be negatively impacts. For this reason, Mr. Johnson's proposal is inconsistent with Planning Goal#1 of the Growth Management Act. "4. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. For similar reasons mentioned above, Mr.Johnson's review for consistency does not take into account the loss of potential housing units that would result from his proposal. Reversing an adopted development standard and reversing goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan would not be considered encouraging the availability of affordable housing or promoting a variety of residential densities. A thorough analysis of the existing housing supply and the elimination of future housing units must be completed before a determination for consistency can be determined. Mr.Johnson fails to perform this type of analysis. "5. Economic Development: Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public services and public facilities." Goal ED-6 of the City's Comprehensive Plan states "Promote Downtown as the primary center for the concentration of housing, retail and office commerce, and cultural activities in Kent. This indicates 2 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application#DKT-2009-1:Page 3 'Adopted August 14,2004 by Ordinance Number 3698:Revised by Ordinance Nos.3794-3797 705 Second Ave.Ste 710,Seattle WA 98104 1 Telephone:(206)624-6239 1 Fax:(206)625-0930 1 E-Mail:rwta@rwta.com d• P:\2010\1007051 Mondo Development\DRAFTAnalysis.doc 34 Slattery Letter to Kent Land Use&Planning Board August 23,2010 Appendix 1 Page 3 of 6 that the DCE zone is the preferred location for the types of development that the proposed 601 Station project proposes. Reversal of these types of policies would undermine the public process that was completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Strategic Action Plan and the Downtown Design Review Process. Mr. Johnson's proposal is inconsistent with Goal ED-6 of the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistent with Planning Goal #5 of the Growth Management Act. For the reasons stated above Mr.Johnson's analysis is inadequate in determining consistency with the Growth Management Act and therefore should not be considered for further review. Countywide Planning Policies Mr. Johnson states in his application that "This change should not in any way be non- compliant with any County Planning Policies on height restrictions inside the City boundary."4 This statement is not supported by additional review of existing or future need for housing and employment. "The intent of these policies is to establish a countywide framework for the development of consistent county and city comprehensive plans. "5 This policies mirror the state's Planning Goals and can be found on Page 3-3 of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. For the same reasons detailed in the analysis of the Growth Management Act, it is our opinion that Mr.Johnson's Proposal is not consistent with Policies e,f, and g listed below: "e. Policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution;and f.Policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas;and g.Policies for countywide economic development and employment." In addition to these policies, Mr. Johnson's proposal does not adequately address the fiscal impact of his proposal. One could assume that the reduction in development potential would also reduce the ability for the City of Kent to generate construction revenue as well as on-going revenue such as utility, property, and sales tax. For this reason, Mr. Johnson has failed to adequately address Countywide Planning Policy g. "An analysis of fiscal impact". For the reasons stated above Mr. Johnson s analysis and response in his application is inadequate in determining consistency with the Countywide Planning Policies and therefore should not be considered for further review. Comprehensive Plan In our review of the submitted application, it appears that Mr. Johnson's request is a development regulation amendment and not a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Mr. Johnson's application lacks the needed policy amendments that would be required modify the implementing regulations. For this reason, our analysis for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan utilizes adopted policies in the Comprehensive Plan 4 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application#DKT-2009-1:Page 3 12004 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Page 3-3 .• 705 Second Ave.Ste 710,Seattle WA 98104 1 Telephone:(206)624-6239 1 Fax:(206)625-0930 1 E-Mail:rwta@rwta.com ❖ P:\2010\1007051 Mondo Development\DRAFTAnalysis.doc 35 Slattery Letter to Kent Land Use&Planning Board August 23,2010 -Appendix 1 Page 4 of 6 Land Use The city has identified the downtown as an Urban Center, as defined by the Countywide Planning Polices. The downtown is the major focus for future regional housing and employment growth. Land Use Goal 3 (Goal LU-3) states "Focus both city and regional household and employment growth in the designated Urban Center." The state and county allocate housing and employment targets to each city. As part of the Buildable Lands Analysis, the City of Kent as allocated a major portion of these numbers to the Urban Center. Reducing the height in the DCE zone would result in the reduction of future housing and employment. Sufficient review needs to be performed to determine the loss of these numbers and whether the city will still be in compliance with the county required target numbers. Based on the lack of information provided by Mr. Johnson, further review of his proposal should not be performed and the requested development regulation amendment be denied. Community Design Mr. Johnson's proposal requests that properties zoned DCE within 300 feet of a single family zone have a height restriction similar to the adjacent single family zone. This is in direct contradiction to and inconsistent with the following city adopted Community Design Policy. "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." Housing To meet the housing targets the City of Kent allocates new housing units to several different zones in the city. One of these zones is the DCE zone;where the proposed height restriction is being requested. This height restriction would reduce the number of future housing units needed to meet future demands. The reduced number has not been determined because adequate review,has not been performed to determine the housing impacts this proposal would cause. It can be assumed that this proposal would reduce the number and type of future units. There is also a high probability that this proposal would also reduce the number of future affordable housing units. Mr.Johnson's proposal would have an unknown negative impact on future housing supply in Kent and is considered to be inconsistent with the following Housing Goals and Policies. "Goal H-5: Increase housing opportunities through a diversity of housing types and the innovative use of residential and commercial land. Policy H-5.1:Expand the range of affordable housing choices available to meet the needs of both current Kent residents and residents projected in growth estimates. Policy H-5.2: Provide a sufficient amount of land zoned for current and projected residential needs including, but not limited to, assisted housing, housing for low-income households, single-family ❖ 705 Second Ave.Ste 710,Seattle WA 95104 1 Telephone:(206)624-6239 1 Fax:(206)625-0930 1 E-Mail:rwta@rwta.com :• P:\2010\1007051 Mondo Development\DRAFTAnalysis.doc 36 Slattery Letter to Kent Land Use&Planning Board August 23,2010 Appendix 1 Page 5 of 6 housing, small lot sizes, townhouses, multifamily housing, manufactured housing, group homes, and foster care facilities. Policy H-5.3: Promote diversihj of housing types affordable to a range of income levels and cultural/ethnic diversity. Policy H-5.4: Encourage housing opportunities including affordable housing in mixed residential/commercial settings throughout the City. Policy H-5.5: Encourage housing development in the downtown area including innovative, affordable housing." Transportation The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan along with the goals and policies within it has taken years to create, adopt and amend. Years of planning and analysis has gone into this element. The goals and policies of the Transportation Element rely heavily on future land use patterns and estimates for housing units and employment targets. Reducing the potential for development caused by the proposed height restriction, modifies these land use patterns and growth target numbers. This modification has an unknown impact on the transportation system. Potential impacts may include reduced ridership on public transit systems resulting in fewer routes and frequency of existing routes; also future funding sources may be eliminated when the demand is reduced. There is insufficient information to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with transportation goals and policies. Economic Development The proposed height restriction in the DCE zone is inconsistent with the following goal and policies of the Economic Development Element. It is inconsistent because it would reverse the policies put in place that identifies the Urban Center as the focus for development. "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-6.1:Develop and maintain public-private partnerships for Downtown revitalization. Policy ED-6.2: Pursue regional capital improvement opportunities that will benefit Downtown, such as the Kent Train Station for the Sounder Commuter Rail. 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." It is our opinion that the proposed amendment by Mr. Johnson would reverse and in some cases eliminate adopted goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal lacks 705 Second Ave.Ste 710,Seattle WA 98104 1 Telephone:(206)624-6239 1 Fax:(206)625-0930 1 E-Mail:rwta@rwta.com ❖ P:\2010\1007051 Mondo Development\DRAFTAnalysis.doc 37 Slattery Letter to Kent Land Use&Planning Board August 23,2010 Appendix 1 Page 6 of 6 sufficient review and analysis to determine its full impact on the future needs of the City of Kent. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. R.W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc has over 34 years of experience in writing, reviewing and processing Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Land Use Regulation. Robert W.Thorpe has over 44 years of experience, including 5 years in the public sector, and also teaches Planning& Economic classes. For additional information on experience please visit www.rwta.com. If you have questions regarding our analysis we are available to meet with city staff or attend any future public meetings to express our findings. Please call Robert W. Thorpe, AICP or Lee A.Michaelis,AICP at 206.624.6239 or rwta@rwta.com with any questions. Sincerely, R.W. Thorpe&Associates,Inc. Robert W.Thorpe,AICP ?LeeA.Michaelis,AICP President/Principal In Charge ning Director/Senior Associate 705 Second Ave.Ste 710,Seattle WA 98104 1 Telephone:(206)624-6239 1 Fax:(206)625-0930 1 E-Mail:rwta@rwta.com :• P:\2010\1007051 Mondo Development\DRAFTAnalysis.doc 38 Qualifications of Robert W. Thorpe, AICP Principal/President EDUCATION University of Washington:Dual Masters Program: M-Urban Planning/Design(Urban Planning Curriculum)M-Urban Development(MBA Curriculum), 1973. University of Nebraska:BS Business Administration and Economics,Minors:Architecture and Art, 1966. Bellevue Community Co11ege.: 1974 to 1976-Real Estate Certificate. MAI Course Work: Seattle University,MAI Course 1A, `77;MAI Course 1B, `78;Bellingham,WA-Feasibility I: `77,II: `78;Bellevue-Course 7-Standards of Practice, '84,520-Highest&Best Use,U. of Phoenix,Tukwila'04. EXPERIENCE Principal,R.W.Thorpe&Associates,Inc.,Seattle/Anchorage/Denver/Winthrop,(`74-'75 Part Time), 1976 to present. Project management/supervision to all team projects. Over 5,000 total assignments, 1,000 Rezones, Comprehensive Plan Changes,CUPS and Shorelines Permits,etc.;400 EISs/Environmental Reports;500 Highest and Best Use Analyses.Expert Witness—Highest and Best Use,Takings,SEPA,and Urban Planning Instructor/Lecturer,Bellevue Community College, 1976 to present; Graduate Program,Univ.of Washington-Real Estate,Urban Planning and Real Estate Classes- 1973 to present;Washington State University-Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture, 1981 to present;University of Nebraska- 1984 to present;University of Alaska,Juneau- 1986;University of Colorado,Denver- 1988 to present;Arizona State,Tempe- 1996. BIAW/Master Builders/ NAHB Instructor—1992 to Present. Chair,Land Planning and Development,MBAU-King County MBA. Assistant Director,Community Development/Building Department,City of Mercer Island, 1971 to 1976. Staff to Planning Commission and City Council;new Comprehensive Plan,environmental factors study,land use planning, zoning,ordinance writing,transit study;Mercer Island Drainage Study Team,design guidelines;Administered Subdivision and Shorelines Management Regulations;1-90 Design Team and City's EIS Coordinator;Lake Washington Shorelines Management Master Program Staff. Mercer Island Responsible Official-SEPA. Regional Planner,Daniel,Mann,Johnson&Mendenhall, Seattle,WA, 1970 to 1971. Auburn-Bothell Corridor Study; Juneau Transit Study;Alaska Land Use Study—Phase I. Design Planner,Harstad Associates,Inc.,Seattle,WA, 1969 to 1970. Comprehensive Plans for North Bend,Kitsap County,Mercer Island,WA. Ski Resort-Smith Ferry,Idaho;Master Planning for a 13,000 Acre Nettleton Lakes PUD in Kitsap County;and a 12,000 Acre Master Plan -El Rincon,Baja,Mexico. Various Land Use/Feasibility studies/Urban Design/Landscape Design. Site Planner/Industrial Engineer,Boeing Company,Seattle,WA, 1966 to 1969. Industrial Siting Studies;Facilities Planning and Implementation. New facilities at Auburn and Everett. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS/EDUCATIONAL AICP-American Institute of Certified Planners, 1978 to present(Charter Member) American Institute of Appraisers(MAI,Candidate-Various years)—Associate/Instructor American Planning Association—APA—Puget Sound Chapter—President 2006-2007 AIA-R/UDAT Team Member-Farmington,New Mexico- 1989 Alumni Development Commissioner(Past District Advisor)—Kappa Sigma International Fraternity Bellevue Community College Faculty 1977 to present—Senior Faculty—Real Estate/Land Planning/Appraisal Boys&Girls Club—Mercer Island—Board of Directors-2007 Building Industry Legal Trust Fund-Advisory Committee, 1992 to 2008 —2005/2006 Chair Emmanuel Episcopal Church—Development Committee—Co-Chair—Permitting/Landscape Architecture Habitat for Humanity of East King County—Past Board Member(2003-2006—Three year term.) International Conference of Shopping Centers Associate,Chair of Downtown Retail Committee Council King County Executive-DDES Reorganization Committee- 1994 Master Builders Association—King/Snohomish Counties—MBA University- Chair,Land Development Education Mercer Island Development Advisory Committee- 1991 to 1998 and 2002 Mercer Island Downtown Development Advisory Board 2006 National Association of Homebuilders—NAHB Instructor,Land Development Classes Neighborhood Retailers of Washington—1990's University of Washington-Certificate in Real Estate Instructor- 1996—present—Masters Program,Guest Lecturer Urban Land Institute (ULI) Who's Who Among Outstanding American Executives R. bY.Thm pt, luc. ,-101 9, ?0(h Qualifications of Robert W. Thorpe, AICP, Principal/President 39 SPECIAL EXPERIENCE/EXPERTISE • Witness: Qualified Expert Witness in Washington,Oregon,Alaska and Federal courts,and Judicial Mediation Boards. Quasi-judicial proceedings before Planning Commissions,Councils and Hearing Examiners. Land use,"takings"condemnation,SEPA/NEPA,shorelines, SAO's,development costs,etc. • Instructor/Senior Faculty Member:Bellevue Community College. Urban Planning,Land Development and Real Estate Appraisal and Real Estate Finance 1976 to present. • Instructor: University of Washington—Graduate Program/Certificate in Real Estate • Instructor: Real Estate Classes-Washington Association of Commercial Realtors,Building Industry of Washington,National Association of Homebuilders,and Chair—Land Planning/Urban Development/Finance, Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties(MBAU). • Graduate Classes:Regional Planning/Environmental Services/Landscape Architecture,Washington State University, 1981-present.. • Guest Lecturer/Graduate/Undergraduate Urban Planning Class,University of Washington,Extension Division—1995 to present,University of Nebraska, 1985 to present,and University of Alaska,Juneau, 1985 to 1986,Guest Lecturer. Regional Planning/Landscape Architecture -Washington State University, 1981 to present,Program Advisory Committee. Senior Critiques and Guest Lecturer,Senior Faculty/Real Estate Advisory Committee. • Advisory Committee/Staff.Washington State DOE-SEPA Guidelines, 1972-1973. • Washington State DOE—Shorelines Management/Lake Washington Model Program, 1972-1973. Speaker: • Site Selection,Zoning,Highest and Best Use Most Probable Use,Development Costs—30+years • Land Planning and Land Economics",miscellaneous real estate appraisal/professional societies,30+years • League of Oregon Cities- Design Commissions/Tree Ordinances/SAO's 1074& 1976 • Open Space Conference-Boulder,Colorado-July 1988 • Retail Site Selection/Zoning-NACOR, 1993 to present • King County Assessor-Highest and Best Use Classes- 1996, 1997, 1999 • ICSC-Washington/Oregon Conference-Port Ludlow— 1999,Semiahmoo 2003 • Law Seminars International,Seattle—Eminent Domain"Property Owners Perspective"7/2001 • Law Seminars International,Seattle—Valuation—Temporary Takings"Proving What Has Been Lost" 11/01 • Law Seminars International,Seattle—Government Takings—"Partial Takings" 12/2003 • Appraisal Institute—Miscellaneous—1985 to present,MAI classes—2004 • Planning Law Conferences—Regulatory Takings—Planning Association of Washington—Bellevue 4/07&4/09 • Law Seminars International,Seattle—Government Takings Panel Practice Session(Kinnon Williams,Atty.), 11/2007. PROJECTS AND STUDIES (Prior to R.W. Thorpe &Associates, Inc.) P=Project Manager, A=Author, R=Review City of Mercer Island—Assistant Director/SEPA Official P Zoning/Subdivision—Update R City Budgets—Co-authored/Reviewed,5 years P Responsible Official-SEPA Ordinance P Capital Improvement Programs,5 years P Administrator-Shorelines Management A An Approach to Environmental Zoning A I-90 EIS-Mercer Island,Technical Review A Cost Benefit Analysis—Rezones R Design Guidelines-Design Commission A Comprehensive Plan Elements P Island Attitude Survey(Open Space) Harstad Associates Inc. Seattle- Urban Designer/Planner • Nettleton Lakes Project-Kitsap County(Hood Canal),WA-Master Plan/PUD for 13,000 acre/residential recreational development- 1,000-slip marina,Robert Trent Jones,Sr. 36 hole golf course • Smith Ferry,ID-Master Plan:Waterfront Residential/Ski Area/Marina • El Rincon,Baja,Mexico- 12,000 Acre Recreational Master Plan • Comprehensive Plans-North Bend,Mercer Island,Wapato,Kitsap County,WA;Cutbank,Deer Lodge,MT Daniel Mann Johnson&Mendenhall Seattle—Regional/Environmental Planner Phase lI-Auburn/Bothell Corridor Study-State Highway Feasibility Study(I-605)Land use,environmental/ economic/demographic/communities and citizen group coordination. • Support services:Juneau Transit Study and Alaska State Land Use Study. R. W.Thorlm :;:Is;S0Ci(zhrs, III C. ,Yril 9, 2009 APPENDIX 2 41 ORDINANCE NO. 1 c AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending section 3.25 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Multifamily dwelling tax exemptions," in order to increase the number of permanent residents to support the viability of the City's urban center. RECITALS A. Kent is a Regional Growth Center where a significant share of the Puget Sound Regions population and employment growth is expected to occur. Centers are characterized by compact, pedestrian-oriented development with a mix of uses. Centers provide proximity to a diverse collection of services, shopping, recreation, and jobs, as well as a variety 9 of attractive and well-designed residences. B. The State's multifamily tax exemption program helps to focus future multifamily growth into areas where it is most appropriate and it makes multifamily housing development projects more appealing to investors by freeing up capital and reducing operating costs. { C. In 1998, the City Council passed a tax exemption program to encourage owner-occupied multifamily housing in Kent's Downtown. The City now desires to increase the usefulness and viability of the program. Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions—Amend KCC 3.25 42 3. Assist in directing future population growth in designated urban centers, thereby reducing development pressure on single-family residential neighborhoods; and 4. Achieve development densities which are more conducive to transit use in designated urban centers. Sec. 3.25.020. Definitions. When used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context indicates otherwise: 1 Administrator means the Kent Economic Development Director or his/her designee. 2 Mixed use means a multi-story, multifamily housing residential project with at least one nonresidential use in one or more multi story multifamily housing buildings in the project such as retail, office, entertainment schools, conference centers or a use approved in writing by the Administrator. 4�3. Multifamily housing means one or more new multi-story buildingaks- designed for permanent residential occupancy each with having-Pour or more dwelling units_ F uunuu u -24. Owner means the property owner of record. 3 Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions — Amend KCC 3.25 43 nor does the exemption apply to increases in assessed valuation of land and nonqualifying improvements._ Lluildings, the exemption does not inelude the valtie of iFnffevefrlef�ts under- this . This chapter does not apply to increases in assessed valuation made by the assessor on nonqualifying portions of building and value of land nor to increases made by lawful order of a county board of equalization, the Department of Revenue, or a county, to a class of property throughout the county or specific area of the county to achieve the uniformity of assessment or appraisal required by law. At the conclusion of the exemption period, the new housing cost shall be considered as new construction for the purposes of chapter 84.55 RCW. Sec, 3.25.040. Project eligibility. A proposed project must meet the following requirements for consideration for a property tax exemption: A. Location. The project must be located within the designated residential targeted area as defined in KCC 3.25.020, Definitions, Residential targeted area. If a part of any legal lot is within the residential targeted area, then the entire lot shall be deemed to lie within the residential targeted area. B. Tenant displacemen Prior to approval of an application under KCC 3.25.060, the applicant shall provide the Administrator with documentation satisfactory to the Administrator of the following: i all tenants of residential rental structures on the project site have been notified per state statute of the termination of their tenancy. 5 Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions -- Amend KCC 3.25 44 Multifamily Design Review,-Mixed Use Design Review if applicable, and any other applicable regulations. The project must be LEEDR Certifiable as confirmed by a LEEDR certified independent third party reviewer or must be Built Greeni'm certified and must also comply with any other standards and guidelines adopted by the city council for the residential targeted area. F. Parking All rewired residential parking shall be located in structured parking garages, under buildings, or underground._ G. Class A Pedestrian Street. buildings adjacent to a class A pedestrian street the first floor of the building facing the street shall consist of residential units, commercial uses, and/or residential amenity uses. H. Mixed Use Development. The project shall be a mixed use project, unless the mixed use component is waived by the Administrator. 1 The purpose of the mixed-use requirement is to implement the intent of the land use district, maximize the efficient use of land, support transit use, and encourage the development of well-balanced, attractive convenient and vibrant urban residential neighborhoods. The additional use excludes any accessoEy functions related to the residential use Unless otherwise modified or waived in writing by the Administrator, the nonresidential mixed use shall occupy at a minimum the ground floor along the street frontage with a depth of at least thirty (30) feet for any building in the project The Administrator may not modify or waive the mixed use requirement, as provided in subsection 3.25.040.H.2. in the DC zoning District, which is governed by KCC 15.04.030(4) and (5). 7 multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions - Amend KCC 3.25 45 1. A completed city of Kent application form setting forth the grounds for the exemption. 2, f2re}rt aff4kwA brief written description of the project and floor and site plans of the proposed project, which may be revised by the owner provided such revisions are made and presented to the Administrator prior to the City's final action on the exemption application. 3. A statement from the owner acknowledging the potential tax liability when the project ceases to be eligible for exemption under this chapter. 4. An affidavit signed by the owner staffing the occupancy record of the property for a period of twelve (12) months prior to filing the application. 5. Verification of the correctness of the information submitted by the owner's sign atureeath—ef and affirmation made under penalty of perjures under the laws of the State of Washinaton submitted. the existing units and if the units were eeeupied wit'l-On tv.-elve Fflenths —inelttde supporting St"er-tin 9 Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions - Amend KCC 3.25 46 certificate of acceptance of tax exemption. The conditionai certificate shall expire three (3) years from the date of approval unless an extension is granted as provided in this chapter. QD. Application Denial. If an application is denied, the g+atg gefAdministrator shall state in writing the reasons for denial and shall send notice to the applicant at the applicant's last known address within ten (10) calendar days of the denial. Per RCW 84.14.070, an applicant may appeal a denial to the city council within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the denial by filing a complete appeal application and Council Appeal fee with the city clerk. The appeal before the city council will be based on the record made before the Administrator. The Plat + 'sAdministrator's decision will be upheld unless the applicant can show that there is no substantial evidence on the record to support the planning Administrator's decision. The city council's decision on appeal will be final. E Amendment of Contract An owner may request an amendmentfs� to the contract by submitting a request in writing to the Administrator, together with a fee of five hundred dollars ($500) at any time within three (3) years of the date of the approval of the contract. The date for expiration of the conditional certificate shall not be extended by contract amendment unless all the conditions for extension set forth in 3.25.070 are met. 19 Multifamily Dwelling Tax (Exemptions— Amend KCC 3.25 47 action. No appeal to the city council is provided from the hearing examiner's decision. Sec. 3.25.080. Application for final certificate. Upon completion of the improvements agreed upon in the contract between the applicant and the city and upon issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy, the applicant may request a final certificate of tax exemption by filing with the Administrator the following.. along with a one thousand dollar ($1,000) fee; A. A statement of expenditures made with respect to each multifamily housing unit and the total expenditures made with respect to the entire property: B. A description of the completed work and a statement of qualification for the exemption; and C. The total monthly rent or total sale amount of each multifamily housing unit rented or sold to date; D. Any additional information requested by the city pursuant to meeting any reporting requirements under Chapter 84.14 RCW• and GE. A statement that the work was completed within the required three (3) year period or any authorized extension. Sec. 3.25.090. Issuance of final certificate. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of all materials required for a final certificate, the planning—managefAdministrator shall determine whether the specific 13 Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions — Amend KCC 3.25 48 An applicant may appeal a denial to the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) calendar days of issuance of the denial of a final certificate by filing a complete appeal application and weal of Administrative Decision fee with the Administrator. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall be as provided in Ch. 12.01 KCC for a Process I action. No appeal to the city council is provided from the hearing examiner's decision. The applicant may appeal the hearing examiner's decision to the King County superior court, under RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, if the appeal is filed within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving notice of that decision. Sec. 3.25.100. Annual certification and report. Within thirty (30) calendar days after the first anniversary of the date of-44ing-the city issued the final certificate of tax exemption and each year thereafter for the duration of the tax exemption period, the property owner shall file a notarized declaration and annual report with the planning FnefragefAdministrator indicating the following; i A. A statement of occupancy and vacancy of the multifamily units during the previous twelve (12) months; B. A certification that the property has not changed use and continues to be in compliance with the contract with the city and this chapter; ate C. A description of any subsequent improvements or changes to the property made after the city issued the final certificate of tax exemption. D. The total monthly rent of each multifamily housing unit rented or the total sale amount of each multifamily housing unit sold to an initial 15 Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions — Amend KCC 3.25 I 49 WR4- - based upon the v-a6e of the,n i. Additional and the prepei=ty tax that would have been paid if it had ineluded the value of the nanqualif'y'ing improvements dated bael( to the date that the imprevements were eanver4ted to --menqualil,,ying use. of the value of the additional preperty tax plus interest. on del e-t fFaFn the dates on whieh the additional had been assessed at fHll value witheut regard to this tax exempuen PF the pf=epeft-y on the land and attaeh at the time -Ire pr-Eepe eF pat U appileable Fequir-ements. The lien has pnefit�-and must be ',--Ily paid and satisfied befer-e a 4. The additional taxes, interest an-d-penalties will beeeme a lien et= responsibility to oF with whieh the land Fnay beeenge ehar-ged oF liable. The lien may be foreclosed upen expirat"i-en, of the saFne period delinqueney and ',in the sarne manner- provide-' by law for feizeelesure of liens far- delinquent rea4-prepefty-taxes. An additional tax unpaid an its due date is delinquent. Frern the date of deli ueney until pa,d, lnt-�-Jrelst must be eharged at the sange Fate applied by law to delinquent --- valor-eng preperty-taxes. B. Notice and appeal. Upon determining that a tax exemption is to be canceled, the planning managefAdministrator shall notify the owner by 17 Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions - Amend KCC 3.25 50 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CL RK 0a "'�•j'°��+'^°,e�'�. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ;•,�` e°0 e°•� TOO BRUBA R, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: f� day of , 2009. APPROVED: day of 12009. PUBLISHED: day of , 2009. