HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 03/02/1998 (4) CITY OF )121912LSV IT
w
• Jim White, Mayor
7n�
MEMORANDUM
DATE: APRIL 29, 1998
TO: PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE; TIM CLARK, CHAIR,
TOM BROTHERTON AND RICO YINGLING
CC:
FROM: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: BURLINGTON NORTHERN-SANTA FE RAILROAD DEPOT
On March 2, 1998 the Planning and Public Works Committee asked that Administration review
the status of the Burlington Northern - Santa Fe Railroad depot concerning potential
preservation. I am enclosing a copy of the study titled"Adaptive Reuse" which was done for the
Planning Department in 1989.
For the Planning Department to do any additional work concerning the depot we need to have
direction on what the Committee's intentions are for the depot.
I will be at the Committee's meeting on May 4Lh to review past actions concerning the depot.
•
220 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHING rON 98032-5895,TELEPHONE (253)859-3300
'y
Tabl of Contents
- Sections
1. Background and Summary of the Study Page i
2. History of the Depot Page 2
3. Alternative Use Concepts Page 6
4. Conceptual Plans Page 13
5. Relationship to Public Policy Page 15
6. Economic Analysis Page 18
i 7. Plans Review & Comments Page 23
Lost of Figures
Alternative 1 Page 9
Alternative 2 Page 10
Alternative 3 Page 11
• Alternative 4
Page 12
Historic Depot Photograph Page 4
Kent CBD Map Page 5
Existing Site Plan and Elevations Page ii
List of Tabl s
Table 1,Development Cost Estimates Page 20
Table 2, Break Even Analysis Page 21
Table 3, Operating Estimates Page 22
i f
I � ,
ROSEBED GARDEN PARK
..... . ... .... .... . . . ... - ._....... . . . .._.... ......... .. ... .... . ........_,.......
...- .:......... .. -..._. ..--__...._-..-_... ... .. ..........................
I I
I I
BC"RLINGTO\ NORTHERS R.R TRACKS
I r,----------1 1
1
` 1
T
wAIIING I
v
n i 1 �> IItEICIIT <"
E
i I I
I I
I I
m I
9 Y
I I
E EXISTING PARKING �
m e
I I
LPROPI:RTY LINE•
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
_
SITE PLAN' SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
ED
NOT TO SCALE NORTH
i
® '
I I
WEST ELEVATION
]lot Ifni Z71 -
11
---------------
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
I
EXISTING SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
D E P O T REBABILITATION 5 T U D Y
PROJECT PUNDING PROVIDED THROUGR THE 1987 i INS ANT COMMUI.7TY DEVELOPMENT BIACE GRANT PROGRAM
1Ht•1'-f
BURLINGTON NORTHERN DEPOT
CITY OF KENT STATE OF wASHI VGTON
MIS01 u1 10I1I11u IIS1,010101 unnICTS 11111T roof 01101 snIIT Slim[ u11114:01
ii
Study Objectives
The Burlington Northern Railroad Depot, now abandoned, is located at a significant site in the
Kent Central Business District. In order to assess the costs and benefits of acquiring and/or
redeveloping the Depot properly, the City of Kent initiated this study by Johnson/Mortensen
Associated Architects with Tom Brunton, Financial Analyst. The specific directives for the study
were to:
Evaluate and document existing conditions and the history of the site;
Develop alternative uses for the site and Depot,providing in each alternative specific public
amenities;
Assess the development costs and financial benefits for each alternative and their
relationship to city policies;
Assess the impact each alternative would have on the historic character of the Depot;
Evaluate each alternative in light of their contribution to downtown revitalization efforts;
Review the alternatives with community groups and public officials;
Present a comprehensive report to the Kent Planning Department and elected officials.
This report is not aimed at making specific recommendations for the reuse of the Depot. It is
directed toward providing adequate and accurate information so that decisions regarding the
— building and site can be made with confidence.
Summary of the Report
We have been asked to answer three basic questions in this report, relating to the historical
significance, appropriate reuse, and costs and benefits of alternative uses of the Depot.
What is the historical and architectural significance of the Depot?
It is our opinion that the Burlington Northern Depot and its site have played a significant role in the
economic and urban history of Kent. We also believe that the building has architectural merit as a
good example of a building type that is becoming increasingly rare.
What are the most appropriate uses for the Depot?
We have analyzed a variety of commercial, public and non-profit uses for the building and site.
Many commercial uses are reasonably excluded from consideration by the size of the structure or
by the adverse conditions caused by rail traffic. Non-profit institutions (e.g. Museum), retail sales,
and commuter rail services appear to be the most viable uses. Public restrooms are included in all
considered alternatives.
These proposed uses for the Depot conform with the stated redevelopment policies for downtown
Kent. i
What are the likely costs and benefits of the rehabilitation of the Depot?
