HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 03/09/2015 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
40 PLANNI NG SERVI CES DI VI SI ON
T Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
� EN 1 Phone: 253-856-5454
WPSHINOTON
Fax 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
WORKSHOP AGENDA
MARCH 9, 2015
7 :00 PM
BOARD MEMBERS: Randall Smith, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank
Cornelius; Navdeep Gill; Katherine Jones; Jack Ottini and Binoy Varughese
CITY STAFF: Planning Services: Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager. Public
Works: Monica Whitman, Senior Transportation Planner
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Workshop on
MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015 at 7 :00 P.M. The workshop will be held in Kent City
Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA.
No public testimony is taken at LUPB workshops; however, the public is welcome to
attend. The workshop agenda includes the following item(s):
1 . Transportation Element Update & Technical Report
General Discussion — Monica Whitman
2. Zoning Amendments — High Capacity Transit Facilities Amendments — High Capacity Transit Facilities
General Discussion — Charlene Anderson
For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the Co's website at:
http://kentwa.ic7m2.com/citizensIDefau/L aspx?DepartmentlD=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance
at (253) 856-5725. For TTy/TDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at
(800) 833-6388. For general information, contact Economic & Community Development
Department, Planning Division at(253) 856-5454.
1
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
Timothy J. LaPorte, P.E.
Public Works Director
400 West Gowe
Kent, WA 98032
Fax: 253-856-6500
11IKENT
Wn5 HINcrou
PHONE 253-856-5500
March 2, 2015
TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use & Planning Board Members
FROM: Monica Whitman, Public Works Senior Transportation Planner
RE: Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Transportation Element and Technical
Report — Information Only
March 9, 2015 Workshop
Summary: The City is scheduled to complete an update to the Kent Comprehensive
Plan by June 30, 2015, as required by the State of Washington Growth Management
Act (GMA). Public Works staff will be presenting a Draft Transportation Element and
Technical Report for the LUPB's consideration and feedback.
Background: Although the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) includes
specific requirements for the Transportation Element, flexibility is written into the GMA
so that jurisdictions can tailor their transportation plans to their own visions, goals,
and needs, as long as they continue to demonstrate consistency with the Puget Sound
regional transportation plan called Transportation 2040 and the Countywide Planning
Policies.
The Transportation Element in the existing comprehensive plan is over 130 pages in
length and basically repeats what is in the 2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
rather than adopts the TMP by reference. The proposed element for the 2035
Comprehensive Plan update addresses the key sections of the TMP, updates individual
goals and policies, and includes a Technical Report in the Background section to update
current land use assumptions, travel demand forecasts, and project list. The report
also assesses the transportation implications of potential land use plan map
amendments.
Existing traffic conditions throughout the City demonstrate that base year conditions
have changed little since the 2008 TMP was completed. Additionally, the 2035 Land
Use Targets forecast is projected to be very similar to the 2031 TMP forecast. Based
on these findings, it was determined that the existing TMP project list remains relevant
to the Comprehensive Plan update. The 2008 TMP project list was updated to identify
projects that have been completed, are needed to maintain adequate LOS, or may be
modified in future updates of the TMP.
MW:ah:S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-1_CompPlan Update\LUPB\Chapter_XX_Transportation_Action Page
LUP13_030915.docx
Att: Draft Element, 1/2015 Technical Report, 2/16/15 Memo re Non-Motorised LOS Discussion, 1/30/15 Memo re Dockets and Land Use Plan Map
Amendments,Existing Transportation Element Goals and Policies(to be replaced)
Oty of Kent Public Works Department
2
3
Transportation Element
What you will find in this chapter:
• A description of the existing transportation network in Kent;
• A discussion of how transportation planning, economic development and
land use are entwined;
• A discussion of how demands made of the transportation network is
managed; and
• Goals and policies for providing adequate transportation levels of service.
Purpose Statement:
Provide a safe, reliable, and balanced multimodal transportation system which will
support current and projected growth using context-sensitive design.
Purpose
The Transportation Element (TE) esta`blishes Kent's transportation goals and
policies for the 20-year planning h1orizon�t6 2035. It I{iQvides direction for
transportation decisions regarding (plan up 4 ,Jncluding:
• The Six-Year TT/pnsportation ItttpF�ovvement Plan (TIP);
• The Six-Yeah/ ahft l Improvement Program (CIP);
• The bienn�aJFf'udget; and
• The Design and ConstfOction Standards.
The TE is I�,y ips„achievrng Kent's overall goal of providing a balanced,
multirr�� V transp/g/q on system that supports current and projected land
used„cl provides an'idequaf£ level of transportation service. It also provides
guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning
decisiont;",and continuing transportation and maintenance programs.
The TE este1alishe,a"sis for decision-making that is consistent with the
Growth Manageman Act (GMA), King County's Countywide Planning Policies
(CPP), and the P(rget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Transportation 2040.
The requirements of each of these plans are fulfilled by the City of Kent
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the TE Technical Report.
The TMP is the City's blueprint for long-range transportation planning in
Kent. It functions as the overarching guide for the continued development of
the City's transportation system. The plan identifies key assets and
improvement needs. The TE Technical Report includes a detailed update to
the TMP of current land use assumptions, travel demand forecasts, and
Kent Comprehensive Plan
- 1 -
4
project list to inform the Comprehensive Plan. The TMP', Midway Subarea
Plan, Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) Update, Commute Trip
Reduction Plan, the annually-updated six-year TIP, six-year CIP, and the
budget are all adopted by reference in the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
The TE is multi-modal; it addresses all forms of transportation in Kent. This
includes. the street network, truck and rail traffic, non-motorized travel, and
transit. Evaluating all modes uniformly has enabled the City to address future
network needs in a comprehensive and balanced manner.
The TE also supports community livability and economiicA/# lity by
addressing connections for people and places, and s,/�/ scape design that
complements surrounding land uses. Furthermore ,�e5portation facilities
are an essential part of the City's public realm a as such heed to balance a
variety of goals and objectives. The goals an �Sticies in thit/element
generally pertain to moving people and goo ���
Issues
/ hys cal and Geographic Features
�� steep hills, a river valley, two national rail
links, and�1fj;1l6ple regional highways are
crucial,./j/7 bt det€�rthinative, features of our
landscape that profoundly influence our
i
transportation system.
CoordihAtion of Transportation Systems
the Jf3% is heavily reliant upon regional
transportation providers including the State,
Ports Sound Transit and Kin Count Metro.
'i.
...This integration with regional
Y
systems
means levels of service for the City's
transportation system are affected by levels
of service in adjacent jurisdictions.
Encouraging Multi-Modality
Land use policies encourage development
' patterns of mixed use activity centers and
high residential densities downtown. This
supports a shift in travel modes from single
occupant vehicles to transit and non-
* motorized travel.
' Contents of the City of Kent Non-motorized Transportation Study and Transit Master Plan are
summarized in the TMP.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
5
Quality-of-Life
i'
Quality-of-life for residents in Kent is
significantly impacted by how well the
transportation system functions for cyclists,
��Yr r per M r
pedestrians, transit users, motorists, truck
and rail traffic. Businesses like residents
��tigir iirl +n rr� iVaa'ffi
also make locational choices in response to
the nature of public environments, such as
in, roads and streetscapes.
System Rehabilitation /'I'/eplacement and
Retrofit /�
To provide adequa afty and efficiency of
the transportati stern;,`ongoing
maintenance uired in addition to
expanding astructure.
Balance of'Scarcg esources
There is limited/, nnding at the local, state
and federal level to satisfy competing
/;�torities. Public streets serve many
fdn(f66/fs.,in our c6f munities, and levels of
service ihd Maintenati/de of roads must be
bat, ced „0nsicleration of the City's
many.in sts.
Transportation and �-arn,, Se
The Tray/piatt6tion,Elemerit (TE) supports the City's Land Use Element. It
demo ydtes hcWthe City Will improve upon the existing transportation
network, as well as address deficiencies, maintenance and accommodate
proj�cteci growth over'Ithe next 20 years. The City's land use forecasts for
the year 2035 are baser on regional forecasts from the Office of Financial
Managerrr,6iit (OFM) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). By 2035,
the City of f( t is�P 'ected to have 81,900 jobs and 53,500 households. To
plan for the transportation needs associated with this growth, the new
households and fobs are assigned to more than 300 traffic analysis zones
based on the availability of vacant and re-developable land. The City's travel
demand model uses that growth distribution to forecast traffic volumes
throughout the city. Details of this analysis can be found in the TE Technical
Report.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
6
Transportation and Land Use Goals and Policies
Goal;
Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet forecasted demand
and policies of the City consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Policy 1; Locate commercial, industrial,
multifamily, and other uses that generate high Concurrency
levels of traffic in designated activity centers Transportation
and other capital
around intersections of principal or minor facilities must be
arterials, or around freewayinterchanges. in lace b the
9 p y
time they are
Policy 2. Coordinate new commerci ., and needed to
residential development in K " with
accommodate
transportation projects to � fYe that growth.
transportation facility capacity i sufficie to
accommodate the new development, ctr a f'l"ricial
commitment is in place to meet th�fll opted
standard within six years.%�io1„
Policy 3. Balance travel effrciern&y ty and The Economic
ii%1, „ Development Plan for the
quality of life in residential areas G�ugh d€at�text- City of Kent was adopted
sensitive desrg ,,;;;;,,��� O in August 2014 by the
City Council. There is
Policy 4r"11111 mote land use patterns which department-wide
support pub{l i'91;�tram� /, and ensure that responsibility for
development indti .d transit"114nd non-motorized- implementation of the
i�I OOWy"'eatt�res.
Plan.
The Plan's strategy for
Policy 5, Incorporate street trees in "placemaking & gateways"
transportation facility planning to enhance is a strong collaborative
nei4 orhood ,�#arsthetics, improve air quality and area for Parks, Economic
pro 7ff)
vi� traffa g'
lmin and Community
Development, and Public
Policy 6. Beautify Kent streetscapes to reflect Works.
quality and integrated design supportive of For more, refer to the
businesses and a livable, vibrant community. Economic Development
Element.
Policy 7, Coordinate with BNSF Railroad, UP
Railroad, Washington Utilities and Trade
Commission (WUTC), and Sound Transit to ensure
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
7
maximum transportation utility on both roads and
rails.
Policy S. Coordinate transportation operations, planning, and
improvements with the State, the County, neighboring jurisdictions,
and all transportation planning agencies to ensure the City's interests
are well represented in regional planning strategies, policies and
projects.
//
Policy 9, Coordinate with the County and neigh1��ing jurisdictions to
implement concurrency strategies and prowdel!lf mitigation of shared
traffic impacts through street improvem�;1, s€,pal improvements,
intelligent transportation systems improvements;" ;transit system
improvements, or transportation dem / managementetrategies.
Policy 10. Establish minim q„ and ximum parking ratio
requirements consistent with thell' tra M rotation and land use
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. At ttiw for a reduction in Parking
of up to twenty (20) pergq of the minimum standard of off street
parking stalls for busines"es"(1/hich have man-approved CTR program
filed with the City, "'i
�%%ice,<,,,,,.
Street System
�NO���;
The City of KentAis-served by,an extensive street network that provides the
primary means of ranspor tls?� for ail./modes of travel within the City -
personal vehicle, freight putbGc,/,fr'afY itk/walking, and biking. Streets are also
part of the pyblic red: -/used for parking, festivals, marches and other
events,������s,"d'e 0 a ckywide plan and policies that will guide the
mai dance and 'J"proverf`r�nt of this vital infrastructure system, Kent
analy, d existing stmOt conditions. The findings from this analysis may be
found itf'the 2008 TMP,/and the TE Technical Report. Key components of the
analysis i6tlude:
• Examfni`ng t0j�/infrastructure of the street network and determining the
role of 6, h ,street in that network; the inter-relationship with adjacent
State highways and regional arterials; and local land use context,
• Evaluating how well the existing street network operates,
• Evaluating the forecasted traffic conditions for the future street
network, and
• Identifying the preferred future street network and the improvement
projects for that network.
The street network operates as a system and handles a wide variety of modal
users. It is important to define the role(s) that any particular road should
play in serving the flow of traffic through the network and accommodating
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
8
other modes as needed. Street functional classifications are established in
the 2008 TMP to balance and recognize differing needs of vehicles,
businesses, residents, and non-motorized travelers. Functional classification
also defines the character of service that a road is intended to provide.
Specific standards for streets and roadways are detailed in Kent's
Construction Standards — Section 6. Standards for Streets and Roadways.
Right-Size Parking Policy Pilot Project
In August, 2013 the city of Kent was approved for a pilot project under the
King County Metro Right Size Parking (RSP) Project. The ,;P is a three-year
grant project funded by the Federal Highway Administr�.00h's Value Pricing
Pilot Program. The overarching goal of the RSP proj� ��) to foster livable
communities by optimizing the allocation of parkin resowirces. More
specifically, the purpose is to impart data and s/a� Agies t6 hrelp developers,
jurisdictions and neighborhoods accurately prA,J/e6E the optimoin amount of
parking for new multifamily developments./ hb amount of parking is
optimized ("right sized") when it strikes a bi(ance b een supp(yc��d
demand. h//
Kent's pilot project had several deliverables �d"'SXetent with implementation
of Downtown Subarea Action PIa/p///bjectives:
• Inventory of on- and off- supply,'bnd utilization in
downtown ���%/�//ice;,,
• Recommendations for Parkinq//,Man�gemehf
• Recommendation-sJ/Rr Parking Codd-Alternatives
Kent began impl Ling siit`ne of the recommendations in 2014, including
shared parking, e5istent parking signtrg/g, and striping, and new parking
hours. These strattes an i//
,Jar future"implementation measures should
help improve traffic rfthagern(�nt.W!,fhjh'the downtown area.
Context-Sensitive
Design
Streit G Goa and Policies Context-Sensitive Design
is a model for
Goal; transportation project
Provide a balanced nsportation system that development. Proposed
recognizes the Teed for major road transportation projects
improvements t&/accommodate multiple travel must be planned not only
modes. Create a comprehensive street system for their physical aspects
as a facility serving
that provides reasonable circulation for all users specific transportation
throughout the City. objectives, but also for
their effects on the
Policy 1; Assign a functional classification aesthetic, social,
to each street in the City based on factors economic and
including travel demand of motorized and environmental values,
non-motorized traffic, access to adjacent needs, constraints and
opportunities in a larger
community setting.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
9
land use and connectivity of the
transportation network.
Policy 2; Coordinate implementation of street construction standards
for each functional classification with policies in the Transportation
Element to provide attractive, safe facilities that complement the
adjacent land use and support emergency response and operation.
Level of Service (LOS)
There are a variety of ways to determine trans p . ion level of service and
the City may decide to adopt a different meas ,, ent with the next update
of the Transportation Master Plan. Currenthe City's, rtdwa level of
�"1/ Y� Y
service (LOS) is a measure of the tra'S��1operationaI perlr6/trance of a
transportation facility. In general, LOS A/and B ind #e minimal delay, LOS C
and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E fi dica��„that traffic volumes are
approaching capacity, and LOS F indicatee` /hgested conditions where
demand exceeds capacity. The sty of Kent arfelyzes intersections along 16
corridors and within a separate irne cove rin4,;A,owntown—this analysis
includes a total of 71 intersectf6ris......the City of Kent calculates the LOS
operation for key corridor intersections (i ends of delay) during the PM
/A/0//W
peak period and then calculates ari" av,��; ge based on a weighting of the
corridor intersection„ pidumee:s. This r`de hod provides a corridor-wide result,
allowing some in �/ eEtions"to operat€£,at a congested LOS as long as the
overall corridor opb/ration ia"maintained, The City's adopted LOS standard
requires that nearly,,/all co�Jdors„q�erate at LOS E or better during the PM
peak hour. The only'"eSGererf5 are,the Pacific Highway S corridor and the
Downtown z,}r)�, which a`[`e:allowed to operate at LOS F.
iii//////ORM/ ;
They Y ting LOS analysis W,a� ,recently updated using 2014 traffic volumes.
