HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/01/1997 -� _...� .... ........._ . .._ ......... .-----
i '-
Cl■t f Kent
5 +
Cmit Councoll Meeting
Y
ends
` 1 ...
Ma,y :ar' Jim White
lw..;�a�• �,r"r�:4 i/ Membe�s,
Christi Hr,:)user, Pre.skJ(,-
Jim Bennett Jon .J �I 'vi:sc►n
Tim Clark Leong
Connie P_pp ...ir'll'y Judy Woods
July 1 , 1997
Office of the C;.ity Clerlti.
......... _._.... _. 1
1_11
CITY OF JQ Mp
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 1. 1997
Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Christi Houser, President
Jim Bennett Tim Clark Connie Epperly
Jon Johnson Leona Orr Judy Woods
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Introduction of Mayor' s Appointee
B. Employee of the Month
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance - 3353
B. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Moratorium
Extension Resolution- /L)o7- A)EEDE.D 0vOr AhssED)
C. Curfew for Juveniles Ordinance - Wli-e con+E BACt- 7-0 COuwCiL.
oN -?'//5197
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Approval of Bills
C. South King County Narcotics Task Force Grant
Administration
D. Emergency Medical Services Levy - Resolution- /�{9�
E. Green River Annexation - Resolution -- 1y(?3
F. Surplus Vehicles - Authorization
G. Oil Rebate Grant Funds - Authorize and Establish Budget
H. Kent Motel - Bill of Sale
I. 240th/212th Bridge-Water Main - Accept as Complete
J. Meeker Street and Russell Road Signal - Accept as
Complete
K. Human Services Commission - Appointment
L. Pacific Terrace Final Plat - Set Meeting Date
M. Swan Court Final Plat - Set Meeting Date
N. Country View Estates II Final Plat - Set Meeting Date
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Downtown Strategic Action Plan - Approval
5. BIDS
A. Kent and Clark Springs Emergency Power Addition
B. Kent Springs Customer Removal Water Mains (152nd Avenue
S.E. to 156th Avenue S.E. )
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Litigation
8 . ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City ClerKs Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information. For TDD relay service call
1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent(206)85"587.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) Introduction of Mayor' s Appointee
B) Employee of the Month
Q,1.l.�a_ i 997
Council Meeting
Kent City Jul 1 1997
Date- Public Hearin s
Category
..�. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE
1, SUBS T: ZCA-97-4
leted its research and
The City has comp construction
the design, . t. s in the
Y STATEMENT: issues affecting facile aced
2 • S of various telecommunicatCity staff have prep
analysis of wireless this research, wireless telecom-
and location Based on at regulating
City Of Kent. in the City- This ordinances Land Use
as
a zoning code amendment ents made at
facilities ursuant tO COat a public hearing On
municlE_sed amended p June 9 and At the conclusion of
discussedBoadd workshop on June spa Planning Board recom-
Planning held on all of which
the proposed ordinance the Land Use Public
hearing, with some revisionsfor a
their June 2roposed ordinance is now ready
the proposed
The matter
mended incorporated.
have been
hearing and vote.
and Planning
Board minutes
and Land Use
3 • E=S: Ordinance, and staff
Use Plannin Board etc. )
ED BYstaffd Examiner, Commission,
4 . RE�Clttee,
YES_ -
� IMPACT:
5• UNBUDGETED FIS CAL PERSONNEL
6, EXPENDITURE RE UIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 • CITY COUNCIL
ACTION: seconds
moves, Councilmember "' '--
enacting controls on the is
Councilmember telecommuni-
m t.permits for wireless
to adopt Ordinance NO• of Kent.
of Land Use and Del City
cations facilities in
DISCUSSION:
ti- ACTION: Council Agend
Item No. 2A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 15.08 of the Kent
City Code by adding a new Section 15.08.035 entitled
"Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" (File No. ZCA-
97-4); providing definitions, exemptions, and general and
specific requirements; and providing conditions for
approving the location and construction of wireless
telecommunication facilities as permitted uses and
conditional uses.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has received and expects to receive requests
to site wireless telecommunications facilities within its municipal boundaries; and
WHEREAS,the City of Kent finds that it is in the public interest to permit
the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities within its municipal boundaries; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Kent to protect and promote the
public health, safety and welfare by regulating the siting of wireless telecommunications
facilities through issuance of appropriate permits: NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION]. Anew section, Section 15.08.035 is added to the Kent City
Code as follows:
Sec. 15.08.035. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
A. Purpose and Goals. The purpose of this Section 15.08.035 is to establish
general guidelines for the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities
("WTFs"), specifically including, without limitation, towers and antennas,
in light of the following goals:
1. Protecting residential areas from potential adverse impacts;
2. Enhancing the ability of the providers of wireless
telecommunications services to provide those services quickly,
effectively, and efficiently;
3. Encouraging location in non-residential areas;
4. Minimizing the total height of towers within the community;
5. Encouraging the joint use of new and existing sites;
6. Encouraging service providers to locate and configure facilities to
minimize adverse impacts through careful design, siting,
landscaping, screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques;
and
7. Considering potential adverse impacts to the public health and
safety from these facilities except where preempted by other laws,
rules, and regulations.
In furtherance of these goals,the City of Kent shall give due consideration
to the City of Kent's comprehensive plan, zoning map, existing land uses,
and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of
WTFs, including towers and antennas.
B. Definitions. As used in this Section 15.08.035 only, the following terms
shall have the meanings set forth below:
1. "Abandon" or "Abandonment" means:
(a) to cease operation for a period of one hundred eighty (180)
or more consecutive calendar days; or
(b) to reduce the effective radiated power of an antenna by
seventy-five percent(75%) for one hundred eighty (180) or
more consecutive calendar days, unless new technology or
the construction of additional cells in the same locality
allows reduction of effective radiated power by more than
seventy-five (75%), so long as the operator still serves
essentially the same customer base.
2. "Antenna" means any exterior transmitting or receiving device used
in communications that radiates or captures electromagnetic waves.
3. "Backhaul network" means the lines that connect a provider's
WTFs/towers/cell sites to one or more cellular telephone switching
offices, and/or long distance providers, or the public switched
telephone network.
4. "Camouflage" means to disguise, hide, or integrate with an existing
or proposed structure or with the natural environment so as to be
significantly screened from view.
5. "Co-locate" means use of a WTF by more than one service provider.
6. "COW" means "Cell on Wheels" or "Cellular on Wheels."
7. "EIA" means Electronic Industries Association.
8. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration.
9. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission.
10. "Guyed Tower" means a wireless communication support structure
which is typically over one hundred feet (100') tall and is steadied
by wire guys in a radial pattern around the tower.
11. "Height" means, when referring to a tower or other WTF, the
distance measured from the finished grade of the parcel at the base
of the WTF to the highest point on the tower or other WTF,
including the base pad and any antennas.
12. "Lattice Tower" means a support structure which consists of a
network of crossed metal braces, forming a tower which is usually
triangular or square in cross-section.
13. "Monopole Tower" means a support structure which consists of a
single pole sunk into the around and/or attached to a foundation.
14. "Non-whip antenna" means an antenna that is not a whip antenna,
such as dish antennas, panel antennas, etc.
15. "Pre-existing WTF" means any WTF for which a building permit
has been properly issued prior to July 7, 1997, including permitted
WTFs that have not yet been constructed, so long as that permit or
approval has not expired.
` 16. "Telecommunications" means the transmission, between or among
points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and
received.
17. "Telecommunications service" means the offering of
telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such
classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public,
regardless of the facilities used.
18. "Tower" means any structure that is designed and constructed
primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas for
telecommunications, telephone, radio and similar communication
purposes. The term includes the structure, all structural supports,
and all related buildings and appurtenances.
19. "Whip antenna" means an omnidirectional dipole antenna of
cylindrical shape that is no more than six inches (6") in average
diameter.
20. "Wireless Telecommunications Facility" or "WTF" includes
"Personal Wireless Service," "Personal Wireless Service Facilities,"
and "Facilities" as defined in Title 47, United States Code, Section
332(c)(7)(C), including all future amendments, and also includes
facilities for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave
signals used for communication,telecommunication,cellular phone.
personal communications services, enhanced specialized mobile
4
radio, and any other services licensed by the FCC, and also includes
any other unlicensed wireless services.
C. Applicability.
1. New Uses. All WTF proposals made in the City of Kent, whether
for new construction or for modification of existing facilities, shall
be subject to the regulations set forth in this code, except as
provided in subsection D.
D. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this Section
15.08.035 and are allowed in all zoning districts.
1. Existing Uses. Wireless telecommunication facilities that currently
exist on July 7, 1997 or for which a valid building permit has been
obtained and remains in effect on July 7, 1977.
2. Industrial/scientific equipment. Industrial processing equipment
and scientific or medical equipment using frequencies regulated by
the FCC.
3. Amateur Radio Station Operators or Receive-Only Antennas. Any
tower or antenna that is under seventy (70) feet in height and is
owned and operated by a federally licensed amateur radio station
operator or is used exclusively for receive-only antennas.
4. Home satellite services. Satellite dish antennas less than two meters
in diameter, including direct-to-home satellite services, when used
as a secondary use of the property.
5. COW. A COW or other temporary WTF, but its use anywhere in
the City cannot exceed thirty (30) days, unless extended by permit
issued by the Planning Director or unless the City has declared an
area-wide emergency.
6. Public safety WTFs and equipment. Public safety WTFs and
equipment, including, but not limited to, the regional 911 system.
5
E. General.
1. Principal or Accessory Use. WTFs may be considered either
principal or accessory uses. A different use of an existing structure
on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of WTFs on that
lot.
2. Not Essential Services. WTFs shall be regulated and permitted
pursuant to this Section 15.08.035 and shall not be regulated or
permitted as essential public services.
F. General Requirements.
1. Siting. Anyone who applies to construct a WTF or to modify or add
to an existing WTF shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that
the proposed facility is located at the least obtrusive and the most
appropriate available site to function in the applicant's grid system.
2. FCC Licensing. The City will only process WTF permit
applications upon a satisfactory showing of proof that the applicant
is an FCC licensed telecommunications provider or that the
applicant has agreements with an FCC licensed telecommunications
provider for use or lease of the facility.
3. Applicants must show, to the
Compliance with other laws.
satisfaction of the Planning Director, compliance with current FCC
and FAA rules and regulations and all other applicable federal,
state, tLnd local laws, rules and regulations.
4. Lot Size. For purposes of determining whether the installation of
WTFs complies with district development regulations including,but
not limited to, setback requirements, lot-coverage requirements, and
other requirements, the dimensions of the entire lot shall control,
even though the WTFs may be located on leased parcels within that
lot.
6
5. Height. Unless further restricted or expanded elsewhere in this
Section 15.08.035, no WTFs may exceed the following height and
usage criteria:
(a) for a single user, up to ninety (90) feet in height; and
(b) for two or more users, up to one hundred twenty (120) feet
in height.
6. Security fencing. WTFs shall be enclosed, where appropriate, by
security fencing not less than six feet in height; provided however,
that the Planning Director or, where applicable, the Hearing
Examiner may waive these requirements, as appropriate.
7. Landscaping. WTFs shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant
materials that effectively screens the view of the WTF compound;
provided, however,that the Planning Director or,where applicable,
the Hearing Examiner may waive these requirements if the goals of
this Section 15.08.035 would be better served.
8. WTFs Mounted on Structures or Rooftops. WTFs mounted on
existing structures or rooftops shall be designed and located so as
not to interfere with the adjoining land uses and structures and shall,
to the greatest extent practical, blend into the existing environment.
9. Aesthetics. WTFs shall meet the following requirements:
(a) WTFs shall be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual
obtrusiveness.
(b) At a WTF site, the design of the buildings and related
structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors,
textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend into the
existing natural and constructed environment.
10. Lighting. Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by
the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required for any
7
WTF, the lighting must cause the least disturbance to the
surrounding area.
11. Ifeasurement. For purposes of measurement, WTF setbacks and
separation distances shall be calculated and applied irrespective of
municipal and county jurisdictional boundaries.
12. Franchises, licenses, and permits. Owners and/or operators of
WTFs shall certify that they have obtained all franchises, licenses,
or permits required by law for the construction and/or operation of
a wireless telecommunication system in the City of Kent and shall
file a copy of all required franchises, licenses, and permits with the
Planning Director.
13. Signs. No signs shall be allowed on an antenna or tower.
14. Backhaul providers. Backhaul providers shall be identified and
they shall have and maintain all necessary approvals to operate as
such, including holding necessary franchises, permits, and
certificates. The method of providing backhaul, wired or wireless,
shall be identified.
G. Tower Requirements.
1. Tower setbacks. All towers, support structures and accessory
buildings must satisfy the minimum setback requirements for that
zoning district.
2. Support systems setbacks. All guywires, anchors, and other support
structures must be located within the buildable area of the lot and
not within the front, rear, or side yard setbacks and no closer than
five (5) feet to any property line.
3. Monopole construction required. All towers will be of a tapering
monopole construction; however, the Planning Director or, where
applicable, the Hearing Examiner, may allow another type tower
upon a showing that it would cause less impact to the surrounding
8
property than a similar monopole structure or would further the
purposes and goals in this Section 15.08.035.
4. Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for a tower shall provide
an inventory of its existing WTF sites that are either within the
jurisdiction of the City of Kent or within one mile of its borders,
including specific structural information about the location, height,
and design of each facility.
5. EM standards. Towers shall be constructed so as to meet or exceed
the most recent EIA standards. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, the building official shall be provided with an engineer's
certification that the tower's design meets or exceeds those
standards.
6. Site selection and height. Towers shall be located to minimize their
number and height and to minimize their visual impacts on the
surrounding area in accordance with the following policies:
(a) Ensure that the height of towers has the least visual impact
and that the height is no greater than necessary to achieve
service area requirements and to provide for potential co-
location; and
(b) Demonstrate that the owner or operator has, to the greatest
extent practical, selected a new tower site that provides the
least visual impact on residential areas. This shall include
an analysis of the potential impacts from other vantage
points in the area to illustrate that the selected site and
design provides the best opportunity to minimize the visual
impact of the proposed facility.
(c) Site so as to minimize being visually solitary or prominent
when viewed from surrounding areas, especially residential
9
areas. The facility should be camouflaged to the maximum
extent feasible.
7. Co-location priority. Co-location of antennas by more than one
carrier on existing towers is preferred to construction of new towers,
provided that the co-location is consistent with the following:
(a) Redesign restrictions. A tower that is modified or
reconstructed to accommodate the co-location of an
additional antenna shall be of the same tower type as the
existing tower, or of a less obtrusive design (such as a
monopole), if practical.
(b) Height. Except as may be modified in subsection I(1)(a), an
existing tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height,
not to exceed thirty feet (30') over the tower's existing
height or one hundred twenty feet (120'), whichever is
lower, to accommodate the co-location of an additional
antenna in any district except DC, DCE, NCC and all SR
districts. This additional height shall not require an
additional distance separation.
(c) Onsite relocation. A tower that is being rebuilt to
accommodate the co-location of an additional antenna may
be relocated on its existing site within fifty feet (50') of its
existing location. The onsite relocation of a tower which
comes within the separation distances to residential units or
residentially zoned lands shall only be permitted when
approved by the Planning Director or, where applicable, the
Hearing Examiner.
8. Separation distances between towers. Separation distances between
towers shall be measured between the proposed tower and
preexisting towers. Measurement shall be from base of tower to
10
base of tower, excluding pad, footing or foundation. The separation
distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line
between the nearest point on the base of the existing tower and the
proposed tower base, pursuant to a site plan of the proposed tower.
The separation distances (listed in linear feet) shall be as shown in
Table 1, unless the distance is reduced by the Planning Director
' when administratively approving a WTF or by the Hearing
Examiner through issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
Table 1:
Lattice Guyed Monopole 75 Monopole
Ft in Height or Less Than 75
Greater Ft in Height
Lattice 5000 5000 1500 750
Guyed 5000 5000 1500 750
Monopole
75 Ft in 1500 1500 1500 750
Height or
Greater
Monopole
Less Than 750 750 750 750
75 Ft in
Height
H. Administratively Approved WTFs. The Planning Director may
administratively approve the uses listed in this subsection, once each
applicant has applied for and provided all necessary information required
in this code and in the City's application form.
1. Time for approval. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date
the City receives a complete, valid, and properly executed
application,the Planning Director shall either approve,approve with
conditions, or deny the application. If the Planning Director fails to
11
approve or deny the application within this sixty (60) calendar day
period, then the application shall be deemed approved.
2. Administratively Approved Uses. The following uses may be
approved by the Planning Director after conducting an
administrative review:
(a) Industrial/Commercial zones. Locating WTFs,including the
placement of additional buildings or other supporting
equipment used in connection with WTFs, that do not
exceed ninety feet (90') in height for a single user and one
hundred twenty feet (120') in height for two or more users
in the following districts: MA; MI; M1-C; M2; M3; CM-1;
CM-2; GC; and GWC.
(b) Antennas on existing structures. Locating a WTF other than
a tower as an accessory use by attachment to any building or
structure other than a single-family dwelling or multi-family
structure of fewer than eight dwelling units in any zoning
district provided:
(i) The antenna does not extend more than twenty feet
(20') above the highest point of the structure if a
whip antenna, or ten feet (10') above the highest
point of the structure if a non-whip antenna; and
(ii) The antenna complies with all applicable building
codes; and
(iii) All associated equipment is placed either within the
same building or in a separate structure that matches
the existing building or structure in character and
materials.
12
(c) WTFs on existing towers. Locating a WTF through co-
location by attaching the antenna to an existing tower.
(d) WTFs within allowable building height. Locating WTFs,
including placement of additional buildings or other
supporting equipment used in connection with the WTF in
O, CC, MRG, MRM, MRH, AG, and A-1 districts, so long
as the WTF does not exceed the allowable building height
for that district.
(e) COWS for greater than thirty (30) day periods. Upon a
proper showing of extreme necessity (for example, if repair
or modification of an existing WTF clearly and legitimately
cannot be completed within thirty (30) days), locating a
COW at a single location for more than thirty (30) calendar
days; however, purely economic convenience shall not be
considered a viable factor in making this determination.
3. Authority to waive certain requirements. In connection with this
administrative approval, the Planning Director may, in order to
encourage camouflaging and co-location of WTFs, administratively
waive separation distance requirements between WTFs by up to
fifty percent (50%) in non-residential zones. Additionally, the
Planning Director may, in order to encourage the use of the least
obtrusive type of WTF, administratively allow the reconstruction of
an existing WTF to that less obstructive use.
4. Appeal. If an administrative approval is denied, the applicant may
appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner within twenty (20)
calendar days of the date of the Planning Director's decision.
I. Conditional use permits. Applications for conditional use permits under
this subsection shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of
Section 15.09.030 of the Zoning Code, except as modified by this
13
subsection. If the W U is not subject to administrative approval pursuant
to subsection H, then a conditional use permit shall be required.
1. Conditional WTF uses. Specifically, conditional use permits shall
be required for the following WTFs:
(a) Industrial/Commercial zones. Locating WTFs that exceed
ninety feet (90') in height for a single user or one hundred
twenty feet(120') for two or more users or locating antennas
on existing structures that exceed the height limitations in
subsection H(2)(b) in the following districts: MA; MI; M1-
C; M2; M3; CM-1; CM-2; GC; and GWC.
(b) Government property. Locating WTFs (1) separate from
existing structures on property owned, leased, or otherwise
controlled by the City or other governmental entity or (2)
attached to existing structures on property owned, leased or
otherwise controlled by the City or other governmental
entity exceeding the height limitations in subsection
H(2)(b), but only on the condition that the total height, of
the attached WTF, including the structure, does not exceed
one hundred twenty feet (120'), unless permitted under
subsection I(l)(a); however, this subsection shall not apply
in DC, DCE, and NCC districts.
(c) WTFs exceeding allowable building height. Locating WTFs
that exceed the allowable building height in the following
districts: O; CC; MRG; MRM; MRH; AG; and Al.
(d) Tower construction under allowed separation distances.
Locating towers that do not meet the separation distance
requirements in subsection (G)(8) or that do not meet
administratively approved separation distance limits.
14
2. Factors Considered in Granting Conditional use Permits for
Towers. In addition to Sec. 15.09.030(D), the Hearing Examiner
shall also consider the following factors when considering a CUP
application for WTF towers:
(a) Height of the proposed tower;
(b) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and
residential district boundaries;
(c) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;
(d) Surrounding topography;
(e) Surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
(f) Design of the tower, with particular reference to design
characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating
visual obtrusiveness;
(g) Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures, or
alternative technologies not requiring the use of towers or
structures.
(h) Obstruction of or interference with views.
(i) Consistency with purpose and goals set forth in subsection
A of this Section 15.08.035.
3. Availability of Suitable Existing Towers, Other Structures, or
Alternative Technology. No new tower shall be permitted unless the
applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Hearing
Examiner that no existing tower, structure, or alternative technology
that does not require the use of towers can accommodate the
applicant's proposed WTF. An applicant shall submit information
requested by the Hearing Examiner related to the availability of
suitable existing towers, other structures or alternative technology.
Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower, structure
15
or alternative technology can accommodate the applicant's proposed
WTF may consist of any of the following:
(a) No existing WTF is located within the geographic area that
meets applicant's engineering requirements.
(b) Existing WTFs are not of sufficient height to meet
applicant's engineering requirements.
(c) Existing WTFs cannot practically be reconstructed to
provide sufficient structural strength to support applicant's
proposed antenna and related equipment.
(d) Electromagnetic interference would occur between two or
more WTF systems.
(e) The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the
owner in order to share an existing WTF or to adapt an
existing WTF for co-location are unreasonable. Fees or
costs that exceed new WTF development shall not be
presumed to render sharing facilities unsuitable.
(f) Other limiting factors render existing WTFs unsuitable.
(g) An alternative technology that does not require the use of
towers or structures would be unsuitable. Costs of
alternative technology that exceed new WTF development
shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable.
4. Separation requirements. The Hearing Examiner may reduce tower
separation distance requirements, including administratively
approved separation distance reductions, if the purposes and goals
of this Section 15.08.035 would be better served; however,
development of multiple tower locations on a single site (often
referred to as "antenna farms") are specifically discouraged
wherever possible.
16
J. Removal of Abandoned Towers.
1. Abandonment and removal. The owner or operator of any
abandoned tower shall notify the City's Planning Director, in
writing, of that abandonment and shall remove the same within
ninety (90) calendar days. Failure to remove an abandoned tower
within ninety (90) calendar days shall be grounds to remove the
tower at the owner's expense. If there are two or more users of a
single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all
users abandon the tower.
2. Partial abandonment and removal. If the antennas on any tower are
removed or relocated to a point where the top twenty percent(20%)
or more of the height of the tower is no longer in use, the tower
shall be deemed partially abandoned. The owner or operator of any
partially abandoned tower shall notify the City's Planning Director,
in writing, of that partial abandonment and shall remove the
partially abandoned portion within ninety (90) calendar days.
Failure to remove a partially abandoned tower within ninety (90)
calendar days shall be grounds to remove the abandoned portion of
the tower at the owner's expense.
3. Security and lien. Each applicant, prior to commencement of
construction, shall post sufficient security in the form of a bond,
assignment of funds, cashier's check, or cash, in a form acceptable
to the City,to cover the estimated cost of demolition or removal of
the tower and support structures, including complete site restoration.
If for any reason the posted funds are not adequate to cover the cost
of removal, then the City may charge the facility owner or operator
with the City's total cost incurred in removing the abandoned
structures. If the owner or operator fails to make full payment
17
within thirty (30) calendar days, then the amount remaining unpaid
shall become a lien on the facility property.
K. Nonconforming Uses.
1. Preexisting towers. Preexisting towers shall be allowed to continue
their usage as they presently exist. Routine maintenance shall be
permitted. Any construction other than routine maintenance on a
preexisting tower shall comply with the requirements of this Section
15.08.035.
2. Damage or destruction not the fault of owner/occupant. Bona fide
nonconforming WTFs that are damaged or destroyed without fault
attributable to the owner or entity in control may be rebuilt without
first having to obtain administrative approval or a conditional use
permit and without having to meet separation requirements. The
type, height, and location of the tower onsite shall be of the same
type and intensity as the original facility. Building permits to
rebuild the facility shall comply with applicable building codes and
shall be obtained within 180 days from the date the facility is
damaged or destroyed. If no permit is obtained or if the permit
expires, the tower or antenna shall be deemed abandoned as
specified in subsection J.
SECTION 2. - Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are 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.
18
SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from the time of its final approval, passage, and publication as provided
by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 11997.
APPROVED: day of 1997.
PUBLISHED: day of 11997.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P-LLLAWORDINANC\W IRELE55.ORD
19
CITY OF �J2
Ll-
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 350-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
June 23, 1997
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:00 p.m. on June 23, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Tom Brotherton
Jerry Daman
Ron Harmon
David Malik
Sharon Woodford
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and member Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to
approve the June 2, 1997 minutes as written. The motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director Jim Harris informed the Board that the City Council will be hearing the
Downtown Subarea Action Plan at the July 1, 1997 City Council Meeting.
MZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
220 4th AVE SO I KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE ('_Ob1A59-3700/FAX a A59-3334
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997 -
Page 2
#ZCA-97-4 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (T. Brubaker)
Chair Steve Dowell asked that the letters received by the Land Use and Planning Board be made a
part of the record(Exhibit"Al-5"). Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker identified the following
letters for the record:
1. Phil Kitzes, PK Enterprises -representing AT&T Wireless
2. Amy L. Kosterlitz, Buck & Gordon - representing AT&T Wireless
3. Erik K. Farstad, JM Consulting Group Inc. - representing GTE
4. Joel R. Paisner, Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson & Skerritt - representing GTE Wireless
5. Cyndly L. Smith, Western Wireless
Mr. Brubaker explained the changes that were made to the draft ordinance that was presented to the
Board at their June 9, 1997 Workshop. Some of the changes he discussed are as follows:
A.1 The word"potential'was added before adverse impacts. There were concerns expressed that
not all impacts from the telecommunication facilities would be adverse.
A.7 There was some concern regarding the preemption of federal law. Although,that was never
the intention of this ordinance the statement"except where preempted by other laws, rules,
and regulations"was added to this item. (A.7. Considering potential adverse impacts to the
public health and safety from these facilities except where r�ee tamed by other laws rules,
and regulations.)
B.l.a The period of abandonment was increased from ninety(90)days to one hundred eighty(180)
days. Mr.Brubaker explained that some of the industrial responses indicated that ninety(90)
days was too short of period to be deemed abandoned.
B.1.b Concerns regarding reducing the radiated power of an antenna by seventy-five percent(75%)
to be constructive abandonment. Mr. Brubaker explained that as technology improves and
the number of locations increase the amount of radiation from each antenna naturally
decreases. The time frame was adjusted from ninety (90) days to one hundred eighty (180)
days as in section(a) and the statement was added`unless new technology allows reduction
of effective radiated power by more than seventy-five (75%), so long as the operator still
serves essentially the same customer base."
Mr. Brubaker explained that staff is concerned with the possibility that a tower that is basically
abandoned will continue operating at a minimum to avoid be classified as abandoned. Establishing
criteria to better define abandonment is necessary to give the City authority and yet address the
industry concerns.
#ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 3
B.l.c Deleted in its entirety. Mr. Brubaker explained that there is a way to measure the effective
radiated power of an antenna; however, this is very difficult to calculate without the
provider's assistance.
B.I I The height requirement is further clarified to identify that the measurement begins at the
finished grade of the parcel at the base of the facility. Mr. Brubaker explained that with a
parcel of varying degrees of topography, you can be left wondering where the starting point
is.
D.5 Mr. Brubaker explained that there had been a lot of response regarding cells on wheels
(COW)outlined in Section D.S. He explained that the original allowance of one week would
not be sufficient in cases where an antenna needs rebuilt, modified, and repaired due to
weather damage. The language has been modified to allow COW placement for thirty (30)
days and gave the Planning Director the authority to extend this period.
E.3 Establishing a priority review for multiple antenna/tower plans was eliminated.
Mr. Brubaker explained that the City will continue to encourage co-location,however, since
specific criteria or standards had not been developed as to how the priority would be
generated, this proposal was deleted.
F.1 Eliminated the requirement for engineering evidence. The industry argued that the City
would not have the background to evaluate the evidence and therefore it should not be a
requirement. The city concurred but still required the applicant to demonstrate that the
facility's proposed location is the most appropriate location.
F.5 The standards- in this section establishes height guidelines unless "further restricted or
expanded elsewhere in this Section 15.08.035. " Mr. Brubaker explained that these standards
are established to create a default section. If there is anywhere in the ordinance that a height
limit is not identified then the default height would prevail.
F.5 Mr.Brubaker suggested inserting the phrase"if designed"at the beginning of sections F.S.(a)
and(b). The idea was suggested by an industry response and Mr. Brubaker felt that it was
appropriate being that the City is trying to encourage co-location of towers.
G.1. Tower setbacks received a lot of industry comments. Mr. Brubaker explained that the
original proposal required towers to be set back a distance equal to at least seventy-five
percent(75%) of the height of the tower from any adjoining lot line. He explained that the
basis for that idea was essentially the fear of a fall down from the tower. If a tall structure
falls you do not want it to hit an adjoining building.
AZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 4
Mr. Brubaker stated that the consultant has reassured the city that the towers are extremely
well constructed and it's highly unlikely they would fall. He explained that the City already
requires that the towers comply with the EIA standards which impose specific construction
and design requirements. As a result, the additional set back restrictions were removed and
sirhply made the towers subject to the same set back requirements that any structure would
be in a particular zoning district.
G.3 A monopole tower is preferred,however, if the applicant can show that another tower would
cause less impact or is needed in order to co-locate more than one provider, the city
authorized the Planning Director or the Hearing Examiner the authority to make this
allowance.
G.6.c Concerns were made requiring the location of the towers to minimize the view from the
public right-of-way. Mr. Brubaker explained that the least offensive place for a tower to
locate was away from residential, retail, and commercial neighborhoods, and they would
almost always be near a public right-of-way. Therefore,the public right-of-way requirement
was removed and the language was amended.
G.8 This section was modified to give the Planning Director the authority to reduce the distance
requirements . The distance between monopole towers of seventy-five feet(75') or higher
was reduced from 1,500 feet to 1,000 feet. Mr. Brubaker explained that this distance can be
reduced even greater by an administrative variance and again through the conditional use
permit process.
H.2.a The height restrictions were clarified indicating that the ninety (90) and one hundred twenty
(120) feet restrictions apply in the industrial zoning districts.
H.2.b (i) Mr.Brubaker recommended increasing the maximum length allowed of a whip antenna
from fifteen(15) feet to twenty (20) feet.
H.2.e The Planning Director was given the authority to extend the thirty day allowance of a COW
when the applicant can show an extreme necessity. Purely economic convenience shall not
be considered a viable factor in making this determination.
I.2.i New subsection adding "obstruction of or interference with views."
J.1. Increased time period from ninety(90)to one hundred eighty (180) days for the removal of
abandoned towers.
Mr. Brubaker discussed Mr. Brotherton's suggestion to add language that would require a selected
location to have the minimum visual and safety impacts of all available alternate sites. Mr. Brubaker
#ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 5
commented that this was adequately stated in subsection G.6. He wasn't sure what Mr. Brotherton
was looking for.
Mr. Brotherton explained that in the instance where there may multiple sites that are equally
adequate the applicant should choose the site that causes the least visual impairment of the
neighborhood. Mr. Brotherton commented that he finds it highly unlikely that there would only be
one site available that is adequate; more likely an applicant will have several sites to choose from.
Mr. Brubaker questioned whether subsection G.6. thoroughly covered what Mr. Brotherton was
looking for. Mr. Brotherton stated that he was more concerned that an applicant has to prove that
a given site is the only site in that area where it can be located. Mr. Brotherton would like to
encourage the applicant to chose the best site in terms of visual or safety concerns. Mr. Brubaker
suggested the following amendment"that the proposed facility must be leedied at 4tat 5ite is located
at the least obtrusive and the most appropriate location to function in the applicant's grid system."
Mr. Brubaker asked for clarification to Mr. Brotherton's suggestion to amend section F.14 regarding
Backhaul providers. Mr. Brotherton explained that in all other referrals to licensing,permitting, etc.
the licensor was required to keep the license current. The backhaul providers were required to show
proof of necessary franchises,permits, and certificates only at the time of application. They did not
have to show any proof of continuing licensing. Mr. Brubaker suggested amending section F-14
adding the words "and maintain".
Chair Steve Dowell asked Mr. Brubaker to identify the suggested changes discussed thus far.
Mr. Brubaker explained the changes discussed were to F1, F5(a) and(b), F14, and H.2.(b)(i).
Board member Tom Brotherton commented that letters had been received that objected to the
reduction of power as being a form of abandonment due to the natural consequence to reduce the
power of an antenna if additional cells are constructed in the area. He commented that this would
not have anything to do with the customer base nor technical improvement.
Mr. Brubaker questioned if he was suggesting that we allow them to reduce in power greater than
75%for any reason. Mr.Brotherton commented that the only instance that they made a case for here
is if additional cells are created they would have to reduce the power from an existing WTF in order
to prevent an interference; that would be a reasonable case. Mr. Brotherton suggested adding
language to exclude this instance.
Mr. Brubaker suggested amending section B.l.(b) as follows:
(b) to reduce the effective radiated power of an antenna by seventy-five percent (75%) for
one hundred eighty(180) or more consecutive calendar days, unless new technology or
the construction of additional cells in the same locality allows reduction . . . ."
#ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 6
Board member Brotherton discussed his concern regarding additional setback requirements. He
questioned the expected life of a tower and if there were any inspection requirements. Mr. Brubaker
explained that he could not answer that question. He explained that it is his understanding that the
facilities are subject to the Electronic Industries Association(EIA)standards which are very exacting
and must also comply with local Building Codes. He commented that providers are not in the
business to construct a flimsy tower because they need it to withstand extreme weather conditions
in order to continue providing service without interruptions.
Mr. Brotherton commented that he was concerned that over twenty (20) or thirty (30) years the
structure might lose its integrity. He explained that these towers are so tall they could fall on two
or three properties.
Mr. Brubaker explained that as long as these towers are in vital use it behooves the providers to
maintain these towers so that they do not lose their coverage. He commented that if a tower is
abandoned, the tower will be removed either by the provider or the City.
Mr. Brotherton confirmed that Mr. Brubaker is unable to answer his concerns regarding the life
expectancy of the towers and the inspection process. Mr.Brubaker explained that he would get with
Mr. Simmons and bring this issue up with the City Council with either a modification or a
clarification. Mr. Brotherton was in agreement to that.
Mr. Brotherton questioned the rationale for reducing the distance required between two monopole
towers 75 feet in height or greater to 1,000 feet. He commented that since an applicant is afforded
the opportunity to reduce the distance not only once but twice, through an administrative variance
and a conditional use permit, he feels that the original 1,500 feet separation is still merited.
Mr. Brotherton questioned what the decision to reduce this distance was based upon.
Mr. Brubaker stated that setback and separation distances were the most stagnate comments that
were received from industry. He explained that they looked at ways to accommodate that.
Mr. Simmons suggesting reducing the separation from 1,500 to 1,000 feet. Mr. Simmons also
suggested reducing the distance between other monopole towers from 750 to 500 feet. The city is
not recommending that.
Mr. Brotherton clarified that the Planning Director and the Hearing Examiner can both reduce the
distance between towers through an administrative variance and a conditional use permit. Therefore,
Mr. Brotherton is reluctant to reduce the separation from 1,500 to 1,000 feet. He commented that
reducing the distance between towers increases the chance of an antenna farm.
Board member Jerry Daman supported the 1,500 feet separation. Board member Ron Harmon stated
that allowing an applicant to appeal to the Planning Director to reduce this distance and the ability
9ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 7
to appeal to the Hearing Examiner to reduce this distance further is excessive. He supports keeping
the distance at 1,500 feet separation.
Mr. Harmon questioned whether the language in section F.6 regarding security fencing was strong
enough. Mr. Brubaker explained that it is sufficient. He commented that unless the tower poses a
nuisance, the security is to protect the facility not the public. The requirement was in case the tower
was an attractive nuisance to the children in the neighborhood.
Mr.Harmon questioned the time period for the removal and abandonment of towers. He commented
that ninety (90) days would be sufficient time for a provider to notify the City and an additional
ninety (90) days is sufficient for the provider to remove said tower.
Mr. Brotherton suggested a word change for subsection J.1 to replace the phrase "cease using" with
the word"abandon".
Mr. Brotherton MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Phil Kitzes, 23126 SE 285th Street, Kent. Mr. Phil Kitzes represents AT&T Wireless and
commented that the ordinance is well written. He explained the reasoning behind the deletion of
additional setbacks was based on the facilities are structured much like a building. The towers are
built to withstand weather and a lot of force.
Mr. Kitzes stated the proposed separation distance between towers may inspire providers to look
at additional sites and that could include residential sites. He commented that the City would be
encouraging providers to locate towers in residential areas.
Mr. Brotherton questioned whether Mr. Kitzes would choose to locate a tower in a residential district
rather than applying for an administrative variance through the Planning Director to reduce the
required separation distance. He also questioned what Mr. Kitzes would recommend in terms of
modifying this ordinance so the City could minimize the antenna farm effect and encourage
co-location as much as possible.
Mr. Kitzes explained his process for locating an acceptable site. He explained that if a location is
found in an industrial zone 400 feet away from another tower and that site meets the criteria but
would require additional permits and another acceptable site is located in a residential zone and does
not require the additional permits; the residential site would be pursued.
Mr.Kitzes explained that with a separation distance requirement the City is promoting the possibility
of multiple sites throughout the City. He recommends a greater consolidation into specific areas to
reduce the number of"eye-sores" within the City. He supports locating the towers in general
4ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 3
vicinities of each other in order to minimize the visual effects. He commented that he would rather
locate in the industrial or commercial zones.
Mr. Brotherton questioned the difficulty of getting an administrative variance. Planning Director
Jim Harris explained that an administrative variance can be obtained simply by justifying why a
deviation is necessary. The Planning Department would evaluate an application fairly. It isn't the
intent of staff to stop this type of development.
Mr. Brotherton questioned whether Mr. Kitzes would still prefer a residential site versus applying
for an administrative variance. Mr. Kitzes responded that it would be dependent on the type of
structure being proposed. He explained that if it is a permitted use, if the residential site meets the
criteria, and if a leaser is available, it is likely the tower would be placed in the residential area. He
commented that ordinarily they do not look for residential sites; however, if limitations or
restrictions are placed on industrial or commercial locations alternative locations will be pursued.
Andy King, The Meridian Group, 1910 N. 41st Street, Seattle, WA 98103. Mr. Andy King
represents U. S. West and the New Vector Group cellular telephone company. Mr. King
recommended adding language to section D.5. He would like to see"or a site specific"inserted after
area-wide in section D.5. He explained that something could happen to a specific site or tower that
could be categorized as an emergency.
Mr. King explained that carriers are limited by the willingness of property owners to enter into a
lease agreement to locate on specific sites. He suggested amending section F.1. "the proposed
facility is located at the least obtrusive and the most appropriate available site"by adding the word
"available". He explained that there are some constraints that they have no control over and would
like the language to indicate the sites available.
Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned why the carriers aren't in control as to where they are going to
locate. Mr. King explained that they are in the free market system, looking for a site in a specific
geographic area. They contact property owners of potential sites and some of them tell them thanks
but no thanks. The general requirements where they must demonstrate the least obtrusive is not
always an available location.
Mr. King discussed the height requirements listed in section F.5. He commented that the limits are
restrictive and arbitrary. He recommended the development of different height restrictions based
upon the individual zoning districts. The City should provide as much incentive as possible to
promote the carvers to locate in the more intensive commercial and industrial zones and to provide
more flexible siting criteria and a less onerous land use approval process. He commented that there
are areas in the City that could support facilities above the ninety(90) foot threshold for a single user
or above one hundred twenty(120)for multiple users without generating significant adverse impacts.
#ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 9
Mr. King concurs with Mr. Brubaker's recommendation to eliminate the additional setback
requirements and the underlying zones building setbacks simply apply.
Mr. King addressed Mr. Brotherton's question regarding the longevity of the WTF. He explained
that this buildings if properly designed, constructed, and maintained will last a long time; surely well
past the 20 or A years Mr. Brotherton illuded to. He commented that WTF's are generally over
engineered, over designed and will be around a while.
Mr. King was concerned with the statement in GA requiring applicants to provide specific
information about the location, height, and design of each facility. Mr. King suggested added
verbiage to indicate "non-proprietary" information only.
Mr. King stated that he would like to see the separation distances between towers take into
consideration the underlying zoning districts. He's supportive of the availability to apply for relief
through the administrative variance process and the conditional use process.
Mr. Brotherton commented that it was his intent to siting in section F.1. to mean the least obtrusive
and most appropriate of the sites available. Mr. Brubaker suggested adding the word"available" to
this subsection. Mr. Brotherton and Mr. King agreed.
Mr. Brotherton questioned Mr. King as to how high the industry would like to put the towers.
Mr. King stated that this is site specific. He commented that his overall concern is to make it as easy
as possible for his client to build these sites in the more intensive commercial and industrial zones
and to minimize the impact to the performance requirements in the zoning code.
Mr. King commented that ninety (90) feet does not strike him as a particularly tall or generous
allowance although given the topography and where you are in the valley floor ninety(90) feet could
be adequate. He stated that there will be areas where ninety (90) feet is not adequate. Mr. King
explained King County's process in which they identify the type of structure,the zoning district and
the structure in relation to height and the structure type governs the approval process. He
commented that this process encourages specific guidelines to speed the processing.
Mr. Brubaker questioned whether Mr. King considered co-location. Mr. King commented that it
depends greatly on the location,the market,who the other party may or may not be. He stated that
it is often difficult to get two carriers to look at the same site at the same time. He remarked that
more often one carrier will get a site build a tower and then another will come along and ask to put
an antenna on that site.
Planning Director explained that the height limits of ninety and one hundred twenty feet are
administratively what can be done outright. Mr. Harris explained that towers taller would have to
give the neighbors a chance to respond before the tower is approved. He explained that a conditional
#ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 10
use permit application process would notify the surrounding property owners and allow them a
chance to comment at a public hearing.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned the height of the existing tower located behind Van's Furniture.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the tower and antenna is 100 feet.
Board member Jerry Daman questioned whether the City is being unreasonable in assuming there
would be a lot of co-location. Chair Dowell commented that based on the industry response,
co-location does not seem as likely. Chair Dowell questioned Mr. King's stand on co-location.
Mr. King stated that he can not speak collectively for the industry and stated that his clients will
evaluate co-location on a case by case basis. He commented that there is a lot of resistance to
co-location in the industry on some of the established carriers; why would you want to help out a
potential competitor, develop a system. This is what you are doing if you are allowing them to
co-locate on a tower.
Chair Dowell questioned whether there were motivations for co-location. Mr. Hams commented
that the consultants have encouraged the City to try to foster the co-location of carriers. Mr. Harris
stated that diverse users would be able to co-locate. Dowell questioned if there are additional uses
beyond the competitors. Mr. King explained that the Emergency broadcast service and local fire
service.
Patrick Hewes, 1128 Sixteenth Avenue, Seattle,WA 981224534. Mr. Patrick Hewes represents
Page Net. Mr.Hewes asked the Board to add the word"average"to section B.19. He explained that
adding the word average would assist for one reason because many omnidirectional dipole antennas
or whip antennas look like broom sticks are often tapered. They are often'/3 or even '/2 as wide at
the top as they are at the bottom and by including the word average you might be able to allow
certain designs that would be narrow at the top and maybe 6'/< of 6'/z at the base. There are many
designs of whip antennas but this may allow a wider choice for finding an antenna that is thinner at
the top which would have a better visual impact.
Chair Steve Dowell commented that it would seem difficult to average the diameter and asked if it
would be easier to specify the maximum diameter at the base. Mr. Hewes explained that he
recommends average because there is a big difference between the diameter at the bottom and at the
top. Mr. Hewes stated that if there is an incentive to have a thin top there might be an incentive to
have a wider base. He stated there are many different options out there this would just give the
providers a little broader choice and somewhat of an incentive to use a smaller diameter at top.
Mr. Brubaker commented that to you and I it may seem difficult to average the diameter of a whip
antenna but with the sophisticated computer programs out today this would not be difficult.
#ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 11
Board member Ron Harmon commented that as technology improves the base of the antenna could
continue to grow to maybe eight inches. Mr. Hewes stated that it is possible that it would expand.
Mr. Harmon stated that the average seems appropriate.
Mr. Hewe§ questioned the intent of section H.2(b)(iii) and whether it was the intent to disallow the
rooftop for placement of the equipment cabinetry. Mr. Harris explained the reasoning was to ensure
the structure was compatible in character and materials and gave an example of when the cabinetry
was located on the ground near an existing building. Mr. Harris suggested a word change replacing
the word "building" with the word "structure".
Mr. Hewes commented Paging Network of Seattle seeks only locations on existing structures.
Chooses not to build new antenna support structures or towers. He commented that they are very
willing to co-locate.
Mr. Daman questioned the weight of the components added to an existing building or structure.
Mr. Hewes stated that the whip antennas weigh between 15 and 20 lbs and there is usually two,
three, or four in a given design and the equipment cabinet weighs approximate 500 lbs and there is
usually one or two cabinets. The weight would total less than 1500 lbs. Mr. Daman questioned
whether he encountered any structural problems when located the components to an existing
structure. Mr. Hewes stated that it is almost always possible whether it is the flat roof top of an
office or industrial building or an existing antenna support structure that has been over engineered
for attachments.
Mr. Daman questioned whether the weight of the components would be a factor in the ability to
co-locate on a structure. Mr. Hewes explained that he has never encountered a problem from the
weight of antennas especially whip antennas which are very light. He explained that the cabinetry
on an existing tower would be located on the ground on a concrete pad.
Mr. Daman questioned if Mr. Hewes could comment on the possibility of multiple users not being
able to co-locate on a site because it would be dangerous as far as the structure goes. Mr. Hewes
explained that an additional challenge to co-locate is that the coaxial cable has to be taken into
consideration. Usually one or two is sufficient, three won't work.
Mr. Daman questioned the towers and what different uses could accommodate. Mr. Hewes stated
that typically there is voice and paging communication, and various emergency and public service
uses. All of these basically operate in the same manner with differing numbers of antennas and
shapes of antennas and cables going from the antennas to an equipment cabinet in the base.
Chair Steve Dowell commented that they are somewhat challenged by not having the consultant here
tonight. He asked if the Board was having a problem with the many changes that have been
AZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997 V
Page 12
discussed tonight. Chair Dowell questioned whether the Board felt comfortable without the
consultant to make a recommendation tonight. The Board wanted to move forward.
Mr. Brubaker stated that he has a few responses to the public testimony and a couple additional
changes.
Mr. Brubaker asked the Board to disregard his previous request to change F.5.(a)&(b) adding in the
term "if designed"; now eliminated the phrase "if designed".
Mr. Brubaker recommended amending section H.1. as follows: " . . .the Planning Director shall
either approve, approve with conditions. or deny the application . . .... Mr. Brubaker explained that
this is implied but felt it should be stated outright. Vice Chair Bell questioned whether one of the
conditions could request more information. Mr. Brubaker stated that it could. Mr.Bell questioned
if that would go against the sixty day time frame. Mr. Harris explained if it is not a properly
executed application the time line stops similar to building permits. Mr. Brubaker explained that
there is no regulation mandating the sixty day period and the application time frame was written
similar to existing application processes.
Mr. Brubaker commented on the suggestion by Mr. King to add verbiage to D.S. regarding COW
exemptions is unnecessary. He explained that because the Planning Director is given the authority
to extend the use of COWS beyond thirty (30) it is not necessary to add language for a site specific
emergency. If there is a site specific emergency the COW can be extended on site with the
notification and approval of the Planning Director.
Mr. Brubaker commented that he is uncomfortable with adding the term"non-proprietary"to section
GA as requested by Mr. King. He stated that the information is necessary to process permits and
applications and commented that he does not want to give them a source to hide behind when
information is requested. Mr. Brubaker stated that the City requests information all the time that
developers would like to consider as proprietary about the kind of subdivisions, the type of homes,
the price range. There are all kinds of information that we need from developers even though they
may not always want to provide it to us. Mr. Brubaker recommends not adding the phrase
"non-proprietary"to section GA He commented that there is no legal standard that guarantees their
proprietary information cannot be divulged.
Mr. King explained that there business is very competitive and their continued success is dependent
on certain trade secrets. He was very adamant about not disclosing company secrets. Mr. Brubaker
argued that many developers would not want to divulged their design"secrets" if they had a way
around it but then the City would not be able review projects adequately to issue permits.
#ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 13
Board member Jerry Daman commented that he is concerned that this ordinance is operating under
the assumption that carriers would co-locate. He stated that from the testimony tonight it does not
seem as likely that co-location will occur.
Board member Harmon MOVED and Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. The
motion carried.
Harmon MOVED and Bell SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of the Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance and send to the City Council with the following
amendments:
F.1. Siting. Anyone who applies to construct a WTF or to modify or add to an existing WTF
shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the proposed facility mttst be l_. _t_a at that
site is located at the least obtrusive and the most appropriate available site to function in the
applicant's grid system."
F.14. Backhaul providers. Backhaul providers shall be identified and have and maintain all
necessary approvals to operate as such, including holding necessary franchises,permits, and
certificates. The method of providing backhaul, wired or wireless, shall be identified.
H.2(b)(i) The antenna does not extend more than€r€Eeert (1�) twenty (20) feet above the highest
point of the structure if a whip antenna, or ten(10) feet above the highest point of the
structure if a non-whip antenna; and
H.1. Time for approval. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date the City receives a
complete, valid, and properly executed application, the Planning Director shall either
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application within this sixty.(60) calendar day
period, then the application shall be deemed approved.
Table 1: Amend the grid table distance between the two Monopole 75 ft in Height or Greater
towers to 1,500 from 1,000.
J.1. Abandonment and removal. The owner or operator of any abandoned tower shall notify the
City, in writing, of that abandonment and shall remove the same within err
(180) ettlendsrdays ninety(90). Failure to remove an abandoned tower within ene irdft4fe4
eighty (189)n'n 0 calendar days shall be grounds to remove the tower at the owner's
expense. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not
become effective until all users eease-using abandon the tower.
9ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 1997
Page 14
J?. " . . .partial abandonment and shall remove the partially abandoned portion within ane
eightyninety 90 calendar days. Failure to remove a partially abandoned
tower within ene '_._nafe4 eight't189) ninety 90 calendar days shall be grounds . . ."
B.19. "Vfhip antenna" means an omnidirectional dipole antenna of cylindrical shape that is no
more than six inches (6") in average diameter.
H.2(b)(iii) All associated equipment is placed either within the same building or in a separate
building structure that matches the existing building or structure in character and
materials.
GA. Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for a tower shall provide an inventory of its
existing WTF sites that are either within the jurisdiction of the City of Kent or within one
mile of its borders, including specific structural information about the location, height, and
design of each facility.
B.1(b) to reduce the effective radiated power of an antenna by seventy-five percent (75%) for on
hundred eighty (180) or more consecutive calendar days, unless new technology or the
construction of additional cells in the same locality allow reduction of effective radiated
power by more than seventy-five percent (75%), so long as the operator still serves
essentially the same customer base.
Change the first number"2" on page 17 to a number"3". The motion carried.
Chair Steve Dowell discussed the issue of CB radios. Mr. Harris commented that this ordinance can
be amended if needed in the future.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED a motion to adjourn.
Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
4creta
P. Harris
ry
A:IPBMTG6.23
9ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES MORATORIUM
EXTENSION RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City currently has in effect a
moratorium on the issuance of Land Use and Development permits
for commercial wireless telecommunications facilities, which
expires on July 7, 1997. If the City does not enact a zoning
code amendment to regulate the design, construction, and
location of these facilities by that date, then it will be
necessary to consider extending the current moratorium until
the City enacts regulations for these telecommunications
facilities. Otherwise, the current moratorium will expire
before the effective date of the regulatory ordinance.
Finally, in order to extend the moratorium, State law requires
that the City hold a public hearing on the matter prior to
enacting the extension.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING: J4�e
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: o'yLt
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
J' to adopt Resolution No. , extending the City's existing
moratorium on the issuance of Land Use and Development permits
for commercial wireless telecommunications facilities.
