HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 06/25/2012 (3) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
•
KEN T Phone: 253-856-5454
WA5H1NGTON Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA
98032-5895
AGENDA
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
WORKSHOP
JUNE 25, 2012
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: Alan Gray, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Steve Dowell, Navdeep
Gill, Jack Ottini, Randall Smith and Jim Sturgul
CITY STAFF: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager; Gloria Gould-Wessen, GIS
Coordinator/Planner; Assistant City Attorney David Galazin
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing
followed by a Workshop on MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2012 in Kent City Haii, City Council
Chambers East and West, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA at 7:00 P.M. The public is
invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the
Hearing. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed
amendments may do so prior to or at the meeting. No public testimony is taken at the
Workshop, although the public is welcome to attend.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the June 11, 2012 Minutes
4. Added Items to Agenda
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
rZCA-2011-1 (B)1 Kent City Code Chapter 12.01 (Charlene Anderson)
This is a second public hearing to consider additional options for amendments to
Chapter 12.01 of Kent City Code regarding timelines for submitting corrected
information, for picking up ready-to-issue permits, and for expiration of permits.
Furthermore, the public hearing will consider revisions to Chapter 2.32.130 to
broaden the options for public notification. The public hearing will be limited to these
topics.
S. WORKSHOP:
rCPA-2012-11 Downtown Subarea Action Plan & PAO (Gloria Gould-Wessen)
Kickoff discussion for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan update, integrated
Environmental Impact Statement, and associated Planned Action Ordinance.
For further information or to obtain copies of staff reports or the Agenda for the proposed
amendment contact the Planning Division office at(253) 856-5454. You may submit comments by
emailing Planner Katie Graves at: koraves0kentwa.00v. You may access the City's website for
documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board at:
htti):Ilkentwa.ic7m2.com/citizensIDefau/Last)x?Det)artmentlD=l 004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at 253-856-
5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services
directly at(253) 856-5499 (TDD).
This page intentionally left blank.
1
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
• MINUTES
KENT JUNE 11, 2012
WA 1HI Tor.
Land Use & Planning Board Members Chair Alan Gray, Vice Chair Barbara
Phillips, Steve Dowell, Navdeep Gill, Jack Ottini, Randall Smith, and Jim Sturgul.
Chair Gray called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
City Staff Charlene Anderson, Katie Graves, Brad Lake, Kelly Peterson and David
Galazin
3. Approval of Minutes
Board member Ottini Moved and Board member Phillips Seconded a Motion
to approve the March 26, 2012 Minutes. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
4. Added Items - None
S. Communications - None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson announced that a public hearing would be
held on June 25th before the LUPB to consider additional options for amendments to
Kent City Code Chapter 12.01 related to the regulations for timelines and to
propose changes that would broaden the options for public notification.
7.1 Kent City Code (KCC) 15.02, .05, .07 Code Amendments
Planner Katie Graves stated that KCC 15.05 pertains to Off-Street Parking and
Loading Area requirements. She stated that the Land Use and Planning Board held
workshop discussions on April gth and May 14th. Graves stated that some
amendments reduce the required parking for elementary and junior high schools,
reduce compact and standard stall sizes, increase the allowed number of compact
stalls, clarifies maneuvering areas for dock high and at-grade loading doors,
encourages Low Impact Design (LID) consideration for parking surfaces and parking
lot landscaping, and paving requirements for single-family developments.
Graves referred to the staff report in describing options and recommendations
provided by staff. She stated that a new section has been added that defines and
requires the use of permeable surfaces. Environmental Conservation Supervisor
Kelly Peterson stated that a concrete or brick crisscross lattice is a surfacing style
that allows water to permeate.
Chair Gray opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing no speakers, Board member Smith Moved and Board member Gill
Seconded a Motion to Close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Gray declared the Public Hearing Closed.
Board Member Phillips Moved and Board Member Ottini Seconded a Motion
to Approve the amendments and options for Kent City Code Chapters
15.02, 15.05, and 15.07 as recommended by Staff. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
2
7.2 2011 Water System Plan r#CPA-2008-3(Rl)1
Public Works Operation Manager Brad Lake entered a letter for the record from
Highline Water District (HWD) dated June 8, 2012 commenting on their retail water
service area and requesting correction of "South 248th Place" to "South 284th Place".
Board member Dowell Moved and Board member Phillips Seconded a
Motion to accept the HWD letter into the record. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
Lake stated that the draft 2008 Comprehensive Water System Plan (WSP) was
presented to the Land Use and Planning in concurrence with the Washington State
Department of Health (DOH) (the approval body for water system plans) and was
subsequently adopted by City Council and incorporated into the Kent
Comprehensive Plan on September 2, 2008.
Lake stated that several chapters include amendments that are housekeeping in
nature. Appendices have been updated to show that the water system will be able
to meet demand through 2030. The DOH approved the WSP in 2011. Staff is
currently working on a funding plan that will allow Kent to add additional storage
within an eight year window. Kent recently added a 4 million gallon storage facility
increasing Kent's total storage to 25 million gallons.
Lake stated that currently Kent has an agreement with Tacoma Supply System
(TSS) to access water for usage in the summer. Beginning in 2014 Kent will be able
to access water year round. Partnering with TSS will carry Kent through the future.
Lake stated that Kent has agreements with neighboring jurisdictions that allows the
City to borrow from or give water to those jurisdictions.
Chair Gray opened the Public Hearing.
Seeing no speakers, Board member Ottini Moved and Board member Gill
Seconded a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
Board member Ottini Moved and Board member Smith Seconded a Motion
to accept the 2011 Water System Plan as recommended by staff and to
send this on to City Council. Motion CARRIED 7-0.
Adiournment
Chair Gray adjourned the meeting at 7:35 pm.
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Board Secretary
WPB Minutes
June 11,2012
Page 2If2
3
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Director
• Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
K E N T
was o Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
June 18, 2012
TO: Chair Alan Gray and Land Use & Planning Board Members
FROM: Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager & Katie Graves, Planner
RE: 12.01 Code Amendments [ZCA-2011-1(B)]
Staff Report for the June 25, 2012 LUPB Hearing
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of additional
amendments to Kent City Code 12.01 and 2.32.130 as recommended by
staff/as modified, relating to timelines for resubmittals, ready-to-issue
permits and expirations as well as allowing electronic mailings.
SUMMARY: Planning Services is submitting for Board consideration amendments to
KCC 2.32.130 and KCC 12.01. These amendments provide consistency with
previous recommendations for mailing notices of decision, and offer additional
options for timelines on resubmittals, ready-to-issue permits, and permit
expirations.
BACKGROUND: On March 26, 2012, a public hearing was held before the Land
Use and Planning Board on amendments to 12.01. The Board recommended
approval of the amendments. Since that hearing, staff identified an additional
amendment to 2.32.130 that would allow Hearing Examiner decisions to be sent
electronically, instead of only by first class mail, and reconsidered timelines for
resubmittals, ready-to-issue permits, and permit expirations.
KCC 2.32.130 requires hearing examiner decisions, findings, and conclusions be
sent by first class mail. The proposed amendment allows these documents to be
sent electronically. This is consistent with the Board's March 261h recommendation
of approval of amendments to KCC 12.01.
There are now two options each for consideration on timelines for resubmittals,
ready-to-issue permits, and permit expirations. The Board's previous
recommendation allowed applicants 90 days to resubmit requested information and
to pick up a ready-to-issue permit and 365 days before certain applications and
permits expired due to inaction. Additional options of 180 days, 180 days and 120
days, respectively, are proposed (attached). Staff will be available at the public
hearing to present the options and answer questions.
The SEPA Responsible Official has determined that the proposed amendments are
procedural in nature and thus categorically exempt from further SEPA review under
WAC 197-11-800(19) and 11.03.200 Kent City Code.
4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Option A on timelines for
resubmittals and expirations, Option B for ready-to-issue permits and approval of
proposed amendments to Chapter 2.32.130. These recommendations encourage
diligence in moving forward applications and keeping the reviews fresh in the minds
of applicants and reviewers, are respectful of the amount of work that has occurred
for permits that are ready-to-issue, and track well with Building Code provisions for
expiration of applications and permits that do not have their own expiration
timelines.
KG/pm S'./Penn ltAPlanAZONING_CODE_PMENDMENTS\2011\ZC9-2011-1 Code Pmendmen6\W PBA6-25-12 Public HeadngAStaff Report doe
ALL KCC 12.01 and 2.32.130 Amendments
cc: Fred Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Project File
5
Sec. 12.01.110. Procedure for complete, but "incorrect applications."
A. Following submittal of a complete application and the
commencement of project review, the city may make a determination in writing that
some information is incorrect, and that corrected information be submitted. The
applicant shall have up to Option A. ninety (90) calendar days) Option B.
on to submit corrected information
(deemed the "resubmittal period"). The applicant shall submit cancurrentl ay II of
the corrected information that was requested. The lap nning director may in
writing extend the resubmittal period far up to an additional Option Aa ninety
(90�_d s _(� tion 0a one hundred ei hty (1�0 days} if the applicant can
de st. Evidence of
an applicant's goad faith efforts shall include the fallowing_
1. Length of time since the initial permit applicatianR
2. Time period the applicant had to submit corrected infor atiory
3. Availability of necessary information:
4. Potential to provide necessary information within the extended resubmittal
per iod,
5. Reason for the applicant's delay- and
6
6. Applicant's reasonable reliance on an expectation that the application
would notexpire.
The Economic & Community Development Director may authorize additional time
extensions of the resubmittal period in rare ar unique circumstances when the
ina within the resubmittal period isdue solely to
factors outside of tbut not limited to unusual delay
in obtaining
B. The city shall have fourteen (14) calendar days to review the submittal of
corrected information. If the corrected information is still not sufficient, the city shall
notify the applicant in writing that the submitted information is incorrect, and the
resubmittal period set forth in subsection (A) of this section shall be repeated. This
process may continue until complete or corrected information is obtained.
C. If the applicant within the resubmittal period either refuses in writing to submit
corrected information, o�cloes not submit the corrected information within the
resubmittal period, corrected information that was
requested the application shall lapse. This does not precludethe applicant from
working informal review of a portion of the
requested corrected information within the resubmittal periaL
,
2GO9—, -a�� embeF-31—, 20
infefmation,
ED. If the requested corrected information is sufficient, the city shall continue with
project review, in accordance with the time calculation exclusions set forth in KCC
12.01.180.
Sec. 12.01.115. Proce S.
A. Fallowing the end of project review the city will natif ty he applicant that
the permit is ready to issue. The applicant shall have u to ��tl�n Aa ninety
12q1 callendar days
obtain the permit after notification that it is ready to issue (deemed the "periad far
permit pick-up" . The planning director may. in writing. extend the periad far
on faith effort to
pick up the permit. Evidence of an applicant's gaad faith efforts shall include the
fallowing:
1. Length of time since the initial permit applicatianR
2. Reason for the applicant's y dela and
--------- .—
3. Applicant's reasonable reliance an an
expectation that the application
would notexpire.
The Economic & Community Development Director may authorize additional time
extensions circumstances when the
inability
to factors outsidelimited to unusual
delay mobtaining-permits or approvals from other agencies ar jurisdictions.
8
B. If the applicant within the periad far permit pick up either refuses in writing to
permitpick up the permit ar does not pick up the after notification by
city that
the permit was ready to issue the application shall lapse.
Sec. 12.01.185. Expiration_of permits.
A. Absent statute ar ordinance provisions to the contrary Process I and II ro]ect
permit applications listed in 12.01.050 that are not subiect to the notification and
procedural requirements of this chapter and far which no substantial stegshave
been taken to meet approval requirements including—per mit issuance or final
dec 65 calendar days) LOption B- 120 calendar
dam ) after submittal of the initial application will expire and me null and void.
Substantial steps include but are not limited to due diligence in submitting
complete and correct resubittals ar due diligence in satisfying the requirements far
recordation of lot line adjustments. The planning director may grant a ��tl�n Aa
18 xtension in writinc7 an a one time basis if the
failure to take a substantial e control of the
applicant. Provisions of this section do not exempt periods
for actions under RCW 36.70B.080 and 12.01.180 KCC.
B. Absent statute ar ordinance provisions to the contrary permits or land use
approvals listed in 12.01.040 of this chapter far which the use is notor the
work ion A: 365 calendar days) tion B- 120 L p
cal ce or final decision will expire and became null
and ion A: 180-dayl—CQRtLion B.
12 one-time basis if the failure to begin the use or
complete the work was due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.
C. Site plan review approvals will expire and become null andL 0p tion A- 180
- -
call ss:
1. Project permit applications far development of a substantial rtion of the
site planremainvarid- or
2. Project permits far development of a substantial partian of the site plan
remain valid.
D. The Economic & Community Development Director may authorize additional time
extensions in rare ar unique circumstances when the delay is outside of the
applicant's control including but not limited to unusual r
approvals from other agencies ar jurisdictions.
2.32.130 Decision and recommendation.
A. When the hearing examiner renders a decision or recommendation, the hearing
examiner shall make and enter written findings from the record and conclusions
therefrom which support such decision. The decision shall be rendered within ten
(10) working days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings, unless a
longer period is mutually agreed to on the record by the applicant and the hearing
examiner. The copy of such decision, including findings and conclusions, shall be
transmitted electronically or by first class mail, to the applicant and other parties of
record in the case requesting the same. There shall be kept in the planning
department a signed affidavit which shall attest that each mailing was sent in
compliance with this provision.
B. In the case of Process IV applications requiring city council approval, the hearing
examiner shall file a decision with the city council at the expiration of the period
provided for reconsideration, or if reconsideration is accepted, within ten (10)
working days after the decision on reconsideration.
S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS\2011\ZG-2011-1 Code Amendments\LUPB\6 25 12 Public Huanng\12.01 and 2.32.130Amendments.doc
10
This page intentionally left blank.
11
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
KEN T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
WASH IN GTO N
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
June 18, 2012
To: Alan Gray, Chair and Land Use and Planning Board Members
From: Gloria Gould-Wessen, AICP, GIS Coordinator/Long Range Planner
Subject: Downtown Subarea Action Plan & PAO (CPA-2012-1) (KIVA-2120882)
Workshop — June 25, 2012
INTRODUCTION:
A strategic goal of Kent City Council is to create neighborhood urban centers. The
update to the 2005 Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) addresses this strategic
goal by refreshing the DSAP and incorporating it into the City of Kent 2004
Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) as the Downtown Subarea Action Plan.
Environmental analysis associated with the update will lead to an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The completion of the Downtown Subarea Action Plan and
integrated EIS is a precursor for a Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) to incentivize
redevelopment.
BACKGROUND:
The update to DSAP will amend Kent's 2004 Comprehensive Plan. The State's
Growth Management Act (GMA) and Kent City Code require a declaration of an
emergency to amend the Kent Comprehensive Plan outside the annual update
cycle. On May 14, 2012, the Economic & Community Development Committee
(EDCD) moved to forward a resolution to Council declaring an emergency to pursue
an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise the Downtown Strategic
Action Plan. On June 5, 2012, Council adopted Resolution 1857 declaring said
emergency (see Attachment A).
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan represents the community's vision for the
urban center and serves as a basis for development in the urban center by
providing a framework for project-level planning (see Attachment B). The DSAP
focuses on actions to implement the objectives and ideas presented in the vision.
These recommended actions include regulatory measures, capital investments, and
public programs. Originally adopted in April 1998 after extensive public
involvement, the DSAP was updated in 2005. The intention of the 2005 update was
to strengthen the connection to the recently updated Comprehensive Plan, as well
as acknowledge changes in Downtown Kent that had occurred since 1998. The
proposed update will also acknowledge changes to Downtown Kent and again reach
out to the community to identify new strategic actions.
2012 DSAP Update:
To provide a foundation for the 2012 DSAP update, a set of planning principles was
developed (see Attachment C). The principles create a picture of a vibrant, livable,
and walkable people place with thriving businesses and welcoming public and
12
private outdoor spaces. The planning principles will guide the public engagement
efforts ensuring the outcomes reflect the direction Council desires. On June 11,
2012, the ECDC reviewed this project's planning principles, and forwarded a motion
to Council to confirm said planning principles. On June 19, 2012, Council confirmed
said motion.
The 2012 DSAP update will engage stakeholders, reflect current economic
development opportunities, and identify new actions to advance the vision for
downtown. Today's update will change the name of the document to the Downtown
Subarea Action Plan (DSAP). As a subarea plan, the document will be expanded to
reflect the structure and analysis represented in Kent's Comprehensive Plan and will
be fully integrated into the Plan. The study area is larger than the original
boundary, moving north along Central Avenue and west of SR-167 (see Attachment
D). An associated environmental analysis (aka EIS) will be conducted and
integrated into the final DSAP. The programmatic EIS will identify existing
conditions, potential impacts and mitigating measures of future growth. The
Downtown Subarea Action Plan and Integrated EIS will become the development
blueprint for a targeted Downtown Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). When
combined together, these documents will provide a refreshed vision for downtown
and direct measures and actions to facilitate continued redevelopment and
economic growth into Kent's urban center and expanded subarea.
If there are any questions, please contact Gloria Gould-Wessen at 253.856.5441.
S:�Permit�Plan�COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS�2012�CPA-2012-1 Downtown�LUPB�06-25-12 Memo.door
Enc: Attch A— Resolution 1857
Attch B— 2005 DSAP
Attch C— Planning Principles
Attch D— 2012 DSAP Study Area
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney
File
S I J I,frI d IN, ! 1IIIIII"I q ,w I d 0h,I I�,gIuJ
DovInlnviri u1j3i im Achmii I'1,m IA JU1J..-:1I
°i oqo 7 cif 7
ATTACHMENT A 13
RESOLUTION NO. 1 5'�tj
A RESOLUTION of the city council of the
city of Kent, Washington, relating to a revision of
the Downtown Strategic Action Plan, and
declaring an emergency for the adoption of a
comprehensive plan amendment. CPA-2012-1.
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), the Kent
comprehensive plan provides for subarea plans that are consistent with the
comprehensive plan. RCW 36.70A.080(2).
B. The city council's strategic goal is the creation of neighborhood
urban centers.
C. The city council desires to amend the Downtown Strategic Action
Plan, dated April 19, 2005, to reflect current economic development
opportunities.
D. The GMA requires that the city establish procedures governing
amendments to the comprehensive plan that limit amendments to once
each year unless certain circumstances exist. RCW 36.70A.130(2). The
city has established a procedure for amending the comprehensive plan in
Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code (KCC) that permits amendments
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
Emergency Resolution
14
in addition to the standard annual update if an emergency exists. An
emergency is defined as an issue of community wide significance that
promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare of the city of Kent.
KCC 12.02.010(A).
E. On May 14, 2012, the Economic and Community Development
Committee moved to direct staff to update the Downtown Strategic Action
Plan.
F. The city council finds that consideration of proposed amendments to
the comprehensive plan through revision of the Downtown Strategic Action
Plan is an issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public
health, safety, and general welfare of the city of Kent.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. - Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by
this reference.
SECTION 2. - Emergency. The revision of the Downtown Strategic
Action Plan, dated April 19, 2005, constitutes an issue of community-wide
significance that promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare in
accordance with the definition of an emergency as set forth in section
12.02.010(A) of the Kent City Code (KCC). The city council, therefore,
declares that an emergency exists and authorizes staff and the Land Use
and Planning Board to process this amendment to the comprehensive plan
outside the annual amendment process in KCC 12.02.030.
2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
Emergency Resolution
15
SECTION 3. - Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular meeting of the city council of the city of Kent,
Washington this * day of ` = '" 2012,
v'
r
CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent, this day
of is — 2012.
r
r
SUZ - E dOOKE, MAYOR
if
ATTEST:
"y
t All i
f
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TdM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
Emergency Resolution
16
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
7 , passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, the
day of_ , 2012.
1
BRENDA JACOBER, CIV CLERK (SEAL)
P;\Civil\ResoWtlon\Downtown Strategic Action Plan.Floal,docx
4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
Emergency Resolution
Iml
I�
4 '
I
r
rr�
,ww
«
: ,i
18
This page intentionally left blank.
19
CITY OF KENT
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC
ACTION PLAN
toll
.
/
/
v
INTEGRATED WITH
THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Originally prepared for the City of Kent by
MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design, BRW, Property Counselors,
Langlow Associates and the City of Kent Planning Services Office
With the Assistance of a Washington State Planning
And Environmental Review Fund Grant
UPDATE ADOPTED
AI'RIL 19, 2005
20
MAYOR
Jim White
CHEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Mike Martin
CITY CLERK
Brenda Jacober
CITY COUNCIL
Julie Peterson, President
Tim Clark
Ron Harmon
Deborah Ranniger
Debbie Raplee
Les Thomas
Bruce White
LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
Jon Johnson, Chair
Greg Worthing, Vice Chair
Steve Dowell
Theresa Ferguson
David Malik
Elizabeth Watson
Kenneth Wendling
1998 DOWNTOWN STAKEHOLDERS TASK FORCE
Brad Bell Merrily Manthey
Pat Curran Steve Mariotti
Connie Epperly June McEleran
Tim Giminez Dee Moschel
Beverly Hawk Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Bill Stewart
Jerry Kauth Bob Whalen
Stephanie Klappenbaugh Howard Montoure
Doug Klappenbaugh Rico Yingling
Dick Lackey Charles Turner
21
2004 DOWNTOWN VISIONING WORKSHOPS ATTENDEES
Alice Alcorn William T. Miller
Jacquie Alexander Diana Olsen
Jack Becvar Walter Olsen
Mary Lou Becvar Ben Porter
Sharon Bersaas Lee Porter
Owen Bing Fergus Prestbye
Cass Brotherton Jane Prestbye
Joseph Buckman Deborah Ranniger
Suzanne Reeder Cameron Melvin Roberts
Walter Flue Cheri Sayer
Ron Harmon Frank Scarsella
Mike Heinisch Doug Scharnhorst
Michael Johnson Elizabeth Scharnhorst
Frankie Keyes Don B. Shaffer
Mike Keyes Becky Silvestri
Dick Lowe Dan Silvestri
Jan Lowe Leon Thomas
Nancy Martin Peggy Vargas
John B. Merz Judith Zelter
22
This page intentionally left blank.
23
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I
CHAPTER ONE -INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE 1-1
BACKGROUND 1-2
PROCESS 1-3
Planned Actions 1-5
Kent Station 1-6
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 1-7
CHAPTER TWO- VISION: GROWING A HOMETOWN
A VISIT TO THE FUTURE 2-1
FROM THE PRESENT TO THE FUTURE 2-3
CHAPTER THREE -PLANNING CONCEPT
MARKET ANALYSIS 3-1
Market Opportunities and Development Potential 3-1
Strategy 3-3
CHAPTER FOUR- SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
SUMMARY OF GENERAL ACTIONS 4-2
OUTLINE OF PHASING STRATEGY 4-8
PRELIMINARY CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS 4-11
CHAPTER FIVE -DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
NORTH FRAME DISTRICT 5-2
Public Improvements 5-3
Development Target Area Actions 5-6
Design Guidelines 5-7
CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR DISTRICT 5-9
Public Improvements 5-9
Design Guidelines 5-11
Development Target Area Actions 5-13
EAST FRAME DISTRICT 5-15
Public Improvements 5-15
Table of Contents v
24
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntowikrategicAction Man
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Design Guidelines 5-16
WEST FRAME DISTRICT 5-18
Public Improvements 5-18
Redevelopment Opportunities 5-18
Design Guidelines 5-20
SOUTH CORE DISTRICT 5-24
Public Improvements 5-24
Design Guidelines 5-28
Other Redevelopment Incentives 5-29
NORTH CORE DISTRICT 5-32
Public Improvements 5-34
Design Guidelines 5-35
Redevelopment Opportunities 5-36
HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT 5-40
Public Improvements 5-42
Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation
Activities 5-42
Redevelopment Target Areas 5-45
PART II
CHAPTER SIX-ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
FACT SHEET 6-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6-4
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 6-7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 6-9
Land Use 6-9
Public Facilities 6-16
Urban Design 6-21
Traffic Mitigation 6-23
MONITORING SYSTEM 6-24
APPENDICES
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND
RESPONSES (1997-1998) 6-26
GLOSSARY 6-29
Table of Contents v
25
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
Since the days when Kent was a valley agricultural community, Downtown Kent has served as the
town's civic and commercial focus. In recent decades, the City has supported Downtown through
proactive planning and public improvements. Faced with the challenges of regional growth
management, Kent citizens responded by requesting a regional urban center designation for
downtown. The designation calls for a more intensive mix of uses and a wide spectrum of civic
activities well served by the local and regional transportation system.
The City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan pursues the citizens'vision for its urban center,
as described in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, and expressed in this document. By
translating the Comprehensive Plan's general objectives into a redevelopment strategy consisting of
an integrated set of civic actions, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan serves as a basis for
developing the urban center and implementing the Comprehensive Plan. It will provide a basis for
future market analysis, environmental analysis, and community participation processes. The
Downtown Strategic Action Plan outlines methods for encouraging infill and redevelopment
compatible with the economic, environmental, and community goals of the citizens of Kent.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan also provides a framework for project-level planning
appropriate for each Downtown district defined in this document. Subsequent project-level
planning could be specified in Planned Action Ordinances. "Planned Actions" are discussed in
Section C. of this introductory chapter.
This Year 2004 update to the Downtown Strategic Action Plan intends to strengthen the connection
between this policy document and the recently updated Comprehensive Plan, as well as
acknowledge changes in Downtown Kent that have occurred since April 1998.