In all of the alternative uses considered, we have found that redevelopment of the Depot and site
will require financial support on a continuing basis. The primary demand for subsidy is driven by
the inclusion of public restrooms. Retail use, because of local lease rates and terms, were not
found to support the costs of redevelopment.
1
2. History of the Dept
. Site
What is now the Burlington Northern Depot is the second building constructed on the site as a
passenger and freight depot.
The site, according to plat documents, was first acquired by the Puget Sound Shore Railroad in
1884 when the rail line was first constructed, serving what then was known as "Titusville" until
Kent's incorporation in 1890. Subsequently, it became Northern Pacific property, then Great
Northern, which then merged into Burlington Northern. The site was originally served by three
track lines. Two tracks, which still remain, were to the west of the depot. One track ran along the
east side and was abandoned sometime after the new depot was built.
The first depot began its life in the 1880's as a project of the City and citizens to help secure local
rail service and establish Kent as the center of local commerce. The depot was substantially funded
by voluntary donations. The building was a 2-story wood-frame, gable-roofed structure sited
similarly to where the current building is placed (based on the photograph available). No other
documentation of the original structure was available to us. The building itself was demolished
around 1920 to make way for the new building.
The current station was built on the original site, and may incorporate foundations from the
original. Although the date of construction is not certain, it is recollected to be approximately
1924. The depot was substantially more finished in appearance (See accompanying photograph,
Page 4) than the first building and appears to have been more oriented to passenger convenience,
although until 1928, much of the local passenger travel was handled by the Interurban.
The depot was permanently closed by the Burlington Northern in 1987. The site, then as now, is
in the geographic center of the Kent central business district (See attached map, Page 9 ), the
railway effectively dividing the city into two halves. The Depot's location between Meeker and
Gowe Streets places it on two of the primary circulation routes across town. The recent urban
redevelopment of the western part of the CBD has established circulation routes and a pedestrian
district that directly abut and affect the Depot.
While lower than most of the surrounding two and three story commercial buildings, because of its
isolation along the railroad right-of-way,it has a presence as a landmark well beyond its size.
Exterior
The available photograph shows the original exterior materials to have been very little altered in the
present Depot. The base of the exterior walls is of masonry veneer with a contrasting light mortar.
The upper wall is finished with cement plaster stucco. The eaves and soffits are wood, as are the
doors and windows. The original brackets under the eaves are intact. The roof appears to be
"dutch lap" asphalt shingles, with a somewhat unusual ridge cap detail. Exterior lighting (now
missing) was provided by simple globe fixtures under the eaves and by light standards similar to
the historical Kent street lights. Little can be seen of the site, but what paving is visible appears
_ highly utilitarian. There is an indication that railings were standard pipe rails with cast fittings
typical for the era.
The passenger area is clearly defined on the exterior by double-hung sash with divided lights. The t
waiting room is currently reached by a set of stairs at the northeast comer. These stairs are not
original. It is not clear how passengers were to approach the station when it was flanked by
tracks. The most logical way was from Meeker Street to the north, walking parallel to the east
track and entering by the east door. This would not, however, have provided a convenient drop-
off area. Passengers were presumably a secondary priority in the use and design of the Depot.
2
j
Exterior (continued)
,. Access to trains was at track level on the west side with a car-height platform serving the
abandoned track on the east. The freight area was served by three rolling doors, one to the south
with a loading dock for deliveries, and one each facing the tracks to the east and west.
ti
Interior
The interior plan of the station was separated into passenger and freight handling areas of
= approximately equal size. Much of the interior is original, with some interior partitions of recent
vintage. The original freight scale and signaling equipment remains. The baths are original. The
interior detailing and finishing are utilitarian and have little architectural interest.
Dates and some of the documentation included in this history are based on material and/or
recollections provided by Ms. Rae Reitan, City Historian of Kent and member of the White River
Historical Society.
Current Use of the Site
The Depot is currently abandoned by the Burlington Northern Railroad, and apart from some
incidental storage it has no use. The Depot has broken windows and the roof is begining to show
signs of deterioration. The site has become an attractive nuisance. The grounds and building
exterior have become unkempt and a blighting influence on downtown Kent.
The railroad continues to provide basic maintenance and security for the structure so that little
irreversible physical deterioration has occured.
The site has paved areas with striped parking for approximately 15 cars and some casual parking
frequently used by larger trucks.
1
3
s ySSM
lti
Y `
d ss4fj y
CC Sl
p S IS1
s Z S f. TM^� Ira
Y
X PFM1 `
�•�Ep) 4 i
r
t \ 6slt $l
ME
( SS r
i
ss
� x
pbo- r.
