HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic and Community Development Committee - 09/11/2017 (2)Economic & Community Development
Committee Agenda
Councilmembers: Jim Berrios, Tina Budell, Bill Boyce, Chair
September 11, 2017
5:00 p.m.
Item Description Action Speaker(s) Time Page
1.Call to Order Bill Boyce 1 min.
2.Roll Call Bill Boyce 1 min.
3.Changes to the Agenda Bill Boyce 1 min.
4.Approval of August 14, 2017 Minutes YES Bill Boyce 1 min. 1
5.Neighborhood Resolution – Millbrook Heights YES Toni Azzola 5 min.
6.Final Plat Ordinance YES Matt Gilbert 5 min.
7.Mixed Use Guidelines NO Hayley Bonsteel 20 min.
8.Sound Transit Update NO Charlene Anderson 15 min.
9.Housing Affordability NO Charlene Anderson 10 min
10.Director’s Report NO Ben Wolters 5 min.
Unless otherwise noted, the Economic & Community Development Committee meets at 5 p.m. on the
second Monday of each month in Kent City Hall, Council Chambers East, 220 4th Ave S, Kent, 98032.
For additional information please contact Julie Pulliam at 253-856-5702.
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.
8
13
30
43
78
Economic and Community Development Committee August 14, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
Date: August 14, 2017
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Place: Centennial North and South
Attending: Bill Boyce, Jim Berrios, Tina Budell, Charlene Anderson, Matt Gilbert, Brennan
Taylor, Bill Ellis, Julie Pulliam
Agenda:
1. Call to Order 5:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Changes to the Agenda Item 7 is information only.
4. Approval of Minutes Council Member Jim Berrios MOVED and Chair Bill Boyce
Seconded a MOTION to approve the minutes of July 10, 2017. Motion PASSED 2-0.
5. Highland Property Surplus Resolution
Bill Ellis presented on the Highland Property which was acquired for the construction of
Veterans Drive. This resolution asks for surplus of the property in order to give staff the
authority to market it. Since June 20th a notice process commenced through a posting
in the Kent Reporter, mailing the neighboring communities and two community forums
on June 22nd and July 13th.
The feedback from the notice process showed most participants voiced the concern of
residential development properties on the land, however once reassured that the
developments would test out commercial developments there was interest taken into
what could be placed there. The participants expressed concerns for traffic, specifically
around illegal U-turns being made and site feasibility/views. The community
participants however, were interested in smaller venues such as Whole Foods and
Trader Joe’s.
Adam Long presented to council a new state law effective July 23rd that affects public
properties with restrictive covenants. The new law stems from a case in Snohomish
County concerning a parcel that was dedicated to the city for playground purposes. The
city eventually removed that covenant for playground purposes to be used as
something else. From this case the new law requires that public entities hold an
additional public hearing if they are going to remove a restrictive covenant. This relates
to the Highland Property, which has been exchanged through several government
agencies, and therefore may have some restrictive covenants, which could affect the
surplus. Adam explains that there is roughly 50 years of background material to go
through in order to determine if there are any covenants that restrict the purpose like
what took place in Snohomish County. Adam did reassure the council that they do not
foresee any covenants for purpose, however do foresee some for environmental, as the
property was once used as a landfill. Legal will continue to do their due diligence on the
matter and would report back to council if an additional hearing would be required for
this surplus.
Page 1 of 7
Economic and Community Development Committee August 14, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
Council Chair Boyce announced that he would like to hold a public hearing regardless,
aside from new legislature so that there is transparency in this process with the
community.
Motion: Recommend council to adopt the resolution declaring that Kent
Highline Property Surplus to the city’s needs in authorizing the mayor to take
an appropriate action to market the property for sale or lease in one or more
phases.
Jim Berrios moved, Tina Budell seconded, and the motion passed 3-0
6. Environmental Consultants Amendments
Brennan Taylor presented to the committee two amendments to each environmental
consulting contracts, Theresa Duseke and Raedeke. These amendments will extend
through the end of 2017. The consultants assist city staff with environmental review of
permits, code enforcement with environmentally sensitive areas as well as assist with
code interpretations to provide the best available science.
The amendments to the contracts are due to a busy permitting year with
environmental regulations as well as to align the contract with the calendar year. The
current contract dates run from November 1st through October 31st. Mr. Taylor
explained that the contract started in 2015 and was extended throughout 2016 and
2017, reflecting a full three years.
Motion: Recommend to approve the 2017 fourth amendment for Raedeke
Associations Inc., this amendment will extend the expiration date to
December 31, 2017 and increase the financial expenditures by $40,000
subject to terms acceptable to the Economic and Community Development
Director and the City Attorney.
Tina Budell moved, Jim Berrios seconded, and the motion passed 3-0
Motion: Recommend to approve the 2017 third amendment to Theresa
Dueseke Consulting, this amendment will extend the expiration date to
December 31, 2017 and increase the financial expenditures by $23,000
subject to terms acceptable to the Economic and Community Development
Director and the City Attorney.
Tina Budell moved, Jim Berrios seconded, and the motion passed 3-0
7. Final Plat Ordinance-Information Only
Gilbert explained to council that a public hearing is required prior to the legislation being
able to move forward for the change of code. The hearing is scheduled for August 28th,
2017 before the Land Use and Planning Board.
Page 2 of 7
Economic and Community Development Committee August 14, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
The change is consisted with an allowance passed by the legislature signed by the
Governor effective in July 2017 which allows for streamlining of the process for a final
plat approval before it records. The council affirms that the conditions of approval have
been met, which are field verified by staff through a lengthy process. Through this
process, if all conditions are checked off then it is immediately passed by the council and
the builder can then record the plat. This process has been unpopular because it adds
time at the end of a project, and must fit into expiration timelines that plats have.
The legislature has acted to allow cities to create flexibility and make the final step an
administrative step, instead of a legislative step. This change would not change the
public process, zoning, criteria or standards. The change would only allow the council
process at the end of projects to be an administrative one instead.
A public hearing will take place with the options of changing the process into an
administrative one, or could require some variations to include the mayors signature,
based on hearing feedback.
Gilbert explains that this change could save both City staff and developer time. Gilbert
also confirmed with council that through the current process they are not granted
permission to make changes when presented before recording, they simply sign off that
all of the mandatory tasks assigned through the Hearing Examiner have been
completed.
Gilbert will return with the outcome from the Land Use and Planning Board Public
Hearing and any code changes made back to the Economic and Community
Development Committee before it is sent on to Council.
8. Sound Transit Update
Charlene Anderson presented staff topics of discussion that have been happening
between them, Sound Transit and other state agencies. Some topics are repeated
topics, however staff would like to use this committee forum to offer feedback and
opinions on these topics. There are 10 topics of discussion:
1. Kent/Des Moines Station Concept: Staff has discussed relocating utility
poles along 30th. Staff is concerned that high transmission lines would
interfere with transit oriented development opportunities in the area. Staff
asked Sound Transit and they were willing to consider several options in
order to move the transmission line farther East, closer to I-5, so that
they are out of the service area. Sound Transit has to relocate a few lines
in order to accommodate the Light Rail guideway, but do not have to
change all of them. This cost was determined to be $700,000.00, and was
determined to be one that the City would not pursue as a general
consensus.
Anderson explains that this determination has been one that was made
strictly on costs. Committee member Berrios would like staff to consider
the long term effects of not relocating the transmission lines.
Page 3 of 7
Economic and Community Development Committee August 14, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
2. Sound Transit will provide restrooms in the fare paid zone, and will be
monitored.
3. Regional Detention facility: City staff is looking into at how detention
facilities will impact future development. You are unable to build on top of
vaults, if city staff would like all of this area to be open to development;
staff has looked to a regional detention facility as an option. Sound Transit
needs to construct a facility to gather the storm water runoff from the
roads that they are creating, 234th (east and west), 236th and 238th. All of
these roads will be newly constructed by Sound Transit and the run off
from these roads will need to be collected. Sound Transit would originate
the detention facilities, and as development comes in future owners could
detain their water, making a regional detention center.
4. Lighting: Staff is having the discussion of how to make the lighting
consistent along the 236th roadway which includes City of Kent, City of
Des Moines and finally Highline College. There was a workshop in early
august that posed the questions of what will be consistent with the street.
Some ideas were, landscaping pallets, signage and their requirements and
lighting standards. City of Des Moines suggested changing the colors of
the pole the signs are on, with the same style. There has also been talk of
an inter-local agreement between Kent and Des Moines. Kent would
purchase the replacement standards and do the maintenance for Des
Moines, with cost sharing.
5. High capacity transit code: This code was mimicked for Kent from City of
SeaTac, this relates the standard of retail or commercial services on the
ground floor of the garage. Nationally retail is generally overbuilt for these
services located in transit garages and are typically unsuccessful. City
staff and Sound Transit are looking into other ways to activate this ground
floor to meet the standards. Some ongoing ideas have been: seating
areas to include food trucks or other carts. Sound transit has been
considering additional layout designs and color schemes. Sound Transit
will be giving feedback based on several workshops to voice the
community’s needs. Sound Transit gave feedback on how the Angle Lake
station has had issues maintain retail on their newly created first floor. At
Angle Lake their first floor has been vacant for one year. Some issues
have been the isolation of the retail shop, only being one store. There is
also the issue that stations are used for commuters who are not stopping
to spend money, they are simply on their way home.
The Committee members would like Sound Transit to consider replacing
the first floor retail with additional parking. They would like Sound transit
to consider the cost of the retail itself and estimating that difference
between a retail store and more parking.
6. Open space and landscaping: There is a code requirement to have enough
open space and landscaping around the area. Sound Transit has brought
an area north of 238th St to meet the standards for seating (one seat for
every 40-50 square feet).
Page 4 of 7
Economic and Community Development Committee August 14, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
7. Demolition and fencing: Sound Transit will be acquiring properties, and
have made offers on the first five. As soon as Sound Transit acquires the
property they must also secure it. City staff has brought the idea of not
only securing the property but demolishing the current structure so that it
will not attract unwanted persons. The areas would still have fencing
around it, but would not have boarded up home.
8. Permitting process: Staff has estimated that for this design project a new
permit type will need to be created to accommodate for each proposal.
Charlene describes master planning permit to help conserve both Sound
Transit and City resources.
9. Utilities: Kent staff brought together both wet and dry utility companies
because the roads in the midway area will be concrete roads. Staff is
seeking to ensure that each utility company can accommodate the growth
that is projected for the area, to avoid having to tear up the roadways
after construction. Dry utilities will often require private property
easements to accommodate their utilities, City staff would like there to be
no easements in order to save the TOD area.
10. Station Design theme: When Sound Transit comes to a new city they
spend a significant amount of time talking to the community in order to
study the character and wants. Kent has an architecture and art theme
incorporated into the city code, which states that the City Council will
decide the theme. Sound transit has been working with a community
researcher through independent research, workshops and stakeholder
groups to hear what is important to the community. The importance of the
environment, international community connections and education has
been the focus thus far based on research. Sound Transit will bring back
recommendations to the committee and incorporate them into the RFP to
go before council.