Introduction 1-1
26
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
BACKGROUND
Downtown Kent was established as the commercial center of Kent in the early 1900's when it
served as a market town for a thriving agricultural valley The pattern of retail trade and office
development has changed in Kent since that time, but Downtown has retained it's its position as the
center of City civic and cultural life. The City and Downtown merchants have worked diligently to
maintain the vitality of the historic commercial core. Prior to this plan, the City of Kent had
undertaken several downtown planning efforts: the 1966 John Graham Plan for Downtown, the
1974 Central Business District Plan, the 1983 L.I.D. 313 and Urban Design Plan, the 1986
Downtown Revitalization Task Force Report, the 1989 Downtown Plan, the 1992 Downtown
zoning revisions, the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, and the designation of
Downtown Kent as an urban center through the King County Countywide Planning Policies
processes.
Both public and private interests initiated this planning process. In 1995, the Kent Downtown
Partnership and other citizens asked the City to fund a comprehensive market analysis for
Downtown. The City Council agreed to budget $25,000 in general funds for the market analysis. In
1995 the City Council set goals for 1996 which included "Kent: A Home Town for Families - A
Friendly Small Town - A Place to Work- A Place to Live," and "Downtown - A Community Focal
Point." Downtown goals were first priority for 1996.
In early 1996, the State of Washington awarded the City a $150,000 Planning and Environmental
Review Fund (PERF) grant, which the City matched with the previously appropriated $25,000 for
the market analysis and $25,000 of in-kind services. The Mayor appointed an executive staff, the
Downtown Strategic Planning Team, which assisted the Mayor in appointing a Downtown
Stakeholders Task Force. The Strategic Planning Team and the Planning Department hired an
interdisciplinary consultant team to assist the City and the citizens to formulate a Downtown
subarea plan. The team consisted of MAKERS architecture and urban design, BRW, Inc., The
Langlow Associates, Property Counselors, and Siena Media.
After the April 1998 adoption of the original Downtown Strategic Action Plan document, the
Regional Transit Authority (since reconstituted as Sound Transit) determined the preferred South
Station Site to be impracticable to service the full length of its trains, and selected the North Station
Site. Since February 5, 2001, Sound Transit Commuter Rail trains riding the Burlington
Northern/Sante Fe railroad have been loading and unloading passengers between James and Smith
Streets — approximating the North Station Site alignment. Several revisions to the Downtown
Strategic Action Plan acknowledge this fact. The Commuter Rail Station Area Study, completed in
Introduction 1-2
v
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
2000, updated the market analysis of the DSAP, and identified a number of parcels in Downtown
with development and redevelopment potential in proximity to the Sound Transit rail station.
While some things have not changed in Downtown Kent, other circumstances have changed since
the 1998 adoption of the DSAP. The Borden Chemical Company sold their property and their
operations to the City of Kent in 2001, significantly shortening the timeframe for potential
redevelopment of the 20-acre site. Some of the recommended actions listed in Chapter 4 and
Chapter 5 have been completed, yet others are in progress or have since been deemed infeasible,
Still other interested parties in Downtown Kent seek to expand existing business uses or obtain site
improvement variances non-conforming to Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning —
particularly on Central Avenue. Some of Central Avenue within the boundaries of Downtown is
currently zoned General Commercial (GC). The replacement of DCE Zoning with a zoning district
more favorable to auto-oriented uses should be carefully mitigated by the application of Downtown
Design Review. Interest in development opportunities along the James and Smith arterial streets
adjacent to Kent Station exist, although the area north of James is constrained by the current single-
family residential Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning District Map designations.
PROCESS
As a subarea plan and a supplement to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Strategic
Action Plan and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(DSAP) were prepared under
new State provisions in ESHB 1724, which allows the integration of State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) and Growth Management Act(GMA)processes. It is a programmatic EIS and supplements
the Kent Comprehensive Plan EIS issued in January 1995.
Public participation is essential to a subarea plan environmental review process. The first
opportunity for public participation was a general public workshop and a SEIS scoping session held
in 1996. Prior to adopting the DSAP, the City subsequently conducted six additional public
workshops and seven Downtown Stakeholders Task Force meetings. City staff responded to
numerous letters,telephone calls, and Planning Department visitor's questions.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the DSAP was issued on
February 4, 1997. The DSEIS contained three land use and urban design alternatives, and was
distributed at a workshop to gather public opinion regarding a preferred alternative. An additional
environmental document authorized by the Washington State Department of Ecology, entitled the
Draft Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Preliminary Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Introduction 1-3
28
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
Statement, was issued on May 19, 1997 to provide additional information and allow additional time
for public comment and discussion prior to integrated plan adoption. The Preliminary Final
Supplemental Impact Statement contained additional impact analysis, additional mitigation
recommendations, the preferred alternative, comment letters received by the City in response to the
DSEIS, and the City's responses to the comments.
The Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing before recommending the Plan to the
City Council with revisions. The City Council Planning Committee received additional public
comment within their review process and recommended further revisions. Typically, the FSEIS
would be issued prior to the decision process. In this instance, the public hearings conducted by the
Land Use and Planning Board and the City Council Planning Committee became part of the
environmental review record. The preferred alternative was revised as a result of the
recommendations of the Land Use and Planning Board and the City Council. This document
presents the revised preferred alternative for establishing development goals and policies for the
whole of Downtown Kent.
As the process chart (Figure I-1) in the Appendix indicates, planning, evaluation, and public
involvement were coordinated throughout the project. Public involvement occurred at three key
points: setting of objectives, development of alternatives, and evaluation of alternatives.
In 2004, the City of Kent is updating the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) to reflect the
changes in existing conditions and development opportunities, as well as address concerns among
some in the community about the negative impact of regulations on expansion of existing non-
conforming uses. In late 2003,the City Council Planning Committee directed staff to analyze issues
relating to zoning and development standards in the Central Avenue District of Downtown.
Consideration of other issues, including the guidance of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan were
identified as part of the work program.
Beginning in March 2004, staff prepared background information contained in the Downtown
Strategic Action Plan, as adopted in April 1998, for comment and suggested revision in public
participation workshops. Morning and evening workshop sessions were held on May 17, 2004 and
June 14, 2004 at the Kent Senior Activity Center to identify present conditions, challenges and
opportunities in Downtown Kent. Public participation at these sessions included facilitated
discussion of Downtown issues and the DSAP, as well as opportunities for the public to self-record
issues, concerns and ideas on 34"x 44" maps. These maps depicted DSAP districts with 1998
recommended actions at the May sessions, and the maps at the June sessions included commentary
carried over from the May sessions.
Introduction 1-4
29
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
As a substantially-large population who work, eat and shop in Downtown Kent, all City employees
were offered an opportunity to respond to an all-users electronic message about their vision of
Downtown as a place to live, play, or shop. The responses were included in a map reviewed by the
Land Use and Planning Board in a July 12, 2004 workshop. The Land Use and Planning Board
offered some of their own comments, and reinforced some of the comments provided by citizens
and City employees.
Planned Actions
The Planned Action EIS process is a relatively new component of environmental law in Washington
State. Under the ESHB 1724 provisions, local jurisdictions with an adopted comprehensive plan can
opt to develop a 20-year vision for a subarea or neighborhood and create a Subarea Plan integrated
with a Planned Action EIS. The Planned Action EIS evaluates the significant adverse impacts and
reasonable mitigation measures associated with the development proposed in the Subarea Plan.
Using this tool, the City would evaluate several detailed subarea project development scenarios
prior to receiving and reviewing development applications for the Planned Action subarea
Whenever a Planned Action ordinance is adopted by the City, an agency reviewing any subsequent
project proposal in the planning area must first determine that the project is consistent with the
earlier Subarea Plan Planned Action EIS. Typically, this means that a submitted development
proposal, or proposals, are consistent with and do not exceed the thresholds of uses and use
intensities established in the Planned Action Ordinance. The agency must also determine that the
Planned Action EIS has adequately addressed the significant impacts of the development and
identified mitigation measures. Consistency is determined by a review of four areas: (1)type of land
use allowed, (2) level of development allowed, (3) infrastructure, and (4) character of the proposed
development. The benefit of this approach is that subsequent project-level development proposals
may have a reduced amount of environmental review, if the development proposal is consistent with
the adopted Planned Action Ordinance. The purpose of creating an integrated plan and
environmental assessment document, consistent with PERF grant requirements, was to adopt a
Planned Action ordinance if such an action was appropriate.
In 1998, as a result of planning analysis and environmental review conducted, the planning team
determined that, despite the recommended mitigation measures, existing City regulations may not
have provided sufficient environmental protection to take the place of the SEPA process at that time.
As a result, the City of Kent chose not to propose and adopt a Planned Action ordinance with the
approved plan.
Introduction 1-5
30
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
However, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan provides development goals and policies for several
districts within Downtown Kent. As such, the DSAP is a framework for future development plans
of a more detailed nature, including Planned Actions.
Kent Station
In 2001, however, with the City purchase of the Borden Chemical property, the opportunity to
develop at higher intensities of mixed-uses in close proximity to the recently operational Sound
Transit Commuter Rail Station was both real and immediate. The City initiated a Planned Action
process for the property formerly owned by Borden Chemical, identifying site-specific
environmental conditions and anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for development of three
(3) development scenarios within the North Core District Subarea. The City Council selected
Alternative 2(Kent Station Proposal) as the Preferred Alternative in July 2002, and a private sector
developer has begun the process to develop Kent Station. Groundbreaking occurred on June 30,
2004. Eventually other districts within Downtown Kent may similarly present significant
opportunities for planned actions.
Introduction 1-6
31
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAahin Han
Figure 1-1: 1996-1997 DSAP Process Diagram(1998).
ia.�.
Ed
i
I C
I
I s.u...V..rr
d 8 j,+rf i aP/ p
I fi wWY��
I I pp noe�
I !b
4 u '
6 - �
ortl Y IMF �
I`i�lll .wv�a.w
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is organized to aid both public and private interests in making decisions concerning
development and investment in the downtown. Chapter 1 is a summary of the background, purpose
and process of the project, Chapter 2 describes the vision for Downtown. Chapter 3 describes the
plan concept, and Chapter 4 outlines the recommendations for achieving the community and City's
objectives. Chapter 5 is the heart of the plan. This section organizes the recommended actions by
districts within the Downtown, showing the interrelationships among actions. Chapter 6 contains the
State Environmental Protection Act(SEPA)Fact Sheet and other required environmental data
The fact that the subarea plan is integrated with the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement is consistent with Washington State Planning and Environmental Review Fund grant
requirements. The process provided public participation and environmental analysis in conjunction
with the planning process. As the plan evolved, environmental mitigation was often incorporated in
problem solving and design solutions. The format of the integrated plan/FSEIS is different from the
Introduction 1-7
32
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Han
typical FEIS document. The following chart summarizes where typical sections of an FSEIS are
found in this document.
Typical SEPA EIS Section Location of Information in the Action Plan
Fact Sheet A Fact Sheet is located at the beginning of
Chapter 6.
Executive Summary The information typically found in an
Executive Summary is located in Chapter
1. And Chapter 6.
Introduction A summary of the project history, purpose,
scope and public involvement process is
included in Chapter 1.
Alternatives Considered A description of the alternatives
considered is contained in Chapter 6,
Environmental Information.
Impact Analysis Impact analysis supplementary to the
analysis found in the Draft SEIS and the
Preliminary Final SEIS is included in
Chapter 6, Environmental Information.
Mitigation Measures A summary of mitigation/implementation
measures is provided in Chapter 6,
Environmental Information, and in Chapter
3, Summary of Recommended Actions
Response to Comments A summary of comments and responses is
located in Chapter 6, Environmental
Information.
Introduction 1-8
33
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
CHAPT ER T WO
VISION: GROWING A HOME TOWN
Prior to this Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP), Kent citizens contributed to a downtown
vision expressed in the 1992 Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning, the 1989
Downtown Plan, and the Kent Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The community expanded
and reinforced the vision by participating in the public workshops, focus group discussions, and
Downtown Stakeholders Task Force meetings that helped to form this plan as it was adopted in
1998.
A VISIT TO THE FUTURE
If this plan is successful, what will Downtown Kent be like, say, 10 or 15 years in the future? What
are the character and qualities that the City envisions for its downtown?
One thing for certain is an early 21st Century visitor entering Downtown Kent will be presented
with a more gracious welcome mat. Not only will key entry points around the Downtown perimeter
be well marked with gateway landscaping, artwork, and directional signage, but the character of
development on Central Avenue, James Street, and Willis Street will be more appealing for motorist
and pedestrian alike. Robust automobile-oriented businesses will still find a home on Central
Avenue, but recent streetscape improvements and incremental business expansions will have
transformed the old strip into a more welcoming, attractive corridor. At the Downtown's southern
boundary, a well-landscaped Willis Street will frame a rehabilitated single-family neighborhood to
the south and the emerging mixed-use residential neighborhood to the north. An underpass will
provide passage under the Burlington Northern/Sante Fe railroad right-of-way, and a trail along
Willis will provide local residents safe bicycle access to the Interurban Trail, the park-and-ride, the
Historic Core, Kent Station, and the Commons Recreation Center&Playfields.
In addition to the above-mentioned Interurban Trail access, the west section of Downtown, between
the Union Pacific Railroad and SR 167, will have seen major changes. Better street access will have
spurred new commercial development between Smith and Willis Streets. There may be well-
landscaped clusters of residential development as well.
Vision: Growing a Home Town 2-1
34
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
A newly refurbished Commons Playfields, the Commons Recreation Center — not to mention the
Regional Justice Center — will form a civic anchor at the Downtown's northwest corner. The
Regional Justice Center, by then about 15 years old, will be a still-imposing but more familiar
fixture. Regional Justice Center activities will have increased service businesses in the core, but
vigilant work by the City will have kept undesirable businesses from proliferating in Kent.
But, while the future visitor will notice many changes to the Downtown's perimeter, the most
striking transformation will have occurred north of Smith Street. The Sound Transit Commuter Rail
Station, located between James and Smith Streets on either side of the railroad tracks, will be an
important transit hub, with local feeder buses meeting the trains and regional buses for transfer to
locations throughout the Puget Sound. Although commuter rail service was limited at first to two
early morning northbound trips and two early evening southbound trips, all-day rail service will
make the train the preferred transportation option for commuters to Seattle, Everett or Tacoma or
baseball fans heading for a Mariners game.
The importance of this transportation connection will have given Downtown Kent greater
prominence in the region and spurred development in Downtown. Smith Street will be one of the
Downtown's most attractive corridors, with pedestrian-oriented businesses and open spaces located
on either side of the street. Walking through the Meeker Street Historic Core to the Commuter Rail
Station will be a pleasure because of the street trees, Sister Cities Parks, and pedestrian-oriented
buildings. The Kent Station project will be completed, with an integrated mix of uses and open
spaces supported by a street grid and structured parking.
To the east of the BN&SF tracks, the Sister Cities Parks will support another cluster of shops and
commercial activities. Railroad Avenue will offer a valuable addition to the unique historic retail
core of Downtown Kent. With the Sister Cities Parks providing an attractive backdrop as well as a
pedestrian connection to the Commuter Rail Station, the emerging Railroad Avenue activity center
will have joined Meeker Street and First Avenue as places where citizens from all over Kent can
come to spend some time. They will browse in specialty shops, share a cup of coffee, or enjoy an
evening meal.
The South Core area between Titus Street and Willis Street, while not having experienced the
dramatic transformation of the North Core District, will have seen slower, incremental changes.
New midrise mixed-use/residential complexes and townhouses, developed with sensitivity to well-
maintained single-family homes of historic character, will have created one of south King County's
most attractive in-town neighborhoods for those who want the convenience of local services, easy
access to transportation, and a stable, pedestrian-oriented setting.
Vision: Growing a Home Town 2-2
35
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
Our visitor will be comforted by the fact that, except for some key infill and building renovation,the
Historic Core, centered along Meeker Street and First Avenue, will remain much as it did in the late
1990s. The key to success of the Historic Core will have been the connections that the City made to
the north and south, as well as those connections made to the east and west, which added supporting
activity from nearby residents and workers.
FROM THE PRESENT TO THE FUTURE
From the perspective of our visit to the future, it is clear how the Downtown will reach its goals. By
enhancing the historic character of its Core Districts, the City will retain its link to the past — its
roots.
By emphasizing its pedestrian qualities with gracious sidewalks, pedestrian-oriented
businesses and a variety of parks, the Downtown will remain a comfortable, friendly place for
people to meet and enjoy themselves.
By encouraging a wide mix of commercial, residential, and public uses, the Downtown will
generate the activity necessary for a successful urban center.
By fostering high-quality redevelopment through public works improvements and design
guidelines,the Downtown will become a source of civic pride for the whole city.
By integrating emerging transportation systems, the Downtown will regain its role as a
regional crossroads.
And, through the continued efforts and care of its citizens, the Downtown will continue to
be a"home town for the future."
Vision: Growing a Home Town 2-3
36
Cll'Y OF KENT' 2005 DowntomiStrategicAction Plan
Figure 2-2: Downtown Kent 20 Year Vision (1998).
Warabr%Rrml1 pram.ml 46$i!`ftd� kaOUV amavruhV .4Hn jmio4mmys, Grad a +armmun rmftac
fYlma'W,PkYOrft mnihauUmmP IW o "NAl aA"'N-4404 (WAWnA
r„amm"n'mla;auva Y,'"'C.4wmglw'WNW&n°anm� +wpymaaala mNwwtlroWMa,bimkeT j smw'. �'wrrgrrom' ala rmrrwk�aem:rm,+
IW.q mV"ry7Rtim".a!IIk +Wudluwrvrmo alwrxm k.'�a'VPMiaVmla4# PJw+mIWAa, 'dWWNUWai MIT YY 0,49ungr y}LR- Ovr
,,r"�` 1..o-isrutwwa 1» �uurwy rAmlW�,r�rww
PAen CKd,uY!,M1rt i d' OR-10"i mmmm t'Wm m%abrvgfo. - VIO mowRTa w,gvraurmmmr mo ainaa
"atlPMMYII 4Sl m ty am wefnil^ ;rv��anw a&rYWa�dn 1904 334Wra uremAgs n�nwgmo.n
r9lWwrvhm, ra^,wtYW" i
"r'"�'"'" � rplaiyryaGkk 'CmWIpY4n*,r."Na"IWq '+wrcnti a rearynmrnap nramalil NMIdV a+rvu
rrala pNmYwfu'4ila an¢z dgF F° w1 i{NWdRWUwrM,ymrvMA"tlmtmbl~tGW0 .Tdia tlC l '"no
aluv Kant YPlarW mog
wura wamlar idmpu�w"ga Y� +t.
i".» dru"flf�alN1A� f9rtmM1WliMlaf
68J `°"",m+rurMmhia f � I 1 a � � Yam wNa�nrmwvL �aiY�nca wm MA'9rcp
Yllmia xalrcr adyla � �" �"""n '�'1 Wa%S�60E6LISI C!M^YaYp%�rllY'&�umiy I-0°qk
{n " - "�wlwWruat»<wvw+~,w7am Wr."w,°r+me,r a m¢wm
iw anaamw w-�.,�.rlI !�' ,pm " mr;^r,AArra"awlvG wmwwid l'aw;mY.YY'M1ag YMrem a1�0't
Iw 1 & wti�
I 1
kwY4wW�... � r �r ��rcwxndr.rar9
Yn, it M v ¢'iWh " A (�
]� a �„rJ
r.n l a" mr-.m s p^ WWyy I
E m fP �
rM�
r• 1 1 �
w I N
m ! m ! X
ro :m I ), 'w„ ^rwHew ^m+nuwnww. 5
r
� ;7,7..W. ° nT t1? M9 hS, wIe,AYrsdarl _.
jF
rf ra '
u- 7 `Y i t •. ,wry sM µ 'r aj ry* 4
.ram vn/+N
der 1bW
4»p+xnal -0n4 ""
a.. m �g�„pp e
1 r v
,, 1V —«"�0-,
fPAA OcAmulrig w rn pmm*vmam
'n f rwyaa¢ry Irvra arrgm marw+°nra¢mrroa
iL q� " P —wA' r !k'wN+a rtua daial lY'�'mlrmal
ew. .,. �w' �'"o � a w Yry" x , aHNv�1UAID
rnnxwr K,�Naaiw Wr^Rmr,„&Army Q;;7kalq��a
r+ananm mruar�p¢rmsn ' MwWeriNl9
rv�� dgwbu°Iumw arN ab,mag�kGaw.'uaroa.wa
!'x1Jaa9tti WW malawaiYa"AUail W r aUC n w 4A the ftmToim-aG,rm.
a�MflW�lq'IGITJa'm!&WN4011 i0 WA t;xe 'C"„ualh@W uMM«��ai{YwM.W'aYJlrmu7b11k
fYglapyg iaNg M'NINj'!W WevAbdY"a6s the milaWnev,fapna'W
"paArl"MJGHTO¢Mni x mAmMt 0,M"r„••dp.'u✓U µnf4"IMMIM."'YUm 040'y14"vbt am
YkYWamWlgkgaiarqs, b4Nkx%ryYu"41WdM1 w„19'a4MPlgantl'r.
Downtown Kent Strategic Action Pdan Vision mlorrrfi
Y hwrp'rfflirtyhrn:rm a arvmf„19r198aT,Waft rvW hryamn✓Y„.,,I n1Y M" Wi J.W'Aml, rwn[c$a m nrra7 mMw1 ammy
ImItmV1063 lr1 ml a t rnu+y r,ygwukk M:i91"u"d1"Po711.m%�jy Ya'wrGLrdt"LLtr im!(ij Yve Ye"e4rany rm,ne mmam 17kv m
Plry rl a rub meYhy1W as a vimw a4d(v ll ac"moq a➢amtt&k I rt.,,Im,9X nve!lbP,,m 4 Pp a l"�Ut'INa'a'
Wvye%a.4"v4ddMro„fg"4lncall"gl y WN R")rarP 0ame,dal�Po1"a."mmWar%"yt
Vision: Growing a Home Town 2-4
37
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
CHAPT ER T HREE
PLANNING CONCEPT
MARKET ANALYSIS
The foundation of a successful Downtown plan must be an understanding of the realities of the real
estate market. Consequently, in 1998, the planning team conducted a market analysis during the first
stages of planning in order to determine the potential for growth and the conditions necessary to
foster positive redevelopment. The market area from which Downtown Kent draws 80%to 90% of
its sales extends west to Interstate 5, north to the Kent city limits at 180th, south to 277th, and east
and south toward the Cascade foothills (see Fig. 3-1). This area recognizes the existing
concentrations of retail development in Tukwila and Auburn,the natural boundaries of the plateau to
the west, and the existing transportation network extending to the east and south.
Market Opportunities and Development Potential
There are several specific opportunities in Downtown Kent.
➢ Office/Education
Continuation of historic levels of office absorption of 16,000 to 18,000 square feet per year in
addition to law offices associated with the Regional Justice Center(RJC), and the development of a
branch of the Green River Community College at Kent Station would result in potential office
demand of:
1996-2000: 92,000-112,000 square feet
2000-2010: 100,000 square feet
2010-2020: 80,000 square feet
➢ Retail
Projected retail development estimates are based on dramatically increasing Downtown's share of
market area spending, which may be facilitated by the development of Kent Station and adjacent
properties, and other large parcels Downtown. Kent Station will include a fourteen (14) screen
Cineplex, which may generate additional spin-off retail activity.
1995-2000: 46,000-49,000 square feet(including RJC impact)
Planning Concept 3-1
38
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Plan
2000-2010: 300,000 square feet
2010-2020: 100,000 square feet
➢ Civic and Performing Arts Center
A Civic and Performing Arts Center has been proposed for Downtown Kent. Attendees at
performances at such a facility would also patronize surrounding businesses. While the level of
spending in itself would only support a few thousand square feet of development, it would
contribute toward extending the hours of Downtown into the evening. However, a bond issue
election held in 2000 to provide public funding for the Civic and Performing Arts Center failed to
gain sufficient support, and development of this element would require significant private
investment.
Market Area for Downtown Kent
snto 9 .o Plan,I Downtown 8� _ -._.� f�._._r
Tukwila F2znCrrn H
{
Les
;,Maines r '—
r
r 'Gavinglun
Maple Valley
�Federed�
l
r
aao� a opp
— �•
We t ,,✓r
All
R
� t LL6LLL
t
Planning
FI
Services
1 gIYfB'.1'-1 1. otfi e
Planning Concept 3-2
39
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
➢ Market Rate Residential
One-third of the residential capacity for the City is in the Downtown area In order for the
Downtown to approach this capacity over the next 20 years there must be successful projects that
can demonstrate to the development community that there is demand for market rate housing. The
best opportunities are single-use residential units on the edge of the Core Districts, where land costs
are lower, and small condominium and apartment projects at high-amenity locations in the core.
➢ Hotel/Convention Center
A full service hotel with approximately 150 rooms, meeting facilities sized to accommodate groups
of approximately 250, and restaurant could compete with hotels near the airport and Southcenter
and attract over$2 million in spending to the area each year.
➢ Health Care and Wellness
Opportunities exist to increase Downtown Kent's stature as a wellness center. Downtown Kent is
the location of an established community of traditional health service providers and providers of
alternative health care and natural medicine. King County has recently constructed a 17,900 square
foot facility for the King County Natural Medicine Clinic at the comer of South State and East
Meeker Streets. The Pediatric Infant Care Center anticipates relocating to a larger facility to be built
before 2006. In the future, a Downtown facility of several hundred thousand square feet could
provide an opportunity to consolidate various care providers.
➢ Building Momentum Builds Interest
Finally, additional development of all types creates demand for the others and provides an overall
increase in vitality and interest.