Imp
9 r
b ,a
i �f r}�1� sf"'{{{71�•i'
f
a
r i
`.kx �x � a•a• x c �:Z�4.::
�Y
- � o
D n
`1�J •YIM •T
❑0 C � I _ e � e � o s
` «•aauYY aT -•� �
bQ
IM
LEI E
cc f. O
1 V
Peen• aT
❑ � ° oLl Ell
I
OOYF aT
o �
I Q ❑ o
o ❑ :J
TITW at
6 G � LO CDrim
a �
r- P L_ o
D [5 n � C3 I ❑ ❑ d _ o a
O
YY R
: O
O p
0❑ O : Q
nua R � •
'••Burlington Northern Depot
CITY OF KENT: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Showing location of Burlington Northern Depot North
5
Alternative Uses 3 Alternative lice ('oncents
Four alternative concepts have been developed for the reuse of the Depot. All concepts incorporate
public restrooms. On-site parking is provided to approximately match the parking currently on
site. Parking is not provided for rail users.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 redevelops the existing depot into a full-service commuter rail station for use in
conjunction with the Heavy Rail Demonstration Project. The waiting room provides seats for
approximately 50 people. Public restrooms are accessible through the station. Parking, not
intended to serve daily rail users, is provided on-site for twenty cars with access off of Railroad
Avenue. A drop-off area able to handle 4-5 cars at a time is provided. A "front lawn" gives the
station a more traditional setting and provides a site for public art.
Alternative 2
In this Alternative, the commuter station is reduced to a reasonable minimum, with an
approximately 400 Sq. Ft. waiting and ticketing room, as well as news stand (160 Sq. Ft.).
Public restrooms are provided off the station waiting room. The remaining area is approximately
1,300 Sq. Ft. of leasable space available for a museum, restaurant or retail use. Drop-off for the
station is provided. Parking is provided for 20 cars.
Alternative 3
This Alternative assumes the commuter rail station is not located at this site. The building is
developed as a leasable space of 1,850 Sq. Ft. suitable for a museum, restaurant or retail use.
Public restrooms are provided which can be accessible from the exterior if hours of operations are
different from the main building tenant. Pick-up/Drop-off is available for the building within the
L site. Parking for 20 cars is provided.
Alternative 4
The retail potential of a small isolated building is of some concern. This alternative adds two new
buildings facing Meeker and Gowe, each of 2,000 Sq. Ft., in the same character as the Depot.
The original depot building has 1,300 Sq. Ft. of leasable space. The three buildings form a
Icourtyard facing South Railroad Avenue with the Depot as the focus.
The additional retail frontage should provide improved visibility and help connect the retail districts
on both side of the tracks. The 560 Sq. Ft. commuter rail station is located in the Depot. A drop-
off is provided. Public restrooms are provided off the station waiting room. Parking for 16 cars is
provided.
Public Meetings
A series of meetings were held with various downtown groups and city departments to discuss the
alternative uses. The general consensus favored Alternative #2 which, as described above,
includes a combination of commuter rail station and a non-profit community facility.
6
+.. Alt rnative s on eot�
Other Alternative Uses
" We have not included several options which in our opinion are not viable uses of the Depot.
Community meeting space was not included as an option based on our experience on-sits with the
�. severe disruption caused by the trains and the relatively small size of the Depot. Meeting space is
currently provided at other nearby facilities such as the Senior Center.
Single purpose restaurant use was not analyzed because of our understanding, from conversations
' with local real estate professionals, that the current demand for food services in the Kent CBD is
uncertain, the likely development expense involved within this structure, and concerns about the
noise and dust conditions at the site. Breakfast/deli services associated with the commuter station
may be viable.
We considered at the preliminary stage a branch bank. The building appears capable of
accommodating a small S&L bank (minimum size is 2,000 Sq. Ft.); a scheme showing this use
was developed. It is not one of the final options, as demand is limited and the Depot only
marginally fits the basic requirements, although bank use is potentially included in Alternative 3.
Redevelopment Considerations
Several general observations were made in the course of the study which were useful during
further consideration and selection of alternative use concepts.
The railroad traffic, without belaboring the obvious, has several major influences on the site which
limit alternatives. Noise is clearly the most evident, with normal conversation impossible while
trains are passing. Less obvious, but important for certain uses, is the dust generated by the rail
traffic. This factor could be a constant irritant for uses such as restaurants or certain types of retail.
The sense of danger the trains present is also a factor. This last issue is of particular importance
for those uses oriented to children and/or recreation.
The size of the site and of the Depot also constrains the redevelopment options on the site. The
depot has approximately 2,000 square feet of usable space. This size of structure limits the range
of redevelopment options. While it is a workable size for a single retail/restaurant use (Alternative
3), the costs of management are not easily supported by such a limited project. While increased
retail could be developed on the site (Alternative 4), the loss of parking area requires either a
variance or off-site parking.
i
a
t
I
s
7
j
3. Alternative Use Concepts
r
Elements of the Alternatives
Commuter Rail Service
In considering the site redevelopment options, we had several conversations with the planners for
the Heavy Rail Demonstration Project. While the consultant's report on station design and location
is not due until the Fall of 1989, we were able to determine some of the basic parameters of their
planning.