Danielle Butsick presented an update on the Sounder Access project in downtown
Kent. The purpose of this project is to improve all modes of access to the sounder
station in downtown Kent. The project has involved a lot of stakeholder coordination
which has been delayed over the last month due to the costs of the projects under
Sound Transit. A possibility has been presented to extend the funding higher for the
garage projects and the access improvement. The project is in the later stages of Site
alternatives analysis, which reflects that one of the sites will have more flexibility for
the site orientation and garage set up. Sound Transit will present to council on 8-15-
2017 about costs for each alternative and how they relate to the budget.
9. Code Enforcement Update
Gilbert presents an update on code statistics and volume from 2014 to 2017 which
shows a high to normal volume compared to 2014 and previous. Gilbert explains that
in the summer Code Enforcement averages 20 new cases per week, throughout varies
complaints throughout the city. The city makes contact with each of the complaints
through numerous inspection and photo documentation. Since 2015 Code Enforcement
has engaged with the City’s law department through staff Victoria Robben to make
documents legally defensible. This helps to get the documents to the right parties and
Page 5 of 7
Economic and Community Development Committee August 14, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
businesses. The Law Department handled 427 separate code enforcement documents
in 2016 and is projected to handle 357 separate documents for 2017.
Pro-active enforcement has taken place with three neighborhoods in the West Hill that
were selected based on community surveys, the police department and Toni Azzola
with neighborhoods through the city for hot spot areas. This enforcement was
successful and resulted in 100 properties cited through post cards to promote
voluntary compliance. Through these 100 properties trash, junk vehicles and tall
weeds were among the most popular issues. From this process only one property went
through to becoming a fine. Gilbert
The next pro-active enforcement project took place in North Park beginning in
February 2017. This effort resulted in 18 properties being cited, but no properties
resulted in fines being issued.
As the summer ends Gilbert will begin to look into the next locations for proactive
Enforcement and bring back recommendations to the committee as things get
closer.
Gilbert also gives an update on the Rental Housing Inspection Program, the public/ outreach
portion of this project is being completed by Future Wise and Living Well Kent. These parties
are responsible for community outreach, legislation and target areas to carry out the
project. There was a hiccup between these parties in the City, and the first big round table
event happened at Birch Creek on July 27th. There will be two more that will be publicized
and shared with the council and the community. At the July 27th meeting Future Wise and
Living Well Kent received a turnout of 100 people. They offered food, childcare and
translators in order to give people the opportunity to attend. Based on the feedback from
these community round tables both parties will combine the collective feedback and help to
create legislation, a draft is expected in September and will be presented to the committee
for their feedback. The main themes around Code issues have been mold, maintenance and
dirty carpets (cleanliness) of the apartments that are not getting done before new tenants
move in.
In early 2017 council passed legislation related to source of income discrimination. The first
case came in July 2017 and included a housing advocacy group who worked to place a
an individual in housing, and it successfully did through the Section 8 program which
covered all of the rent less $125. The apartment said that they have a requirement of
income showing 2.5 times the rent in the bank as a credit system for payment. They asked
for 2.5 times $125 and the individual was denied on their application. The City found that
this was not a violation due to accepting Section 8 but still have an income requirement.
Gilbert explained an idea for a new Citation process for violators that have been fined more
than once, and no changes have been made to the properties. This idea forwards these
cases to the Police Department as criminal matters. These cases would be prioritized by
Police, some being attended to immediately and some not, due to the criminal
documentation and investigation to establish cause for a criminal process. This process
takes away from Police and attorney time. Due to this time constraint a recommendation
was made to allow officers to write tickets similar to traffic or litter tickets. A dozen other
communities in Washington have that process, and Gilbert is investigating the feasibility of
this new process.
Page 6 of 7
Economic and Community Development Committee August 14, 2017
Minutes Kent, Washington
Approval Pending
Gilbert provided updates on the Childress Property on 98th Ave which was the first property
that the City went after during the dangerous building abatement ordinance. The process
has moved slowly due to it being the first time the city has taken on a project like this. The
City’s rules come from state law which protects property owners before the city is able to
take action in demolishing a property. The City deemed this property to be officially
dangerous, and now must file through Superior court with King County. A draft brief has
been made and is in process to be filed. Gilbert hopes to demolish this building by the end
of the year. The demolition of the building would be paid for upfront by the City with a lien
placed on the property so that when it does sell that money would be in first position to be
returned. Through the feedback received with the Childress property Code Enforcement will
attempt to duplicate efforts with the Command Labor building which has also been deemed
dangerous.
The 7-eleven property on Central Ave and James is also a property that has been let go by
the owners. Three weeks ago there was a meeting to include the law department, code
enforcement and the Deputy Director, and since there has been movement on the junk
vehicles. The Department of Ecology has deemed this property to not be fit for a gas
station, and the tanks must be removed.
Meeting Adjourned 6:52 p.m.
Julie Pulliam
Administrative Assistant III
Economic and Community Development
Page 7 of 7
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Suzette Cooke, Mayor
Phone: 253-856-5700
Fax: 253-856-6700
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA. 98032-5895
September 11, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Toni Azzola, Neighborhood Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Recognition of Millbrook Heights Neighborhood Council – Resolution -
Recommend
SUMMARY: The Millbrook Heights neighborhood consists of 16 households and is
located on Kent’s East Hill. On January 27, 2017, the Millbrook Heights
neighborhood council submitted an official registration form to request that the City
recognize their neighborhood council and allow the neighborhood to take part in the
City’s neighborhood program. The neighborhood has now completed the process to
be recognized as a neighborhood council.
BACKGROUND: The City’s Neighborhood Program is an initiative designed to foster
better communication among residents in a geographic area and city government.
The underlying objective of the program is to provide an avenue for residents to
work together to enhance the livability of their neighborhoods.
The program encourages organization of neighborhood councils, which serve as
independent, non-profit organizations promoting resident-based efforts for
neighborhood improvements while also establishing a partnership between City
government and the neighborhoods they serve.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Exhibit A
MOTION: Recommend Council adopt a resolution that recognizes the Millbrook
Heights Neighborhood Council, supports its community building efforts, and
confers all opportunities offered by the City’s Neighborhood Program.
8
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESOLUTION of the city council of the
city of Kent, Washington, recognizing Millbrook
Heights Neighborhood Council.
RECITALS
A. The city of Kent has developed a Neighborhood Program to
promote and sustain an environment that responds to residents by building
partnerships between the City and its residents. In addition, the city of
Kent encourages residents to work together to form geographically distinct
neighborhood councils as a means to foster communication among
residents and to enhance their sense of community.
B. The city of Kent recognizes and supports neighborhood
councils by endorsing a process to establish neighborhood boundaries,
approve neighborhood councils, and provide neighborhood grant matching
program opportunities to make improvements in defined neighborhoods.
C. The Millbrook Heights neighborhood consists of sixteen
households.
D. The Millbrook Heights neighborhood is located on Kent’s East
Hill and is situated generally to the east of 120th Avenue S.E., to the north
9
of S.E. 270th Street, to the west of 121st Place S.E. and to the south of
S.E. 268th Street. The Neighborhood is shown on Exhibit A, attached and
incorporated by this reference.
E. On January 27, 2017, the Millbrook Heights Neighborhood
submitted an official registration form to request that the City recognize
the Millbrook Heights Neighborhood Council and to allow the Neighborhood
to take part in the City’s Neighborhood Program.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. – Recognition of Neighborhood Council. – The City
Council for the city of Kent hereby acknowledges the effort and
commitment of the Millbrook Heights neighborhood and all those who
participated in forming the Millbrook Heights Neighborhood Council. The
Kent City Council hereby recognizes Millbrook Heights Neighborhood
Council as an official Neighborhood Council of the city of Kent, supports
Millbrook Heights Neighborhood Council community building efforts, and
confers on the Millbrook Heights Neighborhood Council all opportunities
offered by the City’s Neighborhood Program.
SECTION 2. – Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this resolution.
SECTION 3. – Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority
and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and
affirmed.
10
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and
be in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the city council of the city
of Kent, Washington, this day of June, 2017.
CONCURRED in by the mayor of the city of Kent this ______ day of
June, 2017.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution
No. passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, the
day of June, 2017.
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Resolution\Neighborhoodcouncilmillbrookheights 9-19
-17.Docx
11
12
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: September 5, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Matt Gilbert, Planning Manager; Adam Long, Assistant City Attorney
RE: SB 5674 – Recent Legislative Amendments to Chapter 58.17 RCW – Final Plat
Procedures
For Meeting of September 11, 2017
SUMMARY:
On April 27, 2017 the Governor signed into law SB 5674. SB 5674 amends Chapter
58.17 RCW relating to the final approval of subdivisions of land.
SB 5674 provides an option for local government to change final plat approval from
a City Council action to an administrative action. Cities, towns, and counties now
have the authority to delegate final plat approval to an agency or appropriate
administrative personnel.
When land is subdivided into 10 or more lots the property owner is required to
advance through 4 general phases of permitting and construction before homes
may be built on the newly subdivided lots. These 4 phases are generally described
as follows:
Phase 1 - Preliminary Plat
Preliminary plat is the first step in subdividing land. It is intended to serve as
the method for a city to ensure consistency with requirements for zoning,
density, lot dimensions, environmental and general engineering requirements.
Preliminary plat applications are reviewed by traffic engineers, utility engineers,
fire, building, planning and development engineers. Preliminary plats trigger a
requirement for a public hearing and assign the final decision to the Hearing
Examiner.
Phase 2 - Civil Engineering Review: Once the Hearing Examiner has
approved the preliminary plat, the applicant may now submit civil engineered
drawings that provide a very fine level of detailed information regarding road
specifications, utility specifications, street lighting, public landscaping, sidewalks,
and grading. The engineered plans are reviewed by traffic engineers, utility
engineers, fire, building, planning and development engineers. Upon a final
determination that the plans meet all of the city’s engineering design and
MOTION: Recommend Council adopt an ordinance amending chapters
12.01 and 12.04 of the city code relating to the procedures used for
processing final plat approvals, and delegating final plat approval
authority to the Planning Director.
13
construction standards the plans are signed by the City Engineer. This
milestone allows the developer to begin construction of the plat.
Phase 3 - Plat Construction: Plat construction consists of completing the
work that is approved within the civil engineering drawings. The developer will
grade the site, install utilities, construct the roads, and install the landscaping,
lighting and sidewalks. Once all of these features are installed/constructed, and
the city inspectors have passed all of the inspections (or bonded for unfinished
features), the public improvements are transferred into city ownership.
Phase 4 - Final Plat: Upon completion of the civil engineering improvements
the applicant can now submit their final plat application. Currently, this process
serves as a close out process before the plat is recorded with the County and
the lots become official lots of record. During the final plat process staff reviews
all of the conditions of approval included in the Hearing Examiner’s decision of
preliminary plat, ensures that all legal descriptions of new lots are correct,
reviews the final plat documents that will be recorded, and ensures that all
necessary easements and covenants are in place. Upon a determination that
the final plat is approvable, staff prepares an ordinance that is presented to City
Council who takes final action to approve the plat. Once the ordinance is
effective the applicant can record the approved documents.