The evaluation found that ell corridors meet Kent's LOS standard. An
evaluatfdn of projected 2035 traffic volumes was also conducted. Traffic
operatione.,are expected to be very similar to the forecasts developed for the
year 2031 during 2008 TMP process. Details may be found in the TE
Technical Repkrt�.,,,
Using the LOS analysis, the 2008 TMP street project list was reviewed and
revised for this TE update. Since the TMP was adopted in 2008, ten projects
have been completed in full and two have been partially completed. Other
projects are identified for potential revisions during the next full TMP update.
The revised project list includes 17 intersection improvements, 4 new street
connections, 14 street widenings, and 5 railroad grade separations. In total,
these 40 projects are estimated to cost $509 million (in 2007 dollars). Of
that total, roughly $413 million are expected to be the City's responsibility. A
complete discussion is included in the TE Technical Report.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
10
How are projects
selected?
LOS Goals and Policies Level of service (LOS) is
just one measure that is
Goal; evaluated for projects
Develop strategies to improve smooth traffic flows included in the Technical Report,
and
in areas experiencing extreme congestion by TMP. The TMP is the
employing strategies that better accommodate foundation for the TE
various modes of travel including automobiles, and included extensive
freight, transit, trains, pedestrian and bicycle stakeholder outreach
modes. and input. Safety,
preservation, freight
Street LOS movement, transit
mobility, pedestrian and
Policy 1, Develop a system of le of- bicycle mobility,
service standards which promote Fowth accessibility,
where appropriate while preserving an %. environmental
/!ii�� preservation,
maintaining the existing transp&tatjr " neighborhood
system. protection, cost
effectiveness, funding
Policy 2, Establish a rfetw0rk of heavy availability, and project
commercial freight routes ;to &H, bre the
readiness were
mobility of goods and serwcds, as '11 a, of considered at the time
people, and to ;improve thell-relrabi6ty of the TMP project list was
freight mob'
� developed.
Policy 3, Ensure relt ble traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads,
especially on"` regl),rtffal thrsuh routes, while protecting local
neig",e�'hQod road .from increased traffic volumes.
Pe LOS
Policy 4, Establish 'pedestrian priority areas' based on the 'highest'
and'high'Pedestrian Priority Index (PPI) scores as defined in the Kent
Tran&oortati aster Plan (TMP) (Figure 6-6).
'I
Policy 5;` Within the designated pedestrian priority areas: provide
sidewalks or upgrade sidewalk conditions on both sides of streets as
designated in the plan.
Policy 6, Along designated 'medium' priority pedestrian streets
(Figure 6-7): provide sidewalks or upgrade sidewalk conditions on at
least one side of streets as designated in the plan.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
11
Bicycle LOS
Policy 7, Provide bicycle facilities consistent with the bicycle routes
called for in the TMP (Figure 6-11). Bicycle facilities include roadway
restriping to create bicycle lanes and designation of shared bicycle
routes.
Policy S. Provide adequate bicycle crossing of arterial or collector
streets.
Transit LOS
Policy 9,
Along designated Regional and Local P� ary TrarfgitlNetwork (PTN)
routes identified in the TMP (Figure -5 and 7-6) work with King
County Metro and Sound Transit to�77F
a. Increase or maintain higJ�,,,,; cak and all-day service
frequencies (s ecified by route in Table 7-5)
b. Provide high 4vel of transftr stop amenities, including
pads, bus shelters, IYdestrian access, and transit speed
and reliability %//i��,
Non-Motorized �,hsporf bon
The City of Kent is-66mmittedtq„providin4,-the benefits of walking and cycling
to all residents b //ii��y ppotEirig, p 0' man and bicycle travel as a safe,
efficient, desirable, and accessible mode throughout the City's
neighbothobds;,/1f1 2007, thte.City prepared the Non-Motorized Transportation
Stu MTS) to &dntify critical gaps in the City's pedestrian and bicycle
tra ortation systerfS::;The contents of the NMTS were then integrated into
the b(=,Motorized System Chapter of the TMP.
The Non-M//6torized $,stem Chapter of the TMP evaluates how well the
existing pedd�trap///!nd bicycle systems operate, identifies pedestrian and
bicycle needs atYH d'future non-motorized network, and provides a prioritized
list of projects to achieve the future network. The projects consist of:
(1) missing sidewalk segments, curb ramps, and infrastructure repairs,
prioritized by need and funding feasibility;
(2) bike network improvements assumed to occur with roadway
improvements described in the Street System Chapter;
(3) new bike lanes, shared-lane routes, and shared-use paths that would
expand the existing system of non-motorized neighborhood connections;
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
12
(4) future studies to determine how to connect various corridors that are
important for bike network completion but physically constrained; and
(5) traffic control recommendations to facilitate biking in Downtown Kent.
Additional non-motorized projects and strategies were identified in the
Midway Subarea Plan and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) update
and will be incorporated into the next TMP update.
Non-Motorized Goals and Policies
Goal;
Improve the non-motorized transportation systei fdr both internal
�,,,
circulation and linkages to regional travel, an
R iomote the lfse of non-
motorized transportation. ��
/////
Policy 1, Provide non-motorized facilities Wfftran,�/areas of the City.
Policy 2, Establish a network of.bi ycle routes Within the City to connect
those land uses likely to produce sign[A%a concenfrdtions of bicycle usage.
Work with interested parties in the p annin f'$uch a network.
Policy 3, Create a N S prized Tra lsp6rtation Plan for the City of Kent to
define specific go
d)1 dnd prldities for the non-motorized transportation
system.
Trans' ""
The// lty of Kent cotloborate"ith the region's transit providers to ensure
converflent transit 54,rvice for its residents and workers. New capital
investments in transit,focused projects and improved transit service are
in integral irf eeting ,the City's land use goals and reducing the cost of
maintaining htsdvy bevel of service.
The Transit System Chapter of the TMP describes existing transit service and
facilitieS2, identifies community needs and observed gaps in service, and
recommends service improvements to local circulation within Kent and which
connect Kent residents to other communities. Also included in the chapter is
a discussion of transit-supportive goals and policies related to land use
2 The K� TMP was originally published in ,Anne 2008. Transit service summarized in this document
(Transportation Bement) reflectsthe September 2014 KC Metro service revisions and the most recent
round of Sound Transit service changes(2013).
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
13
designations, parking policies, and the then-existing Downtown Strategic
Action Plan.
King County Metro (KC Metro) provides regional, South County-specific
routes, and local Dial-a-Ride (DART) bus service within the City of Kent.
Eight different KC Metro routes provide regional services to destinations
within King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties. There are ten local and South
County routes providing connections within the City of Kent and to other
South King County communities such as Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Des
Moines, Covington, and Federal Way. Additionally, Sound Transit operates
three regional express bus routes through Kent which coact to SeaTac and
Redmond. The Sounder commuter rail serves the K/f,//Yransit Center with
connections to communities between Seattle and T*,coma. The Kent Transit
Center provides 994 park-and-ride spaces for tranf„riders.
During the TMP process, community input a techni&61...gaps analysis
identified recommendations for trans service and infrastructure
�i/
improvements. Service recommendatior),�,ere cate rized by fi60 of three
route types: �j
• Primary Transit Network (PTN) — providd/ frequent service (typically
15 minutes or better) over`4 long service !jean in markets where there
is high demand for travel throd0out the day,It is narrowly focused on
the densest corridors in the region",i"here potential ridership is highest.
It can also be used as a i5blicy�,��r� t�,,help focus transit-oriented
development around corridofa., Ytiare transit can be provided cost-
effectively.
• Local Urba 'Service — irovides al(�day service at lower frequencies (20
to 60 minute ;Jn �I„mf;;dgnsity areas. These services should provide
connections from/,'/ n6derafdly,donse areas to PTN services as well as
to � (etinations.
i ,r�
E
r,,,,,Specialized 6 mmute ervice — runs at very specific high-demand
times and only 4,perates at times of day and in the direction of peak
d and. Most 56und Transit service within Kent is included in this
catd�!?fY•
The TMP trans recommendations focus on near and long term
improvements ibr PTN and Local Urban Services. In some cases,
recommendations would enhance existing Specialized Commuter Services,
creating all-day PTN service to address the need for reverse-commute travel
and off-peak connections. Short-term recommendations include
infrastructure improvements to bus shelters and sidewalk connections.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
14
Transit Goals and Policies
Goal;
Work with regional transit providers to provide frequent, coordinated, and
comprehensive public transit services and facilities in all residential and
employment areas in the Kent Planning Area. (Public transit services and
facilities include train service, bus service, vanpool services, vanshare
services, Dial-A-Ride, Access, park and ride lots, car-sharing services, as well
as marketing/promotional activities for all the above)
Policy 1, Emphasize transit investments that provid�j,17 ility and access
within the community and make it possible for citi s'to„access local
services and support local businesses while redof
auto-'de
pendent travel.
Policy 2, Work with Washington State Defoar, nt Transport4tibin and
iii /
regional transit providers to identify appropriate sior a network-of park
ON
and ride lots which feed into the regional tr6hiitliykem.
%%f
Policy 3, Implement Kent's Tra�f";bystem Plan a5 identified in the
Transportation Master Plan.
Policy 4, Foster transit oriented developh,$6nt opportunities and leverage
public and private f s to' chieve oth6 City objectives related to economic
development andllh using.
Transportati
/onDemaf Management
Usin e'existing t`Yetwor(c of streets more efficiently is a fiscally sound way
to impfove traffic conditions and safety. Transportation demand management
(TDf�,"policies and strategies are designed to reduce automobile travel and
shift some vehicle trips to non-peak periods (before or after the commute
hours). Tr€tnsportatioff' system management (TSM) is the practice of
improving the flovy�ftraffic without relying on major capacity expansions or
new roadways�r"The, City of Kent's efforts in implementing TDM and TSM are
detailed in the Managing Demand chapter of the TMP.
Kent's TDM activities are directed at employers, workers, business owners,
residents and visitors. In compliance with the Washington State Clean Air
Act, Kent has enacted a local Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinance,
requiring that all employers in the City with more than 100 full time
employees traveling to work morning peak commute hours develop a CTR
program. Kent's CTR program provides information and connections for
employees to a variety of alternative commute options including flex
schedules, compressed work weeks, telecommuting, transit, and ridesharing.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
15
The City also actively coordinates with transit organizations that administer
marketing campaigns such as Wheel Options, Rideshare, and the Commuter
Challenge. Currently, 31 CTR worksites participate in the program, making
Kent's program the fourth largest in King County following Seattle, Bellevue,
and Redmond.
The TMP recommends the City:
• continue to promote alternative commute methods (particularly
through ride-matching programs that link carpool, vanpool, and van-
share participants),
• encourage businesses in the community to vol my participate in
the CTR program, and
• review and update the CTR Ordinance a� propnate to meet the
needs of employers and the community. X�x
TSM techniques, which make more efficient/,, e/,of the existing(,transportation
system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expant/16n projects.
These techniques can also be used to /;mprove LOB when trav4l" corridors
approach the adopted LOS standard. TSftech�)/I,tles identified in the TMP
include the following:
/////ice,
• Rechannelization/restripirr ', adding turn lanes, adding/increasing
number of intersection through larsf,
• Business Access and Transit (BAT) I s,
�v,
• Signal interconnect and optimi�t��, ;'
• Turn move ment,'fJJ# actions;
• Access Managemernent;Fand
• Intelligent transportati6n Systems(ITS).
%%%////,//;�;'fiviii���
.
The City is incorporaflhg (rproptiat�£`;TSM techniques as part of its ongoing
transportgxi/' Program.
Transportation Denfind Management Goals and Policies
Goal;
Use Trans ort#tio� d;1 p emand Management Techniques to achieve efficient use
of transportatiot''tfifrastructure and to help meet the City's land use
objectives.
Policy 1, Work with major institutions, Activity Centers, and employers
through the City's Commute Trip Reduction Program and the promotion of
alternatives to single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use to reduce congestion and
enhance safety.
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
16
Policy 2, Promote measures to increase the use of high-occupancy vehicles,
public transit, and non-motorized travel modes among employers located
within the City who are not required to comply with commute trip reduction.
Related Information TE Technical Report
City of Kent 2008 Transportation
Master Plan
Riaht-Size Parking Pflot Proiect
ON j
jj
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
17
Transportation Element Background
Report
ON j
j
S:\Permit\Plan\COM P_PLAN_AM ENDM ENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-
1_Comp Plan Update\Cha piers\Cha pter_XXX_Tra nsportation_O2272O15_mwca.docx
Kent Comprehensive Plan March 3, 2015
18
19
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update
Transportation Element Technical Report
Prepared for:
City of Kent
January 2015
SE14-0368
FEHR,�' PEERS
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................4
2.0 E)(ISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................4
2.1 E)4sting Level Of Service Analysis.................................................................................................................6
3.0 2035 LAND USE FORECAST.................................................................. ...........................................10
3.1 2035 Level of Service Analysis................................................... .....................................................11
4.0 PROJECT LIST.....................................................................�;................................................................14
4.1 Intersection Improvements........................................................................................................................18
4.2 New Streets.................................................................... 20
4.3 Street Widening.................................................................-............................................................................22
4.4 Railroad Grade Separation........................ ............... .................................................................24
4.5 Project List Summary...........................-......... ......... ........................................................................25
5.0 DOCKET REVIEW................ ............................. ............................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
2
>J�
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study Corridors and Intersections................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2.Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor...........................................................................................................................6
Figure 3. Existing Level of Service....................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4. 2035 Level of Service..........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 5. Recommended Projects...... ......... ......... ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Tables
Table 1. Intersection Level of Service Criteria .... ...... ... ........ ..........................................7
Table 2. Existing PM Peak Hour Auto Level of Service ..L...... .. ....� ..... ......... ......... .........8
Table 3. City of Kent Land Use Forecasts ......... .... .,.. ......... ......... ..................10
Table 4. 2035 PM Peak Hour Auto Level of Service ......... ......... ......... ..................12
Table 5. 2008 TMP Project List—,,, .... ...s ......... ......... ......... ..................14
Table 6. Completed Projects ......... ......... ......... ..................15
Table 7. Revised Project List=Intersection Improvements ......... ......... ......... ..................18
Table 8. Revised Project List New'Streets..,.........................................................................................................................20
Table 9. Revised Project List Street Widening ......... ......... ......... ......... ..................22
Table 10. Revised Project List Railroad Grade Separation ......... ......... ......... ..................24
Table 11. 2015 Project List ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..................25
3
0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This technical report supports the City of Kent's 2015 Transportation Element (TE) update. The report
begins by summarizing the existing conditions of the roadway network. Next,the 2035 land use forecast is
compared to other recent citywide forecasts. That land use forecast provides the foundation for the travel
demand analysis of the 2035 roadway network. Based on the 2035 auto volume projections, this report
documents recommended revisions to the City's project list as well as discusses potential additional
changes that could come about based on the next Transportation Master Plan update. Lastly, this report
includes a review of transportation implications of the proposed dockets,
2.0 E)(ISTING CONDITIONS
In 2014, existing traffic conditions throughout the city were analyzed to determine how congestion
patterns may have changed since the previous analysis was completed in 2006. The City of Kent collected
PM peak hour traffic data in May 2014 at the intersections that were evaluated as part of the 2008
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. As with the 2006 analysis,the intersection counts were grouped
into 16 corridors and a separate zone covering downtown, as shown in Figure 1. Intersections serving
both a key north/south route and east/west route are included in more than one corridor.
