HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 04/02/2002 ` ENT WASH I NOT0N ■/�'
OUNCIL WORKSHOP
' CITY COUNCIL April 2, 2002
Tim Clark
Council President
220 Fourth Ave.S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895 The Council Workshop will be held in Chambers East in Kent City Hall at 5:00 PM
Phone: 253-856-57 2 on Tuesday, April 2, 2002.
Fax:253-856-6712
Council Members: President Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Leona Orr,
Julie Peterson, Bruce White, Judy Woods, Rico Yingling
Speaker Time
1. Draft 2002-2003 Strategic Plan Dena Laurent 15 min.
2. Agricultural Lands Gloria Gould-Wessen 40 min.
3. Council Tour of City Facilities Mike Martin 05 min.
The Council Workshop meets each month on the first and third Tuesdays at 5:OOPM in
Chambers East unless otherwise noted. For agenda information please call Jackie
Bicknell at (253) 856-5712.
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD
CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE.
FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL THE WASHINGTON
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388.
Item 1
Council Workshop
4/2/02
Draft 2002-2003 Strategic Plan
Item 2
Council Workshop
4/2/02
Agricultural Lands
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
Phone:253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
KEN T Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
W A 5 H I N G T O N
Kent,WA 98032-5895
March 26, 2002
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIM CLARK, AND
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER
RE: AGRICULTURAL LAND USE#CPA-2000-3 (KIVA#2004535)
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD - RECOMMENDATION
For the April 2, 2002 Council Workshop
I am pleased to forward the Land Use & Planning Board's recommended Comprehensive Plan
and zoning text and map amendments for lands that have an existing land use designation of
Agricultural and a zoning designation of either Agricultural (A-1), Agricultural General (AG), or
Medium Density Multifamily (MRM)1. The Land Use & Planning Board held public hearings
on proposed options on September 24 and October 22°a, 2001 and February l lth, and March 25tn,
2002.
The Land Use & Planning Board recommended with a four (4) to three (3) vote Option B as
amended:
• Amend Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps (see Attachments
A, B & C).
• Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) agricultural
preservation program. [A TDR program uses the developer to purchase the
development potential (i.e., dwelling units) from the property owner and applies
development potential to another property to increase density. While a
successful TDR program uses some public funds, the developer shoulders the
greatest expense.]
• Establish a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) agricultural
preservation program. [A PDR program uses public funds (i.e., typically
through a bond). The PDR purchases the development potential, not the fee
The MRM property is a small area designated"Agricultural"that is located east of SR-516,west of the Green
River and south of Meeker Street with an existing WSDOT park and approximately 1.1 acres privately owned,
farmed and connected with properties within the Lower Green River Agricultural Preservation District.
1 of 3
simple land, and through restrictive covenants that are incorporated into the
deed, the land is preserved for agricultural uses.]
Kent's Comprehensive Plan:
• Add New Land Use Designation—Agricultural Support.
The Agricultural Support designation is reserved for agriculturally related
industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural
use.
• Amend Land Use Designation of Agricultural to Agricultural Resource Land.
The Agricultural Resource Land designation is for land reserved for
agricultural use. Single-family residential uses may also be allowed, but at
very low densities.
Kent's City Code—Chapter 15 Zoning:
• Amend Kent City Code 15.03.010 - Establishment and Designation of
Districts.
AG - Agricultural General District - "The purpose of the AG zone is to provide
appropriate locations for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses in or
near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. Such areas may contain
prime farmland soils which may be currently or potentially used for agricultural
production. "
• Amend Kent City Code 15.04.020—Residential Land Uses.
Remove the "C" (i.e. Conditional Uses) in the land use category "Drive-in
churches; welfare facilities: Drive-in churches, retirement homes, convalescent
homes and other welfare facilities whether privately or publicly operated,
facilities for rehabilitation or correction, etc. "under A-1 Agricultural District.
• Amend Kent City Code 15.04.040—Manufacturing Land Uses.
Under the land use category "Manufacturing, processing, blending and
packaging of dairy products and byproducts" under AG — Agricultural General
District add a "P" (i.e. Principally Permitted Uses).
Under the use category "Warehousing and distribution facilities" add, in
addition to the current "P (26)", a "C" with a note. The note should state:
"Reuse or replacement of existing structures for non-agricultural uses, where it is
shown that the existing structures are obsolete for agricultural use and unless
they can be put to non-agricultural use will have no viable economic use. Any
replacement structures must maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of
2 of 3
the property. Signs shall be limited to not more than one-hundred (100) square
feet in area per business, and of that amount,freestanding sings shall not exceed
forty (40) square feet in area. No increase in the area of existing impervious
surface shall be allowed in connection with a non-agricultural use.
• Amend Kent City Code 15.04.060 — Transportation, Public and Utilities
Land Uses.
Remove the "C" (i.e. Conditional Uses) in the land use category "Transportation
and transit facilities" under AG Agricultural General District and A-1
Agricultural District.
• Amend Kent City Code 15.04.070—Wholesale and retail land uses.
Kent City Code 15.04.070 — Add a use category "Agriculturally related retail"
and add a "C" with a note,for the use under AG Agricultural General District.
The note should state: "Retail use must be for sale of agricultural or horticultural
products, at least 25% of the gross sales value of which are grown within
Washington State. Up to 50% of the gross sales value may be for seed, gardening
equipment and products, private label foods, and locally hand-made products.
Any structures must be designed to maintain or enhance the agricultural
appearance of the area.
• Amend Kent City Code 15.04.190 — Commercial and industrial zone development
standards for AG zoning district.
Minimum lot area: 1 acre
Maximum site coverage: 60%
Landscaping: As required in Ch. 15.07 KCC for M-1 district
Other regulations as found in MI district
• Eliminate requirement for Planned Unit Development (PUD in Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Receiving Area.
• Disallow industrial uses,transportation and transit terminals (trucking hub)
and fuel farm facilities in AG and A-1 zoning districts.
• Direct staff to broaden the proposed TDR preservation program to
include additional receiving areas and a variety of transferable
development standards.
A copy of the complete file for this issue will be available in the Council's Conference Room on
March 27, 2002.
CAIGWIpm MARTH_FSISDATAIPermit0anICompPlanAmdmen&200112004535-CPA 2000-3CouncilWorkshoip040202..doc
cc: Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager
Fred N. Satterstrom,Community Development Director
Michael H.Martin,Chief Admin Officer
Project File
3 of 3
Northern Study Area
Land Use & Planning Board Recommendations
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations
P�
Q o. �
w
At
ry
r r
.-1
1d
LL�
Legend
City Limits
1
f Study Area
Proposed Land Use Designations
`, .1 Agricultural Resource Land
.. Agricultural Support
J Single Family 1 Unit/Acre
Urban Separator
Existing Single Family 3 Units/Acre
N
KENT W E
� ., .»G.o. S
Attachment A Planning Services-March 2002
e nt
al to Area
Land Use & Planning Board Recommendations
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations
...........
L
x
. . ..... ...
lip"
Legend
/City Limits
Study Area
Proposed Land Use Designations
Agricultural Resource Land
77,7,M.
Agricultural Support
Single Family I UniVAcre
Urban Separator
Existing Single Family 3 Units/Acre
-------- PL
N
KENT w E
s
Attachment B Planning Services-March 2002
Southern Study
Area
Land Use & Planning Board Recommendations
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations
_ U. -- -
r
LL
WW
-
y ;
MU� T
jF
---
i
LL
' I
1
II /
1
I ;
1
flf l ' 1
II
� j Legend
/City Limits
I Study Area
Proposed Land Use Designations
j Agricultural Resource Land
Agricultural Support
Em
Single Family 1 Unit/Acre
P Urban Separator
( Existing Single Family 3 Units/Acre
�N
S 277 ST -I
KEN T W E
�V��s�i�+cTov
s
Planning Services-March 2002
Attachment C
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, Community Dev. Director
4^%� PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
Phone:253-856-5454
KEN T Fax: 253-856-6454
WASHINGTON
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
March 25,2002
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Terry Zimmerman at
7:00 p.m. on Monday,March 25,2002 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Terry Zimmerman, Chair Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP,C.D.Director.
David Malik,Vice Chair Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Mgr.
Steve Dowell Gloria Gould-Wessen, GIS/Planner
Nicole Fincher Kim Adams-Pratt,Asst City Attorney
Ron Harmon Leonard Olive,Dev.Mgr,Public Works Engineering
Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
Les Thomas
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ron Harmon MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to approve the Minutes of March 11, 2002 with one
correction to replace Les Thomas's name with the name of the Board member who seconded the motion
for Option 5. Motion CARRIED.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the City Council will hold a public hearing on April 2,
2002 to discuss the zoning and comprehensive plan land use map designations for the DeMarco
Annexation area.
#CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT
Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen submitted the following exhibits for the record:
• Exhibit#1 Letter dated February 22, 2001 from Rita Bailie with FarmCity Alliance.
• Exhibit#2 Letter dated March 26, 2001 from Gary Young with Polygon Northwest.
• Exhibit#3 Letter dated March 26, 2001 from Dorothy Knitter.
• Exhibit#4 Letter dated March 29, 2001 from Casimiro and Lucille de la Cruz.
• Exhibit#5 Letter dated April 12, 2001 from Judith Herring, Coordinator with King County Farmland
Preservation Program.
• Exhibit#6 Letter dated April 23, 2001 from Jack&Alice Nelson on behalf of their selves and
Howard and Nancy Bauer.
• Exhibit#7 Letter dated April 23, 2001 from Mike Carpinito.
• Exhibit#8 Letter dated April 23, 2001 from Judy Herring with King County Farmland Preservation
Program.
• Exhibit#9 Documents dated 4/23/01 from Mark Sollitto,TCD Program Manager with King County
Office of Regional Policy and Planning concerning"Transfer of Development Credits Program".
• Exhibit#10 Letter dated 8/6/02 from Rita Bailie with FarmCity Alliance concerning Farmers Markets
statistics.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 2 of 6
• Exhibit#11 Letter dated August 10, 2001 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn PC concerning
wetland status.
�.. • Exhibit#12 Letter dated August 16, 2001 from Bea Adams.
• Exhibit#13 Letter dated February 9, 2002 from Jennifer Kim and Lance Springer.
• Exhibit#14 Letter dated February 11, 2002 from Linda Hayes on behalf of Ca
simiro &Lucille de la
Cruz.
• Exhibit#15 Letter dated February 15, 2002 from Debi Nicholson representing "7" families in
Northern Study area.
• Exhibit#16 Letter dated February 20,2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn concerning
MA zoning and recommended changes to AG.
• Exhibit#17 Letter dated February 22, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn concerning
SEPA issues.
• Exhibit#18 Letter dated February 26, 2002 from Linda J.Hayes on behalf of Casimiro&Lucille de
la Cruz.
• Exhibit#19 E-mail transmission dated February 26, 2002 from Albert Dreisow with attached letter
from Mr. George Lancaster with Safeway.
• Exhibit#20 Letter dated February 27, 2002 from Don Stuart with American Farmland Trust.
• Exhibit#21 Letter dated March 6, 2002 from Albert Dreisow.
• Exhibit#22 Letter dated February 22, 2002 from King County Farmland Preservation Program.
• Exhibit#23 Letter dated March 14,2002 from Jennifer Kim and Lance Springer concerning
protection of farmland.
• Exhibit#24 Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Don Stuart,Regional Director of American Farmland
Trust.
• Exhibit#25 Letter dated March 22, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn.
• Exhibit#26 Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Marguerite Sutherland, President of"Preserve Land
for Agriculture Now.
• Exhibit#27 Letter dated March 22, 2002 from Alexis Koester with Smith Brothers Farms.
• Exhibit#28 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Anne Huckins
• Exhibit#29 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Barbara Petersen,Federal Way.
• Exhibit#30 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Vance Gray,Enumclaw supporting Option C.
• Exhibit#31 Letter dated March 22,2002 from Mr. Jerey Rosso.
• Exhibit#32 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Mr. John E.Nelson,Attorney
• Exhibit#33 Letter dated March 21, 2002 from Marshall Norman,Minister of Unity Church of Kent.
• Exhibit#34 Letter dated October 11,2001 from Mr. Bob Tidball.
• Exhibit#35 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Bethany Linn
• Exhibit#36 Submittal dated March 25, 2002 from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn
recommending the addition of text to Kent City Code Section 15.04.070
• Exhibit#37 Submittal dated March 25, 2002 from Elaine Spencer vczth Graham&Dunn
recommending changes to AG zoning,Kent City Code Section 15.04.040 and 15.04.070.
• Exhibit#38 Letter dated March 21, 2002 read into the record from Saraj Khan.
• Exhibit#39 Letter dated March 25, 2002 read into the record from Rita Bailie,FarmCity Alliance.
• Exhibit#40 Letter dated March 25, 2002 from Tim Trohimovich,AICP,Planning Director
David Malik MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to accept into the record the above exhibits as well
as Exhibits#1 through#6 presented at the public hearing of October 8, 2001 and Exhibits #1 through#10
presented at the February 11,2002 public hearing. Motion CARRIED.
Ms. Gould-Wessen briefly discussed additional funding opportunities that may become available from the
state and federal levels for preservation of agricultural lands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen described the eight options before the Board referring to the February 11, 2002 staff
report. She stated that staff recommends Option B which combines the preservation of portions of the
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 3 of 6
Northern and Central study areas using a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program
and designating portions of lands adjacent to the Northern Study area as TDR receiving areas.
David Malik MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion CARPI
Bethany A.Linn,30621 153'd Avenue S.E., Kent,WA 98032 stated that learning to farm is valuable to
everyone and bolsters the nation's food supply. She wants the agricultural lands preserved.
Brenda Dreisow, 5221 S 212`h St., Kent,WA 98032 stated that she supports Option C to change zoning
and land use designations to reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area" designations. She stated it is too late to
preserve farm land as there is not enough farm land to be productive.
Mark Logan,665 S.W. 143'd St.,Burien,WA 98166 stated that he owns ten acres in the Northern Study
area and that he supports Option C. He voiced his concern over how development will affect traffic.
Debi Nicholson, 21831 Frager Road,Kent,WA 98032 stated that she is concerned with what impacts
could occur as a result of development of single family residential housing in the Central study area. Ms.
Nicholson voiced concern over traffic conditions near Frager Road and 216`h. She stated that increased
traffic could create negative impacts on recreational opportunities in this area.
Ms. Nicholson stated that although she is concerned with how TDR build out occurs and infringement on
wetland buffers, she supports Option B if a ceiling is placed on development. She does not support a
Planned Unit Development requirement because the development potential for PUD's is too open ended.
Alice Watkins, 31621 West Lake Morton SE, Kent, WA 98042 stated that she would prefer that the
land use remain as it is currently designated but would support Option B. She believes federal and state
funding is years away. She asked the Board to consider the financial impacts to landowners in
`— considering their recommendation.
Jere Thornton,2453 %, S. 135`h St., Sea Tac,WA 98168 stated that she supports Option C.
Ernie Aquilar, 25934 68`h Avenue S.,Kent, WA 98032 stated that he does not specifically endorse any
of the Options before the Board. He stated that he has lived in the valley ten years and has seen the
deterioration of the agricultural lands and therefore cannot support the preservation of these lands. He
does not believe the Kent lands can be classified farmland. The Skagit Valley land can be classified farm
lands. Mr. Aquilar stated that he desires to see that all the landowners are given the opportunity to
receive full value for their land. He voiced concern over increased traffic conditions in the valley.
Scott Highland, 13721 SE 260`h St., Kent, WA 98042 stated that has been a member of the Board of
Directors of Smith Brothers Farms since 1975 and the President of Smith Tractor and Equipment
Company. Mr. Highland stated that fifty percent of the land owned by Smith Brothers Farms is covered
with buildings, concrete, asphalt and mature gravel roadways with approximately 225,000 square feet of
buildings on the property. 150,000 square feet of building space sits vacant.
Mr. Highland strongly urged the Board to rezone their land from Al to AG zoning in order that they
become a conforming business. He said that this business needs to utilize their now idle property assets
in a financially acceptable way. Mr. Highland stated that agriculture is not expanding in King County nor
are agricultural processing companies. He stated that they have proposed language to staff asking for a
conditional use process that would allow the property and buildings to be used for certain nonconforming
businesses, while maintaining an agricultural appearance with sloping roof structures, limited signage and
no increased density of buildings.
Mr. Highland stated that he would prefer Option C with the caveat that he would like to be creative with
what he does with this agricultural process in the valley.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 4 of 6
Albert Dreisow, 5221 S 212`h,Kent,WA 98032 stated that he does not favor retaining agricultural lands
for farming as the economic climate of the valley is changing and no longer supports viable farming. He
would like to see reasonable zoning that would allow land owners to receive full value for their land. Mr.
Dreisow did not voice support of a specific option. He stated local buying offices of major grocers are
moving out of the area and he expects there will be no purchase of local produce by these chains within
the next one to two years.
Barbara Hansen, 21847 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she supports Option B as it would
preserve open space and compensate farmers. She voiced concern over how PUD's would be
implemented and what the traffic and safety impacts to 216'h and Frager Road would be.
Saraj Khan, 24719 43'd Ave S.,Kent,WA 98032 stated that he owns 26 acres between 216`h and 212`h,
west of Frager Road. He stated farm land is fragmented and no longer economically feasible for
agriculture. He voiced support of Option C with a zoning and land use designation of SR-3.
Larry Wagner, 11703 28`h St. NE, Lake Stevens, WA 98258 stated that he is a member of the Lake
Stevens City Council. He stated that he is on the PSRC Board and is a state legislator and advisor to the
Region 3, Department of Social and Health Services, Unemployment Division and the State of
Washington Regional Advisory Council.
Mr.Wagner spoke about how the GMA governs growth for urban areas such as Kent. He stated that Kent
is no longer viable for use as agricultural and voiced support of Option C.
R.Jery Rosso,PO Box 80345,Seattle,WA 98108 stated that he owns 60 acres in the Central study area
on Frager Road. He stated that he does not support any of the options, as he believes that all options
devalue the land. He reminded the Board of earlier testimony that indicated a 74% failure rate for TDR
programs.
Glen E. Gray, 20866 102°d Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98042 stated that he supports Option C as he
believes this option gives property owners full value for their land.
Hans Korve, 4215 S. 216`h Place, Kent, WA stated that he would support Option A as his first choice
and Option B as an alternative. He stated that Kent has a dwindling supply of agricultural lands and an
obligation to preserve what is left. He stated the Board should consider voting for the community and not
for the highest profit for landowners. He stated that he lives in the Planned Unit Development of
Riverview at the Landings and is the President of the Board of the Homeowners Association. He stated
that if the City intends to rezone the land from agricultural for other uses that they should consider
developments other than PUDs.
Alexis Koester, 26518 68`h Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032 stated that she is the President of Smith
Brothers Farms and strongly supports a redesignation to AG for Smith Brothers Farms. She asked that
the Board consider zoning that would allow their business to utilize the 150,000 square feet of vacant
barns on their land.
Ralph LoPriore, 26414 68`h Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 stated that preserving agricultural lands
for farming purposes is no longer lucrative but would recommend that these lands be considered for
zoning that would allow for other types of agricultural purposes, such as landscaping supply distribution
or nurseries. He stated that he does not favor a specific option and wants to let individual property
owners do what they want with their land.
Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent, WA 98032 stated that the wholesale agricultural
market is diminishing and faces extinction potentially within the next two years. He stated that the Board
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 5 of 6
needs to consider flexible zoning that would enhance the retail abilities at their farm located at 277`h and
West Valley Highway. Mr. Carpinito stated that he supports AG zoning.
Elaine Spencer, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, WA stated that she represents Smith Brothers
Dairy and Carpinito Brothers. Ms. Spencer submitted proposed language for the record, which was
assigned exhibit numbers 36 and 37, addressing the needs of both Smith Brothers and the Carpinitos.
Rita Bailie, 20607 101" Avenue SE, Kent, WA referenced the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter Four, Land Use Goals and Policies which address the vision of the community. Ms. Bailie spoke
about farm land goals and policies. Ms. Bailie urged the Board to base their recommendation on
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to work closely with each property owner in their
considerations. Ms. Bailie stated that she envisions a public market at SR-167 and 277th. She
encouraged the Board to take advantage of King County's preservation programs.
Tim Trohimovich, 1617 Boylston Avenue, Suie 200, Seattle,WA 98122 stated that he represents 1000
Friends of Washington a citizens groups that supports implementation of the Growth Management Act
and halting sprawl.
Mr. Trohimovich stated that his group recommends that Soil Classes I through IV be used to identify
agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance.
Mr. Trohimovich stated that he supports Option A and many of the comprehensive plan and zoning
designations proposed including A-10 zoning. He urged the Board to provide an appropriate level of
flexibility for farmers, such as allowing onsite sales and processing and limiting allowed uses in the AG
zone to farming, sales of agricultural products, agricultural processing and similar uses.
Mr. Trohimovich spoke about Redmond's TDR program and methodology for developing an effective
program.
Les Thomas MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED.
The Board Members deliberated briefly on the options before them.
Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to adopt Option B regarding CPA-2000-3
Agricultural Lands Amendment with the incorporation of the following changes to the AG zone directly
affecting Smith Brothers and Carpinito Brothers and submitted as Exhibit#37:
Kent City Code 15.04.040
Under the use category `Manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging of dairy products
and byproducts"add `P"under AG Agricultural General District.
Under the use category "Warehousing and distribution facilities" add, in addition to the current
"P(26)", a "C"with a note. The note should state: "Reuse or replacement of existing structures
for non-agricultural use, where it is shown that the existing structures are obsolete for
agricultural use and unless they can be put to non-agricultural use will have no viable economic
use. Any replacement structures must maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the
property. Signs shall be limited to not more than one hundred (100) square feet in area per
business, and of that amount,freestanding signs shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area.
No increase in the area of existing impervious surface shall be allowed in connection with a non-
agricultural use."
Kent City Code 15.04.070
Add a use category `Agriculturally related retail"and add a "C"with a note,for that use under
AG Agricultural General District. The note should state: "Retail use must be for sale of
agricultural or horticultural products, at least 25% of the gross sales value of which are grown
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
March 25,2002
Page 6 of 6
within Washington State. Up to 50% of the gross sales value may be for seed, gardening
equipment and products, private label foods, and locally hand-made products. Any structures
must be designed to maintain or enhance the agricultural appearance of the area.
• This recommendation proposes text changes in land use and zoning designations as indicated in the
February 11,2002 staff report on page 4, 5 and 6.
• There is to be no industrial,no trucking or distribution hub and no fuel farm distribution.
• Retain present landowners' zoning.
• Eliminate the PUD option.
• Allow PDRs, and
• Implement the TDR Program and direct staff to allow for maximum flexibility in location and use
options in TDR receiving areas.
Motion CARRIED with 4 voting in favor and 3 opposed.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
R tfully S bmitted,
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
Secretary
\\EARTH FS\SDATA\Permit\Plan\LUPB\2002\Minutes\020325min.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, Community Dev. Director
PLANNING SERVICES
64 Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
K E N T Phone: 253-856-5454
WASH IN G T O N Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
February 11, 2002
TO: TERRY ZNDAMMAN,CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD
FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER
SUBJ: #CPA-2000-3 (KIVA#2004535) AGRICULTURAL LANDS
INTRODUCTION
This staff report is intended to be inclusive and supersede the September 24`h public hearing staff
report. This staff report: 1) summarizes the Agricultural Land Study process; 2) reviews the State's
legislative impetus and guidance from state agencies charged with administering the Growth
Management Act (GMA): 3) introduces new environmental information that supports the three (3)
new options; and 4) proposes textual changes in Kent's land use and zoning code where needed. The
S.- original five (5) options will be presented, along with three (3) new options. The recommended
option has changed from the September 24"' staff report.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
During the 2000 Comprehensive Plan Map amendment process, the City of Kent received a request to
change the land use map designation for a parcel of property from Agricultural (A-1) to Single
Family Residential, 6 units per acre (Kentview Pod-H CPA-2000-2(A)/CPZ-2000-1). During the
amendment process, the Land Use and Planning Board (the Board) requested staff to review current
land use policy related to the agricultural zones. The issue was forwarded to the Planning Committee
to initiate the policy discussion. After two meetings, the Planning Committee directed staff to limit
discussion to Agricultural lands on the valley floor, focusing on the Agricultural (A-1) and
Agricultural General (AG) zoning districts. The matter was referred to the Board, which held
workshops on March 12`h, April 23`d, June 11`h, July 9"', and August 13`h. Community Development
held an Open House on March 28 where all property owners were mailed invitations and the public
was encouraged to attend.
On September 28`h and October 8`h, the Board held a public hearing to consider five (5) land use and
zoning options for the study area with staff recommending Option 4 (i.e. Option 4 - Preservation of
the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Using PDR/TDR Programs with the
Midway.Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving
Areas). The Board took public comment and closed the hearings, requesting that staff address the
concerns that came to light through public testimony and return early in 2002 to resume the process.
On January 28' 2002, the Board held a workshop to review and discuss three (3) new options that
reflect insights obtained from relevant findings of the Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board and Superior Court cases, and to better reflect what was heard at the public hearing.
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 2 of 13
It must be noted that during staff s additional research, four(4)parcels were identified with a land use
designation of "Agricultural" and zoning designation of Medium Density Multifamily (MRM).
Because of the "Agricultural" land use designation, staff has included the 4 parcels in the Agricultural
Land Study. These parcels are located at the southernmost tip of the Central Study Area just south of
West Meeker Street, sandwiched between the Green River and Frager Road. Two parcels are owned
by Washington Department of Transportation and are developed as a park (i.e. approximately 4.3
acres) and two others are privately owned and cultivated in wood plant materials (i.e. approximately
1.9 acres).
The Study Areas have been broken into Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas (See Attachment
1 "Agricultural Land Use Study Potential Midway Receiving Area").
