HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/09/2002 •
KENT
WA5 H 1 NGTON SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT July 9, 2002
Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP
Director
- PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP
Manager The City Council Planning Committee will hold a special meeting in Council
Mailing Address Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4`n Avenue South, at 2:00 PM on Tuesday,July
220 Fourth Ave.S. 9, 2002.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Location Address
400 West Gowe
Kent,WA 98032
Phone:253-856-5454 Committee Members: Leona Orr, Chair Judy Woods Bruce White
Fax:253-856-645.4'
Action Speaker Time
1. #CPA-2000-3 Agricultural Lands YES Gloria Gould-Wessen 60 min
Amendment
2. Proposed Kent Station Planned YES Charlene Anderson 45 min
Action Ordinance
The Planning Committee meets the third Tuesday of each month at 3:00 PM in Chambers
East, Kent City Hall, 220 4"' Ave. South, unless'otherwise noted. For agenda
information please contact Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856-5712.
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT(253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE CALL
THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388.
JULY 39 2002
J
E AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 07/09/02
ANNI G COMMITTEE MEETING (2:00 PM)
TITLE OF ITEM #1 #CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT
ACTION ITEM: Staff will discuss the Agricultural Zoning and Land Use Plan Recommendations.
BACKUP MATERIAL: Gloria Gould-Wessen's Staff Report dated July 3, 2002, w/attachments:
"Agricultural Lands Study Maps - numbered as (Attachments I - 10)" and "Exhibit A listing Land Use &
Planning Board and Staff's Recommendations. "
PRESENTER: Gloria Gould-Wessen, Planner/GIS Coordinator
TIME: 30 Minutes
TITLE OF ITEM #2 PROPOSED KENT STATION PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE
ACTION ITEM: Staff will discuss Kent Station's Planned Action Ordinance
BACKUP MATERIAL: Charlene Anderson's Staff Report dated July 3, 2002, w/attachments: "Planned
Action Ordinance (PAO) and SEPA Mitigation Document (Exhibit A).
10 PRESENTER: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
TIME: 30 Minutes
0
S:IPermitlPlanlPlanning CommitteeW20709pc-cvrsh1.doc
ITEM#2
PLANNING COMMITTEE
JULY 9, 2002
0
#CPA-2000=3
AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT
ACTION ITEM :
Approve/Deny/Modify the Land Use and Planning Board's
recommendation regarding Agricultural Lands and forward
this to City Council.
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
Phone:253-856-5454
1�.i T Fax: 253-856-6454
KE Ir 1 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
WASHINGTON Kent,WA 98032-5895
July 3, 2002
TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER
RE: AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND LAND USE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
(#CPA-2000-3)(KIVA 42004535)
JULY 9, 2002 MEETING
INTRODUCTION
On June 18, 2002, Council held a workshop on Agricultural Lands. Staff presented the terms used by the
State of Washington in defining "agricultural land of long-term commercial significance" and a decision
matrix rating the distinguishing characteristics based on the Growth Management Act and court cases.
Staff also presented possible options for preservation or development of the study area. This memo
provides a brief synopsis of Council discussion. Attached are map options considered by the Land Use&
Planning Board("LU&PB") and a summary of Option B recommendations.
DISCUSSION
• Initially, Council discussion focused on the criteria for defining"long-term commercial significance"
and how the market plays a critical role in determining commercial significance. There was lengthy
discussion about the need to consider the availability of markets for agricultural products. Council
had heard from farmers that the wholesale markets were moving to the southwest, making it nearly
impossible to wholesale product here in the Puget Sound region.
• Council expressed concern that if property owners participated in the preservation program their land
would be held in perpetuity as agricultural, and the vagaries of the market might not support
agricultural land uses in the future.
• Personal choice and property rights were discussed concerning markets and the shift of farming
toward large agribusiness and away from small family farms.
• It was pointed out that development on the Class II soils was irreversible.
• There was discussion concerning the LU&PB's proposed Agricultural General (AG) zoning district
and new Agricultural Support land-use designation for the Southern Study Area. Staff explained that
the AG zoning district was not an agricultural resource designation.
• There was discussion on the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District, how it functions,
how much land is being farmed, its relationship to the AG zoning district, and details concerning the
Torrance property.
h of the study areas and does not have to choose the
The Council may choose different options in eac
same option for the entire area.
• There were comments and questions concerning the low-density options presented and the impacts of
urban separator designation on property owners.
1 of 2
• Council inquired about the possibility of a low-density residential zoning designation(i.e., SR-I)with
clustering, but without the Urban Separator land use designation. (Allowing clustering in areas other
than Urban Separators may require a new public hearing to amend Kent City Code.)
• Council discussed options for future requests for comprehensive plans and zoning amendments in the
study area.
• Discussion turned to the possibility of using a TDR program for the preservation of open-space.
• It was pointed out that the City's wetland inventory is not a wetland designation.
• The workshop concluded with the Legal Department highlighting that the Growth Management
Hearing Board has applied a heightened scrutiny to a density designation below SR-4 within an urban
growth area, and the need to select from the many options the LUPB had considered during the public
process.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
Eight options were considered by the Land Use & Planning Board, and the Board recommended an
amended Option B(See attached maps and table). A synopsis follows:
• Designation of Agricultural Resource Lands(long-term commercial significance)
• Option Ia: Preservation of Majority of Study Area w/PDR(A-20)
• Option Ib: Preservation of Southern Study Area w/PDR (A-20). SR-1/Urban Separator for
Northern&majority of Central areas(SR-1 for Golf Course)
• Option 2: Preservation of Southern and majority of Central areas (A-20) using Nor-them area as
TDR receiving area(NCC, SR-6,MR-M&MRT-16). Some SR-1 area.
• Option 3: Preservation of Southern and portions of Northern & Central areas w/ both PDR and
TDR (A-20). Portion of Northern area is TDR receiving area (NCC, SR-6 & MRT-16). Some
SR-1.
• Option 4: Preservation of Southern area and portions of Northern and Central areas w/both PDR
and TDR (A-20). Proposes Midway Neighborhood as TDR receiving area (would require
neighborhood planning). SR-1/Urban Separator in remaining portions of Northern area and a
portion of Central area. Some SR-1 in Central area.
• Option A: Preservation of majority of entire study area w/PDR (A-10). New Agricultural
Support designation for Smith Brothers. SR-l/Urban Separator in portions of Northern and
Central areas.
• Option B: Preservation of portions of Northern, Central and Southern areas using portion of
Northern area as TDR receiving area with Planned Unit Development ("PUD") requirement
(A-10). SR-1/Urban Separator in portions of Northern and Central areas. New Agricultural
Support designation for majority of Southern area. (LU&PB recommended A-1, not A-10, and a
PDR as well as a TDR preservation program. The Board did not recommend a PUD.)
• No Designation of Agricultural Resource Lands
• Option C:New Agricultural Support designation for majority of Southern area. SR-l/Urban
Separator for portions of Northern and Central areas. SR-3 for other portions of Northern and
Central areas. Agricultural Resource Land(A-10)designation only for parcels already within
King County PDR Program.
Staff will be available at the July 9th committee meeting to answer questions or provide further
information.
CA\GW\pm S:Termit\PlanlCompPlanAmdments\2001\2004535-cpa2000-3PIanCommit070902.doc
cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Director
Gloria Gould-wessen,GIs Coordinator/Planner
Kim Adams Pratt,Assistant City Attorney
File
2of2
EXHIBIT A
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
*Romprehensive Plan-Land Use Designation: Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Designation:
Add the Land Use Designation Agricultural = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)
Support with the definition as follows: The recommendation.
Agricultural Support designation is reserved for
agriculturally related industrial and retail uses
near areas designated for long-term agricultural
use.
Change the Land Use Designation from Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)
Agricultural to Agricultural Resource Land with a - recommendation.
change in the definition as follows: The
Agricultural Resource Land designation is for
land reserved for agricultural use. Single-family
residential uses may be allowed, but at very low
densities.
Zoning Designation: Zoning Designation:
No Change in zoning district A-1 Agricultural Change zoning district from A-1 Agricultural
with a residential density 1 dwelling unit/acre. to A-10 Agricultural with a residential
density of 1 dwelling unit110 acres.
Agricultural Preservation Program: Agricultural Preservation Program:
Establish a Transfer of Development Rights Establish a Transfer of Development Rights
DR) and a Purchase of Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program.
DR) Preservation Program.
City Code-Development Regulations: City Code-Development Regulations:
Kent City Code (KCC) 15.03.010-Establishment Kent City Code (KCC) 15.03.010-
& Designation of Districts: Establishment& Designation of Districts:
AG —Agricultural General District AG—Agricultural General District:
"The purpose of the AG zone is to provide Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)
appropriate locations for agriculturally related recommendation.
industrial and retail uses in or near areas
designated for long-term agricultural use. Such
areas may contain prime farmland soils which
may be currently or potentially used for
agricultural production."
A-1 —Agricultural A-10—Agricultural
No change in definition = Change A-1 Agricultural District to A-10
Agricultural District and no change in
definition.
KCC 15.04.020-Residential Land Uses:
Remove the "C" (i.e. Conditional Uses) in the KCC 15.04.020-Residential Land Uses:
land use category "Drive-in churches; welfare Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)
facilities: Drive-in churches, retirement homes, - recommendation with the exception of A-10
convalescent homes and other welfare facilities Agricultural District rather than A-1
ehether privately or publicly operated, facilities Agricultural District.
r rehabilitation or correction, etc." under A-1
Agricultural District.
1
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
ity Code-Development Regulations (cont): City Code-Development Regulations (cont):
CC 1 5.04.040-Manufactu ring Land Uses: KCC 15.04.040-Manufacturing Land Uses:
Add a "P" (i.e. Principally Permitted Uses) in the = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)
"Manufacturing, processing, blending and recommendation.
packaging of dairy products and byproducts"
under AG —Agricultural General District.
Add a "C" in "Warehousing and distribution Not recommended for approval.
facilities" under AG—Agricultural General District
with a note that states: Reuse or replacement of
existing structures for non-agricultural uses,
where it is shown that the existing structures are
obsolete for agricultural use and unless they can
be put to non-agricultural use will have no viable
economic use. Any replacement structures
must maintain or enhance the agricultural
appearance of the property. Signs shall be
limited to not more than one-hundred (100)
square feet in area per business, and of that
amount, freestanding signs shall not exceed
forty (40) square feet in area. No increase in the
area of existing impervious surface shall be
allowed in connection with a non-agricultural
use.
10CC 15.04.060-Transportation, Public and KCC 15.04.060-Transportation, Public and
Utilities Land Uses: Utilities Land Uses:
Remove the "C" in the land use category = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)
"Transportation and transit facilities" under AG recommendation with the exception of A-10
Agricultural General and A-1 Agricultural District. Agricultural rather than A-1 Agricultural
District.
KCC 15.04.070-Wholesale & Retail Land Uses: KCC 15.04.070-Wholesale & Retail Land Uses:
Add land use category "Agriculturally related Add land use category "Agriculturally related
retail' for AG district and add a "C" with a note retail' for AG district and add a "C" with a note
that states: "Retail use must be for sale of that states: "Retail use must be for sale of
agricultural or horticultural products, at least agricultural or horticultural products, with at
25% of the gross sales value of which are grown least 25% of the gross sales value in products
within Washington State. Up to 50% of the grown within King County. Up to 25% of the
gross sales value may be for seed, gardening gross sales area may be for seed, gardening
equipment and products, private label foods, equipment and products, NW regionally
and locally hand-made products. Any structures labeled foods, and locally hand-made
must be designed to maintain or enhance the products. Any structures must be designed to
agricultural appearance of the area". maintain or enhance the agricultural
appearance of the area".
2
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
W
y Code-Development Regulations (cont): City Code-Development Regulations (cont):
C 15.04.170-Agricultural & Residential Zone KCC 15.04.170-Agricultural & Residential Zone
Development Standards: Development Standards:
No change to the "Maximum density: dwelling Change the "Maximum density: dwelling units
units per acre" underA-1 (1du/1acre). per acre" from A-1 to A-10 with a density of
1du/10 acres.
No change to the "Minimum lot area: square Change the "Minimum lot area: square feet or
feet or acres, as noted" under A-1. acres, as noted" from A-1 to A-10 with 10
acres minimum lot area.
KCC 15.04.190-Commercial and industrial zone KCC 15.04.190-Commercial and industrial
development standards: zone development standards:
Add AG with the following development = Same as Land Use & Planning Board (LUPB)
standards (see exhibit A for details). recommendation.
