HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 01/11/2010 (3) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
KEN T Phone: 253-856-5454
wA5H I NGT0N Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
AGENDA
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
HEARING &WORKSHOP
JAN UARY 11, 2010
7:00 P.M.
LUPB MEMBERS: CITY STAFF
Dana Ralph, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Matt Gilbert, AICP, Principal Planner
Steve Dowell William D Osborne, AICP, Planner
Navdeep Gill Lydia Moorehead, Parks/Open Space Planner
Jon Johnson Kim Adams Pratt, Assistant City Attorney
Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
Barbara Phillips
This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing followed by a
Workshop on MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2010 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220
4th Avenue South, Kent, at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend the public hearing and all interested
persons may have an opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the
proposed amendment may do so prior to or at the meeting.
The agenda will include the following item(s):
1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of the December 14, 2009 Minutes
4. Added Items to Agenda
5. Communications
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
1. #SCA-2009-1 Subdivision Code Amendment-Tract Definition Revision (Matt Gilbert)
Consideration of an amendment to revise the definition of`tract' as it relates to future
development tracts.
WORKSHOP:
1. #AZ-2009-1 Panther Lake Annexation Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Maps
(William Osborne)
Discussion of the annexation zoning process, analysis of existing conditions, and updates to
Kent's Comprehensive Plan.
2. #CPA-2009-1(A) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Capital Facilities Element,
Transportation Master Plan (William Osborne)
Discussion of Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and updates to Capital Facilities Element of
Kent's Comprehensive Plan.
3. #CPA-2009-1(B) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Park and Open Space Element, Park
Plan (Lydia Moorehead)
Discussion of Park Plan, and updates to Chapter 10 Parks and Open Space Element of Kent's
Comprehensive Plan.
Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information. For TDD relay
service for Braille, call 1-800-833-6385, for TDD relay service for the hearing impaired, call 1-800-833-6388 or call the City of Kent
Planning Services directly at (253) 856-5499 (TDD). For further information or copies of the staff report(s) or text of the proposed
amendment(s) contact the Planning Services office at(253) 856-5454. You may access the City's website for documents pertaining to
the Land Use and Planning Board at: http.//www.ci.kent.wa.us/planninp/landuseolanninpboard.
This page intentionally left blank.
1
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 14, 2009
Board Members Present: Chair Dana Ralph (Absent/Excused), Vice Chair Jack
Ottini, Steve Dowell, Alan Gray, Jon Johnson, Aleanna Kondelis-Haplin,
Barbara Phillips (Absent/Excused)
Staff Members Present: Fred Satterstrom, Gloria Gould-Wessen, Matt Gilbert,
Kim Adams Pratt, Pamela Mottram
3. Approval of Minutes
Dowell MOVED and Gray SECONDED a motion to Approve the November 23, 2009
Minutes. Motion PASSED 5-0.
4. Added Items Election of Officers
S. Communications None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None
7. CPA-2007-4 Midway Design Guidelines (CPZ-2007-2)
Long Range Planner Gloria Gould-Wessen stated, for the record, that no submittals
had been received. Gould-Wessen gave an overview of the Guidelines and stated
that the public can review the Guidelines on the City of Kent's Website.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Guidelines reflect the vision of the Midway Subarea
Plan, and provide an effort to ensure that the Pacific Highway transportation
corridor is developed in support of future light rail development. The Guidelines will
supplement Kent City Code Zoning Title 15, and will supersede portions of the City
of Kent Construction Standards Manual.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Guidelines are divided into two major sections: The
first section, Site Design, addresses the arrangement of buildings, landscaping,
open space, circulation, and other features unique to locating the built
environment. The second section, Architectural Design, focuses on construction
materials, design details, and how the built form influences the sense of place.
Gould-Wessen stated that language in the Site Design section has been amended,
added or deleted for clarification, and to create more specific guidelines. She cited
the addition of language concerning; primary entry treatments, pedestrian level
windows, transition zones, revising sidewalk widths from 15 to 12 feet, the use of
display windows every 25 feet, site planning, and car-sharing opportunities.
Gould-Wessen stated that the Architectural Design section incorporates language
additions and deletions concerning: height, bulk and scale; architectural details,
unification of buildings, public distances from commercial entrances, commercial
displays, the utilization of special treatments for blank walls longer than twenty
(20) feet, signage, public and private lighting, and the deletion of landscaping LEED
criteria until LEED language is codified.
Midway Design Guidelines CPZ-2007-2
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing 1
December 14, 2009
2
Gould-Wessen stated that staff is recommending preliminary approval of the Design
Guidelines as presented with a final public hearing to be held in early 2010 once
other planning and regulatory pieces are in place; thereafter forwarding this on to
City Council for approval.
Gould-Wessen acknowledged that staff should consider the Boards' concerns with
the use of low-wattage lighting within delivery areas or high risk areas.
With no further discussion, Ottini declared the Public Hearing open.
Wayne Jones, PO Box 146, Renton, WA 98057 stated that the Guidelines need more
flexibility built in, so as not to discourage development.
Brad Corner, 14205 36t" St. #100, Bellevue, WA 98006 stated that he believes that
certain requirements (such as setbacks) within the Guidelines should be evaluated
on a site specific basis so as not to preclude a potential use due to setback
mandates. He stated that reducing the height, bulk and scale of proposed
structures should be mandated.
Seeing no further speakers, Gray Moved and Johnson seconded a Motion to close
the public hearing. Motion Carried 5-0.
After deliberating, Johnson MOVED to preliminarily APPROVE the Midway Design
Guidelines as presented by staff noting that a final public hearing will be scheduled
once other planning and implementation pieces have been considered. Dowell
SECONDED the Motion. With no opposition, Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Election of Officers
Johnson MOVED to nominate Dana Ralph for the position of Chair and Dowell
SECONDED the Motion. Seeing no opposition, Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Johnson MOVED to nominate Jack Ottini for the position of Vice Chair and Dowell
SECONDED the Motion. Seeing no opposition, Motion CARRIED 5-0.
Adjournment
Vice-Chair Ottini adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Secretary of the Board
P:\Planning\LUPB\2009\MINUTES\121409-LUPB-Minutes_ggw.doc
Midway Design Guidelines CPZ-2007-2
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing 2
December 14, 2009
3
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING SERVICES
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
KEN T Phone: 253-856-5454
wA5H I N G T 0 N Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 4, 2010
TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Matt Gilbert, Principal Planner
RE: Amend 'Tract' Definition- Revision to KCC 12.04.025 (#SCA-2009-1)
01/11/10 LUPB Public Hearing
MOTION: Approve/Deny/Modify the definition of tract as presented by staff.
SUMMARY: As presented at the December 14th LUPB workshop, this proposed
code amendment provides that Future Development Tracts created within
subdivisions and short subdivisions may be considered building sites under certain
circumstances. Tracts in general are created for specific purposes such as
recreation, open space, sensitive areas, and access. Tracts are also created or set
aside for "Future Development". Future Development Tracts may be created for
many reasons, some of which are that an area does not meet all of the criteria for
being buildable at the time of subdivision, or an owner simply chooses to only
develop a portion of a parcel and leaves the remainder for future development. The
SEPA official has determined the proposal is procedural in nature and no further
SEPA review is required.
BACKGROUND: The City's current definition of Tract states: Tract shall mean land
reserved for specified uses including, but not limited to, future development, recreation,
open space, sensitive areas, surface water retention, utility facilities, and access. Tracts are
not considered building sites for purposes of residential dwelling unit construction.
In 2009, as the City dealt with a future development tract created by King County,
it was determined by the City's hearing examiner that under the City's current
subdivision code Future Development Tracts may not ever be used for residential
dwelling units. City staff does not believe that this was the intent behind the
definition of Tracts in City code, but rather that a Future Development Tract could
be used for residential dwelling units if and when it met the code standards for
buildability and underwent further review and approval by the City. The proposed
code amendment is intended to clarify that Future Development Tracts could be
used for residential dwelling units if reviewed and approved at a later date. This
code amendment is proposed to apply to all current and future Tracts in the City of
Kent that were created by either City of Kent or King County subdivision processes.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the code amendment in the
attached draft ordinance related to the definition of 'Tract.'
MG/pm: S:\Permit\Plan\SUBDIVISIONCODEAMDMTS\2009\SCA-2009-1 Tract Definitions\LUPB\011110memo.doc
Attach: KCC 12.04.025(Draft Ordinance format)
cc: Fred Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager
4
This page intentionally left blank.
5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending section
12.04.025 of the Kent City Code, entitled
"Definitions" in order to revise the definition of
tract and make it consistent with
RECITALS
A.
B.
C.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
1 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
6
SECTION 1. - Amendment. Section 12.04.025 of the Kent City
Code is amended as follows: The following words, terms, and phrases,
when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
A. Active recreation activities shall mean all outdoor recreational
activities which involve field and court games.
B. Alley shall mean a public or private way not more than twenty (20)
feet wide at the rear or side of property affording only secondary means of
vehicular or pedestrian access to abutting property.
C. Binding site plan shall mean a scaled drawing which: (1) identifies
and shows the areas and locations of all streets, improvements, utilities,
open space, and any other matters specified in this chapter; (2) contains
inscriptions or attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and
conditions for the use of the land as established by the city through the
approval process; and (3) contains provisions which require any
development to be in conformity with the binding site plan.
D. Binding site plan committee shall be a committee consisting of the
planning manager, who shall be the chairperson, one (1) member of the
land use and planning board, the building official, public works director,
parks and community services director, and the fire chief, or their
designated representatives.
E. Block shall mean a group of lots, tracts, or parcels within well-
defined and fixed boundaries.
2 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
7
F. Circulation shall mean any of a number of quantitative measures
that characterizes the frequency of transportation mode trips, the duration
of a mode trip, and path choices made between two (2) or more activity
spaces. Traffic counts usually indicate a measure of circulation.
G. Clustering or cluster subdivision shall mean a development or
division of land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and
concentrated in specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract, or parcel.
H. Common open space shall mean a parcel or parcels of land or an
area of water or a combination of land and water within the site designated
for a subdivision or a planned unit development, and designed and
intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of residents of a subdivision.
Common open space may contain such complementary structures and
improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and
enjoyment of residents of the subdivision.
I. Community park shall mean a park that serves the entire city of
Kent and can be located throughout the city. Community parks may have
facilities or amenities that are not offered elsewhere in the city, and which
can include boating, swimming, fishing, athletic fields, group picnic
shelters, play equipment, hard courts, skateparks, and trails, and will vary
at each park. Access to the park is by car, public transit, foot, or bicycle.
Off-street parking is provided.
J. Comprehensive plan shall mean the document, including maps,
adopted by the city council, which outlines the city's goals and policies
relating to management of growth, and prepared in accordance with
Chapter 36.70A RCW. The term also includes adopted subarea plans
prepared in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW.
3 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
8
K. Connectivity shall mean the connection of neighborhoods by through
streets, easements, or other rights-of-way, to activity centers including
other subdivisions, neighborhood centers, shopping centers, transit stops,
recreational spaces, and other public facilities. Such connections shall have
a character that is pedestrian-friendly and that provides a sense of
location.
L. Cul-de-sac shall mean a short street having one (1) end open to
traffic and being terminated at the other end by a vehicular turnaround.
M. Dedication shall mean a deliberate conveyance of land by its owner
for any general and public uses, reserving to the owner no other rights
than such as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the
public uses to which the property has been devoted. The intention to
dedicate shall be evidenced by the owner by the presentment for filing of a
final plat or a final short plat showing the dedication thereof; and the
acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat
for filing by the city.
N. Division of land shall mean the subdivision of any parcel of land into
two (2) or more parcels.
O. Final plat or final short plat shall mean the final drawing of the
subdivision or short subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for
record with the King County recorder's office and containing all elements
and requirements set forth in this chapter.
P. Hearing examiner shall mean the person appointed by the mayor, or
his or her designee, to conduct public hearings on applications outlined in
4 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
9
Ch. 2.32 KCC which creates the hearing examiner, and who prepares a
record, findings of fact, and conclusions on such applications.
Q. Homeowners' association shall mean an incorporated nonprofit
organization operating under recorded land agreements through which:
1. Each lot owner is automatically a member;
2. Each lot is automatically subject to a proportionate share of
the expenses for the organization's activities, such as maintaining common
property; and
3. A charge if unpaid becomes a lien against the property.
R. Land use and planning board shall mean that body as defined in Ch.
2.57 KCC.
S. Lot shall mean a fractional part of divided lands having fixed
boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum
zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts or
parcels.
T. Lot, corner shall mean a lot abutting upon two (2) or more public or
private streets at their intersection or upon two (2) parts of the same
street, such streets or parts of the same street forming an interior angle of
less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees within the lot lines.
U. Lot frontage shall mean the front of a lot which shall be that portion
nearest a public or private street or, if the lot does not abut a street, the
portion nearest an ingress/egress tract or easement. On a corner lot, the
5 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
10
front yard shall be considered the narrowest part of the lot that fronts on a
street, except in industrial and commercial zones, in which case the city
has the authority of determining which part of the lot fronting on a street
shall become the lot frontage.
V. Lot line adjustment shall mean the adjusting of common property
lines or boundaries between adjacent lots, tracts, or parcels for the
purpose of rectifying a disputed property line location, freeing such a
boundary from any differences or discrepancies or accommodating a minor
transfer of land. The resulting adjustment shall not create any additional
lots, tracts, or parcels and all reconfigured lots, tracts, or parcels shall
contain sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for
zoning and building purposes.
W. Lot lines shall mean the property lines bounding the lot.
X. Lot measurements shall mean:
1. The depth of a lot which shall be considered to be the
distance between the foremost points of the side lot lines in front and the
rearmost points of the side lot lines in the rear.
2. The width of a lot which shall be considered to be the distance
between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines; provided,
however, that width between side lot lines at their foremost points where
they intersect with the street right-of-way line shall not be less than eighty
(80) percent of the required lot width except in the case of lots fronting on
cul-de-sacs or curves, where eighty (80) percent of requirements shall not
apply. However, the provisions of KCC 15.04.180(37) apply to lot widths
within the SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts.
6 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
11
Y. Lot of record shall mean a parcel of land that has been considered a
lot in accordance with the subdivision, short subdivision, or other land
segregation laws in existence at the time the lot was created, or a parcel
described as a fractional portion of a section as described in the Public
Land Survey System.
Z. Lot, through shall mean a lot that has both ends fronting on a
street. Either end may be considered the front as determined by the city.
AA. Meander line shall mean a line along a body of water intended to be
used solely as a reference for surveying as defined in the Manual of
Instructions for Surveying the Public Lands (1973) or its successor.
BB. Neighborhood park shall mean a park that serves a neighborhood
(not a subdivision) defined by arterial streets. These parks are generally
located centrally in the neighborhood so that the park is easily accessible
and neighborhood residents do not have to cross a major arterial to reach
the park. Access is primarily by foot or bicycle, so the park is usually no
further than one-half (112) mile from any point in the neighborhood.
Parking spaces are typically not provided, unless on-street parking is not
available, accessible or safe. Neighborhood parks have amenities for casual
activities that are not programmed or organized, or for which a fee is
charged. Amenities may include play equipment, picnic tables, shelters,
hard courts (basketball, tennis), walking trails, and open grassy areas.
CC. Official plans shall mean those maps, development plans, or
portions thereof, adopted by the city council as provided in Chapter 44,
Section 6, Laws of 1935, as amended. Such plans or maps shall be
deemed to be conclusive with respect to the location and width of streets,
7 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
12
public parks, and playgrounds and drainage rights-of-way or easements as
may be shown thereon.
DD. Park open space shall mean those areas that are environmentally
sensitive, wildlife habitat, or wetlands, that remain in a relatively natural
state with minimal improvements for public access, interpretation, study,
or enjoyment.
EE. Park service area shall mean those areas defined by arterial streets
or geographic features, and which are identified in the comprehensive park
and recreation plan, that a neighborhood park or community park is
intended to serve.
FF. Performance bond or guarantee shall mean that security which may
be accepted in lieu of a requirement that certain improvements be made
before the final plat is approved and signed, including performance bonds,
escrow agreements and other similar collateral or surety agreements. See
the Construction Standards for detailed requirements.
GG. Piggyback or accumulative short subdivision shall mean multiple
short subdivision of contiguous land under common ownership. Ownership
for purposes of this section shall mean ownership as established at the
application submittal date of the initial short subdivision approval.
HH. Plat shall mean a map or representation of a subdivision, showing
thereon the division of a tract or parcel of land into lots, tracts, streets,
and alleys, or other divisions and dedications.
II. Preliminary approval shall mean the official favorable action taken
on the preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision by the hearing examiner
8 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
13
following a duly advertised public hearing or on a preliminary plat of a
short subdivision following a duly advertised meeting of the short
subdivision committee.
11. Preliminary plat shall mean a precise scale drawing of a proposed
subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, tracts,
and other elements of a plat or subdivision which shall furnish a basis for
the approval or disapproval of the general layout of a subdivision.
KK. Short plat shall mean the map or representation of a short
subdivision.
LL. Short subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into
nine (9) or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of
sale, lease, or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the
potential for future development shall be included within the number of
lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for
public dedication, environmental protection, or stormwater facilities are not
included in the number of lots created.
MM. Short subdivision, type I shall mean the division of land into four (4)
or less lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale,
lease, or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential
for future development shall be included within the number of lots created,
but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public
dedication, environmental protection, or stormwater facilities are not
included in the number of lots created.
NN. Short subdivision, type II shall mean the division of land into more
than four (4) and less than ten (10) lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions
9 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
14
for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for
or with the potential for future development shall be included within the
number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are
intended for public dedication, environmental protection, or stormwater
facilities are not included in the number of lots created.
00. Short subdivision committee shall be a committee consisting of the
planning manager, who shall be the chairperson, one (1) member of the
land use and planning board, public works director, parks and community
services director, and the fire chief, or their designated representatives.
PP. Street shall mean a public or private way which affords a primary
means of access to property.
QQ. Subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into ten (10)
or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale or
lease or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for
future development shall be included within the number of lots created,
but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public
dedication, environmental protection, or stormwater facilities are not
included in the number of lots created.
RR. Subdivision, phased shall mean a subdivision which is developed in
increments over a period of time.
SS. Tentative plat shall mean a map drawn in accordance with the same
requirements as the preliminary plat map, but submitted prior to
preliminary plat submittal. The tentative plat is reviewed at a pre-
application conference.
10 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
15
TT. Title report shall mean a certified report from a bonded title agency
showing recorded title holder and all encumbrances and defects that exist
on the land.
UU. Tract shall mean land reserved for specified uses including, but not
limited to, future development, recreation, open space, sensitive areas,
surface water retention, utility facilities, and access. Tracts are not
considered building sites for purposes of residential dwelling unit
construction, provided that future development tracts may be considered
building sites for purposes of residential dwelling unit construction upon a
new application being filed, reviewed, and approved by the city in
conformance with city regulations in place at the time the complete, new
application is filed.
VV. Trail system shall mean those pathways that connect points of
interest, parks, community facilities, streets, residences, etc., in the
community, which are generally not confined within the limits of one (1)
park or neighborhood. Trails are intended to be used by bicycles,
rollerskaters, pedestrians, and the like. Use by motorized vehicles is
prohibited.
WW. Urban separators shall mean low-density lands that define
community or municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent
resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and
create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide
environmental, visual, recreational, and wildlife benefits.
SECTION 2. - Savings. The existing chapter 12.04.025 of the Kent
City Code, which is repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain
in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance.
11 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
16
SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more section,
subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are 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 4. - Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and
section/subsection numbering.
SECTION 5. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 2010.
12 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
17
APPROVED: day of , 2010.
PUBLISHED: day of 2010.
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)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:\Civil\Ordinance\12.04.0250rdinance.docx
13 Subdivisions, Binding Site Plans,
and Lot Line Adjustments
Amend KCC 12.04.025
18
This page intentionally left blank.
19
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director
KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
W A 5 H I N G T O N
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 4, 2010
TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: William D. Osborne, AICP, Long-Range Planner
RE: Panther Lake Annexation Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Zoning
[AZ-2009-1]
BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.070 of the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), the City of Kent has adopted policies relating to managing
development and urban services within its designated Urban Growth Area (UGA).
The 5.23 square mile (3,347 acres) Panther Lake area has been included within
Kent's UGA since the original adoption of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. A majority
of registered voters among approximately 24,000 residents elected to annex to
Kent on November 3, 2009. As a result, the City of Kent must adopt
Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map designations and submit the
ordinance for state review 60 days prior to the effective date of the annexation -
July 1, 2010. Per RCW 35A.14.340, the City of Kent must hold two public hearings
on the proposed annexation zoning, each hearing held thirty days apart.
SUMMARY: Over 75% of the land area in the Panther Lake annexation is
designated for single-family residential development of what King County calls
medium density (4 to 12 dwelling units per acre). Approximately 15% of the land
area is designated as greenbelt,' the equivalent King County designation for Urban
Separators. Slightly less than 7% of the Panther Lake area is designated for
multifamily residential densities (12 dwelling units per acre or more), and
commercially-designated land amounts to barely more than 1.5% of the total area.
The existing conditions in terms of physical development, planning and zoning are
very similar between Panther Lake and the contiguous boundary areas of Kent.
Residential districts in the City of Kent are designated separately as single family or
multifamily. However, King County residential zoning is inclusive of detached single
family, attached and "stacked" multifamily dwelling units. The P and SO suffixes
attached to designations such as R-8-P-SO on the King County Zoning Maps provide
for property-specific (P) development standards and special district overlays (SO).
The County offers residential density bonuses outside of planned unit development
project applications, while the City does not. The County allows mixed-use as of
right in both neighborhood commercial (NB) and community commercial (CB)
zoning districts and the comprehensive plan land use designations that
accommodate those zones, while that is not necessarily true for the City. The City
has three separate commercial comprehensive plan land use designations, and
Mixed-Use (MU) is the only one that permits mixed-use zoning. Further, in Kent,
the NB-equivalent Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) zoning district
does not allow mixed-use and NCC zones are generally restricted to areas carrying 20
a Neighborhood Services (NS) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation.
The comprehensive plan land use designations that Kent currently applies to the
Panther Lake Annexation Area mimic the content of County designations, and would
have to be amended to maintain consistency with the application of designations
within City limits. For example, land in the Panther Lake Annexation Area might be
currently zoned R-6 and carry a comprehensive plan land use designation of "um"
(urban residential, medium), which would allow rezones to R-4 or R-8 without a
comprehensive plan map amendment. In Kent, each single-family residential
zoning district has a comprehensive plan land use designation that precludes
rezoning without first amending the comprehensive plan.
Alternatives for amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning
Districts Map for the Panther Lake Annexation Area will be based on evaluation of
existing land use patterns, environmental constraints, previous King County zoning,
citizen input, and growth management policies. At this time, staff is offering a
direct zoning conversion alternative for consideration.
Alternative 1
The City of Kent has prepared a preliminary analysis based on applying Kent Zoning
District designations that are most consistent with current King County zoning.
Notably, most of the Panther Lake area would be designated as SF-6 on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and SR-6 on the Zoning Districts Map, planning
for and allowing single-family residential development at six units per acre. A few
pockets of single-family residential at four-and-a half units per acre (SF-4.5/SR-
4.5) and eight units per acre (SF-8/SR-8) would be found near the boundaries of
the annexation area — with one area of SF-8/SR-8 centrally located in the
annexation area south of the SE 208th Street & 1161h Avenue SE intersection. A
significant amount of the area adjacent to the Gary Grant/ Soos Creek Park and
Panther Lake would be designated as Urban Separator, allowing for single-family
residential development at one unit per acre (US/SR-1) clustered away from critical
areas and reserved on-site open space. The existing commercial area near the
intersection of SE 208th Street and 108th Avenue SE would carry a Mixed-Use
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation with a geographically-matching blanket
of Community Commercial, Mixed-Use zoning (CC-MU). To the north along 108th
Avenue at SE 192nd Street, the commercial node would be designated as
Neighborhood Services (NS) for Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Neighborhood
Convenience Commercial (NCC) for the zoning district. The existing County-
designated areas zoned for 12 or more dwelling units per acre would be amended
to have Kent multi-family residential designations (MR-G, MR-M, and MR-H).
At the January 11th meeting, staff would like to discuss Comprehensive Plan Map
and Zoning Districts Map designations with the Board, so that we may bring a
recommendation to the Board on January 25, 2010.
WO/pm S:\Permit\Plan\ANNEXATIONS\2009\AZ-2009-1 Panther Lake\LUPB\01-11-10 Workshop\Memo_PantherLkZoning.doc
Att: Attachment A: Descriptive Statistics of Panther Lake Annexation Parcels by Land Use&Zoning Designations
Attachment B: Alternative 1 Map, Direct Zoning Conversion
Attachment C: Alternative 1 Map, Comp Plan
cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director
Fred Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager
Project File AZ-2009-1
AZ-2009-1
Panther Lake Annexation Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning
LUPB Workshop
January 11, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
21
Descriptive Statistics of Panther Lake Annexation Parcels(including Portions)by Land
Use&Zoning Designations with Reductions for Building Rooflines,Critical Areas and
Kent Equivalent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
Parcel(including Portions)Count,Square Feet and Percent of Whole by
Kent Equivalent Zoning District Designations
Equivalent King County Zoning Districts
NS
NCC
6 (NB-without mixed use)
319,857
0.28%
MU
CC-MU
25 CB CBSO
1,938,402
1.70%
SF-1/US
SR-1
207 R1 R1SO
14,628,833
12.82%
SF-4.5
SR-4.5
689 R4 R4SO
8,595,684
7.53%
SF-6
SR-6
5,682 R6 R6SO
69,195,186
60.63%
SF-8
SR-8
829 R8 R8SO R8PSO
10,446,892
9.15%
LDMF
M R-G
73 R12 R12P R12SO
6,986,970
6.12%
MDMF
M R-M
16 R18 R18SO
1,358,029
1.19%
M R-H
6 R24 R24SO R48
662,047
0.58%
Totals
Parcels(including Portions) 7,533
Land Area Rezoned 114,131,899 s.f.
