HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 02/26/2018 (2)
Unless otherwise noted, the Land Use and Planning Board meets at 7 p.m. on the second and
fourth Mondays of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers West and East, 220 Fourth Ave
S, Kent, WA 98032.
The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the
public hearing, provided, however, that comments shall be limited to only those items for which
the public hearing is being held. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the
proposed amendment under consideration at the public hearing may do so at the hearing or prior
to the hearing by email to Charlene Anderson at: canderson@kentwa.gov.
Documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board may be accessed at the City’s website:
http://kentwa.iqm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 253-856-
5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-
800-833-6388.
Land Use and Planning Board
Hearing Agenda
Board Members: Paul Hintz, Chair; Katherine Jones, Vice Chair;
Gwen Allen-Carston; Shane Amodei; Frank Cornelius;
Dale Hartman; Ali Shasti
FEBRUARY 26, 2018
7 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker Time Page
1. Call to order YES Chair Hintz 1 min
2. Roll call YES Chair Hintz 2 min
3. Approval of 11/27/17 Minutes YES Chair Hintz 5 min 1
4. Added Items YES Chair Hintz 1 min
5. Communications YES Chair Hintz 5 min
6. Notice of upcoming meetings YES Chair Hintz 5 min
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
Zoning Code Amendment, Midway
Transit Community -1 (MTC-1)
Signs [ZCA-2018-1]
YES Danielle Butsick 30 min 5
8. Adjournment Chair Hintz 1 min
Date: November 27, 2017
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
Attending: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager; Hayley
Bonsteel, Senior Long Range Planner, Adam Long, Assistant City Attorney
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
Chair Katherine Jones called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2. Roll Call
Board Members Katherine Jones, Chair; Randall Smith, Vice Chair; Shane Amodei
and Jack Ottini were in attendance. Dale Hartman and Paul Hintz were absent and
excused. Frank Cornelius was absent and unexcused.
3. Approval of Minutes
Board Member Smith Moved and Board Member Ottini Seconded a Motion to
Approve the Minutes of October 23, 2017. Motion Passed 4-0.
4. Added Items None
5. Communications None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None
7. Public Hearing
Meet Me on Meeker Design and Construction Standards
Chair Jones stated that the Board will consider adopting an ordinance to establish a
design and construction overlay for the Meeker Street Corridor as provided in the
Meeker Street Streetscape Design and Construction Standards (D&CS).
Chair Jones Opened the Public Hearing.
Hayley Bonsteel, Senior Long Range Planner, stated that Kent City Council adopted
a vision for Kent and this project is one way the City can move forward with some
of those adopted policies and goals: for Meeker to be a place people want to be.
This project came out of the Economic Development Plan of 2014, which
encouraged staff to seek transportation and urban design funding to plan, redesign
and redevelop key corridors that would improve function, and attract and support
new private, residential and commercial development. Staff has been involved with
community outreach efforts since 2015, worked with Smart Growth America and
began working on urban design in 2016.
The Marquee on Meeker Development kick-started development of this document,
as staff worked to apply some of those design decisions. The main goals this
document seeks to address are to create a sense of place and distinctive identity, to
improve pedestrian safety for students walking to school, for bicyclists, residents,
employees, and visitors, to connect visitors to the historic core, and extend the
energy of the downtown core outward.
1
The D&CS were streamlined to express what Kent wants for the Meeker corridor.
The document will be used for private development and redevelopment coming
through the permit counter; it gives the City the ability to negotiate and acquire a
great product for any development that comes in.
The Meeker Street concept includes on-street parking, a promenade on the south
side of Meeker with a buffer zone for street trees, lighting and landscaping, a 10-
foot two-way path primarily for bicyclists, a four foot wide amenity zone for trash
receptacles, benches, planters, pedestrian lighting and a walk zone. All uses are
separated for safety and ease to move about the street. Bonsteel explained why
the D&CS does not currently focus attention on the section of Meeker between
Washington Avenue and the 167 underpass.
The D&CS has been carefully thought out to reflect the priorities and goals of the
project, while balancing feasibility and practicality. Staff received comments from
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) primarily about traffic
analysis. The City is required to undergo a WSDOT public art plan if they plan to put
public art on their facilities. Questions from the state centered on a traffic analysis
completed in 2016 that explored different alternatives, with one alternative to
reduce the street to two or three lanes the entire length. Staff opted against that
alternative as it would back up traffic and the road wouldn’t have the capacity to
handle the traffic load. Staff opted for two to three lanes for most of it, widening to
five lanes around Washington Avenue where there is more vehicle movement.
Other comments from the state included suggestions for bicycle and pedestrian
accessibility at certain intersections, which staff felt were valid and will work with
WSDOT if applicable when the City has a design project.
Comments from Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) identified a transition area
between the overpass and 4th Avenue in which certain streetscape items were
chosen to create a smoother transition from the Meeker Streetscape to historic
downtown. The D&CS Key shows 4th Avenue and eastward as part of the historic
district within the downtown overlay district. KDP requested that the area west of
167 not be included in the transition area.
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board (KBAB) resubmitted comments, the only changes
included a new date (Nov 20th) and signature confirmations. Public comment also
came from Mel Roberts. Over 30 comments received from Mel Roberts generally
supports the project, encourages the City to commit to a timely completion of the
project to ensure connectivity in the long term, favors separating the modes, and
encourages the City to work with other agencies to seek funding. Additional
comments related to language, the use of photos to provide better clarification,
design elements, and questioned whether the D&CS overrides the Transportation
Master Plan (which it does). Mr. Roberts commented in support of raised midblock
crosswalks and two-way bike paths, but opposed the use of similar colors for the
walk and bike zones rather than differentiating those spaces.
The D&CS must be consistent with adopted plans and with other decisions made in
the past. The Standards are a method for following through on the vision that has
2
been set out through the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) and the Economic and Development Plan. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan
direct staff to revise standards to ensure the public streetscape is attractive, safe
and supports people who are walking or biking, to beautify Kent streetscapes
(especially commercial corridors), to prepare a multimodal streetscape plan for
commercial corridors, and provide safe environments.
The TMP calls for five lanes along Meeker. The Green River Bridge is two lanes wide
and would be prohibitively expensive to replace it with a wider bridge; the idea of
five lanes has been dropped as alternative parallel routes are available and the City
wants to be consistent with other adopted plans and policies.
After the Standards are adopted, staff will pursue funding to get segments of the
project built. Private redevelopment will complete much of the work. As
developments come in, decisions will be made about how to preserve connectivity.
Staff is exploring the design of certain segments in terms of funding and to ensure
that what is being designed can be built in a reasonable period of time so the
design will work by the time the City is ready to build it. This project is embraced
by the development community, is already attracting investment, and the City
wants to continue that momentum.
