Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 03/26/2018 Land Use and Planning Board Hearing Agenda • Board Members: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; KEN T Gwen Allen-Carston; Shane Amodei; Frank Cornelius; WASHING70N Dale Hartman; Ali Shasti March 26, 2018 7 p.m. Item Description Action Sneaker Time Page 1. Call to order Chair Hintz 1 min 2. Roll call Chair Hintz 1 min 3. Approval of 2/26/18 Minutes YES Chair Hintz 5 min 1 4. Added Items Chair Hintz 2 min S. Communications Chair Hintz 5 min 6. Notice of upcoming meetings Chair Hintz 5 min 7. PUBLIC HEARING: YES Hayley 30 min 3 Proposed Comprehensive Plan land use map Bonsteel amendments CPA-2017-4 - Alan Clark CPA-2017-5 - Uddin CPA-2017-6 - 272nd I-5 LLC S. PUBLIC HEARING: NO Danielle 60 min 29 Urban Separators Alternatives [ZCA-2016-2] Butsick 9. Adjournment Chair Hintz 1 min Unless otherwise noted, the Land Use and Planning Board meets at 7 p.m. on the second and fourth Mondays of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers West and East, 220 Fourth Ave S, Kent, WA 98032. The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the public hearing, provided, however, that comments shall be limited to only those items for which the public hearing is being held. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed amendments under consideration at the public hearing may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to Hayley Bonsteel at: hbonsteel()kentwa.gov or Danielle Butsick at: dbutsick@kentwa.gov. Documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board may be accessed at the City's website: http://kentwa.igm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-856- 5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1- 800-833-6388. Pkt Page 1 Date: February 26, 2018 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Council Chambers Attending: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius; Dale Hartman; Gwen Allen-Carston; Ali Shasti; Danielle Butsick, Long Range Planner; Adam Long, Assistant City Attorney Agenda: 1. Call to Order Vice Chair Jones called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Jones moved and Board Member Hartman seconded a motion to approve the minutes of November 27, 2017. Motion passed 7-0. 4. Added Items None S. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings Butsick announced that two public meetings have been scheduled at 7:00 pm on March 8t" and March 14t". The first meeting will be held at Panther Lake Elementary School and the second at Sunnycrest Elementary. Chair Hintz Opened the Public Hearing 7. Public Hearing Zoning Code Amendment, Midway Transit Community -1 (MTC-1) Signs f ZCA-2018-11 Butsick stated that this amendment intends to amend the sign codes within the Midway Transit Community area, an area envisioned as the gateway to the Midway area. The Midway Design Guidelines call for a pedestrian-oriented character for development in this area. The zoning district is characterized by highway frontage, fronts SR-516 on the north end, while the South is bifurcated by SR-99/Pacific Highway. Butsick stated that amendments to the sign code emphasize pedestrian- orientedcharacter, visibility, and meeting the needs of people in the area, both pedestrians and motorists as the area is highway oriented. The code will help achieve consistency with regulations in neighbor jurisdications, specifically with the City of Des Moines, adjacent to the MTC-1 zoning district. Pkt Page 2 The sign code amendments will encourage creative design and help meet the goals of the Midway area and Midway design guidelines. Creative signs generate visual interest and create an attractive and interesting environment for both pedestrians and motorists. Proposed amendments will increase the allowed monument sign size to be: 20 Feet tall, 100 Square feet total and 50 Square feet per side, which is consistent with regulations in Des Moines. Proposed amendments authorize the director to allow exceptions to the type and size of signs, allowing freestanding signs that are not monument signs based on certain conditions, including: 1. No cabinet face may be greater than 40 square feet; 2. If applicants can show creative design, that is attractive at the pedestrian level, and can show that other sign types would not work in a particular environment, the director may allow signs up to 150 Square feet total. Amendment language was removed regarding blinking, flashing, and rotating signs - as it is already referenced in the prohibited signs portion of the code. Butsick gave examples of creative free-standing monument signs. The Board deliberated, with Butsick responding to questions from the Board. Board Member Shasti MOVED and Board Member Jones Seconded a Motion to approve the proposed amendment to 15.06.050 of the Kent City Code related to the sign regulation of the Midway Transit Community as presented. Chair Hintz called for the vote. Motion Passed 7-0. Chair Hintz closed the Public Hearing. Adjournment Chair Hintz seeing no further business adjourned the meeting at 7:20 pm. Samuel M Maloney Planning Technician Economic and Community Development Pkt Page 3 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kurt Hanson, Director Phone: 253-856-5454 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6454 wA S H I N GT O N 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: March 26, 2018 To: Chair Paul Hintz and Land Use and Planning Board Members From: Hayley Bonsteel, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments Motion: Approve the staff recommendation regarding the applications for amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan land use map as follows: CPA-2017-4 approved with conditions, CPA-2017-5 denied, CPA- 2017-6 approved SUMMARY: Three applications were submitted in 2017 requesting land use map designation changes in the Comprehensive Plan. One application is for two properties on East Hill to be re-designated from Single Family to Mixed Use; one application is for nine properties on East Hill to be re-designated from Single Family to Multifamily; one application is for one half of a property at the southern city limits to be re-designated from Multifamily to Commercial. The attached report outlines the background information for each proposal and analyzes the merits of each proposal according to the criteria in Kent City Code. Staff recommendations are included in the report. BUDGET IMPACT: None BE:sm S:\Permit\P1an\C0MP PLAN AMENDMENTS\2018\Public Hearing Packet\CPA LUPB 3.26.18memo.docx Enc: Staff Report Draft Ordinance with Exhibits A and B SEPA Addendum cc: Kurt Hanson, Economic & Community Development Director Pkt Page 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests for 2017/2018 #CPA-2017-4, #CPA-2017-5, #CPA-2017-6 Introduction The City received three applications submitted by private property owners for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map during the 2017 docket process. The three proposals are classified as Proposals A, B, and C. This staff report includes background information, an analysis of public benefit, maps, and a staff recommendation for each proposal. Analysis and recommendations are based upon the standards of review listed in Kent City Code. Proposal Name Addresses Existing Requested Designation Designation A Alan 25601 100t" PI SE SR-8 (Single MU (Mixed Use) Clark 25611 1001" PI SE Family 8 Units/Acre) B Uddin 25913 116th Ave SE SR-8 (Single MDMF (Medium 11404 SE Kent Kangley Rd Family 8 Density Multifamily) 26007 116th Ave SE Units/Acre) 26015 116th Ave SE* 26041 116th Ave SE 11426 SE Kent Kangley 11504 SE Kent Kangley* 26047 116th Ave SE C 272nd 2526 S 272nd Street LDMF (Low C (Commercial) I-5 Density Staff LLC Multifamily) Recommendation: MU (Mixed Use) *These properties have not signed on to the applicant's proposal. =a ., .. a, a CANYON DR - - N - m 0000 Ea 0-AX0 L�f �� AMA PROPOSAL ■ Or ti of I "Pup hese parcels'property owners have not signed on to the applicant's proposal. ` ! y ■ a' �1!ida womp OWE k it DO 1 - n v r lop S 272ND ST CITY OF FEDERAL loic r —..�► �` �� c.- ���III�L�JC.79�I_I C"• I I.- � v��u uvu�p�lf�?�i�N:��'a Pkt Page 8 Applicant requests redesignation from SR-8 to MU. Background: The site consists of two tax parcels, which combined comprise .59 acres. The site sits on the East Hill, just south of Canyon Drive and west of 1001" Place SE. The current land use designation is Single-Family (8 units/acre). Parcels east of the site are designated Mixed Use, and parcels west and north of the site are designated Medium Density Multifamily. To the south, a small number of parcels are zoned Single Family (8 units/acre). These approximately dozen parcels south of the site, combined with the site, form a small "island" of land designated Single-Family between larger Medium Density Multifamily and Mixed Use designated areas. Existing improvements on the site include two single-story residences. Soil on the site is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, according to the USDA web soil survey. King County Metro routes 159 and 164 serve the site along Kent Kangley Road, as well as Dial-A-Ride (DART) routes 914 and 916. The intent of the redesignation is to pursue a rezone and develop the property as a mixed use development, with commercial and office uses along Canyon Drive and residences behind. However, the mixed use designation also supports zoning for commercial only, or zoning for single family, duplexes or townhouse units only. Existing access to the site as well as to the single-family lots south of the site is provided by a private street (100t" PI SE). This existing connection is nonconforming and in need of safety improvements. The development concept submitted with the application includes removal of the private roadway, closure of the nonconforming access, and construction of a new access to the public ROW 101St Ave SE for the subject site as well as the single-family lots to the south. Regardless of whether this particular development concept moves forward, the closure of nonconforming access and construction of new access to the public ROW 1015t Ave SE will be required as part of any development. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Policy LU-3.1: Encourage mixed-use development that combines retail, office, or residential uses to provide a diverse and economically vibrant Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Staff comment: For the site to be designated as mixed use would fulfill the intent of encouraging mixed use development, although not guarantee it. Policy LU-6.3: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, human and community services. Staff Comment: The site is located within close proximity to transit, restaurants and businesses, religious institutions, some shopping and medical services. Additional density in this location would fulfill the intent of this policy. Goal LU-7: Kent will provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options and densities throughout the City to meet the community's changing demographics. Staff comment: The majority of Kent's residential areas are single-family, so for this site to become designated and eventually rezoned and redeveloped as mixed use with multifamily would provide more variety of housing types, options and density than currently exists. Pkt Page 9 Goal H-2: Encourage a variety of housing types. Staff comment: Changing the site's designation from single-family to mixed use with multifamily will encourage more variety of housing types since Kent's residential areas are majority single-family. Policy H-2.2: Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites. Staff comment: Designating the site as mixed use with eventual development including multifamily residential would encourage infill development. Policy T-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor arterials, or around freeway interchanges. Staff comment: The site is located just off a principal/minor arterial. Multifamily residential and commercial development as part of a mixed use project on the site would be compatible with the intent of this policy. Goal E-3: Create connections for people and places. Staff comment: Given the site's visibility from a major roadway, a mixed use development on the site would create more connections than the existing single- story residences. The connections could include people walking from nearby areas to visit the commercial or office component, and the resolved access issue would be cause for more conforming connections to the area generally. Applying the Standards of Review: 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Staff comment: Any development that occurs as a result of redesignating the site as mixed use will not adversely affect public health, safety or general welfare. Public safety would be improved by the removal of the existing nonconforming access and the provision of new compliant access. 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan. Staff comment: The need for housing variety and options has been increasing nearly every month in this region due to population and job growth and housing demand. Additionally, changes in market preferences result in increasing demand for multifamily and mixed use living. 3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community. Staff comment: The community will benefit from having increased commercial or office singly or as part of a mixed use development in this location, as this area is a desirable destination for residents to visit existing commercial/office. It is in the best interest of the community for parcels with the highest visibility to have a mixture of uses including commercial or office, and mixing uses within a site is in Pkt Page 10 the best interest of the community due to the lower demands placed on city infrastructure when residences are placed in close proximity to other uses. 4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Staff comment: The amendment meets several goals and policies in the comprehensive plan and maintains concurrency. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval, with the following conditions: construction of a private street to provide safe access (meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Design and Construction Standards) to the public ROW (1015t Ave SE) for the subject parcels and other 8 single family lots to the south, and removal of the private street connection to 256th Street. Proposal B Applicant requests redesignation from SR-8 to MDMF. Background: The site consists of nine parcels totaling 9.3 acres in size. All parcels are designated Single-Family (8 units per acre). The site sits north of Kent-Kangley Road and west of 116th Ave SE, on Kent's East Hill. King County Metro routes 159 and 164 serve the site along Kent Kangley Road, as well as Dial-A-Ride (DART) route 914. Existing structures include a variety of small one-story buildings (six single-family homes, three duplexes, two carports, two detached garages, a storage shed, and a wood-frame daycare center). One parcel is undeveloped. Soil type is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, according to Web Soil Survey data from USDA. Parcels to the east of the site are designated Single-Family (6 units per acre) and Mixed Use. Parcels north and south of the site are designated Low Density Multifamily. Parcels west of the site are zoned Medium Density Multifamily. The applicant is requesting redesignation to medium density multifamily in order to develop the property into a market rate multifamily community, although amending the land use plan map designation does not guarantee the development proposal will occur. A land use plan map designation of medium density multifamily residential would also allow zoning for single family or duplex development. Seven of the nine parcels' property owners have signed on to the application; two have not. These two parcels can still be considered for a land use plan map amendment according to Kent City Code 12.02.045 (6), which gives staff the ability to expand the geographic scope of an amendment based on the effects to the surrounding area and future development. Staff have therefore considered the two properties along with the rest of the group, particularly for the purpose of considering future development opportunity. However, if the properties whose owners have not signed on to the application are included in the amendment and receive a multifamily land use plan map designation, they would likely remain zoned as single-family (since the owners are unlikely to pursue a rezone as they did not pursue the land use plan map amendment), which is not an allowed zoning Pkt Page 11 designation under the multifamily comprehensive plan designation. If those two properties are not included in the land use plan map amendment, future rezoning or development efforts are likely to be challenging. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Policy LU-6.3: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, human and community services. Staff Comment: The site is located within close proximity to transit, restaurants and businesses, religious institutions, some shopping and medical services. Additional density in this location would fulfill the intent of this policy. Goal LU-7: Kent will provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options and densities throughout the City to meet the community's changing demographics. Staff comment: The majority of Kent's residential areas are single-family, so for this site to become designated and eventually rezoned and redeveloped as multifamily would provide more variety of housing types, options and density than currently exists. Goal H-2: Encourage a variety of housing types. Staff comment: Changing the site's designation from single-family to multifamily will encourage more variety of housing types since Kent's residential areas are majority single-family. Policy H-2.2: Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites. Staff comment: Designating this underutilized land as multifamily would encourage infill development. Policy T-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor arterials, or around freeway interchanges. Staff comment: The site is located at the intersection of a minor arterial and a principal arterial. Multifamily development on the site would be compatible with the intent of this policy. Applying the Standards of Review: 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Staff comment: Any development that occurs as a result of redesignating the site as multifamily will not adversely affect public health, safety or general welfare. The property owners who have not signed on to the application may perceive an adverse effect on their welfare depending on the type of development that comes in around their properties. Pkt Page 12 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan. Staff comment: The need for housing variety and options has been increasing nearly every month in this region due to population and job growth and housing demand. Existing wetlands on the site pose challenges to development; this information was known at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted. 3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community. Staff comment: Expanding the multifamily designation could benefit the community as a whole by providing more potential housing options within an area that already has multifamily development. However, this community benefit is unlikely to be realized without all properties on board. Additionally, those property owners who have not signed on to the proposal may not consider development around their parcels to be in their best interest. 4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Staff comment: The amendment meets several goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. If the amendment is approved for all properties, and those property owners who have not signed on to the application do not pursue a rezone, those properties would retain their SR-8 zoning which is not an allowed use under MDMF designation. In other words, the zoning and land use maps in the Comprehensive Plan would be out of consistency, according to Table LU.1 "2015 City of Kent Land Use Designations" (page 15 of the Comprehensive Plan). Recommendation: Staff recommends denial. Given the applicant's intent to rezone and develop the site, the immediate community including the two properties whose owners have not signed on to the comprehensive plan land use map amendment application are likely to be negatively impacted. Kent City Code 15.09.050 stipulates how rezones may be initiated—by the property owner, City Council by resolution of intent, or Land Use and Planning Board by resolution of intent. The two properties whose owners have not signed on to the application will be key to redevelopment of the property, particularly given their placement in relation to the intersection as well as the wetlands present throughout the site. These two properties would likely become "islands" without either owner or Council interest in rezoning, so until that time, staff does not recommend approving this land use map designation amendment. Proposal C Applicant requests redesignation from LDMF to C. Pkt Page 13 Background:The site consists of one tax parcel, of 2.3 acres in size. The southern portion of the site is designated Mixed Use while the north half is designated Low Density Multifamily Residential. The property is located just west of Interstate 5, along the southern boundary of Kent's West Hill. There is one single-family residential structure on the property, along with one detached garage. The terrain slopes generally downward from east to west and somewhat from south to north. At the south end of the site along the frontage, the slope is approximately 7%. Along the northern boundary of the site, the slope is closer to 12%. The soil type is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam according to the USDA's Web Soil Survey. Neighboring properties are zoned Single Family to the east (where Sound Transit will be building the South 272nd Street light rail station as part of the Federal Way Link Extension project) and Medium Density Multifamily Residential to the west. To the south, Federal Way has designated the properties across South 272nd Street as Multifamily Residential. The general vicinity of the property has a mix of multifamily and single family zones, with Midway Transit Community and Commercial Manufacturing zones along Highway 99, and "Community Business" zone in Federal Way. A large wetland exists to the northwest of the property. King County Metro routes 183 and 190 serve the site along S 272nd Street. Access: Due to the split-zoned nature of the site, the applicant pursued a development concept in which commercial uses on the south are complemented by residential uses (townhouses) on the north. With Sound Transit's plans progressing rapidly on the property to the east, extensive coordination has taken place related to access and vehicle traffic. The vehicle activity on 261" Avenue (east of the subject property) is likely to increase dramatically with the light rail station, parking garage, and rebuilt street section; the applicant is pursuing a traffic study to determine appropriate access locations. The original intent of the comprehensive plan amendment and possible future rezone, as stated on the application, was to allow commercial development rather than residential, as the applicant was under a misapprehension related to the number of access points required. (The application for the amendment states, "The fire marshal was adamant that we provide at least one more additional access point was required to serve the residential portion of the project [sic].") In fact, townhouses or commercial would make no difference for number of access points; the development concept as presented by the applicant in a pre-application meeting was deemed acceptable from an access standpoint, as is represented in the pre-app notes and as was confirmed via email by Puget Sound Fire Authority staff. Additionally, further communication with the applicant makes clear that several development concepts are still being considered—most recently, mixed use development (residential above commercial, for a transit-oriented development). Consistency: The more general intent of the application was for a consistent land use designation (the application states, "...it makes sense to amend the current land use designation of the north half to the same as the south")—yet the applicant was requesting a different land use designation for the north half (Commercial) than exists on the Pkt Page 14 south half (Mixed Use). Therefore, staff are proposing to amend the land use map designation so that the entire site is Mixed Use. This scenario would allow a rezone to Community Commercial or Community Commercial Mixed Use (or General Commercial, General Commercial Mixed Use, or Townhouse/Condo MRT- 16, which is what the north half of the site is zoned now). Relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goal LU-9: Kent will promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen commercial activity, and maximize the use of existing public facility investments. Staff Comment: The site is not within an existing commercial district as it is generally surrounded by residential areas. However, the light rail project would be a "public facility investment" that could be maximized as per the intent of this goal. The policies under this goal (LU-9.1 and LU-9.2) focus on encouraging infill development in existing commercial areas, the intent of which would not be met by a redesignation and eventual rezone and development of this site as commercial. These policies may not have taken such a large public facility investment into account, however. Additionally, the entire site being redesignated as mixed use would promote more orderly and efficient development on this particular site, as the split-zoned nature may have resulted in a less well integrated development concept. Policy LU-10.4: Promote redevelopment of existing commercial properties by limiting the conversion of additional residential land use plan map designations to commercial land use plan map designations. Staff comment: The intent of this policy is specifically at odds with redesignating the site to commercial. The intent is less clear with regards to redesignating the site as mixed use. Creating a more viable development opportunity through consistent mixed use designation may promote redevelopment of the existing commercial piece of the property. Policy LU-11.5: Consider neighborhood urban centers where appropriate to add convenient commercial opportunities and gathering places. Staff comment: The light rail project coming to this area may create a de facto neighborhood urban center by being a major node for travelers in the region. The light rail station may also serve as an amenity, as it potentially includes gathering places (current plans for the light rail station show some walking paths and seating areas aside from transit spaces). Redesignating this site to mixed use, and further rezoning and redeveloping the site as such, could add a convenient commercial opportunity to this neighborhood urban center. Additionally, if a mixed use project is pursued, the mixed use design review criteria of 15.09.045 (F) would apply, which require common recreation areas—which could meet the intent of the "gathering places" portion of this policy. Pkt Page 15 Policy LU-6.3: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, human and community services. Staff comment: A redesignation to mixed use would allow for mixed use development including residential in close proximity to a major transit facility (as well as whatever commercial, shopping, employment or services might be a part of the mixed use development itself). However, commercial-only uses are also possible under this designation, which would not meet the intent of this policy with regards to transit. Policy T-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor arterials, or around freeway interchanges. Staff comment: The site is located near a freeway interchange and a high-capacity transit facility, so commercial, residential, or mixed use development on the property would meet the intent of this policy. Policy T-1.4: Adopt and maintain policies, codes and land use patterns that promote walking, biking, public transportation and social interaction to increase public health and sense of place. Staff comment: The existing multifamily designation would fit the intent of this policy, as locating multifamily residential land uses near public transportation (known as "transit-oriented development" or TOD) is a classic method for achieving the goals of promoting non-motorized travel. Redesignating the site as commercial would not fit with the intent of this policy. Redesignating the site as mixed use, as staff is proposing, would fit the intent of this policy as it would allow for mixed use (including residential) development. Goal H-2: Encourage a variety of housing types. Staff comment: The existing multifamily designation would better fit the intent of this goal and accompanying policies than a commercial designation. However, if the site is redesignated as mixed use and develops as mixed use, this could meet the intent of the policy as the housing provided by mixed use development is still relatively rare in Kent. Applying the Standards of Review: 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare Staff comment: Any development that occurs as a result of redesignating the site as mixed use will not adversely affect public health, safety or general welfare. There are regulations in place to ensure noise and lighting from commercial development would not encroach on any residential development on this or neighboring properties. Traffic circulation close to the light rail station is anticipated to be busy and could prove challenging; however, a traffic study will be required (and is being undertaken already) to ensure proper circulation is provided. Pkt Page 16 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan. Staff comment: The current split land use plan map designation of low density multifamily for the north half of the site and mixed use for the south half of the site occurred as a compromise resulting from public testimony during the comprehensive plan update in 2015. Station design for the light rail project has advanced considerably in recent years, and the site constraints as a result of that station design have resulted in the need for reduced barriers to development; split- zoning on the site may be one such barrier, as it does not allow for as much flexibility as a site with only one type of zoning. (For example, residential development is only possible behind commercial development under the current zoning; if the applicant pursues a rezone and the entire site is consistent, residential might be possible above commercial as well.) 3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community. Staff comment: The community could benefit from mixed use opportunities in close proximity to the light rail station. Commuters using the transit system could take advantage of the close proximity to pick up necessities or run errands before heading home, and residents of a mixed use development could take advantage of frequent transit at their doorstep. 4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Staff comment: The amendment has mixed results as far as meeting goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Bringing light rail to this area provides a unique situation; the station design and layout were not known when the Comprehensive Plan was last updated and they present challenges to development on this site, which may be mitigated by applying consistent land use designation of mixed use across the entire site. Recommendation: Staff recommends redesignating the north half of the site Mixed Use. As stated previously, the applicant pursued a redesignation of Commercial, but the real need is for consistency with the south half of the site which is currently designated Mixed Use. This would result in more options, rather than fewer, for development concepts on this unique site. Pkt Page 17 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map designations in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (CPA-2017-4, CPA- 2017-5, CPA-2017-6). RECITALS A. The Washington State Growth Management Act ("GMA") requires internal consistency among comprehensive plan elements. B. To assure that comprehensive plans remain relevant and up to date, the GMA requires each jurisdiction to establish procedures whereby amendments to the plan are considered by the city council, and limits these amendments to once each year unless certain circumstances exist. C. The City of Kent has established a procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan in chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code, which sets a deadline of September 1st of each year for submittal of requests for comprehensive plan amendments. D. The city received three timely applications to amend the comprehensive plan's land use designation map. The applications involve parcels located at: (1) 25601 and 25611 100t" PI SE (CPA- 2017-4), (2) 25913, 26007, 26015, 26041 and 26047 116t" Ave SE, Pkt Page 18 and 11404, 11426 and 11504 SE Kent Kangley Rd (CPA-2017-5), and (3) 2526 S 272nd Street (CPA-2017-6). E. The parcels located at 25601 and 25611 1001" PI SE are currently designated Single Family Residential, eight units per acre (SR-8), and the applicants are requesting a plan designation of Mixed Use (MU) (CPA-2017-4). F. The parcels located at 1161" Ave SE and Kent Kangley are currently designated Single Family Residential, eight units per acre (SR-8), and the applicants are requesting a plan designation of Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) (CPA-2017-5). G. The parcel located at 2526 S 272nd Street is currently designation Mixed Use (MU) on the south half and Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) on the north half. The applicants are requesting a plan designation of Commercial (C) on the north half. H. The City of Kent Land Use and Planning Board considered these amendment requests at a regularly scheduled workshop on February 12, 2018, and at a public hearing on March 26, 2018. The Economic and Community Development Committee considered the applications at its meeting on April 9, 2018. I. The City's SEPA responsible official issued a SEPA Addendum for the proposed amendments on March 8, 2018. J. On February 20, 2018, the Washington State Department of Commerce granted expedited review for the proposed amendments. No comments were received. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCE Pkt Page 19 SECTION 1. - Incorporation of Recitals. The preceding recitals are incorporated herein by this reference and constitute the city council's findings on this matter. SECTION 2. - Amendment. The Kent Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to establish new land use plan map designations for the following parcels: A. For the property located at 25601 and 25611 100t" PI SE, from a land use designation of Single Family Residential, eight units per acre (SR-8) to a land use designation of Mixed Use (MU), as depicted in the map attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A" (CPA-2017-4), with the following condition: construction of a private street to provide safe access (meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Design and Construction Standards) to the public ROW (101st Ave SE) for the subject parcels and other 8 single family lots to the south, and removal of the private street connection to 256th Street. B. For the property located at 2526 S 272nd Street, from a land use designation of Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to a land use designation of Mixed Use (MU), as depicted in the map attached and incorporated as Exhibit "B" (CPA-2017-6). SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; Pkt Page 20 or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations. SECTIONS. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law. DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved ATTEST: KIMBERLY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted Date Published APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHUR "PAT" FITZPATRICK, CITY ATTORNEY Pkt Page 21 Exhibit A CPA-2017-4 btu..r• • r� tom` 4 �1 �f 5R-8 to MU r � AF 4F IF or IL age }. • I I n h CIS er;Con. r; Exhibit i 1 f � 1 ■ •six, ��. _ - � . i ram LIVA to]t oil I �► _ ,� S 272ND ST i r _ P, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY o" IN.11 14 Nkof L ' ! CAM - f Pkt Page 23 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kurt Hanson, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager i IY- - Phone: 253-856-5454 lY Fax: 253-856-6454 WASHINGTON 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 ADDENDUM TO CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND MIDWAY SUBAREA PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) (#ENV-2010-3) AND CITY OF KENT DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) (#ENV-2012-30) KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS CPA-2017-4 (A) / RPP6-2173480; CPA-2017-5 (B) / RPP6-2173478; CPA-2017-6 (C) / RPP6-2173476 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson SCOPE The City of Kent has completed environmental analysis, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for 2017 docketed items to amend the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for three sites. One site contains two properties on East Hill to be redesignated from Single Family to Mixed Use; one site contains nine properties on East Hill to be redesignated from Single Family to Multifamily; one site contains half of a property located in southwest Kent to be redesignated from Multifamily to Commercial. The applicants are all interested in pursuing rezones for these properties, and furthermore, the applicants intend to apply for permits to develop the properties. - Addresses Exisluns Proposed Desigstation A Alan 25601 100"' PI SE SR-8 MUI Clark 25611 100th PI SE (Single Family (Mixed Use) 8 Units/Acre) B Uddin 25913 116th Ave SE SR-8 (Single MDMF 11404 SE Kent Kangley Rd Family 8 (Medium Units/Acre) Density 26007 116th Ave SE Multifamily) 26015 116th Ave SE 26041 116th Ave SE 11426 SE Kent Kangley 11504 SE Kent Kangley 26047 116th Ave SE C 272""' 2526 S 272"' Street LDMF (Low Density C (Commercial) I-5 LLC Multifamily) Comprehensive Plan Addendum Pkt Page 24 2017 Docket Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map [CPA-2017-[4-6] Alternatives under consideration include: Option 1 - Approval of all proposals: Proposal A would be redesignated Mixed Use; Proposal B would be redesignated Medium Density Multifamily; Proposal C would be redesignated Commercial. Option 2 - Approval of all-pro osals except for those properties which have not signed the applications: Proposals A and C would be redesignated as per the applicants' requests. Proposal B would be treated as follows: the seven of nine parcels whose property owners have signed on to the application would be redesignated as per the applicants' requests. The two parcels whose property owners have not signed on to the application would remain with the current designation of Single Family (8 units per acre). Option 3 - Approve only those proposals for which all properties have signed on to the_apalications: Proposals A and C would be redesignated as per the applicants' requests. Proposal B would retain the existing designation of Single Family (8 units per acre) for all properties. The Comprehensive Plan and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS, draft and final, evaluated the growth potential as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposals would amend the land use plan map for less than 12 acres of property at most. SEPA COMPLIANCE On February 13, 2010, the City of Kent issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Notice of Scoping for the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action (ENV-2010-3). The City solicited public comment on the scope of the DEIS during the comment period and on October 22, 2010, the City of Kent issued a Draft EIS. The Final EIS was issued and distributed on September 1, 2011. No appeals to the EIS were filed. In 2012, the City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzed three alternatives and evaluated several environmental elements associated .with the update to the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) (ENV-2012-30). The SEIS also evaluated a lower level of growth in the Midway area than was evaluated in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS. The Draft SEIS was issued in June, 2013, and the Final SEIS was issued in October, 2013. No appeal to the SEIS were filed. No additional impacts are identified from the land use plan map that was evaluated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS and subsequent addenda. Page 2 of 5 Comprehensive Plan Addendum Pkt Page 25 2017 Docket Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map [CPA-2017-[4-61 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY This proposal is a non-project action pursuant to WAC 197.11. Future projects associated with the land use plan map amendment will be subject to and shall be consistent with the following: City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, the Kent City Code, International Fire Code, International Building Code, Public Works Standards and all other applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time a complete project permit application is filed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - SCOPE OF ADDENDUM The City of Kent has followed the process of phased environmental review as it undertakes actions to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197-11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and preparing addenda to environmental decisions. Nonproject Documents - An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or other broad based policy documents are considered "non-project," or programmatic in nature (see WAC 197-11-704). Phased Review - SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so that review coincides with meaningful points in the planning and decision making process, (WAC 197-11-060(5)). Broader environmental documents may be followed by narrower documents that incorporate general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on issues specific to that proposal. SEPA rules also clearly state that agencies shall use a variety of mechanisms, including addenda, adoption and incorporation by reference, to avoid duplication and excess paperwork. Future projects identified and associated with the comprehensive plan land use map designation amendments may require individual and separate environmental review, pursuant to SEPA. Such review will occur when a specific project is identified. Prior Environmental Documents - The City of Kent issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Comprehensive Plan and Midway Subarea Planned Action on October 22, 2010, and a Final EIS on September 1, 2011 (#ENV-2010-3). The Midway Subarea Plan, Midway Design Guidelines, amendments to development regulations, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps we:-e adopted by the City Council on December 13, 2011. The City of Kent issued a Draft Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in June, 2013, and a Final SEIS in October, 2013 (ENV-2012-30). The SEIS evaluated a lower level of growth in the Midway area than was evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS. The Comprehensive Plan Update was adopted by the City Council on September 1, 2015, and included an Addendum to the 2011 EIS and 2013 SEIS. The proposed amendments to the land use plan map in the Comprehensive Plan are generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Page 3 of 5 Comprehensive Plan Addendum Pkt Page 26 2017 Docket Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map [CPA-2017-[4-6] Supplemental EIS, in that they do not contemplate more growth than was contemplated in those documents. The proposals that wo-,ald result in more land being designated Mixed Use or Multifamily specifically implement policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and the proposal for redesignation to Commercial is of sufficiently small size (1.2 acres would be redesignated if approved) to still be within the realm of what was contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic impacts associated with the Commercial land use designation are required to be analyzed and mitigated via development review, and that traffic analysis is underway at the time of this writing. As outlined in the SEPA rules, the purpose of an addendum is to provide environmental analysis with respect to the described actions. This analysis does not identify significant adverse impacts or significantly change the prior environmental analysis; therefore it is prudent to utilize the addendum process as outlined in WAC- 197-11-600(4)(c). ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS All environmental elements were adequately addressed wthin the parameters of existing codes and ordinances, as well as the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS, drafts and final. Further, subsequent "project" or nonproject actions would require the submittal of separate environmental checklists, pursuant to SEPA, which will be analyzed for consistency with the original mitigating conditions identified in the EIS and may require new mitigation based upon site-specific conditions. The amendments to the land use plan map implement the goals and policies identified in the Land Use, Housing and Transportation Elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: • Policy LU-3.1: Encourage mixed-use development that combines retail, office, or residential uses to provide a diverse and economically vibrant Urban Center and designated Activity Centers. Policy LU-6.3: Locate housing opportunities with a variety of densities within close proximity to employment, shopping, transit, human and community services. • Goal LU-7: Kent will provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options and densities throughout the City to meet tha community's changing demographics. • Goal H-2: Encourage a variety of housing types. ■ Policy H-2.2: Encourage infill development and recycling of land to provide adequate residential sites. Policy T-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor arterials, or around freeway interchanges. • Goal E-3: Create connections for people and places Page 4 of 5 Comprehensive Plan Addendum Pkt Page 27 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map [CPA-2017-[4-6] • Goal LU-9: Kent will promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen commercial activity, and maximize the use of existing public facility investments. • Policy LU-11.5: Consider neighborhood urban centers where appropriate to add convenient commercial opportunities and gathering places. • Policy T-1.1: Locate commercial, industrial, multifamily and other uses that generate high levels of traffic in designated activity centers around intersections of principal or minor arterials, or around freeway interchanges. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY Kent City Code section 11.03.510 identifies plans and policies from which the City may draw substantive mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. This non- project action has been evaluated in light of those substantive plans and policies as well as within the overall analysis completed for the City's Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS. DECISION The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review, the Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS along with the drafts and final; provided analysis with regard to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan elements, goals and policies. This includes the implementation of the Land Use, Housing and Transportation Elements. The City has reviewed the 2017 Docket Items to amend the land use plan map proposals and has found them to be consistent with the range, types and magnitude of impacts and corresponding mitigation outlined in aforementioned documents. This analysis and subsequent addendum did not identify any new significant impacts associated with the proposed amendments. Therefore, this addendum, combined with the Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS, adequately evaluates potential adverse environmental impacts and provides appropriate mitigation for this non-project action. Based upon this analysis, a separate threshold determination is not required. Dated: March 8, 2018 Signature: ak_� Charlene Anderson, AICP, SEPA Responsible Official HB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ENV\2017\CPA-2017-1_2017 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments EIS Addendum.docx Page 5 of 5 Pkt Page 28 Pkt Page 29 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kurt Hanson, Director 11�40 Phone: 253-856-5454 �F_14 Fax: 253-856-6454 VVA S HINr,7 ON 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 March 19, 2018 TO: Chair Hintz and Members of the Land Use and Planning Board FROM: Danielle Butsick, Sr. Long-Range Planner/GIS Coordinator RE: Urban Separators Project For Meeting of March 26, 2018 MOTION: None SUMMARY: The City received requests from property owners during the 2014 and 2015 comprehensive plan amendment docket process to consider changes to zoning or allowed development density of Urban Separator parcels. City Council approved the addition of an Urban Separators analysis to the department's work plan starting in 2017. Staff completed an inventory and characterization report of existing Urban Separators parcels, a consistency review to assess relevant policies, and developed five high-level policy options to guide discussions with stakeholders and the public. Staff will present an overview of the project and policy options and will request feedback from the public and the LUPB at the March 26 public hearing. BACKGROUND: Kent's comprehensive plan and King County Countywide Planning Policies designate certain areas in the city as Urban Separators. These areas are intended to create visual definition within and between urban areas, buffer rural or resource lands, preserve open space and opportunities for recreation, and connect wildlife and critical area corridors. This designation effectively limits development on these parcels to one residential unit per acre, as all Urban Separators are zoned SR-1, the lowest density allowed under Kent's zoning code. In response to docket requests received in 2014-2015, City Council directed staff to broadly consider the Urban Separator land use designation, and evaluate where it may or may no longer be appropriate in Kent. Informed by the findings in the Inventory & Characterization report and Consistency Review report, staff has developed five preliminary policy or code amendment alternatives to serve as a platform for discussion with stakeholders and the public. These include 1) preserve the status quo, 2) promote enrollment in incentive-based programs to preserve urban separators 3) adopt policies to retain urban separators and establish a reserve zoning overlay district to consider zoning changes in the future, 4) modify development standards for SR-1 zoning, and 5) adopt a long-term policy and criteria to consider amendments to urban separator lands and implement land use plan map and zoning districts map amendments. These alternatives are not exhaustive, nor are they mutually exclusive; they will inform the discussion with stakeholders and the public, which will result in final recommendations to be considered by the LUPB at a future public hearing, as well as by the City Council. Staff will be available at the March 26 hearing to provide information, answer questions, and receive feedback from the LUPB. EXHIBITS: Inventory & Characterization Report; Consistency Review Report; Preliminary Alternatives; PowerPoint presentation; Public comments BUDGET IMPACTS: None Pao y CY- �� Urb a n : , . . _ Sep P ra O rS µ _ WPB Public Hearin March 26, 2018 Pkt Page 31 What is an " urban se p a ra tu r" '? It' s a land use designation in the C it ' s comprehensive y" a S,96St r5iaoSt qe5, plan meant t o : A " y s, s, p � Preserve open space Dr S 229 St Kent �a t. Connect wildlife corridors r 1-, WJames St SE 240 St y _ st > 2 SE zaa St o Protect natural and resource - ��r` f 4 SE zsb St a re a s (steep slopes, wetlands, t W -- ---- o — a SE Kent Kongley agriculture/forest) S��5t - r -,' y It d o e s th is th ro ug h ZONING. •-Urban Separators 0 1 2 Miles How .._..._.._. t.. Lake �o"�.j Pkt Page 32 �6 ( Otter Lake 7 Arrow Angle Lake fay a ! 1,+ t sr- Lake e s rtn Sr SE,vc sr Lake o s zoo sr Panther a Youngs Peterson' N Lake ti Lake c s=oe St a SE 208 St-31 t, p y 5212 St _ •' 777777s"'' CAa t ear � en River Naturals i Shadow ;'' 4"�Resources Area 4 j O J xxa St Kent S � .."ti V ete ans Dr r� 1 b Green ;W a o y a> JoGe Ham ' `: ysn� Zrver .�' < W James St > Q SE xao St Lake y N p' ,� Clark Lake- Meeker St 2 C! G v �.--••Z Q �P SE zae St a °` y > O,, SE xss St b �a Lake _ e,��• i o S i r i Lake Meridian ' 5 vx St ! SE Kent Kangley Rd ,Star L,FkeCA Wp Green W Ur6an Separator Hiver { x r • = Grass r ° ' Lake Pkt Page 33 Z,o ning Separators:in Urban First , let' sdefine zoning : zoning isthe set of rules for how a property can be developed . What types of uses a re a Ilowed — housing , shops, industrial Lot sizesa .r o Size and scale of buildings o Other design requirements Pkt Page 34 ZoningSeparators:in Urban Urban Separatorsin Kent y are all zoned " SRMV . . One single family house - _ - , .... . - .r peracre (overall density) Re q u ire s " clustering when subdivided Pkt Page 35 C luco4a r Sub d ivisio ns: Concentrates new development on a portion of the property c Leavesat least 50% open space (half developable + undevelopable areas) Small minimum lot size — 2,500 square feet Requires groups of 8 with 120ft . in between Pkt Page 36 Exa m p le C luste r r Sub d ivisio n } .« P*Bd critical areas buffers For illustratio purposes only. o G re a n = 50% open w . space set-aside 4 Purple = new lots x (2,500 sq uare feet) 0 250 50 1 Pkt Page 37 Lot Size Com pa rison : now:: 2,500 Square Feet VI Jjk LA- 1. Pkt Page 38 Urb F '�e p a ra to r Proje c *,-- • What isthe best use forKent' surban separators? City council wasasked to consider changing the rulesso that developerscan build more housesthan iscurrently allowed . -The whole region needs more housing , but urban separatorsalso provide important environmental benefits. Any changes have to work with other city, state , county, and regional policies. Pkt Page 39 TICing s we can do : No changes — keep things the way they are . Reward land owners for preserving their land — forexample lower tax bills. Keep urban separatorsthe way they are for now , but find areasthat could be used formore housing in the future if the City runsout of space to build . Change the rulesforhow housesin urban separatorscan be built — like how much open space needsto be left in place , how farapart the houses need to be , and what kindsof buildingscan go there . Find areasin urban separatorsthat could be used formore housing now and designate them assomething otherthan urban separators. Pkt Page 40 Where we are now : Data gathering and reportsV City staff policy ideas Public outreach - meetings, interviews, and more ideas! Plannerscome up with recommend ationsforcouncil City and county adoption of new policies Pkt Page 41 What you r ri n nexl- - Provide yourcommentsat the hearing tonight. Em a it o r c a II m e : d b utsic k6E*e ntwa .g ov, o r 253-856-5443 Visit www .kentwa .gov/ urbanseparator to learn more and fill out the PUBU C SURVEY! Pkt Page 42 URBAN SEPARATORS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES: Background In 2014-2015, the city received multiple docket requests to consider amendments to the land use plan map and zoning districts map to increase allowed development density in urban separator areas zoned SR-1. These requests revealed the need to revisit the urban separator land use designation and evaluate its continued relevance. Kent City Council directed staff to begin a program in 2017 to broadly consider the appropriateness of the urban separator designation in Kent. Urban separator is a land use plan map designation in Kent's comprehensive plan; the designation is also used in King County's Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Urban separators are meant to protect ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space corridors that provide visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits within and between urban areas. Some urban separator lands in Kent are designated only on the city's land use plan map; others are designated both in Kent's comprehensive plan and in the King County CPPs. Kent's comprehensive plan states that all urban separator lands will be zoned SR-1, Kent's lowest-density single family residential zoning district. The first steps in the project were to develop an Inventory & Characterization report documenting conditions in all of Kent's urban separator lands, and a Consistency Review describing relevant policies and how they apply to Kent's urban separators. This document represents the third phase of the project, in which a list of preliminary alternatives is developed to provide context and guide discussion during the stakeholder outreach phase. The following descriptions of potential alternatives are meant to establish a long-term comprehensive strategy for Kent's urban separator lands. Note these alternatives are not intended to be all-encompassing or comprehensive, nor are they intended to be mutually exclusive. The city may ultimately decide to implement portions of these alternatives, entirely new alternatives, or modifications/combinations thereof. These alternatives are simply meant to be thought-provoking; they should provide context and a "jumping off point" for discussions with the public and stakeholders about urban separators. Pkt Page 43 1) Preserve the status quo. Make no amendments to the land use plan map, no amendments to the zoning districts map, and no amendments to Kent City Code. Staff would recommend denial of any land use plan map amendments or rezones in urban separators based on their failure to meet comprehensive plan amendment review standards in KCC 12.02.050 and their inconsistency with Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) and the purpose of the urban separator designation. Discussion: This alternative would preserve existing urban separators as designated in Kent's land use plan map and King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs); it would affirm the city's position on comprehensive plan policies to maintain SR-1 zoning in urban separator lands. Staff would recommend denial of land use plan map amendment or rezone requests in urban separator lands based on their inability to meet the comprehensive plan amendment review standards in KCC 12.02.050. This includes failure to demonstrate changing circumstances since the comprehensive plan's adoption that warrant plan amendments, or that the amendments will result in long-term benefits to the community as a whole. King County's 2014 Buildable Lands analysis and Kent's 2015 development capacity analysis demonstrate that Kent has sufficient vacant and redevelopable land to accommodate population growth targets through 2035. Therefore there is no demonstrated need to amend land use plan map designations for urban separator lands to allow higher-density zoning. As further reasoning for denial of the docket requests, these amendments would be inconsistent with adopted CPPs and Kent's comprehensive plan policies. The King County CPPs establish the subject areas for both of the 2014 and 2015 docket requests as urban separators, and Kent's comprehensive plan policies state that all urban separators should be zoned SR-1. Any amendments to the land use plan map designations or zoning of these areas would therefore be in conflict with policies in the CPPs and Kent's comprehensive plan. This alternative would be the fastest to implement, as it would require no amendments to comprehensive plan text, the land use plan map, or the zoning districts map, nor would it require amendments to the King County CPPs. Pkt Page 44 2) Adopt or encourage enrollment in incentive-based programs to preserve urban separators as private open space lands. This could include promotion of King County's public benefit rating system (PBRS) or its Farmland Preservation Program (FPP). Through the PBRS program, taxable value of property is adjusted according to public benefits provided by privately owned land. The FPP program allows property owners to voluntarily sell their development rights to the county; restrictions are then placed on the deed of their property to keep it available for agriculture. The purpose of adoption or promotion of these programs would be to incentivize preservation of urban separator lands and provide a reasonable financial return for property owners. Discussion: This alternative would promote existing incentive-based programs to go beyond zoning and regulation of urban separator lands. The purpose of the programs would be to promote the preservation of undeveloped land in urban separators while affording reasonable financial benefits to property owners. One incentive-based program would be King County's public benefit rating system (PBRS), which offers a reduction in taxable value for private property that preserves a public use or benefit including maintaining urban open space, providing an active trail linkage, or protecting significant wildlife or salmon habitat, among a long list of available categories. This program is already in place and available to property owners in Kent who wish to submit an application. No code or comprehensive plan amendments would be necessary for Kent residents to take advantage of the program. To promote more widespread use of the program in Kent, the city could adopt comprehensive plan policies to encourage property owners in urban separator lands to pursue enrollment in the PBRS as a way to preserve open space and other natural and beneficial functions of urban separator lands. An example of potential savings for a $275,000 property in Kent is shown below. Another King County incentive-based program is the Farmland Preservation Program; it is available to property owners in King County, including incorporated areas, who wish to voluntarily sell their development rights to the county in order to preserve their land for agricultural use. In return, restrictions are placed on the property deed, including that land cannot be subdivided into lots less than 20 acres, 95% of it has to remain open and available for agricultural use, and it prevents the use of the land in a way that would inhibit agricultural use. PBRS Example: For this example, consider a home in Kent valued at $275,000. The home and improvements, which cannot be counted in the reduced assessed value for PBRS, are valued at $175,000. This leaves a total land value of$100,000. After subtracting the land taken up by the house, driveway, and landscaping, 75010 of the property remains as qualifying urban open space. Urban open space earns five points in the PBRS, the minimum points required to receive program benefits, which according to the valuation schedule translates to a 50010 reduction in assessed value for the qualifying land. To calculate the reduction in assessed value, the total land value of$100,000 would first be multiplied by 75% to reflect the proportion of the property that qualifies for the program. This results in a total qualified assessed value of$75,000, which would then be adjusted by 50010 (up to 90010 depending on the number of points earned). The reduction in assessed "current use" value would be $37,500. This number is then multiplied by the 2017 King County tax rate of 1.222495% to determine the total annual savings - $458.44. Pkt Page 45 Total property value: $275,000 Points/percent reduced taxable value: 5 points = 50% Annual tax savings: $458.44 Pkt Page 46 3) Adopt a clear long-term policy of retaining urban separator properties under that land use plan map designation, which could be reconsidered when vacant and redevelopable land can no longer accommodate projected growth or growth targets. Establish a new "reserve zoning" overlay district that identifies certain urban separator lands to be considered for increased density in the future, if additional developable land is needed. Discussion; This alternative would preserve existing urban separator lands, including those designated in the CPPs and those designated only on Kent's land use plan map. It would establish policies in Kent's comprehensive plan stating that urban separator lands should retain their land use plan map designation. Policy guidance would include a provision to strategically designate portions of urban separator lands under a "reserve zoning"overlay to be considered if at some point in the future Kent's vacant and redevelopable land cannot accommodate its projected growth targets. King County has used the model of"reserve"zoning, stating as its purpose: "...to phase growth and demand for urban services, and to reserve large tracts of land for possible future growth in portions of King County designated by the Comprehensive Plan for future urban growth while allowing reasonable interim uses of property..." "...this zone is appropriate in urban areas, rural towns or in rural city expansion areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan, when such areas do not have adequate public facilities and services or are not yet needed to accommodate planned growth, [or] do not yet have detailed land use plans for urban uses and densities..." Not all of Kent's urban separator lands would be included in the reserve zoning overlay district; they would be considered for reserve zoning based on criteria in the Inventory & Characterization and Consistency Review reports, including overall scores for consistency with urban separator policies. Those with lower relative scores that show the most potential for successful development in the future will be included in the reserve zoning overlay. Until these lands are needed to absorb additional growth, they would remain under the urban separator land use designation. Lands that score the lowest in the Inventory & Characterization Report in terms of overall consistency with urban separator policies nevertheless provide important benefits in one or more categories. Even the lowest-scoring urban separator lands still contain critical areas, connect wildlife corridors, or preserve low- density development to protect at-risk watershed subbasins. This alternative would maintain these benefits until the land is needed to accommodate new growth. This alternative would establish policies to revisit the reserve zoning only if it is determined through a GMA-compliant buildable lands analysis that Kent does not have sufficient vacant and redevelopable land to accommodate its 20-year growth targets. Pkt Page 47 4) Modify development standards for SR-1 to be more flexible and to more easily facilitate development. For example, remove or modify the requirement for "8-pack" clusters with 120-foot spacing, or consider additional flexibility in housing types such as cottage housing, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses. This could be similar to condition (27) in 15.04.030 Residential Development Standards Conditions, which allows 25% of new housing developments in SR- 4.5, SR-6, and SR-8 zoning districts to be attached. Discussion; This alternative would involve amendments to Kent's zoning code rather than amendments to Kent's land use plan map or the King County CPPs. Land use plan map designations and SR-1 zoning would remain in place for all urban separator lands; it would, however, offer some additional flexibility in development standards within SR-1 zoning districts without modifying the overall allowed density. Some developers in Kent have described certain components of the clustering requirement in SR-1 zones as cost-prohibitive. The "8-pack"cluster with mandatory 120-foot spacing is cited as frequently making the difference between a development being cost-effective or not. This requirement, coupled with the 50% open space set-aside for unconstrained land, can reduce the number of lots that can be achieved when property is subdivided for development, particularly in areas that are substantially constrained by critical areas. This can sometimes push the development below the threshold of profitability. Modification to this requirement, for example by reducing the spacing required or increasing the number of clustered lots from 8 to 10 or 12 could increase the likelihood that developers may be able to move forward with cluster developments. The 50% open space set aside could also be modified to require 50% of the entire parcel to be set aside as open space, rather than applying to the unconstrained area only. This would allow critical areas to be counted as open space on properties that are significantly constrained by critical areas while ensuring that at least half of the property is reserved for open space purposes. Code amendments that include provisions for a percentage of cottage housing or attached townhouses in cluster developments could also help to improve profitability and feasibility of development in urban separator lands. Cottage housing would allow lots smaller than the minimum 2,500 square feet, providing additional flexibility to fully accommodate the number of lots allowed by SR-1 zoning. It should be noted, however, that cottage housing, as codified in 2008 in Ord. 3895 Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance (since expired), establishes parking, storage, and community building requirements, along with design standards, which require additional space in addition to individual lots. Existing code includes a provision to allow 25% of new subdivision developments in higher- density single family zones to be attached single family housing such as townhomes, duplexes, or triplexes. Code amendments extending this provision to lower-density single family zoning districts, including SR-1, could also expand housing variety in urban separator lands without adding additional net density. Encouraging housing variety is an important land use goal in Kent's comprehensive plan. The addition of an ownership interest requirement for attached townhomes (as defined in KCC 15.02.525) could expand ownership opportunities for middle-income Kent residents. New homes in residential subdivisions in urban separator lands would be subject to residential design review; this would apply to both single family homes and duplex townhomes. For townhouse structures with three or more homes, multifamily design review would apply. This would help to ensure that any attached housing is consistent with residential character and compatible with adjacent properties; access to open space or trails would further enhance the value of such developments. Pkt Page 48 5) Adopt a clear long-term policy for considering land use plan map amendments pertaining to urban separator lands. The policy will include criteria and circumstances under which redesignations may be acceptable. Prior to undertaking any amendments to land use plan map designations for CPP-designated urban separator lands, they must first be proposed as amendments to the urban separator maps in the King County CPPs. The amendments to the CPPs must be finalized prior to Kent's initiating land use plan map amendments. Discussion; This alternative would establish policy guidance to be included in the text of the comprehensive plan which clarifies whether and under what circumstances urban separator lands may be redesignated on the land use plan map. It would also present an opportunity for the subsequent rezoning of urban separator lands that meet the specified criteria and undergo amendments to their land use plan map designations. Criteria would be based on findings of the Inventory & Characterization and Consistency Review reports. Adoption of policies and criteria to amend both Kent-only and King County designated urban separators would require amendments to Kent's comprehensive plan as well as to the King County CPPs. In order to make the most efficient use of the CPP amendment process, Kent would likely identify urban separator lands that meet the criteria identified, regardless of whether a request for redesignation has been received. These areas could include the two 2014 and 2015 docket request locations, if they are determined to meet the established criteria. Any amendments to King County CPP-designated urban separator lands would first have to be proposed as amendments to the King County CPPs, prior to undergoing land use plan map or zoning amendments. They must be approved by the King County Growth Management Policy Council (GMPC), and ratified by King County jurisdictions. This alternative would take the longest to implement, as adoption of amendments to the King County CPPs can be a very lengthy process. The amendments would first have to be presented to the Interjurisdictional Team (IJT), which provides staff support to the GMPC. If advanced to the GMPC, the amendments must be discussed in at least two GMPC meetings, which only occur a few times per year. Once approved by the GMPC, cities and towns in King County must ratify the amendments, and they have 90 days to do so. The whole process may take more than a year; once complete the amendments would still have to undergo land use plan map and zoning districts map amendments which must be adopted by Kent's city council. It should be noted that if no King County designated urban separator lands are determined to meet the specified criteria, the amendment process could be substantially shorter. In this scenario there would be no need for amendments to the CPPs, limiting the amendment process to that required for making any other amendment to Kent's land use plan map and zoning districts map. While this could be achieved by simply establishing "Kent-only designation" as a criterion, staff would recommend against this approach and would recommend giving all urban separator lands in Kent equal consideration for redesignation. Pkt Page 49 City of Kent Urban Separators Project, 2017 Parcel Inventory and Characterization Introduction The City of Kent received three docket requests between 2014 and 2017 to consider land use plan map amendments and zoning amendments for certain parcels currently designated as Urban Separator on the city's land use plan map, and zoned SR-1. All three docket applicants requested that the city consider allowing increased development density on the referenced parcels, citing existing development on adjacent properties and greater density in neighboring zoning districts as justification. This report inventories and describes the currently designated Urban Separators; it is the city's first step in considering the requested changes. The Urban Separator land use designation is used by King County and the City of Kent to identify and preserve low-density buffer areas within and between urban areas. Countywide policies direct King County and its municipalities to designate Urban Separators as permanent low-density areas. These low-density lands are intended to protect forest and agricultural resource lands, rural communities, and environmentally sensitive areas. They are intended to preserve open space and connect wildlife corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental, visual, and recreational benefits. Countywide policies also provide for a process by which amendments can be made to designated Urban Separators. Not all of the city's Urban Separators are also designated Urban Separators in the Countywide Planning Policies. In 2001, the Kent City Council passed Ordinance 3551 amending the Kent Comprehensive Plan to provide for an Urban Separator land use designation consistent with the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). The ordinance also established local flexibility for designating and implementing the Urban Separator land use. The City Council adopted corresponding zoning regulations that set standards for how parcels within Urban Separators can be subdivided and developed. For instance, residential development must be "clustered" when located in Urban Separators, concentrating development in a small segment of the property and reserving the remainder as undeveloped land or open space. Urban Separators in Kent are all zoned for single-family residential development at a density of one residential unit per acre (SR-1), the lowest residential density provided in Kent's zoning regulations. The attributes described for Urban Separators in this report include current and potential development conditions, property ownership and land use, presence of critical and environmentally sensitive areas, adjacent land uses and resource lands, and transportation and utility infrastructure access. The report also covers connections between Urban Separator lands and local watersheds. These characteristics play various roles in the extent to which lands can or should be developed, and are briefly described in the following paragraphs. The City of Kent adopted a critical areas code in 2005, and comprehensively updated it in 2015, which describes critical or environmentally sensitive areas to be protected from development through setbacks, preservation, or other means of minimizing potential impacts. Maps inventorying these critical areas are included in the code by reference, but actual delineation of the critical areas occurs on a case-by-case basis. Sensitive areas that Pkt Page 50 may be buffered or preserved by the Urban Separator designation may include geological hazard areas, such as landslide hazard, erodible soils, or steep slopes, where intensive development could increase hazardous conditions or put the development itself at risk. Seismic hazard areas are also included in the city's inventoried critical areas, and primarily pertain to the Green River Valley seismic hazard area, where liquefiable soils are prevalent. Kent City Code places restrictions on development in areas characterized by landslide hazards and wetlands. Areas at risk from flooding are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) as those with a 1% annual chance of experiencing flooding, and are often referred to as the 100-year flood zone. Although defined as critical areas in Chapter 11.06 Kent City Code, flood hazard regulations are located in a separate chapter which describes policies and standards for development intended to reduce flood losses. Low- density Urban Separators serve as additional buffers to absorb floodwaters that extend beyond regulatory flood zone delineation. Low-density development can also prevent localized flooding in low-lying areas near flood zones by preserving storm water absorption capacity. Wildlife habitat, which provides food, protective cover, nesting, breeding, or movement for certain fish and wildlife species, is also considered a critical area in the city's critical areas code. Wildlife habitat corridors are another example of environmentally sensitive areas buffered or preserved by the low-density development regulations for Urban Separators. Urban Separators may also serve to connect wildlife habitat in multiple locations, preventing habitat fragmentation and facilitating movement within and between habitat areas. The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to identify important resource areas, including forest and agricultural lands. These lands may also be buffered or protected by the Urban Separator designation, by physically separating them from the potential "spillover effects" of intensive development, like polluted storm water runoff, accidental brush fires, and damage from recreational users. Often, the Urban Separator designation is used to buffer open space areas such as parks, natural areas, or shorelines to preserve their character and maintain their integrity as recreational and environmental resources. The critical areas code also calls for protection of critical aquifer recharge areas to ensure that development does not have the potential to contaminate important groundwater sources or impede recharging of the aquifer by causing excessive runoff or otherwise reducing permeability. Low-density Urban Separators can help to maintain natural drainage and reduce the potential for intrusion of pollutants into groundwater sources. Related to aquifer