I19uui II °Ilto.udMi (tOirr°laloirs rndInliCrou•sec6ons
4
N � U
w F
O �
1
o
_ o
O � 6
� w O a (J e
F •
j
e
0
. ... ...................... as3 N' v O� Mna+eee � � O
asav'vperv+
y
ti
P l ; G
rF
Iq
�r
36swoo
Jr
..6 •
u
I awe„ �✓,, t re^�w�r,..a w� ��„��L moe� I , ��� � � t`�� �
Oya•i
IM
�C�gL�• •.�Vrr�^
is
A -
k
M
dl[� �ZL�I�tM
��LL • •I�IF��II ru., w L
N 1 „
�r
1 ... .....
91
--r
.n
— I 1
m �' esnWm'-""" •-. � 1
a
N
0
The 2014 traffic counts were found to be lower than the 2006 counts on nearly every corridor, as shown in
Figure 2. Citywide traffic volumes declined by about four percent between 2006 and 2014. This trend of
lower traffic volumes is not unique to Kent; similar patterns have been observed around the region since
traffic volumes peaked in 2006-2007.
Figure 2.Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor
Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor
1192006 s 2014
50,000
40,000
E
e 30,000
`o
20,000
0
10'0000 L
yc yY, y5. y5. fit' " 42' ¢¢ti 2 ' �`'' ,Da ¢ ¢ �¢ ��
,Lca pq`r ,Lg`r b0`r ��K ¢A Stic 5`t rya P° ¢cam ¢a� p� c a¢ a¢ '1'0
A
r
cy7 p�¢
o°
rc
2,J, 1W 'I', 111 K, 1 1 /11I C J 'JJ /I�.l� PI 1 VIII 1 ,'' 1,
Roadway level of service (LOS) is a measure of the operational performance of a transportation facility. A
letter grade, ranging from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned based on the delay experienced by
drivers. LOS standards are used to assess existing and projected future traffic conditions. In general, LOS A
and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes
are approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where demand exceeds capacity. For
signalized intersections and unsignalized, all-way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined by
the average delay experienced by all vehicles. For unsignalized, side-street stop-controlled intersections,
6
0
LOS is determined by the movement with the highest delay. Table 1 displays the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) thresholds used to determine LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections.
TABLE 1.INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
Level of ServiceSignalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle Unsignalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds) (Seconds)
A < 10 < 10
B > 1Oto20j > 1Oto15
C > 20to35 > 15to25
D > 35 to 55 /�%%�j>,2S to 35
E > 55 to 80 > 15 to 50
i
F > 80 � j/ >50
Source:Highway Capacity Manual,2010,Transportation Research Board
The City of Kent calculates the LOS for key intersections along each corridor (in seconds of delay) and
then calculates an average based on a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. This method
provides a corridor-wide result, allowing some intersections to operate at a more congested LOS as long
as the overall corridor operation is maintained.
The City's adopted LOS standard requires,that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or better during the
PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highway S corridor and the downtown zone which are
allowed to operate at LOS F.
For this TE update, auto LOS analysis was completed using the 2014 vehicle counts. Auto LOS was
calculated using the Synchro software package. In the downtown area, the SimTraffic module of Synchro
was used to calculate ihiersection LOS. While Synchro is appropriate for determining LOS at relatively
isolated intersections, the program does not always capture queuing and congestion between
intersections, which is common in downtown Kent. For these conditions, traffic simulation tools such as
SimTraffic produce more accurate results.
The results of the corridor LOS analysis are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3. The analysis of 2014
conditions indicates that overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or
improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the city. The 2014 analysis indicates that all
corridors are currently meeting the City's LOS standard.
7
TABLE 2. EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE
CaID or Location kadarct 2006 L4S� 2puk LOS
1 S 196th Street/SE 192nd Street E D C
2 S 212th Street/SE 208th Street E C C
3 S 224th Street/S 228th Street E D C
4 James Street/SE 240th Street j D D
5 S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street E D D
6 Canyon Drive/Kent-Kangley Road E / E C
7 S 256th Street E iE D
8 S 272nd Street % �j E F E
9 Pacific Highway S F1 E D
10 Military RoadE E D
11 64th Avenue S E C C
i//i� ���
12 Washington Avenue/68th ' � �,West V`�� Highway E D D
/// T
13 Central Avenue N/84 Avenue S E D C
14 SR 515/Benson Avenue %%/0 E E D
15 116th Avenue SE E D E
16 132nd-'L,SE // / E D D
%oi,
17 Downtown Zone F E C
Source:City of Kent Transportation Master Flan,2008,and Fehr&Peers,2014.
Notes: 1.WSDOT's level of service standard for this facility is LOS D.
Fquuuni !,n 111 evrtpll of Seirvda:e
8
28
W
N U
� w @
� a e
ry p w x p
Jw � z o oaN
w a
a p
U a 3o w >
a � s
ll� MI
W o
e Pn
�o
j O
/ "3sav've ................
QII
wo
n � w
e d
4
e
t GY YT grf� rir 1
G
en
` :^„°-� uuuwiwuwwuNwp wmraiii�Lul �Sji/�iD% +iiiiii nuulrmUuwwiw mmrru�mnmmuw I°wJuuwss ol „� 1
3s wr, _i trL 9 € °
i
fy`y
ro u
r
I
mmmmlllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV Y L�uuu
P..
�e
-
,N
4b v IIIII III IWO'L L IIIII IIIIIIIIIOIIWIItVVIUW� -
oe N
�m .
G „m L
�`r w
_ y
. .,.,.- _ t t� NOzL
el
1
d
m ^ xsYm
0
M
3.0 2035 LAND USE FORECAST
In preparation for the Comprehensive Plan update, the City developed 20-year land use forecasts. The
forecasts project land use growth to the year 2035 based on the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC)
regional Land Use Target (LUT) forecasts. Table 3 summarizes how the 2035 LUT forecast compares to
previous land use forecasts.
TABLE 3. CITY OF KENT LAND USE FORECASTS':
PolicyDocumenti, ForecastYear a mend Households"
, �uoY
2008 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2031 81900. 48,400
2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS Proposal 20/3 93,600�%%�j 68,900
2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS Proposal 2631 73,300 57,100
2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035' 81,900 53,500
Notes: 1. Employment totals do not include construction jobs,
Compared to the 2008 Transportation Master Plan; the 2435 LUT forecast includes the same number of
jobs throughout the City, but roughly 5,100 more households. The 2035 LUT forecast is well below the
employment and household fgures,assumed for the 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Proposal-, Therefore, the 2008 TMP and 2011 Midway Proposal forecasts bookend
the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of these scenarios were analyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS.
In addition to considering land use totals at the citywide level,the distribution of growth was compared to
determine how traffic patterns may differ. Land uses are divided into more than 300 traffic analysis zones
called K-zones,which are basic geographic units for estimating travel demand. K-zones range in size from
a few city blocks to an entire residential neighborhood. Each of the aforementioned forecasts was
distributed at the K-zone Ieuel. The comparisons indicated that a new run of the Kent Travel Demand
Model was warranted to explore how traffic distribution along the City's study corridors would differ
between the land use scenarios. The City's travel demand model was used to forecast PM peak hour traffic
volumes for the 2035 LUT forecast. The model focuses on the Kent Planning Area (city limits and Potential
Annexation Area), and includes external zones that represent land uses for the greater Puget Sound
region.' The updated model run was used to evaluate 2035 LOS,as described below.
1 The 2011 Midway EIS included two network scenarios: the Baseline, which included a short list of known roadway
projects, and the Preferred Network, which included a more extensive list of improvements based on the 2008 TMP
needs assessment. The current modeling exercise assumes the Preferred Network.
10
0
,,J,203_, 1 El'11 1 01� 1 ' /I 1 11,I l'J,:,
As stated in the previous section, the 2031 TMP and the 2031 Midway Proposal land use forecasts
bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Therefore, the auto LOS for the 2035 LUT forecast should fall within the
LOS bookends developed for the 2031 TMP and 2031 Midway Proposal forecasts. That citywide analysis
was conducted for the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action
EIS.
Given the similarities between these forecasts, Fehr & Peers took a simplified approach to the LOS
evaluation. To compare these three scenarios, projected auto volumes were compared at the intersection
level. For each study intersection, the travel demand model's forecast of entering vehicles was compared
among the three scenarios. Based on that relationship, the average delay at the intersection under the
2035 LUT forecast was estimated. The calculation assumes a linear relationship between the number of
vehicles entering the intersection and the average delay of the intersection. As an example, consider an
intersection with the following assumptions:
• 3,000 entering vehicles and 35 seconds of delay under the 20k TMP forecast
• 5,000 entering vehicles and 45 seconds of delay under the,2031 Midway Proposal forecast
If the 2035 LUT forecast had 4,000 entering vehicles,the delay is estimated to be 40 seconds. This process
was completed for each study intersection,A.cordcor average was calculated based on a weighting of the
corridor intersection volumes The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 4.
11
TABLE 4. 2035 PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE
Corridor LOS 2031 2035 Land
ID Location' Standard 2031 TMP Mldway Use Tafget
Proposal
1 S 196th Street/SE 192nd Street E D D D
2 S 212th Street/SE 208th Street E D E D
3 S 224th Street/S 228th Street E E E E
4 James Street/SE 240th Street E 4000 E E
5 S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street E D F D
w
6 Canyon Drive/Kent-Kangley Road E Ei/,/��„ E E
7 S 256th Street E. D D D
8 S 272nd Street E F E
9 Pacific Highway S F1 F F F
o
10 Military Road D
E D
11 64th Avenue S E D D D
IN
Washington Avenue/68th ell. �e West i� ..
12 Valle Highway ,/�
y '%/� �� E E E E
13 Central Avenue N/84 Avenue S E D D D
14 SR 515/Bens, //��liie E E E E
/ GO,
15 116th Avenue SE E D D D
16 132nd tom!' e SE J E D D D
17 Downtown Zone; F F F F
Source:City of Kent Transportation Master Plan,2008,and Fehr&Peers,2014.
Notes: 1.WSDOT's level of service standard for this facility is LOS D.
Though the average seconds of delay varies, the 2035 LUT scenario results in the same corridor LOS
grades as were calculated for the 2031 TMP forecast. All corridors are expected to meet the City's LOS
standards,assuming the Preferred Network is in place.
iguuini 11 20,35 II n vii.11 of"eirvda:e
12
34
W
M U
M � a
N Q.w n°L
� z oaN e
a p
o �
a 3 w >
vl I(( a
~ III I ®'•ye•A BF@ v
e P"'
�o
j O
/ '+vie p O
17
77
QII
wo
l
I
GY1 f / 1 A e
f
fn I
M1
uuu�muu� 2vvmvavva aaaaa � ... ..3a_6woo .mm
lQa/mm/moo mmmm s -
r a
woa j ,� .//" ...... -..
li
a
°
"tl I � ( ��
FFpGJJJJJJ
h , I � � r
�,. 4L
kw
LL�� W ,1all
� rmm uuuuu6ii/iiimnni��i�m�i mrcrcrcma�tr'rr z L uuuuwil i b»a»>u�y»�����»���» _
' � I
1
{
rw
OL , I
l/ q ✓
�V�
l
1 m _aaa
6 8 a 3
M
4.0 PROJECT LIST
Given that the base year conditions have changed little since the 2008 TMP was completed, and the 2035
LUT forecast is projected to be very similar to the 2031 TMP forecast, the 2008 TMP project list remains
relevant to this Comprehensive Plan update. The 2008 project list included four types of improvements:
intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade separations. The project list
included 53 projects totaling nearly $600 million. Of that total, the City's share was estimated to be
approximately $502 million. Table 5 summarizes the type and cost of each project type in the 2008 TMP
(all costs are in 2007 dollars). Street widening projects accounted for neady,half the total cost and railroad
grade separations accounted for the next largest cost. Due to the high cost of railroad grade separation
projects, they accounted for more than a quarter of the total project list cost, despite there being only six
projects.
TABLE S. 2008 TMP PROJECT LIST
qVpll� h
Type of Project- Numb �%St($) Gity Share($)
Intersection Improvements 23 63,309,500 62,079,500
New Streets J;llJ 5 �/TE„ 84,715,000 42,827,000
Street Widening 19 288,895,000 235,151,000
/ � mmr
Railroad Grade Separation 6 162,300,000 162,300,000
Total 53 $599,219,500 $502,357,500
Source:City of Kent Transportation Master Plan,2008.
Of the 53 projects recommended in;the 2008 TMP, eleven have been completed. These projects are listed
below in Table 6 The completed projects cost a total of $47 million.
14
TABLE 6. COMPLETED PROJECTS
Project Capital Project(Location and Description): Cost($) city Share($}
Number
18 S 212th St/SR 167 Northbound Ramp - Modify signal 220,000 220,000
timing by making northbound right turn free.
I-10 4th Ave N/Cloudy St- Provide northbound and 2,160,000 2,160,000
southbound exclusive left turn lanes.Install traffic signal.
I-12 Smith St/Lincoln Ave (Smart Growth Initiative) -Add 1990,500 1,990,500
eastbound left turn pocket.I-13 %%
W Meeker St and W Smith St-Interconnect Interurban %,d
2,000 342,000
Trail crossing signals. �j�
OH
N 4 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I (Military Rd S to 64th Ave S) - Completed by 200$ Completed by 2008
Construct new roadway with 5 lanes.
W-4 84th Ave S (SR 167 to S 212th St)-Widen to 7 lanes /� 5,106,000 5,106,000
W 7 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I (Military Rd S from SR 516 to Completed by 2008 Completed by 2008
Bolger Road) -Widen to 5 lanes.
/w/F0
James St(Union Pacific Railroad to 4th Ave'
W 8 eastbound and westbound excl left tur - /�� 1,800,000 1,800,000
W 14 SE 256th St-Phase II (SR 516'(Kent Kan'gley Rd)to 116th 5,100,000 5,100,000
Ave SE) - Construct a 5 lane roadway with bike lari'es.
o /%/!/%%I /I
S 277th St Corridor(11 'm ���tigley Rd
W-16 V 7,500,000 7,500,000
(SR 516) to SE� t) - � to 5 lanes with bike lanes.
S 228th St/'Burlington Northern,Santa Fe Railroad -
R 4 Grade separation rrr 23,000,000 23,000,000
Total /�%%j� J1 $47,218,500 $47,218,500
Source:City of Kent,2015
In addition to the completed projects, two other projects were removed from the list:
I-4: SE 208th Street/SR 515-Benson — Add dual southbound left storage lane and modify
signal phasing. This project, with a cost of $690,000, has committed funding and a bid for
construction is expected in the near future.