The Demonstration Project has proposed a list of conceptual station locations which does not
currently include the Depot site. The Depot is recognized as a possible alternative to the James
Street location proposed to serve Kent. The station selection parameters are accessibility, straight
site lines, track length (400'preferred), available parking, and availability of property.
The Depot site may meet most of these criteria with the exception of track length and, possibly,
parking. The site is approximately 200' long parallel to the tracks, and either Meeker or Gowe
would be blocked during train stops, which are projected at five northbound and three southbound
in the morning, with the reverse in the evening.
Parking at the preliminarily identified Kent site is projected at 350 cars. This number is based on
the available number of stalls at the site,however,not a calculation of projected demand. Demand
projections are not available at this time. i.
i
Station design for the demonstration project is currently unresolved. The minimum station
described to us was a rain shelter, an informational kiosk, and possibly ticket machines. Method
of ticketing is also still unresolved.
The commuter services proposed in the various alternatives take advantage of the Depot to provide �I
more amenities than the minimum described above. This should make the rail service a more
attractive commuter option, and make the Kent Depot significantly stand out from the other stations
providing an additional heightened civic image.
Museum
We have had several conversations with representatives of the White River Historical Society.
They made clear their interest in establishing a Kent branch of their main Auburn facility stating
that 50% of the Society's membership comes from Kent. They expressed clear interest in the
Depot as a facility, stating that much of the display materials are already available. We were not
given a preferred size for a branch museum, and have described to Society members the likely size
of the available museum areas in Alternatives 2 and 3 (1200 to 2000 sq. ft.).
Public Art
The Kent Arts Commission has expressed to us clear interest in the Depot as a site for a Centennial
art installation. All alternatives provide a site for a"traditional" public art piece. This should not
preclude integration of art into the landscape design or the site amenities. As the Depot is to be
treated as a historical structure, art work should not be incorporated on the exterior of the building
in a permanent installation.
Art could be incorporated either on the site or in the interior without violating the Secretary of the
Interior's standards. (See Secretary of the Interior's Standards, Page 17.)
8
ROSEBED GARDEN PARK
1 B L'RLI ti'GTON NORTHERS R.R TRACKS
TRAIN FLATPORM
I
— m I ,.:..I.dI r''II IIII ', 1911' II _f'Il;ll41 II II. I ; , III Hairy e------------
---------- _
> _ _ MMWG ROOM_—___ �
f
.�i L u�sTtls { i Ii'
I
Imo-- --1
4.
SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
SITE PLAN
i
I
WEST ELEVATION
!
I i
I
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
I
I
ALT. # 1 : COMMUTER RAIL DEPOT
• I
PROJECT FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH THE IN7 i I9 9 KENT COMMUNTI'1' DEVEIAPMENT BIOC'i GRANT PROGRAM
BURLINGTON NOR iTHERN DEPOT
CITY' OF KE' T
STATE OF NASHINGTON
sonsol ut sotrtosn ttsrounoo ucurtcrs nstrl root Duos srtstr s9111LI YA3111c,os
29 MARCH 1989
_ I ,
I
120J1i 131-:1; GARDLN I'AHK
I I
III: :I. Il,i il'111 IIlil'�,IIII IILI I� ,i.• III
f
— I
B URLING TO.N NORTHERN R.}2TRACKS
, TR ACKS I
'. 'i I I ail,,'1'I' I!i�� '!lill Itlllli 1111J IIi',� I I i I III!�, i ,I'I I I I it li. !,.I li I'.II ' I i I,' •I I ..-�
TRAIN 11
4 �
�� —___----_—---_ �. 1+
'^ --
RLL
r — LEtSS ABLE SPACE_____ WAITNO
F_ I
a + d I
_ L
p =
V)
Ir
I � —
I —
k
PLAN'
I'
SITE r LA.\ SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
-
I 1 I
j
WEST ELEVATION
I i
II
I 1 ® .I is
1;
_ I
I
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION !
ALT. # 2 : COMMUTER DEPOT w/LEASE SPACE ;
PROJECT FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH THE 1997 & 1989 KENTACOLYUNI7Y DEN'=PMENi BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
f/]Y•I'—P
BURLINGTON NORTHERN DEPOT
CITY OF KENT STATE OF WASHINGTON
loU ISUr lID r01}U stll Itsi0t1II0I Ilttllit CTS III'If FOUI UIIOI STtttT St/Tilt IIS91r UToI
29 MARCH 1989
RO_GEBED GARDEN PARK i
......
H C R LIN GT O N NORTHERN R R TRACKSVIA
-.
IEAIN PUISL7RM Ir'J
t_ ___ ___ __ - �.