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDS
The State's Growth Management Act directs cities and counties that choose to plan under RCW
36.70A.040 to "designate where appropriate...agricultural lands...that have long-term significance
for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products" (RCW 36.70A.170[1a]). It
further states that "Forest land and agricultural land located within urban growth areas shall not be
designated by a county or city as forest land or agricultural land of long-term commercial
significance under RCW 36.70A.170 unless the city or county has enacted a program authorizing
transfer or purchase of development rights." (RCW 36.170A.060[4]).
Kent's City Code (KCC) uses the same language as the GMA when defining Agricultural Use (KCC
15.02.010), as does the state (RCW 37.70A.030[2]) (also see September 24th staff report). However,
the GMA further defines long-term commercial significance to include "...the growing capacity,
productivity, and soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production, in consideration
with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of more intense uses of the land."
(RCW 37.70A.030[10]). There is further clarification of what are agricultural lands in WAC 365-
190-050(1) where it states "In classifying agricultural lands of long-term significance for the
production of food or other agricultural products, counties and cites shall use the land-capability
classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as
defined in agriculture handbook no. 210." The State Department of Community Trade and
Economic Development is charged by RCW 36.70A.170(2) with providing guidelines for designating
"Natural Resource Lands". They are guided by ten (10) factors for "classifying agricultural lands of
long-term significance for the production of food or other agricultural products" (WAC 365-190-
050), and are listed below:
1) The availability of public facilities;
2) Tax status;
3) The availability of public services;
4) Relationship or proximity to urban growth areas;
5) Predominant parcel size;
6) Land use settlement and their compatibility with agricultural practices;
7) Intensity of nearby land uses;
8) History of land development permits issued nearby;
9) Land values under alternative uses; and
�'" 10)Proximity of markets.
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11, 2002
Page 3 of 13
These factors, in addition to the statutory text, offer guidance in determining if land has "long-term
significance" for agricultural production.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS & CONSTRAINTS
The ten factors used for classifying agricultural lands gave structure for additional staff research and a
better understanding of the relevance of information previously acquired, but not specifically
reported. This new information will be used to support two of the three new options.
Additional research from the National Resources Conservation Services (NRSC) revealed that some
lands within the Agricultural Study Area would not meet the definition of "prime farmland" as
defined in the United State Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service handbook no. 210
(i.e. Class I or Class II).' The NRSC staff reviewed the different soils classifications in the Study
Area and determined that, if the wetlands were year-round and un-drained, the soils would be Class
IV or V and no longer"prime farmland".
It should also be noted that agricultural lands that are actively farmed and that have high water tables
(i.e. wetlands) are not regulated by Section 404; they can be drained and cultivated. However, if a
farm is left fallow over five (5) years, the Army Corp of Engineers considers it abandoned and the
existing wetland is considered an environmentally sensitive area requiring a DA (Department of
Army) Permit or a Nationwide Permit for draining, plowing or re-grading. There are, however,
federal laws that support farming. Under the National Foods Securities Act, existing wetlands can be
drained and plowed, although obtaining permission is a lengthy process and not assured. Being able
to cultivate the land is relevant to its economic "long-term significance".
Access to irrigation water is another issue that had not been addressed in earlier discussion papers or
the September 24`h staff report. Research through the Washington State Department of Ecology —
Northwest Regional Office determined that numerous properties did not have "water right" claims or
certificates to either extract water from the Green River for agricultural purposes, or from the ground.
Without the ability to irrigate a field, the productivity of the land diminishes to possibly one crop per
year instead of two or three.' Obtaining a water certificate is extremely difficult. A property owner
can lose the right to water if not used for five (5) consecutive years. Many properties within the
Northern and Central Study areas have lost their water rights, or there is no documentation of ever
having water rights for agricultural purposes. There are other properties within the same areas that do
have water rights and that have been actively using the water for its permitted use. Having access to
irrigation water for agricultural purposes effects the"long-term significance" of land.
' The MRCS is an agency within the Department of Agriculture. Its goal is to provide leadership in a partnership effort to
help people conserve,maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. To that end,they provide expertise
on water conservation,water quality,and soils. It was discovered there is an addendum to the aforementioned handbook
no. 210. This reference reclassifies soils that are hydric, or permanently inundated with water. Staff at the Puyallup
office of the NRCS revealed that several soil types changed from Class II to Class IV and V when hydric. Those soils are
now characterized as "very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants"or"limit their use largely to pasture,
range,woodland,or wildlife food and cover".
'Crop refers to annual vegetable crops such as lettuce,radish,onions,carrots and the like. Also all containerized plant
materials require irrigation. Cultivated berries,com,pumpkins,and the like,produce higher yields with irrigation,
particularly during periods of drought.
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 4 of 13
PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES IN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS:
There will need to be text and map changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to support
the recommendations in the Agricultural Land Study. The proposed changes are to existing zoning
districts, the creation of new zoning districts and land use designations, and also changes in zoning
development regulations. The following are proposed changes:
Changes in Kent's Comprehensive Plan:
Add New Land Use Designation—Agricultural Support
The proposed "Agricultural Support" land use designation is intended to reflect the existing
Agricultural General (AG) zoning district. It is defined in Chapter 15.03 Kent City Code where it
states the following:
"The purpose of the AG zone is to provide appropriate location for agriculturally
related industrial uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use.
Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may be currently or
potentially used for agricultural production. "
The following is a suggested text change in Kent's Comprehensive Plan to describe "Agricultural
Support":
The Agricultural Support designation is reserved for agriculturally related
industrial and retail uses near areas designated for long-term agricultural use.
Change Land Use Designation from Agricultural to Agricultural Resource Land
The proposed "Agricultural Resource Land" designation is intended to clearly support agricultural
land uses within the City of Kent as defined under the GMA, with the required preservation program
in place prior to designation. The following is a suggested text change in Kent's Comprehensive Plan
to describe"Agricultural Resource Land":
The Agricultural Resource Land designation is for land reserved for agricultural
use. Single-family residential uses may also be allowed, but at very low densities.
Changes in Kent's City Code—Chapter 15 Zoning:
Agricultural General (AG)
Agricultural General needs to provide the flexibility for a wide variety of "agriculturally related
industrial activities". The AG zoning district allows for the "Storage, processing and conversion of
agricultural products (not including slaughtering or nzeat packing)" but does not allow retailing of
agricultural products other than a roadside stand.' The following are proposed changes to the
definition of AG and allowed uses:
'KCC 15.02.340 Roadside stand means a temporary structure designed or used for the display or sale of agricultural
products primarily produced on the premises upon which such a stand is located.
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 5 of 13
Kent City Code 15.03.010 Establishment and Designation of Districts
AG-Agricultural General District
"The purpose of the AG zone is to provide appropriate location for agriculturally
related industrial and retail uses in or near areas designated for long-term
agricultural use. Such areas may contain prime farmland soils which may be
currently or potentially used for agricultural production. "
Kent CiU Code 15 04 040—Manufacturing Land Uses
For the land use category "Manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging
of dairy products and byproducts" under AG—Agricultural General District add
a "P" (i.e. Principally Permitted Uses).
Kent City Code 1 S 04 060— Transportation Public and Utilities Land Uses
Remove the "C" (i.e. Conditional Uses) in the land use category "Transportation
and transit facilities" under AG—Agricultural General District.
Kent CiU Code 1 S 04 070— Wholesale and Retail Land Uses
Add a land use category "Agriculturally related retail" and in that category
�-- under AG—Agricultural General District add a "C" (i.e. Conditional Uses) with
a note that states "Retail use must be for sale of agricultural or horticultural
products, with at least 25% of the gross sales value in products grown within
King County. Up to 25% of the gross sales area may be for seed, gardening
equipment and products, NW regionally labeled foods, and locally hand-made
products. Any structures must be designed to maintain or enhance the
agricultural appearance of the area. "
At present the AG zoning district lacks detailed development standards and has none for the inclusion
of proposed agricultural retail. While recognizing a need to develop such standards, the task for the
Board is to designate land uses for A-1 and AG zoning districts, and if"Agricultural Resource Lands"
are designated, selecting a TDR or PDR preservation program to support those agricultural uses.
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 6 of 13
Understanding that development standards are needed for the AG zoning district, below are some
suggested standards for consideration:
Minimum lot area: 1 acre
Maximum site coverage: 60%
Landscaping: As required in Ch. 15.07 KCC for M-1 district.
Other regulations as found in M1 district.
Agricultural (A-1):
Agricultural (A-1) needs to increase the minimum lot size to either 1-du/10 acres or 1-du/20 acres to
ensure that land is not subdivided into one-acre parcels that are not a suitable size for agricultural use.
The following are proposed changes to the definition of Agricultural (A-1), allowed uses, and
development standards:
Kent City Code 15 03 010-Establishment and Designation of Districts
Change A-1 —Agricultural District to A-10 or A-20—Agricultural District
No change to text.
Kent City Code 15.04.020—Residential Land Uses
Remove the "C" (i.e. Conditional Uses) in the land use category "Drive-in
churches; welfare facilities: Drive-in churches, retirement homes, convalescent
�-- homes and other welfare facilities whether privately or publicly operated,
facilities for rehabilitation or correction, etc. " under A-1 Agricultural District.
Kent City Code 15 04 060— Transportation, Public and Utilities Land Uses
Remove the "C" (i.e. Conditional Uses) in the land use categories
"Transportation and transit facilities", under A-1 Agricultural District.
Kent City Code 15 04 170 — Agricultural and Residential Zone Development
Standards
Change the "Maximum density: dwelling units per acre" under A-1 from
I du/acre to either 1 du/10 acres or I du120 acres.
Change the "Minimum lot area: square feet or acres, as noted" under A-1 from
34,7001sq.ft. to 10 acres or 20 acres.
OPTIONS
The first five (5) options were presented on September 24`h 2001 in a staff report prepared for the
public hearing. Those five (5) options are presented again with changes underlined and omissions
struck through. Three (3) new options are also being presented (i.e. A, B & C). In light of new
insights, staff has reviewed all options, made new evaluations, and made a new recommendation.
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 7 of 13
Option la- Preservation of Majority of Agricultural Study Area Using PDR:
This option designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as "Agricultural
Resource Land" supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR) preservation program.
The properties owned by the City of Kent, and presently used or to be used for recreation, would be
rezoned SR-1. The remaining properties within the A-1 zoning district would change to A-20 (one
dwelling unit /20 acres) density and the AG zoning district would change to A-20. The single
property located in the Southern Study Area with the zoning designation of A-1 would also change to
A-20. A General Obligation Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program. (See Attachment 2
"Option 1 a"Map)
Option lb - Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR;
This option designates only the Southern Study Area as "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a
"Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR) preservation program. The Northern and Central Study
' b '+ "' '�" ' lass
n`' changed the land use to
Areas weWd be one
"Urban Separator" with the associated SR-1 zoning district applied. The two study areas meet the
definition of"Urban Separator" with their existing open space corridors, providing a visual link as
well as a physical link for wildlife habitat, trails, historic resources, and critical areas within and
between urban growth areas. The entire Southern Study Area's zoning would change from AG and
A-1 to A-20. A General Obligation Bond would raise the funds for the PDR program. (See
Attachment 3 "Option lb"Map).
Option 2 - Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using TDR Programs and
Designating the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area:
This proposal would designate the Southern and Central Study Areas as primarily "Agricultural
Resource Land" supported by a "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) preservation program. A
TDR Bank would be established to facilitate the preservation program. Because of existing
recreational uses within the Central Study Area, some properties would have their zoning changed
from A-1 to SR-1. The Northern Study Area would be designated as a TDR receiving area with
different types of land uses and densities applied (i.e. Neighborhood Convenience Commercial -
NCC, Medium Density Multifamily - MRM, Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16, and Single-Family - SR-
6) adding approximately 674 dwelling units and 78,000 sq. ft of commercial. The intention of the
proposed density is to absorb the bulk, if not all of the market value found in the Central and
Southern Study Area. Proposed developments of 10 acres or more would be administered under a
Planned Unit Development (PUD). Because large portions of the Northern Study Area have been
inventoried with wetlands, densities would vary depending on the carrying capacity of the land (i.e.
using the City's GIS, it has been found that a minimum of 56 acres are unencumbered by
environmental constraints, or 8% of the total agricultural lands). The majority of the Central Study
Area's zoning would change from A-1 to A-20. The entire Southern Study Area's zoning would
change from AG and A-1 to A-20 and designated "Agricultural Resource Land". (See Attachment 4
"Option 2"Map). This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets
and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses. Zoning district
changes in the TDR Receiving Area would be effective only at the time of development.
Option 3 - Preservation of the Southern, Central and a Portion of the Northern Study Area
Using PDR/TDR Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving
Area:
This proposal would designate the Southern, Central and a portion of the Northern Study Area as
"Agricultural Resource Land" supported by PDR and TDR preservation programs. A TDR Bank
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 8 of 13
would be established to facilitate the preservation program. A General Obligation Bond would raise
the funds for the PDR program. The TDR Receiving Area is made up of 238 acres, of which
approximately 32 acres located between S 212`h St. and S 216`h St and 3 acres located north of S 212'
St. are unencumbered by environmental constraints (or 5% of the total agricultural lands). Different
types of land uses and densities would be applied (i.e. Neighborhood Convenience Commercial -
NCC, Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16, and Single-Family - SR-6) adding approximately 206 dwelling
units and 78,000 sq. ft of commercial. Only a portion of the market value would be absorbed in the
TDR receiving area, requiring a PDR as a supplement. Proposed developments of 10 acres or more
would be administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Because of existing and potential
recreational uses within the Northern Study Area, some properties would have their zoning changed
from A-1 to SR-1. The remaining lands within the Central Study Area would have their zoning
changed from A-1 to A-20. The entire Southern Study Area zoning would be changed from AG and
A-1 to A-20 and designated as Agricultural Resource Land. (See Attachment 5 "Option 3" Map).
This option would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be
considered in the benchmarking analyses. Zoning district changes in the
TDR Receiving Area would be effective only at the time of development.
Option 4 - Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area
Using PDR/TDR Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Changes as a TDR Receiving Areas:
This option designates the Central and Southern Study Area, and nearly all the Northern Study Area
as "Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a PDR and TDR preservation program. North of S.
212`h St. would be designated Urban Separator with a SR-1 zoning district. A TDR Bank would be
established to facilitate the preservation program. A General Obligation Bond would raise the funds
for the PDR program. Selected parcels within the Northern and Central Study Areas presently
owned by the City of Kent and used for recreational purposes would be zoned SR-1. The remaining
properties within the A-1 zoning district would change to an A-20 (one dwelling unit /20 acres) and
the entire Southern Study Area's zoning would change from AG and A-1 to A-20. All A-20 zoning
districts would have a land use designation of "Agricultural Resource Land". (See Attachment 6
"Option 4" Map). The Midway Neighborhood would be designated as a TDR receiving area. The
extent of the receiving area and the types of land uses would be determined through a Neighborhood
Planning Process that will be completed in 2002. It will be proposed that the existing zoning districts
would change from General Commercial (GC) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office (0), Office-
Mixed Use (O-MU), and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) when TDR's are purchased.
The resulting density of housing and employment will depend on the Neighborhood Planning Process
and market forces. At this time, it is projected that 140 dwelling units and 1,254 employees could be
accommodated. (See Attachment 7 "Midway TDR Receiving Area"). This option would affect the
land capacity in relationship to Kent's employment targets and would be considered in the
benchmarking analyses.
Option A — Preservation of Majority of Agricultural Study Area Using a Purchased of
Development Rights (PDR) Preservation Program:
This proposal designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as
"Agricultural Resource Land" supported by a "Purchase of Development Right" (PDR) preservation
program. Selected properties that do not meet the GMA definition of"prime farmland' because of
`-- existing uses (i.e. dedicated storm water detention and golf course) would be designated Urban
Separator and rezoned from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential 1-du/acre) with required
clustering. The entire Southern Study Area with an AG zoning district would be rezoned A-10
(Agricultural 1 du/10 acres) and designated "Agricultural Resource Land". The A-1 zoning district
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 9 of 13
located in the Southern Study Area would be rezoned to AG and given a new land use designation
"Agricultural Support". All other lands would be designated "Agricultural Resource Land" and
rezoned from A-1 to A-10 (See Attachment 8 "Option A" Map).
Approximately 467 acres would be designated"Agricultural Resource Land". The cost of purchasing
development rights would be calculated on the unconstrained parcel size (i.e. gross acres excluding
any wetlands and buffers from environmentally sensitive areas or Frager Road). Using the City's
GIS program, staff calculated the eligible unconstrained area. The potential cost of the PDR program
ranges from $6.6 to $8.8 million dollars. It must be noted that the land use calculations are based on
Kent's 2001 Wetland Inventory and not a scientific wetland delineation.
Option B — Preserve Portions of Northern and Central Study Areas Using a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program and Designating Portions of and Lands
Adjacent to the Northern Study Area as TDR Receiving Areas:
This option designates portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas as "Agricultural Resource
Land" supported by a TDR program. Land north of South 216' St and portions of land between
South 216`h St and South 212`h St (including one parcel located south of South 212`h St) would have
the land use designation changed from Agricultural to SF-1 (Single-Family 1-du/acre). The zoning
would change from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential 1-du/acre) with a "TDR Receiving Area
Overlay". The proposed density for the TDR Receiving Area Overlay is Medium Density
Townhouses (MRT-16) allowing 16-du/acre and would potentially add 113 dwelling units. The TDR
Receiving Area Overlay would be administered through a PUD on lands not encumbered by wetlands
and buffers. The following conditions support the designation to an SF-1 land use: 1) "Urban" soils
�— classification; 2) primarily altered soils from fill; 3) primarily un-drained wetlands no longer meeting
the "prime farmlands" soil classification; 4) no Washington Department of Ecology water rights or
certificates for agricultural purposes; or 5) adjacent existing and proposed residential land uses that
conflict with agricultural uses. Additional land outside the Study Area is proposed for a TDR
Receiving Area Overlay. This area is adjacent to the Northern Study Area, located just west in an
SR-3 zoning district. An MRD (Duplex Multifamily) zoning district with a density of 10.89-du/acre
would be allowed and administered through a PUD. Approximately 71 dwelling units could be built.
This proposal also identifies lands within the Northern and Central Study Areas that no longer meet
the definition of "prime farmland' because of existing conditions and uses. They would be
designated as Urban Separator and rezoned from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential ldu/acre)
with required clustering. The following conditions support the designation to Urban Separator: 1)
storm water holding pond; 2) large un-drained wetlands; 3) existing golf course or other recreational
uses; 4) Unique and Fragile Areas Class I & II; and 5) proximity to the Green River. The land also
meets the definition of "Urban Separator" because of the critical area status of wetlands and the
shorelines of the Green River, a river of"Statewide Significance", and the function of the landscape
as an open space corridor that provides a visual link as well as a physical link for wildlife habitat,
trails, and historic resources within and between urban growth areas.
The entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation "Agricultural
Support" and remain zoned AG. The single A-1 property would be rezoned to AG, because its
existing use as a dairy processing plant is supported in the AG zoning district development standards.
This option would designate approximately 109 acres as "Agricultural Resource Land". A multiplier
of four (4) would be applied to calculate the number of dwelling units eligible for transfer to TDR
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 10 of 13
Receiving Areas. If the total capacity of the proposed TDR Receiving Areas is less than the capacity
of the TDR Sending Area, additional TDR Receiving Areas will be designated through future annual
land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan. This option would affect the land capacity in
relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses. (See
Attachment 9 "Option B"Map)
Option C — Preserve Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and Change
Zoning and Land Use Designation to Reflect GMA"Urban Growth Area" Designation:
This option designates only properties that have had their agricultural development rights purchased
by King County as "Agricultural Resource Land" and rezones them from A-1 to A-10 (Agricultural
ldu/10 acres). No additional preservation program is required.
Lands within the Northern and Central Study Areas that no longer meet the definition of "prime
farmland" because of existing conditions and uses would be designated as Urban Separator and
rezoned from A-1 to SR-1 (Single-Family Residential ldu/acres) with required clustering. The
following conditions support the designation of Urban Separator: 1) dedicated storm water holding
ponds; 2) large un-drained wetlands; 3) existing golf course or other recreational use; 4) Unique and
Fragile Areas Class I & II; and 5) proximity to the Green River. The land also meets the definition of
"Urban Separator" because of the critical area status of wetlands and the shorelines of the Green
River, a river of"Statewide Significance", and the function of the landscape as an open space corridor
that provides a visual link as well as a physical link for wildlife habitat, trails, and historic resources
within and between urban growth areas.
The remaining lands in the Northern and Central Study Area would have a land use designation of
SR-3 (Single-Family 3-du/acre) with the zoning changed from A-1 to SR-3 (Single-Family
Residential 3-du/acre). Some of the lands are designated SR-3 for the following reasons: 1) lands are
within an "Urban Growth Area"; 2) "Urban " soils classification; 3) incompatible existing and
proposed adjacent residential uses; 4) disconnection to agricultural industries; 5) disconnection to
Lower Green River Agricultural Production District (APD); and 6) the density of SR-3 (i.e. density of
3.63-du/acre) puts the least amount of trips onto Frager Road while still meeting the GMA definition
of"minimum density" for an"Urban Growth Area".
The entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation"Agricultural
Support" and remain AG. The single A-1 property would be rezoned to AG, because its existing use
as a dairy processing plant is supported in the AG zoning district development standards. This option
would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in
the benchmarking analyses. (See Attachment 10 "Option C"Map)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending Option B for the following reasons:
Option la—Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR: This option preserves all 685 acres as
an "Agricultural Resource Lands". A conservative estimate of the potential cost ranges from $36 to
$48 million dollars. Considering the City's other financial commitments, this option is cost
prohibitive.
Option lb — Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR: This option designates 197 acres
as "Agricultural Resource Lands" in the Southern Study Area (or 28.8% of total land area). A
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 11 of 13
conservative estimate of cost ranges from $8 to $17.2 million dollars, and would need to be approved
by the community. The Urban Separators/SR-1 designation has the potential for 294 dwelling units
(d.u.) being built in the North and Central Study Areas. With the low density and potential
incremental nature of development, sewer expansion probably would not occur, making ground
water-polluting septic systems the only alternative. While open space would be preserved, it is
unlikely that farming would be viable. The Urban Separators designation could be reviewed and
changed only during the 20 year GMA planning cycle. There would be additional traffic on the
"scenic and recreational"Frager Road.
Option 2 — Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using TDR Programs and
Designating the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area: This option preserves 265 acres
(or 38.7% of total land area) as "Agricultural Resource Lands", converting the rest to a TDR
Receiving Area (347 acres) and SR-1 (73 acres of parks and utilities). There are a minimum 56 acres
in the TDR Receiving Area unencumbered by environmental constraints and available to absorb the
market value from the TDR Sending Areas. The increased density is projected at 674 d.u. (i.e. 1,571
in population) and 156 new jobs, generating 2,185 net new trips per day. This option does not fulfill
Kent's Comprehensive Plan to preserve agricultural lands, losing approximately 102 acres of actively
farmed land to 56 acres of development. Approximately three quarters of the land has no water rights
and potentially one half of the land is not "prime farmland" due to un-drained wetlands.
Additionally, adjacent existing and planned residential development conflicts with farming activity.
Option 3 — Preservation of the Southern, Central and a Portion of the Northern Study Area
Using PDR/TDR Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving
Area: This option designates 315 acres as "Agricultural Resource Lands" (or 46% of total land area),
converting the rest to TDR Receiving Area (281 acres) and SR-1 (89 acres of parks and utilities).
There are a minimum 35 acres in the TDR Receiving Area unencumbered by environmental
constraints and available to absorb a portion of the market value from the TDR Sending Areas. The
increased density is projected at 206 d.u. (i.e. 480 in population) and 156 new jobs, generating 1,536
new trips per day. A PDR program with an estimated cost that could range from $18 million to $24
million dollars would need to be approved by the community. As in Option 2 much of the land no
Ionizer is considered"prime farmland" due to un-drained wetlands and the conflict of existing and
proposed residential developments with agricultural uses. This option does not fulfill Kent's
Comprehensive Plan to preserve agricultural lands, losing approximately 66 acres of actively farmed
land to 35 acres of development.
Option 4 - Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area
Using PDR/TDR Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all Future Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Changes as a TDR Receiving Areas: Option 4 has the potential to fulfill firl€rlls
Kent's long term commitment to preserve agricultural lands by designating the Central, Southern and
a portion of the Northern Study Area south of S 212`' St. as "Agricultural Resource Land" and
changing the zoning districts from A-1 and AG to A-20. This option preserves 391 acres (57% of
total land area) as "Agricultural Resource Land", converting the remaining 294 acres into Urban
Separators/SR-1 (of which 141 acres are owned by utilities, parks and potential parks). As its name
implies, Midway is half way between Seattle and Tacoma, and it is anticipated in the near future there
will be major improvements to that area. The City of Kent plans to improve Pacific Highway South
with sidewalks, street trees, lighting and planted medians. Highline Community College will be
partnering with Central Washington University, expanding the existing campus up along its eastern
edge. The proximity to I-5 and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport makes the area desirable for
locating business, providing hotel accommodations and housing. Looking at the near future markets,
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 12 of 13
office is very desirable for Midway. At present, the GC zoning allows a full range of retail uses
including outdoor storage, lumberyards, drive through restaurants, convenience stores, taverns.
Facilitating the conversion from General Commercial (GC) to Office (0), Office-Mixed Use (O-MU)
and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) through a TDR program could possibly add 1,394
employees, and 1,500 peak hour trips to the area. The projected population would not change. Care
would need to be taken to address the dislocation of approximately 90 affordable housing units
presently within three mobile home parks. The city could help these residents through the use of
Washington State "Housing Tax Credits" or by encouraging a non-profit housing developer to build
some of the needed housing for the displaced home owners and renters.