• I-21:I-5/272nd Street Interchange Reconstruction-Phase I— Provide transit and HOV direct
access between S 272nd Street and I-5. This project, with a cost of $42,330,000, was envisioned
as a partnership with Sound Transit and WSDOT. At this time, partner agency support for the
project appears unlikely so it has been removed from the project list.
15
0
Two projects have been partially completed.
• Project I-16: S 2601h St/SR 99 — the westbound right turn pocket has been completed. That
component has been removed from the revised project list.
• Project I-22:S 272"d St/Military Rd—the northbound dual left turn lanes have been completed.
All other projects from the 2008 TMP remain on the revised project list. Figure 5 shows each project's
location. The following four tables list the recommended projects by project type:
• Table 7: Revised Project List—Intersection Improvements
• Table 8: Revised Project List— New Streets
• Table 9: Revised Project List—Street Widening
• Table 10: Revised Project List— Railroad Grade Separation`
111quuni 5, Iltaoconiniendo:l IIlin:i *Iis
16
40
a W
Q3
� w e
W a _o
IlM
r.:i a aFa 8.
..-.-.-.-aal
f.Je®J
g ��o
k
i
3 p. � O
0
6,`r' '- k
J
W
� ,jw,/,. 9M 6M. 'o�� tLM �' 6L;M �
v
•••� a .'r
f 1
o miP^j {l
] vl` •• e �Ylf
1
� SNI� ill i ,1: Ra
.mi. ry
.. n .. r
�AL
ro m I �J
11 41
s
_��
r 9,� m
L.M 'U�ry
r
I
Z N p� � m JJ
.✓r �i��i� '.�W tau '..'U
� e m 6 _
�+u
e ^
e
1' �J
Ti r .......... ....
yy
6
J p
N
a
�l
flJI l R,- IWC 11Fl A ]1 /il 'l '0'/1 1 /il 1'I1 '
TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Table 7 lists 17 intersection improvements, totaling roughly $15.6 million. Of that total, the City's share
would be approximate $15.0 million.
TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
��lui�Ui111
Project llu )s
Number Capital Project(Location and Description} Cos Gitii Share($}
Aril ��11115UIliv
I 1 SE 192nd St/SR515-13enson -Add southbound right turn 540,000 0
pocket.
12 S 196th St/80th Ave S -Change intersection phasing �)) / 250,000 250,000
j
lane approaches. 11 %./ j
13 S 196th St/84th Ave S -Add eastbound right turn pocket 1,190,000 1,190,000
and southbound dual left turn lanes.
S 212th St/72nd Ave S Adds ound du �" �ur
n
1-5 330,000 330,000
lanes.
S 212th St/84th Ave S - Extend eastbound left turn lane
16 and add northbound and southbound dual left turn lanes. 1,710,000 1,710,000
17 S 212th 5 //jjthboj//%//ip Add southbound
400,000 400,000
left turn la ���j
I-9 S 240th St/SR 99 Change�Jjgnal phasing. 420,000 420,000
SE 240th�5't„%/515 -Ad I northbound and
I-11 southbound rn la dd northbound and 1,650,000 1,650,000
southbound rig ckets.
Smith St/Central Ave- Revise southbound and
I-14 northbound turn lane assignment. 20,000 20,000
I-15 Meeker St/Washington Ave - Modify signal phasing. Add 780,000 780,000
eastbound and westbound right turn pockets.
I-16 S 260th St/SR 99 -Add westbound dual left turn lane.Add 1,180,0001 1,180,0001
eastbound right turn pocket.
I-17 Military Rd S/Reith Rd -Widen intersection to provide turn 1,945,000 1,945,000
lanes on all approaches.
18
TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Project Capital Project(Location and Description): Coat($) City Share($}
Number
I-18 SE 256th St/SR515-13enson -Add northbound right turn 550,000 550,000
lane and change signal phasing.
Kent-Kangley Rd/108th Ave SE-Add eastbound and
I-19 westbound dual left turn lanes.Add eastbound right turn 1,410,000 1,410,000
pocket. Change northbound right turn phasing.
SE 256th Street and 132nd Ave SE - Extend northbound
I-20 left, southbound left,and westbound left turn pockets. ,302,000 302,000
Construct new eastbound and southbound right turn
lanes.
S 272nd St/MilitaryRd -Add a southbound throu h la / /�
I-22 9 1,540 0�>17Jj 1,540,0001
at intersection. �
I-23 Kent-Kangley Rd/132nd Ave SE -Add northbound and 1,360,000 1,360,000
southbound dual left turn lanes.
� %//// $15,577,000 Total j / $15,037,000
Notes: 1. Portion of project already completed; remaining costwtll be lessthah shown here.
19
sir
�� �1 II 1 1 l_ f
Table 8 lists four new street connections, estimated to cost $84.7 million, of which $42.8 million would be
the City's responsibility.
TABLE 8. REVISED PROJECT LIST— NEW STREETS
Project, Capital Project(Location and Description) A($) City Share($)
Number
N-1 SE 192nd St(84th Ave SE to 108th Ave SE) - Create new roadway 45,200,000 14,329,000
connection with 4-5 lanes and bicycle lanes.
� „ j
72nd Ave S (S 200th St to S 196th St)-Extend roadway to ect
N 2 to S 196th St. �4D0 1,015,000
S 224th St (84th Ave S to 104th Ave SE(Benson Rd-SR 5.15))
N-3 Extend roadway to connect to E Valley Hwy and widen existing 36,000,000 24,983,000
road to 3-5 lanes.
108th Ave SE (SE Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 51� h St)
N-5 /J//j ���j 2,500,000 2,500,000
Extend roadway connection to SE 256th SY��
Total $84,715,000 $42,827,000
These street connection concepts were developed to ease congestion on existing roadways. Therefore,
not completing the new connections would have LOS effects on alternate routes. To evaluate the
repercussions, the travel demand model was used to predict which routes would see the highest increases
in traffic absent the new connections More detailed analysis could be completed in the next TMP update.
Two of the projects,(N-1 and N 3)would construct new east-west connections across SR 167. If Project N-
1 is not constructed, traffic would primarily divert to S 180th Street and SE 208th Street. The intersections
most affected are expected,to be the S 212th Way/SR 167 interchange and S 212th Way/96th Avenue S.
The LOS on those intersections is likely to fall by at least one letter grade compared to the condition if
Project N-1 were constructed. If Project N-3 is not constructed, intersections along S 212th Street are
likely to be most affected, with LOS at 84th Avenue S and the SR 167 interchange falling by up to one
letter grade.
Project N-2 would complete the 72nd Avenue S corridor north to S 196th Street, providing an alternate
route to SR 181/West Valley Highway/68th Avenue S and 84th Avenue S. If this project were not
completed, the LOS on the intersections of S 196th Street/W Valley Highway, S 196th Street/80th Avenue
S, and S 196th Street/84th Avenue S is expected to fall by up to one letter grade.
20
it
Project N-5 would create a north-south connection along 108th Avenue SE between Kent-Kangley Road
and SE 256th Street, and convert the section of SE 256th Street between Kent-Kangley Road and 108th
Avenue SE to one-way westbound. This project would result in simpler operations at the SE 256th
Street/Kent-Kangley Road intersection and the SE 256th Street/SR 515 intersection immediately to the
west. Therefore, not completing the project would adversely affect LOS at those two intersections.
21
There are 14 street widening projects on the revised project list, as shown in Table 9. These projects
constitute the largest share of costs at $269.4 million. The City's share is estimated to be $215.6 million.
TABLE 9. REVISED PROJECT LIST—STREET WIDENING
Project" Capital Project(Location and Description) aet($) City Share WNumber 4,
W-1 80th Ave S Widening (S 196th St to S 188th St) -Widen to 5 laness. 1,323,000 1,323,000
W-2 S 212th St (SR 167 to 108th Ave SE) -Widen to 5-6 lanes. O �% 100,000 6,046,000
/i,.. P,
SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave Widening (Meeker St
W 3 north to 218th block) -Widen to 7 lanes. 16,1$0,p00 16,150,000
116th Ave SE (SE 208th St to SE 256th St) Widen to , s
W-5 46,430,000 17,730,000
bike lanes.
W 6 132nd Ave SE (SE 200th St to SE 236th St) -Widen to 5 lanes with 20,990,000 0
bike lanes.
132nd Ave SE-Phase III(SE 248 to SE 239,tte " " iden to 5
W 9 lanes with bike lanes
11,950,000 11,950,000
W-10 Military Rd S (S 272nd St to S 240th St) Widen to provide a center 13,630,000 13,630,000
turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks,,
>
W Meeker St P, (Lak wick Road to east side of the Green
� 5 �� 70,000,000 70,000,000
W 11 River) Wig ndu/� new bridge.
W Meeker St Phase I(64th hive S to Green River Bridge) -Widen to
W 12 5,960,000 5,960,000
5lanes
/// //%
SE 248th St t Ave �0 132nd Ave SE) -Construct a 3 lane
5,640,000 5,640,000
W-13 roadway. /%/�
W-15 SE 256th St-Phase III (132nd Ave SE to 148th Ave SE) -Widen to 5 16,980,000 16,980,000
lanes with bike lanes.
W 17 132nd Ave SE-Phase II (Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)to SE 248th St) - 23,200,000 23,200,000
Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes.
W 18 S 272nd St-Phase II(Pacific Hwy S to Military Rd S) -Add 2 HOV 13,916,000 13,916,000
lanes and a center left-turn lane.
W 19 132nd Ave SE-Phase I (SE 288th St to Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)) - 13,120,000 13,120,000
Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes.
Total $269,389,000 $215,645,000
22
>� I
�l
The 2008 TMP included two projects along the 116th Avenue SE corridor: Project W-5 from SE 208th
Street to SE 256th Street and Project W-16 from SE 256th Street to SR 516. Project W-16 has already been
completed, bringing the corridor to five lanes with bicycle lanes between SE 256th Street and SR 516. This
project benefited intersections that were forecast to operate at LOS E and F in the future absent the street
widening. The intersections to the north (SE 208th Street, SE 240th Street, and SE 248th Street) were
forecast to operate at LOS D or better without the roadway widening. Therefore, extending the five-lane
cross-section to the north may not be necessary from a capacity perspective. However, regardless of
capacity needs, improvements along the northern portion of the corridor are still recommended as a
complete streets project to ensure all modes are accommodated. At this time 'Project W-5 remains on the
project list as envisioned in the 2008 TMP, but may be revised in a future TMP update pending further
study. For example, additional study may indicate that acceptable operations can be maintained by
widening the roadway to a three-lane cross section with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. This would provide
more continuity of the non-motorized network,a modest increase in capacity with safety benefits, but at a
lower cost.
The 2008 TMP also included street widening projects along the 132nd Avenue SE corridor: Projects W-6,
W-9, W-17, and W-19. These projects would widen the corridor to five lanes with bicycle lanes from SE
208th Street to SE 288th Street. Based on the modeling completed for the 2031 TMP Baseline, this
corridor is likely to operate acceptably without the five lane cross-section. As with 116th Avenue SE, the
132nd Avenue SE projects remain on the current project list, but may be revised in a future TMP update.
Potential changes would be based on more detailed study, but may include a three-lane cross-section
rather than a five-lane cross-section,or'a five-lane cross-section on only the most congested portion of
the corridor south of SE 256th Street
The S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street corridor (Projects W-11 and W-12) was re-evaluated for
this planning-level review of the project list. The findings indicated that the recommended intersection
improvements alone would not bring the corridor to an acceptable level of service in the future, indicating
some widening is necessarye. Therefore, Projects W-11 and W-12 remain on the project list, although they
will be studied at a more detailed level during the next TMP update.
23
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad run parallel to
one another in the north-south direction through the City of Kent. The arterials most affected by those
grade crossings are S 212th Street, S 228th Street, and Willis Street (SR 516). An overpass of the BNSF
Railroad at S 228th Street was completed in 2009 at a cost of roughly $20 million. This leaves five railroad
grade separation projects remaining on the project list, as shown in Table 10.
TABLE 10. REVISED PROJECT LIST—RAILROAD GRADE'SEPARATION
IIIV�� 'w�pq)
Project,Number
Capital Project(Location and Description) $} City Share($)
Number HIV° 101Ipv
R-1 S 212th St/Union Pacific Railroad - Grade Separation 33,000,000 33,000,000
R 2 S 212th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad -% 33,000,000 33,000,000
Separation. "y
R-3 S 228th St/Union Pacific Railroad -Grade Separation 24,200,000 24,200,000
/'i,,
R-5 Willis St SR 516/Union Pacific Railroad C�� e Se � 26,500,000 26,500,000
R-6 Willis St (SR 516)/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad -Grade 22,600,000 22,600,000
Separation.
Total . / j .
���///�%���%%%///ioio�,,.,p 5139,300,000 $139,300,000
Source:City of Kent,2015.
These grade separation projects provide substantial benefits to city streets, but they are expensive and
generally require funding partners to meet the total project cost. Currently, approximately 46 trains travel
through Kent on the BNSF Railroad on a daily basis. This results in a daily closure time of one hour and 14
minutes. The UPRR has approximately 19 closures per day, totaling 25 minutes in daily closure time
These estimates reflect the, lower bound of traffic delay. Actual delay is longer than the closure since it
takes time for queues to dissipate once the road reopens.
During the development of the 2008 TMP, the City solicited feedback from the public on the most needed
street projects. Railroad grade separation projects were the most often listed high priority need. In
addition to widespread public support, the need for these projects has been documented by City studies
of average delay, as cited above. In the next TMP update, the effects of each grade separation project
could be studied further to determine which projects would provide the most benefit to the street system.
This prioritization will ensure that limited financial resources are directed to the most needed projects.
z City of Kent,2014.
24
0
Table 11 summarizes the revised 2015 project list. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509
million. The City's share of that total is estimated to be approximately $413 million. As mentioned
previously, this list may be revised further pending the next update of Kent's TMP.
TABLE 11. 2015 PROJECT LIST
Type of Project,' Number of Praject6 Gash00111l ' City Share($}
Intersection Improvements 17 15,577,000 15,037,000
"A/ ,
New Streets 4 �� 84 D 42,827,000
Street Widening 14 269,389,000 215,645,000
Railroad Grade Separation 5 �j �j 139,300,000 139,300,000
Total 40 $508,981,000 $412,809,000
Source: Fehr&Peers,2015.
25
51
52
53
FEHR ,t PEERS
M EM OMNDUM
Date: February 16 2015
To: Monica Whitman, Oty of Kent
From: Don Samdahl and Ariel Davis, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Non-Motorized LOSDiscussion
This memo addresses a question asked regarding the non-motorized LOS and its implications on
impact fees and other funding needs. Initially, the non-motorized LOSwas established as part of
the DSAP process. It recognized the importance of non-motorized modes in downtown Kent and
wanted to make sure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities were properly prioritized by the city and
new development.
The multimodal LOS guidelines were expanded to the rest of the city in the comprehensive plan
update. The LOS guidelines give emphasis to the non-motorized components already included
in the TM P and do not identify any new facilities other than those that were previously identified.
They are not fixed standards that must be met by new development before being approved, nor
do they require the city to start making non-motorized projects the first priority. However, by
creating these LOS policies, it is likely that the importance of implementing non-motorized
projectswill increase, but they do not prescribe any specific priorities.