22
This page intentionally left blank.
Afte native 1 : Panther Lake Annexation Legend 23
Direct Zo n i n gCo nve rs i o nI r J .i Panther Lake Annexation Area
~ �I SE, Parks& Recreation Sites
Upper
Springbrook Creek
single-Family (SR-1)
I Glenridge Elementary 5E 196 St LU
Single-Family (SR-3)
LU
Single-Family (SR-4.5)
S 2W,ST SE 200 ST Single-Family (SR-6)
Panther— Gary Grant
Uj Lake
(or 1,- 5oos Creek Single-Family (SR-8)
u1 Park
IL � � � � � Duplex Multifamily
r _ - Townhouse/Condo(MRT-12)
S 208 51, 5E 1208 5T � r /~ - TownhouselCondo{MRT-16}
'n �4 ISentridge HS Fire Station 77
Garden Density Multifamily
ti .Panther Lake Elementary{01d}I
S 212 ST CC 1 Medium Density Multifamily
vtiIr1I> High Density Multifamily
Fork
Garris(M
� r r r ,� Big Soo Mobile Home Park
®reek Panther Lake Elementary(New) Emerald Park Elementary
Creek— C Neighborhood Convenience Commercial
} ' Gam s/or�S CommunityCommercial
' Park Cl Cl2
Saos Creek Elementary Community Commercial/Mixed Use
Sunrise Elementary r _ Commercial Manufacturing I
r North`
Meridian !id lei Office
e Creek Limited Industrial
ur
ME North 3j 1
Son&Forkj Q %Pa S ni N 4 ` N
4 Garrison C'rrf>j� r d%�/ 7
r� Park Orchard Elementary N N w 1:
`f W
i
s
City of Kent
S 240 ST Y�� ` Planning Services Division
,� a 5E 24
0. December 31, 2009
24
This page intentionally left blank.
Alte native 1 : Panther Lake Annexation Legend 25
Comp Plan Land Use Conversion Panther Lake Annexation Area
[Ippc:, -- —� SEIs Parks& Recreation Sites
S r�in brook Creek
P g r � Comprehensive Plan Land Use
to
Glenridge Elementary 5E 196 St LU w Kent Conversion
Cn
o ❑S (Open Space)
a �
S 220 ST SE r T US (Urban Separator)
Panlher _—
Gary Grant C Lake LDMF(Low Density Multifamily)
W SOUS Greek
a Park MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily)
co�co 5E� MU (Mixed-Use)
5 208 5T
ISE 5T
r NS (Neighborhood Services)
208
rn Y Kentridge HS Fire Station 77 SF-4.5(Single Family,4.5 DUA)
I
Panther Lake Elementary{Old}'; J �, SF-6(Single Family,6 QUA)
S 21 ST
Middle SF-8(Single Family, 8 DUA)
• Fork -
Creek Panther Lake Elementary(New) Emerald Park Elementary g Soon
! � i Garrrs'o'n;
Park % o r
Soos Creek Elementary
Sunrise Elementary
41"ridian VuWev
Creek -� \
W
ly NOIth
/lMe diar i W N
Q 5'oulh Fo)k /, Pa'rtr% w 4
Garrison c�rel,lj r "/�� 7
%Park■Orchard Elementary N Lu W - F
r J I Y
W
Lake a
�� Jobe S
City of Kent
S 240 ST �\ Planning Services Division
SE T o
' ?v December 31, 2009
26
This page intentionally left blank.
27
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ben Wolters, Director
PLANNING DIVISION
Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
KEN T Phone: 253-856-5454
W A 5 H I NGTON
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 4, 2010
TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: William D. Osborne, AICP, Long-Range Planner
RE: CPA-2009-1(A) Capital Facilities Element Inventory of Streets
January 11, 2010 Workshop
BACKGROUND: The revision proposes to update the Capital Facilities Element
inventory of streets by total centerline miles and lane miles by street type. The
data provided in the original docket application has since been revised following
discussions with Public Works Engineering staff.
SUMMARY: At their November 18, 2008 meeting, the City Council approved the
2008 Annual Docket Report as recommended by the Planning & Economic
Development Committee on November 10, 2008. This proposed amendment to the
Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan seeks to revise the
inventory of streets and update language to reference the Transportation Master
Plan (TMP).
Staff will be available to discuss the proposed revisions and data at the January 11th
workshop.
CA/WO/pm 5:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-1(A)PublicWks_Street-Inventories\LUPB\01-11-10_CPA-2009-1(A)Memo.doc
Enc: Dkt-2008-1 Application and attached material
Staff correspondence dated July 20-29, 2009, and attached street inventory figures
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Dir
Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Mgr
Tim LaPorte, Public Works Director
Cathy Mooney, Sr.Transportation Planner
Lydia Moorehead, Parks Planner
28
This page intentionally left blank.
129
_�_k
Planning services
Location:406 W.�Gowe Mail to:220 4th Avenue •"Kent,WA'98032=5895
® Permit Center(253)856-5302 -FAX:(253)�856-6412
E T www.ci.kent.w6ms/permitcenter
WASHINGTON
PLANNING SERVICES Doket Form for Amendments
c
to the Comprehensive Plan
Please print in black ink only.
A?d Devemopment Regulations
Application Name: C1�PiTf�L /�• /Q)72 /.1`T Docket#: P — 7_GY�
OFFICE USE ONLY �L�?fir "" OFFICE USE ONLY,'Date Application Received: Received by: 14o,
Applicant: �Z
Name: C AJ M om ey I Ci ry d_kenT _ Daytime Phone: X S S 64q
Mailing Address: &6, L'o rA Ave S Fax Number: X. &S00
City/State/Zip: K nl WA gg03z-9995 Signature:
Professional License No: E-mail: C:mDfoYe eV kenr lvq•u S
Agent/Consultant/Attorney: (mandatory if primary contact is different from applicant)
Name: Daytime Phone:
Mailing Address: Fax Number:
City/State/Zip: E-mail:
Signature
Please provide a statement in the space provided below or on an attached sheet as needed for the
suggested change(s)to the comprehensive plan or development regulations with regards to the
relevant criteria listed below:
• Detailed statement of the proposal and reason G How the change would be compliant with the
for the amendment; Growth Management Act;
• Anticipated impacts of the change, including How the change would be compliant with the
the geographic area affected and issues Countywide Planning Policies;and
presented; How functional plans (e.g.subarea plans, utility
• Why existing comprehensive plan and plans) and capital improvement-programs (e.g.
development regulations should not continue in transportation improvement program) support
effect or why existing criteria no longer apply; the change.
Recommend an update to the Capital Facilities Element to show current data
as identified by a Public Works Operations inventory of Streets which was
conducted in the summer of 2008 Also, please delete the reference to an
anticipated 2004 Comprehensive Transportation Plan and replace that with
the 2008 Transportation Master Plan The changes requested are on pages
8-24 (Transportation Facilities) and 8-39 (Transportation Goals and Policies).
Drafts of suggested Updates are attached on a separate sheet.
These changes will provide the most up-to-date data that is available for
inclusion in the next update of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC WKS ENGR (C Mooney) DKT-2008-1
Gxi-2 Ch 8-Cap Fac Elem - Kent Comp
Plan Text Amdmts-ref to the
Transportation Facilities Section.
Contact: (WO) 9/08
30
Suggested 2008 updates to the Capital Facilities
Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan
Page 8-24 - Transportation Facilities
Within the City there,are city, state, county and private roads. Of those that
the City maintains are city and state streets totaling 245.3 centerline miles.
There are 53.95 lane miles of Principal Arterials; 116.25 lane miles of Minor
Arterials; 145.04 lane miles of Collector Streets: and 244.24 lane miles of
Residential Streets. There are also fourteen (14) bridges in Kent. A
complete assessment of transportation facilities is considered in the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and in the Transportation Master
Plan which was adopted in June 2008. Figures 9.3 through 9.24 found in the
Transportation Element illustrate# Kent's existing and planned transportation
facilities.
Page 8-39 --- Transportation Services and Facilities Goals
and Policies
The goals, policies and levels-of-service (LOS) related to the provision of
transportation services and facilities are contained in the Transportation
Element of this Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Master Plan.
Osborne, William 31
From: Cordova, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:55 PM
To: Mooney, Cathy
Cc: Osborne, William; Burke, Charlie; Palowez, Kurt
Subject: RE: Street miles by classification
Cathy
Charlie and I communicate constantly and we are actually impressed with how close the 2
completely disparate database reports came'in totals. The differences, we already know why but
the fix to make them equal is a several year drill down. Either of us can explain the different
figures from our respective software. When you are talking 1 mile with 4000 features I feel
really good about the results. We are working at improving the GIS and Centerline PMS
constantly. I think that because lane miles are a data driven compilation from Centerline, it is
better at this time to stay constant with that source and eventually we will be in agreement.
I just put a confidence rating of high on both systems by performing this analysis - so it was well
worthwhile.
Jim Cordova, GIS Analyst
Design Engineering I Public Works Department
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
Phone 253-856-5526
KENT !
www.choosekent.com
PLEASE CONSMER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORr PRIM TIMG THIS E-MAIL
From: Mooney, Cathy
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:06 PM
To: Cordova, Jim
Subject: FW: Street miles by classification
Jim,
I sent Bill Osborne the copy of the Centerline Miles & Lane Miles you worked up for me but I
recommended that he stay with the other database because that matches what he used in the
Comprehensive Plan last year and the year before.
Since we can't make them match, we might as well be consistent in this particular document.
I will continue to.work with Charlie Burke to see why his database is so different from the GIS
one.
Thanks again for this data.
Cathy
From: Mooney, Cathy
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:44 PM
To: Osborne, William
Cc: Anderson, Charlene; Mullen, Steve
Subject: RE: Street miles by classification
32
Unfortunately I still don't have a clear answer for you. I'm leaving on vacation in about 2 hours
so I'm going to send you all the information I have. I received the latest inventory from the
pavement management specialist, Charlie Burke, who takes a physical inventory of the condition
of every street each year. He measures and records it as he does this. That's one set of
numbers. I also received the latest numbers of by functional classification from GIS, Jim
Cordova. This includes new streets which have been built in the last year and accepted by the
City as public streets. That's a different set of numbers.
The two sets of numbers are close but not the same. The two guys cannot reconcile the two
sets of numbers. They each believe their numbers to be the correct ones and they have never
been able to get them to match over the years.
Sorry I couldn't solve this before I had to leave. Personally, I would go with the pavement
management specialist's numbers.
Whichever numbers you choose to use, do not count Alleys, Ramps, nor streets which are
Outside City Limits. Also, GIS shows individual numbers for the 3 sub-sets of Collectors. We
would prefer that these 3 Collector types be combined as the Pavement Management database
shows.
I will forward the numbers by separate email.
Cathy
From: Osborne, William
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 12:00 PM
To: Mooney, Cathy
Cc: Anderson, Charlene
Subject: Street miles by classification
Cathy,
As I review the docketed amendment to the Capital Facilities Element relating to the amended
Transportation Master Plan and Transportation Element, I note a discrepancy between the road
inventory figures in the documents. Would you please review these documents (particularly
noting Figure 9.3 on page 9-20 in the updated Transportation Element) and clarify the
discrepancy?
<< File: Dkt-2008-1—Application.pdf>>
<< File: Chapter9-TransportationElement-AllSections-OrdinanceNo3884.doc>>
Thanks,
William D. Osborne, AICP, Planner
<<OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)>> Planning Services I Community Development Department
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
Direct 253-856-5437 1 Main 253-856-5454
2
www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning 33
PLEASE CONSIDER THE 1-VJ1IR0flME'fTf*l.F_=i NIC PFZY,'4*i'1.Nf3 THIS E-MgAIL
3
34
This page intentionally left blank.
35
Functional Class and Pavement Length Summary
City of Kent - November 20,2008
Functional % Centerline Lane
-Classification- -Length- Miles Miles
Principle Arterial(City) 3.9 9.50 47.32
Minor Arterial 16.2 38.98 118.32
Collector 28.3 68.18 145.64
Residential 49.9 120.28 243.85
Alleys 1.6 3.93 7.86
Totals/Averages- 241.00 563.25
*Source: Centerline
Functional Class and Pavement Length Summary **
City of Kent - July 27,2009
Functional % Centerline Lane
-Classification- --Length- Miles Miles
Principle Arterial(City) 4.2 10.17 48.92
Minor Arterial 14.1 33.87 111.13
Industrial Collector 5.5 13.14 33.49
Residential Collector Arterial 11.9 28.56 60.02
Residential Collector 11.5 27.74 56.12
Residential 49.7 119.51 240.31
Ramps 0.3 0.63 1.09
Alleys 1.9 4.47 8.26
Outside City Limits 1.0 2.29 6.22
Totals/Averages- 100.0 240.38 565.56
"Source: City of Kent GIS
Transportation Comp 2009.xlsx
36
This page intentionally left blank.
37
Tacoma P5 Pipeline project will provide a sufficient supply of water for future peak demand for the
next twenty years.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Within the City there are city, state, county, and private roads totaling Of
those that the City maintains are city and state streets totaling 240.38 centerline miles;. t4i-er-e-�There
are 4,%P-248.92 lane miles of J?-t:inc4pk--P&ci al Arterials; 111.13,14,675-1— lane miles of Minor
Arterials; -1-2-9-:.,S4149.63 lane miles of Collector Streets; and 240.312--/P-.9-1-lane miles of Residential
fe", -Streets. There are also nincfourteen (914) bridges in Kent. A complete assessment of
transportation facilities is considered in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and in
the C(-Yi-i}pr-(-4i-en,,i-v-(,-Transportation Master Plan_LJ14PJ which was aa&4)-ated-Adopted in 2004june
2008. Figures 9-1---ai--ic�P�3!,[wb'blitliro-ua 9.24 found in the Transportation Element illustrates
Kent's existing and planned transportation facilities,
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District No. 415. The Renton
School District serves students from an area of Kent near the north city limits, and Kent students
residing along the western city limits attend Federal Way Schools or Highline Schools. Kent
students residing along the southern city limits might attend Auburn Schools. Most school districts
also have historically considered acceptance of transfer requests or waivers for students residing in
households located outside of district boundaries. Detailed inventories of school district capital
facilities and levels-of-service are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) of each school
district. The CFPs of the Kent, Auburn and Federal Way School Districts have been adopted as
part of the City's Capital Facilities Element. Updates of the CFPs of these three(3) districts reflect
changes in their ClPs, and school impact fees assessed on residential development within Kent are
adopted annually. CFPs for other school districts serving Kent households are incorporated by
reference, although no school impact fees are collected by these school districts for residential
development within Kent. Estimated total student enrollment figures of Kent's Planning Area
households for each school district are provided in the Table 8.7 below.
Locations of schools within the Kent School District and the boundaries of other school districts
serving Kent's Planning Area are illustrated in Figure 8.6.
Table 8.7
ESTIMATED STUDENT ENROLLMENT
Kent Auburn Federal Highline Renton
School School Way School School
District District School District District
District
Estimated Total Kent
Planning Area Resident 16,909 108 1,912 314 56
Student Enrollment
Capital Facilities 8-30
38
Policy CF-29.6: Develop and implement a water rate structure that promotes the
efficient use of water.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES & FACILITIES
GOALS & POLICIES
The goals, policies, and—levels-of-service (LOS) and inventories related to the provision of
transportation services and facilities are contained in the Transportation Element of this
Comprehensive Plan-and the Transportation Master
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES
The City of Kent has established siting criteria for essential public facilities, which are defined by
the State in RCW 36.70A.200(1)to "include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such
as airports, state education facilities and state-or regional transportation facilities as defined in
RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient
facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure
community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020." The following goals and policies
reaffirm Kent's commitment to a fair process for locating such facilities.
Goal CF-30:
The City shall participate in a cooperative inter jurisdictional process to determine siting of
essential public facilities of a county-wide, regional, or state-wide nature.
PolicyCF-30.1: Proposals for siting essential public facilities within the City of Kent or
within the City's growth boundary shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan during the initial stages of the proposal process.
Policy CF-30.2: When warranted by the special character of the essential facility, the City
shall apply the regulations and criteria of Kent Zoning Code Section 15,04.150, Special use
combining district, to applications for siting such facilities to insure adequate review,
including public participation. Conditions of approval, including design conditions,
conditions, shall be imposed upon such uses in the interest of the welfare of the City and the
protection of the environment,
Capital Facilities 8-51
ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 39
Ben Wolters, Director
40
PLANNING DIVISION
• Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director
KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager
WA S H I N G TON
Phone: 253-856-5454
Fax: 253-856-6454
Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032-5895
January 4, 2010
TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use and Planning Board Members
FROM: Lydia Moorehead, Parks Planner
RE: #CPA-2009-1(B) Parks & Open Space Plan
January 11, 2010 Workshop
SUMMARY: In 2009, funds were budgeted for planning efforts to update the City's
Parks & Open Space Plan, formerly called the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Plan. This plan was last updated in June 2000. It is intended
that the Parks & Open Space Plan be adopted concurrently with an amendment to
the Park & Open Space Element (Chapter 10) of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and
that the plan be included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan (reference
docket item #Dkt-2008-2). Staff is proposing a revision to the Park & Open Space
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include a summary of the relevant sections
of the updated Parks & Open Space Plan. In addition, minor changes to the Capital
Facilities Element are also proposed, so that the two Comprehensive Plan Elements
are consistent with one another.
BACKGROUND: The Park & Open Space Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan
is required by the Growth Management Act. The Element must include estimates of
park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year period, an evaluation of facilities
and service needs; and an evaluation of intergovernmental coordination
opportunities to provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreational
demand (RCW 36.70A.070(8)). The Parks & Open Space Plan contains the required
information, which will be summarized and incorporated as an amendment to the
Park and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Park
and Open Space Element must be consistent with the Capital Facilities Plan Element
as it relates to park and recreation facilities. Therefore, the Capital Facilities
Element is also updated to reflect changes included in the Park & Open Space
Element.
The Parks & Open Space Plan update process included a public outreach component
through a survey and public workshop. Further opportunities for public
participation have been made available at each milestone of the update process via
notices in the Kent Reporter, utility mailings, the City's website and email updates.
The Parks & Open Space Plan examines Kent's existing park and open space
system, assesses needs, identifies short- and long-term capital recommendations
and details potential funding sources. The purpose of the plan is to guide future
acquisition, development and redevelopment of parks and open spaces in the next
20 years.
JW/LM/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-1(B)Parks&OpenSpaceElem-ParkPlan\LUPB\1-11-1 Memo.doc
Enc.: Dkt-2008-2, Draft Park&Open Space Plan, Draft Parks&Open Space Element, Draft Capital Facilities Element
cc: Fred N Satterstrom,AICP, CD Director
Charlene Anderson, Planning Manager
Jeff Watling, Parks&Community Services Director
Lydia Moorehead, Park Planner
Project File (CPA-2009-1(B)
40
This page intentionally left blank.
k Plannin gServices
oc Ion 400 W Gowe• Mail to:220 4th Avenue South •Kent,WA 98032 5895
• (25356 5302 253)856 6412Permit Center
KENT A� g ��a� www c� kent wa us/66 mitcente
WAS H I N6T O'N
PLANNING SE I ®®CICe$ O6'IV1 ■®■ Amen me is
' AMING SERVICES
t® the Copreeseve P1an
Please print in black ink only. and DevelopmentRegulations
Application Name: #09kS 1�,9-96- P/2kS Q-Oft Docket#: V 1 - ZOOS— 2
OFF C USE ONLY OFF CE USE ONLY
5PAC2 �1Eer»2r��"" r7iyJT
Date Application Received: �� T ,� ca Received by: C/��/7II ,-
Applicant:
Name: Cite of Kent Parks., Rperpai-i nn Daytime Phone: 253-85Fa=5112
Mailing Address: 22n 4th Ave S Fax Num er: 53--856-6050—
City/State/Zip: Kent, WA 98032 Signatur .
Professional License No: RLA Cert- #4 5 2 E-mail:
Agent/Consultant/Attorney: (mandatory if primary contact is different from applicant)
Name: Lnri F1 pmm Daytime Phone:
Mailing Address: Fax Number:
City/State/Zip: E-mail:
Signature
Please provide a st tement in the space provided below or on an attached sheet as needed for the
suggested change(s) to the comprehensive plan or development regulations with regards to the
relevant criteria listed below:
• Detailed statement of the proposal and reason How the change would be compliant with the
for the amendment; Growth Management Act;
• Anticipated impacts of the change, including How the change would be compliant with the
the geographic area affected and issues Countywide Planning Policies;and
presented; How functional plans (e.g.subarea plans, utility
• Why existing comprehensive plan and plans) and capital improvement programs (e.g.
development regulations should not continue in transportation improvement program)support
effect or why existing criteria no longer apply; the change.
Please see attachment
GHI-2 PSD4098•6/30/08 p.I of3
42
The City of Kent, Park and Open Space Plan was adopted by City Council in
June, 2000, and updated in 2004 in conjunction with the Parks and Open
Space Element (Chapter 10) of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. Much
of the Action Program has been implemented, and the Action Program needs
to be updated.
The changes will be compliant with the Growth Management Ad. Functional
plans, such as the capital improvement program, will be updated
concurrently, and will support proposed action.
43
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan Preparation
(Tentative Schedule - August 20, 2008)
Nov. - Dec., 2008 • Determine public input strategy
• Review previous comp. plan, City comp plan,
shoreline master program for consistency.
• Determine schedule
January, 2009 • Public input process
February, 2009 • Update inventory, needs, LOS, compare to input
with needs
March, 2009 • Correlate Council strategic goals/priorities/.
policies
• Parks Committee meeting - Update
April, 2009 • Action program draft
• Public meeting
May, 2009 • Update Ch. 10, Parks & Open Space Element of
City Comprehensive Plan
• Executive Summary
• SEPA Document Draft
May 1, 2009 • Draft done; submitted to RCO for review
May 2, 2009 Draft to print shop
• Draft on website
May 3, 2009 • Draft available for review and sent to Parks
Committee, City Council, Mayor Cooke
May 11, 2009 Parks Committee packet
• Solicit input, and Public comment on website
May 21, 2009 Parks Committee meeting
June, 2009 • Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
• Submit SEPA
• Prepare CFP to coincide with Action Program
July, 2009 • Planning & Economic Development Committee
Aug. - Sept, 2009 • 60 day notification to WA Department of CTED
October, 2009 • Parks Committee review of comments
Nov. - Dec., 2009 • City Council Adoption
The City of Kent Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan is in the process of
being updated in 2008 - 2009. The update to the Comprehensive Park and
Recreation Plan is being accelerated to allow the city to submit grant
applications to the RCO in May of 2010. Staff will continue to update Chapter
10 Comprehensive Parks and Open Space element in conjunction with the
citywide comp plan update. Adoption of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan
is fall, 2009. Anticipated completion and adoption of the comprehensive park
and open space plan is end of year 2009.
44
This page intentionally left blank.
45
Draft
Parks & Open
Space Plan
Kent Parks Recreation &
Community Services
�� KENT
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 46
Table of Contents
WHO WE ARE...
1. Introduction ................................................................. 1
WHERE WE ARE...
2. Background.................................................................. 3
Natural Resource Characteristics.................................... 4
Demographic Profile ..................................................... 4
3. Park Inventory & Classification ....................................... 7
WHERE WE WANT TO GO...
4. Goals and Policies ....................................................... 14
5. Needs Analysis ........................................................... 27
Level of Service (LOS) ................................................ 27
Demographics ........................................................... 29
Public Participation ..................................................... 29
Regional Coordination................................................. 30
HOW WE WILL GET THERE...
6. Implementation .......................................................... 31
Overview .................................................................. 31
CoreThemes............................................................. 31
Long Term Capital Recommendations (2010-2030) ........ 33
Short Term Capital Recommendations (2010-2020) ....... 35
Financing .................................................................. 38
7. Appendices ................................................................ 42
A. Public Involvement................................................ 42
B. Relevant Regulations............................................. 46
C. Capital Facilities Plan ............................................. 47
D. Resolution/Ordinance Adopting Plan ........................ 47
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 47
1. Introduction
Over the past several decades Kent has developed an award-winning network of
parks, open spaces and recreation facilities. Kent's park and open space system
provides a wide variety of recreation experiences, from the Arbor Heights 360 skate
park and climbing pinnacle and the passive nature of Clark Lake Park, to the
regional draw of the Russell Road softball/baseball complex and our stunning
downtown gathering place, Town Square Plaza, there is something for everyone in
Kent.