Prior to designating the Midway Neighborhood as a TDR Receiving Area, a "Neighborhood Plan"
needs to be completed with full participation of residents, property owners and businesses. A
"Funding Feasibility Study" would need to be completed to ascertain how much market value exists
in the "Agricultural Resource Lands". A General Obligation bond would go before the public for
approval with a conservative estimate of$8 to $10 million dollars to establish a TDR Bank and fund
a "Purchase of Development Right" (PDR) preservation program (See Attachment 12 "TDR
Preservation Program"). Because there is more market value in the "Agricultural Resource Land"
than can be absorbed in the Midway TDR Receiving Area or that could be purchased through a PDR
program, all future land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be tied to the TDR program.
Market value would be held by the TDR Bank and sold to developers interested in making changes to
the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning maps.
Option A — Preserve Majority of Agricultural Study Area Using a Purchase of Development
Rights (PDR) Preservation Program: This option designates 467 acres (i.e. not including acreage
already preserved through King County Agricultural Preservation Program) as "Agricultural
Resource Land" at a potential cost to the city ranging conservatively from $6.6 to $8.8 million
dollars. Given the economic climate and voter concerns about property taxes, a General Obligation
bond would probably not pass.
Option C - Preserve Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and Change
Zoning and Land Use Designation to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area Designation: This
option designates only lands that have already been preserved through King County Agricultural
Preservation Program as "Agricultural Resource Land". There would be no cost to the city or its
citizens. The remaining land would be designated for higher density residential development (i.e.
SR-3) where wetlands do not dominate the landscape. The remaining lands would be designated as
Urban Separator/SR-1 with clustering in recognition of the extensive wetlands and land classified
Unique & Fragile Class I & 1I. The required clustering would provide development potential for the
land that is largely encumbered by wetlands. Conservatively, there is the potential for 419 dwelling
units to be built within the Northern and Central Study Area. Approximately half of the development
potential is located within the Central Study Area and has no other access than Frager Road. Frager
Road will become the main arterial for all development within the area. While it can be argued that
the Northern and Central Study Areas no longer have agricultural land with "long-term significance"
because they are isolated from agricultural industries and the Lower Green River APD by major roads
(i.e. South 216`' St, West Meeker St, SR-518, and SR-167) and, they are encroached upon by existing
and proposed incompatible residential land uses, there is nearby infrastructure and, there is an
estimated 109 acres that are presently farmed and have water rights.
Land Use and Planning Board
February 11,2002
Page 13 of 13
Option B Preserve Portions of Northern and Central Study Areas Using a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Preservation Program and Designating Portions of the Northern
and Central Study Areas as a TDR Receiving Area: This option fulfills Kent's commitment to
preserve agricultural lands by designating 109 acres (i.e. not including acreage already preserved
through King County Agricultural Preservation Program) as " Agricultural Resource Land". These
are also lands that have been found to no longer meet the GMA definition of"agricultural lands of
long-term significance" because: 1) soils are no longer "prime farmland"; 2) existing use is not
agricultural (i.e. golf course); and 3) adjacent existing and proposed residential land uses are
incompatible with agricultural uses. Lands meeting the above criteria will be rezoned to SR-1 with a
TDR Receiving Area Overly. The allowed density in the TDR Receiving Area Overlay will be MRT-
16 and will conservatively have the potential for 113 dwelling units. The additional TDR Receiving
Area Overlay just outside the Study Area will be MRD and conservatively has the potential for 71
dwelling units (i.e. density is 10.89-du/acre in MRD). The lands proposed for Urban Separator/SR-1
with clustering would probably not convert to housing because of dedicated existing uses. All the
new land use designations will be on land that would not be considered by GMA to have "long-term
significance", including the land presently zoned A-1 in the Southern Study Area that is proposed to
be rezoned to AG (i.e. Smith Dairy Farm — Existing Processing Plant Operations). This proposal
does not put a lot of additional traffic onto Frager Road (i.e. south of South 216`h St).
The areas designated for TDR Receiving Areas have access to South 21611 St and South 212`h St, with
the exception of a small receiving area north of South 216`h St. Staff calculated there are
approximately 2.25 acres unencumbered by wetlands and buffers, having the potential for 36
dwelling units, which should not be a large burden for Frager Road. Maintaining the Agricultural
General (AG) zoning district is essential to ensure that the agricultural industries referred to in the
GMA will have land set aside for their specific uses. There is a critical mass of agricultural lands in
the nearby Lower Green River APD to support the AG zoning district. The new land use designation,
"Agricultural Support", reflects the intent of the AG zoning district and expands it to include
agricultural retailing. This expansion provides flexibility for the property owners, as well as
additional support for local farmers. Providing an area to market locally produced and processed
farm products will strengthen the surrounding agricultural uses. The proposed retailing would also
allow the sales of agricultural support products such as seed, tools, fertilizers, pesticides, and other
materials needed for farming.
CAIGWIpm MARTH FSISDATAIPermitlPlanlCompPlanAmdments1200112004535-CPA2000-PH021102.doc
cc: Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager
Fred N.Satterstrom,Community Development Director
Michael H.Martin,Chief Admin Officer
Project File
_.,• '� ,
ram:�
� Il��i _!��_`,T/-"::. ,j:.,� �tea■■-.1 .
INOW ONE ME
Won
�w
NEI
sm
all
...' 'i'�': • � � � `� ����• III'
TDR
i� ice! - (�• ,�-'ll■u1r.1:�,�
~ Ang �.�� I
donor
LAI
ii a _ , •Area
I
:Vlug 1
� •II I '■ ,lam
•mom .►_e i �t ■, �:: ■r.: -
t11111 � - � � -- •
:.`���'��•:.�R '�� 1.- �' � Imo,_
..•------ . .vR� :_ate :...� ■ 1
• =%ate
Ah
��■�� �■�Imo■
� �'�,� '�� � � mot■
.ttt,t■F
illll0 � ■ �'1''
dip
a1m� ITS ,��_�� -°•, '�I'��r:.�.
I ••11� :nn r pmm��:a1,
dp
Rwai
sm
INE
ah
MISS t
Aill TOM
NCC
INK, SR-6
-wow All �e 1:
.. � ter •��r'Ii�J
MENOMINEE
1 •� • �� �� ,% � � \��� �'_:is_•`
� i. ice• � ` � / /�._ '--� �. IL���_=3
-.......::eau✓,� Ems` t L Mr .i
-fir°_•' � I � ,�
�': '�:)���m=: �=•'� i=ate .� �� ,';
_ � _ i
..�-
. • - -t-Ali ��■►� � �
- I wim' '
_ �� is i� ►..• '�■
cnarw ��!:. i h■r
• nr ---— -� /I� .
OR
al
Rod
owl
Jilin
oil
MINE
Ism
a
I
• --- � - `�1, ,1 ��
:i1IN1111��
wpL�_ �: m mn■ nuln:::
ISEis
Mo
1 � r
i
I
• _mums
INK" IN
YK
WON,
No
ON ice--. `.
ON mUS
mom "3 F
l
3 ,
!.'.. 1li�
i
ON
a
,
i
i
r I
f E • a_
Option A
t
A 1, Change to A 10
.> Discussion:
d -, , A-10/Agricultural Resource Land: Designate as
Al = M1 Agricultural Resource Land because of"prime
farmland"Class II soils,existing land uses,
- historical zoning and land use designation.
Change to SR-1/ _ AG/Agricultural Support:Create a land use
Urban Separator _ designation called Agricultural Support for AG
d3' p �— — zoning district which is defined as supporting
w "agricultural production by allowing agriculturaffyy
related industrial uses in or near areas designated
for long term agricultural use".Change one parcel
r' M1 } If,— to AG because of the existing land use as a dairy
1 Change t0 SR-1/ product processing site.
I q
s_ 3 Urban Separator
� SR-1/Urban Separators:Change to SR-1/Urban
Separators because 1)environmental,visual,
recreational and wildlife benefits;2)soils are no
MA : longer"prime farmland"due to dedicated
stormwater detention and standing wetlands;and
i Change to A-10 3)existing golf course.
SR 1 Change to SR-1/
• Urban SeparatorST-
! x�
� u
SR, Chan a to A-10 Ge,
Legend
*city Limits
% Study Area
SR Zoning Districts
King County PDR Program
® Urban Soil Classification
Land Use Designations
Change to A-10 9
Agricultural Resource Land °Q
6 - j Agricultural Support N
Urban Separator W
G Change to AG e
16,
Y sgyg�ggSPS._ m 1 11
�... � A"
' � 1 w �
-
" sW K E NI T
@ R � l Plf i4Yr, w.^.'off
Planning Services Scale
December 2001 1:32688
Chan
� �= Option B
Change to SR-1 with Discussion:
Overlay A-10/Agricultural Resource Land: Designate as
W TDR Receiving
Agricultural Reso
urce Land because of"prime farmland'
N lit
..... .....
....... ........
Class 11 soils, existing land use, historical zoning and
I
land use designation. Change zoning to Agricultural-10.
Mic AG/Agricultural Support: Create a land use designation
called Agricultural Support for AG zoning district which is
defined as supporting"agricultural production by allowing
Change to A-10 agriculturally related industrial uses in or near areas
Chan e to A-10 designated for long term agricultural use".
SR-1/Single Family 1 Unit/Acre: Change to Single
3
W Family 1 Unit/Acre with a TDR Receiving Area Overlay
TDR Receivin Oveda (see below)because 1) no longer"prime farmland"soils
due to human intervention or large un-drained wetlands
that have little regulatory possibility for reclaimation;
2)lack of water rights for irrigation; and 3)conflicts
with adjacent existing and proposed land-uses.
C
s 3 SR-1/Urban Separators: Change to SR-1/Urban
Change to SR-1/ Separators because 1)environmental,visual, recreational
Urban Separator and wildlife benefits; 2)no longer"prime farmland"soil
due undrained wetlands that have Tittle regulatory
possibility for reclaimation;3)existing land uses are
storm water detention and golf course;and 4)need
to minimize impacts of increased usage on Frager Road
that is designated"scenic&recreational"and adjacent
to the Green River.
SIR 1 Change to SR-1/ SR-3/Single Family 3 Units/Acre: Designate land adjacent
Urban Separator to A-1 0 as a TDR Receiving Area Overlay to increase
[4_L , -- agricultural preservation program's capactiy to absorb
"market value"of Agricultural Resource Land.
TDR Receiving Area Overlay: Density based on carrying
capacity of existing infrastructure, market value of
eligible resource land, and market viability of proposed
density.Townhouses and clustering are recommended.
Chan e to A 10 TDR overlay requires a PUD.
Legend
iF City Limits
Study Area
Zoning Districts
King County PDR Program
Urban Soil Classification
TDR Receiving Area Overlay
6 Land Use Designations
Agricultural Resource Land
Agricultural Support
hange to AG Single Family I Unit/Acre
E291 r J .
Urban Separator
Existing Single Family 3 Units/Aare C.
Al AG
440�
KENT
Planning Services Scale
December 2001 1:32M
Chan e to A-10 ;,
w � -- Option C
Change to Urban
Separator/SR-1
M �s i l
Discussion:
—?M1c
A-14/Agricultural Resource Land: Designate as
= = Agricultural Resource Land because of"prime farmland"
Change t0 SR-3 Class II soils, existing land use, historical zoning and
t 9 land use designation. Change zoning to Agricultural-10.
f�,
a AG/Agricultural Support: Create a land use designation
' _ M Chan e_t_o A-10 called Agricultural Support for AG zoning district which is
K, defined as supporting"agricultural production by allowing
Change to Urban agriculturally related industrial uses in or near areas
-� Separator/SR-1 - designated for long term agricultural use".
SR-3/Single-Family 3 Units/Acre: Change to Single-Famil
S . 3 I 3)Units/Acre with clustering because 1)no longer"prime
Change to Urban farmland"soils due to human intervention; 2)conflicts
Separator/SR-1 t$',,, with adjacent existing and proposed land uses;and
3)need to minimize impacts of increased usage on Frager
Change to SR-3 Road that is designated"scenic&recreational"and being
adjacent to the Green River which supports the
endangered Chinook Salmon and is a"River of State
Wide Significance".
M,+ 4 A;
SR 1 it - SR-1/Urban Separator: Change to Urban Separator
because 1)contains environmental,visual, recreational
and wildlife benefits;2)soils are no longer"prime
Change t0 SR-3 farmland"due to large un-drained wetlands with little
-- , regulatory possibility for reclaimation; 3)existing
�"' l stormwater detention ponds;4)adjacent to Green River,
�-� 5)existing gotf course and recreational land; and
j 6)conflict with existing and proposed adjacent land use.
Change to A-10I MA' Legend
City Limits
b Study Area
0 Zoning Districts
- u ® King County PDR Program
N ® Urban Soil Classification
6 Chan a to AG Land Use Designations
Agricultural Resource Land
r Agricultural Support
.ms - Single-Family 3 Units/Acre
Al — c MQ Urban Separator N
Yl
K� T
/ ea .a.-...l�
Planning Services Scale
December 2001 1:326N
•
KENT
W A 5 H I N G T O N
CITY OF KENT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFIC ANCE
Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2001-56 Project: CITY OF KENT
KIVA#2013133 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
STUDY
Description The City of Kent Planning Services Office proposes area wide text and map amendments to
the Cityo f Kent Comprehensive Plan establishing goals policies and land use designations
for Agricultural Resource Lands and Agricultural Support and amendments to the zoning
map and code for the Agricultural and Agricultural/General zoning districts. With the
designation of Agricultural Resource Lands the city must establish a Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) or a Transfer of Development Rights Preservation Program
(TDR) for those property owners to who choose to preserve their lands for agricultural
purposes now and into the future There are eight(8)options under consideration:
• Option 1 a Preservation of Entire Stud�Area Using PDR Preservation Program;
• Option lb Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program;
. Option 2 Preservation of Central and Southern Studv Areas Using a TDR
Preservation Program and Designation of the Northern Study Area as a TDR
Receiving Area;
•
Option 3 Preservation of the Central Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study
Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study
Area as a TDR Receiving Area;
• Option 4 Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern
Study Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with the Midway Neighborhood
and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas;
• O tion A Preservation of Large Portions in all Study Areas Using PDR Preservation
Program:
Option B Preservation of Portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas Using a
TDR Preservation Program:or
Option C Preservation of Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants
and Change of Zoning and Land Use Designations to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth
Area"Designation.
tion.
Applicant Gloria Gould-Wessen
Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
City Of Kent Planning Services
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent Ca 98032
Lead Agency City of Kent
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on
the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This
decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
Determination of Nonsignificance
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 #2013133
Page two
�-- lead agency. This Determination of Nonsignificance is specifically conditioned on compliance with the
conditions and mitigating measures described below. This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process.
This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further
comment period on the DNS.
X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days
from the date of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal
period as provided by WAC 197 11680. Comments must be submitted by March 19,2002.
Responsible Official Kim Marousek
Position/Title Senior Planner
Address 220 S.Fourth Avenue Kent WA 98032 Tele 53 856-5454
Dated March 5. 2002 Signatu
APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATIO OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO
THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN(14)DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION
PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520.
CONDITIONSIMITIGATING MEASURES: NONE
Page 2 of 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
Phone:253-856-5454
� Fax: 253-856-6454
KEN T Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
W A 5 H I N G T O N Kent,WA 98032-5895
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT
Decision Document
AGRICULTURAL LANDS STUDY
ENV-2001-56 (KIVA#2013133)
Responsible Official: Gloria Gould-Wessen
I. PROPOSAL
The City of Kent Planning Services Office proposes area wide text and map amendments to the
City of Kent Comprehensive Plan establishing goals, policies, and land use designations for
Agricultural Resource Lands and Agricultural Support, and amendments to the zoning map and
code for the Agricultural and Agricultural/General zoning districts. With the designation of
Agricultural Resource Lands, the city must establish a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or
a Transfer of Development Rights Preservation Program (TDR) for those property owners to who
choose to preserve their lands for agricultural purposes, now and into the future. There are eight
(8) options under consideration:
�-- . Option 1 a-Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program;
Option lb -Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program;
Option 2 - Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation
Program and Designation of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area;
Option 3 -Preservation of the Central, Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area
Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northem Study Area as a
TDR Receiving Area;
Option 4 - Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study
Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with the Midway Neighborhood and all
Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas;
Option A — Preservation of Large Portions in all Study Areas Using PDR Preservation
Program:
. Option B — Preservation of Portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas Using a
TDR Preservation Program; or
• Option C—Preservation of Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and
Change of Zoning and Land Use Designations to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth Area"
Designation.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 3222), the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), the Local Project Review Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's
Construction Standards (Ordinance 3117) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent
City Code) will require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by the
Applicant/Owner/Subdivider with the City of Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts.
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to roadways, intersections
N.— and intersection traffic signals, stormwater detention, treatment and conveyance, utilities, sanitary
sewerage and domestic water systems. Compliance with Kent's Construction Standards may
require the deeding/dedication of right of way for identified improvements. Compliance with
Title 11.03, and with Sections 15.08.220 to 15.08.224, and to Section 15.08.240 of the Kent City
Code may require the conveyance of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent, in order to:
preserve trees; or to regulate the location and density of development based upon known physical
constraints such as steep and/or unstable slopes or proximity to lakes; or to maintain or enhance
water quality. Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6.12 of the Kent City Code may
require provisions for mass transit adjacent to the site.
In addition to the above, Kent follows revisions to the Washington State Environmental Policy
Act, Chapter 197-11 WAC (effective November 10, 1997), which implements ESHB 1724 and
ESB 6094.
Any conditions applied to the following Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance,which are
intended to mitigate impacts from the project herein being reviewed, are applied because
identified impacts cannot adequately be addressed by existing identified City Codes and
Ordinances.
Eight (8) options have been proposed for consideration. There are approximately 691 acres
comprised of 150 tax parcels within the Agricultural Study Area (i.e. Northern, Central, and
Southern Study Areas). 'The options are discuss below:
O tion la Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program:
... This option designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as
Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR)
preservation program. The properties owned by the City of Kent and used for, or to be used for
recreation, would be rezoned SR-1. The remaining properties within the A-1 zoning district
would change to A-20 (i.e. one dwelling unit (d.u.)/20 acres) and the entire Southern Study Area
would be designated as Agricultural Resource Land and changed from AG and A-1 to A-20.
Option lb Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program:
This option designates only the Southern Study Area as Agricultural Resource Lands supported
by a "Purchase of Development Rights" (PDR)preservation program. The Northern and Central
Study Areas would change to an Urban Separator land use with the associated SR-1 zoning
district applied (i.e. approximately 213 acres, with 56 acres unconstrained by wetlands and
buffers). The entire Southern Study Area would be designated as Agricultural Resource Land
and changed from AG and A-1 to A-20.
Option 2 Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using a TDR Preservation Prouam
and Desienation of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving Area.
This proposal would designate the Southern and Central Study Areas as primarily Agricultural
Resource Lands supported by a "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) preservation program.
The existing and proposed recreational lands in the Northern and Central Study Areas would
change to SR-1. The Northern Study Area would be designated as a TDR receiving area with
different types of land uses and densities applied [i.e. Neighborhood Convenience Commercial—
NCC (-6 acres),Medium Density Multifamily—MRM (-3 acres), Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16
(-20 acres), and Single-Family Residential - SR-6 (-41 acres)] to absorb the bulk of the Central
�-- and Southern Study Area's market value. Proposed developments of 20 acres or more would be
administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Page 2 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
-� Option 3 - Preservation of the Central Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area Usin
PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study Area as a TDR Receiving
Area:
This proposal would designate the Southern, Central and a portion of the Northern Study Area as
Agricultural Resource Lands supported by PDR and TDR preservation programs. The TDR
Receiving Area is made up of 238 acres, of which approximately 32 acres located between S
212ffi St. and S 216f'' St and 3 acres located north of S 212"' St. are unencumbered by
environmental constraints. Different types of land uses and densities would be applied [i.e.
Neighborhood Convenience Commercial — NCC (-6 acres), Townhouse/Condo - MRT-16 (-5
acres), and Single-Family Residential - SR-6 (-20 acres)] adding approximately 206 dwelling
units and 78,000 sq. ft of commercial. Proposed developments of 10 acres or more would be
administered under a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The existing and potential recreational
uses within the Northern and Central Study Area would change to SR-1. Zoning designations for
the remaining lands within the Central Study Area, and the entire Southern Study Area would
change from A-1 and AG to A-20.
Option 4 Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study Area
Usin PDR/TDR Preservation Pro ams with the Mtdwa Net hborhood and all Future
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas:
This option designates the Central and Southern Study Areas, and nearly all of the Northern
Study Area as Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a PDR and TDR preservation program.
Property north of S. 212`h St. would be designated Urban Separator with an SR-1 zoning district
with clustering (i.e. approximately 100 acres). The existing recreational lands in the Central
Study Area would be zoned SR-1. The remaining properties within the A-1 zoning district would
change to A-20 and the entire Southern Study Area would change from AG and A-1 to A-20.The
Midway Neighborhood would be designated as a TDR receiving area (i.e. approximately 20
acres). The extent of the receiving area and the types of land use changes would be determined
through a Neighborhood Planning Process, that would be conducted prior to a final decision on
the amendments. It would be proposed that the existing zoning districts would change from
General Commercial (GC) and Mobile Home Park (MHP) to Office (0), Office-Mixed Use (O-
MU), and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) when TDR's are purchased. The
resulting density of housing and employment would depend on the Neighborhood Planning
Process and market forces.
Option A Preservation of Large Portions in all Study Areas Using PDR Preservation Program:
This option designates nearly the entire Northern, Central and Southern Study Areas as
Agricultural Resource Lands supported by a PDR Preservation Program. The zoning districts A-
1, AG and the four parcels with an Agricultural land use designation and MR-M zoning would
change to an A-10 (one dwelling unit /10 acres) zoning district. The single property located in
the Southern Study Area and zoned A-1 would change to AG and a new land use designation of
"Agricultural Support"would be assigned(i.e. approximately 30 acres).
Option B Preservation of Portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas Using a TDR
Preservation Program;
This option designates onions of the Northern and Central Study Areas as Agricultural Resource
Lands supported by a TDR preservation program. Land primarily north of South 216`'' St would
have the land use designation SF-1 with SR-1 zoning and a TDR Receiving Area Overlay (i.e.
approximately 211 acres, with 7 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers). The TDR
... Receiving Area Overlay would allow Medium Density Townhouses (MRT-16) allowing16
d.u./acre on lands not encumbered by wetlands and buffers, and would be processed through a
Page 3 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
PUD. The remaining land within the Northern and Central Study Areas would have a land use
.� designation of Urban Separator and zoning would be changed from A-1 to SR-1, with clustering
allowed(i.e. approximately 120 acres,with 23 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers). The
entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation "Agricultural
The single A-1
Support" and with no change to the existing AG zoning district designation.
property within the Southern Study Area would be rezoned to AG, because the existing dairy
processing plant is supported in the AG zoning district development standards (i.e. approximately
30 acres).
Option C Preservation of Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants and Change
of Zoning and Land Use Designations to Reflect GMA"Urban Growth Area"Designation.
This option does not designate any new Agricultural Resource Lands with the exception of the
properties that have had their agricultural development rights purchased by King County. Their
zoning would change from A-1 to A-10. The remaining lands in the Northern and Central Study
Area would have a land use designation of Urban Separator with the zoning changed from A-1 to
SR-1, allowing clustering (i.e. approximately 309 acres, with 5.25 acres unconstrained by
wetlands and buffers), or a land use designation of SR-3 with the zoning changed from A-1 to
SR-3 (i.e. approximately 102 acres, with 80 acres unconstrained by wetlands and buffers). The
entire Southern Study Area would be designated with the new land use designation "Agricultural
Support" and with no change to the existing AG zoning district designation. The single A-1
Id be rezoned to AG, because the existing dairy
property within the Southern Study Area wou
processing plant is supported in the AG zoning district development standards (i.e. approximately
30 acres).
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
The impacts of project-specific applications under this plan with regard to the various
environmental elements will be analyzed during the review of the project-specific applications
and their associated SEPA environmental checklists, as determined necessary.
A. Earth
Nearly the entire agricultural study area is Class II "Prime Farmland Soil" based on the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1972 maps (Sheet No. 10-Des
Moines Quadrangle, Sheet No. 15 —Poverty Bay Quadrangle and Sheet No. 16—Auburn
Quadrangle) and the Agricultural Handbook No. 210 "Land-Capability Classification".
There are wetlands scattered throughout the study area, causing some of the hydric soils
to change from Class II "Prime Farmland" to Class III, IV or V having "severe
limitations" and "very severe limitations" that would limit their use largely to "pasture,
range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover." There are also two parcels that,because of
human invention, are classified as "Urban". Other parcels within the study area may
have historically been filled and no longer meet the definition of"Prime Farmland Soil".
The soils within the Midway Area (i.e. Option 4 — Proposed TDR Receiving Area) are
urban in nature and nearly completely developed (i.e. located along Pacific Highway
South,between Kent-Des Moines Road and South 240 St.
Each option is discussed below with theoretical densities calculated based on Kent's 2001
Wetland Inventory, applied regulatory buffers, and other environmental and regulatory
constraints. Development would occur only on unconstrained soils with grade and fill
calculated at the time of development. The increased density allowed in the Study Area
would be subject to Kent's regulations stated in the"Background Information" section.
Page 4 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
Option la: No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural
activities (i.e. farming, grazing, wholesale nursery of woody and herbaceous plant
materials, fallow) and single-family residences. The zoning would primarily change to
A-20, which reduces density and removes the potential for agricultural industrial
development in the AG zoning district.
Option lb: Approximately 2% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the
associated land use changes. The majority of remaining land would be zoned A-20,
allowing existing uses while reducing future density in the existing A-1 and AG zoning
districts
Option 2: Approximately 5% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the
associated land use changes. The majority of the remaining land would be zoned A-20,
allowing existing uses while reducing future density in the existing A-1 and AG zoning
districts. The other remaining land use changes would not increase allowed density.
Option 3: Approximately 3% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the
associated land use changes. The majority of remaining land would be zoned A-20,
reducing future density in the existing A-1 and AG zoning districts. The other remaining
land use changes would not increase allowed density.
