Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 08/10/2009 (4) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager K E N T W AS HI N G T 0 N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD HEARING AUGUST 10, 2009 7:00 P.M. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS: CITY STAFF: Dana Ralph, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Erin George, Planner Steve Dowell Kim Adams Pratt, Assist City Attorney Alan Gray Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary Jon Johnson Aleanna Kondelis Barbara Phillips This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing in lieu of a Workshop on MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2009 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend and all interested persons may have an opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on this proposed Master Program may do so prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the July 27, 2009 Minutes 4. Added Items to Agenda 5. Communications 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CPA-2007-1 Shoreline Master Program Update (Erin George) Second public hearing to consider adoption of the Shoreline Master Program including incorporation of the Shoreline goals and policies into the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, as well as options regarding public access on private property and an allowance for new swim platforms. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in Advance for more information. For TDD relay service for Braille, call 1-800-833-6385, for TDD relay service for the hearing impaired, call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at 253) 856-5499 (TDD) or the main line at (253) 856-5454. For further information or to obtain a copy of the staff report, contact the Planning Services office at (253) 856-5454. The proposed updated Shoreline Master Program as well as the Cumulative Impacts Analysis may be downloaded from the City's website at: htW:Ilwww.ci.kent.wa.us/plannincillupblist. This page intentionally left blank. 1 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 27, 2009 Board Members Present Chair Dana Ralph, Vice Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell, Alan Gray, Jon Johnson, Aleanna Kondelis, Barbara Phillips Staff Members Present Charlene Anderson, Erin George, Kim Adams Pratt, Pamela Mottram 3. Approval of Minutes Dowell MOVED and Gray SECONDED a motion to APPROVE the April 27, 2009 Minutes. Motion PASSED 7-0. 4. Added Items None S. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. CPA-2007-1 Shoreline Master Program Update Planner Erin George stated that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) is State legislation in effect since 1971. She stated that it is administered by both the State Department of Ecology (DOE) and local government. George stated that the SMA jurisdiction regulates lakes over 20 acres, streams and rivers with flow over 20 cubic feet per second (cfs), lands within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark, wetlands in the floodplains of those shoreline water bodies, and the floodways of those shoreline water bodies. The SMA requires cities to balance "no net loss" of shoreline ecological functions while allowing for water-oriented uses along shorelines with appropriate development, as well as allowing for public access to the shorelines. George stated that 2003 legislation requires King County jurisdictions to update their SMPs and adopt those updates by December 1, 2009. She stated that DOE must review and approve all SMPs prior to adoption based on Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requirements. George stated that the SMP is comprised of goals and policies that are incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. George stated that staff utilized the "Inventory and Analysis Report", and the "Cumulative Impacts Analysis" in the course of updating the SMP. She described the purpose of these documents. George stated that the "Restoration Plan" is integrated in the SMP as Chapter 8 and includes goals, policies and actions for restoration of shoreline impacts. George stated that under the current SMP, Kent regulates the Green River, Lake Meridian and Big Soos Creek shorelines and proposes adding Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, Panther Lake, Springbrook Creek and the Green River Natural Resource area shorelines. George stated that the SMP classifies the following environmental designations based on zoning and comprehensive plan designations: 'Shoreline Residential' is a higher density residential designation, 'High Intensity' includes commercial and industrial areas, 'Urban Conservancy' (a low intensity designation) includes the Urban Separator, lower intensity SR-1 areas, and Agriculture areas, 'Urban Conservancy Open Space' defines park lands, 2 'Natural Wetlands' is applied to wetlands located within shoreline jurisdictions, 'Aquatic' designation regulates areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark. George described the proposed changes to the SMP which include; decreasing commercial setbacks and increasing residential