SB 5674 has the effect of amending RCW 58.17 by allowing a municipality to adopt
a local ordinance that modifies the approval process for final plats – the last of the
4 phases described above. In other words, the City of Kent has the option to shift
the final plat approval authority away from City Council and to an administrative
authority, e.g. Mayor, Department Director.
There are two primary advantages to shifting this authority. First, it saves the
applicant between 6 and 8 weeks of time. This is due to the time it takes to
prepare an ordinance, transmit the ordinance to Council, schedule the ordinance
approving the subdivision for City Council action, publishing the action in the
newspaper, and waiting the 5 days for it to become effective. The second
advantage pertains to efficiencies experienced by city staff. It eliminates the need
for staff to prepare an ordinance and agenda bill, for administrative staff to load
materials into the computer system, and for staff to present at City Council. Each
final plat consumes a significant of time for preparation and presentation to City
Council.
Additionally, Council has a very limited ability to deny or modify a final plat because
the quasi-judicial Hearing Examiner process will have already addressed the
majority of significant city code issues during preliminary plat process, and because
the plat has already been fully developed during Phase 3.
On August 28th the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing regarding
this proposed, and subsequently voted to recommend approval without
amendments.
Kent’s SEPA responsible official has determined that the proposed Kent City Code
amendments are procedural in nature, and further SEPA analysis is not required for
these local code amendments.
EXHIBITS: Draft Ordinance; SB 5674
BUDGET IMPACT: None
14
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending chapters 12.01
and 12.04 of the city code, relating to the procedures
used for processing final plat approvals.
RECITALS
A. The City Council has an ongoing interest to simplify land use
decision making and to lower City and customer costs by increasing
efficiency.
B. Kent City Code currently establishes procedures for
processing final plats which include the requirement that final approval of
plats for subdivisions must be given by the City Council. This final approval
by Council is generally seen as merely a technical legal requirement, as
Council has a very limited ability to deny or modify a final plat because the
Hearing Examiner process has already addressed any significant code
compliance issues during the preliminary review process.
C. On April 27, 2017, the Governor signed into law SB 5674
which amends Chapter 58.17 RCW to allow local governments to adopt
procedures that shift final plat approval from a City Council action to an
administrative decision by a specific City official or City department.
D. There are significant advantages to shifting the final plat
approval from Council to an administrative process. It would save
15
substantial time and money for applicants, as well as reduce the
substantial amount of time and resources required to have staff prepare
and present final plats to Council.
E. SB 5674 allows local jurisdictions to make these modifications
through the adoption of an ordinance that may go into effect on or after
July 23, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 12.01.040 of the Kent City
Code is hereby amended to delegate final plat approval to the planning
director as follows:
Sec. 12.01.040 Project permit application framework.
A. Process types. The following table lists the process types, the
corresponding applications, and, parenthetically, the corresponding final
decision maker and appellate body.
Process I Process II Process III Process IV Process V Process VI
Applications: Zoning permit
review (1) (7)
Administrative
design review (1)
(7)
Conditional use
permit (5) (10)
Planned unit
development (6)
(10) with change
of use
Final plat (6 1)
(10)
Zoning of newly
annexed lands (6)
(10)
Performance
standards
procedures (1) (7)
Shoreline
substantial
development
permit (1) (9)
Sign variance (5)
(10)
Special use
combining
district (6) (10)
Area-wide
rezones to
implement new
city policies (6)
(10)
Sign permit (1)
(7)
Accessory
dwelling unit
permit (1) (7)
Special home
occupation
permit (5) (10)
Rezone (6) (10) Comprehensive
plan amendments
(6) (10)
Lot line
adjustment (1) (7)
Administrative
variance (1) (7)
Variance (5) (10) Development
regulations (6)
(10)
Administrative
interpretation (1)
(7)
Downtown design
review, all except
for minor
remodels (3) (7)
Shoreline
conditional use
permit (5) (9)
Zoning map
amendments (6)
(10)
16
Process I Process II Process III Process IV Process V Process VI
Application
conditional
certification
multifamily tax
exemption (12)
(8), all other
multifamily tax
exemption (12)
(7)
Downtown design
review, only
minor remodels
(1) (7)
Shoreline
variance (5) (9)
Zoning text
amendments (6)
(10)
Development
plan review
(planning
director, building
official, or public
works director)
(7)
Midway design
review (1) (7)
Preliminary plat
(5) (10)
Site plan review
(planning
director, building
official, or public
works director)
(7)
Midway design
review (1) (7)
Administrative
approval/WTF (1)
(7)
Binding site plan
(2) (7)
Mobile home
park closure (11)
(7)
Short subdivision
(4) (7)
Planned unit
development (5)
(10) without a
change of use
(1) Final decision made by planning director.
(2) Final decision by binding site plan committee.
(3) Final decision made by downtown design review committee.
(4) Final decision made by short subdivision committee.
(5) Final decision made by hearing examiner.
(6) Final decision made by city council.
(7) Appeal to hearing examiner.
(8) Appeal to city council.
(9) Appeal to shoreline hearings board.
(10) No administrative appeals.
(11) Final decision made by manager of housing and
human services.
(12) Final decision made by economic and
community development director.
B. Process procedures. The following table lists the process types and
the corresponding procedures.
Project Permit Applications (Processes I – V) Legislative
Process I Process II Process III Process IV Process V Process VI
Notice of
application:
Yes, for
projects
requiring SEPA
review
Yes, for
projects
requiring SEPA
review, short
plats, and
shoreline
substantial
development
permits
Yes No No
Recommendation
made by:
N/A N/A N/A Hearing examiner N/A Land use and
planning board
Final decision
made by:
Planning
director,
Planning
director,
Hearing
examiner
City council,
based upon record
City
council Planning
City council
17
Project Permit Applications (Processes I – V) Legislative
Process I Process II Process III Process IV Process V Process VI
building
official, public
works director,
economic and
community
development
director, or
manager of
housing and
human services
as applicable
downtown
design review
committee,
binding site
plan committee,
or short
subdivision
committee, as
noted in
subsection (A)
of this section
made before
hearing examiner
director
Open record
appeal:
Yes, if
appealed, then
before hearing
examiner
Yes, if
appealed, then
before hearing
examiner
No No No No
Open record
hearing:
No No Yes, before
hearing
examiner to
make final
decision
Yes, before
hearing examiner
to make
recommendation
to council
No Yes, before land
use and planning
board to make
recommendation
to city council,
and/or before city
council
Reconsideration: No No Yes, of
hearing
examiner’s
decision
Yes, of hearing
examiner’s
recommendation
No No
Closed record
appeal:
Only if appeal
of denial of
multifamily
conditional
certificate, then
before the city
council
Only if
appealed, then
before the
shoreline
hearings board
if applicable
Only if
appealed, then
before the
shoreline
hearings board
if applicable
No No No
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sec. 12.04.035 City functions.
A. Planning services office. The planning services office is responsible
for the administration and coordination of this chapter unless another
department or division is authorized to administer and enforce a specific
section.
B. Department of public works. The department of public works is
responsible for reviewing all engineering and technical requirements of
this chapter.
18
C. Fire department. The fire department is responsible for reviewing all
fire access and fire safety requirements of this chapter.
D. Department of parks and recreation. The department of parks and
recreation is responsible for reviewing all parks and open space dedication
requirements of this chapter.
E. Short subdivision committee. The short subdivision committee is
authorized to hold a public meeting and make a final decision on all short
subdivision plats.
F. Binding site plan committee. The binding site plan committee is
authorized to hold a public meeting and make a final decision on all
binding site plans.
G. Hearing examiner. The hearing examiner is authorized to hold a
public hearing and make a final decision on subdivision preliminary plats.
H. City council. The city council shall conduct any closed record appeal
from a hearing examiner’s final decision on a subdivision preliminary plat.
The city council planning director shall have sole authority to approve
subdivision final plats. An appeal of a final plat decision shall be in superior
court.
Sec. 12.04.115 Application procedures.
An application for a subdivision or short subdivision consists of the
following steps:
1. Preparation of the tentative plat of the proposed subdivision or Type
II short subdivision and submission of an application for a pre-
application conference;
19
2. Review of the tentative plat for pre-application conference by the
city and convene a meeting with the city resulting in the issuance of a
pre-application conference summary letter;
3. Preparation and submission of the preliminary plat of the proposed
subdivision to the hearing examiner for a public hearing and decision,
or preparation and submission of the preliminary plat of the proposed
short subdivision to the short subdivision committee for a public
meeting and decision;
4. Installation or bonding of improvements according to the approved
preliminary subdivision or short subdivision requirements and
satisfaction of all plat conditions;
5. Submission of the subdivision final plat to the city council planning
director for approval, or submission of the short subdivision final plat
to the short subdivision committee chairman for approval;
6. Recordation of the approved final plat in the office of the King
County department of records and elections.
Sec. 12.04.210 Filing the final plat.
A. A final plat or final short plat shall be prepared by a professional
land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington, based on the
Washington State Plane Coordination System, and be submitted to
planning services along with all forms required and with the number of
originals and copies requested.
B. The final plat or final short plat submitted for filing shall comply with
the conditions of preliminary approval and Chapter 58.09 RCW, Chapter
332-130 WAC, and Chapter 58.17 RCW. The original drawing shall be in
black ink on mylar or photographic mylar.
20
C. In addition to other requirements as specified in this section, the
final plat or final short plat shall contain or be accompanied by the
following:
1. Signature of the owner of the property on the face of the final plat
or final short plat mylar;
2. A notarized certificate of the owner, contract purchaser, grantor of a
deed of trust, or other holder of beneficial title to the property being
subdivided indicating that the subdivision or short subdivision is made
with free consent and in accordance with their desires, and if the
subdivision or short subdivision is subject to deeding of property, the
notarized certificate shall be signed by all parties having any ownership
interest in the lands subdivided. For purposes of this section,
ownership interest shall include legal and equitable property interests,
including, but not limited to, present, future, contingent, or whole fee
interests, together with a beneficiary’s interest pursuant to a trust and
contract interest pursuant to a specifically enforceable contract for the
purchase of the real property;
3. Certification by the responsible health agencies that the methods of
sewage disposal and water service are acceptable;
4. Certification by the public works department that the subdivider has
complied with either of the following alternatives:
a. All improvements have been installed in accordance with the
requirements of these regulations; or
b. Certain improvements have been deferred according to KCC
12.04.205(D), deferred improvements;
5. The subdivider shall furnish the city a current plat or short plat
certificate or title report from a title insurance company, produced no
more than forty-five (45) calendar days prior to final plat or final short
plat application, that documents the ownership and title of all
interested parties in the plat or short plat, subdivision, short
subdivision, or dedication and that lists all liens and encumbrances.
21
The legal description in the title report shall be identical to the legal
description on the face of the plat or short plat. The city reserves the
right to require updates of the certificate or title report at any time
prior to signing the final plat or final short plat by the short subdivision
committee chairman;
6. Any person signing for a corporation must provide documentation
that shows they have the authority to execute on behalf of the said
corporation;
7. Copies of any restrictive covenants as may be used in the
subdivision or short subdivision;
8. Certification of approval to be signed by the King County assessor;
9. Certification of approval to be signed by the King County recorder;
10. Certificate of approval by the chairman of the short subdivision
committee;
11. Copies of any bylaws for a homeowners’ association, if created;
12. Approved printed computer lot closure on all lots, alleys, and
boundaries.