3 DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
a� P
!E Council Agenda
LJCi Item No. 2B
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, extending the City's existing moratorium
on the issuance of land use and development permits for
commercial wireless telecommunication facilities.
WHEREAS, on January 7, 1997, the City Council of the City of Kent passed
its Resolution No. 1487,enacting a moratorium on the issuance of land use and development
permits for commercial wireless telecommunication facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City, after conducting research and receiving input from the
public and various representatives from the telecommunications industry, has made
substantial progress toward completing a zoning code amendment that would regulate the
siting, design, and construction of these facilities; and
WHEREAS, additional time is required to finalize this process in a manner
that the public, the telecommunications industry and the City Council can produce fair and
effective regulations on this matter; and
WHEREAS, for all the reasons stated in Resolution No. 1487,the City should
extend its existing moratorium until the City has fully analyzed this matter and addressed all
parties' concerns; NOW, THEREFORE,
1
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Recitals Incorporated. The above listed recitals are
incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Resolution No. 1487. The City Council incorporates and
adopts the recitals, findings, and decisions in its Resolution No. 1487.
SECTION 3. Findings of Fact. The Kent City Council hereby additionally
adopts the following findings of fact:
A. For purposes of this resolution, the term, "commercial wireless
telecommunication facilities," shall be defined to include tower and monopole facilities for
television and radio transmission and towers, monopoles, satellite dishes, micro-dishes,
communication node cabinets, above-ground pedestal cabinets, antennas and relay station
facilities for personal pagers, cellular phones, personal communications services (PCS), and
enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESWR) facilities, plus any and all necessary structures
or facilities appurtenant to, or related to, these various telecommunications facilities.
Because the telecommunications industry is subject to rapid and continuously evolving
technology, and because it is the intent of the City that this city-wide moratorium apply to
all commercial wireless telecommunication facility development and land-use applications,
the City's Planning Director shall have the authority to determine whether new technology
or other technology not contemplated in the above-referenced definitional list should be
included as a "commercial wireless telecommunication facility" and be subject to this
moratorium.
B. Rapid changes in wireless telecommunications technology, when coupled
with the increased demand for wireless telecommunications services, have created a
significant increase in the demand for the installation and construction of commercial
wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Kent.
2
C. The applications to construct commercial wireless telecommunications
facilities in and near the City of Kent raises significant concerns regarding aesthetic impacts
to neighboring properties and communities. These concerns merit further review to protect
the interests of the citizens of Kent.
D. The City needs additional time to study the appropriateness of(1) locating
commercial wireless telecommunications facilities, (2) encouraging consolidation or co-
location of various commercial wireless telecommunications facilities, (3) reviewing the
various technological options available to commercial wireless telecommunications service
providers to develop and utilize less invasive facilities wherever possible, and (4) limiting
the impacts to the Kent community when approving land use and development applications
to construct, install and operate commercial wireless telecommunications facilities.
SECTION 4. Moratorium extended.
A. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, the Kent City Council, after providing
appropriate notice, held a public hearing at a regularly scheduled council meeting at 7:00
p.m., July 1, 1997, on the matter of extending the moratorium initially imposed January 7,
1997, on the issuance of land use and development permits for the construction, installation,
and operation of commercial wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Kent.
B. The City Council adopts the foregoing Findings of Fact and finds them to be
true and correct in all respects.
C. During the duration of this moratorium, as extended, the City of Kent shall
issue no land use and development permits for the installation, construction or operation of
commercial wireless telecommunications facilities until new regulations pertaining to these
permits have been developed and adopted by the City. Nothing in this moratorium
resolution, however, shall prohibit any person or entity from applying for a land use or
development permit to install, construct or operate a wireless telecommunications facility,
except that no vested rights shall accrue to any application made or filed during the effective
term of this moratorium, including any extensions.
3
D. This moratorium, as extended, shall not apply to personal wireless
telecommunication facilities used primarily for residential, noncommercial purposes,
including without limitation, shortwave radio facilities and residential television satellite
systems.
E. This moratorium, as extended, shall not apply to the construction, installation
and operation of public safety and emergency (e.g., "911" and 800 MHz) wireless
telecommunications facilities.
F. City staff are directed to work with telecommunications providers, local
businesses, and City residents to determine the impacts and the appropriate use and location
of these facilities.
G. This moratorium extension shall expire two months from the effective date
of this resolution, unless renewed by further council action.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
day of , 1997.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of
1997.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
4
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. ,passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of
1997.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:\4AW\RESOLOTI\MOR TOR2.RSS
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1. 1997
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: JUVENILE CURFEW AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY -
ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the date set for the hearing on
the proposed curfew ordinance to be submitted to the voters as
a ballot proposition. The proposed ordinance would repeal the
existing curfew law adopted by the voters in April 1995, pur-
suant to an initiative petition and further add a new chapter
to Title 9 of the Kent City Code establishing a new curfew law
for the City of Kent.
3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance, memorandum to Mayor and Council,
and Comparison of curfew ordinances
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember 8 moves, Councilmember 4AA mn.9-vx. seconds
,1. to schedule this matter for the July 15, 1997997 Council
meeting for further consideration and action on the proposed
ordinance. ��,,//
Councilmember & moves, Councilmember 1Yst,� seconds
2 . to authorize the City Clerk to collect names of interested
persons to serve on committees to draft arguments advocating
"approval" and "disapproval,, statements for the ballot
proposition, and to present the names of interested persons
to the Council at the July 15 , 1997 meeting.
DISCUSSION: �n
ACTION• - O
Council Agenda
Item No. 2C
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, to be submitted to the voters of the
City as a ballot proposition for final passage and approval,
repealing the City's current curfew law set forth in Chapter
9.07 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Juvenile Safety and
Family Reconciliation" passed by the voters pursuant to an
initiative petition; and adding a new chapter to Title 9 of the
Kent City Code entitled "Curfew and Parental
Responsibility for Juveniles;"establishing a new curfew law
for juveniles and defining duties of parents or others in care
of juveniles; establishing certain exemptions and providing
for civil penalties.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that due to rapid growth and other
factors,the City is facing increasing concerns over the public safety of its citizens caused
by juvenile crime and delinquency which threatens peaceful citizens,residents,visitors,and
juveniles themselves, and further determines that this criminal activity, both individual and
collectively,presents a clear and present danger to the citizenry, to the juveniles, and to the
public order and safety; and
WHEREAS, the economic cost of crime in the City of Kent continues to
drain existing resources and that the effect on victims, both economic and psychological,
is traumatic and tragic; and
1 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that fighting crime effectively requires
a multi-faceted effort, in part focusing on those age groups likely to commit crimes and
engage in acts of delinquency; and
WHEREAS,juveniles in the City of Kent have themselves become victims
of crime and violence, and that violent crimes against juveniles in the City of Kent have
increased over the last several years; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to take measures in order to protect those
juveniles who are not subject to adequate parental control from harm to themselves, others,
or the property of others based upon certain proscribed conduct,and to foster better parental
responsibility among the parents and guardians of juveniles found within the City of Kent
to achieve better protection of the community and the juveniles; and
WHEREAS,juveniles who are not adequately supervised by their parents
and/or guardians have become engaged in criminal activity at certain times within the City.
Therefore, it is the intent of this chapter to impose measures to assist parents and/or
guardians or others responsible for juveniles to control and to protect their children and the
community; and
WHEREAS, there is a crime problem with juveniles throughout the City
during late evening and early morning hours, including crimes of violence and drug and
alcohol-related activity, and that since this problem cannot be identified to specific areas
of the City,to reasonably and adequately enforce a curfew ordinance, a City-wide curfew
is appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the combination of juveniles and alcohol and drug-related
criminal activity leads to public safety problems, including increased assaults and incidents
2 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
involving disorderly conduct and instances of the sale and delivery of controlled
substances; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is enacted in recognition of the peculiar
vulnerability of juveniles, their frequent inability to make critical decisions in an informed,
mature manner, and the importance of the parental role in child rearing; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to create and implement a
juvenile program to reduce juvenile crime and the direct and indirect consequences thereof,
to substantially reduce, if not eradicate, acts of crime and delinquency committed by
juveniles and to provide for the care, safety, and protection of law abiding juveniles and
other citizens, residents, and visitors; to reduce injuries to juveniles as victims while
promoting juvenile safety and well being; to provide additional options for dealing with
gang problems; and to reduce juvenile peer pressure to stay out late; and
WHEREAS, it is in the community's best interest to establish laws to assist
in these goals for the protection of juveniles from this type of criminal activity, as well as
to alleviate the instances of criminal activity caused by unsupervised juveniles and
establishing a curfew that will assist in this effort; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Second
Substitute House Bill 2319 during the 1994 legislative session adding a new section to
Chapter 35A.11 RCW providing that municipalities have the authority to enact an
ordinance for the purpose of preserving the public safety or reducing acts of violence by
or against juveniles that are occurring at such rates as to be beyond the capacity of the
police to assure public safety, establishing times and conditions under which juveniles may
be present on the public streets, in the public parks, or in any other public place during
specified hours, and further amending Chapter 13.32A RCW relating to curfews;
3 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
WHEREFORE,as a result of concerns for juvenile crime and juvenile safety
in the City of Kent, an initiative petition was circulated by the citizens of the City of Kent
to establish a curfew within the City; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 1995, the City Council heard testimony on
Initiative Petition 101 and moved to submit the initiative petition to establish a curfew to
a special election; and
WHEREAS, during a special election held in April 1995,the citizens of the
City of Kent passed Initiative Petition 101 establishing a curfew for the City of Kent
seventy percent(70%) of the voters supporting the measure; and
WHEREAS,recent caselaw involving curfews has raised concerns about the
enforceability of certain provisions of Initiative Petition 101, which concerns were
discussed by the City Council during their regular meeting on June 17, 1997; and
WHEREAS, during said meeting, the City Council directed that a new
curfew ordinance be prepared and submitted to the electors of the City to repeal Initiative
Petition 101 and to add new chapter to Title 9 of the Kent City Code to establish a new
curfew law for the City; and
WHEREAS, after having held a hearing on the proposed curfew ordinance
on July 1, 1997, and having further considered the matter, the City Council believes it is
in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Kent to submit the ordinance to the electors
of the City for consideration; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
4 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.07 of the Kent City Code entitled "Juvenile Safety
and Family Reconciliation" is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. There is hereby added a new chapter, Chapter 9.09, entitled
"Curfew and Parental Responsibility for Juveniles," to read as follows:
CHAPTER 9.09. CURFEW AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
JUVENILES.
Sec. 9.09.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is:
A. To protect juveniles and other citizens, residents and visitors of the City of
Kent from the dangers of crimes which occur on sidewalks, streets, and
public places during the late night and early morning hours;
B. To decrease the amount of criminal activity engaged in by juveniles;
C. To promote and enhance parental control over juveniles; and
D. To adopt and implement policies relating to juveniles that would minimize
impacts on juveniles engaging in and traveling to or from a lawful activity
or event.
Sec.9.09.020. Definitions. In this section:
A. Curfew hours mean 12:01 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. daily.
B. Emergency means an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the
resulting state that calls for immediate action. The term includes,but is not
limited to, a fire, a natural disaster, an automobile accident, or any situation
requiring immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or loss of life.
C. Establishment means any privately owned place of business operated for a
profit to which the public is invited, including but not limited to any store,
shop, restaurant, tavern, bowling alley, cafe, theater, drug store, golf
course, pool room, shopping center, video arcade, and any other place open
to the general public and devoted to business, amusement, or entertainment
of the general public or other lawful purpose.
5 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
D. Guardian means:
(a) a person who, under court order, is the guardian of the person of a
juvenile; or
(b) a public or private agency with whom a juvenile has been placed by
a court; or
(c) a person who is at least eighteen(18)years of age and authorized by
a parent or guardian to have the care and custody of a juvenile.
E. Juvenile means any person under 18 years of age.
F. Operator means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or
corporation operating, managing, or conducting any establishment. The
term includes the members or partners of an association or partnership and
the officers of a corporation.
G. Parent means a person who is a natural parent, adoptive parent, step-parent,
or foster parent of a juvenile.
H. Publicplace means any street, alley, highway, parking lot, sidewalk,park,
playground or place to which the general public has access and a right to
resort for business, entertainment, or other lawful purpose. Public place
shall include,but not be limited to any public facility or any establishment
such as a store, shop, restaurant, tavern, bowling alley, cafe, theater, drug
store, golf course,pool room, shopping center, and any other place open to
the general public and devoted to business, amusement or entertainment of
the general public or other lawful purpose, whether publicly or privately
owned or operated. It shall also include the front or immediate area of the
above, including, but not limited to, roads, sidewalks, alleyways, parking
lots, parks or other similar ares open to the general public.
I. Remain means to:
(a) linger or stay; or
6 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
(b) fail to leave premises when requested to do so by a police officer or
the owner, operator, or other person in control of the premises of
any establishment or other public place.
J. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of
death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
Sec. 9.09.030. Juvenile curfew.
A. It shall be unlawful for any juvenile to remain in any public place within the
city during curfew hours.
B. A violation of Sec. 9.09.030(A) shall be an infraction subject to a civil
penalty as follows:
1. The first violation shall be subject to a verbal or written warning.
2. The second violation within a one-year period shall be subject to a
civil penalty of$100.
3. The third or subsequent violation within a one-year period shall be
subject to a civil penalty of$250.
Sec. 9.09.040. Parental responsibility.
A. It shall be unlawful for any parent or guardian having custody or control of
any juvenile:
1. to permit such juvenile to remain in any public place within the City
during curfew hours; or
2. to allow such juvenile to remain in any public place within the city
during curfew hours, by failing to exercise reasonable care after
being notified of a prior violation of this chapter.
B. A violation of Sec. 9.09.040(A) shall be an infraction subject to a civil
penalty as follows:
1. The first violation shall be subject to a verbal or written warning.
2. The second violation within a one-year period shall be subject to a
civil penalty of$100.
7 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
3. The third or subsequent violation within a one-year period shall be
subject to a civil penalty of$250.
See. 9.09.050. Exemptions.
A. It shall not be a violation of Sec. 9.07.030 and/or Sec.9.09.040 that the
juvenile was:
1. accompanied by the juvenile's parent or guardian;
2. on an errand at the direction of the juvenile's parent or guardian,
without any detour or stop;
3. in a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel;
4. engaged in an employment activity, or going to or returning home
from an employment activity, without any detour or stop;
5. involved in an emergency;
6. on the sidewalk abutting the juvenile's residence or abutting the
residence of a next-door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain
to the police department about the juvenile's presence;
7. attending an official school,religious, or other recreational activity
supervised by adults and sponsored by the City of Kent, a civic
organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for
the juvenile, or going to or returning home from such activity,
without any detour or stop;
8. lawfully conducting business or engaging in entertainment or
amusement within or upon a public facility, establishment or other
public place with the operator's or owner's consent or going to or
returning home from such activity without any detour or stop;
9. going to or returning from the residence of another with the
knowledge and consent of the juvenile's parent or guardian and that
of the adult occupant of the residence.
8 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
10. exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States
Constitution, such as the free exercise or religion, freedom of
speech, and the right of assembly; or
11. married and thus has achieved the age of majority pursuant to the
Revised Code of Washington RCW 26.28.020, or has become
emancipated in accordance with Ch. 13.64 RCW.
B. It shall not be a violation of Sec. 9.09.040 when any parent or guardian,
unable to control the whereabouts and activities of a juvenile in their care,
custody, or control, has contacted the City of Kent Police Department and
reported such juvenile as possibly appearing in locations and at times that
would violate this chapter.
See. 9.09.060. Enforcement.
A. Prior to the issuance of a verbal or written warning or a Notice of Civil
Infraction, a police officer shall ask the apparent offender's name, age,
address, and the reason for being in the public place. The officer shall not
issue a warning or citation or take further action under this section unless
the officer reasonably believes a violation has occurred and that based on
any response and other circumstances, no exemption exists under Sec.
9.07.050.
B. A police officer who reasonably believes a juvenile is in violation of Sec.
9.09.030 shall have the authority to advise the juvenile that he or she is in
violation of the curfew and direct the juvenile to proceed at once to the
juvenile's home or usual place of abode, and further, to issue a verbal or
written warning or Notice of Civil Infraction to such juvenile as provided
in this chapter.
C. A police officer who reasonably believes a parent or guardian is in violation
of Sec. 9.09.040 shall have the authority to issue a verbal or written warning
or Notice of Civil Infraction to such parent or guardian as provided in this
chapter.
9 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
D. Pursuant to RCW 13.32A.050, a police officer shall take a juvenile into
custody whom the officer reasonably believes, considering the juvenile's
age,the location, and the time of day, is in circumstances which constitute
a danger to the juvenile's safety.
Sec.9.09.070. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences
of this chapter are 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 3. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are 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. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force immediately upon passage by a majority of votes cast by the electors of the City of
Kent at a general election and upon certification by the King County Records and Elections
Division as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
10 Juvenile Safety/Curfew
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . city council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through N be approved.
Discussion
Action ✓Y}L�i� �hh�.��i/
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
June 17 , 1997 .
3B. Approval of Bills.
No checks were approved because of committee schedule changes.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 1 through
June 15, 1997 , and paid on June 20, 1997 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/20/97 Checks 220414-220749 $ 261, 298 . 67
6/20/97 Advices 46921-47393 657 , 499 . 93
$ 918 , 798 . 60
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
June 17, 1997
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett,
Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson, Orr and Woods, Operations
Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Police
Chief Crawford, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning
Director Harris, Parks Director Hodgson, and Finance Director
Miller. Approximately 10 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Introduction of Mayor's Appointee. Mayor White
COMMUNICATIONS announced receipt of a letter from Representative
Eric Robertson, his appointee to the Drinking
Driver Task Force, stating that he is honored to
serve but cannot be in attendance at tonight' s
meeting.
Asia Pacific Trade Development Trio. Barbara
Ivanov of the Kent Chamber of Commerce dis-
tributed a report on the 1997 Asia Pacific Trade
Exchange and showed photos of the recent trip.
She explained that the goal is to expand markets
for small and medium sized companies in the Kent
area. She stated that the trip was very suc-
cessful, and noted that they had visited Korea
for the first time on this trip.
Ivanov noted that up to 30 companies from
Kaohsiung, Taiwan will attend Food World 197 in
the fall. She thanked Council President Houser,
Mayor White and Councilmembers for their leader-
ship, noting that Kent is one of the few cities
which has a business/education program.
CONSENT HOUSER MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through U be approved. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of June 3 , 1997.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
SANITATION Toysmith. ACCEPT the bill of sale for Toysmith
submitted by East Valley 34 L.L.C. for continuous
operation and maintenance of 258 feet of water-
mains, 793 feet of street improvements, 515 feet
of storm sewers and release of bonds after the
expiration period, as recommended by the Public
Works Director. The project is located at 18915
East Valley Highway.
1
Kent City Council Minutes June 17 , 1997
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
SANITATION Byrne North Short Plat. ACCEPT the bill of sale
for Byrne North Short Plat submitted by Thomas J.
& Mary P. Byrne for continuous operation and
maintenance of 238 feet of street improvements
and release of bonds after the expiration period,
as recommended by the Public Works Director. The
project is located at 94th Avenue South & South
241st Street.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Cedar Greens Short Plat. ACCEPT the bill of sale
for Cedar Greens Short Plat submitted by Mark
Thompson and Margaret Thompson for continuous
operation and maintenance of 233 feet of sanitary
sewer improvements and release of bonds after the
expiration period, as recommended by the Public
Works Director. The project is located at SE
244th Street & lllth Ave. S.E.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
S.E. 256th Street Improvement Project
AUTHORIZATION for the Public Works Department to
receipt all related funds as lead agency into the
S.E. 256th Street Project Fund (R77) along with
authorization to spend same, as recommended by
the Public Works Committee.
With the completion of the Meridian Annexation,
the City has inherited the County' s SE 256th
Street Improvement Project from 116th Avenue S.E.
to 135th Avenue S.E. This project has an out-
standing TIB Grant in the amount of $2,400, 000.
As lead agency for this project, the City will
receive these grant funds.
(BIDS - ITEM 5C)
LID 348• 64th Avenue South Street Improvements
S. 226 - S. 216. The bid opening for this
project was held on June 11th with six bids
received. The low bid was submitted by Gary
Merlino Construction in the amount of
$1,249,224.44 . The Engineer's estimate was
$1,423 ,942 .47 . The project consists of the
construction of approximately 21850 feet of new
roadway between S. 226th & S. 216th Streets.
The Public Works Director recommends award of the
contract to Gary Merlino Construction.
2
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
STREETS CLARK MOVED that the LID 348 - 64th Avenue S.
Street Improvements contract be awarded to Gary
Merlino Construction for the bid amount of
$1, 249, 224.44 . Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
CONTROL LID 347 Meeker/Russell Traffic Signal Final
Assessment Roll. SET July 15th as the Public
Hearing date to adopt the ordinance establishing
the Final Assessment Roll for LID 347, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
SSpringwood Park Parking Restrictions. ADOPTION
of Ordinance No. 3352 amending Section 9. 38 . 045
of the Kent City Code to establish a no parking
zone between 10: 00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the
north and south sides of 274th Street, between
128th Place SE and the Springwood Park entrance,
as recommended by the Parks Committee on June 3 ,
1997 .
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Kent Springs Transmission Main, Customer Removal
Water Mains. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign
the Water District ill Reimbursement Agreement to
reimburse the City approximately $56,847. 13 for
their share of the cost to construct a replace-
ment watermain for the terminated customers for
the Kent Springs Transmission Main, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Guiberson Reservoir sealing Project. ACCEPT the
Guiberson Reservoir Joint Sealing project as
complete and release retainage to Diamaco, Inc.
upon standard releases from the state, and
release of any liens, as recommended by the
Public Works Director. The original contract
amount was $31, 648 .50. The final construction
cost was $35, 267. 85.
PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Green River Natural Resource Enhancement Area
Wetlands/Landscaping Project. AUTHORIZATION to
transfer $394, 594 from the Unencumbered Sewerage
Fund to the Valley Detention Project Fund (D36)
and to transfer $609, 292 from the Garrison Creek
3
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
PUBLIC WORKS Flood & Erosion Control Project Fund (D37) the
Valley Detention Project Fund (D36) along with
establishing the budget for same and including
the authorization to spend said funds, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee. Upon
review of the project budget after bids were
recently opened, it was found that these
financial issues needed to be addressed.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Mill Creek Erosion Control Proiect Fund.
AUTHORIZATION to transfer $1,500,000 from the
Unencumbered Sewerage Fund to the Mill Creek
Project Fund (D18) and to spend same as
originally intended, as recommended by the
Public Works Committee.
The Mill Creek Project Fund was established to
reconstruct various constricting culverts along
Mill 'Creek to relieve extensive flooding. Upon
reviewing the budget therefore, a discrepancy was
discovered which needs to be corrected.
(BIDS - ITEM 5A)
One Cube Van with Mounted Pipeline Video
Inspection System. The bid opening for this
equipment was held on May 27th with three bids
received. The lowest bid received from
Ben-K-Matic for $104, 157. 65 did not include the
586 Computer Accessories listed in the bid
package. It was listed as an option for $4, 900,
making this the second low bid at $109, 057 . The
lowest bid that met all specifications was North
American Crane at $107,562 .07.
The Public Works Director recommends award of the
contract to North American Crane.
CLARK MOVED that the One Cube Van with Mounted
Pipeline Video Inspection System Equipment con-
tract be awarded to North American Crane for the
bid amount of $107,562 . 07 . Woods seconded and
the motion carried.
(BIDS - ITEM 5B)
Green River Natural Resources Enhancement Area
Wetlands/URland Planting. The bid opening for
this project was held on May 28th with three bids
received. The low bid was submitted by Paul
Brothers, Inc. of Boring, Oregon in the amount of
4
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
PUBLIC WORKS $663 , 312 .51. The Engineer's estimate was
$581,010. The project consists of establishing
45 acres of wetlands, grassland, shrublands and
forest within the project area.
The Public Works Director recommends award of the
contract to Paul Brothers, Inc.
CLARK MOVED that the Green River Natural Resource
Enhancement Area Wetland Landscaping contract be
awarded to Paul Brothers, Inc. for the bid amount
of $663 , 312 .51. Houser seconded and the motion
carried.
TELECOMMUNI- (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q)
CATION Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance.
FACILITIES SET July 1, 1997, as the date for a public hear-
ing on a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Ordinance.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3R)
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Moratorium
Extension. SET July 11 1997, as the date for a
public hearing on extension of the moratorium on
wireless telecommunications facilities.
CURFEW (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
(ADDED BY MAYOR WHITE)
curfew Update. City Attorney Lubovich noted that
on June 2, 1997, the Washington Court of Appeals
invalidated Bellingham' s curfew ordinance, and
that after a review of Kent's curfew ordinance he
recommended to the Police Department that the
ordinance not be enforced. He explained that
early in 1994 a citizens group asked the city to
consider adopting a curfew ordinance, that an
ordinance was prepared, and that Council chose
not to adopt the ordinance due to enforceability
issues. He noted that an initiative petition was
then circulated by a citizens group and that in
April 1995 the voters approved and adopted the
initiative petition curfew ordinance by a 70%
margin. He stated that Kent's is the only curfew
ordinance in the state which was adopted by
initiative petition, and noted that it may only
be amended or repealed by the voters. He
explained that the curfew ordinance was not
drafted by city staff, and it did not go through
a significant hearing process with the Council.
5
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
CURFEW He said he had concerns when the ordinance was
adopted and advised the Police Department on
enforcement, and that they have been enforcing it
cautiously. He stated that he was more concerned
about enforceability after the Bellingham case.
Lubovich noted that there is very little case law
in the state on curfews, and that the last case
before Bellingham' s was in 1973 in Seattle.
He said the State Supreme Court invalidated
Seattle's ordinance, and that case said that
curfews must be specific in curing a demonstrated
social evil, that they must be narrowly tailored
to the activity being regulated. He said the
Bellingham case held that juveniles have the same
fundamental right to be outside at night as
adults, although there can be some minor restric-
tions on those rights. He pointed out that
Bellingham attempted to deal with the narrowly
tailoring issue by narrowing their area of curfew
to their central business district, as that was
the problem area. The Court said there is
evidence that there is a juvenile criminal pro-
blem in the central business district, but that
there are more juveniles conducting innocent
activities than juveniles conducting griminal
activity and therefore it was not tailored enough
to the activity they are regulating. He said
that the Court also held that there was no
exemption for First Amendment freedom of
expression activities, and that Kent's current
ordinance does not have an exemption.
Lubovich stated that the court felt the
Bellingham ordinance did not make clear what
exempt activities were authorized. He said
Kent's ordinance is more specific but it is
questionable as to whether or not it is clear
enough in that area.
Lubovich then explained a case on the Federal
level, in which in 1993 the 5th Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld the Dallas, Texas, curfew
ordinance, and the United States Supreme Court
denied review of that case on appeal. He said
that last week San Diego's ordinance was invali-
dated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and
noted that although that ordinance was adopted in
1947, the City Council reaffirmed the curfew and
6
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
CURFEW started enforcing it. He pointed out that the
two different Circuit Courts in two different
districts in the Federal system had two different
opinions. Lubovich said that most recent curfews
enacted in the state have been based on the
Dallas ordinance, since it was upheld.
Lubovich outlined four alternatives for the
current ordinance, as follows: 1) enforce it as
is, 2) leave it on the books and not enforce it,
3) ask voters to repeal it, or 4) submit a new
ordinance to voters to repeal the current ordi-
nance and adopt a new ordinance.
Upon Epperly' s question, Lubovich explained that
it would be difficult to write a referendum to
make changes in the current ordinance which would
hold up, and that he is drafting another ordi-
nance. He said it is a big challenge and many
issues are involved. He said one of the biggest
hurdles is developing a record of what the
history is for the ordinance, and explained that
the court looked at Bellingham's ordinance and
said that there is enough evidence of crime in
the central business district. He said a record
of need would have to established for the purpose
of the ordinance, and noted that the initiative
petition does not have that. He reiterated that
it would be difficult but not impossible to draft
something, and that success on appeal could not
be guaranteed. Mayor White said that the issue
could be addressed again if overturned.
Epperly stated that State law is clear that
Kent's curfew cannot be changed or repealed
without a vote, and voiced concern about not
enforcing it. Lubovich said non-enforcement is
not repealing the ordinance and that the city has
discretion as to enforcement. He said enforcing
it is a greater problem than not enforcing it.
Orr clarified that it was not the City Council
who decided not to enforce the ordinance, and
asked if the curfew ordinances in other cities
are different from Kent' s. Lubovich reiterated
that most of those ordinances are based on the
Dallas ordinance, which was upheld. He said he
could draft an ordinance to send back to the
voters within a month, and recommended conducting
7
Kent city Council Minutes June 17, 1997
CURFEW hearings on an ordinance and submitting to the
voters an ordinance which would be effective upon
voter passage which would repeal the current code
and enact the new code. He said it could be
tailored based on testimony, and that there are
things missing from the current ordinance which
could be added. McFall said that this could be
done at the September primary if Council acts
before August 1st.
Orr asked about the lack of a record and Lubovich
pointed out that in the San Diego case it was
noted that the case was lacking somewhat on
juvenile statistics but that there was enough
other evidence of crime problems at night that it
would be a protection issue for the juveniles.
He said if there is no record showing a basis for
having a curfew ordinance, it could be an issue
on a challenge. Orr said that something needs to
be done about getting statistics or a record, and
noted that having a curfew can keep kids safe by
keeping them off the streets and away from people
who may harm them. She added that this could be
a liability concern, and said that statistics
regarding criminal activity at night are
important.
Houser agreed that she would like to see crime
statistics, and noted that this is for pro-
tection, not punishment. She felt the Legal
staff could draft something which would be
acceptable to the courts and citizens. She noted
that the time line may be short for the September
primary, but liked the idea of public hearings.
Lubovich reiterated that it was his internal
recommendation not to enforce the ordinance, not
a mandate by the Council or Mayor's Office.
Bennett noted that two Federal courts had taken
two different actions, and suggested finding out
why the 1947 San Diego ordinance was invalidated
and patterning an ordinance after the Dallas
ordinance. Lubovich opined that the Dallas
ordinance was better and said his concern is
between the Dallas and the Bellingham cases. He
pointed out that the Washington Court of Appeals
was interpreting Federal law, that they referred
to the Dallas ordinance and still invalidated the
Bellingham ordinance.
8
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
CURFEW Woods noted that when this issue came to the
Council she did not support the ordinance, but
that when something comes back from the
Attorney' s Office, she will support putting it
on the ballot in September. She noted that this
dilemma may not be solved this time, that it may
be revisited several times until a concise deci-
sion is reached through courts throughout the
United States. She said this is an issue of
rights. She encouraged the Legal staff to
proceed rapidly to bring this back as soon as
possible. Epperly stated that she was part of
the citizens group which brought the initiative
before the people, and that she feels strongly
that it is the people's law. She said she would
like a referendum written and changes made, and
felt the current ordinance should be enforced.
WOODS MOVED that the City Attorney proceed with
all due dispatch and come back to Council as soon
as possible with a recommendation which can be
discussed and which hearings can be held on, and
to make the deadline to bring it to the voters on
the September primary date. Houser seconded.
Bennett said that, as Chair of the Public Safety
Committee, he would allow this issue to come back
to Council rather than go to the Committee. Orr
agreed.
Epperly clarified that Council is asking the
Attorney to make changes in the current ordi-
nance, and to bring that before the people at
which time it would repeal the past ordinance and
put the new one in place. She added that if the
people vote no, the original ordinance would
stand and the curfew would not be taken away.
Lubovich suggested drafting an ordinance
repealing the current law and adopting a new
chapter effective only upon approval by the
voters.
Orr said one reason she originally supported this
going to the voters was that there were concerns
about enforcement and the courts, but that since
she had lobbied the Council to get the initiative
and referendum process for citizens years ago,
she feels it is important in this instance for
the voters to have their say. She asked whether
the fact that the citizens asked for this carries
any weight with the court. Lubovich opined that
the court would look at it based on the text and
not on how it was adopted.
9
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
CURFEW Mayor White asked whether the Council wished to
set the first public hearing for July 1st.
Lubovich said a draft ordinance could be ready
for review at that time and that changes could be
made if the hearing indicates such a need.
Council agreed and Woods' motion carried.
Mayor White thanked the Council for their support
on this issue.
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3S)
Council Absence. APPROVAL of Councilmember Tim
Clark's request for an excused absence from the
July 1, 1997 Council meeting.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3T)
Council Absence. APPROVAL of Councilmember Judy
Woods' request for an excused absence from the
July 1, 1997 Council meeting.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3U)
Drinking Driver Task Force. CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor's appointment of Representative Eric
Robertson to serve as a member of the Kent
Drinking Driver Task Force. As a member of the
State House of Representatives, Rep. Robertson
serves on the House Transportation Committee and
also the Law and Justice Committee. He is
currently finishing up his third year as a
representative. Additionally, he continues to
work for the Washington State Patrol. He has
been with that organization for more than 12
years and worked as a highway patrolman for much
of the time. He is currently working as a detec-
tive in Internal Affairs.
Rep. Robertson will replace Senator Adam Smith,
whose term expired. Rep. Robertson' s term will
continue until 1/1/2000.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
RECREATION Kent Rotary Foundation Donation. ACCEPT the
Rotary Club Foundation donation from the
Escapades Auction and amend the Adopt-A-Park
budget in the amount of $1, 255.50, as approved by
the Parks Committee on June 3 , 1997 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
March for Parks Donation. ACCEPT and amend the
Adopt-A-Park budget for the $1, 818 collected at
10
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
PARKS & the March-for-Parks event, as approved by the
RECREATION Parks Committee on June 3, 1997. Funds will be
dedicated to purchase play equipment for Meridian
Glen Park.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
urban Forestry Grant. ACCEPT the Urban Forestry
Grant by forwarding the grant agreements to Mayor
White for signature, and establish a budget in
the amount of $3, 000 for the City of Kent park
and street tree inventory, as approved by the
Parks Committee on June 3 , 1997 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
Washington State Historical Society Grant.
ACCEPT the Washington State Historical Society
Capital Projects Grant and amend the Neely Soames
Home Restoration budget in the amount of
$75, 602 . 34, as approved by the Parks Committee
on June 3 , 1997.
(BIDS - ITEM 5D)
Kiwanis Tot Lot #4. The bid opening was held on
June 10, 1997, with three bids received. Two
bids were non-responsive. Parkwood Services was
declared the low, responsive bidder, with a base
bid of $99,288. Staff recommends adding
Alternates 2, 3 , and 6, for a total project cost
of $106,911. 07 .
The Engineer' s estimate including Alternates 2,
3 , and 6, totals $110, 211. 64 .
EPPERLY MOVED to enter into an agreement with
Parkwood Services in the amount of $106,911. 07,
which includes Alternates 2 , 3 , and 6, for the
renovation of Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 . Woods seconded
and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. No checks were approved
because of committee schedule changes.
Approval of checks issued for payroll for May 16
through May 31, 1997 and paid on June 5, 1997 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/5/97 Checks 220071-220413 $ 246, 864. 36
6/5/97 Advices 46443-46920 639 , 215 .74
$ 886, 080. 10
11
Kent City Council Minutes June 17, 1997
REPORTS Public Works committee. Clark noted that the
Committee will meet on June 18, 1997.
Planning committee. Orr noted that the Committee
will meet at 4:00 p.m. on July 15, 1997 .
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Brenda Jac b r, CMC
City Cler
12
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOUTH KING COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE GRANT
ADMINISTRATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval to take over financial adminis-
tration of the grant that partially funds the South King County
Narcotics Task Force effective July 1, 1997 . Kent has been a
member of the Task Force since its inception in 1988. Renton
has been the lead agency for grant administration for the past
nine years. During the present fiscal year, however, the Task
Force Executive Board made the decision to pass this responsi-
bility on to the City of Kent. In July, the City will receive
a payment of $6, 000 from the Task Force to partially cover
additional costs that may be incurred by our Financial Services
Division in taking over this responsibility.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety Committee 6/17/97 (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
. .............
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVY - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. /q 9a:.
authorizing the County to put an Emergency Medical Services
Levy on the November ballot with a levy rate of 29 cents per
thousand dollars of assessed valuation.
Every six (6) years the public needs to reauthorize the EMS
Levy if the delivery of the current level of Advanced Life
Support and Basic Life Support Services throughout the County
is to continue. The Strategic Plan identified a levy rate of
29 . 5 cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation based
upon several assumptions, including the County's Budget Office
projections about future potential increases in assessed valua-
tion. Since then the County has revised their projections and
now feels the same revenue will be generated by a 29 cents per
thousand dollars of assessed valuation rate. This is an
average rate, since over the life of the levy the rate for a
given year may change due to inflation, actual demand for
allocation of resources and the success of the proposed methods
to try to control demand for service.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Admin. & Public Safety Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
-
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of an
agreement between the City of Kent and King County
regarding a county-wide ballot proposition for funding
emergency medical services pursuant to RCW 84.52.069, as
amended; concurring with the recommendation to establish
an EMS advisory committee; and encouraging maintenance
of existing county funding of the EMS program.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has a population of over 62,000 people and
cities in King County of greater than 50,000 in population must approve the EMS levy
being placed on a county-wide ballot.
WHEREAS, it has been to the benefit of the citizens of the City of Kent to
support and participate in the county-wide cooperative of delivering Advanced Life
Support and Basic Life Support services.
WHEREAS, the delivery of emergency medical services is an essential
function of the fire and life safety responsibility of local government;
WHEREAS, the City of Kent delivers Basic Life Support services, hosts
South King County medics within two City of Kent fire stations and this relationship
enhances emergency medical services to our citizens and those of neighboring jurisdictions.
WHEREAS,the demands for emergency medical services is increasing and
1
the Emergency Medical Service Strategic Plan has identified possible methods aimed at
controlling the future demands for services and for controlling the proposed levy rate of
twenty-nine cents (29¢) per thousand dollars ($1,000) of assessed valuation.
WHEREAS, over the last six (6) years the levy rate and funds have
judiciously been utilized to address increasing demand for services and;
WHEREAS, the City of Kent supports the current method of the delivery
of Advanced Life Support services in South King County, however, would desire the
opportunity to manage such services if it were decided at some future point to administer
the South County Medic program partially or wholly under a different agency.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I: The Kent City Council approves King County placing the
King County EMS levy renewal on the November 1997 ballot with a levy rate of twenty-
nine cents (290) per thousand dollars ($1,000) of assessed valuation. Such approval is
contingent upon a signed agreement between the City of Kent and King County being
entered into, prior to this matter being placed on the ballot, which provides the City the
option to manage/administer ALS services if in the future it is decided to deliver ALS
services partially or totally under an agency other than the King County EMS division.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington this
day of 1997.
2
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of
1997
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
.,ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of
11997.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P SLAW RESOLUTRBALLOT RES
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER ANNEXATION AN-96-2 - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No.
authorizing an election for the Green River Annexation. The
City Council Planning Committee recommends that the area be
annexed through a ballot measure. If approved by the Boundary
Review Board, the election should occur in either the primary
election in September or the general election in November.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and Planning Committee minutes of 6/17/97
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS*
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington determining that the annexation of certain
unincorporated territory contiguous to the City, generally
known as the "Green River Annexation area," is in the best
interest and welfare of the City; calling for an election to be
held to submit to the voters the annexation proposal;
describing the boundaries of the annexation area; stating the
approximate number of voters residing in the annexation area;
providing for City payment of the cost of the annexation
election; requiring that the annexation area assume its
proportionate share of the City's existing indebtedness and
including that requirement in the same ballot proposition
submitted to the voters for authorization of the annexation;
and causing the annexation area to be subject to the interim
zoning requirements for newly annexed areas, as provided in
the Kent City Code.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent received from certain property owners a ten
percent(10%) "Notice of Intent" to annex a certain portion of unincorporated King County,
located generally south of the City's existing city limits on both sides of the Green River and
generally known as the City's "Green River" annexation area; and
WHEREAS, this 10%Notice of Intent petition was intended to commence
an annexation process under a property owner petition method, which process requires
endorsement by the owners of at least sixty percent (60%) of the assessed valuation in the
area proposed for annexation; and
1
WHEREAS, the proponents of this annexation proposal have been unable to
obtain signatures on their petition from certain absentee property owners and have
accordingly been unable to obtain sixty percent (60%) authorization under the property
owner petition method; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Green River annexation area lies entirely within
the City's agreed Potential Annexation Area ("PAA") under the Growth Management Act
("GMA") and has been included in the City's GMA Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's proposed SE 277th Street Corridor project, a major
arterial roadway project that is currently under construction,traverses through the City's East
Hill and across the annexation area to terminate at the intersection of SE 277th Street and
Central Avenue/Auburn Way North; and
WHEREAS,the City,as the lead agency for construction and funding on this
road project, would be better served if the entire roadway existed within Kent's jurisdiction
in order to simplify and unify permitting, construction and maintenance issues; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the resident voters within the annexation area
continue to support the annexation; and
WHEREAS, because the voters within the annexation area have indicated to
the City of Kent that they are in support of the annexation proposal, it is now appropriate to
officially terminate the property owner petition process and commence annexation of the
area under the election method as provided for in RCW 35A.14.015 et seq. NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
2
SECTION 1: Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing recitals are incorporated
as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION2: Findines. The annexation area lies within the City's potential
annexation area under the Growth Management Act,and this boundary has not been disputed
by the City of Auburn, which is the only neighboring jurisdiction whose approval on PAA
boundaries would be required. Additionally, the City is currently constructing a major
arterial roadway and bridge over the Green River that traverses through the annexation area
to its westerly terminus at the intersection of SE 277th Street and Auburn Way North/Central
Avenue. Because the City has ongoing major projects within this annexation area and
because this area most logically lies within the boundaries of the City of Kent, the Council
hereby finds and determines that the best interest and general welfare of the City would best
be served by commencing and completing this annexation by holding an election on the
issue.
SECTION 3: Call for Election Method Annexation. The property owner
petition method annexation that was initiated by a 10%Notice of Intent petition to annex the
Green River annexation area is hereby formally terminated because of the petitioner's
inability to obtain a valid sixty percent (60%) petition. By this resolution, there is hereby
commenced a proposed annexation by the election method (RCW 35A.14.015) of the
proposed Green River annexation area. This resolution further constitutes a call for an
election to be held to submit the Green River annexation proposal to the voters in the
territory proposed to be annexed.
SECTION 4: Boundaries. The boundaries describing the proposed Green
River annexation are more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached to this resolution
and incorporated by this reference. The boundaries are further shown on the map attached
as Exhibit B.
3
SECTION S: Number of Voters. Based on the City's best efforts to
ascertain, as nearly as possible, the actual number of voters, the City has determined that
there are approximately twelve voters within the limits of the Green River Annexation area.
SECTION 6. City to Pay Election Cost. The City shall pay the cost of the
election on the Green River annexation proposal.
SECTION 7: Assumption of Indebtedness to be Combined into Single Ballot
uestion. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.085, the question of whether or not the Green River
Annexation area shall assume its proportionate share of the City's existing indebtedness shall
be combined with the ballot proposition seeking to authorize the Green River area
annexation. Because the question of annexation and assumption of indebtedness will be
combined,the annexation and the assumption of indebtedness shall be authorized only if the
proposition is approved by at least sixty percent (60%) of the voters in the annexation area
who vote on the proposition, and only if the total number of persons voting on the
proposition constitutes not less than forty percent(40%) of the total number of votes cast in
the annexation area at the last preceding general election. Nevertheless, if the combined
ballot measure is passed by a simple majority, but less than sixty percent(60%) of the voters
in the annexation area voting on the proposition, the City reserves its right, by resolution, to
approve the annexation without the assumption of indebtedness.
SECTION 8: Zoning of Annexed Lands. The Green River annexation area
shall be subject to the City's interim zoning requirements for newly annexed lands pursuant
to Chapter 15 of the Kent City Code.
SECTION 9: Public Hearings. The City shall hold additional public
hearings on this matter, if it determines that holding additional hearings would be
appropriate.
4
SECTION 10: Countvand Boundary Review Board Notice. Upon passage
of this resolution, the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the resolution with the
King County Auditor and with the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King
County.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
day of , 1997.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of
1997.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of
11997.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:U.AW RESOI.UTI\GREENRVRRES
5
ANNEXATION 4/I/96
REVISED
EXHIBIT
That portion of Section 25, -f'ownsllip 22 North, Range 4 East lying east
of 13urlington Northern Railroad and south of existing Kent City limits,
AND that portion of Section 36, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, lying
east of said railroad and north of existing Auburn City limits, together with
all of South 277th Street that is public right-of-way lying east of said
railroad right-of-way in said Section 25; AND ALSO, that portion of
Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East. lying north of existing
Auburn City limits, EXCEVF that portion thereof lying within existing
bent City limits, AND ALSO Section 30, Township 22 North, Range 5
East except those portions lying within existing Kent City limits.
All in King County, Washington.
MA 17.96
mmmmmmmmmm Kent City Limits
Proposed Annexation Shown As Shaded Area •••••••••• Auburn City Limits
'S1 242 Cr at e.M1 R v f IEerf VNCE St II/ O1 . 5 4 Si
'"9MITM 9i f J> SMITN eT n I iN�1 =I 5 21Y ST n • SE 244 ST 9E 244 ST
a M RR F > NRRR I50 57 a 4•• j" / �-/ ¢' > SE 2VV Ci
I9 248 ST) MEEKER ST REI IEB�\ c SE 2v5 PL
a a' GONE E DM ST 7�� R 1y ME ILa40 5 5 246p T E 246 PL
p s ' TRCOMR 51♦r �A
s TITUS Si L auwr y 5 241 SE 241 PL
i i z z AN Si lu 'PJ T
x m > 4 Ma TN T 2B 6B 246 9:
SR 518
nil,BERSON 51
Si � o t ssngt e� C� y
s C SfRRt[ 5r
q + 9
5 25 `T
2 ¢ `tc LAUREL 5i ml
SE 253 PL m
EML OCM ST i z Bo min
¢ ¢
ENT cl•rt n FlLBERi n in
— y� \\\\ — >¢I
Mlll 11w1M 5 [^ Sy�l `J
n
i� 53 me ST
5 2 7 Si o
Ina L 5 —
yoo
SE 260 ST
3 262 ST 5 262 ST /% at O 5 262 I ..
ST —_
5 262 PL —
SE
¢ a :264 ST
1 to z SE_
v' S 2fi5 d
- II PL
S 266 ST I S 66 57 KEIFORO
� YI
SE 267 STD r m o
m
7 a Be 5 a _ cl
SE 269 ST + rre n
PRIY. %
a SE 271 ST
c SE 272 57 S
SE 214 Si
9T
CI
AUH N CITY LIMITS V
a
ST
S 260 sl m NE 49 rely.
j ° W s zal sr zu
co T 5T
N Q
— o�sE 2e3 s'
5 205 ST _ {T(r, o
� S 2B5 Si l l — SE
AUBURN
r
5 r�e_«___ • m
— • IL
.. •■ • ■ SF
CI LIMIT.S •
°■ SE 287 Si
:x Scale: 1"=2000'
a.
m.
se 290 51
Z6
I i..■ NM 37 g T � C7•
Vicinity leap
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
June 17, 1997
required if the fence is less than six feet tall. Ms. Evezich offered to write the apartments a letter to
explain the City's appreciation of their efforts, inform them of the development requirements, and
ask for them to keep the City informed to their progress.
The Committee agreed to bring this item to their September meeting.
GREEN RIVER ANNEXATION PROCESS - (T. Brubaker)
Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker stated that there are several annexations in progress at this
time. He explained that Del Mar and Meridian Valley annexations will become part of the City on
July 1, 1997. Mr. Brubaker explained that the Green River Annexation is still pending. The 10%
petition and notice of intent was previously accepted by the City Council.
Mr. Brubaker explained that the petition method of annexation requires 60%or more of the assessed
valuation of landowners to agree to the annexation. King County owns more than 40% of the land
value and to this date refuses to agree to the annexation. The area consists of approximately 12
residents and the majority support the annexation. The annexation would benefit the 277th Corridor
project by unifying the permit and construction process and would eliminate the need to work in
more than one jurisdiction.
The other method of annexation is by ballot, and Mr. Brubaker explained that process. The process
would be commenced by a Resolution. A copy of the Resolution would be sent to the King County
Auditor and the Boundary Review Board. The Boundary Review Board would hold a public hearing
in the vicinity of the area proposed for annexation. The Boundary Review Board makes a
recommendation to either approve as proposed or modify the area.
Mr. Brubaker explained that if the Boundary Review Board does not approve the annexation, there
can be no action on the annexation for 12 months. If they approve the annexation, it will be
forwarded to the King County Auditor to be placed on the ballot. The ballot will include two
questions, one if the area should be annexed into the City of Kent, and two whether area should
assume the existing indebtedness of the City.
Clark questioned how much of the area was a part of the King County Agricultural lands. Planning
Manager, Fred Satterstrom, explained that about 2/33 of the area were agricultural lands. The area
consists of some King County parks and one property owner is not in the Purchase of Development
Rights program.
Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the Green River Annexation Process
and send the Resolution to the Council for their approval. Motion carried.
2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS VEHICLES - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorization to declare certain Equipment Rental
vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authorize
the sale thereof at the next state auction.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes and Public Works Director
memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 18, 1997
PRESENT: Christi Houser Tom Brubaker
Connie Epperly Don Wickstrom
Judy Woods
Surplus Vehicles
Wickstrom stated that we are requesting authorization to declare certain equpment as
surplus and sold at the state auction. He noted that this equipment has been replaced.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to declare this equipment as
surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction.
Oil Rebate Funds for Commuter Shuttle Service
Wickstrom noted that these funds were derived out of a lawsuit against the oil
companies for price setting and the money is to go towards reducing gasoline
consumption. He noted that we were successful in getting a grant from the state to
create a commuter shuttle service. Essentially this would be a shuttle bus for "work
commuting" - this is a one year pilot program to reduce vehicle commute trips.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the funding
agreement, direct staff to establish a budget and authorize funds to be spent for the
Commuter Shuttle Service Demonstration project.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said this is a WSDOT grant and the money is actually
a settlement that has been distributed to the state. He also said that we are obligated
to coordinate with METRO and make sure they are in agreement with this project.
Kent &-Clark Springs Emergency Power Addition - Bid Award
Wickstrom noted that this item is before the Committee because the low bid was 14%
above the engineer's estimate due to a discrepancy in the engineer's calculations. He
also noted that there is no funding problem. The project consists of installing propane
1
generated emergency power at Kent & Clark Springs. During the past winter we had
power outages at these locations and power is needed to run the chlorination facilities.
In response to Clark, we have backup diesel facilities at most of our pump stations and
in the '98 budget there will be a request for a pump back-up emergency power supply at
our Pump Station #4 which is our lower West Hill Pump Station which pumps water
to the West Hill. During the '97 December storm, we were almost out of water.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to award the Kent &Clarlc Springs
Emergency Power Addition contract to CTS Northwest, Inc. for the bid amount of
$103,816.17.
Meeting adjourned: 3:40 p.m.
2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 18, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom.'4j
RE: Surplus Vehicles
Attached is a list of Equipment Rental vehicles which are no longer needed by the
City. As such, we are requesting that they be declared as surplus and sold at the neat
State auction.
ACTION: Authorization to declare this equipment as surplus and authorize the
sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction.
Pub& Works Operations
MEAIOR.-tVD UW
Pflo¢e: 3s9-354G F=: 359=66d
Date June 9, 1997
To : Don Wickstrom, P lic Works Director
From: Steve Henness eet Superintendent
Thru: Eddy Chu, Operations Manage4k
Subject : Surplus Vehicles Authorization Request
I am requesting authorization to surplus the following vehicles
that have been replaced with the 97 purchases and are no longer
needed by Fleet Services . These vehicles will advertized and sold
to the highest bidder.
UNIT# YR SERIAL# MILEAGE DESCRIPTION
#3118 * 92 142065 66 , 100 Chevrolet, Caprice Police Sedan
#3151 * 92 141084 60 , 605 Chevrolet, Caprice Police Sedan
#3152 * 92 140067 66 , 875 Chevrolet, Caprice Police Sedan
#5372 **76 600546 25, 800 GMC Step Van With Sewer Camera
System
#6519 **77 594112 46, 500 Chevrolet Truck with Garbage
Compactor
*Meets Fleet Services Replacement point system for Police Vehicles
of 10 points .