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved i by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. AL) I� B RENDA 3ACOBEr,PITY CLERK I ...,, y ° e A. +.y r. ^ p: i? y y, �b60a�C� � m °°be ' '. ,;L� 19 Multifamily Dwelling Tax Exemptions - Amend [KCC 3.25 51 APPENDIX 3 j �I i 52 July 27, 2010 Bill Williamson 701 Fifth Avenue—Suite 5500 Seattle,WA 98139 Dear Bill: I am writing to requestyour assistancewith the City of Kent's Land Use and Planning Board as they consider a docket request from Michael W.Johnson. In December of 2007,1 entered intocontract to purchase two parcels of land located at 603 and 623 East Smith Street in Kent. The land is zoned DCE-:Downtown Commercial Enterprise—which allowis for unlimited height restriction and no setbacks (unless adjacent to another zoning, in which case setbacks apply). During 2008, 1 worked with;my architects, civil;engineers and other consultants to develop a multifamily housing project that would take moderate advantage of the DCE zoning with a five story urban-style midrise apartment building. In 2009, it became necessary to add two additional parcels and grow the size/scope of the building to maximize the economics of the project. The current design consists of five stories of wood; framing over two PT decks containing 167' apartment units, approximately 2,400 square feet of commercial/retail at street level, and parking that complies with Kent's City Code. On April 16, 2009, I met with the Mill Creek Neighborhood Association to discuss the plans for my project, now named Station 601. The response from the neighborhood group was nothing short of hostile. Of the 60 or so residents that showed up to the meeting, only four or five were in favor of development within the DCE zoned portion of their neighborhood. Since that meeting,l have kept a low profile with the neighborhood group and have continued work on Station 601. The severe economic downturn in 2009 forced a postponement of the project for most of the second half of 2009. At the, beginning of 2010, 1 entered into negotiations witha development and capital group that is interested in joint venturing the Station 601 project, offering the necessary capital strength to move forward with Station 601. I spent most of this year negotiating terms and options with the development group and reported to my investors that we were moving in the right direction after our brief hiatus. Simultaneously, a resident of the Mill Creek neighborhood submitted a proposal to the Kent Land Use and Planning Board that suggests creating a "buffer zone" at the edges of the DCE zone that are adjacent to residential zoning. Michael Johnson's proposal is enclosed with this letter. Station 601 is directly adjacent to residential zoning and includes the requisite setback from the one neighboring residence. The current design consists of five stories of wood framing over two of concrete (a portion of which is underground due to the 14' slope of the site). Using Kent's measurements, the building is approximately 70 feet tall. The building's design is within the Downtown Design Review 53 guidelines,and we are literally within a handful of working days to be able to submit with the city to vest the project. Johnson's proposal would have a severe detrimental impact on the Station 601 project. It recommends a four story maximum height limit (50') within a 300 foot distance from a residential zone. Kent's planning staff has further recommended a variety of other options that are variations on the same theme, but all would diminish the financial viability of Station 601. Since December of 2007, my development company has spent in excess of $600,000 in feasibility, engineering, architecture and consultant fees,plus over$250,000 in land acquisition costs. While I am confident that I can vest Station 601 under the current zoning codes, there is a'significant risk that the Johnson Proposal could have negative implications on Station 601 during application for construction permits, Downtown Design Review, and other projects that may be on the drawing boards within the DCE zone. Another DCE land owner, Daniel Daoura, has recommended an option that would extend townhome zoning 300 feet into a residential zone from the DCE boundary in lieu of Johnson's proposal. At this point, I am completely opposed to any zoning changes until Station 601 is completed. I would appreciate your review of the circumstances and your input to the Land Use and Planning Board. Best regards, Robert Slattery / Managing Member of Kent-Smith Street Development, LLC and MONDO Land Development, LLC P.O. Box 5028 Bellevue,WA 98009 425-205-1000 direct 425-650-9204 efax 1 ✓I In Wall (� MR, y , or ®i � i i�miamnm a ,�noQlmi C Ind t , r ri `* S�cla e a c sin mt n _ >is �} >--: r K __r C u x:, PROJECT OVERVIEW 55 Station 601 is a 167-unit multi-family housing project in pre-development in Kent, Washington. The project is a transit-oriented urban housing project. Located at 601 East Smith Street, the site is across the street from Kent's Senior/Community Activity Center and a brief stroll to restaurants, shopping, and transit. Kent Station, a new outdoor urban shopping and lifestyle center built in 2005 that features adjoining Sound Transit rail station and regional bus depot, is four blocks from Station 601. PHYSICAL LOCATION AND ATTRIBUTES Station 601 occupies the DCE-zoned portion of the 601 block between East Smith Street and East Temperance Street, between Clark Avenue to the West and Jason Avenue to the East. Four lots have been assembled for the project, creating a total of 53,188 square feet (1.22 acres). The north-most lot is split between the DCE zone (Downtown Commercial Enterprise) and SR6 (Single Family Residential — 6 units per acre). Through administrative approval, the split zone will allow the project to extend 50 feet into the SR6 zone from the DCE zone. DCE zoning allows for unlimited height restriction and zero setbacks to other DCE-zoned properties. Other setbacks apply when adjacent to residential properties, but those setbacks do not adversely impact the design of the site. Construction is planned to be five levels of wood framing over two levels of concrete parking. The design team at Weber Thompson believes it is possible to reduce the parking ratio from two stalls per unit down to 1.2 parking stalls per unit. The current design allows for 212 vehicles to be parked at or below grade. Lror :5.231 P/ i � ►r s ,a m 9 m Showare ioudy st Center M m s W lemes m t — E James St. ° }E Jame s St 011 - St ^ m Station 6®� tj� � ��t ,�"..�t; + ,a,.sa, s.,.., "d�� ❑ , gal. a r� 9 a ro � � Kent t�neer— a � r Station ! i�• iNAW th'Herrison,StY ICY+-;�.. �� D i3 •. � y °� .. �t�: � U1,Mooker St z � Ehteoker 5t a � LJUDW. t �W�ilandtst °. 1 s„ , The building is designed with approximately 135,000 net rentable square feet, separated into 167 residential 56 units averaging approximately 750 square feet each. Parking will be secured within the building. Approximately 2,600 square feet of retail is planned at street level, though this is subject to change depending on financing requirements. DCE does not currently require retail at street level, but DDR (Downtown Design Review) and HUD financing do stipulate retail. O-V- PARCEL VIEW Station 601 covers the DCE portion of the block surrounded by East Smith Street to the South, East Temperance Street to the North, and Z:o e Clark Avenue North to the West and Jason Avenue North to the East. Zone DCE The zoning splits toward the northern third of the site to residential zoning. As one of the parcels shares the two zones, the City of Kent will allow Station 601 to utilize the majority of the parcel under the DCE zoning guidelines. The one parcel not included in the project site is a single family residence that lies solely in the residential zone and is of no use to the project. TAx ABATEMENT A multifamily tax abatement was passed in 2009 which waives the taxed "improvement value" of any new multifamily development projects for a period of eight years. PLANNED AMENITIES & FEATURES As the first building of its type in Kent, Station 601 has been designed to set the precedent for multi-family development projects in the city moving forward. To seize on this, the design features quality amenities including a rooftop deck area complete with barbeque and picnic areas, a generous fitness center, business center/laptop connectivity area, multi-purpose great room, conference rooms, Wi-Fi throughout, secured bicycle storage, and storage units strategically located throughout the building. Security features including electronically controlled entry door access and secured parking will increase safety for residents. This project will truly raise the bar for housing in Kent's downtown core. DEMOGRAPHICS In 2008, the Census Bureau placed Kent's population at 87,919, with 75.5% of those between the ages of 18 and 65. 48,468 residents were considered to be in the labor/worldorce. In the same year, the reported median family income was $65,076. One year later, the citizens of Kent voted to annex the Panther Lake area to the North of Kent, which increased the population to over 110,000. New statistical data is unavailable at the time of this publishing, but the annexation positions Kent as the third largest city in King County(behind Seattle and Bellevue). The last major multifamily housing projects in Kent were built in the 1980s. This presents an extraordinary opportunity for Station 601 to fill the need for today's multifamily housing needs in the City of Kent. From: casey routh [mailto:caseanddes@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:28 AM To: Mottram, Pamela 57 Subject: tonights workshop regarding height restrictions Hello Land Use and Planning Board, I just wanted to add a few concerns to the height restriction workshop scheduled for this evening. Prior to the last height restrictions meeting I had no idea how many units were proposed in the Mill Creek apartment on Smith. It was reported that there were 167. The problems of adding this type and height of structure to our neighborhood has been addressed by many of my neighbors [re sunlight, views, compliance with the strategic plan, etc], as has concern about the possible increase in crime during the public hearings. However, I would like to add that our neighborhood is additionally vulnerable to any issues on James Street. Any time there is a flood, freeze, snow, car accident,tree feeling or any other issue on James Street,traffic is routed through Mill Creek neighborhood onto Smith. This additional traffic causes significant delays and makes exiting our neighborhood nearly impossible in the morning, and it has happened several times a year for the six years I have lived here. With the addition of the new Kent Arena.traffic on James has continued to have a negative impact on Mill Creek and other surrounding areas. The concept of adding an additional 320 vehicles [for residents alone, not including guests] to this already impaired traffic scenario is appalling, and could not be accommodated by the existing road structure, particularly with the creek at the bottom of the neighborhood. I believe this information should be considered when examining viable options for building codes and the number of residents that the proposal would allow into our small and difficult to navigate neighborhood. Thank you for your time Casey Routh ` 387 Hazel 1 i Exhibit# s Date Rec' Staff D-CL nvn ds 6 i-n D Land Use&Planning Board Giihj of Kent 58 This page intentionally left blank. � 59 From: Julie Brown [nmaUto:j net] Sent: Tuesday, August 24. 2O1O1O:5OPM To: Osborne, William; Anderson, Charlene Cc: .com questions about comments made at the meeting Hello! Thank you for your continued work un the height restriction docket. The meeting Monday night was informative and reassuring that vve are moving in the right direction for Kent. As I was listening to Charlene Anderson speak, she made a comment, and I was unsure of what it meant. She stated something along the lines of, "all our capacity will be used" by 2030, referring to"Inventory." Can you explain what this means? [|anyoua|0000nnnoentopeoiDoa||yonhowtheheightreatriotiondooketvvou|dirnpoctthio"oapaoity'? Also, there was comment made about SEPA being a part of the docket. |tiamy current understanding that SEPAreview io mandatory for any code change. Please correct noy understanding or expand onthat. |m this just o normal procedural issue, or something else? It was also mentioned by the Board that there could be a change to Option 4B to include some of Option 5's design review wording. It our understanding that Option 413 currently under DCE code automatically has design review in it. |e this a correct understanding? |'d also like to correct the Board's assumption that the y0i|| Creek Neighborhood's preference is Option 4B. |'d like it to be clearly understood that Option 1 is our primary choice and would certainly be thrilled if the Board would recommend it. We recognize Option 413 as a compromise so that the impacted DCE parcels can still meet DCE purposes and goals. But first and foremost, itio our desire to see Option 1 recommended. If it is the desire of the Board and the community to see a zone change in the future,which it seems that this is a very real consideration, it would be most reasonable to recommend Option 1' and if that is not fair and reasonable due to OCE zoning requirements, then a recommendation of Option 4B with mandatory design review would be acceptable. Much Appreciation, | _ �53-8� w-95xt5 jExhibit# to staff / ` ' [ Land Use &Planning B--- From: Anderson, Charlene Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:46 PM 60 To: 'Julie Brown' Cc: theralphs4@msn.com; Osborne, William Subject: RE: questions about comments made at the meeting Hello, Ms. Brown: The "capacity"to which I referred is known as the"Buildable Lands Capacity." The calculation for Buildable Lands basically takes a look at the density actually achieved on parcels for the previous five years and projects that density into the future for vacant and re-developable parcels in each zoning district. Based on the most recent Buildable Lands report(2007),along with our more recent reassessment of the long-term growth potential in the Urban Center under our current plan &zoning,the City would effectively"use up" its housing and employment capacity to accommodate the growth that's targeted to 2031. Continuing to achieve higher numbers in the Buildable Lands analysis would be evidence of more efficient use of existing land in the urban growth area and increases the capacity and opportunities within the urban areas to accommodate growth. Lowering allowable height in Kent's Urban Center would decrease opportunities for accommodating growth. SEPA environmental review is required for a great number of agency actions, including consideration of regulatory amendments like those proposed in the DCE Height Limits legislative process (per Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-704). 1 believe the Board heard the citizens and is navigating the options for its own recommendation. Option 4b and the other options are covered under Downtown Design Review per 15.09.046 Kent City Code. Staff is interpreting the Board's consideration of Option 5 language to be requiring certain criteria in the Downtown Design Review Guidelines for upper floor setbacks(stepbacks) and balconies(111.3.B. and 111.3.C.) (where buildings exceed certain size dimensions) rather than having them as optional. Please feel free to contact me again if you need further clarification,and thank you for your participation in the discussions. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Planning Division I Economic&Community Development 40! 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 K E N T Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5431 ,-5., G I www.choosekent.com PLEASE COPlS.YDE T;i_ $'EFORE PRINTSJJG THIS E IQATL 1 61 Moftram, Pamela From: Mottram, Pamela Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 3:57 PM To: Azzola, Toni Cc: Osborne, William Subject: RE: Phone Call Today from Robert Slatery Attachments: Email Noffication For-05121 O-PublicO pen H seMtg(Exh ibit)SlafteryNtcd.pdf Toni, With respect to the phone call from Mr. Slattery; I have attached verification of email notification to Mr. Slattery with regard to the May 12, 2010 Public Open House Meeting. Please contact me should you have questions concerning my response to you. Sincerely, Pamela A Mottralm, Administrative Secretary 1 Administration I Community Development 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 T Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5459 www.choosekent.com PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS F-MAIL 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: Azzola, Toni Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:02 PM To: Osborne, William Cc: Anderson, Charlene Subject: Phone Call Today from Robert Slatery Hi Bill, Just wanted you to know that Robert Slatery called me today asking how many homes were in the Mill Creek Neighborhood Council. I told him there were 489 homes. He asked me how much I knew about the change in ordinance regarding the downtown height regulations. I told him the only meeting I ever attended was the meeting in May were residents in Mill Creek and property/business owners were also invited. I mentioned at that time there were six options that were presented for discussion. He said he was never notified. Hope your week is going well. Toni Azzolla Neighborhood Program Coordinator Neighborhoods I Office of the Mayor 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 -856-5708 1 Main 253-856-6700 Exhibit#- J 7 Phone 253 IEN!r '77!�WA-3 H I,,a 7 0 wvvw.KentNeighborhoodProgram.com PC6�91�� TM., PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL Date R4c'd 2::9155 Q Staff-Y�Ldj i2 m QS bQtJW, Land Use&Planning Boam Clbj,of Kent Sincerely, Mottram, Pamela Pamela A Mottram, Administrative Secretary 1 62 From: Mottram, Pamela Administration I Community Development Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:05 PM 400 West Gowe, Kent,WA 98032 Subject: DISCUSSION of Building Heights KENT . Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5459 Regulations in DCE Zone-May 12, 2010 www.choosekent.com V1�RHINO�OM Importance: High PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAP As Parties of Record An informal meeting of property owners and community members will be able to engage City planning staff to discuss building height regulations at the eastern edge of Downtown Kent on Wednesday, May 12t"between 6 p.m.and 8 p.m.,in Room#5 at the Kent Senior Activity Center. The City of Kent Planning Division would like to briefly recap research on Urban Center building height regulation and share several options for amending Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zoning adjacent to single-family residential zones. Following this informal meeting, staff anticipates preparing an informational memo for the June 14th Land Use & Planning Board workshop regarding DCE Building Heights(Project File CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2, KIVA#2093453). You have been contacted for at least one of the following reasons: 1), You have expressed an interest in this issue at a previous City meeting; 2) You own DCE-zoned property adjacent to single-family residential zoned parcels; 3) You are listed as a contact with the Mill Creek Neighborhood Council or Scenic Hill Neighborhood Council —two areas adjacent to properties that would be affected by a proposed amendment of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)Zoning District regulations. For more information or to RSVP, please contact William Osborne,AICP, Long-Range Planner at 253.856.5437 or Renee Cameron Administrative Assistant III at 253.856.5456. Tracking: 1 2 Recipient Delivery Azzola,Toni(Kent 63 Nghbrhd Prg Coord) B.T. Bersaas,Sharon (applicant-Dkt-2009-1) Brown,Julie Douglass,Joshua Gorder,Laura Holly Huseby,Dave Johnson,Michael (applicant-Dkt-2009-1) Kern,Mark Kern,Mark Kroeze,Stacey Routh,Casey Sayer,Cheri Schultz,Vern&Joan Seim,Holly Slattery,Robert(Mondo Ld Dev) Smith,NgocDzung Nguyen (Mill Crk Ngbrhd Cncl CDPres) Smith,NgocDzung Nguyen (Mill Crk Ngbrhd Cncl Co-Pres) Thomas,Heather Ulrey,Dan&Sandy Azzola,Toni Delivered:5/6/2010 12:05 PM 3 64 D&USSiON of euddmo Height Rego aboh in DC=cone Ma,112, �010 message(Rich Tex[7 s X Message Oevalopg7._.___ 8, t ' Find a +�Sale Usti - ty��r '1 11 '—.y,Y: - ✓ ® > ,—.� tom. L_I" Related I .'I Reply Reply Forward"Delete tAoveto Create Other .Block" Follow.Mark as ij to All Folder Pule Actions 4 Sender i Up Unread Select t ResPond J.Ctlon . tunic E mail r Optwn r + Find ' j;� .siy 4�'�'::'.li L♦�(11�''�' !� /�...� rl } � ,J �- t;�a + s�...._..}.�... ..,. ......_.:"i..�.._... .4 r_.._...�_..a.�,..f.''.�-.....__F� This,7r(essage was.5ent with Hlghlmportance. From: idottram,Pamela Sent: Thu 5161201012:05 PM To: Ca Bcc Azzola,Toni(Kent Nghbrhd Prg Coord);B.T.;Bersaas,Sharon(applicant-Dkt-2009-1);Brmrm,Julie;Douglass,Joshua;Gorder,Laura;Holly;Huseby,Dave; Johnson,Wheat(applicant-Dkt-TA09-1);Kem,Mark;Kem,Mark;Kroeie,Stacey;Routh,Casey;Sayer,Cheri;Sdwitz,Vern&Joan,Seim,Holly;Slattery,Robert(Mondo Ld Dev); Smith,NgocDzung Nguyen(KII Crk Ngbrhd Cnd Copies);Smith,NgocDzung Nguyen 04U CrkNgbrhd Cnd Co-Pres);Thomas,Heather;Urey,Dan&Sandy Subject: DISCUSSION of Building Heights Regulations In DCE Zone-May 12,2010 As Parties of Record An informal meeting of property owners and community members will be able to engage City planning staff to discuss building height regulations at the eastern edge of Downtown Kent on Wednesday,May 12ca between 6 p.m.and a p.m.,in Room#5 at the i(ent Senior Activity Center. The City of Kent Planning Division would like to briefly recap research on Urban Center building height regulation and share several options for amending Downtown Commerdal Enterprise(DCE)zoning adjacent to single-family residential zones.Following this informal meeting,staff anticipates preparing an informational memo for the June 1411 Land Use&Planning Board workshop regarding DCE Building Heights(Project File CPA--7009-5/CPZ-2009-2,KIVA# 2093453). 1.L%fin You have been contacted for at least one of the following reaso 1) You have expressed an Interest In this issu previous City meeting; 2) You own DCE-zoned property adj ace to single-family residential zoned parcels; 3) You are listed as a contact with the mill Creek Neighborhood Council or Scenic Hill Neighborhood Council-two areas adjacent to properties that would be affected by a proposed amendment of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)Zoning District regulations. For more information orto RSVP,please contact William Osbome,AICP,Long-Range Planner at 253.B56.5437 or Renee Cameron Administrative Assistant III at 253,856.5456. Sincerely, Pamela A Mottram,Administrative Secretary 1 Administration I Community Development ra A00 West Gowe,Kent,WA 98032 a ..:"L r 'Jtrp..,{`t * io p,.... I y�Pubuc{IloBces ix,(4ia'osoftFxcel .":I Q i j I TQosoft 1Nord �1,Ado6e:Avobat ej,/1!�-.12,09 PM Moffram, Pamela 65 From: Postmaster Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:05 PM To: Mottram, Pamela Subject: Attachments: ATT1 18536.b(t; DISCUSSION of Building Heights Regulations in DCE Zone-May 12, 2010 This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. iuliembrown@gwest.net gorders6@comcast.net mwqolfjohnson@comcast.net mkern9622@comcast.net robert0mondodev.com douglass.joshua@yahoo.com btpayitforward@)aol.com Bersaas@aol.com dave0husebyhome.com nsmithOmonsoonstudios.com cheri.sayer(a)att.ne seim.hollyagmaii.com hysinhl@qmail.com heatherthomas0802@gmail.com hollypmillenniarenovations.com markekern@hotmail.com kroeze0hotmail.com N9542971(cbhotmaii.com I.jschultz@netscape.com bigbird930g.com 66 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT LUPBHRG9/27/1O 67 KENT W^S".NG`"" �~�� |��U�^� CITY ��^ ��^� � DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2O1O-21 Project DICE HEIGHT LIMITS #RPP6-2093453 -Description: This project proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Districts Map to include designations for Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District designated property located partially or wholly within 300 ft. of single-family residential zoned properties. The options described bo|ovv feature zoning district designations that may include Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (y4K'T16), General Commercial (GC) and a proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE-T) Trane|tiona| Overlay. PlaceAlternatives under consideration include: Option I (Johnson Proposal - Apply 300 ft. Single-Family Residential Buffer): ng|e- forn||y nso|dant|a| height restriction (35ft.) on DICE zoned parce|s'vv|th|n 3OO feet of any single- family nsa|denUa| zoned parcel. No change or restrictions on specific land uses are proposed. Option 2 (Change Zoning to MR-T"6 : Adopt a Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units 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., five feet less than single-family residential), as well as restrict the permitted land use to ownership-interest dwellings, whether condominium or other type of ownership 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. OptionAdopt General Commercial (GC) Zoning D�tr|ctforanyDCE parcel having portionof its are a 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 (35ft./ same assingle-family residential, with possible allowances for additional stories). A change toGC would also create a different set ofpermitted 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 Lend Use Map would be required. Option 4 (Amend DICE Heights in Designated Transitional Overlay Areas (DCE-T) Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Upper Floor Setbacks Similar to SeaTac): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DICE 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, °`~E-. parcels would ~~ subject ^~ ~'' upper floorsetback requirement—similar — to SeaTao Municipal Code, Section 15.35.350(A)(1). A rnanirnunn building height of35 feet would be applied within 5O feet distance from the zoning boundary (whether the adjacent street centerline or lot line), inclusive of any ground-level rear or side yard setback. ` Determination ofNonsignificance 68 DCE Height Limits #ENV-2010-21 #RPP6'2093453 option 4b (Amend DCE Heights as described in Option 4, Except Ground and Upper Floor Setbacks determined only from lot lines; not street centerlines): 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 etepback ' depth would be increased by half the width of the adjacent right-of-way. ` Option 5 (Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional Overlay Areas (DCE-T) Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Enhanced Downtown Design Review Requirements): 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 `_- -_' _ --_ti ' an enhancement of the existing Downtown Design Review Guidelines would require balconies and 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. 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): 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 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 n Review Guidelines would require balconies and upper floor setbacks currently written in SectionsIII.B and III.C. as optional. Option 7 (Amend Single-Family Residential Zoning within Buffer from DCE Zoning District . . Rezone to Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR-T16) those areas within a buffer of2OO or 300 feet extending from the DCE Zoning District into adjacent single- family residential zones. Because this proposal would require amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, it is outside the scope of the project and will not be analyzed further. Option 8 (Remove Mill Creek Middle School property from DCE/Urban Center): Withdraw the Urban Center designation to Central Avenue from its current boundary. Because this proposal would require amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, it is outside the scope of the project and will not be analyzed further. Applicant William Osborne, AJCP City of Kent Planning Department 22O4m Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Lead Agency CDYOpK[NT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required ! under RCVV 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed 2of3 ^ Determination of NonsignUicance DCE Height Limits 59 #ENV-2010-21 #RPP6'2093453 environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is ` available tothe public on request. . � There isno comment period for this DNS. )(_ This DNS hs issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days from the data of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed bya14-day appeal period as provided byVVAC1971168O. Comments must ba submitted by September 17, 2010. ` Responsible Official Charlene Anderson, AICP Position/Title Planning Manager / SEPA OFFICIAL Address Telephone: Dated September 3, 2010 Signature�-*` PROCESS:APPEAL AN APPEAL OFA DETERMINATION OFNONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER NENT CITY CODE 11.O3.52O. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE jrn\B:\Pennit\P|an\Env\2010\OCE-2093453dno.doc ' ' ` 3 of 70 This page intentionally left blank. 71 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION KENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager W A 5 H I N G T O N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document DCE HEIGHT LIMITS ENV-2010-21, KIVA# RPP6-2093453 Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official I. PROPOSAL This project proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Districts Map to include designations for Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District designated property located partially or wholly within 300 ft. of single-family residential zoned properties. The options described below feature zoning district designations that may include Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR-T16), General Commercial (GC) and a proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE-T) Transitional Overlay. Alternatives under consideration include: Option 1 (Johnson Proposal - Apply 300 ft. Single-Family Residential Buffer): Place a single-family residential height restriction (35 ft.) on DCE zoned parcels within 300 feet of any single-family residential zoned parcel. No change or restrictions on specific land uses are proposed. Option 2 (Change Zoning to MR-T1Q: Adopt a Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units 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., five feet less than single-family residential), as well as restrict the permitted land use to ownership-interest dwellings, whether condominium or other type of ownership. 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. Option 3 (Change Zoning to GC): 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 Decision Document 72 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 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. 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): 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 adjacent street centerline or lot line), inclusive of any ground- level rear or side yard setback. Option 4b (Amend DCE Heights as described in Option 4, Except Ground and Upper Floor Setbacks determined only from lot lines; not street centerlines): 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. Option 5 (Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional Overlay Areas (DCE-T) Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Enhanced Downtown Design Review Requirements): 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 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. Page 2of11 Decision Document 73 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 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): 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 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 upper floor setbacks currently written in Sections III.B and III.C. as optional. Option 7 (Amend Single-Family Residential Zoning within Buffer from DCE Zoning District (Daoura Proposal): Rezone to Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre (MR- T16) those areas within a buffer of 200 or 300 feet extending from the DCE Zoning District into adjacent single-family residential zones. Because this proposal would require amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, it is outside the scope of the project and will not be analyzed further. Option 8 (Remove Mill Creek Middle School property from DCE/Urban Center : Withdraw the Urban Center designation to Central Avenue from its current boundary. Because this proposal would require amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, it is outside the scope of the project and will not be analyzed further. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Design and Construction Standards (Ordinance 3927) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts. These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Design and Construction Standards may require the deeding/ dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and Title 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes Page 3of11 Decision Document 74 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The Proposal covers a maximum of 1,651,815.7 square feet (37.92 acres) within the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District, as portions of right-of-way and whole parcels selected by a 300 ft. buffer adjacent to single-family residential zoning. This area can be characterized as having a variety of topographical features including flat areas punctuated with rolling hills and some steep slopes (Scenic Hill) exceeding a 40% gradient. The soils in the area include Alderwood Series (AgC, AkF), Arents/Alderwood Material (AmC), Norma Series (No), and Urban Land (Ur). A number of areas have been identified as having unstable soils with susceptibility to erosion, landslide and seismic activity. Most of the area is already developed for urban uses. Implementing private development and capital projects subsequent to amendment of the zoning code may require fill and grading. Such projects are subject to appropriate local, state and federal permits which will be acquired at the time of implementation. Erosion potential exists whenever soils are exposed. Projects will be subject to the City of Kent standards for erosion and sedimentation controls to minimize off-site soil transport. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be determined at the time of individual project implementation. B. Air Generally, a decrease in capacity for future development is anticipated resulting from the proposed map designation amendment. Low- density development (suburban character) in the area as proposed in several Options would depart from existing plans by creating additional demand for automobile storage and impervious area in the form of surface parking - which is generally considered to have greater impact on watersheds and air quality. Provision of structured parking (expense near $30,000 per space) to mitigate these impacts would be very unlikely with two-story height limits or large setback requirements. Options (including "No Action") have also been Page 4 of 11 Decision Document 75 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 provided that allow for pedestrian-oriented mixed use development at higher intensities than found elsewhere in Kent. While adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, private and capital development projects would likely contribute dust, odors, and vehicular emissions at various levels depending on the stage of completion. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be assessed at the time of application for projects. C. Water As mentioned in B. Air, low-density development in the area as proposed in several Options would create additional demand for automobile use and storage, and could result in more pollution- generating stormwater runoff from surface parking lots as opposed to clean rooftop runoff from buildings Options favoring pedestrian- oriented mixed-use at higher intensity would not differ significantly from currently-adopted planning impact analysis. The area contains critical areas, including a reach of Upper Mill Creek that flows southeasterly through a series of open streambed channels and culverts off-site to Lower Mill Creek. Lower Mill Creek continues in a northerly direction to Springbrook Creek, which is a tributary of the Green River. Critical areas including wetlands, streams and their buffers are defined and regulated by the provisions of Kent City Code Section 11.06. The locations are mapped according to City of Kent Critical Areas Maps. A portion of the area is located within the 100-year floodplain. If new construction or substantial redevelopment is proposed, the requirements of Kent City Code 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations would be applied. This will govern any construction or modification within floodplains, floodways, or areas of special flood hazard. Construction activities within this area are currently regulated by the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual (amended). The main objective of surface water management requirements is to promote public health, safety and welfare by establishing and operating a comprehensive approach to surface and storm water problems which would reduce flooding, erosion and sedimentation, prevent and mitigate habitat loss, enhance groundwater recharge and prevent water quality degradation. The City of Kent shall evaluate development proposals subject to drainage review to assess whether the proposed actions are likely to Page 5of11 Decision Document 76 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 significantly increase the loads of pollutants of concern for water bodies that are listed by the Washington State Department of Ecology as Water Quality Assessment Category 2, 4 or 5 or that the City of Kent through monitoring has determined are in violation of state water quality standards. Drainage review should also consider whether the proposed action is likely to increase pollutants of concern to a level that would trigger a violation of state water quality standards for the receiving water. The review should consider whether measures to mitigate for the increased pollutants should be required. D. Plants and Animals A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, grasses and wetland plantings are present in the area covered by the Proposal. A variety of birds and animals, including bald eagles, Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound Coho salmon are known to be present within the planning area. Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to impact plants and animals. Habitats for species that have been identified as endangered, threatened, or sensitive by the state or federal government shall not be reduced and should be conserved. In fact, the Drainage Master Plan (DMP) contains a proposed flood management and habitat restoration project north of James Street along Mill Creek. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to plants and animals will be determined at the time of individual project implementation. Development proposals should be assessed for the presence of species of local importance. A comprehensive assessment should follow a standard procedure or guidelines and shall occur one time during the development review process. E. Energy and Natural Resources Projects constructed in the area would primarily use electric and natural gas energy. Home heating fuels in the coldest months might include oil or wood. Several of the proposals considered would increase the potential use of solar energy by adjacent single-family residential properties. All projects constructed will be required to comply with the Washington State Energy Code. F. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare The DCE Zoning District has no height limit at present, but a limit of up to 50 ft. (4 levels) has been proposed where properties are adjacent to single-family residential zoned parcels. Selection of building materials may be reviewed during Downtown Design Review for specific development projects. Page 6 of 11 Decision Document 77 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 The Kent City Code includes regulations of street, site, parking, landscaping and building development. The City also requires design review for parcels located within the Downtown area (per KCC 15.09.046) and for certain multi-family residential and mixed-use development (KCC 15.09.045(F) and 3.25.040(E)). Some of the proposals include provisions to require stepbacks of upper floors in DCE developments where adjacent to single-family residential zones. In terms of aesthetics, establishing a specific allowed DCE building height within 300 ft. proximity to single-family residential zones, and additionally requiring upper floor stepbacks where development projects in DCE abut single-family residential zoned parcels would reduce impacts on views claimed by single-family residential neighbors. Claimed views are not necessarily recognized in Kent City Code as being the same as having a "View," "View Property", or appropriate regulatory protections - which are associated with steep slope situations. Existing levels of noise generated by traffic along arterials, freight truck air brakes, emergency response vehicle sirens, and landscape maintenance activities will likely increase in the long-term. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to noise will be determined at the time of individual project implementation. G. Land and Shoreline Use Current land use within the subject area of DCE Zoning is predominantly single-family residential (near 40%) with some commercial, public/utility and multi-family residential use (near 30%) rounded out by a substantial amount of property identified as vacant or in parking lot use (near 30%). The area is served by Mill Creek Middle School, the Kent Senior Activity Center, the Mill Creek Canyon/Earthworks Park, and a few commercial retail strips along Central Avenue and Smith Street. Guided by Comprehensive Plan Framework Policies, Land Use Element, Community Design Element, Economic Development Element, and Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP), staff analysis assumes that the preservation of single-family residential neighborhoods and open spaces is valued by the community, and that concentrating planned residential and employment growth in areas served by a mix of existing commercial and higher-density residential development is a preferred strategy for achieving local and regional goals for housing, economic development and maintaining a desirable quality of life. Option 1 creates a wide area of low-rise development (35 ft. maximum) that would challenge developing a walkable mixed-use Page 7of11 Decision Document 78 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 urban center, where the height of buildings in relation to street width is supposed to be more vertical than horizontal. Options 2 and 3 would rezone the affected DCE area either to single- use residential or single-use commercial. While MR-T16 and GC Zoning Districts are allowed in the Urban Center Land Use Map designated area, creating single-use districts with height limits less than or equivalent to single-family residential zones from existing mixed-use districts may be seen as incompatible with existing goals and policies for Downtown Kent. This could be especially true for GC Zoning, which is considered to have greater potential impact in terms of encouraging auto-oriented uses adjacent to single-family residential zones than DCE Zoning. Options 4 and 4b would meet the mixed-use intent of existing plans, and offer a height limit (4 stories, 50 ft.) that may be reasonably considered feasible for mixed-use development. The required setbacks, particularly for upper floors, are very restrictive and effectively reduce the building envelope in a manner that discourages a potentially viable project from occurring in the City's Urban Center. The additional setback and upper-floor stepback depth called for in Option 4b clearly makes the Urban Center zoning more restrictive when adjacent to single-family residential zones than for other commercial areas of the City. Options 5 and 6 provide a reasonable height limit (4 stories, 50 ft.) for mixed-use development, and require upper-floor stepbacks and balconies through Downtown Design Review that are appropriate to site conditions. Whether taken separately or in combination, the four provisions considered in Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4b effectively restrict an area of the Urban Center designated for higher-intensity mixed-use to a greater extent than for lower-intensity commercial lands located adjacent to single-family residential zones elsewhere in the City. This could be considered inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to have the Urban Center be the focal point for the highest intensity of mixed-use in the City. H. Housing Setting a height limit where none currently exists beyond potential Federal Aviation Administration restrictions and market demand could be reasonably expected to reduce numbers of anticipated housing units generated in previous growth forecasts. Implementation projects will be analyzed for compliance with land use regulations, specific environmental and population displacement impacts and appropriate mitigation measures at the time of application. Page 8 of 11 Decision Document 79 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 I. Recreation Mill Creek Middle School has sports fields and playgrounds. Although currently in need of repair or replacement, there has been in the past a trail connection through Mill Creek Canyon/Earthworks Park from Downtown Kent (and the Senior Activity Center) to East Hill neighborhoods. To the west, across Central Avenue, the Sister Cities Parks, Town Square Plaza, Kent Station, the Kent Commons and ShoWare Center provide ample opportunities for passive and active recreation. J. Historic and Cultural Preservation Seven parcels within the affected DCE area are listed in the Historic Resources Inventory of the City. Two of these parcels are registered as historic properties - the Unity Church of Kent (218 S. State St.) and Valley Tool (fmr. City Water Department Building, 220 Railroad Ave S.). The Herbert Bayer Earthworks within Mill Creek Canyon Park is a registered City landmark located adjacent to the affected area. A number of other parcels adjacent to the affected area may be found in this inventory. The historic landmarks preservation regulations of the City would be applied during development review. Additional environmental analysis will be appropriately conducted for individual implementation projects, and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately, and any work stopped until further notice if any evidence of historic or cultural significance is discovered. K. Transportation Options 2 and 3 particularly reduce the potential transit-orientation of future development in the affected DCE area by restricting or prohibiting residential density. The cost of replacing or expanding infrastructure on underdeveloped land would likely be borne by future development that brings the promise of significantly greater return on investment. Zoning that more closely conforms to the existing development pattern is unlikely to provide the incentive for redevelopment that will pay for infrastructure improvements and reduce traffic impacts associated with auto-oriented land uses. The Washington State Legislature created the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law in 1991 with the goals of reducing traffic congestion, air pollution and petroleum consumption. This law requires major employers to encourage their employees to use commute alternatives such as transit, carpools, bicycles, walking, compressed work weeks, telecommuting, and flexible work schedules to reduce drive alone commute trips during the peak congestion periods. Additionally, the Page 9 of 11 Decision Document 80 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 City is considering regulatory amendments to comply with State laws regarding the permitting of electric vehicle charging stations. The City addresses the growing demand for transit service by requiring that the Applicant accommodate the needs for transit as expressed by King County Metro Transit. The area is presently served by regular bus routes and a special circulator shuttle is also available. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has incorporated land use and trip-generation modeling consistent with planned land uses in the area - which is generally served by Railroad Avenue, Central Avenue, State Avenue, Kennebeck Avenue, Clark Avenue, Jason Avenue, Saar Street, Titus Street, Gowe Street, Meeker Street, Smith Street, and James Street. In terms of relative traffic impact, single family residences generate one PM peak trip per unit, while commercial and mixed-use developments might generate a range of PM peak trips depending upon specific uses and project-specific characteristics. These specific uses are not known at this time. Furthermore, the City's Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Improvement Program will incorporate measures to address transportation impacts in this area. Project-specific development applications would be required to identify specific land use(s) and possibly provide a traffic impact study as part of the application review process. L. Public Services Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts. Specific implementation projects will include additional environmental analysis as appropriate to assess impacts to public services. M. Utilities Utilities needed may include electricity, natural gas, water, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system and refuse service. Downtown Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy for electricity and natural gas, primarily by City of Kent Water and Sewer Utilities for water supply and wastewater disposal. Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts to utilities. Specific implementation projects will include additional environmental analysis as appropriate to assess impacts to utilities. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include: Page 10 of 11 Decision Document 81 DCE Height Limits Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-21 RPP6-2093453 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; 2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent Shoreline Master Program; 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code; 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan; 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan; 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element; 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure Improvements; 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits; 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations; 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments; 11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle Park; 12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control; 13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes; 14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning; 15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227; 16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees; 17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility; 18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan; 19. City of Kent Fire Master Plan; and 20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this non-project action. KENT PLANNING SERVICES September 3, 2010 CA:jm\\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2010\DCEBIdgHtsDecision.doc Page 11 of 11 82 This page intentionally left blank. Planning.Services Location: 400 W. Gowe + Mail to: 220 4t"Avenue South •Kent WA 98032-5895 83 Permit Center(253-856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412 www.ci.kent.wa.us/permitcenter 7"1V CEPTEnvironmental Checklist W A S H I N G T O N JUL 27 2010 Application Form Public Notice Board and CITY OF KENT Application Fee...See Fee Schedule pLANNING SERVICE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: d APPLICATION #: 6A)V-,R610— KIVA#: RECEIVED BY:� fzzTy#E: ') `��) tL� PROCESSING FEE: L S�f , APR- 200q--5 ztoaq A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: C Meets the categorically exempt criteria. 200( Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. / e e'd/ 2�/ Signature of Responsible Official Date B. COMMENTS: DICE HEIGHT LIMITS ENV-2010-21 CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 RPP6-2093453 (William Osborne, Planner) C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: Comprehensive Plan Amendment /Zoning Code Amendment D. ZONING DISTRICT: Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE)Zoning District City of Kent Planning Se tires ( 84 Environmental Checklist—Page 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1 Name of Project:Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)Zoninq District Building Height Limits 2. Name of Applicant: City of Kent Planning Services Office - Mailing Address: 220 41h Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Contact Person: William D. Osborne, A/CP, Planner Telephone: (253) 856-5437 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): City of Kent Planning Services 4. Name of Legal Owner: N/A Telephone: Mailing Address: N/A 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). Areas with Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE)Zoning District Map designations that are located within 300 ft. of single-family residential zoning districts -- See attached map. 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): N/A b. Tax identification number: N/A 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements,size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The areas are characterized by urban development,gentle slope, and a variety of geologically and hydrologically sensitive areas, including Mill Creek, wetlands,and ravines. 8. Site Area: 37.65 acres(0.059 sq. miles) Site Dimensions: see attached map City of Kent Planning Services 85 Environmental Checklist- Page 3 9. Proiect description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): This project proposes to amend the City of Kent Zoning Districts Map to include designations for Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning District designated property located within 300 ft.of single-family residential zoned properties. The options described below feature zoning district designations that may include Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling unit per acre(MR-T16),General Commercial(GC)and a proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE-7) Transitional Overlay. Option 1 (Johnson Proposal- Apply 300 ft. Single-Family Residential Buffer): Place a single-family residential height restriction(35 ft.)on DCE zoned parcels within 300 feet of any single-family residential zoned parcel. No change or restrictions on specific land uses are proposed. Option 2 (Change Zoning to MR-T16): 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., five feet 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. Option 3(Change Zoning to GC):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. Option 4(Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional OverlayAreas(DCE-7)Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Upper Floor Setbacks Similarto SeaTac): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-7) 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 adjacent street centerline or lot line),inclusive of any ground-level rear or side yard setback. City of Kent Planning Services ( 86 Environmental Checklist-Page 4 Option 4b(Amend DCE Heights as described in Option 4,Except Ground and Upper Floor Setbacks determined only from lot lines;not street centerlines): 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. Option 5(Amend DCE Heights in Designated Transitional OverlayAreas(DCE--7)Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zones with Enhanced Downtown Design Review Requirements): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-7) covering a`full--block (300 feet or more in depth) in which a discrete building height would beset 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. Option`6 (Amend DCE Heights for Depth of 300 Feet from Adjacent Single-Family Residential Zones within Designated Transitional Overlay,Areas (DCE-7) - Railroad Avenue Excluded): Create a de facto transitional overlay within the DCE Zoning District (DCE-7)covering approximately a full-block(300 feet or more)in depth where 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 floorsetbacks currently written in Sectionslll.B and III.C. as optional. Option 7(Amend Single-Family Residential Zoning within Buffer from DCE Zoning District (Daoura 'Proposal)): proposes' that areas be rezoned to Multifamily Residential Townhouse, 16 dwelling units per acre(MR-T16) within a buffer of 200`or 300 feet extending from the DCE Zoning District into adjacent single-family residential zones. Option 8(Remove Mill Creek Middle School property from DCE/Urban Center): suggested that the Urban Center designation be withdrawn to Central Avenue from its current boundary. Options 7 and 8'would require Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments as well as rezones for areas located outside of the scope of the present project and therefore are not considered further at this time 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule(include phasing and construction dates, if possible). City of Kent Planning Services $7 Environmental Checklist-Page 5 Public Hearing held by the City of Kent Land Use & Planning Board on July 26, 2010 Kent City Council consideration in August or September 2010 Adoption of ordinances in October 2010 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City anticipates revising the Downtown Strategic Action Plan(DSAP) within the next year or two. In future planning efforts,other areas of the City designated for commercial development may receive similar consideration for impacts on adjacent single-family residential zones. 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local,state,federal,or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. DATE AGENCY PERMIT TYPE SUBMITTED* NUMBER STATUS** *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved, denied or pending 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) Draft& Final SETS City of Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS Drainage Master Plan (DMP) 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None at this time. City of Kent Planning Services �' - EVALUATION FOR 88 Environmental Checklist— Page 6 AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The area has a variety of topographic features, including flat, rolling, hilly, and steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Some steep slopes (adjacent to the Urban Center) exceed 40 percent. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,gravel,peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to GIS data acquired through Icing County, the soils in the area include the Alderwood Series (AgC, AkF), Arents/Aiderwood Material(AmC), Norma Series (No), and Urban Land(Ur). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. A number of areas have been identified as having unstable soils— with susceptibility to erosion, landslide and seismic activity. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Generally, the area designated DCE is already developed for urban uses. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Any clearing and construction activities would be controlled at the City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR gg Environmental Checklist— Page 7 AGENCY USE ONLY development stage for projects. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Generally, a decrease in capacity for future development is anticipated resulting from the proposed map designation amendment Development projects would likely contribute dust, odors,and vehicular emissions at various levels depending on the stage of completion. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known at present. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Separately from this proposal, the City is considering regulatory amendments to comply with State laws regarding permitting the location of electric vehicle charging stations. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are several wetlands and culverts associated with Mill Creek. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Some future development projects may approach the described waters. The Critical Areas Ordinance regulates activities,including development,with regards to appropriate proximity buffers. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate City of Kent Planning Services ( EVALUATION FOR 90 Environmental Checklist— Page 8 AGENCY USE ONLY the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Any development activities would be required to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts depending on detailed delineations submitted with project applications. Specific information required for an'estimate is unknown at this time. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals ordiversions? Give general description, purpose,and approximate quantities, if known. Not known at this time. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Some of the area lies within the 100-year floodplain. if new construction or substantial redevelopment is proposed, the requirements of Kent City Code 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations would be applied. This will govern any construction or modification within floodplain, floodways, or areas of special flood hazard. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not known at this time. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be dischargedto; ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Not known at this time. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing- the following chemicals... agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The area is within the City of Kent Sewer Utility service area. Specific impacts are not known at this time, but some pre existing facilities would be updated. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 91 Environmental Checklist— Page 9 AGENCY USE ONLY c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Construction activities and resulting structures may contribute directly or indirectly to runoff. Such projects and related storm water system improvements will be subject to City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual standards. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x_Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other: pacific willow, cottonwood, birch _x_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _x_Shrubs: red elderberry, salmonberry, vine maple _x Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _x Other types of vegetation: himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, scotch broom b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not known at this time. Removal of trees prior to development permit application approval is regulated by Kent City Code. City of Kent Planning Services `` EVALUATION FOR 92 Environmental Checklist— Page 10 AGENCY USE ONLY i c. List threatened or endangered,species known to be on or near the site. None known at this time. Habitat conservation plans are required by Kent City Code and State law. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The use of native species in replacement planting is regulated by Kent City Code. 6. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: robin, crow; seagull, swallow, sparrow, thrush, warbler Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: coyote, possum, rabbit, rat raccoon vole Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: frog, snake b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Bald Eagle. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, salmon & trout migration. Also migratory birds likely use wetland and stream areas. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The Drainage Master Plan (DMP) contains proposed flood management and habitat restoration project north of James Street along Mill Creek. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas; oil,wood stove,solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Projects constructed in the area would primarily use electric and natural gas energy. Home heating fuels in the coldest months might include oil or wood. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 93 Environmental Checklist— Page 11 AGENCY USE ONLY b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Several of the proposals considered would increase the potential use of solar energy by adjacent single-family residential properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: All projects constructed will be required to comply with the Washington State Energy Code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None known. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None at this time. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Traffic along arterials, freight truck air brakes, emergency response vehicle sirens, typical noises associated with landscape maintenance. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term construction noise for projects constructed. In the long-term, traffic noise might increase. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: City of Kent Planning Services ( EVALUATION FOR 94 Environmental Checklist— Page 12 AGENCY USE ONLY None at this time. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current land use within the subject area of<DCE Zoning is predominantly single-family residential (near 40%) with some commercial,public/utility andmulti-family residential use(near30%) rounded out by a substantial amount of property identified as vacant or in parking lot use (near 30%). The area is served by Mill Creek Middle School, the Kent SeniorActivity Center, the Mill Creek Canyon/Earthworks Park, and a few commercial retail strips along Central Avenue and Smith Street. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. - Not in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. A wide variety of civic,residential,commercial and utility structures exist within the area. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not at this time. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Downtown Commercial Enterprise(DCE). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Urban Center(UC). g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Some areas have been identified as being prone to soil instability and flood hazard. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed City of Kent.Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 95 Environmental Checklist— Page 13 AGENCY USE ONLY project? The proposals considered would likely reduce the number of housing units and jobs from figures recently calculated as part of the Comprehensive Plan EIS update. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None at this time. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None at this time. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Several of the options are generally consistent with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP). Options 5 and 6 address adjacency to single-family residential neighborhoods with a discrete height limit of 4 stories and reduction of apparent upper-level bulk through design review requirements, while allowing for the feasible development of mixed- use consistent with the purpose of DCE Zoning. Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4b may be 'considered incompatible with existing land use plans for the following reasons: 1. the extent of reduced building height; 2. front yard setbacks; 3. extensive upper-floor setbacks;and 4. limitation on mixed-use. Option 1:Incompatible for Reason 1. Option 2:Incompatible for Reasons 1, 2 and 4. Option 3:Incompatible for Reasons 1,2 and 4. Option 4:Incompatible for Reasons 2 and 3. Option 4b:Incompatible for Reasons 2 and 3. Whether taken separately or in combination, the four provisions considered in Options 1, 2,3 and 4 effectively restrict an area of the Urban Center designated for higher-intensity mixed-use to a greater extent than forlower-intensity commercial lands located adjacent to single-family residential zones elsewhere in the City.` `While establishing limits would be supportable where commercial use or mixed-use is adjacent to single-family residential zones, establishing limits of greater magnitude in the Urban Center than elsewhere would be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Housing City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 96 Environmental Checklist— Page 14 AGENCY USE ONLY a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Not yet known — but in setting a height limit, a reduction from numbers generated in previous growth forecasts could be reasonably expected. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None at this time. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including; antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The DCE Zoning District has no height limit at present,but a limit of up to 50 ft. (4 levels) has been proposed where properties are adjacent to single-family residential zoned parcels. Selection of building materials may be reviewed during Downtown Design Review for specific development projects. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Establishing a specific allowed DCE building height within 300 ft. proximity to single-family residential zones would reduce impacts on views claimed by single-family residential neighbors.' Claimed views are not necessarily recognized in Kent City Code as being the same as having a "View,""View Property".or appropriate regulatory protections— which are associated with steep slope situations. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The Kent City Code includes regulations of street, site, parking, landscaping and building development. The City also requires design review for parcels located within the Downtown area (per KCC 15.09.046)and for certain multi-family residential development (KCC 15.09.045(D)and 3.25.040(E)). Some of the proposals include provisions to require stepbacks of upper floors in DCE developments where adjacent to single-family residential zones. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 97 Environmental Checklist- Page 15 AGENCY USE ONLY would it mainly occur? Not known at this time. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not known at this time. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. None at this time. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Mill Creek Middle School has sports fields and playgrounds. Although currently in need of repair or replacement,there has been in the past a trail connection through Mill Creek Canyon/Earthworks Park from Downtown Kent(and the Senior Activity Center)to East Hill neighborhoods. To the west,across Central Avenue, the Sister Cities Parks, Town Square Plaza, Kent Station, the Kent Commons and ShoWare Center provide ample opportunities for passive and active recreation. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Not at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Not applicable. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Seven parcels within the affected DCE area are listed in the Historic Resources Inventory of the City. Two of these parcels are registered City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR gg Environmental Checklist— Page 16 AGENCY USE ONLY as historic properties— the Unity Church of Kent(218 S. State St.) and Valley Tool(fmr. City Water Department Building, 220 Railroad Ave S.). The Herbert Bayer Earthworks within Mill Creek Canyon Park is a registered City landmark located adjacent to the affected area. A number of other parcels adjacent to the affected area may be found in this inventory. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known aside from the Historic Resources Inventory. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. The historic landmarks preservation regulations of the City would be applied during development review. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The area is generally served by Railroad Avenue, Central Avenue, State Avenue, Kennebeck Avenue, Clark Avenue, Jason Avenue, Saar Street, Titus Street, Gowe Street, Meeker Street, Smith Street, and James Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The area is served by regular bus routes and a special circulator shuttle is also available. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The answers to these questions are not known at this time. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Any improvements to streets would need to be identified in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) or required-as mitigation for impacts of project-specific development proposals. e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR 99 Environmental Checklist— Page 17 AGENCY USE ONLY No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Single family residences generate one PM peak trip per unit. Commercial uses might generate a range of PM peak trips depending upon specific uses. Mixed use development would have a broad possible range of PM peak trips based on project specific characteristics. These uses are not known at this time. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. The Transportation Master Plan(TMP) has incorporated land use and trip-generation modeling consistent with planned land use in the area. Project-specific development applications would be required to identify specific land use(s) and possibly provide a traffic impact study as part of the application review process. 16. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,other)?If so, generally describe. Redevelopment of the area has been taken into account in past planning for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Review processes for significant development projects include notification and opportunities for comment from public service providers. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water,refuse service,telephone,sanitary sewer,septic system,other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. Downtown Kent is served by Puget Sound Energy for electricity and natural gas, primarily by City of Kent Water and Sewer Utilities for water supply and wastewater disposal. C. SIGNATURE City of Kent Planning Services ( �' EVALUATION FOR 100 Environmental Checklist— Page 18 AGENCY USE ONLY The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date: Al A?,¢� City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR '101 Environmental Checklist— Page 19 AGENCY USE ONLY DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Low-density development (suburban character) in the area as proposed in several Options would depart from existing plans by creating additional demand for automobile storage — which is generally considered to have greater impact on watersheds and air quality. Provision of structured parking(expense near$30,000 per space) to mitigate these impacts would be very unlikely with two- story height limits and/or large setback requirements. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Development regulations of the City would be applied at the project development application stage. Options have been provided that allow for pedestrian-oriented mixed use 'development at higher intensities than found elsewhere in Kent. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? Increased water and air quality impacts on habitat would be anticipated from an increase in demand and support for automobile use in the area. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Development regulations of the City, including the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would be applied at the development project application review stage to avoid or minimize impacts on habitat. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The process and results of development necessarily consume energy and natural resources. There may be a greater level of City of Kent Planning Services (' EVALUATION FOR 102 Environmental Checklist—Page 20 AGENCY USE ONLY energy consumption if development standards favor low-intensity and single use rather than higher intensity mixed-use. Options 5 and 6, with discrete height limits of fifty feet or greater and minimal setback requirements would be most consistent with the existing plans for the Urban Center and regulations for DCE to encourage pedestrian activity and transit service. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The regulations of the City would be applied at the project application review stage. The City will be considering regulatory accommodation for facilities that can charge electric powered vehicles. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic_ rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposals considered would not be expected to have greater impact on environmentally-sensitive areas,habitat,historic/cultural sites and parks. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The City would apply regulations.to avoid or reduce impacts to critical areas, habitat, historic%ultural sites and open space at the development project application review stage. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, _ including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?, Option 1 creates a wide area of low-rise development (35 ft. maximum) that would provide significant challenges to developing walkable mixed-use, where the height of buildings in relation to street width is supposed to be more vertical than horizontal. Options 2 and 3 would rezone the affected DCE area either to single- use residential or single-use commercial.. While MR-T16 and GC Zoning Districts are allowed in the Urban Center Land Use Map designated area,creating single-use districts with height limits less than or equivalent to single-family residential zones from existing mixed-use districts maybe seen as incompatible with existing plans for Downtown Kent. This could be especially true for GC Zoning, which is considered to have greater potential impact in terms of City of Kent Planning Services EVALUATION FOR im Environmental Checklist—Page 21 AGENCY USE ONLY encouraging auto-oriented uses adjacent to single-family residential zones than DCE Zoning. Options 4 and 4b would meet the mixed-use intent of existing plans, and offer a height limit (4 stories, 50 ft.) that may be reasonably considered feasible for mixed-use development The required setbacks, particularly for upper floors, are very restrictive and effectively reduce the building envelope in a manner that discourages a potentially viable project from occurring in the City's Urban Center. The additional setback and upper-floor stepback depth called for in Option 4b clearly makes the Urban Centerzoning more restrictive when adjacent to single-family residential zones than for other commercial areas of the City. Options 5 and 6 provide a reasonable height limit(4 stories, 50 ft.) for mixed-use development,and require upper-floorstepbacks and balconies through Downtown Design Review that are appropriate to site conditions. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: City of Kent regulations would be applied at the development project application review stage. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Options 2 and 3 particularly reduce the potential transit-orientation of future development in the affected DCE area by restricting or prohibiting residential density. The cost of replacing or expanding infrastructure on underdeveloped land would likely be borne by future development that brings the promise of significantly greater return on investment Zoning that more closely conforms to the existing development pattern is unlikely to provide the incentive for redevelopment that will pay for infrastructure improvements and reduce traffic impacts associated with auto-oriented land uses. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: City of Kent regulations would be applied at the development project application review stage. 7. Identify, if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Not applicable. S:\Permit\Plan\COMP—PLAN—AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-5—DCE Bldg Heights\LUPBk072610\SEPA—CHECKLIST—CPA-2009- 5_cawofinal.doc 104 _ALLEY._. n ALLEY ��. ��.�� '■ S�F —RAILROAD'-. ;. ALLEY ets ALLEY z 77, LEY ♦ } t -' Ut-..�- ■ ■ ! 4 I ..■ ,..p SCENIC ��• '1 ' UT swwe.r .ri u 96 r i O �,� ��..: 1 , ♦� u WOODFORD 4 F e MEN ..... o ♦ _. i i I � �.� j I I i ; D • j 6 _ i O .....__ .".:ALLEY ; .J. _- �FNS/ p > , .NUT .r '�_-`- —'-� -i _L. VANOEVANTER k. = i i ■' I v _ /X.... .. PROSPECT "i - I I _ z _:.::: cni _. ■ ! m o o, ALCEx LENOFtq ...._i NDER _ W........ __.' ALEXANDER i.' . __• i U> HAZEL o 1 - j_ _ ■ - \ ': 1 _. '! { ,��j a J- - i 1 t O .. - a .. y m d'� • i c7o p °' CD M cn �...... ��. :•i •��:: t`I i to VIE1N ♦ ;a + O 1 !HICCTO ATTACHMENT D Options Urban Center Zoning Height Restrictions Adjacent to Single-Family Residential Zoning 105 No Action Option i Option 2 Option 3 Option 4a Option 4b Option 4c Option 5 Option 6 Reduce Height Limit and Modified from Option 4a to Reduce Height Limit within Apply 300 ft.SINGLE- Implement Upper Floor measure all setbacks from Modified from Option 4b to include Downtown Design Reduce Height Limit& 300 ft. Buffer in Overlay& Current Kent City Code FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Change to MR-T16 Zoning Change to GC Zoning Ste lot lines rather than Review Requirements for Upper Floor Setbacks and Enhance Design Review Enhance Design Review Buffer(Johnson Proposal) Stepbacks(with SeaTac as strictly from zoning Balconies Requirements Requirements(Excluding model)Features district 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 4 story/50 ft. for DCE 4 story/50 ft. for DCE parcels within designated overlay 4 story/50 ft. for DCE 4 story/50 ft. for portions parcels within 300 ft. of ft. within 100 ft. story may be authorized by parcels within designated parcels within designated (entire parcels within 300 ft. selected buffer)for single- parcels within designated of overlay-designated DCE single-family residential Multifamily Transition Area) Planning Manager, overlay (entire parcels overlay(entire parcels family residential zoned parcels overlay (entire parcels parcels within 300 ft. of zoned parcels additional stories may be within 300 ft. selected within 300 ft. selected within 300 ft. selected single-family residential authorized by LUPB) buffer)for single-family buffer)for single-family buffer)for single-family zoned parcels residential zoned parcels residential 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 35 ft. max height within 60 ft. adjacency, up to max As Above,with Stepbacks As Above, with Stepbacks adjacent or abutting ft. adjacency, up to max ft. adjacency, up to max zone height thereafter per DDR per DDR single-family residential zone height thereafter zone height thereafter zone) Ground Setbacks(if adjacent to single-family residential) Front None None Min. 20 ft.,Avg. 30-40 ft. 20 ft. None(exception regarding None (exception regarding None(exception regarding 60 ft. ground &upper floor None None 60 ft. ground &upper floor 60 ft. ground &upper floor adjacency setback from lot line adjacent to single- adjacency setback from adjacency setback from lot family residential (across street)) street centerline to single- line adjacent to single- family residential) family residential (across street)) Side 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side Yard on Flanking Street (20 ft.) (20 ft.) (20 ft.) of Corner Lot Rear 20 ft. 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 When located within 60 When located within 60 When located within 60 feet of a single family zone line Make the existing three Make the existing three (Upper Floors) (DDR): Balcony 6 ft. Deep, feet of a single family zone feet of a single family zone (or the nearest property line when SF is across the sections associated with sections associated with 10 ft. Wide(III.B.i.a.) OR line (or the street line (or the nearest street), building height is limited to 35 feet. Building upper floor setbacks and upper floor setbacks and Upper Story Setbacks with centerline when SF is property line when SF is area beyond this 60 foot setback must fit within a slope balconies in DDR a balconies in DDR a at least one upper story across the street), building across the street), building up to the max zone height at a 1:1 ratio. Also, make requirement requirement setback of 6+ ft. (III.B.1.g) height is limited to 35 feet. height is limited to 35 feet. the existing three sections associated with upper floor OR Upper Story Setback of Building area beyond this Building area beyond this setbacks and balconies in DDR a requirement 10+ ft. for one or more 60 foot setback must fit 60 foot setback must fit stories(III.C.i.a.) within a slope up to the within a slope up to the max zone height at a 1:1 max zone height at a 1:1 ratio. ratio. Distance from zoning 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. None specified other than None specified other than Boundary/Building ground floor setbacks ground floor setbacks Impacts Permitted Land No No Yes Yes No No No No No Use(s) Requires Comprehensive No No No No No No No No NO Plan Land Use Map Amendment DCE_BldgHts_RevisedOptionsM atrix_092710.xis 106 This page intentionally left blank. 107 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WABHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 20, 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 public hearing of September 27, 2010 MOTION: Recommend to the City Council amendment to Kent City Code regarding the calculation of maximum permitted density (as recommended by staff/as modified). 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 or can create additional residential lots whose impervious surface runoff would affect water bodies. Following direction from the Economic & Community Development Committee of the City Council, staff presented to the Board on July 12th several options for code amendments related to rounding and included additional options for the public hearing of July 261h. At the August 23rd workshop, staff updated the Board on responses to testimony presented at 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 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. Given the requirements in the Act, the City has discretion to make choices about how growth is accommodated and is guided by other goals related to, for example, housing, property rights, and environmental protection. The Kent Comprehensive Plan includes preservation and improvement of residential neighborhoods under the housing goal. There is community concern that rounding in density calculations affects the character of residential neighborhoods and affects water quality. 108 Staff researched other city regulations regarding density calculations, and the options set forth below are informed by those other regulations, most particularly those that would not create a substantive work program. 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. OPTIONS: All options utilize total site area to calculate maximum allowable density. 1. No change to existing code. In calculating maximum permitted 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 permitted 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 permitted density for 4 or more dwelling units, calculate maximum permitted density according to existing code. For short plats or subdivisions of less than four (4) lots, and for determining maximum permitted density for less than 4 dwelling units, use the following calculation: a. < 2 lots or dwelling units, 0.85 rounds up, < 0.85 rounds down. b. > 2 < 3 lots or dwelling units, 0.75 rounds up, < 0.75 rounds down. c. > 3 < 4 lots or dwelling units, 0.60 rounds up, < 0.60 rounds down 4. For subdivisions of ten (10) lots or more, and for determining maximum allowable density for 10 or more dwelling units, 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 9 or fewer dwelling units, use the following calculation: a. < 2 lots or dwelling units, 0.85 rounds up, < 0.85 rounds down. b. > 2 < 3 lots or dwelling units, 0.75 rounds up, < 0.75 rounds down. c. > 3 < 9 lots or dwelling units, 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 permitted density would be deemed to have a greater effect on residential character or water bodies within these larger lot zoning districts. a. 5b: For subdivisions located within A-10, SR-1, SR-3 and SR-4.5 zoning districts, no rounding would be allowed. Utilizing rounding in calculating maximum permitted density would be deemed to have a greater effect on residential character or water bodies within these larger lot zoning districts. LUPB Hearing September 27, 2010 Page 2 of 3 109 b. 5c: For subdivisions located within A-10, SR-1 and SR-3 zoning districts, and for subdivisions located within the Lake Meridian Watershed, no rounding would be allowed. Utilizing rounding in calculating maximum permitted density would be deemed to have a greater effect on Lake Meridian water quality. See attached map which depicts the watershed. The affected zoning districts appear to include SR-1, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6, SR-8, MR-H High Density Multifamily Residential, and MHP Mobile Home Park. 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. Considerations of water quantity and water quality controls would be determined by existing regulations. 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. CA/pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2010\ZCA-2010-1 DensityRounding\0927101upbhearing.docx Att.: Meridian Lake Watershed Map Exhibit 1 Submittal from McDonoughs/Ekstrands/O'Neills/Sharon Bosse(3 pg)Dated 8/23/10 Exhibit 1-Response Letter(2 pg)from Planning Manager,Charlene Anderson cc: Ben Wolters,ECD Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Matt Gilbert,AICP,Principal Planner LUPB Hearing September 27, 2010 Page 3 of 3 110 This page intentionally left blank. Ilrlilh,�� '=1E11�=_ �t;tti .L lilllla��r► a " � ali 't+�rtll ��■ �l� iI �� ul� : IlYrrn_ ,fit e>Irrtr "" : :C f � S�� iF1111■1 � �� rrRrr.r■■g�� I��II1€�. �tt.ror.�. ■ � � 3 ;- rrlllrr ■■,Z g �� fattErLl�r !IM rlRl �tk Q# :a i�+ ■a R■1I � � .�� r♦I� 1 � r ryas �Ior ��It1 'tR �y #IIIIIir 11 I ��1 r � .. � �� o ■ ■.ur.■r 1 1i_de �le1t.�� l� 111 �-""■'-�Illlill p � 4 . ,ta d : rrFli�:II■■>• "lipi f ■q�ihwl , u�ll 1 tElllll- M -� � o s �yt`r pp IUSA -1 Ito N r �f r ,.■llr� ,, � ��i WIN ... M` _ s pigIN a' ems■ ji I� •, elr.■ �� rM It rr� *RIe 4�s =_ � �a ■Ile � �I�lr�r � =';�` �� ,Nr ■■L7i■IIIII�t : f � q � it I�■�ii "i1�'��s �'r11��! � IIIIIIN� IN ram ■ r }�� IIIi91fI111 lil!; � r IIr lE � � IIIIINIIIfI'1ftwl v�� er Is ii.t►�� 11 eaeor T i■Xl�i 111-" �� ail # 111■Ilr� ■IBIKINI tttt� t■ t=«e �ti ►`� 1�1 # �r,�1�� vaf 1[��INIr i' Yltu � era;Frl o . ■ +�rrnti* ■i� Ie1 :Ir ,tnSI � . IIIEIrERIP rr �i 1• i�E■ ` Ill �WIN INtA $I�y dr. 111 l�llll I. rlratrrr �,Yl � � CAR C.rC 1 - ��re �' !�il!'�■III ■R vl1 r■ a - . ■*a* *Ir 11 MIN ■ 112 This page intentionally left blank. RECEIVED CITY OF KENT 8/23/10 AUGG 2 3 2010 113 Dear Land Use and Planning Board Members, E IDS_ PLNG BOARDEXHIFi9RIT— 1 On July 6 of 2007 the City Council of Kent voted that the Lake Meridian watershed area be down zoned by the efforts of LMCA and the lake community who researched,wrote letters and spoke in favor of lower housing densities to protect the water quality.The shoreline of Lake Meridian was zoned to 3 homes/acre and the watershed to 4.53 homes/acre.On March 6 of 2007 Residential Development Standards(Ordinance 3830)were passed to make the city of Kent a more attractive place to live("...creating additional space between buildings,...reducing perceived over-crowding...). The Shoreline Master Program cannot protect the lake from development.We are in compliance with GMA goals. So,we believe the density calculation should not be used in the watershed: 0 1 acre equals 43,560 square feet 4.53=9,616—the actual lot size of 4.53 zoning.The City of Kent lot size minimum is 7,600 square feet for 4.53 zoning-already 21%smaller. Our nearest neighbor of similar size,Renton,uses actual lot size and no density calculation of any kind on its Density Calculation Worksheet. o Per Kent City Code Section 15.02.096 a density calculation which results in a fraction above.50 shall be rounded up.So a property with 14,530 square feet or.334 acres(1/3 acre)allows two houses.(.334 x 4.53=1.51 dwelling units;or rounded up=2 homes)Effectively 6 homes per acre (example-Pruss subdivision) o The planning department has mentioned that two homes are creating no more runoff than one on a lot.The fact is that homes are being built up—less cost,views and style of building.We do not see on a typical 1/3 acre parcel a home being built with a 4200 square foot footprint,but with two homes on the same parcel,it is likely that two 2100 square foot footprint homes would-be-built with several stories;with the addition of doubled deck,driveway and walkway(impermeable surface),creating double the runoff. o The Pruss development,in it's submitted plans,will tight line runoff form the 250'+paved road/sidewalks and the two homes and discharge at the lake edge;with no water quality or flow control due to exemptions by including the gravel road as impervious surface.The King County Surface Water Design Manual in effect at the time states"or the addition of a more compacted surface,like paving over pre-existing dirt or gravel." (definition of new impervious surface) o Lake Meridian was closed to boating until early July this year because of the height of the lake. This flooding is not uncommon and will only worsen with additional stormwater runoff;affecting the lake and Soos Creek.With density calculations and exemptions such as the Pruss development,no one knows what or how much water will be discharged to Lake Meridian. Studies,including one done on Lake Meridian in 2008 by Tetra Tech,Inc.recommends for Lake Meridian: "•Increased sampling of stormwater to determine the impacts of continued development within the drainage basin.Additionally it is recommended that a watershed nutrient model be developed to assess the impacts associated with construction activities within the drainage basin. •Formation of Sensitive Area Lake Management District—A sensitive area lake management district is recommended to establish both a funding source and governing body to ensure protection of the water body is maintained.The special district would allow the funding allocation for in-lake and watershed restoration projects,as well as,allow for watershed specific development standards to prevent future degradation from occurring." The last line of the Tetra Tech recommendation is particularly significant.If the watershed is not exempt from the residential development standards,and any future ordinances that can raise the number of homes per acre,there is reason to believe the quality and quantity of the lake water is at serious risk.We ask that the watershed be exempt from the density calculation now and that the 4.53 zoning in the watershed and 3 zoning at the edge of the lake be strictly enforced to protect the quality and quantity of the water in Lake Meridian. Sincerely yours, Sally and Brian McDonough 26441 137'l Ave SE Kent WA 98042 253 630 8261 Kathleen and Chester Ekstrand 26600 137`i'Ave SE Kent WA 98042 253 630 9406 Monica and Michael O'Neill 26451 137'i'Ave SE Kent WA 98042 253 630 0338 Sharon Bosse 25739 135`b Ave SE#41 Kent,WA 98042 253 638 1606 Message Page 1 of 2 114 Sally McDonough From: Laureen M. Nicolay[Lnicolay@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 03,2009 4:50_PM To:• 'sallycrallf Subject: RE: City of Renton's Method of Calculating Density Our development standards tables just list the "maximum density"for each zone and then we interpret `maximum' literally. Here is another code sections that may be of interest: 4-2-11 OD CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS 2. Use-related provisions are not variable. Use-related provisions that are not eligible for a variance include: building size, units per structure/lot,or densities. Unless bonus size or density provisions are specifically authorized,the modification of building size, units per structure,or densities requires a legislative change in the code provisions and/or a Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezone.' Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner City of Renton Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 (425)430-7294 phone (425)430-7231 fax Inicolay@rentonwa.gov From: sallycraft[mailto:sallycraft@comcast.net] Sent:Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:16 PM To: Laureen M. Nicolay Subject: RE: City of Renton's Method of Calculating Density Is there a document, or can you put in iivritincg, that you round doom, as 'YOU explained on the phone? Thanks, Sally ---Original Message----- From: Laureen M. Nicolay [mailto:Lnicolay@Rentonwa.gov] Sent:Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:09 PM To: 'sallycraft' Subject: RE: City of Renton's Method of Calculating Density Thanks. I will forward this on Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner City of Renton Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98057 (425)430-7294 phone (425)430-7231 fax 8/23/2010 . .......... ........... 115 m Un" EN0` 5'""k IT Y WORKSHEET City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,WA 98057 Phone:425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 i 1. Gross area of property: 1. square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** square feet Private access easements** square feet Critical Areas* square feet Total excluded area: 2. square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 3. square feet 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. acres 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 5. units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. = dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes,wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. CADocuments and Settings\.Sally\Local SettingATemporary Intemet FileAOLUBdensity.doc -1- 03/08 116 PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP Manager 40 © 220 4`h Avenue South Kent, wA 98032 KENT Fax: 253-856-6454 WASHINGTON September 14, 2010 PHONE: 253-856-5454 Sally and Brian McDonough 26441 137th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042 Kathleen and Chester Ekstrand 26600 137th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042 Monica and Michael O'Neill 26451 137th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042 Sharon Bosse 25739 135th Avenue SE #41 Kent, WA 98042 Dear Messrs. and Mesdames: The Land Use & Planning Board requested that staff respond to the points made in your August 23`d letter regarding calculation of maximum permitted density. With each topic below is the City's response. Lot Size: Development of property typically includes requirements for roads, detention ponds, sensitive area protection, and utility easements. Furthermore, for preliminary plats there is a code requirement for provision of on-site recreation and open space. With the adoption of revised residential development standards, development is further constrained by requiring additional landscaping, tree retention, and diminished garages. The City of Kent allows flexibility in lot sizes in order to encourage achievement of zoning density while accommodating required public and private amenities. Double Density: Staff recognizes that utilizing rounding in the calculation of maximum permitted density on smaller properties may appear to be doubling the allowable number of dwelling units on a site. The Pruss Short Plat is mentioned as an example of this. The two-lot Pruss Short Plat was achieved by adding 121 square feet from an adjacent lot to the Pruss Short Plat lot, a fact that staff believes is unique and 'worst case'. In looking at the calculations in a different way, staff recently added the permitted density of the base lots as originally configured. Lot 1 with SR-3 zoning would have permitted 1.2703 density; lot 2 with SR-4.5 zoning would have permitted 1.4985 density, for a total of 2.7688. The lot line adjustment and rounding enabled achievement of 3 lots total; under current zoning designations, no additional lots can be created on any of the three lots. Rather than doubling the density, one could argue that the rounding of the calculation allowed an 8% increase in density (3,0000 compared to 2.7688). However, in practice, neither property could have achieved a second lot without the lot line adjustment and rounding provision. U MAYOR SUZETTE COOKS City of Kent Community Development Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director 117 Double Impervious/Double Runoff: Staff's assertion that two homes would create no more runoff than one on a lot is looking at maximum allowable impervious surface on a lot. In practice, it's likely that two small lots would have more impervious surface than one large lot, even though the large lot would be allowed the same amount by code. However, staff doesn't believe it would be double the impervious surface, but perhaps somewhere between 1 and 2 times the amount. As the market interest grows and standards change, we all may see overall impervious surfaces decrease in favor of more low impact development standards, green building and so forth. Water Quality and Flow Control (definition of new impervious surface): In reviewing the Surface Water Design Manual requirements, staff agrees that gravel-to-pavement conversion is considered new impervious surface subject to applicable code requirements for storm water quality and flow control. Lake Meridian Flooding: New developments of a substantial nature are required to provide flow control facilities with the creation of new impervious surfaces. There are several categorical exemptions from this requirement, primarily dealing with smaller sized developments and developments that do not significantly change the runoff contribution to their downstream systems. This applies not only to the Lake Meridian basin, but also to the rest of the City. The City continues to do twice-monthly sampling of storm water at the five largest storm water outfalls to Lake Meridian. As in years past, 2009 data indicate that older developments primarily on the northeast side of the lake are causing more water quality degradation than are newer developments on the north and northwest sides of the lake. As you know, the City also has been meeting with Lake Meridian homeowners to discuss ways we all might engage in improving the lake's water quality. We look forward to continuing those efforts and encourage your continued involvement. Sincerely, L,111� Charlene Anderson, AICP Planning Manager S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2010\ZCA-2010-1 DensityRounding\responseletter091410.doe 118 This page intentionally left blank. 