setbacks along the Green River with an allowance for levee reconstruction, proposing new residential dock standards, provisions for the construction of additional swim platforms on Lake Meridian, increasing minimum building setbacks and imposing an impervious surface maximum on lakes, and allowing water- oriented commercial development in City parks. George stated that staff formed a Citizen's Advisory Committee who met monthly from March 2008 through January 2009 to review the SMP and provide feedback which staff incorporated into the SMP. Staff held public meetings on October 2, 2008 and February 9, 2009, as well as posted various versions of the SMP and other documents on the City's Website for public review. Emails were sent to agencies and interest groups for comment. George stated that staff addressed comments from the State DOE tied to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) compliance, on the first draft of the SMP. The DOE indicated there was an issue with distinguishing between the Green River and Mill Creek flood waters located in the floodway on the south end of the city in the agricultural area. George stated that staff sent a 60-day notice to Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED), submitted a second draft to the DOE on June llth, with no further comments received from them. George submitted "5" comment letters (with the Cities' responses) for the record from: 1) Futurewise, 2) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 3) Soos Creek Water & Sewer District, 4) Mr. Jerry Whitten, Lake Meridian Resident, voicing opposition to proposals related to dock construction and maintenance, and 5) Stewart Reinbold, Assist Regional Habitat Program Manager with the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife, pertaining to swim platforms. George stated that if the Board recommends adoption, the intent would be to go to the PEDC on August loth and on to Council on August 18t"for adoption. Upon adoption staff will submit a final adopted SMP to the State DOE, who will typically hold their own hearing with a 30 day comment period. George stated that the City would address any comments associated with that hearing, the state would conduct their final review, and upon DOE approval staff would anticipate that the SMP would be affective fall of 2009. George addressed concerns raised by the Board members associated with swim platforms, dock regulations, setbacks, impervious surface requirements, and public access requirements. Ottini Moved and Dowell seconded a Motion to Open the Public Hearing. Motion Carried 7-0. Chair Ralph declared the Public Hearing open. Stephen Crowell, 26709 148th Avenue SE, Kent, WA stated that he resides on Lake Meridian and supports adding more floating swim platforms on the lake. He informed the Board that the new platforms need to be built the same dimensions as the existing platforms so that they will retain their functionality to interlock. Paul Morford, PO Box 6345, Kent, WA spoke in opposition to additional regulations that would restrict a resident's choice with respect to how docks are constructed, with the requirement to provide access for the public through private property, with the new impervious surface and setback requirements. Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent, WA stated that he owns property on Lake Meridian and West Valley Highway. He voiced opposition to the new impervious surface regulations, to increasing setbacks, to allowing public access through private property; citing issues with safety, the potential for private property damage, and questioning who would maintain the public access area. Carpinito stated that the city should not put in place additional restrictions that would further hinder property development. George addressed 3 Carpinito's concerns with respect to setbacks and access issues. John Owen with Makers also addressed issues concerning public access. Barbara Nightingale with the DOE addressed public access issues, stating that the WAC requires public access, but has the same exceptions in terms of security and privacy, that somewhat mirror the city's proposal. She stated that the City administrator can make the decision whether or not a particular site can allow for public access. Staff recessed to consider an alternative proposal to address the public access issue. After reconvening, George stated that City staff, the DOE, and the City Attorney concluded that language in Section 3.8.7-Public Access and specifically Section C-Regulations-2 adequately addresses public access for all shoreline water bodies in the City. Therefore, staff would like to maintain the same recommendation. Seeing no further speakers, Johnson MOVED and Gray SECONDED a Motion to Close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried 7-0. Ralph declared the Public Hearing closed. Dowell, Ottini, Phillips and Ralph voiced opposition to the public access requirement citing the erosion of constitutional rights, taking without compensation, safety, and privacy issues. In response to Phillips, Pratt stated that were an applicant to submit an application to subdivide, and the City