Strategy
The major goal of the City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) is to encourage
Downtown growth, infill and redevelopment while creating a stronger community identity and
civic/commercial focus through strategic public- private partnerships. The DSAP actions are
intended to implement the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), the goals and
policies of the 1989 Downtown Plan, and the goals and policies in the Downtown and commercial
sections of the Land Use Element. Consistent with the requirements of the Washington State
Planning and Environmental Review Fund, the DSAP integrates environmental analysis and
environmental impact mitigation measures within the land use, transportation, urban design,
problem solving, and implementation framework of the DSAP. The DSAP presents a framework
Planning Concept 3-3
40
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
that will maintain existing physical assets of Downtown, prepare for projected growth, and support
future development. It recommends that public and private interests work together to achieve safe,
attractive, and convenient transportation systems, improved parks and open space, and adequate
public facilities.
Successful Downtown redevelopment plans build on the community's existing physical and
organizational assets. Fortunately, Downtown Kent has many resources that will be a foundation for
future growth and development. Vigilant City and business efforts have kept Kent's historic,
pedestrian-oriented shopping districts along Meeker Street, First Avenue, and Railroad Avenue vital.
The new Regional Justice Center is already a landmark and growing employment center. The
Downtown is blessed with a variety of parks and open spaces, including the active Commons Park,
Sister Cities Parks,the Rose Garden, and Railroad Park Kent's City Hall, the Commons Recreation
Center, library, the Senior Activity Center, and the Resource Center. These parks and open spaces
provide activities and enhance the Downtown's role as the City's focal point. Nearby residential
areas add a built-in consumer and employment base.
The community's optimism regarding future private development opportunity is well founded. The
market analysis conducted early in formulating this plan projected significant development potential
for the Downtown based on continuing growth of the Kent Downtown market area While the pace
of this growth may fluctuate, the growth potential remains. Opportunities include additional retail
development, office development, a full-service hotel, and urban-style housing. In addition, the
restored Kent Public Market will bolster businesses in the core districts, and as service expands,the
Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station, will make Downtown Kent a regional transportation hub.
The expanding presence of the Commuter Rail Station is also likely to stimulate in-town housing
development and new employment opportunities. Commercial growth should occur as an indirect
benefit of the Commuter Rail Station and a direct benefit of new in-town housing. Housing
development, at densities consistent with the Regional Growth Center designation of Downtown
Kent, should be encouraged throughout Downtown to stimulate an increase in demand for retail and
commercial services.
Planning Concept 3-4
41
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicf&&I Plan
Figure 3-2: Challenges facing downtown Kent(2004).
Raven Ind P�Vx
Urxlerdall,e�oped areas
°�m &vrowv arrrlg (e
,,."OW'j I own ,I gKv^iklP;5
� I;V"
s I p
q�
r 1p,� u XQ � y�y
t 'I rx P74r iWe�gf
�� e, j� ✓u D rf� %� I� u•�rrrsrr�m�r^ ruyuwr� n���� d yyy
PJh3fff
'
vy�(
-Iikjm„�
NOW
yyyy (� U I a Vtt�' 5ry ,N
�I �
fpN
Yyrelh I � "i� �,+ m.; T ,f,a
F,.�.�r�.,�?
�y ((1. / P e r M» tN pp L
� ul s° ✓��,n
��� q9 �1 � f � �/F f� al lik uud �„� ( i � ✓� �- ru �,��IM-�
w U l ' �arl f i �7 )I
�1� u y�l �4f'uY
II (�illl n ON
�MI�
'.f+rdw�.uryx w�uw�rk 4NiofMYd11 .,«rm 4rvw„✓vvxawJ rowdx9nPt?.ItSmfi
nn�uyrylra.�*acrM:wnlu� sa;rilar,
While the Downtown contains valuable assets that serve as a foundation for a strong identity and
vital economy,there are obstacles to growing a better Downtown Kent. The first is that Kent's assets
are scattered and often disconnected. The second is that many of the commercial corridors and
Planning Concept 3-5
42
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
residential areas at the Downtown periphery are underdeveloped or present a poor visual
impression. Because of those assets and obstacles,the basic strategies at the root of the DSAP are:
• Connect and unify important Downtown features;
• Enhance the periphery of the Downtown to achieve higher quality development that supports
its central activities;
• Derme special activity districts;
• Select "target" areas as a basis for a phased implementation program to accomplish
redevelopment and/or infill consistent with the Plan;
• Encourage housing development throughout Downtown;
• Enhance civic identity.
Connect and Unify Downtown's Features
Civic improvements, including the Regional Justice Center, and the Kent Commons are expanding
the Downtown Core. The core business areas along Meeker Street, First Avenue, and Railroad
Avenue will continue to serve as the Downtown's commercial south anchor. To maintain and
improve this role, the Historic Core must be linked to the northern districts by a combination of
park, pedestrian, and vehicle connections along First, Second and Fourth Avenues and Smith Street.
In addition, supportive redevelopment of the Smith Street corridor will strengthen the connection.
The parks and the Public Market link the Historic Core District and the Commuter Rail Station to
the Regional Justice Center and planned commercial, office, and residential activities to the north.
Planning Concept 3-6
43
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
Figure 3-3: The strategic redevelopment concept(1998).
MO/IN,",
�t
IX
AI
rID
' r
r,. r/ r'l� /91w➢ / �i
0A 020 �/'�/lfff4�nwawwwwwMf 7ri � � ....
�Avam14A9SMlH, w1 aagS" 4pl ��+'N •,, x, 1,44
tlnfX✓ � � y
C, parr !/J✓ ;� r' � l ro/ /
f r w
jjjjjq
/
r ¢n
t ilY
� „aJftWJm7✓ L
wnary /., hv; /y. .rk
6`✓M'lrrt0-eA/ 1�7V5M;RI,YY", ( qkm g�Wirryr ror
uamirrrwr 'IY'& ✓ ° /
'N'olm roily / %l(� . A;9
" s ✓�/Wryr f, r YAi OWN
l
,Brl l0k 41 i .r p,(kox n r /R; wN y
/ w, "I'll f111w J Iwii � wm"�
t m�f �� ,,,✓n r,,,r ✓fir ,.�
2, t�
�.. rIN4,. a,
Ij
r r�p/'A7 u f rW
e
p i r✓ � � r �'N 1���1 „ �' m� r t
,�, >r✓wNK✓j r i
�II0
11 A1111 /
I� •, ,,, dry M ppp 1
i � r "�" �;e e �nrn m rUW/� �l n � „✓,,, min urmm«ru wm .nhw�
/r �� `� re„ /�rroiPl� "�' nr� � , r / r✓q � � / �maxa- -n�o
'Alf hw rW w!w. �6Y ro�MtlNW 1
During the planning process, several commuter rail station locations were proposed within a five-
block area adjacent to the Burlington Northem/Sante Fe railroad tracks between Titus and James
Streets. The DSAP acknowledges that the new Commuter Rail Station located just north of Smith
Street provides an efficient multi-modal regional transportation hub. The Commuter Rail Station
will enhance Kent's role in the region as "host community" and accentuate its identity. It will add
Planning Concept 3-7
44
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
significantly to the connectivity of northern and southern Downtown districts if the City restores the
historic train station located between Gowe and Meeker Streets, develops parking areas, vehicular
circulation systems, and good pedestrian and visual connections to other Downtown features. High-
quality redevelopment in the surrounding areas would also enhance Kent's role as a "host
community." For these reasons, pedestrian connections across Smith Street and traffic
improvements in the vicinity are recommended in addition to the other connecting features
described above.
The Borden Property, purchased by the City of Kent, located between Smith and James Streets
represents one of the unique redevelopment opportunities in the Green River Valley, if not the whole
Puget Sound Basin. The City has taken advantage of this opportunity by ensuring that there is
access to the site (especially along Second Avenue from the south). The City is collaborating with a
private developer to master plan the Kent Station site as a whole, and create a desirable
development setting around the site as described in the Kent Station Planned Action SEIS. The
subdivision of Kent Station allows for the sale of parcels to developers in phases.
Enhance the Periphery of Downtown
The second Downtown redevelopment strategy involves upgrading the areas directly around the
expanded core. Similarly, allowing office and mixed-use development between First and Fifth
Avenues north of Kent Station along James Street will accommodate and encourage investment in
this highly impacted area. The single-family neighborhood east of Fourth Avenue north of Cloudy
Street will be buffered from the intensive development along James Street by a lower intensity
multi-family residential district.
A combination of pedestrian-oriented street improvements and site design guidelines will help make
the Central Avenue corridor a more fitting eastern entry into the Core Districts. The areas to the
south, east, and west of the Core Districts provide an ideal setting for residentially oriented mixed-
use development to support Core District businesses and add life to the Downtown as well as
reinforce Kent's identity as a"home town."
Define Special Activity Districts
The DSAP identifies and defines existing and emerging special districts within the Downtown area
such as the Historic Core business district, civic activity areas, Kent Public Market district, and in-
town residential areas. Such definition provides the basis to direct growth in character with each
Planning Concept 3-8
45
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
district, and to establish the relationships and connections between districts. Planned Action
Ordinances for each district could adopt subarea or subdistrict development plans with detailed
environmental analysis of potential development scenarios. The preferred alternative of each
subarea plan would then provide guidance for future development of the whole district subarea, or a
discrete parcel of significant development capacity within the district. It is important to consider the
existing assets of the districts,potential for improvement, redevelopment and infill, and their context
or role within the Downtown.
Select Target Areas
Priority development sites were identified during past planning processes. The Commuter Rail
Station site, Kent Station,the Kent Public Market site, and the Civic and Performing Arts center site
were driven by previously determined plans. The Civic and Performing Arts Center did not receive
the necessary bonds to locate and build at the Municipal Parking Lot as planned, and the Kent
Public Market has since relocated there after a few challenging years at the Railroad Avenue site.
Other projects such as priority in-town housing sites, essential pedestrian connections to connect
existing and emerging activity districts, and public gathering spaces have emerged during the
analysis and public participation elements of the DSAP process. Specific implementation measures
to develop target areas provide a framework for public and private action. Mitigation for
environmental impacts identified during the SEPA review of the proposed plan is integrated with the
implementation program. Specific development scenarios may require additional consideration of
site conditions, impacts on environmental conditions, and potential mitigation measures.
Enhance Civic Identity
A major focus of this plan has been to define an identity for Downtown Kent. The image that has
continually reoccurred throughout the process is the Downtown's role as a"home town." The intent
of the DSAP is to "Grow a Home Town for the Future." But what does this mean? What are the
characteristics of a"home town"that can be integrated into a dynamic 21st Century community? In
looking at Kent's sustaining assets and the Downtown's opportunities for the future, the following
characteristics stand out:
➢ Variety:A Sum Greater Than Its Parts
Hometowns are where people gather for many different functions and activities. They bring people
together and focus a sense of community. The Downtown is home to many civic and commercial
activities and can make a vibrant residential neighborhood as well. As noted above, the key to
Planning Concept 3-9
46
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
DSAP success will be the connections between the various elements. Physical connections between
transportation centers, government services, businesses, and recreational activities will strengthen
the community's economic, cultural, and social connections as well.
➢ Quality:A Sense of Caring
A hometown's value to its community is reflected in the quality of its physical setting. The actions
recommended in this plan are directed at producing higher quality public improvements and private
development. One index of DSAP success will be the amount of careful, well-considered financial
and human investment the recommended actions attract to the Downtown. Equally important will
be the design quality of development— embodied in the durability of architectural styles, features
and building materials.
➢ Friendliness:A setting for personal interaction
A good hometown is a place where people meet, where they come to enjoy themselves as
individuals and to celebrate as a community. Encouraging these activities means attention to detail.
Comfortable, attractive sidewalks, street trees, cafes and meeting places, bicycle paths, parks,
artwork, and public amenities are important features of a successful Downtown. Safety is also an
important consideration. Streets and public spaces must be well lighted. In addition, they must be
designed to support Police and Fire Department efforts.
➢ Memory and Vision: Remembering the Past,Looking to the Future
During the middle of the twentieth century, Kent transformed itself from an active farming
community into a robust, industrial-based suburb. Now, with the construction of the Regional
Justice Center and a new transportation hub, Kent is again transforming itself; this time into a
dynamic, multi-faceted regional urban center. As projected population growth occurs, and as this
transformation takes place, it will be important not to lose the perspective of the past. The historic
qualities of the core and small-town characteristics must be retained and reinterpreted into new
development as the Downtown grows to meet the future.
Planning Concept 3-10
47
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Han
CHAPT ER F O U R
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
To implement the objectives and ideas presented in Chapter 3,this plan recommends a series of
actions, including regulatory measures, capital investments, and public programs. Chapter 4
summarizes the recommended actions, describes the implementation steps, costs, and environmental
impacts, and mitigation measures for actions that require environmental review.
Figure 4-1 summarizes many of these actions and indicates where each action targets
improvements. Figure 4-2 lists the actions according to their major categories and outlines their
timing. Figure 4-3 provides a list of preliminary capital project costs. The actions are described in
detail and the manner in which they interrelate to upgrade specific districts is outlined in Chapter 5.
To prepare for possible adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, as discussed in Chapter 1,the
actions that would require environmental analysis under SEPA regulations, with identification of
probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures are
included in this Chapter. When a Planned Action Ordinance is proposed for adoption, identification
and analysis of existing environmental site/district subarea conditions, impacts and mitigating
measures will serve as project-level SEPA review,to be used as guidance when projects are
proposed within the district subarea
The purpose of a Planned Action Ordinance is to conduct SEPA review for a number of
development alternatives, one of which is determined to be most consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan,the DSAP, and any applicable District Subarea Plan. This "Preferred Action,"when adopted
by City Council,becomes the development blueprint for the District Subarea,with SEPA completed
for the amount and character of development. Proposals meeting the identified requirements of the
Preferred Action are generally exempt from additional SEPA review.
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-1
48
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Plan
SUMMARY OF GENERAL ACTIONS
➢ Continue to support the Kent Downtown Partnership, Kent's Main Street Program non-
profit organization, as an agent of Downtown revitalization.
Assist the Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP)in its efforts to identify and promote community
interest and economic health in Downtown.
➢ Promote Infill Housing.
To meet the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan goals to enhance Downtown as a place to
live, and to create an attractive, dense mixed-use neighborhood,the City should promote
construction of housing units. A mix of housing types including condominium townhouses, stacked
and attached units that resemble single-family design and character, and residential mixed with
commercial and office uses are desirable. In order to enable development of multi-family
residential units in Downtown, it would be advisable to waive the minimum lot size requirement
(KCC 15.04.170)for multifamily residential unit development occurring within the DSAP planning
area, where many redevelopable lots are not of sufficient size to feasibly develop multi-family
residential use, even if so zoned.
➢ Encourage the development of at least two hundred (200) units of new market rate housing
in Downtown by 2008.
Consider incentives such as reducing or waiving development permit fees for residential
construction in Downtown, and extending the existing Downtown multi-family residential tax
exemption program to include market rate rental housing. Developers of condominiums are
challenged by two factors in Downtown—condominium owners are still having difficulty acquiring
home insurance and the developers do not receive the tax exemption for developing condos in
Downtown. Consider also allowing development of buildings with five (5)stories of wood frame
construction above a concrete base, consistent with Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE)
zoning.
➢ Promote the construction of high quality new commercial, office, or mixed-use development
and redevelopment. Also encourage the development of a hotel/conference center to serve as
an attractor for commercial activity.
To respond to the potential for additional Downtown office and commercial development
identified in the market analysis provide incentives for new development. Mixed-use development
and a hotel/conference center will provide a variety of activities and living situations within districts
that require ground floor retail uses. In order to be competitive in the marketplace, new office space
in Downtown Kent should provide Class A-type amenities found in other regional centers. "Class
A"office space, as described in CB-Richard Ellis Commercial Real Estate quarterly reports,
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-2
49
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
"...have high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a
definite market presence."
➢ Assist the Kent Downtown Partnership in increasing the variety and vitality of businesses
located in Downtown.
The KDP is leading the effort to attract two (2)new businesses to Downtown each year
while retaining existing businesses, and is also seeking to increase the number of existing retail
businesses with evening and weekend operating hours. The development of office space, a
hotel/conference center and market rate housing in Downtown should increase the demand for
variety in retail and restaurant choices available throughout the daytime and evening hours. Public
comments received during the 2004 workshops indicate a strong interest in increasing the variety of
stores and restaurants in Downtown, with operating hours extending past 5 p.m. On the other hand,
many comments were received about reducing the number of second-hand merchandise stores and
thrift stores in Downtown.
➢ Conduct a study of existing parking requirements related to residential and commercial
density regulations Downtown.
Revise the parking and density standards to improve the balance of on-site and off-site
parking areas. Some property owners in Downtown have indicated difficulty in attracting
redevelopment interest due to the maximum of 3 surface parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of
commercial space for Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE)Zoning. This on-site parking
requirement for commercial use is intended to encourage the use of on-street parking and the
development of structured parking. Residential use has a minimum of one (1)space per dwelling
unit, which should be an incentive for inclusion of residential units in commercial developments
seeking to address parking needs.
➢ Survey the impacts of retail uses such as pawnshops, bail bond offices, day labor offices,
casinos, adult entertainment businesses, gas stations and tattoo parlors in Downtown
locations in other cities. Restrict or prohibit specific commercial uses in Downtown that are
known to generate negative impacts on the larger community.
Revise the Zoning Code to consider assigning conditional use permit status for such uses to
address the results of the survey, if necessary. Certain uses, including pawn shops, bail bond offices,
casinos, adult entertainment businesses and tattoo parlors have been observed in other cities in the
region to require an increased amount of police and social services. Some plan participants have
expressed in the past and present the opinion that a proliferation of such uses would not be
appropriate.
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-3
50
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Han
➢ Work with social services providers, public safety officers, temporary labor agencies, and
educational institutions to address homelessness issues in Downtown.
Address the causes and consequences of homelessness, and the impacts on community
livability.
➢ Make Downtown Kent the transportation hub of South King County.
Ensure that Sound Transit completes the Phase II Sounder rail service expansion to eighteen
(18)train trips daily by 2008. This increase in service will encourage a commensurate increase in
connecting bus and shuttle service located in Downtown—making living, working, shopping or
dining in Downtown Kent convenient as well as attractive.
➢ Add pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Downtown.
Work with the community and the Bicycle Advisory Board to identify and plan the
provision of sidewalk improvements, planting strips,traffic calming measures, wide curb lanes,
trails and pathways. Utilize the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program as appropriate to identify
safety-related improvements. The Interurban Trail provides a regional north/south
pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian connection. Improved east/west links into Downtown will attract
commuters, shoppers, students and recreational cyclists.
➢ Support a Performing Arts/Civic Center or a hotel/conference center in a Downtown
location.
Ensure that activities in the Urban Center will extend into the evening hours. With facilities
for conferences and other events, a civic and performing arts center can be an important attraction,
extending hours of activity into the night and providing a much-needed location for meetings,
events, parties, catering facilities, and educational programs.
➢ Support live performance arts in appropriate public places, and encourage live performance
arts in retail and restaurant businesses.
The City of Kent has sponsored the well-attended Summer Concerts in the Park series, often
held at Kherson Park at the northwest corner of Gowe Street and 2nd Avenue. Such events draw the
community together to enjoy live music during lunch in a family-friendly atmosphere. Encourage
the interest of retail and restaurant business members of the KDP and Kent Chamber of Commerce
in providing space for live music, poetry readings, and other forms of artistic expression that
contribute to the vitality of Downtown.
➢ Ensure high-quality development on designated signature building sites.
Work with property owners and developers throughout the development process, offering
incentives as appropriate for compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-4
51
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Han
➢ Enhance the City's established public art program.
Reinforce Kent's Downtown character and unique traditions through art. Encourage private
and public development interests to provide Downtown public art as part of significant projects.
➢ Develop a Downtown street tree/vegetation plan.
Provide a guide for creating an attractive pedestrian network of green spaces. Augment the
Kent Street Tree Program to address the entire Downtown as defined by the DSAP. Associate
specific types of street tree plantings to specific streets throughout Downtown. Identify sites for
enhanced landscaping, focusing on parks, entry, and gateway features. Assign responsibilities
(public and private)for street tree installation and maintenance. Integrate references to the Street
Tree Program into development regulations.
➢ Allow underground stormwater detention vaults where appropriate for development sites
larger than one acre in Downtown to encourage attractive site development and maximum
build-out of revenue-generating land uses.
The use of above-ground detention ponds can deter from the attractiveness of Downtown,
particularly when the detention ponds are large and poorly landscaped. Such ponds also limit the
economic utility of land zoned for much more intensive activities.
➢ Adopt street standards for the entire Downtown study area.
Currently street improvement requirements are often determined on a case-by-case basis.
Facilitate permit review and enhance street character by matching street standards to specific areas
Downtown in order to accentuate the identity of each area Include requirements for
undergrounding utilities in order to improve the attractiveness of the visual environment, and to
provide more sidewalk space for walking or outdoor seating where appropriate.
➢ Develop a Downtown street tree/vegetation plan.
Provide a guide for creating an attractive pedestrian network of green spaces. Augment the
Kent Street Tree Program to address the entire Downtown as defined by the DSAP. Associate
specific types of street tree plantings to specific streets throughout Downtown. Identify sites for
enhanced landscaping, focusing on parks, entry, and gateway features. Assign responsibilities
(public and private)for street tree installation and maintenance. Integrate references to the Street
Tree Program into development regulations.
➢ Enhance gateways into Downtown.
Mark entrances to Downtown from streets,trails and rails, provide artwork and amenities,
and direct visitors to special attractions. Where there is very little public land for extensive
landscaping, work with property owners to develop "signature buildings"that have high quality
building and site design that adds character to the streetscape. A gateway design and installation
program is underway in the City following a 1997 design charette. Special attention to the
pedestrian and visual connection between the Historic Core and North Core (Kent Station)along
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-5
52
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Han
Second Avenue will be critical. Improvements along Smith Street to connect the West Frame and
East Frame will also be important.
➢ Actively promote Downtown historic preservation and commemorate historic sites with
interpretive signs,art,tours,and educational programs.
To implement the program,the City should update the existing inventory of historic
resources, and develop regulations for historic preservation. The City has made several efforts to
develop historic preservation programs. The most recent effort concluded with a report,An Historic
Preservation Program: Recommendations for the Historic Preservation Committee, December,
1990. The program should be revisited, as many Kent residents and businesses have voiced
continuing concern and interest in historic preservation, in Downtown and throughout Kent.
Collaboration with the Greater Kent Historical Society and Kent Downtown Partnership may be
necessary to clarify the value and potential scope of this action item.
➢ Explore specific redevelopment opportunities within target areas.
Aprincipal objective of this plan is to attract appropriate, high-quality development to
Downtown. The plan seeks to (1) attract positive development by creating afavorable development
setting and(2)direct new development to achieve public objectives such as economic vitality and
design quality as well as individual private interests. This effort is based on the fact that physical
development and land uses that work together to complement one another and that are supported by
appropriate facilities are much more successful than disjointed development limited by insufficient,
unattractive public facilities.
The Plan focuses redevelopment in identified areas in several ways. The land use recommendations
seek to fine tune the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. The transportation recommendations will
upgrade connectivity and circulation to and within the Downtown. The public facilities
improvements will enhance an already attractive setting. District-specific design guidelines will
increase compatibility between uses, reinforce the design quality of the districts, and take advantage
of special opportunities.
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-6
53
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DownprowiSpilrategic A&I Plan
Figure 4-1: Summary of Recommended Actions (1998).
W
Mill Plivi, whd
0 f
p(64 1,1, q, .......... KA 1) I'6eaiulliliplill Dffvqn GLidtfifilipipi
Pnwofoo OrV Uffica Alllpimk
Irv;
in
evzU h 11 if 111,,4ph 'AiNilte
P40l(Up wwo M.fimwwrmpll
1;1�zoil Tc�i4flow
DMICID'I Mili4h.i f Plan !::ort Fulil Wlibq"n sale
pavisil", Well I I
2
za U q 4XI himp,
Nigh Ql
1�IL
W,
Rif' JU
M
CAI"plimr,fi an,
7�
pi il IN
Oa
a it
J,
Ill Iff Jill I,.),I ii,I IS 11ol 91111 Crappzk,
T� Hol, 1i
141 pi ftw0l I %W KjMr4
�Jv LIl A I in
Menial Piplek
11 li-A." I ,
li Market
f)"pgn
IN rA*
"J
I , I El l fil
mu�r0Is I Ad- I,)", ,
n Cipaldil To Bud"!
7 ,
Qualfty
@Ibafhfjfl And
A
A FiLjhfi� 09mr
HikkIlPhtl ligmIkIlll 1r, ;o l di W, t"N"-i
pl 7-7:"',
QiilW(iViwPfl
1"IMIlluilfbawn
lw Il I-
P3,
...........I..il� I.I.� 'J"', , l)�,,,
Cf,
TO FifftidurapW J�ffjll kvwirp 4l,'Imet(wape•Impovomill
we r-Al Mao"n Dill GUIiHt4,IjrqN
,ffilih 7a Upqepnjlq
9l,0MMdPEA1k Cw r`eziqr
I""nnp Mill 4Ud 'I
CH:U1111, Rip MIA &1 0 rp h0m: x
.Y�?l M Il i I,I i "P il N Ift 6N w al
Dblipqrl co'w;jvorg% »iwLin h a
To i rx;pi'lill il M i xed•L:&v, 1C
il And Real .........