D. All subdivisions and short subdivisions shall be surveyed by a land
surveyor licensed in the state of Washington. All lot, tract, parcel, and
right-of-way corners and angle points shall be set in accordance with
Chapter 58.09 RCW. Street monuments shall be in accordance with city of
Kent design and construction standards and shall be installed per those
same standards. Sufficient intervisible monuments shall be set to ensure
that any property within the subdivision or short subdivision can be readily
resurveyed at a later time or as may be specified by the public works
department. All final plats and final short plats shall be based on at least
two city of Kent horizontal control points and reference the North
American Datum of 1983/1991 Adjustment (NAD 83/91) or its successor
as may be adopted by the public works department survey section.
22
E. If any utility companies and/or utility districts have existing
easements within the proposed plat or short plat, the applicant or its
assigns shall have these easements removed or shall have their rights
subordinated to the city of Kent if they fall within dedicated right-of-way
or tracts for public use.
F. The final plat or final short plat must be submitted to planning
services for review as to compliance with all terms of the preliminary
approval; terms of bonding or the completion of all improvements; and
completeness and accuracy of survey data and platting requirements.
G. Before a final short plat is filed with King County, it shall be signed
by the chairman of the short subdivision committee when the plat is
determined to be in compliance with all applicable short subdivision
requirements.
H. After all final plat conditions for a subdivision have been
met, planning services shall set a date for a public meeting for the city
council planning director to consider the final plat.
I. Before the final plat of a subdivision is submitted to the city council,
it shall be signed by the city engineer, city finance director, and planning
director. After the final plat is approved by the city council, it shall be
signed by the mayor and the city finance director.
JI. An approved final plat or short plat shall be filed for record with
King County and shall not be deemed approved until filed.
KJ. A conformed copy of the recorded plat or short plat shall be filed
with planning services and the public works department.
23
Sec. 12.04.221 Subdivision preliminary plat expiration.
A. Subdivision preliminary plat approval shall remain valid for that
period of time specified in Chapter 58.17 RCW, plus one year. During this
period, an applicant must submit a final plat based on the preliminary plat,
or any phase thereof, and meeting all of the requirements of this chapter
and Chapter 58.17 RCW, to the city council for approval, or the
preliminary plat shall lapse and become void.
B. For preliminary plats approved between January 1, 2008, and
December 31, 2008, one extension of 15 months shall be granted to an
applicant who files a written request for extension with the economic and
community development department prior to the expiration of the
preliminary plat’s validity period, as provided in subsection (A) of this
section.
C. In the case of a phased subdivision, final plat approval by the city
council planning director of any phase of the subdivision preliminary plat
will constitute an automatic one-year extension for the filing of the final
plat for the next phase of the subdivision.
Sec. 12.04.223 Decision on subdivision final plat.
The city council planning director shall approve, disapprove, or return the
final plat to the applicant for modification and/or correction within thirty
(30) calendar days of the date of the city’s determination of acceptance of
the final plat application, unless the applicant consents to an extension of
such time period.
Sec. 12.04.225 Subdivision final plat expiration.
24
If a final plat has not been submitted for recording within six (6) months
after approval by the city council planning director, the plat shall expire
and be null and void. One (1) extension of no longer than six (6) months
may be granted by the city council planning director. To revitalize a plat
that has expired under this section, the plat shall be resubmitted as a
preliminary plat.
Sec. 12.04.227 Procedure for alteration of a subdivision or
short subdivision.
A. An applicant requesting to alter a subdivision or short subdivision or
any portion thereof, except as provided in KCC 12.04.230, shall submit a
plat alteration application to the permit center. The application shall be
accompanied by such submittal requirements as described in the
application form, and applicable fees, and shall contain the signatures of
all persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or
divisions within the subdivision or short subdivision or in that portion to be
altered.
B. The planning director shall have the authority to determine whether
the proposed alteration constitutes a minor or major alteration. Major
alterations are those that are not in response to staff review or public
appeal and substantially change the basic design, increase the number of
lots, substantially decrease open space, substantially change conditions of
subdivision or short subdivision approval, or other similar requirements or
provisions. Minor alterations are those that make minor changes to
engineering design or lot dimensions, decrease the number of lots to be
created, or increase open space, or other similar minor changes. Major
alterations shall be treated as new applications for purposes of vesting.
C. If the subdivision or short subdivision is subject to restrictive
covenants which were filed at the time of the approval, and the application
25
for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application
shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants
providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant
covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivision or
short subdivision or any portion thereof.
D. If the alteration is requested prior to final plat or final short plat
review and signature, a minor alteration may be approved with consent of
the planning and the public works directors. A major plat or short plat
alteration shall require consent of the short subdivision committee for
short subdivisions or the hearing examiner for subdivisions after public
notice and a public meeting or hearing is held. Planning services shall
provide notice of the application for a major plat or short plat alteration to
all owners of property within the subdivision or short subdivision, all
parties of record, and as was required by the original subdivision or short
subdivision application. The planning director shall have the authority to
determine whether the proposed alteration constitutes a minor or major
alteration pursuant to subsection (B) of this section.
E. If the alteration is requested after final plat or final short plat review
and signature, but prior to filing the final plat or final short plat with King
County, a plat or short plat alteration may be approved with consent of
the short subdivision committee for short subdivisions or the city
council planning director for subdivisions. Upon receipt of an application
for alteration, planning services shall provide notice of the application to
all owners of property within the subdivision or short subdivision, all
parties of record, and as was required by the original application. The
notice shall establish a date for a public meeting or hearing.
F. If the alteration is requested after filing the final plat or final short
plat with King County, a minor plat or short plat alteration may be
26
approved with consent of the short subdivision committee in the case of
short subdivisions or the city council planning director for subdivisions. If
the planning director determines that the proposed alteration is a major
alteration, pursuant to subsection (B) of this section, then the planning
director may require replatting pursuant to this chapter. Upon receipt of
an application for alteration, planning services shall provide notice of the
application to all owners of property within the subdivision or short
subdivision, all parties of record, and as was required by the subdivision or
short subdivision plat application. The notice shall establish a date for a
public meeting or hearing.
G. The city shall determine the public use and interest in the proposed
alteration and may deny or approve the application for alteration. If any
land within the alteration is part of an assessment district, any
outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and levied against the
remaining lots, parcels, or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots
resulting from the alteration. If any land within the alteration contains a
dedication to the general use of persons residing within the subdivision,
such land may be altered and divided equitably between adjacent
properties.
H. After approval of the alteration, the city shall order the applicant to
produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the subdivision or
short subdivision, which after signature the final plat or final short plat
shall be filed with King County to become the lawful plat or short plat of
the property.
I. This section shall not be construed as applying to the alteration or
replatting of any plat or short plat of state-granted shore lands.
27
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.
SECTION 4. – Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
28
PASSED: day of , 201__.
APPROVED: day of , 201__.
PUBLISHED: day of , 201__.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved
by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
KIMBERLEY A. KOMOTO, CITY CLERK
29
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: September 11, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Hayley Bonsteel, AICP, Senior Long Range Planner
RE: Mixed Use Regulations
For Meeting of September 11, 2017
SUMMARY: The retail requirement for mixed use development in Kent’s zoning
code has been a challenge to potential projects in our Community Commercial and
General Commercial mixed use overlay areas. Additionally, the nature of retail is
changing with the rise of online shopping, and suburban cities across the country
are challenged to adapt to the changing needs of brick and mortar commerce. In
recognition of these facts, staff has been researching mixed use regulation options
and would like to present an overview of important considerations and possible
directions to go in revising the regulations.
Staff will be available at the September 11th committee meeting to discuss this
multifaceted topic and receive direction on next steps from the Committee.
EXHIBITS: PowerPoint Attachment
BUDGET IMPACT: None
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director
P:\Planning\Hayley\Urban Design, Mixed Use\ECDC Memo Mixed Use Direction 9.11.17.doc
MOTION: None Required. For Information Only
30
MIXED USE REGULATIONS
ECDC 9/11/17
31
OUTLINE
Where we are and how we got here
Lessons learned from recent development
Possible directions to go from here
32
WHERE WE ARE AND HOW WE GOT HERE
Early zoning efforts centered around separating noxious
industrial uses from residences
Separating uses too much is now known to be inefficient use
of land
Trade areas shrinking; more intensive residential population
needed to justify commercial use
More flexible as market conditions change
33
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF MIXED USE
Lower infrastructure costs
Increased tax revenue
Operating budget cost savings
Save individuals money on transportation by reducing
length and number of everyday trips
Support local businesses by increasing foot traffic
34
PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF MIXED USE
Increase
physical activity
Increase social
connectedness
Data from King County
Ke
n
t
Ke
n
t
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Obesity No Exercise
Percent of Population with Chronic Health Factors
35
CURRENT REGULATIONS
CCMU:
> 2 acres: 25% of building floor area must be permitted commercial use
< 2 acres: 5% of building floor area must be permitted commercial use
GCMU:
Downtown: 25% of building floor area must be permitted commercial
use
Outside of Downtown: 5% of building floor area must be permitted
commercial use
36
MIXED USE
ZONES IN
KENT
37
LESSONS FROM RECENT DEVELOPMENT
The Platform Apartments
Downtown (not MU overlay)
Leasable retail = 0.7% of building floor area
Residential services = 1% of floor area
38
LESSONS FROM RECENT DEVELOPMENT
The Reserve at Kent
Senior housing, downtown (not MU overlay)
Residential services = 3.8% of building area
Several residential units on first floor
39
MU overlay has existed for 20 years
No mixed use projects have been constructed in the MU overlay
Several Pre-App proposals did not move forward due to 5% or 25% retail requirement
Leasing challenges even downtown, with <1% retail
Active uses and pedestrian-oriented building design can create attractive streetscape
Lower retail percentage is not the answer
Flexibility needed to accommodate the changing market
LESSONS FROM RECENT DEVELOPMENT
40
POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS
FORM-BASED
GUIDELINES FLEXIBLE SPACE
DESIGNED WITH
RETAIL IN MIND
CONTRIBUTE TO
USE MIX IN AREA
PROHIBIT GROUND
FLOOR RESIDENTIAL
COMPREHENSIVE
INVENTORY AND
ASSESSMENT OF
MIXED USE AND
COMMERICAL AREAS COMBINATION OF
OPTIONS
DESIGNATE STREETS TO FOCUS RETAIL
INCREMENTAL
APPROACH WITH PHASED
STAGES
41
NEXT STEPS
More ECDC presentations on:
How other cities do mixed use
Successful projects we can learn from
More detailed look at economic implications
42
FEDERAL WAY LINK EXTENSION
Stakeholder Workshop Summary
43
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 20
Kent/Des Moines Station Area Workshop
Meeting Purpose
Sound Transit staff updated workshop
participants on the project’s progress and
asked for input on the aesthetics and design
qualities of the Kent/Des Moines Station.
Breakout groups provided input on the
station entrance plaza, parking garage, and
station canopies. Workshop goals included
identifying design treatment preferences
and sharing future input opportunities.