Minimum lot area: 1 acre
Maximum site coverage: 60%
Front yard: see KCC 15.04.195— (5)
Side yard: see KCC 15.04.195 — (12)
Side yard on flanking street of corner lot: see
KCC 15.04.195— (17)
Rear yard: see KCC 15.04.195 —(20)
Yards, transitional conditions: see KCC
15.04.195 — (23)
ditional setbacks: see KCC 15.04.195— (29)
ight limitation: 2 stry/35 ft and see KCC
15.04.195 — (35)
Landscaping: see KCC 15.07 and see KCC
15.04.195 — (52)
Outdoor storage: see KCC 15.04.195—(43)
Signs: see KCC 15.06 (regulations for M1)
Loading areas: see KCC 15.04.195—(47) & (48)
Off-street parking: see KCC 15.05 and see KCC
15.04.195 — (58)
Additional standards: see KCC 15.04.195 — (50),
(53), (54), (55), and (56).
KCC 15.04.170 Agricultural and residential zone KCC 15.04.170 Agricultural and residential
development standards: zone development standards:
Remove AG from Table. = Remove AG from Table.
3
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
kis cellaneous Additions: Miscellaneous Additions:
sallow industrial uses, transportation and All industrial uses (with the exception of
transit terminals (trucking hub) and fuel farm agricultural processing), transportation and
facilities in AG and A-1 zoning districts. transit terminals (trucking hub) and fuel farm
facilities are presently disallowed in the AG
Agricultural General District or as
recommended for deletion in previous sections.
Eliminate requirement for Planned Unit Use the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Development (PUD) in Transfer of Development process to manage development within the
Rights (TDR) Receiving Area. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Receiving Area.
Direct staff to broaden the proposed TDR TDR Preservation Program receiving area is
Preservation Program to include additional located within the Northern Agricultural
receiving areas and a variety of transferable Study Area and a small portion of land
development standards. located to the west of the Northern Study
Area.
Not specified in LUPB recommendation but Include in public notice requirements of
included in March 18a' staff memo to Board for Kent City Code the GMA requirement to
March 251h Public Hearing. notify applicants and property owners
located within 500' feet of designated
Agricultural Resource Lands of the
presence of agricultural activities.
Not specified in LUPB recommendation but Remove from Option B the inclusion of
included in staff memo to Board for March 25th Comprehensive Plan annual amendment
Public Hearing. requests in the TDR program.
S:\permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2001\200453 5-CPA2000-3 Council WkShpTable l.doc
4
man
NOMINEE
-MAid
Jim
=MOM
lip► ,, M
Midway A,9=v
lTDR
f
aim
.-ll.eur..:11��wing ■ r
74
ILZ
AdL
i
] I
t_ ,1Legend
� 11
I I
Zomba 010
WIN
II
rmndmipykimsScale V
1
"�.�KEWT 1.37MA i�,, 'r, J1
J 11
• � � . �, _��Ill�'`L � gin',■,
11111 /11 l�■E II
i
• . NOW _ '�■ ■�■,��■:
• - IMW
■
Tim
PIN
w� .IIIGt. 9111/a w
Pill
MLIS
_ ..yam- ...: ,_��� Ii . �� � „•�.�C
r`
„III �)l� ■■�� T
�—=�■1��� ■��' � 1--- jai
�I ��► Add
As
4a �,�� ►=':III � -__
�I7II�I"TTT .'
gg
I
Ai L
■���
Ill �Il
ioii•
Ina I milli
WE I
�nnm.,.�.� \� � •u. till
I a.
h
����; ice►,. h
pow • - ,,� ►1 ' ' ►i1�
.rr\1 l ma l
RI
will
1-
_ t'-� !. .;'I�� Ili
. v
� .wv
����. ,■®�r.� ♦ ale . ..
nun —
aun.
r
AMEN ■�
an i
i �;
ate: pSUIT-
�
IS
on 0
� `
.o i�i mm �� �� No m i a
a s
f
f �
�_ IRS ��� !.�L Ifl■ ��� '� '
OR
G .. ■o 3
_m ■�' �_ •
0i
ME
>M�a a aaaala]I
ES
Chan e to SR-1 I
Urban Separator
I I'l1
Al
1
Arm
T■� I� ��' _ ._ _ .
W .
.mInkTt
°-
�dt�tl111� I ,�a • � • � �••
h�Ir
•�-.•aulrna�csz�ra,i ,
rm
�i� rIm 1 , �Iy1 \a%'•�.;IW����Ir(i I� '...�
flfll111PAX ��1����- �* -1!� rrrl • -
rr•r- .� AI • _
s ce o� . l- • O • • 1 �� ... 1.-� 1 ' rI • •
♦ is Ilnll, '� -
_ um
1 .fir'.w �,� • a • `
Change to A-10 Option 6
Change to SR-1 with Discussion:
TDR Receiving Overlay A-10/Agriculturel Resource Land:Designate as
Agricultural Resource Land because of'prime farmland'
Class II soils,epsting land use,historical zoning and
land use designation.Change zoning to Agricultural-10.
AWAgricultural Support:Create a land use designation
called Agricultural Support for AG zoning district which is
defined as supporting'agricuiturai production by allowing
Change to A-10 agriculturally related industrial uses in or near areas
I designated for long tens agricultural use.
Chan a to A 10 SR-1/Single Family 1 Unit/Acre:Change to Single
Family 1 Unit/Acre with a TDR Receiving Area Overlay
(see below)because 1)no longer*prime farmland'soils
TDR Receiving Overla due to human intervention or large un-drajned wetlands
that have little regulatory possibility for recialmation;
2)lack of water rights for irrigation;and 3)conflicts
with adjacent existing and proposed land-uses.
SR-1/Urban Separators:Change to SR-1/Urban
Separators because 1)environmeiNal,visual,recreational
Change t0 SR-1/ and wildfire berierts;2)no longer•prime familare sal
g due rmdrained wetlands that have little regulatory
Urban Separator possibility for reciarmation;3)epsting land uses are
storm water detention and golf course;and 4)need
Change to A-10 to minimae impacts of iriaeased usage on Frager Roed
that is designated"scenic&recreational•and adjacent
to the Green River.
SR-/Single Family 3 UnWAcm Designate land adjacent
to A-10 as a TDR Receiving Area Overlay to inoreme
Change to SR-1/ agricultural preservation programs capaciyy to absorb
i Urban Separator 'marjkctvaue'ofAgrldulbirelResourcel-and.
TDR Receiving Area Overta)r Density based on carrying
D capacity of eAsting infrastruchure,market value of
eligible resource land,and market viability of proposed
density.Townhouses and clustering are recommended.
TDR overlay requires a PUD.
Change to A-10 Legend
�"L4, City Limits
{
LJ Study Area
® IGng County PDR Program
® Urban Soil Classification <~
o M TDR Receiving Area Overlay
Proposed Land Use Designations 44
Agricultural Resource Land �+
i Agricultural Support
Chan a to AG Single Family 1 Unit/Acre V
Urban Separator
.mA t EAsting Single Family 3 Un1WAcre
N C
q k�l
i • J i
�ma =
!` KENT
� w.+ ,•ern.
Planning Services Scale
Fehrw 2002 1:126N
®� jT
N
e Land bemuse
exi—as Agdaftral sting :use.historical zoning
land use designation-Ghange zoning to AgrictitUral-10.
AGIAgricultural Support Create a land use designation
agriculturally related industrial uses in or near arm
10211aw-PFM designated for long term agricultural usee.
- W '■
•,,•,, G �� r���I
ut
111 1111 � / � '■
��' \ • - • - li �1_, sill
of _� 'f 1 � �� �� �� �'� ■ _
LMj
11w WAS
JIM IBM
ORO
1.11.11 ��[ �
11111 •I 111,/ --- -
.: n
Exhibit E
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
WORKSHOP
July 9, 2001
TO: TERRY ZIMMERMAN, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD
FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION PAPER#4
#CPA-2000-3 (KIVA#2004535)AGRICULTURAL LANDS
INTRODUCTION
This discussion paper is a continuation from the Land Use and Planning Board's June
11"' meeting where staff provided in depth analysis of existing conditions of land use,
infrastructure, and environmentally sensitive areas, including associated development
regulations. For discussion purposes, staff explored possible development capacity
within the agricultural study area and potential environmental impacts. This paper will
examine in depth the preservation programs required by the State's Growth Management
Act (GMA) for agricultural zoning within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). One
preservation program is a Purchase of Development Rights ("PDR") and the other is a
Transfer of Development Rights ("TDR"). Either one or both programs can be
implemented for the purpose of ensuring that Kent's farmlands are preserved in
perpetuity for agricultural production.
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
In the 1980's, the "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR) was considered the ultimate
tool for farmland preservation. Several states and a handful of innovative counties used
PDR to preserve to date over 129 thousand acres of prime farmland. King County was
one of the first to use this technique in the late 1970's, establishing a Farmland
Preservation Program that has successfully preserved over 12,600 acres of Agricultural
Capability Class II and III soils. King County's PDR program required passage of the
Farmlands Bond Ballot Proposition for $50 million to purchase development rights from
property owners interested in participating in the program.
The mechanism is simple. Upon application by the property owner,the land is evaluated
for its eligibility, as defined by the community, with the minimum criterion being soil
type. The development rights are appraised for fair market value. The property title is
encumbered with restrictive covenants that run with the land in perpetuity. Ownership of
the resource remains in private hands, but all "Speculative Value" associated with the
Is possibility of any future development is removed.
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9, 2001
Page 2
The primary limitations established by the restrictive covenants can be few and relatively simple. First
and foremost, the land is restricted to only agricultural or open space uses. Typically there is no explicit
requirement that the land be continually farmed nor are there limitations on the type of farming
conducted. Beyond that, limitations can vary among communities and can range from limiting the
number of dwelling units;restricting subdivisions based on acreage; restricting percentage of impervious
surfaces; and so forth depending on community values.
The adoption and implementation of a Purchase of Development Rights program at the local government
level involves five basic issues: 1)What farmland should be protected? 2)What type of deed restrictions
should be enacted? 3) How is the value of development rights assessed, and how is payment made? 4)
How are the PDR program restrictions enforced? 5) How is the program funded? Each issue is
discussed further below.
• Criteria for Farmland Preservation:
Not all parcels within Kent's agricultural zoning districts warrant preservation. This is due to their size
and use as single-family residences, the destruction of prime agricultural soils, or the fact they are in
public ownership and their use is not and would not be agricultural in nature. The following is a list of
criteria to determine eligibility for a preservation program:
1. Size of Parcel: Is the parcel of a sufficient size to maintain commercial agricultural operations?
2. Quality of Farmland: What are the soil characteristics?
M3. Critical Mass: How important is the parcel to the integrity of the local agricultural industry?
Restrictive Covenants:
The main reason to establish restrictive covenants is to maintain agricultural or open space uses. To
ensure the soils are not compromised by excessive development through subdivisions or construction,the
jurisdiction typically applies additional restrictions to the covenants. The following list covers
restrictions found in other farmland preservation programs throughout the county:
1. Dwelling Units: The number of dwelling units is limited to a minimum acreage (e.g., 10 acres);
2. Subdivisions: The creation of new parcels is limited to a size deemed reasonable for local
fanning practices (e.g. 10 acres);
3. Development: The amount of development on the land is limited to ensure that structures (e.g.,
large chicken pens, barns, storage buildings, etc.) do not dominate the acreage (e.g., 95% of the
land surface remains open and available for production); and
4. Extraction: The removal of topsoil (A-Horizon soil column) or the mining of minerals is
restricted.
Development Rights Valuation and Payment:
The valuation of development rights is one of the trickiest issues PDR programs have to address. The
key to success of a PDR program is that it is seen as fair to both farmers and general taxpayers. A
• professional appraiser determines the value of development rights. Some jurisdictions allow the
landowner to have the appraisal done; in others, the jurisdiction pays for it. The instructions given to
appraisers are critical to producing results that are consistent with the expectations of both landowners
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 3
• and the program administrators. If more than one appraisal is done, one of them can be selected or they
can be averaged. Once a value is established, the ultimate price may be set by negotiation.
The usual approach to appraising development rights is to determine the fair market value without PDR
restrictions(i.e. "before value"), using comparable sales, and then to subtract from that figure the market
value of the property when restricted to agricultural use (i.e. "after value"). The "after value" may be
derived from sales of parcels already subject to PDR restrictions or by capitalizing farm rent of similar
land and appraising the agricultural value of crops that are or could be raised. The difference between
the "before" and the"after"values is the value of the development rights being relinquished. This works
well for large acreage with restrictive zoning(e.g., 1 dwelling unit/35 acres).