KentSubArea Aalon Plan
A,clirinr;
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-7
54
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Han
OUTLINING OF PHASING STRATEGY
Since the plan is based on projections and changing conditions for the neat 20 years, it is clear that
all of the actions will not commence immediately In fact, civic actions ideally will be timed to take
advantage of special funding opportunities to trigger or encourage desired development,to respond
to emerging market trends, or to integrate related activities.
Since many of the actions are subject to funding, coordinated with other actions,timed to emerging
trends, or triggered by private investment,the periods shown are estimates only.
In general,the schedule sets priorities for action based on needs and opportunities. The chart
suggests that during the next two years the City should concentrate on important new opportunities
associated with current redevelopment, especially the Regional Justice Center and the Kent Transit
Center. Actions that directly respond to these opportunities: (B2.c) Smith Street improvements;
(CLb) Burlington Green,Yanghzou, and Kaibara Parks improvements; Gateways at(C2.a) Fourth
and James, (C21) Central and Meeker, and(C2.e) Central and Smith; (C3.a)the civic and
performing arts center; (C3.b)the Kent Public Market; and(C3.c)the historic rail depot structure
are recommended for special attention during the next two years. Likewise, land use measures (Al
and A2) are given high priority because they represent low public cost activities the City can take to
update zoning to be ready for impending private development proposals. The redevelopment
programs for the Fourth Avenue, Historic Core District, South Core District, and Central Avenue
District target areas could also be initiated during the next few years to spur redevelopment in these
areas. Initiating these actions over the next few years makes for an ambitious work list and
represents the current dynamic times.
The actions recommended for implementation in two to five years are generally high-priority
activities, but they do not have the immediate urgency of those listed above. The actions scheduled
to implement after the first five years generally depend upon decisions outside the City's control,
such as the use of incentives for redevelopment of private property consistent with the goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan,the Downtown Strategic Action Plan, and where applicable, a
district subarea development plan.
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-8
55
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DcAwntcAmiStrategic Action Plan
Figure 4-2:Phasing of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION Strategic Time Frame from 2004
A. LAND USE 0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years Timing Issues
Al. Redesigate SF-8 areabetween James&Cloudy City to revise zoning.
Streets and Fourth&Fifth Avenues N.to DCE and
multi-family residential
A2. Reviewmaster plan development applicationsfor
Kent Station Burr.Borden site)
73. Promote infill housing Atleast 200 market rote dwelling units by 2008.
a Extend multi-family residential tax abatement to Revise existing mudd family residential
rental units in Downtown development tax abatementprogram.
b. Reduce or waive permit fees for Downtown
residential development
c. Allow five stories ofwood-frame construction Review applicable building and fire code,
above a concrete base
d. Remove Zoning Code minimum lot size Tncludetn 2004 CPAICPZcycle.
requirement in development standards for multi-
Family residential zones in DSAP districts
74. Encourage mixed-use develo ment A,needed
a Lincoln Park&Ride lot King County selling 8 acres ofDCH-zoned P..5
acre lot,see Recommendation Dl.d.
b. Municipal Parking Lot Possible long-term tnteresttn miixed-ure
redevelopment
C. Ten(10)acres between SR-167,the UP RR, Lotzoned DCE t,jar sole see
Willis&Meeker Streets Recommendations B5 and Dl.d
75. Study impacts ofpawn shops,bail bond offices,day
labor agencies,casinos,adult entertainment
businesses,gas stations and tattoo parlors
A6. Rezone DCE area on Central Ave.between Smith Fold into 2004 CPNCPZ cycle.
and Gowe Streets to GC
77. Allow underground stormwater detention vaults Review applicable development srandard,of
where appropriate for Downtown sites larger than Public Work,Department
one acre in size
B.TRANSPORTATION 0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years Timing Issues
Bl. Develop commuter rail station Service components complemarn 2001.
72. Construct street improvements
a Fourth Avenue
1 James to north of Smith St. Cmcoetedr,2004.
2 North of Smith St.to Meeker St. Schedirded for completion in 2005.
b. Second Avenue Triggered by site development.
1 Sidewalk replacement Smith St.to Harrison St Schedirded for completion in 2006.
C. Smith Street Linked to roil station connections&Kent
Station development
1 Fourth Ave.to Railroad Ave. ISchedidedfor completion in 2005.
d. Central Avenue Htghprtortty.
1 Smitlh St.to George St Completed u:2004.
e. Saar Street Triggered byprmam development.
f. IMeeker Street Htghprtortty.
g. ISeventh Avenue Property oanerrinhated.
73. Plan for underpass at Willis Street at UP and BNSF Determined by Regional Fast Corrtdorproject
tracks
B4. Adopt street tree standards Street tree plan and species selection document
t,currently applied to development
B5. Consider accessibility options from Willis and
Meeker Streets for properties located between SR
167 and the Union Pacific RR
Summary ofRecommended Actions 4-9
56
CIT'Y SAP KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Plan
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES 0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years Timing Issues
Cl. Upgrade downtown parks
a Locate aTown Square
b. Evhance parks along railroad Could be incremental effort
a Masterplan Commons Playfield Htghprtortty-coorarnamparkung.
d. IDevelop street tree plan Completed
C2. Enhance Gateways
a Fourth and James
b. Fourth and Smith
C. Fourth and Meeker Supports roil station
d. Fourth and Willis
e. Central and Meeker
f Central and Smith
g. Second and Smith Connects Kent Station and Hnstortc Core.
C3. Add public buildings
a Performing Arts Center
b. Public Market Thtsttem completed,but Public Market has
returned to Municipal Parking Lot.
C. Rail station structure Service components completed to 2001,parking
garage completed 2002.
74. Provide trails and Paths
a Links from Interurban Trail
b. Path along James Street
C. IMill CreeklKennebeck
C5. Inca orate public art !Continuous effort
C6. Improve pedestrian bridge over Mill Creek at
Temperance St.
77. Plan for eventual undergrounding of all utilities in Long-term implementation-coinciding wdh
the Historic Core District rtvatedevelopment
D. DESIGN GUIDELINES 0-2 years 2-5 ears 5-10 ears 10-20 year,Timing Issues
Dl. Refine design guidelines
a Historic Core District Completed,incorporated into adopted
Downtown Design Guidelines.
b. Central Avenue Corridor District See above.
C. Smith and Fourth corridor See above.
d. East Frame and West Frame District parking Tncludetn 2004 CPA/CPZcycle.
standards revision
e. North Frame District incorporated into Consistent with DSAP boundaries-tncludetn
Downtown Design Review Area 2004 CPA/CPZ cycle.
E. TARGET AREAS 0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years Timing Issues
El. Explore redevelopment opportunities
a Obtain Smith Street right-of-way
b. Work with property owner on Borden site Sale completed City is masterplamning site.
C. Fourth Avenue
d. Central core historic streets Ongoing effort with KDP.
e. South Core District Revise residential developmenttncenttves,and
encourage mixed-ue.
f Central Avenue Corridor District
F. COMMUNITY BUILDING 0-2 years 2-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years Timing Issues
E. Continue working with Kent Downtown Partnership (Ongoing.
in revitalization efforts
a Assist in identifying and promoting issues and Ongoing.
opportunities to benefit community interests and
economic health
b. Actively promote historical preservation (Ongoing-education,inventory,archive.
C. Support live performance arts in public places, Revise codes as needed
and encourage live performance arts in retail and
restaurant businesses
72. Encourage adaptive reuse ofhistoric Kent Depot sstst KDP and Greater Kent Htstortcal Society
efforts
F3. Address causes and consequences ofhomelessness
in Downtown
Summary ofRecommendedActions 4-10
57
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Plan
PRELIMINARY CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS
The preliminary costs in Figure 4-3 provide a more realistic foundation for the vision and
recommendations of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP). Although the costs were
carefully prepared,they are based on preliminary concepts, intended to serve as a general guide.
The DSAP spans a period of twenty years of potential new development, redevelopment and infill
in Downtown Kent. The DSAP, costs, and infrastructure needs may change and adjust. Each
proposed project should be reevaluated in its own time based on specific plans, including district
subarea development plans.
Please note that the preliminary street improvement costs listed in the chart exceed the cost of
DSAP recommendations. The cost of full street improvement is included because sidewalk
improvements can most economically be accomplished as part of a regularly scheduled street
overlay project.
Bicycle and pedestrian trails, lanes and paths can be accomplished in a number of different ways
with widely differing costs. Further study of preferred locations and materials selection would be
necessary before cost estimates can be provided.
Additional detail regarding the street improvements and gateways is available at the City of Kent
Planning Services Office. Additional detail regarding the Sounder Kent Transit Center is available
from the Sound Transit and the City of Kent Planning Services Office.
Figure 4-3: Downtown Projects Past, Present and Planned 1998—2009 (2004).
April 1998—Present(completed)
• 2000 Sidewalks & Gateway Improvements $1.13 million
• James & Central Intersection Improvements $1.20 million
• Washington Ave/Meeker St. Road Improvements $3.50 million
• 2nd Ave. Extension $500,000
• 1st Ave./4th Ave Widening and Utility Trench $750,000
Projects Planned
• Downtown ITS Project(2005) $3.20 million
(Includes Smith St. widening, Pioneer St. Widening and RR interties)
Summary ofRecommendedActions 4-11
58
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Man
• Ramsey Way/4th Ave Signal (2004) $350,000
• Right Turn Pocket on Central Ave and Willis (2005-06) $150,000
• Left Turn Lane on Willis St. and 4th Ave. (2005-06) $163,000
• Central Ave Sidewalk Improvements (2005-06)(Smith St. to Gowe St.) $400,000
• Willis Street Grade Separations at UP& BNSF Railroad(2009-14) $37 Million
• Right Turn Lanes at Harrison St. (2005) $95,000
• WSDOT overlay of SR516(2005)
(SR167 to Central Ave., Central Ave. to Smith St.)
• Left turn pocket at Lincoln Street at Smith Street(2005) $1 Million
• Left turn pocket on Willis St. at 2nd Ave. (2005-06) $750,000
Summary ofRecommendedActions 4-12
59
CIT'Y OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategic Aaiein Han
Figure 4-4: Recommended Transportation Improvements (1998).
y { / t is
.....................
B3 — Plan for
underpass of
Willis St.
Av
0 P r No, aj,
a.
"i I.--n ....- h# rw xvifA
2a , 0q,AI/ g jr
P11
_1P
rvm
821c
4,11
iN
LZ
o j P",
V"fn
,t " ,
IT
82.1
V,
fof
Iafj off- f, rr"—
YfI,
4!
k7v,
ff
rw
W 91
x
P 47 Ifd 01 �.X
ff
tr�li7
ww err C)
,
all J4— X 0
.3 w r "TUwIIGk%Awjjqw,
Downtown Ken It SubArea'Action Plan
V S111
Summary ofRecommendedActions 4-13
60
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Han
Figure 4-5: Recommended Public Facilities (1998).
id��iY -0!di ofs�A +rite$4 f;r II�L,.Fs4i1Wl��rt, J,L �"�I" III"., 107<Y�I ly,r rp SJn Mi�"p"�
tof,"ieoltPo
d fr
l�
r�
o� ajo
f �f � il� Oda r " iill
0 r�iv,
�1 1 pv l ,� �"I FeY o-
I� s i 'o nPo ,
i� f �Ind
14
T
f l Moll
���
y � r�
g o Po� ilo rr r" i�ryd ,�,4W of i
of v
1 6j,p, M royW A
�� �
�di Nm UJOa fqq rk
JJ� Jw�w�'i rfu t Drt i mu'4r� Yp ,
r� 'p ➢ a d'� if ri 4i �i /° 1 l � ro i
wpm+i omµ ��5,¢r�+i0 ax o,•u� 11Y oo,�nf"G1i"W41lV;411W{
PobfW WO, If^M V pNiVO 0.
Maye uwr a
Summary ofRecommendedActions 4-14
61
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategic A&I Plan
Figure 4-6: Land Use Recommendations (1998).
f Illy"
'W"F
7
k,w v,F:
, AA - Redealignaw
IF
I$ ff I I f 'I
wyI, I -- To Al Mixodl4AFe
aJ And Mulei*l
X „, I"a+j ISM;,,, ^ P q �.XI Rvoidentiah III
Ow
YM F�= �11,11
�7
ray' b it 1
Ile, IF
IM I-
1 11 Fq 1, 1
X
1A
Fill ..............�r
ll�I, OF E F
41
%
I f g MI 1, 1-
I I.I �Irwp,.
'Al la
d
r
9 J,
J) f
A.3 > Efid6bF516,
IF
41111
17 vo 1IF
'6l J-7-77 ! 66tS 1111111111
A
f
,
M I '
7 d r1),
YW
I' 0
IF
°7 C
T .
"IT
I..I I....... I
f �V`w�, � I;. �� � ,, �,{4
Xi
F-9
23ur
r 7
q �",I
4M.
- -w.I
LC. %
F
4, "Il A IF, F gd-,
ww f p Pv 0
............-
I TF I
Downtown Kent SubArl ActionPlan
11,10CY Ul
Summary ofRecommendedActions 4-15
62
This page intentionally left blank.
63
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic Action Man
CHAP T E R F I V E
KENT DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
ME ST
6
0
w W =
waWWI�T
E-�WEST
North Frame
JN1e 65i
Central
Ms Corridor
Y � po1TY4RR ST �
m
North Core .. erEmreR,wce IT
t se v u
4F'4M0IN West
WWest W/%FIIAW§W
Frame East Frame 4
}y ME/3(Atl 64 � fYM6114IX Sj
o "J.
a 4 Historic Core
'marl
Sou x
� m
w' I
uth �Qre
Sfi>I4 VYII t Iti 5i R
y
¢u Wyss
The planning process identified several Downtown districts with distinct characteristics. It also
identified how district redevelopment strategies can be integrated to benefit all districts. The
following district descriptions illustrate more clearly how the recommended actions listed in
Chapter 3 focus on individual districts, but also interconnect throughout Downtown. The districts
include:
• North Frame District;
• Central Avenue Corridor District;
• East Frame District;
• West Frame District;
• South Core District;
Kent Downtown Districts 5-1
64
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic f&d hin Man
• North Core District;
• Historic Core District.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) land use recommendations are directed toward fine
tuning the City's comprehensive planning framework in response to specific redevelopment
opportunities and community interests. The transportation recommendations are intended to
upgrade connectivity and circulation to and within the Downtown for additional businesses and
residents. The public facilities improvements envisioned in the DSAP will enhance an already
attractive development setting. Design guidelines will increase compatibility between uses,
reinforce the design quality of the various districts, and take advantage of special opportunities.
Within most districts there are target areas that merit special attention. It is recommended that the
City work with property owners and developers to ensure that new development on these properties
meets its potential. The formulation of detailed district subarea development plans, to be adopted
within a number of Planned Action ordinances, could provide specific guidance regarding
environmental conditions, development potential, and impacts of such development.
Each district is described below with recommended actions and target areas where the City,the Kent
Downtown Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce, property owners, business owners, and
volunteers may take a sustaining role.
NORTH FRAME DISTRICT
Located along the north side of James Street,the North Frame District provides a transition between
more intensive uses in the North Core and the single-family neighborhood to the north. The North
Frame District includes the Commons Playfields, and several streets lined with single-family
homes. While the overall intent of the DSAP is to preserve the peaceful, insulated single-family
character of the North Park neighborhood east of Fourth Avenue, two busy arterial streets - Fourth
Avenue and James Street offer significant challenges to preservation of this character. Traffic along
these streets, the Regional Justice Center, the Kent Transit Center, and the development of Kent
Station to the south intrude on the desirable qualities associated with single-family residential.
The Commons Playfields bring mixed blessings. While being a much-loved open space and active
recreation area that enhances living conditions in the vicinity, it also draws people and traffic that
impact single-family residential uses. Therefore, the DSAP seeks to create a strong edge of high-
quality mixed-use development along the north side of James Street between North First and Fifth
Avenues, transitioning to multi-family residential development primarily along the south side of
Cloudy Street. The area is a designated redevelopment target area. Relieving congestion on James
Street may be achieved to some measure by connecting Cloudy Street to Fourth Avenue from Third
Kent Downtown Districts 5-2
65
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Man
Avenue for pedestrians and vehicles. Upgrading the streets and Commons Playfields to benefit the
local neighborhood and the city at-large are also high priority actions.
The actions presented below include public improvements, land use zoning, and design guidelines
and supportive of the overall plan. The actions are coordinated specifically to encourage target area
redevelopment.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
➢ Upgrade Commons Playfields.
The Commons Park is an important resource for Downtown Kent in many ways. For one
thing, it is such an important attraction that shop owners have opened their stores in the evening
during baseball season to take advantage of the increased traffic. However, there are numerous
problems, including parking, access, drainage, and impacts to neighboring residents. A master plan,
or district subarea development plan should explore a variety of solutions to these problems.
Participants in the Downtown Strategic Action Planning process voiced many creative ideas for
park improvement. The ideas included: (1) an on-site parking lot that could retain stormwater in the
winter; (2)pedestrian overpasses; (3)use of the Regional Justice Center's parking; (4) incorporating
shared parking with redevelopment between North Fourth and North Fifth Avenues; and (5) the
addition of a play structure. The City will explore the opportunity of shared public parking
arrangements with the Regional Justice Center for evening use of the parking garage located across
the street from the Commons Playfields.
➢ Improve James Street
James Street is an important arterial, and in the future should include improved pedestrian
and bicycle routes connecting the Commons Playfields and the Interurban Trail to Kent Station, the
Kent Transit Center, the Regional Justice Center, and schools and businesses in the Central Avenue
corridor. Long-term planning should encourage bicycle and pedestrian uses. As development and
redevelopment occurs, the City should require that James Street have sidewalks at least 12 feet wide
with landscaping.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-3
66
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&d hin Plan
Figure 5-2: North Frame District Recommendations (2004).
i� -L-j L�� oL
3AV WV dlI
u op ❑ po
L1 v
0
0
0
�I0 0
. .-. o ❑
sx
WHO
❑
Pon 00
Yo
MUMUr
ati ❑d0 �
p o 11 ❑ ❑ xy
❑ o � , 4 E -
QQQ o 40o ❑ oQ0 ono a
J caU „E5�aa ❑ sao cE
Q ❑ wVo
WOD x Y
w
x �
v
mtiy
c a 3m l
_=m
e g o
pa m E y o..
g ion rn E - g, WWW
O
c
c70.
, -- - -- . . uumommuuuulmuumommumommu
fn +� a—D. )
C Wes^,, El
V
Y
N N
E 3 >
c
E b
0 C_ _Q 7
—zl� 01 U LL -
Kent Downtown Districts 5-4
67
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
➢ Provide Gateway Improvements at Fourth Avenue and James Street.
This high traffic intersection close to the Kent Commons and the Regional Justice Center is
an important Downtown entry point. A design team that included members of the business
community, an architect, a landscape architect, artists and planners recommended a distinctive
crosswalk pavement design and distinguished streetlights. As redevelopment of Kent Station
occurs, this intersection will likely see increased pedestrian activity. Pedestrian-oriented design,
including safety features, will need to be considered in designing this gateway.
Figure 5-3: The suggested concept for Fourth Avenue and James Street(1998).
�, '
+" !@IJ"aMA K
n+a ICMR4
OWN
TOWN
r K E W ni ra
"�4h IdA4 X '
U rUI T
➢ Open Cloudy Street to connect Third and Fourth Avenues.
In order to alleviate traffic congestion along James Street, residents of North Park would be
able to exit onto Fourth Avenue. All streets intersecting James Street directly north of Kent Station
will be restricted to right-in, right-out turns onto and off of James Street. The opening of Cloudy
Street between Third and Fourth Avenues is already considered a mitigating action for the Kent
Station development.
➢ Implement traffic-calming measures on Cloudy Street to reduce vehicular speeds if
Neighborhood Traffic Control Program analysis concludes such measures are necessary.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-5
68
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
If findings of any Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) study indicate necessity,
design for reduced vehicular speeds in the vicinity of the Kiwanis Tot Lot, applying appropriate
traffic-calming measures in order to improve safe vehicular and pedestrian travel behavior.
DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA ACTIONS
➢ Encourage Office/Residential Mixed-Use Development in the First-Fifth Avenues/James-
Cloudy Streets Target Area by amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District
designations.
As noted above, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) promotes the conversion of
the single-family area between North First and North Fifth Avenues, and between James and Cloudy
Streets to include a mix of uses complementary to Kent Station,the Regional Justice Center, and the
Kent Transit Center. Office, retail and multifamily residential development would be encouraged
along James Street to a depth of approximately 300 feet by designating the area for Downtown
Commercial Enterprise (DCE) Zoning— consistent with Kent Station development south of James
Street. Further north of the proposed DCE district expansion, to the south side of Cloudy Street, a
designation of low-density multi-family residential (LDMF) Comprehensive Plan Land Use would
encourage a transition between the intensive mixed-use development along James Street and the
single-family residential housing to the north. Extension of low-density multi-family residential
zoning to include the five (5) Single-Family Residential-zoned parcels (SR-8) north of Cloudy
Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues would in part reaffirm a Council recommendation to
rezone this area as adopted in the 1998 DSAP. Either a Multi-Family Residential—Garden Density
(MR-G)Zoning District to allow market rate rental, or a Multi-Family Residential—Townhouse, 16
units per acre (MR-1`16)Zoning District to allow only purchased units would be appropriate.
These uses will benefit from proximity to the Commons Playfields and the visibility along Fourth
Avenue and James Street. Also, they will be less adversely impacted by the Commons activity and
traffic. Figure 5-4,found on the next page illustrates the type of development that is envisioned.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-6
69
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 Downtownkrategic Action Plan
t � -
Figure 5-4: The type of office/residential mixed-use development envisioned for the N. Fourth/Fifth
Avenue target area(1998).
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Finally, the City should expand the Downtown Design Guidelines area of applicability to include
the North Frame District, and administer the design guidelines to ensure that:
• Development presents an attractive building face and/or landscaping, particularly to James and
Fourth Streets;
• Site improvements do not negatively impact existing development to the north in terms of noise,
traffic, air quality, sun/share, or visual intrusion;
• Development does not result in houses converted to marginal offices without substantial
redevelopment.
Although on the periphery of the Downtown, the North Frame District merits special attention. A
master plan for the Commons Playfields could begin to address important issues. Redevelopment
of the area between First and Fifth Avenues north of James Street will provide opportunities for
additional housing in a convenient Downtown location near recreation resources and a regional
transportation center. It will also provide opportunities for office/housing mixed use or housing near
offices.
Finally, as one of the Downtown's most important entries, the Fourth and James gateway merits
high priority in the proposed gateway enhancement program.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-7
70
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&d hin Plan
Figure 5-5: North Frame District 20 year vision (1998).
m Wlh UMPF OM dr dux
crab oan"i arkr r dN� rr oic'�unu nA k�
.11
If
�•✓"" WAG
�l 6
a
r ,
�fl4
q ry l 11 rf tl R1 Xp l
vd p
fill,
1� s M 7
[
I o d j
�+
x
p yIj IInp
axr � 0
JO.NPtla'u sm
�� _ lye. `rW�rd air ,
{j �' 6
a �m ' ss: Ipik 14
m
� ihr, Ri 71 ,z'
I f y r ivt
r�
r _ r
-.
ivy r
d„
)d revs a v War d eftar�r
_ x � u, �dI GII"W"IfW T"uP'iftra lYtlVr"IRA"a �,^�
vas�.d d w✓i° y,.V7l�wtuua"$
Kent Downtown Districts 5-8
71
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Han
CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR DISTRICT
Central Avenue comprises the Downtown's auto-oriented strip. As such, it provides a setting for
auto-oriented businesses, convenience stores, large-lot enterprises, and fast food vendors. On the
other hand, the District's collage of billboards and under-maintained structures does not provide an
attractive entrance into the Downtown. For this reason, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan
identifies the entire Central Avenue Corridor District as a redevelopment target area although there
are some solid businesses. The target area and recommendations include Railroad Avenue in
relation to the Kent Transit Center. Upgrading the corridor will require a two-pronged effort
involving public streetscape improvements and incremental private investment. This type of major
arterial redevelopment has proven effective in areas such as Lake City Way in Seattle and Central
Way in Kirkland.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
➢ Upgrade Streetscape Along Central Avenue.
The width of the street right-of-way width limits the extent of streetscape improvements on
Central Avenue. Nevertheless, public and private investment could substantially improve the
sidewalks and upgrade the utilities. The high-level transmission lines will undoubtedly remain, but
numerous service lines and cable should be placed underground to remove visual clutter. Public and
private property owners could augment existing street trees with additional plantings on both public
and private property.
