Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenmore council signals preference to protect Swamp Creek buffers; asks staff to limit height and pursue restoration incentives
Summary
Council members told staff to prioritize environmental protection of Swamp Creek when revising zoning for 13 parcels in the TOD area, signaling a preference against raising height limits above existing 60–65 feet and to pursue incentives tying development to shoreline-buffer restoration.
Kenmore — Council members on July 28 directed staff to emphasize environmental protection and buffer restoration when considering zoning changes for 13 parcels adjacent to Swamp Creek in the downtown transit-oriented (TOD) area, and signaled they do not want to raise local height limits above the neighborhood standard.
Planner Britney Chu presented a follow‑up report on a 155‑parcel Swamp Creek study prepared by Osborne Consulting and asked the council whether to (1) remove the TOD overlay and rezone residential parcels to Urban Residential, (2) remove the TOD overlay and retain Urban Corridor East on the commercial side, and (3) offer policy incentives (reductions in affordability requirements, parking relief, density or height increases) to encourage shoreline-buffer restoration.
Why it matters: The parcels lie inside the city’s shoreline jurisdiction; shoreline setbacks and other limitations already render roughly 40% of the affected land non‑developable. Council members repeatedly told staff the driving objective should be to preserve and restore stream buffers around Swamp Creek while balancing future redevelopment opportunities.
Council preferences and direction: Multiple council members said they prefer keeping heights at 60–65 feet for this narrow area rather than adopting the 85‑foot maximum found in the city’s Urban Residential or Urban Corridor East zones. Deputy Mayor O’Kane told staff the outcome should prioritize environmental preservation and favored incentives to motivate private restoration. Several council members expressed willingness to use incentives that do not increase visual scale — for example, parking reductions or density adjustments that do not raise building height — to finance buffer enhancement.
Staff proposals and next steps: Chu presented three categories of incentives staff could consider offering to developers who expand buffers or remove impervious surface: (a) reduced affordability percentage, (b) reduced or waived parking requirements, (c) higher density, and (d) higher height. Council members asked staff to return with draft code language that keeps height capped at the existing 60–65 foot neighborhood standard for the 13 parcels and to present incentive packages that prioritize buffer restoration without requiring an increase in permitted height.
Environmental basis: Osborne Consulting’s analysis ranked parcels by restoration priority; the 13 parcels under consideration were mostly assessed as low or medium priority for ecological uplift. Staff recommended reserving highest‑level conservation tools (purchase or permanent conservation easements) for parcels scored as high priority and using targeted incentives to restore moderate‑priority parcels in the near term.
Community impacts and constraints: Staff emphasized the physical constraints: a number of small parcels have very small buildable footprints once current shoreline setbacks and other yard/setback rules are applied. Councilors noted that any incentive package must be written to avoid creating perverse outcomes — for example, density or height increases that push development closer to, rather than farther from, the creek.
No ordinance vote: Council did not adopt code amendments at the meeting. Staff will return with draft code language and a public‑hearing timeline for consideration before formal adoption later this year.