119 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director KEN T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WASH ING T G N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 20, 2010 To: Dana Ralph, Chair and Land Use and Planning Board Members From: William D. Osborne, AICP, Long-Range Planner Subject: Vehicle Repair in M3 Zones [ZCA-2010-2] For the Hearing of September 27, 2010 MOTION: I move to recommend approval/denial/modification of Option 2, as described in the staff report, which provides for limited development of auto repair and adaptive reuse of existing structures for auto repair in the General Industrial (M3) Zoning District, and to forward said recommendation to the Kent City Council for adoption. SUMMARY: Kent City Code (KCC) provides two options for initiating text amendments to the zoning code. One option is through the annual docketing process outlined in Chapter 12.02 KCC. The other option provides for City Council or Land Use & Planning Board initiation of text amendments as outlined in Section 15.09.050(A) KCC. On July 12th, the Land Use & Planning Board unanimously agreed to entertain a proposed Zoning Code amendment. Mr. Ted Almeida, a private business owner filed an application on July 13th to amend Section 15.04.100(21) KCC to conditionally allow automotive repair use in the General Industrial (M3) Zoning District (see Attachment A). A workshop of the Land Use & Planning Board was held on August 23, 2010 to discuss GMA planning policies relating to the role of the designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center and M3 Zoning, and to introduce the proposed options for amending the Zoning Code. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide land use and capital improvement decisions for Downtown Kent. Amending development regulations based on the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan is a Comprehensive Plan implementation action. BACKGROUND: At present, auto repair use is only allowed where parcels are split-zoned as M3 and Gateway Commercial (GWC) and only if the use includes repair of heavy equipment and trucks. Gasoline service stations with auto repair and washing services are not permitted anywhere in the M3 Zoning District. The M3 Zoning District is entirely located within the City of Kent' s designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) (see Attachment B-1). According to VISION 2040, the Kent MIC is one of a few areas recognized in the Puget Sound region as locations of intensive employment with facilities having large spaces for the 120 assembly of goods and areas suitable for outdoor storage. MICs are also areas prioritized for receiving funding for infrastructure and economic development (see Attachment B-2). The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), King County, and the City of Kent have goals, policies and criteria regarding MICs that call for protection of industrial areas for future industrial use (see Attachments B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and C). This is to be done by discouraging and limiting non-industrial and non- industrial serving uses and providing incentives for industrial users to locate in MICs. A number of apparently (per field observation) non-conforming uses associated with automobile-related services exist within the M3 Zoning District (see Attachments D-1 and D-2). The largest of these, South Seattle Auto Auction (Manheim) has in fact been considered a legally-conforming Warehouse/Distribution use with a number of accessory operations. Other uses may be illegal or legal non- conforming under Kent zoning regulations for the M3 Zoning District. Existing Conditions The M3 Zoning District is largely warehousing, small-scale manufacturing, and uses associated with wholesale distribution of automobiles. The area is served by various classifications of arterial streets with primary orientation to the east and west. The Union-Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads provide access to the north and south, with numerous rail spurs serving parcels in the M3 Zoning District. According to Public Works Transportation staff, industrial uses generally limit their freight movement to timeframes outside of morning and evening commuting hours. As noted above in the Background, auto repair uses are apparent in the M3 Zoning District. THE OPTIONS The options include the proposal covered in the Almeida application, as well as an option based on staff research of industrial space requirements, freight mobility considerations and regional policy implications associated with allowing or expanding non-industrial use within the MIC. No Action "No Action" presumes that current M3 Zoning which generally prohibits auto repair uses except under specific use restriction criteria (see Background, above) best reflects the intent of the City of Kent in Land Use Element policy (LU-15.2) and Economic Development policy (ED-4.1) to protect industrial land for future industrial use, especially in the MIC. Any existing non-industrial use located within the M3 Zoning District might today be considered non-conforming, legal or otherwise and have a reasonable opportunity to continue - but these uses are anticipated to eventually convert to a principally permitted use. Option 1 - Almeida Proposal Option 1 would permit auto repair uses as-of-right for thirty-one (31) M3 Zoning District parcels (totaling over 148 acres) located along east-west arterial streets having two or more travel lanes in each direction (see Attachments A and E). The approximate building footprint area for the 135 structures located on the selected parcels is 1,729,775 sf. Option 1 would encourage auto repair use to cluster along S. 212th Street and S. 228th Street, increasing traffic congestion during peak 121 commuting hours, which is generally outside of peak manufacturing and warehouse distribution operations use of the street system. The access management regulations of the City would not encourage direct access onto such arterials, instead seeking consolidation of access points and where possible locating such points on lesser arterials. By introducing non-industrial use along arterial frontages and for parcels that include a large amount of building area and some with rail service, Option 1 may induce speculative inflation of industrially-zoned land. As property values increase, so too would lease rates for viable industrial uses. This would be inconsistent with policies seeking to discourage and limit non-industrial uses in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Option 2 — Allow Auto Repair Uses with Site & Operational Limitations Auto repair uses would be allowed only where challenges for exclusive industrial use are present: 1) For adaptive reuse of existing site structures, auto repair shall be allowed only if: a. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and b. Existing site structures do not have „dock-high" loading bay doors (the finished floor is generally level with the floor of freight containers); and c. All ground-level bay doors of existing site structures have a height of less than 14 ft. (which would generally impede full access to freight containers); and d. Existing site structures have a „clear height" (from finished floor to roof trusses) of less than 20 ft.; and e. Maximum building area per parcel allowed for auto repair uses would total 40,000 sf. 2) For proposed site development, auto repair shall be allowed only if a. The site is not currently served by a rail spur; and b. Based on parcels existing at the time of the effective date of this code amendment, the maximum parcel size allowed for development of new auto repair structures is 40,000 sf. Option 2 acknowledges that allowing auto repair uses without measured discouragement or limitation would be inconsistent with regional, county and City policy guidance. In limiting auto repair use based on access to rail, parcel size and amount of building use (extent of operation), Option 2 arguably meets the policy intent of LU-15.2 to discourage and limit non-industrial use in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Parcels not served by rail with land area less than 40,000 s.f. can be readily identified in the GIS (see Attachment F). There are twelve (12) such parcels totaling nearly 5.3 acres in land area in the M3 Zoning District. The approximate building footprint area of the twenty-one (21) structures on these parcels is 37,150 sf. Nine (9) of these parcels are clustered on the north side of S. 212th near the T-intersection with 77th Avenue S. One of three parcels in common ownership located just north of the State Route 167 underpass along the west side of 4th Avenue S. would qualify due to parcel size. Another qualifying parcel to the north of S. 196th already serves in combination with other parcels as outdoor automobile storage for South Seattle Auto Auction. Further, one qualifying parcel fronting onto 122 84th Avenue S. is split-zoned Gateway Commercial (GWC) - and allows auto repair when the primary use is heavy equipment and truck repair. Without a structure inventory throughout the M3 Zoning District, larger parcels with buildings of varying sizes otherwise suitable for limited auto repair use per Option 2 are difficult to identify. Though buildings of any size might meet the Option 2 criteria, a proxy for identifying potential adaptive reuse structures could be selected from parcels not served by rail and containing structures with footprint areas less than 40,000 sf. (see Attachment F). Using these criteria, forty-one (41) parcels totaling nearly 144.5 acres and containing structures with an aggregate footprint area of 892,700 sf. were identified. Several of the Option 2 criteria for adaptive reuse of existing structures would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis at the time of an application for tenant improvement. RECOMMENDATION: Though it removes a general prohibition, staff recommends Option 2, which would allow specifically-limited auto repair use at locations and in existing structures that are not generally suitable for exclusive industrial use. If there are any questions, please contact William Osborne at 253.856.5437. CA/WO/pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2010\ZCA-2010-2 Auto Repair in M3 Zoning\LUPB\092710\Draft_StaffReport_AutoRepair-M3_092710.doc Attachments: Att A Ted Almeida Code Text Amendment Application Att B-1: 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report on Kent MIC Att B-2: PSRC VISION 2040 (excerpted pp. 49-51) Att B-3: Designation Criteria for Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers(excerpted pp. 1-2,6-9) Att B-4: King Countywide Planning Policies(excerpted pp. 31-32, 36-38) Att C: Kent Comp Plan Goals&Policies for Manufacturing/Industrial Center, Industrial Use, Economic Development Att D-1: Ted Almeda Surrounding Uses(in M3 Zoning District) Att D-2: Apparent Non-Conforming Use in M3 Zoning Map Att E: Option 1 (Almeida Proposal) Map Att F: Option 2 (Parcel&Building Limitations Proposal) Map Att G: Decision Document, Determination of Non-Significance and SEPA Checklist Att H: Exhibit#1-Mona Parayno Comments cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Matthew Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner Project File ZCA-2010-2 ATTACHMENT A' LUPB HRG 9/27/10 123 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 ENT www.ci.kent.wa.us/permitcenter WASHINGTON PLANNING SERVICESCod® Text Amendment �+ Public Notice Board and Please print in black ink only. Application Fee...See Fee Schedule Application #: (� (�-�. KIVA Jm&'- OF ICE Uj;LjY, OFFICE USE ONLY Application Name: 2.0 1 Code Text AmendmentRequested: !FALQ10- dAMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE ❑AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION CODE ° ®AMENDMENT TO MOBILE HOME PARK CODE ®AMENDMENT TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT CODE: (Specify) APPLICANT 1: (mandatory) Name: -1-ee-,& Awe.:, Daytime Phone: ( -o c.) -1 D 1` "7 3 I-7 Mailing Address: I( 0\ IE lIW Fax Number:S,2c�� City/State/Zip: ��a� v��r ggt�5"T Signatu re: �-''�� Q- APPLICANT 2: (mandatory if different from applicant 1) Name: Daytime Phone: Mailing Address: Fax Number: City/State/ Signature: AGENT/CONSULTANT/ATTORNEY: (mandato ' rlmary contact is different from ap licant) a1. Name: Daytime Phone: Mailing Address: Fax Number: City/ e/Zip: Signature: F KKEN Ic i OFFICE USE ONLY: DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY: DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: COMPLETENESS REVIEW BY: GHI-1 psd4015 8/24/06 p. I of I 124 Proposed. City Code Ammendment by Ted Almeida,President of The Almeida Group, LLC dba Guaranty Autos May 291, 2010 1) Which ordinance or regulation are you requesting to be amended or added? A: 15.04.100 (21 c) 2) What do you want to change about the comprehensive plan and-why? A: We would like to see the plan include provisions for vehicle repair within the M3 zone in certain areas that would not impede truck traffic. We would like to see this changed for two reasons: One)It would allow companies such as ours to provide the residents of Kent with a retail automotive repair facility in a convenient, centralized location,which will also generate tax revenue for the city, rather than have it's citizens and businesses spend their money in another city for these services. Currently there are many businesses which own vehicles fleets that must be maintained elsewhere. Policy LU-18.1: Encourage a mix of land uses which are compatible with manufacturing, industrial, and warehouse uses. These shall include office development, retail uses which serve the surrounding manufacturing and office park uses, and retail uses which require large parcels of land that may not be available in commercial districts. Pg 4-38 City's Comprehensive Plan Industrial Goals and Policies. Two) This would legitimize several businesses already operating viable vehicle repair facilities within the M3 Zone. One of Kent's major employers in the M3 Zone is the South Seattle Auto Auction(Manhiem). Currently,auto dealers who purchase their vehicles at this auction must take most of them outside the city of Kent for mechanical and autobody repairs. We are hoping to support this industry by allowing competitive auto repair shops in Kent to fight to keep this business local. Policy ED-4.4: Provide allowance for certain commercial retail uses that directly support manufacturing and industrial uses. Pg 12-7 City's Comprehensive Plan for Industrial Use Areas. E�, x l �y� D 3) What language revisions to the code text are you requesting? SO A: Would like to add subparagraph 21 c to state"Or if the repair facility is locat6d--orl an East/West arterial route consisting of at least two lanes in each direction." ; i_ ,f F K E NT The code with proposed amendment would read: 4 E RAM± CENTER 21. Auto repair, including body work, and washing services are permitted only under the following conditions: a. The property is also used for heavy equipment repair and/or truck repair; and b. The property abuts or is split-zoned with real property in the gateway commercial district. 125 Gasoline service stations that also offer auto repair and washing services are not permitted in the M3, general industrial zoning district. c. Or if the repair facility is located on an East/West arterial route consisting of at least two lanes in each direction. 4) What are the effects or impacts ralated to the proposed amendment? A: The proposed amendment would not have a negative impact on the environment since vehicle repair is less damaging to the environment than most other uses in the M3 zone. There may be a minimal increase in automobile traffic which would be hard to quantify. I spent about an hour with the city's traffic engineer. Cindy explained to me that in the location in which our proposed business would be located, there are on average 25,300 trips per day. Our business may be able to handle up to 30 vehicles per day, and with employees,vendors, and customers we not get business from, I expect no more than 60 trips per day. This would equal out to be a .023% increase in the daily traffic on this corridor. Having auto repair facilities in this area would benefit residents of Kent's East Hill who traverse the East/West corrodors to connect with I5 for jobs or business in either Seattle or Tacoma. Furthermore,the people who enjoy employment in the valley would also benefit from having a repair facility close by. We are hoping to capture retail business that is currently being diverted to other cities which will increase the tax base for the city of Kent. The effect to related ordinances, regulations, and development standards would be negligible or non-existant. For example, on S 2121 St. there are at least five specialty vehicle repair shops already operating inside the M3 zone without permission from the city. The City was unaware that they even existed until our company made it known during this code ammendment process. So,there has been no negative impact on the city whatsoever. RECHVE C- 1-Y OF SCENT P RIVII' CENTER RCW 36.70B.020: Definitions. Page 1 of 1 RCW 36.70B.020 Definitions. 126 Unless the context clearly requires otherwise,the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1)"Closed record appeal"means an administrative appeal on the record to a local government body or officer, including the legislative body,following an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument allowed. (2)"Local government"means a county,city,or town. (3)"Open record hearing"means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the local government to conduct such hearings,that creates the local government's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the local government by ordinance or resolution.An open record hearing may be held prior to a local government's decision on a project permit to be known as an"open record predecision hearing."An open record hearing may be held on an appeal,to be known as an"open record appeal hearing,"if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit. (4)"Project permit"or"project permit application"means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments,conditional uses,shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, ordevelopment regulations7,exoeot'as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. (5)"Public meeting"means an informal meeting, hearing,workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the local government's decision.A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review or architectural control board meeting, a special review district or community council meeting, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement.A public meeting does not include an open record hearing.The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the local government's project permit application file. [1995 c 347§402.] R."MEGENED JUL 1 `3 P =RNIII. CENTER http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70B.020 6/9/2010 127 e, �s: ��.a, _ ue- -\ C-i 128 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT B-1 LUPB HRG 9/27/10 129 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report KENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CENTER Community Context The Kent Valley has one of the longest histories of modern settlement in the central Puget Sound region. The first white settlers arrived in 1853, and soon established farms near what is now downtown Kent, which was originally incorporated as a one square mile town in 1890. Over time, the surrounding area experienced a succession of agricultural phases, from early hop and dairy production,to small truck farms just prior to World War II. Commercial logging was also important in the late 19th Century, with the Kent Lumber Company and other sawmills clearing and processing timber from East and West Hill forests. Transportation improvements, including heavy rail lines, the Seattle-Tacoma Interurban Rail Line, and hard-surfaced roadways for automobiles, encouraged the growth of new businesses and residents throughout the Kent Valley and on its surrounding hillsides. By the 1960s, valley lands had become highly attractive to industrial developers due to the flat terrain, the availability of transportation, and the proximity to Seattle, Tacoma, and SeaTac Airport. By the 1970s, warehousing and distribution had become increasingly important as part of Kent's industrial development. In the past few decades, Kent has been transformed from a small, primarily residential and agricultural community into an employment and population center for South King County. Located midway between Seattle and Tacoma along the Interstate 5 corridor, Kent is the region's sixth largest city with 2000 estimates of 59,331 jobs and a population of 79,524. Kent City-Wide Snapshot Area(square miles) 29.4 Population(2000) 79,524 Population per square mile 2,705 Employment(2000) 59,331 Employees per square mile 2,018 Housing units(2000): 32,488 Employees per housing unit 1.8 Source: US Census Bureau, Washington State Employment Security Department 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Page 1 130 City of Kent Employment Gov. 3% Const/Res Education 7% 3% FIRES 15% WTCU 29% Manuf. Retail 31% 12% Employment in the city of Kent is dominated by Manufacturing (31%) and Wholesale trade, Transportation, Communication, and Utilities (29%). Manufacturing and WTCU together provide 60% of all employment for the city. Also, Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services provide 15% of the city's employment. 12%of the city's employment is from Retail sector. Comprehensive Plan Kent's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1995, was the first full update of the City's planning regulations since 1977. The plan outlines policies for supporting the city's growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. The citywide plan is organized around a set of 14 broad planning goals, which include detailed policies addressing the following areas: Urban Growth, Transportation, Public Facilities, Housing, Urban Design, Human Services, Economic Development, Natural Resource Industries, Open Space and Recreation, Historic Preservation, Environment, Property Rights, and Permits. Chief among the city's plans for its future is the revitalization of its downtown. The City plans to direct a major portion of its near-term growth into the center. Working with an interjurisdictional task force in King County, Kent's plan is built upon the 20 year growth target of accommodating 7,520 additional households and 11,500 additional jobs. See the aerialphoto on the followingpage for a depiction of the Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center. 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Page 2 � •;te n�;��1 � �_ � I �� I fir, .� � �';r• "=g: fio!. � e,'.;.:s:'� - . ki a:.� �'x} ,. lr'ff - + IFt �1.,:� r •� �L y�A ti_._Ct r�� - •_ '$T Ali 4f. - �7; � r `.. - Lj NNW F -law law or tmi J. No Alf. u -iuT- i:> _ ILI 147-1 AL 132 Manufacturing/Industrial Center Background The Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) is located in the Kent Valley just north of downtown Kent. The center is generally bounded by SR-167 (Valley Freeway)on the east and south, SW 43rd Street on the north, and West Valley Highway on the west. The Kent center is part of a larger industrial area known as the Kent North Valley Industrial Area. The larger industrial area consists of over 6 square miles, with over 35,000 employees in Kent alone. The Kent MIC (covering 2,355 acres, or about 3.7 square miles) comprises about the eastern half of the Kent North Valley Industrial Area. The Kent MIC is planned and zoned for more intense development than the remainder of the larger Kent industrial area. The Boeing Company is a major property owner and business presence on industrial lands immediately west of the Kent MIC. Boeing's Kent Space Center and 240-acre Pacific Gateway Business Park are located just across West Valley Highway. Manufacturing Industrial Center Planning and Implementation Vision 2020 includes policy support for coordinated planning in the region's manufacturing/industrial centers. Appendix 1 ("Center Characteristics and Descriptions") of the plan includes the following language addressing these centers: Manufacturing/industrial centers are major, existing regional employment areas of intense, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses which cannot be easily mixed at higher densities with other uses. To preserve land at these centers for manufacturing, industry and related uses, large retail uses or non-related offices are discouraged. Provision of adequate public facilities and services, including good access to the region's transportation system, is very important to the success of manufacturing/industrial centers. In 1992 the city of Kent formally designated its manufacturing/Industrial Center, stating the center would be a concentration of manufacturing land uses and employment, and would be served by transit. The city established a target of 10,000 employees and designated the center in its comprehensive plan. The center boundaries are shown on the Land Use Plan Map (Figure 4.7 of the comprehensive plan). The plan includes the following goals and policies which support the center: define the boundaries of the center to encompass the most intensive manufacturing and warehouse uses; ensure the boundaries reflect accessibility to truck and rail corridors; limit non-manufacturing uses in the center;provide transportation and utility infrastructure to accommodate high-intensity manufacturing uses in the center; preserve land for manufacturing and related uses; and enhance transit service to and within the center. The city has not prepared a specific sub-area plan for its manufacturing/industrial center. Population, Housing, and Employment Population, housing, and household data were derived from the 1990 and 2000 censuses. The Kent MI center experienced a slight increase in population and a drop in housing units and households over the past 10 years. Between 1990 and 2000 the center's population grew from 190 to 197, housing units declined from 109 to 78, and the number of households decreased from 103 to 75. Population density increased slightly over the decade, from 62 persons per square mile in 1990 to 64 in 2000. Housing unit density dropped for the period, from 35 to 25 units per square mile. And household density dropped, from 33 per square mile in 1990 to 24 in the year 2000. With the number of housing units declining and employment growing over the 1990-2000 period, the ratio of jobs per housing unit increased strongly, from 128 jobs per housing unit in 1990 to 207 jobs per housing unit in 2000. Given the city's policy 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Page 4 133 focus and objectives for its manufacturing/industrial centers, these trends are positive. Residential uses are generally discouraged in the Kent Manufacturing Center, since they are adversely affected by industrial activity. Department of Employment Security data were used to evaluate employment trends in Kent center. Between 1995 and 2000 employment in the center increased by 16%, from 13,931 to 16,164. In the year 2000 half these jobs were in the wholesale, transportation, communication, and utilities sector, while just under 35% were in the manufacturing sector. The remaining 15% were split between construction (8%), services(5%),retail(1%), and other(1%). King County's Countywide Planning Policies established a goal of 10,000 employees for each manufacturing/industrial center. The Kent MI center had achieved this level before the year 1990, and has now exceeded the goal by 60%. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Population, Housing, and Emplo ment 1990* 2000 Population 190 197 Persons per square mile 62 64 Housing units 109 78 Housing units per square mile 35 25 Households 103 75 Households per square mile 33 24 Employment 13,931 16,164 Employees per square mile 4,526 5,251 Employees per housing unit 127.81 207.23 * Employment data is for 1995 Source: U.S. Census(1990,2000), Washington State Department of Employment Security,Puget Sound Regional Council Manufacturing/Industrial Center Employment by Sector Services 4.8% Retail 1.0% FIRE 0.1 % WTCU 51.3% Manufacturing 34.6% Government/education 0.3% Construction/resources 7.9% Source:Washington State Department of Employment Security 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Page 5 134 Land Use, Character& Urban Form The Kent center has 55 blocks, each with about 36 acres. The center in composed primarily of one story manufacturing and warehouse. Kent center includes 458 parcels covering some 1,651 acres, with an average parcel size of 3.6 acres. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Character and Urban Form Total area(acres) 1,970 Number of blocks 55 Average block size(gross acres) 35.8 Number of parcels 458 Average parcel size(net acres) 3.6 Road network(linear miles) 21.6 Freight railroad network(linear miles) 11.4 Source: King County Assessor,Puget Sound Regional Council Developable land contained in parcels makes up 70%of the center's total land area. The road network in Kent center consists of nearly 22 miles of streets, while the center is served by 11.4 miles of freight railroad tracks. These include tracks owned and operated by Union Pacific railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. Current land use information was obtained from King County assessor's office records. Current land use in Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Center is predominantly warehousing, with industrial use comprising 13% and commercial uses accounting for another 7%. The remaining 23% of the center contains a mix of open space, office,residential, government/military,and vacant areas. Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Existing Land Use Percentage Agriculture 0.06% Civic/Quasi-public 0.11% Commercial 6.93% Parks/Open Space 0.79% Industrial 13.06% Residential—Multi Family 0.13% Office 0.95% Parking 0.53% Residential—Single Family 1.26% Government/Military 1.86% Unknown(No Data) 5.42% Vacant 11.39% Warehousing 57.52% Total 100% Source: King County Assessor's Records,Puget Sound Regional Council See the map on the following page for a depiction of current land uses in the the Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center. 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Page 6 —�III � 1 ■� I 1 1 Ig - C=Quasi-Public. Industrial mining Mu 1ti-F`a:1,Res idential No Land Use Code Office parking SS Recreation IF Schools 6�- - + "NMI Vacant M Tn Wanhousingglli rl■1 � '� �illiiil`� ilk .■N.::'�-_ - 1 Ir MEN I 11• •'�Mn5 �N-2_ '� �■ 11111 I y.11- 11 11�111401 NMI— IN INN `� !I- - =III •- �111 .I-1 xxn::ili I E PIE MINIM IS am ■ — N �� ■— — � � �-Nlllt��lu� �■H::L �T�li:x� 1I, , :2__it=:� x■� Pn ■1111 ■'i _ i••= x'e'x=-'_i i'lllll _ '.I�'�.' -sue■- =■ 136 Planned future land use was derived from the land use element of the city of Kent's comprehensive plan, which designates the entire Kent manufacturing/industrial center for manufacturing use. The center will contain intense manufacturing and warehouse uses with access to truck and rail corridors. The City of Kent intends to improve its manufacturing base by not only defining and preserving areas to serve as its economic and employment core, but by creating better access in terms of commuting and transporting goods. Its policies for manufacturing and industrial areas discourage and limit land uses other than manufacturing and warehouse in the area designated as its Manufacturing Industrial Center. See the map on the following page for a depiction of planned future land uses in the Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center. Kent Manufacturing/Industrial Future Land Use Percentage Industrial 0.01% Manufacturing Center" 99.99% Total 100% * This designation is to preserve land in this area for intensive manufacturing and warehouse uses as well as to provide accessibility to truck and rail corridors. Source: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan(1995) 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Page 8 e ■ ■ z g�. �I.1■• 11:0 Ala 1111 ■■1■��1-� 11 '.G [I milli I I .1• NIII:..Q� ■N� �''1■■1�'S'� IA2:� c°Ni _ ■_ ■ �.Illlli ■ _■■'�_■ ' JIM I' :C Now 11NJ �1 OFNJ 0 ==_ �■ It�� i 1■��_ ��1�� ..� III��ii� rm MISSION -iL III ■ 2 11 111.s_ 1 sm r-� �i2 xx r= �� _:e I-'=un .•� a�1 �• inn =22 lid 1•= _:�=�ry�_.._ �::�-r— " ` 'allll�i%1:= -�- �1.. [:_:__ _?-��;�1��-••=y..1._ .11111 .. -I ■- INII_=111,.: �' _' 1 I- - :a i�■[I1♦'IS itn�•.Illrlll -il 138 Transportation and Access The Kent MIC has good highway access and is well served by freight rail facilities. The Valley Freeway (SR-167) provides major north-south roadway access to and within the center, with interchanges at S. 212th Street near the north end of the center, and at Central Avenue N. near the south end. SR-167 includes four general purpose freeway lanes plus two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Other major highways and streets serving the center include East Valley Highway,West Valley Highway, 76th Avenue South, and 84th Avenue South. East-west access is provided by South 228th Street, South 212th Street, South 196th Street, and SW 43rd Street. While Sound Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail line runs through Kent MI center, the Kent Sounder Station, which opened for service in 2001, is located south of Kent center, at 301 Railroad Avenue,just south of James Street. Three north-south rail lines serve the Kent center: two parallel Burlington Northern lines run through the middle of the site, while a single Union Pacific line is located along the western edge of the center. The manufacturing industrial center is served by 5 separate transit routes, which operate an average AM peak frequency of one bus approximately every 32 minutes. There are no transit station areas within the Kent center. The closest is the Kent Sounder commuter rail station located on Railroad Avenue about t/2 mile from the center's southern boundary. Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Transit Routes and Frequencies (AM Peak Period Item Route# Destination Freq 1 150 Seattle-Kent 16.00 150 Auburn-Kent 30.55 2 153 Renton-Kent 30.00 3 154 Boeing 60.00 4 167 U W 26.00 5 160 CBD 30.00 32.09 References and Contacts City of Kent Comprehensive Plan (1995) Commuter Rail Station Area Study(2000) Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager, 253-856-5454 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report: Kent Manufacturing Industrial Center Page 10 ATTACHMENT B-2 LUPB HRG 9/27/10 139 REGIONAL MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTERS Unlike regional growth centers,manufacturing/industrial centers are primarily locations of more intense employ- Criteria for ment and are typically not appropriate for housing.VISION Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers 2040 calls for the recognition and preservation of existing The Regional Council's Executive Board has adopted centers of intensive manufacturing and industrial activity criteria for the designation of regional manufacturing/ and the provision of infrastructure and services necessary industrial centers,including a minimum employment to support these areas.These centers are important em- target,land planned specifically for industrial and/or ployment locations that serve both current and long-term manufacturing uses,protection from incompatible land regional economic objectives.VISION 2040 discourages uses,efficient size and shape,planning for transportation non-supportive land uses in manufacturing/industrial facilities and services,and urban design standards. centers,such as retail or non-related offices. REGIONAL MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTERS GOAL AND POLICIES Goal:The region will continue to maintain and support viable regional manufacturing/industrial centers to accom- modate manufacturing,industrial,or advanced technology uses. MPP-DP-8:Focus a significant share of employment growth in designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers. MPP-DP-9:Provide a regional framework for designating and evaluating regional manufacturing/industrial centers. MPP-DP-10:Give funding priority—both for transportation infrastructure and for economic development—to support designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers consistent with the regional vision.Regional funds are prioritized to regional manufacturing/industrial centers.County-level and local funding are also appropriate to prioritize to these regional centers. OTHER CENTERS,INCLUDING COUNTYWIDE AND LOCAL CENTERS Many secondary hubs and concentrations of development also serve important roles as places for concentrating jobs, A Region of Central Places housing,shopping,and recreational opportunities.These The centers concept is at the core of VISION 2040. While are often the downtowns or city centers of larger cities. centers in Metropolitan and Core Cities serve key regional Town centers in small cities can also provide a mix of hous- functions as majorjob,commercial,transportation, ing and services and serve as focal points where people and government hubs,other types of centers are also come together for a variety of activities,including shop- important.VISION 2040 expects each city in the region ping and recreation.Finally,small neighborhood centers to take steps to further evolve one or more central places and even activity hubs that serve as the crossroads in cities as mixed use areas of residences,employment shops, and communities of all sizes are also key in implementing cultural facilities,and entertainment.Each such center— a centers-based approach to development in the region. no matter how large or small—should serve as a focal This includes station areas along major transit routes(in- point of community,be walkable,and have easy access cluding the region's ferry terminals).VISION 2040 calls for to transit. developing central places in cities and towns of all sizes. OTHER CENTERS GOAL AND POLICIES Goal:Subregional centers,such as those designated through countywide processes or identified locally,will also play important roles in accommodating planned growth according to the regional vision.These centers will promote pedestrian connections and support transit-oriented uses. MPP-DP-11:Support the development of centers within all jurisdictions,including town centers and activity nodes. MPP-DP-12:Establish a common framework among the countywide processes for designating subregional centers to ensure compatibility within the region. MPP-DP-13:Direct subregional funding,especially county-level and local funds,to centers designated through countywide processes,as well as to town centers,and other activity nodes. Puget Sound Regional Council —VISION 2040 49 • ■ 4 7IM.-. , 1 Centers in VISION 2040 141 VISION 2040 contains several implementation actions designed to evaluate current regional growth center and manufacturing/industrial center designation criteria,and to refine a description of a regional centers hierarchy.This work will include more explicit descriptions of activity thresholds and targets.(See the Development Patterns actions at the end of this section.) OTHERCENTRAL REGIONALLY DESIGNATED CENTERS OTHER CENTERS PLACES MANUFACTURING/ NEIGH. CENTERS, INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY NODES, REGIONAL GROWTH CENTERS CENTERS CENTERS IN LARGER CITIES SMALL CITY OR TOWN CENTERS STATION AREAS 1 1 Regional Growth Centers are designated Manufacturing/ These centers are designated as key Small City or Town Centers are focal points for the Relatively small areas of high-intensity residential and Industrial Centers are areas for concentrating growth in Larger region's smaller cities and towns. areas(ranging from employment development.They are locations of intensive Cities that currently do not have a an intersection mosttypically located in the historic employmentwith regional growth center. to a couple of downtowns or other major activity areas facilities having blocks),often at of the region's five Metropolitan Cities large spaces for the key crossroads. and in Core Cities.Regional growth assembly of goods These centers can centers serve as a primary framework for and areas suitable for be located in cities regional transportation and economic outdoor storage. of any regional development planning. geography type. 1 ' 1 Designated by PSRC. Designated by PSRC. Not designated regionally;to be desig- Not designated regionally;serve more localized Identified locally. nated through countywide processes. needs and identified locally. These are locations with current or Areas in which These centers serve important roles These centers provide a moderately dense mix of These relatively planned concentrations of the region's manufacturing and as subregional hubs and secondary housing and services,such as stores,libraries,and small areas have a most significant business,governmental, industrial land uses concentrations of development.They small parks.They serve as focal points within a mix of uses to serve and cultural activities.They support are concentrated, provide a dense mix of housing and small city or town where people come together for the immediate high-density urban neighborhoods with a which cannot easily services,such as stores,medical offices, a variety of activities,including business,shopping, vicinity.Housing is mix of land uses including housing,jobs, be mixed with other and libraries.They serve as focal points living,and recreation.They often have a civic often located above shopping,and recreation.Regional growth activities.Housing where people come together for a character with community centers and facilities, ground-floor retail centers are often primary cultural,civic, is not appropriate in variety of activities,including business, such as City Hall,and frequently include local and services. and government hubs with large regional these locations. shopping,living,and recreation.They "Main Streets"and other public places. markets.In many respects,these centers often have a civic character with function as"small towns"within our community facilities,such as municipal largest cities. buildings and other public places. .1l ' 1 ' Served by regional high-capacity Served by Served by regular local transit and Served by local transit.These centers should have Served by local transit,rail,major highways,and other major regional regional express transit service.These a well-developed network of sidewalks and access transit.These places transportation services.Major investments transportation centers should have a complete network to bicycle paths and transit stops or other facilities. should encourage for transportation and other services and infrastructure, of sidewalks and access to bicycle paths walking,biking,and facilities are targeted for these locations. including rail,major and transit facilities. transit use. These centers should have a complete highways,and port network of walkways and bicycle links, facilities. with easy access to transit. 1 ' 1 Metropolitan Cities:Seattle,Bellevue, Ballard/Interbay Larger Cities:Arlington,Bainbridge Small cities inside the urban growth area: Could be located in Bremerton,Everett,Tacoma (Seattle), Island,Des Moines,Edmonds,Fife, Algona,Black Diamond,Bonney Lake,Brier, any city.Many cities Core Cities:Auburn,Bothell,Burien, Duwamish(Seattle), Issaquah,Maple Valley,Marysville, Covington,DuPont,Edgewood,Fircrest,Gig will have multiple Federal Way,Kent,Kirkland,Lakewood, Frederickson Mercer Island,Mill Creek,Monroe, Harbor,Lake Forest Park,Lake Stevens,Medina, neighborhood and Lynnwood,Puyallup,Redmond,Renton, (Pierce County), Mountlake Terrace,Mukilteo, Milton,Newcastle,Normandy Park,Orting,Pacific, activity areas SeaTac,Silverdale,Tukwila Kent(Kent),North Sammamish,Shoreline,University Place, Port Orchard,Poulsbo,Ruston,Steilacoom,Sumner Tukwila(Tukwila), Woodinville Residential cities:Beaux Arts,Clyde Hill,Hunts Paine Field/Boeing Point,Woodway,Yarrow Point. (Everett),Port of Tacoma(Tacoma), Free-standing cities:Buckley,Carbonado, South Kitsap Carnation,Darrington,Duvall,Eatonville, Industrial Area Enumclaw,Gold Bar,Granite Falls,Index,North (Kitsap County) Bend,Roy,Skykomish,Snohomish,Snoqualmie, South Prairie,Stanwood,Sultan,Wilkeson Puget Sound Regional Council —VISION 2040 51 142 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT B-3 LUPB HRG 9/27/10 143 Designation Criteria for Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers Adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board June 26,2003 THE ISSUE In October 2002, the Growth Management Policy Board approved the Central Puget Sound Regional Growth Centers - 2002 monitoring report. In its action, the Board recommended addressing a range of issues related to regional growth and manufacturing industrial centers. Among the recommendations was direction for staff to prepare new designation and evaluation criteria for regional growth and manufacturing industrial centers for Board consideration. DISCUSSION The Regional Council's present adopted policies and guidance, contained in the 1995 VISION 2020 Update, do not clearly define the characteristics and roles of regional growth and manufacturing industrial centers. The region lacks a consistent terminology for its different types of centers, as well as a consistent method of measuring and evaluating activity levels within them. The region lacks any detailed guidance at all for the desirable characteristics of manufacturing/industrial centers. The 1995 VISION 2020 Update conveyed the expectation that the identification of centers would occur through countywide planning processes, in consultation with affected interests such as transit and regional agencies in a manner compatible with VISION 2020. It did not describe, however, how these designations could be coordinated in a manner that ensured that they were consistent with one another and with the objectives of the regional plan. Upon review of the centers designation processes that have been developed by countywide organizations, and the resulting centers, elected officials and community representatives have recognized that the present methods of identifying and designating regional growth and manufacturing/industrial centers are inconsistent among the four counties. Each county has a different process, which has resulted in a wide range of different types of centers. It is unclear how some of the current regional growth centers were identified and formally designated. Some manufacturing/industrial centers appear to have a preliminary designation that must be formalized. The lack of clarity was apparent when the Regional Council began to apply its decision to allocate federal transportation funds to regional growth centers and manufacturing/industrial centers. Puget Sound Regional Council 1 6/26/2003 Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers Criteria 144 The 1995 VISION 2020 Update describes two types of regional centers: "Urban Centers" and "Manufacturing Industrial Centers." "Urban Centers"are further broken down into a hierarchy of regional urban centers, consisting of "Regional Centers," "Metropolitan Centers," and "Urban Centers." Since the adoption of the plan, the Regional Council has made no practical distinction between different types of regional urban centers, and has treated them all as one type. The following criteria continue that approach, and defer discussion of the composition and purpose of a hierarchy of regional centers to the update of VISION 2020. In these criteria, "Urban Centers" will be referred to as"regional growth centers"to distinguish them from locally or sub-regionally designated urban centers. NEW CRITERIA The Growth Management Policy Board has recommended that the Executive Board adopt a clear position that in the future the Policy and Executive Boards should have roles in reviewing and approving the final designation of regional growth and manufacturing industrial centers. The following evaluation and designation criteria will only apply to proposed new regional growth and manufacturing industrial centers. Although there has been discussion that the reevaluation of existing centers could occur as part of a comprehensive VISION 2020 update in a process that will be determined by the Growth Management Policy Board, existing regional growth and manufacturing industrial centers are not subject to these criteria at this time. It is the expectation that candidate centers will on the whole conform to the designation criteria. If not, jurisdictions should explain why a proposed center does not meet a particular criterion. The data and background information that are identified and requested in the criteria are designed to provide the Regional Council Growth Management Policy and Executive Boards with adequate information with which to make an informed judgment about whether a regional designation is appropriate. The final regional designation will be made at the discretion of the Executive Board after considering the recommendation of the Growth Management Policy Board. The attached draft criteria clarify the intent of centers policies and guidance adopted in the 1995 VISION 2020 Update by specifying thresholds, standards, and regionally consistent designation processes for regional growth and manufacturing industrial centers. Puget Sound Regional Council 2 6/26/2003 Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers Criteria 145 Designation Criteria for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers PART 1. Eligibility and Designation. a. To be eligible for consideration as a designated "manufacturing industrial center,"(MIC or"center")the jurisdiction must: i. Demonstrate that the proposed center is located within an urban growth area. ii. Establish it as a "candidate"by having it recognized as appropriate for a regional manufacturing industrial center designation in its county's countywide planning policies. Although preferred, it is not required that proposed manufacturing industrial centers be located in incorporated areas. iii. Identify the center as a candidate for a regional manufacturing industrial center designation in the local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. iv. Adopt an ordinance or other action requesting the Regional Council to designate it as a regional manufacturing industrial center and authorizing the staff of the jurisdiction to submit an application on behalf of the Council and city administration. b. Designation of Manufacturing/Industrial growth centers will be made by the Executive Board based on the recommendation of the Growth Management Policy Board,and a report prepared by Regional Council staff. PART 2. Purpose and Objective. The Manufacturing/Industrial centers designation criteria and process are designed to: a. Document that the candidate center has the desire and development potential to play a regional role in attracting employment growth. b. Limit the number and geographic distribution of manufacturing industrial centers. The region needs to maintain a reasonable number and distribution in order for manufacturing industrial centers to: i. Serve as an organizing framework for the Freight and Goods component of the region's Metropolitan Transportation System. ii. Serve as the primary concentrations of industrial and manufacturing related jobs that are important to the region. Puget Sound Regional Council 6 6/26/2003 Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers Criteria 146 iii. Have the potential to generate sufficient market demand to make centers successful. C. Provide regional consistency regarding the type, location, distribution, and development potential of new manufacturing industrial centers. PART 3. Background Information. The jurisdiction must provide the following background information to the Growth Management Policy Board: a. Documentation of eligibility as described in Part 1. b. The jurisdiction's vision for the proposed center. C. A brief history of the development of the center. d. Existing conditions and characteristics —Primary functions of the center, current land use, transportation system, population, employment, recent development activity. Description of any environmental cleanup, remediation projects, or other issues that might affect the potential for development or redevelopment e. Current status of planning efforts and implementation tools in the center. f. A general description of adjacent land uses within %2 mile of the proposed center boundaries, and their relationship to the center. g. The relationship of the proposed center to the regional transportation network, and in particular to the Freight and Goods component of the Metropolitan Transportation System. h. The likely travel origins of manufacturing industrial center employees. PART 4. Designation Criteria. Candidate manufacturing industrial centers must demonstrate and document the following: a. Compatibility with VISION 2020. Jurisdictions must provide a description of how the candidate manufacturing industrial center reinforces the centers concept within VISION 2020,including the role of the center in the region's economy. Puget Sound Regional Council 7 6/26/2003 Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers Criteria 147 b. Required Activity Levels - Employment Thresholds. Jurisdictions must demonstrate that proposed manufacturing industrial centers: i. Have a minimum existing employment level of 10,000 jobs. iii. Have a minimum employment of target of at least 20,000 jobs. C. Commitment to Preservation of an Urban Industrial Land Base. As described in VISION 2020, manufacturing industrial centers are major, existing regional employment areas of intensive, concentrated urban manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed at higher densities with other uses. Jurisdictions should demonstrate their commitment to preserving land within the urban area for manufacturing, industry and related uses. To address this issue, the jurisdiction nominating the center must submit materials that demonstrate and describe: i. Location. A proposed Manufacturing/Industrial center is within an Urban Growth Area. ii. Planned Land Use and Zoning. At least 80% of property within proposed new manufacturing industrial center boundaries must have planned future land use and current zoning designations for industrial and manufacturing uses. iii. Protection from Incompatible Land Uses. The jurisdiction's plan for the center and regulatory authority discourage land uses that are incompatible with manufacturing, industrial uses, such as large retail uses, high concentrations of housing, or non-related office uses. The sizes of office and retail uses should be limited unless as an accessory use. iv. Aggregation. Regulations and plans to preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant parcels and parcels with non-industrial uses within the center to create lots of sufficient size for expanded or new manufacturing and industrial uses. Large parcels and blocks are often desirable for manufacturing and industrial activity. V. Size and Shape—Manufacturing industrial centers will assume a variety of sizes and shapes, based upon their location, the type of manufacturing or industrial activity they contain, the extent of land parcels zoned for manufacturing and industrial uses, and the presence of supporting infrastructure. Although it is not critical that MICs be physically compact, jurisdictions should explain why particular boundaries or configurations for a nominated center were selected. Puget Sound Regional Council 8 6/26/2003 Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers Criteria 148 vi. Street Network, Sidewalk Network, Trail/Bicycle Network — All proposed centers must have a plan to identify and address deficiencies in street, sidewalk, and trailibicycle path networks. Jurisdictions should describe how transportation plans assess the current adequacy and availability of transportation facilities and services necessary to support industrial and manufacturing uses, and how the jurisdiction plans to provide adequate capacity to serve planned activity levels. vii. Urban Design — Urban design standards that are used to mitigate aesthetic and other impacts of manufacturing and industrial activities both within the center and on adjacent areas. d. Mobility. Transportation networks within manufacturing industrial centers should provide for the needs of freight movement and employees by ensuring a variety of transportation modes such as transit, rail, trucking facilities, or waterway, as appropriate. e. Local Commitment to Improvements. Document the jurisdiction's plans and capital program for the provision of infrastructure, services and amenities to support planned growth within the center. Puget Sound Regional Council 9 6/26/2003 Regional Growth and Manufacturing Industrial Centers Criteria ATTACHMENT B-4 LUPB HRG 9/27/10 149 4. Cities in the Rural Area The cities and unincorporated towns in the Rural Areas are a significant part of King County's diversity and heritage. Cities in this category include: Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw,North Bend, Snoqualmie and Skykomish. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns are the appropriate providers of local rural services for the community. They also contribute to the variety of development patterns and housing choices within the County. As municipalities, the cities are to provide urban services and be located within designated Urban Growth Areas. The urban services, residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large, generally western Urban Growth Area. LU-38 In recognition that cities in the Rural Area are generally not contiguous to the Countywide Urban Growth Area, and to protect and enhance the options cities in Rural Areas provide, these cities shall be located within Urban Growth Areas. These Urban Growth Areas generally will be islands separate from the larger Urban Growth Area located in the western portion of the County. Each city in the Rural Area and King County and the Growth Management Planning Council shall work cooperatively to establish an Urban Growth Area for that city. The Urban Growth Area for cities in the Rural Area shall: a. Include all lands within existing cities in the Rural Area; b. Be sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support rural city growth without major environmental impacts; c. Be contiguous to city limits; d. Have boundaries based on natural boundaries, such as watersheds, topographical features, and the edge of areas already characterized by urban development; e. Be maintained in large lots at densities of one home per five acres or less with mandatory clustering provisions until such time as the city annexes the area; f. Be implemented through interlocal agreements among King County, the cities and special purpose districts, as appropriate, to ensure that annexation is phased, nearby open space is protected and development within the Urban Growth Area is compatible with surrounding Rural and Resource Areas; and g. Not include designated Forest or Agricultural Production District lands unless the conservation of those lands and continued resource-based use, or other compatible use, is assured. A Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Urban Centers are envisioned as areas of concentrated employment and housing, with direct service by high-capacity transit, and a wide range of other land uses such as retail, recreational, public facilities,parks and open space. Urban Centers are designed to 1)strengthen existing communities, 2)promote housing opportunities close to employment, 3) support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles, 4) consume less land with urban development, S) maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services, 6) reduce costs of and time required for permitting, and 7) evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. 31 Manufacturing/Industrial Employment Centers are key components of the regional economy. 150 These areas are characterized by a significant amount of manufacturing, industrial, and advanced technology employment. They differ from other employment areas, such as business/office parks (see FW-16 and LU-70-74), in that a land base and the segregation of major non-manufacturing uses are essential elements of their operation. FW-14 Within the Urban Growth Area, a limited number of Urban Centers which meet specific criteria established in the Countywide Planning Policies shall be locally desig- nated. Urban Centers shall be characterized by all of the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support effective rapid transit; c. Pedestrian emphasis within the Center; d. Emphasis on superior urban design which reflects the local community; e. Limitations on single-occupancy vehicle usage during peak hours or commute purposes; f. A broad array of land uses and choices within those uses for employees and resi- dents; g. Sufficient public open spaces and recreational opportunities; and h. Uses which provide both daytime and nighttime activities in the Center. FW-15 Within the Urban Growth Area, the Countywide Planning Policies shall assure the creation of a number of locally determined Manufacturing/Industrial Centers which meet specific criteria. The Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be characterized by the following: a. Clearly defined geographic boundaries; b. Intensity/density of land uses sufficient to support manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses; c. Reasonable access to the regional highway, rail, air and/or waterway system for the movement of goods; d. Provisions to discourage large office and retail development; and e. Fast-track project permitting. FW-16 Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall be complemented by the land use pattern outside the Centers but within the Urban Area. This area shall include: urban residential neighborhoods, Activity Areas,business/office parks, and an urban open space network. Within these areas, future development shall be limited in scale and intensity to support the Countywide land use and regional transportation plan. 1. Urban Centers Designation Process LU-39 The location and number of Urban Centers in King County were determined through the joint local and Countywide adoption process, based on the following steps: a. The Countywide Planning Policies include specific criteria for Urban Centers; b. Jurisdictions electing to contain an Urban Center provided the Growth Management Planning Council with a statement of commitment describing the city's intent and commitment to meet the Centers' criteria defined in these Policies 32 151 LU-49 In support of Centers, additional local action should include: a. Strategies for land assembly within the Center, if applicable; b. Infrastructure and service financing strategies and economic development strategies for the Centers; c. Establishing expected permit processing flow commitments consistent with the PEIS; and d. Establishing a streamlined and simplified administrative appeal process with fixed and certain timelines. LU-50 Jurisdictions should consider additional incentives for development within Urban Centers such as: a. Setting goals for maximum permit review time and give priority to permits in Urban Centers; b. Policies to reduce or eliminate impact fees; c. Simplifying and streamlining of the administrative appeal processes; d. Eliminating project-specific requirements for parking and open space by providing those facilities for the Urban Center as a whole; and e. Establishing a bonus zoning program for the provision of urban amenities. 4. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Designation Process LU-51 The location and number of regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in King County were determined through the joint local and Countywide adoption process,based on the following steps: a. Countywide Planning Polices include specific criteria for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; b. Jurisdictions electing to contain a Manufacturing/Industrial Center provided the Growth Management Planning Council with a statement specifying how the Center will meet the intent of the Countywide Policies, including plans to adopt criteria, incentives, and other commitments to implement Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; c. The Growth Management Planning Council reviewed the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers elected by local jurisdictions consistent with policy FW-1, and the following criteria: 1. The Center's location in the region, especially relative to existing and proposed transportation facilities and its potential for promoting a Countywide system of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers; 2. The total number of Centers that are needed in the County over the next 20-years based on 20 years projected need for manufacturing land to satisfy regional projections of demand for manufacturing land that assume a ten percent increase in manufacturing jobs over this period; 3. The type and level of commitments that each jurisdiction has identified for achieving Manufacturing/Industrial Center goals; 36 4. Review of other jurisdictional plans to ensure that growth focused to 152 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers is assured; and 5. The accessibility of the Center to existing or planned transportation facilities. d. The Growth Management Planning Council confirmed the following Manufacturing/Industrial Centers: North Tukwila, Duwamish and Ballard/Interbay in Seattle, the Kent Industrial Area, and Redmond Overlake. 5. Manufacturing/Industrial Center Criteria LU-52 Each jurisdiction which contains a regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center shall adopt in its comprehensive plan a definition of the Center which specifies the exact geographic boundaries of the Center. Jurisdictions with Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall have zoning and detailed plans in place to achieve the following goals by the year 2010. a. Preserve and encourage the aggregation of vacant or non-manufacturing/industrial land parcels sized for manufacturing/industrial uses; b. Discourage land uses which are not compatible with manufacturing, industrial and advanced technology uses; c. Accommodate a minimum of 10,000 jobs; and d. Limit the size of offices and retail unless as an accessory use. LU-53 All jurisdictions support the development of a regional industrial siting policy to promote industrial activity. LU-54 Jurisdictions shall design access to the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers to facilitate the mobility of employees by transit, and the mobility of goods by truck,rail or waterway as appropriate. Regional comprehensive plans shall include strategies to provide capital improvement projects which support access for movement of goods. LU-55 Jurisdictions which contain regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in conjunction with transit agencies, shall identify transit station areas and rights-of-way in each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Where transit stations exist or are planned, jurisdictions in conjunction with transit agencies shall identify various options such as feeder systems, bicycle routes and pedestrian systems to link the Center with its transit stations. LU-56 In order to reserve rights-of-way and potential station areas for high-capacity transit or transit hubs in the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers,jurisdictions shall: a. Upon adoption of specific high-capacity transit alignments by METRO, adopt policies to avoid development which would restrict establishment of the high-capacity transit system; b. Preserve rights-of-way controlled by the jurisdiction which are identified for potential transit use; and c. Provide METRO an option to acquire property owned by the jurisdiction. 