An alternative to individual appraisals is to use the existing zoning to determine the fair market value. In
the case of Kent's A-1 zoning district, the land use allows one dwelling unit per acre. Once a fair market
value for a developable one-acre parcel is determined, it can be applied easily. This technique,however,
does not take into account the potential development restrictions from local and federal regulations of
environmentally sensitive areas and fisheries habitat,which should be included.
Payment to property owners for their development rights is usually in a single lump sum. Some
agreements, however, permit installment payments over a period of time. This method of payment
allows the property owner to postpone the capital gains taxes that typically are part of sales of
development rights.
• Enforcement:
Purchasing development rights alone will not preserve farmland. The first and most important step is to
record the deed with the PDR restrictions. This will ensure that all future property owners know of the
restrictive covenants. The other mechanism to ensure the preservation of the farmland is to establish a
monitoring program so that all deed restrictions are adhered to (e.g.,percent coverage in structures,etc.).
For enforcement to be effective, the ability to cite violators and initiate legal action is essential. This
requires periodic site visits by local program administrators or citizen committee members.
Funding Options:
There are numerous methods of funding PDR programs; many are particular to special legislation
enacted by state or county governments. Some use funding from special taxing districts, open space
districts, impact fees, councilmanic or general obligation bonds. The following briefly details the
aforementioned funding options:
1. Special Taxing District: The District assesses fees to landowners, and it is those landowners
who specifically and directly benefit from use of the fees;
2. Open Space District: It may be formed by a two-thirds vote of the electorate, and a percentage of
the annual revenues support conservation easements;
3. Impact Fees: Local government assesses fees from developers to supply or pay for capital
improvements ranging from infrastructure to schools, and recently they have been used for
conservation easements or other agricultural support (e.g., marketing facilities, farming
conservation demonstrations,trials of new production methods,etc.);
• 4. Councilmanic Bond: These bonds typically are used to service outstanding debt, but they can be
used for capital projects. This requires a majority vote of the Council; and
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 4
• 5. General Obligation Bond: This is a popular method of financing large capital projects, and the
bonds are issued with a two-thirds vote of the electorate.
• Summary of PDR Program:
If a community strongly supports the preservation of their agricultural lands and open space, purchasing
development rights is a method that facilitates that goal. Once the funding and administrative
mechanisms are in place,property owners of eligible farmlands who are interested in participating in this
voluntary program will find the funds readily available. Prior to implementing a PDR program, the
jurisdiction should undertake a "Funding Feasibility Study" to determine the potential fair market value
of the lands to be preserved. Additionally, the jurisdiction should conduct a statistically valid survey of
the community to determine the will of the electorate regarding support for a preservation program. The
potential for success at the ballot box depends on what other competing bond issues are before the
community, the general economic climate of the region, and the active participation of a citizen group
willing to campaign for the bond ballot's success.
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
In the early 1970's,"Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR)was an innovative planning tool developed
to address the failures of traditional land use methods in preventing the loss of historic landmarks, open
space, and agricultural lands. Today there are numerous TDR programs that provide examples of what
makes a program successful and what causes it to fail. This paper first will explain what a TDR program
is through the language of the real estate marketplace. It then will examine two case studies that have
been successful and discuss why they were successful. It will conclude with a summary of the essential
elements for the creation of an effective TDR program.
• TDR Concept:
To understand the concept of TDR, one first must understand that property is more than just land. It is
legally a "bundle of rights". Some properties carry with them possession of a bigger "bundle" than
others. For instance, property in downtown Kent has a bigger "bundle of development rights" than
property in a single-family neighborhood in Kent. The development potential of a"bundle"is limited by
many factors, including zoning and land use restrictions, building code provisions, environmental laws,
and other public policy restrictions, as well as general market forces of supply and demand.
What is appealing about a TDR program is that one can redistribute the physical location of a property's
"development rights". A TDR simply takes some of the content of the "bundle of rights" for one piece of
property and transfers or relocates it to another piece of property. This typically is done by shifting the
future development potential from one piece of property, called the "sending site", to another piece of
property, called the "receiving site". A TDR program also utilizes the power of the private sector. The
appeal of increasing density on a property by purchasing development rights from another property (i.e.
farmland)is often cheaper than the purchase of additional land.
The "bundle" of development rights can be very broad. Typically, housing units are transferred because
they are easily identified and quantified. However, the "bundle" to be sold also needs to reflect the
development market. For instance, the market may be "hot" for attached townhouses, which are
presently not allowed in a particular residential zone due to zoning development and use standards. The
market not only is ready to absorb dwelling units from the sending site, but also would benefit from a
regulatory mechanism that would allow the attached townhouse construction. Another example of a
regulatory benefit that could be part of a TDR receiving area is a Planned Action Ordinance. This is
where the agency conducts a SEPA review complete with EIS, speeding up the timeline for a large-scale
commercial/industrial development. Other administrative tools could be allowing private street
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 5
standards within a receiving area, clustering housing, or in the case of commercial developments,
allowing additional floor area through increased height, relaxing parking requirements, or simply
ensuring a timely permit process.
• Case Studies:
Montgomery County, Maryland has a population of roughly 580,000 and a land area of 323,000 acres
(King County has a population of 1,737,000). Post war urbanization was occurring at a rapid pace, yet
one-third of its land area still was agricultural use. In 1973, in an effort to stem residential development
in prime agricultural areas, a five-acre minimum lot-size was required. The new density,however, failed
to prevent urban encroachment. During the 1970's, Montgomery County had lost 18 percent of its
farmland. A task force was formed to explore methods of preserving the agricultural lands. The choices
were downzoning, purchasing development rights, and establishing a TDR program. Montgomery
County decided that downzoning would be unfair and purchase of lands would be too costly, so they
settled on a TDR program.
In 1980, the county approved and adopted the agricultural and open space preservation plan, designating
an Agricultural Reserve of 110,000 acres, downzoning and classifying it as a Rural Density Transfer
Zone. Planners determined that a farm needed at least 25 acres in order to operate profitably. They
reduced the allowable development density from one dwelling unit per five acres to one unit per 25
acres. Property owners within the agricultural reserve were given the right to sell one development right
for every five acres of farmland owned. In 1981, an initial receiving area was established for up to 3,000
development rights, large enough to receive transfers from 15,000 acres of Agricultural Reserve land.
Fifty additional receiving areas have been identified since.
With the purchase of development rights, developers in the receiving districts can increase the base
density of building sites by varying amounts, depending on the zoning classification. For example,
where the zoning district permits five units per acre, the TDR program allows an increase of two units
per acre. Realtors list TDRs and earn a commission on transactions. Appraisers are using comparable
sales of TDRs to value the rights. At present, about 21,725 acres have been protected through the
program.
An additional incentive to purchase TDRs is ensuring that receiving areas are developed to a sufficient
density to sustain market demand for TDRs. This is accomplished by ensuring that density increases on
the receiving parcels are at least two-thirds of the possible maximum density. For example, on a 20-acre
site with base zoning permitting a total of 100 units and a density option of an additional 40 units, the
developer must purchase at least 27 TDRs and construct at least 127 units (i.e. 100=(40 x .667)).
The "County Development Rights Fund"was also established to act as buyer of last resort and to provide
loan guarantees that used the value of development rights still attached to farmland as collateral. The
fund was designed to "bank"TDRs, and then sell them at auction to the highest bidder. Loan guarantees
are available for up to 75%percent of the market value of the farm for a term not to exceed five years. In
their market,however, demand has been strong enough for the County not to have to use the funding.
The program also has been a success because administratively they have incorporated the TDR approval
process into the subdivision review and approval process. Another positive administrative aspect is that
Montgomery County has full legislative control over both sending and receiving areas, so that developers
do not have to cope with a multi-tiered review and approval process.
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 6
The success of the Montgomery County TDR program has been due to several critical conditions of the
program:
1. Sufficient restrictions on sending areas to give rise to TDR sales;
2. Designation of receiving sites with infrastructure capability and sufficient development demand
to make additional density increases attractive to developers;
3. Recognition of the economic and financial conditions that underpin a TDR market and determine
the value of TDRs to both sellers and buyers;
4. A TDR program design that is simple and understandable and that does not require complex
approvals; and
5. Commitment to an educational effort to inform landowners, developers, realtors, and attorneys
about the program.
New Jersey Pinelands, locally known as the "Pine Barrens", encompasses a million acres between
Philadelphia and Atlantic City. It crosses seven counties and all or parts of 52 municipalities.
Ecologically significant areas include forest, bogs and marshes, and agricultural lands. Suburban and
second-home development and the Atlantic City boom threatened the Pinelands ecosystem, prompting a
regional approach to growth control and environmental protection. In 1978, federal legislation
established the Pinelands National Reserve and authorized creation of a regional planning body that
would be charged with developing a comprehensive management plan. New Jersey's governor
responded by creating the Pinelands Planning Commission with interim responsibility for review and
approval of development projects. Later, the state legislature passed the Pinelands Protection Act,
endorsing the planning process and suggesting TDRs as a planning and growth control tool. The
commission undertook a year-long study of the planning and growth control problems. They created a
comprehensive management plan in late 1980 to restrict residential development through strict land-use
controls. Municipalities and counties in the Pinelands were required to prepare local plans and revise
land-use regulations to be consistent with the Pinelands Protection Act and the comprehensive plan.
The Pinelands Development Credit (PDC) program is a key element of the comprehensive management
plan. The PDCs are TDRs intended to redirect development from sensitive areas to areas that can better
accommodate growth.' The program allows landowners in the most restricted areas to share in the
benefits of increased land values in the receiving areas. The plan is the largest in scale and perhaps the
most complicated TDR scheme ever implemented. Credits were calculated on 39-acre increments.
Uplands or woodlands generally received one credit for each 39 acres, although some woodlands,needed
to protect the watershed, received two credits per 39 acres. Wetlands were judged to have the least
development potential and received 0.2 credits per 39 acres. A developer who buys a credit is entitled to
build an additional four residential units in designated receiving areas.
To determine the number of credits that would be created in the preservation area, planners and
economists first evaluated the capacity of the receiving areas and established the maximum number of
housing units that could be transferred to those areas through a density bonus. Wanting to ensure a
healthy market for the credits and to create a development credit supply smaller than the potential use, a
2:1 ratio of density bonus capacity to available development credits was established. Planners then
looked at relative land values,total supply of development credits, and preservation priorities established
a
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 7
by the legislation to allocate the number of development credits. PDCs are used for any type of
residential development in approved receiving areas.
After a slow start, the pace of PDC activity quickened and today some 19,233 acres are preserved across
several jurisdictions. Further activity is being generated by a PDC bank established by Burlington
County. The county issued $1.5 million in bonds to create the bank. The intent of the bank is to
stimulate the private market and to serve as buyer of last resort in cases of hardship or to preserve
agricultural uses. The "Bank" purchases and resells credits for $10,000 plus costs. The $10,000 price
was established by calculating the value to a developer of one additional unit of housing. The exchange
has had a significant effect on PDC bracket prices and has established the dominant price.
Although relatively successful, the Pinelands Planning Commission staff concluded that the program
would have been more effective if some the following elements had been incorporated:
6. Simplify the mathematics of the program. A TDR program is difficult enough to
communicate to the public without awkward 39-acre units of measurement and single PDCs
yielding four dwelling units;
7. Launch the program after achieving local zoning compliance. Unrealistic expectations of
active trade in PDCs were raised when the commission announced the program. In reality, the
framework was not in place, and developer uncertainty delayed the use of the rights;
8. Initiate a public education effort to "sell" the program. Any PDR program is complex, and
landowners, developers, and realtors need information about the program to become interested in
using it; and
9. Establish a Pinelands Development Credit Bank at the outset. In 1987, the State of New
Jersey authorized a regional bank, nearly 10 years after the program started. The lack of a
broker-bank hindered a more active trade in PDCs at the onset. Further, because the program
crosses so many jurisdictions, establishing a PDC Bank supported by all municipalities early on
would have given credibility to and fostered confidence in the entire program.
• Designing an Effective TDR Program:
The establishment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)program does not in itself ensure success.