** Meets Fleet Services Replacement point system of 20 points .
(1) point per year
(1) point per 10K
CC : Frank Olson
Bill Price
Dianne Sullivan
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1. 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: OIL REBATE GRANT FUNDS - AUTHORIZE AND ESTABLISH
BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agree-
ment with WSDOT for funds received in the amount of $49, 860,
and direct staff to establish a budget for same and also
authorize said funds to be spent for the Commuter Shuttle
Service Demonstration project.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes and Public Works Director
memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 18, 1997
PRESENT: Christi Houser Tom Brubaker
Connie Epperly Don Wickstrom
Judy Woods
Surplus Vehicles
Wickstrom stated that we are requesting authorization to declare certain equpment as
surplus and sold at the state auction. He noted that this equipment has been replaced.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to declare this equipment as
surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction.
Oil Rebate Funds for Commuter Shuttle Service
Wickstrom noted that these funds were derived out of a lawsuit against the oil
companies for price setting and the money is to go towards reducing gasoline
consumption. He noted that we were successful in getting a grant from the state to
create a commuter shuttle service. Essentially this would be a shuttle bus for "work
commuting" - this is a one year pilot program to reduce vehicle commute trips.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the funding
agreement, direct staff to establish a budget and authorize funds to be spent for the
Commuter Shuttle Service Demonstration project.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said this is a WSDOT grant and the money is actually
a settlement that has been distributed to the state. He also said that we are obligated
to coordinate with METRO and make sure they are in agreement with this project.
Kent &-Clark Springs Emergency Power Addition - Bid Award
Wickstrom noted that this item is before the Committee because the low bid was 14%
above the engineer's estimate due to a discrepancy in the engineer's calculations. He
also noted that there is no funding problem. The project consists of installing propane
1
generated emergency power at Kent &&Clark Springs. During the past winter we had
power outages at these locations and power is needed to run the chlorination facilities.
In response to Clark, we have backup diesel facilities at most of our pump stations and
in the '98 budget there will be a request for a pump back-up emergency power supply at
our Pump Station #4 which is our lower West Hill Pump Station which pumps water
to the West Hill. During the '97 December storm, we were almost out of water.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to award the Kent &z Clark Springs
Emergency Power Addition contract to CTS Northwest, Inc. for the bid amount of
$103,816.17.
Meeting adjourned: 3:40 p.m.
2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 18, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom N
RE: Award of Competitive Oil Rebate Funds for
Commuter Shuttle Service Demonstration Project
Washington State Oil Rebate Competitive Grant funds have been allocated to the
City of Kent for the above referenced project. These funds amount to $49,860 in
State grant funding. The Public Works Dept is requesting Council authorization for
the Mayor to sign the Local Agency agreement and establish a budget for same.
ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Dept of Transportation Funding
Agreement, direct staff to establish a budget and, authorize funds to be
spent for the Commuter Shuttle Service Demonstration project.
Washington State CRGANIZ�TION AND ADDRESS i
Department of City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Transportation Kent, Washington 98032
TransAid
Funding
Agreement i
LCCATICN AND DESCRIPTION CF WORK j
'Nerk By Public and Private Non-profit Agencies
I
AT ACTUAL COST ae Exhibit A.
Far this program, Exhibit A is the Original Project 3 Program Acciication rather I
AGREEMENT NUMBER; Man the Prciect Prospectus referenced in Section 1 -General.
MAXIMUM AMOUNT AUTHORIZED: PARTICIPA.T ING ',b S T ART DATE : COMPLETION DATE:
5 49,860 Eeletr I April 1, 1998
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into :his 5 th cay of j une tC 97 ce^Neon ::e
STATE CF'NASHINGTCN, Decartment of Transcoradcn. acting --v ano thrcucn :he Secretary of Transccrraticr,. heremarter cailec
STATE', anc the agave names organization, hereinafter akec ;he -.GENCY
WHEREAS,the AGENCY is planning the wcrx shown above.anc in connection therewith, the AGENCY has recuested tinanc:ai
aF 3nce far the project er program , and
WHEREAS, the STATE has been charged with the resconsibiiity of allocating various types of funds to Governmental Acencles
anc :-race r.on-profit Agencies to be usee for the ber,erit cf the traveoing pudiic in the State of'Nashington, anc
'NHEREAS,the above namec organization has re_'_estec" . cs fCr tMe=cove shown o clect Cr orcgram wnlcn has been se.eC:e=
zy:re State "or furcing assistarce.
NC'JV THEREFORE. in consicerancn of the to^s. ccnclticcs. ccve.n.ac:s. arc cercmances ccntainec :-,erein. :, arachec a,-_
n= cratec anc race a pan hereof, IT IS %1U7-A.L'_'' -C:PEED AS =CL'_C'NS
-ransccnaucri _ccai Agercy Guice!inesi'_?G;,anc acclicaele ta:e
GENERAL ano =ecerai '_aw.
I I
T,-.e .GENCY, agrees to percrm the above Descrbec Ncrk, in PAYMENT
acccrcance with the Project Prospectus aracnec hereto as
=X'.—lSI T A' and --made dart of CMIs AGREE.'JE'N T. T Me J 7 r _. n cons;ceration of the `pith fUl :er'C�^arr'9 C '.c
:Jcrk t_ _: =ercrmec by the AGE`iCY acr=es t_ .emour
?'ars, soec;r cations and cost estimates snail ce orecarec cv :re -GE:NCY `_r .re perce.n.tace of the ac:uai cir=_c:arc retacec ir.c:eec:
^GENCY 'n acccrcance with the current State Cr N n r_ o %h '.1 %1 VIC ?
as r,InCC_n Cst Ct i� e .J r( snG'Nn acCV LC t0 u 2 ' �AJ(i. iLl�ti1 A�
Stancare Specifications far Rcad, Bricge arcs Munic:cai C nstruc- =UT=CRI,-EC'
:'.cn and scooted cesign stancares, uniess cthermse rote^_. The
AGENCY Niil incorporate the plans and scecificaiicrs nto the =artial payr errs snail be mace by the STATE, uccn recuest
-GENCY's project and thereafter advertise the resuitinc cr-iect"Cr =GENCY, :a --over costs incur ec. These payments are not to
bIC anc, assuming bids are received and a contract s awarcec. -acre frecuent than one (1) per month. It is agreec :hat any scc-
ac^mister the contract, or if the project is of a size ,vricn the :artial payment .viil not ccrstitute agreement as to tMe accrccr ate-
AG=^'C'(is authorized to per.'orm-Kith its own forces uccer re;aws Hess cf ary :em anc :hat. at the time of the anal acoit. ail rec_:r=o
of :fate or iNashington the AGENCY may croceec win its cwn sojusimerts :nil ce race and rerlec:ec in a 5nai payment.
forces.
- "r,e AGE:NC'!agrees to submit a rinal biil tc the STATE within fr:y-
AII Ncrk peccrmec under this AGREE:ME:NT shall comciv with the 'ive (45) gays after the AGENCY has ccmcietec the work.
acciicable provisions of the Washington State Departrent
-he AGENCY agrees that all costs in excess cf the amount
aLcrcnzeC anC file AG c,V',;Y J ma.C" r'C _ cs agrees :c __..af c' ._-e sar^e of a succontrao'ors orcvlcing
sibiiiby of the AGENCY. services -or performing any work using `ands 7rovided under this
Agreement.
III Vll
AUDIT VENUE
The Agency agrees that an Audit maybe conducted by the STATE. For the convenience of the parties to this Agreement, it is agreed
that any claims and or causes of action which the AGENCY has
Curing the progress of the work and for a period not less than three against the STATE. growing out of this Agreement or the project
years from the date of final payment to AGENCY, the records and or program with which it is concerned, shall be brought only in the
accounts pertaining to the work and accounting thereof are to be kept Supercr Court fcr Thurston County.
available for inspection and audit by the STATE and copies of ail
records,accounts,documents cr other data pertaining to the project Vlll
will be furnished upon request. If any litigation, claim, or audit is TERMINATION
commenced,the records and accounts along with supporting decu-
mertatien shall be retained until all litigation, claim cr audit finding The Secretary of the Deoartment of Transportation ray terminate
has been resolved even though such litigation, cam, or audit this Agreement if the funding becomes unavailable or if the
continues past the three-year retention perec. Secretary determines that it is in the best interest of he STATE.
I V IX
TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION FINAL REPORT
The work to be performed under this Agreement snail commence Within 40 calendar days following the completion cf the project
upon the start date snown accve and terminate -In the comoletion and submission of the final billing for the projec, a final report
date shown above. shail be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for TransAid
V containing the following information:
LEGAL RELATIONS
1. A descrotion or the project or program
,No liabiiib/ shall attach to the AGENCY or the STATE 'cy reason
of entering into this agreement except as exoressiy -rcvicec 2. A summary of actual costs of the project cr-rccram
herein.
VI 3. An evaivaticn of the project or program. This shculc
NONDISCRIMINATION accress aspects Sucn as transportation ancicr-other cenents to
'he public
The AGENCY agrees to comply'Nith ail STATE arc Fecerai laws.
vies anc regulations pertaining to nenciscrmjnaticn anc
INS 17NESS 'NHERECF, the parties nereto nave exec.aec ;his AGREE.VE:NT as of the pay arc year first acove Nrtter.
AGENCY STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?v. 3v:
�sscstant Sec,etari fcf 7ransAic
is e'
a'e: cam:
-2-
Washington State Iransocranor 9wlong
Department of Transportation o Box s-,00
Oiymoia. WA 98501-7300
Sid Morrison
Secretary of Trarsoortauon
May 16, 1997
Mr. Don Wickstrom
Public Works Director
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Award of Competitive Oil Rebate
Funds
Dear Mr. Wickstrom:
The Oil Rebate Competitive Grant Committee met on May 7, 1997 and made project
selections for $4,861,000 of available oil rebate funding. One hundred sixty eight
(168) project and program applications were received with total requests of
approximately $25 million. The Committee elected to equally divide the available
funding into the four separate categories and fund the projects and programs
ranked by the two scoring teams in rank order.
The following program from your agency was selected for funding:
Project/
Program Project Estimated Oil Rebate °o Local
Rank Category Title Project Cost Funds Match
9 Reduction Demonstration 558,660 $49,860 15.0
Of Single Commuter Shuttle
Occupant Service
Vehicles
Approval of your program is contingent upon coordinating ,your demonstration
efforts with King County Metro.
For this statewide competitive program, the maximum amount of "Oil Rebate
Funds" is shown above. Costs which exceed the "Oil Rebate Funds" amount will
have to be borne by the agency.
Enclosed are two copies of the WSDOT TransAid Funding Agreement that have
been adopted for this program. Please return two signed copies of the agreement, to
May 16, 1997
Page 2
your Regional TransAid Engineer. Your original Project & Program Application
will be used as an Exhibit to the agreement. Program expenditures are not eligible
for reimbursement until after the agreement has been executed.
I wish to congratulate your agency on your successfully funded application.
Should you have any questions, please contact Ron Paananen, your Regional
TransAid Engineer at (206) 440-4734.
Sincerely,
DENNIS B. 7GHAM
Assistant Secretary
TransAid
DBI:jm
Enclosures
cc: Ron Paananen, NW Region, NB82/121
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT MOTEL - BILL OF SALE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, accept the bill of sale for Kent Motel submitted by
Michael Cohen dba M.C. Construction for continuous operation
and maintenance of 425 feet of waterline, 512 feet of street
improvements, 112 feet of storm sewers and release of bonds
after the expiration period. The project is located in the
vicinity of East Valley Highway and S. 224th Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
S 212TR ST f
1�
13 PL 5
213
Ply
214�Pt-
'216TH ST
3T 3 216TH Sr
%,--21 STH 218TH ST
OTH ST
PROJECT LOCATION
222NO ST 222NO 5 T
S 222NO ST
ST
5 227TM PL
228TH
S 228TH ST 3 224TH ST
5F
S 232NO
NOVPC LN
CT
f ST FL
w OLE
ST
SOUL D N WAT T CT
L3 7 _TH
W CLOUOT ST PL rot
CLOU, ST Ri 5 238TH
QQ GEORGE
S 240TH STD
V VIEV CT
P_L
Tj� z
ST
S T219T14 pt
71; is 240TH
'"3T 'T
rJT
3 2LL13T ST
pa
SAM ST CEI 18 r2142NO ST
S
PIONEER S7 242HO CT
rrua rF qT I T
MCMILL RN
SMITH ST
KENT MOTEL
—ST
4 P R RIl S ON
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 240TH/212TH BRIDGE-WATER MAIN - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, accept as complete the 240th/212th Watermain-Bridge
Improvements project and release of retainage to Frank Coluccio
Construction upon standard releases from the State, and release
of any liens. The original contract amount was $196,715. 17 .
The final construction cost was $198 , 012 . 14 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
D AVE
-j
-A
N1
ro
R)
if ---I
64rH t�E S.
—-----------—
�TVALLEY `4WY W.. VALLE y
THY
...........
SR '146J.SR 167
S.
L CNSP&P
14 z ............
AVE. S.
..........
lAwl...........
-------------
if
..... ......
L-1-4 N
......................
-----------------
......... EAST VALLE\
: , N [
4, ssrH AVE S
M ...
AVE S
S"IT
............. ...... . ......
$ .......
_M4TH 04VE S
............
4-z-
------ -------------
M
. .........
AD
R)
CD
Li ......
T'
------ SE 240th Watermain Improvements
and
S. 212th Street Bridge Watermain
... Crossing
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MEEKER STREET AND RUSSELL ROAD SIGNAL - ACCEPT AS
COMPLETE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, accept as complete the Meeker/Russell Signalization
Improvements project and release of retainage to Mer-Con Inc. ,
upon standard releases from the State, and release of any
liens. The original contract amount was $69,769. 15 . The final
construction cost was $82 ,218 . 46. The overage on this project
was due to an increase in quantities because of the complexity
of the project. Adequate funds exist within the project budget
to cover this overage.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes and vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
purpose here is, the District has some work that they want to do under our contract and
they are willing to pay for it. This agreement is for $56,847.13 to reimburse us for the
- project cost.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the WD
#111 Reimbursement Agreement to reimburse the City for their share of the project
cost.
LID 347 Meeker StreetlRussell Road Traffic Signal
Wickstrom said that this is a request to set July 15th as the Public Hearing date for LID
347 final Assessment Roll. He said another issue here is that we finalized the contract
for this project however it is 12% over the original contract price. He did state that
there is no problem with money.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to establish July 15th as the Public
Hearing date to adopt the Ordinance establishing the Final Assessment Roll for LID 347.
Meeting adjourned: 4:00 p.m.
3
29
N �N usTN 19 yt1
° N AVE S a Q2i '•.S3KIOS� S3Q i AB y ry ay0 �
�N1.SA RYE my = ASTH Pt 5
r
y ~ y \
1
3T FENN ICK RD •�, �y,
02)
.'.ii l'_e AJIIfN3d >tl ro :�•' --. 90 �. I
ate@ WAD
I /
t4�
y
`
a
LAKESIDE
3LV6 E
FRAGER RO I \t
'---- 64TH AVE S L
co
m
I I F, ilT y ts7 y
SR 181 j NASHINGTDN AVE = y fc
I a x
I 1 Qb ?� iXOKP56N Z c 71
/ / N
74TN RVE 5 NAOEN AVE LINCOLN AVE
m / /
N / /
Z ! /
O / I
ti I I
1
y
\\ 5 BTN AVE 6 H AVE
a tPRV.I = _
`\ a
S STH AVE S STH AVE x N STH AVE
11 9 _ y o
I I N 4TH AVE
S 4TH AVE
5 3AD AVE -
•� N N 3� RDT AVE
CO
S 2H0 AVE fx 2ND pup
�~ y S IST AVE IST AVE N 1ST AVE `; m
u S RAILROAD AVE RA LRDAO avc
m
-1 y
x S BRIOGES>z AVE r
H SCENIC NAT LID 347 - MEEKER/RUSSELL SIGNAL IMPS.
y r
y m
�' Alp INE NT
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION - APPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment
of Pastor Johnny Williams to serve as a member of the Kent
Human Services Commission. He currently serves as Pastor of
the Word of Praise Ministry. Paster Williams is a long-time
Kent resident and his children attended Kent schools. He has
also owned his own business in Kent for more than nine years.
He is especially interested in helping the homeless and
believes strongly in assisting them to be self sufficient. He
helps them find employment and has had a good success rate in
hiring them to work for his own business.
Pastor Williams will represent the religious community and will
replace Rev. Ray Morrison, who resigned, and his new appoint-
ment will continue until 1/1/99.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White -
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
DATE: JUNE 25, 1997
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
I have appointed Pastor Johnny Williams to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services
Commission. He currently serves as Pastor of the Word of Praise Ministry. Pastor Williams is a
long time Kent resident and his children attended Kent Schools. He has also owned his own
business in Kent for more than nine years. He is especially interested in helping the homeless and
believes strongly in assisting them to be self sufficient. He helps them find employment and has
had a good success rate in hiring them to work for his own business.
Pastor Williams will represent the religious community and will replace Rev. Ray Morrison who
resigned. His new appointment will continue until 1/1/99.
1 submit this for your confirmation.
JW.jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PACIFIC TERRACE FINAL PLAT FSU-96-12 - SET MEETING
DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set July 15, 1997, as the date for a
public meeting to consider a final plat application by Pacific
Industries, Inc. The preliminary subdivision was approved by
the City Council, as recommended by the Hearing Examiner, on
August 6, 1996. The plat is 4 .79 acres, consists of 25 lots,
and is located at 10605, 10707, and 10717 SE 248th Street in
Kent.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
�fw
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SWAN COURT FINAL PLAT FSU-95-4 - SET MEETING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set July 15, 1997 , as the date for a
public meeting to consider a final plat application by Swanson
Homes. The preliminary subdivision was approved by the City
Council, as recommended by the Hearing Examiner, on July 16,
1996. The plat is 4 .57 acres, consists of 16 lots, and is
located south of SE 240th Street between 112th Avenue SE and
114th Place SE if extended.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
yk
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1. 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES II FINAL PLAT FSU-95-5 -
SET MEETING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set July 15, 1997, as the date for a
public meeting to consider a final plat application by Shamrock
Development Corporation. The preliminary subdivision was
approved by the City Council, as recommended by the Hearing
Examiner, on July 16, 1996. The plat is 3 .65 acres, consists
of 13 lots, and is located at 22600 100th Avenue SE.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
�Vw
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1. 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On June 2 , 1997 , the Land Use and
Planning Board made a recommendation to the City Council on
the proposed Downtown Strategic Action Plan. The Planning
Board held several workshops on the Plan, beginning in
January 1997 and culminating in public hearings held on May 27
and June 2 , 1997 . The Downtown Strategic Plan is an action-
oriented subarea plan and integrated environmental impact
statement; it outlines a host of land use, infrastructure
design, and development actions which help to strengthen the
economic and social stature of downtown Kent.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, proposed draft Downtown Strategic Action
Plan, and Land Use and Planning Board minutes of May 27, 1997,
and June 2, 1997
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL[PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councirlmmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to app the Downtown Strategic Action Plan as recommended by
I► Orin . the Land Use and Planning Board q nt(J
DISC SSION: /� n
ACTION: ��> ( i3J�hcY
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
CITY OF )0212 f
Jim White, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
June 26, 1997
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LINDA PHILLIPS, PLANNER
SUBJECT: #DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN AND INTEGRATED
PRELIMINARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Attached is the Draft Proposed Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Preliminary
Final Environmental Impact Statement and the minutes of the Land Use and Planning Board
May 27/June 2 public hearing. The recommendation of the Land and Use and Planning Board is
to approve the plan with certain revisions. A summary of the Board recommendations is found
on page 3 of this memo.
The proposed Plan is the result of a year-long effort which involved City staff, consultants, and
technical staff from several City of Kent departments in collaboration with the Kent Downtown
Partnership, other business and professional persons, and a dedicated group of interested citizens.
The participation process consisted of eight public workshops, numerous Strategic Planning
Team and Downtown Stakeholders Taskforce meetings, a City Council workshop, four Land Use
and Planning Board Workshops, a mobile tour and a public hearing, and countless technical staff/
consultant/public agency research sessions. Together with the Environmental Impact
Statement, the Plan was funded with a$150,000 Washington State Planning and Environmental
Review Fund Grant, and $25,000 of City funds. An additional $10,000 was awarded by the State
for a special entrance gateway catalyst project.
The purpose of the plan is to provide a framework for growth and development downtown
consistent with the goals and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and the 1989 Downtown
Plan. It is also consistent with the goals of the downtown Urban Center designation. The Plan
addresses public facilities, intermodal transportation, economics, downtown identity, land use,
urban design, integrated with environmental analysis of proposed actions.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) was issued on February 4, 1997. A thirty
day comment period followed the issuance of the DEIS. All written comments received during
the comment period have been published in the attached document, together with responses,
I
220 4th AVE.SO. /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-33001 FAX#859-3334
City Council
July 1, 1997
additional environmental information and proposed mitigation measures. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) will be issued concurrent with adoption of the plan.
SUMMARY OF DRAFT PROPOSED PLAN
Two specific revisions to the Kent Comprehensive Plan and the Kent Zoning Code and several
technical planning processes were proposed in the draft Plan. Both specific proposals are
changes from the existing Single Family Residential (SF-8) plan designation and Single Family
(SR 8) zoning. The first area proposed to change is located north of James Street, extending
three parcels north of Cloudy Street, between 4th Avenue North and 5th Avenue North. The
proposed change is to a Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation and Office zoning
designation with a Mixed Use Overlay. The second is located north of James Street between
North 4th and North 5th Avenues, extending as far as 250 feet north into the residential
neighborhood. The change proposed is to a Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation with
an Office (0) zoning designation.
The recommended technical planning processes which will require additional research and public
process are: (1) revisions and additions to the design guidelines and design review sections of
the zoning code. The design guidelines would address specific design criteria for individual
districts within the downtown study area; (2) a system of specific street standards for each street
to facilitate permit review; (3) a master street tree and landscaping plan for public rights-of-way
downtown; (4) a process to require mixed use and master planning for the Borden Industrial site
should redevelopment be proposed for the site.
Based on technical research and environmental analysis, the draft Plan also recommends a
location for the proposed Regional Transit Authority commuter rail station. The recommended
location is immediately north of Smith Street on Railroad Avenue.
Public and private actions proposed by the plan include street and sidewalk improvements,
specially marked gateway entrances, and improved connections between the Regional Justice
Center, historic commercial area, proposed civic and performing arts center, commuter rail
station, Kent Public Market, and parks and recreation centers. Other actions include a pilot
project for market-rate condominium housing, a survey of the historic district to identify
appropriate preservation, redevelopment and infill sites, and restoration of access to the Borden
Industrial site via 2nd Avenue.
A model of downtown Kent, a downtown Kent promotional video, a promotional market analysis
brochure, and presentation graphics of the downtown vision will be finalized when the plan is
adopted. Consultants are currently finalizing a system of design concepts for enhancement of
key entrance gateways and intersections. The project is funded by an additional $10,000 PERF
grant.
2
City Council
July 1, 1997
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION AND REVISIONS
After a series of workshops and a mobile tour of the downtown, the Land Use and Planning
Board conducted a public hearing on May 27th. The hearing was continued to June 2. A copy of
the minutes of the hearing is attached to this memo. The Board's recommendations to the City
Council are:
Approval of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement with the changes noted below:
1. Further study of the commuter rail station location alternatives, both north
and south.
2. The North Park area east of Fourth Avenue North on the north side of
James Street should retain the existing single family residential
designation on the Comprehensive Plan map and in the zoning code.
3. The single family residential designated area north of James Street
between 4th Avenue North and Fifth Avenue North should be designated
mixed use on the Comprehensive Plan Map and in the zoning code as
recommended by staff
4. Eliminate the conceptual parking area shown on the plan graphic of the
Commons Play Field.
5. Create angle parking on the west side of an improved Fifth Avenue South
adjacent to the Commons Play Field,north of James Street, and create a
drop off and pick up area for children along this improved right-of-way.
6. Study traffic patterns in North Park for ingress, egress and safety.
7. Study the parking for the uplands playfield located between Meeker Street
and Smith street adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.
8. Develop realistic costs associated with the plan actions.
9. Develop a gateway area at the Intersection of North Central Avenue and
the Valley Freeway (SR 167)
LP:bb:a:CC71.mem
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
3
Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan
and Integrated Preliminary Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
�♦� May 21 1997
�r
Prepared by
MAKERS architecture and urban design
City of Kent
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
and Integrated Preliminary Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Supplement to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
(Issued January 30, 1995)
Date of Issue:
, 1997
Issuing Agency:
City of Kent
Planning Department
400 West Gowe Street
Kent, Washington 98032-5895
Prepared in compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act(RCW 43.21)
About the hop blossom logo: The hop flower was chosen because, in the late 1800s, the hops industry was the
first catalyst for prosperity and growth in the Green River Valley.
Contents
Contents
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1-1
A. PURPOSE.........................................................................................................I-1
B. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................1-1
C. PROCESS......................................................................................................... 1-2
D. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ............................................................................... 1-4
11. DEFINING A DIRECTION .................................................................................II-1
A. MARKET ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 11-1
Market Opportunities and Development Potential .................................................................II-1
B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PROCESS............................................................ 11-3
C. SUMMARY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND THE RECOMMENDATION
PROCESS........................................................................................................ 11-4
III. PLANNING CONCEPT..................................................................................... III-1
A. REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY............................................................................ 111-1
Connect and Unify Downtown's Features.............................................................................III-4
Enhance the Periphery of Downtown....................................................................................III-5
B. DEFINE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICTS .....................................................:.......... 111-5
C. SELECT TARGET AREAS................................................................................... 111-6
D. ENHANCE CIVIC IDENTITY ................................................................................ 111-6
IV. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS...................................................IV-1
A. LAND USE .....................................................................................................IV-1
Introduction............................................................................................................................IV-1
Recommendations.................................................................................................................IV-1
B. TRANSPORTATION...........................................................................................IV-3
Introduction............................................................................................................................IV-3
Recommendations.................................................................................................................IV-4
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES..........................................................................................IV-8
Recommendations.................................................................................................................IV-8
D. DESIGN GUIDELINES.....................................................................................IV-10
Introduction..........................................................................................................................IV-10
Recommendations...............................................................................................................IV-10
E. REDEVELOPMENT TARGET AREAS ...................................................................IV-1 1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................IV-11
Recommendations............................... ...................IV-13
.............................................................
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan i
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Contents
V. KENT DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS......................................................................V-1
A. NORTH FRAME DISTRICT ..................................................................................V-1
PublicImprovements..............................................................................................................V-3 _.
Development Target Area Actions.........................................................................................V-5
B. CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR DISTRICT .............................................................V-9
PublicImprovements..............................................................................................................V-9
DesignGuidelines................................................................................................................V-11
C. EAST FRAME DISTRICT...................................................................................V-15
PublicImprovements............................................................................................................V-15
DesignGuidelines................................................................................................................V-15
D. WEST FRAME DISTRICT ..................................................................................V-16
PublicImprovements............................................................................................................V-16
DesignGuidelines................................................................................................................V-17
E. SOUTH CORE DISTRICT..................................................................................V-19
PublicImprovements............................................................................................................V-19
- Design Guidelines................................................................................................................V-21
Other Redevelopment Incentives.........................................................................................V-23
F. NORTH CORE DISTRICT..................................................................................V-24
PublicImprovements............................................................................................................V-24
DesignGuidelines................................................................................................................V-31
Redevelopment Opportunities .............................................................................................V-31
G. HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT...............................................................................V-34
PublicImprovements............................................................................................................V-36
Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Activities.......................................................V-36
RedevelopmentTarget Areas...............................................................................................V-37 ..
VI. IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................................................VI-1
A. OUTLINE OF PHASING STRATEGY......................................................................VI-1
B. RECOMMENDATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION, AND
MITIGATING MEASURES...................................................................................VI-4
LandUse...............................................................................................................................VI-4
Transportation......................................................................................................................VI-14
Public Facilities Recommendations ....................................................................................VI-24
UrbanDesign Action...........................................................................................................VI-32
C. MONITORING SYSTEM ...................................................................................VI-34
VII. VISION: GROWING A HOMETOWN ............................................................VII-1
A VISIT TO THE FUTURE .......................................................................................VII-1
FROM THE PRESENT TO THE FUTURE......................................................................VII-3
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................A-1
A. COMMENT LETTERS .........................................................................................A-1
B. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS................................................................................B-1
C. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................... C-1
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan ii
9633RPT2.00C•5r21197
Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: The above process was used to prepare the Kent Downtown
SubareaAction Plan................................................................................ 1-3
Figure III-1: Challenges facing downtown Kent are shown above. .......................... I11-2
Figure III-2 The strategic redevelopment concept is illustrated above.. ................. 111-3
Figure IV-1: Actions recommended by the Kent Downtown Subarea Action
Plan are summarized above..................................................................IV-2
Figure IV-2: A conceptual design for the commuter rail station is shown
above.....................................................................................................IV-5
Figure IV-3: Illustrated above are the redevelopment target areas. .......................IV-12
Figure V-1: Illustrated above are the Kent downtown districts..................................V-2
Figure V-2: Proposed elements of the North Frame District are illustrated
above......................................................................................................V-4
Figure V-3: Illustrated above is the suggested concept for Fourth Avenue
andJames Street....................................................................................V-5
Figure V-4: The above illustration shows the type of office/residential
mixed-use development envisioned for the N. Fourth/Fifth
Avenue target area.................................................................................V-6
Figure V-5: Design considerations for the North James Street corridor
target area are illustrated above. ...........................................................V-7
Figure V-6: Central Avenue Corridor and West Frame Districts are
illustratedabove. ..................................................................................V-10
Figure V-7: Design issues that new development should address in the
Central Avenue District are illustrated above. ......................................V-12
Figure V-8: Design issues that existing development in the Central Avenue
District should address are illustrated above. ......................................V-13
Figure V-9: This figure shows Central Avenue as it exists today. ...........................V-14
Figure V-10: This artist's concept shows how Central Avenue could look................V-14
Figure V-11: Above are shown the existing view and the view with the
proposed improvements along Willis Street near the Union
Pacific Railroad tracks. Note the bicycle pedestrian trail
connecting downtown to the Interurban Trail, greensward
improvements, and new mixed-use residential development
along Saar Street. .................................................................................V-17
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan iii
9633RPT2.DOC.5121/97
Contents
Figure V-12: Proposed elements of the West Frame District are illustrated
above....................................................................................................V-18
Figure V-13: Proposed elements of the South Core District are illustrated
above....................................................................................................V-20
Figure V-14: This figure illustrates architectural details appropriate in the
South Frame District. .............::.............................................................V-22
Figure V-15: This illustration shows how landscaping can define open space
and add texture to a building. ..............................................................V-22
Figure V-16: Proposed elements of the North Core District are illustrated
above....................................................................................................V-25
Figure V-17: Illustrated above is a schematic design for a train station depot
employing the architectural character and materials from the
old Burdic grain elevator. .....................................................................V-26
Figure V-18: The above illustration shows existing conditions along Railroad
Avenue. ................................................................................................V-29
Figure V-19: A canopy along the International Parks will provide pedestrian
protection and outdoor public market space. ......................................V-29
Figure V-20: An "all cross" or "scramble" intersection at Fourth and Smith
Streets would allow pedestrians all crossing at a phase during
the signal sequence. Decorative pavement noting the all-
cross, canopy or trellis similar to the RJC, and enhanced
private landscaping are all possibilities. ..............................................V-30
Figure V-21: Shown above is the proposed Civic and Performing Arts Center
design by the Bumgardner Partnership. ..............................................V-32
Figure V-22: Shown above is the proposed Kent Public Market building,
courtesy of the Kent Downtown Partnership.........................................V-33
Figure V-23: Proposed elements of the Historic Core District are illustrated
above....................................................................................................V-35
Figure V-24: The above drawing by Armin Quilici illustrates Historic Core
District infill. ..........................................................................................V-37
Figure V-25: The above illustration shows existing conditions at Meeker
Street and Fourth Avenue.....................................................................V-38
Figure V-26: The above illustration shows potential signature development at
the intersection of Meeker Street and Fourth Avenue. .........................V-38
Figure VI-1: Phasing of Kent Downtown Subarea Plan recommendations is
shownabove. ........................................................................................VI-3
Figure VI-2: Above are shown the north and south station sites identified for
conceptual comparative costs. ...........................................................VI-16
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan iv
9633RPT2.DOC-521/97
Contents
Figure VI-3: Above is illustrated the potential concept for James Street
channelization, Second Avenue to Central Avenue. ...........................VI-21
Figure VI-4: The above illustration is the potential concept for pedestrian
movements around the James Street BNRR grade-separated
crossing...............................................................................................VI-22
Figure VI-5: The above drawing illustrates the concept for transit access at
the commuter rail station. ....................................................................VI-23
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V
9633RPT2.DOC.5121097
Contents
Fact Sheet
Description of Proposal
The City of Kent is supplementing its existing downtown plan with a Downtown Strategic
Action Plan that focuses on future action and implementation measures. The plan will identify
the main features of the City's downtown form for the next several decades,including what type
of development should occur where,and how it should be served. The environmental analysis is
proposed to focus on the screening of plan alternatives as prepared with input from advisory
committees,Downtown Stakeholders Task Force, City staff, downtown property owners and
merchants,and the public at-large.
Location of Proposal
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Preliminary Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS)will address the downtown area as indicated in Figure
III-1, Study Area. The approximate limits of Downtown Kent are SR 167 on the west, Cloudy
and James Streets on the north, Woodford Avenue and Titus Street, and Willis Street/SR 516 on
the south.
Proponent and Lead Agency
City of Kent
Planning Department
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
206/859-3390
Proposed Implementation Date
Adoption of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan is anticipated in June 1997.
Responsible Official
James Hams
Planning Director
City of Kent
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
206/859-3390
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan vi
9633RPT2-DOC-5121197
Contents
Contact Person
Linda Phillips,Planner
City of Kent
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address:220 Fourth Avenue S.)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
206/859-3390
Principal Contributors
City of Kent
Kent Downtown Partnership
MAKERS architecture and urban design
BRW,Inc.
Property Counselors
The Langlow Associates
Draft SEIS Issue Date
February 4, 1997
Public Meetings
A public workshop on the proposed plan alternatives and Draft SEIS was held February 5, 1997
at the Kent Commons. Comments on the Draft SEIS were accepted until March 6, 1997. The
Kent Planning Department hosted an Open House on May 191h to display current modifications
to the plan based on public input and comment. The Kent Land Use and Planning Board met
April 14'h and May 19ei to review the plan and preliminary final SEIS. A public hearing will be
held May 27`h and may continue to June 2"d
Nature and Date of Final Action
The City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan will be considered for adoption by the City of
Kent City Council in June 1997, after receiving a recommendation from the Land Use and
Planning Board.
Type and Timing of Subsequent Environmental
Review
The programmatic Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and subsequent
Final SEIS constitute the required environmental review for the City of Kent Downtown
Strategic Action Plan. The Final SEIS will serve to supplement the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan Final EIS which was issued January 30, 1995. Any subsequent environmental review will
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan vii
9633RPT2.DOC-52V97
Contents
occur on a project-by-project basis. The draft and final SEIS seek to adequately address the
anticipated impacts of certain types of subsequent implementation actions consistent with the
Downtown Strategic Action Plan. As a result,the City may decide to adopt a planned action
ordinance which meets the requirements of RCW 43.21 C.240.2.
If such an ordinance is adopted,the City,while reviewing a subsequent project action that is
consistent with the recommendations of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan,may determine
that the requirements for environmental analysis,protection,and mitigation measures in the
City's development regulations and the Kent Comprehensive Plan provide adequate analysis of
and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the subsequent project.
Subsequent project-level development proposals may have a reduced amount of environmental
review,if any.
Location of SEIS Background Data
City of Kent
Planning Department
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
206/859-3390
Cost of a Copy of the Preliminary Final SETS
This document is available at no cost to interested citizens and groups. Copies may be obtained
at the address above or by mail. One copy will be provided to each individual or group upon
request.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan viii
9633RPT2.DDC•521197
Introduction
I . Introduction
A. Purpose
Since the days when Kent was a valley agricultural community, downtown
Kent has served as the town's civic and commercial focus. In recent
decades,the City has supported the downtown through proactive planning
and public improvements. When faced with the challenges of regional
growth management,Kent citizens responded by designating the
Downtown as a regional urban center,with a more intensive mix of uses
and'a wide spectrum of civic activities well served by the local and
regional transportation system.
This Downtown Strategic Action Plan pursues Kent's citizens' vision for
the urban center,as articulated in the Kent Comprehensive Plan, by
translating the Plan's general objectives into a redevelopment strategy
consisting of an integrated set of civic actions. The action plan will serve
as a basis for development of an urban center and implement the Kent
Comprehensive Plan. It will provide a basis for City decisions related to
future public and private sector development proposals. Based on a
thorough market analysis, environmental analysis, and community
participation process,it outlines a method to encourage infill and
redevelopment that will be compatible with the economic, environmental,
and community goals of the citizens of Kent.
B. Background
Prior to this plan, the City of Kent has undertaken several Downtown
planning efforts: the 1966 John Graham Plan for Downtown, the 1974
CBD Plan, the 1983 L.I.D. 313 and Urban Design Plan, the 1986
Downtown Revitalization Task Force Report,the 1989 Downtown Plan,
the 1992 Downtown zoning revisions, the 1995 Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Policies, and the designation of Downtown Kent as an urban
center through the King County Countywide Planning Policies process.
In 1995,the Kent Downtown Partnership and other citizens asked the City
to fund a comprehensive market analysis for Downtown. The City
Council agreed to budget $25,000 in general funds for the market analysis.
Also in 1995, the City Council set goals for 1996 which included "Kent:
A Home Town for Families - A Friendly Small Town -A Place to Work-
A Place to Live," and"Downtown-A community Focal Point."
Downtown Goals were first priority-target issues for 1996.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan
9633RPT2.DOC-5M197
Introduction
In early 1996,the State of Washington awarded the City a$150,000
Planning and Environmental Review Fund(PERF)grant,which the City
matched with the previously appropriated$25,000 for the market analysis
and$25,000 of in-kind services. The Mayor appointed an executive staff
Downtown Strategic Planning Team which assisted the Mayor to appoint a
Downtown Stakeholders Task Force. The Strategic Planning Team and the
Planning Department also conducted a selection process to hire the
interdisciplinary consultant team of MAKERS architecture and urban
design,BRW,Inc.,The Langlow Associates,Property Counselors,and
Sierra Media to assist with the Downtown Strategic Action Plan.
C. Process
This Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement was prepared under new State provisions
in ESHB 1724 allowing the integration of State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and Growth Management Act(GMA)processes. It is a
programmatic EIS, supplemental to the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS
issued in January 1995. A programmatic EIS analyzes environmental
impacts early in the planning process, considering impacts prior to
adoption of the plan and before site-specific projects are proposed. The
"Planned Action"Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
supplements the EIS by addressing probable significant environmental
impacts of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan that were not identified by
the Comprehensive Plan EIS and by providing additional information
prior to project permit submittals.
Under the ESHB '1724 provisions, local jurisdictions with an adopted
comprehensive plan can opt to create a subarea or neighborhood plan
integrated with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).
The jurisdiction can then develop a 20-year vision for the neighborhood,
subarea, or entire jurisdiction and subject that vision to comprehensive
environmental analysis in a Planned Action EIS, evaluating the significant
adverse impacts and reasonable mitigation measures associated with the
development proposed in the Subarea Plan Planned Action EIS. An
agency reviewing any subsequent project proposal in the planning area
must first determine that the project is consistent with the earlier Subarea
Plan Planned Action EIS and that the Planned Action EIS has adequately
addressed the significant impacts of the development and identified
mitigation measures. Consistency is determined by a review of four areas:
(1)type of land use allowed, (2) level of development allowed,
(3) infrastructure, and (4) character of the proposed development.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 1-2
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Introduction
The benefit of this Planned Action approach is that subsequent project-
level development proposals may have a reduced amount of environmental
review,if the development proposal is consistent with that contemplated in
the adopted Planned Action Subarea Plan.
As the process chart(shown below)indicates,planning, evaluation, and
public involvement were coordinated throughout the project. Public
involvement occurred at three key points: setting of objectives,
development of alternatives, and evaluation of alternatives.
,roleAft AMOM ,...,,.. aeabW : NwAwAw DBGM*w i e...Wr s.anrr Moen MA ra AM
Aron
1
DuNd AMMOM
r
I
V40 W W I Doan.+
I I
poe�
I w yl I
f I I i
W m I 1 1
i E`WA b COPM~Ab
d L. E�yp Gawllaa Anely�t I BEPA Ann,sn a AMnelA�ea ..I I 1
I,
One pro aiwrwas �
AbOas ab
� PmYnr.y nrM1et PW�� SetApioutb nPe� INIeNb ,�of i � �prOpam wE Vtlen�e r
9 entl mrnnNY SEPA FSEIS,M ffdg i
po�Ye em empe e,emelMs en0 e.MaM propnm FSFJ6 ne Wbia
4 >I I.Wr i�.w�wti
wYwews�aa. r,�reYwr ', ee..r+wea.
♦ ho epn „ NeY E191Yn
LEGEND eauroMarknwa I t5 ,e,w,m„Pyr
Figure i-1: The above process was used to prepare the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 1-3
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Introduction
D. Organization of Report
This report is organized to aid both public and private interests in
making decisions concerning development and investment in the
Downtown. Sections I and H summarize the background,purpose and
process of the project, Section III describes the plan concept,and Section
IV outlines the recommendations for achieving the community and
City's objectives. Section V is the heart of the plan. This section
organizes the recommended actions by areas within the Downtown,
showing the interrelationships between actions. Section VI reviews the
potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation to these
impacts and defines the steps necessary to implement the plan.
This plan meets the requirements of the Planned Action SEPA provision
by providing public participation and environmental analysis in advance,
in conjunction with a subarea plan.
The following chart summarizes where typical sections of an FSEIS are
found in this document.
Typical SEPA EIS Section Location of Information in the Action Plan
Fact Sheet A Fact Sheet is located after the title page.
Executive Summary A summary of mitigation/implementation measures is
provided in section VI. Implementation.
Introduction A summary of the project history,purpose,scope and public
involvement process is included in section I.
Alternatives Considered A description of the alternatives considered is contained in
section U.Defining a Direction.
Impact Analysis The environmental impacts are discussed in section VI.
Implementation after each action.
Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures follow each impact evaluation of the
proposed action.
Response to Comments Responses are attached to the end of the plan as Appendix A.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 1-4
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Defining a Direction
II . Defining a Direction
A. Market Analysis
A market analysis was conducted during the first stages of planning in
order to determine the potential for growth and the conditions necessary to
encourage it. The market area for downtown Kent is the area from which
it will draw 80%to 90%of its sales. It extends west to Interstate 5,north
to the Kent City limits at 180th,south to 277th and east and south toward
the Cascade foothills. This area recognizes the existing concentrations of
retail development in Tukwila and Auburn,the natural boundaries of the
plateau to the west,and the existing transportation network extending to
the east and south.
Market Opportunities and Development Potential
The market analysis determined that there are several specific
opportunities in Downtown Kent.
■ Office
Office development is the strongest immediate opportunity.
Continuation of historic levels of office absorption of 16,000 to 18,000
square feet per year plus law offices associated with the Regional
Justice Center(RJC) would result in potential office demand of:
• 1996-2000: 92,000-112,000 square feet
• 2000-2010: 260,000-270,000 square feet
• 2010-2020: 180,000 square feet
■ Retail
Projected retail development is estimated based on maintaining
downtown's share of market area spending with increases in shares for
specialty food, apparel, eating/drinking, and miscellaneous retail sales.
• 1995-2000: 46,000-49,000 square feet(including RJC impact)
• 2000-2010: 100,000 square feet
• 2010-1020: 79,000 square feet
In addition,the area could support a multiscreen theater.
■ Civic and Performing Arts Center
A Civic and Performing Arts Center has been proposed for Downtown
Kent. Attendees at performances at such a facility would also
patronize surrounding businesses. While the level of spending in itself
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan II-1
9633RPT2-DOC-5121197
Defining a Direction
would only support a few thousand square feet of development,it
would contribute toward extending the hours of the district into the
evening. The committee for the project has undertaken a study of the
feasibility of raising the necessary funds through grants and private
contributions. The result of that study will affect whether the proposal
will be pursued in the immediate future.
n..r�
r
It !
{ J
t ! t f
Figure II-1: Shown above is the market area for downtown Kent.
■ Market Rate Residential
One-third of the residential capacity for the City is in the downtown
area. In order for the downtown to approach this capacity over the
next 20 years there must be successful projects that can demonstrate to
the development community that there is demand for market rate
housing. The best opportunities are for single-use residential units on
the edge of the core, where land costs are lower, and for small
condominium projects at high-amenity locations in the core.
■ Hotel/Convention Center
A full service hotel with 150 rooms, meeting facilities sized to
accommodate groups of approximately 250, and restaurant could
compete with hotels near the airport and Southcenter and attract over
$2 million in spending to the area each year.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan II-2
9533RPT2.DOC-5121197
Defining a Direction
Finally,additional development of all types creates demand for the others
and provides an overall increase in vitality and interest.
B. Description of Alternative Process
During November and December of 1996,the team formulated three
alternatives. The alternatives were based on the issues identified in public
meetings,the environmental and technical analysis and the redevelopment
options outlined in the market report. All alternatives were consistent with,
and refinements of,the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Community members
evaluated and commented on the alternatives at public meetings in January.
The City published a Draft Supplementary EIS (DSEIS) in February of 1997
to evaluate the environmental impacts of the alternatives. Additional public
meetings were conducted in February and March to review the DSEIS and
to invite the public to discuss the components of a preferred alternative.
The following is a summary of the three alternatives:
■ Alternative 1
Alternative 1 described growth and development downtown with
limited guidance. It placed emphasis on current trends such as
capturing business from motorists, enhancing the historic core, and
commercial development on Central Avenue. It recommended
maintaining existing zoning, improving streetscapes, and improving
access to all sections of downtown. The alternative proposed a
commuter rail station at Smith Street in relation to a Smith Street
railroad underpass.
■ Alternative 2
The focus of Alternative 2 was to attract regional trade based on
further development of the compact historic commercial/civic core of
downtown. This alternative placed development emphasis on
encouraging investors to assemble land and identify redevelopable
sites, and increasing park and street improvements. It described a
master plan process to develop the existing industrial property between
Smith and James Streets east of S. Fourth Avenue. It also described
commercial redevelopment of the north side of James Street. It
proposed location of the proposed commuter rail station between
Gowe and Meeker Streets, closing Gowe Street to vehicle traffic at the
railroad grade. The alternative included railroad underpasses at James
and Willis Streets.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan II-3
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Defining a Direction
■ Alternative 3
The focus of Alternative 3 was to attract regional trade based on a
business/hotel/performing arts complex located in the north area of
downtown. It proposed relocation of the industrial use located on the
Borden site. The relocation would be followed by a dramatic
redevelopment of the property as an active link between the historic
commercial core and the King County Regional Justice Center. This
alternative suggested expansion of Second Avenue as a visual and
pedestrian link to the historic commercial core. It placed the rail
station between Smith and James Streets. James and Willis Streets
railroad underpasses were also part of this alternative.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement contains complete descriptions, maps and analysis of the
above alternatives.
C. Summary of Preferred Alternative and the
Recommendation Process
The actions recommended in the Downtown Strategic Action Plan are
generally based on the concepts expressed in Alternative 2,with the
exception of the commuter rail station location, which was originally
proposed in Alternative 3.
■ Land Use
The preferred land use/development concept is based on Alternative 2.
It concentrates effort on the historic commercial/civic core, while
recommending the City prepare for eventual redevelopment of the
Borden site, which is an existing factory location north of Smith
Street, between S Fourth and Railroad Avenues. The historic
commercial core is recommended for preservation, while key target
areas are identified for mixed-use redevelopment and/or infill
development. Based on the public process and technical analysis,the
Alternative 1 land use proposal did not present a favored focus for
development, and Alternative 3 was judged to be infeasible because it
appears that the Borden site is not likely to be redeveloped in the
immediate future.
■ Commuter Rail Station
Based on technical and environmental comparison of the alternative
rail station locations,the proposed plan recommends the Alternative 3
rail station site, between Smith and James Streets. The
recommendations based on the following:
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 11-4
9633RP72.DOC-521197
Defining a Direction
• The Alternative 3 (north) site facilitates direct transit connections,
and superior vehicle circulation and access.
• The north site offers lower redevelopment costs related to land
acquisition and relocation of existing land uses.
• The north site presents greater long term redevelopment potential.
• The Alternative 2 (south)site, located between Meeker and Gowe
Streets,would create greater congestion in the historic commercial
core due to transit operations, commuter traffic and parking. It
presents higher development costs than the north site, and less
potential for long term redevelopment around the station site.
• Alterative 1 location, directly over a Smith Street grade
separation,was dependent on a railroad underpass at Smith Street
which is not under consideration for future construction.
■ Market Performance
The market analysis suggested that in order to enhance development
and redevelopment,the plan's recommendations should respond to the
locational requirements of individual uses. A general comparison of
the market performance of each alterative was presented in the
DSEIS. The assessment of Alternative I indicated that growth was
likely to be dispersed and less apt to enhance the vitality of downtown.
The analysis did not support Alternative 3's focus on redeveloping the
Borden site because the market would not generate enough near-term
demand for uses to support the redevelopment. The comparison and
public input indicated that the element in Alternative 2 best enhanced
development and redevelopment opportunities. The plan recommends
a combination of promoting infill development within the existing
core, encouraging mixed-use redevelopment around the core and office
and mixed use north of James Street. The plan also recommends
implementing urban design and physical improvements to connect new
development with the existing core and to enhance the development
setting.
The following sections, III., Planning Concept and IV., Summary of
Recommended Actions,provide a more detailed description of the major
Preferred Alternative components.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan II'5
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Planning Concept
III . Planning Concept
A. Redevelopment Strategy
The major goal of the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan(the Plan) is
to encourage downtown growth and redevelopment while creating a
stronger community identity and civic/commercial focus through a public
and private infill and redevelopment strategy. The actions outlined in the
Plan are intended as implementation of the directions provided by the Kent
Comprehensive Plan in the goals and policies of the Downtown Plan,
adopted by reference,and the goals and policies found in the downtown
and commercial sections of the Land Use Chapter. Consistent with the
requirements of the Washington State Planning and Environmental
Review fund grant,which funded a major part of the project,the Plan
integrates environmental analysis and environmental impact mitigation
measures within the land use,transportation,urban design,problem
solving, and implementation framework of the Plan. The Plan presents a
framework to maintain Kent's existing physical assets,prepare for
projected growth, and support future development. It recommends that
public and private interests work together to achieve safe, attractive, and
convenient transportation systems, improved parks and open space, and
adequate public facilities.
Successful downtown redevelopment plans build on the community's
existing physical assets. Fortunately, downtown Kent contains many
resources that serve as a foundation for future growth and development.
Vigilant City and business efforts have kept Kent's historic, pedestrian-
oriented core shopping districts along Meeker Street, First Avenue, and
Railroad Avenue vital. The new Regional Justice Center is already a
landmark and growing employment center. The downtown is blessed with
a variety of parks, including the active Commons Park, International
Parks,the Rose Garden, and Railroad Park. Kent's City Hall, Commons
Recreation Center, library, Senior Center, and Resource Center add
activity and enhance the downtown's role as the City's focal point.
Nearby residential areas add a built-in consumer and employment base.
The community's optimism regarding future private development
opportunity is well founded. The market analysis conducted early in the
process of formulating this plan projects significant development potential
for the downtown study area based on steady growth of the Kent downtown
market area. Opportunities include additional retail development, office
development, a full-service hotel, and urban-style housing. In addition, the
new Public Market will bolster businesses on the core's east side, and the
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan III-1
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Planning Concept
Barriers and poor ` Underdeveloped and
connections separate 1 unsightly areas present
downtown activities. I poor impression of
downtown.
LI
13
jo D
E Fin
ll
01
�% ry
T
4 I_a G o
f �
I ' r�L nI ° o
�.�.It �J � I 0 �•---I� d I`�� n
I .