Option 4: The majority of land would be zoned A-20,lowering the potential for
development. Proposed increased density would occur in the Midway Area where the
soils are urban(i.e.nearly built out)and development would occur through
redevelopment. Approximately 80%of the Midway Area would be impervious, or about
a 10%increase over existing development.
Option A:No change to existing land uses,which are dominated by agricultural
activities and single-family residences. The zoning would primarily change to A-10,
reducing density and removing the potential for development in the AG zoning district.
The remaining land use changes would not increase allowed density, although
development would be clustered to direct it away from sensitive areas.
Option B: Approximately 2% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the
associated land use changes.The majority of the remaining land would be zoned A-10,
allowing existing uses while reducing future density in the existing A-1 zoning district.
The Southern Study Area would not change from the existing AG zoning district, with
the exception of an existing dairy processing plant that would change from A-1 to AG,
commensurate with existing land uses. The allowed impervious surface for AG zoning
district will be 60%.
Option C: Approximately 7% of the entire land area would be impervious due to the
associated land use changes.The Southern Study Area would not change the existing AG
zoning district,with the exception of an existing dairy processing plant that would change
from A-1 to AG, commiserate with existing land uses. The allowed impervious surface
for AG zoning,district will be 60%.
B. Air
All options that increase density have the potential of increasing Carbon Monoxide(CO)
•— and other suspended particulate matter into the air, during both construction and
occupation.
Pacye 5 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
C. Water
The Green River winds through the Study Area and is fed by several creeks. These
creeks,their associated wetlands, and the river define the landscape of the Study Area. In
the Northern Study Area,there is a large wetland classified as Unique &Fragile I, as well
as several smaller wetlands scattered throughout the area. One of the larger wetlands is
dedicated to water quality from upland land uses. The Central Study Area also has creeks
and associated wetlands connected to the Green River, including one dedicated to water
quality.The Green River is the eastern boundary for both the Northern and Central Study
Area. Frequent flooding from the Mill Creek Auburn system impacts the Southern Study
Area. All the options designate Agricultural Resource Lands with proposed zoning of A-
10 or A-20, both allowing less development activity. There is no change to the existing
AG zoning district. The exceptions are Options A, B & C, where the existing dairy
processing plant would be rezoned from A-1 to AG. Development within the floodplain
near the river or wetlands would occur based on local, state, and federal regulations.
Preserving agricultural uses in any portion of the Study area ensures the potential for
discharge of waste materials into surface waters from farming activities, although the
kinds of agricultural discharges and their volume are unknown at this time. Several of the
options involve increased development and associated increases in impervious area.
Following the selection of a preferred option, the effect of land use changes on the local
storm water conveyance system and any related creeks or streams shall be analyzed. The
results of the analysis may indicate that new and/or enhancements of existing storm water
quantity and quality control facilities and/or conveyance systems shall be constructed. If
such facilities are necessary, the City shall determine whether they will be regional
facilities or site-specific facilities, when they will be built (e.g. in advance of or at the
time of platting/site development),and who will be responsible for funding.
Some of the options will also require the filling of FEMA designated floodplain areas.
Floodplain filling would require the establishment of offsetting compensatory storage
areas. This will severely limit or restrict any plans to fill or build upon these properties.
Those properties located within storage floodway zones are required to provide 100%
compensatory Hood storage and on-site detention/retention. Other zones require a
minimum of 50% compensatory storage in addition to the required on-site
detention/retention. The initial review of the City's contour maps indicates there is very
limited upland property available in the Study Area to provide offsetting compensatory
storage.
The Study Area contains several wetlands as identified by the City of Kent 2001 Wetland
Inventory. No delineations are required for the adoption of this agricultural lands study.
However, the designated sending and receiving areas for development credits will be
required to have wetland delineations completed in accordance with Kent City Code
Chapter 11.05 if the City of Kent Wetland inventory or on-site visits indicate that
wetlands and/or buffers are potentially encumbering the subject properties.
Option la: No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural
activities. Any new development would require a Septic Permit from Seattle-King
County Health Department.
Page 6 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
Option lb: The economics of low density development would require a Septic Permit
�. from Seattle-King County Health Department, unless development could hook up to
existing sewer lines.
Option 2: The proposed development has access to a 27" King County/METRO truck
line just across the Green River along South 212`h St. During the construction phase of
development, City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion.
Option 3: The proposed development has access to a 27" King County/METRO truck
line just across the Green River along South 212`h St. During construction phase of
development, City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion.
Option 4: No change to existing land uses,which are dominated by agricultural
activities. Any new development in Urban Separator designated areas would require a
Septic Permit from Seattle-King County Health Department. The remaining land uses
would reduce density and the impacts on water quality. Added development within the
Midway Area would not change the existing urban form. As redevelopment occurs,there
may be improvements to old outdated storm water conveyance systems, oil separators,or
old leaking sewer lines.
Option A: No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural
activities. Any new development would require a Septic Permit from Seattle-King
County Health Department.
Option B: The potential development areas within the TDR Receiving Area Overlay are
limited by environmental constraints. Areas along South 216`h St. may be able to tie into
the pump station located to the south. The TDR Receiving Area Overlay located north of
South 212`h St. would likely tie into the existing sewer line near South 200`h St. once
development occurs in this unincorporated area of King County. During the construction
phase of development,City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion.
Option C: The proposed development has access to a 27" King County/METRO truck
line just across the Green River along South 212`h St. The Central Study Area would
need to bring sewer across the river on available lines. During the construction phase of
development,City of Kent Construction BMP's would curtail erosion controls.
D. Plants
The original vegetation of the valley floor long ago disappeared through years of human
intervention. Plants are resilient, and stands of trees indigenous to wet river bottomland
have returned in places that have been left fallow for years. These diverse communities
provide food, shelter, and breeding habitat for various animal species. Even the invasive
species (i.e. Himalayan Blackberry, Scotch Broom, Cannery Grass, etc.) that dominate
the Green River's riparian corridor offer some bank stabilization, as well as food and
shelter for wildlife. The majority of the landscape,however, consists of agricultural plant
life and single-family homes with landscaped yards. Any of the options proposing
changes in the existing land use would have to conform to the City's Shoreline
Management Program, ensuring that buffers were maintained along the riparian and
wetland habitats. Stand-alone wetlands would also have protection under Kent City Code
11.05. The Midway Area is urban,providing minimal landscaping.
Page 7 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
lion la: No change to existing land uses, which are dominated by agricultural
gricultural activities expand into fallow lands,
activities and single-family residences. If a
trees, shrubs and wetland plant species would be removed,reducing the existing diversity
and habitat.
lion lb: The Urban Separator development form is clustered, which would reduce the
impacts to wetlands (i.e. open or forested wetlands). The buildable land area has a 50%
open space requirement. The area designated for agricultural land use would not change,
with the exception of increased activities.
lion 2: The majority of the area is preserved for agricultural land uses. The proposed
development in the Northern Study Area would occur on relatively open land presently
used for agricultural purposes. The riparian habitat would not be affected.
lion 3: The majority of the area is preserved for agricultural land uses. Like Option 2,
development in the Northern Study Area would occur on open agricultural lands. The
riparian habitat would not be affected.
Lion 4: The majority of the area is preserved for agricultural land uses. Changes due to
increased density would occur in the Midway Area,which is presently developed as an
urban form.
lion A: The majority of land would remain in agricultural use. Like with Option la,
over time there is the potential for increased agricultural activities and the reduction of
the existing plant diversity existing on fallow ground.
Op Lion B: The majority of land would remain in agricultural use. The TDR Receiving
Area Overlay within the Northern Study Area would be on unconstrained lands that are
presently dominated by grasses and other ground cover, a topsoil processing plant, a
construction storage yard, or single-family homes. Developing homes in these areas
would bring additional plant diversity not presently occurring in the area.
lion C: A change to the plant community would occur only on the unconstrained
landscape. Agricultural plant species would be replaced by plant communities associated
with residential development, including trees, shrubs, grasses, and bulbs. There is the
opportunity to increase plant diversity, and potentially add to the habitat that would be
preserved.
E. Animals
The open agricultural landscape within the Northern and Central Study Areas adjacent to
a wooded hillside provides a wide range of habitats for indigenous animals. Raptors,
heron, and a variety of songbirds live or migrate through this relatively uninhabited area.
The dominant terrestrial species is the coyote. The endangered Chinook Salmon resides
and migrates in the Green River, as does the candidate species Coho Salmon. Other fish
species, such as Chum Salmon, Steelhead and Cut Throat Trout migrate up the Green
River and Mill Creek Auburn. The anticipated amount of open space that any one of the
options will provide should ensure habitat opportunities for these existing species. Local,
state and federal regulations will protect the fisheries. There is no habitat for animals in
Option 4, with the exception of multifamily and commercial landscaping.
Page 8 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
F. Noise
Some noise will result from the options that propose increased land uses. During the
construction phase of any development, the noise will have the highest impacts on
surrounding uses. Residential development dominates the options, with two options
considering 78,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial development (i.e. Options 2 & 3).
SEPA review of the commercial development will provide the opportunity to mitigate
any impacts noise may have on the surrounding multifamily residences. In Option 4,
where development is directed to the Midway Area, noise is generated by the proximity
to Pacific Highway South, Interstate-5, and air traffic to and from Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport.
G. Land and Shoreline Use
The Study Area has a land use designation of Agricultural and zoning districts of
Agricultural (A-1) or Agricultural/General (AG), with the exception of four parcels
totaling approximately 6 acres that are Medium Density Multifamily (MR-M). All these
lands are considered in the Agricultural Study Area. The existing land uses are
agricultural (i.e. approximately 442 acres of both active and fallow farm land), single-
family residences, dairy processing plant, soil processing, construction yard, and a
WSDOT maintenance yard.
Surrounding land uses vary in the individual study areas. The Northern Study Area has
the Kent Boeing Aerospace Plant across the Green River to the east and a large
residential community (i.e. —700 d.u.) located to the southwest. Proposed land uses
outside the city are multifamily, office, and light industrial. The Central Study Area has a
large residential community located across the Green River to the east and to the west
backs up to a steep wooded slope. All options proposing increased land uses would be
compatible with the surrounding and existing residential land uses found in the Northern
and Central Study Area. The proposed neighborhood commercial development in
Options 2 & 3 would be mitigated through the SEPA process. Its presence in the area
would provide a commercial center that would be easily accessible by foot or bike to
surrounding neighborhoods. The Southern Study Area is flanked to the east by SR-167
and warehousing beyond, and to the south and west, the Lower Green River Agricultural
Production District (APD) dominates the landscape. Re-zoning the land either A-10 or
A-20 would fit the surrounding land use in the APD. Maintaining the AG zoning district
would support the APD by ensuring the agricultural uses have industrial support (i.e.
lettuce processing,berry packaging, etc.).
The Green River within the City of Kent is designated Urban, allowing development to
occur within the urban context. Because of Frager Road's placement, all options
proposing increased land uses will not encroach onto the river. The Central Study Area
is an exception. Private property abuts the river. Therefore Options lb & C would place
residential development adjacent to the Green River. SEPA review should provide the
necessary design to ensure protection of the shoreline and fisheries.
The Midway Area is characterized by auto oriented commercial development along
Pacific Highway South (i.e. Option 4). One block to the east of Pacific Highway, there
are multifamily and mobile home parks, a hotel, and the business offices of the Highline
Water District. To the west within the City of Des Moines, is Highline Community
College. The zoning is General Commercial (GC), Mobile Home Park (MHP), Garden
`-- Density Multifamily (MR-G), and Medium Density Multifamily (MR-M). Not all
properties would be redeveloped. However, there is the potential that redevelopment
Page 9 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
would displace 93 dwelling units (d.u.), of which 90 d.u. are mobile homes. During the
Neighborhood Planning Process, solutions for the potentially displaced households would
be made.
The preferred Option B will direct development into developable lands within the TDR
Receiving Area. These lands are unconstrained and are too small to be economically
viable farming operations. The amount of development likely to occur in Option B will
be relatively compressed in size and surrounded by wetlands, Natural Resource Lands,
and a scattering of single-family homes.
H. Housing
The increases in housing vary by option,but all would provide housing that represents
the mix of housing throughout the City of Kent. Single-family,townhouse
condominiums and medium density multifamily housing are all represented. Option lb
uses clustering of housing units into 8 dwelling units with 120' foot separation in the
Urban Separator land use designation. While dense, it ensures environmentally sensitive
areas are preserved as open space. Options 2 and 3 cluster a variety of housing types
together representing the urban form that dominates the Puget Sound Basin. Option B
clusters townhouse condominiums(i.e.MRT-16)into relatively small areas surrounded
by environmentally sensitive areas and farmland. The amount of dwelling units is
approximately 112 d.u. Option C allows only single-family housing at 3.63 d.u./acre.
This zoning type is closer to the existing housing form,but the architecture (i.e. size)of
the homes will probably change. The increased housing will ensure the City of Kent will
continue to meet the housing needs of the area and what's required by the GMA.
.. I. Aesthetics
The options that increase land uses are predominately residential. The residential
development is dominated by single-family homes with some townhouses (i.e. 16
d.u./acre) and multifamily residences(i.e. 23 d.u./acre). Kent's City Code allows a
single-family home to be 30 ft.tall,while the townhouses are 35' ft. tall, and the
multifamily residences are allowed to be 40' ft. in height. A neighborhood commercial
development would be allowed to be 35' ft.tall. The older residences in the Study Area
are primarily single story structures. The newer neighborhood located to the southwest in
the Northern Study Area have building heights that are multi-storied(i.e. 25' to 30' tall).
The following is a discussion of the relevant individual options:
Option 1 a: No Change.
Option lb: New housing would be clustered in groupings of eight(8) d.u. The clustering
of small lots would certainly promote two story structures, to maximize building area.
The required open space should mitigate the feeling of density.
Option 2: The introduction of neighborhood commercial, multifamily residential, and
single family would change the aesthetic character of the existing residential enclaves
scattered throughout the Study Area. Through the SEPA process, the commercial and
multifamily development can mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhoods.
Option 3: Same as Option 2, with the exception that there would be some agricultural
lands preserved to the south,keeping some of the character of the area.
Page 10 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
Option 4: There would be no change to the Study Area. However,the appearance of the
Midway Area would change from redevelopment. Much of the existing building stock is
50 years old. Some are single-family homes converted to commercial use, and the
majority of construction is a single story. The mixed-use office/commercial land uses
proposed for the Midway TDR Receiving Area would update the architecture and uses.
The City of Kent is planning major improvements to Pacific Highway South, adding
planting medians, street trees and sidewalks.
tion A: No change.
tion B: The majority of the landscape would not change in character,but there are
unconstrained areas within the TDR Receiving Area Overlay that would be allowed to
build townhouses at a density of 16 d.u./acre. The potential of 30' ft. tall blocks of
townhouses punctuating the agricultural landscape would change the existing character,
but they would be replacing a huge—80' ft.tall mound of dirt and the associated heavy
equipment, or replace a construction yard also filled with heavy equipment. The
development would be limited to the TDR Overlay area,preserving the surrounding
agricultural lands.
Option C: The agricultural lands, which provide much of the aesthetic character for the
Northern and Central Study Area, would convert to residential neighborhoods with
potentially two-story single-family homes at 3.63 d.u./acre.
J. Light and Glare
The options that increase land uses are primarily residential in nature, with the exception
of Options 2 & 3 where neighborhood commercial would be permitted. During the
SEPA process, mitigation of light and glare from the commercial area into the adjacent
residential areas will be addressed. All other changes will be primarily residential in
nature. Multifamily development will have landscaping to buffer the use and impact of
light into the single-family areas.
K. Recreation
There are a multitude of existing and proposed recreational opportunities for increased
land uses in the Northern and Central Study Area. Frager Road winds through the
Northern and Central Study Areas and is a "scenic and recreational" asset of the City.
Also nearby are the Green River Trail, Grandview Park, VanDoren's Landing Park and
the Municipal Golf Course. There is a new BMX dirt bike track planned for the area, and
land has been purchased by the City of Kent for a potential large ball field complex will
for the community (i.e.north of South 212`h St.). In the Southern Study Area, there is the
Inter-Urban Trail.
L. Historic & Cultural Preservation
While the Lushootseed speaking communities of the Muckleshoot and Duwamish
Peoples probably hunted, fished, collected plant materials, and lived within the study
area, there are no known archaeological sites recorded. It is known, however, that in the
Northern Study Area two villages were reported from T.T. Waterman's ethnographic
work in the early 1900's. Caution should be taken if development occurs in the Northern
Study Area,to ensure there is no disturbance of possible cultural materials or burial sites.
Page 11 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
M. Transportation
The Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law was adopted by the 1991 legislature and
incorporated into the Washington Clean Air Act as RCW 70.94.521-551. SHB 1513 went
into effect on July 28, 1997 and revised the original law. The basic idea behind the CTR
law is to get employees who drive to work alone to consider commute alternatives such
as buses, carpools, bike riding, walking, compressed work weeks, and flexible work
schedules. The City addresses the bus alternative by requiring that applicant
accommodates the needs for public bussing as expressed by METRO.
All Land Use Options:
In general, the Agricultural Study Area is within an area characterized by public streets,
which in general have narrow traffic lanes and narrow or no shoulders, and have been
identified as having substandard pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities. Frager Road, South
216t' Street, and 30`h Avenue South (i.e. located in the Midway Area) are examples of
streets that have these characteristics.
Many of the streets serving the Study Area are currently not improved to their applicable
design standards, and these streets will require improvements in conjunction with any
development associated with land uses changes. The City will require that developers
provide the necessary street and utility improvements as a condition of future
development, OR require that development not occur until such time as the necessary
street and utility infrastructure is in place.
Frager Road is of particular interest because of its designation as a "scenic and
recreational" road. Presently, it provides only two narrow traffic lanes with narrow
paved and gravel shoulders, and for all practical purposes is operating at maximum
capacity at the present time.The horizontal alignment of Frager Road parallels the course
of the Green River over an alignment controlled by the City predominantly through
prescriptive rights only. In addition to several substandard horizontal curves it has many
steep drop-offs along the east side. This existing street does not meet current street
standards for a Residential Street as would be required by the proposal. In order for
Frager Road to function as a Residential Collector Street, it would require two 16-foot
wide traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, 5-foot wide planter strips, 5-foot wide cement
concrete sidewalks, and a street lighting system along both sides of the street when fully
developed. Adequate right-of-way to accommodate these required improvements is not
available.
Due to its proximity to the Green River, adjacent wetlands, and sensitive areas, and the
resulting adverse storm water quality impacts, it is questionable whether the necessary
State and Federal permits for improving Frager Road could be obtained by the City. If the
necessary permits were obtainable, it is very likely they would contain conditions that
would be cost-prohibitive to provide.
Any increases in existing land uses will cause significant and/or additional congestion at
many existing and/or future street intersections. The amount of congestion cannot be
quantitatively or qualitatively addressed at this time.
Option la: This option would result in negligible adverse traffic impacts, since the total
N w number of residential dwelling units would remain essentially the same as currently
existing.
Page 12 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
Option lb: This option has the potential to add an additional 3000 ADT and about 300
PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network, plus an additional number of ADT and
PM Peak Hour Trips created by the proposed park.
Option 2: The SR-1 element has the potential to add an additional 2350 Average Daily
Trips (ADT), and about 248 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. The MRT-
16 element has the potential to add an additional 1880 ADT and about 173 PM Peak
Hour Trips to the public street network.The MRM-23 element has the potential to add an
additional 716 ADT and about 67 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. The
NCC element has the potential to add an additional 5810 ADT and about 533 PM Peak
Hour Trips to the public street network. This total option, therefore, has the potential to
add about 8,636 ADT and about 1021 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network.
This option would require the construction of several new public streets, and the
improvement of South 216rh Street from Frager Road to 42nd Avenue South. These streets
would be Residential Street, Residential Collector Streets, Residential Collector, Arterial
Streets, or Commercial Streets, depending upon the final layout and abutting land uses.
The new street connection to South 212`h Street would have to be carefully located in
order to avoid wetlands/sensitive areas, to provide adequate sight distance, and to provide
for a frontage road system that would not adversely impact South 212`h Street — a
designated Principal Arterial Street Augmented with Bike Lanes. The new connection to
South 216`h Street should include provisions to eliminate or reduce new vehicle trips onto
Frager Road,which has previously identified capacity and safety constraints.
`,. The new street connections to the 42nd Avenue South Corridor — which will ultimately
connect to our new South 224`h Street/ South 228`h Street Corridor— should not connect
to Frager Road for the reasons previously cited above.
Option 3: The SR-6 element has the potential to add an additional 3560 ADT, and about
376 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. The MRT-16 element has the
potential to add an additional 540 ADT and about 51 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public
street network. The NCC element has the potential to add an additional 5810 ADT and
about 533 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. This total option, therefore,
has the potential to add 9910 ADT and about 960 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street
network.
This option would require the construction of several new public streets. These streets
would be Residential Street, Residential Collector Streets, Residential Collector Arterial
Streets, or Commercial Streets, depending upon the final layout and abutting land uses.
The new street connection to South 212`h Street would have to be carefully located in
order to avoid wetlands/sensitive areas, to provide adequate sight distance, and to provide
for a frontage road system that would not adversely impact South 212`h Street — a
designated Principal Arterial Street Augmented with Bike Lanes. The new connection to
South 216th Street should include provisions to eliminate or reduce new vehicle trips on
Frager Road, which has previously identified capacity and safety constraints.
These new public streets, and subsequent residential developments should be designed to
eliminate or significantly reduce the number of new vehicle trips on Frager Road for the
NOW reasons previously cited above.
Page 13 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
O tip .on 4: The SR-1 element has the potential to add an additional 130 ADT, and about
�. 14 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. This option will have virtually no
adverse traffic impacts upon Frager Road.
In the Midway Area a Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) Shopping center
element has the potential to add an additional 5400 ADT and about 495 PM Peak Hour
Trips to the public street network. The CC-MU office element has the potential to add an
additional 5440 ADT and about 784 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network.
The CC-MU residential element has the potential to add an additional 1340 ADT and
about 141 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. This total option, therefore,
has the potential to add about 17,840 ADT and about 1434 PM Peak Hour Trips to the
public street network.
This land use option will require the improvement of both SR-99 / Pacific Highway
South and 30`h Avenue South. SR-99 is a designated Principal Arterial, and as such is
intended to provide the necessary north—south vehicle capacity for the City's West Hill.
The City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) contains the SR-99 HOV street
improvement which will provide the necessary street improvements for that street, and
that will hopefully address the necessary access management issues that will need to be
solved to increase the capacity and safety of this vital street link. This street improvement
will provide for six to seven traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, cement concrete
sidewalks, street lighting, and non-traversable medians to prevent unsafe left turns across
three or more lanes of traffic.
30`h Avenue South provides for two lanes of traffic and narrow shoulders, has no
sidewalks or a street lighting system along most of its length, and is not contained within
the City's TIP. This street is a designated Residential Street, which should include two
16-foot wide traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, 5-foot planter strips, and 5 to 10-feet
wide cement concrete sidewalks (depending upon the nature of the land uses abutting the
street), and a street lighting system when fully improved to current street standards.
The increase in vehicle trips along 30`h Avenue South will also adversely impact South
240`h Street,which currently provides for two narrow traffic lanes with narrow shoulders.
This street will also have to be improved between 30`h Avenue South and SR-99 to safely
convey the new vehicle trips generated by this land use option. This street is also
designated as a Residential Collector Street, which should provide for two 16-foot wide
traffic lanes, vertical curbs & gutters, 5-foot planter strips, and 5 to 10-feet wide cement
concrete sidewalks (depending upon the nature of the land uses abutting the street), and a
street lighting system when fully improved to current street standards.
tion A:This option would result in negligible adverse traffic impacts to existing public
streets, since the total number of dwelling units would remain essentially the same as
existing.
Option B: The MRT-16 element has the potential to add an additional 720 ADT, and
about 67 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. The MRD element has the
potential to add an additional 350 ADT and about 37 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public
street network. This total option, therefore, has the potential to add about 1070 ADT and
about 104 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network.
Page 14 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
This land use option would impact Frager Road because of the reasons cited previously,
but the amount of adverse impact is much smaller than the land use options which would
result in the generation of many more new vehicle trips upon this substandard City street.
Option C: The SR-1 element has the potential to add an additional 210 ADT, and about
22 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network. The SR-3 element has the potential
to add an additional 2770 ADT and about 292 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street
network. This total option, therefore, has the potential to add about 2980 ADT and about
314 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public street network.
This land use option would require the construction of several new public streets between
South 212`" Street and South 216`h Street, and the improvement of South 216`h Street.
These streets would be Residential Street, Residential Collector Streets, and Residential
Collector Arterial Streets, depending upon the final street layout and abutting land uses.
The new street connection to South 212`h Street would have to be carefully located in
order to avoid wetlands/sensitive areas, to provide adequate sight distance, and to provide
for a frontage road system that would not adversely impact South 212`h Street — a
designated Principal Arterial Street Augmented with Bike Lanes. The new connection to
South 216`h Street should include provisions to eliminate or reduce new vehicle trips on
Frager Road,which has previously identified capacity and safety constraints.
These new public: streets, and subsequent residential developments should be designed to
eliminate or significantly reduce the number of new vehicle trips on Frager Road for the
reasons previously cited above.
The central area of this land use option would create additional, but not significant
adverse traffic impacts upon Frager Road between South 228`h Street and West Meeker
Street, for the reasons previously cited above. These adverse impacts to Frager Road
might be mitigated by the costly construction of a new bridge over the Green River at the
west end of West James Street/ S 240`h Street, and the construction of new public streets
connecting to this new extension of West James Street, but the associated costs and
unavoidable environmental impacts would make the construction of this bridge
infeasible.
N. Public Services
The entire Study Area has police, fire and EMT service provided by the City of Kent.
Service in the Northern and Central Study Areas will be improved with the purchase of
an aid car for the north valley Station 76, to which new development will need to
financially contribute. If Frager Road is closed to through traffic, the City will require
fire suppression systems in all newly constructed residences.