recharge areas is the connection of Urban Separator lands to local watersheds or"subbasins". Based on topographic and hydrologic characteristics, all lands in Kent are contained in a subbasin, meaning that they drain to a particular stream or body of water. Higher percentages of impermeable surfaces within a watershed or subbasin — associated with high development density and including roads, driveways, and buildings — can contribute to lower water quality in that basin due to increased runoff and less groundwater filtering. Increases in impervious surface percentage can also cause increased rates of flooding and erosion downstream; this is particularly relevant as climate change impacts contribute to higher rates of seasonal precipitation. In 2000, the University of Washington released a report entitled "Forest Cover, Impervious- Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization Impacts in King County, Washington". The report suggests that a threshold exists at 10% impervious surface within a watershed, above which a rapid decline in biodiversity and physical degradation of the stream channel Pkt Page 51 can be expected. Even more important to watershed health is the percentage of tree canopy. According to the UW report there is a 65% forest canopy threshold below which watershed health declines, particularly when combined with impervious surface of greater than 10%. Low density development in urban separators can provide opportunities for maintenance of forest canopy and permeable surfaces. Urban separators be used as one of several techniques, along with low-impact development (LID) methods, to support watershed health within King County's urban growth boundary. Providing access to transporation and utilities infrastructure, including roads, non-motorized transportation, water supply infrastructure, and sewer utility infrastructure can influence the cost of developing vacant lands or increasing density of previously developed properties. Without established access to infrastructure, or with insufficient capacity, the cost of development can dramatically increase; directing development to areas lacking this infrastructure through zoning may not be practical or appropriate. Access to transit and commercial shopping centers is also an important factor when considering increasing residential density. Close proximity of residential uses to these amenities can contribute to quality of life and livability, and can reduce traffic congestion. In total, there are 539 parcels in Kent designated as Urban Separators, in addition to 30 open space or reserved tracts. The total acreage of Urban Separator parcels is 1,431 acres (1,507 including total area in split-zoned parcels), with an average parcel size of 2.7 acres and a maximum size of 46 acres. Seven of the sixteen focus areas, as described below, are included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies; nine are reflected only in the City of Kent land use plan map. Methods and Data Sources All City of Kent parcels within the Urban Separator land use designation were selected and extracted for analysis using GIS tools. Two versions of the Urban Separator parcels layer were made; one retained the entire extent of all parcels, including those that are split between the Urban Separator land use designation and other designations. The second was "clipped" to the extent of the Urban Separators land use designation, excluding portions of parcels designated under land uses other than Urban Separators. Average parcel sizes were calculated using the unclipped version, which included the entirety of the parcel; figures pertaining to total Urban Separator acreage used the second version, which excludes non- Urban Separator portions of parcels. To create reporting areas or for the inventory and characterization of existing Urban Separators, the parcels were grouped into 16 "focus areas" labeled A through P. Focus areas were determined based on geographic proximity and similarity, and where practical, date of annexation to the City of Kent. Figure 1, below, shows the Urban Separator focus areas to be described. Data used for analysis for the purposes of this report include King County Parcel Viewer 2.0 for property ownership information; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) data; and City of Kent Critical Areas GIS layers including steep slopes, erosion hazards, landslide hazards, wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, regulatory floodway, seismic hazard, FEMA 1% annual chance flood hazard zones A, AE, and AH, and watershed subbasins (1999). The watershed subbasins layer represents the spatial extent of all watersheds in the City of Kent, excluding Big Soos Creek East. Also included in the analysis were City of Kent parcels, annexation history, and 2009 City of Kent building footprint data. Data have varying dates of publication, but all layers used are Pkt Page 52 the most recent versions available in the City of Kent GIS database as of February, 2017. City of Kent parcel data were downloaded from the King County GIS website, and cannot be considered entirely accurate. Recent land surveys in King County have revealed up to 15 feet divergence from GIS data, so area calculations should be considered rough estimates. Actual parcel lines and acreage would have to be determined via survey. WDFW-inventoried wildlife corridors were not included in GIS analyses because of the sensitive nature of these data at fine scales; high-level data are available on the WDFW website, and were used to show the general vicinity of wildlife resources. Restricted and unrestricted acreage and percentage were calculated for each focus area using critical areas GIS layers for landslide hazard, wetlands, floodways, and stream buffers. Kent City Code explicitly prohibits development in these critical areas. In the case of landslide hazard areas the minimum buffer where no ground disturbance or alteration can take place is 25 feet; for wetlands this buffer is at a minimum 40 feet, assuming a lower- value resource and that all mitigation actions have been taken. Stream buffers are established in the Critical Areas Code. A low-range restricted areas layer and a high-range restricted areas layer were created using the a) the minimum buffers allowed by code assuming lower-value resources and all possible mitigations, and b) higher buffers required assuming high-value or high-sensitivity resources with few or no mitigation measures. Consistent with Kent City Code, the low- range restricted areas layer incorporates a 25-foot buffer for the landslide hazard layer, and a 40-foot buffer for the wetland layer. It is important to emphasize that a 40-foot buffer is the minimum buffer for wetlands in the city; many inventoried wetlands would require larger buffer areas, up to 225 feet. The high-range restricted areas layer incorporates a 225-foot buffer for wetlands and a 50-foot buffer for landslide hazard areas. These high- range values represent the upper range of buffers but should not be considered the maximum required buffer; actual buffers will be determined through a delineation and development application process. The buffered layers were combined with a regulatory floodway layer and the stream buffer layers created as part of the Critical Areas code and Shoreline Master Program to create two "restrictive critical areas" layers, one low-range and one high-range. These were then individually overlayed with the clipped version of the Urban Separators parcels layer described above. This overlay resulted in the ability to calculate restricted and unrestricted acreage and percentages for high-range and low-range restricted areas. It is important to note that there may be other site conditions that create development restrictions on some properties, including, but not limited to the presence of other types of critical areas or WDFW-inventoried wildlife corridors. This analysis was performed for instructive and comparative purposes only and represents the low and high ranges for restricted area; actual critical areas, wetland boundaries, and buffers would have to be determined through a delineation and development application process. Each focus area was also assessed for average residual development capacity under existing SR-1 zoning, as well as under SR-4.5, SR-6, and SR-8 zoning. This was calculated through a GIS analysis using the low-range and high-range restrictive critical areas layers described in the above paragraphs. The "unclipped" Urban Separators parcel layer was overlayed with the restrictive critical areas layer, and square footage was calculated for restricted and unrestricted portions of each parcel. Cluster subdivisions in Urban Separators require 50% of the unconstrained land area to be set aside for common open space designed and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of residents of a subdivision. Consistent with these requirements, the unrestricted square footage for each parcel was multiplied by 50% to determine the subdividable area. This number was then adjusted to incorporate a typical Pkt Page 53 public right-of-way allowance. The right-of-way allowance for SR-1 listed in the King County 2014 Buildable Lands analysis was 5.7%. The 50% unrestricted square footage was reduced by this percentage to more realistically capture the buildable portion of the properties. The 50% open space requirement does not apply for SR-4.5, SR-6, and SR-8; unrestricted square footage for these zoning districts was adjusted by 22.9%, 27.7%, and 34%, respectively, for right of way and other public uses according to the 2014 Buildable Lands report. Minimum lot size for cluster subdivisions in Urban Separators is 2,500 square feet; the adjusted subdividable area was divided by 2,500 to determine the maximum number of lots into which the parcel could be divided. The maximum number of lots based on unconstrained land area was compared to the maximum number of lots allowed by SR-1 zoning on the parcel as a whole, and the lesser of the two numbers was assigned to each parcel, subtracting one lot to account for the existing lot itself. Averages were then calculated and reported as residual development capacity values for each of the sixteen focus areas. It is important to note that this residual development capacity analysis does not take into account fragmentation of unconstrained areas, nor does it account for shape and orientation of the unconstrained land. Under certain conditions, parcels that meet the minimum square footage may not be able to meet the minimum lot width of 30 feet, which would reduce the maximum number of lots into which a parcel could be subdivided. Additional space could also be required for site infrastructure beyond the 5.7% public right-of-way allowance, including private access roads and storm water drainage. Clustered development regulations also require spacing of 120 feet between groups of up to eight individual lots. This could further limit the number of potential lots for subdivisions greater than eight lots. Data related to land cover include impermeable surfaces and tree canopy. These data were obtained from two different sources, although they were both derived from Landsat 7 data. The King County GIS Center provided a 2009 impervious surface grid dataset. These data reported binary grid, or pixel values for 1)impervious, or 2) pervious surfaces. Impervious areas were extracted and the data were adapted for use with other vector-based datasets used in this analysis to calculate percentage of impervious surface in each subbasin. A 2010 grid dataset for tree canopy was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey and adapted for use in this analysis. This dataset reported grid values at roughly a 30-meter resolution for percentage of tree canopy with values ranging from 0 to 100, rather than binary data for forested or non-forested. For this analysis, these values were reclassified into two values: greater than 50% is classified as "forested", and equal to or less 50% is considered "unforested". Subbasin percentages were then calculated based on the "forested" subset. Road access and utilities service areas were determined using a combination of Google satellite imagery (Copyright, 2017), and Kent's 2008 Transportation Master Plan and 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Transit access was determined using King County Metro service maps and Google satellite imagery with the distance-measuring tool. Access was determined using a 1/2-mile maximum distance from the closest point of the focus area polygon. Transportation studies indicate that people are willing to walk up to 1/2 mile for high-quality, high-capacity transit. Lower-quality transit services typically have 1/4-mile walksheds. Similarly, access to commercial shopping centers was determined using Google satellite imagery with the distance-measuring tool from the nearest point in the urban separator focus area. A typical Pkt Page 54 walkshed for daily activities is 1/4-mile. Commercial shopping centers included in this inventory were commercial areas with clustered retail or individual large grocery or department stores. Pkt Page 55 Figure 1 - Urban Separator Focus Areas I"--`--------7 URBAN x, N a SEPARATOR � r r--,E 192ST FOCUS AREAS O s 19R ST r SE 36 St SE 196 S March, 2017 ¢ 1 3 K SE 2 0 S r x W -' y Legend > C a 58 5T M 521zsT a � o — I Kent City H .� CA & Limits �7{4V W W `' o} Focus �� 0w44 Areas r�rn a S z 28 sr W A K 1 ■ w z a L. W B o r.7 ]AME5 ST W S 240&T "� SE aan ST p C . SM1!SMITH $T-j SR$ w N V J �� 5246 5T 4 16 7 +-1 0: Q � V W7 SE 2485r . SR 516 5R 51& w a 'LF O o? Oy m oo w l E r x �aa 1 s '1 � P r S 259 VL ¢�'S' ,—1 ��.� 1 sT6 S s'¢ SE 256 5T al F #r yr , i-`3 r►: W IF' � J I r P 4 ■, ' i i I# H r ._�• ao a w 1 SE 274 5R 516 WAY ---- B W E W �yz it; - i i E v 0.5 1 MileS Pkt Page 56 Findings Focus Area A - "Contemporary Construction Annex"' Figure A - Focus Area A, Contemporary Construction Annex 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 Legend jr—I Kern C:iy %==V Limits ® Focus Area A o 250 1 A7,-, -y,.yr-," y _ NMMW­M— -L., Focus Area A, referred to in annexation documentation as "Contemporary Construction", was annexed to the City of Kent in 1978. The site is 18.5 acres, and entirely designated Urban Separator. This area is not a King County designated Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. Portions of each parcel were designated as an Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map by Ordinance 3769 in 2005 as a result of the city's 2004 urban density study. The remaining split-designations were resolved in 2007 by Ordinance 3842, establishing the entire area as Urban Separator. Table A — 1 Focus Area A Summary Name Contemporary Construction Annex Total Acreage 18.5 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1978 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2005, 2007 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 7 Developed Parcels 5 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 6 Private / 1 Public Average Parcel Size 2.7 Acres There are five single-family homes on the 19-acre site, and seven separate parcels. Six of the parcels are privately-owned; one of these is vacant. The seventh parcel is retained by the City of Kent for storm water drainage purposes. Parcels in this focus area average roughly 2.7 acres in size. Pkt Page 57 The majority of the site is wooded and has steep slopes; highly erodible soils are also present throughout much of the area. The extreme southwest corner of the site is part of the Green River Valley seismic hazard zone. Below are maps indicating the location of steep slopes, erodible soils, and landslide hazard areas. See Table A-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area A. Methodology and background information is provided in the Methods & Data Sources section above. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table A — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 18.5 Acres 14.6 Acres 3.8 Acres Percent - 79% 21% Table A — 3 Total Restricted Unrestricted Restricted Lands Analysis — Low- Range Acreage 18.5 Acres 13.8 Acres 4.7 Acres Percent - 75% 25% Under the low range for restricted areas, three parcels in Focus Area A have sufficient unrestricted land area and are sufficiently large that they have residual development capacity, meaning that they could potentially be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area A is over three lots per parcel. Under the high range for restricted areas, the same three parcels retain residual development capacity; these average just under three additional lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area A under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report (accounting for public right of way and other public purposes): Table A — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 7) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 3 2 - 3 <1 SR-4.5 2 5 - 6 1 - 2 SR-6 2 7 - 8 2 SR-8 2 7 - 8 2 Table A — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 7) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 3 3 - 4 <1 SR-4.5 3 4 - 5 <1 Pkt Page 58 SR-6 3 6 - 7 1 - 2 SR-8 4 6 - 7 1 - 2 Focus Area A is bounded to the south and west by King County Urban Separators and agricultural resource lands. It also connects a wildlife corridor identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a priority terrestrial habitat area. The wildlife corridor (center) is indicated in purple in Figure A-7. WDFW describes the area as steep forested hill slopes along the Green River Valley, which are unstable, but provide wildlife habitat and migration corridors. Focus Area A is served by local streets including Woodland Way S., a residential collector arterial, and the 97th Avenue S. cul-de-sac street. Other nearby collectors and arterials, as identified in the 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) are SE 277th Street, a minor arterial, to the south; and 1041h Avenue SE, alternately a residential collector arterial and a residential collector, to the east. Transit service within 0.5 mile of Focus Area A includes King County Metro DART route 914 to Kent City Hall. The nearest commercial shopping center is approximately one mile away and includes grocery stores, restaurants, big-box retail stores, and other various retail and commercial uses. The entire focus area is within Kent's water and sewer utility service areas. It has an internal connection to both sewer and water, but has a high percentage (greater than 50%) of difficult terrain including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas, likely increasing the expense of extending this infrastructure. The vast majority of the land in Focus Area A is in the Lower Green River East Slope subbasin. A narrow portion to the northeast of the focus area is within the Upper Mill Creek subbasin. At 79% tree canopy coverage, the Lower Green River East Slope subbasin is the only watershed subbasin in Kent that is more than 65% forested, according to 2010 USGS Landcover data. This subbasin is also the only watershed subbasin in Kent that is comprised of less than 10% impervious surface. This makes this subbasin the single example of a subbasin in Kent that meets the watershed health standards recommended in the 2000 UW report. The Upper Mill Creek subbasin by contrast is only 25% forested (40% exceedance), and is comprised of 44% impervious surfaces (34% exceedance) indicating that it is at risk of declining watershed health. See Appendix A for a map of watershed subbasins and a table providing percentages of impervious surfaces and forest canopy. ' 7 I m i•'a'aOti'a'•yaaaa•�ta••►ai•aaat • .•i%i'iiairiiirifiii':�iirii•�•i '• a tiiiiiii i••�ii••a i+iiai'ii aaiiaRi �i � r'�•i•+'i'iii i•••►iiS��i•�•irii�•►i iit►�! ire 'r!en iai••ii��riiri'i��rii ii+ii•�+ ►i • 1•t•+•t•t♦pia•••+tiff•! f� r�+a ?•�•�t�•ryi'ii•••i•i•• •i iie • _ irtrtii i���•�i �r���a +i•t i.iaaaii•�'i�iai+�i`��. ►iae i�ia '�iair�►�aiti�i►i'•tfiai`L•%%%v %i�a�i fit►•►++•++++% ifa'+ s •aa+++ta+t•. •aat•a bras*+••++..� ►a•aa - c,i - i s.c�•tNtftaa ••ota P ♦tftt•/ rtftt - '' «�i�iai++i•iai••i•i+ii ...... i ari�iat'Oi► •aaaa►aaataa aataaa►a ►•ar. •aa•aaaria• ••••aa•a•tr ftr •►t•, r� ' �! : ;._•i•�y'iai'r'a'iiii�i'a'a'i'i•a'i'a�•iai••4i a'�• ri••ai�**+a aa►i'aatsaia+•iiaiaiaiairi•+•ia•�►•ia.�F !a•�•at+ar a•aaaraatt •tat•�r. !i.•ii•iiia�•i•►•••►•i►ai•O►r••O•rti0i •i� jaiii•ii'iai•i•�aiai•iai'i��� '+�i'i�i�i�a+'iai - Yaa•a�►ra►aa►aa'saia►aaAa►as .' i•� • aa•'••�a r: e Pkt Page 60 Figure A-5 - Focus Area A, Seismic Hazard Figure A-6 - Focus Area A, Restricted Lands XXXXXXXX xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx a xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X f X XXXXXXXX Xf f X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xxxxxxxxxxx n xxxxxxx AXxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx I xxxxxxxxxxxxx XXxXxxxxxxxxxxxxX Legend XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX e XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXN �qa r::--1�Kent City Limits XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX qv Legend XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Focus Area A XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXN 11 L-- i Kent City Limits X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Restricted Area X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X M Focus Area A x x (High-Range) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ®Seismic Hazard ®Restricted Area X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X y % (Low Rang e) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Buildings xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Buildings X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- -- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ❑ 25p 5❑❑ 0 x x 5 X X X X X X X X X X X X 1,000 Feet`-.'.•_. ------ -..-- _--- ,�, X X X X X X X X X X X Feet-——-——-——— Figure A-7 - Focus Area A, Wildlife Corridor Pkt Page 61 Focus Area B - "Ramstead" Figure B - Focus Area B, Ramstead 1 SE 272 St 1 c 1 v 1 N $E 2]3 1 m SE 2"PI $E'2l4 1 O Ct 1 1 Ramp $E 277 S1 1 $E2lfi St 5 211, B ti 1 SE•2]]PI SE 2]e St 1 W o0 SE•2]9, � � a E ------------ SE 280,St J 1 1 SE•281 St 1 1 1 1 Legend 1 1 r—b Kent City 1 1 •�-r Limits 1 = N -Focus Area B 1 j 108Q n t I Fee[ Focus Area B was annexed to the City of Kent in 1994 as part of the 596-acre "Ramstead" annexation. Of the 596-acre annexation site, the portion designated as Urban Separator is 101.9 acres. This area is not a King County-designated Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. It was designated as an Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map by Ordinance 3769 in 2005 as a result of the city's 2004 urban density study. Table B - 1 Focus Area B Summary Name Ramstead Total Acreage 101.9 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1994 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2005 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 12 Developed Parcels 4 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 6 Private / 6 Public Average Parcel Size 8 Acres The area is bisected by S 277t" Street, and includes 12 parcels, averaging roughly 8 acres. The largest two parcels are 32 and 39 acres, respectively, and are both owned by the City of Kent. The Ramstead Urban Separator parcels are almost entirely wooded with highly erodible soils and steep slopes with landslide risk. No buildings or structures are present in the majority of the focus area; four parcels contain single-family homes built in 2016-2017. A 5-acre inventoried wetland area is present on the west side of the area. Figures B-1 through B-4 depict erodible soils, landslide risk areas, steep slopes, and wetlands, respectively. The west side of the focus area is also within the Green River Valley seismic Pkt Page 62 hazard zone and is subject to the FEMA 1% annual chance flood. See Table B-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area B. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table B — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 101.9 Acres 98.3 Acres 3.6 Acres Percent - 96% 4% Table B — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 101.9 Acres 94.8 Acres 7.1 Acres Percent - 93% 7% Under the low range for restricted areas, Focus Area B contains seven parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels is more than three lots per parcel. The same is true under the high range for restricted areas, although the average drops by less than one unit. This analysis excludes a 17-acre parcel owned by King County Parks; it extends outside of Kent's municipal boundary into the City of Auburn, where much of it is designated as public and open space. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area B under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table B — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 7 3 - 4 <1 SR-4.5 6 2 - 3 <1 SR-6 7 3 - 4 <1 SR-8 7 4 - 5 1 - 2 Table B — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 7 3 - 4 <1 SR-4.5 6 4 - 5 1 SR-6 6 5 - 6 1 - 2 SR-8 7 7 1 - 2 The Ramstead area connects two wildlife corridor areas, although S 277th Street physically separates them and prevents their contiguity. The wildlife corridors in Focus Area B are Pkt Page 63 steep terrestrial habitat, similar to that described in Focus Area A. In fact, the northern segment of the wildlife corridor present in Focus Area B is a continuation of the corridor present in Focus Area A. Focus Area B also connects to City of Auburn Urban Separators to the southeast and City of Auburn open space areas to the southwest, including Mary Olsen Farm, North Green River greenbelt, and Auburn Golf Course. These open space areas and Urban Separators are characterized by steep slopes, erodible soils, and landslide hazards. Streets serving the focus area include S 277t" Street, listed as a minor arterial in the 2008 TMP, and Green River Road S., a residential collector arterial. As there is no development in Focus Area B, no local streets are extended within its boundaries. Transit service within 0.5 mile from Focus Area B includes King County Metro route 914 to Kent City Hall. The distance to the nearest commercial shopping center is about 1.5 miles away. It includes grocery stores, restaurants, big-box retail stores, and other various retail and commercial uses. The entire focus area is within Kent's water supply and sewer utility service areas. An internal connection to water utilities is present, but no sewer connection exists. The focus area is characterized by a high percentage of difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas. Focus Area B falls almost entirely within the Lower Green River East Slope subbasin. A narrow segment to the southeast drains to Olsen Creek, and small portions (less than 1/4 acre) to the northeast are part of the Upper Mill Creek subbasin. The Lower Green River East Slope subbasin is 8% impervious surface and 79% forested, the only watershed subbasin in Kent that does not exceed either threshold established in the 2000 UW report. The Olsen Creek subbasin is 26% impervious surface (16% exceedance) and 44% forested (21% exceedance). The Upper Mill Creek subbasin is 44% impervious surface (34% exceedance) and 25% forested (40% exceedance). Figure B-1 - Focus Area B, Erodible Soils Figure B-2 - Focus Area B, Landslide Risk SE47I St — - SE47I S[ O , O SE•I I SE•3l3 SE .a S�.714 SE;)3of Sf.714 mp p.1 .: 5E 277 S[ '76 S! SE-;ll PI SC;ff PI .►r•.•.s.•)--—--— ------- )--—--— - SE'nyr � I SEA 381 St Legend Legend CN] Kent city Lirnd9 ten[Clty Lim„- -; Faces Area 6 ` Focus Area 0 ED Erodible Soils •• Landslide Risk i�Buildings •••�• ESulldings � � I loge i o Soo 1.000 o Soo 1.000 _ _ ■ -_ �"� Feet .+-.r.vr�.��• .� IYIt Pkt Page 64 Figure B-3 - Focus Area B, Steep Slopes Figure B-4 - Focus Area B, Wetlands SE•272 S[ - SE;72 St S [ 5£•iJ3 SE-2SE 73 St 1 St 3 Pf SEC Y4 SE-277 5! S&Z76 St �� 5E•;la S[ 5E•;la S[ r � se z7s se M n � se-z7s se M E „� = sezgo si _ F se•zgo st SE2g1 S� l - V i ! SEZgl R Legend Legend } I�Kent city L m,: Kent city Limits i a 1 n -Focus Area B -Focus Area B iy ! ®Steep Slopes Wetlands 1 ! w m M Buildings w lllll�Buildings ! toaP I 168P i 0 500 1,000 - Feet Figure B-5 - Focus Area B; Open Space, Resource Figure B-6 - Focus Area B, Seismic Hazard Lands or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Se orators ' 8E•272st Y0 SE•272 S[ I 1 °o SE•273 1 SE 273 St - SE 7J3 PI SE2Y4 f SE 273 P! SE6274 • _ _ _ _ -- pymv I AeMP 2715! SE•2J75t iii���— •, 1 - - - \ sE 176 st SE-;77 PI I SE-2JJ PI SE•27a S[ 1 SE 2]8$t N sp � 9r " --_--_ SE2805t Legend rY811Yf 7 1 � JKent clay Limits z61 SE R i sE�282 Sr• -Focus Area B - '= Legend 1 , Open Space,Resource Lends, Kent City Limits _ �'.`, L i 1 1 or Other - _ - —Focus Area B Jurisdictions' - -- 1 urban Separators - - ®Seismic Hazard -Buildings _ - Buildings i08¢ ¢ •r 0 Soo 1,OOo ! Feet Pkt Page 65 Figure B-7 - Focus Area B; FEMA 1% Flood Zone Figure B-8 - Focus Area B; Restricted Lands SE'2!j-5r �2]25t 1 - SE•373 XXXXXX - SE•� XXXXXX' s 71 p+ SE•2]4 X X X X X J. SE 2"3 2] p, SE 4 - XXXXXX rt Ct X X X X X X X X X X sE a]y 5t sMnP XXXXXXXXXXX-. Z]75t �mP X X X XXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXX xxxxxxBxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX sE•z]0 Sr ,Lt xxxxxxxxxxxx 5E 2]8 yy y xxxxxxxxxxxx s; XXXXXXXXXX i79 Sr m r X%XXXXXX c X X X X X X X X a o X X XXXXXX X E a .. r X = Legend x x x x Sl7at Sr r���Kent City Lim its XX t g2515Y Legend xx 1 a- ! x � MI.Kent City Limits a' Focus Area B X X E -Focus Area B - Restricted Area X 1 x x (High-Range} X X ®FEMA 1%Flood r X X � Zone{R,AH,REi Restricted Area'� ® X X ; ! (Low Range} X X X Buildings laa� X Buildings X X X X X X X X u SOO 1,00� - a 5ou 1,000 X X X Feet •— —.+.` Feet Figure B-9 - Focus Area B, Wildlife Corridor Air f.l r: rf 'f .r r 40 !t � I. Pkt Page 66 Focus Area C - "Impoundment Reservoir South" Figure C - Focus Area C, Impoundment Reservoir South --- -----1 ; Z 1 1 � � w 1 1 Kai 1 1 1 � 1 1 E ✓f �E299 PI 1 1 1 1 vW, C A PI 1 < SF.30 p WY Legend � 1 r— ,Kent City --+Limits c _Facus Area C 1 e � 9E 303« t i - SE 3�1 - Feet Focus Area C was annexed to the City of Kent in 1987 as part of a 156-acre annexation area, referred to as the Impoundment Reservoir Annexation. Of the annexation site, 87.1 acres in the southern portion were designated as Urban Separator. This area is not a King County-designated Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. Focus Area C was designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map in 2004 by Ordinance 3685. Table C — 1 Focus Area C Summary Name Impoundment Reservoir South Total Acreage 87.1 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1987 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2004 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 89 Developed Parcels 75 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 86 Private / 3 Public Average Parcel Size 0.4 Acres This area is not within Kent's contiguous boundary. There are 89 separate parcels on the site; 75 of these parcels, totaling 9 acres, have been graded and are ready for construction of single-family homes. As of February, 2017 none of the 75 lots have been permitted for construction; however, Kent has issued civil permits for utilities and roads, which have been installed to access the parcels. These privately owned properties are within the Bridges Planned Unit Development (PUD), and they average roughly 0.4 acres. The PUD allows some commercial uses within the area designated Urban Separator. A large portion of the acreage in Focus Area C is owned by the City of Kent; the largest single parcel is owned by the city and is split-designated and split-zoned Urban Separator/SR-1 and SR-3. In addition Pkt Page 67 to the privately-owned and city-owned parcels, twenty tracts averaging 0.3 acres have been reserved to remain undeveloped. The remaining 65 acres in the Impoundment Reservoir Annexation area that are not designated Urban Separator are zoned SR-3; most of the buildable lots in this area have recently-built (within the last five years) single-family homes. A substantial portion of Focus Area C consists of inventoried critical areas, including erodible soils, landslide risk, 32 acres of wetlands, and a small area with steep slopes. Refer to Figures C-1 through C-5 for Focus Area C critical areas. See Table C-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area C. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table C — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 87.1 Acres 79.8 Acres 7.3 Acres Percent - 92% 80/0 Table C — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 87.1 Acres 57.1 Acres 30 Acres Percent - 66% 34% Under the low range for restricted areas, Focus Area C contains eight parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area C is over three lots per parcel. Using the high range for restricted areas, Focus Area C has only three parcels that could be further subdivided, with an average residual development capacity of over two lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area C under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table C — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 89) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 3 2 - 3 <1 SR-4.5 2 7 - 8 1 - 2 SR-6 3 6 - 7 1 - 2 SR-8 3 8 - 9 2 Table C — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 89) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 8 3 - 4 <1 SR-4.5 8 9 - 10 2 - 3 Pkt Page 68 SR-6 9 10 - 11 3 - 4 SR-8 9 14 - 15 4 - 5 Focus Area C also has a WDFW-designated wildlife corridor for priority wetland habitat. The WDFW designated wildlife corridor (Figure C-7) is roughly aligned with the city-designated critical wetland area. As the site is not within Kent's contiguous boundary, there are no City of Kent parks nearby; however, the site is immediately adjacent to Auburndale II Park to the west. Auburndale II is part of the City of Auburn's park system, and is a wooded 9.3-acre property with a network of gravel walking trails. Adjacent to Focus Area C to the northwest are City of Auburn Urban Separator parcels zoned R1 (one residential unit per acre), which have inventoried critical areas characterized by steep slopes, erodible soils, and landslide hazards. A network of local streets is present throughout Focus Area C, serving the residential lots within the Bridges development. City of Auburn streets form the boundaries of the focus area, including 124t" Avenue SE, SE 304t" Street, both of which are identified as minor arterials in Auburn's 2015 Transportation Comprehensive Plan. Transit service within 0.5 mile includes King County Metro route 164, which runs every half hour between Green River College and Kent Station. The nearest commercial shopping center is 0.75 mile away, and includes a grocery store and restaurants; however, the Bridges PUD allows some retail and commercial uses under certain conditions, so a developer could potentially build on-site retail. Focus Area C is served by the City of Kent's water supply sytem, and the City of Auburn's sewer utility system. There are multiple established internal connections, and this area contains very little difficult terrain such as steep slopes and landslide hazard areas. The entirety of Focus Area C is within the Olsen Creek subbasin, which is 26% impervious surface and 44% forested. These exceed the thresholds established in the 2000 UW report for watershed and habitat health by 16% and 21%, respectively. Pkt Page 69 Figure C-1 - Focus Area C, Erodible Soils Figure C-2 - Focus Area C, Landslide Risk •I 1 _ 1 I r I I I ' ' I r •r + • I r r i 4 •s Legend Legend ; I �J Kml City Limila — 7 �-�Kept City Limits i' -Fpryg AaaC ; -FpWg AreaC ; ■• Fiodl6le Sails I ®Landslide Risk �. Budeings &rdeings y i �i n soo 1,000 •: n soo nnu =!Fact -' -.— Figure C-3 - Focus Area C, Steep Slopes Figure C-4 - Focus Area C, Wetlands � I C C ' _--__ r I Legend , ? Legend } _ I L Kenl City Limits �I City Limits } i i -FpWg Ar¢eC Fprus AregC 1 1 . ®Steep Slopes � �='Jc!lande I T , . Budeings "55 ik r ' r _ a soo nnu soo i;Goo Feet ,_. Fee[ L- Pkt Page 70 Figure C-5 - Focus Area C; Open Space, Resource Lands, and Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators Figure C-6 - Focus Area C; Restricted Lands X X xx xxxxx% x F r 1 XX). :xxx xx x; xxxxxx x I 'a5E296 W I > XXXXXX X "���555 g 296 Wy V + X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X xx X xx X xx XXXXXXX X x -k-a I X X X x x xxxx xxxxxxxxx x — 1 --.a 1 xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx XXXXXXxX XI tom:. 1 x x x xx xxxxx xxxxxxxx 1 5E�291 pl I X X X�x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X '-292 pr 1 I t X X X X XXXXXX X X 1 , xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xx . 1 1 I xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx x 1 ,.SE299p1 I %X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX X 298p� 1 1 XX XXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXX x 1 v 1 xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx `a X X i X X X X X X X X X Y X X X X X X X X X X C I X X X X X X X X X XC.0 X XXXXXXXXX — X XXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X ) "� ^z99pi XXXXXXXX 1 XXXXXX XXXX '"'� x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxx xxxxxx SF X X xxxxx x x X X xxx '3op Wy x xxxxxxx xxxx xx Legend I •'.�' ♦ x XXXXXX xxxxx _ 77 I Legend x xxxxx xxxxxxxx r �KentCityLimits j ♦ x xxxxxxxx xxx �MM r__,Kent aryumits ♦ xxxxxx x -Focus AreaC { ti__I IL X xxxxxxx Open S ace, I Focus Area C ♦"`r+4 %X X X xxx 1 Reeour a Lands, 1 • xxxxx x 1 1 22,p 1 x x Restricted Area X X X X X X X , '©or Other ASP I E 302 PI (High-Range) X X X X X X + sE aox pl Jurisdictions' g 1 0 Urban Separators f Re s[ricled Area XXXXX x x x 1 e - 1 w ®(Low Range) Pr Buildings 1 - xxxxx x x n 5g.;p3 ct , Buildings X X X X X X X w 1 XXXXXXXX 0 900 o snn 1,000 x x x X X x x Feet sE30J 6[ ����� Feet Figure C-7 - Focus Area C, Wildlife Corridor f r i 3 �• ` 1 u 3oa crr n trnagery Ld:a.: Pkt Page 71 Focus Area D - "Meridian South" Figure D - Focus Area D, Meridian South SE�280 PI N p 8E•281 5t N 6 T n SE-281 PI SE•282 St E 5@263-PI H D N VI — 6 N VWi 6 Q K m � Legend SE 288 St r--h Kent City TTT •..�Limits N Focus Area❑ a' 0 e 0 500 1,000 see y.n4 •i... a� 'a 1V e�ch Fee[ k rfi' L LU.•.. a (zHID I¢iulz heGASIJs,u The Meridian South focus area, Focus Area D, was annexed in 1996 as part of a 3,329-acre annexation. Of the annexation site, 239 total acres are Urban Separator; properties in this focus area total 124.4 acres. Kent established the Urban Separator designation for these properties on the city's land use plan map in 2001 by Ordinance 3551. This was the same ordinance that amended Kent's comprehensive plan to include the Urban Separator land use designation. This area is included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies Urban Separator maps. Table D — 1 Focus Area D Summary Name Meridian South Total Acreage _ 124.4 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1996 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2001 (King County and Kent) Number of Parcels 47 Developed Parcel 33 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 47 Private / 0 Public Average Parcel Siz 2. There are 47 separate parcels in Focus Area D; all are privately owned and average over 2.5 acres in size. Thirty-three parcels contain homes or other buildings, and 14 are vacant. Three of the parcels at the northeast corner of the site are split-zoned; together, they extend approximately 0.2 acre into the SR-6 zoning district to the east. Present uses in Focus Area D are primarily low-density residential and Reber Ranch, which includes a veterinary clinic, dog park, farm and feed store, and equestrian center. Pkt Page 72 Focus Area D has coincident erodible soils and landslide risk in the southwest quadrant of the site. There is also a small region of steep slopes at the extreme southwest corner. Nineteen acres of designated critical wetlands exist throughout the focus area; the largest contiguous wetland runs north-south across its entire length. The Meridian South focus area is also entirely within a designated critical aquifer recharge area, and the central approximately one quarter of the focus area is within the Green River Valley seismic hazard zone. See Table D-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area D. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table D — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 124.3 Acres 98.7 Acres 25.5 Acres Percent - 79% 21% Table D — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 124.3 Acres 80.6 Acres 43.8 Acres Percent - 65% 35% Using the low range for restricted areas, Focus Area D contains sixteen parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area D is greater than four lots per parcel. Using high-range restricted areas, there are eight parcels with residual development capacity, with an average capacity of over six additional lots. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area D under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table D — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 47) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 8 6 - 7 <1 SR-4.5 10 8 - 9 1 - 2 SR-6 13 8 - 9 2 SR-8 13 11 - 12 2 - 3 Table D — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 47) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 16 4 - 5 <1 SR-4.5 35 8 - 9 2 - 3 SR-6 39 10 -11 3 - 4 Pkt Page 73 SR-8 42 12 - 13 4 - 5 Streams running through the center and southwest quadrant of the site serve as WDFW priority habitat and breeding grounds for coho salmon and resident coastal cutthroat trout. The streams running through Focus Area D also create a linkage between aquatic habitat corridors to the north, south, and east. These wildlife corridors can be seen in Figure D-9. Focus Area D connects to City of Auburn Urban Separator parcels zoned R1, immediately to the south and west, as can be seen in Figure D-6. The adjacent Auburn Urban Separators, like Focus Area D, contain wetlands, landslide risk, and erodible soils. Focus Area D is served by a minor arterial, 132"d Avenue SE, to the south and a residential collector arterial, SE 282"d Street, to the north. Local streets off of these arterials serve the residential uses within the focus area. Transit within 0.5 mile is limited to King County Metro route 164, which runs every 30 minutes between Green River College and Kent Station. The nearest commercial shopping center is about 0.75 mile away and includes grocery stores, restaurants and other retail and services. Focus Area D is within the District #111 water supply service area; sewer utility service is provided by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. This focus area contains multiple established internal utility connections, and contains very little difficult terrain that would contribute to increased costs of utility connections. The western one-third of Focus Area D is within the Westside Soosette Creek subbasin; the eastern two-thirds is in the Soosette Creek subbasin. The Westside Soosette Creek subbasin is 30% impervious surface (20% exceedance), and it is only 23% forested (42% exceedance). The Soosette Creek subbasin to the east is 38% impervious surface (28% exceedance) and 26% forested (39% exceedance). Pkt Page 74 Figure D-1 - Focus Area D, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure D-2 - Focus Area D, Erodible Soils 3 1 _ ° �I ° JI it !- Legend � Legend 11 Kent CI --- L�--1 City-Mt5 ���- Kent Coy Li'n1c ---"----- Focus Area 0 r�Fodis Area❑ ®Aquifer Recharge - ••©• Emdlef6 Soils Buildings Buildings 0 Fct500 1, o]a 0e[ • � � T Figure D-3 - Focus Area D, Landslide Risk Figure D-4 - Focus Area D, Steep Slopes AWJW SE 2 .J;., p C , E AML .F i/» rr.F—'•wF 'tom L 1 y -I D D i Legend Legend a Kent Cily Limits Focus Area❑ Focus Area L r ®Landslide Risk ®Stz,$lopes !L Buildings Buildings 0 Soo i.000 ar.r-.•,:.�,:s:.. ....+ u nn nnn 3 Fret Pkt Page 75 Figure D-6 - Focus Area D; Open Space, Resource Figure D-5 - Focus Area D, Wetlands Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators e ss xxu e� r; =F [ Y Sf 291 y'1 h xt SE 283 PI sl E SE•29s PI Al ,y w D � D 7. - 1 i d Legend -- 1 �den[City Limits _ 7 Legend Focus Area Open Space,, C_ Kent Cily Limits x. Resource Lands, sE zas se Oor Other Fodis Area❑ _ ,�: :ti�' -1ri �f•%-:ti 0 Weuands _ Urban 5eparatury 'Buildings Sulldmgs �- Sl.290 Si i•• `i J���••..- a 500 l,00a M0 500'1 - reet rii"' - — reef: sa. .SsLSee' Figure D-7 - Focus Area D, Seismic Hazard Figure D-8 - Focus Area D, Restricted Lands sc a90 Pl ,sE z ao,P r •SE 293$} — r Y SE•I.,PI- -_ 1 t 1 1 1 - 1 :xxxxx> xxxxxxx> XXXXXXxx 1 XXXXX).`: x x xxxx> XXXX--X ;x SE 293PI 1 x xx x x x x x x XXXX x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .X ±X 7 X xxx X X x x X X X X X X X : xx X xx X %X X X X X XXXX xxx xx xxxx% x ,XI 1 � XXX X X XXXXX XXXXX X LC�II' e 1 x xXX x xx XXXX xx XXXX x 1 X X .XXX X x x x x x x xxx xx x x x xxx x x>, xxx x xx x xx 1 X xxxxx x xxxxxxxx x xxxxxx -T 1 X xxx xxx \,x x> xx xx x x xxxx xx v xx xxxxxx xxxxx x xxxxxxx ` Ik xxx x : xx xxxxx x x�Cxx Legend xXXI X XXX XX XXXXX XXX 1 X X x X XXX :x X XXXXX " XXX X Kent City Limit; X X X x x X X :x x X X Legend ���� xx x xx xxx x XXXX XXX 1 <ent CI Limits 1 Focus Area o X x x XXX ;x, X X xxxx x L---1' t1' _ "> XX) x> X +x> 'xxxx ro[s Area D R.Mnded Area - - x x (High-Range) ®Selsmlc Hazard - � Re slridedrea A Sul ldings ®(Low Rang r) Buildings - c 29�Yi O SOO 1,000 0 500 1,000, rest Feet Pkt ..- 76 CorridorFigure D-9 - Focus Area D, Wildlife ~ � 1 L✓ 7 � 1 d� �• .IC ! � t 1 r If '•; 1 Pkt Page 77 Focus Area E - "Meridian East" Figure E - Focus Area E, Meridian East ------------ E , Iw - 1 •.- �mN a 1 SE Kent Kangley Ad 1 i SE„J3 Sf m SE�273 p[ � P C 'R _ 1 E 1 5E]JS St Legend Kent City •- +LimitS _ Focus Area E T 50�Rs� 5nh � 1000 syrc tn, Ib€- zd Feet ' ,N�: u-A w. c- Focus Area E, Meridian East, was annexed to the City of Kent in 1996 as part of a 3,329- acre annexation generally referred to as the Meridian annexation. Of the annexation area, 239 total acres are designated Urban Separator; properties in this focus area total 52.5 acres. Kent established the Urban Separator designation for these properties on the city's land use plan map in 2001 by Ordinance 3551. This area is included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies Urban Separator maps. Table E — 1 Focus Area E Summary Name Meridian East Total Acreage 52.5 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1996 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2001 (King County and Kent) Number of Parcels 16 Developed Parcels 12 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 12 Private / 4 Public Average Parcel Size 3.6 Acres Focus Area E contains 16 individual parcels, which are both privately- and publicly-owned, and average 3.6 acres. All but four parcels contain homes or other structures. All three of the properties in the northeast segment are state-owned; two of these properties, with total acreage of six and seven acres, respectively, are owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A third, three-acre property is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Neither of these properties is entirely within the Urban Separator designation; each is split between Urban Separator and Open Space designations. Pkt Page 78 Soos Creek Estates is located in in the northwestern most segment of the focus area. This mobile home park contains 118 individual mobile homes. The southern segment of the focus area is primarily privately owned, with parcel sizes ranging from 0.5 to 4.5 acres. Publicly owned properties include City of Kent Fire Station 75 at the north of the southern segment on the south side of S 272"d Street, and a 0.5-acre wooded property to the south of the fire station owned by King County Parks. This King County Parks property abuts Soos Creek at its eastern border. Focus Area E is entirely within a critical aquifer recharge area. It also contains roughly 19 acres of inventoried wetland. In the easternmost portion of the focus area, north of Kent Kangley Road, is a narrow band of inventoried steep slopes. The eastern portion of the focus area, along Soos Creek, is subject to the FEMA 1% annual chance flood. See Table E-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area E. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table E — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 52.5 Acres 21.9 Acres 30.6 Acres Percent - 580/0 42% Table E — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 52.5 Acres 15.2 37.3 Percent - 29% 71% Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area E contains seven parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area E is just greater than three lots per parcel. Using the high-range restricted areas, the focus area has five further subdividable parcels, with an average development capacity of over two lots per parcel. This analysis excludes a 16-acre property, which, although it is a single parcel, contains Soos Creek Estates mobile home park, with 118 individual homes. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area E under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table E — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 16) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 5 2 - 3 <1 SR-4.5 10 7 2 - 3 SR-6 10 9 3 - 4 SR-8 11 12 5 - 6 Pkt Page 79 Table E — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 16) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 7 3 - 4 <1 SR-4.5 14 11 - 12 2 - 3 SR-6 14 14 - 15 3 - 4 SR-8 14 19 - 20 5 - 6 The focus area abuts several open space corridors, including those that connect to Soos Creek. Urban separators in the City of Covington span the entire northern and eastern perimeter of the Meridian East focus area. A wildlife habitat corridor (Figure E-7) runs through Focus Area E, which according to the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species dataset includes aquatic habitat and freshwater forested/shrub wetland. Streams in the inventoried habitat corridor carry coho salmon, steelhead, Chinook salmon, resident coastal cutthroat trout. The streams in the area are also identified as breeding grounds for coho salmon. Focus Area E is served by SR-516/Kent Kangley Road, with local streets and driveways spurring off of Kent Kangley road to access residential uses. The focus area is bounded to the west by 156t" Avenue SE, a residential collector arterial. Transit routes within 0.5 mile include King County Metro route 168, an all-day route that runs every 30 minutes between Maple Valley and Kent Station; and route 159, a peak-only route that runs between downtown Seattle and Timberlane. The nearest commercial shopping center is in Covington about 0.6 miles away and includes grocery and wholesale stores, restaurants, and other various retail and commercial uses. The majority of Focus Area E is served by District #111 for water supply services, although small portions to the east are served by the Covington Water District. The northern segment of the focus area, north of SE Kent Kangley Road, is served by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District for sewer utility service; the southern segment is not served by a public district, and properties in this area are on private septic systems. This focus area contains multiple established internal utility connections and has very little difficult terrain which would obstruct further connections. The large majority of Focus Area E is within the Big Soos Creek South subbasin. Small portions of the focus area along the eastern border of the city fall within the Big Soos Creek East subbasin. The Big Soos Creek South subbasin is 28% impervious surface (18% exceedance), and only 45% forested (20% exceedance). Data on the spatial extent of the Big Soos Creek East was not available for this analysis. Pkt Page 80 Figure E-1 - Focus Area E, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure E-2 - Focus Area E, Steep Slopes se.x73 i •. 1 �E.�' k -r N 3! _ SE 273 PI1WLL • � [ r -- �{pyryA - S E � E F Legend Legend i`-' Kent Co Umltc - C-J Kent City Limits -Focus Area E Focus Area E -�--- 5 Aquifer Recharc, i ®Steep Stapes Buildings I;uildings �Y ❑ Y,—S❑❑ 1;000 ❑ SOO ?`11000 Feet Feet = Figure E-3 - Focus Area E, Wetlands Figure E-4 - Focus Area E; Open Space, Resource Lands, or Other Jurisdictions Urban Separators — nAr - _ SE273 PIWW i• SE3]3% _ -- N _ Legend H _ i `-nt City Limits E k•r _ - - - . Legend r , -Focus Area E _ ���• - Open Space, - r, Ken[City Unrits R ---.► M Focus Area E --- or Other , )1 ]urlSdjCtlon5L Wetlands JI'r' Urban Separators Buildings - ��' M Buildings r�1 SOO •`11900 _ // r ❑' sD0 ,`11000 _ FClE G_ _ F!H Pkt ..- 81 Flood Zone Figure E-6 — Focus Area E, Restricted Lands C3�+stir '� ;9i�• ' xxxxxx v it +fir!■ � �`# t�iri ri a•riiia • srf�!il Ilia!°�rr.#Y� Sri IflRl11#d i iii#*•+� I _ tiii#■i axxxxxx -: i+ai■###J 4ca 417• l�i7 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx �� rA � _ ��. -. y A 1. Legend Kent City UmIts M Focus Area E a y - a - FOCUS Area E - �+ L r { Y 00 000 FigureFeet • •life Corrido 0 P Pkt Page 82 Focus Area F - "Meridian Northeast" Figure F - Focus Area F, Meridian Northeast i -- f 5E 256 PI 1 1 F 1 SE,257 P! 1 - - 1 1 1 E•;56 AI ; Q a , 1 a � sE26o st 1 x 5E.2fit St . N ` I m SE•26S St ������� D � K 1 1 Legend r-ti Kent City 1 •.—P Limits 1 N ■ _ _Focus area F OTF26 soo t,000 Feet Focus Area F was annexed to the City of Kent in 1996 as part of the above referenced 3,329-acre Meridian annexation. Of the annexation site, 239 acres are Urban Separator; the parcels in this focus area total 33.4 acres. The focus area is oriented diagonally northwest to southeast and abuts slopes in the City of Covington to the east. Kent established the Urban Separator designation for these properties on the city's land use plan map in 2001 by Ordinance 3551. This area is included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies Urban Separator maps. Table F — 1 Focus Area F Summary Name Meridian Northeast Total Acreage 33.4 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1996 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2001 (King County and Kent) Number of Parcels 16 Developed Parcels 13 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 13 Private / 3 Public Average Parcel Size 2 Acres The Meridian Northeast focus area includes 16 parcels, which average approximately 2 acres in size and are primarily privately owned. All but three parcels contain homes or other structures. The City of Kent owns three parcels in the northern segment of the focus area, which total roughly 9 acres. These publicly-owned parcels are adjacent on their eastern borders to City of Kent-owned open space properties and King County Parks properties, including a segment of Soos Creek Park. The entirety of Focus Area F's eastern border is adjacent to open space or City of Covington Urban Separators; the southern boundary of Pkt Page 83 the south segment abuts a portion of Soos Creek Park. The vicinity of Soos Creek is subject to the FEMA 1% annual chance flood; most of Focus Area F is outside of the flood zone, but it does cross into small segments along the eastern border of the focus area. See Figure F-8 for a map depicting the Focus Area F flood zone. Inventoried critical areas are present throughout the Meridian Northeast focus area; the northern half of the focus area is within the inventoried critical aquifer recharge area, as is a segment at the far southeast. Erodible soils and landslide hazard areas cut through the center of the focus area; these areas also align with the seismic hazard zone. There are 16 acres of inventoried wetland present, along the area's eastern side; these connect to City of Covington wetlands to the east. See figures F-1 through F-7 for maps of these critical areas. See Table F-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area F. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table F — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 33.4 Acres 22.6 Acres 10.8 Acres Percent - 68% 32% Table F — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 33.4 Acres 16.3 Acres 17.1 Acres Percent - 49% 51% Using the low-range restricted areas, Focus Area F contains five parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area F is greater than two lots per parcel. With high-range restricted areas, Focus Area F has three further subdividable parcels, with an average residual development capacity of two lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area F under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table F — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 16) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 3 2 <1 SR-4.5 9 4 2 - 3 SR-6 10 4 - 5 3 SR-8 10 6 - 7 4 - 5 Table F — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 16) Parcel Acre Pkt Page 84 SR-1 (Cluster) 5 2 - 3 <1 SR-4.5 14 4 - 5 2 - 3 SR-6 14 5 - 6 3 - 4 SR-8 14 7 - 8 4 - 5 Similar to Focus Area E, Focus Area F contains a WDFW inventoried wildlife corridor, characterized by freshwater forested/shrub wetland habitat, and Soos Creek/Meridian Valley Creek stream habitat carrying steelhead, Chinook salmon, coastal cutthroat trout, and coho salmon. The stream is inventoried breeding grounds for coho salmon. Focus Area F is served by SE 256th Street, a minor arterial per the 2008 TMP, and is borderd to the west by 148th Avenue SE, a residential collector arterial. Residential uses are served by local streets and gravel driveways. Transit service within 0.5 mile of Focus Area F is limited to King County Metro route 158, a peak-only route that runs between Timberlane and downtown Seattle. The nearest commercial shopping center is in Covington about 2 miles away, and includes grocery and wholesale stores, restaurants, and other various retail and commercial uses. Water supply service is provided to Focus Area F by District #111; it is served by the Soos Creek Sewer & Water District for sewer utility service. This focus area contains multiple existing internal utility connections; a portion, but less than 50%, is difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas. Focus Area F is entirely within the Big Soos Creek South subbasin. This watershed subbasin contains 28% impervious surface (18% exceedance) and is 45% forested (20% exceedance), placing it at risk of declining watershed and habitat health. Figure F-1 - Focus Area F, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure F-2 - Focus Area F, Erodible Soils - - �. '.F.•255 PI - 1 1 F '..• 1f SE•25i PI SE 25 PI I ■• 1 1 1 _ 1 MLO _ ti vl -- � E•25e PI - 1 R.5! SE•25e 5! ••�•�• 5: •.� SE 2EQ st F •1 5E 261 51 y • - N _ ••■ q �11 P y ••• Legend .. Legend ' ••• i L�J KYnI Gny Li rt:at • L--�Kent Gry Llm$5 •• •• , -Focus Area F _ •' Focus Area F •••• I • ••• ®Aquifer Recharge � �Frodihfe Soils �j y ` •d �•� ••� Buildings �---- W uullding3 -' 1 • 0 ye son 1,1111u ---' •0•• 500 - 1,000 -• Pkt Page 85 Figure F-3 - Focus Area F, Landslide Risk Figure F-4 - Focus Area F, Steep Slopes - n- 1 1 1 1 1 F F 1 I BE'251 AI I 1 � I PI! '•R I/ I 6E•25S s! � d 61 I SE V5 S[ SE251'+ 5[ 4{` Legend r�i Legend Fr -M.Kent City Lim i. - L .1 Kent City Ltm,CS -Focus Area F Focus Area F m • y ®Landslide Risk �, ®Steep Slopes on ® I--- Buildings Ere 26 500 11000 r 0ie 26 5" 1.00u Feet .... --- ---_.Feet - .. V .. Figure F-6 - Focus Area F; Open Space, Resource Figure F-5 - Focus Area F, Wetlands Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators E iili 1 F I561 _ - - - �i•e_C•� r.7S - __ sE zsr Pr F .� �'� sE zsr yr F 1 - -4 e2se PI 1 - _ - _ - '- _ �-• W � � ... . sE•2sast � �� =1 � SE•2e0 SI -- "-•I SE•290 SI � !y _- _ - - :1 Legend x; `--5-•. ' l----- Lam-i Kent City Limits Legend Focus Area F �.... Open Space, - - - - - - or ` Kent City Limits ©Resource Lands, 1 or Other _Focus Area F 1 ]urisdictons' Wetlands -------------- Urban Separators 7 Buildings Soo as€ sad ,I,dd❑ �. n t - - Pkt Page 86 Figure F-7 - Focus Area F, Seismic Hazards Figure F-8 - Focus Area F, FEMA 1% Flood Zone 1 t 1 1 1 1 r\ 1 F n 1 1 a. 1 -- E•:ae PI E 75i PI _ 1 . W 1 6E•xSe sr IN W K 1 fl'w ~ 1 SP•7SQ Sr � 8E•2Gv sE _ �lY.- Y 1 1 SE•x61�5r � SE•361 sL .. � Y l 1 _ t � � e , n Legend Legend Kent City Urri I Kent CRY Limits Focus Area F -Focus Area F ®FEMA® Flood 1!Seismic Hazard Zone(AA,,AH,RE) - -Buildings - - ��� Buildings Or[�e S00 IrOGO d �5fl0: � 1,990 - - - Figure F-9 - Focus Area F, Restricted Lands xxxxxxxxxx 1 ':a xxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x 1 1 x xxxxxxx xx>Fxxxxxx l �E 25x P1 X X X X X X X ' ,I X X x x x x l x x 1 1 58P1 x l X X X X X X l X X X X 1 xxx 1 ° X X X ; X X X X ti aE xry sc v } t Legend r::l Kent City Limits X X X X ti�_I A XXXX V x x x Focus Area F X X %Mrided Area X x x (High-Range} ®Reslrided Aree(Low Rang e) ■_____________r___ Buildings x x X X x x x x x x o s0o 1,000 x x x x x x Feet Pkt ..- 87 CorridorFigure F-10 - Focus Area F, Wildlife - T. .r T 3 ¢ s 'Y 1 * f 4 T : w Pkt Page 88 Focus Area G - "Meridian Valley"' Figure G - Focus Area G, Meridian Valley r SE23]PI �,1 N Y SE238 Ln 141 LM1 SE �`�� 7 1 •]4p LM1 SE 1 1 r G N Q - ' Y D , c — s F sE.za3Pl ' F1A�sf y" r:r 5E zp4 s . 1 P 4 p 1 Legend r-1 Kent City •--0 Limits SF, j Focus Area G �4sp A ' 0 ryP 500 1A00 ' FMt Focus Area G was annexed to the City of Kent in 1997 as part of the 902-acre annexation generally referred to as Meridian Valley. Of the annexation site, 49.5 acres are designated Urban Separator, and are all within this focus area. Kent established the Urban Separator designation for these properties on the city's land use plan map in 2001 by Ordinance 3551. This area is included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies Urban Separator maps. Table G — 1 Focus Area G Summary Name Meridian Valley Total Acreage 49.5 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1997 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2001 (King County and Kent) Number of Parcels 30 Developed Parcels 26 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 30 Private / 0 Public Average Parcel Size 1.5 Acres The 30 individual parcels within Focus Area G are all privately owned; the focus area also includes a 1-acre undevelopable tract. Development on the site is primarily single-family residential with an average lot size of 1.5 acres; the largest parcel is over 8 acres and includes a residential structure and a manicured grass field. Other properties in the focus area, 2-3 acres in size, are used for livestock and equestrian purposes. All but four parcels contain homes or other structures. Focus Area G is entirely within Kent's inventoried critical aquifer recharge area, and it Pkt Page 89 contains roughly 2 acres of inventoried wetlands. Its eastern border, as well as narrow bands through its center, contain inventoried critical areas for erodible soils, landslide hazards, and steep slopes. The eastern portion of the Meridian Valley focus area is also within the seismic hazard zone. Figures G-1 through G-7 graphically depict these critical areas. See Table G-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area G. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table G — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 49.5 Acres 25.5 Acres 24 Acres Percent - 52% 48% Table G — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 49.5 Acres 16.7 Acres 32.8 Acres Percent - 34% 66% Using the low range for restricted areas, Focus Area G contains eleven parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area G is just less than two lots per parcel. If applying the high-range restricted areas, the average residual development capacity remains at just less than two lots per parcel, but the number of further subdividable lots decreases to ten. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area G under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table G — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 30) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 10 1 - 2 <1 SR-4.5 17 4 - 5 2 SR-6 19 5 - 6 2 - 3 SR-8 19 7 - 8 3 - 4 Table G — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 30) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 11 1 - 2 <1 SR-4.5 19 6 - 7 2 - 3 SR-6 21 7 - 8 3 - 4 SR-8 23 9 4 - 5 Pkt Page 90 To the east of Focus Area G is Soos Creek Trail and its associated park system, owned by King County Parks. The Soos Creek FEMA 1% annual chance flood zone runs adjacent to Focus Area G to the east, without actually reaching into the focus area. Farther east beyond the Soos Creek Trail system, and to the southeast of Focus Area G, are City of Covington Urban Separator properties. The Meridian Valley Urban Separator focus area is adjacent to a WDFW inventoried priority habitat area for freshwater forested/shrub wetland habitat and Soos Creek, which carries Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout. Refer to Figure G-10 for a map of the WDFW wildlife corridor. The Meridian Valley Urban Separator properties appear to serve as a buffer between these habitat areas and single-family residential areas zoned SR- 4.5. Focus Area G is served to the east by SE 240th Street and 148th Avenue SE, a minor arterial and residential collector arterial, respectively. 148th Avenue SE connects to a second minor arterial, SE 256th Street, to the south. A residential collector, 144th Avenue SE, bisects the focus area in a north-south orientation. Just to the north of the focus area is the trailhead for Soos Creek Trail, a 7-mile paved multi-use non-motorized trail running northwest- southeast. No transit routes serve this focus area within 0.5 mile. The nearest commercial shopping center is about 0.6 mile away, and includes a grocery store and other various commercial office and retail uses. Soos Creek Sewer & Water District provides sewer utility service for Focus Area G; water supply service is provided by District #111 for the segments south of SE 240th Street, and by Soos Creek Water District for the segment to the north. This focus area has multiple existing internal utility connections and contains some, but less than 50% difficult terrain. The eastern two-thirds of Focus Area G is in the Big Soos Creek Central subbasin. Roughly one third of the focus area, the westernmost portions, are in the Meridian Valley Creek subbasin. Meridian Valley Creek drains into Big Soos Creek. The Big Soos Creek Central subbasin is 31% impervious surface (21% exceedance). It contains 40% tree canopy cover (25% exceedance). Meridian Valley Creek's subbasin is 40% impervious surface (30% exceedance), and is only 24% forested (41% exceedance). Pkt Page 91 Figure G-1 - Focus Area G, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure G-2 - Focus Area G, Erodible Soils -- SE i 3]5 -- ••••••. •. t Y 1 — 1 G •� G •�. n i — Se.244 St tip n � Legend , Legend + R i nest City Limits ED Kent City Linits ••. Focus Area G t Focus Area G 2" ®Aquifer Rernarot Erodible Soils Buildings Buildings ❑ 500 1,000 ❑ S00 1,❑uu " Feet"- Feet 1 . . Figure G-3 - Focus Area F, Landslide Risk Figure G-4 - Focus Area G, Steep Slopes .0W BE - - M aw st — _ I G I G , p 1 7 Legend a ' Legend � � �;i � %r.rrnt City Limits 1�...�Kent City Limits y Focus Area G �'lsp. _Focus Area G ®landslide Risk m.2a,,. .a ®Steep Slopes - •�1E_.]si � Buildings Buildings ;! 1 Pkt Page 92 Figure G-6 - Focus Area G; Open Space, Resource Figure G-5 - Focus Area G, Wetlands Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators tL Legend LD Kent CltY Limits ~ � T F - Legend o �Focus Area G o a open® Space, M Kent City Lirni[s Resource Lands, sg _ - +�•�•__••� -Focus Area G 2'se or Other ]urlsdictlons' �... wetlands M 247 R Urban Separators 4 -Buildings i Buildings 0 500 L,D00 lde 143 L - _ 0 � 50G 1� Lac �.ly i„' flCL C i" Figure G-7 - Focus Area G, Seismic Hazards Figure G-8 - Focus Area G, FEMA 1% Flood Zone 14L z �Ln SE SE•24p� r - �To fn SE ----- - SE•240 S[ r Leg end d -� I Legend M ! g ' Kent City Limits L��lI Kent City Llmlts �-- r i Focus Area G Focus Area G 's 2'le' a © FEMA Seismic Rand � ® ] � 5EI41 5�� � zone(A, Road AH,RE Buildings � II Buildings 0 I Soo 1,000 500 1 Pkt Page 93 Figure G-9 - Focus Area G, Restricted Lands SE 23]PI Q SE 1 190 in SE — g 24a 51 x x x x x x x x x x ,•+err x xx x xx •+� x xx xxx xx xx xx xx xx ` x x x xx xx xx x:G xx xx x xx 1 xx x x xx 9 x x < Legend SE 243� 1 r��l Kent City Lim its pq �y4 1 L::1 — x 1 M x Focus Area G � Restricted Area r x x High-Range} x - r ®Re et-ted Area x r (Low Range) sF x t r Buildings sPq� x 4f a sao i,000 se z4]sr Feet Figure G-10 - Focus Area G, Wildlife Corridor r I'rr y Y - Pkt Page 94 Focus Area H - "Soos Creek" Figure H - Focus Area H, Soos Creek 75� r1 H 1 1 I 1 1 I ti4 i i 1 1 1 1 1 L� Legend ir--J Kent City •--+Limits 1 -Focus Area H 1 r Feet � The Soos Creek focus area was annexed to the City of Kent in 2010 as part of the Panther Lake annexation, which totaled 3,346 acres. Of the larger annexation site, 438 acres are designated Urban Separator; parcels in this focus area total 233.3 acres. This area was part of Kent's potential annexation area at the time the city passed Ordinance 3551 adopting the Urban Separator land use designation. Kent establishes land use designations for potential annexation area lands. Consistent with existing King County land use designations, lands in this focus area were designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map by the 2001 ordinance. This area is included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies Urban Separator maps. Table H — 1 Focus Area H Summary Name Soos Creek Total Acreage 233.3 Acres Year(s) Annexed 2010 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2001 (King County and Kent) Number of Parcels 101 Developed Parcels 84 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 98 Private / 3 Public Average Parcel Size 2 Acres Focus Area H contains 101 individual parcels, and 4 reserved undevelopable tracts. The average size of these parcels is just over 2 acres; however, the parcels vary widely in size from less than one acre to over 26 acres. The majority of the Focus Area H properties are privately owned, although the largest parcel, at just over 26 acres, is owned by the City of Kent. The city also owns a 6-acre parcel, which is contiguous with this larger property. Pkt Page 95 Three parcels near the center of the focus area, including the 26-acre City of Kent parcel, are split-designated between Urban Separator, zoned SR-1; and Single Family Residential, zoned SR-4.5. One parcel, which is privately owned, is split-designated between Urban Separator, zoned SR-1; and Single Family Residential, zoned SR-8. Of the 101 properties, 84 contain structures of some kind; 17 are vacant. Uses in this area are primarily single- family residences and associated structures, as well as a public elementary school, a dog daycare and kennel, and private equestrian uses. In the northern half of the focus area, an 8-acre single-family residential subdivision built in the late 1970s is present, in which parcels average .25 acre in size. Roughly the eastern half of Focus Area H is within an inventoried critical aquifer recharge area. Inventoried critical areas for erodible soils, landslide risk, and steep slopes cut through the center of the focus area, running parallel to the slopes in unincorporated King County to the east. The northernmost segment of the focus area also has incidence of erodible soils and landslide hazard. Three major (>1 acre) inventoried wetland bodies, as well as several smaller wetland bodies, are present in Focus Area H, with a total area of 37.5 acres of wetland. Large wetland bodies (8-10 acres) are also present outside of the focus area to the west, and are part of the wildlife corridor described below. The southern half of the focus area is subject to seismic hazards. See Table H-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area H. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table H — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 233.3 Acres 157.2 Acres 76.1 Acres Percent - 67% 33% Table H — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 233.3 Acres 106.5 Acres 126.8 Acres Percent - 46% 54% Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area H contains thirty-four parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area H is just less than four lots per parcel, although some have much greater capacity - up to 26 additional lots. With high-range restricted areas, Focus Area H has twenty-seven further subdividable parcels, still with an average residual development capacity of over three lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area H under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table H — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 101) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 27 3 - 4 <1 SR-4.5 40 6 - 7 2 - 3 Pkt Page 96 SR-6 42 8 2 - 3 SR-8 58 8 3 - 4 Table H — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 101) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 34 3 - 4 <1 SR-4.5 56 8 - 9 2 - 3 SR-6 60 10 3 - 4 SR-8 73 11 - 12 4 - 5 King County open space and greenbelts, including the Soos Creek Trail system, span the entire east and north borders of Focus Area H, and the FEMA 1% annual chance flood zone crosses slightly into the focus area on the far eastern edge. The City of Kent received a docket request in 2014 to consider rezoning a 2.3 acre parcel in the northwest segment of Focus Area H. A map indicating the location of the parcel is shown in Figure H-8. The request was to consider rezoning this particular parcel to match that of the parcels to the west, which are zoned SR-6. Current zoning, not controlling for any site constraints would allow one additional lot on the parcel (for both low-range and high-range restricted areas) if subdivided. By rezoning the parcel to SR-6, allowed density would increase to a total of 12 lots on the property if subdivided. The easternmost third of the docketed parcel is within the critical aquifer recharge area. No other inventoried critical areas are present on the docket property, although a small (<1/10 acre) wetland body is present on the property directly to the south, and large wetland bodies are present to the west and southeast within 1,000 to 1,200 feet. The property is within the unrestricted percentage of the focus area, under both low-range restricted and high-range restricted areas. It is surrounded on three sides by properties zoned SR-1; it is bordered to the west by 132"d Avenue SE. On the west side of 132"d Avenue SE, properties are zoned SR-6. A wildlife corridor inventoried by WDFW as priority wetland or emergent wetland habitat runs northwest to southeast adjacent to the east side of the focus area. Also in this wildlife corridor are streams carrying coastal cutthroat trout, coho salmon, and Chinook salmon. It is a breeding area for coho salmon. Focus Area H is served by an east-west minor arterial at the northern end, SE 208t" Street and a north-south minor arterial that forms the northern portion of the focus area's western border. The southern portion of the focus area can be accessed north-south through 140t" Avenue SE and east-west through SE 133rd Street, both residential collectors. The focus area is served by Soos Creek Trail to the east, for non-motorized transportation. No transit routes serve this focus area within 0.5 mile. The nearest commercial shopping center is about 1.5 miles away, and includes a grocery store, restaurants, a bank, and various other commercial retail and service uses. The Soos Creek Water & Sewer District provides water supply and sewer utility service for Focus Area H. A small segment south of SE 244t" Street does not have sewer utility service. Pkt Page 97 The focus area has multiple existing internal utility connections. A portion of the focus area, but less than 50%, contains difficult terrain including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas. The majority of Focus Area H is in the Big Soos Creek Central subbasin; the southernmost segment, roughly one sixth, is in the Meridian Valley Creek subbasin. The Big Soos Creek Central subbasin is 31% impervious surface (21% exceedance), and it contains 40% tree canopy cover (25% exceedance). Meridian Valley Creek's subbasin is 40% impervious surface (30% exceedance). It is only 24% forested (41% exceedance). Figure H-1 - Focus Area H, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure H-2 - Focus Area H, Erodible Soils 4r ti.. 48 I 0.VE SE ^}�. 1 ■ H � �• I H • N a — a i v � • ■ sr Legend = r-ti Kent City Legend %—F Limits __ i Kent City Limits Focus Area H --- ®Aquifer Focus Area H Recharge .©. Erodibfe Soils •• Buildings Buildings D 1,000 2,000 `• � � r ❑ 1.00❑ 2.000 Pkt Page 98 Figure H-3 - Focus Area H, Landslide Risk Figure H-4 - Focus Area H, Steep Slopes H H i Legend Legend r r , Kent City Limits I E Kent Gty Limits T , FOCU5 Area H Pocus Area H ®Landslbe Risk ®Steep Slopes 5� Buildings Buildings t_ a. rx.daa x,oua ❑ i,❑❑❑ x,00a Feet .. �,......: FeCr. .-... ...�.. Figure H-6 - Focus Area H; Open Space, Resource Figure H-5 - Focus Area H, Wetlands Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators ❑ -.._.f� __ - RYE 6E H. H _ V c a0 ? I L Legend zE''z•sr `: �v r d . r�Kent City Limas ` Legend FaGdS Area H 1...M..r�Kent City Limits open space, -Focus Area H Reeour Lands,or _ _ DtheI Jurisdictions' Wetlands Llrtlan separators 0 Bulldingc u p 6ul'dings P x UM"MMC_- Feet _. �� Pkt Page 99 Figure H-7 - Focus Area H, Seismic Hazard Figure H-8 - Focus Area H, Docket Parcels (Rezone Requested) .4 rrf H i xSL .. H rrl,�frfr,,,aaaaaaTTTTT�������-..-�++ !! Legend i 2DDOI gend ---�Kent City Limits -- Knt Gty Limits Forus Area H Focus Area HBeremic HazardDocket ParcelsBuildingsBulldings 21000 Feet -- - Figure H-9 - Focus Area H, FEMA 1% Flood Zone Figure H-10 - Focus Area H, Restricted Lands y 2pA�PV ,ypp�Py a C T� P 1 198 SE•IOB 5' pyi'E•SE j x � x ) - � x I xx i x xx x x '< I xx � Legend x j r--i Kent City Limits x Legend x �' 1 Focus Area H X L-- I Kent City Limits ` ti MFOCUS Area H X X Restrid dArea ® (High-Range) X FEMA 1 Flood Zone(A,,AN,AE) Restricted Area ®iLow Range) Buildings _ 1 Buildings 0 1,000 2,000 1 0 I,0002;000 X1 Feet Pkt Page 100 Figure H-8 - Focus Area H, Wildlife Corridor ::. w . , N esn ��• Y •���.w` . o a 9.1 0.41ni ImdQery Qate 2008 Pkt Page 101 Focus Area I -"Panther Lake Northeast" Figure I - Focus Area I, Panther Lake Northeast • y 1 N j 4 • t SE19E st y C • • SE L9]AI • 1 t 8E 198 S[ ` SE198 PI ty 5E-199 St ` 1 � Legend i Kent City � •� - -r Limits ------� _Focus Area I sE so1 sr 0 500 L,000 gCiGi _— ra - Feet �oS -on u t azki is rim L Focus Area I was annexed to the City of Kent in 2010 as part of the 3,346-acre Panther Lake annexation. Of the annexation site, 438 acres are Urban Separator; this focus area is 38.5 acres. As with Focus Area H, this area was part of Kent's potential annexation area at the time the city passed Ordinance 3551 adopting the Urban Separator land use designation. Consistent with existing King County comprehensive plan land use designations, lands in this focus area were designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map by the 2001 ordinance. The southern portion of the focus area is included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies Urban Separator maps. Despite it being designated by King County as Urban Separator at the time of its annexation into the City of Kent, the northern portion of Focus Area I is not shown as such in the Countywide Planning Policies. Table I — 1 Focus Area I Summary Name Panther Lake Northeast Total Acreage 38.5 Acres Year(s) Annexed 2010 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2001 (*King County and Kent) *partial Number of Parcels 40 Developed Parcels 33 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 39 Private / 1 Public Average Parcel Size .9 Acres There are 40 separate parcels in the Panther Lake Northeast Urban Separator focus area, which average just less than 1 acre in size. Thirty-three parcels contain homes or other structures; 7 are vacant. There are 3 reserved undevelopable tracts, totaling less than .5 Pkt Page 102 acre. In the center of the site is a 4.5 acre subdivision, with 22 parcels averaging less than .25 acre each. The remaining 18 parcels average over 1.5 acres in size. All but one of the 40 parcels are privately owned; the largest of these is over 9 acres. The second largest property, at roughly 3.6 acres in size, is owned by the City of Kent. All three of the reserved tracts are vacant, as are four of the 40 parcels, including the 3.6-acre City of Kent property. Inventoried critical areas in Focus Area I include bands of erodible soils and landslide hazard across the northern half of the focus area, and small slivers of erodible soils and landslide hazard areas at its southeasternmost edge, which extend into unincorporated King County. Small slivers of steep slopes are present in the northwest and southeast. Focus Area I contains 8 acres of inventoried wetland, primarily located in the southern segment and at the far northeast perimeter. See Table I-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area I. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table I — 1 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 38.5 Acres 34.3 Acres 4.2 Acres Percent - 890/0 110/0 Table I — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 38.5 Acres 20.9 Acres 17.6 Acres Percent - 46% 54% Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area I contains five parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area I is just less than three lots per parcel. With high-range restricted areas, two parcels retain residual development capacity, with an average capacity of over 4 additional lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area I under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table I — 3 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 40) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 2 4 - 5 <1 SR-4.5 3 2 - 3 1 - 2 SR-6 3 3 - 4 1 - 2 SR-8 4 3 - 4 2 - 3 Table I — 4 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per Pkt Page 103 (out of 40) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 5 2 - 3 <1 SR-4.5 9 6 - 7 2 - 3 SR-6 11 6 - 7 2 - 3 SR-8 13 8 3 - 4 Focus Area I is adjacent to King County open space and greenbelts, including the Soos Creek Trail system, along its entire eastern and northern border. To the south and to the west, properties are zoned SR-6; those to the southwest are zoned SR-1. A wildlife corridor, inventoried by WDFW in the PHS database, is adjacent to the focus area to the east. It contains wetland and emergent wetland habitat, as well as freshwater forested/shrub wetland. Priority wetland habitat is also present within the focus area, the majority of which is located in the eastern portion of the southern segment. 124th Avenue SE, a residential collector arterial, runs north-south along the western border of Focus Area I. Local streets and driveways, including the SE 198th Place cul-de-sac serve the residential uses in the focus area. At the northernmost edge of the focus area is the trailhead for Soos Creek Trail, a paved, multi-use path which runs along its entire eastern perimeter. Within 0.5 miles of Focus Area I, transit service includes route 157, a peak-only route that runs from Lake Meridian Park and Ride to downtown Seattle. The nearest commercial shopping center is roughly 1.4 miles away, and includes a grocery store, restaurants, a bank, and various other commercial retail and service uses. Focus Area I is served by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District for water supply and sewer utility service. This focus area has multiple existing internal utility connections, and has very little difficult terrain. • Focus Area I falls entirely within the drainage area of the Big Soos Creek North subbasin. The Big Soos Creek North subbasin is 32% impervious surface and contains 41% tree canopy cover. Both numbers exceed the thresholds established in the https://storymaps.esri.com/stories/2017/havana-restoration/index.html by 22% and 24%, respectively. Pkt Page 104 Figure I-1 - Focus Area I, Erodible Soils Figure I-2 - Focus Area I, Landslide Risk �. . K � SE•19l PI Legend ,� E Legend I M Kent city Limi[ti - MBE Kent city Limits -Pocus Area 1 M Pocus Area[ • Em(Mble Soils L_----- ®Landslide Risk Bulldings Bulldings -.- SE 201 Sl _ �. SE 2011 51 Q 250 500 a 250 500 F!!L �-, 1 Felt Figure I-3 - Focus Area I, Steep Slopes Figure I-4 - Focus Area I, Wetlands SE 19e St SE•19l P) SE[9e St E 1y SE f9d P1 ,{ 5E•19e 1'- Legend _ = Legend x MD.Kent city Limits M Kent City Limits -Focus Area 1 I mus Area[ ®Steep Slopes I -------1 VJellands lllll�Buildings Buildings d7 177 P15E SE 2n1 51 - 6 250 500 � - - / 0 - 25Q 500 F1 _ `j Felt Pkt Page 105 Figure I-5 - Focus Area I; Open Space, Resource Figure I-6 - Focus Area I; Restricted Lands Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators - x x x x x x x x x x x x x _ x x x x x x - - - - _ L_• xxx x x - - xx x x x x SE 19fi-SL `- •� _ -P'• --__-- __ •[_ A 19.Al... X X X x x x x X x x x E - SE•19T p7 _ _ _ _ _ -'• =-__ X x x x x x x X x x x x x X X X x x Legend Legend x x x x x x x x x -- _ _ r--�Kent City Limits x x x L._--r Kent Clay urr•.r.. - -�� L��� x x X 'I x x x x x x x x x F'o[u5 Area] - _ _ Focus Area I x x x x x x x x x Open Space. - � •; •- Restricted Area x x x x Resource Lands,or _ _•"•_•:. y`• ���i` -I x x (High-Range} %%%x x x x x x x Other Junsdictlons' -}Y:-'.:.6 f' a jYs x x x x IJrhan Separators - - ®Re stricted Area %x x x x x x x e) x x x x x x x x x- - x x x 6ulldln99 - - a Buildings x x x x x x x%%%% x x - •.:."•� x x x x x XXXX x ❑ 2S0 ""�SOO - ,�J -' i 0 , 500 1.000 xxx X% - -- Fec[ � :•_ Feet Figure I-7 - Focus Area I, Wildlife Corridor w. jp f� • i n � � . Y�i f l Pkt Page 106 Focus Area ] - "Panther Lake" Figure ] - Focus Area ], Panther Lake SEr194 pl sEl19A St N Q " q 3E 193 PI ct SE 196 St rW N ."y Y SE39]PI �P SE 198 E[ SE 198 St �� �SE 198➢I Sg 1995t sE19g CF " E S sE 200 5t 2 O se.za st N ON u wF " m m SE 203 St N N a SE•204st SE 204 PI m " sE 205 st [V dr ,ram SE205'PI N N Legend 20]st I r—i Kent City SE 297 Lti n +£ sEzo] m •--+Limits PI SE 208 st R _Focus Area 7 a 0 " c' 0 500 Focus Area J was also annexed in 2010 as part of the 3,346-acre Panther Lake annexation. Of the annexation site, 438 acres are Urban Separator; parcels in this focus area total 139.7 acres. As with Focus Areas H and I, this area was part of Kent's potential annexation area at the time the city passed Ordinance 3551 adopting the Urban Separator land use designation. Consistent with existing King County land use designations, lands in this focus area were designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map by the 2001 ordinance. This area is included in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies Urban Separator maps. Table 3 — 1 Focus Area 3 Summary Name Panther Lake Total Acreage 139.7 Acres Year(s) Annexed 2010 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2001 (King County and Kent) Number of Parcels 90 Developed Parcels 83 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 88 Private / 2 Public Average Parcel Size 1.5 Acres The focus area has 90 separate parcels, averaging roughly 1.5 acres. The largest four parcels, however, range from 6 to 16 acres. Nearly all of the parcels have structures on them; only seven are entirely vacant. Structures include single family homes and the New Hope Presbyterian Church. Property ownership in in the Panther Lake focus area is primarily private. Two properties out Pkt Page 107 of 90 are publicly owned, each just under one acre; one of these is owned by the City of Kent, and one is owned by the State of Washington. The city received a docket request to consider rezoning a contiguous group of 8 parcels at the southwest corner of the focus area from SR-1 to SR-6 or SR-8 (see Figure 3-7). The parcels on the docket request have an average size of just over 1/2 acre; the largest single parcel is 1.3 acres. Dependent upon confirmation of legal lot size via survey, current zoning would prohibit further subdivision of any of these parcels. Not controlling for any potential site constraints, and using low-range restricted areas, a rezone to SR-6 would result in average of two additional allowed lots on each of the eight parcels. Using high-range restricted areas, this number is only one. If rezoned to SR-8, low-range restricted areas would result in an average additional capacity of two to three lots per parcel, only slightly reduced (by less than 1/2 lot) for high-range restricted areas. Properties adjacent to the south are zoned MR-G, for low-density multifamily. To the west, across 1081h Avenue SE, diagonally, are properties zoned SR-6; diagonally to the east are properties zoned SR-8. To the southwest is a mobile home park, Pantera Lago Estates, and an apartment complex called Windsong Arbor. No critical areas are present on seven of the eight properties. The easternmost parcel falls within the high-range restricted lands area. There are inventoried wetlands on parcels directly to the south, as well as an 83-acre inventoried wetland body (Panther Lake), less than 500 feet from the nearest property. Focus Area J abuts the City of Renton to the west. The 2011 King County Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) Urban Separators South Overview map shows a City of Renton Urban Separator corridor immediately to the west of the City of Kent Panther Lake parcels, which connects to Kent Urban Separator parcels as far west as SR-167. This CPP-mapped Urban Separator corridor appears to create a continuous linkage between Soos Creek wetlands to the east of Focus Area J, wetlands surrounding Panther Lake, and wetlands at the SR-167 corridor. The City of Renton's comprehensive land use map designates these parcels as low-density single family; the City of Renton parcels are variously zoned R-1, RC (resource conservancy), and R-4 (four residential units per acre). Although depicted as Urban Separators on countywide maps, the City of Renton does not consider those properties zoned R-4 as Urban Separators. The easternmost and westernmost areas of Focus Area J are within the critical aquifer recharge area for Renton's water supply. A small portion of Focus Area J is inventoried critical area for erodible soils, steep slopes, or landslide risk. Over 40 acres of the site is inventoried wetland; the focus area parcels surround Panther Lake, a priority wetland habitat area in the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species database. The database also shows two locations in the immediate vicinity of Focus Area J used by bald eagles as nesting and breeding grounds. See Table 1-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area J. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table 3 — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Pkt Page 108 Acreage 139.7 Acres 77.8 Acres 61.9 Acres Percent - 56% 44% Table 3 — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 139.7 Acres 48.5 Acres 91.2 Acres Percent - 35% 65% Using the low range for restrited areas, Focus Area J contains nineteen parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area J is greater than two lots per parcel. Using high-range restricted areas, the focus area contains fifteen further subdividable parcels, averaging residual capacity of just less than two lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area J under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table 3 — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 90) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 15 1 - 2 <1 SR-4.5 43 4 - 5 3 SR-6 50 5 - 6 3 - 4 SR-8 53 7 5 - 6 Table 3 — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 90) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 19 2 - 3 <1 SR-4.5 59 5 - 6 3 - 4 SR-6 70 5 - 6 3 - 4 SR-8 75 7 - 8 5 - 6 The Panther Lake focus area is bounded to the west by SR-515/108th Avenue SE, a principal arterial in Kent and Renton. SE 208th Street, a minor arterial, runs east-west at the southern border of the focus area; and SE 196th Street, a residential collector arterial, forms the northern border. A network of local streets and driveways serve the residential uses off of the arterials. Within 0.5 mile, Focus Area J is served by transit route 169, an all-day route that runs every 30 minutes between Kent Station and the Renton Transit Center. The nearest commercial shopping center is about 0.5 mile away, and includes a grocery store, restaurants, a bank, and various other commercial retail and service uses. Focus Area J is served by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District for water supply and sewer Pkt Page 109 utility service. Multiple existing internal utility connections are present in Focus Area J, and it contains very little difficult terrain. Four subbasins converge at Focus Area J. The central portion of the focus area is within the drainage area for the Panther Creek subbasin, which is 39% impervious surface (29% exceedance) and contains 29% tree canopy cover (36% exceedance). A segment at the southwest corner of the northernmost portion of the focus area falls within the Upper Springbrook Creek subbasin. The Upper Springbrook Creek subbasin is 31% impervious surface (21% exceedance); it is 37% forested (28% exceedance). The easternmost one fifth of the focus area is in the Big Soos Creek North drainage, characterized by 32% impervious surface (22% exceedance) and 41% tree canopy cover (24% exceedance). A very small segment to the sourthwest of the focus area, covering just a portion of two parcels, is in the Meridian Valley Creek subbasin. The Meridian Valley Creek subbasin is 40% impervious surface (30% exceedance), and 24% forested (41% exceedance). All are at risk for declining watershed and habitat health based on their exceedance of the 2000 UW report thresholds. Figure 3-1 - Focus Area J, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure 3-2 - Focus Area J, Erodible Soils SE•194'St i • ' �E•esa 51 SF194 PI -fi' +h SE194 PI N p�E - sE'195 PI - 5E•195 Sn M sE i19B 5t SE 196 st y/ N N y u G N w 4 4: C y N � � 1• � 9E19] C aE19]PI PI N W �SE 19aP1 S@ Sr 5Fl9s C! m aE 19 199 5[ 9E 1 9E•19a al gP199� y 9 Ct y m 99 Cf N N ' sE200 St " � sE•200 St 2 i " '• M SE'Z01 St 1 sE'20f st m � m 5E203 51 SE ID3 N SE403 5t PI yj w � r ' SE'204 Sty .n ,�. 9E294 St Legend m SF=O4 P1 zos se � W E 2as st r--k Kent City +r SE•209'PI Legend r ~sE 275 of %--0 Limits fist 9t N w - 20fi SS Y i Kent City Limits Focus Area J ]st m �"' - L---' N®Aquifer : go Focus Area) i°n � seso] m sE•2o] nt Recharge .• .. Eodi ble Soks aCt e Buildings --a St 9 m • 6ulldings D SDO 1;000 c t L-rli __ ,, i.i ❑ Soo. .1,000 .. • ` Feet � ctits'a '„ So eE°:�io wN a�n� .,.i:Er Pkt Page 110 Figure J-3 - Focus Area J, Landslide Risk Figure J-4 - Focus Area J, Steep Slopes 5r E1g4 S[ 1 a! see",P! h13 Z SE 19�PI � �11 ' . / - - - SE•}95:P1 � SE•195 Pl 1 SE 1q6 St _ SE 19fi sl N LL N 4 1 PI ' N SE 196 S!'I96 BE 19a It St ' i r SE•L9{Ct S! SE 19aP1 SE 1995t rrm SE•19a a1 SN.I P9$! � 1 SE�199 C! SE'199 Ct 1 C SE200 S! m � SE•2v0 51 O C D �• ✓ SE 2015t � sE'20f sl T tl SE203 SE2035t r' O SE203 SE2v35t PI N N PI SE•2045t a ,�. SE2v45t SE•204 PI p m SE20a PI E 305 St W E 205 st Legend rN y 5E'xos w Legend r ~se xos Pr 1 206 St +e Y -- 10fi Yt Y� Y N r Kent City Limits N 's _ 1�--�,Kent City Limits �-��E '2075t A• 10f 5! _Focus Area J { ■Focus Area J i SE20] m sE•10T m ®Landslide Risk SE207 t! VI ®steep Slopes sE•v07 a e bl SE1209 St m SE'1ve 5! M Buildings l3widings y ❑ 500 11000 ? a ❑ .5❑0. .1,000 `Feet m PlCt m Figure 3-5 - Focus Area J, Wetlands Figure 3-6 - Focus Area J, Open Space, Resource Lands, or Other Jurisdictions Urban Separators 199 S[ 51 9J PI-, 151 SE 14�Pi SE•}95 74 - SE•}95'79, 1 ® - SE 19fi se SE 19fi Se w s w s - n PI Y ry PI S!'196 S!'I96 Sf 1 .. _ _ sE•tea�e i- se sE•t9a�e ' = 5E•19g PI Sr SE 19a PI � ..• � _ SN.IP95i �'•1995! sE•xoo se sE•xoo st P - �1 sE'20f sl �1 sE'20f sl H 1 sE4v35t a SEP'3 SE4v35t _ SE 1045t � � 9E1v45t � Legend z vs st Kent City Limits n5 st s�xv.S At Legend �,�, �---• _ „ avfi se Y u I Focus Area J s< <? w El Kent City Limits �'. v_ 5! '� Open Space i qt -Focus Area J i Resource Lands or i sE•10T m Qther JunsdiC00n9' sE•10T m LEI t sE aw a 4 sE ao7 a e Wetlands al Llrhan Separators � SE'lve 5! M SE'1ve fi! M -, Buildings Sulidings 0 s0o 1,fj00 3 : " ❑ Soo S,fj00 3 Fsec � rest � Pkt Page 111 Figure 3-7 - Focus Area J, Docket Parcels (Rezone Requested) Figure 3-8 - Focus Area ), Restricted Lands 1 x 94 p1 - 'E.194 Pr N 195P5 SE•1958! WW ! ` SF 1969t XXXXXX 4 + X X X X X X X X X X a b n 5E-11' ' X PI XXXXXXX X a m } X X X X X X X X X C 192 P 1 ~ ~ 3119-, 1 >,� XXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXX X �- SE 198 Ct Sr SSE 19a al 1 �'" „sE 19s PI 'SE•5995, 1 XXX XXX X �m '�•1995t X Y.Y. XX XL99 Ct _Po E 1 X X X X X X X � 5E7005! __ 5F 2999t O X � SE 203 5! 2 X g 2939t g P103 X N r K } 9EZ945t X SE x9a st ° 3 9Nt Legend M•r.1 pl M � PI X r zas st jr-—IKent City Limits g z9s sl Legend Focus Area I z96 ? $' ! !Kent City Limits m �'a v_ �, m' X Restricted Area x9z s! X ' — Fo[us Area (High-Range} X Do[ket t i 2G7 Ct a sE•2o] m ®Redrided Area gz°z eY X i �Plua' © Parrelg sE 5E•2°°st A (Low Ran 9e( g 26E_ X X X m 6ullding5 Buildings 0 SOt1„ 1,000 0 500 Felt Feet n s Figure 3-7 - Focus Area ), Wildlife Corridor L >1 .I a r. r ••9' �� r Y.��I •ti• Pkt Page 112 Focus Area K - "Wilson Road" Figure K - Focus Area K, Wilson Road 1 1.� 1 1 1 'L A i _ 1 1 1 �b 1. Sd97 N Sk •,V. ¢ 5196 PI 1 5198 gt _ 1 Legend i 1 a r-ti Kent City 1 s •--+Limits 6,�9540 _Focus Area K ; f 1 01 SUa 1,000 The 300-acre "Wilson Road" annexation was annexed to the City of Kent in 1959. Of the 300-acre annexation, 36.3 acres are designated as Urban Separators, comprising Focus Area K. This area is not a King County-mapped Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. It was designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map in 2005 by Ordinance 3769 as a result of the city's 2004 urban density study. Table K - 1 Focus Area K Summary Name Wilson Road _Total Acreage 36.3 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1959 JYear(s) Designated Urban Separator 2005 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 11 (Developed Parce 7 Privately-Own ed/Pu bl icly Owned Parcels 10 Private / 1 Public Average Parcel Size 3.1 Acr Focus Area K is made up of 11 parcels, averaging just over 3 acres each. The largest parcel is 9.5 acres, and is split between 9 acres in the City of Kent and .5 acre in the City of Renton; both segments are designated Urban Separator. Seven of the 11 parcels have structures built on them, and 4 are vacant. Ten of the parcels are privately owned; the second largest parcel, at 6.3 acres, is owned by the City of Renton. Pkt Page 113 The southernmost 4 parcels are entirely within a critical aquifer recharge area, along with small slivers of an additional two parcels. Focus Area K has coincident inventoried erodible soils and landslide risk areas through the center of the site; patches of inventoried steep slopes are also present in various locations. Roughly 1.7 acres of inventoried wetlands are present on the site; a narrow band crosses its entire width east to west toward the southern portion of the site. See Table K-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area K. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table K — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 36.3 Acres 31.8 Acres 4.5 Acres Percent - 880/0 12% Table K — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 36.3 Acres 18 Acres 18.4 Acres Percent - 49% 510/0 Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area K contains five parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area K is just less than five lots per parcel. Using high-range restricted areas, this focus area has two further subdividable parcels, with an average residual development capacity of three lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area K under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table K — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 2 3 <1 SR-4.5 4 3 - 4 1 - 2 SR-6 4 4 - 5 1 - 2 SR-8 4 6 2 - 3 Table K — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 5 4 - 5 <1 SR-4.5 9 8 2 - 3 SR-6 9 10 - 11 3 - 4 SR-8 9 13 - 14 4 - 5 Pkt Page 114 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) PHS data show documented incidence of residential coastal cutthroat trout and breeding areas for coho salmon in Springbrook Creek at the northern perimeter of the site. The site creates a linkage between WDFW PHS wetland habitat to the north and to the east in the City of Renton, including Springbrook Trout Farm, where blue heron, kingfisher, woodpecker, and osprey are frequently sighted. Focus Area K is directly adjacent to SR-167, which runs north-south at its western border, but there is no direct connection. S 200th Street, a residential collector arterial, approaches the southeast corner of the focus area, but turns 90 degrees south to 92"d Avenue S before entering the area. The only direct access to the focus area is through local streets and gravel driveways. No transit routes serve Focus Area K within 0.5 miles. The nearest commercial shopping center is about 1.5 miles away and includes a grocery store, restaurants, a bank, and various other commercial retail and service uses. The southern half of Focus Area K is served by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District for water supply and sewer utility service; the northern half if served by Renton Sewer & Water District. This focus area contains multiple existing internal utility connections, although several of the existing residences are on private utilities; just less than 50%, is characterized by difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas. Focus Area K falls within four separate drainage areas. The northernmost corners are in the Lower Springbrook Creek Kent subbasin, which has one of the highest percentages of impermeable surfaces and one of the lowest percentages of tree canopy cover, at 70% (60% exceedance) and 13% (52% exceedance), respectively. The northern central portion of the focus area is within Upper Springbrook Creek, and a narrow portion along the central western edge is in the Lower Garrison Creek drainage area. Upper Springbrook Creek is 31% impervious surface (21% exceedance) and 37% forested (28% exceedance). Lower Garrison Creek, at 72% (62% exceedance), has the second highest percentage of impermeable surface. It also has the third lowest percentage for tree canopy cover, at only 6% (59% exceedance). The southern half of Focus Area K, and a band running east-west through the center of the focus area falls within the Garrison-Chestnut Ridge subbasin. Garrison-Chestnut Ridge is 32% impervious surface (22% exceedance), and is 22% forested (43% exceedance). Pkt Page 115 Figure K-1 - Focus Area K, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure K-2 - Focus Area K, Erodible Soils E � 5 19e t"'9 St Legend sass st Legend ••••••• s19 se L___i Kent City Llmits ���-�Kent Gty Limits ••• M Focus Area K y dl Pocus Area K ••►••••• •y t ®Aqulfer Recharge -`f g9 StF_rodi6le Sins •r.• `. Buildings - L Bulldings . J ❑ zsa—s❑❑ ❑ zso soo Feet '��:.r,.- ...:.� r--�-.. :r- -F - ... �...•Or:T...�/• .«�-y ..-�_i lit Figure K-3 - Focus Area K, Landslide Risk Figure K-4 - Focus Area K, Steep Slopes to 4! PW � o s i7r sl <_ sr S S 1%PY P � I Legend st9ase Legend }i 9t9ase Kent Gty Llmits _ i rent City Limits •+ Facus Area K Focus Area K i c a Landslide Risk '1 ®Steep Slopes Illll�Bulldings Bulldings 0 250 500 y 6 _ 250 500 Fppt Feet ._ _. ••• •• �_� Pkt Page 116 Figure K-5 - Focus Area K, Wetlands Figure K-6 - Open Space, Resource Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators v. 40 I lip Vili K SI%% _ •�f9e YI Legend !_ Legend W 4xsa se M Kent City umlts i yg se T tl -Focus Area K fff= M.Kent GtY Limits � H I open space. I -Focus Area K i y Resource Lends.or ■ a other 3udsdictipns' � Wetlands w$t1p Urban SeAar lors $=vy Buildings Buildings 0, 250 54. 0 250 Sao Fee[ - ......._.._.____.._....... .. Pppt Figure K-7 - Focus Area K, FEMA 1% Flood Zone Figure K-8 - Focus Area K, Restricted Lands x x x x x x x x x x I x x x x I xxxxx I xx xx x xx E x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I xxxxx xx xxxxx xx ' x x x x x i x x x x x I x x x x 1 K , xK<x x x x x x I - x x x x x 1 ' x xxxxx x x x x x x ' a F4l 5t19 - �, X XXXXX S, X XXXXX R t 51%Po X XXXXXX Legend XXXXXXX Legend 1 y__'Kent City Limits x x X X X X X X g ax�aB, xxx xxxxx � xxx xxxxx L J Kent City Limits -Focus Area K x x X X X X I H X X x x X X X -Focus Area K - I y v x x Restrided Area X X X X ®FEMA 1%Flood a t (High-Range) x x X X X 8 Restricted Area x x x x x x x x Zone(A,AH.AE) =P9 ®(Low Range) x x x x x x x x Buildings xx xx Buildings x x x x x x 0 250 Soo --- . - - 0 500 1,000,x .r... ,. CorridorFigure K-9 - Focus Area K, Wildlife - I r' a si'L�- w-�r.• r' � -� � •J= Wit.. •� -�, Pkt Page 118 Focus Area L - "Chestnut Ridge-Cloverdale" Figure L - Focus Area L, Chestnut Ridge-Cloverdale m 5208 St m a N L S 21D St 1Q V. N 9 s 212 sr N{� �•;� Ny 5.273 5 4 .. ppPa 5 213 PI 9' A o S'itc'1 _ 5214 PI Sr Legend N r--I Kent City - %--+Limits Focus Area L y= LOW 00 1�000 bow ICI SeVt' (' GaFn.. Feet e. �o-usdA usrs�ri� a mz c s i:o- Focus Area L, the Chestnut Ridge-Cloverdale Urban Separator, totals 51.8 acres. It was annexed to the City of Kent in three parts in 1958, 1977, and 1993, respectively. The southwestern segment was annexed to Kent in 1958 as part of the 300-acre Cloverdale annexation, of which 14 acres have been designated as Urban Separator. Kent annexed the southeastern part of Focus Area L in 1977 as part of the 59-acre Lien annexation; 10 of the total 59 acres have been designated Urban Separator. The 187-acre Chestnut Ridge annexation included the northern portion of Focus Area L, and contains a total of 28 acres designated as Urban Separator. This area is not a King County-mapped Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. It was designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map in 2005 by Ordinance 3769 as a result of the city's 2004 urban density study. Table L — 1 Focus Area L Summary Name Chestnut Ridge-Cloverdale Total Acreage 51.8 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1958, 1977, 1993 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2005 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 8 Developed Parcels 0 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 1 Private / 7 Public Average Parcel Size 6.4 Acres There are eight individual parcels in the Chestnut Ridge-Cloverdale Urban Separator focus Pkt Page 119 area. The King County parcel GIS data also shows a sliver of a privately owned parcel on the northeastern most corner of the focus area, which appears to be part of a larger parcel to the south, across S 2081h Street, and outside of the Urban Separator. This parcel sliver also appears to be within the street right-of-way, and may reflect an error in the King County data. Seven parcels comprise the southern segment of the focus area, and are all owned by the City of Kent. The northern segment is privately owned. There are no structures on the Focus Area L properties. The entire Chestnut Ridge-Cloverdale Urban Separators focus area is within the designated critical aquifer recharge area. A large portion of the northern segment contains erodible soils and landslide risk, as do portions of the southern segment. Isolated slivers of steep slopes are present throughout Focus Area L, and the 52-acre area contains over 18 acres of wetland. The eastern portion of the northern segment is subject to seismic hazards, as is the northern edge of the southern segment. Maps of these areas are shown in Figure L-1 through L-6. See Table L-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area L. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table L — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 51.8 Acres 50.2 Acres 1.6 Acres Percent - 97% 3% Table L — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 51.8 Acres 47.1 Acres 4.7 Acres Percent - 910/0 90/0 Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area L contains two parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area L is over sixteen lots per parcel. However, this number is likely much lower in practical terms because of the space required to provide access, stormwater drainage, and cluster "spacing" to the developable portions of these parcels. Using high-range restricted areas, this focus area has only one parcel that retains residual development capacity. Not accounting for the limiting factors described above, this parcel could be further subdivided into twelve additional lots. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area L under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table L — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 8) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 1 12 <1 SR-4.5 1 6 <1 SR-6 1 7 - 8 <1 Pkt Page 120 SR-8 1 10 - 11 <1 Table L — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 8) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 2 16 - 17 <1 SR-4.5 2 9 <1 SR-6 2 11 - 12 <1 SR-8 2 15 - 16 <1 Focus Area L is not immediately adjacent to designated open space, and being centrally located well within city limits, it does not abut other jurisdictions' Urban Separators. A WDFW inventoried wildlife corridor is present in the southern segment of Focus Area L. This corridor contains freshwater forested/shrub wetland habitat, and a stream that carries coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout. It is also a breeding area for coho salmon. Focus Area L is served by a principal arterial, S 212th Street, which bisects it running east- west and along its northeast border. S 208th Street, a residential collector arterial, runs east-west along the northern edge of the focus area. S 2181h is a residential collector arterial, running east-west and then north south at the southern end of Focus Area L. Transit service within 0.5 mile includes King County Metro route 157, a peak-only route between Lake Meridian Park and Ride and downtown Seattle. A portion of the focus area is adjacent to a commercial shopping center, which includes a grocery store. Within 0.5 mile are additional commercial services and retail including restaurants. The northern portion of Focus Area L, north of S 212th Street and west of S 212th Way, is served by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District for water supply service; the southern half is served by the Kent Water Franchise. Sewer utility service is provided by the City of Kent. Focus Area L has no existing internal utility connections, and it is characterized by more than 50% difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas. The eastern half of Focus Area L is in the Upper Garrison Creek subbasin, which is 42% impervious surface (32% exceedance) and is 22% forested (43% exceedance). The northwest corner is in the Garrison-Chestnut Ridge subbasin, and the southwestern edge is in the Lower Garrison Creek subbasin. Garrison-Chestnut Ridge is 32% impervious surface (22% exceedance) and 22% forested (43% exceedance). The Lower Garrison Creek subbasin is the second most impervious subbasin in Kent, with 72% impervious surface (62% exceedance). It is also the second least forested, at only 6% tree canopy cover (59% exceedance). Pkt Page 121 Figure L-1 - Focus Area L, Aquifer Recharge Area Figure L-2 - Focus Area L, Erodible Soils .............. ........... .......... L :L. .......... ....... ••.. ------------------- Legend t Legend r-1 Kent City Limits I � R r ti--.p Kent City Limits Focus Area y=r' Focus Area L ®Aquifer Recharge t ©Erodible Soils •.. - Buildings - - ... ... Buildings ..• •• 0 500 1,000 -a��'"-e 0 -+-500 .t1000. •... "�"� 3s�h ryun ieu u d - Fee[ s1 Feet .....� Figure L-3 - Focus Area L, Landslide Risk Figure L-4 - Focus Area L, Steep Slopes " � m 521D 5t 5222 St 5212 St �' .6 AM K I� Legend � � Legend w r City `" r�� y Limits Kent City Limits Qs Focus Area pr - Focus Area S-216 PI ® S-21B'PI Landslide Risk ®Sleep Slopes Buildings g 9 Buildings 0 500 1'000 Feet Feet Pkt Page 122 Figure L-5 - Focus Area L, Wetlands Figure L-6 - Focus Area L, Seismic Hazard rS. L L rt 1 4 _ 52125tt2 St 9 y qy y2135t -� '1 Ny S7"st 49 i a5 s zis tt q y q 5� aL UL I 5214 PI St c-., �t 5214 PI St 21j Legend �+ Legend E r Kent City Limits - r��Kent City Limits Focus Area L a� Focus Area L 5215 PI 5 J1fi 91 -- �Wetlands - ®Seismic Hazard Buildings Buildings 0 500 2,000 -F o�� sao i,000 F Feet nlu -. - r. .N r n. :s.ln`r Feet r� I❑ I t�.}a i i n _ S r'Fitr ux Figure L-7 - Focus Area L, Restricted Lands 5.208 R qh q x x y X ro n X XXXXXXXX h X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X - x x x x x XXXXXXX xxxxxxxxxxxx N XXXXXXXXXXX -� _ X X X X L X X X X X s 210 st XXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXX •._ XXX X X X X X X X _ X XXXXXXX y xxxxxx qhV XXXXXXX X 4 52125t y X X X je�l y st X X r- a 521' y X X p X X qd i X X X X b xxx xx s XXXXXXX X ` xxxxxxxx Legend tJNT'J xxxxxxxxx XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX r-— Kent City Lim its X X*IYXXXXII XXX fl XXXXX Focus A—L °1 X X x k x x x s uGst X X X X X x x Restricted Area m X x X X X X X [High-Range} X X X X X X X Restricted Area X X X X ©(Low Range} X X X X X X X Buildings a 500 1,000 X X fleet' ,,; - y�r CorridorFigure L-8 - Focus Area L, Wildlife Ib S 218`"Sx S 218`"St �- Pkt Page 124 Focus Area M - "O'Connell-McCann" Figure M - Focus Area M, O'Connell-McCann ay �� `1\0 ----s--r-------� O 520451.. • 1 • M x M 5 212 st 52I3 t r Legend 5� r-111 Ken[City %­0Limits 13 P u vy 5215 st `9 hP v'y _Focus Area M s' , ,zls-vim s� y a 500 1,000 G aic! Fee[sivn 5 fraos usoq n[y Focus Area M, O'Connell-McCann, contains a total of 122 acres and was annexed to the City of Kent in three separate annexations, between 1968 and 1971. The central portion was annexed in 1968, as part of the 131-acre Kaltenbach annexation; 68 of the 131 acres annexed are designated Urban Separator. The north and western portions of the focus area were annexed to the city as part of the 68-acre O'Connell annexation in 1971. Of the 68- acre annexation, 33 acres are designated Urban Separator. The small southern segments were annexed to the city in 1970. This portion was part of the McCann annexation, which totaled 125 acres, of which 21 acres are designated Urban Separator. This area is not a King County-mapped Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. The majority of the area was designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map in 2005 by Ordinance 3769 as a result of the city's 2004 urban density study. A small, triangular segment was designated Urban Separator in 2006 by Ordinance 3818. Table M — 1 Focus Area M Summary Name O'Connell-McCann Total Acreage 122 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1968, 1970, 1971 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2005, 2006 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 18 Developed Parcels 6 _ Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 15 Private / 3 Public Average Parcel Size 6 Acres ff There are eighteen separate parcels in Focus Area M, with an average size of approximately six acres. Three of the parcels have structures on them, primarily single-family homes and Pkt Page 125 agricultural buildings; the remaining fifteen are vacant. Focus Area M contains no erodible soils or landslide hazard areas; however, there are segments of these critical areas adjacent to the focus area. Maps below in Figure M-1 and M-2 show these areas. A very small sliver of inventoried critical area for steep slopes is present in the southern segments, shown in Figure M-3. Nearly the entire focus area is within an inventoried wetland, totaling 114 acres. The Green River Valley seismic hazard area covers all but a narrow sliver at the western edge of the focus area, and most of the area is also within the area identified by FEMA as the 1% annual chance flood zone, or 100- year flood. See Table M-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area M. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table M — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 122.1 Acres 122.1 Acres 0 Acres Percent - 1000/0 00/0 Table M — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 122.1 Acres 117.9 Acres 4.3 Acres Percent - 97% 3% Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area M contains four parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area M is just less than three lots per parcel. However, the shape, fragmentation, and orientation on the developable portions of some of these parcels would place practical limitations on subdivisions. Using high-range restricted areas, no residual development capacity remains on any of the eighteen parcels. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area M under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table M — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 18) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) - - - SR-4.5 - - - SR-6 - - - SR-8 - - - Table M — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 18) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 4 2 - 3 <1 Pkt Page 126 SR-4.5 2 5 - 6 <1 SR-6 2 7 - 8 <1 SR-8 5 4 - 5 <1 An inventoried agricultural resource area is present in the center of the focus area, as shown in Figure M-5. Open space lands are adjacent to the north and south of Focus Area M, as well as its eastern perimeter, along the Green River. The majority of Focus Area M is within a WDFW priority wildlife corridor, identified as freshwater emergent wetland, freshwater forested/shrub wetland, and waterfowl concentrations. These wildlife habitat areas also extend into the agricultural and open space lands surrounding the Urban Separator focus area. Focus Area M is served by a principal arterial, the S. 212th Street and Orillia Road corridor, to the west and south. The 42"d Avenue S., 37th Place South, and Riverview Boulevard S. residential collector arterial corridors connect to the focus area to the southwest. Within 0.5 mile, Focus Area M is served by King County Metro routes 180, an all-day route between southeast Auburn and Burien Transit Center; 157, a peak-only route between Lake Meridian Park and Ride and downtown Seattle; and 913, a DART route between Kent Station, North Kent, and Riverview. The nearest commercial shopping center is roughly 1 mile away and includes restaurants and drive-through establishments along with hotels and warehousing. The City of Kent provides sewer utility and water supply service for Focus Area M. This focus area is served by a water utility connection and one property is connected to public sewer; no difficult terrain is present that would impede installation of additional utility infrastructure. Focus Area M is entirely within the Johnson Creek subbasin. This subbasin is 19% impervious surface (9% exceedance), and is 29% forested (36% exceedance), exceeding both thresholds for risk of degraded watershed and habitat health. Pkt Page 127 Figure M-1 - Focus Area M, Erodible Soils Figure M-2 - Focus Area M, Landslide Risk .•• I I I I I I I I l• I { { M M 1 � 1 ; 1 saiyvt y j � f v s 212 St 5412' N s1tiN s•z13 .. 11. �� c4 5214 Legend s.2j Legend St 5 St g r--11 Kent City Limits r Kent City Limits to Focus Area M n - " 21q Focus Area e 4 52L55T T Erodible.Soils N 0 s2155t T a' szls vi 9'e °j° srZj Landslide Risk Qt5 Rivervew BYvdS jib,Buildings 5z Buildings 5216 St t5 Riverview Blvd 5216 St s dQ 0 500'a o 1,000 0 500' a 1,000 Feet> Feet> I0.1 ne c s�i Figure M-3 - Focus Area M, Steep Slopes Figure M-4 - Focus Area M. Wetlands may ------------------------ o � 6 I .,� y�ale pl , TA M _ * + + 7 " ab 5 212.5[ N 5213 yN V _ vlw 5.2, Legend q Legend r--i Kent City Limits st r--11 Kent City Limits Focus AreaLS St -Focus Area M 1 e T > P y sxls st ®Steep Slopes m py sz15 at,n s$ 0° c Wetlands ° Buildings ' h ���" Riverview Blvd 5 � 5 216 St b 5 Riverview Blvd 5 �+ Buildings 5 216 5t 0 S00'« 1000 t l I.. EartM1 0 raPM1i 500' r 1,000 ' FeeC> a,3�o.l�ti�a'c`-.M1�c s l Pkt Page 128 Figure M-5 - Focus Area M; Open Space, Resource Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators Figure M-6 - Focus Area M, Seismic Hazard I - f _ 1 M _ _ ' M - -_ Legend li Kent City Limits - Sal Focus Area M f .s 21 Legend - _ _ _-_ - ___ st 9 s Open Space, sa 4 1' Resource Lands, r Kent City Limits 1. y s21a or Other `zlaa, s 215 st z Jurisdictions' It y _Focus Area M * r' s z1s vi ?