WTIR-t
ao
-TOT] 1CA
0
nil
o
o
b r?!�I` 1 d°�� I\ ''Q f9 \, 00
III OEM� p I'Ir�Q�°�
°�o n _
/ )�i -[[_c f f-...� � �Ila-��Iln., �
o D o foil) o 11V __r"1,_I �I II �� III I Iw �Oi �V n�'9'Ifl j Pi II ark ra we ' G)
O'f o 1OA110 '�o°�i iRa ��n�i_ III e,;
Legend: 1
Key commercial buildings •°°°• Improved streetscapes
Parks and open space
- Important public attractions
Figure lli-1: Challenges facing downtown Kent are shown above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan III-2
9633RPT2.DOC-52M7
Planning Concept
Focus Support ("1 Upgrade special
public I districts and
/ improvements proposed facilities to add L.� target areas with
on connecting wide-spectrum redevelopment
downtown c of activ opportunities
attractions. '�
m
r
:�O j J J 1 $ p .g �d $ I,r1 �l•• �mil).j CZ)
OptL - I to R
�� D
�7I a
Ems'o '�i
IS Do
rp
1LE
o n I�
f �
79
q
of i i II -- D ❑ I Io oe
_
rE93.
S
dI t' , �•+•� ri 1[L a a
0
' W01i�di- /'-
a D t�{.I_Pi l__ 0 y O
tL I I 1 h �!99 1N4 3 o p
(�
�IL7 LJiLy.]I I--i __ _0• •' Oe..`� .�I"rllry ;
P {l� I ---
sx U
"
p4a��0 C
��� E� Ig �pl �I �� ar ❑ n a p <� u I�
_ �.._,'
I I I •111 .I-. 4l �olno L
`,
F�.�i` � j 15'I1il li°p�l-d 4t ,
a1I -OIl �nI I� I �(l a r.o nr .oe ,eoe /.■
/i r�1oJ� lc ll, '`° � kw hoI bq rl bi" l�l
11 �k 1117
:r❑ Igo I :a'nJl nl.l.�..
Legend.
Key commercial buildings •••••Improved streetscapes
Parks and open space
- Important public attractions
Figure 111-2: The strategic redevelopment concept is illustrated above..
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan III-3
9533RP72.DOC-5121197
Planning Concept
new commuter rail transit station,scheduled to open in 1999,will make
Kent a regional transportation hub. The presence of a commuter rail station
is likely to stimulate in-town housing development and new employment
opportunities. Commercial growth should occur as an indirect benefit of
the commuter rail station and a direct benefit of new in-town housing.
While the downtown contains valuable assets that serve as a foundation
for a strong identity and vital economy,there are obstacles to Kent's
growing a better downtown. The first concern is that Kent assets are
scattered and often disconnected. The second is that many of the
commercial corridors and residential areas at the downtown's periphery
are underdeveloped-or present a poor visual impression.
Therefore,based on the above intentions assets and obstacles,the basic
strategies lying at the root of the Downtown Plan are:
• Connect and unify important downtown features.
• Enhance the periphery of the downtown to achieve higher quality
development that supports its central activities.
• Define special activity districts.
• Select"target"areas as a basis for a phased implementation
program to accomplish redevelopment and/or infill consistent with
the Plan.
Connect and Unify Downtown's Features
Civic improvements, including the Regional Justice Center, Kent
Commons, the Public Market, and the commuter rail station, are
expanding the downtown core northward. While the core business areas
along Meeker Street, First Avenue, and Railroad Avenue must continue to
serve as the commercial downtown's south anchor, this historic core must
be linked to the northern features by a combination of park, pedestrian,
and vehicle connections along First and Fourth Avenue and Smith Street
and by supportive redevelopment along the Smith Street corridor.
Constructing a civic and performing arts center on the existing municipal
parking lot site, development of the new Public Market site and enhancing
the International Parks are a high priority because these will serve to link
the Historic Core District and residential areas to the south to the rail
station, Regional Justice Center, and residential activities to the north.
During the planning process, several comtuter rail station locations were
proposed within a five block area adjacent to the Burlington
Northern/Santa Fe railroad tracks between Titus and James Streets. The
draft proposed plan recommends that the new commuter rail station be
located just north of Smith Street to provide an efficient multimodal
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan III-4
9633RPT2.DOC•521/97
Planning Concept
regional transportation hub,avoid congestion and constriction in the core,
reduce development costs, and create a stronger development setting. The
rail station will enhance Kent's role in the region as a"host community"
and accentuate its identity. This will add significantly to the downtown if
the City develops a well designed and constructed passenger-waiting
structure,parking areas and vehicular circulation system, and develops
good pedestrian and visual connections to other downtown features. High-
quality redevelopment in the surrounding areas is another essential factor
to enhance Kent's role as a"host community." For these reasons,
pedestrian connections across Smith Street and traffic improvements in the
vicinity are recommended in addition to the other connecting features
described above.
The Borden property between Smith and James Streets represents one of the
most unique redevelopment opportunities in the Green River Valley,if not
the whole Puget Sound Basin. The City should prepare to take advantage of
this opportunity by ensuring that there is access to the site (especially along
Second Avenue from the south),by master planning the site as a whole, and
by creating a desirable development setting around the site.
Enhance the Periphery of Downtown
The second fundamental downtown redevelopment strategy involves
upgrading the areas directly around the expanded core. Allowing limited
office development along James Street will encourage redevelopment of
dilapidated properties on the north side. Similarly, allowing office and
mixed-use development between Fourth and Fifth Avenues north of James
Street will encourage investment in this highly impacted area. The single-
family neighborhood east of Fourth Avenue and just north of James Street
is an important housing resource. Street reconfigurations, buffering of
adjacent commercial properties, and design guidelines are recommended
to strengthen the family-oriented residential setting.
A combination of street improvements and design guidelines will help
make the Central Avenue corridor a more fitting eastern entry into the
core. The areas to the south, east, and west of the core provide an ideal
setting for residentially oriented mixed-use development to support core
businesses and add life to the downtown as well as reinforce Kent's
identity as a"home town."
B. Define Special Activity Districts
Identifying and defining existing and emerging special districts within the
downtown area such as the historic business district, civic activity areas,
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan III-5
9533RPT2.DOr-521/97
Planning Concept
Kent Market district,and in-town residential areas will provide the basis to
direct growth in character with each district and to establish the
relationships and connections between districts. It is important to consider
the existing assets of the districts,potential for improvement,
redevelopment and infill, and their context or role within the downtown.
C. Select Target Areas
Priority development sites have been identified during the planning
process. The commuter rail station site,the Kent Market site, and the
civic and performing arts center site are driven by previously determined
plans,while others such as priority in-town housing sites, essential
pedestrian connections to connect existing and emerging activity districts,
and public gathering spaces have emerged during the analysis and public
participation elements of the Plan process. Specific implementation
measures to develop target areas provide a framework for public and
private action. Mitigation for environmental impacts identified during the
SEPA review of the proposed plan is integrated with the implementation
program.
D. Enhance Civic Identity
A major focus of this plan has been to define an identity for downtown
Kent. The image that has continually reoccurred throughout the process is
the downtown's role as a"home town." The intent of the plan is to "Grow
a Home Town for the Future." But what does this mean? What are the
characteristics of a"home town"that can be integrated into a dynamic
Twenty-First Century community? In looking at Kent's sustaining assets
and the downtown's opportunities for the future, the following
characteristics stand out.
■ Variety: A Sum Greater Than Its Parts
Home towns are where people gather for many different functions and
activities. They bring people together and focus a sense of
community. The downtown is home to many civic and commercial
activities and can make a vibrant residential neighborhood as well. As
noted above,the key to the plan's success will be the connections
between the various elements. Physical connections between
transportation centers, government services, businesses, and
recreational activities will strengthen the community's economic,
cultural, and social connections as well.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan III-6
9633RPT2.DOC•5121197
Planning Concept
■ Quality: A Sense of Caring
A home town's value to its community is reflected in the quality of its
physical setting. The actions recommended in this plan are directed at
producing higher quality public improvements and private
development. One index of the plan's success will be the amount of
careful, well-considered financial and human investment that is
attracted to the downtown. Equally important will be the design
quality of new development.
■ Friendliness: A setting for personal interaction
A good home town is a place where people meet,where they come to
enjoy themselves as individuals and to celebrate as a community.
Encouraging these activities means attention to detail. Comfortable,
attractive sidewalks, street trees, cafes and meeting places, bicycle
paths,parks, artwork, and public amenities are all important features of
successful downtowns. Safety is also an important consideration.
Streets and public spaces must be well lit and designed to support
Police and Fire Department efforts.
■ Memory and Vision: Remembering the Past, Looking to the
Future
During the middle of the Twentieth Century, Kent transformed itself
from an active farming community into a robust, industrial-based
suburb. Now, with the construction of the Regional Justice Center and
a new transportation hub, Kent is again transforming itself; this time
into a dynamic,multi-faceted regional center. As projected
population growth occurs, and as this transformation takes place, it
will be important not to lose the perspective of the past. The historic
qualities of the core and small-town characteristics must be retained
and reinterpreted into new development as the downtown grows to
meet the future.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan III-7
9633RPT2.DOC-52197
Summary of Recommended Actions
IV. Summary of Recommended
Actions
A. Land Use
Introduction
The land useldevelopment concept concentrates effort on the current core
south of the Borden site while maximizing opportunities for future mixed
use redevelopment of the Borden site if the owners propose redevelopment
in the future. The Plan also proposes to revise the Comprehensive Plan to
change the designation of two single family areas located north of James
Street to allow: (1) office use with a mixed use overlay north of James
Street and west of Fourth Avenue and (2) limited office use along the
north edge of James Street from Fourth Avenue extending to the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way. If the recommended
Comprehensive Plan revisions are adopted, staff would prepare revised
zoning regulations to implement the plan.
Recommendations
Al. Redesignate the SF-8 area between Fourth Avenue N. and Fifth
Avenue N.,from James Street north to the Low Density Multifamily
designation,to allow limited office development and a mixed-use
overlay. Institute new site development guidelines to ensure high-
quality, substantial new development. (See Action DI.e) Initiate
zoning use and development standards to require aggregations of lots
and to prevent lot-by-lot conversion of single family homes to office
commercial use.
A2. Redesignate the area between Fourth Avenue N. and First Avenue N.
and within 150 feet from the James Street right-of-way to a new
zoning designation which will allow limited office development. If
the recommended Comprehensive Plan amendment is adopted,
prepare the zoning code revisions in coordination with the residential
neighborhood to define the nature of the limited office district and to
ensure compatibility between uses. Construct access roads and
prohibit access through the single-family residential neighborhoods.
(See Action B3.) Institute design guidelines to protect single-family
neighborhoods.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan N-1
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Summary of Recommended Actions
Allow Offices Fronting Institute Design Guidelines
For Residential and Office Areas
James Street i �/ - j r p• SF neighborhood
• Buffer residentlal areas I I �� I PItoaet
• love high gwlRy-
Master Plan and Upgrade • � , � smalbrsnbdwebprnant
Improve Local Circulation&Reduce
Ct�mcbbns Park i I ; . I Impacts of Through Traffic
•Perking&&access:7 i ' {J •Cut de sac t st,2nd Urd
• Dreinage , *Open ENV commercial street
• Layout/use .Open Cloudy Street
Rezone To Allow F Plan For Future Of Borden Site
Office With Mixed ., •Croats high t ality
near
Use Overlay `— devatopment nearby
e .Retain-street access
E 1 ' 1 / / ! •Insdhft design guidelines
" Pedestrian `! ' j a�
All Cross" /' I I ! — r,Possible Rail Grade Separation
Intersection :O ; U Focus High Quality
llnBS$UN �•"6' i
Qs 111:); Development North of Smith
Park&Rid I �+ Streetscape improvements
•Guidelines to make
And Park I I , 4 compatiblewith Borden site
I I o
Support R.J.C. Commuter Rail Station
Support�I�I Y;If ' ,i I a o� I °° ' I _ Improve Parks
_ -To Provide Key
Performing. \; :r,. o'� yT ";t'i' ■
�� North/South
Arts Centerj �. <! Connection
wl Civic Square
MetS !
Encourage iF. }� "Create T it
Mixed-use �r Along Mill Creek,
Developmlent I { } - t. I I ,Linking Mill Creek
I` �� I . } °I lraekeiSbtie -,r ! Park w/Kent
Memorial Park
i
upport Market
d t !1 Co
1 i I r 2 ;. <. Refine Design
Ac ess ,17 ff! of �' rtus Street e � Guidelines To Build
Road �:, i' �.: ,off � Quality Residential
•�fl :� I0.ai Neighborhoods And
i
0y o
4 ( �""Ensure Compatibility
Saar Street —. �6`
1'I! at •• ' With Commercial
wlffl$Street ( if A (� 1•:Q K
Improve —yam�� • tsar & Public Uses
Bike/Ped.Links TOLD a " oop oro� —r
Downtown From
Interurban Trail
Central Avenue
Design Guidelines South Rail Corrido Streetscape Improvements
To Encourage Infili Redevelopment Refine Design Guidelines
Redevelopment Opportunities To Upgrade
With Residential Commercial Corridor
Componment Legend:
Enhance 4th Ave. ®Public Facilities
=Redevelopment s o a e ff street
Corridor Opportunities Improvements
r--I Special Districts -+
Core Area ___I with Design Guideline O Gateways ""� Bike/Pod.
Links
Design Guidelines Parks/Open Space U ; (Transit Station
To Encourage Mixed-use II Cul-de-sac
Infill And Reinforce
Historic Character Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan
Figure IV-1: Actions recommended by the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan are summarized above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-2
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Summary of Recommended Actions
A3. Because of its central location and large area,the Borden industrial
property presents a great future opportunity for mixed use(office,
retail and residential) development. However, the owners have no
immediate plans to relocate or redevelop the site. If, in the future,
the owners of the Borden site propose a redesignation to allow
mixed use development, coordinate with the owners to create a
development master plan that would be consistent with the
recommendations of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan.
A4. In order to meet the Comprehensive Plan's intent to enhance the
downtown as a place to live,the City should promote infill urban
housing within the downtown.
A5. In order to respond to the potential for additional downtown office
and commercial development identified in the market analysis and to
provide a variety of living situations within districts that require
ground floor retail uses,the City should encourage the construction
of commercial, office, and mixed-use developments within the
downtown.
A6. Certain uses, including pawn shops,bail bond offices, and tattoo
parlors have been observed in other cities in the region to require an
increased amount of police and social service attention. Developable
land, suitable for retail uses is limited, and some plan participants
have expressed the opinion that a proliferation of such uses would
not be appropriate. The City should survey the impacts of these
retail uses in other cities, and recommend revisions to the zoning
code as needed to address the results of the survey.
B. Transportation
Introduction
The overall transportation plans for Downtown as discussed in the
Comprehensive Plan are to concentrate growth in the Urban Center and
other activity centers in the City to facilitate public transportation and
reduce dependency on the automobile. The City adopted a Level of
Service Standard F for streets and intersections within the Urban Center
boundaries which are generally consistent with the study area defined for
the Downtown Strategic Action Plan.
Traffic impacts created by development recommended in this plan will
also impact streets and intersections around the edge of the study area.
Traffic mitigating elements of the plan, such as commuter rail,
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-3
9633RPT2.DOC-5/21197
Summary of Recommended Actions
improved Metro transit circulation, improved pedestrian and bicycle
and pedestrian connections,and housing development close to jobs
serve to mitigate the probable adverse environmental impacts in and
near the downtown.
The City's Level of Service(LOS)standard allows development without
regard to traffic impacts until the average volume-to-capacity(v/c)ratio
downtown reaches 1.0(LOS F). If the v/c ratio in 2010 exceeds 1.0
without the proposed plan actions,those actions which generate additional
traffic could not be completed without specific mitigating capacity
improvements which would prevent the v/c ratio from increasing. This
mitigation(an additional travel lane, for example)would be separate from
the site-specific access, safety and street design improvements required
under SEPA,and could, depending on the spatial extent of the traffic
impacts, be required for any of the downtown intersections used to
compute the average v/c ratio.
The existing average intersection v/c ratio for seven (7) key downtown
intersections is 0.90 (LOS D/E), with two intersections exhibiting v/c
ratios greater than 1.0 (Central/James and Central/Gowe). By 2010,traffic
volumes in and through downtown Kent are forecasted to grow approxi-
mately 30%, with about two thirds of this growth generally attributable to
through trips (those trips for which both ends—the origin and the
destination—are outside downtown Kent). The growth in through trips
will be most evident on James Street and Central Avenue, due to trips
between the valley floor industrial area and the East Hill/Kent-Langley
area. Willis Street is also forecasted to experience a high proportion of
through trip growth.
Unless the impacts of this growth in overall traffic can be mitigated, the
City's LOS threshold will be exceeded, and severe congestion and delay
will result. Possible mitigating improvements could include widening for
additional turning lanes at several intersections along Willis Street and
improvements to promote transit use (such as park-and-ride lots in the East
Hill residential area, increased transit service and incentive programs for
valley floor employers).
Recommendations
B 1. Work with the RTA to develop a commuter rail station just north
of Smith Street. The key to the north station's success in
stimulating the economic and physical vitality of the downtown
lies in a series of actions to connect the station to the existing core
and improve the area surrounding the station. Consequently, the
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-4
9633RPT2.DDC-5121197
Summary of Recommended Actions
City of Kent
Downtown Strategic Aetlon Plan r� o APwaa eft.tey 2eq anus
Commuter Rail Station
d
.�..... Is
— -- -solo ttlafaga
Appnwunalety ao afaas APPrdkirtewy 260 salt
Civic redeyebproam all"
lows«,corrteMkkn between a
tall station and care. Approsinatsly
Errohem an Market.parks.
and Perbmkrrg Arts linter. n
I�
Approkinaaly 77 stalls
improve Pioneer Street
New station
B Bus bays
APprozknatety 204 stak
IQI
1 I Retain portions of
1`1 1 •1 OW40W as gateway
1gl I E
I I i Entry feature connecting
1 E I I I rail station to parks and
downtown
_ Private reoevebPrrtent
I
I j 1 -- Intemalional Garoens•
I I S e and Sister City Parks
linked by canopytwalkway
Smm Ana �{
Plaza connectetl with yule parks near tracks
Penomung Arts Center D
for oulocor concerts i
and ceremonies y Public Market
- sI Canopy for Market and to
< connect parks with downtown
Complete.redesign
Qp connections to downtown
Ir�—I'--1III siniel
L—•L t"T RailroadAvenue
o
Ilk-11! one--wayy saMbountl
with angled parking
I
i i r
Figure IV-2: A conceptual design for the commuter rail station is shown above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-5
9633RPT2.DOC-5427/97
Summary of Recommended Actions
following actions are recommended along with the rail station
development:
• Orient the station to the south portion of the site toward Smith
Street. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian connections
across Smith Street.
• Create a visual focus at the station site visible from Smith Street
and to commuter rail passengers. Such a focus could be a
distinctive station,a landmark gateway,a plaza, or other feature
that represents the City's identity. (See Action C3.c.)
• Take aggressive steps to ensure high-quality development near
the station. (See Actions A3 and DI.c)
• Support the civic and performing arts center and the Public
Market as connecting activities between the core and the area
north of Smith Street. (See Actions C3.a and C3.b)
• Upgrade the International Parks as connecting open space and as
a kind of gateway.
• Provide a civic plaza as a community focus near the Smith
Street/Meeker Street area. (See Action Cl.a.)
• Encourage residential development in the downtown. (See
Actions A4, AS and El.e)
• Upgrade crossings, channelization, and signals on Smith Street.
(See Action B2.c.)
B2. Make the following recommended street improvements to alleviate
current problems and accommodate new growth:
a. Fourth Avenue: Build on its current qualities to make the street a
major linking element between the Regional Justice Center and
the core. (Pedestrian lights, banners or emblems, additional
street trees, and/or a pedestrian canopy are recommended.)
b. Second Avenue: Obtain a right-of-way for access into the
Borden site.
c. Smith Street: Upgrade sidewalks, street landscaping, and
lighting to make the street a major east/west link between the rail
station, the core, and the Regional Justice Center. Improve
alignment, visibility, pedestrian crossings, and signalization at
the intersections of Smith Street with Railroad Avenue and First
Avenue. Add a bicycle lane or other bicycle access from the
Interurban Trail along Smith Street to the rail station if possible.
d. Central Avenue: Upgrade the street with sidewalks, trees, lights,
directional signs, and driveway consolidation.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-6
9633RP72.DOC-521/97
Summary of Recommended Actions
City of Kent
Downtown Strategic Action Plan Approxlntately 24q amk
Commuter Rail Station2.
• I
b l
d
• ,Ir/rres ar.e C
I — —_ •Cold taorapa
Civic redeveloomaM anortc I I
Locus on connections Wrween
rail station and Core. Approarna"32 Mai
Emphasis on Market.parks, a
and Pedomrtp Arts Comer.
Approxl ,77 sWk
Improve Pioneer Street
Now station
e Bus bays
Approximately 204 stalk
lti
al •—•--I� � Retain portions of
I.� I OMVW r as gateway
i t I Entry
ntr feature
to par connecting
IEIIrail
downtown
Privale redevelopment�4 I I 1
I _
I I l I international Gardens'
f I 8 x and Sister City Parks
I i.._—. linked by canopylwalkway
5mm a~
Plaza connected with Q n Vegetate parks near tracks
Penomiing Arts Center D
for outdoor concens
and ceremonies Public Market
iCanopy for Market and to
< 1 connect parks with oowmOwn
Complete.redesign
�p n connections to tlowntown
wwMw sxxr.
1� � Railroetl Avenue
I ortc-way soutnbound
wan angled parking
Gore
I
� � 111 I •
Figure IV-2: A conceptual design for the commuter rail station is shown above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-5
9633RPT2.DOC-5/21197
Summary of Recommended Actions
e. Saar Street: Extend angled parking westward to the Union
Pacific railroad tracks to support new residential and commercial
development.
f. Meeker and Gowe Streets: Improve sidewalks and landscaping
between First Avenue and Kennebeck Avenue. Install traditional
street lights to match the existing street lights on First Avenue.
g. Plan for a new road,extending Seventh Avenue S. (Naden
Avenue)north of Willis. The new road and intersection at Willis
are proposed by a major property owner and must be carefully
designed to avoid negative traffic impacts. Integrate and
improve the Interurban Trail interchange in the design of the
± Seventh Avenue/Willis Street intersection.
B3. Institute a traffic calming and neighborhood access program north of
James Street. If limited office development is approved north of
James Street,the proponent should be required to provide an
east/west access street north of the development and close the
adjacent north/south street to prevent commercial or through traffic
into the neighborhood. Cloudy Street can then be opened between
Third and Fourth Avenues to provide residents with easier access to
arterials. First Avenue north of James Street should be planted with
dense vegetation to mitigate impacts of increased rail traffic. The
east side of the railroad tracks should also be planted, where feasible,
to provide a"green Gateway"into the downtown core.
B4. Plan for an underpass of James Street at the Burlington Northern-
Santa Fe railroad crossing. The Public Works Department is
working on this option as part of the Washington Department of
Transportation's regional "Fast Corridor"plan to accommodate
increased rail traffic.
B5. Install a pedestrian"all cross" intersection at the Fourth Avenue and
Smith Street intersection and time signals to favor pedestrians at
non-peak traffic hours. This will encourage pedestrian traffic
between the Regional Justice Center, the Commons, and the core.
B6. Adopt street standards for the entire downtown area. Currently,
street improvement requirements are often determined on a case-by-
case basis. The street character could be enhanced by matching
street standards to specific areas of the downtown in order to
accentuate the character of each area.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-7
9633RPT2.DOC•521197
Summary of Recommended Actions
C. Public Facilities
Recommendations
C 1. Upgrade downtown parks to provide a full spectrum of passive and
active recreation.
a. Locate Town Square Park near the Smith Street/Meeker Street
spine of the core to provide a downtown open space for large
public gatherings.
b. Enhance parks along the railroad to provide linkages between the
station and the core. A canopy along the east side of the
International Parks would provide pedestrian protection,serve as
outdoor stalls for the market, and visually tie the Sister Cities
Parks together.
c. Masterplan the Commons Park. The Commons Park is an
important resource for downtown Kent in many ways. A master
plan should explore a variety of solutions to parking, access,
drainage,and traffic problems,as well as the potentials for more
efficient use.
d. Develop a street tree/vegetation plan for the downtown which
provides a guide for creating an attractive pedestrian network of
green spaces.
C2. Enhance gateways into the downtown. Several gateway
enhancements are recommended to mark key entrances into the
downtown, provide artwork and amenities, and direct visitors to
special attractions. Sometimes there is very little public land for
extensive landscaping or structures. In these cases the City should
work with property owners to provide both public and private
benefit. Some intersections include highly visible vacant parcels. In
these cases the City should work with property owners to develop
"signature buildings,"with high-quality building and site design, that
add to the streetscape. (See Action D2) Below are listed the most
appropriate gateway locations with some suggestions for special
features.
a. Fourth Avenue and James Street: Enhance the Commons and
Commons Park. (See Action Cl.c above) Add landscaping at
the southeast corner to complement the Commons site.
b. Fourth Avenue and Smith Street: Include a directional sign to
the transit station and add site improvements to the corner
properties. Enhance the pedestrian "all cross"with special
paving and lighting.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-8
9633RPT2.DOC-521/97
Summary of Recommended Actions
c. Fourth Avenue and Meeker Street. Develop a building that
incorporates architectural and site features which enhance this
highly visible comer.
d. Fourth Avenue and Willis Street: Encourage the development of
a signature building on private property at the intersection.
Improve the Willis Street Greenbelt and the Willis Street/Fourth
Avenue Park as an enhanced gateway to the core.
e. Central Avenue and Smith Street: Add a structure/directional
sign directing visitors to the transit station and Regional Justice
Center.
f. Central Avenue and Titus Street: Add a directional sign to City
Hall and core businesses combined with streetscape
improvements on Central Avenue.
C3. Add three new public buildings. During the past 20 years,Kent has
constructed an exemplary array of public buildings, including the
City Hall, Commons, Resource Center, Senior Center, and library.
This plan supports the addition of three more public and quasi-public
efforts.
a. Civic and Performing Arts Center: Support a civic and
performing arts center between Meeker and Smith Streets. A
civic and performing arts center at this location,with facilities
for conferences and other events, would be an important
attraction to the downtown, extending hours of activity into the
night and providing a much-needed location for meetings,
events,parties, catering facilities, and educational programs.
(See Action Cl.a above)
b. Public Market: The City can take several actions to support this
important activity, including providing angled parking on
Railroad Avenue and outdoor vending space in the Sister Cities
Parks. (See Action Cl.b above.)
c. Commuter Rail Station Structure: The station building itself
should be a high-quality, high-visibility landmark, reinforcing
the city's role as a regional hub and providing a focus in the
core's northeastern quadrant.
C4. Provide trails and pathways. The Interurban Trail provides a
regional north/south pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian connection.
East/west links into town will encourage commuters and recreational
cyclists to travel into downtown.
a. Construct pedestrianibicycle trails from the Interurban Trail into
downtown near Saar, Willis, Meeker, and James Streets.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-9
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Summary of Recommended Actions
b. Consider a trail along the south side of James Street when the
north Borden(playfield)site is improved,and ensure that good
pedestrian and bicycle routes are established when the larger
Borden site is developed.
c. Establish a pedestrian/bicycle route along Kennebeck Avenue
and Mill Creek north of Smith Street connecting Mill Creek Park
with Kent Memorial Park,and to other segments connecting to
the rail station.
C5. Continue to incorporate public art into the downtown design pattern
to reinforce Kent's downtown character and unique traditions.
Provide for public art that appeals to children and that is easily
accessed by children.
D. Design Guidelines
Introduction
Design guidelines are development review criteria that address the design
of the site and structures of a proposed development. Guidelines provide
flexible means to incorporate community goals and policies concerning
aesthetics, character and function into a development. Effective design
guidelines are the most important means that the City can use to achieve
the high-quality,pedestrian-friendly design character called for in the plan
concept. They are also useful in increasing compatibility between
different activities in mixed-use zones. It is recommended that the
existing design guidelines be updated,with more specific guidelines for
the different districts, to achieve the objectives defined below.
Recommendations
D1. Institute or refine design guidelines for the following areas. The
guidelines should address the characteristics and uses proposed for
each of the following districts. Ensure that the guidelines address
multifamily and mixed use buildings where appropriate.
a. Historic Core: Address historic preservation, adaptive reuse,
and small-scale infill to provide a mixed-use area with pedestrian
and commercial emphasis.
b. Central Avenue Corridor: Conduct a corridor study to serve as a
basis for improvement of the Central Avenue corridor. Include
Railroad Avenue as related to the proposed commuter rail
station. Address design guidelines, buffers for adjacent
residential neighborhoods, zoning code enforcement, zoning use
issues, and streetscape improvements.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-10
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Summary of Recommended Actions
c. Smith Street and Fourth Avenue Corridors: Attract high-quality
development that adds to the streetscape and provides an
excellent setting for Borden redevelopment.
d. Area East and West of the Core: Encourage small-to medium-
scale mixed-use redevelopment the west of Fourth Avenue and
East of State Street,emphasizing residential neighborhood
qualities.
e. North James Street Corridor and Area Between Fourth and Fifth
Avenues N.: Buffer residential neighborhoods with fencing and
landscaping. Present an attractive streetscape frontage. Prevent
conversion of single-family houses to offices(require a
minimum lot size.) (See Actions Al and A2 above)
D2. Work with developers to ensure high-quality development on
designated signature building sites:
a. Signature Buildings: New buildings on highly visible gateway
sites should receive special attention. For example, commercial
development on these sites should not include parking in front
yards. The City may provide incentives, such as expediting
project review,to encourage high-quality design as specified by
the guidelines.
E. Redevelopment Target Areas
Introduction
A principal objective of this plan is to attract appropriate,high-quality
development into downtown. The plan seeks to (1) attract positive
development by creating a favorable development setting and (2) direct
new development to achieve public objectives such as economic vitality
and design quality as well as individual private interests. This effort is
predicated on the demonstrable fact that physical development and land
uses that work together to complement one another and that are supported
by appropriate infrastructure are much more successful than disjointed
development limited by insufficient, unattractive public facilities.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan focuses redevelopment in identified
"redevelopment target areas"through several means. The plan's land use
recommendations are directed toward fine tuning the City's comprehensive
planning framework in response to specific redevelopment opportunities
and neighborhood protection needs. The transportation recommendations
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-11
9633RPT2.DOC-5B1197
fla• W
��P�
51R,
Y In
u
�.ii 1
Try 1-r: i L Ii
It—ilt
7,., r �•
w '�'�d ��ry� '�tilb'i...�T=' ■f (�-{i ,}gin_ _ 1 . .x] �,,. ,-,..�
'
} Avenue
Smith et
South Of rim, EC?Ornrido
Borden Site
Fourth It
I �
IN
_ a , "j '• , �{®/U — ! it I� Y two r ,
sisit me
i .
Southern
Core
, 1 I _ 11• as ,_ • I raa...��_ •:.` '� III
Summary of Recommended Actions
will upgrade circulation to and within the downtown for additional
businesses and residents. The public facilities improvements envisioned in
this plan will enhance an already attractive development setting. District-
specific design guidelines will increase compatibility between uses,
reinforce the design quality of the various districts,and take advantage of
,
special opportunities-
There are unique sites in downtown that merit special attention. It is
recommended that the City work with property owners and developers to
ensure that new development in redevelopment target areas meets its
potential. The City and the Kent Downtown Partnership can assist and
direct redevelopment at key sites in several formal and informal ways.
The-Downtown Partnership can help market local properties to potential
developers by advocating the direction and energy already occurring in
downtown. The City can expedite permitting or assist with environmental
review if the project proponent meets design guidelines. The City can
provide the infrastructure or other mitigation necessary for a proposed
project. The City may also pursue other local and state incentives and
grants. Joint efforts to develop and manage parking have already proven
successful, as have festivals such as Cornucopia Days.
In general,the type of assistance, encouragement, and direction depends
on the situation. Below are listed some special redevelopment
opportunities in which the City and the Kent Downtown Partnership may
take a sustaining role.
Recommendations
E1. Consider opportunities to achieve the following public or private
goals in the following redevelopment target areas:
a. Smith Street South of the Borden Site: Obtain the Second
Avenue right-of-way north of Smith Street. The site at Smith
Street and Railroad Avenue should include pedestrian-oriented
activities.
b. Borden Site: Ensure that the City and the owners of the Borden
site work together to create a coordinated master plan for any
redevelopment proposal. The master plan should achieve the
following objectives: (1) create a dynamic new focus, (2)take
maximum advantage of the large, integrated development
opportunities, and (3) complement the core. Establish guidelines
to ensure that the community's general objectives for the area are
met in the long term. Ensure that key elements, such as right-of-
way acquisition and linkages to the core, are achieved.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-13
9633RPT2.DOC.Sr21197
Summary of Recommended Actions
c. Fourth Avenue: Encourage new uses and redevelopment to
create a more pedestrian-oriented street according to the
Pedestrian Plan overlay. The Fourth Avenue and Meeker Street
site could be a key example of how this would be accomplished.
d. Central Core-Historic Streets: Identify the buildings within the
historic commercial area which are not consistent with the
historic character. Encourage redesign or redevelopment of non-
consistent buildings.
e. Southern Core: Encourage small-to moderate scale mixed-use
infill in the south part of the core. Relocate or combine some of
the historic houses. Encourage in-town housing design
consistent with the community character by identifying
appropriate housing types and researching funding possibilities
for design competitions,pilot building projects and other
incentives. Upgrade Saar Street with angled parking so that
parking requirements could be reduced. This action would create
new opportunities for residential development.
f. Eastern Core: Develop parking on the west side of the railroad
tracks to serve core area businesses. If this action provides
enough parking to replace the current city lot at First Avenue and
Titus Street,redevelop the First/Titus site. Develop an urban
design/land use study between Willis and James Streets.
g. Central Avenue Corridor: Encourage redevelopment of the
Central Avenue corridor through street improvements,rail
station development, and design guidelines.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan IV-14
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
V. Kent Downtown Districts
During the planning process,several downtown districts were identified
that show similar characteristics and where integrated redevelopment
strategies can be focused. The following district descriptions illustrate
more clearly how the recommended actions listed in Section V integrate
within specific areas of the downtown. The Districts include:
• North Frame District
• Central Avenue Corridor District
• East Frame District
• West Frame District
• South Core District
• North Core District
• Historic Core District
The plan's land use recommendations are directed toward fine tuning the
City's comprehensive planning framework in response to specific
redevelopment opportunities and neighborhood protection needs. The
transportation recommendations will upgrade circulation to and within the
downtown for additional businesses and residents. The public facilities
improvements envisioned in this plan will enhance an already attractive
development setting. District-specific design guidelines will increase
compatibility between uses, reinforce the design quality of the various
districts, and take advantage of special opportunities. Within each district
there are target areas that merit special attention. It is recommended that
the City work with property owners and developers to ensure that new
development on these properties meets its potential.
Below are listed the districts with actions and target areas in which the
City and the Kent Downtown Partnership may take a sustaining role.
A. North Frame District
Lying along the north side of James Street,the North Frame District
provides a transition between more intensive uses in the core and the
North Park single-family neighborhood to the north. The district includes
the Commons Park, with its ball fields, and several north-south streets
lined with single-family homes. While the overall intent of the plan is to
preserve the single-family character of North Park, two busy arterials—
N. Fourth Avenue and James Street—intrude on residential qualities to the
extent that homes on this north side of James and the west side of
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-1
9633RPT2.DOC-521137
Kent Downtown Districts
f/4.
oa �Oe
I O 01
C1—
I
• f �� j 40e
Ls
North Frame
Central
Avenue
,a� I II
Corridor
L ; i I I I I I i �■ L ��-
North Core 7 I I
o II
Ita
�--
es' i i I a Fast
W �� �
41 I i� ! I I Frame
Frame '
_ v-�. o p
�R ;` Hisioric�j
Core
�J ro��. .�fi�l I
! 9 \�v D crJ I''6 h Q fin,
liSouth Corey \\4a', o R-
I� ,\�-egi
I I 1�_,.1 �"'�;.=! �—
r-- �O 1 Inc
13
Jill
\\, li'I i1 J'' .I I'J1'i�F�;Ij O I e d 11 xr po wr we m
JUNQ
Kent Downtown Districts
Figure V-1: Illustrated above are the Kent downtown districts.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-2
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
Fourth are difficult to maintain. The Commons Park brings mixed
blessings. While being a much-loved open space and active recreation
area that enhances single-family living conditions in the vicinity,it also
draws people and traffic that negatively impact adjacent single-family
uses. Therefore,the plan seeks to create a strong edge of high-quality
development along the west side of N.Fourth Avenue and the north side of
James Street. Because of their critical locations,the west Fourth Avenue
and north James Street corridors are identified as two redevelopment target
areas. Upgrading streets and Commons Park to better serve the local
neighborhood and the city at large is also a high priority.
The actions presented below include public improvements,land use
zoning, and design guidelines supportive of the overall plan and
coordinated specifically to encourage target area redevelopment.
Public Improvements
IN Upgrade Commons Park
The Commons Park is an important resource for downtown Kent in
many ways. For one thing, it is such an important attraction that shop
owners have opened their stores in the evening during baseball season
to take advantage of the increased traffic. However,there are
numerous problems,including parking, access, drainage,and impact
on neighboring residents. A master plan should explore a variety of
solutions to these problems. Participants in the Downtown Plan
voiced many creative ideas, including an on-site parking lot that could
retain stormwater in the winter,pedestrian overpasses, use of the
Regional Justice Center's parking, and the addition of a play structure.
(See Action CLc in Section IV.)
■ Improve James Street
Ultimately, James street will be an important pedestrian and bicycle
route connecting the Commons Park and the Interurban Trail to the
Borden site redevelopment and the commuter rail station. Long-term
planning should account for bicycle and pedestrian uses. The James
Street streetscape should be enhanced with landscaping and sidewalks
at least 12 feet wide. (See Action C4.b in Section IV.) Also,the
possible grade separation at the BN&SF Railroad tracks should be
considered when planning public improvements.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-3
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Kent Downtown-Districts
Institute Design Guidelines
For Residential and Office Areas Improve Local Circulation& Reduce
•Protect SF neighborhood Impacts of Through Traff�
smaller scale dove
•Achieve high quality.development
I *Open Cloudy Stroet
Open ENV commercial strodr-
` / ! •Cul de sac 1st,2nd&3rd
Ia I.-Or —
Master Plan and Upgrade
Commons Park
•Parift&Boosts
. Drainage
• Layout/use
/ r
Plan for
i Possible
i / 4 O Rail Grade
n a, Separation
�� I I 'Stroct
% a
k' e
i o
�• � `SST' � —•�
1 ! I S
••f/ I
Rezone To Allow r, ,v6 !f Rezone to allow Offices
Office With Mixed Fronting James Street
Use Overlay •With east/west access&
traffic calming
Construct Gateway Sign • Buffer residential areas
• Reflect RJC and
Commons Architecture 0' 100• 260' 600, 1000, N
• Screen Parking Lot ENER �\
Legend:
Public Facilities !!/; Redevelopment ■a a III j Street
i •a3�" :mot Opportunities r' Improvements
1-7,77,71 Special Districts
t _ 4(hf l L with Design Guideline OGateways I Bike/Pod.
Links
Parks/Open Space U
Cul (Transit Station
.,
Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan
North of James Street Area
Figure V-2: Proposed elements of the North Frame District are illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-4
9633RPT2.DOC-W21/97
Kent Downtown Districts
Provide Gateway Improvements at Fourth Avenue and James
Street.
This highly trafficked intersection close to the Commons and the
Regional Justice Center is an important downtown entry point. The
unimproved Borden-owned parking lot at the southeast corner could be
greatly enhanced by a sign and landscaping that complement the
architecture and plantings of the public facility. A monument sign
with a planted screen is suggested. The wall could incorporate the
buff color scheme of the Commons and Regional Justice Center and
perhaps echo some of the building's materials and detailing.
I
a
I
Figure V-3: Illustrated above is the suggested concept for Fourth Avenue and James Street.
Development Target Area Actions
IN Encourage Office/Residential Mixed-Use Development at the
N. Fourth Avenue/N. Fifth Avenue Target Area
As noted above, the plan promotes the conversion of the single-family
area between N. Fourth and N. Fifth Avenues to mixed-use office and
multifamily residential development. These uses will benefit from
proximity to the park and the visibility along Fourth Avenue. Also,
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-5
9633RPT2.DOC.5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
they will be less adversely impacted by the park activity and traffic.
(See Action Al in Section IV.) Figure V-4 illustrates the type of
development that is envisioned.
; , .
N
e S
,
Ell IZZ3. � - Ci
V1
I
i
Figure V-4: The above illustration shows the type of office/residential mixed-use development envisioned
for the N. Fourth/Fifth Avenue target area.
■ Encourage Office Development of Properties Within the North
James Street Corridor Target Area
Since high traffic volumes and difficult access make these properties
undesirable for single-family residences, encouraging office
development will facilitate redevelopment that helps to buffer single-
family residences. (See Action A2 in Section IV.) However, several
other provisions must be in place to ensure that this rezoning does not
have negative impacts. First, access to the redeveloped property must
be achieved through an east-west access street and other street
modifications to ensure that traffic through the neighborhood does not
increase. Second, pedestrian and bicycle traffic on James Street should
be facilitated by siting the buildings to allow the City sufficient space to
construct a 12-foot-wide walk and a 4-foot wide planting strip. Third,
traffic modifications will be essential to providing access to new
development without encouraging increased traffic through the
neighborhood. This can be accomplished if all the new office
developments just north of James provide an east-west access road on
the northern margin of their properties. This will allow vehicles to
access the office buildings from Fourth or James. A new signal at
Third and James may be warranted if James Street traffic volumes
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-6
9633RPT2.DOC-521/97
Kent Downtown Districts
increase. When the east-west access is provided,First, Second,and
Third Streets can be closed to make cul-de-sacs just north of the offices.
Cloudy can be opened westward to N. Fourth Avenue,providing
neighborhood residents convenient access.
Finally, district-specific design guidelines should be administered to
ensure that:
• The new development presents an attractive building face and/or
landscaping to James Street.
• The site improvements do not negatively impact projects to the
t north in terms of noise,traffic, air quality, sun/share,or visual
intrusion.
• An adequate east-west access street is provided through the site.
• Single-family houses are not converted to marginal offices without
substantial redevelopment.
Figure V-5 illustrates some of the important design considerations.
Provide 6400t high(min.) Dedicate public rstreet to Height,bulk,and other Provide occupied space with
solid fence and 15-foot wide provide east-west through standards as per Office windows or at West 10 feet
planted buffer with street access as directed by the Land Use zone unless of landscaping,as approved
trees along all properties City according to Public otherwise noted. by the City.along building
adjacent to residenlWlly Works standards. fronts facing on James SL
zoned or occupied Screen mechanical
properties. Fence to be Provide on-site pedestrian equipment from view. I ISet back building at least 18
made from durable materials access from parking to ifeet from curbs,as planned
and as approved by the Clty. building entries. \ i by the City.
Direct all lighting away from ocale service and delivery \ �,Provide street trees,
or shield from residential areas no closer than 50 feet -_ sidewalks,and planting
properties. from residentially zone \ istrips according to City
property and screen from \ standards.
view from all public
rights-of-way.
I �
i
I
30'height Wndl
Y
t ill _ 7
per"
north or Witting
15'min_ 2a'.wioe nkn. 12'mn. fi'
uopwalk }m..,n.
Minimum Lot: 10,000'
Maximum Coverage: 30% 7
Development may occupy platted lots that occur within 150 feel of James St. right-of-way,provided: i �w
•Development does not extend more than 250 feet north of James St. right-of-way.
•Development is contiguous and fronts on James St.right-of-way.
These provisions apply to platted lots(as of July 1997)within 150 feel of James St. right-of-way.
Figure V--5: Design considerations for the North James Street corridor target area are illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-7
9633RPT2.DOC-54'21197
Kent Downtown Districts
Although on the periphery of the downtown,the North Frame area merits
special attention. A master plan for the Commons Park could begin to
address important issues. Encouraging redevelopment of the
N.Fourth/Fifth Avenue and North James Street corridor will help prevent
deterioration of single-family areas and provide an attractive setting for the
long-term development to the south. Finally, as one of the downtown's
most important entries,the Fourth and James gateway merits a high
priority in the proposed gateway enhancement program.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-8
9633RPT2.DOC-5121/97
Kent Downtown Districts
B. Central Avenue Corridor District
Central Avenue comprises the downtown's auto-oriented strip. As such,it
provides a setting for auto-oriented businesses, convenience stores,large-
lot enterprises,and fast food vendors. On the other hand,the district's
collage of billboards and under-maintained structures does not provide an
attractive entrance into the downtown. For this reason,the entire district is
identified as a redevelopment target area even though there are some solid
businesses. The target area and recommendations should include Railroad
Avenue in relation to the proposed commuter rail station. Upgrading the
corridor will require a two-pronged effort involving public streetscape
improvements and incremental private investment. This type of major
arterial redevelopment strategy has proven effective in areas such as Lake
City Way in Seattle and Central Way in Kirkland.
Public Improvements
■ Upgrade Streetscape Along Central Avenue
The extent of streetscape improvements is limited by the street right-
of-way width. Nevertheless, sidewalks could be substantially
improved and utilities upgraded. The high-level transmission lines
will undoubtedly remain,but there are numerous service lines and
cable that should be placed underground to remove visual clutter.
Some street trees have been planted, and these cold be augmented with
additional plantings on both public and private property. (See Action
B2.d in Section IV.)
■ Establish Gateways
The intersections of Central Avenue with Smith and Titus Streets
represent important entry points into the downtown, and gateways are
recommended at these locations. Because public right-of-way is so
limited along Central, directional signs pointing to the Regional Justice
Center,the commuter rail station, and the business core may be the
most appropriate type of feature. (See Action C2.e in Section IV.)
Also,the plan recommends upgrading the sidewalks along Meeker and
Gowe Streets between First and Kennebeck Avenues with street trees
and lighting. Where these streets intersect Central Avenue,the
improvements should be emphasized to further integrate the corridor
with the downtown core.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-9
9633RPT2.D00-5QI197
Kent Downtown Districts
Possible
Rail Grade Separation
Commuter Rail Statior
Improve Smith Street
,names s At Railroad and
i
Transit Center
~ IV 1
I
� D
i Improve Parks
To Provide Key
n. North/South
i Connection
8 Create a Trail
1
y i�11-y..ib
Along Mill Creek,
. = Linking Mill Creek
b' c � Park wl Kent
t x- Memorial Park
esker SGes o ql
w<.
Support Market
1tiL1�� 0
r IV
Refine Desigr
rf b Ita Guidelines To Build
J \qc� �, n Quality Residential
y � \��"£a f r Neighborhoods And
Saar Street I e Q ' \ \ Gy% 1. Ensure Compatibility
' �O With Commercial
T3 & Public Uses
[set o ,: t —lIn1l
1 i 0' IN, >,e no t00N N
li O
IIQ'il
Improve Central
Avenue Streetscape
South Rail Corridor Refine Design Guidelines
Redevelopment O Upgrade Commercial Corridor
Opportunities
Legend:
€ h' ® j Redevelopment I I I■0! Street
Public Facilities //
Opportunities Improvements
r H. 7. s,� .!, r" 1 Special Districts �—;
I___I with Design Guideline i i .JL Special
Gateways ; ,r Intersection
^ u Parks/Open n Space
` ___ ransit Station
'T r
Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan
i = p Central Avenue Corridor District
Figure V-6: Central Avenue Corridor and West Frame Districts are illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-10
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
Design Guidelines
Specific standards should be added to the Downtown Design Guidelines to
direct new development toward higher quality building and site design.
The design guidelines should complement streetscape improvements. For
example,while it is desirable to place buildings near the public right-of-
way,it may be desirable to set buildings back a few feet to allow wider
sidewalks and utility placement. The following are a few key issues that
the guidelines should address.
• Designate Central Avenue as a Class B pedestrian street from Willis
to James Streets to provide a better setting for new development
arising from the commuter rail station and core area investment.
• Screen parking areas adjacent to the street right-of-way with low
shrubs or walls and trees.
• When new development occurs, set back buildings to allow for at
least a 12-foot-wide sidewalk.
• Provide a pedestrian link between the public sidewalk and all
business entrances, even if parking is in front of the building.
• Control signs and remove existing billboards as they are amortized
over time.
• Provide pedestrian-oriented building facades and integrate signs into
buildings' architecture.
(See Action Dl.b in Section IV.)
Figure V-7 and Figure V-8 illustrate these and other design issues
applicable to new and existing buildings along Central Avenue. The
illustrations are intended as general examples of methods to address
important issues but not as regulatory measures in themselves.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-11
9633RPTZ.DOC-5/21/97
Kent Downtown Districts
S, —.anon w.eaM
lVil INWIIO..
t
a
Owd r••»wn arar+rn '
ran.an.t Mtotgft afn t
t
t
0
Mdnbim prt.taw larada Of
bodaoapbly by SWOM boob
•aam.h..tdnaa«
Modulate harps faaadaa
for a more human Scala -\
Now entry and auoal front wM
buildup aNmanta W land*"Pinp
O
O
Want panhnp GM,for jabs
and In roduc*visual unP%CL
Landocapa and pno kte padrtnan
walkways. '7
I
Figure V-7: Design issues that new development should address in the Central Avenue District are
illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-12
9633RPT2.DOC•521197
Kent Downtown Districts
60arta1slY Perm dolt M""
bodE WA 611Ue1N hear riamm"
rsss
"ems 11111d1110e nun tMre OsdMwbn
abldad Ya.Ym,edrl dtetr edMws,
wsdtar0lsteYsa a dYw surds
spar OM M hde0n"-M
Design standards en Mr uta in""'e rddtehae
hsa"rind orllhlp lot
O hi
Qp� Se1"at,of ran Vice
Snake Is rgllhw
O
O p _
MelsAsl standards rwr,nW
O O hlyMrcluellgq eewauelbn on
faced"
p O
O O
ParkingI heal Will
Dnrewre and parking la rannces Q required
ft r
regulatedanregulated Ida Om q daer eleetnwn and wte+y b colon
and"Mlle"Isy
Figure V-8: Design issues that existing development in the Central Avenue District should address are
illustrated above.
Because Central Avenue is many people's first impression of downtown
Kent, its visual appearance and development quality are important to the
whole downtown's image. For this reason, corridor improvements should
be given priority. As other successful arterial corridor improvement
efforts in the region have demonstrated, upgrading Central Avenue is
possible if the City and property owners work together. Figure V-9 and
Figure V-10 illustrate what a rejuvenated Central Avenue corridor could
look like.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-13
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Kent Downtown Districts
I�
1
� o
I �
n
//y// , ................:......: .... �..
O
Figure V-9: This figure shows Central Avenue as it exists today.
� f A
Figure V-10: This artist's concept shows.how Central Avenue could look. .
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-14
9633RPT2.DDC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
C. East Frame District
Lying immediately east of the Central Avenue corridor,the East Frame
District includes a diverse mix of commercial activities interspersed
among single-and multiple-family residences. Participants at a summer
1996 workshop to identify issues in this district emphasized the need for a
more stable residential neighborhood,with access to services and relief
from traffic and other impacts. With the City Resource Center, Senior
Center, and Kent Junior High School located in the district, it is already
served by public services,but better connections to the downtown core
would increase the area's convenience. Design guidelines could, over
time, upgrade the area's livability. Therefore,the actions recommended
for the East Frame District concentrate on these directions. The planning
team explored traffic revision proposals to reduce through traffic in the
district, but no workable options were identified.
Public Improvements
■ Construct a Pedestrian Trail Along Mill Creek
The proposed trail and landscaping connecting Mill Creek Park and
Memorial Park (see Action C4.c in Section ITS will improve access to
open space.
■ Improve Meeker and Gowe Streetscapes
Upgrading sidewalks with lighting and landscaping on Meeker and
Gowe Streets from First Avenue to Kennebeck Avenue would upgrade
conditions in the East Frame by better connecting it to the core and by
creating a more attractive setting. (See Action B2.f in Section IV.)
Design Guidelines
Design guidelines are recommended to:
• Increase compatibility between commercial and residential uses by
screening and site design.
• Increase security and safety in the area by providing lighting and
pathways, reducing hazardous areas, and providing visible entries.
• Provide useful open space and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes.