Board Members deliberated with Chair Jones questioning if there were existing
driveways into any businesses along the planned Meeker Street change area and
asked how that would be managed. In response Ms. Bonsteel stated that the City
does not want driveways off of Meeker so would implement consolidation or access
management to design driveways off of side streets. This is an engineering detail
that will be included in the document.
At the conclusion of staff’s presentation, Chair Jones introduced speakers:
Barbara Smith, Executive Director Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP), 202 W Gowe
St; voiced her appreciation for staff’s efforts and how the Land Use and Planning
Board challenged how these changes would affect businesses; how they worked
closely with the KDP, and collaboratively agreed on the transition area into the
historic core.
Mel Roberts, KBAB, 9421 S 241 St, Kent, WA; spoke in support of the Meeker St
vision, stating it is a smart move. He encouraged staff to look at defining separate
walk area for pedestrians and cycle tracks for bicyclists, and not imposing speed
limits for cyclists as it would slow their commute time. He suggested using green
stripes on bicycle lane cross walks at major intersections like those used at the
277th Street intersection crossing. He spoke about the need for a connection under
the 167 overpass to the Interurban Trail and the need to provide a safe commuting
route to the transit centers.
Chair Jones questioned if universal signage standards exist for these types of
transitions. In response Roberts stated that the Uniform Traffic Control manual
identifies various signs that are used.
3
Seeing no further speakers, Chair Jones closed the Public Hearing and called for a
motion.
Board Member Smith MOVED and Board Member Ottini SECONDED a motion to
recommend to the City Council to adopt an Ordinance establishing a Design and
Construction Overlay for the Meeker Street Corridor as provided in the Meeker
Street Streetscape Design and Construction Standards as presented by staff. Chair
Jones called for the vote to approve the motion as presented. Motion PASSED 4-0.
Chair Jones adjourned the meeting at 7:45 pm.
Pamela Mottram
Planning Technician
Economic and Community Development
November 27, 2017
4
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kurt Hanson, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
February 16, 2018
TO: Chair Hintz and Members of the Land Use and Planning Board
FROM: Danielle Butsick, Sr. Long-Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
RE: MTC-1 Sign Code Amendment [ZCA-2018-1]
For Meeting of February 26, 2018
SUMMARY: Kent adopted sign regulations for the MTC-1 zoning district in 2011. The sign
regulations were derived from the Midway Subarea Plan and Midway Design Guidelines,
documents developed with significant public outreach. To date, no development has occurred in
the MTC-1 zoning district that has fallen under the sign code. Staff has identified the need to
amend the sign regulations to 1) improve sign visibility, 2) recognize the significant motorized
use of the SR-99 corridor, 3) ensure visual parity between signs in adjacent jurisdictions and
those in Kent, and 4) enhance the pedestrian environment consistent with the Midway Design
Guidelines. Staff will present the proposed code amendment at the February 26 LUPB public
hearing and will request a recommendation from the Board on the proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND: The MTC-1 zoning district is the gateway into the Midway Subarea; it is
highway-oriented, fronting SR-99. Through the Midway Design Guidelines, the pedestrian is
nevertheless given priority through pedestrian level visual interest and human-scale design.
Existing sign regulations in the MTC-1 district limit sign types to freestanding monument signs or
suspended signs such as blade or hanging signs; sign sizes are limited to a maximum size of 80
square feet, and 40 square feet per face.
Appropriate sign visibility is important for motorist safety, effective wayfinding, and the
economic interests of businesses. Variety and creativity in sign design and type can enhance
visual interest for pedestrians and motorists. Additionally, sign regulations for the City of Des
Moines, adjacent to the MTC-1 zoning district and characterized by SR-99 frontage, allow for
freestanding signs other than monument signs up to 20 feet in height and 100 square feet.
Staff recommends allowing director approval of freestanding signs other than monument signs
and increasing the maximum allowed size of freestanding monument signs in the MTC-1 zoning
district to 1) improve sign visibility, 2) recognize the significant motorized use of the SR-99
corridor, 3) ensure visual parity between signs in adjacent jurisdictions and those in Kent, and 4)
enhance the pedestrian environment consistent with the Midway Design Guidelines.
Staff will be available at the February 26 meeting to provide information and receive comments
from the public and request a recommendation from the LUPB.
EXHIBITS: Draft ordinance; Sign Regulations; SEPA Checklist; Decision; DNS; PowerPoint
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
CC: Ben Wolters, Economic & Community Development Director
Charlene Anderson, Long Range Planning Manager
MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval/denial/modification of
proposed amendments to 15.06.050 of the Kent City Code, related to sign
regulations in the Midway Transit Community-1 zoning district as presented by staff.
5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending section
15.06.050 of the Kent City Code, entitled
“Regulations for Specific Districts,” to revise sign
code regulations in the Midway Transit Community-
1 zoning district.
RECITALS
A. On December 13, 2011, the City Council adopted the Midway
Subarea Plan, which conveys a range of actions that prepares the area for
future high capacity light rail transit. The overall goal for the plan includes
a dense, pedestrian-friendly, sustainable community around high capacity
transit nodes. Policy MLU-1.3 in the plan recognizes the need for flexibility
in land uses and density as the market transitions from auto-oriented
development form to a dense pedestrian-friendly development form. Policy
MUD-3.7 recognizes a difference in sign regulations for development
adjacent to SR-99 while maintaining the overall urban character of the
designated transit-oriented community.
B. The City Council also adopted the Midway Design Guidelines
and sign regulations on December 13, 2011, as implementation measures
for the Midway Subarea Plan. The plan, guidelines, and sign regulations
were the result of multiple years of public outreach to businesses,
residents, and other stakeholders in the Midway subarea.
6
C. The Midway Design Guidelines call for creative and individual
expression in the design and placement of signs; they encourage creative,
sculptural, and neon signs in the Midway subarea. The guidelines also state
that signs should be designed to add pedestrian interest.
D. The Midway Design Guidelines recognize the distinct
environment of the area along SR-99/Pacific Highway; it is characterized
as highway-oriented, but the pedestrian is nevertheless given priority
through visual interest and human dimension at the street level.
E. In the Midway Transit Community-1 (“MTC-1”) zoning district,
within the Midway subarea, the following signs are currently allowed as
identification signs for single business occupancies: freestanding
monument signs up to 15 feet tall and 80 square feet with no sign face
larger than 40 square feet; suspended signs including hanging signs, and
blade signs up to 20 feet tall and 80 square feet with no sign face larger
than 40 square feet; and wall signs up to 10 percent of the first floor
façade, or 24 square feet, whichever is greater, and up to 35 feet tall.