}-----------1-E�SPAO:____
In
V
F
5 �
✓ ItF,
SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
SITE PLAN T
I
WEST ELEVATION
I
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
i ALT. # 3 : LEASEABLE SPACE
PROJECT FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH THE 1957 1k Joao Q'1T YL'CO1/ Nm DnTjbPYE 7 BIDCL GRAM PROORAJ
ICITTYI�O�FINGTON NORTHERN DEPOT KENT
STATE OF N'ASHI v'GTON
I
nasal All totntsn tcsraunot uu;ncts IN root allot $nctt slstn[ tlsntcrat
29 MARCH 1989
ROSEBED GARDEN PARK
� I I
I II a III .. III
7, � I I
BURLINGTON NORTHERN R.R. TRACKS
III in,'' Iljl 'Ill,l li'il II Il �i; �I „, I I II Id. , I
- - III - LI-',I Illll;nl I -- II .--
- - - r
--'-TXn1V ♦ M _1
MAT"
` Y' --- SPACE --_ - -AITING
7 I
' It 6 Is I t
m ' IEnSEn BLC SPnCf 'f
1 > u�sEeeLE svna
U.� e :r' C
Y I --�• Wyly ' . � lF,(°'� Li �
SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
SITE PLAN
I i
I
i1 W2 T ,
ER QTjf-mm'iT-
URI
EAST ELEVATION
j ALT. #4 : RETAIL COMPLEX w/DEPOT
PROJECT FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH THE 1907 k 1989 10EN'T CONt1UNITY DEVEIAPMEN'TYRIAC% GRANT PROGRAM
j �Z'R' THERN
URLINGTON DEPOT
CITY OF KENT
STAT
E OF WA SH
oeNsoN /No NotttrstN ttsrUurloN AICtlrtCrs UNITY rout UNION sntlr SWIL9NJGTOON
- -
29 MARCH 1989 � I.
A ('on PAtn�l Plnnc
• Site Development
The site plans presented in the four Alternatives incorporate certain consistent design assumptions.
With little known about the original site plan and the removal of the east track, these plans do not
attempt an"historic"plan.
Access to the site is provided from Railroad Avenue in all Alternatives. This design provides three
benefits. One is that the frontages on Gowe and Meeker can be developed in a continuous manner,
maintaining an uninterrupted pedestrian environment along those streets. The second is the
avoidance of a straight drive-through within the site with the potential for high speed traffic. The
third benefit is that exiting and entering movements onto the site will be less likely to be blocked
during railroad-caused street closures.
' Parking is provided on-site in all Alternatives approximately matching the existing parking
occurring on-site. Parking is adequate for all proposed uses except the full retail development
proposed in Alternative 4. Parking is not intended for the commuter rail service.
1 The proposed landscape plans are intended to present a "front yard" for the Depot, recalling the
formal plantings frequently associated with train depots when they were the primary transportation
Isystem and considered civic monuments.
Site furnishings proposed in the future should be consistent with the documented evidence of the
original building. Light standards and railings are visible in the photograph of the Depot. The
historic Kent street light would seem appropriate for new site lighting. Pipe railings, particularly
those with cast iron "ball" connections, would be consistent with the original station. All
l furnishings should be reviewed by the City Historian.
r Safety
The issue of safety with regard to the trains has been raised several times. A plans review by the
District Engineer for Burlington Northern of the schematic concepts pointed out two primary
concerns. One is that fences and structures should be kept 15' from the tracks, the other is that l
there should not be a"return" of fencing back toward the track at the ends of the platform.
` The conceptual drawings of each Alternative have been designed to meet these safety requirements.
Pipe railings will be used to act as a safety barrier for Alternatives 1 2 &3. These railings will be
36" - 42" in height and be consistent with those used duringthe early
y years of operation of the
Depot. (See Depot photo page 4.) There are two ways of addressing the safety issue in
Alternative #4. Pipe railings may be installed between the Depot and the proposed buildings at
each side, or the "breezeways" connecting the buildings might be enclosed to prevent access to the
train platforms other than through the Depot.
There is not a"manual of standard practice" available for developments adjacent to tracks; any final
plans will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
It should be noted that the trains have run through Kent for 100 years without special protection,
and currently run past several public parks. The reuse of the depot as does not appear to introduce I�
any conditions that are outside the normal safety practices of the railroad
13
p
11
Ir
4. Conceptual Plans
Building Redevelopment
The Alternatives all maintain the exterior of the Depot substantially intact. Where alterations are
required for specific uses, they are minimal and should not compromise the future historic status of
the Depot (see attached Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, Page 17 ).