While there are few specific recommendations for the East Frame in this
plan, the City should continue to monitor residential neighborhood
conditions to take action if special problems or opportunities arise.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-15
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
D. West Frame District
The area between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and SR 167 includes a
large Metro park-and-ride lot with regional bus service,a skateboard park
and sports fields,the remains of a historical residential neighborhood,
industrial shops,and vacant lands. The Interurban Regional Bicycle Trail
runs north and south through the district. Except for possible Metro park-
and-ride expansion or reconfiguration,little development is expected in
the district north of Smith Street. However,the area south of Smith Street
may experience dynamic redevelopment. A mix of retail, office, and
residential uses is consistent with current zoning. Street construction and
design guidelines are recommended to support private development
efforts.
Public Improvements
■ Review Proposal for a New Access Street
Major redevelopment will depend on a new street connection
northbound through the area from Willis Street. The Washington State
Department of Transportation is currently reviewing a proposal to
upgrade the intersection of the northbound ramp off SR 167. If such a
north-south route connecting Meeker Street with Willis Street is
determined to be feasible, the City should carefully evaluate its
impacts on the downtown's traffic system. (See Action B2.g in
Section IV.)
IN Connect Interurban Trail to Core Districts
Besides the proposed access street, the most important transportation
improvements recommended by this plan are bicycle and pedestrian
connections from the Interurban Trail eastward along or near James,
Meeker, and Willis Streets. (See Actions C4.a and bin Section IV.)
The James Street pedestrian connection is especially important because
some Commons Park users park at the park-and-ride and then walk to
the ball fields. Crossing James Street is often difficult, so providing
better parking and access for park users will be an important
consideration in the recommended Commons Park Master Plan. (See
Action CI.c in Section IV.)
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-16
9633RPT2.DOC.521197
a( Kent Downtown Districts
° O
a
w --
d
13
k\�\ NN
Figure V-11: Above are shown the existing view and the view with the proposed improvements along
tMllis Street near the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Note the bicycle pedestrian trail connecting downtown
to the Interurban Trail, greensward improvements, and new mixed-use residential development along
Saar Street.
Design Guidelines
Design guidelines are recommended to ensure that the new development
comprises a unified whole with compatible uses, integrated circulation,
adequate capital facilities, and attractive amenities. The design guidelines
should reflect the type of uses proposed by the property owners. This
particular district would also benefit from large site master planning so
that project review might involve a phased site master plan concept.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-17
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
r or Bar elf "W e i
Master Plan and Upgrade ,.
Commons Park
•Parking 3 aooess
• Drainage yo.
• Layout/Use I S / I,•�
' I / • I
Improve
Connections
To Park
Interurban
Trail CO . ��i: i j
I l�I'�' h I
Support
Park&Ride R.r.c.
And Parks !-s �I,I �.I,' �
�1 ; !
Encourage y I
Mixed-use
Development
7 I
Improve aIo MeekerSirmt'
Bike/Ped.Links To
Downtown From c
Interurban Trail J,
II rQi o I' I b
l
New it i , , It---�-go � '�u Shea
}, q
Access 1
Road I
��.C3 -
I
J �' r-� Willis Sheet�_
a Legend:
rse
Public Facilities Redevelopment ■a a a a 1 Street
Opportunities Improvements
F '--� r---I Special Districts O •--.
with Design Guideline I I
Gateways Bike/Pod.--�
_ r n Links
71, ®Parks/OpenSpace U
Cul-de-sac Transit Station
Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan
�• ���= West Frame District
Figure V-12: Proposed elements of the West Frame District are illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-18
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
E. South Core District
f The area immediately south and west of the Meeker Street historic core
consists mainly of single-family houses, apartments,senior housing,and
churches,with some small businesses and an elementary school. The
attractive setting includes tree-lined streets and numerous older,but still
viable,buildings. Willis Street provides a pleasant greenbelt on the south,
while the north side is bounded by the civic campus and Meeker Street.
Both the eastern and western margins are impacted by the railroads,and
development along these edges is less substantial.
The Downtown Plan encourages residentially-oriented mixed use in this
area to help achieve the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals and to
provide a built-in market for downtown businesses. With good
automobile and transit access,public services, and pleasant streets,the
area is already beginning to be an attractive in-town neighborhood. For
this reason,the entire district, except the BN&SF Railroad corridor, is a
mixed-use redevelopment target area The blocks on either side of the
BN&SF Railroad tracks are identified as a target area for parking and
commercial redevelopment.
The South Core District could become one of the most attractive in-town
neighborhoods in south King County. Looking at the district map,the
- South Core District seems to cradle the historic commercial area.
Similarly,a strong mixed-use residential neighborhood would provide
economic support for a more viable downtown. Therefore,the actions
recommended for this district should receive high priority. The impetus
for the recommendations below is to facilitate redevelopment that
strengthens this emerging mixed-use neighborhood.
Public Improvements
■ Extend Angled Parking Along Saar Street to the Union Pacific
Railroad
Installing angled parking would define the edge of the street and
provide public parking. Both these improvements would help attract
higher quality development to the area. The City could use the
additional parking to cover required on-site parking as an incentive to
developers. (See Action B2.e)
■ Extend Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths from the Interurban Trail to the
Core
Connections to the regional trail will provide an amenity for local
residents as well as bring visitors and commuters into the downtown.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-19
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
Enhance 4th Ave.
Corridor
Improve
Bike/Ped.Unks To
Downtown From Central Avenue
Interurban Trail Streetscape Improvements
Refine Design Guidelines To
Upgrade Commercial Corridor
�,. U
0 a"
Ed
i ' r A Z J! * 1 Y 'J.`ilk '-. i�► / / Q
1
5
it 2 •�y�'_�yII.yw, �": .t vu 3. -
a
�N .
Q I
I IMUis et
1 r ?
4 j� � i I � �,11�+H-1*�il l M+'11� �� - � � o �I II-1 5l n i 17,.
Southwest Core South Rail Corridor
Redevelopment Target Area Core Area
With Design Guidelines Redevelopment
To Encourage Mixed-Use Target Area
Residential Redevelopment a 100• 2N' sw loon x
WINN
Legend:
rro. Redevelopment a 10 a a ft Street
®Public Facilities v ' Opportunities PP Improvements
Special Districts �--.
with Design Guideline OGateways Bike/Pod.
Links
i
k ar. � s _ pen Space II Cul-de sac _ Transit Station
Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan
South Core District
Figure V-13: Proposed elements of the South Core District are illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-20
9633RPT2.DDC-521197
Kent Downtown Districts
Design Guidelines
The Downtown Design Review Criteria should be refined to address
specific issues in the South Core District, including:
• Enhancement of the historic character of the core and rehabilitation
of historically significant structures. (Note: Portions of the South
Core District may be eligible for historic district status.)
• Maximum compatibility between adjacent uses (e.g., locate buildings
to achieve privacy for residents, separate noisy activities, integrate
parking, etc.).
• Strong building relationship to the streetfront,with entries visible
from the sidewalk.
• Useable open space, as required in the Downtown Design Criteria, or
through a contribution to acquire new or upgrade existing open space
in the neighborhood.
• Reduction of the impact of parking on the streetscape.
• Service areas located to minimize their impact.
• Unified architectural concept consistent with the character and
orientation of surrounding buildings.
• "Pedestrian scale"in buildings.
• Building massing, details, and articulation to achieve an
"architectural scale" consistent with surrounding buildings.
• Building forms (such as row houses or courtyard apartments),
elements(such as roofs, porches, or bay windows), details (such as
building trim or decoration), and materials consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood.
• Hardy landscaping to enhance building forms, articulate and enhance
open space, and reinforce visual continuity with adjacent sites.
Figure V-14 and Figure V-15 illustrate design guideline
recommendations for this district.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-21
9633RPT2.DOC-5121W
M+ `
Now
VIA
ml
ICI� � � ,�„�•� �-��1:._-.-_�av�o����
�10
or n b� �,
111`iI G,
i%l'.Y2 r::.
E a
\�.` 'l f'III, \ e .i1 •J� r
Kent Downtown Districts
Other Redevelopment Incentives
The City should undertake the following actions as the opportunity arises
to enhance development opportunities in the South Core District.
• Consider designating a historic district and/or historic sites. (See
recommendations under Historic Core District.)
• Consider a housing demonstration project in this area.
• To increase potential for downtown housing, explore means to reuse
older homes more effectively. Several of these old homes are
important resources and might be moved to or clustered on more
appropriate sites. The houses could be refurbished to provide more
than one unit, or adapted to an appropriate use.
• Construct parking on the properties on the west side of the BN&SF
Railroad between Willis and Titus Streets. This would reduce
conflict between railroad operations and existing housing,provide
downtown parking and potentially allow redevelopment of the public
parking lot at the southwest corner of First Avenue and Titus Street
for housing. Reconfiguring of First Avenue would add more parking
and upgrade the development setting.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-23
9633RPT2.DOC.W1197
Kent Downtown Districts
F. North Core District
With the Regional Justice Center,the commuter rail station, the Kent
Public Market, and the proposed civic and performing arts center,the
North Core District includes some of the most important new and
upcoming urban development in south King County. These facilities and
the future redevelopment potential of the property located between Smith
and James Streets east of South Fourth Avenue make the North Core
District unique within the region.
Because of these dynamic opportunities,the entire district is designated as
a redevelopment area. Not all properties will redevelop immediately. The
North Core District contains a transportation hub and links the Historic
Core District with the Regional Justice Center, Kent Commons, and the
future commuter rail station, so it is especially important that new public
and private investment be coordinated to provide improved connections
between these activity areas. The recommendations below call for the
City to take assertive action to realize the opportunities within the North
Core District.
Public Improvements
■ Work with the RTA to develop the proposed commuter rail
station in a location just north of Smith Street
The planning team evaluated three options for a commuter rail station:
one between Meeker and Gowe (south site), one between James and
Smith Streets (north site), and a third site directly over Smith Street in
conjunction with a railroad underpass. The north site was
recommended as the preferred site for the following reasons:
• Transit Operations and Traffic and Access Considerations. The
north site provides a much more efficient linkage of both feeder
and regional bus routes to the Metro park-and-ride and the
commuter rail station. The south site option would cause
additional bus routing and transit turning movement problems.
• Development Cost. According to King County Assessor's data for
land value, and rough estimates for business relocation, and station
construction,the preliminary estimated rail station development
cost is $6.1 million to develop the north site versus $8.5 million to
develop the south site. It appears that the north site is significantly
less expensive to develop.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-24
96MPT2.DOC.5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
Rezone To Allow Plan For Future Of Borden Site
eveell high quality
•
Office With Mixed development nearby
Use Overlay •Retain street access
•Institute design guidelines
Master Plan and Upgrade Focus High Quality
Commons Park Development North of Smith
•Streetsape improvements
•Parking&access .Guidelines to make
•Drainage•Layout/use compatible with Borden site
Park&Ride
p+l��P Possible
Rail Grade
And Park ( 7 F Separation
! i /
Supportrj
Wa 1/,
i>
- -,�-
fjR.J.C. J` Ch I s ae
RS I
/ I
od
a
I �' I '`i F•• •i � f� � 13i c
Interurban Trail Improve Parks
To Provide Key
Pedestrian Support Commuter North/South
All Cross" Intersection Performing Rail Station Connection
Some Street Connections Arts Center
When Development Occurs w/Civic Square v 1ec 2W sue' low m
aar• a�aaa�
_ vessel �J
Legend:
K . yF• r,: Redevelopment p I I I\I Stoat
Public Facilities i
Opportunities Improvements
r - 111 77"1 Special Districts O �
r. LJ with Design Guideline Gateways I -� Bike/Pod.
I ' Links
+ 'o ®Parks/OpenSpace U '�' rar•::i' ii I � ae it$tatlon
i i-• .. ,.,i Cul-deaae
Y"yl r:`~�ti
' Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan
North Core District
Figure V-16: Proposed elements of the North Core District are illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-25
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Kent Downtown Districts
• Long-Term Redevelopment Potential. While the south site
provides a direct connection to core businesses, there would be
little free land for redevelopment after the station,parking, and bus
layover space were constructed. The north site provides greater
redevelopment opportunities in the long term if the City builds
connections to the downtown as described below.
• Potential Constriction and Congestion in the Core Due to Transit
Operations and Commuter Traffic. The daily influx of commuters,
who generally do not purchase many goods or services on their
commute, could cause traffic congestion and usurp parking in the
Historic Core District.
The station design calls for platforms on both sides of the tracks and at
least 530 commuter parking spaces. It also calls for eight bus bays so
that both local feeder buses and regional buses can meet the train when
it arrives. This plan recommends a well-designed, distinctive station
to provide the downtown with a strong identity and indicate a
commitment to high quality. (See Figure V-17.) The Burdic Feed
building, considered a local historic landmark, is located on the
proposed station site. A station that incorporates design features from
the Burdic grain elevator would be unique to Kent.
.r,
4
q � 1
Figure V-17: Illustrated above is a schematic design for a train station depot employing the architectural
character and materials from the old Burdic grain elevator.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-26
9633RPT2.DOC-5121/97
Kent Downtown Districts
Commuter rail connections will make downtown a regional
transportation hub, elevating its role and image in southwest King
County. Experience in other communities has shown that such
increased visibility can benefit a downtown economically if the image
presented by the station is positive and the connections to the
downtown clear. Therefore, the key to the success of the north station
location in stimulating the economic and physical vitality of the
downtown lies in a series of actions to connect the station to the
existing core and to improve the area surrounding the station.
Consequently,the following actions are recommended.
a. Orient the station on the south portion of the site near Smith Street.
Provide safe and convenient pedestrian connections across Smith
Street.
b. Create a visual focus at the station site which is visible from Smith
Street and visible to commuter rail passengers. Such a focus could
be a distinctive station, a landmark gateway, a plaza, or other
feature that represents the City's identity. (See Action C3.c in
Section IV)
c. Ensure high-quality development near the station. (See Action D2
in Section IV.)
d. Support the civic and performing arts center and the Public Market
as connecting activities between the core and the area north of
Smith Street. (See Action C3.a and bin Section IV.)
e. Upgrade the International Parks as connecting open space and as a
kind of gateway. (See Action Cl.b in Section IV.)
f. Provide a civic plaza as a community focus near the Smith
Street/Meeker Street area. (See Action CI.a in Section IV.)
g. Encourage residential development in the downtown. (See Action
El.a in Section IV.)
h. Upgrade crossings, channelization, and signals on Smith Street.
(See Action B2.c in Section IV.)
i. Improve or install new sidewalks, street lights, and tree grates
along connecting pedestrian corridors. Use the design elements
previously selected by the community and install on First Avenue
and Meeker Street to establish a consistent pedestrian character
throughout the core. Figure V-16 illustrates how these various
actions fit with a station site plan concept.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-27
9533RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
■ Construct Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements on Smith
Street Between First Avenue and Central Avenue
The commuter rail station will place new demands on Smith Street.
As part of the RTA station development,the Public Works Department
will design new street improvements that may include a traffic signal
at Railroad Avenue and Smith Street, straightening and a new center
through lane on Smith Street, new crosswalks and pedestrian
improvements, and directional signs.
■ Construct Other Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements to
Downtown Streets as Necessary to Provide Access
During station design,a comprehensive analysis of potential traffic
and transit requirements may dictate new improvements to Railroad
Avenue,James Street, Central Avenue, and Pioneer Street. Figure V-
16 illustrates some of the improvements that may be necessary.
■ Enhance Parks Along the Railroad to Provide Linkages Between
the Station and the Core
A canopy along the east side of the International Parks would provide
pedestrian protection, serve as outdoor stalls for the market, and
visually tie the Sister Cities Parks together. Not only will the parks be
an important pedestrian link and open space resource,they will be
highly visible to thousands of commuters taking the train from Tacoma
to Seattle and be an important part of Kent's image. (See Figure V-
19)
■ Locate a Town Square Park Near the Smith Street/Meeker Street
Spine of the Core
A Town Square Park would provide a downtown open space for large
public gatherings and performances. It might consist of a small plaza
constructed as part of or near the civic and performing arts center that
could be expanded to accommodate concerts or celebrations by closing
Second Avenue and the east portion of Harrison Street. Coordinate
closely with the Performing Arts Center Committee and other
interested parties to ensure that the park and civic and performing arts
center complement and enhance one another.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-28
9633RPT2.DOC-=1/97
Kent Downtown Districts
r
I
1
i
I
I
Figure V-18: The above illustration shows existing conditions along Railroad Avenue.
i
I
i
. i
_ I
1
Figure V-19: A canopy along the International Parks will provide pedestrian protection and outdoor public
market space.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-29
9=RPT2.DOC-5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
■ Construct Pedestrian "All Cross" or Scramble System at the
Comer of Fourth Avenue and Smith Street
The King County Regional Justice Center(RJC) brings many new
employers and visitors to downtown. The RJC can be a boon to the
downtown if it is linked to the core area shops,restaurants, and
services. An"all cross"pedestrian connection,which provides for
pedestrians to move diagonally through the intersection in the.signal
sequence while all automobiles wait, would facilitate pedestrian
linkage. It is recommended that the Public Works Department explore
the feasibility of such a design and the intersection be upgraded with
gateway landscaping and signs. If an"all cross" or scramble system is
not feasible,then,at a minimum, signals can be sequenced to
encourage pedestrian crossing, especially during non-peak traffic
periods. (See Figure V-20.)
B use
M
i
b
Figure V-20. An 'all cross"or'scramble"intersection at Fourth and Smith Streets would allow pedestrians
all crossing at a phase during the signal sequence. Decorative pavement noting the all-cross, canopy or
trellis similar to the RX, and enhanced private landscaping are all possibilities.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-30
9633RPT2.DOC•5121197
Kent Downtown Districts
Design Guidelines
In order for the downtown to realize the full benefit of North Core District
development opportunities,the following activities are recommended.
■ Refine Design Guidelines
Existing design guidelines should be refined to ensure quality
development in the North Core District, especially along Fourth
Avenue and Smith Street. Smith Street between Central and Fourth
Avenues and Fourth Avenue between Titus and James Streets should
be classified as Class A,pedestrian-oriented streets. Design guidelines
should be refined to ensure that development along these streets
addresses the following issues:
■ Establish Design Parameters and Review Process for
Redevelopment of the Borden Site
Because of its large size, central location, and transportation access,
the Borden site is one of the premier downtown redevelopment
opportunities in south King County. Although the Borden Company
has indicated no immediate plans to move,the City should take steps
to ensure that when redevelopment occurs, it is accomplished in an
integrated and master planned manner. Therefore, it is recommended
that the City establish a master plan process for this site,with
standards to guide any future redevelopment proposal. The standards
should include:
• Guidelines for streets and sidewalks.
• Provision for extension of Second Avenue into the site.
• A mix of uses.
• Direct access to transit facilities.
• Orientation to adjacent sites.
• Provision of open space and pedestrian amenities.
• Design guidelines for architectural and site design character.
Redevelopment Opportunities
In addition to the key private sites described above,the plan supports and
integrates other public and organizational development activities,
including those described below.
■ Support a Civic and Performing Arts Center Between Meeker and
Smith Streets
A Civic and Performing Arts Center at the proposed central location—
between South Fourth and South Second Avenues and Harrison and
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-31
9633RPT2.DOC.521/97
Kent Downtown Districts
Smith Streets—with facilities for conferences and other events, would
be an important attraction to the downtown,extending hours of activity
into the night and providing a much-needed location for events,
performances,meetings, and educational programs. The center would
also be a lively connecting element between the historic commercial
area and activities to the north if pedestrian-oriented uses, such as
small shops, newsstands, flower stalls, coffee bars, pedestrian spaces,
and/or public artwork, are included along Fourth Avenue and Smith
Street. Existing parking in the municipal lot should be replaced by
other lots or a garage. The east entry to the site should include a plaza
that could be used for outdoor performances and celebrations. (See
Action C1.a in Section IV..)
IS.
s
r
- " •t~`~� KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
(YM/MLL Pr. JYWSM �YM1Yf/.11fif.A
Figure V-21. Shown above is the proposed Civic and Parfo:ming Arts Center design by the Bumgardner
Partnership.
■ Support the Public Market
The Public Market being planned on Railroad Avenue between
Meeker and Smith Streets will add an important activity, anchor
businesses on Railroad Avenue, enhance the Sister Cities Parks
complex, and serve as a connecting element between the commuter rail
station and the Historic Core District. Providing additional parking on
Railroad Avenue is recommended, and a sidewalk with a canopy at the
east side of Sister Cities Parks would provide a shelter for outdoor
stalls in the summer and pedestrian weather protection in the winter.
(See Action CLb in Section!Y.)
The commuter rail service is scheduled to begin before the year 2000. It
will increase downtown Kent's visibility in the region and present the City
with challenges and opportunities. In addition,the North Core District is
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-32
96MRPT2.DOC-W1197
Kent Downtown Districts
assuming a more central location and role in downtown activities. For
these reasons,the North Core District recommendations merit the highest
li
5A Y
l M
Figure V-22: Shown above is the proposed Kent Public Market building, courtesy
of the Kent Downtown Partnership.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-33
sauaarz.00c-srz1197
Kent Downtown Districts
G. Historic Core District
The Historic Core District is the traditional and geographic heart of
downtown Kent. The core actually contains three discrete retail areas:
one along Meeker Street,the community's"main street"; a second,
emphasizing restaurants and specialty shops,just to the south and east
along First Avenue (also known as the Old Titusville District); and a third,
stretching along Railroad Avenue opposite the International Parks. All
three feature pleasant pedestrian conditions and tum-of-the-century
buildings. The district also includes the Kent City Hall/civic campus just
south of Gowe Street.
The Historic Core District is bordered by the public parking lot and library
on the north,the Central Avenue corridor on the east, and the South Core
District mixed-use residential neighborhood on the south and west. These
bordering activities, along with the fact that both the Regional Justice
Center and the proposed commuter rail station are within 1,000 feet of the
Historic Core District, will support the Historic Core District economically
if they are included in a comprehensive redevelopment strategy.
The Downtown Strategic Subarea Plan addresses the areas immediately
surrounding the Historic Core District as well as the district itself because
of the dynamic redevelopment potential of those areas. The surrounding
districts will support the Historic Core District by accommodating
residences,transportation facilities,jobs, and amenities such as improved
streetscapes and parks, directly adjacent to the Historic Core District. This
strategy builds on the district's current strengths, including pedestrian-
oriented streets, civic attractions, and a variety of activities.
Several actions are recommended for the existing Historic Core District
that are intended to:
• Enhance the historic architectural character and pedestrian amenities.
• Develop vacant or underutilized sites.
• Visually and physically connect the Historic Core District to the
surrounding districts.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-34
9633RM.00c.sm1s7
Kent Downtown Districts
Core Area Design Guidelines
To Encourage Mixed-use Infill
And Reinforce Historic Character Commuter Rail Station
Support Improve Parks
Performing To Provide Key
Arts Center North/South
wl Civic Square Connection
Assure ■ }
_ !jt
Pedestrian '�i /r' � �( j ;•,, i � ; o
Oriented Support Market'
Redevelopment
At This Gateway
ith street"
— I ub. • i i i T Emphasize
I J Restoration of
Buildings Which
kc IT Support Historic
�~ Meeker street Character
Of The Core
Enhance r ,� i'• �"
4th Ave.
Corridor ` n
� �� ',. Railroad Corridor
Titus street �\ a° Redevelopment
Target Area
Central Avenue
Improve saarsbeet Streetscape
Bike/Ped. j '�—' 1 6 Improvements
Links To }—�� �1
Downtown From' '_�� —vt�ttisstreet- _ cm
Interurban Trail (! all a � ° �F7 2
v 1W uo sw low N
Design Guidelines I
To Encourage
Mixed-Use Infill
Redevelopment
<-,-- Legend:
s F / Redevelopment ■ ■a■/Street
.p }' Public Facilities ✓�/r
Opportunities Improvements
tit c 4 5; r" 71 Special Districts
L�:I wkh Design Guideline OGatewaya Bike/Paid.
U ' I Links
z' tiJ -ParkslOpenSpaceCL ice„ irransitStation
,,, Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan
} x r== Historic Core District
Figure V-23: Proposed elements of the Historic Core District are illustrated above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-35
9633RPT2.DOC-621197
Kent Downtown Districts
Public Improvements
■ Make Pedestrian Improvements
While the downtown has benefited from recent improvements,
including those to Rose Garden Park, First Avenue (Titusville business
district), Meeker Street, and Kherson Park, further improvements are
recommended to make connections with neighboring districts.
Pedestrian lighting and street fumiture should be installed in the
Historic Core District along Fourth Avenue when pedestrian systems
are upgraded in the North Core and South Core Districts. As
development occurs, 12-foot-wide sidewalks should be required on the
east side of South Fourth Avenue. Meeker Street and Gowe Street
pedestrian improvements should also be extended eastward from First
Avenue to Kennebeck Avenue.
■ Enhance Gateway
The intersection of Fourth Avenue and Meeker Street is identified as a
gateway and should be enhanced with special street lighting, signage,
artwork, and/or landscaping. The most effective way to upgrade the
image of this intersection would be good-quality infill development
with a comer entry, architectural feature, or plaza. (See
Redevelopment Target Areas, below.)
Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation
Activities
Meeker Street retains much of the character of an early twentieth century
small town. Preserving this traditional quality is an important aspect of
the community's desire for a"home town"identity. Therefore, revised
design guidelines for the Historic Core District should emphasize
traditional building forms,materials, and details. All of the streets in the
Historic Core District are presently designated as Class A pedestrian-
oriented streets. New buildings in the core should adhere to the guidelines
so that the buildings provide continuous building frontage along the street.
In general, exterior remodeling to existing buildings should be directed
toward restoring the building's original character. However, there are
some cases where the building has already been defaced or is not
historically significant. Figure V-24 illustrates the recommended design
guidelines for building restoration and infill.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-36
9533RPT2.DOC.5/21197
Kent Downtown Districts
.I
BEN FMNKLIN BUILWFIG
1. Meeker Street- Before
B4OM[r suddw{uewfn. WW1 ans ss.puos of Ole I.HOsg end eN Bin
�FI.WS OIIIWsi su On,"Wnsy,I.g"using,nde
r 4tWr,Ir u+wr.an,Wlgrn wws e.den..l 1T..I.s sliYspe.Ie lf.dng.wr.in.t.itw ar Meena&,n n.n[fo a.lir Co.This..sissy
nlq,sings weft selor e.s.wn sninin.1..awee.. KMlllt,.d.leo WN. MIIdNg a n, nws'song tis
P.II.wN.tivdl.tf wsIW mwn el ueinggu s.abb-nOoNt se..tI Ntorim/ W,da sehis 1his - eqP.Ise
V.O•ml•^ ediio.ofs.corm"",f.. Y W.
EF
atsl.a trot."Pus..-RV..e.•.Iwt J ; � 1. Meeker Street- After
Q.G[gM n l l. Win.anin If.NIIWN{IKtl.. 1Ne
Ben Frwdds sefWng sin,Iwgt sln.wd of nni l
..OR.11.WVarts bs d.{VYed 1YWl.Mlie[,'
of ryss.d gesw.e. I[a slw an idnl l.Cxfa fw, `-: �.su Ilr sn wines ssnis.6 W Ine mu.osw ne.Rw Add evnntt ors tscll C•". aNWt'Olt usn^t
dvAww.s wool nan,011 and;-...11 v+nloln-wd.-. p nii sing sign,-WI sign,uln song own Ow w.mne
WW-.
Figure V-24: The above drawing by Armin Quilici illustrates Historic Core District infill.
Redevelopment Target Areas
Because there are several different opportunities in the Historic Core
District for the City to encourage private redevelopment, the whole district
is identified as a redevelopment target area. One opportunity that merits
further exploration is the district's designation as a historic landmark
district.
A very different set of opportunities lies on the east side of the BN&SF
Railroad corridor. Several properties are underutilized and could be
rehabilitated to provide space for start-up businesses if the surrounding
streetscape, access, and parking conditions can be upgraded.
Because of its high visibility—at the intersection of two pedestrian-
oriented streets—the property on the northeast comer of Meeker and
Fourth Avenue is one of the most important parcels in the downtown. The
front facade of the building should abut the sidewalk or pedestrian plaza
and should feature some distinctive corner element, such as sculpture,
pedestrian plaza,bay window, or tower. (See Figure V-26.)
Recent efforts by the City and the Kent Downtown Partnership have kept
the Historic Core District viable. New initiatives should build on this
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-37
9633RPT2DOC.521197
Kent Downtown Districts
work by focusing on redevelopment opportunities as they arise.
Continued infill and connections to the Historic Core District will benefit
the downtown as a whole.
`4-
L r
1 51
Figure V-25: The above illustration shows existing conditions at Meeker Street and Fourth Avenue.
;d
N---
�
Figure V-26: The above illustration shows potential signature development at the intersection of Meeker
Street and Fourth Avenue.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-38
9633RPT2.DOC-6/2197
Implementation
VI . implementation
A. Outline of Phasing Strategy
As its title suggests,this plan focus is toward development actions. The
primary recommendations are a list of regulatory changes, capital
improvement projects, and redevelopment programs that the City can
undertake to meet its downtown objectives.
Since the plan is based on projections and changing conditions for the next
20 years, it is clear that all of the actions will not commence immediately.
In fact, civic actions will ideally be timed to take advantage of special
funding opportunities,to trigger or encourage desired development,to
respond to emerging market trends, or to integrate related activities.
Figure VI-1, Phasing of Kent Downtown Subarea Plan Recommendations,
presents a schematic phasing schedule for proposed actions. Since many
of the actions are subject to funding, coordinated with other actions,timed
to emerging trends, or triggered by private investment, the periods shown
are estimates only.
In general,the time periods set a priority for action based on needs and
opportunities. The chart suggests that during the next two years the City
should concentrate on important new opportunities associated with current
redevelopment, especially the Regional Justice Center and the RTA
commuter rail transit station. Actions directly responding to these
opportunities—such as the pedestrian"all cross"at the James and Smith
intersection(135), Smith Street improvements (B2.c), Sister Cities Parks
improvements (Cl.b), Gateways at Fourth and James (C2.a) and Central
and Smith(C2.e),the civic and performing arts center(C3.a), the Public
Market (C3.b), and the rail station structure (C3.c)—are recommended for
special attention during the next two years. Likewise, land use measures
(Al and A2) and design guidelines (Dl)are given high priority because
they represent low public cost activities the City can take to update zoning
and design guidelines to be ready for impending private development
proposals. The redevelopment programs for the Fourth Avenue,historic
core, south core, and Central Avenue target areas could also be initiated
during the next two years to spur redevelopment in these areas. Initiating
these actions over the next two years makes for an ambitious work list and
represents the current dynamic times.
The actions recommended for two to five years from the present are
generally high-priority activities that do not have the immediate urgency
of those listed above. The actions scheduled for after the first five years
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-t
9633RPT2.DOC-W197
Implementation
generally are triggered by decisions outside the City's control, such as the
Borden site redevelopment or the Regional Fast Corridor project.
I
Generalized Time(Years)
Recommendation 0-2 2-6 s-10 10-20 Timing Considerations
A. LAND USE
A I. Redesignate SF-8 area between Fourth City to revise zoning.
Avenue N.and Fifth Avenue N.
A2. Redesignate properties north of James City to revise zoning.
Street
A3. Prepare for Borden site master plan
proposal
A4. Promote infill housing
A5. Encourage mixed-use development
A6. Study impacts of pawn shops,bail
bond offices,and tattoo parlors
B. TRANSPORTATION
B 1. Develop commuter rail station
B2. Construct street improvements
.................._. ......._.........._.__.................................
a. Fourth Avenue
_..._...___.._....._. _._.....__...._.._._............. ..._.. .. ......_............................._._.............____....................._.........
b. Second Avenue Triggered by site development.
............_.__._._..__._..__....._............_................__ _....._.._._. ..............._..._.._......_ ._._.-_._.....__�__..._..__...__._._ .._..
c. Smith Street Linked to rail station development.
d. Central Avenue High priori
e. Saar Street Triggered by private development
f. Meeker Street
...........
_...._._ ___.........__._.._..__.._..__.____......__ .__. ___ __.__._......__.__.__ ...._. ....__._ .._._.._.._.._.._..._...
g. Seventh Avenue Property owner initiated
B3. Calm traffic in neighborhood north of Accomplished when non-single-
James family development occurs.
B4. Plan for underpass at James and Determined by Regional Fast
BN&SF tracks Corridor project.
B5. Install pedestrian"all cross"at Fourth Links RJC to core.
and Smith
B6. Adopt street tree standards
C. PUBLIC FACIL=S
Cl. Upgrade downtown parks _
__.. a. -Locate a Town Square
_ b. Enhance parks along railroad Could be incremental effort.
c. Masterplan Commons Park High priority.
d. Develop street tree plan
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-2
9MRPT2.DOC-512197
Implementation
Generalized Time(Years)
Recommendation 0-2 2-5 5-10 10-20 Timing Considerations
C2. Enhance Gateways
a. Fourth and James
b. Fourth and Smith Supports RJC and rail station.
c. Fourth and Meeker -- Tied ro private development.
d. Fourth and Willis_
~� e. Central and Smith Supports rail station.-�
f. Central and Titus -
C3. Add public buildings
a. Performing Arts Center
b. Public Market
_....__._._____...__ ...._...__.__..._._ -_-_.__. .___...._....._.�_. ............___....................
c. Rail station structure
C4. Provide trails and paths
a. Links from Interurban Trail
b. Path longJames Street
......._........... __ _—__.. _._............__.........._....._. _. _ ._ ___ ---...__ _....._............._......._._.
c. Mill Creek/Kennebeck
C5. Incorporate public art Continuous effort.
D. DESIGN GUIDELINES
D1. Refine design guidelines
a. Historic Core District
__.__....._.__. __. __.__.._.._.._._..._...._. _.__. .._.._....__..—____.. -_......_......._._......._................ __..._.
b. Central Avenue Corridor District
c. Smith and Fourth corridor
d. East and west of core
.......... _._
e. North James corridor
E. TARGET AREAS
El. Explore redevelopment opportunities
a. Obtain Smith Street right-of-way Triggered by private development.
b. Work with property owner on Triggered by private development.
Borden site
.............. ._____.__..___.................._.._.__.._.. .............. ....._._._....._.._._.._.. .......................
c. Fourth Avenue City is currently engaged with
property owner.
d. Central core historic streets Ongoing effort with KDP.
e. South Core District Begin residential development
incentives.
._...._ £wEastern core
g. Central Avenue Corridor District
Figure V1-1: Phasing of Kent Downtown Subarea Plan recommendations is shown above.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-3
9633RPT2.DOC.5121197
Implementation
B. Recommendations, Environmental Impact
Evaluation, and Mitigating Measures
Land Use
Action Al: Revise the Comprehensive Plan map and adopt a
new zoning designation for the area between
Fourth Avenue N. and Fifth Avenue N., north of
James Street (as shown on Figure V-2). Revise
the existing Comprehensive Map designation, SF
8 (Single Family residential, 8 dwelling units
maximum per acre) to Commercial. The existing
zoning code designation shall allow limited office
development, and include residential
development combined with office development
as a conditional use. The new zoning designation
should be consistent with the existing O,
Professional Office, designation (Zoning Code
Section 15.04.150) with the following exceptions.
Suggested revisions to the existing development standards are as follows:
Current Revised
Permitted Uses Blueprinting and photocopying
services would be prohibited.
Multifamily uses would be a
conditional use.
Front Yard 25 feet Reduce to 10 feet to be the
same as residential district.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
ImpactAl.a. The proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
revisions will result in a loss of single family housing units within the area
of change.
Impact Al.b. The proposed bulk and scale of office/residential
development as well as the placement of buildings on the site may create
impacts to homes in the existing MRG, Garden density multifamily
residential district, which is located north of the proposed
office/residential area.
Impact A1.c. Replacement of single family homes with office/residential
uses will eliminate the private open space created by the typical single
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan u1-4
9633RPTZDOC-521/97
Implementation
family yard. However, because of the potential increase in population in
the area,the need for open space may increase.
ImpactALd. During the weekday peak hours, offices uses will create
additional traffic on James Street and additional turning movements onto
the proposed access streets.
Impact Al.e. The increased density of office use and increased residential
density will create additional peak hour trips to and from the Kent Valley.
Impact Alf. Office/residential development will increase the area
surfaced with impervious surfaces.
Impact Al.g. An increased number of occupants will work and live in the
proposed rezone area. Due to the proximity of jobs, services, shopping,
and recreation, pedestrian activity will increase.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Al.a. Ensure that the new zoning designation permits adequate
housing to replace the existing housing units as development occurs.
Mitigation Al.b. Adopt design guidelines, specific to the proposed rezone
area,to ensure high quality, substantial office/residential development
compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Mitigation A1.c. To make better use of existing open space, improve
Commons Park, located directly west of the recommended rezone area, by
instituting a master plan based on neighborhood involvement and
participation.
Mitigation A1.d. Prior to issuance of development permits, the owner
and/or developer shall construct street and vehicle access improvements
consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards or as
modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation A1.e. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed development. The study shall
identify all intersections at level of service"E"or'F" due to increased
traffic volumes from the development.
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or
implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby. the
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-5
9633RPT2.D0C-5121197
Implementation
owner/subdivider may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the
traffic impacts of the subject development:
The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to
participate in, and pay a fair share of, the construction costs of the
City's South 272ndl277th Street Corridor Project. The final benefit
value will be determined in 1986 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
Mitigation Alf. Construct stormwater facilities consistent with City of
Kent Construction Standards and source control best management
practices, or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation Al.g. Construct pedestrian improvements asset forth in
Section V-A of this plan.
Mitigation Al.h. If required by the building official, prior to or in
conjunction with a building permit application, submit a soils report
stamped by a licensed geo-technical engineer. The soils report must
identify soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation
recommendations.
Responsibilities:
The City is responsible for revising the Comprehensive Plan designation
and zoning. The City is also responsible for developing new design
guidelines and the Parks Master Plan.
The property owners and/or the developer proponents is responsible for on
and off-site analysis, corridor mitigations, public facilities and other
improvements.
Action A2: Revise the Comprehensive Plan map and adopt a
new zoning designation for the area between
Fourth Avenue North and First Avenue North and
within 150 feet from James Street right-of-way (as
shown on Figure V-2). Revise the existing
Comprehensive Map designation, SF 8 (Single
Family residential, 8 dwelling units maximum per
acre) to Commercial. Create a new zoning
designation that will allow limited office use
consistent with the existing O, Professional
Office, designation (Zoning Code Section
15.04.150) with the following exceptions.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-6
9MRPT2.DOC.60197
Implementation
Suggested revisions to the existing development standards are as follows:
Current Revised
Permitted Uses Blueprinting and photocopying
services would be prohibited.
Multifamily uses would also be
a prohibited use.
Front Yard 25 feet Reduce to 5 feet to allow low
landscaping and compensate for
increased rear yard requirement
Rear Yard None except when abutting Increase setback to 50 feet for
residential,then 20 feet. access road and additional
landscaping and to reduce
shading of residential uses to
the north.
Landscaping 10-foot Type II landscaping Require 20 feet of Type Il
•Rear Yard and 6-foot solid wood landscaping and 6-foot solid
perimeter fence for areas wood fence for the rear yard.
abutting residential. Type II landscaping and fence
would provide a solid screen
while still letting natural light
into residential areas.
____• Front Yard __ M _ 5-foot Type IV landscaping to
enhance streetscape.
Environmental Impacts:
In general, the impacts for this action would be the same as for the
previous action. The following impacts are specific to this action.
Impact A2.a. The proposed bulk and scale of office/residential
development as well as the placement of buildings on the site may create
impacts to homes in the existing SF 8, single family residential district,
which is located north of the proposed office area.
Impact A2.b. Rezoning the land north of James Street from single-family
residential to a office designation will have some minor impacts to
downtown transportation systems and services. Slightly higher-density
land uses will generate a locally significant amount of additional traffic in
the area(estimated maximum of 300-350 vehicle trips in the PM peak
hour) in comparison to the existing zoning. This additional traffic, with
the aforementioned street closures,will primarily impact the James St./4th
Avenue intersection, although some of the traffic would be oriented to the
north. The resulting overall traffic generated in the area north of James St.
would consist primarily of exiting trips.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V1-7
9633RPT2.DOC.5al/97
Implementation
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation A2.a. The replacement of driveways with shared access points
and the closure of First and Third Avenues (and potentially Second
Avenue) would improve the safety of east-west travel on James Street. In
order to improve safety and promote a pedestrian-friendly environment, all
driveways for the proposed new office uses on James Street between First
and Fourth Avenues should be oriented to a new east-west connector north
of James Street. Leaving Second Avenue open would relieve some of the
new traffic burden on the James St./O Avenue intersection and could
preserve access to James Street for both office and residential uses. One
potential mitigation for the impacts to the James Street/Fourth Avenue
intersection would be to widen the southbound approach for one or more
additional turning lanes.
Mitigation A2.b. Adopt design guidelines, specific to the proposed rezone
area, to ensure high quality, substantial office/residential development
compatible with the adjacent residential. neighborhood.
Mitigation A2.c. Prior to issuance of development permits, the owner
and/or developer shall construct street and vehicle access improvements
consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards or as
modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation A2.d. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed development. The study shall
identify all intersections at level of service "E" or"F"due to increased
traffic volumes from the development.
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or
implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby. the
owner/subdivider may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the
traffic impacts of the subject development:
The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to
participate in, and pay a fair share of, the construction costs of the
City's South 272nd/277th Street Corridor Project. The,final benefit
value will be determined in 1986 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
Mitigation A2.e. Construct stormwater facilities consistent with City of
Kent Construction Standards and source control best management
practices, or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-8
9633RPT2DOC-5121197
Implementation
Mitigation A2.f. Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in
Section V-A of this plan.
Mitigation A2.g. If required by the building official, prior to or in
conjunction with a building permit application, submit a soils report
stamped by a licensed geo-technical engineer. The soils report must
identify soil classification,bearing qualities and include foundation
recommendations.
Responsibilities:
The City is responsible for revising the Comprehensive Plan designation
and zoning.
The property owners and/or the developer proponents is responsible for on
and off-site analysis, corridor mitigations,public facilities and other
improvements.
Action A3: Develop master planning requirements to apply to
any redevelopment proposal for the Borden Site
Environmental Impacts:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
The master plan requirements should result in an improved development
proposal consistent with the City's adopted plans.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The Kent Planning Department would be responsible for developing the
master plan requirements and submitting it to City Council for action.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-9
%MRPT2.1)OC.5121197
Implementation
Action A4: Throughout the downtown, promote the
construction of new urban-style infill housing,
including condominium townhouses, stacked and
attached units that resemble single-family design
and character, and residential mixed with
commercial and office uses.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact A4.a. Development of additional residential units will increase the
need for open space.
Impact A4.b. During the weekday peak hours, residential uses will
generate additional traffic and additional turning movements onto the
proposed adjacent streets.
Impact A4.c. Residential development will increase the area surfaced with
impervious surfaces.
Impact A4.d. An increased number of people will live in the proposed
rezone area. Due to the proximity of jobs, services, shopping, and
recreation, pedestrian activity will increase.
Impact A4.e. Recent development of high-density multifamily residential
uses appears to have created a demand for parking beyond what is require
by code.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation A4.a. Adopt design guidelines, specific to the district, to
ensure high-quality, substantial residential development.
Mitigation A4.b. To make better use of existing open space, improve
Commons Park by instituting a master plan based on neighborhood
involvement and participation.
Mitigation A4.c. As residential units increase downtown, assess the
amount-of available park and recreation facilities in relation to the number
of households.
Mitigation A4.d. Construct street and vehicle access improvements
consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards or as
modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation A4.e. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed development. The study shall
identify all intersections at level of service"E" or"F"due to increased
traffic volumes from the development.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-10
9633RP72.DOC-521/97
Implementation
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,constructing and/or
implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby. the
owner/subdivider may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the
traffic impacts of the subject development:
The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to
participate in, and pay a fair share of, the construction costs of the
City's South 272ndl277th Street Corridor Project. The final benefit
value will be determined in 1986 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
Mitigation A4.f. Construct stormwater facilities consistent with City of
Kent Construction Standards and source control best management
practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation A4.g. Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in
Section V of this plan.
Mitigation A4.h. If required by the building official,prior to or in
conjunction with a building permit application, submit a soils report
stamped by a licensed geo-technical engineer. The soils report must
identify soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation
recommendations.
Mitigation A4.i. The City should conduct a study of the relationship of
on-site and off-site parking and residential density to determine whether
existing parking requirements are adequate to provide sufficient on-site
parking.
Responsibilities:
The City is responsible for design guidelines,park master planning and
zoning code analysis.
The property owner and/or developer is responsible for required on-and
off-site analysis, public facilities, and other improvements.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-11
96MRPT2.000.&21l97
Implementation
Action A5: Promote the construction of new commercial,
office, or mixed use development and
redevelopment.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact A5.a. Development of mixed-use residential units will increase the
need for open space.
Impact A5.b. During the weekday peak hours, mixed-use development
will generate additional traffic and additional turning movements onto the
proposed adjacent streets.
Impact A5.c. Mixed-use development may increase the area surfaced with
impervious surfaces.
Impact A5.d. An increased number of people will live and work in the
proposed rezone area. Due to the proximity of jobs, services, shopping,
and recreation,pedestrian activity will increase.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation A5.a. Adopt design guidelines, specific to the proposed area, to
ensure high-quality, substantial office,commercial,and mixed-use
residential development compatible with adjacent uses and to maintain the
pedestrian quality of the downtown.
Mitigation 45.b. To make better use of existing open space, improve
Commons Park by instituting a master plan based on neighborhood
involvement and participation.
Mitigation A5.c. Prior to issuance of development permits,the owner
and/or developer shall construct street and vehicle access improvements
consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards or as
modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation A4.d. As residential units increase downtown, assess the amount
of available park and recreation facilities in relation to number of households.
Mitigation A5.e. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed development. The study shall
identify all intersections at level of service"E"or"F" due to increased
traffic volumes from the development.
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-12
%MRPT2.DOC-5121197
Implementation
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or
- implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby. the
owner/subdivider may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the
traffic impacts of the subject development:
The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to
participate in, and pay a fair share of, the construction costs of the
City's South 272nd/277th Street Corridor Project. The final benefit
value will be determined in 1986 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
Mitigation AS.f. Construct stormwater facilities consistent with City of
Kent Construction Standards and source control best management
practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation AS.g. Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in
Section V of this plan.
Mitigation AS.h. If required by the building official, prior to or in
conjunction with a building permit application, submit a soils report
stamped by a licensed geo-technical engineer. The soils report must
identify soil classification,bearing qualities and include foundation
recommendations.
Responsibilities:
The City is responsible for park master planning and design guidelines.
The development proponents shall be responsible for conducting the soils
and traffic analyses, and paying for or constructing the improvements
listed in the mitigation measures.
Action A6: Survey the Impacts of retail uses such as pawn
shops, bail bond offices, and tattoo parlors in down-
town locations in other cities to determine whether
such uses are compatible with the downtown zones.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The Kent Planning Department would be responsible for conducting the
study and making recommendation for code revisions to City Council for
action.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VIA 3
9633RPT2DOC.521197
Implementation
Transportation
Action B1: Locate Commuter Rail Station
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
The environmental impacts of the commuter rail station will be addressed
by the RTA's system-level EIS and project-level EIS. The RTA should
evaluate the following transportation issues during the RTA's system-level
EIS and project-level EIS:
Impact B1.a: Presently,bus-to-bus transfers in downtown Kent take place
at the existing Park-and-Ride. The RTA board has indicated a preference
to have such transfer facilities located at commuter rail stations. This plan
recommends that local bus to regional express transfers continue to occur
at the existing Park-and-Ride. This would lessen the need for car parking
and layover spaces for buses awaiting transfers. The station EIS should
consider which transit facility (the existing Park-and-Ride or the proposed
commuter rail station) will serve as the primary location for bus-to-bus
transfers in downtown Kent.
Impact B1.b: The station EIS prepared by the RTA will need to consider
whether all regional and local bus routes serving downtown Kent serve
both the transit center and the commuter rail station, and if not, which -
routes will serve each facility.
Impact Bl.c: Provision of adequate parking for commuter rail riders
within a reasonable walking distance of the station will create impacts
including additional impervious surface and associated stormwater runoff,
dislocation of businesses and residents, and glare from lighting. The
station EIS should address these impacts.
Impact B1.d: The commuter rail station is expected to generate
approximately 290 new PM peak hour vehicle trips (not including bus
trips) in 2010. If the proposed commuter rail station is located on the
BN&SF line between Smith and James Streets,the traffic impacts of these
trips will be most significant at the Central/James and Central/Smith
intersections. Over half of the projected station traffic will be oriented to
the east, and much of the north-and south-oriented traffic would use these
intersections as well. Actual route-level distribution of these traffic
impacts depends heavily on the design of the station area and the location
and orientation of the station's parking areas. The station EIS should
address the distribution of station-oriented car traffic, and the
intersection/street operations downtown.
VI-14
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan
96MPT2.DOC-WIJ97
Implementation
Impact BLe: Constructing the commuter rail station and associated
parking requires purchase of a number of properties and relocation of
businesses and residents. MAKERS architecture and urban design
completed conceptual comparative projections to identify cost variables
for the two alternatives. They are not for project development or
budgeting. The figures are based on available information,which must be
augmented for project planning estimates.
COST($000)
COST ITEM North Station South station
1. Land Acquisition 2,336 4,120
2. Relocation Costs 415 1,189
3. Legal Costs 173 263
4. Demolition 694 522
5. Parking Lot Construction 1,431 1,431
6. Street/Sidewalk Construction 623 570
7. Platform Construction 250 200
8. Station Construction 200 200
TOTAL LOAD $6,122 $8,495
Notes(by each item number):
1. Land and improvements value based on King County Assessor's data times 1.2 multiplier
to roughly reflect current market value. The North Station value is the average of a range
($2,262,540 to S2,409,600).
2. Business relocation cost based on$125,000/business;residential relocation cost based on
S8,000/residence. It was assumed that three commercial and five residential uses would
need to be relocated in the north and nine commercial and eight residential in the south.
3. Legal costs based on$7,500/parcel,including title reports,appraisal,mapping,and Level-
2 Hazardous Material Review.
4. Demolition based on S.50/c.f.of commercial building and S.40/c.f.of residential building.
Very rough.
5. Parking lot construction based on$2,700 per stall,including lighting,pavement,drainage,
and marking.
6. Street and sidewalk construction based on very general calculation of new and
reconstructed street and sidewalk areas($5.00/s.f.),including design,administration,
profit,overhead,etc.
7. Platform construction—lump sum based on BRW experience.
8. Station construction—$200,000 allotment.
These figures are based on acquisition of portions of Burlington Northern
and State properties for station improvements. If these portions are leased
(at$2/s.f. as assumed),then the lease costs are $1,999,098 to $2,021,598
for North Station and $2,844,260 for South Station, giving a total cost for
North Station of between$5,784,598 and$5,807,098 and a total cost of
$7,218,760 for South Station.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-15
9=RPT2DOC-521197
rot.
Igo
Pdo
00500
pm
;01
oz
Am
"Ova W ■
in
T-Tly 11
0!:PO IRA
A
A o
Rio
101
'i-
94
0-�
99
or, 0
r gig
m Jill
Implementation
Mitigation Measures:
The RTA station EIS should consider the following potential mitigation
measures:
Mitigation Bl.a: Intersection widening improvements and increased use
of Pioneer Street(either Transit-Only or for all traffic) should be
investigated as potential mitigations.
Mitigation B1.b: Some of the mitigations presented for the James
StreetBN&SF rail grade separation (see Action B4, below) could apply to
the commuter rail station.
Mitigation Bl.c: Consistent with the Kent Comprehensive Plan Capital
Facilities Element,to further assess the environmental impacts of the
commuter rail facility, apply the regulations and criteria of Kent Zoning
Code Section 15.04.200, Special Use Combining District,to applications
to site the RTA commuter rail station.
Responsibility:
The City,RTA, and other relevant agencies shall coordinate further impact
identification and mitigation measures.
Action B2.: Make improvements to Fourth Avenue, Second
Avenue, Smith Street, Central Avenue, Saar
Street, Meeker Street, Gowe Street, and Naden
Avenue.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
The plan should result in improved pedestrian connections.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The Public Works Department should include these projects in the CIP to
gain funding in the year indicated in the Phasing Plan.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-17
9633RP72DOC-52797
Implementation
Action B3. Institute a traffic calming program and
neighborhood access program north of James
Street
Environmental Impacts:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
The plan should result in improved pedestrian connections.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The City will be responsible for the design and construction of the traffic
calming improvements.