The intersections of Central Avenue with Smith and Meeker Streets represent important entry points
into the Downtown, and gateways are recommended at these locations. Public right-of-way is
limited on Central Avenue, as it is with all Downtown streets. The gateways should make use of
basic streetscape elements. In 1997, a design charrette resulted in a recommendation for special
crosswalk designs, signs directing visitors to the Regional Justice Center, the Kent Transit Center
and the business core. The recommendation included special lighting to call attention to the
gateways. Participants in the charrette included a landscape architect, an artist, an urban designer,
Downtown merchants, and City representatives.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan recommends upgrading the sidewalks along Meeker and
Gowe Streets between First and Kennebeck Avenues with street trees and lighting. Where these
streets intersect Central Avenue, the City should emphasize improvements to integrate the corridor
with the Downtown core and the Kent Transit Center.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-9
Lim rm '-
1
" If! !aj 0 �
LIM
0 IMF
o � au—u LJ VD QL VD u
� .� . ■■ 0 � ILL' :7
�. . L.:
�*'� �� fF= [+■��f:l vim L-*.�°,
�j a aimiuouwmu • :amr
"°.i]' V � R
ERA
amp
RISE
7!
iI .IICMI
ELI
p i: : rJ FC�o � 0• � o
r �i:
73
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Han
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The City should add specific standards to the Downtown Design Guidelines to direct development
toward higher quality building and site design. The design guidelines should complement
streetscape improvements. For example, while it is desirable to place buildings near the public
right-of-way, it may be preferable to set buildings back a few feet to allow wider sidewalks and
utility placement. The following issues are some that the guidelines should address:
• Designate Central Avenue as a Class B pedestrian street from Willis to James Streets to provide
a better setting for new development arising from the Kent Transit Center and core area
investment;
• Screen parking areas adjacent to the street right-of-way with low shrubs or walls and trees;
• When development occurs, set back buildings to allow for at least a 12-foot-wide sidewalk;
• Provide a pedestrian link between the public sidewalk and all business entrances, even if
parking is in front of the building;
• Control existing signs and remove existing billboards over time;
• Provide pedestrian-oriented building facades and integrate signs into the architecture.
Figure 5-7: Design Issues That New Development Should Address in the Central Avenue District.
(1998).
04.
a
110
4��
1 d
11� P
ei
Y
Kent Downtown Districts 5-11
74
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 Downtownkrategic Action Plan
Figure 5-8: Design Issues That Existing Development in the Central Avenue district Should Address
(1998).
.IIf�
Y�
w,n 4+uw,a yy r n R �e�m rmn P rp 6, �
AJ 9 dMn »oIN Ma M b w+W:wrwa n .'Y� � ��
i
i
� e 4
U 4weq ypao quXddvkw4wmy YNSWo
w.',p., yy N/t w XM LL W M0:xy 14W J
iQIM1W1 ,WdtlGl 4wiRANry
e
Pf"
A�
f
T
M� M MN Y P
1.`q'y uwrv-v 4sa awma vpww xafxm� F
•, � ^ , 1"{�kr w ""�� ^wYNx«rpwxl�q ertr erw.�wwuq�
"r e mrt
� ry o rv!Mumn:mq ro I w rq n � 'as ,—.IeFm4kr r aaw w,�nvwn n rnoW «r.go-wrm+» ..
wpm
.",. d n,,, uew�we+✓e rom ww ww+i�wewx.�:,.w+
nrcnwwm w+m wr�www,w ww,rrou.
r
......_ �.e ..,ma.
Because Central Avenue is many people's first impression of Downtown appearance and
development quality, this corridor is important to the whole Downtown image. For this reason,
corridor improvements should be given priority. Successful arterial improvements in other cities in
the region have demonstrated that upgrading Central Avenue is possible if the City and property
owners work together.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-12
75
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&d hin Man
DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA ACTIONS
➢ Rezone properties along Central Avenue currently zoned DCE to General Commercial,
Mixed-Use Overlay (GC-MU) for purposes of lending requirements regarding conformity
of use and zoning.
Properties adjacent to Central Avenue within the DCE Zoning District have operating
businesses that are non-conforming uses, and have non-conforming site characteristics. A rezone
would allow for the existing uses to be deemed conforming for the purposes of obtaining financing
for improvements. However, the applicant for any redevelopment or use expansion in Downtown,
regardless of zoning, is not exempted from Downtown Design Review requirements.
Figure 5-9: Central Avenue as it exists today(1998).
I � JW
w E 4
1
I
\\
Figure 5-10: A Visualization of How Central Avenue could look(1998).
i
1
i
Kent Downtown Districts 5-13
76
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic Action Plan
Figure 5-11: Central Avenue Corridor 20 Year Vision (1998).
aid uV•^!&Nf mtul�a�ep, a Mq/� •,°•`
i rn', k� 0w�filJlywr srlry,.��nd n r �•.•� � &tP rrnry�p
aM
93 r
wni
�, mmawp�ryy
rr
m s=
w Ilij
jk
ij
,ly+,m1 % <"""'N19: a 44 Yd,°'Am ill N'd�✓ �^ /mn Mr01—M�wrv+','Wi^'^u *�
�'j ++ "� �'��e
II lsy y I �
.l{a(➢"'al / rr fi',°" ��»• 9 1 J„,o'�(Nl Wl/ �k �l ,awf .
u� I
5�
w
mW totl"!WdM1Pxw M K !.
Central Avenue Gorridor District
� m!waNe 990 of m lud ml wr ,>{rt drn.1N ux wwwr woxtl l n �.ro�� acW'�Ikun aMrlum✓�Srwx�w
tl wm ar^^;nwl rvi / oIIIII, m ,. M11,11 "I"IT114, ue + ,Io. #r W mm,bjuw drllluaiavq, .
Kent Downtown Districts 5-14
77
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Man
EAST FRAME DISTRICT
Lying immediately east of the Central Avenue corridor, the East Frame District includes a diverse
mix of commercial activities interspersed among single and multiple-family residences.
Participants at a summer 1996 workshop to identify issues in this district emphasized the need for a
more stable residential neighborhood, with access to services and relief from traffic and other
impacts. Since the City Resource Center, Senior Center, and Kent Middle School are located in the
district, it is rich in public services. However, better connections to the Downtown core would
improve access to shopping, professional services, restaurants, and City and County offices. The
actions recommended for the East Frame District focus on urban design improvements which could,
over time, upgrade the area's livability. The planning team explored traffic revision proposals to
reduce through traffic in the District, but no workable options were identified.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
➢ Construct a Pedestrian Trail Along Mill Creek
The proposed trail and landscaping connecting Mill Creek Park and Memorial Park will
improve access to open space.
➢ Improve Meeker and Gowe Streetscapes.
Upgrading sidewalks with lighting and landscaping on Meeker and Gowe Streets from First
Avenue to Kennebeck Avenue would improve pedestrian conditions in the East Frame. The
improvements would connect the First Avenue to Kennebeck Avenue sections to the Historic Core
and create a more attractive setting.
➢ Enhance or replace pedestrian bridge over Mill Creek at Temperance.
Connectivity between the residential neighborhood at the foot of East Hill and the Kent
Middle School (formerly Kent Jr. High School), and Downtown destinations including the Kent
Transit Center, and Kent Station would be significantly improved by enhancing or replacing the
existing pedestrian bridge over Mill Creek at Temperance Street. Aside from ensuring the
attractiveness of the improvement, a particularly important consideration would be an increase in
the width of this bridge to allow more than one person at a time to comfortably make passage.
Ensure also that any improvement to the pedestrian bridge does not adversely impact Mill Creek
salmonid habitat.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-15
78
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Han
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design guidelines are recommended to:
• Increase compatibility between commercial and residential uses through screening, site design
and building bulk regulations or guidelines;
• Increase security and safety in the areas by providing lighting and pathways, reducing hazardous
areas, and providing visible entries;
• Provide useful open space and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes.
➢ Consider options for flexibility in general parking standards for Downtown Commercial
Enterprise(DCE) Zoning in the East Frame District with the economic development goals
of the City.
The property owners in the East Frame District are not proposing intensive, mixed-use
projects—and interest in developing such projects in the East Frame is limited at this time. Four(4)
options to consider:
1. Allow outright 4.5 surface parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of commercial
floor area;
2. Allow 4.5 surface parking spaces per 1,000 g.s.f of commercial floor area, provided
that 25%of the overall gross floor area of the project is multi-family residential;
3. No change—the existing 3 surface parking spaces per 1,000 g.s.f. commercial in the
DCE zone is counterbalanced with a minimum of one-and-one half (1.5) parking
spaces per multi-family residential unit east of the Burlington Northern tracks (KCC
15.05.070(C)). This could be seen as an incentive to include housing units in
commercial development in DCE;
4. Add two (2) year "Sunset Clause" from date of adoption for any DCE parking
standards revision to evaluate the effectiveness of the revision.
While there are few specific recommendations for the East Frame District in this plan (see Figure 5-
6 (and 5-12)), the City should continue to monitor residential neighborhood conditions and act if
special problems or opportunities arise.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-16
79
C1T'Y OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&aaarrea Plan
Figure 5-13: East Frame District 20 Year Vision(1998).
' r* ind mriwrre ,i•'k76.
rr
�" � f a....". tlV9ikK C,xvfmulh�,rhJJdrv"m�„�I �'91"x fE�:1
Vill
i rit
i
ry �r
F
rvprmoaa"4_�ivwnabr
M
a W��d�d��auy s �um�iva��-,�a� '� anq�t"
PTO. uM � F t
krrl t d"nr' MmTX OrA arf
r
amiif '
lm7Z
Mph
+ .nn9iu C"" T'"Trb
�. 1v71t'S.i 7Yd 49B II I'm "W6Y"'. P"v.dM Glm .p 'Prt�R';
r
� f f di+VnBm r n reinuL Urwl f i du na vWru"w uvmi Wlinv av,ulRqV —MRumiypuumemum wi n.omuv
n�of 0ml P,.W ii a m v " N ur;c Am Asir P,uulw ru 19MR id 'IC"S11mI if a jxallf
«�w y nod)'un,V!"Wd"wJ1 fiRNn( � m xS iAl 0 w rm¢u+a v IIIR M,lap ePm uVd.4,",fE°"PYb@ 0� vindium .mttamp
i y n"�'•` J un°'k r�y,i wU „�'vPvmQo Y iPo�u ,� cam im mi'l l ma xdirp nr,"i
W o°' I •
i
Kent Downtown Districts 5-17
80
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
WEST FRAME DISTRICT
The area between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and SR 167 includes a large Metro park-and-
ride lot with regional bus service, a skateboard park and sports fields, the remains of a historical
residential neighborhood, industrial shops, and vacant lands. The Interurban Regional Bicycle Trail
runs north and south through the West Frame District In 2005, Metro plans to phase out the park-
and-ride lot located between Smith and James Streets when the Kent Transit Center is ready to
accommodate express bus service connections. The parking demand from the park-and-ride lot will
be served by the Kent Transit Center garage. However, the area south of Smith Street may
experience dynamic redevelopment. A mix of retail, office, and residential uses is consistent with
current zoning. The Downtown Strategic Action Plan recommends street construction and design
guidelines to support development efforts.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
➢ Review Proposal for a New Access Street to West Frame from Willis Street
Major redevelopment opportunities in the West Frame District will depend on a new street
connection northbound through the area from Willis Street. The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) reviewed an August 2001 a proposal to upgrade the intersection of the
northbound ramp off SR 167, and issued a response in March 2002 indicating denial. If such a
north-south route connecting Meeker Street with Willis Street is determined to be feasible in the
future, the City should carefully evaluate the economic development benefits and impacts on the
Downtown's traffic system. A traffic signal was placed at the intersection of 74th Avenue South and
Willis Street in 2004 to facilitate westbound turns onto Willis from 74th Avenue South.
➢ Connect Interurban Trail to Core Districts.
Besides the proposed access,the most important transportation improvements recommended
by this plan are bicycle and pedestrian connections from the Interurban Trail eastward along or near
James, Meeker, and Willis Streets. The James Street pedestrian connection is especially important
because some Commons Park users park at the park-and-ride and then walk to the ball fields.
Crossing James Street is often difficult, so providing better parking and access for park users will be
an important consideration in the recommended Commons Park Master Plan.
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
➢ Encourage redevelopment of King County-Metro Park& Ride lot
Kent Downtown Districts 5-18
81
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
King County-Metro is marketing for sale an 8 acre portion of the 9.5 acre Lincoln Park&
Ride lot located between Smith and James Streets. The entire lot is zoned Downtown Commercial
Enterprise (DCE). Much of the parking is anticipated to shift to the Kent Transit Center garage as
most express bus service trips are replaced by Sounder Commuter Rail service trips to Seattle. The
remaining 1.5 acres will continue to provide one hundred (100) surface parking stalls for the
reduced service park and ride.
➢ Encourage redevelopment of the area between State Route 167, the Union-Pacific
Railroad,Willis and Meeker Streets.
The access road and Interurban Trail improvements could be key factors in this
redevelopment opportunity. Revising the West Frame District surface parking standards to allow for
more surface parking stalls per thousand square feet of commercial gross floor area(see West Frame
District Design Guidelines Recommended Actions).
Kent Downtown Districts 5-19
82
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Han
Figure 5-14: Existing view and the view with the proposed improvements along Willis Street near
the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Note the bicycle pedestrian trail connecting downtown to the
Interurban Trail, greensward improvements, and new mixed-use residential development along Saar
Street(1998).
Ion iY �
n r 4
9lop
r� o,
" G
_ —7
r �
1
1 .�" yf"f ar"r 'SY t ',
'� tt•WMI l� p � ` r {i d
Y� "�
dp I t
v awl
r
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design guidelines are recommended to ensure that the new development comprises a unified whole
with compatible uses, integrated circulation, adequate capital facilities, and attractive amenities.
The design guidelines should reflect the type of uses proposed by the property owners. This
particular district would also benefit from large site master planning so that project review might
involve a phased site master plan concept. A West Frame District Subarea Development Plan,
adopted within a Planned Action Ordinance, could accomplish this goal as well.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-20
83
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic f&d hin Plan
➢ Consider options for flexibility in general parking standards for Downtown Commercial
Enterprise(DCE)Zoning in the West Frame District with the economic development goals
of the City.
The property owners in the West Frame District are not proposing intensive, mixed-use
projects—and interest in developing such projects in the West Frame is limited at this time. North-
south access to this district has long been problematic, especially for vehicular traffic. Four (4)
options to consider:
1. Allow outright 4.5 surface parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of commercial
floor area;
2. Allow 4.5 surface parking spaces per 1,000 g.s.f of commercial floor area, provided
that 25%of the overall gross floor area of the project is multi-family residential;
3. No change—the existing 3 surface parking spaces per 1,000 g.s.f. commercial in the
DCE zone is counterbalanced with a minimum of one (1) parking space per multi-
family residential unit west of the Burlington Northern tracks (KCC 15.05.070(B)).
This could be seen as an incentive to include housing units in commercial
development in DCE;
4. Add two (2) year "Sunset Clause" from date of adoption for any DCE parking
standards revision to evaluate the effectiveness of the revision.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-21
84
C1T'Y OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic Action Han
Figure 5-15: Proposed elements of the West Frame District are illustrated below (2004).
Li I Master Plan and
NI ES_T FRAME DISTRICT Comma
Commons Park
sarmnq aaccass
Recommended Actions °`anage
rayuKuse d o
�owntownr$tra a is mnro e
I I I I I U Connections
Action Plan d to Park
Facilities
Augus 2ts 3 2004 Irrrswealggoefa
WC parking Kent
u aa1311a as orerFlow Commons
0 for C.
O
00000 0
IB acre of 9.5 acre Regional
Lirmdn P&R Id Justice
for side` 190 parking Center
m stalls to reran as
o Of RJR rtost logs,serwce is
p transferral to Sounder
z
O Sfrtion Enhanc
4th Ave
90�0 D oVYb z Corndor
e era z e
— IIIIIIII
E7 p zB B Slancl Pali ❑p > �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1 z dads Parking " edestrian
w All Cross" v
> me ctio
w HARRISON ST O zOw A ISO ST
EJ
Assure Pedestdan-
fl �'onenteit Redevelop-
Improve Ped & dI m rn tmiscatewa
Bike Connectivity Better parking wMEEI�R ST way
from Interurban n nd access
Trailu U UI
Enogurage large
LJ
w Irk redellaelail
d � z ❑ A ❑ Do
w
o
z
a
0 A
pp U w
Enrn In
cour araeicesms a aaaax�U= o
intill loamenl
0
° a o _ se
o �
IIIII
SR 516 - Gateway
I�I New Access Road by <. ILI ISSIOI 0r
r r Developer � QQ
; pHAVo 04 ; in
o L
J Figure V-15
Kent Downtown Districts 5-22
85
C1T'Y OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&&aarrea Plan
Figure 5-16: West Frame District 20 Year Vision(1998).
W "sr vui� sl�
.. ,� &v
�mol r
I° Ih Y
I � 1�� I QIgR'�������r nfUl•p:�p. �"�mYIY
Y J!� yyN .I .A lt•
0 Aa
•� �1 f '4 lJ I" '� I n ly.
ill taw " " {
1, 11 f_, Ai: w• ,;
1� 9�1
f
1 rf �Ij I,,,, psnxrr u� u,�-�muri� „drgo�u
u
� f a
f 1
1 1 •• $ "8dpld nn Xfi�( T1 P'ryp'„bJ A 11 r H'"r 4
1.
a .w I P fl- rbl P1,11A Pp," VR"AA k.,If Y• "�f
ENO nkef,
P I
d I. A ry n0 Clf YPI
aYIYd%A��M MY":I$nR'tA
1 W k'FI Y d.:
Y! Id Y� lVecI A IMJ: iAdslW fil NA,
IF W1l;
" �� Ir77�"ti"'r-"M au uH�4 y�Mr�., :rllb✓d
_ ku , .
wp
f Sri � ry' ° 4 fw Ffi
{, 'rc
A Lel, w
yy q 9��
ti�f �f:" r f �rt3y s.^ N° Ivii U" .i'�9rt" i� ,. a'P➢S ^.x.�A.:
ei
fmmfA
r ry
f :
_,............w fnYr {u"IY� IV9N� it
. ..w.m .. .a i n.....v ..._ ..
,g^' f I- r"r iINR'7 dl'n'yrll1uV"am °Blob
Wes
t FrameIlmmir
wv ill6s of _Y s, ul l >A N `r'bl11WWr a Mar rrfm xurrt ',U4?vhwr r."ral pn �q
--�. wxn7 ::iruwMl uri�r� W�m cs na"6rrwfi AM"'n p XI �vu m.or2'rutt lruu.rwmm ul�» In nr 11�n` a p Ph+"'rfg,
6 a rin@ilul All: a V wM wN+ln}o O'b ,nAtr a IN w 4I W 4 rreu wl
pY Y.r yf,.¢'r.Y".l lwu,lPr, U.MMIN, UIM, IPIA 4,AA1nll...1u
Kent Downtown Districts 5-23
86
CITY OF llKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
SOUTH CORE DISTRICT
The area immediately south and west of the Meeker Street section of the Historic Core consists
mainly of single-family houses, apartments, senior housing, and churches, with some small
businesses and an elementary school. The attractive setting includes tree-lined streets and numerous
older, but still viable, buildings. Willis Street provides a pleasant greenbelt on the south, and the
civic campus and Meeker Street provide the north boundary. The railroads effect both the eastern
and western margins, and development along these edges is less substantial.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan encourages residential mixed-use in this area to help achieve
the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element goals, and to provide a built-in market for Downtown
businesses. The area is already an attractive in-town neighborhood because of good automobile and
transit access, public services, and pleasant streets. For this reason, vacant and underdeveloped
properties in the entire district, except the BN&SF Railroad corridor, form a mixed-use
redevelopment target area. The blocks directly west of the BN&SF Railroad tracks are appropriate
for parking and commercial redevelopment.
The South Core District could become one of the most attractive in-town neighborhoods in south
King County. Looking at the District map,the South Core District seems to cradle the Historic Core
District commercial area Similarly, a strong mixed-use residential neighborhood would provide
economic support for a more viable Downtown. Therefore, the City should assign high priority to
the actions recommended for the South Core District. The impetus for the recommendations below
is to facilitate redevelopment that strengthens this emerging mixed-use neighborhood.
Commuter rail connections will make Downtown a regional transportation hub, elevating its role
and image in southwest King County. Experience in other communities has shown that such
increased visibility can benefit a Downtown economically if the image presented by the station is
positive and the connections throughout the Downtown are clear. Therefore, stimulating the
economic and physical vitality of the Downtown depends on a series of actions to connect the Kent
Transit Center to the businesses, offices, and residences throughout Downtown.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
➢ Provide Quality Kent Transit Center Infrastructure.
The design of the station should complement and enhance the character of the South Core
and Historic Core Districts. The station design calls for a platform on each side of the tracks and at
least 800 commuter-parking spaces. It also calls for a "kiss and ride" drop off area and eight bus-
bays so that both local feeder buses and regional busses can meet the train when it arrives. The
Kent Downtown Districts 5-24
87
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Man
Downtown Strategic Action Plan recommends a well-designed, distinctive station to provide
Downtown with a strong identity and indicate a commitment to high quality development.
➢ Reduce Kent Transit Center Impacts.
Carefully coordinate transit center design to reduce the impacts of the intermodal
transportation facility on existing and future mixed-use development. Public Works has designed
street widening projects to serve the Kent Transit Center on Pioneer Street between Central and
Railroad Avenues, and Smith Street between Fourth and Railroad Avenues.
➢ Restore the Historic Train Station.
The historic Burlington Northern station (Depot) located between Gowe and Titus Streets is
an expression of Kent's history and character. The City should research opportunities to coordinate
with the Burlington Northern/Sante Fe Railroad (BNSF)to restore the station. Recent discussions
between the Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) and BNSF have included the possible sale of the
Depot for a nominal fee conditional on the building being removed from its current location
proximate to the railroad tracks. The Kent Downtown Partnership has considered the potential use
of the Depot as a tourist information office and the Greater Kent Historical Society and Museum has
expressed interest in the Depot as a history center. Citizens at the 2004 workshops were supportive
of these types of reuse of the Depot should it become feasible for purchase and relocation.
➢ Construct traffic and pedestrian improvements to Downtown streets as necessary to
provide access.
Design improvements for Railroad and Central Avenues, and Smith, Meeker, Gowe and
Willis Streets. Connecting pedestrians living in neighborhoods east of Central Avenue and west of
Fourth Avenue with the Downtown Core Districts has been voiced as important. No less important
will be the manner in which traffic currently passing through Downtown is routed in such a way to
minimize delays while ensuring pedestrian safety in a pedestrian-friendly environment throughout
Downtown.
➢ Improve connecting pedestrian corridors.
Improve or install new sidewalks, streetlights, and tree grates along connecting pedestrian
corridors. Use the design elements previously selected by the community and installed on First
Avenue to establish a consistent pedestrian character throughout the core.
➢ Consider the impacts of the potential Willis Street railroad underpass.
The Willis Street and Burlington Northem/Sante Fe underpass and the Willis Street/Union
Pacific underpass are two Kent underpasses included in the Seattle project of the Freight Action
Kent Downtown Districts 5-25
88
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
Strategy (FAST). This project is planned for completion during the neat five to ten years (2009-
2014).
➢ Extend Angled Parking Along Saar Street to the Union Pacific Railroad.
Installing angled parking with vertical curbs and gutters would define the edge of the street
and provide public parking. Both these improvements would help attract higher quality
development to the area The City could use the additional parking to provide required on-site
parking as an incentive to developers.
➢ Extend Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths from the Interurban Trail to the Core.
Connections to the regional trail will provide an amenity for local residents and bring
visitors and commuters into the Downtown.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-26
89
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 Downtownkrategic Action Man
Figure 5-17(and 5-28): Proposed Elements of the South Core & Historic Core Districts (2004).
N 3ntl 31ViS III 313AV VIS m E m
x o
go 001
a m
s o
810
- gE
0 m�
o � S
�o d ❑ fl s tls3�alae
0
m
p � o ow a o01�
6
N
HAM mtl ntlatl �roa o =I�`
w
3 6 _
o S3 �ID
_ 0 � 3nV l
HIP �
muuuu°°uum _ S ntl l
ffi �a o o 0Vl
q o p
8y,
3ntl � ale } 4ll
❑
G s z
D
j7o= ��
m=v W G�D 00
�o - 3 q -- d ❑ b
mo ;3ntl£
as v ..S
0 ❑
oo
mom E 0
3 3 o �c e
9 ntl b l
UL
a w
W v U L Ho a o O 4 L V U
Tow¢E a a LLLJJJ ❑
LLJF d as o� S3ntl9 S3nV9
O U) dw
V a
o
d F1 In
Q RIV JS3nV9
O o
—0 C,15 o Q 9
IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ......
N 01) o
— �_N
� V 3 ri ° w >
H H C cy 11 �3 d 4o p N
00
�_
�I \ sla7fo� ❑ 0 LL a� `
20a' Q ❑ pr
3ntl rv3atlry
Kent Downtown Districts 5-27
90
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Man
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Downtown Design Review Criteria should be refined to address specific issues in the South
Core District, including:
• Enhancement of the historic character of the core and rehabilitation of historically significant
structures. Portions of the South Core District may be eligible for Historic District status;
• Maximum compatibility between adjacent uses. Locate buildings to achieve privacy for
residents, separate noisy activities and integrate parking;
• Strong building relationship to the street, with entries visible from the sidewalk;
• Useable open space on site, as required in the Downtown Design Criteria, or require a
contribution to acquire new or upgrade existing open space in the neighborhood;
• Reduction of the impact of parking on the streetscape;
• Minimizing the impact of service areas;
• Unified architectural concept consistent with the character and orientation of surrounding
buildings;
• "Pedestrian scale" in buildings;
• Building massing, details, and articulation to achieve an "architectural scale" consistent with
surrounding buildings;
• Building forms (such as row houses or courtyard apartments), elements (such as roofs, porches,
or bay windows), details (such as building trim or decoration), and materials consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood;
• Hardy landscaping to enhance building forms, articulate and enhance open space, and reinforce
visual continuity with adjacent sites. Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19 illustrate design guideline
recommendations for this district.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-28
91
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
Figure 5-18: Architectural details appropriate in the South Frame District(1998).
! N 4 P zf
X✓ f b
Xi (
Y
Figure 5-19: This illustration demonstrates how landscaping can define open space and add texture
to a building(1998).
a r ww,; riJ�
Ij
P w sago »w ' 6p,�Ij
NA r
4�b�j'u4rVNllIA'w"'I YouuroS�" � nr �
i
OTHER REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
The City should undertake the following actions as the opportunity arises to enhance development
opportunities in the South Core District.