Some programs have failed for lack of a clear definition of their purpose. Others were not designed to
ensure the program would work. There are six essential steps in the creation of an effective TDR
program:
1. Identify the players in the real estate marketplace affected by the TDR program and their
economic motivation;
2. Identify potential receiving areas and thoroughly analyze the development opportunities and
profits at various densities;
3. Identify and analyze potential sending sites, and balance environmental goals against economic
realities;
4. Make a critical choice between a totally private TDR marketplace and a quasi-public market
assisted by a TDR bank;
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 8
5. Make the program and the ordinances implementing it simple and flexible; and
6. Ensure adequate promotion and facilitation of the program once it is initiated, and ensure that the
program is designed to continue despite possible political changes.
Identify Participants: Knowing the players in a TDR program makes for success. There are four
essential parties to any TDR transaction: 1)the developer of the land in the receiving zone; 2)the owner
of the protected property in the sending zone; 3) the units of local government with planning, zoning, and
property taxing authority; and 4)the mortgage lenders in both the protected zone and the receiving area.
Developers constantly are hunting for opportunities and comparing the cost and profit in one community
to those in another. They are extremely conscious of the effect of zoning ordinances, subdivision
standards, and building codes on the cost of housing and the type of housing that can be produced. If the
residential zoning in a jurisdiction is keeping out the type of housing that is in demand by the
marketplace, then developers go elsewhere. A similar consideration may apply to downtown developers.
If the market is hot and the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) is too restrictive, it doesn't pay to build.
Staff has interviewed residential, industrial, and commercial developers, confirrivng that: 1) Kent is an
attractive community for residential development, and the market is particularly hot for attached
townhouses as well as single-family residences at a density of 6dulacre; 2) Industrial developers are
looking for large (20 acre minimum) acreage unencumbered by environmental constraints, and "wetland
banking" is becoming a big business; and 3) Commercial development has been accommodated in Kent's
downtown core thorough the "Downtown Kent Action Plan" and associated zoning, but Midway has
potential for office and light manufacturing,particularly if mass-transit links run through the area.
The motivation of a property owner of sending parcels plays a role in a TDR's success. There may be
reluctance to participate in the program with the thought that the political support for the program might
shift. There also may be issues when land is in a trust with many owners because that may make it
impossible for a transaction to occur. The survey conducted at the City's Agricultural Lands "Open
House" indicated that property owners preferred a PDR program to a TDR program 2:1. (Note: The
results of the survey may reflect the lack of a full explanation of a TDR program, while King County
staff provided details on a PDR program.)
Having the political support of the program also is essential. The community may support the program
of agricultural preservation until they are asked to absorb increased density in their neighborhoods.
Planners and policy makers contemplating a TDR program must work together closely from the
beginning to know community sentiment on the issues, point out prospective problems for full
community discussion, and attempt to rally support for the TDR program before implementing it. This is
an issue that Kent has yet to address.
Mortgage lenders are significant players in the implementation of a TDR plan. An important question is,
"How will the sale of development rights from a piece of farmland affect the mortgage holder's interest
in the property?" Will the developer's mortgage lender treat the acquisition of development rights the
same as the acquisition of a fee interest in land and make a loan secured by a mortgage on it? According
to King County's TDR program director, there have been no problems with mortgage companies when
clear title is available.
Receiving Areas and Development Process: Understanding the development process in potential
receiving areas is important to a successful TDR program. A suburban land developer buys raw land,
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 9
subdivides it, develops the land with the necessary infrastructure, then markets the subdivided lots to
homeowners, contractors, other developers, or builds new homes themselves. Developers expect a profit
of 10 to 20%percent of total development costs, including acquisition fees.
Why would a developer be willing to participate in a TDR program? Any of the following opportunities
might be attractive:
1. Decreased cost to produce subdivided lots;
2. Increased profit per unit sold;
3. Decreased risk(e.g., faster sales pace,higher quality product at less cost,price level that appeals
to a wider market); and
4. Increased certainty of planning and zoning approval or faster approval timetable.
A developer may be reluctant to participate in a program that is perceived to have extra risks such as
financing or negotiation with TDR sellers. To overcome any reservations a developer might have, it may
be necessary to design the program so that the profit rate is slightly higher than would otherwise be
available in an alternative investment opportunity.
Sending Areas and the Development Process: Because TDRs are used for a variety of preservation
purposes, clearly defining what resources are to be protected is important. In the case of Kent,
agricultural lands can easily be defined by: 1) soil type (Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Handbook No. 210 classifies Kent's agricultural zoning districts as Class lI Prime Farmland
that requires moderate conservation practices); and 2) parcel size (large enough to be agriculturally
productive).
TDR Bank: Proponents of a TDR bank cite a number of reasons for making it an essential element in a
TDR program. As a broker, a TDR bank can be a vehicle for property owners and developers to better
understand the program, thereby encouraging them to participate. The bank also can serve as a "market
maker" as development demand ebbs and flows. A well-funded TDR bank can help establish and
stabilize the prices paid for TDRs. In 1990, the Pineland's TDR bank paid $10,000 for every
development credit; it resells the credit for the same price plus holding costs. If more TDR credits are
created than can be absorbed reasonably in the receiving zones, the price paid for each TDR likely will
go down over time. To make sure that the price paid for TDRs will be high enough to make the program
work, a TDR bank should be funded at a level sufficient to buy and sell at least 25% percent of the
development rights transacted.
Flexibility and Adequate Promotion: It is important for a TDR program to be designed so that it can
respond creatively to changes in market conditions that might threaten its effectiveness. Successful
implementation of a TDR program depends on factors similar to those that influence the real estate
development business. The program needs to monitor and adjust to: 1) Changing consumer preferences;
2) Changing demographics; 3) Interest rates; 4) Labor costs; 5) Energy costs; 6) Available transportation
options; 7)Business climate; 8)Tax laws; and 9) Changes in technology.
• Summary of TDR Program:
40 A successful TDR program needs to have a well-thought-out strategy that takes into account all the
players, including the elusive market forces. It is a creative way to include the private sector in the
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 10
preservation of a valued resource, by facilitating market demand through careful identification of
receiving areas. As with a PDR program, the community needs to support a TDR program. The support
isn't as much financial as it is acceptance of density in their neighborhoods. As with a PDR program, the
jurisdiction should conduct a "Funding Feasibility Study" and assign development credits accordingly.
Identification of potential receiving areas needs community input. Environmental review (SEPA) might
be required, depending on the amount of density transferred. Staff needs to be dedicated to managing the
program to ensure its success,particularly in the beginning. As with the PDR program, some monitoring
and enforcement needs to be in place to keep the farmland soils productive and available for the future.
DETERMINING VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Before the City of Kent enters into either preservation program, it needs to understand the value of
potential development rights. Staff has access to King County's assessed values of the land and its
improvements. However, neither the PDR or TDR program is a program that purchases fee simple land.
Rather, the programs purchase the potential value of the land. To get a reasonable estimate of the total
development value on all eligible properties requires a professional "Funding Feasibility Study". These
studies often are done for large public projects, like road construction that requires the acquisition of
several properties or portions of properties.
The process of appraising the properties is similar to standard appraisal techniques. The value is based
on the most profitable use of the property and is likely to be dependent on four criteria:
1. What is physically possible?
• 2. What is legally permissible?
3. What is financially feasible?
4. What is maximally productive?
There are three applicable methods for evaluating all types of real property. Each could be used to
evaluate the development value of properties eligible for agricultural preservation. The methods are
explained briefly below:
Cost Approach: The cost approach to value comes from the economic concept of objective value. It
implies that the value of anything is the cost incurred to create it. The approach is based on the estimated
replacement cost of the improvements, which is then reduced by the accrued depreciated. This approach
is used to appraise improvements and would be applicable to evaluate potential development costs.
Those development costs would be used to determine an expected rate of return on investment.
Sales Comparison Approach: The sale comparison approach to value reflects the opinion of buyers and
sellers of comparable property. It's based on the principle of substitution and is commonly used in
single-family real estate transactions. This approach would be used to set the fee simple value of vacant
farmland.
Income Capitalization Approach: The income capitalization method of valuation is used primarily in the
appraisal of investment property. An appraiser using this approach typically analyzes the rental value of
comparable properties considering a prudent expectation of return on investment. This approach is used
primarily for arriving at the market value of income-producing property. This type of appraisal process
would be used to determine the value of crops as well as potential allowed development. It must be
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9,2001
Page 11
restated that development can occur based on what is physically possible, legally permissible, financially
feasible, and maximally productive.
Before a relatively accurate appraisal of the potential development value within the agricultural zoning
districts is made, the jurisdiction needs to define the parameters of the program. What are eligible
properties? Is there a size limitation to ensure properties to be retained will allow viable agricultural
production? What influence will existing wetlands have on the value of development? Shall properties
with wetlands be discounted from the one dwelling unit per acre to what can be constructed reasonably.
The City's regulations prohibit development in the "floodway". What value shall be discounted for
properties located within the "floodway"? If the "Cost" approach is used, what are the costs associated
with mitigating storm water detention, restoration of potentially disturbed wetlands, or displacement of
floodplain area? Numerous issues need to be discussed and determined before a "Funding Feasibility
Study"can be conducted.
OPTIONS
The options presented here are for discussion purposes only. They outline the type of preservation
programs that could be employed to ensure the City's agricultural zoning districts are available as
productive farmland. They are skeletons of program options that would need to be expanded prior to a
public hearing.
Option 1 -PDR: The use of a PDR program alone to purchase development rights from eligible property
owners requires a large bond measure voted in by the electorate. An administrative structure would need
to put into place with staff dedicated initially to managing the program and later to enforcing it.
Option 2 — TDR: The use of a TDR program alone to transfer development rights of eligible property
owners to other areas within the City of Kent requires adequate receiving areas to accommodate the
amount of value held within the agricultural zoning districts. To be successful, the TDR program needs
receiving areas having low-density zoning and a market demand for higher density. There are few places
within the City of Kent that can and are willing to absorb the amount of"development rights" that are
held within the agricultural zoning districts. A public process needs to be conducted for any identified
receiving area. Once identified, a professional market analysis needs to be conducted to ensure adequate
receiving potential. Attaining funding for a "TDR Bank" ensures greater success for the program. A
TDR program needs an administrative structure with adequate staffing.
Option 3 —PDR/TDR: Using a combination of a PDR/TDR program gives flexibility to property owners
and extends the funding by using both public and private funds to preserve agricultural lands. Those
who want to participate immediately without going through the privately negotiated process that a TDR
program requires, could have their rights purchased using public funds. All properties using the PDR
portion of the program need to be eligible and professionally appraised. Like the above PDR and TDR
programs, this combination program requires a bond measure approved by the electorate and a public
process for any identified receiving area(s).
Option 4 —PDR with a Phased in TDR: This option is a phased approach. Initially a PDR program is
established. It would not entirely fund all the eligible "development rights" within the agricultural
zoning districts. However, it would establish a preservation program(as required by GMA), identify the
lands to be preserved, and define eligibility, with the knowledge that the program would be expanded to
include TDR in the future. This option provides time to fully explore TDR receiving areas and obtain
the necessary public participation. It also provides time to fully develop the structure of the TDR
program (e.g., types of development credits, value of development credits, possible "TDR Bank", etc.).
Land Use and Planning Board Workshop
July 9, 2001
• Page 12
The PDR phase needs a bond measure approved by the electorate. The public process of authorizing the
bond would provide a platform for identifying receiving areas for the future TDR program.
DISCUSSION
Staff will be available at the July 9 meeting to discuss the issues and options.
CA\pm\\EARTH FS\SDATA\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmendments\2001\2004535-CPA2000-5.doc
cc: Charlene Anderson,Acting PIanning Manager
Fred N. Satterstrom,Acting Community Development Director
Mike H.Martin,Interim Chief Administrative Officer
EXHIBIT F
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARGINGS BOARD
DEFINITION OF
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE LANDS
1. Land presently or historically devoted to agricultural uses
2. Land with "Long-term Commercial Significance" based on the
following:
• Growing capacity;
• Productivity;
• soil Composition — Class I or Class Il;
. Proximity to population areas; and
. Possibility of more intense uses of the land
3. Land use settlement and its compatibility with agricultural practices
• Intensity of nearby land uses
. Availability of public facilities & services
• Predominant parcel size
Connection with the larger pattern of agricultural land uses
S.,Wermit0anlCompPlanAmmentsl20011200453`-CPA2000-3CounilWrkShpExhibitF.doc
• ' . • , • A ,
• JJ �
Ila
WO
At
WIN
F
uP �-
fig
ri
L k A Kim
1, VA
IL
-owl I
Midway
• . ,�Iwr•I ram:'"O.�f f: ?,\ now
Receiving
,�■ _�
Area
LIN
1 1
Le
g- •
}
-Zmlngftbictmftpdy Am
; 4 1 is
I1
Scalez n
\-�-' KENT 1:37W6ORION
�-
�i �
1
i ■
:oil
Swaim
WI
m§Ig IN
vu■ .u.11II■ �n-r�
r sell
imIlls,
auur■...�1
on nu- • �pl!_
nnnll�=■.► NNE
' � /■l���I 1��E wlr■
.�ll► 1�
f so
iiilr�
'"'! O!� ,ice■ 02
a ■r.sl.