The rezoned properties, as defined in Land Use Action A2, will be
responsible for the costs associated with the traffic calming program as
mitigation for office development.
Action B4. Work with the appropriate agencies to build a
James Street RR Underpass.
Environmental Impacts:
The following table lists the impacts to be evaluated and further quantified
during a project-level environmental analysis. The table also gives some
potential mitigations to these impacts.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact B4.a: The grade separation will result in substandard grades for
the traffic speeds and volumes expected on James St.
Impact B4.b: James St. and the intersections with Railroad, 1 st and 2nd
Avenues would be lowered, and some fronting properties may require
either major access revisions or purchase by the City.
Impact B4.c: Pedestrian access across James St. would be restricted
between 4th and Central Avenues.
Impact B4.d.• The vehicular movement restrictions required at the James
St./Railroad Ave. intersection will prohibit access to Railroad Ave. for
westbound buses on James St.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-18
9633RPT2.DOC-5121197
Implementation
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation B4.a: The grades necessary to maintain full movements at the
existing James/Central intersection are consistent with safe speeds of
approximately 30 mph. Extensive signing will be required to preserve
safe speeds. The use of pavement texturing and/or raised pavement
markers ("buttons") could also be used. The signalization of the James
St./2nd Ave. intersection(see mitigation for"vehicular access"impacts)
would also help to keep speeds down on the corridor.
Mitigation B4.b: Railroad Ave. should be lowered with no impact to
fronting properties, and its intersection with James St. should be limited to
right in/right out operation. Is'Ave. north of James should be closed and
connected either to the alley between 1St and 2nd or through to 4d'Avenues
with a new east-west access street in conjunction with proposed office
uses fronting James St. 151 Ave. south of James should re-routed to a 2nd
Ave. alignment, forming a new 4-way intersection(signalized or
unsignalized) with 2nd Ave.
If this re-routing takes place, a dedicated westbound left turn lane should
be constructed on James St. at 2nd Ave. regardless of whether the
intersection is signalized. James St. should be widened to five (5) lanes
between 4d' and Central Avenues. Access from Railroad Ave. to the
James St. eastbound left turn to northbound Central Ave. should be
prohibited with the construction of a curb on James St. separating the
eastbound left turn lane from the eastbound through lanes. Access from
Railroad Ave. to Central Ave. north of James St. would be via either
Pioneer or Smith Streets.
These actions would permit the addition of eastbound right turn pockets on
James St. for both Railroad and Central Avenues. The pocket for Central
Ave. would extend back to Railroad Ave., forming a short"auxiliary
lane".
An eastbound left turn pocket should be constructed on Smith St. at
Railroad Ave. and be of sufficient length to store several buses. Widening
Smith St. to five (5) lanes (two (2) lanes per direction plus a 2-way left
turn lane) between 4th and Central Avenues should provide adequate
peak-period left turn storage.
Refer to Figure VI-4 for pedestrian movements around the James Street
BNRR grade and Figure VI-3 for the James Street channelization.
Mitigation B4.c: The railroad bridge should be constructed with a paved
path for pedestrians and bicycles on each side, and with gated at-grade
pedestrian crossings on each approach. Pedestrians traveling east-west on
James would remain at ground level and would not be permitted to use the
underpass. With this scenario,vehicular access to properties would be
prohibited between 2nd and Railroad Avenues.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-19
9633RPT2.000-5121197
Implementation
Mitigation B4.d: Westbound coaches could access the proposed
commuter rail station two ways. First, coaches could pass under the
railway on James St. and turn left at 2"d Ave. (see mitigation for"vehicular
access" impacts). This improvement would require the signalization of the
James St./2Rd Ave. Intersection. Second,coaches could use Pioneer Ave.
rather than James St. to access Railroad Ave. Bus bays for the commuter
rail station could be located along either 1"or Railroad Avenues. Transit
access to the Railroad Ave. side of the station could be improved by
widening Pioneer St. and designating it"Transit-Only".
Refer to Figure VI-5 for transit access at the station.
Responsibility:
The City, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad, and other relevant
agencies will coordinate further impact identification and mitigation
measures.
Action B5. Install a pedestrian "all cross" intersection at
Fourth Avenue and Smith Street intersection.
Environmental Impacts:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The City will be responsible for the design and construction of the
intersection improvements.
Action 136. Adopt street standards for the entire downtown
study area.
Environmental Impacts:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The City will be responsible for the street designations.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-20
9633RPT2.DOC.5121197
Implementation
F(C�entral Could Channelize
for
Yield Pe Only if No
Pedestrian
Movements
Located Here
Curb Here
To Railroad
Central Ave.
Ave. ` ...
I I
Railroad
Bridge
1 1
Ave.v
N.
R
Figure V!-3: Above is illustrated the potential concept for James Street channelization, Second Avenue to
Central Avenue.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-21
9633RPT2.DOC-521197
Implementation
Pedestrain
Connection to
1 st Ave.N.
\ Central Ave.
\a Separated Paved
2nd Ave.N. Path on Bridge
Office Uses (Both Sides)
J (No Vehicle Access)
pqW." Sidewalk at Grade Sklewalk at Grade
N-S
I I I I m James St. jF
James St.
I I Crosswalks I I (Depressed) (DepressedI lif Signalizedl Ipuwof•i sidewalk at cxaa Dew Sidewalk at Grade
Stairs /V
4.5' m
ParkrParldng 01ty €€ a
o_
SrWwalk at S 'a : e
I "
katG
vtle
Parking I I i l l l Unsignelized
Crosswalk at
I Parking Entrance
r I
1
Railroad
Ave.
¢�
North
(Not to Scale)
Figure VI-4: The above illustration is the potential concept for pedestrian movements around the James
Street BNRR grade-separated crossing.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-22
9633RPT2DOC-621197
Implementation
I � I
I � I
I s I Widen Pioneer St.
I ¢ 1 to Accommodate
I I Buses
I I
I
I w Signal
I e us Only?;
I
I I ""'
I I All-Way
I I Stop
I IQ
I I�
I 12 Bus Bays
I R
I c
I I
I I Station
I
I
I
I
O
n
m
Smith
St.
f
Actuated Signal
I I
2nd I Y I at One or Both
Ave.N. 1 a Intersections
1 Library 1
I
Figure VI-5: The above drawing illustrates the concept for transit access at the commuter rail station.
VI-23
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan
96MRPT200C•5r21197
Implementation
Public Facilities Recommendations
Action C1.a:Masterplan the Commons Park.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact C1.a 1: Currently the Commons Park typically hosts nine soccer
games at one time,and assorted other activities when soccer is not under
way. The high rate of utilization for ball fields is partly due to the lack of
physical improvements, such as restrooms and bleachers,that would
typically support a playfield of this size. Master planning the park to add
physical support facilities may result in less space available for active and
passive recreation.
Impact Cl.a.2. The addition of parking on site would reduce the open
space usable for recreation, but would create safer access to the park.
Impact Cl.a.3. The development of a parking lot, restroom, bleachers, or
paved paths would result in increased impervious surface.
Impact Cl.a.4. The use of the park at night and required lighting could
create adverse light impacts to adjacent areas if not installed and managed
carefully.
Impact C1.a.5. Automobiles entering and exiting a Commons Park
parking area entrance could create increased traffic congestion.
Impact Cl.a.6. Increased park usage and traffic circulation may result in
adverse impacts to pedestrian safety.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Cl.a.l. If needed, develop additional playfields in other areas
through the City.
Mitigation Cl.a.2. Review available parking for Commons Park.
Consider restricting the number of parking spaces provided on site to drop
off, loading, and handicapped spaces.
Mitigation C1.a3. Construct street and vehicle access improvements
consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards or as
modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation C1.a.4. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed development. The study shall
identify all intersections at level of service"E"or'F" due to increased
traffic volumes from the development.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-24
9=RPT2.DOC-S71197
Implementation
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or
implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby. the
owner/subdivider may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the
traffic impacts of the subject development:
The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to
participate in, and pay a fair share of, the construction costs of the
City's South 272ndl277th Street Corridor Project. The final benefit
value will be determined in 1986 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
Mitigation Cl.a.5. Construct stormwater facilities consistent with City of
Kent Construction Standards and source control best management
practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation Cl.a.6. Construct safe pedestrian crossings between the
Commons Park and the RJC parking lot.
Mitigation CLa.7. If required by the building official,prior to or in
conjunction with a building permit application, submit a soils report
stamped by a licensed geo-technical engineer. The soils report must
identify soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation
recommendations.
Mitigation Cl.a.8. Shield lights so that off-site impacts are minimized.
Schedule events in order to minimize night time use and restrict night time
hours.
Responsibility:
The City shall masterplan the park and mitigate redevelopment, if any.
Action C1.b:Site a Town Square Park near the Smith
StreetlMeeker Street spine of the core to provide a
Downtown open space for large public
gatherings.
Environmental Impacts:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
The Town Square will provide a safe, well-organized space for public
gatherings.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-25
9W3RPT2.000-5121197
Implementation
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The City shall be responsible for identify appropriate sites, working with
the land owner, master planning and developing the facility.
Action C1.c: Masterplan Burlington Green, Kaibara, Rosebed
and other parks along the railroad to enhance
facilities and strengthen connections between the
proposed commuter rail station and the core.
Environmental Impacts:
No.adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
The plan should result in improved pedestrian connections.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The City shall be responsible for master planning and developing the
facility improvements.
Action C1.d:Develop a street treelvegetation plan for the
downtown which provides a guide for creating an
attractive pedestrian network of green spaces.
Augment the Kent Street Tree Program to address
the entire downtown as defined by this report.
Associate specific types of street tree plantings (A
through E) to specific streets throughout
downtown. Assign responsibilities (public and
private) for street tree installation and maintenance.
Identify sites for enhanced streetscape landscaping. These would be
focused to complement parks, and entry and gateway features. Revise
Kent Zoning Code Chapter 15.07(Landscaping Regulations)to identify
specific locations for enhanced front yard landscaping requirements to
complement streetscape plantings identified in the revised Street Tree
Program(for example, along Fourth Avenue). Integrate references to the
Street Tree Program into development regulations.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-26
9633RPT2.DOC-5r2IN7
Implementation
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
Additional trees and plants will improve air quality and street appearance.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The City is responsible for developing the street tree plan.
Action C2: Revise the City of Kent Capital Improvement
Program to include projects that provide
gateways that mark key entrances into the
downtown, provide artwork and amenities, and
direct visitors to special attractions.
Gateways and key intersections will consist of a system of public art,
landscaping, masonry,pavement treatment, lighting, safety flags,
coordinated directional and identification signs, banners and/or other
distinctive features. Below are listed the most appropriate gateway
locations,with some suggestions for special features. (See Section D2.)
• Fourth Avenue and James Street
• Fourth Avenue and Smith Street
• Fourth Avenue and Meeker Street
• Fourth Avenue and Willis Street
• Central Avenue and Smith Street
• Central Avenue and Titus Street
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
The gateway enhancements will provide improved vehicle, bicycle,and
pedestrian circulation.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The City is responsible for devising a process to design the gateway
improvements.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-27
9633RPn.00c-5121197
Implementation
The City or, in some instances, a property owner and/or developer may be
responsible for construction of the improvements.
Owners and/or developers whose buildings occupied portions of key
gateways would be responsible for incorporating building designs
compatible with the gateway.
Action C3.a:Support the developments of Civic and
Performing Arts Center.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact C3.a.l. The proposed Civic and Performing Arts Center as
currently proposed will result in a loss of the City's surface parking lot,
but will add additional retail uses on Smith and Harrison Streets.
Impact C3.a.2. The proposed Civic and Performing Arts Center will result
in a loss of the retail use in the southeast corner of the block.
Impact C3.a.3. Before and after the performance hours,patrons uses will
create additional traffic on Smith and Harrison Street, and Fourth Avenue.
and additional turning movements at nearby intersections.
Impact C3.a.4. The proposed Civic and Performing Arts Center could
increase the area surfaced with impervious surfaces.
Impact C3.a.5. The patrons attending events at the proposed Civic and
Performing Arts Center and persons using the additional retail and retail
service shops will increase pedestrian activity in the surrounding area.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation C3.a.l. Construct street and vehicle access improvements
consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards or as
modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation C3.a.2. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed development. The study shall
identify all intersections at level of service"E"or"F" due to increased
traffic volumes from the development.
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-28
9633RPT2.DOC•5/21197
Implementation
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or
implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby. the
owner/subdivider may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the
traffic impacts of the subject development:
The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to
participate in, and pay a fair share of, the construction costs of the
City's South 272nd/277th Street Corridor Project. The final benefit
value will be determined in 1986 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
Mitigation C3.a.3. Construct stormwater facilities consistent with City of
Kent Construction Standards and source control best management
practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation C3.a.4. Construct pedestrian improvements asset forth in
Section V of this plan.
Mitigation C3.a.5. If required by the building official, prior to or in
conjunction with a building permit application, submit a soils report
stamped by a licensed geo-technical engineer. The soils report must
identify soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation
recommendations.
Responsibility:
The Civic and Performing Arts Center developer would be responsible for
conducting the necessary studies and implementing the required
mitigations.
Action C3.b:Support the developments of the Public Market:
Restripe as needed Railroad Avenue between
Smith and Harrison Street to include angled
parking and to limit traffic to one-way flow..
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact C3.a. During the market hours,patrons will generate additional
traffic and additional turning movements onto the proposed adjacent
streets.
Impact C3.b. The development may increase the area surfaced with
impervious surfaces.
Impact C3.c. Development of the market will created an additional
demand for parking.
Impact C3.d. The restriction of Railroad Avenue to one way between
Smith and Harrison Streets may impact traffic flows and turning
movements in the adjacent area.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-29
9&93RPT2.DOC-521A7
implementation
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation C3.a. Assess the amount of public and private parking
available to determine whether sufficient parking can be accommodated to
meet demand.
Mitigation C3.b. Construct street and vehicle access improvements
consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards or as
modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation C3.c. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed development. The study shall
identify all intersections at level of service"E"or'F" due to increased
traffic volumes from the development.
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study, constructing and/or
implementing the respective mitigation measures hereby. the
owner/subdivider may agree to the following conditions to mitigate the
traffic impacts of the subject development:
The developer shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to
participate in, and pay a fair share of, the construction costs of the
City's South 272nd/277th Street Corridor Project. The final benefrt
value will be determined in 1986 dollars, adjusted for inflation.
Mitigation C3.d. Construct stormwater facilities consistent with City of
Kent Construction Standards and source control best management
practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works Director.
Mitigation C3.e. Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in
Section V of this plan.
Mitigation C3.f. If required by the building official, prior to or in
conjunction with a building permit application, submit a soils report stamped
by a licensed geo-technical engineer. The soils report must identify soil
classification,bearing qualities and include foundation recommendations.
Responsibilities:
The property owner and/or developer is responsible for required on-and
off-site analysis, public facilities, and other improvements.
The Public Works Department will be responsible for restriping and
restricting the portion of Railroad Avenue to one way traffic.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-30
9MRPT2.DOC.5121197
Implementation
Action C4.: Revise City's Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan to include the following bicycle
and pedestrian trail segments:
• On-road bicycle route from the Interurban Trail into
downtown near Saar,Willis, and Meeker Streets.
• Consider a trail along the south side of James
Street when the north Borden (playfield) site is
improved and ensure that good pedestrian and
bicycle routes are established when the larger
Borden site is developed.
Note: This bicycle trail appears to be on the rails map pp.
141, but is not listed in the descriptions provided on pp. 140
of the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, 1994
• Establish a pedestrian/bicycle route along
Kennebeck Avenue and Mill Creek north of Smith
Street connecting Mill Creek Park with Kent
Memorial Park, and to other segments connecting
to the rail station.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact C4.a. Increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic along improved
routes will increase vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts at intersections.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation C4.a. The developer shall provide a traffic impact study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent road network and traffic
signal system caused by the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The study shall then identify what improvements are necessary to mitigate
the development impacts thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance for the respective permits.
Responsibility:
The City shall be responsible for the design of facilities and the traffic
impact analysis.
The City shall be responsible for the construction of the facilities.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-31
MURPTIDOC-U21197
Implementation
Action C5: In order to reinforce Kent's downtown character
and unique traditions, institute a public art
program to initiate private development
participation in providing public art downtown.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action.
Increased public art should improve downtown aesthetics and sense of
community.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
The Arts Commission would be responsible for developing and
administering the program.
Urban Design Action
Action D1.a. Revise the Downtown Design Review Handbook
to address more specific design guidelines for the
districts identified in Section VI.
The guidelines should illustrate and describe the following details for each
district:
• Design Intent.
• The guidelines should provide graphic examples of how such uses would
achieve the intent of each district.
• Residential and mixed use buildings where appropriate.
• The City's intent for target areas.
• How development should respond to public investment including
streetscape,the proposed commuter rail station, parks, etc.
• Historic preservation where appropriate.
• Recommended additions or changes to the Pedestrian Plan Overlay
• Deviations from the general design guidelines.
• Revisions for"problems"identified through prior administration of the
core.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
No adverse environmental impacts are identified
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-32
9633RPT2.DOC-5R197
Implementation
Responsibility:
The Planning Department is responsible for revising the design guidelines.
Action D1.b.Establish a Historic District in the downtown.
The City should create an Historic District to allow greater code flexibility
and interpretation for renovation of historic buildings and to guide
development of new buildings within the District.
Action D1.c. Enter into an interlocal agreement with King
County Landmarks Commission to address
historic preservation and adaptive reuse.
The City has made several efforts at developing historic preservation
programs. The most recent effort concluded with a report,An Historic
Preservation Program: Recommendations of the Historic preservation
Committee, December 1990, and was followed by a Planning Commission
workshop. The committee recommended that the City enter into an
interlocal agreement with King County to designate and preserve historic
landmarks and districts. This program should be revised. To implement
the program, the City should update the existing inventory of historic
structures and develop regulations consistent with the National Secretary
of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation to review alteration requests.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Impact Dl.c.l: The Landmarks and Historic District Preservation
Program could have economic impacts on property owners, including
increased maintenance costs, more restrictive and costly modernizations,
and restrictions on redevelopment options.
Impact DI.c.2: The program and guidelines could limit redevelopment
options,thereby reducing the potential employment and housing density in
the core.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation D1.c.1: As recommended in the 1990 report,the City should
establish criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the economic impact
of the development review decisions and a mechanism to mitigate such
impacts. The report suggested the following:
• Relaxation of ordinance provisions
• Reduction of permitting fees,building code revision, and property tax
relief
• Financial assistance
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-33
963.9RM.000-Y21197
Implementation
Mitigation Dl.c.2: The City should continue to develop a facade
restoration program for historic buildings. The program would include
educational materials that demonstrated good restoration techniques that
conform with the Landmarks and Historic District Preservation Program.
The program could also include low-interest loans and tax abatements to
encourage facade restoration.
Responsibility:
The City will be responsible for updating the historic preservation program.
C. Monitoring System
The monitoring system is intended to identify and monitor system
capacities for elements of the built environment, and to the extent
appropriate, the natural environment. The system will monitor the
consequences of growth as it occurs within the Downtown area, and
provides ongoing data to update the plan and environmental analysis.
Some systems can be monitored by the City with readily available data.
Impacts to other systems require detailed analysis that is typically
undertaken by development proponents.
The following chart lists the systems,the factors to be monitored and the
responsibility for providing information to update the monitoring program.
Component Unit Baseline Response.
Land Use
Building Permits Number of Permits
Housing Dwelling Units
Multifamily Single Family
Retail Square Feet
Office Square Feet
Service Square Feet
Density Avg.FAR
Vacant/Underdeveloped Acres
Land
Transportation
Intersections Peak Hours LOS
(per inter.or avg.?)
Parking Total Spaces Occupancy
Bus Ridership
Commuter Rail #of AM/PM Trains
Ridership
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-34
9633RPT2.00C.5/21/97
Implementation
Component Unit Baseline Response.
Public Facilities
Stonnwater Impervious Surface
Detention Facility
Capacity
Sewer Gallons/day/customer
Water Gallons/day/customer
Pam Acres/1000 population
•Active
•Passive
The City should evaluate the above impacts every three years on a
predetermined date. Based on the evaluation,the City should update the
Downtown Strategic Action Plan.and the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement to ensure that planned actions and mitigating measures
are adequate to realistically address the impacts of growth and change.
Incorporate public participation into the evaluation and update process.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VI-35
9=RMOOC-SQ1197
Vision: Growing a Home Town
VII . Vision : Growing a Home
Town
Prior to this plan, Kent citizens contributed to a downtown vision that is
expressed in the 1992 Community Forum on Growth Management and
Visioning,the 1989 Downtown Plan, and the Kent Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies. They amplified and reinforced the vision by
participating in the public workshops,focus group discussions, and
Downtown Stakeholders Taskforce meetings which help to form this plan.
A Visit to the Future
If this plan is successful,what will downtown Kent be like, say, 10 or 15
years in the future? What are the character and qualities that the City
envisions for its downtown?
One thing for certain is an early Twenty-First Century visitor entering
downtown Kent will be presented with a more gracious welcome mat. Not
only will key entry points around the downtown perimeter be well marked
with gateway landscaping, artwork, and directional signage,but the
character of development on Central Avenue,James Street, and Willis
Street will be more appealing for motorist and pedestrian alike. Robust
automobile-oriented businesses will still find a home on Central Avenue,
but recent streetscape improvements and incremental business expansions
will have transformed the old strip into a more welcoming, attractive
corridor. At the downtown's southern boundary, a well-landscaped Willis
Street will frame a rehabilitated single-family neighborhood to the south
and the emerging mixed-use residential neighborhood to the north. A trail
along Willis will provide local residents safe bicycle access to the
Interurban Trail, the park-and-ride, and Commons Park.
The west side of the downtown,between the Union Pacific Railroad and
SR 167, will have seen major changes. Better street access will have
spurred new commercial development between Smith and Willis Streets.
There may be well-landscaped clusters of residential development as well.
A newly refurbished Commons Park, Metro park-and-ride, and Commons
Recreation Center—not to mention the Regional Justice Center—will
form a civic anchor at the downtown's northwest comer. The Justice
Center, by then about 15 years old, will be a still-imposing but more
familiar fixture. Justice Center activities will have increased service
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VII-1
9MRPT2.DOC•521197
Vision: Growing a Home Town
businesses in the core,but vigilant work by the City will have kept
undesirable businesses from proliferating in Kent.
James Street will be the downtown's busiest east-west traffic corridor, and
the grade-separated railroad crossing will eliminate what would otherwise
have been a serious blockage. To the north, a single row of office
buildings will overlook James Street as if to shelter the renovated single-
family houses in North Park.
But,while the future visitor will notice many changes to the downtown's
perimeter,the most striking transformation will have occurred between
Harrison and James Streets. The Regional Transit Authority commuter
rail station will be an important transit hub,with local feeder buses
meeting the trains and regional buses for transfer to locations throughout
the Sound. Although commuter rail service was limited at first,
congestion on the freeways will have led to all-day rail service,making the
train the preferred transportation option for commuters to Tacoma or
baseball fans heading for a Mariners game.
The importance of this transportation connection will have given
downtown Kent greater prominence in the region and spurred new
development nearby. Smith Street will be one of the downtown's most
attractive corridors,with a new hotel, office, and retail complex on the
north and the Civic and Performing Arts Center on the south. In
particular,the Civic and Performing Arts Center will be a hub of daytime
and evening activity. Walking from the historic Meeker Street core or the
commuter rail station will be a pleasure because of the street trees and
pedestrian-oriented buildings. The first phase of the Borden site
redevelopment will be under way,with an integrated mix of uses and open
spaces supported by a street grid and structured parking.
To the east of the BN&SF tracks,the Public Market and Sister Cities
Parks will anchor another cluster of shops and commercial activities. This
Railroad Avenue district will offer a smaller-scale, "home grown"
alternative to the more polished development north of Smith Street. With
the Sister Cities Parks providing an attractive backdrop,the emerging
Railroad Avenue focus will have joined Meeker Street and First Avenue as
a place where citizens from all over Kent can come to spend some time
browsing in specialty shops, sharing a cup of coffee, or enjoying an
evening meal.
The South Core area between Titus Street and Willis Street,while not
having experienced the dramatic transformation of the North Core,will
have seen slower, incremental changes. New midrise mixed-use/residential
complexes and townhouses will have created one of south King County's
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VII-2
9633RPTZDOC-5121197
Vision: Growing a Home Town
most attractive in-town neighborhoods for those who want the convenience
of local services, easy access to transportation, and a stable, pedestrian-
oriented setting.
Our visitor will be comforted by the fact that, except for some key infill
and building renovation, the Historic Core, centered along Meeker Street
and First Avenue,will remain much as it did in the late 1990s. The key to
the Historic Core's success will have been the connections that the City
made to the north and south, which added supporting activity from nearby
residents and workers.
From the Present to the Future
From the perspective of our visit to the future, it is clear how the
downtown will reach its goals. By enhancing the historic character of its
core, the City will retain its culture and link to the past—its roots.
By emphasizing its pedestrian qualities with gracious sidewalks,
pedestrian-oriented businesses and a variety of parks, the downtown will
remain a comfortable, friendly place for people to meet and enjoy
themselves.
By encouraging a wide mix of commercial, residential, and public uses,
the downtown will generate the activity necessary for a successful urban
center.
By fostering high-quality redevelopment through public works
improvements and design guidelines, the downtown will become a source
of civic pride for the whole city.
By integrating emerging transportation systems,the downtown will regain
its role as a regional crossroads.
And, through the continued efforts and care of its citizens, the town will
continue to be a"home town for the future."
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan VII-3
9633RPT2.DOC-W V97
Appendices
Appendices
A. Comment Letters
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan A-1
9633RPT2.DOC•&21/97
-FROM _ Imo, OF� ANT ENGINEER[NC, 206 8S9 3SS9 19917.02-25 16 21 #S64 P.03/07
Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan. J.
;` .
Draft SETS Public Hearing and Workshop
February 5, 1997
ons regarding the contents of the Draft
If you have any comments or questi
Statement, please feel free to write in the space.
Supplemental Environmental Impact _
provided below and return to the Kent Planning Department prior to March 6, 1997.
so that we may respond to your comments in the
Please fill in your name and address
Final.SEIS.-
Nameir�EGA NE1,tJCDNI��-
Address 539- P09 fE• o
z %S 40
ej
� "�Qiu.c_ /'t-ev-t�� u�-��57�cc� �� L•'Q�.Ec��
�{UC'l'1 b�rta?God' L� Gl�a
By Mail: Linda Phillips
City of Kent Planning Department v/
220 Fourth Avenue South O
Kent,WA 98032-5895
-FkOrt :L„t l'Y OF, VENT ENO 1 NEEf2I NG 206 SS'3 3SS9 1997.02-2S 16:22 #SS4 P.04/07
-� g - �
FROM :CITY OF KENT ENGINEERING 206 859 3555 1997.02-25 1Sa22 #SSA P.O5/O7
Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan
Draft SEIS Public Hearing and Workshop
February 5, 1997
If you have any comments or questions regarding the contents of the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, please feel free to write in the space
provided below and return to the Kent Planning.Department prior to March 6, 1997.
Please fill in your name and address so that we may respond to your comments in the
Final SEIS.
Name f7Yrr�/ t�Dod�or�
Address Z, fZ If
r-s- _` ce �i-c� y aL2 �rf, 1
P�-� ! �- � Ta 2 Zt'rs -fa CCrSS, i° �o P,x a 2S - rots- 1
r
r-S—
z to AX- 777 S r h ,-f
Aist a.,,l,
T h i r,,/ ya ct u K Pat- es f�a r� i•��-u- `(o,
Tl�u�,l,,�s,._ Gt/ as/I,�Myl`.ce. �4-!',Q„ � �.S/l ►gl� , 1 fti Y�v� C^'s%ocr.7`'!�
lvor
C�-� 2 2 d 7-S S.K1 yz'i' 1 s
Vzo3-/t !+ `�, xv `!( b� 1°u��uG.0 w,'�� LayFi Truce
I= 3. 2-S
of r,-e n p�.X' T-o .�,ru,� Tr f,'c ram- c.Ae 7o scam,., l 15
By Mail: nda Phillips J,
City o lanning Department
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent.-WA 98032-5895
- rROM :CITY OF KE7 ENGINEERING
���� ����
tl/acT Tv
!O
Cc�iyr�yf�`,
i
. 6
�Nk i
TD - , 't l;qL.
p/ to O s ol,'m 47r 7" C
Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan
Draft SETS Public Hearing and Workshop
February 5, 1997
If you have any comments or questions regarding the contents of the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, please feel free to write in the space
provided below and return to the Kent Planning Department prior to March 6, 1997.
Please fill in your name and address so that we may respond to your comments in the
Final SEIS.
Name ��� Xa�o oti� cS cr2tC
Address 5 1 b }`13 �� _PM E
J.L ems• �'csr ' �
1 ,
By Mail: Linda Phillips
City of Kent Planning Department
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
�6eginnal transit Antharity
0 se=9 Am M.&151 457�
SoM wA sera-rs98 �TQ
RE
ram► CEIVED
RXMM4-12M FEB 1 01997
7 1997 PlJUVNI G DEPgE
Chair February .
Bob NOM
Vice Chairs
Paid Mow
r,MM
WCMIS Linda Phillips,Planner
,JVGWWC City ofKent Planning Department
=0-4th Avenue South
• Kent,Washington 98032-5895
Muth cnoe .
Sow.r Dear Linda:
DM EVIM .
EMOMCASIONOSW
Thanks for sending us a copy of the draft SEIS for Kurt's Downtown Strategic
MVY sum Action Plan. We have reviewed the draft SEIS in light of the RTA's proposed
A«WWWJY
Kent commuter rail fiacility and service. As we mentioned when we met with you
�,c�� last month, while the RTA does not have either a final station location nor a station
H a„M, design, we Inow how the station would operate conceptually and the number of
ErWOMW riders that could be expected on opening day and out to 2010. Upon our initial
Ann Kirk Davis review, the RTA has the following concerns about the draft SEIS on the Kent
L&WwWdCoWWW~ Downtown Strategic Plan.
GML=M
AVC009YEOMOM
1 Park&Ride and Feeder Bus Cayacity.
Rob MCKmm
KagC WY
sa Mwr= Commuter Rail users require dedicated parking lots within normal walling
' WXVWVW► distance (600 feet) of the station platforms. Because commuters' cars will
normally occupy the spaces from 6:30 a m. to 6:30 p.m., Commuter Rail parking
S MWM,W cannot be provided jointly with most other uses or traffic generators. As as
DM Russel example, Commuter Rail peak parking demand would conflict directly with the Z
Ia*IbWCWAX&TAUW normal peak parking demand for a hotel. In the case of the Kent station, the RTA
em sou currently estimates the opening day Pig demand to be at least 530 spaces. The
ft=Co.e4'e4e RTAwiill refine this estimate during our-Seattle-to-Tacoma Commuter Rail
even suom EAMS.
A'Yq foray Cowdr+rnE+'
c The Kent Downtown Strategic Plan alternatives either Provide too little Parkaag, 3
parking too far away from the station, or parking inappropriately shown as`5�'
,'M,Wbftwith conflicting uses.
• Although feeder buses will carry less than 40 percent of Commuter Rail users to 1
the moon, it is nonetheless an important access mode since it reduces auto traffic.Executive Director
Boo write
The alternatives do not clearly deal with the issues of how buses will circulate in the downtown, ` 5
arrive at the station, or layover at the station while waiting for a train arrivaL `
2 The Existin Km Coup Metro Transit Center and Park&Ride Lot.
The Downtown Strategic Plan alternatives appear so assume that the =sting King County
Transit Center at Lincoln Avenue and James Street, will remain m place-and function as the transit
center for Kent. The RTA will have the regional express buses serve the Commuter Rail station
as a transit center. Splitting the bus transfer function between two locations will disadvantage
transit riders permanently, and further increase traffic, especially since the edstmg transit center
and park&ride location is further west from the major sources of potential transit demand'than is
the Commuter Rail station.
The strategy of shuttling people via bus from a remote park&ride transit N been tried, 6
and has generally found to be unsuccessful, by other Commuter Rail op
Evidence that this is a permanent disadvantage to riders is the fact that"remote parking via
shuttle" access is never even suggested for any other kind of land use having an everyday
function, and is only attempted for special events.
The RTA believes such a shuttle operation would permanently increase the operating costs of
both transit providers (the RTA and King County), as well as limit the overall ridership potential
for Kent. This again has the effect of increasing auto traffic through the downtown. In practice:,
commuters will avoid the remote parldng by using any other space they can find which allows
them to avoid the shuttle. This includes on-street and off-street parldng intended for shoppers or
other uses.
3. The Pedestrian Environment.
The Downtown Strategic Plan alternatives rely heavily on pose obstacles underpasses
n erpasssse healthy pedestrian
of the rail n
way. The RTA has a concern that these may eventually p7
ibute to a higher-speed auto-oriented sprawlingenvironment. These arterial trenches contr
suburban character, not the pedestrian character that the city seems to prefer in the Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have an further questions, please
call me at 684-1591.
Sincerely,
Val Batey,
Senior Planner
VBjm 0M.-W
FROM :CITY OF KENT ENGINEERING 206 959 3SS9 1997,02-2S 1G:23 #SS4 P.07/07
' to.
a s
y Regional Transit Aotharity
MI Samd Aug-K&
She,WA 98104-120
FAX(2W ee4.1234
Chair February 19, 1997
Bob Dmni
s�uo:oabc..w�•
Vice Chairs
Pad Nhar Linda Phillips,Planner
>1=candor~ City ofKauPlanningDepartment
Z20-4th Avenue South
MWcam�O�COWWIM W ant,Washington 98032-5895
Dear Linda:
Alarms uwa
soma COOMixo0ow
In our mextmg on February 12 with City ofKent staff and consultants on the
DM E"ft Downtown Kent Action Plan, we were requested to provide you with more
on the demand
calculations for the Kent.
information and background pig
rear commuter rail station. The numbers used in the draft SEIS for the Downtown
my CwWWft~ Action plan are.based on information in the unpublished South Corridor
Jana Raow the RTA
1 kV COWW`'""""'MW Commuter Rain Project EA/SEIS. Since that information was prepared,
sa Hatma" has completed a ridership forecast for the Tern-Year Regional Transit System Plan,
EWN""rr°r resulting in slightly higher numbers. Thitupdated forecast projects 1050
Am 10 ,,,, passenger boardings occurring in the 3-hour a.m. peak at the Kent commuter nul $
LA"WOWCOWCOFM station. Of those 1050 people,we estimate 50 would walls to the station, 350
Guy Lod would arrive by bus and 60 In carpools. Thee would be a total of 590 cars
AVC"WYtaming to the station with 60 of those can dropping people ofl� resulting in a
Rob Md(m a aces. This forecast assumes that King County Metro
AM�rc�� demand for 530 parking spaces train. It should
sw A OMM routes 158, 159, 162, 154, 166, 168, and 169 all would8 1Suy
ofT,M,,,,;a,,, be noted that this forecast could change depending Norm Rim implememted with King County Metro's six-year plan and the degree of reliability
Saar 4b�or achieved on those routes.
Dave R"I
AUWW CeYnd""MW Sincerely,
.em smn.r
MW=CNOW
cywk sum=
�'� ValEatey
MIMCMWEMMMW
Senior Planer
Jim WhM
,W 4Y�oI VB;jm 100ip.W
Executive Director
90o WNi.
RECEIVED
February 14, 1997 FEB 1 8 1997
Mayor Jim White CITY OF KENT
City Council
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Kent Planning Commission
City of Kent
220 4'"Ave South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Mayor White
I am writing to express my feelings and concerns regarding the Downtown Kent Strategic Action
Plan and the responses I have received from the Strategic Action Plan team from Makers.
First, I wish to express my most extreme displeasure with John Owens from Makers. His
arrogance regarding the questions I have raised over financing for parts of these projects is
amazing. Numerous times I have requested information during meetings regarding the cost of
such planned features as sinking 3 major roadways 25 feet below grade. His response has been
that money did not matter, since this was a planning process rather than an action process. I
clarified my position numerous times, and asked him if he could cite examples of other cities that
have done this type of project before, and who paid the cost - the state, county, rail road, or city.
His response was that he did not know, nor did he care to investigate. Again, his response was
to"not worry about the cost". I'm certainly glad that he is not in charge of our city's finances.
Since sinking 3 major streets 25 feet below grade is an integral part of 1 plan, and sinking 2
streets is integral of the other two, it would seem to me as a taxpayer of this fine city that my
question would not only be valid, but one that would be of interest to all of our citizens 1, as well
as others, want an answer to this. WHAT is the estimated cost, and WHO is going to pay for it.
Secondly, I am extremely upset regarding the snow job I have been given by the entire Strategic
Action Plan team. I have, as you know, been involved with this project since day one, and have
been active in our downtown projects since the first proposition of the Regional Justice Center. I
have on numerous occasions asked that the neighborhood north of James Street and west of 41"
Avenue, to a point north of James to Highway 167 be included in any Environmental Impact
Statement, and the area be closely examined for impacts upon my neighborhood. I have been
told that the reason the northern boundary line for the Strategic Action Plan was drawn at West
Cloudy was that the people from Makers were not provided with a map inclusive of the area north
of that. I accepted that at face value, and back in August requested that maps be obtained. 1 Z
was assured that they would be.
In September, at the three meetings, 1, as well as others, again requested that our area be
included, again, I was assured that it would be. Indeed, a small group of us were termed "The
James Gang', and made the changes on provided maps. Yet here in February, with the three
"final' plans that were supposed to be indicative of the citizen's input, I find that our area has not
been included. This is ridiculous.
I am quite aware that in city government, not everyone's beliefs or visions wilt be included in
plans, and that even within my area there are mixed beliefs on what, if any, actions should occur 3
during this planning. I am willing to accept and live with differing opinions. What I cannot, and
will not accept is the belief that my area will not be impacted by changes downtown.
Fourthly, I wish to address comment to the second and third alternative. These two plans bring
changes within 500 feet of my home. In both of these alternatives, Fourth Avenue, north of 4
James street is redeveloped to a line approximately 4 lots north of James Street, with planned
parking provided on the corner area of 5" Ave North and James street, for proposed Mixed Use
development. In the second alternative, access to this area would be limited to West Cloudy
turning south on 5t' Avenue North. This is a SINGLE LANE ROAD, with drainage ditches on
either side of the street, with those ditches being an integral part of the flood control plan for the
100 year flood plain that is Kent Commons Ball Field, and the surrounding area. In the third 4
alternative, there is a new'frontage road° that bisects the block between 4"' and 5"', from James
Street to West Cloudy, again, dumping traffic onto a SINGLE LANE ROAD. Again, I am told that
the area I requested to be included will not be impacted. I would strongly support these
alrnatives, as would re to be brought north by 3
blocks to the vacant lot�j t northy neighbors, IF rth of the Colonial Apartments(thhe northern boundary e'blue apartments" on James
Street).
Lastly, I have been told that initially, there was to be NO CITIZEN INPUT in this planning
process, until some of the Planning Commission members thought wisely to include us. This is
highly indicative of city politics here in Kent, and probably other places as well. Again, from the rJ
onset of planning of the RJC, citizen input has taken a back seat to `cronyism' in city politics. I
recognize that the administration has changed, and am impressed with the openness and
support I have received from our current administration. I would urge you Mayor White to
demand the same of your departments and of the city council. To not include citizens in
government is called Socialism.
1 would request that the Mayor's office and the City Council address my concerns in writing, with 6
assurances that my neighborhood be looked at for the impacts in this planning process.
Most respectfully,
Paul Hammerschmidt
814 5"' Avenue North
Kent, WA 98032
(206) 859-6383
(206) 850-9626 (fax)
cc Brad Bell, Co-Chair Planning Commission (for distribution to the commission)
Linda Phillips, City of Kent Planning Department
CITY Pf
Jim White, Mayor
February 28, 1997
Paul Hammerschmidt
814 5th Avenue North
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mr. Hammerschmidt:
I appreciate your taking time to comment on the Downtown Kent Strategic Action Plan process. I
am sorry that you think you have received less than fair treatment from City-hired consultants on the
Strategic Action Plan team. The City intends to conduct a fair and open discussion among residents,
business and property owners, government employees and officials, and development interests. To
accomplish our goal, we will provide several more opportunities for you to ask questions and offer
your opinions and comments.
I have reviewed your letter with Planning Department staff who have assured me that they will
provide,to the best of their ability, the information you have requested. I will address several of
your concerns in a general way in this letter,but City staff and consultants will discuss the issues
with you in detail if you contact them at public meetings and by telephone.
The cost of separating railroad and vehicle arterial grades to alleviate traffic congestion when freight
traffic increases and commuter rail is established is not fully known at this time. The Strategic
Action Plan process is meant to generate ideas and�=test the ideas for comparable feasibility and
benefit to the community.
The area north of James that was previously proposed for rezone by a group of property owners is
the area included in the plan alternatives. The 'edges" between the proposed rezone area and the 2
residential neighborhood are included in the study area and the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement addresses the residential area on page 26, "Neighborhood Preservation" , and on
page 27, Mitigation Measures.
Citizen input has been an essential element of the Strategic Action Plan process from the time the
Planning Department applied for the Washington State Planning and Environmental Review Fund
grant and will continue to be emphasized through City Council consideration and approval of a plan. 3
The City intends to implement the Comprehensive Plan with a community-based Downtown Plan.
s
20 ate A VE. 0. /KENT WASH NGTON 980 2. 895/TELEPHONE (206)850.330()/FAX 50-332j
Mr. Paul Hammerscbrnidt
February 28, 1997
Page 2
I hope the public workshops will provide opportunities for many of your questions and concerns to
be addressed. Your input is valued and I hope you will continue to be involved in the planning
process.
Sincerely,
James Parris
Planning Director
JPH/cw:A:1PIr—'74.LET
cc: Jim White, Mayor_
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Linda Phillips, Planner
- d� lLe'rvi
I �
� _ /�'�. _ mac-• . . _ _
I
?f 5��9-�•� J�-�•ue S%.c��-_�Dr�l->e��"�' /��¢1ssr�...���• .. _ .. _ ._
_ 1
ii n
51 A7[
i.
o -
c -
�f Y�
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
111 21st Avenue S.W. • P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504.8343 • (206)753-4011 • SCAN 234-4017
February 26, 1997
Ms.Linda Phillips
Planner
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent,Washington 98032-5895
Re: Downtown Kent Action Plan
Dear Ms.Phillips: -
Thank you for sending to the Washington State Office of Archaeology nandHistoric
referenced Draft Supplemental Environmental
Preservation(OAHP) a copy of the above
wn Kent Action Plan. From the document, I
Impact Statement(DSEIS) for the Downto
an to identify the main features of the City's
understand the City of Kent will use the PI
downtown form for the next several decades.
In response,I have reviewed the Action Plan to assess its effects on cultural resources
(with a focus on historic properties) in downtown Kent. From my review of the Plan I
was not able to identify information on existing historic buildings in the downtown area;
how the various alternatives would affect these buildings and historic character, nor
measures to mitigate any adverse effects of the alternatives to preservation of thesec Impacts o 1
er
historic resources. I do note the statemenwluch menuonsn page 71 �dthreats to piston commercial
Elementsof Community Image/Design)
buildings without a detailed study and analysis of such properties. Therefore,I
recommend that the DSEIS address potential impacts to historic properties in downtown
Kent as a result of implementing.the alternatives.
In addition,I recommend that the Action Plan include an element which sets forth a
strategy for identifying historic properties in the core and develops specific tasks for 2
preserving significant historic buildings and structures. Examples of such tasks could
include,but not be limited to,tools such as design guidelines, a historic overlay zone, .
implementation of tax incentives, facade rehabilitation programs, etc.
Let
1vls. Linda Phillips
February 26, 1997
Page Two
Again,thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Downtown Kent
Action Plan and DSEIS. Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at
(360) 753-9116.
Sincerely,
Gregory th
_ Con pr ensive Planning Specialist
�.:
GAG:tjt
Enclosures
CITY OF I p�LJC1v
i
Jim White, Mayo,
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 1997
February 27, 1997 CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mayor Jim White
City of Kent
??0 Fourth Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White:
On behalf of the Kent Arts Commission, I would like to let you know that the Commission
recognizes the substantial growth downtown Kent is experiencing and will continue to experience
due to the Regional Justice Center, the impending commuter rail, and other positive economic
factors in our area. We want to convey our interest and concern regarding the impact this
development has on the livability and vitality of downtown.
As you know,the City of Kent,through the Arts Commission,has committed substantial resources
to art in the downtown area. We currently have 22 artworks valued at S371,000 in downtown. The
artwork has been placed to enhance the beauty and interest in our City but has also been used as a
economic development tool to draw more people and commercial activity to this area. This artwork
includes murals. sculptures, glass work and treegrates. The Commission through its five year art
plan. hopes to provide more artwork in downtown. This plan includes a commitment of public art
in the Civic and Performing Arts Center, if and when it is built 2
With recent developments in the downtown, such as the sale of the property on Fourth and Meeker
and the impending development of that site, we would urge that this building and any future
developments in downtown take into account the wonderful and unique atmosphere of the area
Keeping the downtown as a destination spot that is pedestrian friendly, aesthetically pleasing and
a joy to visit is a task worth pursuing. Many people, including the City of Kent and the Kent
Downtown Parmership, have invested a great deal in the downtown to keep it economically vital
while also maintaining an attractive community focal point
2 041n AVE,.SO.. 'KEN T WASHINOTON 990 ]-5895 ITELEPHORF r10n u15o•t J(NI FAX•459•33Ji
We understand that there are situations and ordinances that may govern future development, but we
wanted you to know that as citizen advisors, representing a substantial stake in downtown through 2
art, we support growth that embraces what exists while ensuring a vital future for downtown Kent.
Please keep us informed on what we can do to help in this effort. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carol McPherson
Chair
Kent Arts Commission
cc Jim Harris, Planning Director
John Hodgson, Parks Director
Kent Downtown Partnership
RECEIVED
MAR 7 1997
King County CITY OF KENT
vtetro Transit Division PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Design and Construction section,
Environmental Planning and)teal Estate
Department orTramportation
821 second Avenue M.S.122
Seattle.WA 95104-1598
(206)684-1418
(206) GU-19M FAX
March 4, 1997
Mr. James P. Harris, Director
City of Kent Planning Department
220 South 4th Avenue
Kent, WA 98032
Draft EIS,Downtown KontAction Plan
Dear Mr. Harris:
King County Transit Division staff have reviewed this proposal and have the following
comments. Staff would like to compliment the City of Kent on this plan. Staff
recommends that either the Core Focus or the North Center Focus be implemented, as both
alternatives concentrate density and provide for transit, pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
The implementation of PTA Commuter Rail service to include a Kent station in the general
vicinity of the plan's study area will have a significant impact upon Metro's local bus
service operating through Kent. Additionally, a downtown Kent commuter rail station will
change the use at Metro's existing Kent Park & Fide/Transit Center located to the west
along Lincoln Avenue between Smith and James Streets.
It is expected that the implementation of commuter rail service between Kent and 2
downtown Seattle will trigger a restructure to the existing local and express bus service
through Kent as these routes would be reoriented and rescheduled to serve the commuter
rail station and to connect with commuter train service. It is likely that existing Kent-
Seattle commuter routes would operate to/from their respective Kent East Hill
neighborhoods and the commuter rail station, while the all day local service would simply
be rerouted to serve the station.
By shifting Kent's transit "focal point" from the existing Metro Park&Ride to the RTA Commuter Rail Station, it is expected that bus to bus transfers (in additional to bus to train 3
transfers)will most likely occur there. In addition, a large number of riders who
James P. Hams
March 4, 1997
Page Two
currently park at the Kent Park&Ride (primarily to catch Metro express type commuter
buses) are expected to shift over to RTA commuter,rail and will seek out parking close to
the commuter rail station.
Providing easy transit access to and from the Commuter Rail Station will be critical to
facilitate bus/train transfers. Since most of the local feeder bus service is likely to operate $
via James and Smith Streets, a station location in this general vicinity, to the north of the
Kent's downtown core may be preferable. This general area would also seem to offer more
potential options for a new park& ride lot, which will be necessary as the majority of
commuter rail riders are likely to drive there.
For further questions regarding Metro's Kent area transit service and facilities contact Doug
Johnson, Transit PlannerTat 684-1597. Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
Gary 'edt, Environmental Planner
Environmental Planning and Real Estate
gA.72doc
'D ._a .. i UL
MIR-
MONTOURE REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
s Commercial-Development-Partnerships
21620 84 SO., KENT, WA 98031
TELEPHONE (206) 872.8728
RECEIVED
MAR 7 tg97
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 6; 1997
T0: Linda Phillips -Planner
FROM: HowardE. Montoure -Property Owners - Groups 10-11-12-13, Smith
Street Group
S US TECT: Downtown Action Plan-for Naden Avenue,kighway 167 and 516, NE--
S=don, 8 acres±
We are Oe la..-nest property owners' in this area, (4-lr? acres). We are looking to have a
mhxcd use development; 1st floor retail, 2nd floor offices, floors 3 through 4 or S
condominiums.
1
1.11- a:e working with the city of Kent to install a 4-way traffic light on I1ighway 516 and
74th South. 'I;iis light will be at the cross street to enter Foster Industrial Park. We fccl
t.�is Wit be the best use of our property.
Sincerely yours.
Ifew2ard R _ ro oure
March 5, 1997
Robert Whalen
10520 SE 272nd St.
Kent, Washington 98031
(206) 852-5695
RECEIVED
City of Kent Planning Department
220 ath AVE. SO. MAR 0 6 1997
Kent,Washington 98032 CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Subject: Comments on DSEIS for KenVs Downtown Action Plan
The Kent Transit Advisory Board has not had adequate time on the agenda to reach a
consensus on the DSEIS.
I have some personal observations and preferences regarding the three alternatives
presented. I generally prefer alternative 2, core focus.
I am especially concerned that the commuter rail station be located where it can enhance
both the existing downtown core and the anticipated new development north of Smith
street. The station location between Meeker and Titus streets is too far removed from 2
both the Justice center and future development at the Bordon site. Location of the station
between Gowe and Smith would serve the downtown core almost as well as the Meeker-
Titus location while providing significantly better access to the Justice Center and Bordon
site.
STATION CHARACTERISTICS
The station should provide a continuous covered walking path from Smith to Gowe with
the following amenities at or near the station.
o Rest Rooms, preferably at .each end of the platform
o coffee stands 3
o sheltered seats
o magazine/newspaper stands
o information kiosks
o ticket machines
o bicycleiockers
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE AMENITIES
Pedestrian mobility across Smith should be a priority with signaled crossings between 1st.
and railroad, at 2nd and at 4th. A scramble amble light should be considered at 4th and 4
Smith. Transit priority should be established along Smith St. with primary auto and truck
access to the core area on Willis, James, and along 4th Ave.
Smith street between Central and 6th should become a pedestrian,bicycle and transit 5
friendly boulevard with landscaped islands in the middle and left turn pockets at 2nd and
4th.
As trains become more frequent, pedestrian underpasses at Meeker and a Smith should be 16
considered.
Businesses in the core area should provide generous awnings along all major shopping 17
routes and especially pedestrian routes to the commuter rail station.
Continuous bicycle paths should be established through the core area to the commuter rail 18
station.
PARKING
Parldng at the commuter rail station should be mmirmized with priority given to short term 9
kiss-n-ride, bus and taxi facilities. Commuter parking should be dispersed throughout the
community with frequent shuttle service connecting parking, downtown business, and the
commuter rail station.
There should be a fee for long term parking in the core area. The parking fee should be 10
adequate to pay for the parking facilities, a very high level of security, and part of the
shuttle service. Sufficient structured long term parking should be constructed to
guarantee parking space for commuters.
Commuters desiring free parking would park at locations outside the core area and ride
shuttles to the station.
Note: Several studies have been produced indicating that passenger train riders, whether 112
it be lishtrail or commuter rail, have significantly higher incomes than typical bus riders. `l
They will pay a premium for high quality service.
S' c I
ert en
Chair, Kent Transit Advisory Board
300 Scenic Way
Kent, WA 98031
March 4, 1997
RECEIVED
MAR 0 6 1997 .