• Consider designating a historic district and/or historic sites (See recommendations under
Historic Core District);
• Consider a housing demonstration project in this area;
• To increase potential for Downtown housing, explore means to reuse older homes more
effectively. Several of these old homes are important resources. hi the past, this type of
housing has been successfully moved, clustered on more appropriate sites, remodeled to
provide more than one unit, or adapted to another appropriate use;
Kent Downtown Districts 5-29
92
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Han
• Construct parking on the properties immediately west of the BN&SF Railroad between
Willis and Titus Streets. Parking in this location would reduce conflict between railroad
operations and existing residences, provide Downtown parking and potentially allow
redevelopment of the public parking lot at the southwest corner of First Avenue and Titus
Street for housing. Reconfiguring First Avenue would add more parking and upgrade the
development setting.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-30
93
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 Downtownkrategic f&&aarrea Plan
Figure 5-20: South Core District 20 Year Vision(1998).
r �n_v'��'V rNa��Fm r��: �irryl+Y6wdI°�Y'IX�
r ug1Yr•�aMti to �PSX �. �ti �ttc
. _rII IP'MIN NR'MB I�'p 4 HNWkM1PY'y`k uP ;Wr
nw , II "I Vr": PSG I:I" hd P":Yz -,fls Iu�Q
Mo r z G
?^ �'�n"T If CVWN Z
uG11 r�dY=Y YdM; � uNM <F:
d�. T Irca
M
'X„ ��� t*" "9 . rra f q �n r
na P
�M y�t= R,TMN W° 'N"Je..J-Y R".v" Y lr Iy�' rv,IwhM j„ d � �M N
lipL Y 1
m r
ww 4 ��' 1' �ku if
h � Iq h!wr�✓.� �'��I� �� LAN� '�" � ^��' 4 i �
rill
G � t� I h'h 10��J 1 a �, r
vu r nu_ 1! p
! ;"�� 5" a*wrc>a1
k ywmm ,� *a, J U w� Milli. u
jj
r"Sil
Yw Ira ,y ..
N'v..Tl M1m
IIYIIMWrN� AF � F
,nx
I
9 tl �
a li I
�r"'i f. '�"1P2!"'"!f""".r @ rc I�w
Ifa „
VI
Ws I . , *, 4 sal (..
._r Yttu :3kll9 aW lWx VaXY.'Y w� LIlgm iya
1' r r-S r d "01 w.S� m"VINY
an 4d,,p .d"Nti"wa� uP SiY7 v 9-RkY "iadrt UMM'PIS'YW'°
f d!.';GdC r w��, rumor r rv,.�:,.'br'a r�i !!V•4"Nvw�d °,u�N. mtl{.a
l ".%nf2
6-P-al;nr^P V�!�N ,��xwdr,W
r:tM'o'G11T,
�ro��I�r', wRv itillvryP -a•a^uaav!q u�n°�mrcvr,�
✓,v,.,8i iw
P W �
f
I � o-ti��,RWW wWW W YIW sy � MNNl+u9 W ID IIY"JIpY Yv/.yy: M� NI �1AY41YAAkINN 9r� NYVNti.u'9�,Im Myy�yMIAMNITf NA�1fWYYda'UY,
n J J df0if v r Ww Jill I5w ,NVr;YA wwi vir Mor rvcniru�mW rIIlbxva aH_ tl �� ll9, 'r9mv°q au wgwA7„w;,�'!N.
W"11J 7 TI" r IIV r jry I4y � J IIYIR X IM,d 1 M-J,<V'yF M w VNI MA N M dY(,Aavlllph r M'l-mmt6a --JJ1k,Pj(,
j i,�� urVL �wlrau.r� mw,q�p mom Pf YII �JIM. 1011i4"o le,Ps mavwwl"mpp
o'r
I
Kent Downtown Districts 5-31
94
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Man
NORTH CORE DISTRICT
With the Regional Justice Center, the Kent Public Market, a proposed civic and performing arts
center, and a town square park, the North Core District includes some of the most important new
urban development in south King County. These facilities and the future redevelopment potential of
the property located between Harrison and James Streets east of South Fourth Avenue make the
North Core District unique within the region.
Because of these dynamic opportunities, the Downtown Strategic Action Plan designates the entire
North Core District as a redevelopment area Some vacant and underdeveloped properties will not
redevelop immediately The North Core District links the Historic Core District and the Kent
Transit Center with the Regional Justice Center, Kent Commons, and the neighborhood north of
James Street (North Park). It is especially important that new public and private investment be
coordinated to provide improved connections between these activity areas. The recommendations
below call for the City to take assertive action to realize the opportunities within the North Core
District.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-32
95
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&&aarrea Han
Figure 5-21: Proposed elements of the North Core District are illustrated below (2004).
u L1 U d ¢ u LJ
w El -^-J r IIIII� Y o
Ow 3115 �ou r N3nV 31V1S w 30�31
IJI ao
3nVltla1N-3 m $
DO
f OTT
08
6
.�1 W.0. —
oz ,
Gtl mII 3ntlz
P �H�
o � i
fl D ar
_ TE -
= YE e"
mE`
o Q 0 0
r N tlb
0Q a � � E _ r e Qa 4
R
E
O wsre
U) V Q �2% oCED
R
W N r ouuuuuu
..... � v
0 O_W �,,.. mmmoimollum u
—in
— � �_� O W
\ � E C i 3
O CC y (] 3� 7
L)�3 3ntl NOSIOtlW
0 •� [
LL
Kent Downtown Districts 5-33
96
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
➢ Construct Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements to Downtown Streets as Necessary to
Provide Safe, Convenient Connections.
Connecting the North Core District and the Kent Transit Center just north of Smith Street
will place new demands on Smith Street. Construct Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements on
Smith Street between First Avenue and Central Avenue. New street improvements may include a
traffic signal at Railroad Avenue and Smith Street, straightening, a new center through lane on
Smith Street,new crosswalks, pedestrian improvements, and directional signs. Citizens have voiced
interest in a pedestrian bridge across Smith Street between First and Second Avenues — connecting
the Library with the Kent Transit Center garage. The likelihood of such a pedestrian bridge being
constructed depends on a number of variables including available right-of-way,funding,traffic flow
and safety issues.
Improve or install new sidewalks, streetlights, and tree grates along connecting pedestrian corridors
to other Downtown districts. Use the design elements previously selected by the community and
installed on First Avenue and Meeker Street to establish a consistent pedestrian character throughout
the North Core District.
➢ Enhance Parks Along the Railroad to Provide Linkages Between the North Core/Station
Area and the Historic Core.
Upgrade Burlington Green, Yanghzou and Kaibara parks as connecting open space and as a
kind of gateway. A canopy along the east side of the parks would provide pedestrian protection,
serve as outdoor stalls for the Public Market, and visually tie the Sister Cities Parks together. Not
only will the parks be an important pedestrian link and open space resource, they will be highly
visible to thousands of commuters taking the train from Tacoma to Seattle and be an important part
of Kent's image.
➢ Locate a Town Square Park between the North Core and Historic Core Districts.
A Town Square Park would provide a downtown open space for large public gatherings and
performances. It might consist of a small plaza constructed as part of or near a civic and performing
arts center or hotel and conference center that could expand to accommodate concerts or
celebrations by closing adjacent streets. Coordinate closely with the Kent Downtown Partnership,
the Chamber of Commerce, and other interested parties to ensure that the park enhances the mix of
pedestrian-oriented land uses and connects adjacent Downtown districts.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-34
97
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
➢ Support the Kent Public Market as a connecting activity between the Historic Core and
the area north of Smith Street.
Figure 5-22: The below illustration shows existing conditions along Railroad Avenue (1998).
.r
,P,.
41
j
Figure 5-23: A canopy along Railroad Avenue will provide pedestrian protection and market space
(1998).
-N
001,
,
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Refinement of the existing design guidelines is recommended to:
• Ensure quality development in the North Core District, especially along Fourth Avenue and
Smith Street;
• Classify Smith Street between Central and Fourth Avenues and Fourth Avenue between Titus
and James Streets as Class A, pedestrian-oriented streets;
• Ensure that development along these streets addresses the Kent Station site issues described
below.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-35
98
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) supports and integrates other development activities,
including those described below.
➢ Establish Design Parameters and Review Process for Redevelopment of the Kent Station
Site.
Because of its large size, central location, and transportation access, the Kent Station site is
one of the premier Downtown redevelopment opportunities in south King County. the City should
take steps to ensure that when redevelopment occurs, it is carefully coordinated. Therefore, it is
recommended that the City establish a master plan process for this site, such as a Planned Action,
with standards to guide any future redevelopment proposal. The standards should include:
• Guidelines for streets and sidewalks;
• Provision for extension of Second Avenue into the site (realized as Ramsay Way);
• A defined, appropriate mix of uses and use intensities;
• Convenient access to transit facilities;
• Orientation to adjacent sites;
• Provision of open space and pedestrian amenities;
• Design guidelines for architectural and site design character;
• Mitigation measures for probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts.
➢ Support residential development in the North Core District.
The North Core District is assuming a more central location and role in Downtown
activities. Vehicle and pedestrian circulation between activities in the North Core District, including
the Kent Transit Center, and the adjacent Downtown districts will become increasingly important.
For these reasons,the North Core District recommendations merit high priority.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-36
99
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
Figure 5-25: Shown below is the proposed Civic and Performing Arts Center design by the
Bumgardner Partnership (1998).
/
� "w �✓p � I ������ �lit b>¢5 , _ �"J' �' �,�^y^ro�
yr
ppn �
➢ Support a Civic and Performing Arts Center or hotel and conference center in Downtown.
A Civic and Performing Arts Center or hotel with facilities for conferences and other events,
would be an important attraction to the Downtown, extending hours of activity into the night. It
would provide a much-needed location for events, performances, meetings, and educational
programs. The center would also be a lively element if pedestrian-oriented uses, such as small
shops, newsstands, flower stalls, coffee bars, pedestrian spaces, and/or public artwork, are included
along Fourth Avenue and Smith Street. The entry to the site could include a plaza that for outdoor
performances and celebrations.
Figure 5-26: Architect's drawing of the proposed Kent Public Market building—courtesy of the
Kent Downtown Partnership (1998).
i ✓ vRIM I mPl N�w i`?. iQi Y��.
�µ✓ S� M I
JI "`Y tins gi
y r ✓Y
wmnri NY.
➢ Support the Kent Public Market
The Kent Public Market adds important weekend activity in Downtown. It serves as a
connecting element between the North Core and the Historic Core Districts.
➢ Encourage mixed-use development projects in proximity to the Kent Transit Center.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-37
100
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Actin Man
Encourage private sector interest in redeveloping or developing vacant or underutilized sites
to mixed-use, through incentives such as expedited permit review at no additional cost, provided
that project designs meet applicable development standards and Downtown Design Review criteria
The Municipal Parking Lot, located between Smith & Harrison Streets, and Fourth and Second
Avenues, could provide an excellent opportunity for mixed-use development featuring structured
parking.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-38
101
CI'1N OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&ahm Plan
Figure 5-27: North Core District 20 Year Vision(1998).
pamidIdw,hour rua�u amt*C a�wsai
rnuwura l Ad�w+���c�rrmxu^a
ab
�u -aal_✓rrs tnv�' I"�ff$9cN� �TM^�nfo�.m-a��^xra °ry�,rr� n.���wlmxhcr t:vdsl..
erpl,m �Mdg'mtu40r r9,G Ah 3av�0 6u'�,�" :19a+anrw;
Yp
f r .rnrr'm0 M W Al4l�, mWaardrarT . M",01
m .
1
r ( w r f
m
r
9iha
ww, ' yxi ay"ry qA {ol
r d I 0% fl I
41,
y f II r� I
o-
n
.,,.
fill
Ij
f PrbRil ,� a ro m �d ✓),'
rj I
1A w Y YM� �.� ww,�' T. fir I Yn
iI�(�N'""A
& u f mr "fix" mr�fu ,�'"� wlr. �. "
w. l mll. a G,n ,„ �i ten•l ,ti��:w r �
ar
nwp '^"wll I" .f wu v oa..„ wC ^•FaN➢�� e'i:
ww
AM
;qu
rl',.�_m'Sv4,'',t
a r v r�,lnr veA 'N xwlP➢u STrdt,
ya,rn�i
V7rrr71V77rrft
r ','Pr wmVN� a fia a v GY rFYd v{W S w P61n
North Core District
4 �
�f "✓tea lgmpl1 &nro Ir 6 'A b"I"M m, a m =Zimmv v,mti is E vilay m v pyinam m1gru� yrnxmv yrWu e44
41% ry C AGIIff VA,V,1,Sq I I /" mn li xpw n.m li mcft
—y y nL f lip, lr7rdv mm mm r it u P V,� Noce 10r Z111,11CKT N dTYINIA, Irry,m.gs W6s@ q,l I,W75Mi;Iq 7A1vVj
f W>I',9 >"il,•Id.u,�,pW�,�pe !!f,NrN m,r I:ur vmlm vrrc°p^ mrlra arvw war gv,r.µry
1 J_.�....,..._... ..:..._��,.... ._.., .. ....
Kent Downtown Districts 5-39
102
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic.Action Man
HISTORIC CORE DISTRICT
The Historic Core District is the traditional and geographic heart of Downtown Kent. The Historic
Core contains three discrete retail areas: one along Meeker Street,the community's "main street"; a
second, emphasizing restaurants and specialty shops, just to the south and east along First Avenue
(also known as the Old Titusville District); and a third, stretching along Railroad Avenue opposite
Burlington Green and Yanghzou Parks. All three feature pleasant pedestrian conditions and tum-of-
the-century buildings. The Historic Core District also includes the Kent City Hall/civic campus just
south of Gowe Street.
The Historic Core District is bordered by the public parking lot and library on the north, the Central
Avenue Corridor District on the east, and the South Core District mixed-use residential
neighborhood on the south and west. Considerable activity is generated within the Historic Core
District by the Regional Justice Center located within 1,000 feet. All of these activities will support
the Historic Core District economically if they are included in a comprehensive redevelopment
strategy.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) addresses the areas immediately surrounding the
Historic Core District as well as the District itself because of the dynamic redevelopment potential
of those areas. The surrounding districts will support the Historic Core District by accommodating
residences, transportation facilities, jobs, and improved streetscapes and parks, directly adjacent to
the Historic Core District. This strategy builds on the District's current strengths, including
pedestrian-oriented streets, civic attractions, and a variety of activities.
Several actions are recommended for the existing Historic Core District that are intended to:
• Enhance the historic architectural character and pedestrian amenities;
• Develop vacant or underutilized sites;
• Visually and physically connect the Historic Core District to the surrounding districts.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-40
103
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 Downtownkrategi.c.Action Han
Figure 5-28 (and 5-17): Proposed Elements of the Historic Core & South Core Districts (2004).
N 3ntl 31ViS III 313AV VIS m E m
x o
go 001
a m
s o
810
- gE
0 m�
o � S
�o d ❑ fl s tls3�alae
0
m
p � o ow a o01�
6
N
HAM mtl ntlatl �roa o =I�`
w
3 6 _
o S3 �ID
_ 0 � 3nV l
HIP �
muuuu°°uum _ S ntl l
ffi �a o o 0Vl
q o p
8y,
3ntl � ale } 4ll
❑
G s z
D
��
m=v W G�D 00
�o - 3 q -- d ❑ b
mE wvm6 mw I;3ntle
asv �dg0
0 ED
oo
mam E 0
3 3 o �c e
� 5.
ntl b ll
a w
_ o o
IL 8 �
W ow L^ � vN a o O 4LVU
Tow¢E a m LLLJJJ ❑
0 d as o� S3ntlS S3nV9
L �' vE dw
V a C E P o
o
d Q RIV JS3nV9
Q O o
—O C� o Q 9
Ca
N CO o
— �_N
� V E 3 ri0 w >
H H C cy 11 �3 d 4o p N
fn fn t� 33 OIJ3 �
�I \ sla7fo� ❑ 0 LL 06 `
F: 6 Q ❑ p r
3ntl rv3atlr4
Kent Downtown Districts 5-41
104
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
➢ Make Pedestrian Improvements.
While the Downtown benefited from recent improvements, including those to Rose Garden
Park, First Avenue (Titusville business district), Meeker Street, and Kherson Park, further
improvements are recommended to make connections with neighboring districts. Safe and
attractive streets between the Kent Transit Center, the King County Regional Justice Center and
other offices, businesses and residences throughout Downtown will encourage pedestrian use.
Pedestrian lighting and street furniture should be installed in the Historic Core District along Fourth
Avenue when pedestrian systems are upgraded in the North Core and South Core Districts. As
development occurs, 12-foot-wide sidewalks should be required on the east side of South Fourth
Avenue. Meeker Street and Gowe Street pedestrian improvements should also be extended
eastward from First Avenue to Kennebeck Avenue.
➢ Enhance Gateways.
The intersection of Fourth Avenue and Meeker Street is identified as a gateway and should
be enhanced with special street lighting, signage, distinctive intersection paving, artwork, and/or
landscaping. The most effective way to upgrade the image of this intersection is additional good
quality infill development with corner entries, architectural features, or plazas.
➢ Inform Historic Core property and business owners of the locations and functional
lifespan of utility facilities, and involve these stakeholders in the planning and
coordination of street improvements.
Several buildings in the Historic Core may require utilities upgrading in order to attract
stable businesses. Some buildings of historic age may be required to upgrade connections to the
public utility system as it is upgraded — and without sufficient communication and coordination
those on-site upgrades may be a factor that compromises pursuit of historic register status for such
buildings.
➢ Plan for eventual undergrounding of all utilities in the Historic Core to improve the
attractiveness of the visual environment and increase available sidewalk space for walking
and other appropriate activities.
DESIGN GUIDELINES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES
Meeker Street and First Avenue retain much of the character of an early twentieth-century small
town. Preserving this traditional quality is an important aspect of the community's desire for a
Kent Downtown Districts 5-42
105
(TIN OF llKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic Action Man
"home town" identity. Therefore, revised design guidelines for the Historic Core District should
emphasize traditional building forms, materials, and details. All of the streets in the Historic Core
District are Class A pedestrian-oriented streets according to City Downtown Design Guidelines.
New buildings in the Historic Core should adhere to the Downtown Design Guidelines so that the
buildings provide continuous building frontage along the street. In general, exterior remodeling to
existing buildings should be directed toward restoring the original character. However, there are
some cases where the building is significantly altered or is not historically significant. The City
should update the existing inventory of historic commercial buildings and encourage context-
sensitive restoration and renovation in the Historic Core where appropriate.
Afagade restoration project was initiated by the Kent Downtown Partnership in 1997. The program
should be continued, and should include educational materials that demonstrate restoration
techniques that conform with the Landmarks and Historic District Preservation Program. The
program could also include low-interest loans and tax abatements to encourage fagade restoration.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-43
106
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&&aarrea Plan
Figure 5-30: Fagade Improvement and Infill Development Concepts (1998).
p
i�
r v )4 v,e�'4j 1 MY ui
„r1a° w
f
-
y pp µ n4 y y
1"
r
1i
y` E4
f ,�` x ,�, rvrvnnmlwawr '..._..,_..... „II L
„ ! xm
r
Before
Iry1IM I e w A, eV11y2 1 Il,
�nu r xwA�^xvr uP mi., w,m .mw I,p. p'P p'w
WIIh „,,, " mrv6hir awl1, nwN an llwIf,o. ,,-NImam
N x s„ olnm.re w
",ALa us lyy pl ,dry Y :+Y Il pryv R � � PI I -I �n � IINYT YMTl mall flA M. "
n Yo RSr.^per rtµ/n qwaA OV nr 11 .ury x,I-, n. n nee ro r l rv4 X' 111Vlu 11, 1,1 , 'Abmio ifudi IyM1Ni Ed'�'
IT, "'II r "I 111;�11"", � ov N �,� 'I N; Mo�re w�wB oaNlNmvxx mu IIW
`
.. o uru rca,wmrr�mi ury xr h!w e;a;ngn+�m6 wuq,
mums + „w Ir
A� m�
,fie
�.—+�- '"" v uu ruT w1
rehN�d wl v `"' {r,, ,,,� o(l. � � ura�umvi 9Yf� n /9M1NumTwu r ry
�.. { uwi
P
m
�m m
'�
1)II I.4 z'r tree -
III
W r 1ti1 I
ou, x �a��ro.rvna�.7 wmm.2.� W
e I .m I f,na alw„1e i,eAe•mrmx ,wa, I�xr. i� Ponmmtrcvmry lln.wwn-
X'welgA!? .;SXi uuciY' .
�" 11 � npall�el611 W INHQ IId1i mrvryrv.
lomrcini
Ay'�1C1"II'ka�§4.00+"A4o
Kent Downtown Districts 5-44
107
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Plan
Figure 5-31: Conceptual Design for the Commuter Rail Station(1998).
��
n g7�
iWMM1tlbp .ID/r 4 'i N uPo i rr, .1 � �
u �
� i
i
i �
v�
i�M=I 5D'"'„mr r
"" ICI
e II Yy 1 I I
MiRM "7f O�AMErM'PY1 W' nA7 e y Y,"..Y Y'dyery f
�h ,..
[
i
DAY RN w,�d
r+�,m� �*uIMIN� MJmhnmm' 1 f�q
7P�
I
6 iirumnl Wr^r�w�ixr .v er
111W "off"
lcni
r w u9 v y I fIn 'n� �
p n
,
af
VM CIA 1" M� r, v i �W
i
.m• ' ,.. k�i u, anmmrmnar3wi
MNrOMi✓Wki 6 ��NlfMd .. nr
REDEVELOPMENT TARGET AREAS
Because there are several different opportunities in the Historic Core District for the City to
encourage private redevelopment, the whole district is identified as a redevelopment target area.
One opportunity that merits further exploration is the district's designation as an Historic Landmark
District.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-45
108
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownMrategic Action Man
A very different set of opportunities lies east of the BN&SF Railroad corridor. Several properties
are underutilized and could be rehabilitated to provide space for start-up businesses if the
surrounding streetscape, access, and parking conditions can be upgraded.
Recent efforts by the City and the Kent Downtown Partnership have kept the Historic Core District
viable. New initiatives should build on this work by focusing on redevelopment opportunities as
they arise. Continued infill and connections to the Historic Core District will benefit the Downtown
as a whole.
Kent Downtown Districts 5-46
109
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 DowntownStrategic f&&aarrea Plan
Figure 5-32: Map—Historic Core District 20 Year Vision (1998).
iII, I
Rm t,r4j W,; .'am r003G:".$". IXWl WSa K ny,L t,C,,})�
q^Imr'il�li:i45,'M� ^;y"y:rXXXI: IrTe Ny cji 1`tl °,gip X 1.545 iy,:C'
ployyfas-d"mif➢ CroN tl 7im ¢f IIIk VP'N� I�, „pit tl.'a ll'�P?hl r-,..
t:zaru hmxti; 1'��ym�Yp
'Sir"SaG¢ue'e6rv�w�Pl-tioy,;g - u'rmy ^ra�ww'arilA
uap 0%�-�cr¢r� Gha'n,�lat�s�a�nar
VI
- �°,Y Vl uU9f Iris f9r H1'"�+w
a "�41A
c.
rJ �iw y6
r 9 M- WI f
N I
„� �,. u✓ a
r r—
w
>7" nmiwui
r"" '�" nlr' a ipK a ru,„r�ur wfy I i i'y m
�F �.. 5 m
9
yd NI 1 k � Y �
,yb
uPH Uo --n-..IL iwr M, i� �•_, r faN'yYA nny �+� a .. r"
y'
Iw*y !./'dl� �.mtln w�
MCI X,
%1,,x NL�'-Lx'%Odi VLwR "fY}aka. tiPYW�!v.YY MrN�'(r�R aM' W�M1h1M wr.d aj"? :w AP
nM"'orctl"�f.;(6-lP l.•H"Yh y,�Ag4aeJ'rt'nuGr d ' Sri V+ ° r(:e�Nf�^ a�,"'" ilNl A,
R,NP)? „N 'i�'u.y rr A l;y'y� yr du 'tlWf
�toric Cara D trict
�� r V $WtpfN X1 MNII,W�IM v mlyl�`"J/�ttddnFl frl ld Y✓%+1"i IIC�YfMYIIY,,aAYlIIM'R 'hV lm.dhd .
p uia...�. �l.rc.. 1 !W9 uMl,MfM'4Wb I�@rY MINT ICf Iq riM(,II%' YY"�.WW Nrv.EA Am JtiJVYdMry+r,'F� �;ryeSeffi III wlm'N m 'n "writs N Ndimm"A
d .._ 1 �n err mirt Aouhr 4y° + n a avH'tivv ma Miu ,�uie9+rA'!«ya 'k ;rs G� �i'r�3 m% Wnria"rr,
rfr✓r+r � ur'�w u�i�rPne vfiwpIDl, Y^<k.ViufW* iimm.fW'si riwrt�i uvrr uanvy ��enmo-m.�MY4.
i r
Kent Downtown Districts 5-47
110
This page intentionally left blank.
111
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
CHAP T E R SIX
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION
FACTSHEET
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The City of Kent is supplementing its existing Downtown plan with a Downtown Strategic Action
Plan that focuses on future actions and implementation measures. The plan will identify the main
features of the City's Downtown form for the next several decades, including what type of
development should occur where and how it should be served. In 1998,the environmental analysis
focused on the screening of plan alternatives as prepared with contributions by advisory
committees, Downtown Stakeholders Task Force, City staff, Downtown property owners and
merchants, and the public at-large.