� e° yv Urban Separators f ®Seismic Hazard Buildings f p�,r~ Buildings P� 1 � Riverview Blvd 5 u 5216 St s v + 0 5� 1 000 0 500 s 1,000 t �i =f`i n - 00.'t , . Figure M-7 - Focus Area M, FEMA 1% Flood Zone Figure M-8 - Focus Area M, Restricted Lands Q_sy a" ------------------r a'P xxxxx � a xxxxx ,?y XXXXX k xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx f f xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx X { j xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx x { { xxxxxxxxxxxxxx lxxxxxxxxxMxxxx ` xxxxxxxxxxxxx � xxxxxxxxxxxxx f >*xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx S 111y4 ° xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx sJls� xxxxxxxxx g Le end 51 xxxxxxxx Legend 5 XXXXXXXX r__f Kent City Limi s ti__t st 5 Kent City Limits xxxxxxxx¢ xxxxxxxx spa -Focus Area M xxxxxx Focus Area M N XX 5 x x Restricted Area XXXXXX FEMA1%Flood 1 xx x x x x xxxxxx s;2I4 (High-Range} �i c ° v Zone(A,AN,At:; 1 xxxxx - RedridedArsa e 5215 P4 N "N:9 Vi f _Buildings f X X X X ©(Low Range) .,�4 Riverview Blvd S 5216 St it X X X a 1 X Buildings 0) - 500'c� 1,000 0,1 500 1,000 FeeC> ��Feet _ CorridorFigure M-9 - Focus Area M, Wildlife ' s zooth st O y r _ 4 ElE h Pkt Page 130 Focus Area N - "Highlands North" Figure N - Focus Area N, Highlands North M '� mNm.a. '2165YH 3S o dG aa'du iY s S�l)9f16p1 eroeg<na 5.2i]PI 0 0 5 b O F 1 .;s 221 St P,2 5 5 2225't 5 Ln2 4� eFJ`0��+ oQ � S.2 222 PI Z35t 1 At 1e 1 , Suzy `•j�+ $r N 1 ! W ! S 1 Legend Kent City P vs y��1 LII}ll l.5 F L' Focus Arta verer=ns or _ °3 0 SOO 1,000 /�_ GSM •5 Focus Area N was annexed in 1959 as part of the 609-acre annexation area generally referred to as the Highlands. Of the Highlands annexation area, 276 acres are designated Urban Separator; this focus area is 107.3 acres. This area is not a King County-mapped Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. Lands in Focus Area N were designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map in 2005 by Ordinance 3769 as a result of the city's 2004 urban density study. Table N — 1 Focus Area N Summary Name Highlands North Total Acreage 107.3 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1959 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2005 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 11 Developed Parcels 1 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 2 Private / 9 Public Average Parcel Size 9.9 Acres Eleven individual parcels are present within Focus Area N; their average size is just less than 10 acres. The City of Kent owns nine of the parcels, and two are privately owned. One of the properties, at the far northwest of the focus area, contains a single-family residence. The remaining 10 properties, totaling 104 acres, are vacant. Steep slopes, erodible soils, and landslide risk characterize the western edges of Focus Area N, as well as broad bands through its center and surrounding Veterans Drive. The eastern half of the focus area is within the Green River Valley seismic hazard zone, and much of this Pkt Page 131 area is also subject to the FEMA 1% annual chance flood. The Highlands North Urban Separator focus area is adjacent to SeaTac's Grandview Off- Leash Dog Park to the west, and Kent's Green River Trail and Green River Natural Resources Area to the east. Over 35 acres of inventoried wetland are present in Focus Area N. Much of the inventoried wetland is also included in the WDFW priority habitat and species inventory as freshwater forested/shrub wetland and aquatic habitat. This wildlife corridor can be seen in Figure N-9. See Table N-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area N. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table N — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 107.3 Acres 101.8 Acres 5.5 Acres Percent - 950/0 50/0 Table N — 3 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 107.3 Acres 91.6 Acres 15.7 Acres Percent - 850/0 15% Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area N contains seven parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area N is greater than nine lots per parcel. This number would be limited in practical terms by the space required for access roads, storm water drainage, and cluster spacing. Using high-range restricted areas, five parcels are further subdividable, with an average residual capacity of just more than four additional lots per parcel. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area N under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table N — 4 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 5 4 - 5 <1 SR-4.5 4 4 - 5 <1 SR-6 4 6 <1 SR-8 4 8 - 9 1 - 2 Table N — 5 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre Pkt Page 132 SR-1 (Cluster) 7 9 - 10 <1 SR-4.5 8 7 - 8 <1 SR-6 8 10 - 11 1 - 2 SR-8 8 13 - 14 1 - 2 Focus Area N is served by Veterans Drive, a minor arterial, which runs east-west and bisects the focus area. Frager Road, a paved bicycle path along the west side of the Green River, offers non-motorized transportation access. Local streets to the north and west, and the Riverview Boulevard S. residential collector arterial, serve residential areas adjacent to the Urban Separator focus area. Transit service within 0.5 mile of Focus Area N includes route 913, a DART route between Kent Station, North Kent, and Riverview. Sound Transit has identified a site roughly 1.25 miles away for a new light rail station serving their southern expansion of the Link Light Rail system, between University of Washington in Seattle and Federal Way. The nearest commercial shopping center to Focus Area N is about 0.75 mile away, and includes restaurants, retail, and commercial services. Water supply service is provided by the Highline Water District for Focus Area N; sewer utility service is provided by the City of Kent. No existing internal connections for water or sewer utilities are present in Focus Area N, and it contains more than 50% difficult terrain. Focus Area N falls entirely within the drainage area for the Grandview-Riverview subbasin. The Grandview-Riverview subbasin is 27% impervious surface (17% exceedance), and is 42% forested (23% exceedance). Pkt Page 133 Figure N-1 - Focus Area N, Erodible Soils Figure N-2 - Focus Area N, Landslide Risk y 2165ty y 2165ly •.••••• •• •• / ♦♦� v Q v 4•e V y• SS ' ♦♦ 'Q v p•e u n • ••.•••• •,� �♦♦ S?l Js'216PI ft89e10.8y SZ fist y ','i �♦♦ S?3 JS'216 PI ftag•'0.d5 • ••••••• •• 5257 PI � � 5277 PI � •••• I a y y = N N I• •.••••• •• y P h R N h R y 1 • i � % H ••••• •• • ••♦ - � y 5220� - >' 522863 v S'22 a' // •22 •• y a'a.w S.�2 Opl 53215t _ �/ �`Rf 9 <i 1 1 ••••• 5225 • • N N Legend Legend 1 I Kent City Limits ♦ 1 Kent City Limits ♦ e,� �---' t • •• '•q Lwwwl t Focus Area IN ram♦ •• ••• os Focus Area IN j'• Ras •• Erodible Soils \ • �y ®Landslide Risk �y Buildings ••••• v 0 S00 Buildings - � � 3•a �• • 3• •0 Soo 1,000 •. i 1, 0 • Feet •• 1 5 i��"'' Feet . c Figure N-3 - Focus Area M, Steep Slopes Figure N-4 - Focus Area N, Wetlands jy tl a e'u .. a 6•au y ♦ by S2 s A 9 N., I� `r 8'zl6Pl Ffa4et0. 3851 S ?1] p Sj 5216p1 F[89et0. 3 G21]PI N St y -+ 1 y 521]PI N lJ Syh rrq •y G tr ; y py C V Sr P 1 5 aA v a I ¢ s0 h g -.. y 52708t 1 o e h S2�8$ Y r: 220 pl -1 tl 2ZQ P! S 221 St '1 d'u tl s223 yb s22z st�N IvbS .. �`•� e� sLn= g �•+� r-w�nw ..5�235t - i � - 5•222 PI � 8223 y� _ -. t 1 1 Iwwwwwwwwwww.. wo----- 1 J i PI I �y/p •S 22, w-1 Sf Legend Legend I R s ♦� w q L---I Kent City Limits t♦♦ r • ;y9 L --�Kent City Limits t♦ D a.�� Focus Area IN E � Focus Area IN ��♦ � �` Rd �s ®Steep Slopes - � �Wetlands a, d 2> Buildings 'no, Buildings O o soo'f, 00 ' 6 5 0 500 1,000 Sn ui +c. a c�.ma 9: 7 �• r�l is S `' Feet Feet Pkt Page 134 Figure N-5 - Focus Area N; Open Space, Resource Figure N-6 - Focus Area N, Seismic Hazard Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators x ae'u b 1 22 f .S _ 1 I 5.229 PI c - - I• 5 225 N - 5 226 Legend � sr _u N IN L--�I Kent City Limits P w Focus Area Legend i N Open Space, _ --- i Resource Lands, - - L---�Kent City Limits or Other r.+ Jurisdictions' pemu •s Focus Area Urban Separators _ ®Seismic Hazard Yet¢rans Dr _ Buildings - Buildings 0 sao Feet Figure N-7 - Focus Area N, FEMA 1% Flood Zone Figure N-8 - Focus Area N, Restricted Lands ZZ yl i8 21fi St„, y x 21fi 5t,n •)S�4 A 9 n¢ x x 9 n q x x l8 5t I AO A h S?!JS 2jfi Pp .r[a9er a x X 69 w y S%� 3 2xS Pt Pag¢t P j �' i 5.217 PI Uy Sty., XX q 52]]PI vy 7�4 a N N O f N 4• Y.Y. a N N e In ✓� T s? p9 q O X x. p a 4b ri, p 5 h V X X S p 1 4 y X X C e x x v a S 2.2p ! v n X X 1 O X X X X v ski v 322j�r xxx' nab 9 Po xxx xxx - ss �1 xxx . s Ir ' . zz2,,_' � 23 sr 1� xxx ! xxx x 1 xxx x xxxxx 5 325 T T X X X X X X GI 1 XXXXXX �- 5'22as Legend X X X X X X X N xxxxx E72 Kent City Limits %XXXX r X X t X X ` X X X 5 228 sl +� Legend - Focus Area N xx x x x x x Re stricted Area �f XXXX ] I Kent City Limits (High-Range} 1 XXXX X L---1 x X XXXXXX (L an '(LBmP 5229 pl Focus Area N ® slrR Area )iX %%X X X X X X (Low Rang e� X G Yet ans o- FEMA 1 Flood z . 3. Zone(A,AH,AE) Buildings X - t Buildings X x x X X X X 0 500 � 00 - •,5 0 500 1.000 X X X X x X X n s ? z mq Pkt Page 135 CorridorFigure N-9 - Focus Area N, Wildlife a' 40 * y�! 4 r + � ► � � � I Pkt Page 136 Focus Area O - "Highlands-Saltair" Figure O - Focus Area O, Highlands-Saltair t fI ¢ � A P Legend r--@ Kent City ti--�Limits Focus Area O I� o 11000 z,000 Feet 4"s.: r Sa ,i�i-r— -susEr The Highlands-Saltair Urban Separator focus area, Focus Area O, totals 170.1 acres and was annexed to the City of Kent in two parts: as part of the 609-acre Kent Highlands annexation in 1959, and the 1,212-acre Saltair Hills annexation in 1958. Of the Kent Highlands annexation, 254 total acres are designated as Urban Separator; 141.3 acres are in Focus Area O. Of the Saltair Hills annexation, 28.8 were designated as Urban Separator, all of which are in Focus Area O. This area is not a King County-mapped Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. It was designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map in 2005 by Ordinance 3769 as a result of the city's 2004 urban density study. Table O — 1 Focus Area O Summary Name Highlands-Saltair Total Acreage 170.1 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1958, 1959 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2005 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 31 Developed Parcels 5 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 19 Private / 12 Public Average Parcel Size 6 Acres There are 31 individual properties in Focus Area O, five of which are split-designated between Urban Separator and other land use designations. One 14-acre parcel in the southern portion of the focus area is split between Urban Separator and Medium Density Multifamily; this property is owned by the Westridge Townhomes Condominium complex. Pkt Page 137 Two properties in the center of the focus area, 10 acres and 51 acres, respectively, are split-designated Urban Separator and Transit-Oriented Community. Both are owned by the City of Seattle. Two parcels at the far southeast end of the focus area are split between the City of Kent and unincorporated King County. One is just less than two acres; the other is roughly 0.7 acre. These properties are partially within the Urban Separator land use designation, and SR-1 zoning; and partially within King County agricultural resource lands. The average size of parcels in Focus Area O is six acres; only five of the 32 properties contain structures within the Urban Separator designation. These are primarily single-family residences and utility-related structures. The 2009 building footprint layer indicates the presence of large agricultural or greenhouse buildings in the center of the focus area; however, these have recently been demolished. Kent's Riverbend Golf Course is adjacent to the south of the largest segment of Focus Area O, indicated as open space in Figure 0-5 below. King County agricultural resource lands are present off of the southeast edge of the focus area. The western edges of Focus Area O contain inventoried critical areas for erodible soils, landslide hazard, and steep slopes. All but the westernmost perimeter is within the Green River Valley seismic hazard area. Also present throughout the focus area are areas subject to the FEMA 1% annual chance flood, shown in Figure 0-7. See Table 0-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area O. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table O — 1 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 170.1 Acres 144.9 Acres 25.2 Acres Percent - 850/0 150/0 Table O — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 170.1 Acres 123.4 Acres 46.7 Acres Percent - 73% 27% Using low-range restricted areas, Focus Area O contains eleven parcels that could be further subdivided under SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area O under SR-1 zoning is just less than twelve lots per parcel. Using high-range restricted areas, there are nine parcels with residual development capacity in Focus Area O, with an average residual development capacity of over thirteen additional lots per parcel. As described above, however, there are five split- zoned parcels in this area. Three of these have greater allowed density on the portions outside of the Urban Separator designation, which includes multi-family residential uses. For these parcels, subdivision into clustered single-family lots would be a less efficient use for the unrestricted portions than a multi-family development. In fact, one of the split-zoned parcels is currently developed as a condominium complex. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area O under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Pkt Page 138 Table O - 3 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 32) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 9 13 - 14 <1 SR-4.5 9 17 - 18 1 - 2 SR-6 9 21 - 22 1 - 2 SR-8 9 28 - 29 2 - 3 Table O - 4 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 32) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 11 11 - 12 <1 SR-4.5 10 26 - 27 2 - 3 SR-6 10 33 -34 3 - 4 SR-8 11 40 - 41 3 - 4 A WDFW-inventoried wildlife corridor is present on the west side of the focus area, identified as freshwater forested/shrub wetland and aquatic habitat. This corridor has documented incidence of coho salmon, as does the Green River habitat area adjacent to the focus area to the east, which also carries bull trout, coastal cutthroat trout, steelhead, and pink salmon during odd-numbered years. The east-central region of the focus area contains a bald eagle breeding area. The largest portion of Focus Area O is served directly only by Frager Road, to the east, which connects to W. Meeker Street, a minor arterial, to the south. The narrow segment to the south, which includes the Old Fishing Hole, can also be accessed from W Meeker Street and Frager Road. The smaller segment to the west is bordered to the east by Reith Road, a minor arterial, but otherwise is accessed only through local streets and private driveways. Transit service within 0.5 mile of Focus Area O includes King County Metro routes 158, 159, 166, and 183. Routes 166 and 183 are all-day routes; 166 runs between Kent Station and Burien Transit Center, and 183 runs between the Federal Way Transit Center and Kent Station. Routes 158 and 159 are peak-only routes between Timberlane and downtown Seattle. The nearest commercial shopping center is 0.3 mile away, and includes restaurants, hotels, and commercial services. The next closest commercial shopping center is 1 mile away and includes additional restaurants, a grocery store, big-box retail, a bank, and other various retail and commercial service uses. Focus Area O is entirely within the City of Kent water supply service and sewer utility service area. Existing water utility connections are present in the focus area, but no sewer connections have been established. A portion, but less than 50%, of the focus area contains difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas. The majority of Focus Area O, the northern portion, is within the Midway Creek subbasin, which is 34% impervious surface (24% exceedance) and 28% forested (37% exceedance). Small segments toward the center of the focus area are in the SR-516 - Old Fishing Hole subbasin, and a 2.5-acre segment to the south end of the focus area is in the Mullen Slough Pkt Page 139 subbasin. The SR-516 - Old Fishing Hole subbasin is 28% impervious surface (18% exceedance) and 52% forested (13% exceedance), and the Mullen Slough subbasin is 28% impervious surface (18% exceedance) and 33% forested (32% exceedance). Figure 0-1 - Focus Area O, Erodible Solis Figure 0-2 - Focus Area O, Landslide Risk 1 1 •••• 1 1 • • 1- 1 •1• ••• 1 1- 1 � • rc •• • • ••• • ••• I Legend •••• _�` .. Legend _ .... r Kent City Limits 11 ' r��Kent City Limits " Focus Area O • • Focus Area O _ Erodible Soils ; ®Landslide Risk _- s Buildings • �� Buildings o soa na ....• .� u t c_ n_::, o - -r., 'i'000 Feet . . JserFeet Figure 0-3 - Focus Area O, Steep Slopes Figure 0-4 - Focus Area O, Wetlands 9:, Legend �+ Legend w� Kent City Limits j r=ti Kent City Limits _- a5 Focus Area O vo Me��6 Focus Area O ®Steep Slopes xTMRp i Wetlands Buildings r '"— �� Buildings 0 soa 1,000 , 0 'Soo 1, - Feet et v sk" Fe Pkt Page 140 Figure 0-5 - Focus Area O; Open Space, Resource Lands, or Other Jurisdictions' Urban Separators Figure 0-6 - Focus Area O, Seismic Hazard •'---. �•--'. . W 1 + 1 + 1 + = 1 + .1 .1 1 ♦ 1 Yr$ Legend - _ - r n Kent City Limits - -- - - _-- - sr' sr -Focus Area o Legend Open Space _ Resource Lands, -- r��Kent City Limits or Other - -- Focus Area O _ Jurisdictions' Urban Separators - - - ®Seismic Hazard Buildings Buildings _.. �>!;000 o Son l 500� ce hsn u t¢I C Gsah 'i h.. _ I :. , _.fp * -: - � non - Fee[- - E5:`r fa ❑--U-�' to It�!S Feet - Figure 0-7 - Focus Area O, FEMA 1% Flood Zone Figure 0-8 - Focus Area O, Restricted Lands xx xx x xxxx .-. xxxxx x x x x x x + 1 x x x x x ,,• ; r 1 x x x x x 1 1 1 xxx x x x + 1 1 + XXXxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx x xxxxx fA xxxxxxx j �l •j r 1 I 11 xxXxxxxxx x ----T ♦ ! 1 +-----� ! + x x x x xI x x x x 0 rl + x x x x R I+d P 1 xx x x x x + x x x x 1 q x x x x L + (J x f t + 1 X x xxxxx 1 1 + xx x '------1 Legend x x T - xxx Kent City Limit Legend ~--1 X Focus Area O X r Kent City Limits X •--r x x Restricted Area -Focus Area O _ (High-Range) x x FFMA 1%Flood Restricted Area XX Zone(A,AH,AE) (L..Range) Buildings x X x Fee[ Feet — Figure •-9 - Focus Area • , Wildlife Corridor .� � W Meeker St � � - � nt0� w.sznr•• Pkt Page 142 Focus Area P - "Del Mar" Figure P - Focus Area P, Del Mar 2fi0 Ln - N 21 P a' 5.2fi1 PI N a' M1O + N 5 2fi2 P1 N 5 261 6 ct 5 263 P! n 5 263 St na '269 PI cq e �c S 26$ Sf 365 Pf P y 5.2fi6 ; PI i N C� h 19 Ap 6� N a 5 zfis st N 5 2fi8 PI h� a Legend s r-ti Kent City •mm•Limits P ryN 71 -Focus Area P t 0 �500 1,000 ^s:ar= Feet 52>z st ° r � The Del Mar Urban Separator focus area, Focus Area P, was annexed to Kent in 1997 as part of a 578-acre annexation referred to as "Del Mar". Of the annexation site, 76 acres are designated as Urban Separator. This area is not a King County-mapped Urban Separator; its designation is only reflected in the City of Kent's land use plan map. Focus Area P was designated Urban Separator on the city's land use plan map in 2007 by Ordinance 3842. Table P - 1 Focus Area P Summary Name Del Mar Total Acreage 76 Acres Year(s) Annexed 1997 Year(s) Designated Urban Separator 2007 (Kent-only) Number of Parcels 11 Developed Parcels 0 Privately-Owned/Publicly Owned Parcels 7 Private / 4 Public Average Parcel Size 2 Acres There are 11 parcels in the Del Mar Urban Separator focus area, which are both privately and publicly owned. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) owns the 14-acre split-designated parcel described above, and the City of Kent owns two of the largest parcels, as well as one smaller parcel at the far north of the focus area. No permanent structures are present on the 76 acres in Focus Area P. A mobile home is situated such that it abuts the north boundary of an Urban Separator parcel, and satellite imagery shows temporary vehicle storage that extends inside the boundaries of this parcel. Pkt Page 143 Focus Area P contains one parcel that is split-designated Urban Separator and SF-6, for single family residential at a density of 6 dwelling units per acre. The parcel is slightly less than 14 acres; the southeast 5.2 acres are designated SR-6, and approximately 8.6 acres to the northwest are designated as Urban Separator. See Table P-1 for an estimate of restricted and unrestricted land in Focus Area P. Areas are rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Table P — 1 Restricted Lands Analysis — High-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 76 Acres 76 Acres 0 Acres Percent - 1000/0 00/0 Table P — 2 Restricted Lands Analysis — Low-Range Total Restricted Unrestricted Acreage 76 Acres 74 Acres 2.1 Acres Percent - 97% 3% Using the low range for restricted areas, Focus Area P contains two parcels that could be further subdivided under the current SR-1 zoning in a cluster subdivision. Average residual development capacity for these parcels in Focus Area P is approximately seven lots per parcel under SR-1 zoning. One of these parcels, however, is split zoned, with the majority of the unrestricted portion of the parcel residing in SR-6 zoning. For that reason, the residual development capacity for that parcel should not be considered as development capacity in an Urban Separator . The shape and degree of fragmentation of the second parcel also places limitations on its development, so the development capacity in Focus Area P is, in practical terms, far less than this analysis would indicate. Using the high range for restricted areas, only the split-zoned parcel described above retains residual development capacity. The following tables summarize residual development capacity in Focus Area P under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report: Table P — 3 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) - - - SR-4.5 - - - SR-6 - - - SR-8 - - - Pkt Page 144 Table P — 4 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 11) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 1 1 <1 SR-4.5 - - - SR-6 - - - SR-8 1 1 <1 A small area at the northeast edge of the focus area contains inventoried critical areas for erodible soils, landslide risk, and steep slopes. No other critical areas are present in Focus Area P, with the exception of inventoried wetlands. The Del Mar focus area is almost entirely inventoried wetland, with over 72 acres in total. Nearly the entire focus area is also within a WDFW-inventoried wildlife corridor, which is identified as freshwater forested/shrub wetland and aquatic habitat. The only direct connections to the Del Mar Urban Separator focus area are through local streets and driveways, although it is bordered to the west by SR-509/Pacific Highway S. and to the south by S. 272nd Street. Pacific Highway S. is a principal arterial, and S. 272nd is a minor arterial. One direct access point to the center of the focus area is through 28tn Avenue S. and the King County Roads Engineering Shop property. Transit routes serving Focus Area P within 0.5 mile include King County Metro routes 190 and 183. Route 183 is an all-day route that runs between the Federal Way Transit Center and Kent Station. Route 190 is a peak-only route that runs between Redondo Heights Park and Ride and downtown Seattle. A commercial shopping center with a grocery store, banks, restaurants, and various other retail and commercial services is present roughly 0.25 mile away to the southwest. Focus Area P is served by the Highline Water District for water supply service; Midway Sewer District provides sewer utility service. There are no existing water or sewer utility connections, but this focus area contains very little difficult terrain. Focus Area P is entirely within the McSorley Creek subbasin. The McSorely Creek subbasin is 41% impervious surface, and is 31% forested, exceeding both thresholds in the 2000 UW report by 31% and 34%, respectively. Pkt Page 145 Figure P-1 - Focus Area P, Erodible Soils Figure P-2 - Focus Area P, Landslide Risk •••• •• / YEN • ••• / / °'• • 52fi1 PI / 5262P1 N S,261 , ••••••••• 5262P! N S•261 Ct ; •• •••• a Ct I • � •• •••• 5263 PI 526, _ If ••• •264 PI •d ' c 15 S265 ••.• •••• _ St FI 0 P •••• 265-PI 0 P •� N h i •••• 5266 O1 N _ _ n d Z f�•• Y 'i 6 r: b -• a N w N 5268 at - 5.268 / 5.268 Legend ry; PI Legend N; P1 t Kent City Limits F I Kent City Limits E _ Focus Area P Focus Area P •TI Erodible Soils y S.170 st ®Landslide Risk y170 st J Buildings ryP s•nl ` Buildings 1 ryP szn st st 0 `500 1,000 �'l nslar�' 0 n500 Fee[ sz1z sl oe �ty ° � eioli' n Feet 527z st -° Figure P-3 - Focus Area P, Steep Slopes Figure P-4 - Focus Area P, Wetlands ♦ l ��_ N 2"IP Wv .- 52 6261 PI 5261 PI •� y,. N ;yyy 52P1 N S1261 4 C f - 4 Gt s ' —' x— t s 263 PI S2B3 vl gz635t'� 52635t aw, � vm � vm ykr wv 'ter '264 P1 i. I 9• '264 PI ... + Iw r,. 1! "♦N 1N41y .aWefr WM �,-..: s A�d ♦ r - I Yic .--vlc y� aW Nb vl¢ � aie per: ale. 'p• •. f 5265 � - w'♦k 5265 9t "aW yl/` ale :W vW v4�i .Yc yv. '� 9t 265 P1 0 P '265 PI N ' �.��•'^'.:�,.��kN�Wwe�.>..P�mew.�;.�5-'�, . cur ,1v -� �•. �� m 19 AY 3' kb 19 A 4 � w•TY� NuG,�"�_'r - N 5266 5t S 26s 5t 1 sJe S•L, +�5 ssIY sL' N tt`;L� "v66 ,yy 9..:yv „„9 We., .. 5•vB8 Legend Legend N> t- '1 Kent City Limits F / i Kent City Limits -Focus Area P -Focus Area P ®Steep Slopes y sa7o st .-O Wetlands � a z7o se _ A' w•'G, eF' S' Buildings tie s•nl -Buildings - ,a,. 4 ryp St 0 `500 1,000 "' l 0 �500 1,000 '3r`'�'- - I ✓.i�c� -n_ n-_- Feet .. Pkt Page 146 Figure P-5 - Focus Area P, Restricted Lands iJ 9261 P� J jx x h� m X X 0 r X X X i262-p� Ill 5261 ^, r X X X X X X X X a "J X X X X X X X X J xxxxxxxx i 263 p� N 52635[ r x X X X X X X X X r x X X X X X X X X ! x X X X X X X X X 526dpI XXXXXXXXXXX X X r xxxxxxxxxxxx d J X X X X X X X X X X X 5266P1 X X X T'x X X X X X X X _ XXX x x XXXXX X X s26e — a' XXXXXXXX%% x p' r xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx 19 Ay ' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXX a xxxxxxxxxxxx J xxxxxxxxxxxx Legend r xxxxxxxxxxx e 9 xxxxxxxxxxx J X X X X X X X X X X X y=�Kent City Limits J X X X X X X X X X X X r XXXXXXXXXXX -Focus Area P r X X X X X X X X X X X J XXXXXX ®Re stricted Area x X X X X. 9 5 (High-Range( r X X X X X p Restrided Area J X X X X X .yb X X (Low Range( 3 J x x x x x r _ _build ings J 0 500 1,000 Feet s.2�x sr f�ww Figure P-6 - Focus Area P, Wildlife Corridor 4. low :. _ y lb 1 I r � t l .r T Pkt Page 147 Summary and Conclusions The findings of this inventory and characterization report show the various existing ownership and development conditions, residual development capacity, adjacent land uses, critical and environmentally sensitive areas, and infrastructure access for sixteen individual focus areas comprised of lands designated Urban Separator on Kent's land use plan map. The analyses used GIS data and information from a variety of sources, including Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, King County, USGS, and City of Kent GIS data as well as aerial satellite imagery and information available from Google Maps. The sixteen Urban Separator focus areas contain varying degrees of existing development and access to infrastructure. They range from entirely vacant with large undivided lots to primarily developed with many smaller parcels. Despite the presence of critical areas and wildlife corridors that legally restrict development in much of the Urban Separator lands, some of the focus areas have some residual development capacity in their unrestricted portions, indicating that there is still room to increase density in these areas given existing zoning and regulatory conditions. The following tables summarize residual development capacity under current zoning and under potential rezoning, given high-range and low-range restricted areas, and adjusting for likely achieved density based on the 2014 Buildable Lands Report (accounting for public right of way and other public purposes): Table S-1 Residual Development Capacity (High-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots Additional Lots per (out of 539) per Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 102 4 - 5 <1 SR-4.5 164 6 - 7 2 - 3 SR-6 180 7 - 8 2 - 3 SR-8 202 9 - 10 3 - 4 Table S-2 Residual Development Capacity (Low-Range Restricted Areas) Zoning District # Parcels with Average # of Average # of Residual Capacity Additional Lots per Additional Lots per (out of 539) Parcel Acre SR-1 (Cluster) 148 4 - 5 <1 SR-4.5 256 8 - 9 2 - 3 SR-6 281 9 - 10 3 - 4 SR-8 313 11 - 12 4 - 5 As indicated in the tables above, an increase in allowed density to SR-4.5, SR-6, or SR-8 would not necessarily result in as large an increase in development density as might be expected. This limitation is due in part to restrictions placed on many of these lands for critical and sensitive areas. The percentages required for public right of way and other public purposes are also higher for higher-density zoning districts, meaning that a larger portion of the unrestricted land on a property must be set aside for other purposes. All of Kent's urban separator lands are within water service areas; those that are not within the City of Kent's retail water service area are within the service area of one of several neighboring water purveyors including Highline Water District, District 111, or Soos Creek Pkt Page 148 Water & Sewer District. Most urban separator lands, with the exception of a small segment of Focus Area H, and the southern portion of Focus Area E, are also within a public sewer service area. Several properties in Urban Separator focus areas, however, currently have no internal established connections to a water or sewer system. Some have difficult terrain, including steep slopes and landslide hazard areas, which would add to the difficuly and expense of connection to this infrastructure. All urban separator focus areas have some degree of access to the city road network; some are directly served by minor or major arterials or residential collectors, while others are served only indirectly through local streets. A small number of urban separators are served by the road network only at their external borders and lack internal roads. Transit service is limited in most urban separator lands, and typically consists of one or two routes; some of these are peak-only routes or dial-a-ride transit. Most urban separators do have some level of commercial or retail service within one to two miles, although few have these amenities within one-quarter mile, the typical distance people are expected to be willing to walk to accomplish daily tasks. The concentration of services in these areas is generally low compared to more dense urban areas. Nearly all of the focus areas fall within watershed subbasins in Kent that exceed thresholds for impervious surface (greater than 10%) and for tree canopy (less than 65%), as recommended by the 2000 University of Washington report, "Forest Cover, Impervious Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization Impacts in King County, Washington". While no conclusive evidence exists that stream health can be fully restored once these thresholds have been exceeded, methods such as new low-impact development (LID) standards and maintenance of low-density lands like Kent's Urban Separator lands can help prevent further damage. Despite these recommended thresholds, watershed health is not a binary metric; even with severe degradation valuable habitat and species are present in streams in Kent, many of which drain into rivers containing endangered species. The Urban Separator designation may be one tool with which to support continued functioning of these watersheds within King County's urban growth boundary. The information provided in this report is intended to inform the public and decision-makers in considering requests to increase allowed residential development density on Kent's Urban Separator lands. - Watershed--------=: Subbasins ;,qb e kKent Cere Legend K _ pwmx�we Lunt; f ban w b ALLAII leOp _ O 9eparar un D H Foeuv Areas ee non J� on -wenval as e 99 all Ghnn real rflhl he �Dll Worry DICK nm..ocan �`-f �:.. 1r, el�(}' ate.u., n oaevx ee 39 . Chad •.�y "L Now �no� ��m _I P _ ee a..,e anal % Mer ' q ee a..,e a. xeww,Dan can I®.e.,e w.u: c - a.l.a,. ern. e..k e e, 8110 Farrell Gre. 1 ex< omu t,. nr aw 7 %-' - ' mw Le ", serl Ghl III �ee Feel ® do a { 1 M 1 _ l i � e The F.rk The.Gl� ere., oe so n r m,rc W.Cl Feel Old, r� __'• . , I'll e lee De <e, KK c ,• . _ o as s he mag Pkt Page 150 Table A-A - Urban Separator Watershed Subbasins and Percent Impervious/Forested Subbasin Percent Impervious Percent Forested Impervious Forested (100/0) (65%) Big Soos Creek Central 31% 40% +21% -250/0 Big Soos Creek East No Data No Data No Data No Data �BigjiMM1,Creek North 32% 41% +22% Big Soos Creek South 28% 45% +180/0 -20% 32% +22jwl��� Grandview-Riverview 27% 42% +17% -23% ohnson C 190/0 29% +90/0 -36% Lower Green River - East Slope 80/0 79% -2% +14% Ga � 72% 6% +62% Lower Springbrook Creek - Kent 70% 13% +60% -52% Sorl 41% 31% Meridian Valley Creek 40% 24% +30% -41% Midway Creek 34% 28% W+24% -37% Mullen Slough 28% 33% +180/0 -32% Ols 26% +16% Panther Creek 39% 29% +29% -36% Creek 38% SR-516 - Old Fishing Hole 28% 52% +180/0 -13% -pper Garrison Creek 42% 22% +32% -43% Upper Mill Creek 44% 25% +34% -40% Upper Springbrook Creek 31% 37% +21% -28% Westside Soosette Creek 30% 23% +20% -42% Pkt Page 151 Appendix B - Harvey Ball Ranking and Criteria (attached) IIIIIINIIIII � ��° � 6000 & 00006 i0 & CC000CC0 F vnwo-o C & O G & O O O C c c OCCCC F • & CC • 000 • & C 4 • & C00000C • C H • & C C • 0 0 000 46 �^ ' • 66CC000 • & C �� • OCG • 0000Cc Fzadd+ K • OGCO . 00 • • & �-cddddadgi C0 • 6 & O • • O & & ° C • • C • � O . 00 � N C • • C 4 G • • C • PCO • & • • C • 0C�Fo � ao g be..ot re o�oa,e.apeo.rn _aM„a�, eH.,,.RamedRkaa.� te ma , tcanMderth ,�a,�rbs am Pkt Page 153 Harvey Ball Ranking Criteria: All fields - darker is more supportive of urban separator, has less access, more critical area, more restricted King County/Kent Only: 1 - King County (countywide/regional designation) .5 - Kent Only Connectivity: 1 - creates important link between open space, resource lands, or urban separators in other jurisdictions .75 - creates important link within the city between open space, resource lands, or other urban separators OR is adjacent to multiple open space, resource lands, or urban separators in other jurisdictions .5 - adjacent on multiple sides to open space, resource lands, or other urban separators but connection would exist without it .25 - adjacent on one side to open space, resource lands, or other urban separators, but doesn't create important connection 0 - isolated restricted (average of high and low range): 1 - 80 to 100 .75 - 60to79 .5 - 40 to 59 .25 - 20to39 0 - <20 Potential impacts to at-risk watershed subbasin Thresholds established in 2000 UW report to maintain health of watershed and habitat: • :510010 impervious surface • >>-65% tree canopy cover 1 - potential impacts to subbasin(s) that exceed both thresholds by <_ 50% .75 - potential impacts to subbasins that exceed both thresholds by >25% but less than 50% .5 - potential impacts to subbasins that exceed one threshold by >_25% or both thresholds by <25% .25 - potential impacts to subbasins that exceed one threshold by <25% 0 - no potential impacts to subbasins that exceed either threshold *Uses subbasin covering the majority of the focus area - if focus area substantially includes multiple subbasins, the one with the highest exceedance is used. Pkt Page 154 Connects wildlife corridor: 1 - creates important link in contiguous wildlife corridors in other jurisdictions and has substantial wildlife habitat coverage .75 - creates important link in contiguous wildlife corridors in other jurisdictions, but has minimal habitat coverage across site OR adjacent, does not create important link, but has substantial wildlife habitat coverage .5 - isolated habitat area and substantial habitat coverage OR adjacent but has minimal wildlife habitat coverage .25 - isolated habitat area and minimal habitat coverage 0 - no wildlife habitat present Limitations to Road/non - motorized access: 1 - Direct access to local roads only .75 - direct access on single parcel to connector arterial or residential collector OR direct access to local roads only but with access to non - motorized trail or path .5 - direct access through multiple parcels to connector arterial or residential collector, but few or no internal roads .25 - direct access through multiple parcels to principal or minor arterial, several internal connections 0 - direct access through multiple parcels to principal or minor arterial and complex network of internal roads Limitations to Water/sewer access: 1 - 3A, 3B .75 - 2A/3B OR 3A/2B .5 - 2A/2B OR 1A/3B OR 3A/1B .25 - 1A/2B OR 2A/1B 0 - 1A/1B Category A - Multiple connections - 1A One or two connections - 2A Lacks water and/or sewer connection - 3A Category 8 - Little or no difficult terrain - 1B Some, but less than 50% difficult terrain - 2B More than 50% difficult terrain - 3B Low intensity development: 0 - Average parcel size < 1 acre and at least 50% of parcels developed .25 - Average parcel size 1 - 2.9 acres and at least 50% of parcels developed .5 - Average parcel size 3 - 5.9 acres and at least 50% of parcels developed .75 - Average parcel size 6 or more acres and at least 50% of parcels developed Pkt Page 155 1 - More than 50% undeveloped Commercial Center Access: 0 - <_ .25 miles .25 - <- .5 .5 - <_ .75 .75 - <_ 1 1 - > 1 Transit Access: 0 - two or more frequent (every fifteen minutes) routes .25 - one frequent route, and other routes .5 - at least one all - day local route .75 - one or more peak - only routes 1 - DART only, or no transit Consistency with Policies: Average score in all categories out of a possible 10 (1 per category). 0 = 0to2 .25 = >2to4 .5 = >4to6 .75 = >6to8 1 = >8to10 Pkt Page 156 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 14, 2017 Introduction In February, 2017 the city's Economic and Community Development Committee approved the scope of work for a project to consider increasing allowed development density on parcels designated "urban separator" on the city's land use plan map. Urban separator parcels in the City of Kent are all zoned SR-1, which primarily allows only single-family residential, at a density of one unit per acre. The urban separator land use designation is a countywide designation, ratified by King County and its cities in King County's Countywide Planning Policies. Its purpose is to establish permanent low-density lands that connect wildlife corridors; protect resource lands and environmentally sensitive areas; create open space corridors within and between urban areas; and provide health, environmental, visual, and recreational benefits. Some of Kent's urban separator lands have been locally designated, separate from the countywide maps. The Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the state's regulatory framework for growth management, requires local jurisdictions to coordinate on planning activities. Topics of regional significance, like urban separators, are to be coordinated across jurisdictions. For this reason it is important to evaluate whether proposals to modify Kent's zoning or land use plan map designations pertaining to urban separators are consistent with Kent's plans as well as county-wide and regional plans and policies. This consistency review documents pertinent state, regional, countywide, and local policies and plans and implications of changes to Kent's urban separator lands. The plans and policy documents reviewed include: • Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) 0 2016 Kent Park & Open Space Plan Vision 2040 • 2009 Shoreline Master Program o Regional Growth Strategy 0 Kent City Code Multi-County Planning Policies 0 2008 Kent Transportation Master Transportation 2040 Plan 2012 King County Countywide Planning 2016 King County Comprehensive Plan Policies 2015 Kent Comprehensive Plan 2016 King County Open Space Plan Growth Management Act The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A, is a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and growth management in 1 Pkt Page 157 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 Washington State. It requires cities and counties of a certain size, or that meet a certain threshold for rate of growth, to plan for growth in a coordinated way within their communities, and with neighboring jurisdictions, as a county and as a region. Local governments must identify areas within their jurisdictions that can accommodate growth, and plan to protect open space networks, resource lands, and critical areas. The GMA requires counties to establish Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), inside of which urban densities must be allowed, and outside of which development must be strictly limited. Delineated UGAs must be given priority for urban growth, particularly in areas already characterized by urban development and served by existing infrastructure. However, not all land within the UGA may be developed. Within the UGA, counties and cities must designate open space corridors and greenbelts, and use best available science to identify and protect the value and functions of critical areas. The designation of urban separators as permanently low-density residential areas is one measure by which King County and the City of Kent meet this suite of requirements. Urban Separators serve to preserve and connect open space networks and greenbelts, and they act as buffers protecting critical areas and resource lands. Vision 2040 Vision 2040 is the regional planning document for the four-county Central Puget Sound region, which includes Pierce, King, Kitsap, and Snohomish Counties. It contains a Regional Growth Strategy to guide growth in a sustainable way, and Multicounty Planning Policies by which local jurisdictions should plan to achieve the growth targets outlined in the Regional Growth Strategy. Vision 2040 policies and guidance are relevant to urban separators in two key ways. The plan establishes high-level policies for how local jurisdictions should plan to accommodate their share of the region's anticipated growth, including how they make land use decisions and infrastructure investments. Vision 2040 also speaks to the ways in which the region's environmental assets, including resource lands, open space, and ecologically sensitive areas, should be protected and preserved. Increasing allowed density in Kent's urban separator parcels would intersect both of these themes. Regional Growth Strategy The Regional Growth Strategy, a component of Vision 2040, describes the overall strategy by which the Central Puget Sound region will plan for and accommodate growth through the year 2040. 