Kent Parks' vision - "Creating a Better Community"- emphasizes the role parks play
in the make-up of a vibrant community. Meeting the needs of our citizens has
strongly influenced the character of the City's park system and has helped create a
well-rounded and expansive network. Our recent park survey resulted in
overwhelmingly positive comments about the City's existing system.
Kent parks serve a community that has grown not only in numbers but in size and
diversity. Kent is now home to more families, children and seniors than ever
before. A quarter of Kent's residents were born outside the U.S. and one-third
speak a language other than English at home. Over the past 20 years, the City has
doubled in size as urban growth areas have been annexed. As Kent transitions
from a suburban community to an urban center, the need to build upon Kent's
legacy is crucial to meet the changing community's needs. The Parks Plan is a tool
to help Kent meet this challenge.
Park Plan Objectives
The purpose of this plan is to guide the future acquisition, development and
redevelopment of parks and open spaces as we progress into the next 20 years.
This plan examines Kent's existing park and open space system, assesses needs,
identifies short- and long-term recommendations, details funding sources and
prioritizes our next steps. In addition, the plan will be incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Plan as an implementing document and will allow the City to retain
eligibility for State grant funds.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) provides planning goals for Parks and Open
Spaces. Although the Parks Plan is a required element under GMA, Kent has long
maintained a Park and Open Space Element because parks and recreational
opportunities are viewed as an integral part of the City and essential to the quality
of life for its citizens. The details of the Parks Plan will be included in the Park and
Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
i
Chapter 2 - Introduction 48
Philosophy
The mission for the Parks and Community Services Department is to enrich the
quality of life in Kent by providing parks and facilities that are safe, attractive, and
that offer enjoyable and meaningful recreation and cultural programs, and supports
human services. This is accomplished via development and maintenance of parks
and facilities, professional programming, and the optimum utilization of community
resources. The following mission statement articulates the Department's
commitment to the community:
Vision: Creating a Better Community
Mission: Dedicated to Enriching Lives
1. We are committed to providing safe and inviting parks and facilities.
2. We offer meaningful and inclusive recreational, cultural and human
service programs.
3. We are responsive, encouraging and ethical in our dedication to the
community by providing:
. . . Personal Benefits that strengthen self esteem, improve health and promote
self sufficiency.
. . . Social Benefits that bring families together and unite people within our
diverse community.
. . . Economic Benefits that welcome new business relocation and expansion,
leading to a more productive work force and increased tourism opportunities.
. . . Environmental Benefits that protect and preserve natural and open space
areas and enhance air and water quality.
As we seek to develop a park and opens space system that adequately meets the
needs of Kent's citizens, this Plan will provide the necessary guidance to help us
fulfill the Department's mission and work toward creating a better community.
2
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 49
2. Background
The City of Kent is the fourth largest city in King County, with a culturally diverse
population of 88,380. Kent has a unique makeup, from its distinct residential
neighborhoods, a regional manufacturing center to an extensive network of natural
features; these make Kent an attractive destination for living, working and
conducting business. Situated between Seattle and Tacoma, Kent's city limits cover
a geographic area of 29 square miles with major residential areas on the east and
west hills, a warehouse and distribution hub in the valley, a vibrant urban center,
and commercial nodes scattered throughout. Over the past several decades Kent
has developed an established network of parks, open spaces and recreation
facilities totaling more than 1,300 acres. In 2003, Kent was selected Sports
Illustrated Sportstown USA, which recognized Kent's innovation in the development
of parks facilities and programming. In addition to providing parks and open
spaces, Kent offers a wide variety of recreation programs. Kent's service area goes
beyond the city limits, serving the entire Kent School District and portions of the
Highline and Federal Way School Districts.
Legend
p f } Potential Annexation Area
Gr n p Major Hydrological Features
V�ktlands
r
or, \\ Minor Hydrological Features
w v y
s zoa r. Clry Limits
s sez ss7
Pan er a nnnexauonn a
1
�P
A '< E 211 7 —P
852 eb
NBIB, lj' 6
B2-IT
L :e
rs,tt
F � � s MIII reek Res '
a F' 'So Creek
9 � a
e s
trI- i r
9
BT
o �a
I
3
Chapter 2 - Background 50
Natural Resource Characteristics
Kent is lucky to have a wide variety of natural systems that help define our city and
make it unique. Some of the larger systems include two waters of the state: the
Green River which runs north-south along the west side of the City and Lake
Meridian located on Kent's east hill. There are several shoreline areas as
designated by the Shoreline Management Act, which include: Lake Fenwick, Green
River Natural Resource Area, Springbrook Creek, Jenkins Creek and the Mill Creek
Auburn Floodway. In addition to these, the City has many areas that are
considered critical or environmentally sensitive such as wetlands, streams, wildlife
and fisheries habitat, geologic hazard areas, frequently flooded areas and aquifer
recharge areas. An extensive urban forest stretches across and within many of
these natural systems.
Kent's natural systems have been subjected to widespread development over the
years; however, many of these areas are incorporated and protected within the
City's parks and open spaces. We have the opportunity to further protect and
utilize these areas through increased stewardship and through acquisition of natural
areas that are currently within private ownership. An example of recent efforts to
preserve Kent's natural areas is the development of an urban forestry management
program, currently underway. This program, titled Green Kent, will contain a 20-
year action plan to manage our natural areas and take advantage of our
enthusiastic volunteers by training citizens to become volunteer stewards. The
community recognizes the need to protect natural areas. Our most recent park
survey indicated that natural and open space areas were rated of extremely high
importance to our users.
Demographic Profile
Demand for park facilities are directly related to the makeup of the community in
areas such as population, age, ethnic diversity and household makeup. A look at
Kent's demographics is one measure that can help determine how much and what
kind of parkland is needed to serve the specific needs of the community. The
demographic information below is a broad overview based on information
developed from the 2000 U.S. Census data.
Population Growth
Significant growth over the last 20 years has underscored the need to plan for the
next phase of Kent's parks and open spaces so that these spaces continue to meet
the needs of the growing community. We also recognize that, due to fiscal
constraints, we need to become more creative in the maintenance, redevelopment
and programming of our existing parks as well as in the acquisition of future parks
and open spaces. Establishing partnerships with other organizations will become
4
CITY of KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 51
increasingly important if we are to continue to provide and maintain quality parks
and open spaces.
The City of Kent is the ninth largest city in Washington and fourth largest city in
King County. Figure 1 depicts Kent's population growth, by decade, since 1960,
and also reflects population projections to 2031. Annexation of the Panther Lake
area to the northeast of the City's limits in July 2010 will add an additional five
square miles and approximately 24,000 residents to our current population. By the
year 2031, Kent's population is projected to reach 105,445 (or 132,833 including all
potential annexation areas). Kent grew at an average rate of 10.9 percent per year
in the 1990's compared to an average of 6.4 percent per year in the 1980's. A
significant annexation occurred in January 1999 which accounts for a large part of
the population increase during the 1990's. Growth is expected to slow to 2.5
percent from 2000 to 2031.
Figure 1: Kent Population Growth 1960-2031
Kent Population Growth
120000 105,445
100000 ,
79,524
80000
60000
37,9
40000 23,152
16,275
20000 , 17
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2031
U.S. Census Bureau/OFM/PSRC/KingCounty
Households
There were 31,113 households in Kent in 2000, with an average of 2.53 persons
per household, up from 2.33 in 1990. Family households make up 63 percent of
households in Kent, with 38 percent of all households having children (individuals
under 18 years of age) and 13.9 percent of all households including seniors
(individuals 65 years and over).
5
Chapter z - Background 52
Ethnic Diversity
Kent's ethnic diversity is growing rapidly. Close to 29 percent of Kent's residents
identified themselves as a race other than white, compared to 11 percent in the
1990 Census. The ethnic makeup of Kent is 70.8 percent white, 9.4 percent Asian,
8.2 percent African American, 8.1 Hispanic, 0.9 percent Native American, 0.7
percent Pacific Islander, 4.7 percent from other races and 5.3 percent from two or
more races. The American Community Survey estimates that from 2005-2007, 31
percent of Kent's residents spoke a language other than English at home. Of those
speaking another language, 30 percent spoke Spanish and 70 percent spoke some
other language, and 56 percent reported that they did not speak English very well.
The American Community Survey also estimates that from 2005-2007, 25 percent
of people living in Kent were foreign born.
Age Makeup
Kent's population appears to be aging with an increased number of seniors and a
higher median age. There are also a greater number of children under the age of
18. The 2000 census found that 27.7 percent of Kent's population was less than 18
years of age, compared to 24.7 percent in 1990. The 2000 census found that 7.3
percent of the population was 65 years or older, compared to 6.5 percent in 1990.
The median age in 2000 was 31.8 years. The American Community Survey
estimates that the median age from 2005-2007, was 33.9 years.
Figure 2: Age Groups as a Percentage of Population
1990 Population 2000 Populaton
6% 7%
0-17 00-17
16% 20% 28%
18-44 18-44
45-64 45-65
65+ 65+
53% 45%
6
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 53
3. Park Inventory & Classification
Kent owns and/or leases 1,348 acres of parkland. Since 2000, over 87 acres have
been acquired. This parkland is generally broken down into the following
categories:
Community Parks - A park that serves the entire City of Kent and includes
facilities or amenities that are not offered elsewhere in the city. Amenities will vary
at each park and may include boating, swimming, fishing, group picnic shelters,
play equipment, trails, sport courts and ball fields. Access to the park is by car,
public transit, foot or bicycle. Off-street parking is provided. There are eight
Community Parks with a total of 111.9 acres.
Facility Location Acres
Arbor Heights 360 east 2.82
Green River Parks
Anderson Park valley 0.30
Briscoe Park valley 7.00
Cottonwood Grove valley 0.77
Russell Woods Park valley 7.00
Three Friends Park valley 1.00
Van Doren's Landing Park valley 10.00
Lake Meridian Park east 16.02
Morrill Meadows east 16.31
Old Fishing Hole valley 5.70
Town Square Plaza valley 0.77
Urban Core Parks
Burlington Green* valley 0.22
Castlereagh Park* valley 0.21
First Avenue Plaza valley 0.60
Kaibara Park* valley 0.56
Kherson valley 0.58
Rosebed Park* valley 0.23
Sunnfjord Park valley 0.21
Titus Railroad Park valley 0.30
Uplands Extension* (Rotary Basketball & Lions Skate) valley 4.10
Yangzhou Park* valley 0.21
West Fenwick Park (includes West Hill Skate Park) west 37.00
Total 111.91
* Leased Land
Neighborhood Park - A park designed to meet the active and passive recreation
needs of an immediate neighborhood. A neighborhood is defined by surrounding
arterial streets and access is usually by foot or bicycle. Parking spaces are typically
not provided, unless on-street parking is not available, accessible or safe.
7
Chapter 3 - Park Inventory & Classification 54
Neighborhood parks have amenities for casual activities that are not programmed
or organized. Amenities may include play equipment, picnic tables, hard courts
(basketball, tennis), walking trails, and open grass areas. There are 24
neighborhood parks with a total of 80.94 acres.
Facility Location Acres
Canterbury Neighborhood Park east 2.08
Chestnut Ridge Park east 3.33
Commons Park valley 2.66
East Hill Park east 4.62
Eastridge Park east 0.80
Garrison Creek Park east 5.00
Glenn Nelson Park west 10.00
Gowe Street Mini Park valley 0.10
Green View Park east 1.10
Kiwanis Tot Lot #1 valley 0.60
Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 valley 0.41
Kiwanis Tot Lot #3 east 0.75
Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 valley 0.35
Linda Heights Park west 4.20
Meridian Glen Park east 5.47
Pine Tree Park east 9.80
Salt Air Vista Park west 2.00
Scenic Hill Park east 4.10
Seven Oaks Park east 0.50
Springwood Park east 10.00
Sun Meadows east 1.54
Tudor Square Park east 4.70
Turnkey Park east 6.53
Walnut Grove east 0.30
Total 80.94
Recreation Facility - Buildings and parks used by the community for social,
cultural and programmed recreation. Recreational facilities include community
centers, historic buildings, sports fields and golf facilities. These facilities serve the
entire City of Kent, and in some cases, the region. Access to these facilities is by
car, public transit, foot, or bicycle. Off-street parking is provided. Riverbend is
unique from the other recreational facilities, because it is an enterprise facility,
which is a self-sustaining, revenue generating facility that financially supports itself.
Some of the facilities identified below include open space which may be developed
in the future.
8
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 55
Facility Location Acres Square Feet
Kent Commons valley 3.00 50,000
Kent Historical Museum valley 1.70 3,720
Kent Memorial Park valley 10.95
Kent Memorial Park Building valley 0.25 3,000
Kent Valley Ice Centre valley 3.60
Neely/Soames Historical House valley 1.00 2,256
Resource Center valley 0.44 6,000
Senior Activity Center valley 4.36 21,000
Service Club Park east 28.80
Russell Road Park valley 30.40
Uplands Playfield* valley 2.30
Wilson Playfields east 11.49
Subtotal 98.29 85,976
Riverbend Golf Complex-18 hole Course valley 131.00
Golf Par 3, Driving Range, Mini-Putt valley 36.00
Total 265.29
* Leased Land; ** Public Works Managed
Natural Resource - Parks that are passive in nature and include areas of
openness, environmentally sensitive areas, and/or wildlife habitat. Amenities
include passive recreation elements such as benches, bird watching platforms,
fishing, trails, and open green areas.
Facility Location Acres
Anderson Greenbelt valley 4.00
Campus Park east 16.50
Clark Lake Park (includes Lake rental 2.06) east 129.11
Eagle Scout Park valley 0.50
Foster Park valley 4.00
Green River Enhancement Area** valley 310.00
Green River Corridor/Trail valley 39.35
Ikuta Property Donation valley 0.90
Interurban Trail valley 10.35
Kennebeck Avenue valley 0.10
Lake Fenwick Park west 141.34
Mill Creek Canyon Park east 107.25
Old Fire Station west 0.21
Puget Power Trail valley 20.00
Springbrook Greenbelt valley 5.00
West Canyon Open Space west 5.00
Willis Street Greenbelt* valley 4.00
Total 797.61
* Leased Land; ** Public Works Managed
9
Chapter 3 - Park Inventory & Classification 56
Undeveloped - Land area acquired by the city that has not yet been developed or
programmed for recreational use.
Facility Location Acres
132nd Avenue Park (Dow Property) east 4.56
277th Corridor Park east 4.58
Eagle Creek Park east 1.00
Kronisch Property west 0.70
Midway Reservoir (W. Hill Neighborhood Park) west 9.67
Naden Ave. Property valley 6.45
Rainier View Estates east 1.17
Riverview Park valley 14.40
Valley Floor Community Park & Ballfields valley 50.05
Total 92.58
Panther Lake Annexation Area - Voters within the Panther Lake Annexation
Area voted to annex into the City of Kent on November 3, 2009. The annexation
will be effective July 1, 2010. Three parks located within the annexation area will
be transferred to the City of Kent from King County. The City currently owns a
1.34 acre parcel within the Panther Lake Annexation Area known as Hopkins Open
Space.
Facility Location Acres
Green Tree Park east 1.47
Hopkins Open Space east 1.34
North Meridian Park east 75.46
Park Orchard Park east 7.22
Total 85.49
Urban Center & Green River Subareas
Kent contains two distinct areas comprising several parks. Kent's downtown
includes 10 parks, which together, forms our Urban Center Community Parks.
Parks within the Urban Center collectively provide a variety of amenities such as
play areas, picnic tables, skate and basketball facilities, and passive open green
areas. During festivals and other events downtown, these parks serve as gathering
places and key focal points.
The Green River features 13 parks stretching from Briscoe Park at the northern city
limits to the 277t" trail connection at the southern limits. Several of the parks
provide passive green space, two are undeveloped, and the remaining provide a
variety of amenities for fishing, play, barbecues, picnics and bicycling. Each of
these subareas provides a distinct experience for park users based on the area.
10
CITY of KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 57
Neighborhood Service Areas
The City is divided into 48 neighborhood service areas. Service areas are bounded
by major arterial streets, geographic features (steep topography, rivers etc.), and
other barriers that would make it difficult for users to reach the designated park for
each area. While 16 of the areas are served by a neighborhood park, five
neighborhoods are served by community parks (Van Doren's Landing Park, Kent
Memorial Park, Lake Meridian Park, Clark Lake Park, and Russell Road Park) that
have elements typically found in a neighborhood park. Four neighborhoods have
undeveloped or minimally developed community parks (132"d Street Park, Midway
Reservoir, Eagle Creek, and Valley Floor Community Park), which will service
neighborhood needs when fully developed. Five neighborhood service areas are
primarily industrial and no neighborhood parks are proposed in these areas. Two
service areas are low density residential with agricultural or industrial land uses and
no designated neighborhood park. These areas have a combined population of 156
people (2000 Census) and will be monitored for future park needs. Four service
areas have no park space (NSA #11, 21, 30, 41).
Within the Panther Lake annexation area, three service areas have either no park
land or are deficient. The remaining service area, located entirely within the
Panther Lake annexation area, is served by a community park.
Legend
r.r 1 Q Neighborhood P2r1<SENicc Areas
/�- �d� 3 Park Fa Tlies
L 57 O PommalAn—ticnArea
5
6 - g 4 _ OCi'[y Liras
1 wr
9 1 20 1$JS 1 16
lnu s fez
527 _
21 23
31 30
36 32 Y
35 38
�
41 '�i3
n k � � 8
11
Chapter 3 - Park Inventory & Classification 58
Greenways
Greenways provide a contrast to urban f� �
density. They combine the natural _
functions and separations provided by a
greenbelt with the linear and connected i g'
orientation of a parkway. Greenways �#
are present in many existing parks and
within privately owned property. They
commonly exist because they include
environmentally sensitive areas such as
wetlands, streams or steep slopes. One
of the most prominent greenways in
Kent is within Mill Creek Earthworks
►;rs V
Park, which starts at the base of the
east hill and continues up the hill along .
both sides of Mill Creek. This greenway
includes an urban forest stream
wetlands, wildlife habitat and steep
slopes. In addition to the environmental
benefits of this area, Mill Creek
Greenway provides a break in the urban Mill Creek canyon Greenway
landscape and has the potential to provide a
much needed connection between the city center and the east hill.
Given the limitations of public resources, urban greenway systems must be sensibly
created and carefully managed. Urban greenways can provide multiple benefits at
an affordable price to a wide array of citizens.
Green Kent
Protecting natural areas in an urbanized area requires an active resource
management program to provide long-term environmental, recreational, and social
benefits.
Green Kent, an urban forest management program currently being developed, will
identify present conditions across approximately 2,000 acres of public land, and
determine the resources required to realize a 20-year strategic plan of action. The
long-term strategy will become the driving force to engage community groups and
build a network of support to achieve city-wide forest and natural area restoration
goals.
The following are Green Kent's goals:
12
CITY of KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 59
1) Connect people to nature and improve the quality of life in Kent by restoring
urban forests and other urban open spaces;
2) Galvanize an informed, involved, and active community around urban forest
restoration and stewardship; and
3) Improve urban forest health, and enhance urban forest long-term
sustainability, by removing invasive plants and maintaining functional native
forest communities.
13
Chapter 4 - Goals & Policies 60
4. Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies express how our park and opens space system would
best develop over the coming years and details how we will take measurable steps
toward achieving the goals established below.
Overall Goal: Encourage and provide opportunities for local residents to participate in
life- enrichment activities via the development of parkland and recreational facilities,
preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, professional programming, and the
optimum utilization of community resources.
I. PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES
Develop a high-quality, diversified recreational system for all abilities, ages and
interest groups.
Goal P&OS-1:
Work with other agencies to preserve and increase waterfront access and facilities.
Policy P&OS-1.1: Cooperate with King County, Kent, Federal Way and
Highline School Districts, and other public and private agencies to acquire and
preserve additional shoreline access for waterfront fishing, wading, swimming,
and other related recreational activities and pursuits; especially on the Green
River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake.
Policy P&OS-1.2: Develop a mixture of opportunities for watercraft access,
including canoe, kayak, sailboard, and other non power-boating activities;,
especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and
Panther Lake, where practicable.
Goal P&OS-2:
Work with other public agencies and private organizations, including but not limited to
the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, to develop a high-quality system of athletic
facilities for competitive play.
Policy P&OS-2.1: Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest quality
standards and requirements for competitive playing for all abilities, age groups,
skill levels, and recreational interests.
14
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 61
Policy P&OS-2.2: Develop field and court activities like soccer, football,
baseball, basketball, softball, tennis, roller hockey, and volleyball that provide
for the largest number of participants, and allow for multiple use, where
appropriate.
Policy P&OS-2.3: Develop, where appropriate, a select number of facilities
that provide the highest standard for competitive playing, possibly in
conjunction with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other
public agencies and private organizations.
Goal P&OS-3:
Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality system of indoor facilities that provide
activities and programs for the interests of all physical and mental capabilities, age,
and interest groups in the community.
Policy P&OS-3.1: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor community
centers, such as the Senior Activity Center, , and Kent Memorial Park Building,
that provide arts and crafts, music, video, classroom instruction, meeting
facilities, eating and health care, day care, and other spaces for all age groups,
including preschool, youth, teens, and seniors on a year-round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.2: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor recreational
centers, such as Kent Commons and the Kent-Meridian Pool, that provide
aquatic, physical conditioning, gymnasiums, recreational courts, and other
athletic spaces for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and community interests
on a year-round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.3: Support the continued development and diversification by
the Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts of special meeting,
assembly, eating, health, and other community facilities that provide
opportunities to school-age populations and the community at large at
elementary, middle, and high schools within Kent and the Potential Annexation
Area.
Policy P&OS-3.4: Develop and operate special indoor and outdoor cultural
and performing arts facilities that enhance and expand music, dance, drama,
and other audience and participatory opportunities for the community at large.
15
Chapter 4 - Goals & Policies 62
Goal P&OS-4:
Where appropriate, develop and operate specialized park and recreational enterprises
that meet the interest of populations who are able and willing to finance them.
Policy P&OS-4.1: Where appropriate and economically feasible (i.e., self-
supporting), develop and operate specialized and special interest recreational
facilities like golf, ice skating,frisbee golf, mountain biking and archery ranges.
Policy P&OS-4.2: Where appropriate, initiate with other public agencies and
private organizations joint planning and operating programs to determine and
provide for special activities like golf, archery, gun ranges, off-leash areas,
model airplane flying areas,frisbee gold, mountain biking and camping on a
regional basis.
Goal P&OS-5:
Develop and operate a balanced system of neighborhood and community parks, with
active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City.
Policy P&OS-5.1: Acquire and develop parks to meet the level-of-service
needs as Kent's population grows and areas are annexed.
Policy P&OS-5.2: Identify neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets and
geographic features that act as natural barriers. Set aside neighborhood park
land within each area to meet the levels-of-service.
Policy P&OS-5.3: Develop amenities in parks for individual and group use,
active and passive uses, while representing the best interests of the
neighborhood or community as a whole.
Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single-family and multifamily residential,
and commercial developments to provide recreation elements.
II. OPEN SPACE AND GREENWAY GOALS & POLICIES
Develop of a high-quality, diversified and interconnected park system that preserves
and sensitively enhances significant open spaces, greenways and urban forests. The
16
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 63
establishment of greenways as urban separators is a strategy that promotes
connectivity of Kent's open space system.
Goal P&OS-6:
Establish an open space pattern that will provide definition of and separation between
developed areas, and provide open space and greenway linkages among park and
recreational resources.
Policy P&OS-6.1: Define and conserve a system of open space and greenway
corridors as urban separators to provide definition between natural areas and
urban land uses within the Kent area.
Policy P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages of trails, in-street bikes lanes, or other
existing or planned connections with greenways and open space, particularly
along the Green River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek corridors;
around Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake
Young; and around significant wetland and floodways such as the Green River
Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-6.3: Preserve, through acquisition as necessary,
environmentally sensitive areas as greenway linkages and urban separators,
particularly along the steep hillsides that define both sides of the Green River
Valley and the SE 277t"/272nd Street corridor.
Goal P&OS-7:
Identify and protect significant recreational lands before they are lost to development.
Policy P&OS-7.1: Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with
private landowners to protect land and resources near residential
neighborhoods for high-quality, low impact park and recreational facilities
before the most suitable sites are lost to development. Suitable sites include
wooded, undeveloped, and sensitive lands along the Green River, Soos Creek,
Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek Canyon corridors, and lands adjacent to the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power line rights-of-way.
Policy P&OS-7.2: In future land developments, preserve unique
environmental features or areas, and increase public use of and access to these
areas. Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with private
17
Chapter 4 - Goals & Policies 64
landowners to protect unique features or areas as low impact publicly
accessible resources, particularly along the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison
Creek, Mill Canyon, and SE 2771h/272nd Street corridors.
III. TRAIL AND CORRIDOR SYSTEM GOALS & POLICIES
Develop a high-quality system of multipurpose park trails and corridors that provide
access to significant environmental features, public facilities, and developed
neighborhoods and business districts.
Goal P&OS-8:
Create a comprehensive system of multipurpose off-road and on-road trail systems
that link park and recreational resources with residential areas, public facilities,
commercial, and employment centers both within Kent and within the region.
Policy P&OS-8.1: Where appropriate, create a comprehensive system of
multipurpose off-road trails using alignments of the Puget Power rights-of-way,
Soos Creek Trail, Mill Creek Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail, Green River Trail,
Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and Green River Natural Resource
Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-8.2: Create a comprehensive system of on-road trails to
improve connectivity for the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring
enthusiasts using scenic, collector, and local road rights-of-way and alignments.