37 LU-57 Transit agencies shall strive to provide convenient and economical mass transit service 153 for the Manufacturing/Industrial Centers that will result in a decrease in single- occupancy non-commercial vehicle trips within the Centers. LU-58 Jurisdictions' comprehensive plans for regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall demonstrate compliance with the criteria. In order to promote manufactur- ing/industrial growth, the Manufacturing/Industrial Center plan for each jurisdiction shall establish strategies: a. To provide capital facility improvement projects which support the movement of goods and manufacturing/industrial operations; b. To coordinate planning with serving utilities to ensure that utility facilities are available to serve such Centers; c. To provide buffers around the Center to reduce conflicts with adjacent land uses; d. To facilitate land assembly; and e. To attract the type of businesses that will ensure economic growth and stability. LU-59 Each Manufacturing Center containing a minimum of 15,000 jobs and having sufficient employment densities to support high-capacity transit should be served by high-capacity transit. It is recognized that by their nature, Manufacturing/Industrial Centers may not achieve densities necessary to make high-capacity transit service viable. Nevertheless, Manufacturing/Industrial Centers which are located on the regional high-capacity transit alignment and which meet the transit-friendly criteria in policies LU-54 through LU-58 above should receive one or more high-capacity transit stations and/or transit centers. 6. Incentives for Manufacturing/Industrial Centers LU-60 Countywide financing strategies shall be developed by the Growth Management Planning Council or its successor which: a. Identify regional funding sources; and b. Set priorities and allocate funds for urban facilities and services including social and human services in regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, and subarea planning efforts in Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. LU-61 Jurisdictions shall consider conducting detailed State Environmental Policy Act review for the regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center at the planning stage so that project-specific environmental review is minimized. LU-62 To reduce or prevent conflicts,jurisdictions shall develop policies to establish and support normal manufacturing/industrial practices such as notices on development permits for properties adjacent to a Manufacturing/Industrial Center. E. Activity Areas Activity Areas are envisioned as areas containing moderate concentrations of commercial development and housing that function as a focal point for the local community. Activity Areas 38 154 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT C LUPB HRG 9/27/10 155 Manufacturing/Industrial Center,, Industrial & Economic Development Goals & Policies Manufacturing/Industrial Center Goals & Policies — Goal LU-15 Preserve a portion of the Valley Floor Industrial Area as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center for manufacturing and related land uses. Policy LU-15.1 Define the Man ufacturing/Industrial Center as that area within which the most intensive manufacturing, industrial and warehouse uses should locate. Ensure the boundaries reflect accessibility to truck and rail corridors. Policy LU-15.2 Discourage and limit land uses other than manufacturing, high technology and warehousing within the boundaries of the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Goal LU-16 Plan and finance in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center those transportation and infrastructure systems which can accommodate high-intensity manufacturing, industry and warehouse uses. Policy LU-1 6.1 Facilitate mobility to and within the Manufacturing/Industrial Center for goods, services, and employees. Work with the Regional Transit Authority and King County to enhance public transit service to and within the Man ufacturing/Industrial Center. Goal LU-17 Utilize development standards in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center to create an attractive employment center and to mitigate the impacts of manufacturing and warehouse uses. Policy LU-17.1 Ensure development standards for the Manufacturing/Indus i trial Center are conducive to transit. Place emphasis on building setbacks, the location of parking areas, and revise parking standards to support commute trip reduction goals and multi- modal forms of transportation. Policy LU-17.5 Utilize development standards and code enforcement that supports a distinctive and orderly character along the Sound Industrial Goals & Policies "...This Land Use Element designates a portion of Kent's Valley Floor Industrial Area as Industrial, which will support the Manufacturing/Industrial Center, but will also allow business and office Goal LU-18 The Industrial land use designation within the Valley Floor Industrial Area will be an employment center for both the City of Kent and South King County. Policy LU-18.1 Encourage a mix of land uses which are compatible with manufacturing, industrial, and warehouse uses. These shall include office development, retail uses which serve the Page 1 of 2 156 surrounding manufacturing and office park uses, and retail uses which require large parcels of land that may not be available in commercial districts. Policy LU-18.3 Expand retail opportunities to provide necessary personal and business services for the Valley Floor Industrial Area, by implementing the recommendations of the West Valley Industrial Study regarding potential areas for expanded retail opportunities within the M1 and M1-C Industrial Park zoning districts. Manufacturing/Industrial Areas Goals & Policies Goal ED-4 Consider regulatory changes and actions to maintain and improve the competitiveness of Kent's industrial districts within the local, State, and regional economy. Policy ED-4.1 Protect the existing inventory of industrial parcels from conversion to non-industrial uses. Policy ED-4.4 Provide allowance for certain commercial retail uses that directly support manufacturing and industrial uses. Goal ED-5 Ensure the logistical functions of Kent's industrial districts are not impaired by conflicts with other transportation system users. Policy ED-5.1 Where feasible and appropriate, promote freight mobility through grade separation of rail traffic from street traffic and improvement of existing Kent Valley read connections. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT D-1 Page 1 LUPB HRG 9/27/10 157 Active Business Zoning Business License Development Permits Planning Notes allows? Approved? S&B Truck Repair Yes Yes - "diesel repair" TI (2032703) - remodel office space, new Yes 7412 S. 212th St. (9513144) landscaping Sign permits (2043375, Could be accessory use to South Seattle South Seattle Collision Center Yes No 2031791) - freestanding and Yes Auto Auction. SEPA (89-94) was for 7418 S. 212th St. wall auction care storage and did not mention 212t"Automotive Grand- Yes - "auto repair service" None N/A Buildings built in 1947 and 1969 7616 S. 212th St. fathered (9113041) O'Brien Commerce Center TI (8301) to create 1-hour Building built&permitted as "spec 7405 S. 212th St. N/A N/A separation for H-4 No warehouse with associated office space." occupancy (repair garage) See below for tenant list. Yes - "Custom performance Pina Motorsports (Ste #123) Yes fabrication and auto services" None N/A (2030476) Regional Fleet Service & N0 Yes - "Auto repair&detail Auto Sales (Ste #121) vehicle wholesale" (2040159) None N/A BL first obtained in 2004; did not renew Yes - "Retail sale of auto Sign permit for monument sign Intec Racing (Ste #101) No accessories and auto parts (2072113)listed Intec Racing as Yes installation" (2030015) tenant on sign. AA Auto Care Services No Yes - "Auto repair" None N/A (Ste #112) (2100168) Seatac Trucks (Ste #134A) No Yes - "Auto sales" (2080072) None N/A Premier Transmission Yes - "Truck &auto repair" TI under Salazar Auto(10742) N0 No Heavy equipment and truck repair are allowed. Company (Ste #113) (2090382) for plumbing AttD-1_Ted Almeda Surrounding Uses.xls 158 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT D-2 L U_P 91 N R G 9.12-7.11-0 Apparent Non-Conforming Use in M3 GC 159 N". M2 7 U) M2 M 1 4 SR-1 .7 .. y ri cn �_� .:;sue l,.-,..� � 1 � � � �� ,M co SR-6 SR-4.5 i �'—",.r,�,.,.,�..� j i' j._. M3 J., / i A SR-4.5 inl Z_ i........ 7 N J.a 97 MR-G 1,400 7O J/0 1,400 2,800 4,200 5,600 7,000 Feet 160 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT E Option 1 (Almeida Proposal)_ - Legend 1 1 Overview w A ) �, •—••—••—•—•— —„ — M3 East-West Arterials 4+ Lanes) r Zoning Districts Selected i r �..._... . 9 ) M3 Parcels on East-West Arterials 4+ Lanes ® n ► + i l r j 5 196 St L7 i '- .._..._._�._.._..._..._..._... _.. ' _IX L .�..1.,n r ri l� I I e 5 212 5t ± 1 Ln I r li V• � �,I 8 228 St J r— 2,2001.;1,D0 4t 0—� 2,200 4.400 5 600�. j 8,8001 11,000 Feet rj �. , 162 This page intentionally left blank. N y Auto;Re air in M3 Zoning District S'90St '"' 's1° Legend p g ¢ 163 Option 2.- Parcel t& Building Size'1� 2 51925t Rail Spurs p4 st e r 192 s 193 sr Rail Tracks Limits and No Rail Serviced N S194S1 �� Q ys 194 PI s ssa sr M3 Parcels Over 40k s.f. Buildings Under 40k s.f.and No Rail h s,9s st S 196 st 4 _ �""`"� M3 Parcels Under 40k s.f.and No Rail Qk N � 196 st 5 w 4 s196st SR-1 S 200 Sl $189 Pl ¢ rn y y 88 o < S 200 Si y $2pp y-1 4 4S 200 St SE 200 51 w Q s 202 M2 y Q N w SE 201 st s 202 sc S 02 St y a' rn S16 202 St v_ a a a w o N 9 S 203 Pi A S 203 St m M o d y M R-G s 204 s[ —s 204 st M 1 w a' N w w ¢ y w mj y SE 204 st o M R-M A-1° ¢s 7 O S204P1 y y s s 206 s1 . s 2a6 53 y U MR-G y M R-H ty W SE 207 st M R-H s 208 st S 208 st SR-4.5 4 M R-M s s $;5 208 St w SE 208 st 5R-1 ¢ S WS st N y 209.Sf. s y ¢ N Q N CC-MU MR-G y GWC 4 S210St. n NCC ry tl �E N s 210 PL o 4 SE 211 St MR-H ¢ 2133StSR-� M� MHP — - i' M!=E i� S-2125t SR-4.5SR-19 SR-8 a m Ezlzst SE211p1 A-10 / MR-G s4 9 t Uj S S ¢ SE 213 st ,gyp 5 MA r j1112 ❑ 5273 PI SE 213 P1 r� 9 S 2i 5 St SR-1 ¢ _ _ a� N ,,4 Q /2 N N N u7 COR"rview Blvd S h a SE 214 PI a' a' `nsn 52185t ¢ m Q` y ¢ �218 N� � � S 275 st SE 218 Sr v`Li a S y 52175[ B S216PI w N 27 �a S 218 St m a S 216 St v d vq SE 217 si v ?St SR-4.5 y �� s 279 S[ ¢ M S 218 SI SR- .5 SE 219 St E 218 SE 218 P1 a S 220 Sk- M R-M �, s S 227 Sr v MA S 220 St N MHP ¢' a' rn SE 219 P1 sE 220` Grp, y MA a a �n 5R-6 MHP 4 N a s zzz st GEC S 222 St SE zzz st SE 22z MRT-16 S 223 1 N S£�22 pr S 224 S[ S 224 S[ ..S 224 St a C'='q SE 224 Sr LU SE 223 P1 SR-1 y s 226 st Po4 ¢ M R-G a SE 225 PI M R-H 4 SE 225 St A to IF s z2s PI s 227 Pt Q S 22s Pt ' ¢ - J 0 CM-1 a SE22T S zzs St SE 226 st N -S228St _ N MR-H y N w SE227St MHP Tramp ¢ ¢ R-� y S 228 Pi SE 228 Si N S231wr M1-C 4 5ti CC-MU N 5 sti s 231 St . GC SE 23o st SE 230 p! �oyQ6Q'y�c ¢ a s 23T Pl z N N N ? z MR-M 5R-4.5 ^o r N N y`L3 a 'a a y S 232 St S 232 St SE 232 Sr N N M y GC-MU MR-❑LU SE 232 PI MRT-1 s� N y m y s 23a st a z M R-G S?� SE 233 p+ 5� NR_1 ¢ MR-H MR-M �Ar S234Pi a MR-G �3y MR-G GC a GC MR-M S235P1 y S235PI SR-6 MR-G h Ca w. s 236 s[ w ? S 236 St 4 SR-6 ke SR-8 N s237st MRT-16 SR-6 h $237P1 �a®g, a Says MHP m ? M2 ¢ i ¢ sEz36PI �t m M2 1,600 Q 800 0 1,600 g 3 200 9 4;a0011 y 6,4004 8,0008S1 COUNTY �a s238 s 23s sr GC-MU GC-MU M Feet M R-M SR-6 W James S[ E ❑SR-1 MR-M GC DC - sE240st CC 164 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT G LUPB HRG 9/27/10 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 165 Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION® Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director ENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT Decision Document VEHICLE (AUTO) REPAIR IN M3 ZONING ENV-2010-20r KIVA# RPP6-2101892 Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official I. PROPOSAL This project proposes to amend Section 15.04.100(21) of the City of Kent Zoning Code to allow automobile repair use, washing services and auto body repair in limited locations within the General Industrial (M3) Zoning District. The options described below feature consideration of criteria for appropriately locating such uses. Alternatives under consideration include: Option 1 (Almeida Proposal - East-West Arterial Adjacency): Amend 15.04.100(21) Kent City Code to add a stand-alone condition that would allow auto repair uses on M3 parcels adjacent to east-west arterials. Option 2 Use Limited by Parcel Size and Building Criteria): Amend 15.04.100(21) to add conditions allowing for limited auto repair uses where parcels have land area of less than or equal to 40,000 sq ft, and allowing on any M3 parcel auto repair use limited to 40,000 sq ft within existing buildings having a variety of characteristics and features that do not support exclusive warehouse/distribution use. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Compliance with. Kent's Comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Design and Construction Standards (Ordinance 3927) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts. These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary sewerage and Decision Document 166 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Design and Construction Standards may require the deeding/ dedication of right-of-way for identified improvements. Compliance with Title 11.03 and Title 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes, or to maintain or enhance water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site. In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094. III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS A. Earth The Proposal would impact the entire General Industrial (M3) Zoning District. This area can be characterized topographically as flat, minimally- punctuated with steep slopes (exceeding a 40% gradient) associated with the banks of drainage ditches and Lower Mill Creek. The soils in the area include Newberg Silt Loam (Ng), Oridia Silty Loam (0s), Pilchuk Fine Sandy Loam (Pk), Puget Silty Clay Loam (Pu), Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam (Py), Renton Silt Loam (Re), Woodinville Silt Loam (Wo) and Urban Land (Ur). Most of the area is already developed for urban uses. As the M3 Zoning District is located in the Green River Valley, it is an area susceptible to seismic activity. Implementing private development and capital projects subsequent to amendment of the zoning code may require fill and grading. Such projects are subject to appropriate local, state and federal permits which will be acquired at the time of implementation. Though erosion hazards are limited in the area, potential exists whenever soils are exposed. Projects will be subject to the City of Kent standards for erosion and sedimentation controls to minimize off-site soil transport. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be determined at the time of individual project implementation. B. Air The limited development of auto repair use is unlikely to have significant impact on air quality beyond what has been contemplated in an area generally intended to allow heavy industry and commercial truck operations. Page 2 of 9 Decision Document 167 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 While adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action, private and capital development projects would likely contribute dust, odors, and vehicular emissions at various levels depending on the stage of completion. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be assessed at the time of application for projects. C. Water The limited development of auto repair use is unlikely to have significant impact on water quality beyond what has been contemplated for an area intended for heavy industry and commercial truck operations. The area contains critical areas, including open streambed channels to Lower Mill Creek. Lower Mill Creek continues in a northerly direction to Springbrook Creek, which is a tributary of the Green River. Critical areas including wetlands, streams and their buffers are defined and regulated by the provisions of Kent City Code Section 11.06. The locations are mapped according to City of Kent Critical Areas Maps. The area is almost entirely located within the 100-year floodplain. If new construction or substantial redevelopment is proposed, the requirements of Kent City Code 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations would be applied. This will govern any construction or modification within floodplains, floodways, or areas of special flood hazard. I Construction activities within this area are currently regulated by the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual. The main objective of surface water management requirements is to promote public health, safety and welfare by establishing and operating a comprehensive approach to surface and storm water problems which would reduce flooding, erosion and sedimentation, prevent and mitigate habitat loss, enhance groundwater recharge and prevent water quality degradation. The City of Kent shall evaluate development proposals subject to drainage review to assess whether the proposed actions are likely to significantly increase the loads of pollutants of concern for water bodies that are listed by the Washington State Department of Ecology as Water Quality Assessment Category 2, 4 or 5 or that the City of Kent through monitoring has determined are in violation of state water quality standards. Drainage review should also consider whether the proposed. action is likely to increase pollutants of concern to a level that would trigger a violation of state water quality standards for the receiving water. The review should consider whether measures to mitigate for the increased pollutants should be required. Page 3 of 9 Decision Document 168 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 D. Plants and Animals A variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, grasses and wetland plantings are present in the area covered by the Proposal. A variety of birds and animals, including bald eagles, Puget Sound Coho salmon are known to be present within the planning area. Kent is also located in the Pacific Flyway, a major migratory route for birds flying seasonally between areas north of Kent to Central and South America. Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to impact plants and animals. Habitats for species that have been identified as endangered, threatened, or sensitive by the state or federal government shall not be reduced and should be conserved. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to plants and animals will be determined at the time of individual project implementation. Development proposals should be assessed for the presence of species of local importance. A comprehensive assessment should follow a standard procedure or guidelines and shall occur during the development review process. E. Energy and Natural Resources Projects constructed in the area would primarily use electric and natural gas energy. All projects constructed will be required to comply with the Washington State Energy Code. F. Aesthetics,, Noise, Light and Glare Existing levels of noise generated by traffic along arterials, freight truck air brakes, emergency response vehicle sirens, and landscape maintenance activities will likely increase in the long-term. Specific environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures related to noise will be determined at the time of individual project implementation. G. Land and Shoreline Use According to parcel data, current land uses within the subject area of the General Industrial (M3) Zoning District are predominantly warehousing (near 54%) and industrial (near 19%) rounded out with public/utility, outdoor storage, parking, truck and auto repair services, and agricultural/horticultural use. Some auto repair uses are apparent in the M3 Zone. A small amount of property is identified as vacant. Guided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) policies and criteria regarding Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, King County's Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Economic Development Element, staff analysis assumes that the long-term preservation of industrial lands for industrial use in the designated Manufacturing/Industrial Center is valued by the community and the region. Page 4 of 9 Decision Document 169 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 Option 1 would permit auto repair uses as-of-right for M3 Zoning District parcels located along east-west arterial streets having two or more travel lanes in each direction - S. 196 th, S. 212 th and S. 228th Streets. From geographic information systems analysis (GIS) auto repair, washing and body work uses would be allowed on thirty-one parcels in the M3 Zoning District totaling nearly 148.7 acres (6,476,725 sq ft.). Option 1 would cover several, but not all operating auto repair uses in the M3. Several existing non-conforming auto repair uses are served by a variety of streets, including S. 212th, but not S. 196th nor S. 228th Many warehouse distribution use parcels have primary or secondary access points onto north-south streets, which might alleviate traffic impacts of auto repair uses on site accessibility for freight traffic. Overall, the challenges to freight mobility raised by concentrating auto repair uses along east-west arterials would primarily relate to increased personal vehicle traffic volumes during hours of freight deliveries. Option 2 acknowledges that allowing auto repair uses without measured discouragement or limitation would be inconsistent with regional, county and City policy guidance. Therefore, in order to limit the impact on industrially-zoned land available for future manufacturing and warehouse/distribution uses, auto repair uses would be allowed only where all of the following challenges for exclusive industrial use are present: a) Site is not currently served by a terminating rail spur; b) Existing site structures do not have 'dock-high' loading bay doors (the finished floor is generally level with the floor of freight containers); c) All ground-level bay doors of existing site structures have a height of less than 14 ft. (which would generally impede full access to freight containers); d) Existing site structures have a 'clear height' (from finished floor to roof trusses) of less than 20 ft.; e) Maximum building area per parcel allowed for auto repair uses would total 40,000 sq ft.; and f) Maximum parcel size of less than 40,000 sq ft for a proposed development that would include auto repair or include proposed buildings with features that would invite competition with industrial uses as described in (a) through (e) above. The parcel size is based on parcels existing at the time of the effective date of this code amendment. Page 5 of 9 Decision Document 170 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 In terms of opportunities suitable for parcel development or redevelopment for auto repair use under Option 2(f), GIS analysis identified twelve (12) parcels totaling in the M3 Zoning District less than 40,000 sq ft. in size where auto repair use would be allowed under the proposal. Nine (9) of these parcels are clustered on the north side of S. 212 th near the T-intersection with 77 th Avenue S. One of three parcels in common ownership located just north of the State Route 167 underpass along 4 th Avenue S. would qualify due to parcel size. Another qualifying parcel to the north of S. 196 th already serves in combination with other parcels as outdoor automobile storage for South Seattle Auto Auction. Further, one qualifying parcel is split- zoned Gateway Commercial (GWC) - and allows auto repair when the primary use is heavy equipment and truck repair. Option 2 would also allow adaptive reuse of structures existing at the time of this amendment proposal depending on meeting the criteria thresholds of the proposal. Based on M3 parcels larger than 40,000 sq ft. not served by rail (spurs) for freight and containing buildings less than or equal to 40,000 sq ft. in size as an initial indicator of possible adaptive reuse opportunities, forty-one (41) parcels totaling nearly 144.5 acres (6,293,711 sq ft.) were identified. The total footprint area of the 126 structures on these parcels is approximately 892,700 sq ft. However, parcel size and total building area alone are not determining criteria in Option 2 for adaptive reuse; some of the structures located on the 41 parcels identified by the two GIS-based criteria might not be suitable for auto repair. Moreover, other parcels may be larger than 40,000 sq ft. and have structures larger than 40,000 sq ft. that are otherwise appropriately suited to auto repair use. Auto repair uses would be limited nonetheless in total building area (regardless of number of individual operations) per parcel to 40,000 sq ft. Option 2 would cover several, but not likely all operating auto repair uses in the M3 Zoning District. H. Housing One single-family residential unit in residential use is located in the M3 Zoning District. Implementation projects will be analyzed for compliance with land use regulations, specific environmental and population displacement impacts and appropriate mitigation measures at the time of application. Page 6 of 9 Decision Document 171 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 I. Recreation The Interurban Trail generally runs parallel to the west of the Union Pacific Railroad. Just over 300 linear feet of the Interurban Trail is contained within the M3 Zoning District north of State Route 167. J. Historic and Cultural Preservation No properties are identified in the historic resources inventory at this time. The historic landmarks preservation regulations of the City would be applied during development review. Additional environmental analysis will be appropriately conducted for individual implementation projects, and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the City should be contacted immediately, and any work stopped until further notice if any evidence of historic or cultural significance is discovered. K. Transportation The concentration of auto repair uses along arterial streets serving the Manufacturing/Industrial Center suggested by Option 1 might have significant cumulative impact on freight mobility if the operating hours and trips generated by those auto repair uses extended beyond the peak commuting hours. Generally speaking, there would likely be minimal conflict between non-industrial and manufacturing and industrial uses accessing the street system before the AM peak and after the PM peak hours. The accessing of principal arterials would be limited regardless of use. The Washington State Legislature created the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law in 1991 with the goals of reducing traffic congestion, air pollution and petroleum consumption. This law requires major employers to encourage their employees to use commute alternatives such as transit, carpools, bicycles, walking, compressed work weeks, telecommuting, and flexible work schedules to reduce drive alone commute trips during the peak congestion periods. Additionally, the City is considering regulatory amendments to comply with State laws regarding the permitting of electric vehicle charging stations. The City addresses the growing demand for transit service by requiring that the Applicant accommodate the needs for transit as expressed by King County Metro Transit. South 212th Street and 76 th Avenue S. are presently served by one peak hour bus route from the East Hill (Metro Route 157) and a special circulator shuttle from Downtown Kent (Metro Route 918). The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) has incorporated land use and trip-generation modeling consistent with planned land uses in the M3 Zoning District. In terms of relative traffic impact, auto repair, car wash and auto body work uses are likely to generate more than twice Page 7 of 9 Decision Document 172 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 the PM peak trips industrial and warehouse-distribution developments might generate on a per square foot basis. The number of PM peak trips will depend upon specific uses and project-specific characteristics. These specific uses are not known at this time. Furthermore, the City's Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Improvement Program will incorporate measures to address transportation impacts in this area. Project-specific development applications would be required to identify specific land use(s) and possibly provide a traffic impact study as part of the application review process. L. Public Services Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts. Specific implementation projects will include additional environmental analysis as appropriate to assess impacts to public services. M. Utilities Utilities needed may include electricity, natural gas, water, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system and refuse service. The area is served by Puget Sound Energy for electricity and natural gas, primarily by City of Kent Water and Sewer Utilities for water supply and wastewater disposal. Adoption of the Proposal is a non-project action that is not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts. Specific implementation projects will include additional environmental analysis as appropriate to assess impacts to utilities. IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include: 1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State Growth Management Act; 2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the Kent Shoreline Master Program; 3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage Code; 4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan; 5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan; 6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water Plan and Conservation Element; 7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure Improvements; 8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits; Page 8 of 9 Decision Document 173 Vehicle (Auto) Repair in M3 Zoning Zoning Code Amendment ENV-2010-20 RPP6-2101892 9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations; 10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans, and Lot Line Adjustments; 11. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control; 12. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes; 13. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning; 14. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227; 15. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees; 16. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility; 17. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan; 18. City of Kent Fire Master Plan; and 19. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas. B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this non-project action. KENT PLANNING SERVICES September 13, 2010 WO:jm\\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2010\2101892CPZAutoRepairM3-env2OlO-20decision.doc Page 9 of 9 174 This page intentionally left blank. 175 0 KENT WASHINGTON CITY OF KENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist Na #ENV-2010-20 Project VEHICLE (AUTO) REPAIR #RPP6-2101892 IN M3 ZONING Description: This project proposes to amend Section 15.04.100(21) of the City of Kent Zoning Code to allow automobile repair use, washing services and auto body repair in limited locations within the General Industrial (M) Zoning District. The options described below feature consideration of criteria for appropriately locating such uses. Alternatives under consideration include: Option 1 (Almeida Proposal - East-West Arterial Adjacency): Amend 15.04.100(21) Kent City Code to add a stand-alone condition that would allow auto repair uses on M3 parcels adjacent to east-west arterials. Option 2 (Use Limited by Parcel Size and Building Criteria Amend 15.04.100(21) to add conditions allowing for limited auto repair uses where parcels have land area of less than or equal to 40,000 square feet, and allowing on any M3 parcel auto repair use limited to 40,000 square feet within existing buildings having a variety of characteristics and features that do not support exclusive warehouse/distribution use. Applicant William Osborne, AICP City of Kent Planning Department 220 4 th Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Lead Agency CITY OF KENT The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14-day comment period. Comments must be submitted by October 1, 2010. This DNS is subject to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11.03.520. Determination of Nonsignificance Vehicle Repair in M3 Zoning 176 #ENV-2010-20 #RPP6-2101892 Responsible Official Charlene Anderson AICP Position/Title Planning Manager/ SEPA OFFICIAL Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent WA 98032 Telephone: (253)�l,856-5454 /'� Dated September 17, 2010 Signature _B ep APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE jm\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2010\2101892CPZautorepairM3-dns.doc 2 of 2 177 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/permitcenter Was HINaTON ir• e a ec.. ®st PLANNING SERVICES Application r Public Notice Board and Application Fee...See Fee Schedule Please print in black ink only To e completed : Application# iWIL -20) KIVA# Received by: Date: Processing Fee: A. Staff review determined that project: _ Meets the categorically exempt criteria. Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s)that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. _ Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. { _ An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. ignature of Responsible Official Date B. Comments: C. Type of Permit or Action Requested: y A/101y D. Zoning District: Auto Repair in M3 Zones#ENV-2010-20 Consider provisions to allow KIVA#RPP6-2101892 CA-2010-2 auto repair in M3 zones. SEE:Z(WO) 7/19/10 1, GHl-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.1 of21 I 178 To be completed by Applicant: SEPA CONTACTS AND PROFESSIONALS Please fill out applicable boxes for all different professionals: Applicant Business Owner(if different from property owner) i Name: Name: y �� Company Name: Company Name: Contact Person: Contact Person�� P11)vhQ i Address: Address: "1 S . Z(L SJ- City: State: Zip: City: Stater Zip: Q C�3Z Phone(s): Fax: Phone(s): &JZj Fax: Zl,,(;, - ZFIL Email: Email: Property Owner#1 Project Contact(person receiving all project communications yy�� s if different from applicant) Owner Name: a✓c��'�<'✓� I dr v a!51�P� 7•�v t ` Company Name: ;�/ Name: . Contact Person: / dJ v+'f � 4 Company Name: C� ��Ld v) Address: 5 2/ '� Contact Person: �- Address: City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip: Phone(s):204 .769 7.703 Fax:4/-zs—z 7Z/07, Z � � Phone(s): Fax: Email: CJ',6.ro'e�erl ivlvo5-AJ� q I- ai Email: Property Owner#2 Owner Name: Building Owner(if different from property owner) Name: Company Name: Contact Person: Company Name: Contact Person: Address: City: State: Zip: Address: Phone(s): Fax: City: State: Zip: Email: Phone(s): Fax: Email: Property Owner#3(if more than 3 property owners,use additional sheets) Engineer i Owner Name: Company Name: ; Company Name: Engineer Name: Contact Person: ID#: � .QaJe2010 Address: Address: City: State: Zip: City: z7aAkii, Phone(s): Fax: Phone(s): Fax: Email: Email: WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.2of21 i I 179 To be completed by Applicant: SEPA CONTACTS AND PROFESSIONALS Please fill out applicable boxes for all different professionals: Engineer Consultant Company Name: Company Name: Engineer Name: Engineer Name: ID#: Exp.Date: Contact Person: Address: Address: City: State: Zip: City: State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Phone(s): Fax: Email: Email: Architect Other Professional Company Name: Name: Engineer Name: Company Name: ID#: Exp.Date: Contact Person: Address: ID#: Exp.Date: City: State: Zip: Address: Phone(s): Fax: City: State: Zip: Email: Phone(s): Fax: Emaii: Contractor Company Name: Engineer Name: ID#: Exp.Date: Address: City: , State: Zip: Phone(s): Fax: Email: Surveyor Company Name: RECEIVED Engineer Name: Contact Person: _JUL 13 2010 Address: City: State: Zip: 1--jT Y. OF KEN T Phone(s): Fax: P;-Kiel i CENTER Email: WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.3 of21 180 ® be completed by Applicant: A. Background Information: 0& r 1. Name of Project: Va h'& ke /n 2. Name of Applicant: -(7-ck-cr- Mailing Address: 5-6 11 5 E- 17 gt� P( vJ 6- q 3. Contact Person: --�, A-f iv Q " C\-1— Telephone: — '1 7"S- '5?-q I, - 7- SZ-(� (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above unless a project contact is designated here and on Page 2 of application.) 4. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): b"5t J'J Q- 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). 'J TO 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (If lengthy,attach as separate sheet.): b. Tax identification number: 70o -olll- 0/ 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet.). -" L,-J5-,S fL-S- 8. Site Area: NO Site Dimensions: Sex- k 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended us(REGe$1'VEPbr project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and site ttach site plans a,Ldescribed in the instructions): J "� A-1-2 SIT Y C. TER VVH1-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.4 of2l 181 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. !,3 3 N 12. Permits/Approvals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal. Agency Permit Type Date Submitted* Number Status** P5cAA P6,;,J+ -13 *Leave blank if not submitted **Approved,denied or pending 13. Environmental Information: List any environmental information you know about that has been preparrjeIl or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. a to c� -e O i-- 14. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. pJ L� JUL 2010 U,Y OF KENT PERMIT CENTER WHM psd4008 7/12/06 p.5 of21 182 B. Environmental Elements Evaluation for 1. Earth Agency Use Only a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: E6 �- b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? iqz- Ae q ax-e- 7 -r--,V-- 84"-j J c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. V J d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,tgen(l�rallly describe. A -10 tj g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project 5 jnstruc:tion (for example, asphalt or buildings)? RECENED h. Proposed measures to red ce or control erosion, or other impacts JUL � 3 ARD to the earth, if any. A- UTY OF KENT PERMIT CENTER WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.6 of 21 183 2. Air Evaluation for a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal Agency Use Only (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. INS 5 2 b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. �. (GI., . J'- "} 3: Water a. Surface: i. is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what.stream or river it flows into. .A-€ jAto ii. Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. EGENE iii. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and JUL13 2010 indicate the area of the site Uhtpould be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. + �—J Y OF KENT PERJA 1, CENTER WHM psd4008 7/12/06 p.7 of21 184 iv. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or Evaluation for diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approxi- Agency Use Only mate quantities, if known. O v. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (" k oeJ vi. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. �� r b. Ground: i. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. ii. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...;agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. AwAle— c. Water Runoff(including storm water): RECEIVED i. Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and '�kl 13 2010 method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe._ �� .` c„ f 00 G i i �j OF &SENT' &, P IAA?!;r' CENTER a WHIR psd4008 7/12/06 p.8 of21 185 ii. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, Evaluation for generally describe. 0.- .L, 'cl Agency Use Only a- (Wa—Wt d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: jig'-Deciduous tree:alder, maple aspen, other ,Evergreen tree:fir, cedar, pine, other ,Shrubs Met hj 2�Grass J Pasture J Crop or grain Ll Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other F-1 Water plants:water lily, eelgrass, milfbil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? - 00 t'� c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. RECHVED d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to JUL � 3 2010 preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: CITY OF KEPT PERAP!T CENTER WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.9 of 21 � 186 5. Animals Evaluation for a. <�ind �m�� e ��h«eunybirdeandenime|o�hichh�vabeenobaervedonor �� ~ - near the site or are known tobeonor near the site: Birds: hovvh' heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ' *�t wg- Mammals: deer, beer, e|k, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b List any threatened or endangered species known hobeonor near the aito. - tlesAe— c. Is the site part ofo migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures kz preserve or enhance wildlife, ifany: � G. Energy and Natural Resources G. What kinds of energy /e|autriu. notUc@| gas, oil, wood Stove' solar) will ba used b> meet the completed p 'ec1'oanergyneedo? whetherDesle it will be useo for heating, fa i etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent rU ? If so, generallydescribe. RECEIVED c. VVhotkinds Cf energy conservation features are included iOthe ~~ plans of this proposal? List other d or control energy impacts, if anyOF KENT : rER/fi/T C EN - . WHI-1 nsd*oo zuzmoemmzz ! / 187 7. Environmental Health Evaluation for a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure Agency Use Only to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur s a rye It o this prop sal? If so, describe. :. a.�� Q: , i. Describe special emergency services that might be required. ii. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: t11 b. Noise i. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example:tr ffic, equipme t operation, other)? 6 L - C s ii. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associ- ated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour noise would come from the site. �I 1C21 Lim, - p iii. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ems. . -` rSi� G ECEIVEE) 8. Land and Shoreline Use JUL a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent pro erties? T.,1 OF L , - 'Wti WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.11 of21 188 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Evaluation for 9a Agency Use Only c. Descri a any stru tures on the site 6 as&(., �Mktit..L d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? MCI e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? I t hmi w L-N t -- � c o.J 4.J v&I a _ . g. If applicable, what is the cure shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classifiec'Ia- s an "environmentally sensitive"area? If so, specify. '��9*� g�7 c3 t i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the RE eL)completed project? 1 CITY OF KENT PERM!T CENTER j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NO-Je,..�,- i WHl-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.12of21 189 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if Evaluation for any: �tkAgency Use Only I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existiq amend projected land uses and plans, if any. - a 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Inclicatbi whether high, middle, or low income housing. ll b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whither high, middle, or low income housing. kth c. Propose geasures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. 10.Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;what is the '. r rincipal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the fnpdiate vicinity would be altered or RECEIVED obstructed? 2010 I OF KENT c. Proposqd sures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. P R AM I T CENTER N WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.13 of 21 190 Evaluation for 11. Light and Glare Agency Use Only a. What type of light or glare will the pr�Qposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 1 _ b. Could light or glare from the fnished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Ar c. What existing off-si sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed rqe1Jes to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal,recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? � .. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation oppor uniti s to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. t �nl 0:..- ECEIVED JUL 13 2010 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation ENT a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, P i Y 1 OF N national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or �� TE�� next to the site? If so, generally describe. WHl-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.13 of21 191 Evaluation for b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence ofhiatoh Aoem�� a� �� c, ^~ '^ archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known tobeon or next to the site. c. Proposeo measures to reducecontrol impacts, if 14^Transportatem � o. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing Show site plaus, if any. ve- b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is he approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed piolect have? How many would the project e|iminata? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, U describe (indicate whether public orprivate\ e. Will the project VSe /V[oCcurinthginnnnediatevicinity ot)water, RECEIVED rail, Or air transportation? |f so, generally describe. JUL � �� __~. " � ��o� � _�� J F �E��/�� CEAJTER t How many vehicular trips per day would be generated bvthe ' � completed h volumes would occuc vmsI'1 nmmo o 7/12m6 p.15ofx1 192 Evaluation for g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if Agency Use Only any. 14-eNeJ 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Cl' "tJ e- 16. Utilities a. Cir I _4fiifiit'es currently ava4' a t the site— i'7Q�at6 a a Ovate fuse service,-erd- h6r6'Aa Rag te5ii sys em, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing the service and the general construction activities on the site oriithe immediate vicinity, which might be needed. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. RECEIVEo Signature: Printed Name: X—, JUL f a 'zolu Date: 'Y' OF KENT PERmIT CENTER WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p.16 of 21 193 DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardoLls substances;or production of noise? Proposed, asures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?— Lf h— Proposed measures to piotect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life?_191AL 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N"W 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study)for d ai governmental protection;such as parks, wilderness, wild and Y O scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic PERMiTF KEMTcEhI7-f�R or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? WHI-1 psd4008 7/12/06 p,17 of 21 194 Proposed measures to protpqt such resources or to avoid or Evaluation for reduce impacts are: I k-- Agency Use Only 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? hjCt %gA 9 g q Proposed measures to impacts are: void or reduce shoreline and land use I k 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or publiq services and utilitieT? R-- -1 %-"*,I &I Z I Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: -VA144 ZA'V"L'q-- &,h k- 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or re ire V nts for the prote Lion of the ", environment. JUL P E f1p,I 7-0 P KEN . CEAVrE�R WHI-I psd4008 7/12/06 p.18 of 21 From: Mona Parayno[mailto:mona@ironmountainmgt.com] ATTACHMENT H Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 3:25 PM EXHIBIT #1 DATED 8/4/10 To:Osborne,William 195 Subject:RE:7405 5 212th Street-O'Brien Commerce Center,Kent,WA-SHOWCASE.COM Lead The first thing that comes to mind for challenges that warehouse and distribution tenants have at O'brien commerce center is the parking and docking locations. Other challenges are the following: -'Future tenants are hesitant to sign a contract because they are not sure if their business will thrive or grow. -Price of rental space is a challenge as well.Most tenants that are looking for a space are relocating and they are wanting a cheaper.rate and that is a fixed rate. Monatrsa Parayno Alderbrook Community Manager Ph: 253 520 3860 Fax: 253 520 3862 From:Osborne,William[maiito:WOsborne@ci.kent.wa.us] Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 4:10 PM To:'Mona Parayno' Subject:RE:7405 S 212th Street-O'Brien Commerce Center,Kent,WA-SHOWCASE.COM Lead Ms.Parayno, I do have a few follow up questions: • What are the challenges forparking and docking-and for whom-long-haul rigs,delivery trucks_.? Yes for long haul rigs. o Is there a parcel/vehicle size issue? Yes o Type of dock/vehicle issue? No docks available. o Are there circulation issues?Don't understand-What do you mean? Thank you for your timely response, William D. Osborne, AICP Planning Division I•ECD Department Main 253-856-5454 I Direct 253-856-5437 f,I F.ASf CONti71IE(r rNE ENV jros AEM'�li Ft'{y7rE Ur,wrir,.Tj+ F.1.1AA1 From:Mona Parayno[mailto:mona@ironmountainmgt.com] Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 4:43 PM To:Osborne,William Subject: RE:7405 5 212th Street-O'Brien Commerce Center,Kent,WA-SHOWCASE.COM Lead Please see resonse below in black Nonaliva Parayno From:Osborne,William[mailto:WOsborne@ci.kent.wa.us] Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 4:48 PM To:'Mona Parayno' Subject: RE:7405 S 212th Street-O'Brien Commerce Center, Kent,WA-SHOWCASE.COM Lead Your answer to the parcel size question likely answers the circulation question-it's about getting onto the site(larger vehicles needing wider driveway aprons)and then around the site to load/unload. Thanks again, William D. Osborne,AICP Planning Division I ECD Department Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5437 196 This page intentionally left blank. 197 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director • Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT wA5H I N G T 0 N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 September 20, 2010 TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Erin George, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure [ZCA-2010-3] For September 27, 2010 public hearing MOTION: Move to recommend/not recommend/amend adoption of the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Zoning Code Amendment Number 2010-3 as presented by staff. SUMMARY: State legislation from 2009 (House Bill 1481) mandates local governments to allow electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure in all areas not zoned for residential, resource uses or critical areas. Pursuant to this legislation, the Department of Commerce and Puget Sound Regional Council issued EV infrastructure model regulations in July 2010, following a research and development effort involving numerous agencies and stakeholders. Using information from the model regulations, staff proposes a Zoning Code Amendment in order to comply with HB 1481 and to ensure usable and effective infrastructure. Staff presented the amendment to the Land Use & Planning Board at the September 13th workshop. BACKGROUND: Electric vehicles are fast on their way to becoming mainstream. By 2012, an estimated 10 to 12 models of highway capable electric vehicles (EVs) will be available to consumers. The Nissan LEAF, the first highway-capable, mass market electric car will be available in December 2010. About 1,300 Washington residents have placed a deposit reserving LEAF vehicles. Other EV models will also be available in the near future, including the Chevy Volt in November 2010 and the Ford Focus Electric in 2011. EV infrastructure is necessary to serve this growing consumer base and to increase consumer acceptance and usage of these vehicles. Under U.S. Department of Energy grants, about 2,000 chargers will be installed around the greater Seattle area. King County is installing up to 200 chargers at County facilities such as Park & Ride lots, with Kent Station identified as a potential site. EV infrastructure includes three types of charging stations, summarized below in Table 1. Level 2 chargers are typically the size of a bollard or parking meter and are expected to be the most common type of charger for all types of private and public use. Level 3 or "rapid" charging stations require special infrastructure from the utility provider to support high energy use, and are typically the size of a gas pump. Accordingly, rapid chargers are not recommended for residential use. 198 Table 1. Charging Station Types Level Volts Amps Charge time Similar to: Level 1 120 15-20 16-24 hours Wall outlet in home Level 2 240 40 4-6 hours Dedicated dryer or oven outlet Level 3 480 60+ <1 hour Ski area chairlift It is anticipated that the majority of EV drivers will charge primarily at home, though some employers or businesses may wish to provide charging facilities for employees and customers. Other possible charging locations include highway rest stops, park & ride facilities or adjacent to on-street parking. It is likely that gas stations may choose to provide chargers in the future, and eventually "battery exchange stations" may be built, which would swap a depleted battery for a charged one in less time than filling a tank of gas. Battery exchange stations currently exist in Japan and Denmark, but not yet in the U.S. Battery exchange stations are similar in nature and appearance to gas stations or car washes, which are not allowed in all zoning districts (e.g. downtown zones). However, HB 1481 requires that all types of EV infrastructure, including battery exchange stations, must be allowed to some extent in all commercial and industrial zones. Accordingly, staff recommends allowing battery exchange stations only as accessory uses in those zoning districts where gas stations are not currently allowed (see attached, pg 2). Staff also recommends allowing charging stations as accessory uses in all zones. Due to size and infrastructure requirements, staff recommends limiting rapid chargers in residential zones only to those associated with a general conditional use (e.g. schools and fire stations). Additionally, new standards pertaining to design, placement and labeling of chargers are recommended for addition to the parking standards in KCC 15.05 (see attached, pg 3-4). HB 1481 also added a SEPA categorical exemption for chargers to RCW 42.31C, which should be adopted by reference in KCC 11.03.200 (see attached, pg 5). Amendments to the Public Works and Public Safety regulations may be needed in the future to address on-street EV charging and EV public parking enforcement. The SEPA Responsible Official determined that the proposed Zoning Code revisions are procedural in nature and no further environmental review is required. EG\pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAM END\2010\ZCA-2010-3_ElecVehicleInfrastructure\092710_LUPBstaffrpt.doc Enc: Code Changes for LUPB 9-27-10 cc: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Project File ZCA-2010-3 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure 09/27/10 LUPB Public Hearing Page 2 of 2 199 Kent City Code 15.02 DEFINITIONS ""Battery charging equipment" means an electrical component assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries within electric vehicles, which meet or exceed any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by chapter 19.28 RCW and consistent with rules adopted under RCW 19.27.540. ""Battery exchange station" means a fully automated facility that will enable an electric vehicle with a swappable battery to enter a drive lane and exchange the depleted battery with a fully charged battery through a fully automated process, which meets or exceeds any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by chapter 19.27 RCW and consistent with rules adopted under RCW 19.27.540. "Charging levels" means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle's battery is recharged. The terms 1, 2, and 3 are the most common EV charging levels, and include the following specifications: • Level 1 is considered slow charging. • Level 2 is considered medium charging. • Level 3 is considered fast or rapid charging. "Electric vehicle (EV)" means any vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid, or an off-board source, that is stored on-board for motive purpose. "Electric vehicle (EV) charging station" means a public or private parking space that is served by battery charging equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle. "'Electric vehicle charging station — restricted" means an electric vehicle charging station that is (1) privately owned with restricted access (e.g., single- family home, executive parking, designated employee parking) or (2) publicly owned and restricted (e.g., fleet parking with no access to the general public). "Electric vehicle charging station — public" means an electric vehicle charging station that is (1) publicly owned and publicly available (e.g., Park & Ride parking, public library parking lot, on-street parking) or (2) privately owned and publicly available (e.g., shopping center parking, non-reserved parking in multi-family parking lots). "Electric vehicle parking space" means any marked parking space that identifies the use to be exclusively for the parking of an electric vehicle. "Rapid charging station" means an industrial grade electrical outlet that allows for faster recharging of electric vehicle batteries through higher power levels and that meets or exceeds any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by chapter 19.28 RCW and consistent with rules adopted under RCW 19.27.540. 1 200 Kent City Code 15.04 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 15.04.060 Transportation, public, and utilities land uses N to � p � U (7 = a N U U' C� C� C 1� = U U U U 2: 2: U j M Q Q M (n (n (n V) z U o o U U (D O 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: U' EV Charging A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Station 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Rapid A A A A A A A A A A A A A Charging 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Station 9. Level 1 and 2 charging only. 10. Only as part of a general conditional use identified in KCC 15.08.030. 15.04.070 Wholesale and retail land uses rl rl o M "t � � U U ,� 0 � � C7 = a ,--i N Q Q cn cn cn cn cn z U o o U U U 0 Z Z Z Z Z L7 Battery Exchange S s A A s S S A S S S A A Station 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23. All battery exchange activities and associated storage shall take place within an enclosed building. The development standards listed in KCC 15.08.020.13 shall apply, except that number three (3) shall not apply. 2 201 Kent City Code 15.05 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS Electric Vehicle Charging Station Spaces A. Purpose. For all public electric vehicle charging stations located in parking lots or garages. B. Number. No minimum number of charging station spaces is required. C. Minimum Parking Requirements. An electric vehicle charging station space may be included in the calculation for minimum required parking spaces that are required pursuant to other sections of this chapter. D. Location and Design Criteria. The provision of electric vehicle parking will vary based on the design and use of the primary parking lot. The following required and additional locational and design criteria are provided in recognition of the various parking lot layout options. 1. Where provided, parking for electric vehicle charging purposes shall include the following: a. Signage. Each charging station space shall be posted with signage indicating the space is only for electric vehicle charging purposes. Days and hours of operation shall be included if time limits or tow away provisions are to be enforced. Refer to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for electric vehicle and parking signs, specifically D9-11b, D9-11bP, R7-2 and R7-108. The following are examples of signage and appropriate sizes: HOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING CHARGING EXCEPT FOR STATION ELECTRIC VEHICLE 7AM To 6pM CHARGING 12" x 12" 12" x 18" 12" x 18" b. Maintenance. Charging station equipment shall be maintained in all respects, including the functioning of the charging equipment. A phone number or other contact information shall be provided on the charging station equipment for reporting when the equipment is not functioning or other problems are encountered. 3 202 c. Accessibility. Where charging station equipment is provided within an adjacent pedestrian circulation area, such as a sidewalk or accessible route to the building entrance, the charging equipment shall be located so as not to interfere with accessibility requirements of WAC 51-50-005. d. Lighting. Where charging station equipment is installed, adequate site lighting shall exist, unless charging is for daytime purposes only. e. Charging Station Equipment. Charging station outlets and connector devices shall be no less than 36 inches and no higher than 48 inches from the surface where mounted, and shall contain a retraction device or a place to hang permanent cords and connectors sufficiently above the ground or paved surface. f. Charging Station Equipment Protection. Except for parallel parking stalls, adequate equipment protection, such as wheel stops or concrete-filled steel bollards shall be used. Curbing may be used in lieu of wheel stops or bollards, if equipment is set back a minimum of 24 inches from the face of curb. 2. Parking for electric vehicles should also consider the following: a. Notification. Information on the charging station, identifying voltage and amperage levels and any time of use, fees, or safety information. b. Signage. Installation of directional signs at the parking lot entrance and at appropriate decision points to effectively guide motorists to the charging station space(s). Refer to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for electric vehicle and directional signs, specifically D9-11b, D9-11bP and M6-1. The following are examples of signage and appropriate sizes: ELECTRIC VEHICLE 12" x 12" E 12" x 12" CHARGINGV STATION 12" x 6" 12" x 6" 4 203 Kent City Code 11.03 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 11.03.200 Purpose of this part and adoption by reference. This part contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a "probable significant, adverse environmental impact" requiring an environmental impact statement to be prepared. This part also contains rules for evaluating the impacts of proposals not requiring an environmental impact statement and rules applicable to categorical exemptions. The city adopts the following sections of the Washington Administrative Code by reference, as supplemented in this chapter: RCW 43.21C.410 Battery charging and exchange station installation. RCW 43.21 C.410 Battery charging and exchange station installation. (1) The installation of individual battery charging stations and battery exchange stations, which individually are categorically exempt under the rules adopted under RCW 43.21C.110, may not be disqualified from such categorically exempt status as a result of their being parts of a larger proposal that includes other such facilities and related utility networks under the rules adopted under RCW 43.21 C.110. (2) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (a) "Battery charging station" means an electrical component assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries within electric vehicles, which meet or exceed any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by chapter 19.28 RCW and consistent with rules adopted under RCW 19.27.540. (b) 'Battery exchange station" means a fully automated facility that will enable an electric vehicle with a swappable battery to enter a drive lane and exchange the depleted battery with a fully charged battery through a fully automated process, which meets or exceeds any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by chapter 19.28 RCW and consistent with rules adopted under RCW 19.27.540. EG\pm 5:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2010\ZCA-2010-3_ElecVehicleInfrastructure\Code Changes for LUPB 9-27-10.doc 5 This page intentionally left blank. PLEASE CON SIDER'THE EN V I IZONMEN f Dr-FORE PplwrIMC TH Is E-MAIL EXHIBIT 1 (ZCA-2010-3) FOR SUBMITTAL AT 9/27/10 LUPB HEARING 205 From: Melvin Roberts [mailto:mel@cyclekent.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 11:52 AM To: Mottram, Pamela; Anderson, Charlene; George, Erin Subject: Re: AGENDA PACKET- LUPB WORKSHOP - Sept 7, 2010 Pamela Please pass along the following comments on the packet for today's LUPB workshop. pdf page 7, KCC 15.05 D.La Signage says to refer to the MUTCD .......(It seems like it should say what version number the sign references are found in (MUTCD approved Dec 2009). Reference to the same section number but in para d .. Clearance. .....minimum of 24 inches clear from the face of the curb. (I is this distance a setback from the face of the curb so that a front bumper doesn't hit it or is it a height above the curb? All portions of the charging device shall be at least 24 inches horizontally behind the face of the curb.?) There are 2 para d's. in the second one on Lighting - adequate. site lighting shall exist, unless charging is for daytime use only. Daytime use in*during Nov, Dec* Jan, Feb is dark at the start and at the end of the day -I think the drivers will need lighting then. It provides security for the ladies. #2. b signage. ........(MUTCD reference needed. like the first comment) Mel Roberts Personal comments from a concerned citizen. cell 425-417-8931 From: "M6ttram, Pamela" <PMottram@ci.kent.wa.us> Sent:Tue, September 7, 2010 9:43:42 AM Subject: AGENDA PACKET- LUPB WORKSHOP - Sept 7, 2010 As General Parties of Record pertaining to land use issues; Please find ATTACHED the Land Use and Planning Board (LUPB)Workshop Agenda Packet pertaining to ZCA-2010-3 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. This meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 13 at 7 p.m. in Kent City Council Chambers, 220 4 th Avenue South, Kent.