■! HIRE;0*11 II ■ lunr■:aal.
IIG.111 • .m!]�9 1
IT.11
1�111�
.1�
NEE
f niF v,• Fallow
1•��
-.-
-:nuns; ��EI■_
1
MIL
- : . • �»�tii�������1:���ei jai
NCC
�l ...� - a
amp �r. i >•��'=l� r. ■r.
Sol
i •lam
_A 1
. � +•cam fi ��_:� ALL ;
A/mmjiwlrm-�
INS
l�. ■
♦ AMC
117CIS
iA' 11 � �i,� i �II►�I!R':
WIN Joijanx
"- 1�. �_ t■
t L �. �� 1
in
AIL
1
I P .
s • r' n
a..
wq
� : "- � ''1 III■■'�
gag
Iri 1
in
MP
1i
i_
mauu:a�
I� / t_wm___ _
te
sm
inn
1 1
,
� - r�F�i n ter.. � C%�.`�' , ■■
fit 106
• _ , '�,��+ \� ��'Z� fit•
MOM
i1e �I •••mm .. . s
mm
m IN
fir. �►`� MIN �---
m- . C Ylow
a
WM
MM
L s �'
6
di
i � b
■� ■■ �r� �■ ��
n �■ ■W No 3
J =.!L ■�r
■_ ■ L �iIf
ii ME 0 m
_■ l
��' • • •
tom: sv � i i .�1� '� �� • •• • : • • o •a
at, Q$.T ■ il.,��._
FOP,/r��� •• I� ... _
III,-•- l��.l��'■.II • •: : • � • • : •.
lot
Change to SR
■� Via- �.
iUrban So • - •
� r� 1�� tr-v�u.ral-�_rsrr+li l "�1
LM to
4.�,
IO�Y 4 �.1••� J
. - .
• , '�
agriculturally related industrial uses in or near areas
designated lbr long term agricultural use".
11 -WWI
M SR-1/Single Family I UnWAcre:Change to Single
Family 1 UnWAcre with a TDR Receiving Area Overlay
that have little regulatory possibility for reclalmation;
2)lack or water rights for Irrigation;and 3)conflicts
M with adjacent existing and proposed lant
SR-IAJrban Separators.Change to SR-11Urban
• - • II ��
V,.I. . . . . • due undrained wetlands that have little regulatcxy
9)dsft land- are
storm water detention and gotf coursix and 4)need
to minimize Impacts of increased usage on FraW Road
7r —
tat Is designated ascanic&recreational"and adjacent
�a�GQ'iliM M.t� �I� to the Green
1111. Designate
drllllll�WIN, a a r-7 I . � • _ toinaame
• - • preservation _
.,
r_j _
.�IIp.G�1111 � �. -- -Y�I�� -��i•�. capacityTDR Receiving Area Overlay Density based on carrying
market
eligible
=`11 noun lnl / AI^�. resourceland. . a • •..s..
._nsity Townhouses and clustering are recommended.
uuu:112 �'� I'I'I • • . -
11/
fi-MWIN-1 MAIM
1
�g
1 �.
(i
Class 11 soils,e)dsffng land use,historical zoning and
land use designation.Change zoning to Agricultural-10.
AGIAgricultural Support Create a land use designation
• - • ���!9 �, 1defined
-1------- called Agricultural Support for AG zoning district which is
as
related s t«ultural production by allowing
« 1 -
C c hange to Urban designated for long term agricultural use".
Separator/SR-1 m
1. ..r,1.Hit
a.
1,./ � 1.
JUN
Ir Ill,��pl• , �� I
1 luliil,111 `/ 1E III{ III�.,■_
�� ($, /'•'PP�: SAWOW
=�
I `\-. �■'
FF K ;► l� ' � ��
-
..,1•.1. IIIIII • • • • - • .
I((I uulr� / 11
a•O
. - . ,
INIJ
ITEM #1
PLANNING COMMITTEE
JULY 9, 2002
PROPOSED KENT STATION
PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE
ACTION ITEM :
Staff recommends that the Planning Committee forward the
Planned Action Ordinance with exhibits to the full City
Council for adoption.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, CD Director
• PLANNING SERVICES
KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
WASHINGTON
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
July 3, 2002
TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: PROPOSED KENT STATION PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE
Planning Committee Meeting of July 9, 2002
On July 8, 2002 the City issued the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for
the Kent Station Planned Action. As provided for in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
WAC 197-11-164 and-168, a GMA jurisdiction may designate planned actions that will benefit from a
more simplified and consolidated SEPA review process. The process can be streamlined because the
environmental review for development within a specified geographical area is contained within the EIS
document and all of the SEPA mitigating measures are outlined in the Planned Action Ordinance
(PAO).
A supplemental EIS was issued for Kent Station because the project builds upon previous
environmental review that was completed under the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS and the Downtown
Strategic Action Plan Integrated EIS as well as a number of other environmental plans and documents
related to downtown. All of those supporting documents are identified in the SEIS and are available
for Council review in the Planning Services Office.
As part of the process to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance, state regulations require that jurisdictions
provide an opportunity for public notice and comment (WAC 197-11-168). To fulfill this requirement,
the attached notice was mailed to all parties of record on the SEIS, published in the South County
Journal and posted on the project site. The notice identifies this Planning Committee meeting as the
appropriate place to provide written and/or verbal comment on the PAO.
The attached PAO and SEPA Mitigation Document (Exhibit A) provide a summary of all anticipated
significant adverse environmental impacts, significant unavoidable adverse impacts and mitigating
measures as outlined in the EIS documents. The ordinance and supporting documents propose
Alternative 2 in the SEIS as the preferred "build" alternative.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Committee forward the Planned Action Ordinance with exhibits to
• the full City Council for adoption.
CA\pm S:\permit\plan\kent station\2002TA0 committee memo.doc
CC: Mike Martin,Chief Administrative Officer
Fred Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Tom Brubaker,City Attorney
Kim Marousek,Principal Planner
a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, establishing a Planned Action for a
site approximately 25.0 acres in size, bound by James and
Harrison Streets, 4th Avenue and 1st Avenue, as described
in the adopted Kent Station Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement.
• WHEREAS, the Governor's Task Force on Regulatory Reform
recommended changes to state law that would enable local governments to consolidate
environmental review of plans prepared under the Washington State Growth
Management Act(GMA); and
WHEREAS, both the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") and
Chapter 36.70B Revised Code of Washington ("RCW") provide for the integration of
environmental review with project review through the establishment of "Planned
Actions"; and
WHEREAS, Planned Actions expedite the permitting process where
substantial planning and environmental analysis have been done prospectively for
specific geographic areas that are less extensive than the municipality's jurisdictional
boundaries or that are for certain types of development; and
1 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
iWHEREAS, RCW 43.21C.031 and Washington Administrative Code
("WAC") 197-11-164, -168, and -172 allow for and govern the application of a
Planned Action designation; and
WHEREAS, City of Kent Ordinance No. 3222 adopted a
Comprehensive Plan (April 1995), under the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW, that
includes goals and policies for Kent's downtown area; and
WHEREAS, City of Kent Ordinance No. 3398 adopted the Downtown
Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in
1998 as an amendment to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, in compliance with
the requirements of the GMA to direct growth into urban centers that provide a mix of
residential, commercial, educational, and recreational land uses served by a multi-
modal transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan provides
a basis for master planning and environmental analysis for the subsequent adoption of
a Planned Action Ordinance for the Downtown Kent subarea, and its component
districts; and
WHEREAS, City of Kent Ordinance 3543, passed on February 20,
2001, rezoned lands previously designated as Downtown Commercial Limited
Manufacturing (DLM) within Downtown Kent to Downtown Commercial Enterprise
(DCE) and recognized the variety of functions Downtown Kent will be expected to
provide as a designated Urban Center pursuant to King County county-wide planning
policies for population, employment and services; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2001, the City purchased the Borden
Chemical site; and
2 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
WHEREAS, the Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station began operation
in the City of Kent on February 5, 2001, and the presence of this transit service is
consistent with and would enhance mixed-use development on the Planned Action site;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent over the years has provided an ongoing
opportunity for public participation and review process for preparation of its
Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated
Environmental Impact Statement, and the Kent Station Planned Action Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002 the Kent City Council Planning
Committee held a public meeting on this Planned Action Ordinance to allow an
opportunity for public comment as required by WAC 197-11-168; and
WHEREAS, the Kent Station Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (hereafter "SEIS") identifies impacts and mitigation
measures associated with the planned development; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance would designate certain land uses and
activities as Planned Actions" that would be consistent with the Downtown
Commercial Enterprise zoning district designations within Downtown Kent. NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. - Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose of this
ordinance is to:
3 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
A. Combine environmental analysis with land use planning; and
B. Streamline and expedite the land use permit process by relying on completed
and existing detailed environmental analysis for certain land uses allowed in
Downtown Kent; and
C. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions within Downtown
Kent as Planned Actions consistent with RCW 43.21C.031; and
D. Provide the public with an understanding of Planned Actions and how the City
will process Planned Actions; and
E. Adopt the SEIS as a Planned Action document that provides a framework for
encouraging development proposals within the Planned Action Area described
in Section 3(A) ("Planned Action Projects") that are consistent with the goals
and policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and the City of Kent
Downtown Strategic Action Plan, as they apply to a portion of the North Core
District of Downtown Kent.
F. Apply the City's development codes together with the SEIS and mitigation
framework described in Section 3 of this Ordinance to expedite and simplify
processing Planned Action developments, consistent with RCW 43.21C.240
and WAC 197-11-158.
4 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
SECTION 2. -Findings. The City Council finds that:
A. The City of Kent selects Alternative 2, as set forth in the SEIS, as its preferred
alternative; and
B. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement, the
City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (together "DSAP"), and the SEIS adequately
address all significant environmental impacts associated with the Planned
Action described in the SEIS for Alternative 2; and
C. The mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Document, Exhibit A of
this Ordinance, together with the City's development standards and any future
mitigation measures that may be imposed through the land use process, are
adequate to mitigate the significant adverse environmental impacts of the
Planned Action Projects addressed in the SEIS. Additional voluntary
mitigation measures may also be incorporated in a subsequent development
agreement pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170; and
D. The SEIS Planned Actions, also referred to as "Planned Action Projects" (as
described by Alternative 2 in the SEIS), as set forth in Section 3(D) of this
Ordinance, will benefit the public, will protect the environment, and will
enhance economic development; and
E. The City has provided numerous opportunities for public involvement and
review; has considered all comments received; and this public participation
process has resulted in modifications to mitigation measures and Planned
Action conceptual alternatives.
• 5 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
F. The Planned Action describes the location, types and quantities of uses
anticipated.p d.
G. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned
Action.
SECTION 3. - Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating and Determininjz
Protects as Planned Actions.
A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to all parcels
bound by I" Avenue on the east between James and Smith Streets, 4th Avenue
on the west between James and Harrison Streets, James Street on the north
between I" and 4th Avenues, and Harrison Street on the south between 2"d and
4`h Avenues, referred to in this Ordinance as the "Planned Action site". The
property is illustrated in Exhibit B and legally described in Exhibit C.
Additionally, the Planned Action designation shall apply to any off-site
improvements necessitated by the proposed Planned Action development where
the impacts of the off-site improvements have been analyzed in the SEIS.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action designation for a site-specific
Planned Action Project permit application shall be based on the environmental
analysis contained in the draft SEIS issued by the City on April 23, 2002, and
the Final SEIS issued by the City on July 8, 2002, and those environmental
documents incorporated by reference or adopted in the SEIS. The Council's
Mitigation Document, Exhibit A, is based upon the environmental analysis in
the SEIS, and is incorporated into this Ordinance by this reference. The
Mitigation Document, together with existing City codes, ordinances,
development regulations and standards and applicable county, state or federal
requirements and standards, shall provide the framework for the decision by the
City to impose conditions on a Planned Action project. Other environmental
i6 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
documents incorporated by reference in the SEIS may also be utilized to assist
in analyzing impacts and determining appropriate mitigation measures.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the SEIS,
subject to the thresholds described in Section 3(D) and the mitigation measures
described in the Mitigation Document, Exhibit A, are designated Planned
Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A land use
permit application for a site-specific Planned Action Project within the Subarea
shall be designated as a Planned Action if it meets the criteria set forth in
Section 3(D) of this Ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development
regulations and standards of the City.