Policy P&OS-8.3: Provide connections from residential neighborhoods to
community facilities like Kent Commons, the Senior Activity Center, the Kent-
Meridian Pool, schools, parks, and commercial districts.
Policy P&OS-8.4: Work with Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, Des
Moines, Covington, King County, and other appropriate jurisdictions to link and
extend Kent trails to other community and regional trail facilities like the Green
River, Interurban, and Soos Creek Trails.
Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of right-of-way and street
improvement plans, consider potential connectivity with existing or proposed
trail corridors, parks, and neighborhoods.
18
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 65
Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with elementary and middle schools, the
downtown core, and other commercial and retail activity centers on East and
West Hills.
Policy P&OS-8.7: Extend trails through natural area corridors like the Green
River, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek, and around natural features
like Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and Panther Lake in order to
provide a high-quality, diverse sampling of the Kent's environmental resources.
Policy P&OS 8.8: Revise development regulations so that key trail links, that
are identified within the cooridor map, are provided to the City during the
development approval process..
Goal P&OS-9:
Furnish trail corridors, trailheads, and other supporting sites with convenient
amenities and improvements.
Policy P&OS-9.1: Furnish trail systems with appropriate trailhead supporting
improvements that include interpretive and directory signage, rest stops,
drinking fountains, restrooms, parking and loading areas, water, and other
services.
Policy P&OS-9.2: Where appropriate, locate trailheads at or in conjunction
with park sites, schools, and other community facilities to increase local area
access to the trail system and to reduce duplication of supporting
improvements and amenities.
Policy P&OS-9.3: Design and develop trail improvements which emphasize
safety for users and are easy to maintain and easy to access by maintenance,
security, and other appropriate personnel, equipment, and vehicles.
IV. HISTORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
Develop a high-quality, diversified park system that includes preservation of
significant historic and cultural resources, as well as programs to recognize the City's
multicultural heritage.
Goal P&OS-10:
19
Chapter 4 - Goals & Policies 66
Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic and cultural resources and multicultural
interests into the park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-10.1: Identify, preserve, and enhance Kent's multicultural
heritage, traditions, and cultural resources including historic sites, buildings,
artwork, views, monuments and archaeological resources.
Policy P&OS-10.2: Identify and incorporate significant historic and cultural
resource lands, sites, artifacts, and facilities into the park system to preserve
these interests and to provide a balanced social experience. These areas
include the original alignment for the interurban electric rail service between
Seattle and Tacoma, the James Street historical waterfront site, and the
Downtown train depot, among others.
Policy P&OS-10.3: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other cultural
resource groups to incorporate community activities at historic homes and sites
into the park and recreational program.
Goal P&OS-11:
Incorporate man-made environments and features into the park and recreational
system.
Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments,
structures, activities, and areas into the park system to preserve these features
and to provide a balanced park and recreational experience. Examples include
the earthworks in Mill Creek Canyon Park and art in public places.
Policy P&OS-11.2: Work with property and facility owners to increase public
access to and utilization of these special features.
V. CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
Develop high-quality, diversified cultural arts facilities and programs that increase
community awareness, attendance, and other opportunities for participation.
Goal P&OS-12:
20
CITY of KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 67
Work with the arts community to utilize local resources and talents to increase public
access to artwork and programs.
Policy P&OS-12.1: Support successful collaborations among the Arts
Commission, business community, service groups, cultural organizations,
schools, arts patrons, and artists to utilize artistic resources and talents to the
optimum degree possible.
Policy P&OS-12.2: Develop strategies that will support and assist local artists
and art organizations. Where appropriate, develop and support policies and
programs that encourage or provide incentives to attract and retain artists and
artwork within the Kent community.
Goal P&OS-13:
Acquire and display public artwork to furnish public facilities and other areas and
thereby increase public access and appreciation.
Policy P&OS-13.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings, sculptures,
exhibits, and other media for indoor and outdoor display in order to expand
access by residents and to furnish public places in an appropriate manner.
VI. WILDLIFE & NATURAL PRESERVATION GOALS & POLICIES
Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resources into the park
system in order to protect threatened plant and animal species, preserve habitat, and
retain migration corridors for local wildlife. Such incorporation is intended to limit
habitat degradation associated with human activities.
Goal P&OS-14:
Designate critical wildlife habitat resources and areas.
Policy P&OS-14.1: Identify and conserve critical wildlife habitat including
nesting sites, foraging areas, and wildlife mitigation corridors within or
adjacent to natural areas, open spaces, and developed urban areas.
Policy P&OS-14.2: Acquire and preserve habitat sites that support
threatened species and urban wildlife habitat, in priority corridors and natural
21
Chapter 4 - Goals & Policies 68
areas with habitat value such as the Green River Corridor, the Green River
Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), North Meridian Park, Soos Creek, Mill Creek,
and Clark Lake Park.
Policy P&OS-14.3: Enhance habitat within parks, open space, and
environmentally sensitive areas by maintaining a healthy urban forest with
native vegetation that provides food, cover, shelter, and by utilizing best
management practices.
Goal P&OS-15:
Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features, where such access
does not cause harm to the environmental functions associated with the features.
Policy P&OS-15.1: Preserve and protect significant environmental features
including environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, open spaces,
woodlands, shorelines, waterfronts, and other features that support wildlife and
reflect Kent's natural heritage.
Policy P&OS-15.2: Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited public
access to environmentally sensitive areas and sites that are especially unique
to the Kent area, such as the Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek and Mill
Creek corridors, the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA), and the
shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, Lake Fenwick, and Clark Lake.
Goal P&OS16: Develop and maintain an Urban Forestry Management Program.
Policy P&OS-16.1 Connect people to nature and improve the quality of life in
Kent by restoring urban forests and other urban open spaces.
Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvanize the community around urban forest restoration
and stewardship through a volunteer restoration program.
Policy P&OS-16.3 Improve urban forest health, and enhance urban forest
long-term sustainability, by removing invasive plants and maintaining
functional native forest communities.
22
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 69
VII. DESIGN AND ACCESS GOALS & POLICIES
Design and develop facilities that are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, with life-
cycle features that account for long-term costs and benefits.
Goal P&OS-17:
Design park and recreational indoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to all
physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests.
Policy P&OS-17.1: Design outdoor picnic areas, fields, courts, playgrounds,
trails, parking lots, restrooms, and other active and supporting facilities to be
accessible to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill
levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests.
Policy P&OS-17.2: Design indoor facility spaces, activity rooms, restrooms,
hallways, parking lots, and other active and supporting spaces and
improvements to be accessible to individuals and organized groups of all
physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity
interests.
Goal P&OS-18:
Design and develop park and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance
materials.
Policy P&OS-18.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low-maintenance
and high-capacity design to reduce overall facility maintenance and operation
requirements and costs.
Policy P&OS-18.2: Where appropriate, use low-maintenance materials,
settings, or other value-engineering considerations that reduce care and
security requirements, while retaining the natural conditions and environment.
Policy P&OS-18.3: Where possible in landscaping parks, encourage the use
of low maintenance native plants..
Goal P&OS-19:
Identify and implement the security and safety provisions of the American Disabilities
Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other
standards.
23
Chapter 4 - Goals & Policies 70
Policy P&OS-19.1: Implement the provisions and requirements of the
American Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED), and other design and development standards that will
improve park facility safety and security features for park users, department
personnel, and the public at large.
Policy P&OS-19.2: Develop and implement safety standards, procedures,
and programs that will provide proper training and awareness for department
personnel.
Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations concerning park
activities and operations that will protect user groups, department personnel,
and the public at large.
Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a-park programs,
neighborhood park watches, and other innovative programs that will increase
safety and security awareness and visibility.
VIII. FISCAL COORDINATION GOALS & POLICIES
Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing, operating, and
maintaining facilities and programs that distribute costs and benefits to public and
private interests.
Goal P&OS-20:
Investigate innovative methods of financing park and recreational requirements,
including joint ventures with other public agencies and private organizations, and
private donations.
Policy P&OS-20.1: Investigate innovative, available methods, such as growth
impact fees, land set-a-side or fee-in-lieu-of-donation ordinances, and
interlocal agreements, to finance facility development, maintenance, and
operating needs in order to reduce costs, retain financial flexibility, match user
benefits and interests, and increase facility services.
Policy P&OS-20.2: Where feasible and desirable, consider joint ventures with
King County, Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts, regional, state,
federal, and other public agencies and private organizations, including for-profit
24
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 71
concessionaires to acquire and develop regional facilities (i.e., swimming pool,
off-leash park, etc.).
Policy P&OS-20.3: Maintain and support a Park Foundation to investigate
grants and private funds, develop a planned giving program and solicit private
donations to finance facility development, acquisition, maintenance, programs,
services, and operating needs.
Goal P&OS-21:
Coordinate public and private resources to create among agencies a balanced local
park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-21.1: Create a comprehensive, balanced park and recreational
system that integrates Kent facilities and services with resources available from
King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other state, federal,
and private park and recreational lands and facilities, in a manner that will best
serve and provide for the interests of area residents.
Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint planning and development efforts,
with King County, Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public and
private agencies to avoid duplication, improve facility quality and availability,
reduce costs, and represent interests of area residents.
Goal P&OS-22:
Create and institute a method of cost/benefit and performance measure assessment
to determine equitable park and recreation costs, levels of service, and provision of
facilities.
Policy P&OS-22.1: In order to effectively plan and program park and
recreational needs within the existing city limits and the potential annexation
area, define existing and proposed land and facility levels-of-service (LOS) that
differentiate requirements due to the impacts of population growth as opposed
to improvements to existing facilities, neighborhood as opposed to community
nexus of benefit, requirements in the City as opposed to requirements in the
Potential Annexation Area.
Policy P&OS-22.2: Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring,
developing, operating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in
25
Chapter 4 - Goals & Policies 72
manners that accurately distribute costs and benefits to public and private user
interests. This includes the application of growth impact fees where new
developments impact level-of-service (LOS) standards.
Policy P&OS-22.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs that
serve the broadest needs of the population and that recover program and
operating costs using a combination of registration fees, user fees, grants,
sponsorships, donations, scholarships, volunteer efforts, and the use of general
funds.
26
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 73
5. Needs Analysis
Level of Service (LOS)
Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), communities are responsible for
providing public facilities without decreasing levels of service below locally
established minimums (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). Measuring the adequacy of our
Parks and Open Spaces requires an established set of standards. Level of service
(LOS) standards are measures of the amount of a public facility which must be
provided to meet the community's basic needs and expectations. The GMA allows
communities flexibility in establishing level of service standards that meet local
needs and expectations.
Over the past 30 years, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has
developed guidelines and standards for parks, recreation and open space. NRPA
first published guidelines in 1971 and revised them in 1983 through the Recreation,
Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, to serve as a basis for developing
standards at the community level. The NRPA no longer recommends a standard for
facility and parkland based on population ratios; however the NRPA recommends
that since every community is different, standards should be developed by the
community and used as a guide in planning.
The former NRPA guidelines are used throughout the United States, and Kent's
1994 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan level of service standards were
developed with these standards, which represent the minimum for which a
community should strive. The level of service standards established in the 1994
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and adopted by City Council remains an
appropriate guideline today, however with the changing demographics of Kent; the
City may want to consider establishing new standards or supplemental measures in
future years.
Future demand for park and recreation facilities is based on comparing projected
populations with Kent's park and recreation standards. Park and recreation needs
are related directly to the characteristics of a city's population. The City's
population is projected to increase to 105,445 (or 132,833 including all potential
annexation areas) by year 2031. Table 1 shows Kent's level of service from 1993-
2003. Table 2 shows Kent's level of service for the year 2009 and projections for
the year 2031. Table 2 is based on a reorganized park and open space inventory
that more accurately classifies parkland based on current use and investment
(developed/undeveloped/athletic facilities/natural resource). While the park and
open spaces are broken down differently in the two tables, the overall LOS numbers
are comparable and show a steady decline in the number of acres per 1000 people
and square feet per person as the population increases.
27
Chapter 5 - Needs Analysis 74
Table 1: LOS 1993-2003
1993 1996 1998 2000 2003
Population 41,000 45,000 70,140 79,524 84,275
Neighborhood Parks 2.53 ac. 1.58 ac. 1.56 ac. 1.45 ac. 1.13 ac.
13.72
Community Parks 18.19 ac. 18.4 ac. 14 ac. ac. 14.85 ac.
Golf Course (holes/1000) 0.56 0.6 0.38 0.38 0.32
Recreation Facilities (sq.
feet/person) 2.33 2.12 1.36 1.2 1.13
Overall LOS (acres/1000) 20.72 19.98 15.56 15.17 15.98
Overall LOS (sq. ft./person) 2.33 2.12 1.36 1.2 1.13
Table 2: LOS 2009 & 2031
2009 2031
Population 88,380 105,445
Natural Resource 9.2 ac. 7.5 ac.
0.92
Neighborhood Parks ac. .77 ac.
1.27
- Community Parks ac. 1.06 ac.
Recreation Facilities
Indoor (sq.
ft/person) 1.86 1.56
Outdoor
acres/1000) 2.8 2.4
1.05
Undeveloped ac. 0.88 ac.
Overall LOS acres/1000 15.24 12.61
Overall LOS
(sq.ft./person) 1.86 1.56
In order to maintain the current level of service of 15.24 acres per 1000 people, the
following amounts of additional parkland would need to be acquired:
28
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 75
260 acres - 2031 pop of 105,445
677 acres - 2031 pop of 132,833 (includes potential annexation areas)
It is important to note that level of service standards are typically quantitative,
measuring the size, amount or capacity of a facility. These standards represent
only one measure of a successful park system and do not address the quality or
investment in each facility. Future LOS standards that include both qualitative and
quantitative measures may more fully capture how Kent's parks and open spaces
are meeting the community's needs.
Demographics
Record breaking growth and large annexations over the past 20 years has
significantly increased Kent's population and the number of people our parks serve.
Families make up the majority of households Kent with more seniors and children
than ever before. As our community ages and families grow, the needs of the
community, in terms of parks and open space, change. Not only have the need for
park and open spaces increased with the population, it is clear that future park
investments consider the growing population of seniors and children.
Public Participation
The building of a city's parks and open spaces is largely directed by community
values, priorities, and resources. Kent has worked with the community in an
ongoing dialogue in order to gauge residents' parks and open space values. Over
the years we have relied upon surveys, workshops, questionnaires and consultation
with the Parks and Human Services Committee. Feedback has been valuable in
setting priorities and allocating resources.
An informal survey was taken during the spring of 2009, preceding the park plan
update, in order to obtain the community's ideas and opinions about the existing
parks system, deficiencies, and priorities for the coming years. While the survey
was not geographically representative or scientific, it is helpful to use the survey
responses as a general guide. Respondents rated trails, open space and natural
areas as extremely important followed by major parks and small neighborhood
parks. Park security and maintenance was also noted as a top priority in the
coming years.
In addition to the survey, a public workshop was held in September 2009 to further
refine the areas of focus in the Park Plan and supplement the comments received
through the survey. Participants commented on the need to maintain our existing
facilities and to make use of under utilized areas. Participants expressed a desire
for better connectivity between parks and throughout the City. A detailed
29
Chapter s - Needs Analysis 76
description of the survey, public workshop and other efforts to solicit public input
can be found in Appendix A.
In order to address the community's parks and open space needs, short- and long-
term implementation priorities and funding options are discussed in the following
chapter.
Regional Coordination
There are some needs that warrant a regional approach to meeting demand for
specific types of parks. The trail systems (Green River & Interurban) in Kent
require extensive coordination with King County and neighboring jurisdictions due
to our combined interest in providing an interconnected trail system that functions
as one parks facility for people throughout the region.
The need for a dog park serving the east hill of Kent, Covington and unincorporated
King County is another area where a regional solution would best serve parks
users. A regional dog park would allow resources to be pooled and prevent
duplication in services where one larger facility may more effectively meet the need
of several jurisdictions.
Urban forest restoration is another area that would benefit from intergovernmental
coordination. As Kent embarks on creating an urban forest management plan,
coordination with other jurisdictions who are also implementing urban forestry
programs will provide us a greater understanding of how plans have functioned in
other areas.
Kent will continue to explore other areas where regional coordination may better
serve the residents of our City and users throughout the region.
30
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 77
6. Implementation
Overview
The following recommendations for implementing the Park Plan focus on parks
acquisition, development and redevelopment. Implementing the recommendations
contained in this Plan will depend on both opportunity and funding availability. As
competing demands escalate for increasingly limited City resources, creative
solutions are needed to fund park-related projects. Realization of the Park Plan will
take time and will require a sound and realistic financing strategy.
This section establishes both short- and long-term priorities. The long-term
program described in this section addresses what is needed to build upon our
established parks and open space system over the next 20 years. The short-term
program defines more immediate needs over the next 10 years. The challenge for
Kent in the short term will be finding a balance between focusing on immediate
needs and remaining flexible to take advantage of unique opportunities of great
long-term benefit.
To achieve long-term priorities, it is important to continue to acquire key parcels
during the next 10 years. The ability to realize our long range plans for our parks
and open spaces require an ongoing effort to obtain property for community and
neighborhood parks in the short term. The rate of acquisition however, may be
slower than in past years due to a pressing need for redevelopment and renovation
of existing parks.
Development and redevelopment are equally important to provide citizens a variety
of recreation opportunities. Redevelopment of existing park facilities and
development of new facilities must be balanced in a way that maintains our existing
investments while also providing new opportunities and facilities to meet demand
and changing needs. Renovation of facilities plays a role in ensuring a safe,
functional and well-maintained park system.
Core Themes
The Parks Department proposes to focus attention on four major core themes in
order to meet the short- and long-term needs of the community.
1. Kent's Legacy - Preserving Kent's Park System: Over the past several
decades, Kent has developed an established network of parks, open spaces
and recreation facilities totaling more than 1,300 acres. A key component of
the Park Plan is to recognize and re-invest in our existing facilities. As
expressed in our park survey, security and maintenance ranked as a top
31
Chapter 6 - Implementation 78
priority for park users. Continued maintenance and re-investment will
ensure that existing facilities continue to provide recreational benefits for
years to come.
2. Athletic Fields - A New Approach: In order to meet the needs of organized
sports, the Park Plan introduces a shift in how athletic fields are developed,
from traditional single use facilities within separate spaces, to multi-use
facilities that take advantage of technology and partnerships in order to
maximize space. This shift recognizes that easily developable land is much
more expensive and increasingly difficult to find in an urbanizing city.
Creative solutions to providing sports fields for year-round use will be an
important element of the Plan's implementation.
3. Green Kent - Managing Our Urban Forest: Green Kent, an urban forest
management program currently being developed in partnership with the
Cascade Land Conservancy, seeks to protect and maintain our urban forest
and natural areas. These areas provide many benefits to our park users and
citizens, by providing a contrast to urban density, creating links between
parks and other areas of interest as well as providing habitat and
environmental benefits. Stewarding Kent's urban forest will ensure the long-
term health of these areas so that they may provide benefits for generations
to come.
4. Connectivity - A Vision for Trail & Greenway Corridors: Kent's park system,
which is built on a suburban grid, can become better connected through the
use of trails, greenways, and existing recreational corridors. The Park Plan
seeks to emphasize connectivity between parks, schools, neighborhoods and
other areas of public interest to create easy access to the outdoors and
recreation. A connected system becomes a part of the community fabric,
weaving together elements of our daily lives.
Kent is lucky to have several existing corridors which are either substantially
connected or have the potential to make important connections across the
City. The Green River Trail follows the meandering Green River along the
west side of the City and provides links to the downtown core. The
Interurban Trail, which follows the Union Pacific Railroad, provides a major
non-motorized north-south corridor through the central valley of Kent and
extends to Kent's surrounding communities of Tukwila and Auburn, serving
as a regional connection. A third north-south corridor is located on the
eastern limits of the city. The Soos Creek Trail provides 9.5 miles along Soos
Creek on the east hill. This trail has the potential to connect further to the
32
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 79
north and south. An underutilized corridor, Mill Creek Canyon, stretches
from Earthworks Park up the east hill. This corridor provides a valuable
connection from the valley to the east hill of Kent, where connections are
difficult to make outside of existing right-of-way due to grades and existing
development.
The future corridor map shows potential east-west connections which would
further connect our system. While they are conceptual in nature, they
provide a visual example of a corridor system, where significant areas of
interest are linked and easily accessible to our users. Connectivity is a City-
wide goal and has been discussed in other plans, such as the Transportation
Master Plan.
The next step for furthering the vision of connectivity is to establish a trails,
bikeways and paths plan that evaluates how best to build on our existing trail
system and move toward a connected system. A trails, bikeways and paths
plan would examine current resources, potential corridor routes, and specify
future projects needed to achieve connectivity.
Long Term Capital Recommendations (2010-2030)
Over the past several decades Kent's park system has grown and developed to
include an impressive collection of parks and open spaces totaling over 1,300 acres
in size. Strategic investments over time have allowed Kent to develop a fantastic
legacy, with much to be proud of. The City's existing parks and open spaces have
developed on a suburban grid, and as the size and population of Kent increases, the
makeup of the community is becoming more dense and urban in nature.
This Plan sets the stage to build upon Kent's legacy in order to best serve a more
urban and diverse community. It will require finding the right balance, in the
allocation of our limited resources, between current development/redevelopment
efforts and acquiring land for future development. Our success will depend on
carefully defining and articulating a clear vision, maintaining community support
and crafting a realistic funding package.
Re-investing in and renovating our existing parks, completing property
assemblages for key community parks, creating a multimodal system of greenway
corridors and trails, and addressing the need for athletic fields and recreation
facilities are all important steps in building upon Kent's legacy. The goal for our
parks system in the next 20 years is to take care of existing assets while at the
same time building a system that creatively meets the needs of an urbanizing city.
The following recommendations address the components needed to create the
33
Chapter 6 - Implementation 80
envisioned park system in the next 20 years. Many of the recommendations are
proposed for action over the next 10 years, and are, therefore, also found in the
short-term recommendations that follow this section.
Acquisitions
Neighborhood & Community Parks
• East Hill/Morrill Meadows Park
• Panther Lake Annexation Area Acquisitions
• Naden Avenue Property Assemblage
• Lake Meridian Park - Acquisition for additional parking
Natural Resource/Open Space/Greenways/Trails
• Clark Lake Park Property Assemblage
• Green River Corridor - Missing links
• Greenway Connections/Linear Parks
• Trail/Bike/Pathway Easements
Recreation Facilities
• Wilson Playfields Expansion
• Valley Floor Athletic Complex
Development/Redevelopment
Neighborhood & Community Parks
• Off-Leash Dog Park(s) on East Hill
• West Hill Neighborhood Park
• 132nd Street Neighborhood Park
• West Fenwick Park - Phase II Renovation
• Van Doren's Landing Park - Renovation
• Lake Meridian Park - Play Area Expansion & Dock Replacement
• Springwood Park - Renovation
• Tudor Square Park - Renovation
• Eastridge Park - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Meridian Glen Park - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Pine Tree Park - Master Plan Phase I Development
• Russell Woods Park - Renovation
• Seven Oaks Park - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Old Fishing Hole - Master Plan, Phased Renovation
• Garrison Creek Park - Renovation
• Briscoe Park - Master Plan, Phased Renovation
34
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 81
• Kiwanis Tot Lot #3 - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Salt Air Vista Park - Master Plan & Phased Renovation
• Scenic Hill Park - Master Plan & Phased Renovation
• Panther Lake Annexation Area Community Park
• Downtown Parks - Renovation
• Eagle Creek Park
• Riverview Park
• Lake Meridian Park - Parking, Drainage, Master Plan
• East Hill/Morrill Meadows Park Redevelopment
• Commons Park - Master Plan
Natural Resource/Open Space/Greenways/Trails
• Clark Lake Park - Restoration Work, Phase I
• Mill Creek Greenway Phase I - Trail development
• Lake Fenwick Park - Restoration & Dock Replacement
• West Fenwick Park/Lake Fenwick - Greenway Trail Development
• Green Kent Partnership - Master Plan, Restoration
• Trails, Bikeways and Paths Plan
• Panther Lake Water Access Park
• Clark Lake Park - Future Phases, Retreat/Environmental Ed. Center
• Mill Creek Greenway Phase II
• Greenway Trails & Connections
• Green River Corridor - Trail Renovation & Enhancements
• Mountain Biking Trails
Recreation Facilities
• Community Sports Fields - Lighted Synthetic Turf Facilities partnered with
Kent School District
• Kent Memorial Park - Master Plan, Phased Renovation
• Russell Road Park - Phased Renovation for Multi Use Capacity
• Service Club Park - Trails, Additional Phase
• Valley Floor Athletic Complex
• Aquatic Center
• Wilson Playfields -Play Structure, Additional Parking/Support Facilities
• Community Centers/Community Buildings - Potential East & West Hill
Facilities
Short Term Capital Recommendations (2010-2020)
The challenge over the next 10 years will be to balance the need to re-invest in
existing parks while taking advantage of unique opportunities as they arise. As
35
Chapter 6 - Implementation 82
financing becomes increasingly difficult, wise choices in how we invest in our
system cannot be understated. With this in mind, the short-term recommendations
have been separated into acquisition and development/redevelopment categories.