F. To date, no new monument signs have been installed on SR-
99 under the MTC-1 sign regulations in Ch. 15.06 KCC, adopted by Kent
City Council in 2011. In anticipation of forthcoming development to which
these regulations would apply, staff reviewed the sign regulations to
evaluate their consistency with the Midway Design Guidelines, other sign
regulations in Kent, and neighboring jurisdictions. The intent was to ensure
that the regulations are fair, appropriate, and not unnecessarily
burdensome while still achieving the intent of the subarea plan and design
guidelines.
G. Although not envisioned as a traditional downtown, the
Midway area is, like Kent’s downtown, envisioned as a center of pedestrian
7
scale activity with a dense mix of land uses. Sign regulations for the
Downtown Commercial Enterprise (“DCE”) zoning district, within downtown
Kent, allow for freestanding signs other than monument signs up to 15
feet in height and 100 square feet in area for all faces. In contrast to the
Midway area, however, a highway does not bisect the DCE zoning district
as SR-99 does the MTC-1 zoning district. This distinct auto-oriented
context suggests a need for moderately larger signs along the highway
frontage in the MTC-1 district than in the DCE district.
H. Sign regulations for the City of Des Moines, which is across
from and adjacent to Kent’s MTC-1 zoning district, and similarly
characterized by SR-99 frontage, allow for freestanding signs other than
monument signs, up to 20 feet in height and 100 square feet in area for all
faces.
I. Best practices for sign visibility and motorist reaction time in
a 45 mile per hour zone similar to the SR-99 corridor recommend sign
sizes of 60 or more square feet per sign face. Appropriate sign visibility is
important for motorist safety, effective wayfinding, and the economic
interests of businesses. It is in the public interest to increase the allowed
height and sign face area for freestanding signs to improve visibility,
ensure visual parity between signs in adjacent jurisdictions and those in
Kent, and recognize the significant motorized use of the SR-99 corridor.
J. Variety in sign design and type can enhance visual interest for
pedestrians and motorists; it is in the public interest and consistent with
the intent of the Midway Subarea Plan and Design Guidelines to allow
multiple types of signs when they demonstrate creativity and integrity in
design and pedestrian-scale interest.
K. High sign density can contribute to information overload for
motorists, inhibiting visual recognition, decision-making, and response.
8
Sufficient sign spacing is necessary to ensure that motorists are not
overloaded. The aggregate allowed sign area for any lot in the MTC-1
zoning district is one square foot per linear foot of street frontage; a
maximum single sign size of 150 square feet for lots with at least 200 feet
of frontage is consistent with this ratio, allowing for at least 50 square feet
of additional signage elsewhere on the lot.
L. On February 12, 2018, planning staff presented the Land Use
and Planning Board (“LUPB”) with an overview of the need for revised sign
code regulations in the MTC-1 zoning district and the proposed revised
code language.
M. On January 17, 2018, the City requested expedited review
under RCW 36.70A.106 from the Washington State Department of
Commerce regarding the City’s proposed code amendments related to
signage in the MTC-1 zoning district. The Washington State Department of
Commerce granted the request for expedited review on February 6, 2018.
No comments were received from State agencies.
N. On February 5, 2018, the City conducted and completed
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
The City’s SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the code amendments.
O. At its regularly-scheduled public meeting on xx-xx-2018, the
LUPB held a public hearing regarding the proposed code amendments
related to sign regulations in the MTC-1 zoning district. After considering
the matter, the LUPB voted to recommend ________of the proposed
amendments to the City Council.
P. On xx-xx-2018, the Economic and Community Development
Committee considered the recommendations of the LUPB at its regularly-
9
scheduled meeting, and recommended to the full City Council ________ of
the proposed code amendments.
Q. At its regularly-scheduled meeting on xx-xx-2018, the City
Council voted to ________ the amendments to portions of Chapter 15.06
of the Kent City Code, pertaining to sign regulations in the MTC-1 zoning
district.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. – Amendment – KCC 15.06.050. Section 15.06.050 of
the Kent City Code, entitled “Regulations for Specific Districts,” is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15.06.050. Regulations for specific districts. In
all districts the planning director shall have the option to waive sign type
requirements in unique and special cases where, due to building design or
other special circumstance, the development is unable to conform to
stated standards.
…
D. Signs permitted in midway transit community-1 district. The
aggregate sign area for any lot shall not exceed one square foot for each
linear foot of street frontage. Aggregate sign area for corner lots shall not
exceed three-fourths of a square foot for each linear foot of street
frontage. The permitted signs enumerated in this subsection shall be
subject to the total aggregate sign area and may be permitted subject to
Midway Design Guidelines.
1. Identification signs for occupancies. Each single business
property may have one freestanding monument sign per street frontage or
10
one projecting sign per street frontage if located along or at the
intersections of SR 99, SR 516, South 240th Street, South 246th Street, or
South 272nd Street, if not located in a multitenant building, and one wall
sign and one suspended sign per street frontage.
a. Freestanding monument signs. Freestanding
monument signs shall not exceed a height of 15 20 feet. The maximum
sign area permitted is 80 100 square feet for the total of all faces. No one
face shall exceed 40 50 square feet. The sign may be internally
illuminated; provided, that it shall be constructed using individual
letters/characters, or sign cabinets with an opaque field or background so
that only the individual letters/characters are illuminated. Freestanding
monument signs shall not rotate, blink, flash, or be animated.
Freestanding monument signs shall include landscaping and curbing
around the base of the sign to prevent vehicles hitting the structure and
improve the visual appearance of the sign structure. Landscaping shall be
in proportion to the structure, with a minimum of one-half square foot of
landscaping for each square foot of sign area, and shall be maintained
throughout the life of the sign.
b. Projecting or suspended signs. Projecting or suspended
signs shall not protrude less than eight feet above the surface of the
sidewalk. The following are recognized projecting signs:
i. Blade signs. Blade signs shall be double-faced,
may be non-illuminated, internal or internal indirect illuminated, or neon
tube illuminated. Internal illumination shall be constructed using individual
letters/characters, or sign cabinets with an opaque field or background so
that only the individual letters/characters are illuminated. The maximum
sign area permitted is 80 square feet. No one face shall exceed 40 square
feet. The maximum sign height permitted is 20 feet. Blade signs shall not
rotate, blink, flash, or be animated.
ii. Hanging signs. Hanging signs shall be double-
faced and shall be non-illuminated.