O. Utilities
The Study Area is currently without water or sanitary sewer service, and the cost of
extending these services to these areas will be logistically difficult and very costly. The
options propose varying land use densities. The lower the density, the higher the cost to
provide utilities. Some densities would be so low that providing sewer would not be
fiscally practical. Water can be provided in the Northern and Central Study Areas from
the Highline Water District to the west. The costs associated with extending the
necessary infrastructure would have to be borne by the developer(s) of these areas at the
�- time of development.
Page 15 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
The options that increase land uses in the Northern and Central Study Areas face different
�- concerns. In the Northern Study Area, it is unlikely that sanitary sewer from the
designated receiving areas will be able to gravity flow to the existing Polygon lift station
and sanitary conveyance across the Green River. There are two existing sanitary lines on
the east side of the Green River which could potentially receive sanitary effluent from
these receiving areas provided additional lift station(s) are constructed on the west side of
the river to convey the effluent across the river. One existing sewer is located at S 212`h
and the other is located south of S 196d'. Sanitary sewage generated in the designated
receiving area would be required to gravity flow to the prospective lift station serving it.
The alignment of this conveyance could be particularly challenging due to the
proliferation of wetlands/sensitive areas, the generally flat topographical characteristics
of the area, and the need to acquire easements in which to build the required
infrastructure. The Central Study Area is also devoid of sanitary sewer and water service
and faces challenges similar to those listed above in order to allow development to occur
in this area.
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMIIENDATION
The recommended option (B) has the potential of providing TDR Receiving Area Overlay
capacity to absorb the market value of the Agricultural Resource Lands. Concerns have been
raised over increased density. The following addresses those concerns.
The addition of MRT-16 townhouses will be 720 ADT and 67 PM Peak Hour Trips to the public
street network. Improvements to South 216d' St. will be absorbed by the developer(s) and can
connect to 42"d Ave South/South 212`h St. The 228`h Corridor will alleviate impacts of increased
traffic onto South 212`h St. A suggested mitigation to ensure Frager Road is protected from
increased traffic is to close it to through traffic. Pass through traffic from within the
neighborhood and from outside the neighborhood will be eliminated, enhancing it as a "scenic
and recreational"road.
The City of Kent will ensure that utility easements will be allowed through the Agricultural
Resource Lands, allowing sewer and water lines to cross agricultural lands for access to existing
or proposed sewer pump stations.
A. Supporting documents for the following conditions and mitigating measures include:
1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted pursuant to the State
Growth Management Act.
2. The State Shoreline Master Program and the Kent Shoreline Master Program.
3. Kent City Code Section 7.07 Surface Water and Drainage code.
4. City of Kent Transportation Master Plan, Green River Valley Transportation
action plan and six-year transportation improvement plan.
5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater facilities master plan.
6. City of Kent Comprehensive water plan and conservation element.
7. Kent City Code Sections 6.02.010 and 6.02.020 construction standards.
8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 street use permit requirements.
9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 flood hazard protection.
10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivision Code.
11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06 Recreation Vehicle
`- Parks.
12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control.
Page 16 of 17
Decision Document
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 KIVA#2013133
13. City of Kent Uniform Building and Fire Codes
14. Kent Zoning Code.
15. Kent City Code Title 11.03, Environmental Policy, and amending Or
3282
16. Kent City Code Section 7.13 water shortage and emergency regulations and
Water Conservation Ordinance 2227.
17. Kent City Code Sections 6.02 and 6.03 required public improvements.
18. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and surface water drainage utility.
19. City of Kent comprehensive sewer plan.
20. City of Kent Fire Master Plan.
21. City of Kent Wetland Management Ordinance 3109.
B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be issued for this
project without conditions. The following documents are incorporated by reference:
■ Mill Creek Auburn Basin Flood Management Plan (Draft 1999): City of Kent,
City of Auburn,City of Federal Way, and King County.
■ Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) (Draft March 1997)
Sponsored by: City of Auburn, City of Kent, King County, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency,and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
■ Final Environmental Impact Statement— Agricultural Zoning Alternatives, June
1984
■ City of Kent Agricultural Lands Study,June 1982
■ National Flood Insurance Rate Maps—FEMA,May, 1995
■ Habitats& Species Map-Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife, July 2001
■ City of Kent Wetlands Inventory,July 2001 (digital map)
■ City of Kent Major and Minor Water Bodies (digital map)
■ City of Kent Hazard Area Development Limitations Map (digital map)
■ Land-Capability Classification: Agriculture Handbook No. 210 and Associated
1972 Maps (i.e. Sheet No.10—Des Moines Quadrangle, Sheet No. 15 —Poverty
Bay Quadrangle, and Sheet No. 16 — Auburn Quadrangle) — Soil Conservation
Service U.S. Department of Agriculture
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
March 5,2002
GGW:jm\\S:\Permit\Plan\Env\2001\2013133-2001-56.doc
Page 17 of 17
•
KENT
WASHINGTON
CITY OF KENT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Checklist No. #ENV-2001-56 Project: CITY OF KENT
KIVA#2013133 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
STUDY
Description The City of Kent Planning Services Office proposes area wide text and map amendments to
the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan establishing goals, policies and land use designations
for Agricultural Resource Lands and Agricultural Support and amendments to the zoning
map and code for the Agricultural and Agricultural/General zoning districts. With the
designation of Agricultural Resource Lands the city must establish a Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) or a Transfer of Development Rights Preservation Program
(TDR) for those property owners to who choose to preserve their lands for agricultural
purposes now and into the future There are eight(8)options under consideration:
• Option la Preservation of Entire Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program;
• Option lb Preservation of Southern Study Area Using PDR Preservation Program;
• Option Preservation of Central and Southern Study Areas Using a TDR
Preservation Program and Designation of the Northern Study Area as a TDR
Receiving Area;
• Option 3 Preservation of the Central Southern and a Portion of the Northern Study
Area Using_PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with a Portion of the Northern Study
Area as a TDR Receiving Area;
• Option 4 - Preservation of the Central and Southern and a Portion of the Northern
Study Area Using PDR/TDR Preservation Programs with the Midway Neighborhood
and all Future Comprehensive Plan Land Use Changes as TDR Receiving Areas;
• Option A Preservation of Large Portions in all Study Areas Using PDR Preservation
Program:
• O tion I3 Preservation of Portions of the Northern and Central Study Areas Using a
TDR Preservation Program; or
• Option C Preservation of Lands with Existing Agricultural Preservation Covenants
and ChanPe of Zoning and Land Use Designations to Reflect GMA "Urban Growth
Area"Desi ation.
Applicant Gloria Gould-Wessen
Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
City Of Kent Planning Services
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent Ca 98032
Lead Agency City of Kent
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on
the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This
decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
Determination of Nonsignificance
Agricultural Lands Study
#ENV-2001-56 #2013133
Page two
lead agency. This Determination of Nonsignificance is specifically conditioned on compliance with the
conditions and mitigating measures described below. This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS process.
This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further
comment period on the DNS.
X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 28 days
from the date of this decision; this includes a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal
period as provided by WAC 197 11680. Comments must be submitted by March 19,2002.
Responsible Official Kim Marousek
Position/Title Senior Planner
Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent WA 98032 Tele 53 856-5454
Dated March 5, 2002 Signatu
ILVM-
APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATIO OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE MADE TO
THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN(14)DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THIS DECISION
PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520.
CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE
Page 2 of 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, Community Dev. Director
PLANNING SERVICES
400 me Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager
K E N T Phone:253-856-5454
WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6454
�— Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
February 11, 2002
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Terry Zimmerman at
7:00 p.m. on Monday,February 11, 2002 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Terry Zimmerman,Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,Planning Mgr.
David Malik,Vice Chair Gloria Gould-Wessen, GIS/Long Range Planner
Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst. City Attorney
Nicole Fincher Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
Ron Harmon
Jon Johnson
Les Thomas
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
David Malik MOVED and Les Thomas SECONDED to approve the Minutes of January 28, 2002. Motion
CARRIED unanimously.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the Tuesday, February 19 Planning Committee meeting
will cover "The Townhouse Zoning Process:", "Mobile Home Park Relocation Assistance", and "Public
Participation Process."
Ms. Anderson stated that March 11 is scheduled for the DeMarco Hearing.
CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT
The Board members stated that they need additional time to review the new options A, B & C provided by
staff. The Board concurred that the public needs opportunity to study these options as well as the public
testimony correspondence received by the Board as exhibits for the record. Board members stated that they
would like this amendment to return to another workshop, then continue this to a public hearing.
Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Adams-Pratt stated that material packets are available to the public through the
Planning Services office. She stated that it would be acceptable for the Board to hold another workshop with
an additional hearing to follow.
Planner, Gloria Gould-Wessen.submitted the following exhibits for the record:
• Exhibit#1 - correspondence from Mr. Roger Orness
• Exhibit#2 -correspondence from Mr. Bock Thias
• Exhibit#3 - correspondence from Kent Youth Soccer Association
• Exhibit#4 -correspondence from Justina Ordonio
• Exhibit#5 - correspondence from Buck&Gordon law firm
... • Exhibit#6 &7-correspondence from the law firm Graham&Dunn
• Exhibit#8 - correspondence from Rita Bailie
• Exhibit#9 - correspondence from Buck and Gordon law firm
• Exhibit#10 - correspondence from Polly Wilson
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 11,2002
Page 2 of 8
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Kent is studying the Southern, Central, and Northern Study areas, indicating
their locations. She indicated where the lower Green River agricultural production district is located, stating
that this district is within King County.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that she has based the location of wetlands on Kent's 2001 Wetland Inventory and
the location of flood areas on FEMA's designations.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that her research of wetlands and FEMA impacts, particularly related to Options
A, B, and C is based on soil characteristics, seasonal versus permanent wetlands, and access to water rights.
Ms. Gould-Wessen indicated the location of wetlands within the study areas.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the majority of issues are part of Growth Management's way of assessing
whether agricultural lands should remain and be designated as agricultural resource land and zoned in a way
that would protect those lands. She stated that Kent's agricultural lands are zoned A-1, one unit per acre,
with the potential of subdividing the land into one acre lots, which is not what you would consider as
agricultural lands. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff is evaluating Comprehensive Plan, potential land use
and zoning designations for the study areas.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that uncultivated fallow land and woodland areas exist to the north. Ms. Gould-
Wessen stated that within the study areas, publicly owned land exists. She stated that this land includes a
Golf Course, Department of Transportation (WSDOT) park, a WSDOT maintenance yard, and wetlands
owned by the City of Seattle and used to monitor issues related to water quality concerning the closed
landfill area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the study areas include parks and parcels of land owned by the City. She
stated that these parcels of land exist near single family homes and where some cultivation exists.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the intent of Option A is to preserve the majority of the agricultural study area
using a (PDR) Purchase of Development Rights. Ms. Gould-Wessen explained that the City of Kent would
have to present this request to the voters, asking them for funding. She stated that if this issue were to pass,
the City would have available funding to proceed with the purchase of development rights from property
owners residing within the agricultural resource lands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen defined"Agricultural Support" as a new land use designation intended to support the
AG zoning. She stated that the AG zone allows agricultural industrial uses, such as a peat processing plant
or a business like Smith Dairy Farms. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff acknowledges that Smith Dairy
Farms needs a different type of land use designation which supports their type of agricultural, industrial use.
Staff would recommend changing zoning as well as land use designations for the Smith Diary Farm to AG
and Agricultural Support.
Ms. Gould-Wessen defined the Urban Separator designation as allowing for clustering eight single-family
units, which is compatible with a SR-1 zoning designation. Clustering allows construction of homes away
from wetlands, streams and steep banks. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the intent of the urban separator
designation is to preserve environmentally sensitive areas without removing development opportunity.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the GMA uses the "Agricultural Resource Land" definition. She stated that
the intent of the "Agricultural Resource Land" designation is to preserve agricultural uses such as production
of fruits, crops, flowers or any agricultural activity use. She stated that "Agricultural Support" supports
agricultural uses located within the agricultural resource lands through agricultural industry.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Kent needs a zone that focuses on the agricultural industrial needs of those
folks located in the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District. She stated that Option A, B and C
uses "Agricultural Support" as a land use designation for the AG zone. The AG zone would also allow for
`' retail uses specifically related to agricultural products from the NW Region.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff is recommending that the Agricultural Support land use designation and
the AG zoning district be reserved for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses near areas designated
for long term agricultural use.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 11,2002
Page 3 of 8
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Section 15.04.040 of the Kent City Code defines manufacturing land uses as
"...manufacturing,processing,blending,packaging of dairy products and by-products." She stated that these
uses would be added as a permitted use under the (AG) Agricultural General District. Ms. Gould-Wessen
stated that the AG district restricts industrial uses to the processing of agricultural products and does not
• allow storage or distribution centers.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff prefers Option B which acknowledges the AG zone in the Southern study
area. She stated that this option retains AG zoning which includes the Smith Dairy Farm.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the Urban Separator areas are designated SR-1 and include the golf course, the
Seattle Public Utility property and the Kentview Development's water quality detention facility. She stated
that Urban Separators or Agricultural Support would not need to be preserved as they would not be
considered as Agricultural Resource Lands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Option B preserves a portion of Kent's agricultural lands in the North and
Central areas and uses portions of the northern area as a TDR receiving area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that she spoke with the State's Soils Conservation District regarding lands which
have been inundated by water and left undrained. She stated that with these lands wetland characteristics
change soil composition and would not be considered as Class 1 or 2 farm land soils or as prime agricultural
farm lands without first draining the land. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that these lands do not lie within the
State's definition of Agricultural Resource Lands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that land zoned SR-3 exists outside of the study area, and could provide
opportunity for a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) receiving area. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this
area could absorb more density as well as some of the value in the agricultural lands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen defined a 'TDR program, citing an example allowing a farmer with A-1 zoning, one
`-- dwelling unit per acre, to sell that right and transfer development. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the
receiving property could now have an additional unit developed on the site and the farmer would retain his
property for agricultural purposes. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that a covenant would be drawn up restricting
the land for agricultural use in perpetuity.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the State requires that cities provide a preservation program when designating
agricultural resource lands within urban areas, as the City of Kent is proposing under some of the options.
She stated that the PDR or TDR programs are preservation methods used by those property owners who
would otherwise be developing like any other urban area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen calculated the areas of developable land that could be a TDR receiving area based on the
City's wetland inventory, stating that there were approximately 10 acres of land available for a TDR
receiving area in Option B.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Option C is intended to preserve lands currently under a preservation program
by designating them as Agricultural Resource Land. She stated that the development rights were purchased
on these lands twenty years ago and Kent would change the zoning to A-10 in support of those agricultural
land uses.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that in Option C staff does not intend to preserve additional lands in any of the
study areas. She specified which lands are designated as AG and SR-1,Urban Separator.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that the City meet urban
density requirements of no less than SR-4. Ms. Gould-Wessen indicated the areas where staff recommends
SR-3, as the City does not have a land use designation of four. She stated that SR-3 should meet the GMA
lw� density requirements because SR-3 has a density of 3.63 dwelling units per acre. The designation would
recognize Frager Road as a scenic,recreational road.
Ms. Gould-Wessen responded to Mr. Dowell's concerns about the Green River Corridor by stating that this
corridor is governed by its own development standards. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that there are
approximately 10 acres of developable land in Option B.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 11,2002
Page 4 of 8
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Option B applies wetland standards for Frager Road. She stated that
development from Frager Road is restricted by a 65 foot no build zone setback with access limitations to
Frager Road. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Class 1 wetlands must maintain 100-foot setback and Class 2
wetlands must maintain a 50-foot setback.
Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to open the Public Hearing. Chair Zimmerman
declared the Public Hearing open.
Georgine Looney, 2100 Boyer Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98112 stated that she represents St. Demetrios
Church who owns approximately 65 acres, located north of South 212th and West of Frager Road in the
northern study area. She stated that this property is zoned A-1.
Ms. Looney stated that the property was given to the church 25 years ago and has not been cultivated for 20
years.
Ms. Looney stated that the church supports, funds and hosts several programs including "Kids and Cancer,
Camp Agape". She stated that this is a two-week camp experience held in conjunction with Children's
Hospital and Good Sam. The camp hosts terminally ill cancer patients ages 18 and under along with their
families.
Ms. Looney stated that St. Demetrios Church provides 6000 to 7000 dinners per year to homeless facilities in
the Pacific Northwest. Ms. Looney stated that the services of the church extend beyond their community.
Ms. Looney stated that the current zoning and some proposed zoning, for the northern study area, would
affect the church property. She stated that the church would like to be able to parcel off or sell portions of
their property as needed. She urged the Board to consider zoning in light of how it would affect their land.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that St. Demetrious Church property has about 2.5 acres of developable land. Ms.
Looney stated that to her knowledge there has not been accurate or current wetland delineation completed on
the 65 acres.
Jeff McCann, 24826 247th Place SE, Maple Valley, WA 98038 stated that his family resides at 25870
Lake Fenwick Road. He stated that his family supports Options B and C and does not favor Option A as
lands with altered soils were left out and he believes legal challenges and opposition will grow. Mr. McCann
stated that he favored the implementation of a TDR program through Option B. He expressed an interest in
the TDR program process, stating that a successful program requires an enormous amount of planning,
education and economic analysis; more than is necessary for other land use planning issues.
Mr. McCann stated that Option C allows a mix of agricultural, urban separators and SR-3 zoning. He stated
that Options B and C attempt to balance protecting the lands while maintaining their monetary value.
Ralph LoPriore, 26414 68th Ave. S,Kent,WA 98032 stated that his family's property is zoned AG and is
located next to the Highway Department industrial site. Mr. LoPriore urged the Board to consider what
would be in the best interest of each land owner as well as for the City of Kent in considering zoning.
Mr. LoPriore stated that construction is occurring with such intensity that it is conceivable that areas under
consideration could develop into wetlands. He stated that he favored another workshop and hearing to allow
both the Board and the citizens to evaluate the new options A,B and C presented by staff.
John Green, 21839 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his property is zoned A-1 and is centrally
located in the northern development area with operational farms north and south of the property. Mr. Green
stated that his group is the only development in the A-1 zone with seven homes on one-acre lots.
`- Mr. Green urged the Board to reevaluate PDR's as a viable solution stating that a bond issue should be
presented to the Kent citizens. He stated that the citizens of Kent need additional opportunity to voice their
opinions on the preservation of agricultural lands.
Linda Hayes, 19229 SE 234th Place, Renton, WA 98058 stated that she is speaking on behalf of her
parents, Casey and Lucille DeLaCruz, whose property is zoned A-1. She stated that her parents own three
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 11,2002
Page 5 of 8
parcels of land, with two of the parcels consisting of five acres and one nine-acre parcel located along Frager
Road, south of 216th.
Ms. Hayes stated that staff favors Option B which would change their zoning to A-10. She stated that her
family favors Option C. Ms. Hayes stated that according to the GMA, their land is considered as small
scattered portions of land that are potentially farmable but not to be considered as having long term
significance for agricultural production. Ms. Hayes stated that this land no longer meets the GMA definition
of long term significance for agricultural production,which is one reason they choose Option C.
Ms. Hayes stated that economically, farming is no longer feasible for the family as her dad is 91 years old
and would like to retire. She stated that she does not believe there is a market for a buyer for their property
and has not had any offers for agricultural. Ms. Hayes stated that the land surrounding their property is being
fully developed.
Ms. Hayes stated that an individual should have the right to use their land as they wish stating that zoning
should be considered based on an individual basis.
Jere Thornton, 2453 1/2 S. 135th St., Sea Tac, WA 98168 stated that her property is located on the north
side of 216th between 42nd Avenue South and the river. She stated that this property is accessed by way of
212th, 216th and 42nd Avenue South. Ms. Thornton stated that she believes that zoning criteria should be
based on evaluation of individual landowtier's requirements.
Ms. Thornton stated that her property is on the market to be sold for development purposes and she has
received an offer from a developer that she would like to accept. She stated that no one has shown an
interest in purchasing her property for agricultural purposes.
Ms. Thornton stated that she believes Purchase of Development Rights Programs do not work, citing the
property located at the southeast corner of 212th and 42nd Avenue South as being part of a PDR program.
�- Ms. Thornton stated that this property sits idle and overgrown with briar patches.
Ms. Thornton stated that she does not favor any of the options presented.
Alexis Koester, 26518 68th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she is the president of Smith
Brothers Farms, which has experienced radical changes over the past few months. She stated that Smith
Brothers Farms are unique in that they process and sell milk from their own cows. Ms. Koester said that
1600 cows were milked at their facility in Kent up to December 2001.
Ms. Koester stated that they own a total of 225 acres. She stated that 65 acres are located in the City of
Kent's southern study area. She stated that the remainder of the land is located in King County. Smith
Brothers sold the development rights to 159 acres of that land in the 80's.
Ms. Koester stated that a majority of Smith Brothers' Kent property is comprised of impervious surfaces.
She stated that the processing plant is located next to their trucks on the property with the west side of the
property consisting of 16 barns, formerly holding the 1600 cows. Ms. Koester stated that environmental laws
have forced Smith Brothers to trim their herd to 80 cows in Kent with a new facility erected in Eastern
Washington to accommodate the remainder of those cows.
Ms. Koester stated that their raw milk has to be trucked across the mountains to their processing plant and
consequently, they are left with 15 vacant barns useful only for housing animals. Ms. Koester stated that
these barns would not be used for cows in the future. She stated that the same environmental regulations that
forced them to move the cows will prevent them from being used for any other livestock such as horses, pigs
or sheep.
Ms. Koester stated that Smith Brothers' attorney submitted a proposal that would allow them to reuse the
land under the barn structures through a conditional use permit process. She stated that this would prevent
any increase in impervious surface and maintain the visual character of the area. She stated that staff has not
recommended this change,but she urged the Board to consider this request.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 11,2002
Page 6 of 8
Ms. Koester stated that Smith Brothers have sixty Kent employees and sixty independent distributors. She
stated that their success is important to their family and the 120 families whose security depends on it.
Ms. Koester stated that they would like to be zoned AG with more flexibility than AG allows for at this time.
Ms. Koester stated that Agricultural Support is acceptable with the addition of conditions as recommended
by their attorney.
Mike Carpinito, 1148 North Central, Kent, WA 98032 stated that Carpinito Brothers is a diversified,
hand harvested fresh vegetable farm which as been farmed for over 30 years by him and his brother through
a successful retail market in Kent. He stated that Carpinito Brothers employs between 60 to 75 people in
Kent,primarily selling wholesale to customers such as Fred Meyers, QFC, and Safeway.
Mr. Carpinito stated that some proposals presented by staff would leave 75 acres of their property at the
south end of Kent unusable for their intents. He stated that all of the proposals have involved down zoning
and disregard the disastrous state that agriculture is in both locally and across the Northwestern United
States.
Mr. Carpinito stated that their future existence demands more flexibility to respond to changing markets and
crops. He stated that any form of down zoning constricts their ability to continue to be successful in years to
come.
Mr. Carpinito stated that the City of Kent needs to look at zoning their property in a way that would allow
them to respond to change so that they may remain in business. He stated that the luxury of simply growing,
harvesting and shipping crops to a local distribution center will end as the major grocery chains will no
longer maintain a local produce buying office. Mr. Carpinito stated that Carpinito Brothers would be forced
to look at alternatives such as developing a potato growing and processing facility or a lettuce growing and
processing facility.
Mr. Carpinito stated that those areas the City has designated as having wetlands have never been
scientifically delineated by any agency and have only been visually observed from off the property. Mr.
Carpinito stated that in 1994, Carpinitos spent thousands of dollars to have a scientific delineation study
completed by an expert soil scientist during high water season. Mr. Carpinito stated that this report indicated
that wetlands were nonexistent.
Mr. Carpinito urged the Board to reject any option that calls for down zoning or robs them of the general
conditional uses they now have. Mr. Carpinito recommended that the City retain AG zoning and amend it
with a conditional use which would allow them to continue their retail activities similar to what they have at
their present North Central Avenue facility.
Barbara Hallock, 405 Clark .Avenue North, Kent, WA 98031 stated that she does not own agriculture
property, but that her family has resided in the valley since the turn of the century. Ms. Hallock stated that
her family owns property on East Hill, which was originally a potato farm.
Ms. Hallock said that she supports Option B to preserve as much farmland as possible. She stated that she
believes it would be germane to provide for opportunities in the future that the City may not see now,
suggesting that bond issues may be an option. Ms. Hallock applauded the City's efforts voicing her desire
that the City preserve as much prime agricultural land as possible.
Elaine Spencer, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 stated that 30 years ago farm land preservation
first became an issue in the Central Puget Sound area. She stated that people believed the assumption that if
government preserved the land, farming would be preserved.
Ms. Spencer stated that King County has preserved thousands of acres from development, but over those
thirty years the number and acreage of farms in King County has continued to drop. She stated that 30 years
... of experience has taught us that to preserve agriculture, you have to preserve farmers; in the urban shadow,
to keep farmers, cities need to help them and not tie their hands.
Ms. Spencer stated that she represents the two largest farmers in the valley, both third generation farmers.
She stated that she favors all three Options changing the Smith property to AG while Option A down zones
the Carpinito property from AG to A-10 ensuring that the Carpinito business ends with this generation. Ms.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 11,2002
Page 7 of 8
Spencer urged the Board to reject Option A, as one of this option's key assumptions is that the Carpinito
property cannot be developed,which is false.
Ms. Spencer reiterated that a formal wetland delineation report was completed for the Carpinito Brothers in
1994 and submitted to the City and the Corp of Engineers. She stated that the Corp of Engineers concluded
that no wetlands exist on the property. City staff held the position that they would not provide a decision
until a development application was actually submitted.
Ms. Spencer stated that she submitted a letter from DBM Engineers in respect to FEMA, which points out
that floodway status does not preclude development but does require provisions for compensating flood
storage,which is an engineering matter.