determines that public access must be provided and the applicant were to appeal the City's decision, that appeal would go to the Shoreline Hearings Board, moving outside of the City within a court arena which would become a more formal process. There is no process in place for an appeal to City Council. Johnson MOVED and Gray SECONDED a Motion to adopt the Shoreline Master Plan, CPA-2007-1 and to incorporate the Shoreline Goals and Policies into the Kent Comprehensive Plan as recommended by staff. Roll Call was taken. Motion Failed 4 to 3 with Dowell, Ottini, Phillips, and Ralph Voting in Opposition. After deliberations, Kondelis offered a Motion to amend language in Ch. 3.7 — Public Access (where applicable) to state that the public access requirements would not apply to those lakes with public parks (Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick), and that the developer would have the option to pay a 'fee in lieu of to improve another public access point. Motion died for lack of a Second. Johnson stated that this issue should be moved on to Committee as voted on by the Board. ADJOURNMENT Johnson Moved and Dowell Seconded a Motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED. Ralph adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board P:\Planning\LUPB\2009\MINUTES\072709-LUPB-Minutes.doc 4 This page intentionally left blank. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT W AS HI N 0 T 0 N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 August 3, 2009 TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Erin George, Planner RE: #CPA-2007-1 Shoreline Master Program Update Second Public Hearing MOTION: Move to recommend/not recommend/amend adoption of the Shoreline Master Program Update and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Number 2007-1 as presented by staff, including Option C related to public access. SUMMARY: At the July 27, 2009 public hearing before the Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB) staff presented and the Board heard testimony on the proposed Final Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Board members expressed concerns regarding public access requirements and their implications for private property rights and security. Following the hearing, staff examined the state law requirements, the City's Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Plan and the Park & Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and met with the Parks Department. Staff determined that Kent's existing park and trail facilities adequately address the public access required by state law. Staff also is recommending a clarification of height regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has prepared three options regarding the SMP public access section for the Board's consideration (attached). The Board may select any of the options or a combination of options. Staff recommends "Option C," which revises the proposed SMP public access section to no longer require public access on private property unless the development will interfere with an existing public access way. Staff also recommends changing the swim platform requirements in Chapter 5 Section C.3.c (attached) to allow up to eight new swim platforms on Lake Meridian only, as presented by staff at the hearing. Staff is proposing a further correction (attached) to clarify height limitations. Additional recommended changes were outlined in staff responses to comment letters, which were in the July agenda packet. EG\S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMEN DMENTS\2007\CPA-2007-1_SMP-Update\LUPB\081009_Hearing Report.doc Enc: Options for SMP Public Access Standards (SMP Chapter 3 Section B.7) Staff Recommended Changes to SMP Chapter 4 Section C.3.c (swim platforms) Staff Recommended Changes to SMP Chapter 5 Table 7 (height) cc: Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Community Development Director Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager 6 This page intentionally left blank. 7 Options for SMP Public Access Standards (SMP Chapter 3 Section B.7) Option A: As written in proposed Shoreline Master Program Option B: Remove Public Access section Option C: Revise Public Access section (below)* *Staff recommendation 7. Public Access a. Applicability Shoreline public access is the physical ability of the general public to reach and touch the water's edge and the ability to have a view of the water and the shoreline from upland locations. Public access facilities may include picnic areas, pathways and trails, floats and docks,promenades, viewing towers,bridges, boat launches, and improved street ends. The City of Kent has extensively an comprehensively planned for and implemented public access plans for its shorelines. The City of Kent has numerous and varied public access facilities along its shorelines. The City and King County have established a regional trail with park and recreation facilities following nearly the entire Green River, and many existing developments along the Green River also include public access points. There are public parks and public access facilities including docks, floating walkways and boat launches on both Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick. The bea4 la+Hieh a4 Lake Meridian is u — � ' 's from throughout the r-e—i ' f�ate�k�g.The Green River Natural Resources Area includes extensive wildlife viewing areas, including two view towers and the Interurban Trail along its southern edge. Along Springbrook Creek two undeveloped City owned park properties with connect to ail pla-asthe Springbrook Greenbelt, containing a user- made trail are leeated all Spr-i gbr- ok Creek.