11
c. Wall signs. Wall signs shall not exceed an area of 10
percent of the building first floor facade to which they are attached, or 24
square feet, whichever is greater. Wall signs shall be attached flat against
the building, and placement shall not exceed 35 feet above median
sidewalk grade measured from the top of the sign. Wall signs may be non-
illuminated, internally or indirectly illuminated. Internal illumination shall
be constructed using individual letters/characters, or sign cabinets with an
opaque field or background so that only the individual letters/characters
are illuminated.
2. Identification signs for multitenant buildings. Each
multitenant property may have one freestanding monument sign per
street frontage or one projecting sign per street frontage if located along
or at the intersections of SR 99 and SR 516, South 240th Street, South
246th Street, or South 272nd Street and each occupancy may have one wall
sign and one suspended sign per occupancy, except the anchor tenants
with a business frontage of at least 100 linear feet shall be allowed two
wall signs. The aggregate wall sign area shall not exceed 10 percent of the
first floor building facade to which the signs are attached.
a. Freestanding monument signs. Each multitenant
property may have one freestanding monument sign on each street
frontage. The sign may not exceed a height of 15 20 feet. The maximum
sign area permitted is 80 100 square feet for the total of all faces. No one
face shall exceed 40 50 square feet. The sign may be internally
illuminated; provided, that it shall be constructed using individual
letters/characters, or sign cabinets with an opaque field or background so
that only the individual letters/characters are illuminated. Freestanding
monument signs shall not rotate, blink, flash, or be animated.
Freestanding monument signs shall include landscaping and curbing
around the base of the sign to prevent vehicles hitting the structure and
improve the visual appearance of the sign structure. Landscaping shall be
in proportion to the structure, with a minimum of one-half square foot of
12
landscaping for each square foot of sign area, and shall be maintained
throughout the life of the sign.
b. Wall signs. Each multitenant building may have one
identification wall sign for the building’s identification for each street
frontage. The sign shall not exceed a total of five percent of the first floor
facade to which it is attached. The sign shall not name or advertise the
individual tenants of the building. The sign may be internally illuminated;
provided, that it shall be constructed using individual letters/characters, or
sign cabinets with an opaque field or background so that only the
individual letters/characters are illuminated. Aggregate sign area shall
apply. A multitenant building shall have the option of the sign described in
this subsection (D)(2)(b) or the identification sign described in subsection
(D)(2)(c) of this section.
c. Identification signs for occupancies. Each occupant of a
multitenant building with street frontage shall be permitted two wall signs
and one projecting or suspended sign. Each occupancy shall be allowed at
least 24 square feet of sign area. The aggregate wall sign area shall not
exceed 10 percent of the first floor facade to which the signs are attached.
The wall sign may be internally illuminated. Internal illumination shall be
constructed using individual letters/characters, or sign cabinets with an
opaque field or background so that only the individual letters/characters
are illuminated. The projecting or suspended sign shall be non-illuminated.
3. Freestanding signs, Exceptions. The director may permit
freestanding signs other than monument-type freestanding signs within
the MTC-1 zoning district along the SR-99 street frontage to a maximum
sign area of 150 square feet for the total of all faces, and a maximum
height of 20 feet, where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
a. No single cabinet face is greater than 40 square feet;
b. Creativity in design that creates visual interest for
motorists and pedestrians consistent with the goals of the Midway Subarea
13
Plan and Design Guidelines. Examples include sculptural signs or multi-
cabinet signs with variation in face shape, size, and height;
c. The sign’s support structure(s) is 1) ornamented for
pedestrian-level visual interest, or 2) screened from view at the pedestrian
eye level using landscaping or other creative screening element;
d. The subject property has at least 200 linear feet of
frontage on SR-99 where the sign is to be located; and
e. The proposed signage will not adversely impact or
detract from the welfare of nearby residences;
f. The proposed sign location will not obstruct or
otherwise interfere with pedestrian movement, the location of pedestrian
facilities within the public right-of-way, or on the private development
site;
g. The sign is not an electronic message center, electronic
changeable copy, or similar electronic type and does not blink, flash, or
rotate;
h.g. A projecting or suspended sign would not achieve the
intended purpose of such signage.
. . . .
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. – Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering;
or references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or
regulations.
14
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
DANA RALPH, MAYOR Date Approved
ATTEST:
KIMBERLY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
P:\Civil\Ordinance\15.06.050_SignRegulations_MTC-1_DRAFT.docx
15
KENT
WasHtNcroN CITY OF KENT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Checklist No, #ENV-2018-3 Project: #ZCA-20L8-LRPSA-2180304 RPP6-2180307
Description: The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a
proposal to amend the City of Kent Municipal Code Section 15.06 pertaining to the Midway
Transit Community-1 (MTC-1) zoning district. It increases the maximum allowed height of
freestanding monument signs (currently the only type of freestanding sign allowed) from 15
feet to 20 feet, and increases the maximum allowed area of freestanding monument signs
from 80 square feet with a maximum face size of 40 square feet to 100 square feet with a
maximum face size of 50 square feet,
The proposal provides for the director to grant exceptions to the type and size of freestanding
signs, allowing freestanding signs other than monument signs up to a maximum area of 150
square feet with a maximum single cabinet face size of 40 square feet and a maximum height
of 20feet, Inorderforthedirectortograntsuchanexception,theapplicantmustmeetall of
a series of conditions that ensure consistency with the pedestrian-scale character envisioned in
the Midway Subarea Plan and Midway Design Guidelines. The conditions also require that the
location and design of the sign provide sufficient spacing and not negatively impact adjacent
uses,
Applicant: Danielle Butsick, Sr, Long Range Planner/GIS Coordinator
City of Kent Planning Services
Lead Agency Crrv or Krrur
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 lead agency. This information is
available to the public on request,
There is no comment period for this DNS.
X This DNS is issued under L97-LL-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal
for 14 days from the date of this decision; this constitutes a 14-day comment period.
Comments must be submitted by 4=3O p.ffi., February 19, 2018, This DNS is subject
to appeal pursuant to Kent City Code section 11,03,520,
Responsible Official Charlene Anderso n
Position/T¡tle Lonq Ranqe Planninq Manaqer/ SEPA OFFICIAL
Address 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 Telephon
Dated February 5, 2018 Signature
APPEAL PROCESS: AN APPEAL OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MUST BE
MADE TO THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOLLOWING THE
END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD PER KENT CITY CODE 11.03.520.
CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES: NONE
16
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REPORT
Decision Document
MIDWAY TRANSIT COMMUNITY – 1 (MTC-1) SIGN CODE AMENDMENT
ENV-2018-3, KIVA #RPSA-2180307
ZCA-2018-1, KIVA #RPP6-2180304
Charlene Anderson, AICP Responsible Official
I. PROPOSAL
The City of Kent has initiated a non-project environmental review for a
proposal to a) amend the City of Kent Municipal Code Section 15.06 pertaining
to the Midway Transit Community-1 (MTC-1) zoning district. It increases the
maximum allowed height of freestanding monument signs (currently the only
type of freestanding sign allowed) from 15 feet to 20 feet, and increases the
maximum allowed area of freestanding monument signs from 80 square feet
with a maximum face size of 40 square feet to 100 square feet with a
maximum face size of 50 square feet.