CITY OF KENT
Linda Phillips PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Kent Planning Dept.
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Re: Downtown Action Plan
Dear Linda:
In response to your request for comments and suggestions on the
ld
three development alternatives of hich focuses on the the Downtown Action Pl area as
like to vote for alternative 2,
it now exists.
The only choice I question is locating a hotel/conference facility
at the intersection of Fourth Ave. and Willis Sts. , Possibly
reusing the elementary school site.
It would seem more practical to locate the hotel near the 1
Performing Arts Center so each would have easy access to the
other's facilities and services.
Speaking as a board member of the Kent Downtown Partnership, I
think alternative 2 would best enhance the existing core area, a
goal we have pursued for many years.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the process. It
was most enlightening and a lot of fun.
Sincerely, I
Q-& aa��t/
Pat Curran
Board of.Directors
Kent Downtown Partnership
'Dee 9Vwcbel
425(5came 4!)qy
gent.cltlaibinglon,96a31-6022
(sob)452-7061 -(Far(sob)45s-ao69
March 6, 1997
Linda Phillips
City of Kent Planning Department
220 South 4th Avenue
Kent, Washington, 98032
Comments For D ft SF. .
Dear Ms. Phillips,
e process of developing a Kent Downtown Stategic Action Plan has been very interesting to observe.Of the
Th
three Alternatives offered,I support Alternative 2 more than the others,however,I do have some observations
and comments that I will derail below.
Keep the commons playfield as an open green space At some time in the future the city may wish to develop I ,,
this space into a special park or public green space. Once the green is gone,it will not return,we need to keep
some open space!
With the major traffic corridors of SR167,West Valley Hiway and the Willis Street entrances to our city,
Fourth Avenue will become the natural gateway(s)into downtown,the justice center,city hall and the
shopping district.Not only from the South(Willis),but also from the North(James&Fourth Ave.)Fourth
Avenue is where our most important buildings are located.Fourth Avenue and the feeder streets need to be
enhanced,made attractive and very efficient The pedestrian corridors in this area must be safe and well lit I
would like to see a structure like the one built on the east side of 1st Avenue between Meeker&Gowe built on
the east side of 4th between Smith&Meeker.This would provide protection from the rain and give lighting
for sidewalks on the dark days of winter.The lighting and walkway would naturally attract people visiting or
working at the Justice Center, the hotel or banks and draw them toward downtown.In summer,the structure
would provide shade and seating. We would continue to follow the theme of the red tile roof and the Wisteria. 2 M
The Civic and Performing Arts Center can be placed behind Pennys as you indicate in Alternative 2,if so,
the parking struaue most be a part of the plan,or,if the Performing Arts Center(only)were to be built on the
north side of Smith(east of Seafirst bank),a parking structure with meeting rooms and spaces could be built
on the current parking area(behind Pennys),leaving an area at the west end of that plot for a Rose Garden&
green belt,next to the covered walkway.
CM
Move the Hotel to the north side of Smith(east of Seafirst Bank), continue the covered walkway east on the
north side of Smith. Create a walking overpass at Smith4th. (s o matter
what goes on the northeast corner
of Smith&4th something will have to be done about pedestrian
Moschei
Comments on DSEIS-Page 2
I support placing the transit station in the area when the current station is located,close Gower to vehicular
traffic.This will require upgrade of Smith and pic=add an underpass under SR167.Have HOV or transit 3
ramps onto and off of SR167 at Smith.Develop West Smith beyond West Valley highway so commuter traffic
would be diverted to 53rd Ave.South(by Riverbmd),then onto Meeker and then west to I-5.
I feel that Borden's facility a well landscaped and attractive,it
is not detrhamtal to our city.It is open Spam
does not produce noise,does not smell bad,has management that is interested in our downtown, is a good 4
neighbor and has a potential for added open space or community use in the future.
North.Park needs to be retained.A city thrives when the residential areas are near the shopping. 15
Central Avenue needs to be cleaned up and landscaped 16
Currently James and Smith Streets are the main East/West traffic corridors,lets mhanc c and expand vvupon ti 7
what we have in place now.Lets create an attractive,well lit and safe downtown,where people
where they want to visit our shops, our festivals and participate in local activities. Lets require quality in any
new structure that is built and have the basic appearance be comparable with our current buildings.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process.
Sincerely,
Dee Moschel �6 9
X
a
NORTHWEST ALLIANCE INC.
March 5, 1997
•r
Planner
City of Kent
220 41h Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-50895
SubjeC: Comments on Draft SETS re Downtown Kent Action Plan
Dear Ms Phillips:
In the 1950's and early 1970's there were some examples of real estate
projects throughout the nation wherein purchasers of lots lost money because the
pretty pictures and artist renderings of future recreation facilities, tennis courts,
swimming pools and golf courses ;:sere never actually built as promised by the private
sector developers selling said lots. Laws were then passed that severely restricted
the practice of any real estate developers to promise more than they could deliver.
The regulations required an in-depth report to be prepared by the developers that
detailed exactly what facilities would be built, when the facilities would be built, and
also provided assurances that adequate funds were available to guarantee subject
'acilities would be built. The regulations went on to say that if the information within
tt;e report turned out to be wrong (intentionally or unintentionally), the private
developer was subject to a $5,000 fine and 10 years in jail for each mistake in the
report. Regrettably, similar regulations do not exist for development proposed by
public entities, such as counties and cities.
in the State o� WJashington, so far the best we Carl do to constrain irresponsible
adventures into faniesyland by cities (a.k.a. long-range land-use planning) has been
recent revisions to the State Grc.wth Management Act (GMA). Now as per GMA, if a
city proposes some land-us(- action that includes the future construction of public
I
acilities to be paid for by taxpayer generated funds such as recreation facilities, tennis
courts, swimming pools, golf courses, street trees, public parking garages, sidewalks,
roadways, sewer plants, performing arts centers, interchanges, overpasses , and/or 2
vnde Masses, then as part of the proposal by the city, it must prepare and provide a
apitai Facilities Analysis to the taxpayers. The Capital Facilities Analysis is required
to include a detailed description of all proposed public facilities, a cost projection for
the construction of the facilities. and a description of where all the money is to come
LAKE CITY PROFESSIONAL CENTER
2611 N.E. 125th, SUITE 1o6, SEATTLE, WA 98125 (206) 381-4833 (20& 3e1-48=rAX
Pace 2
roposal
it can not
from. The GMA also requires the city to gale ene acted funds will bewn its land-use pavvai available pay for 2
assure the State that adequate taxpayer g
all the public facilities within the city's proposal. They left out the jail time but there is
always hope they will cor-,=:.t that in a future GMA revision.
As you know, it is my position that the City did not give me proper legal notice of
the proposed action. I had to visit City Hall in order to find out about the proposal and
then, once i found out about it, your office would not provide the relevant information
cancerning the proposed action In a timely fashion. I made my initial request for
copies on February 6 and still have not received all of the information promised.
Naturally, it is impossible to thoroughly review all the relevant material and prepare written comments by March 6 when the material has not been made available by 3
March 6. 1 made two separate requests in writing, one to Mayor White and one to Jim
Harris, to extend the comment period for an additional 15 days as allowed by SEPA
regulations (WAC 197-11-455) but my requests were denied. This lack of
cooperations�th City cold caused
a toe to preparermycomments.l other responsibilities for the last
several day
Considering the lack of respect, courtesy, and cooperation that I have received
thus far from the City, I will be surprised if the responses to my comments do not fall
into three basic categories, 1) Thanks for your input, but that issue was already dealt
with in prior studies, 2) Thanks for your input, that issue needs review,
but it is too
early in the process to do that level of review at this time or 3) Thanks for your input. it
would be nice to do the review of that issue, but we don't have the budget. The public
facilities element within the three alternative subarea proposals commit the 4
expenditure of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer get`
soon became clear in my conversations with City staff that the driving force behind erased funds.tIthe
Action Plan, even more than "do it fast", was do it cheap". The staff felt constrained by
a small budget which allowed them to meet just the minimum requirements. In
contrast. !oohing at the immerse proposed ptibiic and private expenditures involved
and the potential impact to downtown Kent, I strongly feel a more thorough and in-
depth analysis is called for at this time. At the very least, the taxpayers of Kent should
e made aware of just how much of their money the City is committing to spend.
Your sincere consideration and response to the following comments regarding
the Draft SETS would be greatly appreciated:
What is the difference between an "Integrated" Supplemental EIS and a non- 5
integrated SETS? is the non-integrated SETS faster. rheaper. and less thorough?
lkf?at is t1? �IfTA(pr % b�t4yaen the (�:3ll(($� !2VE, of �dndl rS S ft�( a p(vg:'an"ii7tFltiC �Ij �'6
as compared to a praj!?G!"vnl EIS?
Page .3
is it not your purpose to remove the need for future . !S's in tn. downtown, area by
doing this EiS row^ Isn't that why you state in the Craft Z`IS -'Subsequent protect- 7
level development proposals may have a reduced amount of environmental review, if
any"?
' On page 2 of the Dr91i you refer to one of the reasons for the P! :� is to
accommodate the construction of a $6,000,000 commuter rail station, within the study
area. Kent roadway expenditures to accomadate the commuter rail far exceed the 8
$6,000,000. Why did the City not do a thorough cost-benefit analysts as allowed by
SEPA regulations (WAG 197-11450 and 197-11-726 )?
Or, page 4 of the Craft yeu male= the claim "Public involvement is important i-, to
planning process to ensure the resulting plan is consistent with the needs and desires 9
^t the citizens and employers in Kent that it is intended to serve Co you have to be a
silent :zt Kefl* to be allowed to participate?
What did the ;.;ty do beyond~ the rninimuml required by law to provide public notice
concerning the Action Plan?
10
What needs t-o be done to qua;ify as a "Stakeholder' , is paying taxes and utility
charges to the City for the last GENT URY enough to qualify for at least a notice in the
morthiv !-+iiity bill')
Your .tcoon P!an proposes the destruction and removal of a strurturc thal has been 111
ir, my f,inily far a iiundr-ed years. Comes that have something d;: With ,Our decisio , V 1
to infor-1,, of 'your intenttC"1s?
mle ting v,it" Nayo.- Wt-jite in tgc5 he assured me that he wouia :ask your of#iee 2
to me informed of lu:lre land-use actiol^s proposed for downtown Ke^,. 14 1 d+�� 1
youf 'J <fCp Choose to iyrore Ns wishes?
it Alternative 7 you propose Smith Str-zot tc; t?;!t$rt;: under St i6%. that is the
proposed L'esign configuration of the extension,?
here IS it to g,n once it I_ o: the other sloe of SO 1'?7?
' Will the purchase of riyllt of way be required' 13
How much would it cost to construct?
When would it be comoleted?
' `YNThat disruptions to downt.-wn Keni Ilouseboids and would. occur during
construction and icir how long7
1
Page 4
` Which taxpayers will be obligated to pay for the improvement? 13
How much of the required money does the City currently have in the bank?
You propose HOV on and off ramps to SA 167. Has this been approved by Transit
or State DOT?
' Will the purchase of right of way be required?
• How much would it cost to construct?
• '04hen would it be completed?
14
• What disruptions to downtown Kent households and businesses would occur during
construction and for how long?
• Which taxpayers will be obligated to pay for the improvement?
• low much of the required money does the City currently have in the bank?
• In Alt. 1 you propose a new Park and Fide lot south of James. Has this been
approved by Transit
' How much would it cost to construct?
• When would it be competed?
15
' Wha disruptions to downtown Kent househoids and businesses would occur during
construction and for how long?
Which taxpayers wiii be obligated to pay for the improvement?
How such of the required money does the City currently have in the bank?
All three of the Alternatives propose the construction of a 600 seat Performing Arts
Center. The proposed budget is $30,000,000 or $50,000 per seat. What portion of
that facility is to be paid for by the taxpayers?
' Co ycu propose that the City donates the site? 16
' i.. vr, would it be completed?
' What disruptions to downtown vent households and businecQS would occur during
Page 5
construction and for how long?
Which taxpayers will be obligated to pay for the ir:nprovement? 16
" How much of a re required money does the City currently have in the bank?
In Alt. 1 you propose improvements or. State Street and Centrat. What are the
nature of these improvements?
Will the purchase of right of way be required`'
' How muc'- would it cost to con struc'.
• Vdhen would it be completed? 17
• What disruptions to downtown Kent households and businesses would occur durinc
construction and for how long?
' Which taxpayers will be obligated to pay for the improvement'%
• How much of the required rnnr, y dr =s t1ne +y ,rfe by have in the, hank?
In AIterzatiYas i and 2 you propose :o itnc-rnve Cornmons nark '•idhat is th'. -:c3':u:'e
c; :h,; simprovement?
HpY: rn would it Cost to c0i Istruct?
When would it be c;ornp!eted^
u , s . .wring 18
'dWhat disruptions to ;fowntown Kent hcuset oils algid bus„np._..f M)Uld o
ccr;struction and for how ;ong?
W o erg ! ' '^Ii^ ' t0 ay for the improvement?
" �v;liCh tc.<p,.y � will be c� ;y32ci.r P
' How much of the required money does the City Currently have in the bank?
' In. Alternatives 2 and 3 you propose an upgrade in zoninv- from single family
residential to office zoning. . No.rMally private property owners wool; by obligated to
pay the rezone application fee as well as the cost of environmental review. Why is it sn 19
this case that 1;ie City chose to spend taxpayer furls ,o a grade zoning for the benefit
of a few individual private property owners?
RCW 36-70A-130 states that comprehensive plans are to be revised "no more � '
Page 5
frequently than once every year". Since Kent last amended its Comprehensive Plan
on January 21, 1997 (Ordinance 3331), should not the revisions proposed in this 20
subject SETS be required by law to wait until January of 1998?
Alternative 3 is the worst example of pie-in-the-sky, fantesyland planning of the
group. Every indication is that the Borden facility is profitable concem and a good
corporate citizen of long standing. Yet you choose to spend taxpayer funds to draw up
pretty pictures of what there site might look like in the future if the City could force them 21
out. In the public meeting on February 5th the citizens had to figure out on their own
that this alternative would be highly unlikely to happen. What would it cost the
taxpayers to purchase the Borden site. remove the existing buildings and facilities,
and install the necessary new roads and utilities?
" Hors much private developer investment does the City have committed under each ! 22
of the three Alternatives?
' With regard to SEPA, the Determination of Significance was made on July 19, 1996
(See Exhibit A). In that document it stated that Capital Facilities analysis would be
part of the EiS effort and yet such an analysis is not contained in the Draft SEiS. WAC
375-195-315 is very clear that a capital facilities analysis Is required for a
comprehensive plan or amendment thereto. Why is a thorough and complete capital 23
facilities element absent from your Draft SETS?
- Do you have a capital facilities analysis but just did not want to share the information
with the taxpayers?
In the February 5th public meeting the City told the citizens that construction cost
estimates for the proposed underpasses under the railway had not yet been
completed. Why is it then that the record shows that the City approved a
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program on September 3, 1996 that included 24
the expenditure of $103.000,000.00 of taxpayer generated funds? Did you think that
the $6,000,000 rail station wouldn't look so attractive if the taxpayers knew they would
have to spend 3103,000.000 to accommodate it.
On page 30 of the Draft SETS you quote from the same Six-Year Transportation .
Improvement Program but somehow forget-to advise the readers of the cost figures. is
it your feeling that knowing the projected costs might make the taxpayers somehow
uneasy?
The S103,000,000 price tag probably does not include bond administration or bond25
interest which could easily increase the cost to around $180,000,000. It also does not
include taxpayer cost It-or the performinc arts rnn!er, H0V on ramps - other proposed
''Q i 4tJ` .. C3ICUIEiti[�n 'a =� ..I I vit`ll � R'urf;a. study would
rau8 r
indicate that since there are 388 current businesses and 499 existing households in
the downtown study area, then there are a total of 887 "beneficiaries" of the City's
transportation planning wisdom. That would mean each beneficiary would only be 25
obligated to pay $202,931.23. When can I expect to receive my bill for $203,000 and
is there any chance at all, that the City, consistent with its public notice effort, won't be
able to find my address?
" On page 22 through 25 Your Draft SETS lists around 20 past and current plans that
have been implemented in whole or in part. The oldest plan was done in 1%6. It is
good that you took advantage of work already paid for by the taxpayers. SEPA and
GMA also strongly recommend that cities take advantage of (piggyback upon) EIS .
work that has recently been done covering the current subject study area. In the last
couple of years millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent completing the EIS
review for the Regional Justice Center (RJC) now being completed in downtown Kent
as well as the RTA including its commuter rail element. The RJC EIS documents are
about 2.5 inches thick and the RTA EIS documents are over 6 inches thick. Why did 26
the City choose to ignore the extensive recent information provided by those
documents in the preparation of the Action Plan EIS and yet include a review of Kent
Development Plan Technical Supplement prepared in 1966?
If the City did utilize the imformation provided by the RTC and 9TA EIS documents
why was the availability of such Information not highlighted in your Draft EIS?
' !n the public meeting on February 5, the City briefly described the proposed
underpasses under the railway as "grade separations". Thera were no perspective
drawings handed out or 3-0 models prepared for the meeting. Beyond the fact that
the cost information was not shared, the City made no effort to highlight the
significance of the potential impact of cutting as many as three canyons through the 27
middle of town. You did have your consultants prepare sketches of future downtown
Kent that all looked like downtown Kirkland and then asked the people at the meeting
to select the package of pictures that they liked the best. Do you think that if you had
provided the people with detailed illustrations of the three Grand Canyon plan that it
would have been ;he favorite's
t.'hat are the proposed design specifications of these underpass improvements?
Will the purchase of right of way be required?
28
' Wher, would it l e cornoleted?
What disrup#ion= to c!ow^town Kent ticuseho ds any; businesses would occur during
oonstruction and for hcw Icng"
Page a
Which taxpayers will be obligated to pay for the improvement? 28
How much of the required money does the City currently have in the bank?
The advantage of doing a Supplemental EIS rather than a complete new EIS is that
the lis of areas for review can be shortened if the impacts of the new proposal are not
anticipa►ed to be any greater than the impacts covered by the original EIS. Your office
chose to eliminate several areas of review normally required to be studied under
SEPA. Your explanation was that the reviews were already covered by the existing 29
EIS for the Comp Plan. Where is the discussion of the increased impact due to
increased noise resulting from the latest estimates of increases in both rail and
highway traffic? Similarly, how about vibration?
01,, the required issues you chose not to cover perhaps of greatest concern is the
possibility of toxic contamination. Regardless of where the commuter rail station is
located in Kent or whether the proposed new grade separations go over or under the
railroad right of way, it is logical to assume there may be existing toxic problems along
the railroad right of way. The existence of toxic problems should influence which
roads get grade separation, whether overpasses or underpasses make the most.
sense, and which station location would be the cheapest to construct. A simple phone
call to the Department of Ecology in Olympia provided me with the information that
there are at least a couple of dozen active toxic cleanup sites on railroad right of way.
The toxic materials involved in those railway cleanup sites include elevated 30
concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil, viscous Bunker-C type
floating free hydrocarbon product, petroleum found floating on the groundwater,
petroleum seeping into the river, metals (including lead, low levels of PCBs and other
organic compounds), EPA Priority Pollutants - metals and cyanide, other metals, non-
halogenated solvents, PAHs, halogenated organic compounds, and asbestos. I have
no information that any of these toxic proh!ems exist along either the Union Pacific or
Burlington Northern lines as the travel through Kent, but would it not be wise to do at
least. a level one site evaluation?
' My argument is homework done now will avoid major problems later. For example,
if the City had done more in depth initial site analysis on the new downtown Kent
library site, (like figuring the the soils might be frozen after being under a cold storage 31
freezer building for the last EO years) the City taxpayers could have saved some
money. Other than cost and plan delay , what are the reasons that some level of toxic
review could not be accomplished this spring?
You state in L your Draft SE:IS ihzit one ref Vie main reasons for the Action Plan is to
respond to the proposed rn?rirnuier railroad. Strange that one of the definitions in 32
Face c
Webster's Dictiorlary for railroad is "to send or push forward with great or undue
;peed: to ralfrcad a bill through a legislature". Isn't that about the size of what the 32
Planning Department is trying to do with this SEIS?
- S {I don't have .more time. //l
y`fl +L 6rC^il y , -�
VB. Shaffer /
President
Encl
Carol Schwindt
American Charm, Inc.
^7 First' Ave. So .
ar,nt, WA 98032
March 10 , 1997
Linda Phillips
Planner
City of Kent
200 Fourth Ave. S -
y ent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Ms . Phillips
Of the "Draft Supplemental Impact Statement" for
I have received the copy requested.
the Downtown Kent Action Plan that I recently
r of
core
Speaking as a concerned owne theeaccess business
to the PocGtincr l e
core retail
retail area, I would like to see axiat;na core retail area
area of downtown Kent be maintained and the accomplish this
.•preserved. I- believe that Alternative 2 woild not only
aim, but enhance and bond the existing
retaIt is my opinion that Alternative 3 would divide��thefoc do�and "access retail
tarea
On
into a North versus South situation and put
the proposed north retail area.
led plan of the traffic configu
ration
I would also like to see a more detai 2
solutions for the Meeker-Titus site of the
in relation to the parking
as exists in this document for the James/Smith
Commuter Rail Station such
site (Figure 3 .2-5) .
I want to thank you for replying to my request for the impact statement an
3
hopefully Your consideration of my opinion even though it is past the due
date for such input.
Sincerely
Carol Schwindt
LAW OFFICES
I'nrersn M.Alll'RN
(•.Prn;R('((Rrt+N CURRAN, KLGWENO-&_JOHNSON .
MARS W.DAVIS
pwuO'r.IIOKrr. nPRO(TSSIONAI,SERVICE CORPORATION
nnPII)G.1111116(1N
SrrMIIT{I_1(IIIN}(1N .: _ _ -
KFNT PRotrssloNnl.RnU
Mr:1.e1Nl_KLrwrr+n.JR• . . .. : ;55wr.wsMmisTRrrT .. 1 v"rCt g12_2030
J(xrrn A.Mr•KAnalr m%T Om..c F.Box 140 n E C
Kim ADA619 PRATr Kiwr•wA_\IIINCTON 980 i5-0140
JANr V.RII(1()r[ �^n 't 7 1997
l2 1997 OFFICE�E�}>`t•AA��R
March .
Mayor Jim White and
Members of the Kert City Council
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Re: RTA Shinn.Sili119
Dear Mayor White and CourtcirMembers:
We are directing this letter to you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Kent Downtown
Partnership. As you know, we have a keen interest in the siting of the Kent Station for the RTA.
Toward that end, after careful examination of the various alternatives. it !s our strong
recommendation that the Kent Station be sited in accord with Alternative No. 2 of the 3 alternatives
which have been set forth. The Board and Members of the Kent Downtown Partnership feel that this
location would he the location which would most benefit the City of Kent and particularly the
downtown area. We believe that the test series of train runs which were conducted about i '/-_years
a+j,n,show that a siting in that area would most benefit downtown Kent and would he also very handv
for the users of the transportation.
We would appreciate being kept a part of the decision-making process, understanding however, drat 12
the ultimata derision is reserved to the Mayor and Council of the Ciiy. I
Thank you for your kind consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
C'IJRR N, LEWENO & J HNSON, P. .
Melvin L. Kleweno,Jr.
MLK/Icp
c�weet Impressi0n,3, Inc.
218 1st Ave. S. Kcnt, WA 9805M954 ak
_ f (206) 852-6722 FAX (206) 850-7447
z
March 22, 1997
Linda Phillips
Planning Dept.
City of Kent
220 4th Ave.'S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Linda:
I'm writing you concerning the DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN. I received a yellow meeting
notice yesterday and called the number (859-3390) at the bottom as instructed, to make my opinions part of the
record for the DSAP, only to be told they knew nothing about it, and that I would have to contact you in writing.
So, I would like to go on record as a merchant in downtown Kent with my biggest concern for our fair city
under the general heading of URBAN DESIGN, which is listed as one of the CORE AREA FOCUS ISSUES in the
afore mentioned notice.
-' PUBLIC RESTROOMS, or more to the point: the lack thereof! I used to let my customers use our
private restroom in the back of our store, but it just got out of hand. Things were stolen out of our back room.
People (especially their kids) left gross messes for me to clean up after they left. So we told people that we didn't
have a public restroom and that they should go to the library or Pennys. They whined, pleaded, and did little
dances. We stood firm and explained the whole thing to them. They promised not to be like those other" .�
people; 'Please,just this once—I'm going to explode!' "You better run then, the library is four blocks away.' They
left mad and swore never to shop here again.
If Kent is going to have a vital, growing downtown core, it must be 'people friendly' I know this seems
like a small concern, but if you've ever been in need, you know it's not. I also know it will cost money. But if it is
part of a long-term comprehensive plan for the heart of Kent's business district, it can be factored in as part of
t:;e cvemil cost r:•,th a good return for the investment. The longer people can stay downtown and shop in
comfort,the more likely they'll come back and bring their friends; hence more sales and more tax revenue for the
City, paying for itself. It's a win—win proposition for everyone; Is it a priority? Definately! Just ask anyone you
see running toward the library or Penny's.
By the way, could you see what you can do about getting some public telephones? I just hate it when
someone walks in off the street and asks, 'Hey, can I-use your phone?'
Sincerely,
�A
Robert A. Stevens
President
3
o °»
°s s°«
r-
NORTHWEST ALLIANCE INC
RECEIVED
APR 21997
March 31, 1997 ENT
PLANNING oEPAITIMENT
Mayor Jim White
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Subject: Downtown Area Revision to Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mayor White:
I attended the 'Core Area Focus Workshop' last Thursday night. The rimary
00
focus of the meeting seemed to be the estimated cost difference of about $2,
between one commuter rail station location and another. I find that figure to be
insignificant when compared to the projected cost of constructing the City
recommended underpasses under the railroad tracks. In the meeting I asked Mr.
Harris if the City of Kent currently had at its disposal the projected $103,000,000
required to construct the substantial east-west cuts through the core area. His answer
was no. I also talked with people from Washington State Department of
Transportation to see if the State had funds available for this work and their answer 33
was also no. As I understand it there are around 78 total grade separ ation problems
along the BN line with similar characteristics as those of downtown Kent. The
construction budget for all of the underpasses/overpasses could easily be in the range
•� of $2,500,000,000 (2.5 Billion Dollarsll). The City does not have the money,the draft SEIS states that the level of service (LOS) will
does not have the money,_oneyses, and yet the Planning Department will not deal directly
suffer without the un tht
and openly with the issue. I found Soho cartoon belowy in thecwas runn'inghn the as
being sidetracked in the Workshop
South
County Journal.
"mE.ASURE .ONCE. CUT
WE PLAN T00 MUCH. STV
TWIFROM NOW ON WE'LL TCHAVE A 6iA5 FOtI OITi'� T I LIKE
AC rION TO 'ACTI . AND T.T. TOLD
I WANT THEM SOON! 'YOU
LM
LAKE CITY PROFESSIONAL CENTER
2611 N.E. 125th, SUITE 106, SEATTLE, WA 98125 (206) 361-4833 (206) 361-4822FAX
Mayor White
March 31, 1997
Page 2
I would appreciate your thoughts. My direct phone line is (206) 517-7615.
5 ce eIy,
V. x
Don.B. Shaffer
President '
cc Jim Harris
Appendices
B. Response to Comments
Each of the following responses correspond to the numbers labeled on each of the comment
letters. The letters can be found in the preceding section.
Pamela Newcomer, February 5, 1997
1. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers.
2. The proposed zoning change located just north of James Street would allow office
development to a maximum of four stories. Mitigation has been recommended to cul-de-sac
the neighborhood streets to prevent any access from the proposed office development to the
residential neighborhood to the north.
3. Due to the proposed street configuration and buffer between the.proposed office use and
residential neighborhood, expansion of the office designation is not anticipated. It is the
City's goal to preserve and enhance residential neighborhoods in the downtown area.
Perry Woodford, February 5, 1997
1. Comment regarding gateway location is noted.
2. Coordination with WSDOT would be required to build an HOV access at Smith and
Highway 167. The plan takes this option under consideration.
3. Comment noted.
4. Washington Avenue has been considered in the transportation impact analysis of the
Downtown Action Plan.
5. Comments noted. The plan does not consider moving the school.
6. Comments regarding urban design features at intersections and the visibility of gathering
places has been considered in development of the downtown urban design guidelines.
Joseph Kolodziejcak, February 5, 1997
1. Comment noted.
2. The City is also concerned with traffic congestion in downtown Kent. Traffic impact
analysis has been conducted for proposed actions of the Downtown Action Plan.
All comments from the Comparative Evaluation of the proposed alternatives have been
considered and incorporated into the features of the preferred alternative.
Regional Transit Authority, February 7, 1997
1. Comments noted.
2. The preferred alternatives indicates parking for a minimum of 530 spaces in lots within
close proximity (short walking distance). The parking shown is intended for commuter rail
passengers and no other use has been identified that would depend on sharing these spaces.
3. Refer to Response 2.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan B-t
9633RP72.Doc-n+rs7
Appendices
4. Transit access, staging and temporary parking has been considered and illustrated in the
proposed preferred alternative. Refer to the Commuter Rail Station section of the
Downtown Action Plan.
5. Refer to Response 4.
6. Comments regarding the park-n-ride lot and shuttle transfers has been considered. There is
potential for more the 530 parking spaces to be located near the station through acquisition
of more land or by constructing structured parking. Final decisions on the exact number of
spaces required if the park-n-ride lot were to be moved closer to the commuter rail station
would be considered when RTA and Metro studies the issue during development of the
Commuter Rail EA/EIS and thereafter.
7. The number of arterial underpasses has been reduced due to the plans of the WSDOT FAST
Corridor project progress. Refer to those sections of the Downtown Action Plan that
addresses pedestrian connections throughout downtown and especially at the proposed
James Street underpass.
Regional Transit Authority, February 19, 1997
8. Comments regarding forecast numbers have been noted and incorporated into the plan.
Refer to Responses 2, 4 and 6.
Paul Hammerschmidt, February 14, 1997
1. Comments noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The preferred
plan has been modified to reflect the latest plan of the WSDOT FAST Corridor project,
which indicates that it is most likely that only one underpass would be considered for
funding. It is unknown at this time whether construction would be jointly funded between
WSDOT and the City of Kent. The most current cost estimates may be found in the Kent
Public Works Department.
Also,refer to Comment 1 of the James P. Harris, Kent Planning Director response letter.
2. The area located north of James Street, west of 4th Avenue and south of Highway 167 has
been analyzed in the preferred alternative of the Downtown Action Plan. Refer to Section
V. A., Recommendation Al. Describes the land use recommendations. The plan
recommends changing the SF-8 designation south of Cloudy Street to allow limited office
with a mixed use overlay. Section VII.B. identifies potential environmental impacts and
mitigation measures of development that would occur as a result of this redesignation.
Also,refer to Comment 2 of the James P. Harris,Kent Planning Director response letter.
3. Comments noted. Refer to Response 2.
4. Comments have been incorporated into the preferred alternative. Potential impacts due to
any proposed changes to land use,traffic, street configuration, or parking have been
evaluation in the Downtown Action Plan.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan B-2
9699RPn.DOC-5121197
Appendices
5. Any change to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, such as this Downtown Action Plan, must be
analyzed according to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). Therefore, a supplement
to the Comprehensive Plan EIS must be conducted. Development of an EIS must include a
public involvement process. It was always the intent of the Kent Planning Department to
involve the public during all steps of the planning process.
Also,refer to Comment 3 of the James P. Harris, Kent Planning Director response letter.
6. Refer to the response letter prepared by James P. Harris, Kent Planning Director.
Tom Harmer, February 26, 1997
1. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers.
State of Washington, DCTED, Office or Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
February 26, 1997
1. Further potential impact analysis has been conducted for the preferred alternative.
2. Section V-D summarizes the plan's intent to address historic preservation. Section VI-G.
details the approach to the historic core. In general terms, the plan recommends
implementing the interlocal agreement between Kent and King County that would give the
County the authority to designate landmarks within Kent. The details of this agreement
were outline in An Historic Preservation Program for The City of Kent: Recommendations
of the Historic Preservation Committee (City of Kent, December, 1990). The plan also
recommends the City establish a historic district and augment its Downtown Design
Guidelines to incorporate specific guidance for historic structures and infill within the
historic district. Further detail concerning the implementation of these recommendations are
contained in section VII-D. of the plan.
Kent Arts Commission, February 27, 1997
1. Comment noted.
2. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Action
V.C.5 of the plan recommends the City to Incorporate public art to reinforce Kent's
downtown character and unique traditions.
King County Metro Transit Division, March 4, 1997
1. Comments noted.
2. Comments noted. Refer to Responses 4 and 6 of the Regional Transit Authority letter.
3. Comments noted. The preferred alternative shows the location of the station between Smith
and James Streets,with the focus of the pedestrian activity near Smith Street and the center
of downtown Kent. The City will continue to work with Metro and RTA on all of the
station design and access issues as plans proceed.
Howard H. Montoure, March 6, 1997
I. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan B-3
9633RPT2.DOC-5121W
Appendices
Robert Whalen, March 5, 1997
1. Comment noted.
2. Comments noted. The preferred alternative shows the location of the station between Smith
and James Streets, with the focus of the pedestrian activity near Smith Street and the center
of downtown Kent.
3. Comments are noted and will be incorporate into detailed plans for the station area when
they are developed in concert with the RTA and Metro.
4. A scramble light at 4th Avenue and Smith Street has been proposed in the plan.
5. Street and pedestrian improvements along Smith Street have been proposed in the plan.
6. Comment noted.
7. The comment has been incorporated into the proposed Downtown Design Guidelines.
8. The comment has been incorporated into the proposed Downtown Design Guidelines.
9. It is the City's intent to allow only parking that is necessary for downtown businesses and
services. The RTA has described its preliminary request for the number of parking spaces
and the plan has incorporated that request. Refer to the Regional Transit Authority comment
letters.
10. Comment is noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate policymakers.
12. Comments noted.
Pat Curran, March 4, 1997
1. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The plan
does not contain specific recommendations for the location of a hotel.
Dee Moschel, March 6, 1997
1. Comment is noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers.
2. Comments noted. Several suggestions made regarding pedestrian corridors, safety,and
building design have been incorporated into the proposed Downtown Design Guidelines.
The plan does not contain specific recommendations for the location of a hotel.
3. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers.
4. Comment noted.
5. Comment noted.
6. Comment noted. The plan addresses improvements to Central Avenue.
7. Comments noted. The plan addresses improvements to these areas through implementation
actions and additions to the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan B4
96MRPT2.DOC.6121197
Appendices
Don B. Shaffer, March 5, 1997
1. Comments noted.
2. Comments noted.
3. Comments noted.
4. Comments noted. The Supplemental EIS analyzes environmental impacts and must be used
by decisionmakers along with other relevant information to make decisions. Detailed cost or
fiscal analysis is not required in an EIS, and is more appropriately a public policy question.
5. An integrated SEIS means that the existing setting of the study area is researched and
described prior to any development of potential alternatives. ,As alternatives are developed,
environmental impact analysis is conducted to help receive public input and refine the
alternatives to achieve a preferred alternative and implementation measures that will
incorporate any mitigation measures that are a result of the impact evaluation. The process
of the EIS and the plan are integrated and the physical document is integrated.
6. A project level EIS requires enough detailed analysis to determine the potential impacts due
to implementation of the specific project. The SEPA definition of the requirements for a
programmatic EIS requires that: 1)the lead agency shall discuss impacts and alternatives in
the level of detail appropriate to the scope of the nonproject proposal such as a
comprehensive plan or community plan; 2)the discussion of alternatives are limited to a
general discussion of the impacts of alternate proposals for policies and implementation
measures; and 3) if the nonproject proposal concerns a specific geographic area, site specific
analyses are not required, but may be included for areas of specific concern.
7. The integrated Downtown Action Plan and Final SEIS will analyze proposed actions more
specifically than addressed in the Draft SEIS.
8. The Supplemental EIS analyzes environmental impacts and must be used by decisionmakers
along with other relevant information to make decisions. Detailed cost or fiscal analysis is
not required in an EIS, and is more appropriately a public policy question.
9. You do not have to be a resident of Kent to participate.
10. Refer to Section I of the Downtown Action Plan for a description of the public review
process.
11. Comment noted. It is the City's intent to make sure that everyone is notified of potential
land use changes in the City.
12. Refer to Response 11.
13. Specific design configuration of the extension is beyond the scope of this study. Questions
regarding cost, schedule and right-of-way cannot be answered to the requested level of detail
at this time.
14. Any HOV access to SR 167 would have to be approved by WSDOT and local and regional
transit providers. This idea was proposed by citizens that attended several of the workshops
and was explored as a potential solution to traffic issues in the downtown area. Further
study would be required for implementation of this idea.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan B-5
9633RPT2.DOC-521/97
Appendices
15. Refer to the definition of the preferred alternative and the amount of proposed parking for
the future commuter rail station. Also refer to comment letters submitted by King County
Metro and the Regional Transit Authority describing their current plans for the area and
requesting additional parking.
16. Details of construction of a performing arts center is beyond the scope of this project.
Contact the City of Kent Parks Department for current plans and information.
17. Refer to the proposed Downtown Action Plan for suggested improvements on State Street
and Central Avenue,and especially to proposed Downtown Design Guidelines.
18. Refer to the proposed Downtown Action Plan for suggested improvements to Commons
Park.
19. The intent of rezoning the area located just north of James Street is to benefit the entire
downtown area and surrounding areas. It is intended to improve circulation and safety in the
area by limiting driveways on James Street in that area. Refer to the Implementation section
of the plan, Action Al. for further description of the action, reasoning for the action, potential
impacts and mitigation to improve the entire neighborhood for the area-wide benefit.
This is a Comprehensive Plan map revision and a zoning code revision proposed as an area-
wide decision and action. The City Council requested additional study of this proposal
within the subarea planning process.
21. Comments noted. It is the intent of the City to plan for the area in the event that Borden
should vacate the site. The comprehensive plan and this downtown plan are long range
planning efforts to be prepared for land use changes that may occur in the future and
significant results to the community and its citizens.
22. The Supplemental EIS analyzes environmental impacts and must be used by decisionmakers
along with other relevant information to make decisions. Detailed cost or fiscal analysis is
not required in an EIS, and is more appropriately a public policy question.
23. Impacts to capital facilities due to implementation actions of the plan are described in the
proposed Downtown Action Plan and Final SEIS.
24. The Supplemental EIS analyzes environmental impacts and must be used by decisionmakers
along with other relevant information to make decisions. Detailed cost or fiscal analysis is
not required in an EIS, and is more appropriately a public policy question.
25. Comments noted. Cost figures have been presented at workshops whenever the information
has been available. Further costs of specific public works project may be found at the Kent
Public Works Department. Detailed cost or fiscal analysis is not required in an EIS, and is
more appropriately a public policy question.
26. The RJC EIS and the Regional Transit Authority South Corridor Commuter Rail
unpublished EA/EIS information was used in developing the preferred alternative.
Reference to those documents will be added to the list for the Final SEIS.
27. Makers provided a colored graphic of a potential grade separation and how pedestrian
connections could still be maintained for most areas. It also indicated the areas that would
lose existing at-grade connections. The Downtown Action Plan and SEIS describe the
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan B-6
96MPT2.DOC-612V97
Appendices
proposed action, potential impacts and mitigation to prevent some of the negative effects of
a grade separation in the downtown area.
28. Specific design configuration of the underpass proposed at James Street is beyond the scope
of this study. Questions regarding cost, schedule and right-of-way cannot be answered to the
requested level of detail at this time.
29. Potential local impacts due to implementation of the Downtown Action Plan have been
evaluated in the Plan/Final SEIS. Potential noise and vibration impacts due to the increase
in commuter rail traffic will be studied by the RTA and is beyond the scope of the Kent
Downtown Action Plan study. There are no plans at this time for WSDOT or the railroads
to study the potential effects of increased traffic on the highways or rail lines.
30. A level one or higher will be performed prior to any construction activities. RTA will be
required to perform these evaluations for station improvements and WSDOT and/or the City
will perform these evaluations for underpass construction.
31. Refer to Response 30.
32. Comment noted.
Carol Schwindt, March 10, 1997
1. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers.
2. Refer to the Commuter Rail Station location section of the plan where it describes the
traffic, access,parking,transit and circulation for the proposed preferred alternative. Similar
information was analyzed for the Meeker-Titus site and it was determined that transit, access
for transit and autos, and circulation for all transportation modes was more problematic than
the Smith Street site.
3. Comment noted.
Melvin L. Kleweno, Jr., March 12, 1997
1. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Analysis has
indicated that transit access (and therefore people access) is greater at the Smith Street site
and that the amount of parking that would be required by the RTA would be disruptive to
the existing retail core existing in the Meeker to Titus Street area. Many business would
have to be relocated from that area and most of the day use for that converted land would be
for parking.
2. Comment noted.
Robert A. Stevens, March 22, 1997
1. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The plan
does not contain specific recommendations for public restrooms and telephones.
Don B. Shaffer, March 31, 1997
33. Comments noted.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan B-7
9633RPT2.DOC-621197
Appendices
C. Glossary
Commuter Rail Station: A station and facilities for boarding and alighting passengers on a
commuter rail line, which operates along existing freight railroad tracks.
Developer: An individual or business entity which buys real estate and prepares it for resale at a
profit. Preparation generally includes assembling or subdividing parcels, obtaining permits and
clearances, constructing utilities and streets and, in some cases, constructing buildings.
Economic Market Study: A study of the market demand for services, goods or housing within
a particular area, and the extent to which that market demand is already being satisfied. For
example, a major developer might want to know if the current market demand for multiple
family housing is great enough to justify a project; or if a proposed new shopping center would
generate enough sales for tenants.
Environmental Impact Statement(EIS): A document which analyzes the significant
environmental impacts of a particular action or proposal, possible alternatives to that action and
mitigation measures for those impacts analyzed.
ESHB 1724: A Washington State law that requires local jurisdictions to consolidate their local
permit review and hearing processes and better integrate environmental regulations with the
Growth Management Act. This 1996 law also mandates faster decision making by requiring
local jurisdictions to implement a 120-day permit processing period for all land use and building
permits.
Facilities: Capital Improvements. Often, but not always, the term implies capital improvements
which are ancillary to or supportive of the main purposes of an overall project. For example,
"The recreational facilities for this action includes a playground, tennis court, swimming pool
and community center."
Floor Area Ration (FAR): A measure of development density expressed as the amount of
building floor area divided by the total development site area or parcel.
Grade Separated: Rights-of-way that are separated from general purpose rights-of-way by a
level change, often on an elevated structure or in an underpass.
Growth Management Act (GMA): A 1990 Washington State law that mandates managing
population and employment growth through comprehensive plans, regionally coordinated plan
implementation and creation of urban growth areas.
Impacts: The effects or consequences of actions. Environmental impacts are affects upon the
elements of the environment listed by SEPA.
Joint Development: Projects financed and developed jointly by public agencies and private
developers.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan C-1
9633RPT2.UOC-5Q1/B7
Appendices
Local Improvement District(LID): A special district in which a tax is assessed to pay for a
specific public improvement, such as a new road.
Mitigation: Actions which avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, compensate or correct
otherwise probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
Mixed Uses: Any combination of activities which mix residential, offices, shops and other
related uses. Mixed uses exist in concentrated centers and increase activity and density. Mixed
uses can be single activities in their own buildings but clustered within walking distance; or
buildings containing two or more activities, as in office space located above retail shops.
Pedestrian-Friendly: Designed to accommodate pedestrians' (and sometimes cyclists')
priorities of safety,minimized walking distance, comfort and pleasant surroundings.
Planned Action: One or more types of project action(s) that: 1) are designated planned actions
by an ordinance or resolution adopted by a city; 2) have had the significant environmental
impacts adequately addressed in an EIS prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or
subarea plan; 3) are subsequent or implementing projects for a comprehensive or subarea plan;
4) are not essential public facilities; or 5)are consistent with a comprehensive plan.
Programmatic EIS: The Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) for a"program,"consisting of
a policy plan for many inter-related projects. Under Washington's State Environmental Policy
Act(SEPA), an EIS must be prepared for significant public programs or policy documents,as
well as for individual development projects.
Regional Transit Authority (RTA): In the Puget Sound region,the agency responsible for
planning, building and operating the regional transit system. The system includes,regional bus
service,high occupancy vehicles(HOV) lanes and access, light rail transit and commuter rail.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): Chapter 43.21 C of the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) -the general policies and regulations intended to help lead agencies and citizens make
better environmental decisions.
Station Area: An area with an approximately '/< mile radius around a rapid rail station
containing transit-related activities and designed to accommodate large numbers of people.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS): Preparation of a SEIS is appropriate
when a proposal is substantially similar to one covered in an existing EIS. New information
indicating a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts may be provided in
an SEIS. The SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives or impacts that is in the
previously prepared EIS.
Draft Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan C-2
9633RPT2.D0C-5r21197
CITY OF ` f
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
May 27, 1997
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:00 p.m. on May 27, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Tom Brotherton
Jerry Daman
Ron Harmon
David Malik
Sharon Woodford
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Linda Phillips, Planner
Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Sharon Woodford pointed out an omission in the March 24, 1997 minutes. The final
vote of the recommended action to amend Section 15.04.120(A) was erroneously left out. The
minutes will be corrected to reflect "the motion carried".
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to approve the
March 24, 1997 minutes with the above noted correction. Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
220 4th AVE SO.. /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE 12061859-3300/FAX#859-3334
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
Planning Director Jim Hams identified a memo distributed to the Board members in their notebook
and asked the Board to consider the procedural change. The Board concurred with Mr. Harris's
recommendation.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director Jim Harris informed the Planning Board members of the regular City Council
meeting next Tuesday (June 3). He also explained that if this meeting is continued, the Board will
meet on Monday, June 2.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN (F. Satterstrom/L. Phillips)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom detailed the history of planning Kent's downtown. He explained
that planning for the downtown area began some 31 years ago. He stated that Kent has a good
history of developing and implementing downtown plans. The City has not implemented every
aspect of each plan;however,it is very serious about implementing the developed goals and policies.
Mr. Satterstrom commented that this plan is one in a succession of downtown plans.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the City Council deems the downtown as an important issue and has
made it the number one priority for 1997 target issues. He explained that during the 1996 City
Council retreat, the Council identified creating a "Home Town for Families" their highest priority
target issue.
Also in 1996, the Council set aside $25,000 in the Capital Improvement Program to complete a
downtown market analysis and the City was awarded a $150,000 Planning and Environmental
Review Fund (PERF) grant from the state. The PERF grant was awarded to the City of Kent to
develop an integrated downtown plan which brings GMA and SEPA together in one document called
a subarea plan.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the City interviewed several consulting groups and selected
MAKERS to develop the downtown plan. He explained that the planning process began in July of
last year with the first community meeting on July 31st. The City also formed a Stakeholders
Committee.
He explained that over the last ten month period the City has held 14 community workshops and
stakeholder committee meetings. He stated that there has been a very dedicated core of citizens and
property owners who have followed this process. There has been excellent participation for a
majority of the meetings, especially the February meeting at the Commons which spilled out of the
meeting room.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 3
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the draft Environmental Impact statement weighed three different
alternatives for the downtown plan and was issued in February. The state requires a 30-day
comment period for any draft EIS. Based on the analysis of the three alternatives and the responses
to each, the document before the Board is the resulting proposal. Mr. Satterstrom identified the Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Integrated Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement and explained that the document is actually two things:
1. ACTION PLAN. A list of actions for the Board to consider and recommend to the City
Council to implement the downtown vision. The actions relate to land use, transportation,
public facilities, design guidelines, and redevelopment. These are an important group of
related actions that relate to a vision for downtown together with an implementation plan.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. A planned action Environmental Impact Statement.
This is an integrated document which will allow future downtown proposals, either public
or private, to receive a reduced level of environmental review if consistent with the
downtown plan. This is an obligation of the state grant.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the Planning Board is the first stop along the way in the adoption
process. The Board will hold a public hearing, receive public testimony, deliberate, and make a
recommendation to the City Council for their final approval.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that this meeting could be continued to June 2nd for further deliberations
if required. He explained that Linda Phillips has been the project planner and is prepared to present
a brief explanation of the proposed plan and form the foundation of the public hearing.
Planner Linda Phillips asked that the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Integrated
Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement be included as part of the record
and marked as EXHIBIT'A'.
Ms. Phillips thanked the public for their participation. She explained that the purpose of this plan
is to guide and encourage downtown growth and redevelopment and place the growth in a pattern
that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and policies. She explained that the Comprehensive
Plan points out that the City asked for and received a designation as an urban center. The result of
this designation is that as many as 2,500 additional housing units could be located in downtown Kent
over the next 20 years. In addition, there will be more jobs resulting in a demand for more offices
and creation of new businesses. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan speaks of downtown Kent as a
pedestrian oriented area which is a comfortable place to live, work and find recreation. It states that
people should be comfortable walking and have streets and sidewalks oriented in a manner which
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 4
allows them to move around between their homes,jobs, and recreation in a manner that adds to the
quality of life and the experience of being downtown.
She explained that this plan seeks to create a stronger Community identity. Downtown Kent should
represent something special to people and emphasize Kent's standing in the region. The plan intends
to emphasize civic, commercial and residential focus areas. Many of those uses will be mixed
because that is the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning designations for the
downtown. Key entry points into downtown will be defined with a special project to develop
Gateways. The City has received an additional $10,000 in grant money for the Gateway Design
Project. The Council may decide to add Gateways to its Capital Improvement Plan and start work
on this project in the next couple of years.
Ms. Phillips stated that commuter rail is coming to the City of Kent which may encourage a lot of
residential development downtown. This has been seen in other areas and would support retail as
well as other uses in the downtown area. She explained that we will need to monitor the
environmental impacts of growth as the redevelopment and the ill occur. That includes looking
at increased traffic,traffic circulation, impervious surfaces, storm water issues, open space, bulk and
scale of buildings, and buildings design guidelines.
Ms. Phillips explained that the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Integrated Preliminary
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(the"plan")is organized around seven districts:
The North Frame District is the area just north of James Street and is a single family residential area.
Ms. Phillips stated that there is a feeling from those who live in this area that there are two distinct
neighborhoods separated by Fourth Avenue.
The plan recommends that the area east of Fourth be redesignated commercial and zoned limited
office for the parcels fronting on James Street. The designation would go 150 feet deep and if a lot
extends further it would extend no further than a maximum of 250 feet. Ms. Phillips explained that
there would be zoning regulations to ensure a minimum lot size in order to discourage very small
and house by house development. The development would require a private access road along the
rear of the property along with a 12 foot green buffer to screen the office development from the
residential neighborhood. The plan recommends opening Cloudy Street for better access to Fourth
and to cul-de-sac First, Second, and Third Avenue.
The plan also recommends redesignating the area west of Fourth commercial and zoning the area
office with a mixed use overlay. Ms. Phillips explained that the mixed use designation would allow
multifamily development in conjunction with office development.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 5
Other proposals for the North Core District include master planning the Commons Playfield Park
to address parking issues, storm drainage, traffic related to parking, and lighting issues.
The Central Avenue District provides an important entry into downtown Kent and currently presents
a very mixed appearance when you come into Kent. It is very difficult to know where to find the
rest of downtown Kent; hence gateways are proposed for Central at Smith and Titus. The plan
recommends a study to look at street scapes, signs, and all of the uses that occur along Central.
The East Frame District area is found just east of Central Avenue and includes sections of both
Meeker and Gowe Street. The plan recommends street scape improvements, adopting appropriate
design guidelines, and constructing a pedestrian trail from Mill Creek to Memorial Park.
Ms. Phillips stated that the East Frame District is an excellent area for continued residential
development.
The plan considers adding a new access street into the West Frame District. Ms. Phillips explained
that currently it is very difficult to enter the West Frame area. The plan recommends connecting the
Interurban Trail to the Core Districts, establishing design guidelines, and the encouraging mixed use
development within the West Frame District.
The South Core District is the area south of City Hall extending from SR-167. The plan
recommends extending the angled parking along Saar Street to the Union Pacific Railroad. Also
proposed, is to extend the Interurban bicycle trail to the core and developing a housing
demonstration pilot program. The plan also suggests developing parking in the area west of the
railroad between Titus and Railroad Streets. Adding parking in this area could free up the public
parking lot on Second and Titus for future residential development.