Entrances to the station, windows and other exterior features should be left intact wherever
possible, and used as originally intended. Where the freight doors must be replaced for functional
reasons, the new work should have the appearance of the original door and give the impression of
the original function.
a The most significant alterations proposed are the replacement of a window with a door for exterior
access to the public restrooms shown in Alternatives 3 and 4, and the connected roofs in
Alternative 4. The installation of the new door is potentially more problematic than the roofs; it
alters the exterior of the building, whereas the roofs are both obvious additions and could be
removed with little damage.
a
1
i
I'
1
I
14 �
a
—� -- 5. Relationship to Public Policies
y City Policies Relating to the Depot Site
Our reading of the Kent Comprehensive Plan indicates that rehabilitation of the Depot clearly fits
the overall intention of the City to enhance and improve the downtown core. We have referenced
below several particularly pertinent goals and objectives stated in the Comprehensive Plan:
Land Use Goals and Policies
GOAL 1, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 3:
Create linkages between the areas of downtown which are bisected by the railroad track; M
GOAL 1, OBJECTIVE 2, POLICY 1:
New development......should be designed to promote pedestrian circulation and
convenience. {
GOAL 1, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 1:
The visual appearance of all buildings in the Planning Area should be enhanced, upgraded
and maintained.
- 1
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 3:
Support efforts to rehabilitate the railroad depot;
GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 3
Site design should take into consideration existing environmental amenities, preventing
environmental deterioration;
Circulation Goals and Policies
GOAL 1, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 2;
Promote and support efforts to integrate the use of the railroad lines into the overall
transportation network serving downtown
Economic Goals and Policies
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 1;
Actively recruit the permanent location of entertainment, cultural and civic facilities in the
downtown area.
Relation to City Policies
Because of the significant position of the Depot within the downtown, almost any viable reuse of
the site will help achieve most of these goals. All are directed toward preservation of the Depot
structure simultaneously removing an attractive nuisance and preserving a piece of Kent's history.
i
All Alternatives also provide some additional public amenities for pedestrians (e.g., restrooms,
open space, sites for public art), and attempt to provide a site plan that enhances and reinforces the
adjacent environment.
Both the landscape design and renewed activity on the site will greatly assist in the linkage of the
two halves of downtown and will clean up a blighting influence on the retail core.
15
1
5. Relationship to Public Policies
Relation to City Policies (continued)
However, each of the proposed Alternatives reflects a different response to several of these
policies.
Alternative 1
Continuing-railroad oriented use as the sole function of the site, is the most"historical" of
the four alternatives and makes the strongest commitment to integrating the railroad into
downtown. Linkage between the east and west sides is additionally strengthened by
creating an important transportation focus near the center of downtown.
Alternative 2
This Alternative provides for a smaller but significant reintegration of the railroad, while
providing an opportunity to site a non-profit cultural facility (or possibly a retail use).
Alternative 3
This option provides for a cultural or retail use, increasing the economic activity on the
site. It does not provide for reuse of the Depot as a rail station.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 is directed to making the strongest physical connection between the east and
west districts,providing the greatest level of pedestrian-oriented activity at the street front.
1
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (Page 17 ) have been attached
to this report and have been considered during the development of all alternative concepts. These
standards form the basis for work on buildings on or considered for the National Register of
Historic Places. They also provide useful guidelines for work on and/or alterations to locally
significant structures. {
9
• i
1
16
i
Standards for Historic Rehabilitation
f for National Historic Buildings and Sites
fThe Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather
than on coniuetural dosigns or tho availability of different ar
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a corn chitectural elements from other buildings or structures.
' partible use for a property which requires minimal alteration
of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken
use a property for Its originally Intonded purpose. with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other
2. cleaning methods that will damage the historic building ma.
In The distinguishing r site
original qualities or ntara all of a build. terials shall not be undertaken.
Ing, structure, or site end its environment shall not be de-
stroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and pre-
possible. architectural features should be avoided when serve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any
Dossible. project.
3. Ail buildings, structures,and sites shall be recognized as S. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to
products of their own time. Alterations that have no histor. existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alter,. I <i ical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall Lions and additions do not destroy significant historical, ar
I be discouraged, ehitectmal or cultural material, and such design is compatible
with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time property,neighborhood or environment.
are evidence of the history and development of a building,
• structure, or site and its environment These changes may 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to strut
have acquired significance in their own right, and this signifi- lures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or
once shall be recognized and respected. alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential
S. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled crafts. form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired,
manship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall "Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" are av
be treated with sensitivity. able t0 help
property owners formulate plans for the rehb ail-
aill
he
B. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather Secretary on of f t the oric buildings s consistent with
Mort Rehabilitation."
a
than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is These Guidelines pertain to buildings of all uses and construe
necessary, the new material should match the material being lion-types, sizes, and materials, and also to new additions to i
replaced in composition, design, Dolor, texture, and other vis. historic buildings. Copies of these Guidelines are available
ual qualities Repair or replacement of missing architectural from the appropriate state official or from the NPS regional
features should be based on accurate duplications of features, offices.
I .�
i
a
s
i
1
t
17
6. Economic Analysis
Financial Analysis
In analyzing the economic costs and benefits of the redevelopment of the Depot, we have
necessarily had to make certain assumptions regarding the value of the land and Depot, the method
of construction financing, and the management and operation of the building after development.