The proposal provides for the director to grant exceptions to the type and size
of freestanding signs, allowing freestanding signs other than monument signs
up to a maximum area of 150 square feet with a maximum single cabinet face
size of 40 square feet and a maximum height of 20 feet. In order for the
director to grant such an exception, the applicant must meet all of a series of
conditions that ensure consistency with the pedestrian-scale character
envisioned in the Midway Subarea Plan and Midway Design Guidelines. The
conditions also require that the location and design of the sign provide
sufficient spacing and do not negatively impact adjacent uses.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Areas currently within the Midway Transit Community-1 zoning district are
located at the northwest and south corners of the Midway subarea. These
areas are at Kent’s westernmost limits and are bounded to the west by the
City of Des Moines and to the south by Federal Way. The area currently within
the Midway Transit Community – 1 zoning district constitutes approximately 70
acres.
Areas currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are characterized by frontage
on SR-99, a 45 mile-per-hour state highway. Highway frontage for parcels in
this zoning district ranges from 100 feet to more than 350 feet. Most parcels
currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are commercially developed; ten
parcels out of a total of 67 remain undeveloped.
17
Compliance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 4163), the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), The Local Project Review
Act (ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094), Kent's Construction Standards (Ordinance
3944) and Concurrency Management (Chapter 12.11, Kent City Code) will
require concurrent improvements or the execution of binding agreements by
the Applicant/Owner with Kent to mitigate identified environmental impacts.
These improvements and/or agreements may include improvements to
roadways, intersections 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 11.06 of the Kent City Code may require the conveyance
of Sensitive Area Tracts to the City of Kent in order to preserve trees, 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 July 3, 2016), which
implements ESHB 1724 and ESB 6094, and rules which took effect on May 10,
2014 in response to 2ESSB 6406 passed by the State Legislature in 2012.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
A. Earth
According to the City of Kent GIS slope data (2015), slopes within areas
currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are primarily 0-15%, with
narrow bands of steeper slopes. City of Kent GIS soils data (2015) and
definitions in the 1973 United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Survey for the King County Area indicate that soils are primarily
arents/alderwood material or alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Both soil
types are compatible with urban development, although erosion risk is
moderate to high. Landscaping required by the Midway Design
Guidelines will help to mitigate localized erosion where signs are
installed.
B. Air
The proposal is a non-project action. No impacts to air are anticipated
from this proposal.
C. Water
According to the City of Kent GIS wetlands inventory data, the McSorely
Creek wetland covers a narrow portion of the southern segment of the
current MTC-1 zoning district; Massey Creek wetlands are present in the
northernmost segment.
18
If individual development proposals impact wetlands or streams,
mitigation will be required in accordance with the City’s Critical Areas
regulations contained in Kent City Code Section 11.06.
Construction activities are regulated by the adopted codes of the City of
Kent. Impacts to associated waterways and wetland areas will be
analyzed and mitigated at the time of development permit review.
D. Plants and Animals
The code amendments are non-project actions. No threatened or
endangered species are known to be present, according to the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species
database.
E. Energy and Natural Resources
This proposal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on
energy and natural resources. Some signs permitted under the proposed
amendments may be lighted and could require electricity.
F. Environmental Health
According to the Department of Ecology Tacoma Smelter Plume online
interactive map, the areas currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are
within the Tacoma Smelter Plume and have been shown to have 40.1 to
100 parts per million for arsenic. Caution must be exercised when
excavating to install signs permitted under the proposed code
amendments. The Department of Ecology Tacoma Smelter Plume Model
Remedies Guidance should be followed.
G. Aesthetics, Noise, Light and Glare
Construction of new signs permitted under the proposed amendments
could result in construction noise. Signs may be lighted and contribute
to light pollution in the SR-99 corridor. Regulations are in place to
reduce the safety and visibility impacts of signs.
The proposal includes provisions to allow freestanding signs up to 20
feet tall. New signs permitted under the code amendments are unlikely
to impact aesthetic views, as the area is an intensively developed
highway corridor.
H. Land and Shoreline Use
The current uses in the MTC-1 zoning district are auto-oriented
commercial uses, including drive-through restaurants, automobile sales
and service, public storage facilities, and gas stations. Many structures
are present within the MTC-1 zoning district, primarily wood-frame or
cinder block buildings.
I. Housing
Adoption of the code amendments is not anticipated to have a
significant adverse effect on housing.
19
J. Recreation
While there are many parks and recreation facilities in the City of Kent,
significant adverse impacts to recreation are not anticipated from these
code amendments.
K. Historic and Cultural Preservation
According to the State of Washington Information System for
Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database,
potential landmarks and historic or cultural resources are primarily of-
age structures which are auto-oriented service uses, including auto body
and maintenance shops. The Midway Drive-In Theater was located in
this area, but has since been demolished.
Although this is a nonproject action, if archeological materials are
discovered during work for any project action, the applicant must stop
work and notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historical
Preservation.
L. Transportation
The MTC-1 zoning district is characterized by the presence of SR-99,
running north-south. Other east-west streets intersect the highway
throughout the MTC-1 zoning district, including SR-516/Kent Des Moines
Road. A light rail route extension and new rail stations will be in the
immediate vicinity of the area currently within the MTC-1 zoning district.
A station will be located to the east of the northern segment; a second
station will be located to the east of the southern segment.
There are no current proposals under the proposed regulations. Any
additional trips per day generated would be attributed to new uses and
occupancies rather than the signs identifying those uses.
M. Public Services
The proposed code amendment is a non-project action and is unlikely to
impact public services.
N. Utilities
The MTC-1 zoning district is served by typical urban utilities. New signs
permitted under the proposed regulations may require electricity if
lighted. The service provider will be determined, as needed, when
development proposals are submitted.