2 Pkt Page 158 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 The Regional Growth Strategy urges cities and counties in the region to channel infrastructure investment to already built-up areas, especially regionally- and locally-designated centers. Intensive growth should be directed to these areas in order to maximize the use of existing infrastructure, facilitate efficient and lower- cost investments in new infrastructure, and minimize the environmental impact of urban growth. Kent has two regionally-designated centers: a Manufacturing and Industrial Center in its north-central valley and a Regional Growth Center in its downtown area. None of Kent's urban separator lands are within either of its designated centers, and therefore have not been identified as target locations for increased residential density or transportation investment. While this should not be taken to mean that no growth or transportation investments will be made in Kent's urban separator lands, these areas should not be considered priority locations to receive regional or local investment to accommodate significant growth. While Kent's urban separator lands are not intended to accommodate a substantial portion of the city's projected population growth, the urban separator designation does support growth in Kent's regional centers in a very important way. The Regional Growth Strategy suggests that part of the appeal of regional centers for new residents and businesses is their proximity to a variety of housing types. Low- density residential areas, including urban separator lands, offer a unique urban housing alternative; it contributes to a broad menu of housing options Kent can offer existing and future residents. Multicounty Planning Policies To provide a mechanism for achieving consistency across cities and counties on regional planning issues, consistent with requirements in the GMA, Vision 2040 contains a comprehensive set of Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs). They address environmental stewardship, development patterns, housing, economy, transportation, and public services. These policies lay out a vision to achieve a high quality of life while protecting the environment and using the region's resources wisely. Intentionally broad, the policies provide high-level guidance to cities and counties when considering land use, transportation, and other local planning decisions. A general policy in the MPPs is that local jurisdictions in the Central Puget Sound region are to coordinate planning efforts among other governments, agencies, and tribes to ensure a common vision for planning efforts across borders, and on issues of regional significance. Key partners invested in the topic of urban separators are Kent's neighboring cities to the north and south, Auburn and Renton, and King County. Changes to urban separator designations in Kent should be made in consultation with adjacent jurisdictions. The MPPs recognize the ecological, aesthetic, and economic benefits of the natural environment, and encourage conserving and connecting open space. Multi-County 3 Pkt Page 159 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 Planning Policies advocate for development to be compact and located to minimize impacts to natural features. Local governments are encouraged to identify, preserve, and enhance open space networks and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries. They should also identify and protect wildlife habitat corridors and native vegetation. The zoning and development regulations placed on Kent's urban separator lands, including low allowed density and mandatory clustering, are intended to meet these purposes by promoting compact development and the preservation and linkage of open space networks and wildlife habitat corridors. The MPPs also speak to the importance of density; they cite the various challenges associated with low-density development, including the relative expense of extending infrastructure, fragmentation of environmental resources, and limitation of transportation choices. They also cite environmental impacts like air pollution and greenhouse gas production. High-density, compact development can be more efficient and cost-effective to serve with infrastructure and services. Urban separator lands in Kent are, by definition, characterized by low-density development; however, compact or clustered development is required whenever urban separator properties are subdivided. This is intended to achieve some of the benefits of high-density development, like cost savings on infrastructure, and reduce the impact of open space and habitat fragmentation. As a region, Central Puget Sound cities and counties have committed to direct growth and development to a limited number of regional growth centers. Kent has both a regional Manufacturing and Industrial Center and a Regional Growth Center. Policies in the MPPs compel local governments to focus a significant share of population growth in designated regional centers. This concentration of development in centers encourages compact communities and supports the efficient use of land. Also important to effecting efficient land use is maximizing the development potential of existing urban lands. This includes encouraging development that achieves the density for which it is zoned. The 2017 Urban Separator Inventory and Characterization report indicates that many urban separator properties are not currently developed to the maximum density allowed, meaning that even with the existing SR-1 zoning, there is still capacity to increase density on these properties. Housing policies in the Central Puget Sound region's MPPs call for a range of housing types and choices to meet the housing needs of all income levels and demographic groups within the region. They place particular emphasis on expanding the supply and range of housing, including affordable housing, within and in close proximity to the region's designated centers. Kent's urban separator lands are located outside of designated growth centers and thus are not specifically targeted for increased housing density. They do, however, contribute to the diversity of housing types and densities in the city and the region, and add to its desirability for new residents and employers. As the most costly type of housing, though, they rarely provide opportunities to achieve affordable housing goals. Transportation 2040 4 Pkt Page 160 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 Similar to Vision 2040, the four-county Central Puget Sound region has developed a shared, long-term strategy for meeting regional transportation needs through strategic, sustainable, and environmentally conscious investment decisions. Transportation 2040 aims to promote mobility and accessibility throughout the region. A fundamental link exists between land use and transportation; land use patterns are influenced by the presence of transportation infrastructure like roads, paths, trails, sidewalks, and railroads. Likewise, transportation investments are driven in part by existing and planned land use regimes. For this reason it is important to review policies and guidelines in Transportation 2040 and evaluate how they might guide land use decisions, including those pertaining to urban separator lands. Transportation 2040 supports the policies advanced by Vision 2040; it calls for local governments to concentrate growth in regional and sub-regional (locally- designated) centers in order to maximize use of existing transportation infrastructure and make new transportation investments more efficient and less costly to complete. Concentration of growth in centers is intended to lessen the environmental impact of urban growth by reducing the length of vehicle trips and promoting the use of non-motorized transportation modes through compact, walkable development patterns. A number of other goals to which the region aspires are reflected in Transportation 2040 policy guidance; these include increasing transit ridership and non-motorized transportation, and reducing public expenditures by focusing new transportation infrastructure investments in already urbanized areas. Transportation 2040 explicitly states that transportation investment will be prioritized for locations throughout the region that are expected to accommodate the most growth, especially centers and compact urban communities. These policies indicate a regional preference for concentrating population growth and accompanying transportation investment in a select number of centers, rather than promoting significant growth in low-density or peripheral locations, such as Kent's urban separator lands, which would lead to more diffuse investment and reduced efficiency. King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), established in 2012 and most recently updated in 2016, are the guiding principles for planning and growth management in King County and its cities. The policy document sets a vision for the development and character of King County to be achieved by 2030. It establishes an Urban Growth Area (UGA), within which nearly all urban development should be contained, and sets population and employment growth targets for cities and the county. Consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, the CPPs strategically allocate anticipated population and employment growth. Under current zoning and 5 Pkt Page 161 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 regulatory conditions, including recent increases in allowed density in Kent's downtown and Midway areas, Kent has sufficient capacity to accommodate its share of the region's future growth. Also emphasized in the CPPs, alongside policies on how to accommodate growth, is how cities should designate and protect certain lands from dense development. The CPPs state that urban separators should be designated as permanent low-density areas within the UGA in order to protect resource lands, the rural area, and environmentally sensitive areas. They should also create open space and wildlife corridors within and between communities, and provide health, environmental, visual, and recreational benefits. The CPPs identify a network of urban separator lands, both within cities and in unincorporated King County, and institute a set of policies to guide their continued management. Kent's urban separator lands are all located outside of either regionally-designated center; most are at the city's outer periphery. For this reason, none of these lands are targeted for high concentrations of employment or residential growth. They do, however, contribute to the goal of diversity in residential densities, serving as a low-density alternative to more concentrated urban development. Kent's clustering requirements ensure development in urban separators is compact, which supports the countywide goal of efficient use of public transportation and other infrastructure. The CPPs also advocate for mixed-use development; a compatible mix of uses in urban separator lands might include churches, open space and parks, and agricultural or forest lands within or adjacent to residential uses. The CPPs state that use of existing land capacity for housing and employment should be maximized. Many of Kent's urban separator parcels are shown as vacant or redevelopable in Kent's 2015 vacant and redevelopable land map, which indicates that these properties are not developed to the maximum density allowed, as encouraged by the CPPs. The residual development capacity analysis, part of the 2017 Urban Separators Inventory and Characterization Report, supports this conclusion. All county and city comprehensive plans, including Kent's, must be consistent with the CPPs. In order to alter the zoning designations or allowed uses on urban separator properties in Kent, Kent's city council must approve amendments to the treatment of this land use designation in Kent's comprehensive plan. Many of the lands designated as urban separators in Kent's land use plan map are also included in urban separator maps adopted as part of the CPPs, so any changes to Kent's comprehensive plan regarding urban separators would also involve changes to the CPPs. This would require countywide approval and ratification. Kent Comprehensive Plan The Kent Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 2015, is the city's overall vision for 6 Pkt Page 162 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 how it should grow in the future. It outlines city policies for land use, parks and recreation, utilities, housing, human services, transportation, capital facilities management, shoreline management, and economic development. Its planning horizon is 2035. Policies in the comprehensive plan outline a vision for urban separators to be established to protect ecologically sensitive areas and to create open space corridors that provide visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth areas. Policy LU-19.1 in the plan clearly states that urban separators will be low-density areas with no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. The comprehensive plan encourages land use patterns that protect and enhance urban separators. These land use patterns can include clustered development' and zero lot lines that concentrate development and preserve permanent open space. To further enhance open space corridor connectivity, plan policies call for the creation of open space corridors within urban separators or that connect to urban separators when new development occurs. These areas should link to urban separator and open space lands in adjacent cities and in unincorporated King County. Many of Kent's urban separators do connect to other jurisdictions' urban separators, although some of them, like the Chestnut Ridge-Cloverdale urban separator, do not. The Panther Lake urban separator, initially designated in the Soos Creek Community Plan and subsequently in the King County Countywide Planning Policies, created a linkage between Soos Creek and Springbrook Creek wetland areas to the west in Renton; however, current zoning and existing development conditions in the adjacent lands in Renton do not reflect this designation. Kent's comprehensive plan calls for coordination with other agencies to create a regional approach to urban separators. This should include an inventory of local- and county-designated urban separators that will help manage development regulations. An inventory of urban separators in Kent was completed as the first phase of the 2017 urban separators project. The development capacity analysis in Kent's 2015 comprehensive plan is instructive in the consideration of increasing allowed development density, because it provides an indication of Kent's capacity to accommodate growth given its present land inventory and existing zoning. The plan encourages the evaluation and modification of land uses and densities to accommodate growth targets. However, the King County buildable lands program and Kent's 2015 development capacity analysis indicate that Kent is expected to be able to accommodate its allocated growth targets under current conditions. 1 Clustered development is required when subdividing urban separator parcels in Kent. Individual lots must be "clustered" in groups of 8 or fewer, and 50% of the unrestricted (buildable) land in the subdivision must be preserved as open space, and where possible must be oriented in such a way that it connects to other urban separators or open space corridors. The open space area can be owned and managed collectively by the homeowners or by the city. 7 Pkt Page 163 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 The plan calls for this anticipated growth and supporting infrastructure investment to be concentrated in the urban center and activity centers. None of the city's goals indicate high priority for investment in growth in low-density residential areas that are not within or adjacent to commercial centers. Relevant housing policies in Kent's comprehensive plan speak to the diversity of housing options offered within the city to accommodate growth targets. Accommodating housing demand is described as Kent's greatest land use challenge; making efficient use of remaining land while providing desirable housing options is a necessary but difficult balance to achieve. The Land Use Element Background report in Kent's comprehensive plan states that housing on large lots, as encouraged by the urban separator land use designation, while desirable, is not affordable for most families in Kent. Policies in the Utilities Element, specifically relating to water and sewer service, say that the city will ensure that public utilities service in the city and the service area is adequate to accommodate anticipated growth without significantly degrading service for existing customers. All of the urban separator lands are within water retail service areas at this time; those outside of the City of Kent water franchise service area are within one of several neighboring water or sewer districts, including Highline Water District, Renton Water & Sewer District, District 111, or Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. Most urban separators, with the exception of a small segment of the Soos Creek urban separator and the southern portion of the Meridian East urban separator, also have access to a public sewer system. Sufficient capacity exists to extend service to new development in urban separator lands; costs to install conveyance infrastructure would be borne by the developer.Z Relevant policies in other elements of Kent's comprehensive plan, including the Parks and Open Space Element, the Shoreline Element, and the Transportation Element, are described in greater detail in the Parks & Open Space Plan, the Shoreline Master Program, and the Transportation Master Plan, respectively; these policies are described below. Kent Park & Open Space Plan Kent's Park & Open Space Plan was last updated in 2016. The plan establishes goals and policies for management of the city's parks and open space lands and facilities, and establishes priorities for city investment. Its relevance to urban separators is in the relationship between the city's existing open space and urban separator lands. Kent's 2016 Park & Open Space Plan takes a new approach to parks planning. It emphasizes investment in existing parks and park assets rather than simply continuing to acquire additional properties as promoted by former performance z Per interview with City of Kent Water System Manager. 8 Pkt Page 164 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 measures. With this focus on improving existing infrastructure rather than on purchasing new park lands, privately stewarded open space will continue to play an important role in providing habitat for urban wildlife, cleaning the air, absorbing storm water, and providing other needed ecosystem services.3 Policies in the Park & Open Space plan emphasize the use of open space to improve habitat connectivity and create linkages between parks, trails, and open space for recreational use. They support connecting people to nature by promoting the extension of trails through natural area corridors to provide high-quality and diverse access to Kent's environmental resources. Clustering requirements for urban separators require 50% of the developable land to be set aside as open space any time urban separator lands are subdivided. The set-asides can provide opportunities to create linkages to parks and public open space corridors. While some developers may choose to retain the open space for the exclusive use of residents of the development, they have the option to turn over ownership and management of the open space tract to the City of Kent. Development in urban separators can be less cost-effective than in areas zoned for greater density, so opportunities to make these open space connections may be limited Urban separators, in their function as "buffers", also have the potential to limit direct access to Kent's natural areas to only a small number of individuals living in single-family homes with large lots. This is typically the most expensive form of housing, and is not affordable for many families in Kent. Low-density single-family residential zoning around open space corridors like Panther Lake, the Green River, and Soos Creek increases the travel distance to these corridors for most of Kent's residents, and prevents direct access for people in multi-family housing or other more affordable and concentrated types of development. Shoreline Master Program Kent's Shoreline Master Program (SMP), a state-mandated planning document, contains a collection of policies that guide land use on Kent's shorelines; the policies ensure that important water-based uses are prioritized in shoreline environments and that ecologically sensitive resources are protected from damage resulting from development. The SMP designates shoreline types for lands surrounding all waters of the state within Kent's jurisdiction, and specifies priority and allowed land uses for each shoreline designation. Kent's urban separator lands contain shorelines adjacent to waters of the state; these shorelines are those around the Green River, Panther Lake, Big Soos Creek, 3 Per interview with City of Kent Parks staff. 9 Pkt Page 165 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 and Springbrook Creek. Shorelines along the Green River are also designated as shorelines of statewide significance, meaning that, among other provisions, statewide interests are prioritized over local interests in these areas. Within Kent's urban separator shorelines, there are two types of shoreline designations: "Urban Conservancy - Low Intensity" (UC-LI), and "Urban Conservancy - Open Space" (UC-OS). These designations serve to protect ecological functions while allowing low-impact uses, or allow for public access and recreation. These shoreline designations constitute regulatory requirements for retaining established low-density lands, and must be considered when evaluating alternatives for increasing allowed density in urban separator lands. Kent City Code Kent City Code (KCC) defines urban separators as "low-density lands that define community or municipal identities and boundaries; protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas; and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits". Zoning and development regulations in KCC pertaining to urban separators apply to those lands designated as such in Kent's comprehensive land use plan map. Per Kent's comprehensive plan, all lands designated urban separator in the land use plan map must be zoned for single-family residential uses at a density of one dwelling unit per acre (SR-1). This zoning district establishes, among other provisions, a minimum lot area of 34,700 square feet. Principally allowed uses in this zoning district are limited to single family homes, including modular or manufactured, or small group homes. Other uses can be allowed conditionally or as accessory uses. Code requirements for urban separators include mandatory clustering (KCC 12.04.263) when property that is wholly or even partially within the urban separator land use designation is subdivided. This means that lots in a new subdivision must be concentrated, in one or more "clusters" of up to eight individual lots, on one half of the unconstrained portion of the property. At least fifty percent of the area unconstrained by critical areas must be set aside as permanent open space. In cluster subdivisions, lot area and dimensions may be smaller than would otherwise be allowed in SR-1 zoning; the minimum area for a lot in a cluster subdivision is 2,500 square feet. The dedicated open space must be oriented and located to maximize connectivity for protective buffers around environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat. It must also create connections with other open space tracts, parks, and trails; and maintain scenic corridors. Any open space tracts created through a clustered subdivision may not be developed in the future, nor can they be altered in any way that degrades environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, or resource lands; or impedes scenic corridors, recreational benefits, and open space connectivity. 10 Pkt Page 166 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 These provisions help to achieve the stated objectives of the urban separator designation, including creation and preservation of open space corridors, and providing recreation, environmental, visual, and wildlife benefits. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas is also achieved in other ways through KCC, supported by the urban separator land use designation. The City of Kent, as required by the GMA, maintains inventories of environmentally sensitive and critical areas, which include geological hazard areas like steep slopes, erodible soils, landslide hazards, and volcanic and seismic hazard areas; critical aquifer recharge areas; wetlands; frequently flooded areas; and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Development or other activity that could impact these sensitive or critical areas is regulated by the city's Critical Areas Code in Kent City Code 11.06. In certain critical areas, development is prohibited and buffers must be established to protect these areas and maintain native vegetative conditions. The urban separator land use designation is used to maintain low-density development in and around critical areas in Kent, particularly those at the outer edges of the city, where natural features form municipal boundaries (ex. Soos Creek). The majority of parcels in the urban separator land use designation contain at least one category of critical area, as defined in KCC 11.06, so much of these lands would be protected to some extent even without the urban separator land use designation. However, about one third of urban separator parcels do not contain inventoried critical areas; as a result, the urban separator designation extends protections to lands beyond those which would be protected under the Critical Areas Code. Kent Transportation Master Plan The City of Kent adopted a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in 2008, which serves as a blueprint for the city's long-term transportation planning and strategic investments. It contains an inventory of the existing transportation system, standards for level of service to be provided by the city's transportation infrastructure, strategies for managing transportation demand, and descriptions of locations where improvements are needed. Land use and transportation planning are inexorably linked; they inform one another in complex and iterative ways. Kent's planned transportation infrastructure investments influence decisions about land use, and its land use patterns, as well as those of adjacent jurisdictions, drive transportation investments. The TMP strives for consistency between land use plans and long-range transportation planning; it emphasizes coordination between new development and transportation projects to maintain sufficient service capacity. Modification to land use plans, in this case to urban separator lands currently designated for permanent low-density residential uses, could impact existing transportation improvement plans. Plans for future transportation improvements, including those captured in the Transportation Improvement Program and Capital 11 Pkt Page 167 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 Improvement Plan were developed under the expectation that these lands would remain low-density. The TMP uses a "plan-based approach", which means that programs, services, and capital investments are consistent with the vision advanced in the comprehensive plan. To amend the allowed density in urban separator lands would require an assessment of the capacity of adjacent transportation infrastructure to support increased development density; additional improvements not previously anticipated may be necessary in these locations to maintain the established level of service. This concept of concurrency of transportation infrastructure with new development is an important theme woven throughout the TMP. New development must include provisions to maintain the level of service for potentially impacted routes by the time the new development is in place; these provisions frequently include developer-funded transportation improvements that accommodate or mitigate the impacts of the development. Strategic alignment of land use policies and transportation planning efforts, as supported by TMP policies, ensure transportation investments are coordinated and predictable over time. It can help to more effectively anticipate demand and manage growth while ensuring multi-modal mobility. In order to begin to shift travel modes from primarily single-occupant vehicles to increased use of transit and non-motorized travel, the TMP supports Kent comprehensive plan policies that encourage mixed-use activity centers and high- density residential uses, especially downtown. In support of this land use approach, a stated policy in the TMP is to prioritize projects that improve transportation facilities and services within designated centers and along corridors that connect centers. This preference for promoting density and transportation investment in the city's centers is consistent with policies advanced throughout regional, countywide, and local plans. With limited funds available to increase transportation infrastructure capacity, the city, along with its regional partners, has established clear priorities for directing investments where they are most cost-effective and efficient, and support planned growth in its designated centers. This means that investments to increase capacity outside of designated centers, including those potentially needed to accommodate growth beyond what is currently planned in urban separator lands, would be assigned a lower priority. King County Comprehensive Plan The King County Comprehensive Plan is the master planning document for unincorporated King County. It was updated in 2016 and has a growth planning horizon of 2006-2031. Policies in the King County Comprehensive Plan apply to all areas under King County jurisdiction, which are those outside of incorporated cities. Their applicability to Kent's urban separators is comparative only; both jurisdictions must be consistent with the King County Countywide Planning Policies and Vision 2040. The tools and strategies in King County's comprehensive plan serve as 12 Pkt Page 168 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 examples for Kent. They provide insight into the ways in which Kent's local partners treat land use issues, and are demonstrative of alternative methods by which the urban separator designation can be incorporated into land use planning. Urban separators are defined in the King County Comprehensive Plan as corridors of land that define community or municipal identities and boundaries, provide visual breaks in the urban landscape, and link parks and open space within and outside of the Urban Growth Area. They should include and link parks and other lands that contain significant environmentally sensitive features, or contain historic resources. The county employs several strategies for preserving urban separator lands in unincorporated King County, which could serve as examples for Kent to consider. King County Policy U-184 states that urban separators should be preserved through park, trail, and open space acquisitions; incentive programs such as the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program; the Public Benefit Rating System program; and regulatory measures. Through the TDR program, development rights for lands in the urban separator land use designation may be transferred to lands outside of urban separators, preferably to lands within city boundaries. Unincorporated commercial areas may also be receiving sites, as can short subdivisions (less than 5 individual lots), when they have been pre-determined as such. Formal subdivisions with 5 or more lots may only be receiving sites if a subarea study has been completed. Although the zoning designation for urban separators in unincorporated King County establishes a maximum allowed development density of one dwelling unit per acre, development rights can be transferred from these lands at a rate of four dwelling units per gross acre. These development rights may be sold by property owners to developers of other properties in order to obtain some financial benefit while preserving open space and retaining ownership of the land itself. The Public Benefit Rating System is another tool used by King County to help preserve urban separator lands; it involves the reduction of assessed value of a property (used for calculating property taxes) to reflect its "current use" value rather than the "highest and best use" value that would otherwise apply. Points are awarded for certain types of open space resources that provide appreciable benefits to the public. These points translate into a percentage reduction of taxable value for the portion of the property preserved as open space. Regulatory measures to protect urban separators primarily include zoning regulations, which establish the maximum density for all urban separator lands in unincorporated King County at one dwelling unit per acre. The plan states that the county should consider requests for increases in allowed density for lands zoned for one dwelling unit per acre, unless the properties are environmentally significant, or are urban separators. In other words, requests for increased density in urban separator lands should not be considered. King County Open Space Plan 13 Pkt Page 169 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 The King County Open Space Plan was updated in 2016; its policies are applicable to all areas within unincorporated King County. Their applicability to Kent's urban separators is primarily comparative; both jurisdictions' plans must be consistent with the King County Countywide Planning Policies. Under certain conditions, however, lands within incorporated areas, including Kent, are owned and managed by King County and fall under the jurisdiction of the Open Space Plan. King County's Open Space Plan briefly mentions urban separators, in reference to those forming a buffer along the Urban Growth Area boundary. The county's stated policy relative to these urban separators is for the county to acquire and retain ownership of them. King County Parks owns much of the land near the eastern boundary of Kent, along Soos Creek. If Kent were to employ a similar model, several of Kent's urban separators could be considered for public acquisition under these criteria. This would be the case, in particular for properties along the city's eastern boundary with unincorporated King County, along Soos Creek. Beyond acquisition, creative techniques to improve service, such as partnerships and cost-sharing, are also encouraged. An alternative ownership model used widely by King County is conservation easements; the county holds nearly 145,000 acres of conservation easements. A conservation easement is a tool used by the county to dedicate high-conservation-value property to conservation without owning the land outright. Through conservation easements on privately owned property, King County maintains hundreds of miles of informal or backcountry trails that provide passive (unprogrammed) recreation opportunities and form connections with public open space. Some of Kent's urban separator parcels are adjacent to public open space lands, and depending on their size, recreational or ecological conservation value, and whether they provide continuity and expand public access, could be considered for acquisition or for conservation easements if a similar model were instituted in Kent. Conclusions This report briefly reviews and synthesizes policies and guidelines advanced in major planning documents relevant to land use decisions in the City of Kent. It is intended to help guide decisions regarding potential amendments to the urban separator land use designation. Plans reviewed include regional, countywide, and local plans, ranging from high-level guidance to prescriptive policies and regulations. Although many of these planning documents do not specifically mention the urban separator land use designation, all have policies which are relevant to the subject. A number of themes are repeated frequently throughout the plans and guidance documents reviewed in this report; one of these is the preservation and enhancement of connectivity for open space networks, critical areas, wildlife corridors, and other natural resources like shorelines and resource lands. Planning guidance consistently advocates for these areas to be protected from the negative 14 Pkt Page 170 Urban Separators Consistency Review Report August 4, 2017 impacts of development to ensure they remain intact into the future and continue to serve their beneficial functions. The urban separator designation is one of many tools employed by the region, King County, and the City of Kent to this effect. A second theme emerging from this review is that the substantial population and employment growth expected in the region over the next decade should be directed to already urbanized areas, particularly to designated activity centers. New development must be coupled with adequate infrastructure to support it, and compact urban development where supportive infrastructure already exists is the most efficient and cost-effective way to meet this target. It also helps to minimize the environmental impacts of growth. Buildable lands analyses indicate that Kent has more than sufficient capacity to accommodate the city's projected growth, particularly through dense infill development in Downtown and Midway. If additional capacity is needed, however, these policies suggest that priority should be given to designated activity centers rather than low-density areas which have lower concentrations of urban infrastructure and services. Kent's urban separators would fall under the latter category. Concentrating growth and investment in activity centers also helps to achieve a third recurring policy direction, which is to encourage compact, walkable urban communities that promote the use of transit and non-motorized modes of transportation. Kent's designated centers have significant existing and planned transit investment, and are well suited to accommodate multi-modal transportation. Urban separator lands in Kent, most at the city's periphery or characterized by difficult topography, and situated among other lower-density land uses, have fewer opportunities for walking, bicycling, or transit use for daily activities. Concurrence on the subject of variety in housing types can also be found throughout many of the plans reviewed for this report. A variety of housing types draws new businesses and residents, and helps to maintain the diversity that makes the region, and Kent in particular, a desirable place to live and work. Urban separator lands offer a low-density residential alternative to other more concentrated living arrangements in relatively close proximity to urban services. They ensure that current and future residents are offered a wide range of housing choices to fit the broad spectrum of needs and preferences. Lastly, the importance of a regional approach to land use planning is emphasized again and again in Kent's guiding plans and policy documents. As a member of an economically, socially, and physically interconnected region, the city works with and learns from our regional partners, especially on issues of regional significance such as urban separators. The approaches of Kent's neighbors and partners, and the far- reaching impacts of Kent's land use decisions outside of its municipal boundaries, cannot be discounted when considering amendments to the urban separator land use designation. 