We have also surveyed local real estate professionals to establish reasonable market-rate bases for
property values and leasehold terms and conditions. The nature of this study is necessary limited I'
and generalized, and the final selected alternative should be tested for the specific use and the
assumptions refined.
We have estimated the property the Depot occupies to be valued at $5.00 per square foot, or
$93,000 if appraised at local prevailing rates. The building and site, because of its potential
historic status,may be constrained by redevelopment conditions. Its effective market value could i
be limited by incorporation of deed covenants requiring historic preservation. We have assigned
no value to the Depot structure.
At this time, the Burlington Northern Railroad owns and controls the Depot and surrounding
property. The city has established contact with BN to begin discussions on gaining control of the
` Depot through either a purchase or lease mechanism.
f If construction is managed by the City of Kent, we have assumed public funds would be used.
Therefore, we have not assumed any cost of construction financing.
For those alternatives involving for-profit uses, we have assumed mortgage financing by the tenant r.
will be required, and have based our operating costs accordingly. For public facilities, we have
not included long-term debt amortization.
• Cost Assumptions
Construction costs are estimated by type of use proposed. The commuter rail station within the
depot is estimated at$55 per square foot. This estimate incorporates modest interior finishes, but
does not include special construction or tenant-specific equipment. Construction cost for the
"leasable space" alternatives is estimated at $38 per square foot and addresses the building shell
and utility rough-in only. Interior finishes and tenant improvements would be the responsibility of
the tenant. The public restrooms are estimated at $120 per square foot. These estimates are
preliminary and should be refined during the preparation of rehabilitation documents. j
Construction of site work is estimated at$5.00 per square foot. W e have not estimated the costs
of curbs, gutters and sidewalks in the public rights of way.
Architectural and engineering fees are estimated at 10% of the cost of construction.
i
Permits are estimated at 1% of construction costs.
Contingency is estimated at 10% of construction.
is
t8
iOperating Assumptions 6 Economic Analysis
We have assumed that the completed facility will be owned and operated by the City of Kent due to
the public nature of most proposed uses (restrooms, commuter station, museum. For retail uses,
the facility could be turn-keyed, with appropriate controls,to private operators.
Rental terms to the commuter station and to the museum are assumed to be triple net (i.e. tenant
pays for insurance, utilities and the like). We have shown the rent for these uses on a break-even
basis, not a market-based rent. Tenants would be responsible for all costs of their occupancy.
Rental terms to retail tenants are based on a fully served building. The comparable rental rate for
the Kent CBD is estimated at $6.50 per square foot. Operating costs are estimated at $4.40 per
square foot to be paid by the owner. Operating costs include maintenance, repair, utilities,
insurance, and taxes.
We assume that redevelopment for a commuter station, a non profit, or a retail use will not occur
without a prime tenant. In order to give a more accurate picture of projected revenues and
expenses for the proposed alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 have been broken down to include
n6n-profit space(Alternatives 2 & 3) and retail space (Alternatives 2A & 3A). Therefore,
Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, 3 and 3A do not include a vacancy allowance. A 10% vacancy allowance is
included in Alternative 4.
The operation of the restroom is budgeted at $12,000 per year. Operating costs for the public
restroom are estimated by comparison to similar facilities with adjustments made for likely levels of
required maintenance. For example, the maintenance budget of the Pioneer Square public restroom
• is reported at $30,000 per year. While Kent's less hostile environment will not require Pioneer
Square's level of repair and replacement, daily maintenance will be needed and the budget should
reflect this.
Maintenance and repair of the site is estimated to cost$2,400.
i
I
l
I
i
19
• Pro Formas
The financial pro formas incorporated in this report are based on the four Alternatives outlined on
Page 6.
Development Cost Estimates
The Development Cost Estimates show the cost of construction based on area of use and include
the "soft" development costs as defined above. The Total Development Cost/Construction Cost
line provides a multiplier used to establish the cost per square foot per use in the following
summary of development costs as allocated to rent.
Construction Costs* (by use) Alt. l Alt- 2 Alt• 3 Alt. 4
r
Rail Station $103,950 $27,170 $27,170
Museum/Retail 53,352 $72,124 53,352
New Retail
Public Restroom 222,640
16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 .r
SUB-TOTAL 120,150 96,722 88,324 319,362
Parking & Site 82,600 82_600 74 40 62.15
TOTAL FOR CONSTRUCTION 202,750 179,322 162,664 381,712
Soft Costs*
A & E 10.0% 20,275 17,932 16,266• i Permits 1.0% 2,028 1,793 1627 38, 17
Survey 3,000 3,000 3, .5
Contingency 10.0% 3,000 3,000000
20.275 17 9'1� 16.266 4R r7i
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $248,328 $219,980 $199,823 $464,872
TDC/CONSTRUCTION COST** 122.5% 122.7% 122.8% 121.8%
* Costs do not include land,financing,construction interest or off-site improvements such as curbs and gutters
along the perimeter of the site.
i
** Total Development Cost/Construction Cost gives a percentage factor that allows us to incorporate "soft costs,,
in our square foot costs of construction in the Development Costs table.
e
•
20
7
6 Economic Analysis
Development Costs Allocated to Use
The Development Cost Allocated to Use spreadsheet shows the cost of construction for each type
of use on a square foot basis multiplied by the soft cost factor (e.g. $55/Sq. Ft. times 122.5% _
$67.10/Sq. Ft.).