The impact fee program can stay the way it is, since many of the non-motorized projects are
already included as part of street projects in the impact fee project list. The city is making a
good-faith effort to implement those projects as funds become available. When the impact fee
program is updated in concert with the next TMP revision, it would be possible to modify the
project list to include other non-motorized projects if the city desires.
Regarding concurrency, the city's current concurrency program is focused on implementing the
TMP project list, which includes non-motorized projects. In the next update, we would
recommend creating a more explicit multimodal concurrency program to bring the city into
better compliance with the regional planning guidelines.
1001 4t°Avenue I Suite 4120 1 Settle,WA 98154 1 (206)576-4220 1 Fax(206)576-4225
vwwv.fehrand peerscom
54
55
FEHR ,t PEERS
M EM OMNDUM
Date: bnuary 30, 2015
To: Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson, City of Kent
From: Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Review of Transportation Implications of Dockets and Potential Land Use
Map Amendments
We have conducted a preliminary review of the proposed dockets and potential land use plan
amendments documented in the bnuary 20, 2015 memorandum from Charlene Anderson to the
Land Use and Planning Board. Our review focused on potential implications of these proposals to
the transportation system in the context of the Transportation Bement. Since most of these
proposals do not contain specific development assumptions, it is difficult to calculate traffic
generation. We used our best judgment based on the likely mix of land uses to form some
perspectiveson the likely transportation impacts.
In summary, none of the land use proposals appear to have significant effects on the performance
of the overall transportation system. Should these proposals be adopted, the land use changes
can be incorporated into the travel model for more detailed analysis during the next
Transportation Master Ran update.
The following table summarizes our review.
1001 4t°Avenue I Suite 4120 1 Settle,WA 98154 1 (206)576-4220 1 Fax(206)576-4225
womfehrandpeerscom
56
Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson
,bnuary 30, 2015
Page 2of2
Land Use Proposal Comments
DKT-2014-4 Relatively small parcel located along S272nd St. Although S272ntl St
and Pacific Highway corridors are both very congested, the change in
traffic is unlikely to substantially affect the level of service conditions
in the area.
DKT-2014-6 Located at corner of Kent Kangley Rd and 1161" Ave SE Proposed to
rezone to commercial and likely construction of a pharmacy. The
two affected corridorswould be LOSD in 2035 and the proposed
land use is unlikely to change those conditions. Property access
would need to be examined given the heavy traffic at that corner.
DKT-2014-7 Proposal to change to multifamily housing along 881" Ave SE Likely
development of up to 154 townhouses. This location is not adjacent
to one of the transportation corridors, but the traffic from this
development would accessvia 84 h Ave S, which operates at LOS D.
Local street access would need to be analyzed.
DKT-2014-8 Proposed to change to transit-oriented commercial-residential
within the Midway area. The Transportation Bement included
assumption of growth in Midway, so this change would likely be
compatible with that analysis. More detailed analysis was prepared
as part of the Midway EIS
Expand Commercial Would allow some commercial land uses in addition to current
Opportunities in Industrial industrial uses. The intent appearsto allow for commercial uses and
Area (Al-A4) service providersto support the large employment base in the
industrial areas. While retail generates higher traffic volumes than
industrial uses, the type of retail envisioned would be less likely to
generate new tripsfrom outside of the existing industrial area. The
overall transportation im actswould therefore be fairly limited.
Biminate Office Zone (131) This change would make certain parcels on the East Hill more
developable with mixed commercial uses. These would serve the
nearby residential areas and offer more services to the
neighborhoods. The transportation effectswould likely be positive
by creating commercial opportunities closer to residences.
Biminate the MAZoning Affectsa dispersed number of properties in the valley. This appears
District (132) to be more of a housekeeping change in zoning that would likely
have few changes in transportation conditions.
Biminate Gateway Located along 84h Ave South to the north of SR 167. It seemsthat
Commercial Zone (133) the land useswith the proposed change would continue to be auto-
oriented commercial, which is consistent with the land uses analyzed
in the Transportation Bement. Without further analysis, it is difficult
to assessthe potential change in traffic generation.
57
***Please Note: The goals and policies will be replaced in their entirety.***
Improvement Plan so that they can be evaluated by the regional air quality model and
become eligible for federal grants. The City will also review and update the Policies and
Funding chapters, in order to remain consistent with the City's vision and current with
available funding strategies.
GOALS AN D POLICIES
This Transportation Element and the TM P will guide the development and funding of a
transportation network that will provide mobility for residents and employees within the
City of Kent in a way that preserves the quality of life. Policies are established on how to
prioritize the City's transportation improvements and how to identify the City's strategic
interests in regional investments, adjacent transportation facilitiesand funding alternatives.
The residents of Kent value specific attributes of our community, whether it is the economic
vitality of the downtown area, the ease of mobility and safe streets,the quality of the schools,
or the system of parks. These values are important; as they help the City Council and staff
make decisions and manage the City. These values are integrated into the policiesthat guide
the City and the evaluation criteria that are used to prioritize transportation improvement
projects.
The City's review of transportation goals and policies began with the TM P Task Force. The
group developed statements that best described the type of future transportation system
they envisioned for Kent. Community members also confirmed the core values that had
been identified from the community interviews. These core values became the foundation
for evaluating the proposed multi-modal transportation improvements.
The previous transportation related principles, goals and policieswere reviewed and revised
using input from the community and stakeholder interviews, the task force, and City
Council members. The policies were revised to align with community values and maintain
consistency with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Using the City's overall transportation goal as a base, several specific transportation system
goals and policies were established. These goals and policies, described in the remainder of
thischapter, provide guidanceto implementing the Transportation Master Plan.
Trcn ta`icn 9-119
58
Transportation and Land Use
GOAL T -1. COORDINATE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TO MEET
THE NEEDS OF THE CITY CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT.
Policy TR-1.1: Work actively and cooperatively with state, regional and other South County
jurisdictions to plan, design, fund and construct regional transportation projects that further
the City's transportation and land use goals.
Policy TR-1.2: Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that
transportation fadlities are compatible with thetypeand intensity of land uses.
Policy TR-1.3: Prohibit development approval if the proposed development would cause
the level of service to fall below the City's adopted level of service standards, unless
improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made
concurrent with the development.
Policy TR-1.4: Phase implementation of transportation plans with growth to allow
adequate transportation fadlities and services to be in place concurrent with development.
Approval of new development will be dependent on the active participation of development
property owners in the funding of the transportation improvements needed to maintain the
City's level of service standards. The City may contract with owners of real estate for the
particpation in LIDS, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available processes for
construction or improvement of street projects required for further property development.
Policy TR-1.5: Use a "Plan-Based' approach as the basis for a multimodal transportation
concurrency management system. A plan-based approach means that the funding of
programs, construction of facilities, and provision of services occur as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan and are proportionate with the pace of growth.
Policy TR-1.6: Coordinate new commerdal and residential development in Kent with
transportation projects to assure that transportation facility and service capacity is suffident
to accommodate the new development.
Policy TR-1.7: Prioritize those projects that improve transportation facilities and services
within designated centers and along identified corridors connecting Centers; those that
support the existing economic base and those that will aid the City attracting new
investmentsto those centers.
Policy TR-1.8: Ensure the transportation system is developed consistent with the
anticipated development of the land uses and acknowledge the influence of providing
transportation facilities to accelerate or delay the development of land uses, either by type or
by area.
Trcn ta`icn 9-120
59
Policy TR-1.9: Promote multimodal facilities and services, street design, and development
that indudes residential, commerdal and employment opportunities within
walking/ bicycling distance so that distances traveled are shorter and there is less need for
people to travel by automobile.
Policy TR-1.10: Incorporate pedestrian and transit friendly design features into new
development. Examples include:
• Orient entries of major buildingsto the street and doser to transit stops rather
than to parking lots.
• Avoid constructing largesurface parking areasbetween the building frontage
and the street.
• Provide pedestrian pathwaysthat provide convenient walking distancesto
activities and to transit stops.
• Cluster major buildingswithin developmentsto improve pedestrian and transit
access.
• Provideweather protection such ascovered walkways connecting buildings, and
covered waiting areasfor transit and ridesharing.
• Design for pedestrian safety, providing adequate lighting and barrier free
pedestrian linkages.
• Provide bicyde connections and secure bicycle storage lockers convenient to
major transit fadlities.
• Use design featuresto create an attractive, interesting and safe pedestrian
environment that will encourage pedestrian use.
• Design transit accessto large developments, considering busstops and shelters
as part of the project design.
• Encourage developersof larger commerdal and public projectsto provide
restroomsfor public use.
Policy TR-1.11: Manage access to all residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial
properties along principal, minor and collector arterials. Consider consolidating access
points whenever feasible during development review or design of road improvement
projects.
Trcn ta`icn 9-121
60
Street System
GOAL TR-2: IDENTIFY A HIERARCHAL STREET CLASSIFICATION THAT IS
DESIGNED TO BALANCE STREET CAPACITY NEEDS, COMPATIBILITY AND CONTEXT
OF ADJACENT LAND USES, EMERGENCY RESPONSE EFFORTS, NON-MOTORIZED
TRAVEL, AND MULTIMODAL USER SAFETY.
Policy TR-2.1: Assign a functional classification to each street in the City based on factors
including travel demand of motorized and non-motorized traffic, accessto adjacent land use
and connectivity of the transportation network.
Policy TR-2.2: Preserve needed traffic capacity when planning street improvements by
consistent application of functional classification standards.
Policy TR-2.3: Establish proceduresto implement theauthority granted to the City by RCW
35.79 to inventory, evaluate, and preserve right-of-way needs for future transportation
purposes, and wherever possible, make advance acquisition in order to minimize
inconvenienceto affected property ownersand to safeguard the general publicinterest.
Policy TR-2.4: Consider the context of adjacent land uses (existing and future), the benefits
and desirability of non-motorized travel, and the competition for street space when
reconstructing or adding streets.
Traffic Flow
GOAL T -3: PRESERVE AND EXPAND CAPACITY, MOBILITY AND ACCESS
MANAGEMENT FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION MODES ON THE ARTERIAL NETWORK
TO REDUCE CONGESTION.
Policy TR-3.1: Maintain level of service (LOS) standards that promote growth where
appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system. Set LOS E
as the standard for City Street Corridors. Set LOS F as the standard for the Pacific H ighway
(SR 99) Corridor and for downtown Kent while recognizing WSDOT"s LOS D for SR 99.
Policy TR-3-2: Evaluate the City's transportation facilities annually to determine
compliance with the adopted level of service standards and, as necessary, amend the Slx-
Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Policy TR-3-3: Maintain the flow of traffic on the road system and provide adequate access
to adjacent land uses by using adopted Access Management strategies. These indude:
limiting the number of driveways (usually one per parcel); locating driveways away from
Trcn ta`icn 9-122
61
intersections; connecting parking lots and consolidating driveways to create more
pedestrian-friendly streets.
Policy TR-3.4: Use Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies to maximize the
efficiency of theexisting street network; indude techniques such as intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) and synchronizing traffic signals to facilitate safe and efficient traffic flow on
the arterial street system.
Policy TR-3.5: Develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in support
of mode-split goalsand Commute Trip Reduction.
Neighborhood Traffic
GOAL T -4: BALANCE THE DUAL GOALS OF PROVIDING ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN
THE LOCAL STREET SYSTEM AND ENSURING NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SAFETY.
Policy TR-4.1: Ensure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on
regional through routes, while protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic
volumes.
Policy TR-4.2: Minimize through traffic on residential streets by emphasizing through
traffic opportunities on collector and arterial streets.
Policy TR-4.3: Protect residential areas that are impacted by overflow traffic from the
regional system.
Policy TR-4.4: Enhance the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program (NTCP) to help
residents identify and resolve neighborhood traffic concerns.
Policy TR-4.5: Maintain a connected street network to give people more options and to
spread out the traff ic over more streets.
Transportation Facility Design
GOAL TR-5: DESIGN TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES USING CONTEXT SENSITIVE
DESIGN STRATEGIES TO PRESERVE AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURAL
AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS.
Policy TR-5.1: Encourage landscapes at transportation facilities that complement
neighborhood character and amenities, incorporate street trees in planting strips to improve
air quality and visual aesthetics, and implement traffic calming strategies.
Trcn ta`icn 9-123
62
Policy TR-5.2: Separate pedestrians from traffic lanes on all arterials, wherever possible, by
the use of street trees and landscaped strips, and avoid the construction of sidewalks next to
street curbs.
Policy TR-5.3: Maintain and incorporate prominent features of the natural environment
when landscaping transportation facilities.
Policy TR-5.4: Encourage pedestrian and bicyde connections between residential
developments, neighborhood commerdal centers, and recreation areas.
Policy TR-5.5: Arrange streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods to form a
grid network, providing multiple choices asto path and mode.
Policy TR-5.6: Avoid the creation of excessively large blocks and long local access
residential streets.
Freight Movement
GOAL TR-6: SUPPORT KENT'S INDUSTRIAL VALLEY AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE
MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL CENTER AS A PRIMARY HUB FOR REGIONAL
GOODS MOVEMENT AND AS A GATEWAY FOR INTERNATIONAL GOODS
DISTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL MARKETPLACE.
Policy TR-6.1: Support investments in trucking and rail facilities to enhance the freight
transportation system and strengthen the City's economic base.
Policy TR-6.2: Establish a network of freight routes to improve freight reliability and
mobility incorporating sensitivity to land use context into roadway design.
Policy TR-6.3: Coordinate with BNSF Railroad, UP Railroad, Washington Utilities and
Trade Commission (WUTC), and Sound Transit to ensure maximum transportation
efficiency on both roads and rails, while minimizing adverse impacts on the community.
Policy TR-6.4: Locate new spur tracks to provide a minimum number of street crossings
and to serve a maximum number of sites.
Policy TR-6.5: Provide, when feasible, grade-separated railroad crossings on arterial
corridors to eliminate conflict between rail and road traffic and to enhance the safety and
efficiency of both transportation systems.
Policy TR-6.6: Provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals, on at-grade
crossings. Develop traffic signal preemption that is activated by crossing signals in order to
maintain non-conflicting auto/ truck traffic flow and to facilitate dearing of the grade
crossings prior to when crossings are occupied by trains.
Traq ta`icn 9-124
63
Non-Motorized Transportation
GOAL TR-7: IMPROVE THE NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO
PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONNECTING SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS,
ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES AND SHARED-USE PATHS THAT WILL
ENCOURAGE INCREASED USAGE AND SAFE TRAVEL.
Policy TR-7.1: Implement the Non-Motorized system in a way that reflects the priorities
identified by the public process. Emphasize completion of sidewalks identified as the
highest-high priority (shown in Figure 6-6) and bicycle facilities identified on the Bicycle
System Map (shown in figure 6-11).
Policy TR-7.2: Provide non-motorized facilities including signage within all areas of the
City to connect land use types, facilitate trips made by walking or bicyding, and reduce the
need for automobile trips.
Policy TR-7.3: Create a comprehensive system of pedestrian facilities using incentives and
regulations. All future development should include pedestrian and bicyde connections to
schools, parks, community centers, publictransit services, neighborhoods and other services.
Provide special attention to the requirements set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) regarding the location and design of sidewalks and crosswalks.