The North Core District contains the location proposed for the commuter rail station. A preliminary
technical analysis was conducted to study traffic, environmental, and economic issues. On the basis
of the technical analysis and the preference of the community, the north location was recommended
by both Planning Staff and the consultant group.
The other recommendations for the North Core District include a safe pedestrian connection across
Smith Street,the design of the commuter rail station as a visual focus and an identity for Kent, the
support of the new Kent Market location, upgrading International Park, support of the Civic and
Performing Arts Complex, improvement or installation of new sidewalks, street lights and tree
grates, and traffic and pedestrian safety improvements on Smith Street between First Avenue and
Central.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 6
Ms. Phillips explained that the Historic Core is the area that started as Market town on the railroad.
The improvements and changes proposed in the other districts all support the historic core and
support the connections between the established downtown area and the rest of the City. The plan
proposes pedestrian improvements to include the addition of more benches and pedestrian style
lighting. Also being proposed is a gateway at Fourth and Meeker to lead people into the Historic
Core. A historic analysis is also proposed to determine which buildings are eligible for
redevelopment,which should be preserved in character, and which should be changed. The Historic
Core would also encourage the development of housing over retail.
Design guidelines are recommended for every district but are specific in character for each district.
Overall the plan seeks to encourage residential development downtown with pilot projects and
improved permit processing, encouraging town houses, condominiums, mixed use with office and
retail on the first floor, and small multifamily complexes with single family appearance in character.
Another general overall goal is to construct traffic and pedestrian improvements to the downtown
streets as necessary to really provide a pleasant and safe access to the commuter rail station, RJC,
downtown core, and to residential areas downtown.
Ms. Phillips explained that the last two section of the plan discuss phasing and monitoring. The
phasing section proposes these actions to take place over a period of 20 years.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned the amount of office space which is currently available
within the City of Kent. Ms. Phillips stated that information is not available at this time.
Mr. Harmon questioned whether staff had prepared an alternative that was discussed at the May 19
workshop regarding the grade separation being proposed for James Street and how it may effect the
frontage properties on James. Ms. Phillips reported that there was an alternative developed which
was supposed to be delivered to the City and be available for this hearing; however,the City has not
yet received this information from the consultant group. Ms. Phillips explained that the proposal
Mr. Harmon was referring to was a park type development one parcel deep that would buffer the
neighborhood from James Street. This would be an alternative proposal to office development.
Mr. Harmon questioned whether other gateways such as James and Central would be proposed at
a later time. Ms. Phillips explained that all the gateways that are being proposed are currently
designated in the plan.
Board member Sharon Woodford questioned if First, Second and Third were cul-de-sacs, whether
a light had been considered for Cloudy. Assistant Transpiration Engineer Kristen Langley stated that
a light is being considered for that location.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 7
Chair Steve Dowell opened the public hearing.
Linda Johnson,Exec Dir,Kent Downtown Partnership,P. O. Box 557,Kent,WA 98032. Kent
Downtown Partnership (KDP) Executive Director Linda Johnson thanked the staff and consultants
for the excellent work they have done on this project. Ms. Johnson reported that the KDP is pleased
with most of the proposed plan.
However, the KDP is concerned with the location selected for the commuter rail station.
Ms. Johnson stated that the KDP does not feel enough analysis was done on the values of the
businesses that are located in those areas to actually make the statement that the land value of the
north site is less than the south location. She remarked that the analysis was based solely on the
assessed value of the parcels and did not take into consideration the businesses located on those
properties.
Ms. Johnson suggested that before a site location has been selected for either the north or south
proposed commuter rail station there needs to be more analysis done on the actual value of the
businesses that are located on those parcels. Ms. Johnson stated that she will be forwarding a letter
from the KDP that identifies the pro's and con's for both sites.
Ms. Johnson thanked the City for including the Public Market in the downtown plan. She also
reported that the KDP supports the location of the Performing Arts Center.
Ms. Johnson asked the Board to consider an in depth look at the two possible locations of the
commuter rail station before the site is selected.
Don Campbell, 27813 - 13th AV S, Kent, WA 98035. Mr. Don Campbell explained that he
represents the Kent Civic and Performing Arts taskforce and their ongoing effort to locate some type
of a Civic Performing Arts facility in the downtown core. Mr. Campbell indicated that he supports
the proposed plan.
Mr. Campbell stated that in the market analysis the plan suggests that all funds to develop this
project would come from the private sector. Mr. Campbell reported that realistically in order to
pursue a Civic Performing Arts facility some public support would be required. He explained that
this facility would serve as a destination for Kent; a hub for both day and night activities.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned Mr. Campbell's views of an outdoor performing art center
in conjunction with the Performing Arts Center. Mr. Campbell explained that outdoor performing
art venues in this part of the country is somewhat tricky. He stated that the facility they have looked
at has much more of an indoor meeting space component. They have not spent much time looking
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 8
at outdoor facilities. He said he likes the idea of outdoor performing arts events and the idea of
expanding what has happened in Mill Creek Park and areas like it.
Steve O'Connell, 722 Third AV N, Kent, WA 98032. Mr. Steve O'Connell remarked that the
proposed access road for the proposed office development that fronts James Street goes directly
through his property. Mr. O'Connell commented that he has voiced his opposition of the access road
location since the beginning.
Chair Steve Dowell informed Mr. O'Connell that this is simply a proposed plan and questioned
whether he had discussed with City staff why the road was proposed. Mr. O'Connell stated that he
had discussed his opposition of the road from the beginning; however, he never discussed the
purpose of the road.
Mr.Harmon questioned how long Mr. O'Connell had resided at his current residence. Mr. O'Connell
stated that he has been there for two and a half years.
Paulette O'Connell, 722 Third AV N, Kent, WA 98032. Ms. Paulette O'Connell stated that if
First, Second, and Third are cul-de-sacs that only leaves one entrance and exit into the North Park
neighborhood. She is concerned with what could happen with such limited access during
emergencies. Ms. O'Connell is concerned with the City's response that a light will only be
considered at Cloudy. She commented that a light is definitely needed at Cloudy if it is the only
entrance or exit into North Park.
Chair Steve Dowell stated that this issue was discussed at the last workshop. Chair Dowell
suggested opening Cole Street and asked staff to consider the possibility.
John Dahll,805 Crest AV,Kent,WA 98032. Mr.John Dahll stated that he has resided in the City
of Kent for 38 years. Mr. Dahll commented that he and his wife use the Common Playfield on a
daily basis almost year round. They primarily use the walking and jogging trail which covers
approximately 7/10 of a mile.
Mr. Dahll is concerned with the part of the plan which proposes using a portion of the Commons
Playfield to develop additional parking along James Street. Mr. Dahll stated that he has attended
every meeting since last July and the parking addition was added recently. He commented that there
are 1,550 parking spaces in the immediate area and it is unnecessary to destroy a portion of the
Commons Playfield to add additional parking.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the parking addition was recognition of a safety issue regarding the
crossing of James Street in order to get to the Commons Playfield. The parking is not intended to
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 9
replace the parking now available at the Park and Ride, RJC, or Commons. Mr. Satterstrom
commented that prior to any actual development of the Commons Playfield there would be a parking
study.
Chair Steve Dowell commented that it may worry some that the proposed parking area has been
identified on a portion of the existing Commons Playfield. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the map could
be changed to indicate that there isn't a set area designated for parking. Mr. Dahll commented that
it is evident that the proposed plan is indicating parking. He again stated that there is no need for
additional parking. He also stated that there is no safety issue.
Fred Wright, 727 Third AV N, Kent, WA 98032. Mr. Fred Wright explained that he has lived
at his current residence for more than 35 years. Mr. Wright explained that he has no problem with
individuals attempting to sell their properties for development along James Street. Mr. Wright stated
that he strongly objects to a private access road. He objects to a single entrance and exit from North
Park. He supports opening Cole Street.
Pam Newcomer, 829 Third AV N, Kent, WA 98032. Ms. Pam Newcomer presented a poster
(Exhibit'B')to the Board that pictured houses in the North Park area that were well manicured and
discussed a letter she had presented to the Board on May 19 (Exhibit'C'). Ms.Newcomer stated that
most of the houses in the North Park area are kept in a better than average condition. The houses
are small and simple; similar to cottage style homes. She commented that she is offended by the
inference that there is poor trash living in the North Park area. Ms. Newcomer stated that the
majority of the properties are owned by the resident. She remarked that she is a"newcomer" in the
neighborhood; she's been there for ten years. The neighborhood is stable. She commented that this
is a great place to live.
Ms.Newcomer conducted a independent survey(results marked as Exhibit'D') of the residents that
are directly effected by rezoning the James Street properties between First and Fourth Avenue. She
was able to poll ten of the residents. Eight out of ten were against the rezone, one resident was
undecided, and the remaining resident was for it. She explained that most of the residents are retired
and planned to live out their days in their homes. Rezoning their properties would simply deny that
possibility.
Ms. Newcomer discussed various sections of the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan and
Integrated Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Page IV-11,E. Redevelopment Target Areas, paragraph 2, "The plan's land use recommendations
are directed toward fine tuning the City's comprehensive planning framework in response to specific
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 10
redevelopment opportunities and neighborhood protection needs." She stated that she is feeling a
little bit as though the North Park neighborhood is not being protected.
Page V-1, A. North Frame District, "While the overall intent of the plan is to preserve the single-
family character of North Park, two busy arterials—N. Fourth Avenue and James Street—intrude
on residential qualities to the extent that homes on this north side of James and west side of Fourth
are difficult to maintain." She stated that being on a busy arterial is not a valid reason for not
maintaining a property. She remarked that there are sidewalks and curbs and that doesn't stop
anyone from getting out there and mowing their lawn.
Environmental Impacts:
Impact A2.a. The proposed bulk and scale of office/residential (Ms. Newcomer commented that
during all the meetings thus far, it was discussed that there would not be any apartments or
residential development.)development as well as the placement of buildings on the site may create
impacts to homes in the existing SF-8, single family residential district, which is located north of the
proposed office area. She commented that this statement confirms that the office development is
going to impact the North Park neighborhood.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation A2.a. The replacement of driveways with shared access points and the closure of First
and Third Avenues (and potentially Second Avenue) . . . (Ms. Newcomer was told that First, Second
and Third Avenues would be cul-de-sacs for the neighborhood safety.) . . would improve the safety
of east-west travel on James Street. In order to improve safety and promote a pedestrian-friendly
environment, all driveways for the proposed new office uses on James Street between First and
Fourth Avenue should be oriented to a new east-west connector north of James Street. Leaving
Second Avenue open would relieve some of the new traffic burden on the James Street/Fourth
Avenue intersection and could preserve access to James Street for both office and residential uses.
Ms. Newcomer stated that this would allow the office traffic into the North Park neighborhood.
Mitigation A2.b. Adopt design guidelines, specific to the proposed rezone area, to ensure high
quality, substantial office/residential development compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood. Ms.Newcomer stated that this is a total paradox because if you put those to entities
in the petri dish they separate; they are incompatible.
Ms.Newcomer stated that she is in favor of the green belt alternative that was discussed earlier. She
also commented that she is in favor of the proposed Civic Performing Arts Center. She strongly
believes this would be a true asset to the downtown area and a great experience for the citizens of
Kent.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24. 1997
Page 11
Chair Dowell questioned whether the origin of the "trash" statement came from any of the members
on the Land Use and Planning Board. Ms. Newcomer ensured the Board that these comments were
not expressed by any of their members.
Chair Dowell commented that Mr. Harmon suggested the green belt idea and this will be presented
as a possible alternative to the office designation for that area. He stated that it will be very difficult
for North Park residents if Cloudy is the only access road to the neighborhood. He agreed with
Ms. Newcomer that 99% of the area is a very nice residential area.
Mr. Harmon requested that the materials Ms. Newcomer presented to the Board would be marked
as public record. (Documents were marked as Exhibits B, C, and D).
Val Batey,Regional Transit Authority,821 Second AV#151,Seattle,WA 98104. Ms. Val Baty
explained that she is employed by the Regional Transit Authority. She stated that she has been
working in the City of Kent for quite a few years primarily on helping to locate a commuter rail
station and has been working closely with the Kent staff through this process. Ms. Baty explained
that RTA appreciates the opportunity that they have been afforded to be involved in this process
even when it was uncertain whether there would actually be a RTA.
Ms. Batey explained that the RTA is looking forward to building on all of the City's hard work as
they begin their process to bring commuter rail service to Kent. The first thing that the RTA would
like to do is to negotiate and sign an interlocal agreement with the City of Kent that would set the
stage for the process.
As far as locating and designing the station, the RTA would like to form a technical advisory
committee. This would involve community and business representatives, the City of Kent staff, and
local transit agency staff. The committee will work through the final decisions on siting the station
and the design phases. The RTA plans to have a pool of prequalified architects and planners that
each City will be able to draw from when it gets to the point of designing their commuter rail station.
The technical advisory committee will play a very important role in that process in working through
the design phases until we are ready to build. The RTA's approved budget includes six million
dollars for a commuter rail station in downtown Kent. The RTA's adopted implementation guide
shows that the construction on that station along with all the others on the Tacoma to Seattle line
need to begin at the beginning of 1999 in order for RTA to live up to their commitment to start
commuter rail service between Seattle and Tacoma late 1999.
Ms. Batey commented on where the RTA is at now. They have looked at downtown Kent for
several years and even began an environmental review process on a commuter rail station they did
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 12
not complete because the first vote failed. She stated that the RTA is getting ready to begin that
process again in the next week or so and hopes to have the environmental review process completed
by the end of the year, moving forward with the technical advisory committee to get the design done
next year.
RTA has communicated with the City on their basic needs for a commuter rail station as far as
parking, the size of the station, and those needs have been reflected in the downtown plan. Ms.
Batey stated that as far as the deliberations between the north or south site, RTA feels that the north
site lends itself to the RTA's requirements more strongly. She commented that RTA is concerned
with the access and circulation and the disruption of a site further to the south.
Ms. Batey explained that being in the early stages of environmental review, the RTA does not have
a final statement on the location issue; however, with all the preliminary information available they
strongly favor the location of the north site.
Mr. Harmon questioned if the adjacent park and ride that is presently used by Metro was the
primarily imperative to help with the rail and the consideration of the north area. Ms. Batey stated
that the ideal operation would combine as many transit operations as possible in one location. The
RTA believes that the easier it is to transfer between buses, express buses, and trains the better
ridership they will have. The RTA still needs to work with King County Metro to figure out how
exactly the two services will operate together. Ms. Batey stated that although they would like to see
all of the services being utilized in one location they can not rule out the need for the existing park
and ride lot. They are anticipating that a lot of people that use the park and ride lot will switch to
commuter rail and then what the demand will be on that lot in the future comes into question.
Mr. Harmon questioned whether the RTA would recommend an express bus between the sites
without taking a circuitous route around the City. Ms. Batey stated that that type of required transfer
does not really please a lot of riders. Riders would rather not take a shuttle between a park and ride
lot and a station. Ms. Batey remarked that riders are more likely to look for parking that is closer
to the station before they would park and take a shuttle to the station.
Chair Dowell questioned where Kent stood in comparison with other cities on the RTA process.
Ms. Batey explained that since Mayor White is on the RTA committee the City of Kent is on the top
of the list; in reality everyone is pretty much at about the same place. She stated that because of the
hard work of the planning department the City of Kent is in really good shape.
Chair Dowell clarified the RTA would rather have the commuter rail and Metro close together.
Ms. Batey explained that the preference would be to have the commuter rail station and the actual
operation of the buses as close as possible. In an ideal world we would discontinue the use of the
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 13
Metro park and ride lot. All of the local transit and regional express bus meet the commuter rail
trains so that the transfer activities could all take place at one location. She commented that this will
be a transitional process as ridership on the commuter rail is built up.
Chair Dowell confirmed that RTA would prefer to have the commuter rail station and the metro park
and ride lot in the same place.
Garry Stewart, 404 N. Railroad,Kent,WA 98032 (Business) and 26620 127th AV SE (home).
Mr. Garry Stewart commented that during past annexation meetings the Parks Department discussed
their desire to bring parks to the people and eliminate the need for people to drive to utilize them.
Mr. Stewart remarked that if the Parks Department is working on a plan to bring the parks to the
people then that should eliminate the use of a portion of the Commons Park to develop parking.
Mr. Stewart is also concerned with the north alternative location for the commuter rail station. He
commented that the analysis done by the consultant group does not represent accurate figures. He
stated that $125,000 to relocate businesses is grossly underestimated. He also mentioned that
utilizing only the assessed value of the property and not taking into consideration the businesses
located on the properties and the value thereof is a misrepresentation of the cost comparison between
the proposed locations.
Mr. Stewart commented that Burdic Feed is going to be a difficult business to relocate. He
mentioned that Burdic would need a rail site and an EPA approved grain elevator will be expensive
to build. He also discussed the difficulty of relocating Tork Lift Central. Mr. Stewart commented
that parking may better be accommodated in another location.
Mr. Stewart commented on figure VI-5 on page VI-23 regarding the widening of Pioneer Street to
accommodate the bus travel. He stated that additional businesses will need to be relocated to
accommodate the street widening.
Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned what Mr. Stewart thought would be a more realistic figure to
purchase the real estate property and relocate the businesses to accommodate a commuter rail station.
Mr. Stewart explained that he had only looked into the cost of relocating his own business. Vice
Chair Bell asked then based on the relationship of the assessed value of his property and the actual
true fair market value of his real estate and business what would that percentage represent.
Mr. Stewart stated that is roughly half. Vice Chair Bell clarified that it would be necessary to pay
roughly twice the assessed value to relocate him. Mr. Stewart confirmed that and stated that the City
is responsible for helping Mr. Stewart find a location. He commented that he is an easy business to
relocate.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 14
Mr. Bell questioned whether that would be the same for his neighbors. Mr. Stewart commented that
the roofing companies would also be easy to relocate.; however, Burdic Feed and Tork Lift Central
will be a lot more difficult to relocate.
Alden Eld, P. O. Box 866, Oregon City, OR 97045. Mr. Alden Eld commented that the plan is
very good overall. He explained that he is not a newcomer to the North Park area. He has owned
property in the North Park area for 26 years including property on Fourth and James. He explained
that when he originally purchased the property the property was zoned for high density multifamily
development. The property has since been rezoned to single family residential. He commented that
the James Street issue should have been addressed at that time. He mentioned that at one time he
owned as many as seven houses in the North Park area all of which have now been converted into
single family ownership houses.
Mr. Eld stated that he in no way intends to disrupt the North Park area. He has been waiting for 26
years to be able to develop the lot that faces on James Street. He said that he could not build on the
lot he stated that he has offered to build a house if someone would live in it the next six years right
there on James Street.
He explained that he has been trying to rezone the parcel and that the proposal was turned down
pending the outcome of the downtown subarea action plan recommendations. He supports the plan's
recommendation for the area fronting James Street and believes that it is a workable compromise
for North Park residents.
Mr. Eld mentioned his concern with adding the James Street green belt alternative for consideration
at this late date. He commented that it seems unfair to take another alternative under consideration
since the concept has never before been discussed during a public meeting and was not ready for
presentation at tonight's hearing. Since he is in favor of the original proposal for this area, it doesn't
seem fair he's not given an opportunity to review the alternative and comment on it.
He remarked that when the idea was discussed to cul-de sac First, Second, and Third Avenues, Cole
Street was to be opened up. He commented that the City should make the effort to purchase the
properties necessary to open Cole Street and give the North Park residents two viable access roads.
He stated that he is opposed to leaving Second Avenue open.
Mr. Harmon questioned Mr. Eld's involvement with James Street and how many lots he owned.
Mr. Eld stated that he owns three lots that face James Street. Mr. Harmon asked if Mr. Eld would
be involved in any of the lots that are two and three back. Mr. Eld stated that he owns lot number
two and three on Fourth Avenue.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 15
Mr. Harmon explained the origin of the proposed green belt alternative. He explained that because
of the proposed grade separation being considered for James Street that would leave a large retaining
wall on James Street starting as far back as Third Avenue and compromise any office building that
would be on James Street.
Chair Dowell commented that the grade separation on James would be as great as 25 feet and would
limit access to the office buildings to the private access road that will be constructed behind the
buildings. There would be no access from James.
Hugh Leiper, 815 Reiten Road, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Hugh Leiper explained that he is a
Commercial Real Estate Consultant and Developer and has been in the business for 41 years in many
different capacities. He had an opportunity in his earlier years to travel to over 100 different cities
and complete a market analysis to determine where the cities started, where they were going and
where their potential future growth was.
Mr. Leiper commented that Kent is in a stage of national prominence. It is the fifth largest in the
United States in terms of square footage of warehouse and manufacturing. Mr. Leiper stated that
the industry in the Valley is looking for a downtown core and Kent does not have it. The city
usually is the one who goes after industry but in Kent's situation it is the reverse.
Mr. Leiper suggested that Kent should redefine what it was trying to do, which is to produce a focal
point for the community so that the community and the downtown can survive the next hundred
years. He stated that the downtown is already over a hundred years old. The goal now is to continue
to make downtown survive and be a "real" city.
His suggestion to make Kent into a"real" city is to add a mall within the downtown area. Mr. Leiper
discussed situations where other malls have been built and now are thriving communities.
Mr. Leiper would like to see a three story mall developed between Smith and Gowe and First to
Fourth Avenue less the library. Mr. Leiper's plan suggest that two parking facilities be constructed.
Mr. Leiper stated that he has two companies already interested in investing in this development.
Mr. Leiper's plan would encourage the historic core on First Avenue and suggests pedestrian oriented
improvements. He suggests relocating current merchants onto First Avenue and maintain their
current rental rate.
Paul Hammerschmidt, 814 Fifth AV N,Kent,WA 98032. Mr. Paul Hammerschmidt's house is
adjacent to the Commons Playfield and he has lived in his home for almost ten years. He is
concerned with the width of Fifth Avenue and the impact the Commons Playfield has on his
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 16
neighborhood. He explained a recent situation in which his three year old son was nearly run down
in his own driveway.
Mr. Hammerschmidt stated that the proposed changes adequately address all concerned parties' and
their issues for the North Park area. He explained that he is not a part of the North Park
neighborhood. He stated that North Park is a true neighborhood where people interact. He
explained that all the homes along Fifth Avenue face the playfield and there is no interaction.
He explained that the plan as presented protects the "true" North Park area. He believes that it is
imperative that First, Second, and Third Avenue be cul-de-sacs, that Cole be opened up, and that the
single family housing area be maintained. He supports the plan's Land Use Recommendations
Al-A6 starting on page IV-1 of the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Integrated
Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Chair Dowell questioned whether the police have been involved with the speeding issue on Fifth and
Cloudy. Mr. Hammerschmidt explained that there is an officer placed on Cloudy during the day.
He explained that during the height of baseball or soccer season there is no less than 3,000 people
on the playfield and it seems as though 2,999 want to park in his driveway.
Mr. Harmon commented that Mr. Hammerschmidfs support for the proposal means that his family
would have to relocate. Mr Hammerschmidt commented that he would like to relocate in Kent. He
would like to raise his son in a safer environment.
Brian Nelson, 1210 E. Maclyn Street, Kent, WA 98031. Mr. Brian Nelson is concerned that
downtown is turning into a parking lot with over 800 parking stalls depicted in figure IV-2 of the
plan. Mr. Nelson does not believe the commuter rail will be successful and is concerned that too
much faith is being put into the success of this system. He is concerned with the unrealistic
expectation Burdic Feed would be able to relocate. He is concerned with the proposed grade
separation on James Street that could cause potential storm drainage problems when the road is 25
feet below the railroad crossing.
Mr.Nelson commented that the south commuter rail station seems to necessitate fewer disruptions
since there is more vacant land at the south end. He questioned whether the existing west rail line
had been considered for the commuter rail. The rail line is near the existing Lincoln park and ride
and wanted to know why this had not been considered.
Fred Wright,727 Third AV N,Kent,WA 98032. Mr. Wright asked for clarification of Mr. Eld's
statement regarding access into the North Park residential areas from the private access road
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 1997
Page 17
servicing the office development on James. Mr. Eld stated that it was not the plan to access the
neighborhoods from the business access road.
Jon D. Kay, Tork Lift Central, 10203 SE 244th, Kent, WA 98032. Mr. Jon Kay read his
prepared statement that was submitted for record as Exhibit'E'. Mr. Kay stated that his business runs
through to Railroad Avenue and is directly effected by the north site location for the commuter rail
station. Mr. Kay strongly opposes relocating his business. He explained that if they are forced to
relocate some 200 tons of machinery, some 40 machines in all, would have to be moved, rewired,
re-leveled and sited in. He stated that the cost to relocate seems astronomical.
Peggy Kay, 10203 SE 244th, Kent, WA 98032. Ms. Peggy Kay stated that she had discussed
relocating their business with a developer today who gave them a ball park figure for just the
building and the property of 1.4 million. She explained that this cost does not include down time
or the cost to move the machinery.
John Dahll,805 Crest AV,Kent,WA 98032. Mr. Dahll commented that he likes Burdic Feed and
would hate to see their business go. He stated that the original owner opened Burdic Feed in 1897
and Burdic Feed is a worthwhile historical building.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Board member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close
the public hearing. Chair Dowell requested an amendment to the motion to continue the public
hearing until June 2nd. The motion carried as amended.
Respectfully Submitted,
4Jes P. Harris
ary
C:\US ERS\DOC\LANDUSE\M INUTES\PCMINO5.29
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
CITY OF 711NT
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
June 2, 1997
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:15 p.m. on June 2, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Tom Brotherton
Ron Harmon
David Malik
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Jerry Daman -
Sharon Woodford, EXCUSED
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and member Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to
approve the May 27, 1997 minutes as written. The motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director Jim Harris reminded the Board of their June 9, 1997 Workshop at 7:00 p.m. in
Council Chambers East of the Kent City Hall. He informed the Board that the proposed Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance will be on the agenda.
DOWNTOWNSUBAREA ACTIONPLAIV
22041h AVE.SO., I KENT WASHINGTON 99032.5895/TELEPHONE R061859-33011!FAX n N59-3334
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 2
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN - PUBLIC FEARING CONTINUED
Chair Steve Dowell asked for the four letters received since the last public hearing to be submitted
as part of the record. Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a
motion to incorporate the following letters into the record(Exhibit `F 1-4').
Exhibit#F-1. Board member Sharon Woodford, dated May 28, 1997.
Exhibit 4F-2. Alan L. Gray, CPA, dated May 31, 1997.
Exhibit 9F-3. Mayor Jim White (response to Mr. Jon D. Kay letter), dated May 29, 1997.
Exhibit#F-4. Kent Downtown Partnership, dated June 2, 1997.
Alan L.Gray,26857 Downing Avenue S. Mr. Alan Gray resides on the Westhill of Kent and owns
and operates a business at 112 Railroad Avenue South. Mr. Gray said that he favors the downtown
plan but questions the accuracy of the financial data used to compare the commuter rail station
locations. He asked the Board to consider a site south of Willis.
Mr. Gray questioned how the two-hour angled parking on Railroad would be monitored to allow
business traffic to use the parking and deter the commuters from parking there.
Linda Johnson,Kent Downtown Partnership, 604 W. Meeker Suite 202. Ms. Linda Johnson
presented a letter that outlined the Kent Downtown Partnership's comments regarding the commuter
rail station. The letter outlined some pros and cons for the north and south station alternatives.
Ms. Johnson asked the Board not to make a recommendation on the rail station site location.
Ms. Johnson commented that rezoning the North Park area to commercial would affect the existing
residential area. She asked for the plan to incorporate a study to look at the parking or lack of
parking in all of the parks in the downtown area. She asked that the letter from the Downtown
Partnership be included as a part of the record. (The letter was previously submitted into record as
Exhibit F-4).
Frankie Keyes, 10216 SE 267th. Ms. Frankie Keyes stated that she loves the Downtown Plan.
However, she feels there is too much uncertainty to select a location for the commuter rail station.
She asked the Board to delay the decision recommending the adoption of the overall plan. She
submitted a letter from neighboring property owners(Rosa and Jerry Mezistrano)and asked that the
letter be submitted into public record. (Exhibit`G').
Evelyn Nicholes,226 First Avenue S. Ms. Evelyn Nicholes asked for the Board to delay making
a decision on the location of the commuter rail station. She commented that downtown merchants
are dying and the Board should consider the merchant's needs. Ms. Nicholes would like to see the
commuter rail station in the south location.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 3
Ms.Nicholes suggested promoting downtown from the commuter rail station. She commented that
it is time for the City to support the local merchants. Ms. Nicholes discussed promoting downtown
and communicating where downtown is.
Jim Bitondo, 106 E. Titus Street. Mr. Jim Bitondo asked to submit a letter into record
(Exhibit `H'). Mr. Bitondo remarked that the downtown plan is good but the plan should include
two locations to consider for the commuter rail station. He commented that there were many citizens
against the north site. He suggested using a competing design approach. If the true merits of a north
or south site can be detected; the best should win.
April DuPlantier, 310 W. Meeker. Ms. April DuPlantier stated that she is uncomfortable with
locating the commuter rail station at the north site. She suggested restoring the existing rail station
for a historical value. She commented that downtown Kent has much to offer commuters and the
north location would negate this. Ms. DuPlantier asked the Board to consider further study on the
site location. Ms. DuPlantier submitted a letter for the record(Exhibit `I').
Mark Israel,312 W.Meeker. Mr. Mark Israel congratulated the Planning staff on the downtown
plan. He personally believes that the decision on the commuter rail station location should be
delayed until a more detailed study can be completed.
Mary Holden,201 E.Meeker"B". Ms. Mary Holden commented that selecting a commuter rail
station location is premature.
Herb Freudenthal, 201 E. Meeker "B". Mr. Herb Freudenthal congratulated the City on the
downtown plan. He stated that the site location decision is premature and more study is needed
before a decision is made. Mr. Freudenthal stated that the overall plan should be adopted.
Brian Nelson, 1210 E. Maclyn Street. Mr. Brian Nelson stated that his questions from the May
27, 1997 meeting had not been answered. Mr.Nelson had previously questioned whether the west
rail had been considered for the commuter rail station.
Mr.Nelson questioned the pedestrian focus of the plan. He counted 843 parking spaces identified
in the Downtown plan for the commuter rail station;however,the plan only mentions a need for 500.
He questioned the cost of operating water pumps to pump out water at the James Street crossing.
Chair Dowell asked for staff to respond to Mr. Nelson's questions. Planning Director stated that
planning staff will respond to his questions and get in touch with Mr.Nelson after his questions can
be researched.
Walter Hazen, 11235 137th Avenue SE. Mr. Walter Hazen asked the Board not to make any
decision on residential land. He feels that the City should bank this land for future development of
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 4
homes in the Kent area. Mr. Hazen commented that with the addition of the Kent rail station as an
alternative transportation point,the demand for local housing will increase and the revitalization of
older neighborhoods will take precedence. Mr. Hazen remarked that studies indicate that with the
addition of a commuter rail station, the demand for residential housing in the downtown area will
increase. Therefore, he questions the recommendation to rezone the residential area along James.
In response to Mr. Nelson's question of the west rail, Mr. Hazen explained that he is a member of
the Commuter Rail Coalition Board. The meandering of the western rail makes it unsuitable for the
commuter train. He explained the Burlington Northern site was a strategic rail site and was built to
accommodate up to five standard track beds.
Mr. Hazen asked that the'Board not make any decision regarding the location of the commuter rail
station. He commented that the City has been trying to get bus service into the downtown area for
years and locating the commuter rail station on the south site would facilitate this. Adding bus
service in the downtown area should be a considered a positive impact rather than a negative as the
--plan suggests._ ---------
He commented about the historical value of the buildings that would be lost if the north site is
developed_ He would like to see the building preserved. He favors the south site location.
Lee Purdy,207 E. Meeker. Mr. Lee Purdy commented that everything he'd like considered has
already been said. He complimented the Downtown plan for recognizing that Central Avenue is a
part of downtown. He suggested delaying the commuter rail location until better analysis can be
completed.
Peggy Kay, 10203 SE 244th (home) and 315 N. Central(business). Ms. Peggy Kay commented
that there was not enough information gathered to accurately compare the north and the south
commuter rail locations and wanted to see a bigger cost comparison before selecting a site.
John Kay, 10203 SE 244th (home) and 315 N. Central. Mr. John Kay questioned whether the
south site was still under consideration for the commuter rail station. Mr.Kay suggested conducting
more in depth studies before a site is selected. He commented that traffic on Smith and James
Streets is already atrocious. Mr. Kay asked the Board to select the south site or delay the decision
for more information.
Mende Johnson, 205 First Avenue S. Ms. Mende Johnson said that the Downtown plan is good
but asked that a definite decision not be made for the commuter rail station until more research can
be conducted.
Linda Kapoi,207 First Avenue S. Ms. Linda Kapoi stated that she favors more study on the noise
and traffic impacts from the commuter rail station.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 5
Morgan Llewyln, 4848 SE 274th Place. Mr. Morgan Llewyln discussed the location of the
commuter rail station. Mr. Llewyln remarked that the south location would help support the vitality
of the businesses in the vicinity.
Sherry Thompson, 326 W. Meeker. Ms. Sherry Thompson asked the Board to adopt the
downtown plan. However, she would like the decision for the location of the commuter rail station
delayed. Ms. Thompson favors the south site for the commuter rail station but does not feel there
is enough information.
Carol Schwindt,227 First Avenue S. Ms. Carol Schwindt asked the Board to delay the decision
on the location of the commuter rail station. Ms. Schwindt stated that there was not enough
information to make an informed decision. She prefers the south site.
George McIntyre,206 E. Gowe. Mr. George McIntyre implored the Board to delay the decision
of where to locate the commuter rail station. He stated that more information is needed to make a
decision of this importance. He likes the Downtown plan.
Donnarae Joseph,615 W.Harrison#213. Ms. Joseph explained that she is a resident of Harrison
House and is here to express the opinion of the Harrison House residents. She asked that the
Downtown plan not include a site preference for the commuter rail at this time. Ms. Joseph
submitted a letter signed by 65 residents of the Harrison House supporting this decision(Exhibit`J').
Garry Stewart,404 N. Railroad. Mr. Garry Stewart would like to see the commuter rail station
in the south location.
Hugh Leiper, 815 Reiten Road. Mr. Hugh Leiper stated that a decision for the commuter rail
station should not be based totally on cost. He recommended combining the new commuter rail
station and a bus depot in the same location and suggested locating the new station between Smith
and Gowe from Railroad to Central. His plan would include a parking garage large enough to hold
1,000 automobiles. Mr. Leiper stated that the road separation is imperative.
Lena Kost,231 First Avenue S. Ms. Lena Kost explained that she chose to locate her business in
Kent because of the rate of growth.. She echoed what had already been said and asked the Board to
reconsider the location of the commuter rail station before making a final decision.
Pat Williams,317 W.Meeker. Ms.Pat Williams favors the south site for the commuter rail station.
She commented that having commuters get off at the south site would require those going to the RJC
to walk through the downtown core to get to the RJC. She stated that this would be a good way to
promote the downtown businesses. She favors the downtown plan but would like to see the
commuter rail station location decision delayed until more information is available.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 6
Paul Hammerschmidt,814 Fifth Avenue N. Mr. Paul Hammerschmidt commented that with all
of the opposition regarding the location of the commuter rail station that issue should be separated
from the downtown plan. He stated that the rest of the plan should move forward.
Andy Wangstad, 12047 SE 277th Place (home) and 216 Railroad Avenue N (business).
Mr. Andy Wangstad asked that the Board not make a recommendation on the location of the
commuter rail station until more studies can be completed.
Soon Ai Park, 501 N Central. Ms. Soon Ai Park stated that she has been a business owner in
downtown Kent since 1992. She supports the downtown plan but would like to see more
information before a decision is made on the commuter rail station.
Jim Gonnason, 307 S. Central. Mr. Jim Gonnason commented that a site location for the
commuter rail station should be delayed until more information is known about what the RTA will
require. He liked Mr.Leiper's idea of a commuter rail station and a bus depot combined. He would
like to see more single vehicles eliminated from the highways_
Don Shaffer,2070 N.78th Street,Seattle,WA 98103. Mr. Don Shaffer asked to submit a letter
into the record(Exhibit `K'). Mr. Shaffer stated that the proposed Performing Arts Center could act
as the centerpiece for revitalization of the downtown core. He suggested that the plan explore in
greater detail the reality of the Center. He was concerned with the proposed railway underpass and
the impacts. He commented that the plan did not detail the underpass. Mr. Shaffer was also
concerned with theNorth Park area and the issue of cul-de-sacs, single street access, and the access
road proposed to service the office development. Mr. Shaffer stated his concerns regarding the
commuter rail station. He questioned whether the station location had been predetermined years
before the downtown plan.
Mr. Shaffer showed visual displays of the proposed underpass at James Street. He discussed cost
estimates from the City of Kent's Six-Year Transportation Plan and Auburn's 277th reconstruction
project. He stated that an analysis of where the money is coming from for the underpassing needs
to be outlined in the downtown plan.
He was also concerned with the water runoff accumulating in the underpass,the general appearance
of the underpass and the businesses that will be impacted. He asked the Board to either select the
south location for the commuter rail station or delay the process until a greater detailed analysis can
be completed.
Mike Keyes, 10216 SE 267th. Mr. Mike Keyes questioned the map on VI-22 of the Downtown
plan. He was concerned with the cold storage facility site identified as rail station parking. He
stated that relocating the cold storage business would greatly increase the relocation costs to the City.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 7
Paul Hammerschmidt, 814 Fifth Ave N. Mr. Hammerschmidt questioned Mr. Shaffer's interest
in the downtown Kent plan. Chair Dowell stated that everyone is allowed to speak on this issue.
John Wilkins,5201 Lakehurst Lane,Bellevue. Mr. John Wilkins commented that the rail station
will be relying on bus service to feed it. He discussed increased traffic impacts and the need for
parking to feed the commuter rail. He remarked that the bus service must be considered in the siting
of the station. He liked Mr. Leiper's suggestion.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the public
hearing. Motion carried.
Chair Steve Dowell MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to send the Kent
Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Integrated Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement to the City Council with the Board's recommendation of approval with the
following amendments:
1. The depot locations be further studied.
2. North Park east of Fourth Avenue remain residential and west of Fourth Avenue rezoned to
multifamily and/or mixed use.
3. Eliminate the parking oval reference on Commons Park.
4. Improve and widen Fifth Avenue and add angled parking next to the Commons Park.
5. Study the parking issue for the park on Meeker near Union Pacific.
6. Develop realistic costs in relation to the Downtown plan.
Board member Ron Harmon supports the recommendation to delay the selection of the site location
for the commuter rail station for further study. He stated that the relocation costs need to be
addressed and the true value of the businesses selected for relocation.
Mr. Hannon suggested the east and west frame districts be adopted as written. He supports the
development of the performing arts center, summer evening outdoor events on the civic square,and
the location thereof. He also supports the redevelopment of the Borden site.
Mr. Harmon recommends mixed use designation for the North Park area north of James between
Fourth and Fifth and south of Cloudy. He supports Mr. Dowell's recommendation not to allow the
reduction of the current Commons park for additional parking.
Mr. Harmon discussed the greenbelt proposal for one lot depth on the North Park properties that
front James Street from Central to Fourth Avenue.
Dowell accepted a friendly amendment of the original motion to recommend a mixed use
designation for the area north of James between Fourth and Fifth Avenue and south of Cloudy.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 8
Board member Tom Brotherton suggested proposing the greenbelt alternative for the James Street
frontage property if the north commuter rail station location is selected. Chair Dowell accepted the
amendment.
Board member David Malik suggested adding a gateway at SR-167 and Central Avenue. Mr. Malik
stated that Planning has proposed other gateway locations but would like to see one at Central and
SR-167. He commented that the first impression is the last impression and when visitors come into
town they should be directed to downtown.
Mr. Harmon suggested a longer sequence light for the crosswalk from the Lincoln park and ride and
the Commons Park to help facilitate the pedestrian traffic from the parking area to the ball field.
Vice Chair Brad Bell stated that there is a public safety issue regarding the parking at the Commons
playfield. He gave examples of how 10 and 11 year olds do not use the cross walk rather they
literally dart across James Street. He mentioned that the City is in the process of looking for
____additional pwk property m downtown and on the easthill of Kent.
Bell voiced his frustration with the lack of and the quality of the financial information regarding the
commuter rail station. The assessed value analysis is terribly deficient. He explained that assessed
values are not market values;they're political valuations. Often,the value of the businesses will be
worth much more than the real estate itself. He commented that there appears to be no public
support for the north commuter rail location and suggested sending that message to the Council.
Mr. Bell voiced his support for the performing arts center and thinks this would be a wonderful
addition to downtown. He stated that there is specific financial information available regarding the
performing art's center and this information should be included in the Downtown plan.
He supports the mixed use designation for the area north of James between Fourth and Fifth and
south of Cloudy. He likes the greenbelt alternative but would like to see a cost analysis before a
proposal for this type of project is setforth.
Mr. Harmon commented that if the plan recommended the south commuter rail station there might
of been much testimony against the south site. He suggested an elevated walkway to eliminate the
need to dash across the street. He supports the angled parking on Fifth as long as it correlates into
the mixed use area.
Mr. Malik suggested adding a drop-off and pickup area at the Commons Park. Mr. Dowell
commented that this was a good suggestion.
Mr. Brotherton commented regarding the access out of the north area of North Park. The question
was asked about whether to open Cloudy or Cole for emergency vehicle access or just better access
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 9
to the area. Chair Dowell suggested a recommendation to relook at the traffic patterns in the North
Park area for consideration of opening either Cloudy or Cole. Mr. Brotherton suggested the fire
department doing a study on access times to see if there is sufficient access during rush hour traffic.
Vice Chair Bell stated that he would agree with the removal of the parking area at the Commons
park if we directed the Council to provide a drop-off and pickup area.
Planning Director Jim Harris thanked the public for their participation in this process. He explained
that there has been tremendous turn out and a lot of public input. Mr. Hams explained that the
Board is the hearing body for these types of land use plans and the recommendation made by the
Board is very important to the Council.
Mr. Harris stated that he was concerned with a plan recommendation that does not include a rail
station location. The Council will receive a plan with a hole in it because the commuter rail station
at the north site was an integral part of the plan as a whole. Mr. Harris asked the Board to consider
further deliberations regarding the north site location and the impacts of delaying this decision. Mr.
Harris fears that the Council is going to receive the recommendation and they will be inclined to
delay the site selection also. He commented that the RTA depot is one of the biggest decisions being
made by Kent.
Mr. Harris commented that he hasn't heard any discussion that Kent does not want the RTA station
located in Kent. The public has come to some kind of agreement that the site should not be located
at the north site. However,the Downtown plan centers on the City shifting to the north. Borden will
someday leave the area and the site will redevelop.
Mr. Harris understands the public's interest. He explained that a lot of study will need to done on
how to site the depot. He suggested that the recommendation from the Board could reflect that either
location would be a viable choice.
The depot location has to be placed south of James and north of Willis. The plan recommends the
north location; however, the public prefers the south location. Mr. Harris hopes that the message
sent to the Council is that the RTA is a valid and viable part of the downtown plan and the
downtown.
Chair Dowell MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to amend the original motion
to reflect that the Board strongly recommend the depot locations both north and south be further
studied. Motion carried.
Mr. David Malik discussed looking at the cost of putting the commuter rail station in the north
location and questioned the selling of the park and ride and purchasing the Borden site for a
combined commuter rail station and bus depot.
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
June 2, 1997
Page 10
Mr. Brotherton questioned whether the plan could be recommended without a site recommendation
for the commuter rail station. Chair Dowell commented that it didn't seem feasible.
Chair Dowell restated the motion to send the Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Integrated
Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement with the Board's recommendation
of approval to the City Council with the following amendments:
1. Strongly recommend that the depot location both north and south be further studied.
2. North Park east of Fourth Avenue will remain single family residential and the area north of
James between Fourth and Fifth and south of Cloudy Street will be designated as mixed use.
3. Eliminate the Commons parking as indicated on the plan and recommend angled parking
with a wider and improved Fifth Avenue. The angled parking would be located on the west
side of Fifth next to Commons Park.
4. Recommend a study of the parking for the park on Meeker near Union Pacific railroad.
5. Develop realistic costs in relation to the plan.
_6. _ Consider an additional Gateway_location at Central and SR-167.__.__
7. Add a safe place for a drop-off/pick-up location at Commons park. This should be located
on Fifth Avenue within the angled parking.
8. Study traffic patterns in the North Park area to consider safety and access.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion
carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
s—�v—
JetSary
P. Harris
U:\DOCU.ANDUSEUvUNUTES\PBMTG6.02
DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: KENT AND CLARK SPRINGS EMERGENCY POWER ADDITION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was
held on June llth with four bids received. The low bid was
submitted by CTS Northwest, Inc. in the amount of $103 , 816. 17 .
The project consists of installing propane generated emergency
power at Kent & Clark Springs to alleviate existing power
outage problems at these locations during winter storm events &
etc.
The Public Works Committee recommends awarding the contract to
CTS Northwest Inc.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes and Public Works
Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $103 , 816. 17
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Corrosion Control (W30)
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember 0hJL seconds
If 0
that the Kent & Clark Springs Emergency Power Addition contract
be awarded to CTS Northwest, Inc. for the bid amount of
$103 ,816. 17 .
DISCUSSION•
ACTION• ✓Y1 tui � ,�
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 18, 1997
PRESENT: Christi Houser Tom Brubaker
Connie Epperly Don Wickstrom
Judy Woods
Surplus Vehicles
Wickstrom stated that we are requesting authorization to declare certain equpment as
surplus and sold at the state auction. He noted that this equipment has been replaced.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to declare this equipment as
surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction.
Oil Rebate Funds for Commuter Shuttle Service
Wickstrom noted that these funds were derived out of a lawsuit against the oil
companies for price setting and the money is to go towards reducing gasoline
consumption. He noted that we were successful in getting a grant from the state to
create a commuter shuttle service. Essentially this would be a shuttle bus for "work
commuting" - this is a one year pilot program to reduce vehicle commute trips.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the funding
agreement, direct staff to establish a budget and authorize funds to be spent for the
Commuter Shuttle Service Demonstration project.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said this is a WSDOT grant and the money is actually
a settlement that has been distributed to the state. He also said that we are obligated
to coordinate with METRO and make sure they are in agreement with this project.
Kent &-Clark Springs Emerggencv Power Addition - Bid Award
Wickstrom noted that this item is before the Committee because the low bid was 14%
above the engineer's estimate due to a discrepancy in the engineer's calculations. He
also noted that there is no funding problem. The project consists of installing propane
1 0
generated emergency power at lent &-Clark Springs. During the past winter we had
power outages at these locations and power is needed to run the chlorination facilities.
In response to Clark, we have backup diesel facilities at most of our pump stations and
in the '98 budget there will be a request for a pump back-up emergency power supply at
our Pump Station #4 which is our lower West Hill Pump Station which pumps water
to the West Hill. During the '97 December storm, we were almost out of water.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to award the Kent &-Clark Springs
Emergency Power Addition contract to CTS Northwest, Inc. for the bid amount of
$103,816.17.
Meeting adjourned: 3:40 p.m.
2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 18, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom 4Jv`J
RE: Kent &Clarlc Springs Emergency Power Addition
Bids were opened for this project on June 11 th with 4 bids received. The low bid was
submitted by CTS Northwest, Inc. for $103,816.17. The project consists of
installing two liquid propane engine-driven generators and fuel supply systems to the
Kent &Clark Springs water supply sites. We are bringing this item before the
Committee because the low bid is approximately 14% over the Engineer's estimate of
$92,310.00. There was a discrepancy in the Engineer's calculations resulting in a low
estimate.
We are requesting Committee's concurrence to recommend awarding this contract to
CTS Northwest for the bid amount of $103,186.17.
ACTION: Recommend authorization to award the Kent &Clarlc Springs
Emergency Power Addition contract to CTS Northwest, Inc. for the bid
amount of $103,816.17.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 25, 1997
TO: Mavor &City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom I!�J
J
RE: Kent &Clark Springs Emergency Power Addition
Bid opening for this project was held on June 1 lth with 4 bids received. The low bid
was submitted by CTS Northwest, Inc. in the amount of S 103,816.17. The
Engineer's estimate was $92,310.00. A discrepancy in the engineer's estimate
resulted in a low estimate, however adequate funds exist within the project budget to
award this contract.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Committee that the Kent Sz Clark
Springs Emergency Power Addition contract be awarded to CTS Northwest, Inc. for
the bid amount of $103,816.17.
BID SUMMARY
CTS Northwest, Inc. 103,816.17
Milne Electric, Inc. 110,772.00
Omega Contractors 112,813.68
Gary Harper Construction 114,996.54
Engineer's Estimate 92,310.00
MOTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Kent
S&Clark Springs Emergency Power Addition contract be awarded to CTS Northwest
Inc for the bid amount of S 103,816.17.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date July 1, 1997
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: KENT SPRINGS CUSTOMER REMOVAL WATER MAINS (152ND
AVENUE S.E. TO 156TH AVENUE S.E. )
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was
held on June 18th with three bids received. The low bid was
submitted by Kar-Vel Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$353 , 841. 28 . The Engineer' s estimate was $353, 754 . 73 . The
project consists of removing existing transmission main
customers and transferring them over to Water District ill.
The Public Works Director recommends awarding the contract to
Kar-Vel Construction, Inc.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $353 , 841. 28
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Kent Springs Trans Main (W22)
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmembe moves, Councilmember seconds
that the Kent Springs Customer Removal Watermains contract be
awarded to Kar-Vel Construction, Inc. for the bid amount of
$353 , 841.28 .
DISCUSSION•
ACTION: ✓ /�Ah�f Y
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
June 25, 1997
TO: Mayor &City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom i ,�`
RE: Kent Springs Customer Removal Watermains
Bid opening for this project was held on June 18th with 3 bids received. The low bid
was submitted by Kar-Vel Construction Inc. in the amount of $353,841.28. The
Engineer's estimate was $353,754.73.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Kent Springs
Customer Removal Watermains contract be awarded to Kar-Vel Construction Inc. for
the bid amount of $353,841.28.
BID SUMMARY
Kar-Vel Construction 353,341.28
Debco Construction 401,152. 11
Paramount Pacific 458,762.24
Engineer's Estimate 353,754.73
MOTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Kent
Springs Customer Removal Watermains contract be awarded to Kar-Vel
Construction, Inc. for the bid amount of $353,841 .28.
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
OF-
PARKS COMMITTEE
1G.J ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
nnEXECUTIVE SESSION: LITIGATION
lOo �o E S a t 8;oo
P. w, .
. � ' 35
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JUNE 18, 1997
PRESENT: Christi Houser Tom Brubaker
Connie Epperly Don Wickstrom
Judy Woods
Surplus Vehicles
Wi&strom stated that we are requesting authorization to declare certain equpment as
surplus and sold at the state auction. He noted that this equipment has been replaced.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to declare this equipment as
surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction.
Oil Rebate Funds for Commuter Shuttle Service
Wickstrom noted that these funds were derived out of a lawsuit against the oil
companies for price setting and the money is to go towards reducing gasoline
consumption. He noted that we were successful in getting a grant from the state to
create a commuter shuttle service. Essentially this would be a shuttle bus for "work
commuting" - this is a one year pilot program to reduce vehicle commute trips.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the funding
agreement, direct staff to establish a budget and authorize funds to be spent for the
Commuter Shuttle Service Demonstration project.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom said this is a WSDOT grant and the money is actually
a settlement that has been distributed to the state. He also said that we are obligated
to coordinate with METRO and make sure they are in agreement with this project.
Kent 8t Clark Springs Emergency Power Addition - Bid Award
Wickstrom noted that this item is before the Committee because the low bid was 14%
above the engineer's estimate due to a discrepancy in the engineer's calculations. He
also noted that there is no funding problem. The project consists of installing propane
1
generated emergency power at Kent &-Clark Springs. During the past winter we had
power outages at these locations and power is needed to run the chlorination facilities.
In response to Clark,we have backup diesel facilities at most of our pump stations and
in the '98 budget there will be a request for a pump back-up emergency power supply at
our Pump Station #4 which is our lower West Hill Pump Station which pumps water
to the West Hill. During the '97 December storm, we were almost out of water.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to award the Kent &-Clark Springs
Emergency Power Addition contract to CTS Northwest, Inc. for the bid amount of
$103,816.17.
Meeting adjourned: 3:40 p.m.
2