Highline College Des Moines, WA
May 22, 2017
44
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 21
Q
A
Q
A
Project overview and update
Dan Abernathy, Federal Way Link Extension
(FWLE) Executive project director reviewed project
background, updates, and upcoming milestones.
Since the project began in 2012, the FWLE project
has reached several major milestones. The agency
published the project’s Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) in November 2016. The
Sound Transit Board selected the Project to Build
in January 2017. Most recently, the Federal Transit
Administration issued the Record of Decision,
enabling Sound Transit to advance the Preferred
Alternative to fi nal design.
Instead of the typical design-bid-build approach,
Sound Transit has chosen a design-build contract
method for this project. Sound Transit selected the
design-build approach for this project because it
allows for more cost predictability and could speed
up the timeline for construction. As the owner in a
design-build contract, Sound Transit can maintain
a substantial level of control over project design by
adding specifi c and focused Project Requirements
to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for a design-build
contractor. The station planning workshops will
help Sound Transit identify community preferences
for aesthetic elements of the station areas, and
Sound Transit will incorporate those preferences
into the project requirements for consideration
during fi nal design.
Zac Eskenazi, the FWLE Community Outreach
Specialist, reviewed the FWLE Outreach approach
to date. His team has engaged the community
through neighborhood-specifi c and general
outreach. The Community Outreach team will
continue its work for the duration of the summer. By
consulting with the community and stakeholders,
Sound Transit will determine the appropriate
staging, access, and other construction details to
include in its Request for Proposal (RFP).
Workshop participants asked questions after the
presentation:
What is the timeline for naming the station?
After the design-build procurement, Sound
Transit will know enough about the station
aesthetics to create a subset of three or four
station names. The community will have the
opportunity for input. The name(s) with the
strongest support will be highly considered
by the Sound Transit Board.
If all the students at Highline College can
vote on a station name, that will give them
an unfair advantage. How will Sound Transit
balance the input?
Sound Transit will broadly engage the
community and take all input into
consideration.
45
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 22
Station Architecture and Art
Sound Transit staff prepared workshop participants
for the small group discussion by describing the
area surrounding the Kent/Des Moines Station and
explaining the diff erent architectural elements up
for discussion. They shared images of other light
rail stations to help illustrate concepts.
Sound Transit staff highlighted elements of
continuity between stations along the alignment,
including station layout, families of treatments and
materials, and Sound Transit signage. Elements
that will diff erentiate between stations include
station type, art, and other features derived with
the benefi t of community input.
Sound Transit staff also shared examples of station
architecture designed for Sound Transit’s East Link
Extension corridor. Each station design in the East
Link Extension project incorporates elements from
stakeholder input gathered at workshops like this
one.
Project staff also introduced the Sound Transit
Art Program (STArt). For each station along the
FWLE alignment, Sound Transit will incorporate
art that refl ects the surrounding community look
and feel. To fi nd public art that represents each
community the project will touch, Sound Transit
has been researching the signifi cant locations,
history, people, organizations, and values of each
community.
Sound Transit staff invited workshop participants to
write down and share what they value most in their
community and where they see their community
in the future. Sound Transit will compile this
information and use it to help inform selection of
local artists to produce the public art for the station
area.
Q
A
Workshop participants asked questions after the
presentation:
In the map of the station area that shows
opportunities to locate art, I am curious why
the space between Highline College and
SR 99 is circled. We consider that to be an
integral part of the station area.
Sound Transit would like to integrate art
into the corridor as much as possible. Sound
Transit is hosting this workshop to solicit this
type of feedback. The project team will take
your comment into consideration.
Stakeholders at the Kent/Des Moines workshop
highlighted their pride in the community’s diverse
cultures, Puget Sound, and mountain views.
They shared hopes for the improvement of the
community’s connectivity to the region, walkability,
and education.
46
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 23
Q
A
Q
A
In the presentation, you described a process
for researching our community’s signifi cant
locations, history, people, and values. How do
you defi ne the geographic area to research?
This station area is at the convergence of a
number of diff erent communities, and it may
be challenging to defi ne the geographic
boundaries and then identify common
threads across these communities.
Determining the geographic area for station
research is more of an art than a science.
Sound Transit is considering multiple ways
to defi ne the community and focus on the
larger themes across the area. To ensure all
communities are included, Sound Transit
is broadly defi ning the sphere considered
for community research. So far the agency
has focused on local cities, social service
organizations, and the Lutheran Community
Services in SeaTac. Any decisions about
the location of art will be informed by
community input and research.
Is Sound Transit considering future growth
in the project area? I think the garage will be
too small as soon as it is built.
Sound Transit is planning based on estimated
ridership in 2040. Meeting parking needs
has and will continue to be an important
discussion as we move through design; the
challenge for Sound Transit is fi nding the
right balance. More parking encourages
more vehicles, which can overload the
city streets and create massive grid lock.
The agency continues to have an internal
dialogue addressing ST3’s impact on the
project area. Even though there are budget
constraints, Sound Transit would like to
do everything possible to answer parking
needs. This is exactly the kind of feedback
the agency was hoping to gather from
stakeholder workshops.
Q
A
Is it possible to invite neighborhood
representatives to the S 272nd Station
Planning workshop? This is a mostly
residential area and neighbors may want to
have input.
The project team aims to engage everyone
aff ected by the FWLE project. We would like
input on how best to engage the community
surrounding the S 272nd Station, and we are
open to hosting a workshop similar to this
one to gather area-specifi c feedback from
nearby residents.
47
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 24
Breakout Groups
Workshop participants split into three groups.
A facilitator guided each group, and a scribe
took detailed notes on input from workshop
participants. The facilitator shared images of
diff erent canopies, garages, and station plazas.
They asked workshop participants to react to the
images and explain whether certain elements were
more or less appropriate in the Kent/Des Moines
Station area. The result of the exercise will inform
project architects in the development of Project
Requirements for the RFP.
The following section describes workshop
participants’ reactions to the images.
FWLE station canopies (corridor-wide)
General comments:
• Transparent windows at Angle Lake Station are
a good model
• Logging out of Des Moines is important cultural
history and could be refl ected in designs and
art
• Draw inspiration from Puget Sound and
Mountains
• Would like urban design with vegetation
• Should be compatible with neighboring
residential uses (current/future), e.g., provide a
positive view when looked at from a residential
unit above.
48
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 25
1
2
Raceway for systems and drainage on the outside of the canopy
Glass canopy in the center of the canopy
South Bellevue Station - Bellevue, WA
Photo Source: Sound Transit
A 1
2
Photo Source: Kylie Christian of Hyperion Design
Olympic Park Station - Sydney, Australia
1
2
Combination of open and solid canopy
Materials with accent color
1
2
B
Positives:
• Transparency for safety and natural light
• Maximum coverage for weather protection
• Modern design that was sleek and clean
looking was attractive
• Visibility across and through the station
• Name on columns was preferred to limit visual
clutter and to help the signs stand out
Negatives:
• None listed
Positives:
• Wood materials demonstrate logging history in
Des Moines cultural history
• Maximum coverage for weather protection
and color of canopy
Negatives:
• None listed
49
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 26
C
Buckner Station - Dallas, TX
Photo Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority
1
2
3
1
2
3
Tall center columns with suspension rods
Curved roofline
Soild metal canopy
D
Lynnwood Station - Lynnwood, WA
Photo Source: Sound Transit
1
2
Glass canopy at the perimeter
Raceway for systems and drainage at the center of the canopy
1
2
Positives:
• Shape is interesting and provides more
coverage for weather protection
Negatives:
• Curves accentuate linearity; the roofl ine
appears to accentuate the platform length but
if there was a way to break up the canopy that
might help
• Hiding spaces behind columns could
compromise personal safety
Positives:
• Maximum coverage for weather protection
• Grid is more adaptable to a variety of settings
• Modern look and feel, simple and clean
appearance
Negatives:
• Hard to keep glass clean
50
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 27
E
Main Street Station - Bellevue, WA
Photo Source: Sound Transit
1
2
Glass canopy with butterfly roofline
Patterned and colored metal accent walls
1
2
F
Photo Source: Light Rail Now.org
Hoboken Terminal - Jersey City, NJ
1
2
Staggered roofline
Architectural details in steel structure
2
1
Positives:
• More human scale
• Maximum coverage for weather protection
• Natural light from transparent cover
• Creates more of a sense of place
• Natural materials make it look warm and
colorful
Negatives:
• Hard to keep glass clean
• Too open and high to protect from weather
Positives:
• Maximum coverage for weather protection
Negatives:
• Design seems dated and unrefi ned
51
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 28
N
Enlarged Conceptual South Plaz
Construction
Staging/
Potential Future
Opportunities 30
t
h
A
v
e
S
S 236th St
S 238th St
St
a
t
i
o
n
South Plaza (at S 238th St)
General comments:
• Interest in activated space to engage the
community, but keep it safe
• Consider space for food trucks
• Places for popup booths, community resources,
and food truck space
• Find ways to incorporate “safety yellow” into
other elements besides warning strip
• Use gray, green, and blue (Highline College
colors) color scheme
• Localized source of information on college
resources/activities
• Connect aesthetics with features from other
stations
• Landscaping feature like a park
• Need to better defi ne a plaza user
• Less shrubbery is okay if landscaping is off to
the side and not cluttering or distracting from
that walkway. Concern with maintenance,
leaves on walkway, and places to hide.
• Plaza should create a feeling or experience,
through music or activity, water feature, or
recorded sound
• Lighting under the guideway to provide safety
at night
• Weather protection
• Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) features important
• Plaza design should be coordinated with transit-
oriented development (TOD) developer(s) that
purchase adjacent properties
52
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 29
SEART Sylvia Park - Auckland, New Zealand
Photo Source: LAUD 8
1
2
A
3
1
2
3
Colors to enhance under structure area
Clear and well-defined pathway to station
Art opportunities to activate the space
Photo Source: WACA
East Bay Public Plaza - Olympia, WA
B
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
Bio-rentention feature
Natural materials as primary design feature
Paving details to enhance pathway
Stones blending in walkway
4
Positives:
• Columns could be interpretation of Highline
College “thunderbird” Totem poles
• Lights could be nice in an otherwise gray
concrete environment
• Color is good if displayed through lights
Negatives:
• Dark like an overpass
• Do not paint colors onto columns because past
experience with color concrete has not been
good, color match not similar to renderings or
color faded and looked poor over time
Positives:
• Patch of nature provides tranquility and
peaceful space
Negatives:
• Vegetation may be a maintenance problem
• Not enough seating
• CPTED concerns
53
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 30
C
Beekman Plaza - Manhattan, NY
Photo Source: James Corner Field Operations
1
2
3
Planting bed with seat wall and lighting integrated
Distinctive paving pattern and seating amenities
Modern industrial look and feel
1
2
3
D
1
2
Curvilinear seatwall
Natural materials buffer
San Diego International Airport - San Diego, CA
Photo Source: Delle Willett
2
1
Positives:
• Benches are nice addition
• Like the low benches that could interpreted as
a sculpture
• Potential for totem poles as part of design?
Negatives:
• Would need barriers to prevent skateboarders
Positives:
• Curved seat wall is nice – incorporates
inspiration from waves in the Sound
• Maximum space for people, no large swaths of
landscaping
Negatives:
• 80’s style does not fi t with surrounding area
• Looks like California, which is inconsistent with
look and feel of surrounding area
54
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 31
All photos and illustrations are for workshop discussion purposes only.