15 Pkt Page 171 Comments Received Re: Urban Separators through March 19, 2018 Submitted for Public Hearing March 26, 2018 Pkt Page 172 Sullivan Millwork L.L.C. 3/21/17 10864 SE 200T" St. Kent, Wa. 98031 Email : sullivanmillwork@gmail.com Phone: (253)-850-5787 Fax: (253) 850-5824 Cell: (206) 941-1908 City Of Kent Planning and Zoning Attn: Danielle Butsick RE: Comprehensive Plan Review. Modify Urban Separators My address — 10864 S.E. 200th Street. Current Zoning SR-1. My property is adjacent(Eastside) of Panther Lake Cluster Sub-division. would like to have a sit-down with you at your earliest convenience. I'm flexible. Thank You For Your Time, Terry Sullivan Sullivan Millwork L.L.C. Pkt Page 173 Butsick, Danielle From: Matt Mathes <msmathes@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 4:39 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Preview of Comments - Frager Road - Matelich site Preview of Property Owner Comments on Urban Separator Land Use Designation — Frager Road Land Use & Planning Commission Meeting on Monday August 28, 2017 Property: 11.22 acre Frager Road site King County APNs: 1522049134, 1522049137, and 2222049029 Property Description The 11.22-acre property consists of 3 tax parcels located along the west side of Frager Road. Currently, the site is designated Urban Separator with SR-1 zoning also subject to 3 other critical area regulations—aquatic area(Midway Creek stream), wetlands and flood hazard. Site Context& Access Frager Road is now operated as a dead end road terminating for vehicular access just north of the subject property. City intends for Frager road to be multi-use non-motorized trail (bike path). The existing traffic use is less than 10 trips a day along the subject site frontage. The road is rural paved asphalt cross section with swales (no curb or gutter or utilities). One intertie water line is generally under Frager Road right of way. All inquiries since 2010 to City staff indicated it is not possible for any tapping into the existing water line for any private development needs (potable water or fire protection). Frager Road connects to SR-516 south of the Riverside Golf Course site owned by City of Kent. The subject site has excellent interstate and international access to I-5 via SR-516 with only 3 traffic signals. i Pkt Page 174 Demand for Use & Prospective Buyers The property has been offered for sale actively since October 2010, to private,public and non-profit organizations. So far, there have been no offers from the private sector. Only one offer came from King County in 2015. The documented 2016 and 2017 recent inquiries are consistently seeking land uses not enabled in Urban Separator and SR-1. Most prospective buyers in the past 7 years have been seeking uses that are not allowed under Urban Separator and SR-1: • Transportation—truck parking, dispatch, break bulk loading from 40 ft. trailers to local vans, outdoor storage (cargo storage boxes, concrete units, sand & gravel, etc.) • Commercial—contractor office with outdoor yard for large equipment trailer and truck parking,plus material storage • Greenhouses (grow only not retail, woody ornamental horticultural, etc.) • Church with 1 or more residences • Multi-family residential (10+ DU/acre) • Equestrian property with several paddocks and barns The few inquiries about buying for single family residential have rarely gone past any first inquiries, due to the number of restrictions and lack of utilities. Since early 2011, the property owner proactively contacted and then offered to sell the property at market price to 2 public agencies and 2 conservation groups: • Trust for Public Lands—Ann Welz • Forterra (formerly Cascade Land Conservancy) • King County—made an offer in July, 2015 at$112, 000 (matches KC Property Assessment value of 3 parcels) • City of Kent Parks—Hope Gibson, plus other staff The property owner offered the site at market price for these uses, with no uptake: 2 Pkt Page 175 • municipal, • storm water(storage, water quality, infiltration) • flood control, • stream and fish enhancement, • wetland mitigation banking, • open space, parks,recreation and/or trail, • wildlife habitat conservation. No acceptable offer resulted from any of the outreach by the property during past 7 years to keep the site in long term conservation or open space. 3 Pkt Page 176 From: Anderson,Charlene To: Butsick,Danielle Subject: FW: Forterra Side Hill Property on SE 208th Street near WinCo(BCE#18470) Date: Wednesday,August 02,2017 3:36:25 PM Attachments: imaae003.ipa PRELIMINARY.odf Schneider Forterra Scheme 1,8-1-17.odf 18470-R-WTLD-2016-01-29-Raedeke.pdf Importance: High From: Ivana Halvorsen [mailto:ialvorsen@barghausen.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 10:49 AM To: Anderson, Charlene; Gilbert, Matthew; Bonsteel, Hayley Cc: 'Harry Schneider'; neal@rhnewellaia.com Subject: Forterra Side Hill Property on SE 208th Street near WinCo (BCE #18470) Importance: High Hi Charlene: I am working with Schneider Homes who is working with Forterra to try to determine development options for the large property known as the Forterra Side Hill Property (Parcel 072205-9004). The property is 27.7 acres and currently zoned R-1. Theoretically, the allowed density under R-1 would be 28 lots/residential units; however, the extensive critical areas on the site only really leave room for about 10 lots, which cannot meet the clustering requirements of the R-1 zone. Essentially, the R- 1 zoning designation coupled with requirements/costs for road improvements and utility extensions renders the site undevelopable and essentially unusable. Schneider Homes would like to have the City consider redesignating the property for apartments with a zoning designation of MR-M (Medium Density Multifamily) which has a allowed density of 23 units/acre and allows 3-story buildings up to 40 feet tall. We understand that the above-noted designation would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Rezone, which they are prepared to undertake. Schneider Homes has hired an architect to prepare a couple of site plan options that include 34 apartments in three buildings, with stacked flats and structured parking (see site plan). The apartment option would allow the 1. Attached is a plan set that shows the small area developable land, slope analysis, and wetland buffer averaging (wetlands and buffers as determined by Raedeke on behalf of the City, see attached report). Also attached is a site plan showing conceptual 34-unit apartment development. We would like to have a meeting to discuss the options for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezone and to understand the city's current status of reviewing the R-1 zoning city- wide. The requested zoning is MR-M and the corresponding Comp Plan designation, presumably Medium Density Multi Family. The meeting will only be helpful if it is not theoretical, so if we need to formally apply for a pre-application meeting please let me know. We are targeting the 2017 Comp Plan Update cycle this September. We met with Matt Gilbert and others earlier this year for a conceptual idea session, which is how we arrived where we are now. Pkt Page 177 Can you please arrange a meeting with yourself and whatever staff you feel is appropriate? Tl avale ou Ivana Halvorsen I Senior Planner BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 18215—72nd Avenue South I Kent, WA 98032 Direct Phone 1 425.656.7487 General Phone 1 425.251.6222 Fax 1 425.251-8782 Email I ihalvorsen(a)barahausen.com Pkt Page 178 From: Erik Pascal [mailto:ErikPascal@live.com] Sent: Monday,January 15, 2018 9:01 PM To: Kathi Jones<KathiJones@iohnlscott.com> Subject: Green spaces and overcrowding Hello Katherine. I wanted to reach out to you about what I believe is an important issue here in Kent as you are on the Land Use and Planning board. I think we should stop letting developers destroy our green space here in Kent to build more and more houses. Wetlands, trees, and grasslands are being destroyed to make way for new subdivisions and complexes. Not only is it destroying greenspace but it's also rapidly increasing congestion. Traffic here on the east hill and elsewhere in Kent has increase drastically to very frustrating levels. It's insane how many cars there are on our roads now leading to increase driving times (even driving to simple things like grocery stores). Even pulling out of parking lots is a chore. Try pulling out of the Trader Joes parking lot onto 132nd, it's a nightmare now. Thanks for reading, Darren Halstead. Pkt Page 179 Butsick, Danielle From: dicklanden@aol.com Sent: Friday,April 14, 2017 3:07 PM To: Clamp, Sharon Cc: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Hearing PL Cluster, SU2016-2, KIVA#RPP3-2161286, April 19, 2017, 11am Attachments: XCELDkt2015-1Kent.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Due By: Tuesday,April 18, 2017 8:30 AM Flag Status: Completed attn: Sharon Clamp, City of Kent Planning Services We are the adjacent property owners, 10824 & 10850 SE 200th and 19818 108th Ave SE to the subject of the hearing (above referenced, zoned SR-1), and are known as XCEL Holdings, LLC. We would like to add our support to the proposed project in that it will provide for added amenities, additional housing units, and appropriate development of the Panther Lake Community Area. We are most interested in the zoning in the area in that SR-1 is that area overlay even though (ie) several surrounding parcels along 108th Ave SE have a density of SR-6 and are still held as SR-1. Prior to the annexation of this area by Kent from King County, we had some discussions with County and they were advocates for some selected upzoning in areas like this to support one goal of the KC County Comprehensive Plan for more and affordable housing units within cities, while not adding to infrastructure costs. Subsequently we submitted a proposed amendment to the Kent Comp Plan, DKT-2015-1 (cy attached), in August 31, 2015, for an upzone for our parcels from SR-1 and have yet to receive a hearing on it. While SU2016-2 will be held at SR-1, the housing clusters are more like SR-6/8, to enable the development to maintain the integrity of the wetlands and set backs for the lake-it's very well done. We would hope that the Hearing Examiner can do an ancillary recommendation addressing our DKT-2015-1 and like properties and suggest upzoning adjacent properties to properly configure all for the potential needed and desirable growth in this plateau area. One of our representatives will be at the hearing if elaboration on our support is necessary. Sincerely, Dick Landen, Managing General Partner, XCEL Holdings, LLC, 206.261.5368 1 Pkt Page 180 August 25, 2017 Danielle Bustick, Long Range Planner City of Kent Planning 220 4t" Avenue South Kent. WA 98032-5895 RE: Comments by Property Owner on Urban Separator Land Use Designation — Frager Road Land Use & Planning Commission Meeting on Monday August 28, 2017 Property: 11.22 acre Frager Road site King County APNs: 1522049134, 1522049137, and 2222049029 This letter is written after the property owner's planning consultant visited the Kent Permit Center, talked with planner Sharon Clamp on Friday August 25, 2017. She explained you are conducting a citywide study of the Urban Separator lands, and you provided an overview of the study by phone. Please make this letter part of the meeting record on Monday August 28, 2017 and also kindly share copies with each commissioner. Property Description The 11.22-acre property consists of 3 tax parcels located along the west side of Frager Road. Currently, the site is designated Urban Separator with SR-1 zoning also subject to 3 other critical area regulations—aquatic area (Midway Creek stream), wetlands and flood hazard. See attachment 1—Site Maps (2 pages) Site Context &Access Frager Road is now operated as a dead end road terminating for vehicular access just north of the subject property. City intends for Frager road to be multi-use non-motorized trail (bike path). The existing traffic use is less than 10 trips a day along the subject site frontage. The road is rural paved asphalt cross section with swales (no curb or gutter or utilities). One intertie water line is generally under Frager Road right of way. All inquiries since 2010 to City staff indicated it is not possible for any tapping into the existing water line for any private development needs (potable water or fire protection). Frager Road connects to SR-516 south of the Riverside Golf Course site owned by City of Kent. The subject site has excellent interstate and international access to 1-5 via SR-516 with only 3 traffic signals. 1 Pkt Page 181 Demand for Use & Prospective Buyers The property has been offered for sale actively since October 2010, to private, public and non- profit organizations. So far, there have been no offers from the private sector. Only one offer came from King County in 2015. The documented 2016 and 2017 recent inquiries are consistently seeking land uses not enabled in Urban Separator and SR-1. Most prospective buyers in the past 7 years have been seeking uses that are not allowed under Urban Separator and SR-1: • Transportation —truck parking, dispatch, break bulk loading from 40 ft. trailers to local vans, outdoor storage (cargo storage boxes, concrete units, sand &gravel, etc.) • Commercial —contractor office with outdoor yard for large equipment trailer and truck parking, plus material storage • Greenhouses (grow only not retail, woody ornamental horticultural, etc.) • Church with 1 or more residences • Multi-family residential (10+ DU/acre) • Equestrian property with several paddocks and barns The few inquiries about buying for single family residential have rarely gone past any first inquiries, due to the number of restrictions and lack of utilities. Since early 2011, the property owner proactively contacted and then offered to sell the property at market price to 2 public agencies and 2 conservation groups: • Trust for Public Lands—Ann Welz • Forterra (formerly Cascade Land Conservancy) • King County— made an offer in July, 2015 at $112, 000 (matches KC Property Assessment value of 3 parcels) • City of Kent Parks— Hope Gibson, plus other staff The property owner offered the site at market price for these uses, with no uptake: • municipal, • storm water (storage, water quality, infiltration) • flood control, • stream and fish enhancement, • wetland mitigation banking, • open space, parks, recreation and/or trail, • wildlife habitat conservation. No acceptable offer resulted from any of the outreach by the property during past 7 years to keep the site in long term conservation or open space. 7 Pkt Page 182 Recommended Topic to Include in City of Kent Study of Urban Separator: Land Values Sales prices and assessments should be comprehensively reviewed by City for all Urban Separator sites inside City. The subject site should possess a market value similar to other comparable Urban Separator and SR-1 zoned sites, in the average range of$55,000 to $57,000 per acre, but it does not. The conclusion is that the City's land use and zoning is not increasing land values along Frager Road. This should be of high concern to the city. Compare the values of the Matelich property assessment value at $112,00 range to the asking price of$475,000 ($42,335 per acre) to these sites: • Darrin Stearns 5-acre property sale price and assessment value • Price King County actually paid for the Tuefel (formerly Rosso Nursery) 30-acre site • Average per acre price King County typically pays for wetland mitigation banking sites south of 1-90 (Mike Murphy, KC staff) • City of Kent Golf Course assessment value • Developed properties with US and SR-1 designations, at 1 unit to the acre densities, in Kent and adjacent cities along SR-516 corridor with similar designations (Covington, Maple Valley, etc.) Trend in Regulation— Restricted Uses & Size The history of recent regulation of the Frager Road property can be described by City of Kent planning staff. From the property owner's perspective, the number of allowed uses and permitted uses (via CUP, SUP or by federal /state inclusionary mandates such as group homes) is becoming smaller. For example, in 2010, a senior residential facility at any size was enabled and is no longer allowed, except for a very small group home. Also, the constraints since 2010 are now more restrictive making the developable, usable site area smaller: • Shoreline setbacks are wider • Wetland buffer width has increased • Aquatic area buffer width has increased • 100-year flood limits as remapped are more restrictive • Setbacks to structures from CAO buffers have increased Finally, the development is now more restricted since 2010, from 3 major changes: • State mandates for streams, wetlands and shorelines buffers and setbacks • NOAA BIOP Path 4 determination in response to federal agency action • Stormwater regulations (NPDES, City of Kent code, KCSWDM, Dept. Of Ecology, regional LID manual) Pkt Page 183 Current Status & Consistency with GMA The cumulative impact of all factors since 2010 is resulting in no ability for the property owner sell, develop or beneficially use the subject property. For example, in October, 2016, outdoor storage of Ecology blocks (rectangular concrete units) was sought by a prospective buyer yet City of Kent planning staff was unable to find a path in land use, zoning or development code to permit. The proposed use (if enabled) could have been consistent with the vision for Urban Separator goals. See attachment 2 for email from City of Kent staff regarding inability to allow outdoor storage use in SR-1. All of City of Kent's actions, policies, goals and regulations collectively together cause the subject site to remain undeveloped permanent open space. The property has had no offers since October, 2010 for single family, 1 dwelling unit per acre use. The only other permitted use within the past 7 years along the west side of Frager Road for similarly regulated property required a reasonable use exception and shoreline variance for only 1 home on 5 acres (see Darrin Stearns land use permit file on file at City). However, no development resulted. The Stearns proposal on 5 acres as permitted by City of Kent results in 0.2 du per acre density on private well and septic drain field within the urban growth area in a Shoreline area. However, City's approval action happened in the same timeframe that State of Washington (and Hirst decision) restricted new private wells in rural areas and when King County agencies sought to force existing septic drain fields onto centralized sewer systems. This makes City of Kent inconsistent with state and King County, yet there are no centralized utilities along Frager Road. The property owner concluded unreasonable regulation along Frager Road now exist from the combined federal, state and City of Kent regulations. The future land use map and a zoning map does produce the intent of the comprehensive plan for 1 unit per acre, for two reasons: • City has not installed utilities to support 1 unit per acre development in land use and zoning designations. Also, City of Kent has no plans for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, electrical, cable, phone or natural gas service along Frager Road. This is an inconsistency with WA state Growth Management Act provisions to support adopted future land use with infrastructure, inside urban growth areas. • City's comprehensive plan future land use map is inconsistent with the zoning map and the development regulations at the subject site because single family residential at 1 unit per acre is not resulting. This is an inconsistency with WA state Growth Management Act provisions. Acceptable Actions by City of Kent The property owner would like to see one of the actions below by City of Kent, as study recommendations, or City actions based on the study: 4 Pkt Page 184 1) Remove the Urban Separator and SR-1 designation from subject site. Change to Light Industrial, Commercial or Multi-family designations in the comprehensive plan future land use map and corresponding categories in the zoning map. (Sharon Clamp discouraged the property owner's consultant from pursuing this on Aug 25, 2017) 2) Modify the Urban Separator goals and policies, to enable a wider array of uses and intensity in SR-1, and also change the SR-1 provisions. 3) Approve a City sponsored Development Regulation Amendment to enable a wider array of uses and more intensity within SR-1 consistent with current Urban Separator provisions. City of Kent should formally recognize that the subject property has not been well served as regulated by City of Kent and it will not likely become single family 1 per acre residential. Thank you for your public service and the opportunity to comment. Timothy Matelich Submitted on behalf of Andrew Matelich and Ruth Matelich, property owners CC: Larry Tueful (owner of 33 acres adjacent to Matelich site) Matt Gilbert, Long Range Planning manager 5 Pkt Page 185 From: Mickie Abrahamson [ma i Ito:mom mymik@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Property Question Hello Danielle, My name is Mickie Abrahamson and I stopped at the permit center last week and was given your email address. I was told that you are doing a study on SR1 properties. I am interested in our property at 27344 156th Ave SE which is now an SR1 property and was an SR6 not too long ago. We wanted to sub-divide our property but being an SR1 now it isn't worth it to us. I just wanted to ask if there is going to be at any point in time that our property might be changed back to an SR6? Any information you can offer me would be greatly appreciated. Thank-you, Mickie & Ernie Abrahamson (253)350-5375 Pkt Page 186 -----Original Message----- From: Alma Ann Schneider [mailto:irpal@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 4:16 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Separator project To Danielle, I think it is important to keep status quo for the urban separator. More housing might bring a little more revenue, but at what cost?? More congestion, more money spent on open space, who knows where, in order to keep quality of life in Kent. IT IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY 6, OR AT LEAST IT SHOULDN'T BE. Ann Schneider Pkt Page 187 -----Original Message----- From: Laurie and Kerry Horn Carroll [mailto:kltcr@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 7:45 AM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject:Thank you for scheduling urban planning meetings Every day I think of these issues. I feel very strongly about having-1. More green space purchased by the city. Before it is all gone. 2. Pedestrian and cycle friendly walkways (away from cars,with trees and grass and avoiding concrete). 3. High rise condos put in near train station (pride of ownership)4. No more cookie cutter homes with narrow streets and cars parked on road. Quality of life should be primary focus. We need to find builders that can fit the cities needs. Not the other way around. See you at the meeting. Laurie Carroll and Kerry Horn' Pkt Page 188 From: Mike Pruett [mai Ito:mpruett segaIeproperties.corn] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:16 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: letter on land use issue Danielle: I received your letter asking for comments on your proposed new "urban separator zone". I googled it and found a couple articles, but my comments here are generated primarily from what is reported in the article below. I know news stories frequently get things wrong or gloss over important aspects of land use and zoning, so forgive any comments that are based on inaccurate reporting. I am a planner by education and experience, although I have always worked in the private sector development community. I understand the need to balance open space and housing in our growing region,but as in many things, the devil is in the details. While I am for retaining an element of open space, especially in critical/sensitive areas, that has to be measured against our growing needs for housing and density overtime. If open space is retained for the public , lets make sure it is useable. I have seen conservation efforts in multiple jurisdictions where the area conserved becomes a blackberry thicket and/or a dangerous area we wouldn't want to walk in or let our kids go to. That doesn't make sense when we are short on developable ground for future housing. People need open space for fresh air, exercise,parks, sports fields etc. We don't need more garbage and feces strewn homeless encampments. Let's make sure what is retained is useable for the purposes mentioned above and that it isn't "saved" under the premise of conserving an important ecosystem element and then letting that area become overgrown and unmanaged and/or abused by the populations that seek out these areas. Don't save them unless there is a plan and budget to create safe useable open space for people. Otherwise they are better suited for development that will be pushed elsewhere/outward as land becomes more and more scarce and expensive. http://www.kentreporter.com/news/kent-seeks-input-about-land-use-open-space-housing/ Mike Pruett SEGALE PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 88028 • Tukwila,WA 98138 P 206-575-2000• C 206-396-4548 Pkt Page 189 From: Shannon Hernandez [mailto:shanzag@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:28 AM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Re: Urban Separator Project Hello Danielle, Thank you for your reply. I have some very serious questions for you. Please do not be offended by there tone. I am a deeply concerned resident, parent and community member. How aware are you with the district's financial problems? How involved is the city willing to be, given the current continuation of budget cuts and RIF notices (With more in the pipeline)? Essentially, is the city going to say"Cooperating with the district is enough" or are they going to not turn a blind eye to the issues and make decisions using integrity? We have no business as a city to allow housing growth and development when: *Schools are overcrowded and will continue to be overcrowded for a very longtime * Our Fire, and Police departments resources are spread thin with limited ability to economically add to its resource pool for the appropriate staffing needs of added population growth *Our infrastructure is pushed to the limits and unable to accommodate residents and businesses in an efficient manner If the city is hungry for money and does not truly intend to make decisions based on the needs of the people, then by all means allow for further growth... These information sessions are a tradition of Kent and rarely do they actually accommodate the will of the people or the needs of the people. If the current governing body of Kent intends to serve the constituents, it must focus on improving the issues at hand. Prioritizing community health over growth is what will allow us to trust our local government. Sincerely, Shannon Jephson-Hernandez 736 Reiten Rd Kent, WA 98030 253-347-1398 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2018, at 1:53 PM, Butsick, Danielle <DButsick&kentwa.gov>wrote: Hi Shannon, Thanks so much for sending your NextDoor comments; I appreciate your advocacy with your neighbors on this issue.The city does work with the school districts to plan for population growth. In fact, we are right in the middle of a cooperative process with the school districts on this very topic. This is the policy that guides our work: PF-19A Plan, through a cooperative process between jurisdictions and school districts, that Pkt Page 190 public school facilities are available,to meet the needs of existing and projected residential development consistent with adopted comprehensive plan policies and growth forecasts. Cooperatively work with each school district located within the jurisdiction's boundaries to evaluate the school district's ability to site school facilities necessary to meet the school district's identified student capacity needs. Use school district capacity and enrollment data and the growth forecasts and development data of each jurisdiction located within the school district's service boundaries. By January 2016 and every two years thereafter, determine if there is development capacity and the supporting infrastructure to site the needed school facilities. If not, cooperatively prepare a strategy to address the capacity shortfall. Potential strategies may include: • Shared public facilities such as play fields, parking areas and access drives • School acquisition or lease of appropriate public lands • Regulatory changes such as allowing schools to locate in additional zones or revised development standards • School design standards that reduce land requirements (such as multi-story structures or reduced footprint) while still meeting programmatic needs In 2017, and every two years thereafter, King County shall report to the GMPC on whether the goals of this policy are being met. The GMPC shall identify corrective actions as necessary to implement this policy. Your comments regarding watershed health and access to open space are well-taken, and will be part of the analysis of options as we develop recommendations for City Council to consider. Much appreciated, Danielle R. ButSICk, AICP Senior Long-Range Planner/GIS Coordinator Planning Services I Economic &Community Development 400 West Gowe, Kent, WA 98032 Main 253-856-5454 1 Direct 253-856-5443 dbutsickCabkentwa.gov CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON KentWA.gov Facebook witter YouTube PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS E-MAIL Pkt Page 191 From: Shannon Hernandez [mailto:shanzaq@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 7:04 AM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Urban Separator Project Dear Danielle, Please see my recent comments on the Nextdoor social media platform. I cannot make the meeting, but if I were to this is what I would share. Thank you, Shannon Jephson-Hernandez 253.347.1398 736 Reiten rd Kent, Wa 98030 (17 year resident and teacher at Mill Creek MS) Kent needs to get more involved in planning for schools to accommodate the growing population. With KSD's budget problems, this growth will only continue overcrowding classrooms, reduce student safety, and bleed the district dry of quality teachers. People are fed up. City planning must address the whole system. Not to mention green spaces need to be accessible to all. Scientific studies show a reduction in equity is a reduction in community health. Our watershed is a superfund site for a reason... added construction will have negative impacts on these issues. We MUST correct and manage the current problems while planning for the future so as not to add more problems. Pkt Page 192 From: len elliott [mailto:len elliott@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:00 AM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Urban Separators I am in favor of keeping urban separators, especially to protect Soo Creek and Soos Creek Park. I have enjoyed walking the length the Park many times and would hate to have future walks ruined by intruding urban development. Thank you for considering my request. Len Elliott Green River Watershed Pkt Page 193 From: Mark and Laurie Rubeck [mailto:markandlaurie(a comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 6:18 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Cc: 'Friends of Soos Creek Park' Subject: Urban Separators and Soos Creek Ms. Butsick, I'm writing to voice my support for the continued use of Urban Separators along the Soos Creek Trail. This trail is a true gem in our community. I would hate to see it diminished by overdevelopment. I use it regularly as do scores of others. It's one of the most popular trails in the area. Please do what you can to protect it. Thank you. Mark Rubeck Renton Pkt Page 194 From: Elliot Heifetz [mai Ito:ejheifetz@aol.corn] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:52 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Cc: dan streiffert@hotmail.com Subject: Urban Separators Issue Please know that as a long time Kent resident who has lived in other parts of this country, we must do all in our power to preserve our existing and future available open space. I have lived in other areas of the United States and witnessed first hand the cost of over development. The quality of life, both physical and psychological, makes it imperative that we preserve our communities open space to preserve the quality of our way of life for future generations. Elliot Heifetz Kent Resident Pkt Page 195 From: BPbatfan@aol.com [mai Ito:BPbatfan@aol.corn] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 5:10 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Urban Separators Dear Ms Butsick,I'm contacting you to share my strong support for Urban Separators,especially those along Kent's amazing Soos Creek Trail.I'm a long time birder in the Puget Sound area.Your Soos Creek Trail and your many ponds,lakes and parks draw birders to Kent regularly.I lived in Federal Way for thirty years and now live in Burien. Soos Creek Trail,Boeing Pond,the Green River Natural Resources Area and other habitat gems are very often the destination for monthly bird walks I lead for Wild Birds Unlimited and for Rainier Audubon field trips as well. The need for Urban Separators and the benefit from them to people,birds and wildlife cannot be stated too strongly, and should not be taken too lightly.They should be maintained and considered a source of pride for your city,as they encourage a balance between development and natural spaces highly appealing to Kent's citizens and visitors a like. Thank you for your time.I hope you'll consider my views as you make long term plans for your fine city of Kent. Sincerely, Barbara Petersen Burien,WA Pkt Page 196 -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Sernett [mailto:misernett@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 5:23 AM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Retain Urban Separators! Hello Danielle Butsick, It has recently come to my attention that Kent is reconsidering the need for urban separators under pressure from developers. Our city, it's citizens, and the environment need these spaces for people to enjoy,for wildlife to live in, and for controlling the watershed in a natural way. Please retain the current standards.There's plenty of land available for development or redevelopment without impinging on these important natural resources. Thank you, Matthew Sernett Pkt Page 197 City of Kent Planning/Zoning April 3, 2017 Attn: Danielle Butsick RE: Comprehensive Plan Review Terry Sullivan 10864 SE 200t'St. Kent, WA. 98031 Parcel#662340-0356-06 Thank you for responding to my email. My property is adjacent to the proposed Panther Lake Cluster subdivision to the east.The zoning is SR-1. An urban separator or buffer zone. I do not have a problem with the Panther Lake Cluster subdivision, but have reservations regarding the overall zoning of the area. Directly south are apartments, condominiums, and single family homes, 130 on approximately 2000 sq. ft. lots.To the west is the Benson Highway SR 515.To the north are high density housing areas and multi-family zoning. There are very few parcels within the SF-1 zoning that follow that designation. To the east side of Panther Lake is another subdivision that directly border the on the water. Myself and others would like to see a zoning that more correctly reflects the existing community. Some owners with a slightly larger lot would like to have the option to do something other than pay taxes on pasture land along the Benson Road. My family moved to the Panther Lake area in 1957.The current property was purchased in 1965.Just over 1 acre. Also in addition we sold one acre to the Presbyterian Church for their parking lot. We are now in the city limits of Kent. Many changes have taken place since the population sign by the K- M High School said 6000 people.The Benson Road is no longer rural and known for raising chickens. The existing building set-back is 15 ft.from the property line. I want to expand my small 2- bedroom single story home but I am already in non-compliance.The existing house is 13 ft. from the property line. My wife and myself are71 years old. We do not want to expand upwards with stairs but want to add a master bedroom, bath and recreation area. My lot is 78 ft. wide. 30 ft. is set-back. Does not leave many options. My 94-year-old mother died almost two years ago and the property next to me on the west has been in probate ever since.The two lots were combined until 1984 when my dad built another house that I purchased from the estate which I now own. Without a lot line adjustment,there is little chance of resolution between siblings. Six weeks before mother died they changed the trust, which had it been in place for 25 years,to my extreme detriment. I knew nothing about it. Another obstacle is the site coverage restrictions. I have a long asphalt driveway and detached garage. I am up against the present restrictions. 25,000 sq. ft. lot and I am boxed in. Events, rules and regulations at the local ward level is what truly effects peoples' lives. I would like to have input regarding zoning modifications, unlike when King County changed the zoning. I have found no one that was made aware of pending restrictions and changes. I appreciate your time. Respectfully, Terry Sullivan Pkt Page 198 From: Marc Imlay [mailto:marcimlay@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 12:31 PM To: Butsick, Danielle Subject: Urban Seperator I have been actively involved with Kent Parks Dept. since 1973. I was their first yoga instructor. I have led interpretive walks there for Friends of Soos Creek Park for over 20 years. I taught dance for them for 10 years. I practiced acupuncture at the Kent Senior Center for 3 years. I initiated and oversaw the Kent Kaibara Park project in the early 80s. I would like to strongly recommend that no changes be made to the Urban Separator zoning in Kent. After reviewing the conclusions in your overview(awesome thoroughness) it seems apparent that no changes are needed. You don't need the extra space to fulfill your planning quotas, the properties in the separators are encumbered in various ways, and they often have no sewage or water service. These separators offer protection of wetlands to prevent flooding and allow water table recharge. They also provide wildlife corridors. Many of them, especially Soos Creek Park, simultaniously provide recreational options for citizens, including the handicapped. I feel it would be unwise to trade these multilevel benefits just to allow a few property owners to up-zone their properties for personal financial benefit. These people either already enjoyed an up-zone from 1 home per 5 acres to 1 home per acre 20 some years ago or they knew of this permanent zoning when they purchased. I was involved in this issue when it came up 17 years ago. At the time, this up-zoning would violate federal, state, and county codes and all were willing to act against the proposed up- zoning. These codes have not changed. Please,please,please nip this bad idea in the bud. I invite your questions and comments. Dr. Marc A Imlay