Policy TR-7.4: Encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies to
provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues that focus on prevention of
the most important accident problems. The programswill educate all roadway users of their
privileges and responsibilitieswhen driving, bicyding, and walking.
Policy TR-7.5: Encourage an increase in the percent of modal share of commuter trips made
by cydists by the year 2030 by fostering an environment that eliminates deterrents to
bicyding and encourages bicyde use city-widefor all typesof trips.
Policy TR-7.6: Consider needs of bicydists and pedestrians when developing design plans
for City street construction projects consistent with the City's bicycle system plan and
Construction Standards.
Policy TR-7.7: Encouragethe installation of safeand secure bicyde parking facilitiesat park
and ride facilities, train/ transit stations, shopping malls, office buildings, and all land use
types that attract the general public.
Policy TR-7.8: Work with the Kent, the Federal Way, the Highline school districts and
neighborhood associations to support programs that encourage walking and bicycling to
local schools.
Trcn ta`icn 9-125
64
Policy TR-7-9: Encourage efforts that inform the public about the health effects of cyding
and walking. Encourage walking and cycling for travel and recreation to achieve personal
health and well-being and to support a more healthful environment for the community by
redudng noise and pollution.
Policy TR-7.10: Encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agendes to
provide information and instruction on bicycle safety issues that focus on prevention of the
most important accident problems. .
Transit and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV)
GOAL TR-8: ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF ALTERNATIVES TO
SINGLE-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES.
Policy TR-8.1: Work with regional transit providers to resolve the transit needs identified in
the TM P and provide high quality travel options for local residents, employees, students,
visitors, business, and other users of local and regional facilities.
Policy TR-8.2: Work with regional transit providers to establish a hierarchy of transit
services focused on three major elements:
• Kent-Kent Connections
• Kent-South County Connections
• Kent-Regional Connections
Policy TR-8.3: Emphasize transit service and capital investmentsthat provide mobility and
access within the City of Kent and make it possible for residents to access local services and
support local businesseswhile reducing their travel by auto.
Policy TR-8.4: Work with transit providers to maintain and expand direct and frequent
regional bus routes.
Policy TR-8.5: Develop a network of park and ride facilities in cooperation with regional
transit providers and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Work to ensure
that the regional transit system indudes park and ride lots in outlying areas, which could:
• Intercept trips by SOVs doser to the trip origins;
• Reduce traffic congestion; and
• Reducetotal vehide milestraveled
Trcn ta`icn 9-126
65
Policy TR-8.6: Secure a share of regional transit system facilities and service priorities for
Kent residents proportional to the City of Kent's contributed share of regional transit
revenues.
Policy TR-8.7: Coordinate with transit providers to enhance transit service information and
provide incentives to encourage and facilitate transit use and ridesharing.
Policy TR-8.8: Develop the Kent Transit Center with complete set of transit center
amenities, including timed transfers between most routes, passenger waiting areas,
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) bus arrival notification, on-site route information,
and other amenities.
Policy TR-8.9: Coordinate with transit providers and other transportation agencies in the
design and placement of bus shelters and transit supportive facilities that are needed at both
ends of the transit trip when the transit rider becomes a pedestrian or a bike rider. These
indude but are not limited to transit shelters, bike racks or lockers, good (illuminated)
pedestrian paths to and from transit stops and covered walkways wherever possible. Work
with transit agencies and developers to design transit facilities that are compatible with
neighborhood character.
Policy TR-8.10: Work with employers to provide Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures in the workplace that promote alternatives to single occupant vehides
(SOV). The City will lead by example by implementing a successful Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) program for City employees.
Policy TR-8.11: Develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in support
of mode-split goals. These include, but are not limited to, parking management,
individualized marketing, ridesharing and support of non-motorized travel.
Policy TR-8.12: Work with private developers and transit providers to integrate transit
facilities into residential, retail, manufacturing, commercial, office and other types of
development using thefollowing actions:
• Support transit by including land useswith mixed-use and night-time activities;
• Support transit-oriented development opportunities with the private and public
sectors;
• Integrate multiple access modes, including buses, carpools, vanpools, bicycles
and pedestrians;
• Support and facilitate transit use by choice of urban design and community
character.
Trcn ta`icn 9-127
66
Funding
GOAL T -9: PURSUE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FROM ALL
POTENTIAL SOURCES IN AN EFFICIENT AND EQUITABLE MANNER.
Policy TR-9.1: Consider the full range of public and private funding sources available for
all modes of transportation.
Policy TR-9.2: Allow for funding of growth-related traffic improvements by impact fees or
other mechanismsthat apportion costs in relation to the impact of new development.
Policy TR-9.3: Identify and evaluate alternative land use and transportation scenarios,
including assumptions about levels and distribution of population and employment
densities, types and mixes of land use, and transportation facilities and services, and assess
their effects on transportation funding needs.
Policy TR-9.4: Support regional, state and federal initiatives to increase transportation
funding. The City will also continue to use its authority under law, including chapter 35.72
RCW and Chapter 6.05 KMC. Such authority allows for contracts with developers for the
construction or improvement of street projects which the owners elect to install as result of
ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite to further property development.
Contracts may provide for LIDS, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available
programs.
Policy TR-9.5: Coordinate equitable public/ private partnerships, such as Local
Improvement Districts (LID), Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD), Transportation Benefit
Zones (TBZ), and Transportation Management Associations (TMA) to help pay for
transportation improvements. The City may contract with owners of real estate for the
participation in LIDS, assessment reimbursement areas, or other available processes for
construction or improvement of street projects required for further property development.
Policy TR-9.6: Establish a mechanism to provide a multi-jurisdictional cooperation to fund
transportation improvements, participate in joint ventures and promote them to improve
inter-jurisdictional transportation systems.
Policy TR-9.7: Create a funding mechanism that can be applied across boundaries to
address the impact on the City's transportation system of growth outside the City's
boundaries.
Policy TR-9.8: Emphasize investmentsfor the preservation and enhancement of the existing
transportation fadlities. Seek funding from a variety of sources and consider pursuing new
revenue opportunities for roadway maintenance and improvements to encourage non-SOV
modes of travel.
Trcn ta`icn 9-128
67
Intergovernmental Coordination
GOAL TR-10: COORDINATE TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS, PLANNING, AND
IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE STATE, THE COUNTY, NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS,
AND ALL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE CITY'S
INTERESTS ARE WELL REPRESENTED IN REGIONAL PLANNING STRATEGIES,
POLICIES AND PROJECTS.
Policy TR-10.1: Emphasize City representation on planning boards that have authority over
or can affect the City's transportation system.
Policy TR-10.2: Identify opportunities to partner with neighboring jurisdictions, regional
transit agencies, or other agencies in order to improve funding opportunities from state,
federal or other grant providers.
Policy TR-10.3: Coordinate planning for developments that impact transportation level-of-
service across jurisdictional boundaries.
Policy TR-10.4: Support intergovernmental programsthat emphasize regional mobility for
people and goods, promote the urban center approach to growth management, and seek to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy TR-10.5: Coordinate with state, regional and neighboring agencies to encourage
pass-through traffic to by-pass downtown Kent, thus reducing unnecessary air pollution and
congestion.
Policy TR-10.6: Support innovative transportation system management strategies such as
H igh Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes that help keep the regional traffic on the freeways rather
than spilling over onto the City arterials.
Environmental Preservation
GOAL TR-11. ENSURE THAT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ARE DEVELOPED AND
MAINTAINED IN A MANNER THAT IS SENSITIVE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
AND SUPPORT A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT MINIMIZES ITS IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
Policy TRA1-1: Minimize levels of harmful pollutants generated by transportation-related
construction, operations, and maintenance activities from entering surface and groundwater
resources.
Traq ta`icn 9-129
68
Policy TR-11.2: Improve management strategies to reduce contamination from street runoff
and stormwater. Coordinate these efforts with other jurisdictions, as well as regional and
state agencies.
Policy TR-11.3: Ensure that transportation-related improvement projects comply with state
and federal guidelinesfor air and water quality.
Policy TR-11.4: Promote energy conservation and greenhouse gas reductions by
implementing TDM goals and policies and Commute Trip Reduction strategies.
Traq ta`icn 9-130
69
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNI NG SERVI CES DI VI SI ON
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
KENT Phone 253-856-5454
WP5HINGTON
Fax 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
March 2, 2015
TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use & Planning Board Members
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
RE: Zoning Code Amendments — High Capacity Transit Facilities
March 9, 2015
SUMMARY: Staff will present to the Board a draft ordinance related to process
and design standards for high capacity transit (HCT) facilities. The language of the
ordinance is from the City of SeaTac code for such facilities, with some
adjustments. The code amendments provide more specific regulations for HCT
facilities than are provided in the existing zoning regulations and design standards
for development in the Midway area.
BUDGET I MPACT: None
BACKGROUND: As Sound Transit prepares to make decisions on alignments and
station locations in the Kent-Des Moines area, staff drafted process and code
standards for design, multi-modal transportation connections, pedestrian-oriented
public spaces and furnishings to support transit-oriented development. The
proposed amendments also address flexibility provided through a development
agreement.
Staff will be available at the March 9`h workshop to discuss the proposed
amendments.
CA/ah:
En c. Draft Ordinance
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Project File"Misc."
70
71
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
city of Kent, Washington, amending Title 15 of the
Kent City Code (KCC), also referred to as the
Zoning Code, to adopt a new chapter 15.36 KCC,
pertaining to design standards for high capacity
transit (HCT) facilities.
RECITALS
A. The Midway Subarea Plan (Midway Plan), adopted by the City
Council on December 13, 2011, conveys a range of actions that prepares
the area for future high capacity light rail transit and is intended to inform
decisions of public and private entities.
B. The Midway Plan was the result of a collaborative visioning
effort called Envision Midway, involving the city of Kent, the city of Des
Moines, the community and multiple stakeholders. The Midway Plan
supports continued coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, and regional
and state transportation agencies, to ensure facilities and services are
provided as planned.
C. The overall goal of the Midway Plan is to: "Create a dense,
pedestrian-friendly, sustainable community that provides jobs, housing,
services and public open space around nodes of high capacity mass transit
while maintaining auto-oriented uses between the transit oriented nodes."
1 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
72
D. The Midway Plan envisions a well-designed built environment,
including pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, multimodal connections, a
variety of housing types and jobs that support transit use, effective parks
and open space, and a regional storm water management system.
E. Growth capacity in the Midway area is up to 11,821
households and 9,481 jobs accommodated within a phased approach.
F. Sound Transit is conducting environmental analysis for a light
rail station in the Midway area. Eight different station locations are being
analyzed. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this light rail
extension is expected to be released in early 2015, with the station
operational in 2023.
G. The City continues to participate in discussions with
interjurisdictional staff, significant stakeholders such as Highline
Community College, Sound Transit's Interagency Working Group and
elected official meetings to help guide the efforts of Sound Transit as they
analyze alignment and station locations through the cities of SeaTac, Des
Moines, Kent and Federal Way.
H. The city of Kent also engaged the services of the Urban Land
Institute to recommend which of the eight station locations being analyzed
would best support transit-oriented development in Kent. Light rail
alignment, parking facilities, station locations and design are key
components of successful place-making in high capacity transit areas.
I. Sound Transit is making an investment of between $1.3 and
$1.8 billion dollars in extending light rail from the Angle Lake Station (S.
200th Street) to a future station in the vicinity of the Federal Way Transit
Center. It is critical that the city of Kent and Sound Transit collaborate in
2 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
73
determining the best alignment and station locations for implementing the
Midway Plan.
3. (SEPA section)
K. (State notification)
L. (LUPB workshop, public hearing and recommendation)
M. (ECDC consideration and recommendation)
N. (City Council decision)
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. — New Section. Title 15 of the Kent City Code is
amended by adding a new chapter 15.36 to read as follows:
Sec. 15.36.010. Purpose. The design standards for high capacity
transit (HCT) facilities are intended to encourage:
A. Facilities and stations that are well designed;
B. Development of distinctive community focal points;
C. Connections between the HCT network, adjacent development, and
community vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle routes;
D. Incorporation of pedestrian-oriented furnishings and a variety of
public spaces;
E. Adequate buffers between different types of land uses; and
F. Uses of alternative travel modes rather than single-occupant
vehicles.
3 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
74
Sec. 15.36.015. Director. For purposes of this chapter, "director'
means the Director of Economic & Community Development or the
director's designee.
Sec. 15.36.020. Authority and application.
A. This chapter shall apply to:
1. Any form of HCT, such as light or heavy rail, train, express
bus, Personal Rapid Transit, People Mover, or other similar technology,
that moves large numbers of people to set destinations, but excluding
transit systems designed to exclusively serve transport to and from airport
terminals or associated airport facilities;
2. All property owned, purchased or leased by public agencies
for the purpose of constructing or operating HCT systems and associated
facilities; and
3. All HCT facility construction requiring a city building permit,
but excluding bus stops, or minor expansions (less than twenty percent
(20%)) of existing HCT facilities.
B. In order to provide flexibility and creativity of project design, minor
variations from these standards may be permitted, subject to the approval
of the director, if the strict interpretation or application of these standards
would be inconsistent with related or more restrictive provisions of the
Zoning Code, or would be contrary to the overall purpose or intent of city
goals and policies established in the Comprehensive Plan.
Sec. 15.36.100. Station design.
Sec. 15.36.110 Architectural expression.
A. In order to ensure that HCT station facilities, associated site
furnishings, and public art are designed as an expression of community
4 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
75
identity, each HCT station within the city shall be consistent with a locally-
determined design theme.
B. HCT station design themes shall be approved by the City Council.
Sec. 15.36.120. Site furnishings.
A. Weather protection/shelters.
1. Weather protection/shelters shall be provided at station
platforms and buildings by including vertical and horizontal
features to minimize passenger exposure to wind and rain.
The weather protection may be in the form of awnings,
marquees, canopies, building overhangs, walls or other
features acceptable to the Director.
2. In order to ensure that HCT weather protection/shelters are
designed as an expression of community identity, roof designs
shall conform to one (1) of the following options:
1. Roofline with architectural focal point. A roofline focal
point refers to a prominent rooftop feature such as a peak, barrel
vault, undulating curve, or roofline art installation.
2. Roofline variation. A roofline articulated through a
variation or step in roof height or detail.
B. Benches and seating areas.
1. HCT station areas and platforms shall include seating areas
designed and arranged as part of a coherent HCT station theme. Station
platforms shall include at least one (1) linear foot of seating per each ten
(10) linear foot length of station loading platform.
2. Usable open space areas adjacent to HCT stations, such as
publicly accessible plazas, courtyards and pocket parks, shall include at
5 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
76
least one (1) linear foot of seating per each fifty (50) square feet of plaza,
courtyard or pocket park space on site.
3. HCT station seating shall be in the form of:
a. Leaning rails associated with platform waiting areas (no
more than fifty percent (50%) of total linear feet of seating);
b. Benches or chairs of a minimum twenty (20) inches in
width; or
C. Seating incorporated into low walls, raised planters or
building foundations at least twelve (12) inches wide and eighteen (18)
inches high.
C. Platform landscaping and associated open space.
1. The principal ground level exterior entry point(s) to at-grade
or elevated station platforms shall include a minimum two hundred (200)
square feet of usable open space consisting of decorative paving.
a. Usable open space shall include one (1) or more
publicly accessible plazas, courtyards, pocket parks or decorative paving
areas constructed contiguous with new or existing sidewalks located either
within the front yard setback or elsewhere on site.
b. Developments proposed to include on-site plazas and
pocket parks as publicly accessible project amenities shall link the open
space elements with adjacent sidewalks, pedestrian paths, or bikeways.