Phase II
by
Others
g
Place
by
Others
Potential Future
Opportunities
Potential Future
Opportunities
12’
Westbound
12’
Turn Lane
12’
Bus Only
Lane
12’
Bus Only
Lane
12’
Eastbound
6’
Passenger
Run Zone
6’
Passenger
Run Zone
6’
Passenger
Amenity Zone
6’
Passenger
Amenity Zone
S 236th St Cross Section - Looking East
(Between SR 99 and 30th Ave S )B
12’
Ped/Bike
path
12’
sidewalk
Elevated Guideway Beyond
Landscape Buffer/
Bioretention
Parking
Garage
12’
Westbound
12’
Turn Lane
12’
Bus Layover
Area
12’
Bus Layover
Area
10’
Sidewalk &
Landscape
10’
Sidewalk &
Landscape
12’
Eastbound
C S 236th St Cross Section - Looking East
B C
A
A S 236th St Cross Section - Looking East
(Between Highline College East Parking Lot and SR 99)
24’
Sidewalk & landscape
~40’
Sidewalk & landscape
Highline Place Development 12’
Turn Lane
12’
Eastbound
12’
Westbound
S 236th St
Bioretention
Construction Staging/
Potential Future
Opportunities
N
Connection to Highline College
Integration with future development
New signalized intersection
Station entry plaza Corner plaza adjacent to parking garage
Bio-retention area
King County Metro bus layover area
Integration with King County Metro bus stops
S 236th St
S 236th StS 236th St
SR
9
9
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
30
t
h
A
v
e
S
30
t
h
A
v
e
S
Parking Garage
Highline College
Highline Place
Construction Staging/
Potential Future
Opportunities
236th Corridor
General comments:
• Incorporate more hangout space
• Consider Highline College coordination
• Driveway confl icts
• Campus planting with streetscape
integration include Highline College
standards
• Safety/traffi c signal at Highline entrance
• Width of lanes at college are very wide,
so extend crossing times for pedestrians
• No access from college side
• Keep landscape consistent like example B,
but model after example A. Organized bike
path and ped path is desired like B, but lush
landscaping of in A was preferred.
• Integrate building frontage with pedestrian
experience
• Design for safe walking at any time of day
• Direct routes for people in a hurry
• Integrate with future urban design and TOD
access on S 236th
• Lush landscaping and seating, avoid falling
leaves and roots
• Low shrubs to create a protective barrier
• Create social service hub in development to
reduce stigma and honor current residents
• Need for KC Metro operations and management
discussion for locations of bus stops, signs,
shelters etc.
• Needs to be supportive or in coordination
with adjacent development in terms of design
features, landscaping, and vehicular access
points.
• Concern with bike speed and traffi c mix with
pedestrians
• Do not make it skateboard friendly
• Emphasis on “short-term” seating, rather than
creating a gathering place where people will
stay for a long time
• Lots of natural light
55
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 32
A
Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus - Buffalo, NY
Photo Source: Scapestudio
1
2
3
1
2
3
Flowing landscape with streetscape
Integrated seatwalls with planters
Mixed zones of pedestrian and bike use
2
2
3
A1
A2
A3
Bental V Public Plaza - Vancouver, BC
Photo Source: PWL partnership
TBD
Photo Source: TBD
Pier 4 Plaza - Boston, MA
Photo Source: Mikyoung Kim Design
1
3
B
Indianapolis Cultural Trail - Indianapolis, IN
Photo Source: Rundell Ernstberger Associates, LLC
1
2
3
Rectilinear paths and planters
Separation between pedestrian and bike paths
Integration of adjacent development
3
1
2
1
1
B1
B2
B3
Lonsdale Street - Dandenong, Australia
Photo Source: John Gollings
University of Washington - Seattle, WA
Photo Source: Mithun
Portland State University - Portland, OR
Photo Source: In Situ Architecture
1
2
Positives:
• Nice entry experience to Highline College;
prefer the look and feel of this streetscape and
variety of spaces as opposed to the rigidity of
Example B
• Alternating color of paving pattern, so there
would not have to be decision of color
• Spaces to allow community to gather
• Circuluar seating to face one another
• Allows for bike and pedestrian shared path
• Provides pockets for pedestrian areas
• Like path in A1, but straighten it out
Negatives:
• Not appearing as a direct connection between
the station and the college
• Grass would have maintenance requirements
• Ineffi cient paths
• Bricks and uneven surfaces harder for visually
impaired
Positives:
• Obvious and clear transit connections
• Separation of bikes and pedestrians
• Use of diff erent colors
• B2 – Off ers weather protection
• B3 has urban feel
• At-grade landscaping is more open
Negatives:
• B1 and B3 appears too blocky and institutional
• B2 – paving looks uneven
• Bare, suburban style inconsistent with
surrounding area
• No grass
• Limited space for bike and pedestrian path
56
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 33
Tessiner Platz - Zurich, Switzerland
Photo Source: floornature.com
1
Neuruppin - Germany
Photo Source: HRADIL Landscape Architecture
2
Mary Bartelme Park - Chicago, IL
Photo Source: Site Design Group
3
NW 10th Ave - Portland, OR
Photo Source: landperspectives.com
4
Positives:
• Works in color on the wall of the planter which
could continue the theme of the other station
elements
Negatives:
• None listed
Positives:
• Non-slip boardwalk by using wood and texture
• Locally-sourced materials
Negatives:
• Too monotone and gray
Urban Design Elements
General comments:
• Locally-sourced materials that are easy to
replace
• Benches are better under a cover
• Choose designs that deter homeless
encampment
• No hiding space with bushes and shrubs
Positives:
• Generous plantings provide appealing green
space
• Texture makes the space look like a destination
Negatives:
• None listed
Positives:
• None listed
Negatives:
• None listed
57
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 34
5
Milan Condominium - Ontario
Photo Source: Unilock.com
North Point Gateway - Cambridge, MA
Photo Source: Landworks Studio
6
Pier 4 Plaza - Boston, MA
Photo Source: Mikyoung Kim Design
7
Lonsdale Street - Dandenong, Australia
Photo Source: John Gollings
8
Positives:
• Walls nice to separate walkways
• Sculptural seating adds visual interest
• Integrated seating that faces inward instead of
outward
Negatives:
• Pavement is too busy looking
Positives:
• Nice wood features
• Integrated lighting
• Light and visual connection critical
• Material is perfect to give this a college feel
• Material articulation for new, fun, and edgy
• Good mix of low shrubs as a canopy
• Benches can be constructed of another material
as well
Negatives:
• None listed
Positives:
• More innovative and geometric
Negatives:
• None listed
Positives:
• More innovative and geometric
• Walkway has dimension while still being neutral
• Grass patches are appealing
• Pervious pavement could be incorporated into
this design as part of an overall stormwater
strategy
Negatives:
• None listed
58
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 35
9
Boston University - Boston, MA
Photo Source: campuskitofparts.com
University of Washington - Seattle, WA
Photo Source: metropolitangardens.blogspot.com
10
Park at Lakeshore East - Chicago, IL
Photo Source: Unilock.com
11
University of Washington - Seattle, WA
Photo Source: SvR Design
12
Positives:
• Nice organization – like the arrangement and
predictability of spaces created as one moves
along the sidewalk, partially due to the paving
pattern
• Walls that create gathering and sitting areas
• Varied pattern adds visual interest
Negatives:
• Non-obvious landscaping with benches and
meeting area
• Contrast between vegetation and urban. More
integration of vegetation into the path
Positives:
• Leaning rails for riders who do not have long
waits, and will not attract homeless for longer-
term stays
• Walls that create gathering and sitting area
Negatives:
• None listed
Positives:
• None listed
Negatives:
• Good brick “look,” but does not look like Seattle
• Brick reads more like historical and traditional
campus while Highline College is more
innovative and traditional
Positives:
• Youthful and edgy
• Canopy to protect from rain
• Locally sourced materials
Negatives:
• None listed
59
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 36
N
Enlarged Conceptual Station Plaza
30
t
h
A
v
e
S
Parking Garage
S 236th St
Garage
General comments:
• Cover up large dark openings
• Pedestrian experience should be prioritized
over the car experience
• Integrate art screening
• Canopy good for weather protection, sidewalks,
and entries
• Canopy needs to match garage theme
• If viewable from I-5, it may require review by
WSDOT and FHWA
• Possibility for art with moving parts and features
and colors without causing health issues
• Be good neighbor to potential future transit-
oriented development (TOD)
• Need more understanding of the look and feel
of bio retention
• Vegetative screening fi ts in with the landscape
and residential neighborhood feel
• Do not know what other area buildings will
look like, so it is diffi cult to say which look and
feel is the right fi t
• CPTED vegetation and solid walls with no
hiding places is a priority
• Preserve mountain views
60
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 37
A
15th and Pearl - Boulder, CO
Photo Source: RNL
1
2
3
1
2
3
Stone and brick facade
Canopy at entry
Blends in with surrounding buildings
B
Photo Source: BergerABAM
Angle Lake Station - SeaTac, WA
1
2
4
1
2
3
4
Colorful and lively screening
Variation in facade depth
Design is a bold statement when viewed from street and train
Minimal pedestrian features at street level
3
Positives:
• Design helps to integrate garage into adjacent
urban buildings, looks like TOD
• Use of brick and concrete provides visual
interest
• Design is fl exible enough to mix and match
with other Sound Transit buildings
Negatives:
• Not compatible with other buildings, brick has
an historical aesthetic
• Open staircase
• Looks older, or like fi re station
• Needs more design elements around windows
for visual interest
Positives:
• Interesting second fl oor plaza over retail area
• “Wow” factor
• Energy and movement
• Looks good from far away, not for pedestrian
scale
Negatives:
• Looks like a big net
• Overbearing and monotone in color and
material
• Not good for pedestrians
• Garage fl oors too visible
61
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 38
West Hollywood City Hall - West Hollywood, CA
Photo Source: LPA Inc.