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
A. It is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and RCW 43.21C.060 that the
City of Kent establish conditions to mitigate any identified impacts
associated with this proposal. Supporting documents for the following
conditions and mitigating measures include:
20
1. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan as prepared and adopted
pursuant to the State Growth Management Act;
2. The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) 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, and current Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Plan;
5. Kent City Code Section 7.09 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan;
6. City of Kent Comprehensive Water System Plan;
7. Kent City Code Section 6.02 Required Infrastructure
Improvements;
8. Kent City Code Section 6.07 Street Use Permits;
9. Kent City Code Section 14.09 Flood Hazard Regulations;
10. Kent City Code Section 12.04 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments;
11. Kent City Code Section 12.05 Mobile Home Parks and 12.06
Recreation Vehicle Park;
12. Kent City Code Section 8.05 Noise Control;
13. City of Kent International Building and Fire Codes;
14. Kent City Code Title 15, Zoning;
15. Kent City Code Section 7.13 Water Shortage Emergency
Regulations and Water Conservation Ordinance 2227;
16. Kent City Code Sections 6.03 Improvement Plan Approval and
Inspection Fees;
17. Kent City Code Section 7.05 Storm and Surface Water Utility;
18. City of Kent Comprehensive Sewerage Plan;
19. City of Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority Capital
Facilities and Equipment Plan; and
20. Kent City Code Chapter 11.06, Critical Areas.
21. Department of Ecology Tacoma Smelter Plume Model Remedies
Guidance (Publication Number 12-09-086-A)
B. It is recommended that a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) be
issued for this non-project action.
KENT PLANNING SERVICES
February 5, 2018
DB:pm S:\Permit\Plan\ZONING_OTHER_CODE_AMENDMENTS\2018\ZCA-2018-1 MTC-1 Sign Code\SEPA\ZCA-2018-1_MTC-1SignCode_ENV_Decision.doc
21
KENT
Location: 400 w. Gowe r Maitro: 220 4thAvenue r"rttntÎl$iirn^lrJiJ-irli
Permit Center (253-856-5302 FAX: (253) 856-6412
www.ci.kent.wa. us/perm itcenter
Envi ronmenta I Checkl ist
Application Form
Public Notice Board and
Application Fee...See Fee Schedule
W^ s H r ñ c r o N
TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF:
APPLICATION #: ENV-2018-3 KIVA#: RPSA-2180304
RECEIVED BY:_DATE:_PROCESSING FEE
A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT:
X
Meets the categorically exempt criteria.
Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and
application should be processed without further consideration of
environmental effects.
Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through
conditions. EIS not necessary.
Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An
Environmental lmpact Statement will be prepared.
An Environmental lmpact Statement for this project has already been
prepared.
t*",ø*"lh,rrtpnø o'n)"2 - "j -/ g
Signature of Responsible Official Date
B. COMMENTS
c TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUE SïÈD. Tî*,W T)ffi¿â&ful 'T-
tDZONING DIST I
22
TO BE GOMPLETED BY APPLIGANT:
Mailing Address: 220 4th Avenue S.,
A.
1.
2.
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 2
BACKGROUN D INFORMATION :
Name of Project: Midwav Transit Communitv: 1 (MTC-1) Síqn Code Amendments
Name of Appli Citv of Kent
Kent, WA 98032
Contact Person Danielle Butsick Telephone 253-856-5443
(Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.)
Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Lonq-Ranqe Planner
Name of Legal Owne nla Telephone:
Mailing Address:
5.Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of
streetsand@).
Citywide; MTC-1 zoning district.
Legal descriotion and tax identification number
a. Lqgal descfiption (if lenqthy, attach as separate sheet):
Not applicable.
b. Tax identification number:
Not applicable.
Existinq conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size,
topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate
sheet).
Areas currentlywithin the MTC-1 zoning district are characterized byfrontage on SR-99, a 45 mile-per-
hour state highway. Highway frontage for parcels in this zoning district ranges from 100 feet to more
than 350 feet. Most parcels currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are commercially developed; ten
parcels out of a total of 67 remain undeveloped.
3
4
6
7
23
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 3
I Site Area: Citvwide. Areas currentlvwithin the MidwavTransit Communitv-1 zoninq district
are located at the northwest and south corners of the Midwav subarea. These areas are at
Kent's westernmost limits and are bounded to the west bv the Citv of Des Moines and to the
south bv FederalWav.
Site Dimensions:The area r:rrrrenflv within the idwav Transit Communitv - 1 zonino
district constitutes aooroximatelv 70 acres.
9. Proiect description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property or
project including all proposed uses, days and hours of operation and the size of the project and
site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions):
The proposal amends sign code regulations in KCC 15.06 pertaining tothe MTC-1 zoning district. lt
increases the maximum allowed height of freestanding monument signs (currently the only type of
freestanding sign allowed) from 15 feet to 20 feet, and increases the maximum allowed area of
freestanding monument signs from 80 square feet with a maximum face size of 40 square feet to 100
square feet with a maximum face size of 50 square feet.
The proposal provides for the director to grant exceptions to the type and size of freestanding signs,
allowing freestanding signs other than monument signs up to a maximum area of 150 square feet with a
maximum single cabinet face size of 40 square feet and a maximum height of 20 feet. ln order for the
director to grant such an exception, the applicant must meet all of a seríes of conditions that ensure
consistencywith the pedestrian-scale character envisioned in the Midway Subarea Plan and Midway
Design Guidelines. The conditions also require thatthe location and design of the sign provide sufficient
spacing and do not negatively impact adjacent uses.
10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible).
The following is the tentative schedule for the proposed code amendments:
Land Use and Planning Board: Workshop - 02Í12t2018
Land Use and Planning Board: Public Hearing - 0212612018 (Tentative)
Economic and Cornmunity Development Committee: Recommendation 0311212018 (Tentative)
City Council: Adoption 03120120'18 (Tentative)
11.Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? lf yes, explain.
At the time of submission of this checklist, there are no plans for further code revisions related to this
proposal.
12. PermitslAoorovals: List all permits or approvals for this project from local, state, federal, or other
agencies for which you have applied or will apply as required for your proposal.
24
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 4
AGENCY PERMIT TYPE
DATE
SUBMITTED-NUMBER STATUS**
Washington
State Department
of Commerce
Development
regulation
review
0111812018 nla Received
*Leave blank if not submitted**Approved, denied or pending
13 Environmental lnformation: List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Midway Planned Action Ordinance Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS), 2011
14.Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly atfecting the property covered by your proposal? lf yes, explain.
There are pending development applications for parcels within the MTC-1 zoning district.
Civil and building permits have been submitted for a drive-in restaurant on a property on the SR-99
frontage. Civil permits have also been submitted for construction of a church in the MTC-1 district.
25
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 5
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep
slopes, mountainous, othe
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
According to the City of Kent GIS slope data (2015), nearly all of the area
currentlywithin the MTC-1 zoning district is 0-15% sloped;there are narrow
bands throughout the area with slopes greater than 40%. A segment in the
northwest corner, comprised of undeveloped parcels characterized by
wetlands, has a greater concentration of slopes ranging from 15-75%.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,
sand, gravel, peat, muck)? lf you knowthe classification of agricultural
soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
According to the City of Kent GIS soils data (2015) and the definitions
provided in the 1973 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for
the King CountyArea (1973 Soils Survey), areas currentlywithin the MTC-1
zoning district are primarily one of two soil types:
1) Arents/alderwood material with 6-15% slope. Runoff is medium, and
the erosion hazard is moderate to severe. This soil is compatible with
urban development.
2) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 6-15% slope. Permeability is
relatively high in the surface layers and very slow in the lower layers.
Runoff is slow to medium, and erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is
compatible with timber, agriculture, or urban development.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the imrnediate
vicinity? lf so, describe.
None of the areas currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are within the
landslide hazard areas mapped by the City of Kent.
Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. lndicate source of fill.
e
Not applicable. No grading proposed
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
26
f
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 6
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? lf so,
generally describe.
City of Kent GIS soils data, City of Kent GIS erodible soils data, and
definitions in the 1973 Soils Survey indicate that erosion risk in this area is
moderate to severe. Localized erosion could occur as signs are installed.
The Midway Design Guidelines require landscaping at the base of signs,
which would reduce the likelihood of erosion.
g About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any.
The Midway Design Guidelines require landscaping at the base of signs,
which will reduce the potential impacts of erosion.
2. Air
Not applicable,
What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,
dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)during construction and
when the project is completed? lf any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? lf so, generally describe.
Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to
air, if any.
a
c
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
27
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 7
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) ls there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water,
lakes, ponds, wetlands)? lf yes, describe type and provide
names. lf appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
City of Kent GIS wetland inventory data show that the Mcsorely Creek
wetland covers a narrow portion of the southern segment of the current
MTC-1 zoning district; Massey Creek wetlands are present in the
northernmost segment.
2l Willthe project require anywork over, in oradjacentto (within 200
feet) the described waters? lf yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
28
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page B
3)Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate
the area of the site that would be affected. lndicate the source of
fill material.
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed
4)Will the proposal require surface waterwithdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known.
Not,applicable. No project is currently proposed
5)Does the proposal lie within a 1OO-year floodplain? lf so, note
location on the site plan.
The current extent of the MTC-1 zoning district is outside of the FEMA
floodplain.
6)Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? lf so, describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed.
2)Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic
sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals,..;
agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)
are expected to serve.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
29
City of Kent Planníng Services
Environrnental Checklist - Page 9
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method
of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known).
Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters?
lf so, describe.
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed.
2)Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? lf so,
generally describe.
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff
water impacts, if any:
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_x_Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other
_x_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
x Shrubs
Grass
Pasture
_Crop or grain
Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_x_Other types of vegetation
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
30
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 10
Blackberry, limited urban landscaping
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Not applicable. No project is currently proposed
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Per WDFW PHS data, no threatened or endangered species are known to be
present.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
No project is currently proposed; however, landscaping is required at the base
of signs per the Midway Design Guidelines.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds,
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver,
Físh: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, othe
Per WDFW PHS data, none observed.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
Per WDFW PHS data, none known.
c. ls the site part of a migration route? lf so, explain,
According to the Audubon Society, the MTC-1 zoning district is part of the
Pacific Flyway for migratory birds, as is the entire Puget Sound region.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Not applicable.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
31
a
City of Kenl Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 11
6. Enerqv and Natural Resources
What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it
will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
No project is currently proposed; however, some signs permitted under the
proposed code amendment may be lighted and require electricity,
b, Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? lf so, generally describe.
Signs permitted under the proposed code amendments could result in
shadows under certain conditions, depending on the locatíon of the sign, The
impact would likely be minimal and could be mitigated through strategic
location of solar panels.
What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of
this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
Not applicable, No project is currently proposed
7. Environmental Health
a, Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? lf so, describe.
The Department of Ecology Tacoma Smelter Plume online interactive map
indicates that areas currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are within the
Tacoma Smelter Plume and have been shown to have 40.1 to 100 parts per
million for arsenic. Caution must be exercised when excavating to install signs
permitted under the proposed code amendments. Department of Ecology
Tacoma Smelter Plume Model Remedies Guidance should be consulted.
c.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
32
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 12
It is unlikely that emergency services will be required.
2)Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
Construction staff should exercise caution and use proper personal protection
equipment when installing signs in these areas.
b. Noise
1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)?
fhe areas currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are characterized by
frontage on SR-99;traffic noise is common in these areas.
2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or a long{erm basis (for example:
traffic, construction, operation, other)? lndicate what hours noise
would come from the site.
Construction noise is likely to be created during construction or installation of
signs permitted under the proposed code amendments. No construction
scheduling plans exist at this time.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Measures to reduce or control noise impacts will be project-specific.
Generally, projects should avoid construction during open hours of businesses
that could be impacted by ambient noise, or during hours that would disturb
residents if projects are near residential properties.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The current uses in the MTC-1 zoning dístrict are auto-oriented commercial
uses, including drive{hrough restaurants, automobile sales and service, public
storage facilities, and gas stations.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? lf so, describe
Given the character of development present in the MTC-1 zoning district, it is
unlikely that this area has been used for agriculture in the recent past.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
33
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 13
c. Describe any structures on. the site
Many structures are present within the MTC-I zoning district, primarily wood
frame or cinder block buildings.
d. Will any structures be demolished? lf so, what?
No new signs have been proposed at this time. lt cannot be known at this
time whether future signs will displace structures.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Midway Transit Community (MTC)-í
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Transit-Oriented Community (TOC)
g. lf applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
Not applicable
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? lf so, specify.
No.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
Not applicable.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Not applicable.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.
Not applicable.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any.
Not applicable.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
34
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 14
9. Housinq
Not applicable.
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? lndicate
whether high, middle, or low income housing.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? lndicate
whether high, middle, or low income housing.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
10. Aesthetics
a" What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The proposal includes provisions to allow freestanding signs up to 20 feet tall.
No new signs are proposed at this time; the materials for future signs cannot
be known.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
No proposals exist for signs under the proposed regufations; the areas
currently within the MTC-1 zoning district are characterized by highway
frontage and typically do not have views which could be obstructed by signs
permitted under the proposed code amendments.
Temporary changes to the visual environment may occur during construction.
Existing sign code provisions prohibit signs which obstruct sight distance for
motorists, which could also have the effect of limiting the impact signs may
have on views.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any,
The proposal contaíns provisions to ensure that signs permitted under the
proposed regulations do not adversely impact or detract from the welfare of
nearby residences. This could include impacts to aesthetic views.
11. Liqht and Glare
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
35
a
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 15
What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
Signs permitted under the proposed regulations may be internally or indirectly
lighted; they could be lighted 24 hours per day.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hàzard or
interfere with views?