Analysis of neighborhood and community parks shows a great need to re-invest in
our existing parks. There is an immediate need to redevelop and renovate existing
facilities where improvements are beginning to show their age and/or where parks
are due for master planning in order to determine how they may better serve the
changing community. Given this need, acquisition and development projects will be
secondary to the redevelopment and renovation of existing facilities in the
immediate short term (3-4 years). The recommendations listed below include
those parks with the greatest need for reinvestment. Maintaining Kent's legacy
depends on making renovation and redevelopment efforts such as these an ongoing
priority, particularly in the next 10 years.
While acquisition and development are secondary to reinvestment, a few key
development projects and acquisitions will help address specific needs. The first, a
dog park located on the East Hill, will provide a much needed amenity as expressed
in our park survey. The development of West Hill and 132nd Street Neighborhood
Parks will provide parks amenities for two neighborhoods which currently lack
neighborhood park space. Completion of key property acquisitions will help to
further the development of Clark Lake Park and East Hill/Morrill Meadows Park.
Acquisition within the Panther Lake Annexation Area will provide much-needed park
space for an area that is currently underserved.
Furthering connectivity within and between parks and activity areas via a unified
greenway and trail system is another key component of the vision expressed in this
Park Plan and our short-term recommendations. Greenways provide a contrast to
urban density. They combine the natural functions and separations provided by a
greenbelt with the linear and connected orientation of a parkway, providing
practical connections from individual neighborhoods to various parts of the City.
Kent is lucky to have established north- south greenways and opportunities for
potential east-west greenways and trail connections. Making use of the
underutilized Mill Creek Greenway through trail development and acquiring missing
connections within the Green River Greenway are two specific areas the greenway
system can be developed in the short term.
Kent's trail system enhances passive recreation opportunities and provides
connections to our downtown, employers in the valley and our neighboring cities.
There is opportunity for our existing system to be expanded to provide additional
ways for residents to connect to parks and other points of interest. A future Trails,
36
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 83
Bikeways and Paths Plan will examine the opportunities in greater detail. It is
recommended that the City initiate a coordinated planning effort that includes both
on and off right-of-way connectivity.
Providing multi-use athletic fields is another priority expressed within the short-
term recommendations. The expense associated with purchasing raw land and
developing new complexes underscores the need to be creative in how our existing
athletic fields are redeveloped so that they can provide maximum benefit to users.
Taking advantage of potential partnerships and available technology will also
maximize space and investment.
The following list of projects should be given priority in the short term. This list is
intended to serve as a blueprint for action and to be utilized as a tool to develop the
Parks CIP. Circumstances will influence which and how many of these
recommendations can be accomplished in the anticipated timeframe.
Acquisitions
Neighborhood & Community Parks
• East Hill Park Expansion
• Panther Lake Annexation Area Acquisitions
• Naden Avenue Property Assemblage
Natural Resource/Open Space/Greenway/Trails
• Clark Lake Park Property Assemblage
• Green River Corridor - Missing Links
Development/Redevelopment
Neighborhood & Community Parks
• Off-Leash Dog Park(s) on East Hill
• West Hill Neighborhood Park
• 132nd Street Neighborhood Park
• West Fenwick Park - Phase II Renovation
• Van Doren's Landing Park - Renovation
• Lake Meridian Park - Play Area Expansion and Dock Replacement
• Springwood Park - Renovation
• Tudor Square - Renovation
• Eastridge Park - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Meridian Glen Park - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Pine Tree Park - Master Plan Phase I Development
37
Chapter 6 - Implementation 84
• Russell Woods Park - Renovation
• Seven Oaks Park - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Old Fishing Hole - Master Plan, Phased Renovation
• Garrison Creek Park - Renovation
• Briscoe Park - Master Plan, Phased Renovation
• Kiwanis Tot Lot #3 - Neighborhood Park Renovation
• Salt Air Vista Park - Master Plan & Phased Renovation
• Scenic Hill Park - Master Plan & Phased Renovation
Natural Resource/Open Space/Greenway/Trails
• Clarke Lake Park - Restoration Work, Phase I
• Mill Creek Greenway Phase I - Trail development
• Lake Fenwick Park - Restoration & Dock Replacement
• West Fenwick Park/Lake Fenwick - Greenway Trail Development
• Green Kent Partnership - Master Plan, Restoration
• Trails, Bikeways and Paths Plan
Athletic Facilities
• Community Sports Fields - Lighted synthetic turf facilities partnered with
Kent School District
• Kent Memorial Park - Master Plan, Phased Renovation
• Russell Road Park - Phased Renovation for Multi Use Capacity
Financing
Achieving both the short- and long-term recommendations will require the
community's commitment and a willingness to explore innovative solutions.
Funding for Parks capital projects has typically come from two sources;
councilmanic bonds and Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). Over the past five years,
REET revenues have decreased by 25 percent. Continued economic slowdown will
limit available funding for the next several years, so the City must look for
alternative means of financing capital projects if it wants to implement the Park and
Open Space Plan. It should be noted that the recommendations above are
tentative and dependent upon financing. The following is a summary of funding
sources that may be used in the future to fund short- and long-term capital
projects.
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
REET consists of money derived from one-half percent of the selling price of real
property within the City of Kent. Cities planning under the State's Growth
Management Act must generally use these funds for capital projects as desribed by
38
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 85
State law. Beginning in 2002, one-quarter percent (REET2) was allocated for
capital improvements related to parks in the City's CIP. REET revenues fluctuate
with the local real estate market, which directly affects the amount of money the
Parks CIP receives from this source of revenue.
Voter-approved Bonds /Levies
General obligation bonds can be generated by either the City or the County and can
be used for acquisition or development. Voter-approved bonds are typically repaid
through an annual "excess" property tax levy authorized for this purpose by State
statute through the maturity period of the bonds, normally 15 to 20 years. Broad
consensus is needed for passage, with a 60 percent "yes" vote required. A
validation requirement also exists, where the total number of votes cast must be at
least 40 percent of the number of votes in the preceding general election.
A levy is another voter-approved funding source for financing capital
improvements. Unlike a bond issue, no validation is needed and a "yes" vote of 50
percent plus one passes a levy. The proceeds may be received on an annual, pay-
as-you-go basis, or bonds may be issued against the levy amount in order to
receive the proceeds all at once.
Non-voter-approved Bonds
Councilmanic bonds are general obligation bonds issued by the City or County
Council without voter approval. Under State law, repayment of these bonds must
be financed from existing City revenues, since no additional taxes can be
implemented to support related debt service payments.
Revenue bonds are typically issued for development purposes, and often cost more
and carry higher interest rates than general oblication bonds. Revenue bond
covenants generally require that the revenues received annually would have to
equal twice the annual debt service payment. Revenue bonds are payable from
income generated by an enterprise activity.
King County Conservation Futures Tax
Conservation Futures tax levy funds are a dedicated portion of property taxes in
King County and are available, by statute, only for acquisition of open space,
agricultural and timber lands. The King County Council approves funding for
projects based on submittals from cities and the County. Kent has received
Conservation Futures funds for acquisitons around Clark Lake and Panther Lake.
Grants
The Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), formerly known as the Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC), administers a variety of grant programs
from several federal and state sources to eligible application sponsors for outdoor
39
Chapter 6 - Implementation 86
recreation and conservation purposes. The amount of money available for grants
varies from year to year and most funding sources require that monies be used for
specific purposes. Grants are awarded to state and local agencies on a highly
competitive basis, with agencies generally required to provide matching funds for
any project proposal.
The following are state or federal programs administered by the RCO to provide
agencies funding to acquire and develop park, open space and recreational lands
and facilities:
• Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, or WWRP
• Land and Water Conservation Fund
• National Recreation Trails Program
• Youth Athletic Facilities Fund
• Boating Facilities Program
• Non-Highway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities Program (NOVA)
• Salmon Recovery Funding Board
• Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
• Firearms and Archery Range Recreation Program
Donations/Partnerships
As traditional funding sources begin to fund less, the City must search for creative
and dynamic methods of financing the projects identified in the Park Plan. This can
include donations, endowments, volunteer support and partnerships with
community businesses, organizations and residents.
Volunteers stretch City dollars and empower citizens to participate in the
development and maintenance of the park system. One of our longest partnerships
has been with the scouting community. Boy and girl scouts of all ages are
mainstays at our volunteer events, where they can earn badges. A number of
troops go on to formally "adopt" a park for regular clean-ups. The first young man
to do his Eagle scout advancement project with Kent Parks was in 1983. Over 160
have followed in his footsteps, including several young women earning the Girl
Scout-equivalent Gold Award. All make an effort to try to offset the cost of
materials for their projects, which enables the City to assist 15-25 each year.
Churches and high/middle school students earning community service credits also
provide strong volunteer support.
In recent years, corporate partnerships have included Comcast Cares Day, several
Home Depot collarorations, REI projects involving numerous work groups and park
areas, Boeing Community Service Days and Hawkeye Consultants, who have
harvested the garden at Neely-Soames Home since 2006 and, in 2008, added
Earthworks to their regular annual Adopt-a-Park efforts. Both Comcast and the
40
CITY of KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 87
Home Depot have provided cash and inkind support as well as scores of employee
volunteers.
The Green Kent Partnership is the next step in a cohesive volunteer program. After
the 20-year plan has been created to restore Kent's urban forests and natural
areas, volunteer stewards will be trained to help implement the plan, each
responsible for managing one acre of public land.
In 2003, the Kent Parks Foundation was established to keep parks programs
strong, costs affordable and help those in need. Cash donations in any amount can
purchase trees, benches and other amenities. Donations of land through the non-
profit Foundation are also possible and can allow citizens the opportunity to leave a
legacy for future generations.
Many options exist for potential donors to conserve their land in trust for public use
by future generations. Creative financing of property acquisition or donation can be
a benefit for both the seller/donor and the City.
Impact Fees/Developer Mitigation Fees
As determined in the Comprehensive Plan, developers are required to improve
private recreation facilities or in some cases pay a parks mitigation fee as part of
the permit review process. These developer contributions cannot supplant other
revenue sources within a project. They are in addition to existing funding and must
be used for a specific purpose within in a certain geographic area. In addition to
the developement of private recreational facilities, the City has received
approximately since mitigation requirements were initiated in . As
land available for development decreases, this source of revenue is expected to
diminish.
Real Estate Transactions
Selling or trading parcels of land that the City now owns but does not think will be
used for park purposes could be considered as a method to finance acquistion
and/or development of more suitable sites. Renting or leasing park-owned property
can offset the cost to acquire or manage property. Less than fee-simple property
acquisition techniques, such as life estates and conservation easements, can also
be used to help reduce the cost of property acquisition. Leasing property for non-
park purposes, e.g.wireless communication facilities, can also provide a source of
revenue to offset capital costs.
41
Chapter 7 - Appendices 88
7. Appendices
A. Public Involvement
The public outreach effort is a critical component of every land use planning
process. Involving Kent citizens and park users in the process of identifying parks
needs ensures a successful planning process, provides for a mutual exchange of
ideas, and helps meet the community's needs. As stakeholders in the planning
process, the citizens can work with the City to ensure parks and open space needs
are accurately identified, planned for, and funded.
The Park Plan update process has benefited from public input, which has been
utilized in determining needs and priorities and in determining long- and short-term
recommendations. This section outlines the public involvement that has helped
shape the recommendations contained in the 2010 Parks and Open Space Plan.
Park Plan Survey
A survey was taken during the spring of 2009 in order to obtain the community's
ideas and opinions about the existing parks system, deficiencies, and priorities for
the future. The survey was made available online at the City's website, and written
surveys were distributed to all of our facilities and neighborhood councils. The
survey was advertised on the City's phone system and website, in the Kent
Reporter, utility mailings, and through various postings at park facilities.
A total of 631 responses were received, 45 percent of which noted that they were
citizens of Kent. Due to the nature of the distribution of the survey, it is not a
statistically valid survey. However, it does provide a sense of the community's
desires and needs. Respondents rated trails, open space and natural areas as
extremely important followed by major parks and small neighborhood parks. The
top three needs expressed in the survey were a swimming facility, an off-leash dog
park and park security and maintenance.
Detailed results for each question are below. Due to the length of responses to
open ended questions, they are not included in the Plan, but are available for
review on the City's website and in the Parks Planning & Development Office.
2009 Park Plan Update Survey Results
Total Responses - 631
1. Do you live within the City of Kent?
a. Yes -45%
b. No - 54%
c. I don't know - 1%
42
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 201 o 89
2. How many years have you lived in the City of Kent?
a. 1-10 - 20%
b. 11-20 - 13%
c. 21-30 - 9%
d. 31-40 -4%
e. 41 or more -3%
3. Do you consider yourself a resident of East Hill, Valley or West Hill?
a. East Hill -34%
b. Valley - 80/b
c. West Hill - 11%
d. Don't know - 2%
4. How many children under the age of 18 live in your household?
a. 0 - 60%
b. 1-2 - 35%
c. 3 or more - 5%
5. What is your age?
a. 17 or under - 1%
b. 18-29 - 15%
c. 30-39 - 31%
d. 40-49 - 27%
e. 50-59 - 15%
f. 60-69 - 7%
g. Over 70 - 4%
6. What is your gender?
a. Male - 59%
b. Female - 41%
7. Which parks and recreation facilities do you or your household currently use?
See spreadsheet
8. What improvements, if any, would you like to see at these parks?
See spreadsheet
9. For this City as a whole, what do you feel are the biggest needs in terms of
Parks and Recreation?
1. Swimming Facility
43
Chapter 7 - Appendices 90
2. Off-leash dog park
3. Security & Maintenance
4. Biking & Walking Trails
5. Connections/non-motorized access to Parks
6. Mountain Biking Trails
7. Frisbee Golf
8. Athletic Fields
10.Within our parks, what three activities do you and your family members
participate in the most?
a. Walking - 34%
b. Biking - 33%
c. Swimming - 7%
d. Fishing - 4%
e. Organized recreation i.e.: baseball, soccer - 11%
f. Use of play equipment - ].20/o
g. Other, please specify: see spreadsheet
11.What recreation opportunities would you like to see in Kent that you can't
find here now?
See spreadsheet
12.Using a 0 to 10 scale with 10 meaning "extremely high importance" and 0
meaning "extremely low importance" please rate the importance of the
following park amenities: MOST IMPORTANT NUMBERED IN ORDER -
HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF #10 RATING. * EACH CHOICE WAS SCALED
SEPERATELY.
a. Small neighborhood parks that serve families and individuals (5 - 19%)
b. Major parks that serve all areas of the city (4 - 22%)
c. Outdoor athletic fields for youth (6 - 18%)
d. Outdoor athletic fields for adults (11 - 11%)
e. Expanded recreational trails in and out of parks (2 - 41%)
f. Parks with fishing, boating and swimming (12 - 9%)
g. Indoor recreation facilities for social programs, events and athletics (10 -
12%)
h. Natural areas and open space (3 - 37%)
i. An accessible playground large enough to serve the entire community (13
- 8%)
j. Off leash dog park (7 - 18%)
k. Spray park/water park (14 - 7%)
I. Off Road Biking Trails (1 - 45%)
44
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 91
m. BMX park (9 - 16%)
n. Swimming pool (8 - 16%)
13.Have you or anyone in your household participated in a City of Kent
recreation program, activity or cultural event in the last 12 months?
a. Yes - 44%
b. No - 51%
c. Don't know - 50/o
14.What types of recreation programs, activities or cultural events have you
and/or your household participated in the last 12 months?
a. Youth/Teen athletics - 13%
b. Adult athletics - 170/o
c. Youth enrichment, such as ballet or piano lessons - 5%
d. Adult enrichment, such as cooking or aerobics - 9%
e. Concerts - 21%
f. Festivals - 24%
g. Senior Center activities - 4%
h. Adaptive Recreation (Special Needs) - 1%
i. Youth/teen activities - 7%
j. Other - Please specify
15.What could the City change about its programs that would make them more
attractive for you and your household?
See spreadsheet
16.Are you aware that the City offers scholarships so that all children can
participate in programs regardless of ability to pay?
a. Yes - 24%
b. No - 76%
17.Would you like to be notified of future public meetings and opportunities to
participate in the update of the Comprehensive Plans?
a. Yes - add contact info
b. No thank you
Public Workshop
Once the survey results were tabulated and the Parks Plan update was well
underway, a public workshop was held in the fall of 2009 to further refine the areas
of focus in the Park Plan and supplement the comments received through the
survey. Participants were given a comment sheet with specific questions about the
45
Chapter 7 - Appendices 92
different elements of the plan that were presented at the meeting. Participants
commented on the need to maintain our existing facilities and to make use of
underutilized areas. They also expressed a desire for better connectivity between
parks and throughout the City.
Public Process
In preparing the Parks Plan, several public meetings occurred in order to provide
the public, the Land Use and Planning Board, and the Parks Committee an
opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Park Plan update.
The City's website was utilized as a tool for ongoing communication regarding the
status of the update process. Survey results were posted as well as the draft plan.
Email notices were sent to interested survey participants at each milestone in the
update process, inviting the public to review the draft plan, participate in public
hearings and provide additional input.
In addition, the Parks Plan complied with State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requirements. An Environmental Checklist was completed and a Determination of
Non-Significance was issued on . Public comment periods associated with the
environmental review process were provided.
Public Meetings & Hearings
The Draft Parks Plan was presented and discussed at a series of public meetings
and hearings held before the Land Use and Planning Board, Parks Committee and
the City Council.
B. Relevant Regulations
Since the adoption of the 2000 Plan, new environmental regulations were passed
and implemented at the state and local level. These new regulations resulted in
changes to the City's Land Use Code, Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master
Program and may impact how our system develops. Critical areas such as
wetlands, streams, lakes, and wildlife habitat areas occur throughout Kent Parks.
Therefore, these regulations have implications on the development and
management of our parks and open space system. Development and maintenance
practices will likely change to better protect critical areas and their resources.
Growth Management Act (GMA)
The Growth Management Act (GMA) establishes 13 statewide planning goals that
must be considered locally within the City's Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations. Several of these planning goals apply to parks, including open space
retention, development of recreational opportunities, conservation of wildlife
habitat, public facilities sufficient to support growth, and attention to historic
46
CITY OF KENT - Parks & Open Space Plan - 2010 93
resources. The Parks Plan and Parks and Open Space Element of the
Comprehensive Plan evaluate our system relative to relevant GMA goals.
State Shoreline Management Act Guidelines
The State Shoreline Management Act requires local governments to regulate their
shorelines through adoption of a local Shoreline Master Program. The City
completed an update to the Shoreline Master Program in 2009 in order to conform
to the state's update of master program guidelines. The updated Master Program
will impact park operations and development in the following areas: Green River,
Lake Meridian, Lake Fenwick, Soos Creek, the Green River Natural Resource Area
pond, Springbrook Creek and Jenkins Creek.
C. Capital Facilities Plan
Insert 2010-2016 Plan Here
D. Resolution/Ordinance Adopting Plan
47
94
This page intentionally left blank.
95
CHAPTER TEN
PARK & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
-The -Pa-r4 & Open S-paee Element wor4s in eofiem with the Gompr-eheasive Par-k a-ad Reer-eati
Reer-eation Plan is developed with partieipation ftom eity and sen,iee area r-esiclet#s. it identifies
existing publiely oixned par-ks and facilities and their- needed impfoveffients; opportunities fof
open space, and metvational faeilities for- the yeafs 2004 2010. The Comprehensive Park and
fr-om whieh the Compr-ehensive Park and Recreation Plan is implemented. The Park& Open Space
EletnepA otAlifies goals and policies for the plan 1 -1 . . .tion, and maintenanee of open
the time the pr-eviatis plan was w+itten. The Park & Open Spaee Element pfevides a fetifidatio.n.
recreational amenities, eomeetivity between existing par-ks and neighborhoods, and the pt!oteetion
of envit!ontnepAally sensitive meas.
Kent's se...'e, mea goes beyond the ei�y limits and Planning Area, serving the ei4ife Kent Seh
and Federal Way Sehool Distr4ot 4iat afe withiii the eity limits. The expanding and aging poptilatiffl
pf:E)gmms. Gity r-esidefAs are eoneemed about pFoteetifig undeveloped open spaee be�qr-e the City
and designated mmexation afeas afe fully developed, and with pf:ovidifig par-ks and progfums
Park&Open Space 10-1
96
have been aeEtuifed and developed ffem gener-al fund satifees mid loeal, state, and fedefal gffffits.
Community Par4, the Alest Hill Skate Pafk, GhestntA Ridge Neighborhood Pafk, Salt Air- N44
Heights Neighbor400d Park, Gaffison Greek Neighbor400d Par4, Russell Read Paf:k; a
Neighb,,r4ioo Park, 132"� Stfeet Neighbofhood Park, and additional land at Clark Tie .
and to impt!ove the quality of the park and mer-eational experience unless publie r-esoumes, polieies,
pa44fiefships. The pokey dir-eetiefis in the pfeviotis plans were updated both to aeeommodate the
wider-the Gfewth Management Aet.
assessmei# of existing par-ks is eonducted and the City r-eeeives input fFofn itAer-ested tisets of City-
owned andlot!managed par-ks and f!eef!eational faeilities. For-the 2000 update of the Compr-ehen
Pafk and Reer-ea4ion Plan, a vafiety of par-t4eipa+ofy otttfeaeh methods wefe used to involve eitizefis
> a He ale,
two pub
heafings, and meetings with City staa€f,
The Park & Open Spaoe ElemepA b-rief4y anal�qes the s"pl�,, demand, and need for- publie aPA
pfiva4e padE and feefeational f4eilities and sefviees within KePA's Plafming Area and sets goals and
polieies w-hieh fetleet the analysis. The Compr-ehensive Park and Reer-ea4ion Plan provides a mor-e
detailed a"ysis and identifies an aetion to implement eaeh goal. The aetion pr-ogfam wil
upda4ed anff"ly aftef the Capital hinlpfevement Plan is adopted, and as the City Gotineil establish
new goals.
Sefvioes DepaFtment, with the -pokey d4eetion set by a three member- City Cottfloil Pa
Park&Open Space 10-2
97
"ality of life in Kefit by pr-oviding paAEs and f4eilities that are safe, 4 that offe
aceomplished via development and maintenanee of parks and faeilities, pfofessional pm---
and the optimum utilization of eonvamity r-esourees.
The Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Sefviees Depaftment pfovides a variety of park and
Golf AEMsofy Boafd, appoipAed by the Ma-yor- with the eoiisepA of the Gity Getffleill advises staff
pfogfams fof special populations; 5) operates youth day eamps and befofe and aftef school cat!
fnaii#ains the golf eotffse; 7) maipAaifis City parks, stfeet tfees, and open spaee areas; 9) maipAai
all City buildings and gt!oufids stieh as fife stations, City Hall, and Kent Commons; 9) manages the
Human Sen,iees Pt!ogfamvN,hieh offets home t!epaif!and links KePA fesidepAs with sen,iee pr-ovidefs-,
The Parks & Open Space Element works in concert with the 2010 Parks & Open Space Plan to
provide direction for the planning, acquisition, development and redevelopment of parks, open
spaces and recreational facilities for the years 2010-2030. Park Plans were prepared and updated in
1972, 1982, 1988, 1994, and 2000. The 2010 Parks & Open Space Plan was developed with
participation from city and service area residents. It evaluates existing demo -graphics, facilities and
service needs, presents goals and policies, estimates park and recreation demand, outlines
intergovernmental coordination opportunities, examines potential funding sources and provides
long- and short-term capital recommendations for the next 20 T• e
The 2010 Park Plan has been updated to accommodate the impacts of current and projected growth
and to be consistent with the City's overall planning efforts under the Growth Management Act. A
variety of participatory outreach methods were used in the 2010 update of the Parks & Open Space
Plan to involve citizens in the comprehensive planning_process, these efforts include: online and
written surveys, displays with comment sheets at parks facilities, public workshops, email updates
to interested parties, utility mailers, newspaper articles, and public hearings through the formal plan
adoption process.
Park&Open Space 10-3
98
It is the mission of the Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department is to enrich the
quality of life in Kent by providing parks and facilities that are safe, attractive, and that offer
enjoyable and meaningful recreation and cultural programs, and supports human services. This is
accomplished via development and maintenance of parks and facilities, professional programming,
and the optimum utilization of community resources. Continued urban development may outpace
Kent's ability to maintain the current level of service and to improve on existing park and recreation
opportunities unless public resources, policies, and funds are coordinated among the City, King
County Kent's school districts, and private partnerships.
Kent's service area goes beyond the city limits and Planning Area, serving the entire Kent School
District. The Parks and Community Services Department also serves portions of the Highline
School District and Federal Way School District that are within the city limits. The expanding and
aging population within Kent's service area has increased the demand on existing park and
recreational facilities and programs. City residents are concerned about maintaining existing
facilities as well as the provision of parks, open spaces and programs that make Kent a desirable
place to live and work.
Kent's park system is administered by the Director of the Kent Parks, Recreation & Community
Services Department, with the policy direction set by a three-member City Council Parks
Committee. An Arts Commission advises staff and approves public art and cultural programming.
The twelve members of the Arts Commission are appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the
City Council and serve one-to-five year terms without compensation or salary The seven-member
Golf Advisory Board, appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the City Council, advises staff
concerning the activities and improvements at the Riverbend Golf Complex.
The Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department provides a variety of park and
recreational programs and community services that serve diverse interests in the population. For
example, the department: 1) manages recreational programs and athletic leagues for youth, teen,
adult, and seniors; 2) conducts educational classes and workshops; 3Lganizes special events like
the Fourth of JulySplash, Canterbury Faire, and special arts programs; 4) sLipports resource
programs for special populations; SLperates youth daps and before- and after-school care; 6)
maintains the golf course; 7) maintains Cityparks, street trees, and open space areas; 8) maintains
all City buildings and grounds such as fire stations, City Hall, and Kent Commons; 9, manages the
Human Services Program which offers home repair and links Kent residents with service providers,
counseling therapy, food, clothing, education, emergency assistance, crisis intervention assistance
for youth,teens, families, and homeless people.
Park&Open Space 10-4
99
INVENTORY & CLASSIFICATION OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE LANDS
land.The etffe I ' I I of lands !eased and owned by the City, totals 1,343 aer-es. Sinee the 1994
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, over 113 aer-es have been aequired. (1.34 of these ae
are loeated within the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), as defined in the Land Use Element, but
were ptifehasecl by the Git)�. King GotHfAy Par-ks manages 734 aefes of par-ks in the PAA (see
Figufe 10.1 fof!loeation of park and reereation faeilities). This number-ineludes only 169.1 aefes of
Noi4h Gfeen River-Park, w-hieh is loeated within both the G4y of A-4tim PAA and the City of KePA
PAA. Sees Greek Regional Tfuil,'Gafy Gf:af+t PaAE at 522.45 aeres, is loeated on the eastem edge of
Kent's PAA, but sefves a mueh gr-ea4er- area. Park and open spaee kad ifl Kent's PAA is estimated
Planning At!ea (see Figufe 10.2). Five (5) neigMorhood sefviee areas have appt!oximately half of
Within the Kent M-unieipal limits, there afe �wefity eight (28) neighbor-hood -par-ks loea+ed withi
sixteen (16) neighbo4tood sefviee afeas (NSA), and two (2) neighbor-hoods with tffldevelop
fieighbofhood pafk land, for- a total land afea of 95.7 aer-es. Flow (4) fleighbofhoods are served by
eoffiamnity par-ks (i.e., Van DeFen's Landing Park, Kefft Mefnor4al Park, bake Mer-idian Park, a
Russell Read Park) whieh have elemeft4s t�pioally fo�d in a neighbor-hood park (i.e., play
piente meas, hard suffaee ootH4s). Fouf (4) neighbor-hoods have undeveloped or-
m4timally developed e ffks (i.e., Clark Lake Park, Russell Woods Park, Valley Floof
when fully developed. Five (5) neighbor-hood s-..ill meas afe pfimafily in"stfia4 !and ttse, and no
neighbor-hood par-ks afe pfoposed in these areas. One neighbor-hood se..i mea is eommefeial
tnu4ifamily, and fio neighbor-hood park is proposed f6f:this neighbor-hood. Two (2) NSAs a-Fe low
density tvsidetAial vvith agietiltutul oF industfial land uses with no park !and, and a eembiffed
population of 15 6 (based on the 2000 U.S. Census). These NSAs will be monitoFed for-futufe p
needs. One NSA ifieltides low density residential a-ad Planned Unit Developments (Pups). PU
pfevide park aiid feefea4ion oppoft+mities within the PUD. As this NSA develops, it will
monitefed for-the need for-neighber-heed pa-r-k!and. Kent's Ufbaii Gentef NSA is sefved by seve
Park&Open Space 10-5
100
park !and et! are defieient aeoef!ding te the LOS. in the Panthet! Lake Amexatien Area, thfee (3)
NSAs hm,e either-ne park land of:afe defieiefA meeMing to the LOS. The other-NSA is sen,ed by a
M the Pant-hef Lake Amiexa4ion Afea, three NSAs loeated entir-ely within the PAA have either- tie
NSA which lies in the munieipal limits and seuth PAA has an existing cenununity park whieh
The City has fifty fOUr (54) GOMmunity parks, trail GOrriders, open spaGes and
Wien this park is develeped, it mest likely will fiet ifieltide neighberheed park elements. One (14
tot-a-lining- 70.3—acres (coo Figure 10.3 for trails). In addition, the Green
Driving Range, Par 3 Course, and Mono Putt amounts to 167 aGres. Five (5) GernmuRity
as part of Kent StatieR, a master plaRned mixed use retail, OffiGe, and resideRtial
,
ourRd K Rt Memeriol Dort Building for o total of 90,000 square feet. (2 ri�T
,
Dorf and ReGreatien Dlon
Kent owns and leases 1,348 acres of parkland. Since 2000, over 87 acres
have been acquired. These areas are generally broken down into the
following categories:
Community Parks - A park that serves the entire City of Kent and includes
facilities or amenities that are not offered elsewhere in the city. Amenities
will vary at each park and may include boating, swimming, fishing, group
picnic shelters, play equipment, trails, sport courts and ball fields. Access to
the park is by car, public transit, foot or bicycle. Off-street parking is
provided. There are eight Community Parks with a total of 111.9 acres.
Facility Location Acres
Arbor Heights 360 east 2.82
Green River Parks
Anderson Park valley 0.30
Briscoe Park valley 7.00
Cottonwood Grove valley 0.77
Russell Woods Park valley 7.00
Three Friends Park valley 1.00
Van Doren's Landing Park valley 10.00
Lake Meridian Park east 16.02
Morrill Meadows east 16.31
Old Fishing Hole valley 5.70
Park&Open Space 10-6
101
Town Square Plaza valley 0.77
Urban Core Parks
Burlington Green* valley 0.22
Castlereagh Park* valley 0.21
First Avenue Plaza valley 0.60
Kaibara Park* valley 0.56
Kherson valley 0.58
Rosebed Park* valley 0.23
Sunnfjord Park valley 0.21
Titus Railroad Park valley 0.30
Uplands Extension* (Rotary Basketball & Lions
Skate) valley 4.10
Yangzhou Park* valley 0.21
West Fenwick Park (includes West Hill Skate Parkj west 37.00
Total 111.91
* Leased Land
Neighborhood Park - A park designed to meet the active and passive
recreation needs of an immediate neighborhood. A neighborhood is defined
by surrounding arterial streets and access is usually by foot or bicycle.
Parking spaces are typically not provided, unless on-street parking is not
available, accessible or safe. Neighborhood parks have amenities for casual
activities that are not programmed or organized. Amenities may include
play equipment, picnic tables, hard courts (basketball, tennis), walking
trails, and open grass areas. There are 24 neighborhood parks with a total
of 80.94 acres.
Facility Location Acres
Canterbury Neighborhood Park east 2.08
Chestnut Ridge Park east 3.33
Commons Park valley 2.66
East Hill Park east 4.62
Eastridge Park east 0.80
Garrison Creek Park east 5.00
Glenn Nelson Park west 10.00
Gowe Street Mini Park valley 0.10
Green View Park east 1.10
Kiwanis Tot Lot #1 valley 0.60
Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 valley 0.41
Kiwanis Tot Lot #3 east 0.75
Kiwanis Tot Lot #4 valley 0.35
Linda Heights Park west 4.20
Meridian Glen Park east 5.47
Pine Tree Park east 9.80
Park&Open Space 10-7
102
Salt Air Vista Park west 2.00
Scenic Hill Park east 4.10
Seven Oaks Park east 0.50
Springwood Park east 10.00
Sun Meadows east 1.54
Tudor Square Park east 4.70
Turnkey Park east 6.53
Walnut Grove east 0.30
Total 80.94
Recreation Facility - Buildings and parks used by the community for
social, cultural and programmed recreation. Recreational facilities include
community centers, historic buildings, sports fields and golf facilities. These
facilities serve the entire City of Kent, and in some cases, the region. Access
to these facilities is by car, public transit, foot, or bicycle. Off-street parking
is provided. Riverbend is unique from the other recreational facilities,
because it is an enterprise facility, which is a self-sustaining, revenue
generating facility that financially supports itself. Some of the facilities
identified below include open space which may be developed in the future.
Square
Facility Location Acres Feet
Kent Commons valley 3.00 50,000
Kent Historical Museum valley 1.70 3,720
Kent Memorial Park valley 10.95
Kent Memorial Park Building valley 0.25 3,000
Kent Valley Ice Centre valley 3.60
Neely/Soames Historical House valley 1.00 2,256
Resource Center valley 0.44 6,000
Senior Activity Center valley 4.36 21,000
Service Club Park east 28.80
Russell Road Park valley 30.40
Uplands Playfield* valley 2.30
Wilson Playfields east 11.49
Subtotal 98.29 85,976
Riverbend Golf Complex-18 hole Course valley 131.00
Golf Par 3, Driving Range, Mini-Putt valley 36.00
Total 265.29
* Leased Land; ** Public Works Managed
Natural Resource - Parks that are passive in nature and include areas of
openness, environmentally sensitive areas, and/or wildlife habitat.
Park&Open Space 10-8
103
Amenities include passive recreation elements such as benches, bird
watching platforms, fishing, trails, and open green areas.
Facility Location Acres
Anderson Greenbelt valley 4.00
Campus Park east 16.50
Clark Lake Park (includes Lake rental 2.06) east 129.11
Eagle Scout Park valley 0.50
Foster Park valley 4.00
Green River Enhancement Area** valley 310.00
Green River Corridor/Trail valley 39.35
Ikuta Property Donation valley 0.90
Interurban Trail valley 10.35
Kennebeck Avenue valley 0.10
Lake Fenwick Park west 141.34
Mill Creek Canyon Park east 107.25
Old Fire Station west 0.21
Puget Power Trail valley 20.00
Springbrook Greenbelt valley 5.00
West Canyon Open Space west 5.00
Willis Street Greenbelt* valley 4.00
Total 797.61
* Leased Land; ** Public Works Managed
Undeveloped - Land area acquired by the city that has not yet been
developed or programmed for recreational use.
Facility Location Acres
132nd Avenue Park (Dow Property) east 4.56
277th Corridor Park east 4.58
Eagle Creek Park east 1.00
Kronisch Property west 0.70
Midway Reservoir (W. Hill Neighborhood Park) west 9.67
Naden Ave. Property valley 6.45
Rainier View Estates east 1.17
Riverview Park valley 14.40
Valley Floor Community Park & Ballfields valley 50.05
Total 92.58
Panther Lake Annexation Area - Voters within the Panther Lake
Annexation Area voted to annex into the City of Kent on November 3, 2009.
The annexation will be effective July 1, 2010. Three parks located within the
annexation area will be transferred to the City of Kent from King County.
Park&Open Space 10-9
104
The City currently owns a 1.34 acre parcel within the Panther Lake
Annexation Area known as Hopkins Open Space.
Facility Location Acres
Green Tree Park East 1.47
Hopkins Open Space East 1.34
North Meridian Park East 75.46
Park Orchard Park East 7.22
Total 85.49
Urban Center & Green River Subareas
Kent contains two distinct areas comprising several parks. Kent's downtown
includes 10 parks, which together, forms our Urban Center Community
Parks. Parks within the Urban Center collectively provide a variety of
amenities such as play areas, picnic tables, skate and basketball facilities,
and passive open green areas. During festivals and other events downtown,
these parks serve as gathering places and key focal points.
The Green River features several parks stretching from Briscoe Park at the
northern city limits to the 277t" trail connection at the southern limits.
Several of the parks provide passive green space, two are undeveloped, and
the remaining provide a variety of amenities for fishing, play, barbecues,
picnics and bicycling. Each of these subareas provides a distinct experience
for park users based on the area.
Neighborhood Service Areas
The City is divided into 48 neighborhood service areas (see Figure 10.2).
Service areas are bounded by major arterial streets, geographic features
(steep topography, rivers etc.), and other barriers that would make it
difficult for users to reach the designated park for each area. While 16 of
the areas are served by a neighborhood park, five neighborhoods are served
by community parks (Van Doren's Landing Park, Kent Memorial Park, Lake
Meridian Park, Clark Lake Park, and Russell Road Park) that have elements
typically found in a neighborhood park. Four neighborhoods have
undeveloped or minimally developed community parks (132nd Street Park
Midway Reservoir, Eagle Creek, and Valley Floor Community Park), which
will service neighborhood needs when fully developed. Five neighborhood
service areas are primarily industrial and no neighborhood parks are
proposed in these areas. Two service areas are low density residential with
agricultural or industrial land uses and no designated neighborhood park.
These areas have a combined population of 156 people (2000 Census) and
will be monitored for future park needs. Four service areas have no park
space (NSA #11, 21, 30, 41L
Park&Open Space 10-10
105
Within the Panther Lake annexation area, three service areas have either no
park land or are deficient. The remaining service area, located entirely
within the Panther Lake annexation area, is served by a community park.
Potential Annexation Areas (PAA)
King County manages approximately 734 acres of parks in the PAA. This
number includes only 169.1 acres of North Green River Park, which is located
within both the City of Auburn and the City of Kent PAA. Soos Creek Regional
Trail/Cary Grant Park at 522.45 acres, is located on the eastern edge of Kent's
PAA, but serves a much greater area. Figure 10.1 illustrates existing parks
and recreation facilities.
Park&Open Space 10-11
106
FIGURE 10.1
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITES
Park&Open Space 10-12
107
Park&Open Space 10-13
108
FIGURE 10.2
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SERVICE AREAS
Park&Open Space 10-14
109
Park&Open Space 10-15
110
FIGURE 10.3
EXISTING TRAILS
Park&Open Space 10-16
111
Park&Open Space 10-17
112
ew-ned by the ! ity an !eased to . private cerper-atien.
The miffibef: and size ef e*isfifig buildings available for- reer-eational aetivities limit the i+umber- e
adults,SeFviees Plan, City t!esidents identified the need fer-anethet! eenmBunity eenter like Ket4 Gemmens
that oettid serve teens, yeuth, seniers, and the physieally and develepinepAally ehallenged.
ANALYSIS OF PARK LAND AND FACILITY NEEDS
The fieed fer- park and reet!eatiotial land and facilities was estimated using a var-iety ef methods,
r-estilts ef these methods wet!e compared and then synthesized te define a pr-eposed land and faeility
Level of—Service
meastifemeft6-.
,
standafd fef many yeafs as the basis for-the standard ef�went-f(20) aer-es per- 1,000 peeple (ten
Park&Open Space 10-18
113
Kent wetild need:
525 if the City ohooses to maintain this standaf!d of twenty (20) aeres per- 1,000 population, the Gity of
in 1993, the City exeeeded the NRRA standard of twepAy (20) aefes per- 1,000 by 0.72 acres per
1,000. However-, in 2003 the City had 15.99 aet!es pet! 1,000 population failing below the 1993
NRRA standafd by 339 aer-es. This e"ates to a loss of 4.74 aer-es-per- 1,000-people. The fir-st level-
of sefviee (LOS) foi:pafk!and was established in 1993, in the City of Kent eompt:ehefisive plan (s
Table 10.1}
Table 10.1
1993 LOS FOR PARK LAND
n it nnn population i849
Golf r.,ufses a loin nnn population 8-56
> within the Oity lifflitS,
With PFOjeOt
population gfwA4h.
Park&Open Space 10-19
114
FIGURE 10.4
RECREATION FACILITIES AND SCHOOLS
Park&Open Space 10-20
115
Park&Open Space 10-21
116
Table 10.2
KENT r nc OVER TIME
493 4 % 44" 2-000 240-3 240
Neighbor-hood Parks 2,53 4,5mg 4-.5-6 4:45 44-3 4,00
Comffmaity •£s i849 4-84 44-.0 13.72 14.85 i3.Oi
Golf rAe,,,.S0 0,56 0,60 048 048 0,342 �0
�07
Recreation F,,eilit;os- 2,33 242 4-46 4,20 4-.B 440
(square feeVperson)
Poptilatie 41,000 45,000 70,140 79,524 94,275 95,860
> this ineltides 2,400
3 Cittbhouse, 11,296 square feet of the Rivefbefid Golf Course 04house, and 1,800 s"afe feet 0
sqttat!e feet pet! 1,000 people. W4th no added spaee sinee 1993,the LOS has dfopped signifieapAly
additional iand, the LOS for--park land will eonfifme to drop. The Gity of Kent needs to set a LOS.
that meets eitizen needs. if the standafd for-neighbor-hood par-ks is set at 1.13 aer-es per- 1,000 (t
etffen4 level), the City would need to ae"ir-e 12.62 additional aer-es iii or-def to aeeommoda4e
is set at 14.85 aefes PeF 1,000 (the euffePA level), the City would Ileed to aequiFe 176.2 aelvs by
2010.
-. - . . ilation will plaee additional demand on par-ks and f4eilities. This has a major- impaet
the City of KefA beeause the existing park and open spaee in-ventofy in the PotepAial Amem
Af:ea is fiet at the same WS as the City WS of twenty (20) aefes pef: 1,000 people. Most of th
f4eilities,that sen,e the Potential Anne*ation Af:ea, af:e leea4ed within the etifFmA eity lifnits of Kent.,
Park&Open Space 10-22
117
AS POPULATION !NCRT A CL'C AND AREAS A C ARE ANNEXED X D TNT-0 THE CITY THE
CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT MUST ACQUIRE MORE LAND TO PROVIDE THE SAME
T EN Ti'T OF SERVICE. MANY A NY PEOPLE E !''HOOST. TO LINT TN TIT.1NT FOR THE
TABLE.RECREATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE HERE. lF PEOPLE 60 TO PARKS AND
CAN'T GET A RAPA"NG SPACE OR PICNIC
THEY BELIEVE THE !SSUE CA
BE RL`SOtA D CTMPLY RV ADDING A LEMI A40RE SPACES AND TABLES C AT
EXISTING PARKS. HOWEVER, OFTEN PARKS CANNOT SAFELY OR EFFICIENTLY
A!''!''l1Aii1 40D ATTi A40RTi PARKING N!'' TYPICALLY T T V PEOPLE Ti DON9T WANT TO RT
CLOSE TO OTHERS WHEN HAVING A PICNIC, AND DON9T M A NT TO SEE TART T C
SRACIED TOO CLOSELY TOGETHER. AS THE POPULATION !NCREASES, THERE
WILL 13E A NEED TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL LAND AND DEVELOP PARKS AT THE
EST A R- IS14-ED T OS TO MAINTAIN T-14 QU A T TTV OF 'T14E ClTV9C PARKS A \Til
OPEN SPACE CVCTEAii
Park Land Requirements by 20100
The 2010 population fi3reeast indiea4es a need to acquire all types of park lands to maintain thee
Gity's ettffefit LOS, bu4 paftiettlar-ly indicates a need to provide neighbor-hood par-ks in developing
and annexation areas, and to aeq, —ity park land w-hefe needed within established
fieighber-heeds,.
. *
Park aer-eage and Sees Gfeek Park aeivage within the PAA afe estimated.) However-, the
Neighbor-hood Park LOS of 0.3 8 aer-es per- 1,000 population is eonsidefably less gian the 1.13 aer-es-
per- 1,000 population, whieh is gr-ea4er-than the 14.01 aer-es per- 1,000 LOS within Kent's eity lim
However-,Neighbor-hood PadE LOS for-Kent's RAA of 0.34 aer-es per- 1,000 is eonsider-ably less tha
the fnor-e efwir-ofifnefAally sensitive wid appealing sites. Ur-ba+i development also h
Park&Open Space 10-23
118
LOS assufes that as the eommunity develops, undeveloped land will be aequired. Raw land does
fiet satisfy the demand for- r-eer-eation by a gfowi bet depending on the presenee off
Park&Open Space 10-24
119
envir-emnet#ally sensitive areas aceemmedates preteetien ef natural enviremnental systems. )Alh
fvefvatietial f4eilities. The Capital h-,npf:evemefi4 Plan adopted anatially by the City Ge
Level of Service (LOS)
Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), communities are responsible for
providing public facilities without decreasing levels of service below locally
established minimums (RCW 36.70A.020(12)). Measuring the adequacy of
our Parks and Open Spaces requires an established set of standards. Level
of service (LOS) standards are measures of the amount of a public facility
which must be provided to meet the community's basic needs and
expectations. The GMA allows communities flexibility in establishing level of
service standards that meet local needs and expectations.
Over the past 30 years, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPAI
has developed guidelines and standards for parks, recreation and open
space. NRPA first published guidelines in 1971 and revised them in 1983
through the Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, to
serve as a basis for developing standards at the community level. The NRPA
no longer recommends a standard for facility and parkland based on
population ratios; however the NRPA recommends that since every
community is different, standards should be developed by the community
and used as a guide in planning_
The former NRPA guidelines are used throughout the United States, and
Kent's 1994 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan level of service
standards were developed with these standards, which represent the
minimum for which a community should strive. The level of service
standards established in the 1994 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan
and adopted by City Council remains an appropriate guideline today,
however with the changing demographics of Kent; the City may want to
consider establishing new standards or supplemental measures in future
yea rs.
Future demand for park and recreation facilities is based on comparing
projected populations with Kent's park and recreation standards. Park and
recreation needs are related directly to the characteristics of a city's
population. The City's population is projected to increase to 105,445 (or
132,833 including all potential annexation areas) by year 2031. Table 10.1
shows Kent's level of service from 1993-2003. Table 2 shows Kent's level of
service for the year 2009 and projections for the year 2031. Table 10.2 is
Park&Open Space 10-25
120
based on a reorganized park and open space inventory that more accurately
classifies parkland based on current use and investment. While the park and
open spaces are broken down differently in the two tables, the overall LOS
numbers are comparable and show a steady decline in the number of acres
per 1000 people and square feet per person as the population increases.
Table 10.1: LOS 1993-2003
1993 1996 1998 2000 2003
Po elation 41,000 45 000 70,140 79 524 84,275
Neighborhood Parks 1.58 1.56 1.45
acres 1000 2.53 ac. ac. ac. ac. 1.13 ac.
Community Parks 18.19 18.4 13.72 14.85
(acres/jQ00j ac. ac. 14 ac. ac. ac.
Golf Course holes 1000 0.56 0.6 0.38 0.38 0.32
Recreation Facilities (sq.
feet/personj 2.33 2.12 1.36 1.2 1.13
Overall LOS (acresLIQ001 20.72 19.98 15.56 15.17 15.98
Overall LOS (sq.
ft./person ft./personj 2.33 2.12 1.36 1.2 1.13
Table 10.2: LOS 2009 & 2031
2009 2031
Population 88,380 105,445
Natural Resource
acres 1000) 9.2 ac. 7.5 ac.
Neighborhood Parks 0.92
acres 1000 ac. .77 ac.
Community Parks 1.27
acres 1000 ac. 1.06 ac.
Recreation Facilities
Indoor (sg.
ft erson) 1.86 1.56
Outdoor
(acres/10001 2.8 2.4
Undeveloped 1.05
(acres/1000) ac. 0.88 ac.
Overall LOS
(acres/1000) 15.24 12.61
Overall LOS
(sq.ft./persons 1.86 1.56
Park&Open Space 10-26
121
In order to maintain the current level of service of 15.24 acres per 1000
people, the following amounts of additional parkland would need to be
acquired:
260 acres - 2031 pop of 105,445
677 acres - 2031 pop of 132,833 (includes potential annexation areas
Park Land Requirements
Population forecasts indicate a need to acquire all types of park lands to
maintain the City's current LOS. Urban development may encroach upon or
preclude the preservation of, and public access to, the more environmentally
sensitive and appealing sites. Urban development may also encroach upon or
otherwise preclude the purchase and development of close-in, suitable lands
for athletic fields, recreational centers, and other more land-intensive
recreational facilities. Where appropriate, funding must be identified for
acquisition and development of land for open space and recreational facilities.
The 2010 Parks & Open Space Plan's short- and long-term capital
recommendations identify key acquisitions and capital projects as well as
potential funding sources that will help maintain the current LOS. The Capital
Improvement Plan adopted annually by the City Council identifies an action
plan and a balanced funding strategy.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Sefviees-Plan. There a4so wer-e dir-eet mailings; displays boa-Fds and eowumepA sheets made avail
to the publie at City and fvgional faoilities; an open house; and publie hearings on the dfaft plan a
TELEPHONE SURATYS
eity limits afid within the RAA sen,iee afea. The stifvey sample ineluded 398 hotiseholds that weFe
of 44 in addition to the p4lie pai4ieipation pfeeess that ineltided an extensive telephone stirvey eon"eted
Park&Open Space 10-27
122
presented below under metal
■ ener ll Results
Approximately 0 0
7
modefutely
%
7
rink;satisfied a*d 2 are titisatisfied. Unsatisfied respondents Mention the fleed fof-
- - . +nitig -pool. Pee-pie say they pai4ieipate in r-eer-eational aetivities stteh as walking;
bieyelitig 1 golfing. Pafks used most oflen ineltide Lake Mefidian Park; Soos Greek
f f
Park; West Fenwiek
Russell Road
River-bend Golf
and Lake Fewwiek Pa
Park; Park; I
tables, play
and
7
par-king. Thirty six 0 and 0
7
Cei#er-. Sixty ttse the Senior Activity
a-ad ever-half felt the City should offer-mofe.