1
2
3
4
Disguised as an urban building
Combination of natural and industrial materials
Lighting that highlights architectural features
Overhang at street level
12
3
4
C D
Photo Source: SSM, standardsheetmetal.com
Rockhurst University - Kansas City, MO
1
2
3
Vegetation screening
Planting is primary design feature on/around the building
Open space around the garage
2
3
1
Positives:
• Mixture of textures add visual interest
• Aesthetics are nice – like the overall architecture
style
• Urban and elegant screening will be good for
future residents
• Wood paneling disguises garage
• Varied use of materials
• Solar panel can be good if integrated, maybe as
part of canopy
• Bike parking at station
• Good example of lighting at night
Negatives:
• Boring and boxy
• Looks like an utility building or theater, not a
garage
• Solar panels should be integrated into building
design
• Building may look good from a distance, but
not close up
• Ground fl oor lacks design detail
Positives:
• Greenery and landscaping is interesting for
pedestrians and creates a sense of safety
• Park makes it warm and inviting
• Preference for light colored materials
• Vegetative screen blends with surrounding
residential area
• If vegetation were a little more extensive, it
would look like an outdated suburban civic
building
Negatives:
• Do not like the small slits in concrete, appears
prison-like
• The building underneath the vegetation is ugly
• Looks like a prison, college building, or sound
wall… not a garage
• Best fi t for our station plan, but do not like the
grass and would prefer to see more native and
natural looking planting
62
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 39
E
Overton Square - Memphis, TN
Photo Source: Montgomery Martin Contractors
1
2
3
1
2
3
Stair towers as a focal point
Canopy at entry
Large openings where cars are visible
3
F
Photo Source: Clarence Wong
Redmond Transit Center - Redmond, WA
1 2
4
1
2
3
4
Vegetation screening
Deciduous and evergreen plants
Variety of shrubs and trees around the exterior
Pedestrian level details and overhang
3
Positives:
• Less space to hide, enhancing pedestrian safety
• Variety of materials adds visual interest
Negatives:
• Mix of brick and concrete is boring ,
• Looks traditional or ‘transitional’ rather than
forward and progressive
• Looks cold
• Openings not well screened
Positives:
• Stair tower serves as a visual clue to garage
entr y
• Colored glass mosaic
• Could shift colors and mood
• Blue fi ts with Puget Sound and
mountains theme
• Glass creates an opportunity for art
Negatives:
• Concern with the strong themes will hold up
over time
• Looks like a church
• Other than stairs, it looks too much like a garage
• Looks like a “transportation” building
• Tower looks like a “stick on”
• Will not age well
• Not fond of orange
63
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 40
G
Santa Monica Civic Center - Santa Monica, CA
Photo Source: John McStravick, Flickr
1
2
3
Colorful lighting and materials
Day and night visual activation
Bold visual statement
1
2
3
H
University of Alabama Huntsville - Huntsville, AL
Photo Source: Banker Wire, bankerwire.com
1
2
3
Combination of building materials
Canopy at entry
Sidewalk has pattern and color
2
3
1
Positives:
• Intrigued with the possibility of an “Experience
with light”
• Possibility for art that has moving parts or
features
• Will want it to pop during the day
• Opportunity for “awe factor”, e.g. color fi ns as a
moveable feature (sway with the wind)
• Has wow factor at night and day
Negatives:
• Concern that it will look dated over time
• Lighting on building is interesting but do not
cover entire building with lights (fi nd the right
balance)
• May not look good during the day
• May not fi t well with design for surrounding
developments
• Might introduce too much intrusive lighting to
nearby residents
• Not enough attention to ground level
pedestrian experience
Positives:
• Variety of materials adds visual interest
Negatives:
• Looks like a prison
• Screening is too eff ective; motorists may not
recognize this as a garage and have trouble
fi nding the garage and/or the entrance
• This design may not work with a taller garage
• Does not feel safe; has a lot of dark crevices for
people to hide
• Recommend breaking up the sidewalk
with landscaping in a way that does not
compromise safety
• Screening looks tacked on
64
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 41
Conclusion
Several workshop participants expressed a strong
preference for station designs that integrate
aesthetic elements from Highline College including
landscaping, art, and architecture. Common
themes across all three groups were as follows:
• Effi cient and safe bike and pedestrian access to
the station from Highline College
• Plazas with a space for community gathering
were a priority
• Crime Prevention through Environmental
Development (CPTED) by minimizing hiding
spots and providing lighting
• Preference for colorful designs
• Weather protection
• Textures on plazas to add visual interest
• Concerns about vegetation maintenance
• Preference for designs that were not
skateboarder friendly
Next Steps
Sound Transit will develop an understanding of
common themes from the Federal Way Transit
Center and Kent/Des Moines Station planning
workshops to integrate stakeholder input into
the Project Requirements. The team will consider
the benefi ts of hosting a third workshop to gather
input about the S 272nd station.
The Community Outreach team will continue to
engage the community through neighborhood
meetings and general outreach until September
2017. Sound Transit will incorporate community
input from summer outreach in the Request for
Proposal.
65
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 42
South 272nd Street Station Area Workshop
Meeting Purpose
Workshop goals included identifying design
treatment preferences and sharing future
opportunities for public and stakeholder
input. Sound Transit staff updated workshop
participants on the project’s progress and
asked for input on the aesthetics and design
qualities of the S 272nd Station. Breakout
groups provided input on the station
entrance plaza and parking garage.
Highline College Des Moines, WA
July 13, 2017
66
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 43
Project overview and update
Project staff gave a very brief project update.
The project team recently met with the Greenfi eld
Home Owners Association, a neighborhood
located adjacent to the S 272nd Station. Residents
emphasized the following priorities:
• Maintaining safety and privacy for
neighborhood residents
• Preventing light rail users from parking in their
neighborhood
Station Architecture and Art
Sound Transit staff prepared workshop participants
for the small group discussion by reviewing the
S 272nd Station plans, which will include a fi ve-
story parking garage, a bus drop off area, and two
station entry towers. Yuki Seda-Kane, lead project
architect, asked stakeholders to consider that
this garage will be visible from I-5 and the on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Sound Transit staff shared examples of station art
at the Lakewood Sounder Station, Mt. Baker Link
Station, and the Issaquah Transit Center. Elements
that will diff erentiate between stations include
station type, art, and other features developed
with the benefi t of community input.
Project staff also introduced the Sound Transit Art
Program (STArt). For each station along the FWLE
alignment, Sound Transit will incorporate art that
refl ects the surrounding community look and feel.
To fi nd public art that represents each community
the project will touch, the Sound Transit FWLE
artist, Sarah Kavage, has been researching the
signifi cant locations, history, people, organizations,
and values of each community. Sound Transit will
compile this information and use it to help inform
selection of local artists to produce public art for
the station area.
Thus far, the community has highlighted their
pride in the waterfront and mountain views, and
the music and dance culture. Residents expressed
a discomfort taking public transit and a desire for
changing this negative connotation. Students at
Highline College have requested that Sound Transit
consider creating a place for gathering outside of
the college campus.
67
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 44
Breakout Groups
Workshop participants split into three groups.
A facilitator guided each group, and a scribe
took detailed notes on input from workshop
participants. The facilitator shared images of
diff erent garages and station plazas. They asked
workshop participants to react to the images and
explain whether certain elements were more or
less appropriate for the S 272nd Station Area and
why. Project architects will use the results of the
exercise to develop Project Requirements for the
RFP.
The following section describes workshop
participants’ reactions to the images.
Station
General comments:
Stakeholders would like to prioritize the following:
• Prioritize safety at the station area.
• Maintain privacy to the surrounding residential
community
• Lighting that is bright enough to deter
homeless encampments, but not so bright as
to be disruptive to nearby neighbors
• Shelter where possible to protect from weather.
• Landscaping along S 272nd Street, to help
prevent people from dropping off or picking
up passengers along this street instead of using
the Short-Term Parking loop at the station area.
• Separate bike paths or delineation on sidewalks
to minimize confl icts between bicycles and
pedestrians
• Large canopy at garage stair at the major
crosswalk
• Canopy alongside garage wall facing short-
term drop-off area with seating would be very
useful
68
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 45
N
Enlarged Conceptual South Plaza
St
a
t
i
o
n
I-
5
O
f
f
-
r
a
m
p
Parking Garage
1,100 Spaces
S 272nd St
Plaza
General comments:
• Would like an alcove for coff ee cart or similar
vendor
• Enlivening the underside of the guideway at
the station area with color, lighting and art is
desirable.
• Lighting on the street and walkways is
important for pedestrian safety.
• Colored paving and textures at station area
is desired, and spreading some of the color
or decorative concrete joint pattern into
pathways towards the street sidewalks is ideal
to entice pedestrians into the station area from
272nd. However simplify color or patterns at
City-owned sidewalks so the City can easily
maintain them.
• Prefer direct/clear pathway to and from station
as oppose to meandering pathway.
• Provide seating along the pathway and plaza
area. Especially for people who are along 272nd
to access the station.
69
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 46
Public Plaza - Dallas TX
Photo Source: Conni Kunzler
1
2
A
3
1
2
3
Colored and textured paving to enhance pathway
Tree grates blend in with paving pattern
Seat wall integated with plaza topography
Photo Source: Theunderline.org
Underline Park Concept - Miami, FL
B
1
2
3
1
2
3
Colors and lighting to enhance under structure area
Art and activities built into plaza to enhance user experience
Paved and landscaped pathway to station
Positives:
• Ample seating areas
• Bike path to separate bicyclists from pedestrians
Negatives:
• Grid pattern is boring, not enough visual
interest
• Brick is urban and traditional, which does not
fi t in neighborhood
• 272nd/I-5 Interchange is not a pleasant place
to sit, so providing seating would be a waste
• Too many areas where trash and leaves can
collect
• Too many grade changes, which would be hard
for wheelchairs
Positives:
• Tall grass and color avoids “cave-like”
experiences and maintains sightlines
• Signs and pavers make it easy to fi nd ticket
purchase area
• Lighting enhances safety by maintaining
visibility for passengers
• Visually interesting, less traditional style
• Artwork to enhance the underside of the
structure
• Consider looking at Meeker Street underpass
for inspiration
Negatives:
• Use more plants, not just ones shown in the
graphics
• Too much contrast in paving could be a
problem for people with sight impairments
• Art may get dated over time
70
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 47
C
Dublin Transit Center Plaza - Dublin, Ireland
Photo Source: PGA design
1
2
Clear and open pathway to station
Smooth colored concrete pathway
1
2
D
1
2
3
Trees and shrubs as a primary design feature
Combination of colored and textured paving
Lighting to define pathway
WesternTechCollege - LaCrosse, WI
Photo Source: RDG
1
2
3
Positives:
• Paths for bikes/pedestrians defi ned
Negatives:
• Needs more seating
• It is boring and blank without landscaping
• Harsh, bare, not enough delineation
• Landscaping looks constrained
• Needs more lighting
• Too many patterns confl ict and are bad for
visually-impaired
Positives:
• Mixture of colors and texture are inviting
• Curved walls provide seating
• Pedestrian lighting enhances safety
• Easily-maintained landscaping
• Mature trees
• Landscaping looks lush and blends with
hardscape
• Good wayfi nding
Negatives:
• Too much texture, visually overwhelming and
unattractive
• Too dark and has low hanging vegetation
71
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 48
S 272nd St
Parking Garage
(1,100 Spaces)
Bus
L
a
y
o
v
e
r
Bus
L
o
o
p
Bu
s
L
o
o
p
Bus
L
o
o
p
Garage
General comments:
• Garage should be designed to avoid impacts to
traffi c fl ow in the neighborhood
• Interior garage lighting is important for safety
but not too much that it negatively impacts the
Greenfi eld HOA
• Concern about walking from south end of the
garage to the station. Make sure the internal
pedestrian circulation works well connecting
to the station
• The design needs to comply with WSDOT,
especially the east facing façade, so it doesn’t
distract drivers on I-5
• See Conclusion for design-related commentary
72
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 49
West Hollywood City Hall - West Hollywood, CA
1
2
3
4
Disguised as an urban building
Combination of natural and industrial materials
Lighting that highlights architectural features
Overhang at street level
2
3
4
A
Photo Source: LPA Inc.