Ms. Spencer stated that she believes the City would like Smith Dairy and Carpinito Brothers to remain in
business. She stated that the City needs to address their circumstances by considering broadening the
definition of AG zoning which would apply specifically to these businesses.
Ms. Spencer stated that if the City desires to assist these businesses, these zoning discussions need to be
brought to a conclusion. She stated that these farmers are not like commercial businesses, and they need to
know where they stand and to be able to move on.
Les Thomas MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried.
Board member Dowell questioned why the MA zone had not been considered in previous discussions, asking
if revisions to the MA zone might make it a viable zone to consider.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that(MA) Agricultural Manufacturing is an industrial transition zone in nature and
that all of the City's zoning allows agricultural uses in it including the M1 and M2 zones. Ms. Gould-Wessen
stated that staff chose to ensure that AG zoning supported agricultural land use with a focus on agricultural
activity.
In response to Board member Harmon, Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff has reviewed the recommended
changes submitted by Elaine Spencer with Graham and Dunn, incorporating some of those suggestions into
their recommended option.
The Board members agreed that this issue should be discussed at a workshop on February 25, 2002 to
consider possible alternatives to the options already presented, then schedule a public hearing for March 25,
2002.
Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to hold a workshop on February 25, 2002 with a public
hearing to be scheduled for March 25, 2002 on the CPA-2000-3 - Agricultural Lands Amendment. Motion
CARRIED.
Mr. Dowell said that he dislikes down zoning and would like staff to examine MA zoning at the workshop.
Ms. Zimmerman stated that the Board members would like staff to provide recommendations and explain
their rationale behind accepting, rejecting or amending zoning based on the correspondence submitted from
citizens as exhibits at this hearing. The Board voiced their desire to receive additional correspondence that
might arrive in Planning Services.
Mr. Malik stated that he would like Public Works Traffic Engineering to address traffic volume, movement
and road widening issues if land development escalates south of Orilla or 212th, He stated that both Frager
Road and 42nd could not handle additional traffic capacity.
Ms. Zimmerman questioned how the environmental checklist would assist the Board in reaching zoning
decisions. Charlene Anderson stated that the environmental checklist is intended to show the Board staffs
I..- analysis on an environmental basis for all eight of the options. Ms. Anderson stated that staff would likely
have issued a threshold determination for the environmental review by March 25, to answer Mr. Malik's
concerns.
Ms. Gould-Wessen clarified that there are eight options before the Board. She stated that Option IA is
similar to Option A and does not change the zoning in Smith Farms. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that these
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
February 11,2002
Page 8 of 8
two options are the most similar in that they preserve the most agricultural land. She stated that the zoning
does change in terms of A20 versus A10.
Ms. Zimmerman questioned what the City would need to do to develop an agreement about wetlands. Ms.
Gould-Wessen stated that wetland delineations would have to be completed at the cost of$4,000 to $10,000
per property. She stated that wetlands change over time and are constantly moving targets. Ms. Gould-
Wessen stated that the City only accepts a wetland delineation report when it is associated with development,
and it is good for one year.
Ms. Zimmerman stated that the FEMA floodplain superimposed over the various usages of the land is one of
the guiding principals in the recommendations the City is making. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the FEMA
flood plain is intended to illustrate that property owners would now have additional restrictions on lands that
they would have to comply with in order to obtain financing for their development.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the City's wetland inventory functions like a red flag, citing Mr. Carpinito's
property as a red flag. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Mr. Carpinito could request specific development for
his property, indicating that he has had a wetland delineation report completed based on wetland delineation
standards which indicate 100 square feet of wetlands. The City would review this report for compliance with
code requirements.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that it would be too expensive for the City to delineate all the wetlands, even
though it does leave some vagaries in estimating amounts of developable land, such as for the TDR and PDR
sites.
Ms. Fincher stated that the wetlands seem to be a driving force in the way in which the options are designed.
She stated that there seems to be a tremendous amount of wetlands designated in the TDR receiving site.
Ms. Fincher stated that when the City is looking at transferring those rights, it seems that there is only a small
amount of developable land available. Ms. Fincher questioned if the City is setting that program up for
�- failure in that the City is not going to be able to transfer anything there.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Option B suggests expanding the TDR's to annual comprehensive plan
updates. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that these comprehensive plan requests would then be reviewed for
applicability of a TDR program, with the possibility of including the Midway area for its economic
opportunities in the future.
Mr. Harmon stated that the City needs to look to the future and formulate zoning and policy
recommendations based on the community's desire and needs. Mr. Harmon voiced support for tying the
TDR's to an annual Comprehensive Plan process.
Ms. Zimmerman stated that she is concerned with how the City is to comply with the RCW's requirements
for the City to designate agricultural lands with long term significance for commercial food production when
wetland locations are unclear.
Ms. Zimmerman voiced concern over the use of PDR's and TDR's as the County has purchased the
development rights of land in the lower Green River Valley, which remains uncultivated. She stated that she
was concerned that farm land not cultivated for five years could lose their water rights or the right to drain
the land.
ADJOURNMENT
Ron Harmon MOVED AND David Malik SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. Motion CARRIED.
Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9:23 P.M.
Respect y ubmitted,
Charlene Anderson, AICP, lanning Manager
Secretary
S:\Permit\Plan\LUPB\2002Winutes\020211 min.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Community Dev. Director
PLANNING SERVICES
• Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Manager
K E 14 T Phone: 253-856-5454
WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 8,2001
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair, Terry Zimmerman at 7:00
p.m. on Monday, October 8, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE&PLA\1j'GBOARDMEMBERSPRISM STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Terry Zimmerman, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,Acting PlamringMgr
Brad Bell Gloria Gould-Wessen,PlarmedGIS Coordinator
Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst. City Attorney
Ron Harmon Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
David Malik
LAND USE & PLANNIN G BOARD
MEMBERS ABSENT
Jon Johnson (Excused)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
�.. Approval of the September 24th and October 8th minutes has been moved to the October 22nd hearing.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMLN G MEETINGS
None
#CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT(continued)
Ms. Gould-Wessen submitted the following exhibits for the record:
• Exhibit#1 -E-Mail letter from Mr. and Mrs. Len Elliott.
• Exhibit#2 -Letter from King County Agricultural Commission with minutes from their May 10th meeting.
• Exhibit#3 -Letter from American Farm Trust
• Exhibit#4-Letter from Elaine Spencer with Graham and Dunn PC on behalf of the Carpinito Brothers
• Exhibit#5 - E-Mail letter from Jennifer Kim and Lance Springer.
• Exhibit#6 -Letter from Elaine Spencer with Graham and Dunn PC representing Smith Farms
Ms. Gould-Wessen defined a PDR as a Purchase of Development Rights and a TDR as a Transfer of
Development Rights. She stated that PDR's and TDR's are planning tools being considered in the preservation of
agricultural lands. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that PDRs and TDRs are used to purchase or transfer development
rights of land, based on applicable zoning. She stated that the Al zone is based on the market value of one
dwelling unit per acre and the AG zone on agriculturally related industrial uses. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that a
landowner benefits financially by selling their development rights either through a PDR or TDR without
necessitating the sale of their property; the owner also may continue the agricultural uses on their property. She
stated that landowners are allowed to retain their property but they sell the development potential of the property.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 2
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the transfer is permanent and recorded in a public record. She stated that this
transfer serves as a conservation easement and runs in perpetuity with the land.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that a PDR is an incentive program using a General Obligation Bond to fund it. She
stated that once this program is established, an applicant would be required to have the land evaluated, typically
based on soil classification and parcel size.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that development rights would be appraised for their fair market value based on existing
zoning and environmentally sensitive areas. She stated that if the price were agreeable to both parties, payment
would be made and all speculative value associated with development of the parcel would be removed. Ms.
Gould-Wessen stated that the owner would retain ownership of the land and payment to the property owner would
be in a lump sum or on a payment basis for tax purposes.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the TDR differs from the PDR in that the City is not purchasing the land directly
through general obligation bond funds; rather a developer approaches the property owner to purchase the
development rights. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the property owner who sells their development rights is a
TDR sending site and the total development rights sold is based on existing zoning.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that a TDR receiving site applies development rights, for example, to increase density
beyond the existing zoning. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that like the PDR program, restrictive covenants are
applied to the title on the agricultural property, so that the resource will remain available for agricultural purposes.
David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried.
Chair Zimmerman declared the Public Hearing open.
Jack Nelson, 601 W. Gowe St., Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family has owned their 10-acre site in the
southern study area for over 100 years. He stated that his family opposes every option, as they would affect his
�-- property by rezoning it to A20. Mr. Nelson stated that his family favors retaining the existing zoning or rezoning
to commercial or industrial use. Mr. Nelson stated that a rezone to A20 would be counter-productive to nurturing
agriculture and does not allow flexibility for change.
Mr. Nelson voiced his belief that land owners will not be fairly compensated under a TDR or PDR program as
these programs are inequitable. He voiced his concern that a fair market value is based on existing zoning
without consideration to other potential land uses. In referring to the September 24 minutes, Mr. Nelson stated
that if a landowner does not choose to have their development rights purchased, they would be down zoned to
A20. He stated that this method would not fairly compensate landowners.
Mr. Nelson stated that the TDR program seems speculative. He questioned the methods used by the City to
determine a unit per acre value, saying that this is only one indication of the value of property. Mr. Nelson
questioned how the potential for commercial or industrial development would be evaluated, stating that the south
study area is well suited to that type of development due to the existence of a transportation infrastructure and
availability of utilities.
Mr. Nelson stated that City Administration would incur continued expense under the PDR program as they will
need to monitor landowners for compliance with land restrictions imposed by the City. Mr. Nelson stated that the
Carpinitos are farming his property and he is not receiving any compensation for their use of his land.
Chris Curtis, 4219 Corliss Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that she is the Director of the
Neighborhood Farmers Market Alliance, a community-based nonprofit organization in the City of Seattle. Ms.
Curtis stated that the Alliance operates the University District Farmers' Market, the Columbia City Farmers'
Market and the West Seattle Farmers'Market with a new market opening in Lake City in June 2002.
�. Ms. Curtis stated that the markets are open for only 13 hours per week and have experienced remarkable success
with an increase in farm sales of 30 percent this year. She stated that farmers' gross sales over the past 8 weeks
have averaged$100,000 per week and will reach $2 million dollars in local farm sales by the end of the season in
November.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 3
Ms. Curtis stated that the University District Market routinely collects $45,000 to S60,000 on market day through
direct farm sales. She stated that there are 115 farmers in their database with waiting lists at all three of the -�
markets. Ms. Curtis stated that farmers from Eastern Washington and King County are represented in the
markets. Forty percent of the farmers are from King County and represent approximately 30 percent of their total
sales.
Ms. Curtis stated that the average King County farm size is less than six acres with intensive farming. Several
farmers have generated $10,000 to $40,000 in gross sales per acre. She stated that the demand for locally grown
produce at the markets has risen between 20 to 40 percent per year with this demand occurring in Woodinville,
Redmond and Issaquah.
Ms. Curtis stated that the markets are receiving less than a half percent of total produce dollars spent in Puget
Sound. She stated that if the farmers' markets could secure one to two percent of produce sales, this would be
equivalent to $12 million dollars in revenue.
Ms. Curtis stated that the loss of local agricultural resource lands would undermine the local farm economy.
Don Stuart, 3213 South Normand St., Seattle, WA 98144 stated that he serves as the Pacific Northwest
Regional Director for a national organization known as American Farmland Trust. He stated that this
organization works to protect and keep active farmland in production and encourage use of good stewardship
practices.
Mr. Stuart stated that public opinion strongly supports agriculture in this state and encouraged staff to support the
protection of farmland to provide for economic diversity and recreational activities.
Mr. Stuart stated that the Kent Valley's proximity to Seattle makes it convenient for farmers to sell their produce
at local farmers' markets. Mr. Stuart stated that farming is diversified including u-pick operations and on site
processing operations, which allows for direct sales to farmers' markets. He stated that the diversity in farming .�
includes tourism, entertainment farming and Consumer Supported Agriculture and home delivery service. He
added that the old way of farming might not work,but there are new ways to farm.
Barbara Hallock, 405 Clark Ave. N., Kent, WA 98031 stated that in her 83 years of residency, she has
experienced remarkable changes in the Kent valley. She commended staff for their work on the study areas
stating that a simple solution does not exist in balancing the interests of all those connected with the land in these
study areas. Ms. Hallock stated that the City should retain agricultural land to provide a high quality of living that
could provide diversity and meet the recreational needs for the community as well.
Ms. Hallock voiced her support of Option 4, as it seems to provide equitability and will provide a way to preserve
the land for future generations.
Rita Bailie,20607 1015L Ave. SE,Kent,WA 98031 stated that she serves as the Rainier Audubon Wetland Chair.
She stated that farmlands serve as wildlife habitats, migrating and breeding corridors. She stated that she
appreciates the flood storage, wetland resources and the ground water recharge areas that farmlands provide. Ms.
Bailie stated that these services provided for free by the farmlands would be costly to replicate. Studies show that
flood peaks may be as much as 80%higher in watersheds without wetlands.
Ms. Bailie voiced her support of Option 4 as it seems the most equitable to those landowners that may wish to sell
their land. In quoting from a book "Better not Bigger" on Growth Management, Ms. Bailie stated that "Open
space and farm land are valuable and irreplaceable assets that contribute significantly to every community.
Undeveloped land requires few if any public services and there is little or no public cost required to maintain it.
Studies by the American Farmland Trust (AFT), consistently show that farmland and open space pay more in
taxes then they require in services, providing a net surplus to the community". Ms. Bailie stated that a study by
the AFT found that farmland and open space required only 52 cents in services for every dollar paid in taxes. She -�
stated that the cost of services created a surplus, helping to make up the budget shortfall created by residential
land. Residential land required $1.14 for every dollar paid resulting in a $20 million dollar net loss to Frederick
County,Maryland in 1995.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 4
Ms. Bailie stated that a similar study of four New Hampshire towns conducted in 1995 found that each town had a
net revenue gain from open space and a net loss for residential land. Ms. Bailie stated that it may cost Kent to
save farmland now,but over the years the savings returned in keeping the land in open space may make up a good
portion of that cost. She stated that the City strives for every housing site now, but we cannot be certain our
population growth will continue as rapidly as in the past. Ms. Bailie stated that if our population growth escalates
rapidly then farms will be needed and appreciated even more than at present.
Ms. Bailie stated that government and businesses have neglected Western Washington's small farms. She stated
that farming is a viable business but needs consistent support, and most government farm support goes to large
farms and agricultural businesses.
Ms. Bailie stated that the King County Agriculture Commission was formed in 1995 to help meet the needs of
these farmers by developing helpful programs. She stated that farmers' markets are a program providing a
profitable direct link between the farmer and his customer. Ms. Bailie stated that successful local farming means
fresher food, less shipping, truck traffic,pollution, fewer redistribution warehouses and greater food security.
Jack McCann, 25870 Lake Fenwick Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family has owned 7 acres in the
northern study area for 48 years, which contains altered soils with no agricultural value. Mr. McCann stated that
he objects to the options presented. He stated that implementation of any of the programs would exempt his land
as a sending area due to the State's law requiring Class 2 soils.
Mr. McCann stated that there is no demand for TDR's in the Midway area and wants to be assured that he and
other property owners are fairly compensated for their land. He stated that he would support either Option 2 or 3,
as these options would preserve some of the agricultural lands and greenbelt area. He stated that the use of TDR's
could be funneled into the northern study areas near the Polygon development. Mr. McCann stated that the
greatest demand for further development seems to be exhibited near the Polygon development due to sewer and
utility accessibility.
Kathy (Smith) Highland, 13721 SE 260th St., Kent, WA 98042 stated that she was raised on the Smith
Brothers Farm, a fourth generation family business. Ms. Highland stated that pressures from urban growth and
development have forced Smith Brothers to move their large herd from the property. She stated that the GMA
does not define resource land as having that type of urban pressure,but clearly Smith Brothers has that pressure or
they would still be allowed to have their herd on the property.
Ms. Highland stated that it seems contradictory to designate this property as "long term agricultural resource land"
when Smith Brothers has been told that they can no longer farm as they have for the last four generations. She
stated that Smith Brothers would like to retain their business which includes processing and bottling of milk and
warehousing milk, eggs, cheese, cottage cheese and ice cream which Smith Brothers distributes.
Ms. Highland stated that their markets could force them to change their business strategy to include producing
their own yogurt, cottage cheese and ice cream. She stated that this would involve building additional processing
and packaging facilities, which are not permitted under their current Al zoning. She stated that it is her
understanding that neither A20 nor AG zoning would permit this type of expansion. Ms. Highland stated that
Smith Brothers needs zoning that would guarantee them the necessary flexibility to improve their business and
remain in compliance now and in the future.
Scott Highland, 13721 SE 260th, Kent,WA 98042 said that he has worked in the Smith Brother Farms business
since 1975. He stated that he is president of Smith Tractor and Equipment Company which sells,repairs and rents
earth moving equipment from eight locations in Washington State,with two of those locations located in Kent.
Mr. Highland stated that an earlier presentation indicated that farmers' markets have the potential to gross $2
million dollars in a season. He stated that when 115 farmers divide that$2 million dollars,the result is $17,000 in
dross sales per farmer and by figuring in a 5 percent margin,the resulting income is$1,000 per farmer.
Mr. Highland stated that Smith Brothers has 60 acres of their property in Kent zoned Al located in the southern
study area on the corner of 277`i'and West Valley Highway. He stated that it would not be reasonable to describe
this property as agricultural resource land. Mr. Highland stated that fifty percent of the land is covered with
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 5
buildings, concrete, asphalt, maintained mature gravel roadways and parking areas. He stated that a large
industrial facility exists on the property comprised of approximately 300,000 square feet of buildings.
Mr. Highland stated that milk is processed,packaged, warehoused and distributed along with other products from
this site. Mr. Highland stated that an estimated 100 trucks or more deliver goods to and from Smith Brothers
Farms daily. He stated that Smith Brothers has employee housing, two office buildings, numerous barns, loafing
sheds, a truck and farm equipment repair shop and storage areas for many of the delivery vehicles that reside there
every night. Mr. Highland stated that if the cows were removed from this property, it looks like an industrial
park.
Mr. Highland stated that Smith Brothers Farm needs AG zoning at the minimum. He urged staff to consider a
zoning and comprehensive plan designation that not only would reflect how the company has evolved over the
last 50 years but would give Smith Brothers sufficient flexibility to expand their facilities as our markets change.
He stated that neither Al nor A20 accommodates the changes they can foresee as necessary for the future viability
of their business.
Mr. Highland stated that if the City were to move ahead with their existing proposals, their property would be
designated as A20 resource land and would require compensation as a PDR or TDR based on current zoning. He
stated that the real value of the 60 acre portion of Smith Brother's Farms is estimated at between $6 and $15 per
square foot or between $15 and $40 million dollars if allowed to develop in this urban environment without
zoning interference.
Mr. Highland stated that Smith Brothers Dairy was unable to keep their cows on the farm, as the cost became
prohibitive due to environmental issues connected with the distribution of manure. Mr. Highland stated that he
was unclear what level of government imposed this order, and assured Chair Zimmerman that he could obtain this
information.
Maria Dorn,PO Box 1623/293 S. "D" St.,Buckley,WA 98321 stated that she would prefer that the City retain
the current zoning or that she would support Option 2. She stated that although her grandparents have either
farmed their own land or rented it out to others to farm, farming is no longer a viable way for young people to
earn a living. Ms. Dorn stated that farming competes with large manufacturers and constraints imposed by
environmental regulations.
Ms. Dorn stated that developing this land would be beneficial in creating housing for future generations and
increasing the tax base for the City of Kent.
Saraj Khan, 24719 43rd Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032 introduced a letter for the record as Exhibit #7. He stated
that his family owns 26 acres of land in the northern study area between 212th and 216th, west of Frager Road.
He stated that the land is not farmed and sees it following the same direction as the Greek Orthodox Church
property located northeast of Orillia Road, vacant and out of production, having grown into wetland and
blackberries.
Mr. Khan stated the Central and Southern study areas have large, profitable farms but needs the City to consider
zoning this land AG. He stated that logistically,the Northern Study area requires development as it is close to the
airport, Southcenter Mall, Interstate 5 and Highway 167. Mr. Khan urged the City to zone the entire northern
study area to allow for development to include soccer fields,housing and neighborhood commercial.
Sylvia Gray, 20866 102nd Ave. SE, Kent,WA 98031 submitted a letter for the record as Exhibit#8. She stated
that her family has owned property in the northern study area for over seventy years. She stated that she does not
support any of the options but believes that Option 2 is potentially the least encumbering for the City and affected
property owners.
Ms. Gray addressed the options for preservation of agricultural lands within city boundaries. She stated that the
State Growth Management Act requires that agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance located
within urban growth areas cannot be designated for preservation unless the City has enacted a program
authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 6
Ms. Gray stated that each option incorporates transfer and/or purchase of development rights along with serious
zoning changes for properties titled agricultural, whether or not they are so used.
Ms. Gray stated that her property is not under cultivation because there is no one interested in using it. She stated
that information has been presented about the amount of land in commercial use, income so generated and
possible valuations of land relative to the purchase of the development rights. Ms. Gray stated that Option 4 of
the report was recommended which has the most far-reaching changes and the most extensive use of TDR's and
PDR's with funding by public bond issue.
Ms. Gray stated that farming is becoming a harder way to earn a living. She stated that farmers for over 35 to 40
years have worked a day job then farmed evenings and weekends. Ms. Gray stated that people testifying have
reached the age of retirement and no one has appeared to replace them. Ms. Gray stated that the two biggest
agricultural businesses, Mike Carpinito and Alexis Koester testified that a change in their zoning to A20 would
not support or enhance their ability to do business,but severely restrict it.
Ms. Gray stated that those of us who are not in farming have our retirement income invested in various ways. She
stated that a farmer's future retirement investment is the value of the land itself, which is meant to be sold to
provide care and retirement.
Ms. Gray stated that Jeff McCann's research on transfer of development rights programs indicated that they were
not an overwhelming success. She stated that he raised questions about the choice of either a mandatory or
voluntary program indicating that legal challenges and opposition have occurred in those circumstances.
Ms. Gray stated that she understands that when a property owner sells or transfers development rights, he is still
obligated to maintain ownership and use of the property, as he is the taxpayer of record. Ms. Gray questioned
how a property owner within City boundaries with no development rights could sell their land. She stated that the
staff report and options attempt to address the preservation of agricultural lands of long term commercial
significance within urban boundaries. Ms. Gray stated that the testimony at this hearing refers repeatedly to
NI- commercial agriculture activity not surviving for the long term- at least not under these options.
Ms. Gray stated that reports presented to the LUPB refer to FEMA regulations and the Shoreline Management
Act impacting the use of these properties even for agriculture. She questioned if the proposal intended to
preserve, maintain and support long term agricultural activity and property or is the City of Kent going to embark
on a costly program which binds up acres of nonfunctioning land, labeled agricultural, but rendered worthless to
the mandated sale of development rights. She stated at issue is the continued right and ability of individual
property owners to sell their land at fair market value,not just sell the development rights.
Ms. Gray stated that to those who spoke earlier this evening, in support of farming, where are those people who
want to farm.
Tom Vertetis, 10115 SE 200th, Kent, WA 98031 stated that Options 2 and 3 seem the most viable in striking a
balance of fairness for those land owners who want to receive fair compensation for their property at the same
time protecting agricultural lands. Mr. Vertetis stated that Option 4 concerns him in that it seems that there is no
demand or capacity for TDR's in the Midway area and that this option, if implemented, could create legal issues.
Bob Tidball, 28810 57th Place South,Auburn,WA 98001 stated that he grows berries on a small farm he owns
south of Kent. He stated that it is his understanding that zoning restricts what property owners are allowed to do
with their property without compensation. He stated that the Growth Management Act places restrictions on
property with guaranteed compensation to the property owner.
Mr. Tidball stated that Benaroya challenged the City of Redmond's agricultural zoning on property in the city,
which went to the State Supreme Court. He stated that the Supreme Court determined that the TDR/PDR must be
in place before a zoning designation is placed on the property.
Mr. Tidball stated that if land is entered into a TDR/PDR program, the benefit to the owner exceeds the
compensation that they receive. He stated that he participates in a TDR/PDR program through King County. Mr.
Tidball stated that if his land remains in production, he would realize substantial tax reductions. He stated that
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 7
under the current program, he pays $90 per year in taxes and were he not under this program, he would pay
approximately$2000 per year.
Mr. Tidball stated that a number of people have stated that no one wishes to farm these lands. He stated that his
experience has shown that a number of people who own these lands have speculative interests and do not allow
people to farm their lands. Mr. Tidball stated that if these landowners seek out farmers, their rental fees exceed
what the farming economy can support.
Mr. Tidball stated that King County has entered into a program called Farm Link where they actively attempt to
match landowners or farmers with people who want to farm. He encouraged the City of Kent to participate if they
decide to designate agricultural lands.
Mr. Tidball stated that he paid full commercial, industrial price for his land and his business has paid for the land
in less than five years. He stated that in order to accomplish preservation of resource lands Government and
individual property owners must work together. Mr. Tidball stated that his farm has served thousands of people
over twenty years and he has yet to hear anyone say they do not want farmlands to remain.
Kevin Phelps, 26311 78th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family owns Triple A Auto Wrecking at
26311 78th Ave. South, along the Green River. Mr. Phelps speaking on behalf of his father stated that they are
concerned about the land proposal for his area, as they are located adjacent to railroad tracks. He stated that they
favor industrial or commercial zoning as they are bounded on three sides with industrial uses.
Mr. Phelps stated that their property consists of 14.5 acres with 11 acres zoned agricultural by King County and it
has not been farmed for 15 to 20 years. Mr. Phelps stated that the tax benefits to the City would be substantial if
this land were converted to commercial or residential use.
Mr. Phelps stated that any of the proposals would impair land values and jeopardize the city's economy as the cost
to the city for purchasing Smith Brothers at commercial rates is more than the city could afford. .,
Debi Nicholson, 21831 Frager Rd, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she respects the opinions of the land owners
who desire to be compensated fairly for their property saying that she is a land owner in the northern study area.