Fundin
) pet!eefit of ttspondents say the), attended festivals and special elv,epAs in Kent-,
with top ptiorities to athletie fields and Clark Lake Park aequisition and development. Howevef,
indieated awillingness to finance a general obligation bond for-park and recreational ifnpr-ovefnepAs pr-itnafily beea-use they felt that they wetv
bond,
0 of fespondents want to build a new
0 afe willing to pay an additional $50.00 per-year-for-the
Recreational Program Priorities
All fespondepAs assigned the highest pr-ior4y to yotA pool and one half of the r-espondents ifidiea4e they pfefef to pay faf the pool with ttsef
yotith4een pr-ogfams, before an
after- sehool and PFE)gfa4:ns fat: the physieally and developmepAally
7 swimming,
eh
Growth Management
Ovef one half 0
affflex any new afeas. This eempafes to suffieien� to meet pfejeeted poptila4ion gr-ewth ever- the next five (5) yeafs, if the City dees ii of the t:espoiidefi�s who believe existing f4eilities
itiade"ate to sen,e population gr-wA�, and the less than 0 who don't kaov�� Citizens state that4f
me-fe af:eas a-Fe annexed, new paFks need to be pf:ovided in those annexed afeas. In the 1994 sttn,ey
Park&Open Space 10-28
123
0
,; of the fesponden4s felt that the level of sen,ie
(LOS) standard should not be redueed.
DISPLAYS AND COMMENT S14EET-S
in 2000, displays wet!e placed in the lobby of the Kent DowpAown > KeRl Commons-,
Resource Cenlef, Seniot!Aetivity Cenlef, and City Hall. Similaf! input to the telephone sun,ey was
received. Suggested imptuvements to existing faeilities ineluded adding m lighting new
a-ad existing ball fields, and renovat.i..., lemis eotfl4s. Re"ests for-fiew pa-r-ks and f4eilities
> ;
bieyele tr-ails; more open spaee; botanieal gar-defi; another- eommuoitY eenter- for- > ,
physieally > ;
Park&Open Space 10-29
124
Greek Park; iner-e par-ks; nietv indeer- g�mnasiums; all weather speft field; feek elimbing wall-,
,,,e ,.,,l l. ,-ad a-ad ,,4, Ao-with kilns.
PUBLIC HEMUNG AND MEDIA COMMENTS
in Rme 2000, re"ests ffem the pub-lie hearing ineittded ae"ir-ing land aleng Sees Greek Paflq
DIRECT A4AJL COMMENTS
in the spfing ef 2000, letters were mailed te ene hundred (100) seheel Pmefit/Teaehet!Asseeiatien
(PT-As); te twe hundred (200) t!epAer-s ef par-ks and facilities in the past year-; and te neighbor-heed
I 4uth and family pt!ogf!am offefings; impf!ove existing youth ballfields; provide a r-estT-eefn
a-ad eeneessien a4 Commons Playfield; -provide more baske"! and seeeer- pr-egfams and more
CITY STAFF COMMENTS
eemments ffem pafk and pt:ogFa+n patt:ons. hi addition, stag uses City sites and pr-egmms. Park aPA
f4eility needs mentioned are ba4ting eages; fit tennis eetit4s; MY leash dog park with dog waste
dispesal; fit walking paths; vehiele aeeess te Bfiseee Pafk; yot4h tr-aek field; BNIX faeilit-f; East HiR
ska4e padq speeial event pafIE; full basketball eotit4s; and medel air-pla-n&beat faeilit5, Despite the
f-ks and faeilities must not be saer-ifieed.-
PARK PRIORITIES
7e skating L
Park&Open Space 10-30
125
• Lighted athietie fields (baseball,softball,seeeer-,-and eettr-ts);
No pool;
=fier-eased lighting ; .f4s and gals;-a
Teen and youth programs and f e lities
High -priorities for- fievv faeilities a*d paAEs ifielttde an ifidoof a-ad otitdoof: teen eenter; eoffm+Lmit-Y
nattifal meas; wetlands; woodlands; steep hillsides; and othef sensitive wildlife areas and open
> ;
play
CONC7 USIOpark. Analysis of sun,ey t!esults is ustially the first step ifi deteftnining the need f6f! new`T
,
facilities, and pt!ogfams. Feasibility sWdies, analysis of standuds and publie demand genefal4y
The inpt4 ffem these methods were eompafed to the iiwei4oi=y and level of sefviee standafd a
malyi�ed to define -priorities for- the next eight (9) yeafs listed in Table 10.3. The availability of
funds will
dete-, ine.,,i,ie „ ,-;ties ., o.,lize
Table
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PRIORITIES
• Develop„ .tb,l,.,,-b,.,o parks at C 4e-l-.,,,-., l 27'd Street West Hill (Seattle WateF) East u;ll
(274th), Valley(Riyefview). laeltide tails in the park a-ad eanneet neighl-••,vv floods
0 Continue the r-ephteetnent sehedttle for-p! . .. t and expaiid existing play af:eas;
Develop =ghted athletie fields at the Sen,iee C14 C-emmtmityP-ag-
0 Develop a yot4h afid teen-park on the East Hill for- ska4ing, foek elimbing, BN4X bieyeling�
and i line>,oekey;
Park&Open Space 10-31
126
_
C „duet a feasibility study for a new swimming pool,
=meet the Sees-Cr-eek Trail to Lake Meridian Park; and
Ae"ir-e!and to eoaneet Moffill Meadows and East Hill Neighbofhood P
The building of a city's parks and open spaces is largely directed by
community values, priorities, and resources. Kent has worked with the
community in an ongoing dialogue in order to gauge residents' parks and
open space values. Over the years we have relied upon surveys, workshops
questionnaires and consultation with the Parks and Human Services
Committee. Feedback has been valuable in setting priorities and allocating
resources. Opportunities to take part in each stage of the planning process
were advertised on the City's phone system and website, in the Kent
Reporter, within utility mailings, through targeted emails, and through
various postings at park facilities.
Park Plan Survey
A survey was taken during the spring of 2009 in order to obtain the
community's ideas and opinions about the existing parks system,
deficiencies, and priorities for the future. The survey was made available
online at the City's website, and written surveys were available at parks
facilities and distributed to neighborhood groups.
A total of 631 responses were received, 45 percent of which noted that they
were citizens of Kent. Due to the nature of the distribution of the survey, it
is not a statistically valid survey. However, it does provide a sense of the
community's desires and needs. Respondents rated trails, open space and
natural areas as extremely important followed by major parks and small
neighborhood parks. The top three needs expressed in the survey were a
swimming facility, an off-leash dog park and park security and maintenance.
Public Workshop
In addition to the survey, a public workshop was held in September 2009 to
further refine the areas of focus in the Park Plan and supplement the
comments received through the survey. Participants were given a comment
sheet with specific questions about the different elements of the plan that
were presented at the meeting. Participants commented on the need to
maintain our existing facilities and to make use of underutilized areas. They
Park&Open Space 10-32
127
also expressed a desire for better connectivity between parks and
throughout the City.
Website
The City's website was utilized as a tool for ongoing communication
regarding the status of the update process. Survey results were posted as
well as the draft Parks & Open Space Plan. Email notices were sent to
interested survey participants at each milestone in the update process,
inviting the public to participate and provide additional input.
In order to address the community's parks and open space needs, short-
and long- term recommendations and funding options are discussed in the
Park and Open Space Plan.
Opportunities for Regional Coordination
There are some needs that warrant a regional approach to meeting demand
for specific types of parks. The trail systems (Green River & Interurban) in
Kent require extensive coordination with King County and neighboring
jurisdictions due to a combined interest in providing an interconnected trail
system that functions as a unified park facility for people throughout the
region.
The need for a dog park serving the east hill of Kent, Covington and
unincorporated King County is another area where a regional solution would
best serve parks users. A regional dog park would allow resources to be
pooled and prevent duplication in services where one larger facility may
more effectively meet the need of several jurisdictions.
Urban forest restoration is another area that would benefit from
intergovernmental coordination. As Kent embarks on creating an urban
forest management plan, coordination with other jurisdictions who are also
implementing urban forestry programs will provide a greater understanding
of how plans have functioned in other areas and where opportunities for
further collaboration may exist.
Kent will continue to explore other areas where regional coordination may
better serve the residents of our City and users throughout the region.
PARK AND RECREATION GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals and policies of this element address parks; open space; facilities; historic and cultural
resources; and recreational and cultural programming. The goals and polices are divided into
Park&Open Space 10-33
128
separate sections, however, they function as a coherent and comprehensive vision. This is reflected
in the overall goal of the Park&Open Space Element.
Overall Goal: Encourage and provide opportunities for local citizens to participate in life-
enrichment activities via the development of park land and recreational facilities, preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas, professional programming, and the optimum utilization of
community resources.
humanM4LDLIFE RESOURCE GOALS & POLICIES
Mear-pefation of unique eeelegieal featufes and reseufees iiAe the City pafk system in order- wo
priority of the City. Sueh ineer-per-ation is intended to limit habitat degradation asseeiated with
aetivities.
Goal M9s-1.!
sites,
Vaees-, and developed urban areas.
urban ivildhft habitat, in 19rierity eopridoris and natural are�wim habitat+WIHe sueh as M
Park, Seo reek;MW C-reek;-and gap*Lake D,,,4
sensifive areas by mainta&i&T a heal* urban forest with native +vgetation that pro+,
Goal Mos 2.
Park&Open Space 10-34
129
,
system.the GreeH Ri+,e,-, soos Creek, Garf�on Creek alld A149 Creek eotTidor-S-1 the Green RA7,
Fenitliek-, and Cla4 Lake,
Development of a high quality, diversified and intetvopmeeted pafk system that pr-esefves an
sensitively enhanees signifieapA open spaees, is a ptiefity of the City. The establishment of
•
FeHwiek, QoFk Lake, Lake AfeFidiaii, AtHthei- Lake; 6tHd Lake Yowig,-- aiid arvwi
(GRAT-4). 2' -& -eel
Coal MOS-4;
Park&Open Space 10-35
130
low iHTaet park alld Peer-eatioHalfi-aeifities boC6� Me most switable sites are lost to
. .
,
Ga f q4q o H Gree i8 Gav oH,aHd-"SW 2/1 7M�=2nd rfi, �� ;a r-s
IUST-ORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
Development of a high "a4it�,, diversified park system giat ineltides pr-esepvation of signifie
heritage, ; a priority of the r;t ,
• ,
,
eleetr4e rail semviee beAveen SeaWe and Taeoma-, the James Street histoKeal wateiftent site,
and the Dowwgim i4wiH depot-, ameng others.
Poliey MOS 5.3: Work with the Kent Histor4eal Seeiety aH,4 other eu"ffil r-esoure
Park&Open Space 10-36
131
*;u rt;,,, of Mese speeialfeatwes.
Center, and K4Hg Development of a high "alil�, system of n�mhiptifpose-park tfails and eeffider-s that pfovide aeeess
Park&Open Space 10-37
132
. . ,
s
meighbeAeods-.
,
the Dewweim
. .
,
Clark Lake, Lake Mer4diaH oHd PoHMei- Lake iH omdeq- te jgr-ovide a high quoUty, divers
Goal MOS 8.2
,
"t,v.,, " U*•H. l.a 1. , ffgar-easL, ifwter, l.a other "
Park&Open Space 10-38
133
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES GOALS & POLIC
Development of a high qualit�,, diversified recreational system for all abilities, ages and inlettst
Policy MOS . .
.River, Lake Feiiwiek, Qa4 Lake-, Lake AkridiaH, alld Pawher Lake where pffietiea
t;o, l iHtef,ests
,
appropriate.
•
Goal Mos M.
Park&Open Space 10-39
134
j9pegr-ams fiep the interests ef all j9htwieal and mental eapabilities-, age, and interest groups in the
eeminfunio,
the Senior Aefivi#y Center, Speeial Pepulations. Resebtriee Center, and Kent Akmarial Pa
Kent Commons and Ki� GountyW Kent Swimming Pook, that provide aquatie-, phjwiea
jgwseheek,��uth, teens-, and semieoiq en a-year round basis.
age groups-, skiH le+,e&, and eommunio,interes-ts on a year round basis-.
. . Support the eentinued development aHd d4versoeation by, the Kent,
HighfineL, and Federal Way,Sehool AsMets of speeial meeting, assemb4,, eafiiig, health, an
eommunio� at large at ekomentary�, middk-, and high sehools within Kent and Me Poten
An .f;. A,
. . ,
.aetivities Uke gooc, awheit, g:un ffittges-, 4 leash areas-, model airplane jqyiffg ai an
Park&Open Space 10-40
135
Poliey MOS 13.1! .4equire alld develop Igaf*s to meet the level of seiq,iee Heeds s-Kew
popti1 t;o, and areas are anHexea
featHres that aet as natwwl baMer-s. Set aside Heighborhoodpark laiid within eaeh area to
meet t1 levels fi -o- ;
whole.
RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS GOALS & POLICIES
Development of high quality twtvational pr-ogr-ams a*d sen,iees that meet all eE)WARUH45, gf&HP
Park&Open Space 10-41
136
CULT-URAL ARTS PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES GOALS & POLIC
Development of high "alit�,, diver-sified etikural ai4s f4eilities a-ad programs that ifier-eas-e
>Work with the arts eomnmnio, to Htilize loeal resoHrees alld talents to iHewase ptibiie 6teeess to
A 4 a r
Poliey MOS 15.2� Develop stffitegies that will sHpport alld assist loeal artists aH
"ere appropriate-, develop and sHpport polieies- and ptwgffims that
EomHmHio�
bk alld oppr-eeiatioH.
Park&Open Space 10-42
137
. . ,
Tl Z'C7GN I ATIIA/' ESE C7'4 7\A4R:T1 C,.e .1 P ,,. ie .,
life eyelefeatuws that aecemitfor long term eosis and bemefii�m, is a p4er4o,of the Oty
• ,
,
• ,
,
eests
Park&Open Space 10-43
138
. .
•
other design and development standards Mat iviU improiv jqo4faeility, safto, alld seeHli
• •
• •
and vis-ibihi�-
"ere apprepr4ate, use adept a park Igrogwams, neighborhood pa
tefy is is a p4orice, octa e G;t
,
land set a side or fee in lieu ef donation or&nanees-, and Mterleeal agreement;s-, to finane
Park&Open Space 10-44
139
. . ,
Policy MOS 20.3! Initiate a Park Foundation to iHvegfigate gffiH�q and jqr4+w�e funds-,
, •
. .
tios;ae nt�
s
. .
Goal MOS 22:
Policy MOS 22.41 In order to efftetive4,Iqlan aiid jgrogqwni poi*and rver-eational needs
iviAin the eq&thig eio, limits and e potential annex-ation area-, define eq&timg a
Park&Open Space 10-45
140
. . ,
stance
,
. .
.
I. PARK& RECREATION FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES
Develop a hi ham-quality diversified recreational system for all abilities, ages and interest r�oups.
Goal P&OS-1:
Work with other agencies to preserve and increase waterfront access andfacilities.
Policy P&OS-1.1: Cooperate with King County Kent, Federal Way and Highline School
Districts, and other public and private agencies to acquire and preserve additional shoreline
access for wateLfront fishing, wading, swimming, and other related recreational activities
and pursuits; especially on the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and
Panther Lake.
Policy P&OS-1.2: Develop a mixture opportunities for watercraft access, including
canoe, kayak, sailboard, and other nonpower-boating activities;, especially on the Green
River,Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake, where practicable.
Goal P&OS-2:
Work with other public agencies and private organizations, including but not limited to the Kent and
Federal Way School Districts, to develop a high-quality system of athletic facilities for competitive
play.
Park&Open Space 10-46
141
Policy P&OS-2.1: Develop athletic facilities that meet the highest quality standards and
requirements for competitive playing for all abilities, a e oups, skill levels, and
recreational interests.
Policy P&OS-2.2: Develop field and court activities like soccer football, baseball,
basketball, softball, tennis, roller hockee and volleyball that provide for the largest number
of participants, and allow for multiple use, where appropriate.
Policy P&OS-2.3: Develop, where appropriate, a select number of facilities that provide
the highest standard for competitive playing, possibly in conjunction with Kin�ty Kent
and Federal Way School Districts, and other public agencies and private organizations.
Goal P&OS-3:
Develop, maintain, and operate a high-quality system of indoor facilities that provide activities and
pro rams for the interests of physical and mental capabilities, age, and interest groups in the
community
Policy P&OS-3.1: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor community centers, such as
the Senior ActivitECenter , and Kent Memorial Park Building, that provide arts and crafts,
music, video, classroom instruction, meeting facilities, eatinz and health care, day care, and
other spaces for all age pups, including preschool, youth, teens, and seniors on a year-
round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.2: Maintain and expand multiple-use indoor recreational centers, such as
Kent Commons and the Kent-Meridian Pool, that provide aquatic, physical conditioning,
gymnasiums, recreational courts, and other athletic spaces for all abilities, aggegyroups, skill
levels, and community interests on a near-round basis.
Policy P&OS-3.3: Support the continued development and diversification by the Kent,
jghline, and Federal Way School Districts ofWecial meeting, assemble eating, health, and
other community facilities that provide opportunities to school-age populations and the
community at large at elementary, middle, and high schools within Kent and the Potential
Annexation Area.
Policy P&OS-3.4: Develop and operate special indoor and outdoor cultural and
per ormingarts facilities that enhance and expand music, dance, drama, and other audience
and participatory opportunities for the community at large.
Park&Open Space 10-47
142
Goal P&OS-4:
Where appropriate, develop and operate specialized park and recreational enterprises that meet the
interest of populations who are able and willing to finance them.
Policy P&OS-4.1: Where appropriate and economically feasible 6.e., se l upportin�),
develop and operate specialized and special interest recreational facilities like golf, ice
skating,frisbee golf, mountain biking and archery ranges.
Policy P&OS-4.2: Where appropriate, initiate with other public agencies and private
organizations joint planning and operating programs to determine and provide for special
activities like golf, archery un�ran eoff-leashs, areas, model airplane Linz areasfrisbee
gold, mountain biking and camping on a regional basis.
Goal P&OS-5:
Develop and operate a balanced system of neighborhood and community parks, with active and
passive recreational opportunities throughout the City.
Policy P&OS-5.1: Acquire and develop parks to meet the level-of-service needs as Kent's
population grows and areas are annexed.
Policy P&OS-5.2: IdentifE neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets and geographic
features that act as natural barriers. Set aside neighborhood park land within each area to
meet the levels-of-service.
Policy P&OS-5.3: Develop amenities in parks for individual and pup use, active and
passive uses, while representing the best interests of the neighborhood or community as a
whole.
Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single; amily and multi amily residential, and
commercial developments to provide recreation elements.
II. OPEN SPACE AND GREENWAY GOALS & POLICIES
Develop of a highh-quality diversified and interconnected park system that preserves and sensitivelX
enhances significant open spaces, erg enwUs and urban forests. The establishment of er e�nwa.
urban separators is a strategy that promotes connectivity of Kent's open space system.
Park&Open Space 10-48
143
Goal P&OS-6:
Establish an open space pattern that will provide definition of and separation between developed
areas, and provide open space and reg enway linkages among park and recreational resources.
Policy P&OS-6.1: Define and conserve a system of open space and greenway corridors as
urban separators to provide definition between natural areas and urban land uses within the
Kent area.
Policy P&OS-6.2: Increase linkages of trails, in-street bikes lanes, or other existing or
planned connections with reg enwaVs and open space, particularly along the Green River
Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek corridors; around Lake Fenwick Clark Lake,
Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, and Lake Young; and around significant wetland and
oodways such as the Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-6.3: Preserve, through acquisition as necessary, environmentally sensitive
areas as greenway linkages and urban separators,particularly along the steep hillsides that
define both sides of the Green River Valley and the SE 2771h1272nd Street corridor
Goal P&OS-7:
IdentiA and protect significant recreational lands before they are lost to development.
Policy P&OS-7.1: Cooperate with other public and private agencies and with private
landowners to protect land and resources near residential neighborhoods,for high-quality
low impact park and recreational facilities before the most suitable sites are lost to
development. Suitable sites include wooded, undeveloped, and sensitive lands along the
Green River, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek Canyon corridors, and lands
adjacent to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)power line rights-of-wa V.
Policy P&OS-7.2: In future land developments,preserve unique environmental features or
areas, and increase public use of and access to these areas. Cooperate with other public
and private agencies and with private landowners to protect unique features or areas as low
impact publicly accessible resources, particularly along the Green River Soos Creek,
Garrison Creek, Mill Canyon, and SE 277th/272nd Street corridors.
Park&Open Space 10-49
144
III. TRAIL AND CORRIDOR SYSTEM GOALS & POLICIES
Develop a high=qualitysystem of multipurpose park trails and corridors that provide access to
significant environmental features, public facilities, and developed neighborhoods and business
districts.
Goal P&OS-8:
Create a comprehensive system of multipurpose off-road and on-road trail systems that link park
and recreational resources with residential areas, public facilities, commercial, and employment
centers both within Kent and within the region.
Policy P&OS-8.1: Where appropriate, create a comprehensive system of multipurpose off-
road trails usinzalignments of the Puget Power rights-ofwau Soos Creek Trail, Mill Creek
Trail, Lake Fenwick Trail, Green River Trail, Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and
Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA).
Policy P&OS-8.2: Create a comprehensive system of on-road trails to improve connectivity
or the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring enthusiasts using scenic, collector, and
local road rights-of-way and alignments.
Policy P&OS-8.3: Provide connections from residential neighborhoods to community
facilities like Kent Commons, the Senior Activity Center, the Kent-Meridian Pool, schools,
parks, and commercial districts.
Policy P&OS-8.4: Work with Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, Des Moines,
Covington, King County, and other appropriate jurisdictions to link and extend Kent trails
to other community and regional trail facilities like the Green River Interurban, and Soos
Creek Trails.
Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of right-of--way and street improvement plans,
consider potential connectivity with existingproposed trail corridors, parks, and
neighborhoods.
Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with elementary and middle schools, the downtown core, and
other commercial and retail activity centers on East and West Hills.
Park&Open Space 10-50
145
Policy P&OS-8.7: Extend trails through natural area corridors like the Green River, Mill
Creek, Garrison Creek, and Soos Creek, and around natural features like Lake Fenwick,
Clark Lake, Lake Meridian and Panther Lake in order to provide a high-quality diverse
sampling of the Kent's environmental resources.
Policy P&OS 8.8: Revise dcvclopmcnt rcgulations so that key trail links, that are identified
within the cooridor map, are provided to the City during the development approval process..
Goal P&OS-9:
Furnish trail corridors, trailheads, and other supporting sites with convenient amenities and
improvements.
Policy P&OS-9.1: Furnish trail systems with appropriate trailhead supporting
improvements that include interpretive and directoa signage, rest stops, drinkingsfountains,
restrooms,parking and loading areas, water and other services.
Policy P&OS-9.2: Where appropriate, locate trailheads at or in conjunction with park
sites, schools, and other communiU facilities to increase local area access to the trail system
and to reduce duplication of supporting improvements and amenities.
Policy P&OS-9.3: Design and develop trail improvements which emphasize saf 0� for
users and are easy to maintain and easy to access by maintenance, security and other
appropriate personnel, equipment, and vehicles.
IV. HISTORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
Develop a hi hg_-quality diversified park system that includes preservation of significant historic and
cultural resources, as well as programs to recognize the City's multicultural heritage.
Goal P&OS-10:
Preserve, enhance, and incorporate historic and cultural resources and multicultural interests into
the park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-10.1: Identi�preserve, and enhance Kents multicultural heritage,-
traditions, and cultural resources including historic sites, buildings, artwork, views,
monuments and archaeological resources.
Park&Open Space 10-51
146
Policy P&OS-10.2: Identify and incorporate significant historic and cultural resource
lands, sites, arti acts, and facilities into the park system to preserve these interests and to
provide a balanced social experience. These areas include the original alignment, or the
interurban electric rail service between Seattle and Tacoma, the James Street historical
waterfront site, and the Downtown train depot, among others.
Policy P&OS-10.3: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other cultural resource
groups to incorporate community activities at historic homes and sites into the park and
recreational program.
Goal P&OS-11:
Incorporate man-made environments and features into the park and recreational system.
Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments, structures, activities,
and areas into the park system to preserve these features and to provide a balanced park
and recreational experience. Examples include the earthworks in Mill Creek Canyon Park
and art in public places.
Policy P&OS-11.2: Work with property and,facility owners to increase public access to
and utilization of these specialsfeatures.
V. CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES GOALS & POLICIES
Develop hi ham-quality diversified cultural arts facilities and programs that increase community
awareness, attendance, and other opportunities for participation.
Goal P&OS-12:
Work with the arts community to utilize local resources and talents to increase public access to
artwork and programs.
Policy P&OS-12.1: Support successful collaborations among the Arts Commission,
business community, service pups, cultural organizations, schools, arts patrons, and
artists to utilize artistic resources and talents to the optimum degree possible.
Policy P&OS-12.2: Develop strategies that will support and assist local artists and art
organizations. Where appropriate, develop and support policies and programs that
Park&Open Space 10-52
147
encourage or provide incentives to attract and retain artists and artwork within the Kent
community.
Goal P&OS-13:
Acquire and display public artwork tos urnish public facilities and other areas and thereby increase
public access and appreciation.
Policy P&OS-13.1: Acquire public artwork including paintings, sculptures, exhibits, and
other media for indoor and outdoor display in order to expand access by residents and to
urnish public places in an appropriate manner
VI. WILDLIFE & NATURAL PRESERVATION GOALS & POLICIES
Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resources into the park system in order to
protect threatened plant and animal species,preserve habitat, and retain migration corridors for local
wildlife. Such incorporation is intended to limit habitat degradation associated with human
activities.