B
Photo Source: Jerrell B. WhiteheadPhoto Source: greenscreen.com
Issaquah Transit Center - Issaquah, WA
1
2
1
2
3
Vegetation screening
Planting is primary design feature on/around the building
Natural materials for screening
3
Positives:
• Mid-century modern look, the mixture of
natural and industrial materials is sleek but not
fl ashy
• Reference to wood materials fi ts the Northwest
• Good lighting for pedestrians without creating
light pollution in the surrounding area
Negatives:
• Too urban and civic looking for a residential
area
•Canopy does not provide shelter
• Screening is too solid, this looks bad and raises
safety concerns
• Does not look like a parking garage, which may
make it diffi cult for people to fi nd.
• Façade is too busy
Positives:
• Glass makes it look open
• Vegetation screening refl ects wetland setting
and adjacent bio-retention on north and west
sides
• Demonstrates successful combination of
diff erent façade treatments on a single structure
Negatives:
• Need vertical elements of wood, glass, and
vegetation. (Someone explain please- the
building already has wood/glass/vegetation)
• Maintenance of the greenery is a concern
• Façade is distracting to cars passing by on I-5
• Upper deck is missing aesthetic façade
treatment. This is critical to making a garage
look like a complete building
73
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 50
C
Overton Square - Memphis, TN
Photo Source: Montgomery Martin Contractors
1
2
3
1
2
3
Stair towers as a focal point
Canopy at entry
Large openings where cars are visible
D
Photo Source: BergerABAM
Angle Lake Station - SeaTac, WA
1
2
4
1
2
3
4
Colorful and lively screening
Variation in facade depth
Design is a bold statement when viewed from street and train
Minimal pedestrian features at street level
3
Positives:
• Canopy provides good weather protection
• Glass captures sunlight and is desired for
transparency
• Pedestrian entry clearly identifi ed
• Colors are attractive
• Quality of materials; masonry, storefront glass,
and vegetation are desirable
•
Negatives:
• Red brick appears artifi cially bright for natural
material
• Large openings at ground level parking feels
unsafe
Positives:
• None listed
Negatives:
• Wavy irregular screening does not fi t with
neighborhood context
• Pedestrian entry diffi cult to identify
• Monochrome blue color throughout station
areas is too heavy handed
• Screening does not successfully break down
the massive concrete
74
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 51
E
Santa Monica Civic Center - Santa Monica, CA
Photo Source: John McStravick, Flickr
1
2
Rolling landscape surrounding the garage
Textured metal screening
1
2
F
University of Alabama Huntsville - Huntsville, AL
Photo Source: Banker Wire, bankerwire.com
1
2
3
Combination of building materials
Canopy at entry
Sidewalk has pattern and color
2
3
1
Positives:
• Canopy provides protection
• Variety of materials on façade adds visual
interest
• Awning clearly identifi es entry
• Accent lighting is warm and residential
Negatives:
• Metal screens are not integrated into design,
looks stuck-on, unattractive
• Looks outdated
• Fits a commercial area shopping mall, not
residential area
• Too many dark spaces that could be dangerous
• Too many styles blended, feels ambiguous
Positives:
• Simple pattern and not too prominent
• Landscape is simple and aesthetically appealing
• Uses landscaping to break up the garage mass
• Variety of textures on facade adds visual
interest
• Open facade is good for Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design (CPTED),
provides more sight lines
• Appears to fi t well in a mixed residential
community
Negatives:
• Too monochromatic, little or no color
• Too geometric
• Potentially distracting to motorists on I-5
• Pedestrian entry not visible
• Instead of metal screening, consider the use of
fl owing/diagonal/horizontal artwork to dress
up the façade
75
Federal Way Link Extension Stakeholder Workshop 52
Conclusion
Workshop participants expressed a preference for
designs that provided weather protection and fi t
within the community. Common themes across
the three groups were as follows:
• Architectural and Pedestrian lighting should
be used to make riders’ experience at the
station, easy to navigate and feel safe, but not
produce light pollution that disturbs nearby
neighborhoods
• Facades facing residential neighborhoods on
the North and West should attempt to blend
with surrounding context using landscape,
natural palette, and design elements that
reduce the mass
• Facades facing south on 272nd and east on
Station side should be more expressive and
enliven the rider experience with color and
design, and be inviting to drivers approaching
the garage
• When seen from I-5, façade texture and color
should not be distracting for drivers on I-5
• Wayfi nding signs to direct pedestrians to
station platform are desirable
Next Steps
Dan Abernathy, Executive Project Director,
thanked the stakeholders for their participation
in the workshop. Sound Transit will incorporate
common themes from the S 272nd Workshop and
incorporate them into the Project Requirements.
The Community Outreach team will continue to
engage the community through neighborhood
meetings and general outreach until September
2017. Sound Transit will solicit input from the
community about the station areas look and
feel through two in-person open houses and an
online survey tool. Sound Transit will incorporate
community input from summer outreach in the
Request for Proposal.
76
77
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Date: September 11, 2017
TO: Chair Bill Boyce and Economic & Community Development Committee
FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
RE: Housing Affordability
For Meeting of September 11, 2017
SUMMARY: Kent’s housing stock is becoming less affordable, and incomes are
generally going up. Area Median Income (AMI), calculated at the county level, was
$89,600 in 2015, and rose to $96,000 in 2017. In 2012, 90% of Kent’s occupied
rental housing was affordable to those households earning less than 80% AMI. By
2015, it was down to 83%, a decrease of seven percentage points in two years
(these numbers are based on five year averages). A snapshot of rents in June,
2017, showed median rent for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,750, an
amount not at all affordable to households earning less than 80% AMI. In 2015,
roughly 61% of Kent’s households earned 80% or below AMI, and 19% of Kent
households earned less than 30% AMI. Since then, home values in Kent have risen
by 47% (from 2015 to 2017).
The Puget Sound Region has certainly experienced a surge in population growth.
As housing prices soar, people keep moving farther south of Seattle searching for
affordable housing that meets their needs. Higher-income households may take
advantage of housing stock that could otherwise be affordable to lower-income
households, so lower-income households have fewer options. Lower-income
households may also be forced to share housing, such that the household income
data may reflect a higher income but the burden of overcrowding. Data from the 5-
year 2014 average (latest data available) show that roughly 24% of Kent’s
owner and renter households had at least one of four severe housing
problems (incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per
room, and/or costs greater than 50%).
Interestingly, the households with the most limited housing options are not just
those earning less than 30% of AMI as might be expected—those earning over
$100,000 also have few options and this segment is projected to increase
significantly in Kent by 2020. The 2015 data show that rental housing
specifically affordable to households earning greater than $100,000 (i.e., costs not
exceeding 30% of household income) represented less than 1% of Kent’s rental
housing stock. In other words, no rental units even exist for those middle-
to upper-income households, unless they take advantage of lower cost housing
that might otherwise have been affordable to lower-income households. Similarly,
MOTION: None Required. For Information Only
78
rental housing specifically affordable to households earning less than 30% AMI
represented less than 5% of Kent’s rental housing stock. Again, there were
insufficient rental units for those households. Conversely, housing specifically
affordable to households earning greater than $100,000 represented 17% of Kent’s
owner housing stock, and housing specifically affordable to households earning less
than 30% AMI represented less than 1% of Kent’s owner housing stock. In either
case, there were insufficient owner housing units for those income levels.
The answer to affordability at all income levels is creation of additional housing, and
the housing that’s needed cannot be provided primarily in detached single-
family housing types. Land is a limited resource. People don’t all need or desire
the same type of housing. When we consider the needs of millennials, seniors,
young or old singles, people with families, blue-collar, professional or homeless
people, the need for diverse housing options is clear. Many factors contribute to
where one chooses to live, including social factors, recreational amenities, health
services, jobs, commutes, family connections, safety, ease of moving around, and
geographic identity/reputation.
Staff will be available at the September 11th committee meeting to discuss this
multifaceted topic and answer questions.
EXHIBITS: Housing Affordability Summary and Graphic
BUDGET IMPACT: None
cc: Ben Wolters, Economic &Community Development Director
S:\Permit\Plan\Housing\9-11-17_ECD_Committee_Housing_Memo.doc
79
Total housing units (Kent) – Owner- and Renter-Occupied
• 42,233 occupied housing units in Kent – 54% owner, 46% renter.
(Source: American Community Survey 5-year average – 2011-2015)
King County Household Area Median Income (Source: HUD–4-Person Household)
2015: <30% AMI=$26,900 50% AMI=$44,800 80% AMI=$71,680
2017: <30% AMI=$28,800 50% AMI=$48,000 80% AMI=$76,800
Affordability - Housing in Kent is becoming less affordable.
Kent: 5-Year Period - 2008-2012 (Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy)
• Rental Units: 90% are affordable to those households earning <80% AMI
o 7.6% affordable to <30% AMI
o 31.2% affordable to 30%-50% AMI
o 50.8% affordable to 50%-80% AMI
• Owner Units: 30% are affordable to those households earning <80% AMI
Kent: 5-Year Period - 2011-2015 (Source: American Community Survey)
• Rental Units: 83.1% are affordable to those households earning <80% AMI
o 4.7% affordable to <30% AMI
o 39.2% affordable to 30%-50% AMI
o 39.2% affordable to 50%-80% AMI
• Owner Units: 29.3% are affordable to those households earning <80% AMI
Kent Rental Trends– Fast Growth In Past Year (Source: -June, 2017 “apartment list”)
• $1750 Median 2BR Rent
o Year-to-Year Price Change = 11.7%
o NOT AFFORDABLE to anyone earning less than 80% AMI
Kent Household Median Incomes Rising – 2020 vs 2015 Est. (Source: Buxton)
People are moving in and out of Kent.
• Kent households earning <80% AMI: 7.8% projected decrease by 2020
• Kent households earning >$100K: 38.3% projected increase by 2020
• Affluent households are increasing; less affluent households are decreasing.
Kent Housing Values Rising
• 47% increase (from $250,900 in 2015 to $369,000 in 2017)
(Source: American Community Survey 5-Year average 2011-2015 and June, 2017 Zillow)
80
About the CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy)
Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom
tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data,
known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent
of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The CHAS data are
used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to
distribute grant funds.
CHAS data are used by Kent’s Housing & Human Services section for Community
Development Block Grant reports to HUD, e.g., Consolidated Plan and CAPER
(Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report).
81
2OLT-2O15 HOUSING UNITS
ESTIMATE FROM CENSUS ACS DATA
# OF OWNER UNITS AFFORDABLE
FOR EACH INCOME BRACKET
-
# OF RENTAL UNITS AFFORDABLE
FOR EACH INCOME BRACKET
HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME FROM
BUXTON DATA
I zooo
I zors ESTTMATE 2O2O PROJECTION
20LOT
T
1-4000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
UNITS AFFORDABLE TO DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS
$2O,OOO-$4O,OOO $4O,OOO-g5g,ggg $60,000-$gg tggg
H
=
s
()
ú'l
t{
E
so
æ
-JXI
PlÀt
ú
I{
=
FI
E
s
ql-l{zf
\
ut
ôJo
IT
l¡Jo
Ðo
II
ITo
ú,
l¡J
É
Efz
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IU
$o-$19,999
INCOME BRACKET
$1OO,OOO+
82