Existing regulations prohibit blinking or flashing signs within 75 feet of the right
of way, as well as any signs that interfere with sight distance.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Light from other signs and uses could interfere with the visibility of signs
permitted under the proposed regulations.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
Regulations are in place to reduce safety and visibility impacts of signs,
12. Recreation
Not applicable.
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? lf
so, describe.
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any.
13. Historic and Gultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state
or local preservation regislers known to be on or next to the site? lf so,
generally describe.
According to the State of Washington lnformation System forArchitectural and
Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database, in the area currently
c
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
36
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 16
within the MTC-1 zoning district, there are the following inventoried potentially
eligible resources, for which no eligibility has been determined:
Bucky's Muffler Brake Radiator, 23898 Pacific Hwy S
Midway Drive-ln Theater, 24050 Pacific Hwy S
Skip's Auto Body and Paint, 24433 Pacific Hwy S
Midway Frame and Alignmenl,24441 Pacific Hwy S
Adjacent to the area to the south in Federal Way is also Pascoe's Grocery, at
27202 Pacific Hwy S.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Potential landmarks and historic or cultural resources are primarily of-age
structures which are auto-oriented service uses, including auto body and
maintenance shops. The Midway Drive-ln Theater was located in this area,
but has since been demolished.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.
No impacts are expected to the potential historic resources in this vicinity.
Signs permitted under the proposed code amendments would not be
expected to detract from the character of these business operations. Any
construction projects should follow Washington State's lnadvertent Discovery
Plan for archaeological or cultural resources.
14. Transportation
ldentify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
ïhe MïC-1 zoning district is characterized bythe presence of SR-99, running
north-south. Other east-west streets intersect the highway throughout the
MTC-1 zoning district, including SR-516/Kent Des Moines Road.
b. ls site currently served by public transit? lf not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Transit stops are located throughout the SR-99 corridor, including in the MTC-
1 zoning district.
How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How
many would the project eliminate?
I
a
a
a
ct
c
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
37
d
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 17
Not applicable.
Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? lf so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
Not applicable
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? lf so, generally describe.
A light rail route extension and new rail stations will be in the immediate
vicinityof the area currentlywithin the MTC-1 zoning district. Astation willbe
located to the east of the northern segment; a second station will be located to
the east of the southern segment.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? lf known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
There are no current proposals under the proposed regulations. Any
additional trips per day generated would be attributed to new uses and
occupancies rather than the signs identifying those uses.
g Proposed measures to reduce or controltransportation impacts, if any.
Not applicable.
15. Public Serviceq
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example:fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? lf
so, generally describe.
Not applicable.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
Not applicable.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water,
refuse service, telephone, san¡tary sewer, septic system, other.
Ã
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
38
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 18
The MTC-1 zoning district is served by typical urban utilities.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities
providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or
in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed.
New signs permitted under the proposed regulations may require electricity if
lighted. The service provider will be determined, as needed, when
development proposals are submitted.
C. SIGNATURE
ïhe above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead ag is relying on them to make its decision
Signatu
D
DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in
conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extentthe proposal, orthe
types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a
greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented.
Respond briefly and in general terms.
1 . How would the proposal be likelyto increase discharge to water; emission
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances;
or production of noise?
The proposal is unlikely to increase discharge to water; emíssion to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or noise
production,
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Not applicable.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
39
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 19
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
The proposal is unlikely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or
marine life?
Not applicable.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
ïhe proposal is unlikely to deplete energy or natural resources.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources
are:
Not applicable
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for
governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic
rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The proposal is unlikely to have any effect on environmentally sensitive areas.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
Not applicable
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses
incompatible with existing plans?
By amending sign regulations to allow more flexibility and larger signs, the
proposal may create an environment that is friendlier toward auto-oriented
businesses; over time this could result in a greater number of auto-oriented
land uses. Auto-oriented uses are recognized in the Midway subarea plan
and Midway Design Guidelines as a characteristic of the MTc-1 zoning
district; however, the pedestrian is intended to be given priority in this area.
To meet this vision, the proposal includes provisions to ensure that auto-
oriented uses include pedestrian-scale design elements.
The proposal is unlikely to impact shoreline uses.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
40
City of Kent Planning Services
Environmental Checklist - Page 20
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts
are:
The Midway Subarea Plan and Midway Design Guidelines prescribe a
pedestrian-scaled characterforthe MTC-1 zoning district, while recognizing its
auto-oriented environment on the SR-99 frontage. The proposed code
amendments adjust the sign regulations to allow larger signs and more
flexibility in sign type; they also ensure that larger signs and sign types that
tend to be less pedestrian-friendly provide pedestrian-scale design as
envisioned in the design guidelines.
How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation
or public services and utilities?
The proposal is unlikely to increase demand for transportation, public
services, or utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Not applicable
7. ldentify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposal does not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for protection of the environment.
P: \Planni ng\ADMIN\FORMS\SEPA\SEPA_CHECKLIST.doc (REVISED 1zl08)
6
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
41
Midway Transit Community-1
(MTC-1) Sign Code Amendment
Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing
February 26, 2018
42
MTC-1 Zoning District
•Within Midway Subarea – Midway Design
Guidelines apply
•Characterized by highway frontage (SR-99 and SR-
516)
•Code was amended in 2011
o Maximum sign face size (80 square feet total, 40 per side)
o Maximum height is 15ft.
o Only wall, protruding/suspended (hanging or blade signs), or monument
signs allowed
43
44
Freestanding Monument Suspended/Projecting
Bl
a
d
e
Ha
n
g
i
n
g
Wall Sign
Sign Types 45
Why Change the Code?
•Best practices for sign visibility recommend 60+ square feet
o Motorist safety
o Wayfinding
o Economic interests of
businesses
•Creativity in design can
create pedestrian-scale
interest – encourage good
design
•No new monument signs
permitted under 2011 code
– review to ensure codes
are fair and appropriate
•Visual parity - City of Des
Moines allows greater
height and area than Kent’s
codes
46
Proposed Changes
•Increase allowed monument sign size(same as Des Moines) to:
o 20 feet tall
o 100 square feet total
o 50 square feet per side
•Director may allow exceptions for freestanding signs that are not
monument signs. Based on these conditions:
o No cabinet face > 40 square feet
o Creative design – sculptural, varied face
shape, size, height
o Other sign types won’t work on the site
o Ornamented or screened supports
o 200 feet SR-99 frontage
o No adverse impacts, won’t obstruct
pedestrian movement
o Up to 150 total square feet
47
Creative Freestanding Signs -
Examples
48
Questions?
49