Ms. Nicholson voiced concern that increased development in the northern study area will increase traffic
particularly on 216th and Frager Rd, which is a two lane narrow road. Ms. Nicholson stated that traffic has
increased substantially due to the River View Development. She stated that upon completion of this development
there would be over 800 homes,which would further increase traffic on the overburdened road system.
Ms. Nicholson stated that when the River View Development began, the 228th Street corridor was to be
completed and would serve as an access route from the south side of the development into Kent, deferring traffic
from Frager Rd. She stated that the completion of the 228th St. Corridor is now in question. Ms. Nicholson
stated that a roundabout has been placed at the intersection of 216th and 42nd to funnel traffic to 212`i; however,
traffic still turns right out of the development heading to Frager Road.
Ms. Nicholson stated that the developer has indicated they are seeking permission from the City to place a no
right-turn sign at the exit from the development. She believes this will not deter people from continuing to turn
right towards Frager Road.
Ms. Nicholson stated that the City has designated Frager Road as a scenic and recreational corridor. She stated
that she fears if development continues south of 216th even more traffic will be funneled onto 216th and down to
Frager Road, further impacting Frager Road. Ms. Nicholson questioned Kent's commitment in maintaining this
road as a valued recreational corridor.
Ms. Nicholson stated that she would like the city to provide its citizens with more recreational opportunities
including development of soccer fields. Ms. Nicholson voiced her support of an option that would fall between
Options 3 and 4 utilizing parts of the northern study area close to 212th and the Midway neighborhood as
receiving areas. Ms. Nicholson stated that if development occurs between 216th and 212th, vehicular outlets
should exit only onto 212th and not 216th or Frager Road.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 8
Ms. Nicholson urged staff and the Board to carefully consider these decisions as the loss of farming land and the
resulting impacts to the Green River Recreational Corridor are irrevocable.
Karen Tiffany,4807 S. 216th St,Kent,WA stated that she resides in the Northern Study area. She raised safety
concerns associated with the volume of traffic generated as a result of the Polygon development. Ms. Tiffany
referred to the September 24th Land Use and Planning Board's minutes in stating that zoning within the TDR
receiving area would generate 2,185 new trips per day increasing traffic flow substantially on 216th and Frager
Road. She stated that Option 3 indicates that 206 dwelling units would generate 1536 new trips. Ms. Tiffany
encouraged the Board to consider the health and safety of those owners who have resided in this area over the last
ten to fifteen years.
Ralph LoPriore, 26414 68th Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family owns a ten acre farm on 26414
68th Ave. S bordering the State department which has not been actively farmed since 1977 and is not lucrative for
his family to farm due to equipment maintenance and labor costs. Mr. LoPriore asked that the Board not devalue
his family's property voicing his belief that he should not have to pay for the development which has occurred in
Kent since the 1980's with his property.
Mr. LoPriore stated that when his family sold their produce at the farmers' market they could not meet their cost
and remain in business. He stated that his family owns some commercial real estate in Kent but believes that the
options need further analysis and consideration towards compensating his family for the actual value of their land.
Brett Flajole, 20705 SE 260th St., Kent, WA 98042 stated that his family resides on a one-acre parcel and
carpools through the Kent Valley to work enjoying the view and farms. He stated that he does not understand
how the City can dictate the value of someone's property. Mr. Flajole stated that he believes that landowners are
allowing market forces to act.
Mr. Flajole stated that it not fair to believe that we can restrict growth. Therefore, we have to look at how to
control that growth, which needs to be done in a way that compensates people fairly for the years of effort and
dedication to their land. He stated that he opposes Option 4, favoring Options 2 or 3 as more equitable to
landowners.
Earline Legge, 10125 SE 200th Street, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she has lived in the Des Moines, Kent area
all her life and is a property rights advocate. She stated that the City needs to protect and preserve those rights.
Ms. Legge stated that she supports the local farmers' markets stating that this produce is trucked over the
mountains from Eastern Washington with very little of the produce supplied by Western Washington farmers.
She stated that the other half of the people at the market are selling arts and crafts. Ms. Legge stated that
approximately half the profit from the local farmers' market is generated through the sale of arts and crafts and
three-quarters in sales goes to farmers in Eastern Washington or the truckers.
Barbara Hansen, 21847 Frager Rd., Kent, WA 98032 stated that she lives in the Northern Study area stating
that this issue is before the Board due to a permit given to Polygon to dump fill on Al property. Ms. Hansen
encouraged the City to extend their review of this issue while considering citizen input. She stated that she favors
dropping the current options and retaining the current zoning.
Ms. Hansen stated that if the City develops the Northern Study area she is concerned with how this development
will be implemented. She stated that she is concerned with the high volume of traffic in the area, which will
increase with development. Ms. Hansen stated that the infrastructure does not have the capacity to support more
traffic.
Ms. Hansen stated that the Hearing Examiner's Findings for Polygon's PUD set forth nine recommendations and
conditions for development which included condition#9 "traffic and storm water analysis shall be performed after
each of the three major phases of development to determine what the actual impacts are on the neighborhood and
environment from completion and occupation of each development phase. The Development of Public Works
shall define the scope of the analysis and the time for completion. The Department of Public Works shall review
the analysis for completeness and shall determine if additional mitigation is required to reduce impacts to
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 9
surrounding neighborhoods and the environment. Necessary additional mitigations must be completed before any
additional construction is allowed to occur."
Ms. Hansen stated that she does not believe that condition#9 has been met and the development is approximately
two-thirds complete. Ms. Hansen stated that if development moves forward, are developers going to follow the
recommendations that are set down. Ms. Hansen stated that she would provide Mr. Malik with a copy of the
Hearing Examiner's report.
Brian Nicholson, 21831 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he resides in the Northern Study area. He
stated that he initially supported Option 4, which appears to leave most of the irreplaceable farmland in open
space. After further consideration,he would like to see an Option somewhere between Options 3 and 4.
Mr. Nicholson stated that his family enjoys the recreational opportunities in the Kent Valley. He stated that
Option 4 is in contradiction with his desire to sell his land at the highest price possible so that he might have an
opportunity to stop farming and enjoy his retirement. Mr. Nicholson stated that he does not want to deny his
neighbors and other farmers the opportunity to retire or be able to meet their financial obligations. He stated that
he does not desire to see his neighborhood developed and overrun with asphalt and traffic.
Mr. Nicholson asked the Board to consider health and safety issues connected with the increased traffic that
would be generated with further development and how this increase will affect the Frager Road recreational
corridor. He stated that tabling of the 228th corridor creates additional traffic impact issues.
Mr. Nicholson stated that he would like to see a plan that carefully balances the needs of both the commercial
landowners as well as the small farmer. He urged the City to proceed carefully in analyzing the issues before
them.
Rita LoPriore, 26414 68`h Avenue S.,Kent,WA 98032 stated that she has lived in this area since 1959, farming
the land in the Kent Valley. Ms. LoPriore stated that the only reason her husband continues to farm is to remain
healthy and be able to pay the taxes on the property. Ms. LoPriore stated that farming no longer provides a
livable income. She stated that they want to receive fair value for their land if they sold it and do not want their
land to be devalued.
Jerry Rosso, P.O.Box 80345, Seattle,WA 98108 stated that his family has owned a sixty-acre nursery at 24202
and 24813 Frager Road in the Central Study area for 35 years. He stated that in 1984, 34 owners objected to
rezoning of their property, yet it was downzoned in 1985. He voiced concern that the same thing could occur
again. Mr. Rosso voiced his objection to all options, as he believes they would further devalue his land. Mr.
Rosso stated that ten years after appraisal of his land (in 1989), the GMA and Al zoning was approved, reducing
the value of his land by 15%. He stated that by changing zoning from Al to A20,the value of his property would
diminish further.
Mr. Rosso stated that he does not support a TDR or PDR program, after hearing that TDR's have experienced
74% failure rates and since PDR's must be funded by a general obligation bond which the citizens of Kent must
approve. He stated that he does not believe that the citizens of Kent would want to come up with the $8 to $10
million dollars it might take to fund the PDR's.
Mr. Rosso stated that there are many government run nurseries throughout the region in direct competition with
their nursery. He urged the Board to consider the concerns voiced by the property owners and not change the
zoning.
Michele Brennan,35215 221"Ave. SE, Auburn,WA 98092 stated that she lives above the Green Valley Road
where owners sold their development rights and it was followed by litigation and unrest. She stated that our
government elected officials and appointed members of our Board need to be accountable.
Ms. Brennan stated that the Carpinito Brothers provide fresh produce at reasonable costs and Smith Brothers
delivers milk to her door,which she appreciates.
Ms. Brennan stated that economic balance needs to be considered when looking at preserving farmland. She
stated that Kent needs to consider the desires of the Carpinito Brothers and Smith Brothers Farms as part of their
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 10
decision making process. She urged the Board not to be hasty in considering the options before them,
recommending that the City go with the status quo and move slowly.
Mark Logan, 665 S.W. 143 d St., Burien, WA 98166 read a letter into the record from his mother Patty Logan
(with DeMarco Farms) as Exhibit#9. The letter reads as follows:
"her father was Sam Pecardo, his father and brothers were all well known farmers in White Center and the
valley area. My father started farming in the Kent area at the start of World War II.
He owned the O'Brien Greenhouses and adjacent acreage plus several other farms on the East Valley
Highway in South Kent. Albert Dreisow, my sister Angie Pecardo and I all worked on the farm as young
children. Albert was the son my father never had. When Sam passed away unexpectedly in 1959 we had to
sell the greenhouses and other properties because there was no one to run the property or to farm the land.
Albert has leased and farmed the remaining 9+acres that were left that are my families heritage. He has kept
the land free from being a dumping ground or haven for weeds and berry bushes. After Albert Dreisow
retires there is no one left in my family or his to farm the property.
Even if our property continues to be farmed, it is not economically feasible anymore. The small farmer in
this northern study area is going broke. Now is the time to rezone our property for its highest and best use. I
feel that our area should be developed as a neighborhood, which would allow single family residential
townhouses and condominiums, Medium Density Multifamily and Neighborhood Commercial
Conveniences. I am concerned that a TDR or PDR program will have little chance of success based on
information presented at the hearing and the results of similar programs across the county. It is unfair to
force farmers into a program that could take years to make any payments to our family.
Out right zoning is the best solution for all the properties in the northern study area since they are smaller,
non-economic parcels. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Land Use and Planning Board to
express my feelings in this matter."
Mr. Logan stated that he has owned property at 5249 South 212th Street for fifteen years. He stated that traffic has
increased dramatically and urged the Board to consider options that would be fair to all property owners.
Shelley Pasco-Verdi, 27405 781h Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that Chris Curtis's three farmers' markets
accept no crafts people and are comprised entirely of farmers. She stated that 50% of their farmers are from King
County. Ms. Pasco-Verdi stated that she is not an expert on TDR's and PDR's but is aware that the future of our
farms depends on a farmland preservation program. She stated that she and her husband farm 15 acres of rented
land.
Ms. Pasco-Verdi stated that every spring they are anxious to plant fruit trees and other perennial crops like
asparagus, stating that without the sense of permanence they cannot afford the risk involved with such an
investment. She stated that they would like to build a barn to store their equipment and produce in, but it is too
expensive to build on rented land. They cannot begin to afford the going rate of$50,000 an acre for industrial
zoned land.
Ms. Pasco-Verdi stated that she and her husband operate Whistling Train Farm, a certified organic farm located
between the train tracks. She stated that approximately half of their yearly income comes from their subscription
programs. Ms. Pasco-Verdi stated that their summer program runs from early June through the end of October
and the winter program runs from early November through the end of February. She stated that they grow and
harvest produce 9 months of the year with half their income derived from direct sales to their customers. Ms.
Pasco-Verdi said that half of these direct sales are made at the West Seattle market in four hours every week,
stating that they are on a waiting list for the University District Farmers' Market as well.
Ms. Pasco-Verdi stated that their growing farm stand customer base generates another 25% of their income. She
stated that they have the only certified organic farm in South King County, attracting customers from Burien to
Federal Way and from Renton to Enumclaw. Ms. Pasco-Verdi estimated that they provide 400 families with their
produce every week.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
October 8,2001
Page 11
Rich O'Connell, 20431 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he resides on 30 acres in the northern study
area where the development rights have been sold. Mr. O'Connell stated that the sale of his development rights
allows him to run a breeding facility for thoroughbred horses although it is not lucrative enough to pay all the
bills. He stated his family has been on this land since 1875 when his great grandfather homesteaded it.
Mr. O'Connell stated that he is acquainted with the farmers who spoke and empathizes with their situations. Mr.
O'Connell stated that the City needs to work closer with the farmers and landowners in generating a viable
solution for all parties involved.
Mr. O'Connell stated that it is difficult for customers to exit and enter his property from Frager Road, largely due
to the bridge that was put in there which he feels could hamper him from increasing his business.
Mr. O'Connell stated that his neighbors include the Greek Orthodox church property of 80 acres which has not
been farmed for 30 years, Mrs. Ordonio with five acres cultivated in flowers and the City of Kent's property. Mr.
O'Connell questioned if Kent will retain their land for agricultural or recreational purposes. He stated that he
would support recreational, questioning how this would affect zoning.
Mr. O'Connell stated that he is concerned that farmers like the Carpinito Brothers, Smith Brothers Farms and
other farmers could be downzoned to A20. He urged the Board to not devalue the landowners' property, voicing
concern that the City is moving too fast and that the City needs to receive more input from landowners.
David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried.
Ms. Gould-Wessen thanked the citizens who have attended workshops and hearings on this issue stating that she
has appreciated the opportunity to talk to many of the property owners.
Ms. Gould-Wessen requested that this issue be moved to a workshop to evaluate the testimony and clarify issues
surrounding the proposed TDR receiving area as proposed in staffs options. Brad Bell and Steve Dowell
concurred.
Acting Planning Manager Charlene Anderson concurred with the Board members to move this issue back to a
Land Use and Planning Board workshop on Monday, October 22, assuring the Board that notification would be
sent to all parties of interest.
In response to Mr. Harmon, Ms. Anderson stated that there is a moratorium on the receipt of a land use
application that proposes subdividing property, increasing the comprehensive plan, or zoning designation. Ms.
Anderson stated that there is no moratorium on the receipt of building permit applications on existing lots or other
type of land use applications on an existing lot. She stated that the moratorium is on applications for further
subdivision to increase density on a particular piece of property or rezone to a higher density.
Chair Zimmerman stated that the Board would review their notes, listing the issues that have been heard. She
stated that it is difficult to craft something that will serve each situation or meet the needs of all the folks in the
valley and all citizens of the City of Kent. She assured them they will be kept informed during this process.
Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to take CPA-2000-3 Agricultural Lands Amendment back
to a Land Use and Planning Board workshop. Motion Carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectful y Submitted,
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Acting Planning Manager
Secretary
S.IPermitOanWPB00011 minutesW 11008mn.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Community Dev. Director
PLANNING SERVICES
• Charlene Anderson, AICP, Acting Manager
K E N T Phone: 253-856-5454
W A 5 H I N G T O N Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA 98032-5895
LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
September 24,2001
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair, Terry Zimmerman at 7:00
p.m. on Monday, September 24, 2001 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE&PLANNING BOARDMEMBERSPRFSENT STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Terry Zimmerman, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP,Acting PlanningMgr
Brad Bell Gloria Gould-Wessen,Plarni&GIS Coon ator
Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst. City Attorney
Ron Harmon Bill Wolinski, Env. Engineer Manager
Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS ABSENT
Sharon Woodford,Vice Chair(Excused)
Jon Johnson(Excused)
David Malik(Excused)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Steve Dowell MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to approve the minutes of August 27, 2001. Motion
carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Anderson, in response to concerns from the Board regarding abandoning private wells as conditions of short
plats, stated that the City and staff believe that these wells should be abandoned based on potential sources of
contamination.
Ms. Anderson stated the City of Kent's Wellhead Protection Plan identifies medium density residential
development as the highest potential source of contamination to the aquifer for various water sources. Wells
provide a direct link to our aquifer, one which can provide a route for contaminants such as fertilizer and pesticides
(commonly over applied in residential areas). By requiring wells to be abandoned in accordance with DOE
standards, we are protecting down gradient private wells, down gradient municipal water supply wells and water
quality of streams,many of which provide habitat for salmonids.
Ms. Anderson reported that Planning received eight comprehensive plan amendments, with three applicants
requesting changes from residential.to commercial, (two of those properties are located on East Hill and one on the
valley floor). She stated that three applicants are requesting a higher density residential, (two properties are located
on the East Hill and one is located on the West Hill). Two additional applications relate to the Capital Facilities
element. Ms. Anderson stated that additional information would be provided at the November workshop.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Ms. Anderson stated that the City of Des Moines along with the assistance of Washington State Office of
Community Development is providing training to members of the Des Moines planning agency and extends an
invitation to the Board members to attend.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 2
Ms. Anderson stated that the Des Moines Citizens Advisory Group makes either recommendations or decisions
on development proposals and draft land use policies. She stated that the training is oriented toward land use
and open to anyone interested in hosting successful public meetings, serving on advisory boards and making
decisions.
Ms. Anderson stated that the training will be held at 7:00 PM October 1,2001, in the City Council Chambers,
21630 Eleventh Avenue South, Suite B,Des Moines.
Chair Zimmerman announced that the hearing on agricultural lands would be continued to October 8, 2001.
#CPA-2000-3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS AMENDMENT
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff s evaluation and research on agricultural lands began in March with a public
open house, followed by five Board workshops.
Ms. Gould-Wessen submitted the following exhibits for the record:
• Exhibit#1 -Letter submitted from Elaine Spencer with Graham&Dunn PC,representing Mike Carpinito
• Exhibit#2 -E-Mail submitted from Mr.Bob Tidball
• Exhibit#3 - Letter from Judith Kilgore, C.D. Director, City of Des Moines
• Exhibit#4-Letter from Mr. Jerry Rosso with R.R.R. Enterprises
• Exhibit#5 -Letter from Lori M. Flemm, Superintendent of Parks Planning&Development
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Option 1 b, Attachment 4 of the staff report should read (A-20) Agricultural and
not(AG-20)Agricultural General.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Des Moines has voiced concern that they will not have time to voice
their comments related to Option 4 in connection with the Midway neighborhood as a Transfer of Development
Rights(TDR)receiving area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen emphasized that the TDR designation in Option 4 is the first step in the planning process.
She stated that staff will invite Highline Community College, City of Des Moines, property owners, tenants and
public utilities to participate in that planning process if that TDR receiving area is selected.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the Board is to consider if the City of Kent wants to designate the existing Al and
AG zoning districts as agricultural resource lands. She stated that the City is required to provide either a TDR
or Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program under the Growth Management Act (GMA) in order to
preserve the agricultural lands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the agricultural lands issue began along with the Kentview comprehensive plan
amendment in September 2000. She stated that the applicant made a request to change the zoning and
comprehensive plan designation from an Agriculture (Al) zone to a single-family residential(SR-6)zone.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the issue was brought to the City Council's Planning Committee to initiate a
policy discussion. She stated that the Planning Committee held two meetings, deciding to focus a study on Al
and AG zoned agricultural lands on Kent's valley floor.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the Planning Committee forwarded their request to the Land Use and Planning
Board,resulting in workshops held in March, April, June, July and August. Ms. Gould Wessen stated that staff
held an open house March 28,public questions and comments were taken and a survey handed out.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Kent is mandated by the State's Growth Management Act (GMA) to
designate appropriate agricultural lands of long-term significance for commercial production of food and other
agricultural goods and products. She said that the GMA further states that agricultural land located within an
urban growth area shall not be designated agricultural land of long term significance without enacting a program
authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the GMA further defines
long-term commercial significance to include growing capability, productivity, and soil composition of the land
connected with long-term commercial production. She stated that long term commercial significance considers
proximity to population areas with the possibility of more intense uses of that land.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 3
Ms. Gould Wessen stated that family farms have been in jeopardy for decades due to heightened technology, the
domination of food processing and transporting of products from large agricultural plants. She stated that the
use of irrigation has seen a shift in agriculture from one region to another. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that
packing and processing plants are moving out of this region to areas where they can decrease their labor costs.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the King County Agricultural Commission announced their support of farmers
and the "Farm Fresh Program" at their May 10 meeting. She acknowledged farming exists in Kent and the
City's potential annexation area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that farmers'markets are a viable economic resource in our region, with sales up forty
percent in King County since 2000. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the University, West Seattle and Columbia
markets are the largest markets comprised of 105 farmers. 40% of those farmers are from King County and
collectively gross $100,000 in a 13 hour week. She stated that these markets anticipate generating two million
dollars in 2001, with an approximate daily income of$1,200 per farmer. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the
farming income generated from the three markets is estimated at$10,000 to $40,000 per acre.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Kent's Comprehensive Plan first acknowledged agricultural lands in 1977 and
Kent citizens supported and passed King County farmland bond ballot propositions in 1978 and 1979. Ms.
Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Kent implemented comprehensive plan and zoning designations in 1986
and in 1995, the City's Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed the City's goals and policies to conserve and enhance
productive agricultural lands. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the City of Kent's A-1 and A-G zones consist of
144 parcels totaling 685 acres.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the City's agricultural land soils are essentially Class Two, prime farm land soils
based on the United States Department of Agricultural soil conservation maps. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that
the wetlands have been inventoried and considered by staff in their analysis of potential redevelopable land.
Ms. Gould-Wessen spoke of the habitat within and along the Green River and creeks in the agricultural areas.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that water is available to all three of the study areas, although it does not extend out to
all the lands. She stated that sewer is available to the outside of the study areas but could be extended into those
areas. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that Frager/River Road is sensitive in nature and intended for recreational use
only. She stated that the capacity to expand this road is limited as it runs parallel to the river. Ms. Gould-
Wessen stated that it is staff s opinion that an industrial designation within the agricultural study area would not
be compatible with nearby residential, recreational or agricultural land uses as many of the roads (besides
Frager/River Road)would not be able to support the associated truck traffic.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff s options are based on the GMA which requires the City to either purchase
development rights or transfer development rights and place all the lands the City chooses under agricultural
resource lands as a designation within the urban growth area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that in Options 2 and 3, it is staff s opinion that some Neighborhood Commercial
development should accompany the residential development within the proposed TDR receiving area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff has based the following options on the City's history of protecting
agricultural lands.
• Option la - Preservation of the Majority of the Agricultural Lands using a PDR. Ms. Gould-Wessen
stated that if the existing recreational lands (within the agricultural land area) were designated as an
agricultural resource, it would restrict the use of those lands for recreational purposes. Ms. Gould-Wessen
stated that this option would utilizes urban separators as a way to retain recreational lands and acknowledges
the open space corridor that exists by these wetlands and farmlands. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that all A-1
and A-G zoning would be designated as A-20,preserving large areas of this land.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the operation of Smith Farms would be a grandfathered use, as it does not
meet the requirements for an A-20 zone. She stated that this option requires that a councilmanic bond be
brought before the public to raise the funds to accomplish this option.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 4
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this option preserves approximately 391 acres as agricultural resource lands.
She stated that staff has estimated a cost of 36 to 48 million dollars to implement this option and believes -r
that the financial commitments of the City would prohibit this option.
• Option lb-Preservation of the Southern Study Area using PDR's. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that only the
Southern area would be preserved and designated as a resource land.. She stated that the Central and
Northern area would be designated as urban separators (SR-1), one dwelling unit per acre. Ms. Gould-
Wessen stated that units would be developed in clusters of eight, with adequate spans between clusters to
ensure ample open space. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the urban separator designation acknowledges
connection of open space while still allowing agricultural activities.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this option would designate 197 acres as agricultural resource lands,
approximately 28.8 percent of the total land area. She stated that this option would require a Purchase of
Development Rights program which staff has estimated could cost 8 to 17 million dollars. Ms. Gould-
Wessen stated that the (SRI) Urban Separator designation potentially could allow development of 294
clustered dwelling units in the northern and central area. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that development would
probably be incremental in nature and that it would probably not be economically viable to expand the
sewer system into these areas. She stated that the use of septic systems could potentially pollute ground
water, which staff sees as a detriment with this option.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that while this option preserves open space, it is unlikely that farming would be
viable where people have used their land for single family homes. This option would probably only
preserve these lands as open space. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff does not favor this option.
• Option 2-Preservation of the Central and Southern Study areas using a TDR Program and designating
the Northern Study as a receiving area. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this option preserves the southern
area, a portion of the central area, and removes a section of the golf course from preservation. Ms. Gould-
Wessen stated that a large section of land owned by Seattle Utilities would be removed from the
preservation area. She stated that the Transfer of Development Rights would occur in the northern area,
where there are numerous wetlands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff recommends (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial along
with Medium Density Multifamily, which allows 36 dwelling units per acre. Staff recommends developing
only three acres with this designation. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that MRT-16 and SR-6 would be allowed
in this area.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated the potential exists for 674 dwelling units (an approximate population of 1,571)
and approximately 78,000 square feet of commercial development. She stated that the intention of this
option is to absorb the market value of the Central and Southern area into this Northern study area. Ms.
Gould-Wessen stated that staff recommends that ten or more acres be used for a planned unit development,
allowing flexibility during the development phase and aggregation of properties. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated
that the carrying capacity of this land could vary based on inventoried wetlands. She stated that staff has
estimated that there are about 56 acres in the areas unencumbered by environmental constraints, which
encompasses approximately 8% of the total agricultural lands.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the zoning in the TDR receiving area would not take affect until the time of
development stating that this option preserves 265 acres of land or approximately 38.7 % of the total area as
agricultural resource lands. She stated that the 347 remaining acres would be converted to a TDR receiving
area with 73 of those acres converted to SR-l. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff believes that a minimum
of 56 acres of buildable land would be required to absorb the market value, with the potential to create
approximately 156 new jobs and generate 2,185 new trips per day. She stated that approximately 102 acres
of actively farmed land would be lost by developing 56 of the available acres. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated
that wetlands could be used for agricultural purposes.