1 The rents for the station and non-profit uses are assumed to be triple net(i.e. the tenant pays for all
insurance, maintenance and utility costs), and therefor do not show operating expenses. These
rents are calculated to fully amortize the cost of construction at tax exempt borrowing rates.
Market rate rents and operating costs are shown for the commercial uses. These are based on "fully
served" rental terms, and provide an operating income after expenses of $2.10 per square foot. ti
This income should support approximately $18.26 of commercial mortgage (also per square foot).
Subtracting this amount from the development costs gives the amount of unsupported development
costs (required subsidy).
i
The break even rents are those which, in the case of the rail station and museum, amortize the
development cost on a triple net lease basis, and, in the case of commercial tenants, would cover
the development costs with fully served leases.
The break even rents for the public or non-profit facilities appear to be within a viable range based
on the established assumptions.
The break even commercial leases appear to be substantially above current market norms. j
Rail Public
Station Museum Retail New Retail Restrooms
Total Dev. Cost/Sq. Ft. $67.10 $46.36 $46.36 $67.10 $146.40
Market Rate Rents/Sq.Ft. 6.24 4.31 6.50 6.50
Operating Costs/Sq. Ft. * * 4.40 4.40 89.00
--------------------------------------------------------- --- --
Net Operating Income 6.24 4.31 2.10 2.10
Mgt. Amounts (per Sq. Ft.) $67.10 $46.36 18.26 18.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sq. Ft. Subsidy 28.10 48.84 83.00
Break even Rents * 6.24 4.31 9.52 11.82
* Break even rents are those that would fully amortize the cost of construction. Note that rental terms are different t
for various uses. Those for the rail station and museum are triple net and assume tax exempt borrowing rates.Those
for commercial spaces are"fully-served'.
i
21
4
y �
e ,
. 1 i
Operating Estimates
In this summary of estimated operating costs, we compare gross annual revenues to operating
expenses for each alternative. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are entirely occupied by public or private
non-profit facilities, and are presented as break even operations for the commuter station and
leasable spaces with the required annual support by the City directed to maintaining the site and
public restrooms. The summary of operating estimates includes variations of Alternatives 2 and 3
which show the effect of non-profit (e.g., museum) tenancy (Alts. 2 and 3) compared to retail uses
(Alts 2A and 3A).
Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4 are those that include commercial spaces. They show additional annual
deficits ranging from $4,200 to $21,500 above the costs of site and restroom operation and
maintenance due to the terms of local commercial rents.
Projected Revenues
Use Aft, 1 Aft_z
Rail Station $11,801 $3,084 $A1 g4 �`� Alt, 3A �`4
Museum 6,057 $8 188 $3,084
Retail 9,126 _
6,057
New Retail - $12,337
Public Restroom 0 0 26,312
0 0 0 0
Parking &.Site 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
• TOTAL 11,801 9,141 12,210 8,188 12,337 35,453
Operating Expenses
Use Alt. l Aft. 2 Aft, 2A Aft- I Alt, 3A Alt_4
Rail Station $11,801 $3,084 $3,084
Museum $6,057 $3,084
Retail - $8,188 - 6,057
New Retail _ $13,372 $18,077
Public Restroom - 47,833
12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Parking & Site 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
-------------- -
-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 26,201 23,541 30,856 22,588 32,477 71,374
Annual Su000rt* 14 400 $14 400 $18 646 $14 400 20 140 $35 321
* In all cases Expense exceeds Revenue so the negative cash flow has been presented as a
statement of the required level of financial support or subsidy for each Alternative.
22
7 Plant Review an omm n a
i
• Organized Public & City Review �
The Alternatives have been reviewed at a public meeting by City staff and officials, and by the
Kent Development Association.
Comments were quite consistent at all reviews. Alternative 2 was preferred at the public meeting
and by the KDA, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of a non-profit tenant such as a
museum in the "leasable space."
Inclusion of the commuter rail service at this site was favored.
A primary concern expressed was for appropriate safety measures at the railroad tracks.
Other Comments
A recent suggestion by a U of W transportation planner that childcare facilities be incorporated at
park & ride sites for commuters' convenience, was not considered at this site due to concerns
regarding the incompatibility of the outdoor play and the train traffic, both for safety and
operations.
E
•
a
1
3
23