LOCATION OF THE PROPOSAL
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan and Integrated Preliminary Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) addresses the Downtown area as indicated in Figure 3-1,
Study Area. The approximate limits of Downtown Kent are SR 167 on the west, Cloudy and James
Streets on the north, Woodford Avenue and Titus Street on the east, and Willis Street/SR 516 on the
south.
PROPONENT AND LEAD AGENCY
City of Kent
Planning Services Office
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue South)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
(253) 856-5454
Additional Environmental Information 6-1
112
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowikrategicAction Han
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION DATE
The Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) was adopted on April 7, 1998. The first update
of the DSAP was adopted on April 19, 2005.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL
Kim Marousek
Principal Planner
City of Kent
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
(253) 856-5454
CONTACT PERSON
William D. Osborne, Planner
City of Kent
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
(253) 856-5454
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS
City of Kent
Kent Downtown Partnership
MAKERS architecture and urban design
BRW, Inc.
Property Counselors
The Langlow Associates
Kent Citizens and Property Owners
Additional Environmental Information 6-2
113
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Ran
DRAFT SEIS ISSUE DATE
February 4, 1997.
PRELINIINARY FSEIS ISSUE DATE
May 19, 1997.
FINAL FSEIS ISSUE DATE
April 8, 1998.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
A public workshop on the proposed plan alternatives and Draft SEIS was held February 5, 1997 at
the Kent Commons. Comments on the Draft SEIS were accepted until March 6, 1997. The Kent
Planning Department hosted an Open House on May 19 to display current modifications to the plan
based on public input and comment. The Kent Land Use and Planning Board met April 14 and May
19 to review the plan and preliminary final SEIS. A public hearing was held May 27 and was
continued to June 2. The Kent City Council Planning Committee included public comment on
August 6, 1997.
NATURE AND DATE OF FINAL ACTION
The adoption of the Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan is anticipated early in 2005.
TYPE AND TINIING OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The programmatic Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), preliminary Final
SEIS and subsequent Final SEIS constitute the required environmental review for the City of Kent
Downtown Strategic Action Plan. The Final SEIS will serve to supplement the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan Final SEIS which was issued January 30, 1995. Any subsequent
environmental review will occur on a project-by-project basis. The draft and final SEIS seek to
adequately address the anticipated impacts of certain types of subsequent implementation actions
consistent with the Downtown Strategic Action Plan. In the future, the City may decide to adopt a
Planned Action ordinance which meets the requirements of RCW 43.21C.240.2.
Additional Environmental Information 6-3
114
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
If such an ordinance is adopted, the City, while reviewing a subsequent project action that is
consistent with the recommendations of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan, may determine that
the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the City's
development regulations and the Comprehensive Plan provide adequate analysis of and mitigation
for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the subsequent project. As a result, project-level
development proposals may have a reduced amount of environmental review, if any.
LOCATION OF SEIS BACKGROUND DATA
City of Kent
Planning Services Office
400 West Gowe Street
(Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.)
Kent, WA 98032-5895
(253) 856-5454
COST OF A COPY OF THE PRELINIINARY FINAL SEIS
This document is available for a fifteen dollar fee to interested citizens and groups. Copies may be
obtained in person at the above address, or by mail. One copy will be provided to each individual or
group upon request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION PROCESS
During November and December of 1996, the consulting team formulated three alternatives. The
alternatives were based on the issues identified in public meetings, the environmental and technical
analysis, and the redevelopment options outlined in the market report. All three alternatives were
consistent with, and refinements of, the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Community members
evaluated and commented on the alternatives at public meetings in January. The City published a
Draft Supplementary EIS (DSEIS) in February of 1997 evaluating the environmental impacts of the
alternatives. Additional public meetings were conducted in February and March to review the
DSEIS and to discuss the components of a preferred alternative with citizens.
The three alternatives were:
Additional Environmental Information 6-4
115
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAahin Han
➢ Alternative 1
Alternative 1 described growth and development Downtown with limited guidance. It emphasized
current trends, such as capturing business from motorists, enhancing the historic core, and
encouraging commercial development on Central Avenue. It recommended maintaining existing
zoning, improving streetscapes, and improving access to all sections of Downtown. This alternative
proposed a commuter rail station at Smith Street with a Smith Street railroad underpass.
➢ Alternative 2
Alternative 2 focused on attracting regional trade based on further development of the compact
historic commercial/civic core of Downtown. It emphasized encouraging investors to assemble
land, identifying redevelopable sites, and increasing park and street improvements. This alternative
described a master plan process to develop the existing industrial property between Smith and
James Streets east of S. Fourth Avenue. It also described commercial redevelopment of the north
side of James Street. It proposed locating the proposed commuter rail station between Gowe and
Meeker Streets and closing Gowe Street to vehicle traffic at the railroad grade. This alternative
included railroad underpasses at James and Willis Streets.
➢ Alternative 3
Alternative 3 focused on attracting regional trade based on a business/hotel/performing arts complex
located in the north area of Downtown. It proposed relocation of the industrial use located on the
Borden site. The relocation would be followed by a dramatic redevelopment of the property as an
active link between the historic commercial core and the King County Regional Justice Center.
This alternative suggested expansion of Second Avenue as a visual and pedestrian link to the
historic commercial core. It placed the rail station between Smith and James Streets. James and
Willis Streets railroad underpasses were also part of this alternative.
The Downtown Strategic Action Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement contains
complete descriptions, maps, and analysis of all three alternatives.
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND THE RECOMMENDATION
PROCESS
The preferred alternative is presented as the Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan in Part I of this
document The actions recommended in the Downtown Strategic Action Plan are generally based on
the concepts expressed in Alternative 2.
Additional Environmental Information 6-5
116
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
During the Land Use and Planning Board and City Council review of the preliminary FSEIS, which
contained a recommendation for the Alternative 3 (north), rather than the Alternative 2 (south) rail
station location, more citizens testified in favor of the Alternative 2 commuter rail station location
(south site)than in favor of the Alternative 3 location (north site). Business owners from both the
north and south sites did not approve of relocation proposals. Retail business owners located east of
the railroad right-of-way believed that rail station activity would generate additional business, others
viewed businesses east of Railroad Avenue and south of Gowe Street as urban blight, to be replaced
by a parking garage. Relative costs and vehicle and pedestrian circulation were debated. The City
Council voted to recommend Alternative 2 (the south site) and passed a resolution to approve the
plan with the Alternative 2 (south) station site in a location south of Gowe Street.
The recommendations made by The Land Use and Planning Board, the City Council Planning
Committee, the City Council Committee of the Whole, and the final City Council approval action
items have been incorporated in the plan. The recommendations and actions include:
Land Use and Planning Board Recommendations (1998):
1. Additional study of the north and south depot locations;
2. Do not revise the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation of the north edge of the
North Park neighborhood east of James Street from single family residential to limited
office/mixed use multifamily residential overlay;
3. Eliminate the Commons Park parking as shown on the Plan maps and recommend angled
parking with a wider and improved Fifth Avenue. Locate the angled parking on the west
side of Fifth Avenue next to the Park;
4. Study the parking for the park on Meeker near Union Pacific railroad;
5. Develop realistic costs in relation to the Plan;
6. Consider an additional Gateway location at Central and SR-167;
7. Add a safe place for a drop-off/pick-up location at Commons Playfields. This should be
located on Fifth Avenue within the angled parking;
8. Study traffic patterns in the North Park area to consider safety and access.
These recommendations were carried out and/or incorporated in the plan, and referred to the City
Council for final action. The Commons Park recommendations were incorporated in an action to
provide a master plan for the park.
Additional Environmental Information 6-6
117
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
City Council final Action(1998):
1. Change the plan sections that refer to the Performing Arts/Civic Center located in a specific
location to a general location Downtown:
2. Include additional support for bicycle lanes and paths;
3. Include additional support for historic preservation and commemoration;
4. Ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety on the recommended trail linking Mill Creek Park with
Kent Memorial Park;
5. Extend the Office/mixed use multifamily residential overlay that is recommended between
Fourth and Fifth Avenues north of James Street and south of Cloudy Street north beyond
Cloudy Street to the edge of the existing multi-family zone;
6. Refer only to a south commuter rail station location in the final plan document
The above recommendations were incorporated with the plan as adopted in 1998.
INCORPORATION OF THE UPDATE PROCESS & RECOMMENDATIONS
As the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) is updated, as in 2004, additional
recommendations may be considered, and some recommendations previously adopted may be
deemed completed or may be removed. Text may be revised to reflect changing conditions, and
amendments to the goals, policies and recommended actions of the DSAP, and any consequent map
designation changes may be proposed as part of the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment
process (KCC Chapter 12.02).
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The environmental impacts of adopting and implementing the Kent Downtown Strategic Action
Plan were identified and analyzed in the DSEIS and the Preliminary FSEIS. Since May 19, 1997,
when the Preliminary FSEIS was issued, the City has received additional traffic and commuter rail
station environmental information that is summarized below.
In December, 1997,the Regional Transit Authority(Sound Transit) issued a Kent Downtown related
document, the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Draft Environmental Analysis and the Technical
Additional Environmental Information 6-7
118
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAahin Man
Report in Support of Environmental Assessment. The environmental assessment includes proposed
mitigation for traffic impacts during peak park-and-ride trips, including turn lanes in several
locations, and signalization on Railroad Avenue. It includes assessments of potential impacts to
socioeconomic factors, transportation, noise and vibration, hazardous materials, biological
resources/ecology, historical, park, and recreation resources, archaeological and cultural resources,
visual quality, safety and security, air quality, water quality, hydrology, and earth.
Both documents, incorporated with this EIS by reference, are available for public review in the City
of Kent Planning Department.
A later assessment of 2010 PM Peak Transit Station Traffic Impacts, dated January 20, 1998, by HT
Associates, a transportation consulting firm, is also incorporated by reference. It is available for
public review in the City of Kent Planning Department. The findings stated:
"The impacts of traffic at either location are rather subtle...There would be a slight, but perceptible,
degradation of intersection LOS in the CBD by station traffic at either location. However, the even
more subtle differences in impact between the two locations probably cannot be regarded as
significant, in light of the travel models inherent limits of precision. This is not to say that there
would be no difference —rather,that it is below the model's significance threshold.
hi September 2000, the Commuter Rail Station Area Study (CRSAS) was published with the
intention of supplementing the Comprehensive Plan and DSAP, providing a framework for
economic policies, redevelopment opportunities, land uses and streetscape improvements in the
vicinity of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA)-selected Kent Transit Center (formerly known as
Sounder Commuter Rail & Bus Station) site, located along the Burlington Northern Same Fe
Railroad tracks between Smith and James Streets. A traffic study was completed as part of the
CRSAS. The CRSAS is incorporated by reference into this EIS.
hi July 2002, the City Council adopted the Kent Station Planned Action Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (Kent Station SEIS), which established a range of environmental
impact thresholds for the redevelopment of the site formerly occupied by the Borden Chemical
Company, and the City municipal parking lots located between Smith and Harrison Streets. A
number of impact studies were completed during the SEIS process. The Kent Station SEIS is
incorporated by reference into this EIS.
hi October 2003, the City Council adopted the Economic Development Strategic Plan, which
includes implementation actions for Downtown Kent. This document is incorporated by reference
into this EIS.
Additional Environmental Information 6-8
119
CITY OF IKENT 2005 DowntowikrategicAction Han
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The DSEIS contains environmental analysis of the environmental impacts three proposed
alternatives and recommended impact mitigation measures. The actions proposed in the preferred
alternative, together with an analysis of preliminary project related environmental impacts and
recommended mitigation measures were discussed in the Preliminary FSEIS. The project related
analysis and recommended mitigation measures were discussed in the Preliminary FSEIS should be
considered advisory— used as a guide as projects are initiated. If the City adopts a Planned Action
ordinance in the future, some of the recommended actions are potentially eligible for a reduced
amount of environmental review, if any. Those actions, impacts and mitigation measures are listed
below.
Proposed planned actions are discussed below:
LAND USE
Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District Map designations for the
SF-8 area between First Avenue N. and Fifth Avenue N. along James Street north
to Cloudy Street, and five (5) parcels north of Cloudy Street between Fourth and
Fifth Avenues N.; and to extend the Downtown Design Review Area to include all
of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan Districts.
Discussion:
Revise the Comprehensive Plan map and adopt a new zoning designation for the area between First
Avenue N. and Fifth Avenue N., north of James Street to Cloudy Street. For the area extending
three hundred feet (300') north from James Street between First and Fifth Avenues, revise the
existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation, SF-8 (Single Family residential, 8 dwelling units
maximum per acre) to Urban Center (UC). The zoning district designation shall be changed to
Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE), consistent with the adjacent zoning along the south side
of James. Apply Downtown Design Guidelines to ensure high-quality, substantial development.
For the area between First and Fifth Avenues, and between Cloudy Street and the proposed DCE
zone north of James Street, change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation from SF-8 to Low
Density Multi-family Residential (LDMF)to provide a buffer between the residential neighborhood
north of Cloudy and the mixed-use development along James Street. Between Fourth and Fifth
Avenues, extend low-density multi-family residential designations north of Cloudy Street to include
Additional Environmental Information 6-9
120
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
the five (5) SF-8/SR-8 designated parcels immediately south of the existing adjacent LDMF/MR-G
district along the west side of Fourth Avenue. Change the zoning district designation to either
Multi-Family Residential, Townhouse 16 units per acre (MR-T16), or Multi-Family Residential
Garden Density (MR-G), which also allows 16 units per acre —the only difference is whether units
are owner-occupied or rented. Notably, condominium insurance problems still exist statewide, and
the City of Kent Downtown Multi-Family Residential Development Tax Exemption applies at this
time only to owner-occupied units. Developers therefore have at least two reasons not to develop
condominium units in Kent.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
• The proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning District Map revisions if adopted
will result in the eventual conversion of single family housing units within the area of change —
to a mix of multi-family residential and commercial uses.
• The proposed bulk and scale of mixed-use development as well as the placement of buildings on
the site may create impacts to homes in the existing MR-Q low density multifamily residential
district, although MR-G or MR-1`16 zoning is proposed for extension south of Cloudy from the
original 1998 proposal.
• Replacement of single family homes with a mix of uses will eliminate the private open space
created by the typical single family yard. However, because of the potential increase in
population in the area, the need for open space may increase. Multi-family residential
development would restore some of the open space in more concentrated areas.
• During the weekday peak hours, office uses will create additional traffic and turning movements
onto Fourth Avenue N.
• The increased intensity of mixed-use development allowed for an estimated 8.4 acres under
Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE)Zoning will result in approximately four hundred-ten
(410) additional peak hour trips above the number of trips anticipated for Single-Family
Residential, Eight Units per Acre (SR-8)Zoning.
• The increased intensity of development allowed under low density multi-family residential
zoning for an estimated 10.6 acres (either MR-G or MR-1`16—each with a maximum of sixteen
(16)units per acre)will result in approximately eighty-one (81) additional PM peak hour trips to
and from the Kent Valley.
• Mixed-use development will increase the area surfaced with impervious surfaces.
Additional Environmental Information 6-10
121
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
• An increased number of occupants will work and live in the proposed rezone area. Due to the
proximity of jobs, services, shopping, and recreation, pedestrian activity will increase.
• The soil in the proposed rezone area may not support multi-story buildings on conventional
foundations.
Mitigation Measures:
• Ensure that the new zoning designation permits adequate housing to replace the existing housing
units as development occurs. DCE zoning encourages inclusion of residential units, and MR-
T16 or MR-G both provide for appropriate development of housing close to the Downtown
Core.
• Incorporate the North Frame District into the Downtown Design Review Area, and recognize
the specific context north of the proposed rezone area,to ensure high quality, substantial mixed-
use and multi-family residential development compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
• To make better use of existing open space, improve Commons Playfields, located directly west
of the recommended rezone area, by instituting a master plan based on neighborhood
involvement and participation.
• Prior to issuance of development permits, the owner and/or developer shall construct street and
vehicle access improvements consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards
or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
• The developer shall provide atraffic impact study(see page 6-24).
• The developer shall construct stomiwater facilities consistent with City of Kent Construction
Standards and source control best management practices, or as modified and approved by the
Public Works Director.
• Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in Chapter 5 of this plan.
• If required by the building official, prior to or in conjunction with a building permit application,
submit a soils report stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The soils report must identify
soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation recommendations.
Additional Environmental Information 6-11
122
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
Responsibilities:
• The City of Kent Planning Services Office is responsible for amending the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning District designation maps, pursuant to the legislative review process before the Land
Use and Planning Board, which then forwards a recommendation through the Mayor to the City
Council for final action. The City also is responsible for developing new design guidelines and
the Parks Master Plan.
• The property owners and/or the developer proponents are responsible for on and off-site
analysis, corridor mitigation, public facilities and other improvements.
Rezone the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) area located between Smith
and Gowe Streets at one parcel depth on either side of Central Avenue, to General
Commercial, Mixed-Use Overlay (GC-MU).
Discussion:
Revise the Zoning Districts map designation for the area between Smith and Gowe Streets at one
parcel depth on either side of Central Avenue, to General Commercial, Mixed-Use Overlay (GC-
MU). Continue to apply Downtown Design Guidelines to ensure high-quality, substantial
development that respects and improves pedestrian connectivity to Core Downtown districts.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
• hi the short-term, Central Avenue may continue to provide a visual, noise, and physical health
(concentrated pollution) barrier for pedestrians seeking access to and from the Core Downtown
districts.
• Ingress and egress from small parcels with auto-oriented commercial uses onto Central Avenue
will continue to be problematic,for pedestrians and other vehicles.
Mitigation Measures:
• Ensure that permit applications for GC and GC-MU zoned properties within Downtown are
subject to Downtown Design Review.
• Ensure that pedestrian amenities are included as part of Central Avenue street improvements.
Additional Environmental Information 6-12
123
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 DowntowikrategicAction Han
Responsibility:
• The Planning Services Office is responsible for area-wide rezone proposals that are presented to
the Land Use and Planning Board as part of the legislative review process. The Land Use and
Planning Board then forwards a recommendation through the Mayor to the City Council for
final action.
Develop Master planning requirements to apply to any redevelopment proposal
for the Kent Station Site
Discussion:
Because of its central location and large area, the former Borden industrial property (Kent Station)
presents a great future opportunity for mixed-use (office, retail and residential) development. The
City of Kent purchased the property in 2001, adopted a Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement(Kent Station SEIS) detailing a range of development uses and intensities and anticipated
probable, adverse, significant impacts. The City is currently reviewing site development permit
applications under a Master Planned Development Agreement. The MPDA is consistent with the
recommendations of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan.
Environmental Impacts:
• No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action. The master plan
requirements should result in an improved development proposal consistent with the City's
adopted plans.
Mitigation Measures:
• None are required.
Responsibility:
• The Kent Planning Services Office would be responsible for developing the master plan
requirements and submitting it to City Council for action.
Promote infill housing— encourage the development of at least two hundred (200)
units of new market rate housing in Downtown by 2008.
Discussion:
Additional Environmental Information 6-13
124
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
In order to meet the Comprehensive Plan's intent to enhance Downtown as a place to live, the City
should promote the construction of new urban-style infill housing. Housing types should include
condominium townhouses, stacked and attached units that resemble single-family design and
character, and residential mixed with commercial and office uses. Consider using incentives such as
reducing or waiving development permit fees for residential construction in Downtown, and
extending the existing Downtown multi-family residential tax exemption program to include market
rate rental housing. Developers of condominiums are challenged by two factors in Downtown —
condominium owners are still having difficulty acquiring home insurance and the developers do not
receive the tax exemption for developing condos in Downtown. Consider also allowing
development of buildings with five (5) stories of wood frame construction above a concrete base.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
• Development of additional residential units will increase the need for open space.
• The bulk and scale of residential development as well as the placement of buildings on the site,
may create impacts for adjacent homes and/or businesses.
• During the weekday peak hours, residential uses will create additional traffic and turning
movements onto adjacent streets.
• The increased residential density will create additional peak hour trips to and from the Kent
Valley.
• Residential development will increase the area surfaced with impervious surfaces.
• An increased number of occupants will live in Downtown. Due to the proximity of jobs,
services, shopping, and recreation, pedestrian activity will increase.
• The soil in the specific site may not support multi-story buildings on conventional foundations.
• Recent development of high-density multifamily residential uses appears to have created a
demand for parking beyond what is required by code.
Mitigation Measures:
• As residential units increase downtown, assess the amount of available park and recreation
facilities in relation to the number of households.
• Adopt design guidelines, specific to the individual districts, to ensure high-quality, substantial
residential development.
• Construct street and vehicle access improvements consistent with the adopted City of Kent
Construction Standards or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
• The developer shall provide atraffic impact study(see page 6-24).
• Construct storm water facilities consistent with the City of Kent Construction Standards and
source control best management practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works
Director.
Additional Environmental Information 6-14
125
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowiStrategicAction Plan
• Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in Chapter 5 of this plan.
• If required by the building official, prior to or in conjunction with a building permit application,
submit a soils report stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The soils report must identify
soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation recommendations.
• The City should conduct a study of the relationship of on-site and off-site parking and
residential density to determine whether existing parking requirements are adequate to provide
sufficient on-site parking.
Responsibilities:
• The City is responsible for design guidelines, park master planning and zoning code analysis.
• The property owner and/or developer is responsible for required on- and off-site analysis, public
facilities, and other improvements.
Promote the construction of high quality new commercial, office, or mixed use
development and redevelopment. Also encourage the development of a
hotel/conference center to serve as an attractor for commercial activity.
Discussion:
To respond to the potential for additional Downtown office and commercial development identified
in the market analysis the City should encourage the construction of commercial, office, and mixed-
use developments within Downtown, provide a variety of living situations within districts that
require ground floor retail uses, as well as hotel and conference space for business-industry
meetings.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
• Development of mixed-use development that includes residential units will increase the need for
open space.
• The proposed bulk and scale of commercial, office or mixed-use, development as well as the
placement of buildings on the site,may create impacts to adjacent homes and/or businesses.
• During the weekday peak hours, commercial, office or mixed-use uses will create additional
traffic and turning movements onto adjacent streets.
• The increased commercial, office or mixed-use density will create additional peak hour trips to
and from the Kent Valley.
• Commercial, office or mixed-use development will increase the area surfaced with impervious
surfaces.
Additional Environmental Information 6-15
126
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
• An increased number of occupants will work and live in Downtown. Due to the proximity of
jobs, services, shopping, and recreation, pedestrian activity will increase.
• The soil in the specific site may not support multi-story buildings on conventional foundations.
Mitigation Measures:
• As the number of residential units within mixed-use development increases in Downtown,
assess the amount of available park and recreation facilities in relation to the number of
households.
• Adopt design guidelines, specific to the proposed area, to ensure high-quality, substantial office,
commercial, and mixed-use residential development. The guidelines should require
development that is compatible with adjacent uses and that maintains the pedestrian quality of
Downtown.
• Prior to issuance of development permits, the owner and/or developer shall construct street and
vehicle access improvements consistent with the adopted City of Kent Construction Standards
or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
• The developer shall provide atraffic impact study(see page 6-24).
• The developer shall construct storm water facilities consistent with City of Kent Construction
Standards and source control best management practices, or as revised and approved by the
Public Works Director.
• Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in Chapter 5 of this plan.
• If required by the building official, prior to or in conjunction with a building permit application,
the developer shall submit a soils report stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The soils
report must identify soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation
recommendations.
Responsibilities:
• The City is responsible for park master planning and design guidelines.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Masterplan the Commons Playfields.
Discussion:
Masterplan and improve the Commons Playfields. The Commons Playfields are an important
resource for Downtown Kent in many ways. A master plan should explore a variety of solutions to
Additional Environmental Information 6-16
127
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
parking, access, restrooms, seating, drainage, and traffic problems, as well as the potential for more
efficient use.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
• Currently the Commons Playfields typically hosts six softball games or nine soccer games at
one time. It hosts assorted other activities when soccer is not under way. Master planning the
park to add physical support facilities, such as restrooms and bleachers may result in less space
available for active and passive recreation.
• The increase in facilities may result in an increased need for on-site or off-site parking. The
addition of parking on site would reduce the open space usable for recreation, but would create
safer access to the park
• Automobiles entering and exiting a Commons Playfields parking area entrance would create
increased traffic congestion.
• The increased park usage may create additional peak hour trips to and from the Kent Valley.
• The development of a parking lot, restroom, bleachers, or paved paths would result in increased
impervious surface.
• Increased park usage and traffic circulation may result in adverse impacts to pedestrian safety.
• The soil in the specific site may not support buildings on conventional foundations.
• The use of the park at night and required lighting would create adverse light impacts to adjacent
areas if not installed and managed carefully.
Mitigation Measures:
• If needed, develop additional play fields in other areas in the City.
• Review available parking for Commons Playfields use. Consider restricting the number of
parking spaces provided on site to drop off, loading, and handicapped spaces.
• Construct street and vehicle access improvements consistent with the adopted City of Kent
Construction Standards or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
• The developer shall provide storm water facilities consistent with the City of Kent Construction
Standards and source control best management practices, or as revised and approved by the
Public Works Director.
• Investigate ways to construct safe pedestrian crossings between the Commons Playfields and the
RJC parking lot.
• If a building is constructed, prior to or in conjunction with application, submit a soils report
stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The soils report must identify soil classification,
bearing qualities and include foundation recommendations.
• Shield lights so that off-site impacts are minimized. Schedule events in order to minimize night
time use and restrict night time hours.