-, and Gary Grant Soos Creek Park is located on Big Soos Creek. A public boat launch and fishing access is located on Panther Lake as well as an informal street-end access point. These public access facilities along with identified future public land acquisition, are sufficient to meet public access needs along the shorelines. In addition to the above examples, comprehensive documentation of existing parks and recreation facilities, public access points and trails are identified and mapped in detail in the Park& Open Space Element of the Ci . 's Comprehensive Plan. This element also identifies future park acquisition and development needs. 8 Similarly, chapter 4 of the Shoreline Inventory&Analysis Report identifies existing and potential public access sites for each of the City's shoreline waterbodies. The City's public access planning process provided b, these documents provides more effective public access than individual project requirements for public access, as provided for in WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii)(A). b. Policies 1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public developments (ineludin.land division) with the exception of the following: a. One- and two-family dwelling units; or b. Where deemed inappropriate due to health, safety and environmental concerns. Publie aeeess should be required when land is divided iffte more than fbiffir rl t, lots, for- „lt,f t f to,-dep rl t ri�nz�i vcTrvrzrrar development,'�1r,-c`k�3 iccracp�la@Hi 2. Developments,uses, and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair or detract from the public's access to the water or the rights of navigation. 3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge without causing significant ecological impacts and should be designed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. Opportunities for public access should be identified on publicly owned shorelines. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends,public utilities and rights-of-way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced. 5. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and comfort and to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy. There should be a physical separation or other means of clearly delineating public and private space in order to avoid unnecessary user conflict. 6. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive removal of existing native vegetation that partially impairs views. 7. Public access and interpretive displays should be provided as part of publicly funded restoration projects where significant ecological impacts can be avoided. 8. Cityparks, trails and public access facilities adjacent to shorelines The Diver Trail, Take Mo,-;.1ia Park T Ae T.'o,,.i iek PaFk Sp-;,,..1.,-eek G-eek a 7 should be maintained and enhanced in accordance with City and County plans. 9. Commercial and industrial waterfront development should be encouraged to provide a means for visual and pedestrian access to the shoreline area wherever feasible. 9 10. The acquisition of suitable upland shoreline properties to provide access to publicly owned shorelands should be encouraged. 11. The City should acquire and develop waterfront property on Panther Lake, in the event of annexation, to provide public access to the shoreline. c. Regulations 1. Except as provided in regulations 2 and 3, shoreline substantial development (including land division into more than four lots and PUDs) or Gconditional muses, either of which front directly on the shoreline, shall provide physical public access where any of the following conditions are present: uee€$s-te the shoreline, Rev '"eli4-ems c-useto mitigate this impaet. ab. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access way, the development or e shall provide ,.,, .lie aeeess t mitigate this fit. Impacts to public access may include blocking access or discouraging use of existing on-site or nearby accesses. e. here a use w ieh is not-a priority shoreline use under- Shoreline Management Act locates an a sneFeline of the state,the use or developmen4 shall provide p4lie aeeess to mitigate this impa, d.Where—a use or development will rteffer-cith a p ublie use of lands or- waters sd feet to the p4lie tmsst doetrnie, the development shau l pr-ovine be. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands. Unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, securi . , or impact to the shoreline environment or where more effective public access is identified in the City's Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Plan or the Park& Open Space Element of the Cites Comprehensive Plan. f Where ,.,,ilea f tmder the Gity's p.,fks plan. g Where the rights f,,.,,,ig tie o impaeted, the proposed development. h. As part of development for- emwa er- depeiid uses(including water enjoyment and water-relate uitifan3ily developnrent The shoreline permit file shall describe the impact, the required public access conditions, and how the conditions address the impact. Mitigation for public access impacts shall be in accordance with the definition of mitigation and mitigation sequenciage in Chapter 3 Section BA 10 b. Unavoidable health safety haz-afdsto the exist whied eannot pr-eveiited by any pfaetieal means; appheation of altemative design featut!es or-other solutions; d. The eostof pr-ovrdig the aeeess easement or-an altemative affi€nity is unreasonably dispfopoftionate to the total long term eost of the proposed development, as deter-mined by the City Cho-eli„e A�istr-ator-; e. Cign f;..a t o ologie.,1 impacts will result f;-o the publie aeeess w1,ie mitigated;eannot be f-. Signifieant undue and unavoidable eonfliet between any of 3. irora€f to Fneet•zor-cneeoiicrrtions--cr-crrrvcl• TiEvG=c;✓, the iccminust first demonstr-ate and the City Shoreline Administratof detefmine in not limited tw. . RegWating y saeeess b ieh means asmainttaini.rgc"rg&t°c-cad/erg hours of o- b.Designing sepafation of""e" Emd •,etiyities (e.g.zenees, teffaeHng, use-a one way .lazi gs hedges, .,,,.1s...,, ing et, 1. , , 1 , , an e. ileyelopi —. s f6f aeeess .,t ., site g p1,ie lly sepafated f;-..,V, , vista or-tmil system. 4. For multi-family development and subdivisions of land into more than four parcels, public access need not be provided, however, community access for residents of that development shall be provided. 5. Shoreline substantial development(including land division into more than four lots and PUDs) or conditional uses shall minimize impact to public views of shoreline waterbodies from public land or substantial numbers of residences. 64. Public access provided by shoreline street ends,public utilities and rights-of- way shall not be diminished (This is a requirement of RCW 35.79.035 and RCW 36.87.130). 7-5. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street or public right-of-way and shall include provisions for physically impaired persons, where feasible. 86. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity. 9-7. Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running 11 contemporaneous with the authorized land use, at a minimum. Said recording with the County Assessor's Office shall occur prior to permit issuanceappfe,,,,a�(RCW 58.17.110). 109. Minimum width of public access easements shall be 20 feet, unless the City Shoreline Administrator determines that undue hardship would result. In such cases, easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary to relieve the hardship. 119. The standard state approved logo or other approved signs that indicate the public's right of access and hours of access shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. In accordance with regulation 3.a. above, signs may control or restrict public access as a condition of permit approval. 120. Future actions by the applicant, successors in interest, or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided. 131._—Public access facilities may be developed over water provided that all ecological impacts are mitigated to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. 12 This page intentionally left blank. 13 Staff Recommended Changes to SMP Chapter 4 Section C.3.c. Recreational Floats/Swim Platforms 34. A maximum of eight new recreational floats/swim platforms are allowed on Lake Meridian, as of the effective date of this master program. No new recreational floats/swim platforms are allowed on Lake Fenwick or Panther Lake. All new recreational floats on Lake Meridiean are subject to the following: a. New floats/platforms shall be up to a maximum of 150 square feet. b. New floats shall be located: i. In water with a depth of 10 feet or more measured from ordinary high water mark at the landward end of the float and may be located up to a maximum waterward distance of 150 feet, whichever is reached first. ii. So as not to constitute a hazard to navigation or other public use of the water. c. Floats/platforms shall be designed and intended for swim use or other non- motorized,but water-oriented, use. d. Height. Floats/platforms must be built so that the deck surface is one (1) foot above the water's surface and they must have reflectors for nighttime visibili1y. e. Retrieval lines shall not float at or near the surface of the water. f. All float tubs shall be fully encapsulated. 