• Option 3 - Preservation of Central & Southern Study Areas and Portion of Northern Study Area Using
PDR/TDR with Northern Study Area as Receiving Area. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this option is the
same as Option 2 contained within a smaller area. She stated that this site consists of approximately 32
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 5
acres with three acres of buildable land not encumbered by wetlands or their buffers, about 5% of the total
agricultural lands to be converted and used for development.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the potential exists for a 78,000 square foot commercial development and 206
dwelling units using MRT-16 and SR-6 zoning designations. She stated that the 206 dwelling units could
potentially provide housing for 408 people, generate 156 jobs and 1,536 new trips. She stated that this
option designates 315 acres or 46% of the total land area as agricultural lands. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated
that 281 acres would be designated as a receiving area of which 89 of those acres exist as parks and would
be converted to SR-1.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this program would need a Purchase of Development Rights program to
augment the small amount of absorption that could actually occur, at a potential cost of 18 to 24 million
dollars. She stated that that City would see a loss of 66 acres of actively farmed land to 35 acres of
development with this option.
• Option 4 - Preservation of Central & Southern Study Areas and Portion of the Northern Study Area
Using PDR/TDR with Midway Neighborhood as Receiving Area. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff
recommends this option. She stated that this program would need to have a TDR bank. Ms. Gould-Wessen
stated that the Midway transfer area is in the vicinity of Kent Des Moines Road, Pacific Highway South and
240th.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this option would require a councilmanic bond and all of these options
recommend a zoning designation of A-20. She stated that the extent of the receiving area would depend on
a neighborhood planning process. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff recommends a change in zoning from
General Commercial and Mobile Home Park to Office, Office Mixed Use and Community Commercial
Mixed Use. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the resulting density of housing potentially could shift from 140
units and provide employment for 1,254 people. She stated that this option would preserve 57% of the total
L land area of 391 acres of which 294 of those acres would be converted to an urban separator of SR-1. Ms.
Gould-Wessen stated that 141 of the total land area is owned by utilities or existing and potential parks.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff sees the Midway area as an opportunity for a Transfer of Development
Rights. She stated that the City of Kent Public Works Department intends to enhance the highway strip with
sidewalks, trees,median strips and lighting.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that this option provides an opportunity to bring office to the area, which would
provide the market for a successful TDR program and with the change in land use, the community would
change considerably. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the TDR program would require a Councilmanic Bond
at a cost of eight to 10 million dollars. She stated that staff believes the preservation of the agricultural
lands would be best served with this option.
Mr. Dowell stated that a General Obligation Bond and not a Councilmanic Bond goes before the public for a
vote on whether or not they would want to tax their properties. Ms. Gould-Wessen thanked Mr. Dowell for
noting this correction.
Mr. Harmon questioned that if the City were to annex the land south of their boundary, currently zoned Al or
AG, would this land fall under the GMA's agricultural resource land requirements in order for the City to
preserve that land.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that staff has been required to look only at the agricultural lands within the City of
Kent's boundaries and not the City's (PAA) Potential Annexation Area. She stated that both King County and
the(GMPC) Growth Management Planning Committee have been looking at the agricultural production district,
which is part of the lower Green River north of 277th.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that two years ago the King County Council and the GMPC decided to remove the
agricultural production district from. Kent's potential annexation area and maintain this district as a rural area.
She stated that the GMPC will vote on this issue next week then this matter will return to King County Council
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 6
as a recommendation to remove this area from both Kent's potential annexation area and from the City of
Auburn. --�
Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to open the Public Hearing. Motion Carried. Chair
Zimmerman declared the Public Hearing open.
Linda Hayes, 19229 SE 234th Place, Renton, WA 98058 stated that she speaks on behalf of her mother and
father, Casey and Lucille DelaCruz. She stated that her parents have farmed in the Kent Valley between 216th
and 144th Ave. South and Frager Road since the early 1940's. Ms. Hayes stated that the farm consists of three
parcels of land containing 20 acres located just south of 216th, adjacent to the Kentview PUD and the northern
study area.
Ms. Hayes stated that today's conditions have made it economically unfeasible for her parents to continue
farming. She stated that her parents believe the City is attempting to force farmers into keeping their properties
zoned agricultural when they would rather see these properties zoned differently. Ms. Hayes stated that her
parents also voice concern as to what could happen to their rights to irrigate their land year after year.
Ms. Hayes stated that her parents would like the flexibility to use their land to the best advantage,whether that is
to parcel out their land for their heirs or to have the option of selling their land for either commercial or
residential development. Ms. Hayes stated that the GMA is a vehicle to provide for development of land within
the City's boundaries and prevent urban sprawl. Ms. Hayes stated that the City has a moral obligation to meet
the requirements of the Growth Management Act by providing homes for those working in the cities as close to
the workplace as possible.
Ms. Hayes stated hundreds of acres of wetland and nonbuildable areas are located immediate adjacent to her
parents property so that open space is not an issue. She stated that the City has substantial amounts of farmland
already preserved in Kent with additional lands to the south proposed for preservation.
Ms. Hayes stated that her parents' land is destined for development, and it would compliment the existing
adjacent residential development with sewer, water and roads located at its property line. Ms. Hayes stated that
her family supports Option 2 which would provide for a mix of open space, Neighborhood Convenience,
Medium Density Multifamily Townhouses and Condominiums and single family residential.
In response to Mr. Harmon, Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the (PDR) Purchase of Development Rights and
(TDR) Transfer of Development Rights essentially evaluates property market value. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated
that the current zoning on the agricultural land is Al, one dwelling unit per acre,which is considered as the land
value. Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the City would pay the market value of a one-acre, one single family
dwelling unit to purchase or transfer property to another site.
Ms. Gould-Wessen stated that the City has estimates that a one-acre lot would be valued from $60,000 to
$75.000 based on a PDR. She stated that if a person participated in a PDR or TDR program, the land would
remain agricultural. Ms. Gould-Wessen said that allowing the City to purchase development rights is strictly
voluntary stating that if the landowner does not choose to have their development rights purchased, they would
be downzoned to A-20.
Scott Hurter, 24157 145th Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98042 voiced his concern over how the final 850 acres of
farmland in Kent's city limits will be used. Mr. Hurter stated that he represents KYSA, Kent Youth Soccer
Association, which has a membership of 1500 children, and combined with the Kent Parks Program involves
over 3500 kids in youth soccer within the City of Kent.
Mr. Hurter stated that KYSA continues to lose children to other organizations due to the lack of field space and
the inability to set adequate practice times to accommodate soccer teams. Mr. Hurter said that Kent lacks
adequate sports facilities in Kent. He stated that in his discussions with Gloria Gould-Wessen and John
Hodgson, Director of Parks. Recreation and Community Services, it was determined that the City has not
designated any field space or made considerations for future facilities in order to accommodate soccer. Mr.
Hurter stated that the ability to host tournaments within the KYSA could be a major fundraiser for Kent if field
space were available.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 7
Mr. Hurter stated that it is his understanding that Kent is the second or third largest school district within the
... state reiterating his concern that the City needs to consider the need for more field space and sport facilities. Mr.
Hurter questioned if the definition of sports fields fell under recreational use and urged the Board to consider the
need for sports fields and facilities.
Alice Watkins, 31621 West Lake Morton Drive Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that staffs report
indicates that only 38% of the agricultural land in Kent are being used for agricultural purposes. Ms. Watkins
stated that staffs report is misleading in how the amount of agricultural land was calculated. She stated that the
report lists other public lands within the agricultural area, which are not agricultural in nature, equating to 25%
of all the land being evaluated as part of this study. Ms. Watkins voiced concern that by including these
additional public lands, the percentages are skewed and if these public lands are removed from consideration,
the percentages are drastically altered. She stated that she believes that percentages were calculated to benefit
those proposing that all the property be kept in the agricultural zone.
Ms. Watkins stated that she did not consider Option lA or B to be viable options as they require a bond issue to
go before the people for a vote, which would not be feasible in the current economic climate.
Ms. Watkins stated that she would not favor Option 4 as she feels that this option is politically motivated and
not in the interest of the property owner as this option would not allow them to sell their property. She stated
that staffs August 13 report acknowledged that there is little demand but lots of capacity allowed by the present
zoning, which indicates to her that the City has no need for TDR's. Ms. Watkins stated that the densities in the
Des Moines Pacific Ridge neighborhood could slow the market for additional housing in Midway. She stated
that the PDR program would need to be relatively large to ensure funding for interested property owners.
Ms. Watkins stated that she supports Option 2 where no bond issues are involved allowing the control to remain
in the City of Kent. It allows property owners in the northern area to purchase development rights thereby
benefiting owners in the southern district.
Dean Watkins,31621 West Lake Morton Drive Southeast,Kent,WA 98042 stated that he owns property in
the northern study area. Mr. Watkins stated that he supports Option 2 or 3 conveying that he believes Option 2
to be the best choice. He stated that Option 2 would generate revenue for the City and would allow landowners
a fair market return on their investments.
Mr. Watkins stated that Option 3 would allow for development of approximately 5% of the overall property
while a majority of the protected area is in the southern study area.
Jeff McCann, 24826 247th Place SE, Maple Valley, WA 98038 stated that his family has owned property in
the northern study area for 48 years. He stated that he completed his master's degree at the University of
Washington with his thesis on Transfer of Development Rights Programs. He stated that he completed an in
depth study of the King County TDR Program as well as other programs throughout the United States.
Mr. McCann stated that TDR programs began in 1916 in New York and did not produce any transfers at that
time. He stated that in the 70's,two dozen more programs were created with only a few transfers occurring. Mr.
McCann stated that despite the poor performance, many jurisdictions turned to TDR programs. He stated that a
study in 1987 showed that of 50 enacted programs only 12 of those programs had produced a single transfer, a
76% failure rate. Mr. McCann stated that in 1977, according to the Snohomish County TDC study, 23 operating
programs resulted in six transfers, a 74% failure rate.
Mr. McCann stated that if transfers are a measure of success, more failures then successes could be counted in
many TDR programs. He stated that many legal issues surround the design of TDR programs. Mr. McCann
questioned if the program the City of Kent is creating intends to regulate or compensate. He stated that King
`- County chose to create an incentive-based voluntary program while the City of Kent is choosing to propose a
mandatory program.
Mr. McCann stated that legal challenges and opposition have arisen when governments have mandated these
programs rather than making them voluntary. Mr. McCann questioned if the City of Kent has a market for the
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 8
rights they are creating. He stated that in the case of"French Investment Company versus City of New York"
TDR programs were found to be vulnerable to legal action if there is no market for TDR rights. Mr. McCann -�
stated that there is nothing inherently wrong with the TDR concept other than the failure in the TDR'sdesign and
implementation of the projects.
Mr. McCann stated that one of the major criteria in designing a successful TDR program is to identify potential
receiving areas and analyze the development opportunities and profits at various densities. Mr. McCann stated
that if you do not have a viable receiving area,the program would be unsuccessful.
Mr. McCann stated that the City of Kent's August 13 staff report indicates that Midway has little demand and
lots of capacity already allowed by present zoning. He stated that the incentives the City of Kent could provide
would not contribute to the Transfer of Development Rights. Mr. McCann stated that unless the City commits
to radically changing the development in Midway by allowing high rises, only a small amount of increase in
density would be absorbed.
Mr. McCann stated that the TDR program is an attractive tool because it attempts to balance protecting land
from development and maintaining the monetary value of the land although evidence shows that most TDR
programs created do not produce a single transfer. Mr. McCann stated that a TDR program could work in the
City of Kent and a lot of agricultural lands can be preserved while respecting the rights of land owners.
Mr. McCann stated that he believes Options 2 and 3 presents a win/win situation while Option 4 seems to create
a win/lose opportunity. He stated that the City has not presented evidence through a market study indicating a
demand for credits. Mr. McCann stated that if the City chooses Option 4 without evidence that it will work, the
City is creating a program to fail and could potentially lead the City in to court with many of the Kent citizens.
Mr. McCann stated that part of the TDR program is based on the purchase of credits. He said that staff has
testified that the value of a one acre parcel could potentially be worth $60,000. However,this is not an indicator
of what people will pay for this credit. Mr. McCann stated that the value of a credit could be $10,000. -�
explaining that a market study will show a variance throughout the United States from $2600 to $60,000 per
credit. Mr.McCann stated that the TDR program needs further development before implementing this option.
Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent,WA 98032 stated that the Carpinito Brothers have farmed in
the Kent Valley 30 years, presently farming 275 acres in the Kent Valley. He stated that the City of Kent is
proposing to change the zoning on the 75 acres located within the southern study area of Kent from AG to A20.
Mr. Carpinito stated that the farming business is complex and foresees that the nature of the farming industry
will change. He stated that currently approximately 25% of their crop are sold at their own fruit and produce
market and 80% goes to wholesale produce companies. He stated that the ability to stay in business depends on
the flexibility that AG zoning provides which includes produce-processing facilities,produce-handling facilities
or retail facilities related to agriculture. Mr. Carpinito states that if the zoning changes, they will no longer have
a viable farm.
Elaine Spencer, 1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101 stated that she represents Carpinito
Brothers, the largest remaining commercial farming operation in the City of Kent within the lower Green River
Valley, consisting of 275 acres of which 75 acres is within Kent's southern study area. Ms. Spencer stated that
Ms. Gould-Wessen reported that the other farms in the Kent area are comprised of approximately 180 acres.
Ms. Spencer stated that she believes the objective of the Growth Management Act is to preserve commercial
agriculture,not just preserve open space. Ms. Spencer stated that not much more than 1000 acres of agricultural
land remain in the valley creating a challenge to farming in this area as there are no processors and suppliers
located here.
Ms. Spencer stated that staff s proposal to downzone from AG to A20 (one dwelling unit per twenty acres)
would curtail the processing and retail operations currently permitted. She stated that zoning changes would
destroy the flexibility to allow Carpinito Brothers to respond to changes in the agricultural market in the future.
Ms. Spencer said that she does not favor a PDR or TDR program, stating that the Carpinito Brothers has no
interest in selling or trading their development rights.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 9
Ms. Spencer urged the Board to reject staffs recommendations for the southern study area, to designate the
southern area as agricultural land of local significance and retain the current zoning. Ms. Spencer submitted a
letter from Graham and Dunn, for the record as Exhibit #7 stating that the context of this letter outlines a
proposal that she believes would best benefit the interests of Carpinito Brothers and the City.
Glenn Gray, 20866 102nd Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98032 stated that his family has inherited 10 acres located at
216th Avenue Southeast and 42nd Avenue South. Mr. Gray stated that the purpose of the Growth Management
Act enacted in 1990 was to control and regulate land used for development.
Mr. Gray voiced his disapproval of'TDR and PDR programs, as it has been his observation that much of the land
purchased through this manner sits undeveloped. Mr. Gray stated that he favors Option 2.
Albert Dreisow, 5221 South 212th St., Kent, WA 98032 stated that he farms all the land in the northern
study area with the exception of the DeLaCruz property. He stated that he intends to retire from his 51 years of
farming, which is no longer cost affective. Mr. Dreisow stated that he would like to see the land developed as
residential or commercial as the nature of farming has changed over the years.
Eric Bradfield, 17508 SE 238th St., Kent, WA 98042 stated that he serves on the Board of the KYSA, Kent
Youth Soccer Association and schedules the fields for soccer use. He stated that although more children are
joining the program,new play space is not being acquired.
Mr. Bradfield stated that KYSA leases a ten-acre parcel from King County, which is maxed out necessitating
moving some of our teams to schools in the area. He stated that from an administrative standpoint, it is difficult
to conduct a program efficiently. Mr. Bradfield stated that Kent needs a complex on 10 to 20 acres to
accommodate the soccer community, encouraging staff to consider the needs of children as part of the city's land
development planning. He stated that the City needs to retain the quality of life which Kent now enjoys or
.._ people will seek other areas to live and the community will suffer as a result of population reductions.
Jere Thornton, 2453 1/2 South 135th, SeaTac,WA 98168 stated that she supports Option 2, as she believes
this option does not require taxpayer funding. She stated that she owns a 10-acre parcel in the northern study
area west of the Green River at Frager Road and 216th. Ms. Thornton stated that this land has been in her
family for 75 years and she sees that the nature of farming in this area has changed so that it is not profitable to
farm this land. She stated that many of the farms in this area are too small to compete successfully with produce
that comes from huge factory farms in other areas.
Ms. Thornton voiced her concurrence with other speakers who stated that voters will not support options which
will increase their taxes stating that Option 2 is the only option that will not require voter approved higher taxes.
She urged the Board to consider Option 2 as increasing development in this area will generate revenue for the
City and allow land owners control over their property.
Craig Eckland, 24421 Frager Road S., Kent, WA stated that he owns four acres northwest of the Riverbend
Golf Course, which he does not farm nor intendsto use for development or investment purposes. He stated that
this property consists of one acre of dry land and three acres of swamp. He stated he supports most of the
options although he would not desire that the DeLaCruzs, Dreisows or Carpinito Brothers suffer as a result of
the Board's decision.
John Green, 21839 Frager Road,Kent,WA 98032 stated that he has resided in the northern study area for 16
years and has enjoyed the agricultural nature of the property. He commended staff for their thoroughness
voicing his support of Option #4. He stated that it seems the potential exists to compensate agricultural
landowners through the purchase of development rights. Mr. Green stated that he believes the Midway area
could provide a good source of revenue through the purchase of development rights.
Laura Saunders, Vice President, Highline Community College, Post Office Box 9800, Des Moines, Wp,
spoke to Kent's proposal to use the Midway area as a receiving place for transfer of development rights. She
stated that while using Midway as a receiving area is an interesting approach, she voiced her belief that it would
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 10
be premature to pursue this avenue of development at this time. Ms. Saunders stated that the college has been
engaged in a series of discussions concerning the future development of the Midway area, involving economic
development directors from Des Moines and Kent. ~
Ms. Saunders stated that the college is engaged in a partnership with Central Washington who plans to build a
major facility on the campus to open the summer of 2005. She stated that this facility would increase graduate
education in this part of the county with programs oriented toward the needs of people who are unable to
commute to Tacoma or Seattle for their education.
Ms. Saunders stated that the college site does not front Highway 99, and sits on Kent and Des Moines land. She
stated that she agrees with staff that this area deserves attention. Ms. Saunders recommended that the Board
consider sending a recommendation to City Council directing staff to engage in a collaborative planning
process. She stated that what the college envisions for this area will require this collaborative process between
communities.
Tom Rehon, 21243 Frager Road, Kent, WA 98032 stated that he purchased 10 acres in the northern study
area nine years ago from his father-in-law. He stated that he has farmed this land and run his business (known
as O'Brien Green House) for 20 years. He stated that his nursery business has lost revenue over the past three to
four years making it difficult to support his family.
Mr. Rehon stated that he favors Option 2 or any option that would allow him to do what he wishes with his
property including selling to a developer if that were his desire. Mr. Rehon voiced his opposition to Option #4
stating that he does not favor TDR or PDR programs.
Brian Edmondson, 516 Summit Avenue North, Kent, WA 98031 stated that he moved to the Kent Valley
after having lived in Chicago and Illinois most of his life. He stated that one attribute that drew him to Kent is
the wonderful school system. Mr. Edmondson emphasized that Kent needs to consider the need for play areas
and sport facilities for children's activities when making consideration for land development. He stated that if
the Kent area were to experience massive development, ignore the need for open space, and recreational areas,
families will be discouraged from residing in this area and traffic problems will be exacerbated.
Mr. Edmondson commended staff for taking steps to preserve existing agricultural lands and voiced his belief
that people who have toiled on their land for years deserve to be compensated fairly for their property, in
balance with other decisions,laws and legalities. He stated that staff has presented carefully thought out options
but stated that he feels this issue should undergo further evaluation before any recommendations are made.
Alexis Koester, 26518 68th Ave. S, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she is President of Smith Brothers Farms
located at 277th and West Valley Highway. She stated that her grandfather bought this property in the southern
study area in 1925, and it is still owned and operated by family.
Ms. Koester stated that Smith Brothers Farms produces, processes and distributes milk from their farm in Kent
indicating that their farm is the largest producer and handler of milk in the state. She stated that Smith Brothers
Farms employ 80 people and 50 independent distributors who work out of the West Valley Highway facility.
Ms. Koester stated that they own 225 acres with 60 acres located inside Kent's boundaries currently zoned Al
and recommended by the City for a change to A20, neither of which accurately applies to their business. Ms.
Koester stated that although their property could be grandfathered at their current zoning of Al, their property
should be zoned AG as they have a diary processing plant and distribution center. She stated that she could
foresee the need to add an ice cream or yogurt plant to keep up with the competition, which the AG zone would
allow them to do.
Ms. Koester said that they sold their development rights of 159 acres to King County in 1984 stating that she has
no desire to sell any more development rights.
Ms. Koester encouraged the Board to send a recommendation to the Council to exempt Smith Family Farms
from these proposed options and to rezone their farm from Al to AG so that they may remain in the Kent
Valley.
`Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
September 24,2001
Page 11
Brad Bell MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried.
Brad Bell MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to continue the Public Hearing to October 8, 2001. Motion
carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Zimmerman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
�,/,�d,4�a, 0 , '41)w
Charlene Anderson,AI , Acting Planning anager
Secretary
S:\Pemu[\Plan\LUPB\2001\minutes\010827mn.doc
Item 3
Council Workshop
4/2/02
Council Tour of City Facilities
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Jim White, Mayor
Phone:253-856-5700
K ENT Fax: 253-856-6700
WASH I N G T G N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent,WA.98032-5895
March 24, 2002
TO: Kent City Council President Tim Clark
And Members of the Kent City Council
FROM: Mike Martin
Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Council Tours of City Facilities
At your recent retreat, you expressed interest in touring City facilities, as a group during the coming months. A
suggestion was made that staff arrange these tours on "off Tuesdays". In response to these requests, we would
like to offer the following schedule and itinerary. We are certainly opening to changing the dates, times and
locations based on your availability and interest.
Tuesday,May 21, 2002
4:00-7:00 p.m.
Tuesday,June 18, 2002
'-- 4:00-7:00 p.m.
Tuesday,July 16, 2002
4:00-7:00 p.m.
Tuesday,August 20, 2002
4:00-7:00 p.m.
Potential Site Visits
Rock Creek/Clark Springs
277'h
EHYSC
Service Club Ballfields
Ice Arena
Clark Lake
Corrections/Day Reporting Center
Midway Landfill Site
Kent Station
Each tour would be moderated by appropriate staff. We propose using a Senior Activity Center bus for the trip
and would include a heavy snack/light dinner and beverages along the way. We look forward to your feedback
on this proposal.
GENERAL INFORMATION FACT SHEET
CITY TOTAL VALUE NET GENERAL GENERAL
POPULATION ASSESSED OF NEW BUDGET FUND FUND NEW
VALUATION CONSTRUCTION BUDGET POSITIONS
1985 26,979 2,284,807,926 150,552,268 29,116,974 16,409,930 41.0
1986 28,620 2,385,483,302 105,572,419 38,922,324 18,090,330 21.0
1987 30,991 2,708,450,189 114,471,667 59,964,354 20,157,707 23.0
1988 32,350 2,838,583,851 103,484,888 58,582,519 21,851,750 31.0
1989 34,860 3,128,259,968 148,397,680 57,081,330 24,719,293 27.0
1990 37960 3,402,139,251 156,082,063 60,484,111 28,292,645 33.0
1991 39,650 3,508,127,478 108,386,499 64,262,893 32,887,388 27.5
1992 40,300 3,938,682,179 46,705,110 65,790,011 33,137,803 (38.5)
1993 41,090 3,893,431,079 59,324,542 70,385,930 33,800,211 (21.2)
1994 41,880 3,959,699,785 43,401,107 73,686,010 36,077,993 4.8
1995 44260 4,128,403,430 85,023,640 81,514,188 37,114,130 6.2
1996 60,380 4,842,360,082 158,420,396 88,467,576 41,618,451 36.7
1997 70,110 5,073,523,220 120,521,651 91,233,825 43,945,090 27.7
1998 71,610 5,867,681,774 146,646,456 100,891,369 50,765,191 29.9
1999 73,060 6,468,731,941 238,851,817 124,627,344 54,117,802 45.8
2000 73,140 7,130,886,435 144,343,154 120,367,025 56,950,156 (2.5)
2001 1 73,896 est 123,310,002 1 61,964,773 16.3
Selected Municipal Facilities and Services
Public Safety Services 2001 2001
Police Services: Fire/Emergency Medical Services:
127 Commissioned Police Personnel 149 Uniformed Personnel
58 Non-Commissioned Police Personnel 17 Volunteer Personnel
46 Volunteer Personnel 12.5 Nonuniformed Personnel
29 Corrections Personnel 7 Fire Stations
Leisure Services-Major Facilities, Participation and Parks,2000
1,275 Acres of Parkland, 68 Parks, 25 miles trails 45 Ball Fields, 12 Tennis Courts
City Golf Complex(18 Hole, Par 72) Athletic Teams(820)
Par 3 Exec 9 hole; Driving Range 32 stall Annual Events (140,700 attendees)
Miniature Golf 18 Holes; Pro Shop; Restaurant Kent Commons Multipurpose Ctr
Cultural/Art Performances(50-60 Annually) Kent Parks Senior Center
Russell Road Athletic Facility Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks Park
Kent Memorial Athletic Facility Fenwick Park
Lake Meridian Park
Public Works Services
Water System 241 Miles of Water Mains
12,241 Water Customers
14.5 Million Gallons per Day
Sewerage System 208 Miles-Sanitary Sewer Main
196 Miles-Storm Sewer System
12,706 Sanitary Sewer Customers
Transportation System 691 Lane Miles of Streets
4,300 Street Lights
Additional Services
General 3,821 Business Licenses Issued
28 Square Miles of the City
1,929 Building Permits Issued