D. Planned Action Thresholds.
1. Land Use. Subject to the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A,
the following land uses and development levels, together with the
customary accessory uses and amenities described in the SEIS, are
Planned Actions pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.031:
a. Land Uses. The following uses are the primary uses analyzed in
the SEIS:
i. Office;
ii. Retail commercial;
iii. Restaurant;
iv. Multifamily residential;
V. Cinema;
vi. Community College;
vii. Hotel & Conference Center;
viii. Surface parking;
ix. Structured parking; and
X. Street and infrastructure improvements.
7 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
b. Land Use Review Threshold. The Planned Action designation
applies to future development proposals that are comparable to
or that are within the range established by SEIS Proposed Action
Alternative 2, as shown in the Summary of Development table
below:
Kent Station Alternative—Summary of Development in Alternative 2
Alternative 2—
LAND USE Kent Station
Proposal
Commercial (square feet) 518,400 sf
Retail 191,800
Restaurant 35,900
Grocery 47,700
Cinema(12-Screen; 2,800 seats) 55,000
Office 138,000
Community College 50,000
Hotel/Conference Center 169,400 sf
Hotel Rooms 200 rooms
Multi-family Residential (sq. feet) 434,000 sf
Housing Units 480 units
Total Commercial/Residential 1,121,800 sf
Development
Park/ Open Space 53,000 sf
Civic Plaza (Alt 2)/Plaza Area(Alt 3) 23,000
Park Block (Alt 2)/Town Sq. (Alt 3) 30,000
Borden Playfields 0
Parking (stalls) 2,932 stalls
8 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
A list of general uses available to the land use categories featured in the
above Summary of Development table, with appropriate development
standards, is described in Kent City Code 15.04. Surface parking includes on-
street spaces within the site, and structured parking includes `stand-alone'
parking garages as well as parking structured within and beneath mixed-use
development.
If future development proposals in the Planned Action area exceed the
maximum development parameters reviewed in the SEIS, further
environmental review may be required under SEPA, as provided in WAC 197-
11-172. If proposed plans significantly change the location of uses in a manner
that would alter the environmental determinations in the SEIS, additional SEPA
review also would be required. Shifting the total build-out of square footage
between uses may be permitted so long as the total build-out does not exceed
the aggregate amount of development, trip generation, and parking thresholds
reviewed under the SEIS, and so long as the impacts of that development have
been identified and mitigated in the SEIS and the Mitigation Document.
2. Building Heights and Thresholds. The Planned Action Area is entirely
located within the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zoning
district. Under Kent City Code 15.04.190, there is no height limitation
in the DCE zoning district. However, proposed building height is
subject to Kent City Code 15.09.046 Downtown Design Review. The
building heights reviewed in the SEIS range from one story to six
stories. In comparison with the building heights reviewed in the SEIS, a
proposed increase in height greater than one (1) additional story may
require additional SEPA review to address aesthetic impacts.
3. Building Setbacks: Building setbacks shall be established by existing
development regulations and Downtown and Multifamily Design
Review.
9 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
4. Open Space: Open space shall be established by existing development
regulations and Downtown and Multifamily Design Review. In no case
shall the Civic Plaza and Park Block total less than 53,000 square feet,
as analyzed in the SEIS. Of this total, approximately 30,000 square feet
will be developed by the City as a Park Block.
5. Transportation:
a. Trip Ranges: The range of trips reviewed in the SEIS are as
follows:
Trip Generation
Net New Trips Reviewed in SEIS
Time Period Total Inbound Outbound
Trips
Weekday Daily 13,200 6,600 6,600
Total
Weekday PM Peak 1,380 675 705
Hour
b. Trip Threshold: Uses or activities that would exceed the
maximum trip levels shown above will require additional SEPA
review.
C. Public Works Discretion: The Public Works Director shall have
discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation,
consistent with the ITE Trip Generation Manual (latest ed.), for
each Planned Action Project permit application proposed under
this Planned Action.
d. Off-Site Mitigation: As provided in the SEIS in order to mitigate
transportation related impacts, an Environmental Mitigation Fee
shall be paid to participate in and pay a proportionate share of
the construction cost to fund the South 272"d/South 277`h Street
Corridor, which supports an alternative vehicular route that does
not require passing through Downtown Kent.
10 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
e. Road Improvements: The Planned Action would require off-site
road improvements as follows:
Phase I ( 0 to 690 net new PM peak hour trips)
Subject to the Public Work's Director's discretion
provided for in subsection 5(c) above, Phase I mitigation will be
triggered by the first application and will apply to all
developments until the point those developments generate up to
a total of 690 net new PM peak hour trips. For any of these
proposals, all of the traffic improvements listed below must be
constructed before the City will issue any Certificates of
Occupancy. At the discretion of the Public Works Director, the
City may accept a fee in lieu of constructing these
improvements. Any fee shall be for the full cost to the City for
the construction of the improvements.
• 41h Avenue N/S 2281h Street: Construct a right-turn lane
on eastbound S 228`h Street to southbound 4`h Avenue N.
Combined with protected phasing for this new right-turn
lane, operations could be improved from LOS F to LOS
D during the PM peak hour.
• Central Avenue S/W Willis Street: Construct a new
right-turn lane on southbound Central Avenue S to
westbound W Willis Street. The new right-turn lane
would operate protected with east and westbound left-
turn movements to establish a LOS D.
• 2nd Avenue S/W Willis Street: This unsignalized
intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F on the
minor approaches of 2nd Avenue S in 2010 with either
the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives. Restrict
11 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
left-turn movements from W Willis Street onto 2nd
Avenue S.
Phase II (690 to 1,460 net new PM peak hour trips)
Subject to the Public Works Director's discretion
provided for in subsection 5(c) above, Phase II mitigation will be
triggered by any development that raises the total trip generation
above 690 net new PM peak hour trips. For any of these
developments, all of the traffic improvements listed below must
be constructed before the City will issue any Certificates of
Occupancy. At the discretion of the Public Works Director, the
City may accept a fee in lieu of constructing these
improvements. Any fee shall be for the full cost to the City for
the construction of the improvements.
• 4th Avenue SIW Willis Street: Widen to create a second
left-turn lane on eastbound W Willis Street to
northbound 4th Avenue S and extend the right-turn lane
on southbound 4th Avenue S to westbound W Willis
Street. The intersection would operate at LOS D during
the PM peak hour with these improvements.
• 4th Avenue N/W Harrison Street: Create channelized
right-turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound
approaches of Harrison Street. Operations would
improve for right-turning vehicles, by allowing right-
turning vehicles to bypass vehicles that are waiting in the
through/left-turn lane and enter the 4`' Avenue N traffic
stream more quickly.
12 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
These road improvements have been analyzed in the SEIS.
Significant changes to the road improvement plan proposed as part of
any Planned Action Project that have the potential to significantly
increase impacts to air quality, water quality, fisheries resources, noise
levels or other factors beyond the levels analyzed in the SEIS may
require additional SEPA review.
6. Earth: A significant change from the base of information and
significant impacts contained in the SEIS under Prior Planning and
Environmental Review and from the soil and groundwater
contamination identified under Earth/Environmental Health in Chapter
III of the SEIS that have the potential to adversely affect water quality,
fisheries resources or environmental health concerns shall require
additional SEPA review, including possible MTCA compliance.
7. Air Quality: A significant change in site layout or traffic generation
• from that identified and evaluated in the SEIS that could affect localized
air quality would require additional SEPA review. Construction related
mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts, as outlined in the
SEIS, shall be incorporated into the construction plans where
appropriate.
8. Water: A significant change from the base of information and
significant impact analysis contained in the SEIS under Prior Planning
and Environmental Review, and from the wetlands that were analyzed
under Wetlands in Chapter III of the SEIS that have the potential to
adversely affect water quality or fisheries resources in a material
manner not identified in the SEIS will require additional SEPA review.
The City will rely on adopted local, state, and federal regulations to
mitigate the significant impacts to water quality and quantity from the
Planned Actions.
13 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
9. Public Services and Utilities: A significant change from the base of
information and significant impact analysis contained in the SEIS under
Prior Planning and Environmental Review, and a significant increase in
the number of square feet or dwelling units beyond the maximum
number reviewed in the SEIS, which has the potential to result in
significant adverse environmental impacts not previously identified in
the SEIS in the development's provision of public services and utilities
will require additional SEPA review.
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
1. The SEPA Official or designee is authorized to designate a project
application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a), if
the project application meets all of the following conditions:
a. The project meets the description of a Planned Action Project as
set forth in this Ordinance, and will implement any applicable
ismitigation measures identified in this Ordinance; and
b. The project is located within the Planned Action Area or is an
off-site improvement directly related to a proposed development
on the subject site; and
C. The project is consistent with the City of Kent Comprehensive
Plan and the Downtown Kent Action Plan; and
d. The project's significant adverse environmental impacts have
been adequately identified in the SEIS; and
e. The project falls within the Planned- Action thresholds
established in Section 3(D) of this Ordinance; and
f. The SEPA Official has determined that the project's significant
impacts have been mitigated through the application of the
Mitigation Document in Exhibit A, as well as other applicable
City, county, state and federal requirements and conditions,
14 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
which together constitute sufficient mitigation for the significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and
g. The proposed project complies with all applicable local, county,
state, and federal regulations, and where appropriate, the
proposed project complies with needed variances or
modifications or other special permits have been identified; and
h. The proposed project is not an essential public facility.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
1. Upon designation by the SEPA Responsible Official that the
development proposal within the Planned Action Area qualifies as a
Planned Action pursuant to this Ordinance and WAC 197-11-172, the
project shall not be subject to a SEPA threshold determination, an
environmental impact statement (EIS), or any additional review under
SEPA.
2. Being designated a Planned Action or Planned Action Project means
that a proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with this
Ordinance, and found to be consistent with the development parameters
and environmental analysis included in the SEIS, including its
incorporated and adopted documents.
3. Planned Action Projects will not be subject to further procedural review
under SEPA. However, these projects will be subject to conditions as
outlined in this document and the attached Exhibit A, which are
designed to mitigate any environmental impacts resulting from the
project proposal. Additionally, projects will be subject to applicable
City, state and federal regulatory requirements. The Planned Action
designation shall not excuse a project from meeting the City's code and
ordinance requirements apart from the SEPA process.
15 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
G. Planned Action Permit Process. The Planning Manager or designee shall
review projects and determine whether, they meet the criteria as Planned
Actions under applicable state, federal, and local laws, regulations, codes and
ordinances. The review procedure shall consist, at a minimum, of the
following:
1. Development applications will meet the requirements of Kent City Code
("KCC") Titles 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. Applications shall be made
on forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist or
revised SEPA checklist or such other environmental review forms
provided by the Community Development, Fire, and Public Works
Departments. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an
application.
2. The Planning Manager will determine whether the application is
complete as provided in KCC Chapter 12.01.
3. If the project application is within the Planned Action Area, the
application shall be reviewed to determine whether the proposed
application is consistent with and meets all of the qualifications
specified in Section 3 of this Ordinance.
4. After the City receives and reviews a complete application, the SEPA
Official shall determine, utilizing the criteria and procedures contained
in WAC 197-11-172, whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action.
If the project does qualify as a Planned Action, the Planning Manager
shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance
with the appropriate permit procedure, except that no additional SEPA
review, threshold determination, or EIS will be required.
5. Public notice for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to
the underlying permit and not to SEPA notice requirements. If notice is
otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that
16 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise
required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required.
6. If a project is determined not to be a Planned Action, the Planning
Manager shall notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review
procedure consistent with the City SEPA procedures and state laws.
The notice to the applicant shall describe the elements of the application
that result in disqualification as a Planned Action.
7. Projects disqualified as a Planned Action may use or incorporate
relevant elements of the environmental review analysis in the SEIS
prepared for the Planned Action, as well as other environmental
documents to assist in meeting SEPA requirements. The SEPA Official
may choose to limit the scope of the SEPA review to those issues and
environmental impacts not previously addressed in the SEIS.