35. Existing recreational floats/swim platforms on all lakes may be repaired and/or replaced subject to the folio 4ngLtandards in 34. b-f above in addition to the following: a. Replacement floats shall be of the same size as the existing float up to a maximum of 150 square feet. b. Replaeement fleats shall be plaeed in the same leeation as the existing float tmiess ene of the following appl�- Page 1 Kent Shoreline Master Program 14 i. The existing float is not leeated in water-with a depth of 10 feet a more meastwed from ,,,.,a;,,,,,-.,high water aFJ* The existing float ;s loea4ed in an ., that constitutes ., 1,azat!.a to fia-vigation or- other--publie tise of the water, e. D epl.,..om e t floats that must be rel.,eate.l shall be loe to atet!..,;�1, depths of 10 foot , more measuf:ed fr,,f ,.,.,a;,,ary high water-,,.a fk t the lan&,ar-d end of the float and may be loeated up to a maximum watefward ,list wee of 150 foot .,1,ieheye-; r-eaehed first 4.Reettatienal floatsshallZ designed and intended o,.swim useor- ther- e. Height. Rep ^eement floats must b o that the deek surfuEeis one (1) foot above the water's stwfaee and they mttst have r-efleeter-s fe nighttime visibility. fl. Replaeement floats shall be Ailly gr-ated exeept for-these pet4iofis under-lain by flom tubs. l'. ^r Rill floa4 tubs l `h l urrbe fury f„llly eneap sulated. ****************** suel. as the n f r„ly fife o-ys event on r ak-e Meridian. T pl.,tfefms if at!ges may be leeated terwat!d of tl�e 0143AIN4 for-a period of time not longer-t-han that fieeessafy to feasenably aeeemmoda4e the publie event. Staff Recommended Changes to SMP Chapter 4 Section C.3.c. Page 2 15 Table 7. Shoreline Development Standards Matrix U t� C G N d C G p C G1 C V N V Z V = c c5 a DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS'- a Q. c = o. (Regulatory citation in parentheses) z = O _J cn Commercial'Development 5.C.#) Water-dependent setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A Water-related, water-enjoyment setback N/A 30i2 30i2 50i2 N/A N/A Nonwater-oriented setback N/A 70i2 70r2 100i2 N/A N/A Industrial Development (5.C:5) Water-dependent (5.C.5.c.9) N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Water-related and water-enjoyment4 (5.C.5.c.9) N/A 50r2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Nonwater-oriented4 (5.C.5.c.9) N/A 100'2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Accessory Parking Setbacks4 N/A 70i2 70i2 70i2 N/A3 N/A Recreational Development Water-dependent park structures setback N/A 0 0 0 N/A N/A Water-related, water enjoyment park structures N/A 20' 20' 20' N/A N/A setback Nonwater-oriented park structures setback N/A 70i2 70i2 70i2 N/A N/A (5.C.7.c.4) Miscellaneous New agricultural activities setback (5.C.2.c.4) N/A 20r2 20i2 20i2 20i2 N/A Residential Develop ment4 See regulations in 5.C:8.c Other provisions in this SMP also apply. Development Standards Matrix(Votes: 1. See regulation 3.B.1.c.7 for setbacks to accommodate future Green River levee reconstruction. 2. The City may reduce this dimension if it determines that the type of development allowed within this SMP and other municipal, state, and federal codes cannot be accommodated within the allowed site development area by reconfiguring, relocating, or resizing the proposed development. Where the City reduces a requirement, compensatory mitigation, such as vegetation enhancement or shoreline armoring removal, must be provided as determined by the City. 3. See regulation 5.C.8.c for residential development standards. Chapter 5 -Shoreline Use Provisions Page 75 16 4. The setback for all development, except water dependent development, on the Green River not separated from the shoreline by a levee is 150 feet. 5. For height regulations, see KCC Title 15.04 for the underlying zoning district. C. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations 1 . General Policies and Regulations a. Applicability The following provisions apply to all uses in shoreline jurisdiction. b. Policy 1. The City should give preference to those uses that are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline areas. 2. The City should ensure that all proposed shoreline development will not diminish the public's health, safety, and welfare, as well as the land or its vegetation and wildlife, and should endeavor to protect property rights while implementing the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. 3. The City should reduce use conflicts by prohibiting or applying special conditions to those uses which are not consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are not unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. In implementing this provision, preference should be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water-related uses and water-enjoyment uses. 4. The City should encourage the fall use of existing urban areas before expansion of intensive development allowed. c. Regulations 1. Developments that include a mix of water-oriented and nonwater-oriented uses may be considered water-oriented provided the City's Shoreline Administrator finds that the proposed development does give preference to those uses that are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, are dependent on a shoreline location, or enhance the public's ability to enjoy the shoreline. 2. All uses not explicitly covered in the section of the SMP require a conditional use permit. The City's Shoreline Administrator should impose conditions to ensure that the proposed development meets the policies of this master program 3. All development and uses must conform to all of the provisions in the SMP. Page 76 Kent Shoreline Master Program