Additional Environmental Information 6-17
128
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
Responsibility:
• The City shall masterplan the park and mitigate redevelopment, if any.
Site a Town Square Park in the area between Smith Street and Meeker Street to
provide a Downtown open space for large public gatherings.
Discussion:
A Town Square is a traditional community gathering place. It should be large enough to hold
community celebrations, performances, and ceremonies. It should be located near civic and historic
places shared by the community.
Environmental Impacts:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action. The Town Square will
provide a safe, well-organized space for public gatherings.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibilities:
• The City shall be responsible for identifying appropriate sites, working with land owners, master
planning and developing the facility.
Masterplan Burlington Green, Kaibara, Rosebed and other parks along the
railroad to enhance open space and park facilities and strengthen connections
between the Kent Transit Center and the core.
Discussion:
Enhance parks along the railroad to provide linkages between the station and the core. A canopy
along the east side of the Burlington Northern/Yanghzou Parks would provide a pedestrian
protection, and visually tie the Sister Cities Parks together. The expansion of the General
Commercial (GC) Zoning District on Central Avenue parallel to these parks may have long-term
impact on the attractiveness of using these parks.
Additional Environmental Information 6-18
129
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
Environmental Impacts:
No adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from this action. The plan should result in
improved pedestrian connections.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
• The City shall be responsible for master planning and developing the facility improvements.
• The City or, in some instances, a property owner and/or developer may be responsible for
construction of the improvements.
• Owners and/or developers whose buildings occupied portions of Downtown gateways would be
responsible for incorporating building designs compatible with the gateway.
Support development of a Civic and Performing Arts Center or a hotel and
conference center.
Discussion:
Support a civic and performing arts center or a hotel with facilities for conferences and other events,
would be an important attraction to Downtown, extending hours of activity into the night. It would
provide a much-needed location for meetings, events, parties, catering facilities, and educational
programs.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
• A Civic/Performing Arts Center, or hotel and conference center may be able to use space
presently providing parking—at least in the interim.
• Before and after the performance hours, patrons will create additional traffic.
• A Civic and Performing Arts Center or hotel and conference center will create additional peak
trips to and from the Kent Valley.
• A Civic and Performance Arts Center, or a hotel and conference center could increase in area
surfaced with impervious surfaces.
• The patrons attending events at a Civic and Performing Arts Center and persons using the
additional retail and retail service shops will increase pedestrian activity in the surrounding area.
• The soil in the specific site may not support multi-story buildings on conventional foundations.
Additional Environmental Information 6-19
130
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
Mitigation Measures:
• Allow joint use of Civic and Performing Arts Center, or hotel and conference center parking for
public parking.
• Construct street and vehicle access improvements consistent with the adopted City of Kent
Construction Standards or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
• The developer shall provide atraffic impact study(see page 6-24)
• Construct stomiwater facilities consistent with the City of Kent Construction Standards and
source control best management practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works
Director.
• Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in Chapter 5. of this plan.
• If required by the building official, prior to or in conjunction with a building permit application,
submit a soils report stamped by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The soils report must identify
soil classification, bearing qualities and include foundation recommendations.
Responsibilities:
A Civic and Performing Arts Center, or hotel and conference center developer would be responsible
for conducting the necessary studies and implementing the required mitigation.
Support the Public Market.
Discussion:
The Kent Public Market has been a successful community attraction in its present location between
Smith and Harrison Streets. The City can take several actions to support this important activity,
including discussing with the Lions Club and other sponsors how to increase the viability of the
Public Market. Future relocation or restructuring of the Public Market may become necessary to
meet the mixed use development goals of the City for this area.
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
• Development of the market will create an additional demand for parking.
• The market may create additional peak hour trips to and from the Kent Valley.
• The patrons to the proposed market will increase pedestrian activity in the surrounding area.
Mitigation Measures:
• Construct street and vehicle access improvements consistent with the City of Kent Construction
Standards or as modified and approved by the Public Works Director.
Additional Environmental Information 6-20
131
CITY OF KENT 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
• Construct storm water facilities consistent with the City of Kent Construction Standards and
source control best management practices, or as revised and approved by the Public Works
Director.
• Construct pedestrian improvements as set forth in Chapter 5 of this plan.
Responsibilities:
• The property owner and/or developer is responsible for required on- and off-site analysis, public
facilities, and other improvements.
a. Construct pedestrian/bicycle trails from the Interurban Trail into Downtown near Saar,
Willis, Meeker, and James Streets.
b. Ensure that good pedestrian and bicycle routes are established when the Kent Station site
is developed.
C. Establish a pedestrian/bicycle route along Kennebeck Avenue and Mill Creek north of
Smith Street connecting Mill Creek Park with Kent Memorial Park, and to other
segments connecting to the Kent Transit Center.
URBAN DESIGN
Revise the Kent Zoning Code and the Downtown Design Review Handbook to
address more specific design guidelines for all of the districts identified in Chapter
5.
Discussion:
Design guidelines are development review criteria that address the design of the site and structures
of a proposed development. Guidelines provide flexible means to incorporate community goals and
policies conceming aesthetics, character and function into a development. Effective design
guidelines are the most important means that the City can use to achieve the high-quality,
pedestrian-friendly design character called for in the plan concept. They are also useful in
increasing compatibility between different activities in mixed-use zones. It is recommended that the
existing design guidelines be updated, with more specific guidelines for the different districts, to
achieve the objectives defined below.
Institute or refine design guidelines for the following areas. The guidelines should address the
characteristics and uses proposed for each of the following districts. Ensure that the guidelines
address multifamily and mixed use buildings where appropriate.
Additional Environmental Information 6-21
132
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Man
a. Historic Core: Address historic preservation, adaptive reuse, and small-scale infill to
provide a mixed-use area with pedestrian and commercial emphasis.
b. Central Avenue Corridor: Conduct a corridor study to serve as a basis for
improvement of the Central Avenue Corridor. Include Railroad Avenue as related to
the Kent Transit Center. Address design guidelines, buffers for adjacent residential
neighborhood, zoning code enforcement, zoning use issues, and streetscape
improvements.
C. Smith Street and Fourth Avenue Corridors (North Core, North Frame, Historic Core,
South Core): Attract high-quality development that adds to the streetscape and
provides an excellent setting for Borden redevelopment.
d. Area East and West of the Core (South Core, North Frame, West Frame): Encourage
small- to medium-scale mixed-use redevelopment west of Fourth Avenue and East
of State Street, emphasizing residential neighborhood qualities.
e. Area Between First and Fifth Avenues N. (North Frame): Buffer residential
neighborhoods with fencing and landscaping. Present an attractive streetscape
frontage. Prevent conversion of single-family houses to offices (require a minimum
lot size
f. East Frame: Revise DCE surface parking standards in this district, with any
conditional criteria, to increase the number of stalls per thousand square feet of
commercial gross floor area from three (3)to four-and-a half(4.5).
g. West Frame: Revise DCE surface parking standards in this district, with any
conditional criteria, to increase the number of stalls per thousand square feet of
commercial gross floor area from three (3)to four-and-a half(4.5).
h. The guidelines should illustrate and describe the following details for each district:
• Design intent.
• The guidelines should provide graphic examples of how such uses would achieve
the intent of each district.
• Residential and mixed use buildings where appropriate.
• The City's intent for target areas.
• How development should respond of public investment including streetscape, the
Kent Transit Center,parks, etc.
• Historic preservation where appropriate.
• Recommended additions or changes to the Pedestrian Plan Overlay.
• Deviations from the general design guidelines.
• Revisions for"problems"identified through prior administration of the core.
Additional Environmental Information 6-22
133
CITY OF KENT 2005 DowntowikrategicAction Man
Environmental Impact Evaluation:
No adverse environmental impacts are identified.
Mitigation Measures:
None are required.
Responsibility:
• The Planning Department is responsible for reviewing the Design Guidelines and presenting
revision proposals to the City Council for adoption.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
The overall transportation plans for Downtown as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan are to
concentrate growth in the Urban Center and other activity centers in the City to facilitate public
transportation and reduce dependency on the automobile. The City adopted as acceptable a Level of
Service (LOS) F for automobile traffic on streets and intersections within the Urban Center
boundaries which are generally consistent with the study area defined for the Downtown Strategic
Action Plan. The previously adopted LOS Standard used transportation analysis methods which
have since become obsolete. The City is currently in the process of revising the City of Kent
Concurrency Ordinance as needed to reflect current transportation analysis methods. The role of
Downtown Kent as a pedestrian-oriented destination for several transportation modes (including
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit)will be recognized in such analysis.
Traffic impacts created by the development recommended in this plan will also impact streets and
intersections around the study area Traffic mitigating elements of the plan, such as commuter rail
improved METRO transit circulation, improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, and housing
development close to jobs will serve to help mitigate the probable adverse environmental impacts in
and near Downtown.
Unless the adverse impacts of this growth in overall traffic can be mitigated, the City's level-of-
service (LOS) thresholds will be exceeded, and more severe congestion and delay will result.
Possible mitigation measures could include widening for the creation of turning lanes along 4th
Avenue South, Smith Street, James Street, and Central Avenue. It could also include improvements
to promote transit use (such as park-and-ride lots in the East Hill area, increased transit service and
incentive programs for Valley Floor employers).
Additional Environmental Information 6-23
134
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
The mitigation process is as follows: The developer either provides a detailed traffic impact study
(TIS) to identify both existing and future adverse traffic impacts upon the City of Kent street and
road network, including street capacity, traffic queues, and traffic signal levels-of-service (LOS),
and then constructs those mitigation measures listed in the approved TIS as a condition of
development, or; in lieu of conducting the above-described TIS, and subsequently constructing or
implementing the respective mitigation measures identified in that TIS, the developer may instead
agree to pay Environmental Mitigation Fees (EMF)toward the City's cost of constructing the City's
South 272nd Street/South 277th Street Corridor Project. The final benefit will be determined using
$1,068 (in 1986 U.S. Dollars and adjusted for inflation and rezones)for each new PM peak hour trip
generated by the development.
MONITORING SYSTEM
The monitoring system is intended to identify and monitor system capacities for elements of the
built environment, and to the extent appropriate, the natural environment. The system will monitor
the consequences of growth as it occurs within the Downtown area, and provides ongoing data to
update the plan and environmental analysis.
Some systems can be monitored by the City with readily available data. Impacts to other systems
require detailed analysis that is typically undertaken by development proponents.
The following chart lists the systems, the factors to be monitored and the responsibility for
providing information to update the monitoring program.
Additional Environmental Information 6-24
135
CITY OF IKENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Plan
Component Unit Baseline Response
Land Use
Building Permits Number of Permits
Housing Dwelling Units
Multifamily
Single Family
Retail Square Feet
Office Square Feet
Service Square Feet
Density Avg. FAR
Vacant/Underdeveloped Acres
Land
Transportation
Intersections (per Peak Hour LOS
intersection or avg.?)
Parking Total Spaces
Occupancy
Bus Ridership
Commuter Rail #of AM/PM Trains
Ridership
Public Facilities
Stormwater Impervious Surface
Detention Facility
Capacity
Sewer Gallons/day/customer
Water Gallons/day/customer
Parks Acres/1,000
• Active population
• Passive
The City should evaluate the above impacts every three years on a predetermined date. Based on
the evaluation, the City should update the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that planned actions and mitigating measures are
adequate to realistically address the impacts of growth and change. Incorporate public participation
into the evaluation and update process.
Additional Environmental Information 6-25
136
(TIN OF IKENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Ran
APPENDICES
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1997-1998
The City received twenty-one written comments from nineteen correspondents during the public
comment period for the Draft Supplemental Environmental impact statement in early 1997. The
City published the comments and responses in the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact
Statement. The following is a brief summary of the comments.
The proposal to revise the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property approximately three parcels
deep north of James Street between fourth Avenue and the Burlington Northern/ Same Fe railroad
right-of-way to allow limited office use with a mixed use overlay for office and multifamily housing
received a number of comments. The major concern was the loss of the single family homes
located within the proposal area, and the impacts the office/multifamily use would have upon the
North Park neighborhood generally. Owners of the property directly adjacent to James Street sent
letters in favor of the rezone proposal. The response to the neighborhood impact issue noted that the
mitigation was proposed in the form of cul-de-sac streets to block office traffic through the adjacent
neighborhood, and that expansion of the office area was not anticipated. On June 2, 1997,the Land
Use and Planning Board voted to recommend revise the plan to eliminate the proposal in response
to public comments.
A question regarding the boundaries of the proposed Comprehensive Plan revision and rezone of
property between Fourth and Fifth Avenues north of James Street received a response explaining the
proposed boundaries. After further analysis, the boundaries have since been moved north in
response to comments.
Comments were received regarding a Smith Street Underpass of State Highway 167. The option
was taken under consideration. The cost of such a measure was questioned in another comment
letter. The proposal was not included in the proposed plan after analysis.
The performing Performing Arts/Civic Center was discussed. One writer inquired about the
possible donation of a portion of the municipal parking lot for this use. The response was that the
details of the proposed project were beyond the scope of this study and that City Departments could
provide details as the project develops beyond the conceptual stage.
Additional Environmental Information 6-26
137
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
Several urban design suggestions were noted. One suggestion was to extend the Downtown
gateway project beyond the plan boundaries. Another was to provide for space at the comers of
blocks for people to gather. Another was to make sure that awnings are provided on new and
refurbished buildings. A trellis structure similar to the trellis on First Avenue was suggested for
Fourth Avenue. Several comments concerned additional pedestrian improvements throughout the
Downtown core. The comments were noted and awnings, open comers, and pedestrian
improvements are elements of the plan. The gateway project does not include locations outside the
core, but the City will consider the suggested locations as separate projects.
Preservation of historic Downtown properties was a concern. The plan recommends to resume the
historic properties analysis and preservation process conducted in the early 1990's and institute
regulations and incentives for restoration and preservation.
Several comments were received regarding traffic congestion, and the writer was referred to traffic
analysis contained in the Preliminary Final SEIS. Additional traffic analysis has since been
provided by the Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) Environmental Analysis of the
Commuter Rail Station (Kent Transit Center), and the analysis of commuter rail traffic included in
this document.
Several comments expressed approval of Plan alternative 2, and the south commuter rail station
location.
The response was that the analysis of locations favored the north site because access and circulation
was more problematic for the south site. Since that time, after numerous comments were received
at public hearings, the south site was incorporated in the plan. Other commuter rail concerns
included noise and vibration impacts, parking, circulation. The response noted that beyond the
information offered in the Preliminary Final EIS, the RTA will be required to perform these
evaluations for station improvements.
One correspondent requested public restrooms. Restrooms and telephones are not included in the
plan.
A request for additional detail regarding the proposed James Street Underpass at the Burlington
Northem/Sante Fe railroad was noted. A conceptual diagram of the underpass was provided in the
Preliminary FSEIS, a preliminary cost estimate has been provided. The response stated that the
Washington State Department of Transportation and/or the City will perform detailed evaluations
before underpass construction.
Additional Environmental Information 6-27
138
(TIN OF KENT' 2005 DowntowikrategicAction Man
Several comments were received regarding costs of proposed projects. The response noted that
costs estimates at the level of detail requested were not available at that time. Preliminary cost
estimates for major proposals in the plan are included in this document.
Questions and comments regarding the SEPA process, notice procedures, public participation,
capital facilities information, and sources of information were answered.
Written Comments were received from the following participants:
Pamela Newcomer February 5, 1997
Perry Woodford February 5, 1997
Joseph Kolodziejczak February 5, 1997
Val Batey, Regional Transit Authority February 7, 1997
Paul Hammerschmidt February 28, 1997
Washington State Department of Community
Trade & Economic Development
Office of Archaeology& Historic Preservation February 26, 1997
Tom V. Harmer February 26, 1997
Mr. Gregory Griffith February 27, 1997
Carol McPherson, Kent Arts Commission February 27, 1997
Gary Kriedt, King County Metro Transit Division March 4, 1997
Doug Johnson, King County Metro Transit Division March 4, 1997
Howard H. Montoure March 6, 1997
Robert Whalen March 5, 1997
Dee Moschel March 6, 1997
Pat Curran, Kent Downtown Partnership March 4, 1997
Don B. Shaffer March 4, 1997
March 31, 1997
Ms. Carol Schwindt March 5, 1997
Mr. Melvin L. Kleweno, Jr. March 12, 1997
Robert A. Stevens March 5, 1997
Additional Environmental Information 6-28
139
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAction Han
GLOSSARY
Commuter Rail Station (Kent Transit Center): The facilities for boarding and alighting
passengers on the commuter rail line, which operates along existing Burlington Northern-Sante Fe
railroad tracks between Smith and James Streets. Also referred to as "Kent Transit Center" to
reflect the shift of service routes anticipated when King County METRO sells the Lincoln Park &
Ride Lot for redevelopment..
Developer: An individual or business entity which buys real estate and prepares it for resale at a
profit. Preparation generally includes assembling or subdividing parcels, obtaining permits and
clearances, constructing utilities and streets and, in some cases, constructing buildings.
Economic Market Study: A study of the market demand for services, goods or housing within a
particular area, and the extent to which that market demand is already being satisfied. For example,
a major developer might want to know if the current market demand for multiple family housing is
great enough to justify a project; or if a proposed new shopping center would generate enough sales
for tenants.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document which analyzes the significant
environmental impacts of a particular action or proposal, possible alternatives to that action and
mitigation measures for those impacts analyzed.
ESHB 1724: A Washington State law that requires local jurisdictions to consolidate their local
permit review and hearing processes and better integrate environmental regulations with the Growth
Management Act. This 1996 law also mandates faster decision making by requiring local
jurisdictions to implement a 120-day permit processing period for all land use and building permits.
Facilities: Capital improvements. Often, but not always, the term implies capital improvements
which are ancillary to or supportive of the main purposes of an overall project. For example, "The
recreational facilities for this action includes a playground, tennis court, swimming pool and
community center."
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): A measure of development density expressed as the amount of building
floor area divided by the total development site area or parcel.
Grade Separated: Rights-of-way that are separated from general purpose rights-of-way by a level
change, often on an elevated structure or in an underpass.
Additional Environmental Information 6-29
140
CITY OF KENT' 2005 Downtowi&rategicAahin Plan
Growth Management Act (GMA): A 1990 Washington State law that mandates managing
population and employment growth through comprehensive plans, regionally coordinated plan
implementation and creation of urban growth areas.
Impacts: The effects or consequences of actions. Environmental impacts are effects upon the
elements of the environment listed by SEPA.
Joint Development: Projects financed and developed jointly be public agencies and private
developers.
Local Improvement District (LID): A special district in which a tax is assessed to pay for a
specific public improvement, such as a new road.
Mitigation: Actions which avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, compensate or correct
otherwise probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
Mixed Uses: Any combination of activities which mix residential, offices, shops and other related
uses. Mixed uses exist in concentrated centers and increase activity and density. Mixed uses can be
single activities in their own buildings but clustered within walking distance; or buildings
containing two or more activities, as in office space located above retail shops.
Pedestrian-friendly: Designed to accommodate pedestrians'(and sometimes cyclists')priorities of
safety, minimized walking distance, comfort and pleasant surroundings.
Planned Action: One or more types of project action(s)that: 1) are designated planned actions by
an ordinance or resolution adopted by a city; 2) have had the significant environmental impacts
adequately addressed in an EIS prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan;
3) are subsequent or implementing projects for a comprehensive or subarea plan; 4) are not essential
public facilities; or 5) are consistent with a comprehensive plan.
Programmatic EIS: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a "program," consisting of a
policy plan for many inter-related projects. Under Washington's State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), an EIS must be prepared for significant public programs or policy documents, as well as for
individual development projects.
Additional Environmental Information 6-30
141
CITY OF KENT' 2005 DowntowikrategicAction Plan
Sound Transit (formerly `Regional Transit Authority (RTA)"): In the Puget Sound region, the
agency responsible for planning, building and operating the regional transit system. The system
includes, regional bus service, high occupancy vehicles (HOV) lanes and access, light rail transit
and commuter rail.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): Chapter 43.21C of the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) — the general policies and regulations intended to help lead agencies and citizens make
better environmental decisions.
Station Area: An area with an approximately '/4 mile radius around the Kent Transit Center
containing transit-related activities and designed to accommodate large numbers of people.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS): Preparation of a SEIS is appropriate
when a proposal is substantially similar to one covered in an existing EIS. New information
indicating a proposal's probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts may be provided in an
SEIS. The SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives or impacts that is in the
previously prepared EIS.
Additional Environmental Information 6-31
142
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT C 143
I inlvwin Stibaii-eatlbin II'bIIIIai 01 m IIII 'te
IIIItIIIIulr�ulr�liiiulr� IIII'tuumliiiulr� lii11114bIIII
1. Ill lmrainini orallbllie IIC owinitowini II Exll4'mmmiiriiieric,mra
The plan will help to make downtown Kent an extraordinary place whether one
lives in downtown or comes to shop or visit. It is attractive and safe, with year-
round activities that contribute to its interest. It is the heart of Kent.
2. IIF'4 mmini oninuiiic tdliitalllliity
The plan's proposed actions will contribute to the economic vitality of the
downtown. Downtown should provide a mix of service and retail businesses that
are important to the local community, including those who reside in downtown.
The success of business in downtown is key to the area's future growth.
3. tturllbaini III livallbliilllliity
The plan will recognize that downtown is a desirable place to live. A variety of
housing choices are available, including stylish apartments and condominiums.
With well-designed open spaces, convenient services, and entertainment
opportunities close-by, downtown truly becomes its own neighborhood.
4. 114mmradestiriiiaini 114muriiiorliity
The plan will strive to create a downtown where the built environment suggests a
"pedestrian first" message. It will be easy, comfortable, and safe for those who
walk or ride a bike, and there will be strong connections to surrounding
neighborhoods.
5. Iltlunjoyallbllie Ouitdooir Slli�wacm
The plan will encourage a system of public as well as private outdoor spaces that
enhances the downtown experience for people. Larger open spaces and small
pocket parks combined with urban plazas, passageways, sidewalk cafes, and other
outdoor opportunities add another dimension to urban living.
6. IIHtemm'tllhullboirllhood Coiininulli�patiliillbliilllliity
The plan seeks to connect surrounding neighborhoods with the activities and
opportunities of downtown. The transition in urban development from downtown
to its surrounding neighborhoods should be gentle and gracious.
7. IltlunummiiiuronirinxunutaIII Suinstaiiinuallbliilllliity
The plan should seek to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Best practices
for sustainable building and land management should be part of the plan.
S. C oninuuninuliitininueirlIt to IlCuninulli�plllxuninu eirltatliixunu
The downtown planning effort should include an implementation strategy that
leads to the fulfillment of the vision.
144
This page intentionally left blank.
a
W Q�
z
W 3
U
F
N
w Z w F K
F Vl K W
Q U
W
Z i
> z
0
a W 4
U o a ��t �Oion no
Etl�° 0 gum ✓�I
L �ii m ,gin III m c- IllnI�II
w
O n
a
in
J III 1 �I
S.Iu momdrf�� II t' F�nII`4`p ,�, _
NNqqdutly n raI N((k'41� I•r I C7d,„, �f��@EN Iti lui�m r r.I ✓1
IiIIImd IoIlI u. 1s 7
^n'�l�V°l'l�I sr"' w" A�A��lItI 1Iv�Il,i1_nr�J cla�I1II�1t1����lIlI'IM1I�I'�r1fW�11I17'�ItI°��IIwIPF�II`.:I�I %�1��U/ � cr4✓�U @x cpIfI�t{o�Pl II\,YI I�i 1�
f4- 1I II°I1oa1�1 J� fI»t+I�
�mol 3 i Jlo111
nil win TlIm
e" � 1
r- 1 n I II,IF�.,IPwl�r1l a°�l-i l�r on in
�I
a€,t
F;
r Ir„ In r f —f� l ��
VVII F� pG4 7'115\
A I � e � I � �� � IaoI �JNi II�' a��lylL �l f" w
IL�
I I lo v
i_' IIIII s.l`i1 �I_I a Y, on IN !
I 1 ITM'I o _ 1 I Im i I I°1"
I mouwmr J o �tps
ml� u�Antlua�muu Im mu W F F � � f III it II II
ww I�u@'4IIa�Nlllt II`1 111 JII�' %,� IA 1 i � r u�l `In @11A1�" pN%
IINIvIII
Sill
Npll
NAH9 �� � v ''"1������� tljl...1/ / ✓ �� F F I / It jjjj � ���� � �_
������������ uuuuuuuwwVwww �, Iff� ✓ �,!// � F` lid if"� �d��� imo
as do Po\\HIU Aln I����ja� I,'�F�✓��/;% �� lY �l � Ilmml
�ImvvV1111Y � �����gllp1 // � rr/// ( ✓ ,� suroz�� �r�����i� �. all/l��/� ���'f/�/t�����1/�:�r(✓��� ImgmRINu9ajll6n�d11"�mll 1���R\��_
0 >k
r IVu
1� f OWN,,
d
11I �� I f °_Ines,llllllllll �� / a� Fno
1 / lion
�I�I�IIIIII�I�
0 rS an i14: III og
ry
11°III PIIN � ; ft;wWon m.nion
'�0 V, ',wl n0
✓/%�00
� GC of �
l H III$ 6w $III $ .,
'twIII ^V II n IT,a " w o
INvNII IQjIU�r Ilui y�IrIF Y�Ur,.iX tli'u' wawa owmnmon
IYIO e�I.III
�M1EN I Q w In �n r I
P 9�a nq P o< a U u l urz y 11 nl�.
.-'d