2. Decorative paving areas shall be constructed of such
materials as stamped, broom finish, or scored concrete; brick or modular
pavers. One (1) deciduous tree of at least three (3) inches diameter
(caliper) measured four (4) feet above the ground at the time of planting,
or one (1) evergreen tree at least eight (8) feet in height from treetop to
the ground level at the time of planting, shall be required for every two
hundred (200) square feet of decorative paving area.
6 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
77
3. At-grade HCT stations shall include trees in landscape beds or
planting wells on or adjacent to the station platform.
D. Ornamental fencing.
1. The design, color and materials of any fencing associated with
an HCT station shall be consistent with the city's established station design
theme, in accordance with KCC 15.36.110.
2. Where station area fencing is proposed to be included, the
fence type shall conform to one (1) or more of the following options:
a. Ornamental iron or steel,
b. Cable and bollard fencing;
C. Post and chain fencing; or
d. Brick.
3. HCT station area fencing shall not include barbed wire, razor
wire or chain-link fencing.
E. Restroom facilities. HCT stations associated with a Park-and-Ride
facility shall include public restrooms with sanitary sewer connections, as
well as hot and cold running water.
F. Garbage receptacles. Garbage receptacles shall be provided at
station areas.
G. Bicycle parking areas.
1. Rack space for a minimum of ten (10) bicycles shall be
provided at each station.
2. Bicycle parking areas shall be located out of pedestrian
walkways, and within fifty (50) feet of station entrances.
7 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
78
G. Materials. Exterior materials and site furnishings associated with
HCT station structures shall be consistent with the city's established station
design theme, in accordance with KCC 15.36.110, and selected to handle
long-term exposure to weather and heavy use.
Sec. 15.36.130. Lighting.
A. Lighting associated with all HCT facilities shall be screened, hooded
or otherwise limited in illumination area so as to minimize excessive "light
throw" to off-site areas. Light fixtures shall be sited and directed to
minimize glare.
B. Light post standards at the pedestrian level shall be no greater than
sixteen (16) feet in height. Light post standards used to illuminate
vehicular access ways and parking lots shall be no greater than twenty five
(25) feet in height.
C. Exterior lighting shall be used to identify and distinguish the
pedestrian walkway network from car or transit circulation. Along
pedestrian circulation corridors, light post standards shall be placed
between pedestrian ways and public or private streets, driveways or
parking areas.
D. Light post standard designs shall be approved by the director,
consistent with the city's established station design theme, in accordance
with KCC 15.36.110.
Sec. 15.36.200. Guideway architecture.
Sec. 15.36.210. Track design.
A. At-grade HCT track within or immediately adjacent to a public street
right-of-way shall be embedded in a non-asphalt, ornamental paving
material, consisting of patterned or colored concrete, brick, cobble stone-
s High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
79
patterned pavers, grass-crete, or other similar ornamental paving system,
as approved by the director.
B. Any structural supports for the HCT overhead catenary system
within or immediately adjacent to a public street right-of-way shall be low
profile and carefully selected as part of a unified street design. Where
possible, the HCT overhead catenary system shall be supported through
arm extensions attached to light standards or other traditional streetscape
elements.
Sec. 15.36.220. Buffering of track corridor.
A. Landscaping.
1. At-grade HCT track corridors shall be screened from adjacent
streets or nearby development with minimum five (5) foot wide landscape
strip(s) of trees, low shrubs and ground cover paralleling the track
corridor, as approved by the director. The required five (5) foot landscape
strip width dimension shall be a measurement of the usable soil area
between pavement curb edges.
2. The area beneath elevated guideways not utilized for other
public purposes including, but not limited to streets, sidewalks, parking
and parks, shall be landscaped in accordance with Chapter 15.07 KCC for
Type V landscaping which may be modified depending upon site conditions.
Any modification shall be approved by the director.
B. Noise barriers. Where noise barrier sound walls are to be included in
addition to the required landscape strip along HCT corridors, wall design
and type shall conform to one (1) or more of the following options:
1. Pre-cast or cast-in-place concrete with architectural texturing;
or
2. Patterned masonry.
9 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
80
C. Light rail vehicle noise suppression. Light rail vehicles and
associated track shall utilize the best available noise suppression
technology in order to minimize adverse impacts to adjacent properties.
D. Track corridor access control.
1. At-grade HCT track within or immediately adjacent to a public
street right-of-way, with the exception of dedicated crossing points, shall
be separated from auto/pedestrian areas through the inclusion of one (1)
of the following:
a. Cable and bollard fencing;
b. Post and chain fencing;
C. Contrasting surface material and texture;
d. Landscape median(s) between the HCT track right-of-
way and auto/pedestrian areas; or
e. Rolled curb.
2. Where fencing along HCT track corridors is to be included in
areas not within or adjacent to a public street right-of-way, the fence type
shall conform to one (1) or more of the following options:
a. Ornamental iron or steel,
b. Chain link with top rail, colored vinyl coating, or
decorative slatting;
C. Cable and bollard fencing; or
d. Post and chain fencing.
3. HCT track corridor fencing shall not include barbed wire,
razor wire, or chain link fencing without a colored vinyl coating or
decorative slatting.
Sec. 15.36.230. Elevated structures. The design of support
columns for elevated sections of HCT track visible from the public right-of-
10 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
81
way shall conform to at least one (1) of the following options, as approved
by the director:
A. A decorative form pattern, or other architectural feature over at
least fifty percent (50%) of the surface of support columns; or
B. Projections, indentations, or intervals of material change to break up
the surface of support columns.
Sec. 15.36.240. Pedestrian crossings of track and access to
stations. In order to minimize risk of collision with light rail transit
vehicles or other vehicular traffic, pedestrian crossings of HCT track or
public streets serving HCT stations shall conform to the following standard:
A. Crossings of streets with less than thirty thousand (30,000) daily
vehicle trips shall include a signalized pedestrian crossing.
B. Crossings of streets with more than thirty thousand (30,000) daily
vehicle trips shall include a pedestrian overpass.
Sec. 15.36.300. Parking.
Sec. 15.36.310. Minimum parking space requirements.
A. In order to provide adequate off-street parking, the lead agency for
HCT shall be required to provide a parking study, prepared as part of an
EIS or separately, for each station demonstrating that the parking demand
will be satisfied. The director shall review the proposed minimum number
of required parking spaces per HCT station and, after consultation with the
Public Works Director, make a determination as to adequacy, based on a
comparable parking demand.
11 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
82
B. The minimum number of required parking spaces per HCT station,
as established pursuant to this section preceding, shall be utilized as the
basis for determining the threshold standard for the inclusion of structured
parking, as specified in KCC 15.36.410.
Sec. 15.36.320. Surface parking lot landscaping and
treatment of perimeter.
A. At least ten percent (10%) of the interior surface parking area shall
have landscaping when the total of parking spaces exceeds twenty (20),
including a minimum of one (1) tree for every seven (7) parking spaces to
be distributed between rows or spaces throughout the parking lot.
B. Surface parking shall be visually screened from public or private
streets by means of building placement or landscaping. The perimeter of a
parking lot shall be planted with a minimum of five (5) feet in width of
Type III landscaping. Any abutting landscaped areas can be credited
toward meeting this standard.
C. The required width dimension for interior parking area planting beds
shall be a measurement of the usable soil area between pavement curb
edges. Trees and required landscaping shall be placed in planting beds at
least five (5) feet in width between parking rows or spaces within the
interior of the parking lot.
Sec. 15.36.330. Pedestrian circulation through parking lots.
A. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided through surface parking lots
containing one hundred (100) or more parking spaces. Pedestrian
walkways shall be raised a minimum of three (3) inches, and shall be a
minimum of six (6) feet-wide, separated from vehicular travel lanes to the
maximum extent possible and designed to provide safe access to HCT
station platforms or existing pedestrian ways.
12 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
83
1. For parking rows perpendicular to HCT station loading
platforms, pedestrian ways shall be located between two (2) rows of
parking spaces at a minimum of one (1) pedestrian way every two
hundred (200) feet.
2. For parking rows parallel to HCT station loading platforms,
pedestrian ways shall be incorporated adjacent to a series of aligned
landscape islands at a minimum of one (1) walkway every twenty-one (21)
parking spaces.
B. The pedestrian way network shall be clearly distinguished from
vehicular or transit circulation. This is particularly important in areas where
these various travel modes intersect, such as at driveway entrances.
Where sidewalks or walkways cross vehicular driveways, the pedestrian
crossing shall be distinguished from the driveway surface by use of a
continuous raised crossing or by marking with a contrasting paving
material.
Sec. 15.36.340. Placement of surface parking facilities. Except
for short-term loading and off-loading areas, portions of HCT station
surface parking lots within one hundred (100) feet of Pacific Highway
South shall be allowed only as an interim use subject to the following
requirements:
A. A site plan as established in KCC 15.36.800(A); and
B. A binding commitment that the portion of any surface parking
facility within one hundred (100) feet of Pacific Highway South is made
available for transit-oriented development within a set time period, as
determined by the city.
13 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
84
The term "transit-oriented development" refers to public/private
development that supports transit use. Transit-oriented development
projects emphasize pedestrian access, and include a mix of residential,
commercial, recreational and service activities at or around transit
facilities.
Sec. 15.36.400. Parking structures.
Sec. 15.36.410. Threshold standard for the inclusion of
structured parking. In order to meet city goals for high density
development near transit stations, each HCT station with more than two
hundred (200) associated parking spaces within the city shall include a
parking structure either on-site or on adjacent property with capacity to
house all of the total minimum number of required parking spaces, as
established in KCC 15.36.310.
Sec. 15.36.420. Parking structure design.
A. Parking decks should be flat where feasible. At a minimum, a
majority of both the ground floor and top parking decks shall be required
to be flat, as opposed to continuously ramping.
B. External elevator towers and stairwells shall be open to public view,
or enclosed with transparent glazing.
C. Lighting on or within multi-level parking structures shall be
screened, hooded or otherwise limited in illumination area so as to
minimize excessive "light throw" to off-site areas but provide sufficient
lighting internally.
D. Parking structure top floor wall designs must conform to one (1) or
more of the following options:
14 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
85
1. Architectural focal point. A prominent edge feature such as a
glazed elevator or stair tower, or top floor line trellis structure.
2. Projecting cornice. Top floor wall line articulated through a
variation or step in cornice height or detail. Cornices must be located at or
near the top of the wall or parapet.
3. Articulated parapet. Top floor wall line parapets shall
incorporate angled, curved or stepped detail elements.
Sec. 15.36.430. Parking structure character and massing.
Parking structure elevations over one hundred fifty (150) feet in length
shall incorporate vertical or horizontal variation in setback, material or
fenestration design along the length of the applicable facade, in at least
one (1) of the following ways:
A. Vertical facades shall be designed to incorporate intervals of
architectural variation at least every sixty (60) feet over the length of the
applicable facade including one (1) or more of the following:
1. Varying the arrangement, proportioning or design of garage
floor openings;
2. Incorporating changes in architectural materials, including
texture and color; or
3. Projecting forward or recessing back portions or elements of
the parking structure facade.
B. Horizontal facades shall be designed to differentiate the ground floor
from upper floors including one (1) or more of the following:
15 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
86
1. Stepping back the upper floors from the ground floor parking
structure facade;
2. Changing materials between the parking structure base and
upper floors; or
3. Including a continuous cornice line or pedestrian weather
protection element between the ground floor and upper floors.
Sec. 15.36.440. Ground floor uses in parking structures.
A. Parking structures shall be designed so that a minimum of fifty
percent (50%) of the length of the exterior ground floor facade(s) with
existing or projected adjacent foot traffic, excluding vehicle entrances and
exits, includes ground floor area either built out as, or convertible to,
retail/commercial or service uses.
B. The applicable ground floor area shall extend in depth a minimum of
twenty (20) feet from the exterior parking structure facade; provided, that
the minimum required may be averaged, with no depth less than fifteen
(15) feet.
C. The clear interior ceiling height standard for the retail/commercial or
service use portion of parking structures shall be a minimum of fourteen
(14) feet.
D. Parking structure ground floors shall include fire suppressing
sprinkler systems at the time of construction.
E. The City may consider a ground floor bus or drop-off facility rather
than retail or service uses if it is determined such a facility would better
promote transit-oriented development around the station.
16 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
87
Sec. 15.36.500. Community Connections.
Sec. 15.36.510. Off-site improvements.
A. To promote public transit use, the city and the lead agency for the
development of high capacity transit facilities shall coordinate an
assessment of the need for vehicular and pedestrian access improvements
within a comfortable walking distance of each city high capacity transit
station. Fifteen hundred (1,500) feet is considered a "comfortable walking
distance;" however, the actual distance could be greater or lesser
depending on surrounding features.
B. HCT station area access improvements shall include the following:
1. HCT station platforms shall be connected to nearby core
commercial, residential and employment areas through paved sidewalks,
pedestrian-only walkways or pedestrian overpasses. Stations and park-
and-ride facilities shall be linked when feasible with existing and proposed
bike routes and pedestrian trails as shown in the city's Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Station area street improvements shall include sidewalks,
street trees, street front landscaping, improved lighting, and if applicable,
bus stop and HOV lane improvements, as approved by the Director of
Community and Economic Development after consultation with the Director
of Public Works.
Sec. 15.36.600. Signage.
Sec. 15.36.610. Directional/informational signage.
A. Directional or informational signage associated with HCT stations
shall be consistent with the city's established station design theme, in
accordance with KCC 15.36.110.
17 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
88
B. The lead agency for the construction of HCT shall coordinate with
the city in determining appropriate installation locations and design of
station exterior or off-site signage.
Sec. 15.36.620. Community guides/maps/directories/
bulletin boards.
A. Local information signs associated with HCT stations, in the form of
community guides, maps, directories, or bulletin boards, are intended to
convey information to the general public regarding local services,
amenities, or general city information.
B. The lead agency shall coordinate with the city in determining
appropriate installation locations for one (1) or more forms of local
information signage at each HCT station.
Sec. 15.36.630. Station-related advertising signage. No
commercial advertising signage shall be visible from outside the HCT
station.
Sec. 15.36.700. Fire Safety.
Sec. 15.36.710. Safety standards. The design of HCT stations
and associated facilities, including elevated structures, shall conform to the
most current versions of all applicable sections of the Building Code, Fire
Code, and National Fire Protection Standards No. 130.
Sec. 15.36.800 Development plan — filing requirements.
Development applications must be submitted in sufficient detail to allow
review of the project in accordance with the special standards of this
chapter, SEPA requirements, and other applicable provisions of this code.
18 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
89
In addition to existing application requirements, the following information,
at a minimum, must be included as elements in every HCT development
application:
A. Site plan. A site plan, at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch to
twenty (20) feet, must show the following:
1. The location, size and finished grade of all proposed and
existing on-site structures, as well as the existing topography and the
grade of all public or private streets adjacent to the site;
2. A circulation plan which depicts access to the site and the
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic flow on-site, as well as links with
developments on adjoining parcels. Site access and circulation shall be
approved by both the Director of Public Works and the Director of
Community and Economic Development;
3. The location, arrangement, and total square footage of on-
site useable open space areas, as specified in KCC 15.36.900 through
15.36.910;
4. Links to open spaces and landscaped areas on adjacent
parcels;
5. The lot lines and footprints of all structures on all parcels
within two hundred (200) feet of the boundaries of the project parcel; and
6. Provide details on how all mechanical and utility rooftop
equipment will be screened.