SECTION 4. - Time Period. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be
reviewed no later than December 1, 2010 by the Planning Manager to determine its
continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the Planned Action
Area and the vicinity and adequacy of Planned Action requirements and mitigation.
Based upon this review, this Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another
review period may be specified.
SECTION 5. - Con ict. In the event of a conflict between the
Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any ordinance or
regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control EXCEPT that
provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede.
SECTION 6. - Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of
17 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to any other person or
situation.
SECTION 7. - Third Party Liability. This Ordinance does not create or
otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or
should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of these regulations. No
provision or term used in these regulations is intended to impose any duty whatsoever
upon the City or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
Notwithstanding any language used in this Ordinance, it is not the intent
of this Ordinance to create a duty and/or cause of action running to any individual or
identifiable person, but rather any duty is intended to run only to the general public.
SECTION 8. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon
its passage, approval, and five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
18 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SEIS
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 2002.
APPROVED: day of 2002.
PUBLISHED: day of , 2002.
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
V'li.ilO.ti.a.ixN.niedAa4w14vLLvuatiElS Ax
19 Planned Action Ordinance—
Kent Station SETS
Exhibit A
D R A F T Mitigation Document D R A F T
Kent Station Planned Action
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project
and non-project proposals that may have significant impacts upon the environment.
In order to meet SEPA requirements, the SEPA Official for the City of Kent issued a
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kent Station Planned Action
on April 23, 2002, and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on July 8,
2002 (collectively, the "SEIS"). The SEIS has identified significant impacts that would
occur with the future redevelopment of the subject site together with a number of possible
measures to mitigate those significant impacts.
The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures,
based upon significant impacts identified in the SEIS. The mitigation measures would
apply to future development proposals that are deemed, pursuant to the City's Planned
Action Ordinance and WAC 197-11-172, to constitute Planned Actions or Planned
Action Projects that are comparable to the Proposed Action reviewed in the SEIS, and
that are located on the approximately 25 acre subject site (see Exhibit B). The mitigation
measures may also apply to off-site improvements, if they were analyzed in the SEIS.
Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-150, this mitigation is in addition to the
mitigation required by other applicable City, county, state and federal regulations and
requirements.
USE OF TERMS
As several similar terms are utilized in this Mitigation Document, the following phrases
or words are defined briefly:
SEPA Terms
"Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or
approved by an Agency. "Project actions"involve decisions on a specific project such as
a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area. "Non project"
actions involve decisions about policies,plans or programs. (See WAC 197-11-704)
"Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a
specific geographical area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive
plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master
planned development or phased project. (See WAC 197-11-164).
i
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 2
"Proposal" means a proposed action, which may be actions and regulatory decisions of
an agency, or any actions proposed by applicants. (See 197-11-784)
Other Terms
The subject site or Planned Action Area may be referenced as "Kent Station," "site,"
"subject site" or "Planned Action Area" in this document. Mitigation measures may also
apply to off-site improvements analyzed in the SEIS.
This document includes mitigation measures that are tied to the approval of site plans,
construction plans, civil plans, plats, planned unit developments, and design review.
Regulations are found in Kent City Code Titles 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
General Interpretation
Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will" the requirement is
mandatory. Where "should" or"would" appear the words convey the City's expectation
and desires given circumstances presently known, with recognition that pertinent
alternate or equivalent requirements may be imposed as more detailed design or reports
are conducted consistent with the mitigation measures.
Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measure requirements to prepare
plans, conduct studies, construct improvements, conduct maintenance activities, etc., are
the responsibility of the future developer(s)to fund and/or carry out.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED UNDER PLANNED ACTION
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action reviewed in the SEIS includes:
• Approval of a plan to redevelop the Planned Action Area within Kent's
Downtown as a mixed-use urban village
• Adoption of an ordinance designating the Kent Station Site as a Planned
Action for purposes of SEPA compliance (per RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a), and
WAC 197-11-164 and 197-11-168).
The City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan identified the Subject Site ( "Site") as
a key redevelopment opportunity and recommended preparing a master plan. The
Planned Action designation reflects a decision that adequate environmental review has
been completed and that further environmental review, under SEPA, for each specific
development phase would not be necessary if it is determined that any given Planned
Action Project is consistent with the development levels specified in the Planned Action
Ordinance and evaluated in the SEIS and/or applicable development regulations.
Exhibit A-Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 3
The Planned Action includes a combination of retail, commercial,
educational/institutional, residential and mixed-use redevelopment projects through the
year 2010. It also includes the City's approval of Planned Unit Development
(PUD)/master plan, administrative design review, wetland mitigation plan, subdivision,
civil construction drawings, and building permits. A program of road, infrastructure, and
streetscape improvements are integral to the redevelopment proposal. The City and the
Kent Station developer may also execute a development agreement, pursuant to RCW
36.7013.170. The agreement would set forth the development standards, mitigation
requirements, review procedures, etc. applicable to future development.
The SEIS provides conceptual information on the potential mix of uses, building density
and height, access/circulation, recreation and open space opportunities and other
development features. The intensity of site development would fall within the range of
development represented in Alternative 2 of the SEIS (Reference Chapter II of the Draft
SEIS). The proposed development thresholds consist of 518,400 square feet of
commercial, 169,400 square feet (200 rooms) of hotel/conference center, and 480 units of
housing (434,000 square feet). Also included are 2932 parking stalls and 53,000 square
feet of park/open space.
Applicability of Mitigation Document
This mitigation document applies to the Proposed Action, Alternative 2 analyzed in the
SEIS. For the mitigation document to apply to future development proposed in the
Planned Action Area, that proposed development must be comparable to or within the
range established by Alternative 2, as shown below:
Kent Station Alternative 2 -Summary of Development
LAND USE Alternative 2-Kent Station Proposal
Commercial(square feet) 518,400 sf
Retail 191,800
Restaurant 35,900
Grocery 47,700
Cinema(12-Screen; 2,800 seats) 55,000
Office 138,000
Community College 50,000
Hotel/Conference Center 169,400 sf
Hotel Rooms 200 rooms
Subtotal
Multi-family Residential (square feet) 434,000 sf
Housing Units 480 units
Total Commercial/Residential Development 1,121,800 sf
Park/Open Space 53,000 sf
Civic Plaza(Alt 2)/Plaza Area(Alt 3) 23,000
Park Block(Alt 2)/Town Square (Alt 3) 30,000
Borden Playfields 0
Parking (stalls) 2,932 stalls
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 4
Building heights range from one to six stories (Reference Chapter II, Tables 4 and 5 in
the SEIS).
All of the alternatives would provide the same public street improvements to 1St, 2nd and
4th Avenues N. Two new public streets would also traverse the site: 1) Temperance
Street between I" and 2"d Avenues N., and 2) 2"d Avenue N. would be extended from
Smith Street to 4th Avenue N. (Reference Chapter II-14 — II-16 of the SEIS).
If future proposed plans exceed the maximum development parameters reviewed,
supplemental environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11-172 and
other applicable SEPA Rules.
MITIGATION DOCUMENT
Based upon the SEIS, which is incorporated by this reference, this Mitigation Document
identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the development of the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures are
hereby established under SEPA Rules to address specific impacts identified in the SEIS,
based upon the Proposed Action.
Additional consistency review under the Planned Action, site plan review, and other
permit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed
Action pursuant to WAC 197-11-172. Additional project conditions may be imposed on
what are deemed to be Planned Action Projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in
relationship to independent requirements of city, state or federal requirements or review
criteria.
Any applicant for a project within the Planned Action Area may request modifications to
these mitigation measures, if appropriate and as a result of changed circumstances, in
order to allow an equivalent substitute mitigation or removal of a mitigation requirement.
Such modifications would be evaluated by the City SEPA Responsible Official prior to
any approvals by the City, based upon SEPA Rules.
As permitted under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-660), it is recognized that there may be
some adverse impacts that are unavoidable because reasonable or feasible mitigation
cannot be achieved for the Proposed Action.
Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the SEIS for the
Proposed Action are: (a) summary of and/or reference to SEIS analysis of significant
environmental impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative); (b) summary of significant
unavoidable adverse impacts; (c) mitigation measures established by this Mitigation
Document; and (d) a list of federal and state laws and local policies/regulations on which
mitigation measures are based.
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 5
In combination, regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation
measures imposed by this document will apply to and govern any Planned Action Project
and will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts caused by the
Proposed Action, except for those impacts that are identified as "significant unavoidable
adverse impacts."
1. Earth/Environmental Health
A. Significant Impacts: Chapter III of the SEIS addresses remediation of on-site soil
and groundwater contamination. Other potential environmental impacts to earth
resources and environmental health (i.e., noise) have been adequately addressed
in previous environmental documents and are summarized in Chapter II of the
SEIS. A summary of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary
Matrix.
• Exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater on the site could pose
potential health risks to the public. Health risks are the basis of the applicable
cleanup levels that are being implemented through a cleanup plan.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Provided that reasonable mitigation
measures are properly followed, no significant unavoidable impacts are
anticipated.
C. Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures established below address impacts
identified in Chapter III of the SEIS.
• No mitigation measures beyond those already identified and being
implemented in connection with cleanup of the Borden Chemical Facility,
BNSF, Reiman Trust, Brutsche, Silvestri and adjacent sites are required.
Cleanup activities would be coordinated with redevelopment of the site and
associated construction activities.
• Any required Clean up actions will occur as part of, and concurrent with, site
preparation and construction activities for the 2nd Avenue extension and other
proposed on-site development. Consistent with the recommended monitoring
program, any monitoring wells displaced by redevelopment shall be relocated.
• Monitoring shall occur as recommended in the Phase II site assessment
reports.
• Earthwork should be accomplished during the dry season from May to
September whenever possible, when soils are likely to be compacted and
when erosion and sedimentation activity are at a seasonal low.
• Erosion control methods in the short term can include channeling surface
water runoff, erosion preventing slope cover (e.g. straw), channel liners, and
sedimentation control ponds. Long term methods include minimizing the
concentration of runoff onto fill, cut or natural slopes, and minimizing
disturbances to natural drainage courses and existing vegetation.
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 6
2. Air Quality
A. Significant Impacts: Chapter II of the SEIS includes an examination of
significant impacts to air quality in terms of construction activities, generated
traffic, and indirect air emissions. In general, reduced emissions of particulates,
carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides would be associated with concentrating
growth in a mixed-use pattern at higher densities in pedestrian-oriented areas.
Localized dust and exhaust emissions would be generated from construction
activities.
An Air Quality Conformity Analysis was conducted in conjunction with the
FSEIS. No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures
related to conformity are required.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Provided that reasonable mitigation
measures are properly followed, no significant unavoidable impacts are
anticipated.
C. Mitigation Measures: The following construction related mitigation measures to
reduce air quality impacts shall be incorporated into the construction plans where
appropriate:
• Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational
condition
• Require all off road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction
equipment(i.e., require participation in Puget Sound region Diesel Solutions
by project sponsors and contractors)
• Use bio diesel or other lower-emission fuels for vehicles and equipment
• Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers
• Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and
delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction
• Implement construction curbs on hot days when region is at risk for exceeding
the ozone NAAQS, and work at night instead
• Implement restrictions on construction truck idling(e.g., limit idling to a
maximum of 5 minutes)
• Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air
intakes to buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations
• Locate construction staging zones where diesel emissions won't be noticeable
to the public or near sensitive populations such as the elderly and the young
• Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of
PM 10 and deposition of particulate matter
• Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that would be exposed for long
periods
• Cover all trucks transporting materials, wetting materials in trucks, or
providing adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of
the truck bed), to reduce PM10 emissions and deposition during transport
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 7
• Provide wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be
carried off-site by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area
roadways
• Remove particulate matter deposited on paved, public roads, sidewalks, and
bicycle and pedestrian paths to reduce mud and dust; sweep and wash streets
continuously to reduce emissions
• Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown
debris
• Route and schedule construction trucks to reduce delays to traffic during peak
travel times to reduce air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic
speeds
3. Noise
A. Significant Impacts: Increased noise and vibration would be associated with
construction. These impacts could be intensive in some locations for limited
periods of time. Some construction equipment and methods (e.g., pile driving)
can produce peak noise levels greater than 100dBA, as well as significant
vibration.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Provided that reasonable mitigation
measures are properly followed, no significant unavoidable impacts are
anticipated.
C. Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation measures for construction impacts may include enforcement of
limits of the hours of construction activity, proper maintenance of equipment,
use of mufflers and/or temporary sound barriers, alternative construction
techniques (e.g., pile auguring), contractor preparation of noise control plans,
and active monitoring and enforcement of applicable standards.
4. Wetlands
A. Significant Impacts: Chapter III of the SEIS includes an examination of
significant impacts to wetlands. A summary of impacts is provided below based
upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see
Chapter III of the SEIS.
• Three on-site wetlands would be filled to permit construction of planned
buildings, roads and infrastructure.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The wetland functions, values and
area would be lost, and are unavoidable in the context of the alternative site plans
and the City's goals for Downtown development.
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 8
C. Mitigation Measures:
• Mitigation, in the form of off-site compensation,would occur consistent with
the City's adopted wetland standards and regulations and shall include the
preparation of a wetland mitigation plan.
5. Land Use
A. Significant Impacts: Chapter III of the SEIS includes an examination of
significant impacts to land use. A summary of impacts is provided below based
upon the SEIS Summary Matrix. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, see
Chapter III of the SEIS.
• Proposed development would be of higher density and intensity than the No
Action alternative and therefore involve potentially greater impacts.
However, proposed development would be comparable to the density and
intensity permitted under current zoning.
• A mix of uses would occur.
• The character of the site would change significantly from low-density, auto-
oriented, suburban area with small buildings surrounded by large parking lots,
to an urbanized,pedestrian-oriented/transit-oriented district.
• Borden Playfields would be replaced by urban park space resulting in a net
reduction of between 3.5 and 3.8 acres of park land in the City. Demand
could increase at other park facilities.
• Increased light, noise, and activity associated with an urban area may be
noticeable from residential area to the north.
• Proposal would encourage new economic, civic and pedestrian activity in the
area that indirectly could result in increased development pressure on
surrounding properties to intensify.
• Some existing uses may be displaced and could relocate within the site or
nearby commercial districts. As redevelopment occurs, potential land use
conflicts between adjacent low intensity uses and new development could
result.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Some displacement of existing land
uses on the Kent Station Planned Action site would occur. Some limited contrast
in land use intensity,bulk and scale would occur,primarily where larger buildings
are proposed adjacent to existing single family residences. Impacts relating to
lighting and noise may be mitigated but cannot be entirely avoided; they are
considered to be an inherent characteristic of a mixed-use urban neighborhood.
C. Mitigation Measures: Kent's adopted Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations
and Downtown Design Guidelines provide policies, processes, standards and
development regulations that would mitigate most identified impacts.
• Utilize careful site planning,building design and buffering. Utilize techniques
• such as lighting limits, full cut-off fixtures, ample landscaping to buffer
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 9
adjacent uses and ensure privacy, placement/orientation of some building
elements (e.g., deliveries, solid waste receptacles)to help control noise.
• Locate taller buildings in the interior of the site, set back upper stories of taller
buildings from the street, or utilize additional screening or other design
techniques to reduce the impact to existing single family neighborhoods.
• To minimize potential business and employment displacement impacts that
would occur on-site, the City should provide technical assistance in relocation
to other suitable sites.
• In mixed-use areas, the potential intrusion of noise from commercial, office
and retail areas into residential areas should be minimized by limiting noisy
activities (e.g. trash collection or composting) to hours outside of 11 pm to 7
am.
6. Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations
A. Significant Impacts: Chapter III of the SEIS reviews the consistency of the Kent
Station Planned Action alternatives to selected federal, state, regional and local
plans,policies and/or regulations.
• The proposal is consistent with GMA planning goals to guide growth into an
area with existing and planned infrastructure. The proposal also is consistent
with the City of Kent's land use designations, transportation, economic
development, and community design policies and goal of redeveloping
Downtown from a low-intensity suburban character to a higher intensity urban
character.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None are anticipated.
C. Mitigation Measures: No specific mitigation measures are warranted beyond the
application of City regulations, which in many cases contain mitigation features.
Future development or redevelopment within the Downtown is subject to existing
federal and regional storm water management plan requirements, local
development regulations, local concurrency regulations, and design standards.
7. Aesthetics
A. Significant Impacts: Chapter III of the SEIS includes examination of significant
impacts to visual character, including intensity, bulk/scale/height, visual
compatibility, streetscape continuity, and light and glare generated. A summary
of impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix.
• The proposal is likely to improve visual quality overall. Proposed
development would support the Historic District by improving streetscapes,
pedestrian connections, and urban parks, resulting in a more unified
Downtown core area.
• The proposal would provide mixed-use development in buildings ranging
from one to six stories in height and lot coverage of up to 95 percent. Most
buildings would contain ground floor retail uses to encourage a lively
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 10
• pedestrian oriented environment. On-street, surface and structured parking
would be provided.
• Some negative impacts could result from differences in bulk and scale along
the northern edges of the site, where more intensive development would be
near single family residential uses. The proposed development also would be
larger in bulk and scale than the structures in the adjacent Historic Core
District.
• Light, glare and shadowing likely will increase.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The expected significant visual and
aesthetic change is generally considered to be positive and are consistent with the
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Mitigation measures below, together with the
City's adopted development regulations and design standards are adequate to
mitigate the anticipated significant adverse impacts.
C. Mitigation Measures:
• Utilize careful site planning, building design and buffering. Utilize techniques
such as lighting limits, full cut-off fixtures, low hanging street lamps, and
ample landscaping to buffer adjacent uses and ensure privacy.
• Locate taller buildings in the interior of the site, set back upper stories of taller
buildings from the street, or utilize additional screening or other design
alternatives to reduce the impact to existing single family neighborhoods.
• Prohibit reflective building materials.
8. Transportation
A. Significant Impacts: Chapter III and Appendix C of the SEIS examines
significant impacts to parking and the transportation system. A summary of
impacts is provided below based upon the SEIS Summary Matrix.
• Trip Generation: New Weekday trip generation ranges from a total of 13,200
daily and 1,380 PM peak hour trips.
• Levels of Service: Intersection levels of service are expected to generally
remain the same as 2010 Baseline for more than half of the study area
intersections. At these intersections a slight increase in delay is expected but
increase in total intersection volume is insufficient to cause a noticeable
change in LOS. Between 14 and 16 study intersections are anticipated to
operate at or over capacity with or without the Proposed Action. In
comparison to 2010 Baseline, 5 additional intersections would operate at or
over capacity with Alternative 2.
• Valley Freeway SB Ramps/W Willis Street
• Valley Freeway NB Ramps/W Willis Street
• 4`h Avenue S/W Willis Street
• 4`h Avenue N/W Harrison Street
• 1"Avenue N/W James Street
• Site Access: With or without the Proposed Action, intersections around the
perimeter of the site, those providing a connection between the site and the
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 11
external street system, are expected to operate at between LOS A and F.
Unsignalized access points intersecting with W James and W Smith Streets
are anticipated to operate at LOS F, while the signalized access points on
these arterials are expected to operate at LOS A and LOS B. The unsignalized
access points on the more minor roads are anticipated to operate between LOS
B and C and intersections internal to the site are expected to operate at LOS B
or better.
• The Proposed Action provides 2,932 parking stalls, with 995 shared stalls in
the Sound Transit Garage and surface parking lot. Proposed supply falls
within the minimum and maximum range depending on time of day and day
of week. Anticipated demand, separate from commuter demand, also falls
within the minimum and maximum code requirements. Adopted code
requirements are sufficient to satisfy anticipated parking impacts.
• With or without the Proposed Action, construction would generate some truck
and vehicle traffic associated with excavation and hauling, delivery of
materials, and similar types of activity. While construction may cause
inconveniences directly adjacent to the site, the impacts would be temporary
and are not expected to extend to the surrounding study area.
• The City has identified the S 277"' Street Corridor improvements (both
constructed and portions planned for construction), as providing significant
relief on the existing east/west corridor system, including SR 516. This
corridor and associated improvements will provide a necessary commuter
alternate route from I-5 to Kent's East Hill which bypasses the Downtown
Core. Environmental Mitigation Assessments charged to the developer will
be assessed at the LID rate for the S 272°d/S 277t' Corridor and will
proportionately pay toward improvements along that corridor that are
identified on the City's 6-Year Transportation Capital Improvement Plan.
B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Traffic will increase as a result of
forecast growth, with or without implementation of the alternatives. Congestion
will increase and levels of service will decrease at nearby intersections.
C. Mitigation Measures:
• Construction Traffic: The City will provide project specifications that will
dictate the route used by construction traffic to enter and exit the construction
site, stipulate the hours of work, and stipulate maximum permitted noise
levels. The contractor shall provide traffic control when construction traffic
would disrupt the normal traffic flow. This traffic control will be in the form
of flaggers, variable message signs, light and other traffic control devices.
The hours of work shall minimize the impact at heavy traffic times. The
contractor shall maintain City roads used by construction traffic by keeping
them clean at all times. The contractor shall control dust by watering the site
frequently or by other means acceptable and approved by the City.
• • Transportation Management Program: The developer and the City shall
develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for employment and
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 12
. residential components of Kent Station. The TMP shall support a goal of
reducing employee and residential Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) travel
along with the potential increase in transit and rail service over time.
• Off-Site Mitigation: The Kent Station developer shall pay an Environmental
Mitigation Fee to participate in and pay a proportionate share of the
construction costs to the City's South 272nd/South 277`h Street Corridor
project to support an alternative vehicular through-route that bypasses
Downtown Kent. The fee shall be at a rate of$1,068 per PM Peak hour trip
(in 1986 dollars to be adjusted for inflation based upon the Consumer Price
Index, US City Average for all Urban Consumers, or the substituted index as
prepared by the US Department of Labor).
Additionally, the following improvements to the local transportation system
shall be provided for Phase I Mitigation (0 to 690 net new PM peak hour
trips):
• 4th Avenue N/S 228th Street: Construct a right-turn lane on eastbound S
228"h Street to southbound 4" Avenue N. Combined with protected
phasing for this new right-turn lane, operations could be improved from
LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour.
• Central Avenue S/W Willis Street: Construct a new right-turn lane on
southbound Central Avenue S to westbound W Willis Street. The new
right-turn lane would operate protected with east and westbound left-turn
movements to establish a LOS D.
• 2nd Avenue S/W Willis Street: This unsignalized intersection is
anticipated to operate at LOS F on the minor approaches of 2nd Avenue S
in 2010 with either the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives.
Restrict left-turn movements from W Willis Street onto 2nd Avenue S.
The following improvements to the local transportation system shall be
provided for Phase II Mitigation ( 690 to 1,460 net new PM peak hour trips):
• 4th Avenue S/W Willis Street: Widen to create a second left-turn lane on
eastbound W Willis Street to northbound 4th Avenue S and extend the
right-turn lane on southbound 0' Avenue S to westbound W Willis Street.
The intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour with
these improvements.
• 4ch Avenue N/W Harrison Street: Create channelized right-turn lanes on
the eastbound and westbound approaches of Harrison Street. Operations
would improve for right-turning vehicles, by allowing right-tuming
vehicles to bypass vehicles that are waiting in the through/left-turn lane
and enter the 4`h Avenue N traffic stream more quickly.
Exhibit A—Mitigation Document
Kent Station Planned Action
Page 13
9. Nexus
It is appropriate, as per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the City of
Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts associated with this
proposal, consistent with the City's substantive SEPA authority, Kent City Code
section 11.03.510.
•
EXHIBIT B
fzx
•
dtkent-norcor.jpg(1 271x98Ox16M jpeg)
d -`Ill . , 11 - L"" 11
North Core District
I rem
Reglorla! Plan ed Ac ion o
'
Justice �, " Site
7 :Center
S.w
C.�
Library
HARMSON ST
•
. EXHIBIT C
Legal Description
Those portions of the Southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 22, Range 4 East, W.M.,
and of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter in Section 24, Township 22, Range
4 East, W.M., including platted properties therein lying South of the North right-of-way
margin of James Street, lying West of the East right-of-way margin of I" Avenue North,
lying East of the West right-of-way margin of 4`h Avenue North, and lying North of the
South right-of-way margin of West Harrison Street; together with that portion lying East
of the West right-of-way margin of 2"d Avenue North and lying North of the South right-
of-way margin of West Harrison Street.
Situate in King County, State of Washington, W.M.
P:Ci.ilU.JiuxePemeJM4oeY.anS'wLIy.LE%C Joe
•
•