Sec. 15.36.900 Minimum open space area required.
A. A minimum of ten percent (10%) of net site area shall be set aside
as usable outdoor open space accessible to the public.
19 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
90
1. Required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without
common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included
toward meeting the minimum open space area requirement.
2. Driveways, parking, or other auto uses shall not be included
in any usable outdoor open space area.
3. Areas of a parcel with slopes greater than eight percent (8%)
shall not qualify as usable outdoor open space, unless the area has been
developed with an enhanced accessibility system of stairs, ramps,
terraces, trails, seating areas, or other site improvements as approved by
the director.
4. Wetlands, streams, and their associated buffers shall be
excluded for the purpose of calculating the open space requirement.
5. Provided that such facilities are at grade and not covered,
storm water facilities shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the
open space requirement.
B. Usable open space shall include one (1) or more of the following:
1. Active outdoor recreation areas;
2. Multi-purpose green spaces;
3. Pedestrian-only corridors separate from the public or private
roadway system and dedicated to passive recreation, including access
links in sensitive area buffers (also see Chapter 11.06 KCC). The square
footage (length times width) of pedestrian-only corridors shall be counted
as usable open space. A pedestrian overpass on a street shall not be
counted as usable open space; or
4. Publicly accessible plazas, courtyards, pocket parks and
decorative paving areas constructed contiguous with new or existing
sidewalks located either within the front yard setback or elsewhere on-
site. Developments proposing on-site plazas and pocket parks as publicly
20 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
91
accessible project amenities shall link the open space elements with
adjacent sidewalks, pedestrian paths, or bikeways. Publicly accessible
courtyard designs shall conform to the following standards:
a. The courtyard dimension is a measurement of the
usable open space between two (2) buildings or to a property line, and
shall have a width equal to the height of the building, up to a maximum of
seventy-five (75) feet, but in no cases less than twenty (20) feet.
b. If the enclosing walls of a courtyard terrace upward
and back with succeeding stories, the courtyard dimension shall be
measured from the lowest enclosing floor or projection.
C. The front yard open space requirement as per KCC 15.36.910 may
be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement.
D. Usable open space areas on-site shall be organized and designed in
a manner that allows for maximum integration with open space on
adjacent parcels, as specified in KCC 15.36.930.
Sec. 15.36.910 Front yard open space.
The following front yard open space regulation shall supersede the street
frontage landscape requirement as specified in Chapter 15.07 KCC. The
building facade landscaping and other landscaping requirements shall
continue to apply.
A. Front yard open space area equal to the square footage of a five (5)
foot strip along the length of the street-facing front facade(s) shall be
developed and arranged in a manner that is accessible to the public at all
times, directly connected to a sidewalk or pedestrian pathway, and
bordered on at least one (1) side by, or readily accessible from, approved
structure(s) on-site. Front yard open space shall be placed in one (1) or
more of the following ways, as approved by the director:
21 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
92
1. Plaza, courtyard, or pocket park. Publicly accessible open
space of a minimum two hundred (200) square feet that is adjacent to a
pedestrian building entrance and consisting of at least fifty percent (50%)
decorative paving. The remaining percentage of required open space area
may be installed as plantings within or immediately adjacent to the plaza,
courtyard, or pocket park. One (1) tree shall be required for every two
hundred (200) square feet of decorative paving area. Decorative paving
areas shall be constructed of such materials as stamped, broom finish, or
scored concrete; brick or modular pavers;
2. Multi-purpose green space. A combination of grass,
pedestrian ways, and seating areas of a minimum two hundred (200)
square feet. One (1) tree shall be required for every two hundred (200)
square feet of green space area; or
3. Decorative paving contiguous with sidewalk. A minimum five
(5) foot wide decorative paving area constructed contiguous with a new or
existing sidewalk along the length of the front yard building facade,
coupled with a direct connection between the building entrance and
sidewalk.
B. Outdoor seating. Publicly accessible plazas, courtyards, and pocket
parks shall include at least one (1) linear foot of seating per each forty
(40) square feet of plaza, courtyard, or pocket park space on-site.
Outdoor seating shall be in the form of:
1. Freestanding outdoor benches of a minimum sixteen (16)
inches wide; or
2. Seating incorporated into low walls, raised planters or
building foundations at least twelve (12) inches wide and eighteen (18)
inches high.
C. Focal point for plazas, courtyards and pocket parks. In addition to
seating, publicly accessible plazas, courtyards, and pocket parks should
22 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
93
incorporate one (1) or more of the following open space amenities in order
to encourage pedestrian use and activity:
1. Public art, such as a water feature or sculpture;
2. Performance/stage areas; or
3. Other public amenities, as approved by the director.
D. Accessory site furnishings. Accessory site furnishings shall be
located so as not to obstruct pedestrian access along sidewalks and to
businesses.
1. Waste receptacles, movable planters and other accessory site
furnishings shall be of a design which is compatible with the design of the
plaza, courtyard, or pocket park, through the use of similar detailing or
materials.
Sec. 15.36.930 Relation to adjacent development. Proposed
developments shall coordinate with current site planning and development
efforts on adjoining parcels to take advantage of opportunities to mutually
improve development design.
A. Adjacent developments shall link open spaces and landscaping
whenever possible.
B. Proposed developments shall provide publicly accessible pedestrian
connections to adjacent residential neighborhoods wherever possible, via a
through-block walkway or links to sidewalks. Provide stairs or ramps
where necessary when topographic barriers, such as steep slopes, inhibit
23 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
94
direct access to surrounding development or destination points, such as
transit stops.
C. Where multi-family residential development is located adjacent to
retail, commercial, employment, or institutional uses, side or rear yard
landscape buffers shall be intersected by approved pedestrian circulation
routes in order to facilitate convenient walking connections to adjacent
uses or services.
D. Buildings or structures that terminate view corridors shall include
architectural features that increase the visibility and landmark status of
the subject building facade, such as a clearly defined building modulation,
pedestrian entry feature or roof line that accentuates the building as a
focal point....
Walkway along the front
of the building mnnec[s
ind ividual srores.
Waikways connect the ia
bnildiag entrrlice to
adjacent sites.
SECTION 2. — Amended Section. Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows:
15.04.060 Transportation, public, and utilities land uses.
24 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
95
Zoning Districts
Key
P=
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S—
Special
Uses
C=
Conditiona
I Uses
A=
Accessory
Uses
M M
A- A S S R- S S M R- R- M M M M N C D D M M M C C G M M M M M G
1 R- R- R- R- R- T T R- R- R- H C C TC TC C M M O 1- w
0 G 1 3 5' 6 8 D 1 1 G M H P C G G E -1 -2 R -1 -2 C A 1 C 2 3 C
2 6
Commerci C C C C C
al parking
lots or
structures
Transporta C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C
lion and
transit (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (6 (1
facilities, 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) ) 1)
including
high
capacity (1 (1
transit 2) 1)
facilities
Railway C C C C C C C
and bus
depots,
taxi stands
Utility and C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
transporta
lion
facilities:
Electrical
substation
s,
pumping
or
regulating
devices for
25 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
96
Zoning Districts
Key
P=
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S—
Special
Uses
C=
Conditiona
I Uses
A=
Accessory
Uses
M M
A- A S S R- S S M R- R- M M M M N C D D M M M C C G M M M M M G
1 R- R- R- R- R- T T R- R- R- H C C TC TC C M M O 1- w
0 G 1 3 5' 6 8 D 1 1 G M H P C G G E -1 -2 R -1 -2 C A 1 C 2 3 C
2 6
the
transmissi
on of
water,
gas,
steam,
petroleum,
etc.
Public C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C C C C C C C C C C C C C
facilities:
Firehouses
,police
stations,
libraries,
and
administra
five offices
of
governme
ntal
agencies,
primary
and
secondary
schools,
vocational
schools,
and
colleges
26 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
97
Zoning Districts
Key
P=
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S—
Special
Uses
C=
Conditiona
I Uses
A=
Accessory
Uses
M M
A- A S S R- S S M R- R- M M M M N C D D M M M C C G M M M M M G
1 R- R- R- R- R- T T R- R- R- H C C TC TC C M M O 1- W
0 G 1 3 5' 6 8 D 1 1 G M H P C G G E -1 -2 R -1 -2 C A 1 C 2 3 C
2 6
Accessory A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
uses and
buildings
7
customaril (
y
appurtena
nt to a
permitted
U.
Wireless P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
telecomm
unications (2 (2 (2 (2 (2 (2 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (2 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1
facility ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
(NI)by
administra
five (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3
approval ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Wireless C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
telecomm
unications (5 (5 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (5 (5 (5 (8 (5 (4 (4 (4 (4 (4 (4 (5 (4 (4 (4 (4 (4 (4
facility ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
(W F)by
conditional (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3 (3
use permit ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
EV
harging
(9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9
27 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
98
Zoning Districts
Key
P=
Principally
Permitted
Uses
S—
Special
Uses
C=
Conditiona
I Uses
A=
Accessory
Uses
M M
A- A S S R- S S M R- R- M M M M N C D D M M M C C G M M M M M G
1 R- R- R- R- R- T T R- R- R- H C C TC TC C M M O 1- W
0 G 1 3 5' 6 8 D 1 1 G M H P C G G E -1 -2 R -1 -2 C A 1 C 2 3 C
2 6
station ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Rapid
charging
station (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1 (1
0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
SECTION 3. —Amendment. Chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code is
amended as follows:
Sec. 15.04.065. Transportation, public, and utilities land use
development conditions.
1. For WTF towers ninety (90) feet or less for a single user and up to
one hundred twenty (120) feet for two (2) or more users.
28 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
99
2. For WTF towers that are within the allowable building height for the
district in which they are located.
3. All WTFs are subject to applicable portions of KCC 15.08.035.
4. A conditional use permit for a WTF is required if it is greater than
ninety (90) feet for a single user or one hundred twenty (120) feet for two
(2) or more users.
5. A conditional use permit is required if the WTF exceeds the
allowable building height of the district.
6. Transportation and transit terminal, including repair and storage
facilities and rail-truck stations, except classification yards in the category
of"hump yards."
7. Accessory uses shall not include vehicular drive through, drive-in, or
service bay facilities.
8. If on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the city or
other government entity subject to KCC 15.08.035(I).
9. Level 1 and 2 charging only.
10. Only as part of a general conditional use identified in KCC
15.08.030.
11. High capacity transit facilities shall be consistent with Chapter 15.36
KCC.
12. A Conditional Use Permit is required for high capacity transit
facilities that cross multiple zoning districts. No other transportation and
transit facilities are allowed in the MHP zoning district.
SECTION 4 - New Section
29 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
100
15.09.053 Development Agreements
A. A person or entity having ownership or control of real property within
the City may file an application for a development agreement with the
Department of Community and Economic Development, solely and
exclusively on the current form approved by the said Department,
together with the filing fee set forth in the current edition of the City's fee
schedule as adopted by resolution of the City Council.
B. Terms of the proposed development agreement shall be subject to
the pre-application conference set forth at 12.01.080 KCC and such other
provisions of Chapter 12.01 KCC as may be deemed appropriate by the
City.
C. The Director, and such designee or designees as may be appointed
for the purpose, is authorized, but not required, to negotiate acceptable
terms and conditions of the proposed development agreement with due
regard for the following criteria:
1. The development agreement conforms to the existing
Comprehensive Plan policies.
2. The terms of the development agreement are generally
consistent with the development regulations of the City then in
effect.
3. Appropriate project or proposal elements such as
permitted uses, residential densities, and nonresidential
densities and intensities or structure sizes are adequately
provided, to include evidence that the site is adequate in size
and shape for the proposed project or use, conforms to the
general character of the neighborhood, and would be
compatible with adjacent land uses.
30 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
101
4. Appropriate provisions are made for the amount and
payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance
with any applicable provisions of State law, any reimbursement
provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner,
inspection fees, or dedications.
5. Adequate mitigation measures, development conditions,
and mitigation requirements under Chapter 43.21C RCW are
provided.
6. Adequate and appropriate design standards such as
maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality
requirements, landscaping, and other development features
are provided.
7. If applicable, targets and requirements regarding
affordable housing are addressed.
8. Provisions are sufficient to assure requirements of parks
and open space preservation.
9. Interim uses and phasing of development and construction
are appropriately provided. In the case of an interim use of a
parcel of property, deferments or departures from
development regulations may be allowed without providing a
demonstrated benefit to the City; provided, that any
departures or deferments to the code requested for a final use
of the property shall comply with subsection (C)(11) of this
section. The agreement shall clearly state the conditions under
which the interim use shall be converted to a permanent use
within a stated time period and the penalties for
noncompliance if the interim use is not converted to the
permanent use in the stated period of time.
31 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
102
10. Where a phased development agreement is proposed, a
site plan shall be provided and shall clearly show the proposed
interim and final use subject to the agreement.
11. In the case of a development agreement where the
proposed use would be the final use of the property, it shall be
clearly documented that any departures to the standards of the
code, requested by the applicant, are in the judgment of the
City offset by providing a benefit to the City of equal or greater
value relative to the departure requested. In no case shall a
departure to the code be granted if no benefit to the City is
proposed in turn by the applicant.
12. Conditions are set forth providing for review procedures
and standards for implementing decisions.
13. A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards is
provided.
14. Any other appropriate development requirements or
procedures necessary to the specific project or proposal are
adequately addressed.
15. If appropriate, and if the applicant is to fund or provide
public facilities, the development agreement shall contain
appropriate provisions for reimbursement over time to the
applicant.
16. Appropriate statutory authority exists for any involuntary
obligation of the applicant to fund or provide services,
infrastructure, impact fees, inspection fees, dedications, or
other service or financial contributions.
32 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
103
D. If the Director deems that an acceptable development agreement has
been negotiated and recommends the same for consideration, the City
Council shall hold a public hearing and then may take final action, by
resolution, to authorize entry into the development agreement. In
addition, the Council may continue the hearing for the purpose of
clarifying issues, or obtaining additional information, facts, or
documentary evidence.
E. The decision of the Council shall be final immediately upon adoption
of a resolution authorizing or rejecting the development agreement.
F. Following approval of a development agreement by the Council, and
execution of the same, the development agreement shall be recorded with
the King County Recorder.
G. Because a development agreement is not necessary to any given
project or use of real property under the existing Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations in effect at the time of making application,
approval of a development agreement is wholly discretionary and any
action taken by the City Council is legislative only, and not quasi-judicial.
SECTION 5, — Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6, — Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and
section/subsection numbering.
33 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15
104
SECTION 7, — Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective
thirty (30) days after its publication. The city clerk is directed to publish a
summary of this ordinance at the earliest possible publication date.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 2015.
APPROVED: day of 2015.
PUBLISHED: day of 2015.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the city council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
RONALD F. MOORE, CITY CLERK
FIAQvllAOldloeoeeACode Amendments-NI9h C,paoty Tanslt Fz hto2-26-15.do-
34 High Capacity Transit Facility
Ordinance Amending KCC 15