Goal P&OS-14:
Designate critical wildlife habitat resources and areas.
Policy P&OS-14.1: Identify and conserve critical wildlife habitat including nesting sites,
ora=ing areas, and wildlife miti ation corridors within or adjacent to natural areas, open
Wages, and developed urban areas.
Policy P&OS-14.2: Acquire and preserve habitat sites that support threatened species and
urban wildlife habitat, in priority corridors and natural areas with habitat value such as the
Green River Corridor, the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), North Meridian
Park, Soos Creek, Mill Creek, and Clark Lake Park.
Policy P&OS-14.3: Enhance habitat within parks, open space, and environmentally
sensitive areas by maintaining a healthy urban forest with native vegetation that provides
food, cover, shelter, and by utilizing best many e�practices.
Goal P&OS-15:
Preserve and provide access to significant environmental features, where such access does not
cause harm to the environmental functions associated with the features.
Park&Open Space 10-53
148
Policy P&OS-15.1: Preserve and protect significant environmental features including
environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, open spaces, woodlands, shorelines,
waterfronts, and other features that support wildlife and reflect Kents natural heritage.
Policy P&OS-15.2: Acquire, and where appropriate, provide limited public access to
environmentally sensitive areas and sites that are especially unique to the Kent area, such as
the Green River Soos Creek, Garrison Creek and Mill Creek corridors, the Green River
Natural Resource Area (GRNRA), and the shorelines of Lake Meridian, Panther Lake, Lake
Fenwick, and Clark Lake.
Goal P&OS16: Develop and maintain an Urban Forestry Management Program.
Policy P&OS-316.1 Connect people to nature and improve the quality of Life in Kent by
restoring urban forests and other urban open spaces.
Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvanize the community around urban forest restoration and
stewardship through a volunteer restoration pro ram.
Policy P&OS-16.3 Improve urban forest health, and enhance urban sforest Ions
sustainability by removing invasive plants and maintaining functional native sorest
communities.
VII. DESIGN AND ACCESS GOALS & POLICIES
Design and develop facilities that are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, with life-cycle features
that account for long-term costs and benefits.
Goal P&OS-17:
Design park and recreational indoor and outdoor facilities to be accessible to all physical
capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests.
Policy P&OS-17.1: Design outdoor picnic areas, fields, courts, play-grounds, trails,
parking lots, restrooms, and other active and supporting facilities to be accessible to
individuals and organized pups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, agge groyps,
income levels, and activity interests.
Park&Open Space 10-54
149
Policy P&OS-17.2: Design indoor facility spaces, activity rooms, restrooms, hallways,
parking lots, and other active and supporting spaces and improvements to be accessible to
individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups,
income levels, and activity interests.
Goal P&OS-18:
Design and developark and recreational facilities to be of low-maintenance materials.
Policy P&OS-18.1: Design and develop facilities that are of low-maintenance and high-
capacity design to reduce overall facility maintenance and operation requirements and
costs.
Policy P&OS-18.2: Where appropriate, use low-maintenance materials, settings, or other
value-en in�g considerations that reduce care and security requirements, while
retaining the natural conditions and environment.
Policy P&OS-18.3: Where possible in landscaping parks, encourage the use of low
maintenance native plants..
Goal P&OS-19:
ldenti& and implement the security and safb� provisions of the American Disabilities Act (ADA),
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), and other standards.
Policy P&OS-19.1: Implement the provisions and requirements of the American
Disabilities Act (ADA), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (OPTED), and
other design and development standards that will improve park facility safety and security
features for park users, department personnel, and the public at lard
Policy P&OS-19.2: Develop and implement safety standards, procedures, and pro rg ams
that will provide proper training and awareness for department personnel.
Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations concerning park activities
and operations that will protect user gimps, department personnel, and the public at large.
Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a park programs, neighborhood park
watches, and other innovative programs that will increase salty and security awareness
and visibility.
Park&Open Space 10-55
150
VIII. FISCAL COORDINATION GOALS & POLICIES
Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing,eveloping, operating, and maintaining facilities
and programs that distribute costs and benefits to public and private interests.
Goal P&OS-20:
Investigate innovative methods of financing park and recreational requirements, including joint
ventures with other public agencies and private organizations, and private donations.
Policy P&OS-20.1: Investigate innovative, available methods, such as growth impactsfees,
land set-a-side or fee-in-lieu-of-donation ordinances, and interlocal agreements, to finance
acility development, maintenance, and operating needs in order to reduce costs, retain
financial flexibility match user benefits and interests, and increase facility services.
Policy P&OS-20.2: Where feasible and desirable, consider joint ventures with King
Count, Kent, Highline, and Federal Way School Districts, regional, state, federal, and other
public agencies and private organizations, including or profit concessionaires to acquire
and develop regional facilities (i.e., swimming pool, off-leash park, etc.).
Policy P&OS-20.3: Maintain and support a Park Foundation to investigate and
private funds, develop a planned giLviLig pLqgram and solicit private donations to finance
acility development, acquisition, maintenance,programs, services, and operating needs.
Goal P&OS-21:
Coordinate public and private resources to create among gencies a balanced local park and
recreational system.
Policy P&OS-21.1: Create a comprehensive, balanced park and recreational system that
integrates Kent facilities and services with resources available from King County Kent and
Federal Way School Districts, and other state, federal, and private park and recreational
lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve and provide for the interests of area
residents.
Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint planning and development efforts, with King
County Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and other public and private agencies to
avoid duplication, improve facility quality and availability reduce costs, and represent
interests of area residents.
Park&Open Space 10-56
151
Goal P&OS-22:
Create and institute a method of cost/bene it and performance measure assessment to determine
equitable park and recreation costs, levels of service, and provision of facilities.
Policy P&OS-22.1: In order to of ectively-plan and pro�park and recreational needs
within the existing city limits and the potential annexation area, define existing and
proposed land and facility levels-of-service (LOS) that differentiate requirements due to the
impacts of population growth as opposed to improvements to existing facilities,
neighborhood as opposed to community nexus of benefit, requirements in the City as
opposed to requirements in the Potential Annexation Area.
Policy P&OS-22.2: Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, developing,
operating, and maintaining park and recreational facilities in manners that accurately
distribute costs and benefits to public and private user interests. This includes the
application of growth impact fees where new developments impact level-of-service (LOSS
standards.
Policy P&OS-22.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs that serve the
broadest needs of the population and that recover program and operating costs using a
combination of rezistration,fees, user fees, grants, sponsorships, donations, scholarships,
volunteer efforts, and the use of general funds.
S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMEN DMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-1(B)Parks&OpenSpaoeElem-ParkPlan\LUPB\1-11-10_Ch 10-ParkOpenSpace_Revised(2).doc
Park&Open Space 10-57
152
This page intentionally left blank.
153
CHAPTER EIGHT
CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
The Capital Facilities Element is a required element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, mandated
by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GNU). This element contains goals and
policies related to the provision and maintenance of public services and capital facilities required to
adequately support anticipated growth during the next twenty(20)years. The goals and policies of
this element are consistent with the Land Use, Transportation, and Park & Open Space Elements.
Further, the Capital Facilities Element, in its incorporation of the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) by reference and partial publication addresses the development activities undertaken by the
City to accommodate the demand for public services. The CIP is updated annually to coincide
with the Council budgeting process. The CIP lists adopted and funded capital and operating
projects with costs and revenues identified over a six (6)year period.
While the Capital Facilities Element includes summary information, inventories and levels-of-
service pertaining to parks, open space, and transportation facilities; more comprehensive
consideration of these policy areas are provided in the Park & Open Space and Transportation
Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Other City-provided services and facilities are considered
more fully within this element. Some of these services and facilities are internal to the effective
functioning of Kent City government, but most services and facilities considered in this element
serve the public directly.
The Capital Facilities Element contains goals and policies to guide the provision and maintenance
of public services and capital facilities with performance measures for assessing the adequacy of
public services and capital facilities to meet population and employment growth. The Capital
Facilities Element considers over the next twenty(20)years the performance of public services and
related capital needs in maintaining or elevating the provision of public services according to
adopted level-of-service(LOS) standards.
Capital Facilities 8-1
154
REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the Comprehensive Plan to identify existing and
future public facilities needed to be consistent with the Land Use Element. Updates of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), which contains a list of adopted capital projects including costs and
projected revenues, are incorporated into the Capital Facilities Element through the annual
budgeting process by City Council ordinance. The GMA requires that services and facilities
provided to residents and businesses by adjacent jurisdictions and public agencies must also be
considered. Several providers of public services and facilities serve Kent, and the operating plans
of these agencies are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan.
Concurrency and Levels-of-Service
One of the goals of the GMA is to have public services and capital facilities provided concurrent
with or prior to development. This concept is known as "concurrency," also called "adequate
public facilities". In the City of Kent, concurrency requires 1) services and facilities which serve
the development to be in place at the time of development (or for some types of facilities, a
financial commitment to be made to provide for services and facilities within a specified period of
time) and; 2) services and facilities which serve the development to have sufficient capacity to
serve the development without decreasing level-of-service (LOS) below minimum standards
adopted in the Capital Facilities Element. In order to make use of the LOS method,the City selects
the way in which it will measure performance of each service or amount of each type of facility
(i.e., response time, acres, gallons, etc.). It also identifies the current and proposed LOS standard
for each measurement. The standards adopted should be considered to reflect the quality of life
against which performance of services or provision of facilities are measured for concurrency.
The GMA specifically requires concurrency for transportation facilities. The GMA, through the
Countywide Planning Policies (specifically LU-29) requires all other public services and facilities
to be "adequate" (see RCW 19.27.097, 36.70A.020, 36.70A.030, and 58.17.110). Concurrency
management will ensure that sufficient public service and facility capacity is available for each
proposed development.
Capital Facilities Planning and Finance
The GMA requires cities and counties to approve and maintain a six (6) year capital facilities plan
which includes requirements for specific types of capital facilities, measurable level-of-service
(LOS) standards, financial feasibility, and assurance that adequate facilities will be provided as
population and employment growth occurs. The Annual Budget Document and six-year Capital
Capital Facilities 8-2
155
Improvement Program (CIP) fulfill the GMA requirement for facilities planning; but, in addition,
these documents serve as a foundation for City fiscal management and eligibility for grants and
loans. These documents and the Capital Facilities Element provides coordination among the City's
many plans for capital improvements, including other elements of the Comprehensive Plan,
operating plans of departmental service providers, and facilities plans of the State, the region, and
adjacent local jurisdictions.
The CIP identifies the location and cost of needed facilities, and the sources of revenue that will be
used to fund the facilities. The CIP, which is a component of this Element, is approved through the
annual budgeting process. Subsequently adopted amendments to the CIP and the Annual Budget
Documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Element. The Capital Facilities Element
contains or refers to LOS standards for each public service and facility type, and requires that new
development be served by adequate services and facilities. Operating plans of the City and other
public services and facilities providers also contain information associated with levels-of-service.
The Annual Budget Document and Six-Year CIP contain broad goals and specific financial policies
that guide and implement the provision of adequate public services and facilities.
The CIP must be financially feasible; in other words, dependable revenue sources must equal or
exceed anticipated costs. If the costs exceed the revenue,the City must reduce its levels-of-service,
reduce costs, or modify the Land Use Element to bring development into balance with available or
affordable facilities.
The GMA mandates forecasts of future needs for capital facilities and the use of standards for
levels of service of facility capacity as the basis for public facilities contained in the CIP(see RCW
36.70A.020 [12]). As a result, requested public services and facilities detailed in the CIP must be
based on quantifiable, objective measures of service or facility capacity, such as traffic-volume
capacity per mile of road and acres of park land per capita,or average emergency response times.
BACKGROUND
Population And Service Areas
The City of Kent population has grown through annexations, in-migration and births to 84,275 as
of 2002. Kent's Planning Area, which includes the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), has a 2000
population of 103,521. Based on estimates from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the
projected population for the Kent Planning Area in 2020 is anticipated to number approximately
124,903. Some service agencies of the City and other public service providers have different
geographic boundaries and may therefore assume different service population figures. Operating
Capital Facilities 8-3
156
plans of these service providers should be referenced for more accurate population and service area
information. Maps provided in this Element indicate service areas for agencies servicing homes
and businesses within Kent, its PAA, and adjacent areas.
Setting the Standards for Levels-of-Service
Because the projected demand for public services and capital facilities will be largely influenced by
the appropriate level-of-service (LOS) measure adopted in the Capital Facilities Element, the key
to adequate and timely provision of public services and capital facilities is the establishment of
measurable and achievable LOS standards. LOS standards are measures of the quality of life of the
community. The standards should be based on the Community's vision of its future and its values.
The final legal authority to establish LOS standards rests with the City Council, because the City
Council enacts the LOS standards that reflect the Community's vision.
Selection of a specific LOS to be the "adopted standard" during the original Comprehensive Plan
Capital Facilities Element drafting was accomplished by a 12-step process. The process could be
described in brief as an assessment of inventoried City facilities and population, along with the
costs of funded capital projects, including"non-capacity"projects that were under consideration at
that time. The LOS standards were reflective of strategic capital facilities programming in the
early 1990s. While capital improvement programs and capital facilities plans will continue to
reflect strategic needs for capital projects during six (6) year cycles, many of the present levels-of-
service reflect robust performance measures. Such performance measures are oriented toward
assessing the quality of public services, and proposed capital projects would be expected to
maintain or improve the level-of-service.
Every year, as required by the Growth Management Act, department service providers reassess
land use issues, inventories of public services and facilities, level-of-service standards, and
projected revenues to determine what changes, if any are needed. The capital facility operating
plans of the City of Kent, and other providers of services and facilities to Kent homes and
businesses, contain technical information used in such reassessments, and are incorporated into the
Capital Facilities Element by reference.
Capital Facilities 8-4
157
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES, INVENTORIES AND
LEVELS-OF-SERVICE BY SERVICE TYPE
Measuring performance of and citizen satisfaction with City services has provided important
indicators of achievements and needs for public services, and by extension, capital facilities.
Budget requests for service programs and facilities are responsive to performance measures, which
are impacted by growth. As will be frequently noted, many of the previously used measures for
establishing level-of-service standards were more reflective of existing capital facilities inventories
than of the performance of public services and provision of facilities that continue to directly
contribute to the quality of life in Kent. Services or facilities operating below the established
minimums for levels-of-service could be an indication that a need may exist for service
improvements, programmatic changes, new or improved facilities, or a re-evaluation of the level-
of-service standards. The current LOS for each service or facility may be found in the operating
documents referenced in this Element, and in the City of Kent Performance Measurement Report.
Police and Corrections
The City of Kent Police Department provides a variety of patrol, investigative and community
education services to Kent and neighboring jurisdictions as appropriate. The Police Department
also provides correctional services, programs and facilities for the detention and rehabilitation of
criminal offenders. The City of Kent Police Department has been periodically re-accredited by the
nationally-recognized Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), for
the quality of its performance on several objectives relating to field and administrative police work,
and community involvement. This accreditation enables the Police Department to access grant
funding, additional risk management training, and decreased operating insurance costs. The
Corrections Division is pursuing a separate accreditation from the American Corrections
Association that would entitle access to grant funding.
Police Services and Facilities Inventory
The Police Department serves Kent residents and businesses through its Patrol, Investigations, and
Administrative Support Divisions. The Police Department contracts 911 emergency response
through Valley Communications. The Police Headquarters building is located on the City Hall
campus at 232 Fourth Avenue S. The City of Kent Corrections Facility is located at 1201 South
Central. The Police/Fire Training Center is located on the East Hill at 24611 116t' Avenue SE.
Figure 8.1 illustrates the location of police services areas and facilities. Police facilities are listed
in the Table 8.1.
Capital Facilities 8-5
158
Table 8.1
POLICE FACILITIES
Facility Name Location Capacity
Evidence Area- City Hall 220 Fourth Avenue S 1,250 s.f.
Midway Substation 25440 Pacific Highway S 750 s.f.
North Hill Substation 20676-72n Avenue S 132 s.f
Police East Hill Substation 24611 - 116t Avenue SE 880 s.f.
Police Headquarters 232 Fourth Avenue S 18,000 s.f.
Police/Fire Training Center 24611 - 116t Avenue SE 8,000 s.f.
Firing Range 24611 - 116t Avenue SE 3,670 s.f.
West Hill Substation 26512 Military Road S 910 s.f.
Springwood Substation 27405 - 129 Place SE,#23 850 s.f.
*Panther Lake Substation 21006 - 132" Avenue SE 3,850 s.f.
* Potential conversion of Fire Department Logistics Building.
Correctional Services and Facilities Inventory
The City of Kent Correctional Facility (CKCF) capacity is one hundred-thirty (130) beds. The
correctional facility has an intergovernmental contract with the Federal Marshal's Office. Due to
the opening of the Federal Correctional Facility in SeaTac, federal prisoners are housed at the
CKCF infrequently. The average length of stays at the CKCF increased from 14 days in 2001 to
15 days in 2002. The Kent Police Department has focused efforts to address the increasing
demands for jail capacity. The CKCF Programs Division added day reporting and work crew
programs in 2002 to the existing electronic home detention, work release and work time credit
programs. The CKCF is undertaking the challenge of becoming a fully-accredited correctional
facility through the American Corrections Association, with an audit planned for the third quarter
of 2003. Accreditation for the CKCF would provide increased access to grant funding and reduced
liability insurance costs. Correctional facilities are listed in Table 8.2 and their locations are
illustrated in Figure 8.1. Performance measures for Police LOS standards are found in Table 8.3.
Capital Facilities 8-6
159
FIGURE 8.1
POLICE SERVICES &FACILITIES
Capital Facilities 8-7
160
Capital Facilities 8-8
161
Table 8.2
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
Facility Name Location Capacity
Correctional Facility 1230 South Central Avenue 130 beds
Corrections Annex 8309 South 259 Street 3,093 s.f.
Kent Municipal/Aukeen District Court 1210 South Central Avenue 4,051 s.f.
Table 8.3
POLICE LOS STANDARDS
Performance Measure LOS Standard
Responsive Police Average response times to Top 6 minutes or less to scene from
Service Priority Calls receipt of emergency call
Community Sense Annual Citizen Satisfaction 85% of respondents indicate
of Safety Survey respondents' perceived feeling "somewhat safe" to
level of safety "very safe"in Kent
As of 2002,the Kent Police Department is satisfactorily meeting both of the LOS standards.
FIRE & LIFE SAFETY SERVICES
The City of Kent Fire Department is responsible for delivering fire protection and emergency
medical services to the City, and to the geographic area within King County Fire District #37 that
includes the City of Covington. Fire Suppression & Emergency Medical Response units provide
the most directly recognizable services to homes and businesses in Kent and other service area
jurisdictions. Other fire districts adjacent to Kent may provide response assistance as requested.
The Emergency Management Office and Fire Prevention Office carry out several objectives,
including assessment and reduction of potential fire and life hazard risks through educational
outreach programs and development plan inspections throughout the City. The Kent Fire
Department received accreditation offered jointly by the International Association of Fire Chiefs
(IAFC), the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI), and the International
Cities/Counties Management Association(ICMA).
Capital Facilities 8-9
162
Fire & Life Safety Services and Facilities Inventory
The City owns six(6)fire stations: Station 71 (in the southern portion of Downtown Kent); Station
72 (Lake Meridian area); Station 73 (West Hill); Station 74 (East Hill); Station 75 (east, near
Covington); and Station 76 (north, in the industrial area). A seventh station is located in Fire
District #37 and is owned by the Fire District. Each station is equipped with at least one fire
engine or ladder truck that carries emergency medical supplies and equipment. Each station is
staffed with a minimum of three (3) personnel 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Each station
has future capacity for additional staffing. Fire District#37's Capital Facilities Plan identifies two
(2) future stations that will serve the City. Station 78, which will open in January 2008, will be
located in the City of Covington and will serve the east-side of the City of Kent. There is also a
proposed station serving the North Benson/Panther Lake neighborhood. The North
Benson/Panther Lake station will be inside the potential annexation area for the City of Kent. The
Fire District is currently collecting level-of-service fees for the future construction and purchase of
land for these projects. In addition, Stations 75 and 76 have a King County Medic One paramedic
unit housed in the station. Each unit is staffed with two (2) personnel. These units are part of the
countywide Advance Life Support (ALS) system. Table 8.4 lists each station, location, number
and type of units in service, total station capacity, and minimum staffing. Figure 8.2 illustrates
locations of fire and life safety services and facilities.
Current data collection for the level-of-service indicates that the Fire Department is not meeting the
standard. The Kent Fire Department is refining its data collection and analysis support functions in
order to identify areas in need of capital and operating improvements. Such improvements would
be pursued to meet the established levels-of-service. Performance measures for fire and life safely
LOS standards are found in Table 8.5.
Police/Fire Training Center
The Police/Fire Training Center is located on East Hill at 24611 116th Avenue Southeast at Station
74. The Center, housed in an 8,000 square foot building, provides audio and visual equipment and
other facilities for in-service training for City of Kent police officers and fire fighters. Instruction
is conducted by Kent Police and Fire Department personnel, and by nationally known instructors
from organizations such as the International Association of Police Chiefs and the State Fire
Service. In addition to providing a facility for training City of Kent personnel, the training center
also accommodates a satellite training program sponsored by the Washington State Criminal
Justice Training Commission.
Capital Facilities 8-10
163
FIGURE 8.2
FIRE&LIFE SAFETY SERVICES &FACILITIES
Capital Facilities 8-11
164
Capital Facilities 8-12
165
Table 8.4
FIRE & LIFE SAFETY FACILITIES
Facility Location Units in Capacity Minimum Staffing
Name Service
Station 71 504 West Crow Street Engine 71 and 4 Bays 5—(3)Engine(2)Aid
Aid 71
Station 72 25620-140th Avenue SE Engine 72 3 Bays 3—Engine
Station 73 26512 Military Road S Engine 73 3 Bays 3—Engine
Station 74 24611-116th Avenue SE Ladder 74;Aid 3 Bays 6—(3)Ladder;(2)Aid
74;and (1)Battalion Chief
Battalion Chief
Station 75 15635 SE 272nd Street Engine 75 3 Bays 3—Engine
Station 76 20676-72 d Avenue S Engine 76 3 Bays 3—Engine
Station 77 20717- 132 d Avenue SE Engine 77 3 Bays 3—Engine
Corner of 180th Avenue SE Proposed
Station 78 and SE 256th Street Engine 3 Bays Operational 1/1/08
North
Benson/Panther In area of 108th Avenue SE To Be To Be
Lake Area and SE 216th Street Determined Determined To Be Determined
Capital Facilities 8-13
166
Table 8.5
FIRE & LIFE SAFETY LOS STANDARDS
Performance Measure LOS Standard
Structure Fires-All Response Time by First due apparatus with a minimum of 3
percentage(fractile) firefighters will arrive on scene within 7
minutes of initial dispatch on 80%of incidents.
Structure Fires—Single-family Response Time by Effective Response Force of 16 firefighters
residential and standard percentage(fractile) will arrive on scene within 10 minutes of initial
commercial dispatch on 80%of incidents.
Structure Fires—Commercial Response Time by Effective Response Force of 18 firefighters
target hazards percentage(fractile) will arrive on scene within 10 minutes of initial
dispatch on 80%of incidents.
Structure Fires—High risk Response Time by Effective Response Force of 21 firefighters
target hazards percentage(fractile) will arrive on scene within 10 minutes of initial
dispatch on 80%of incidents.
Advanced Life Support—Life Response Time by Effective Response Force of 5 to 6 firefighters
threatening percentage(fractile) will arrive on scene within 10 minutes of initial
dispatch on 80%of incidents.
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The City of Kent Operations Department manages several facilities and buildings necessary to the
administrative and maintenance functions of the City. These include City Hall and the City
Council Chambers, and the Centennial Center; all located in the heart of Downtown Kent. Table
8.6 below lists the name, location and capacity of each facility:
Table 8.6
CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICES
NAME LOCATION CAPACITY
City Hall 220 -4th Avenue South 35,230 s.f.
City Hall Annex 302 West Gowe Street 4,045 s.f.
Centennial Center 400 West Gowe Street 71,600 s.f.
Capital Facilities 8-14
167
PARKS,RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department manages parks and open
space resources, as well as the Senior Activity Center, Kent Commons, Kent Resource Center, and
Riverbend Golf Complex; provides a wide range of recreational programs throughout the facilities;
and administers funding in support of a variety of community service activities. Details for
community service activities can be found in the Human Services Element, the Housing Element,
and the 2003-2007 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. The 2000
Interim rv,,,,,pr-ehens ye Park Ree-eats,,, & G,,.,,.,-,unity Sefyi es ni.,,, 2010 Parks & Open Space
Plan and the Park& Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides greater detail about
facilities and LOS standards.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
The City of Kent owns and leases+ es oc 7 aer-es f neigMer-heed nark land and 1,247.3 aer-
of
1,348 acres of parkland within the current City limits. King County owns
0.5 acres located in Kent. Within Kent's Potential Annexation Area(PAA),King County owns 734
acres of park land. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department manages a wide
variety of facilities located on park land, including the Senior Center, Kent Commons, Special
Populations Resource Center, play fields, and trails. The Park & Open Space Element contains a
current inventory of lands leased and owned by the City. Figure 10.1 and 10.2 of the Park& Open
Space Element illustrate locations of parks and recreation facilities.
Parks and Recreation Level-of-Service Standards
The City of Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department generally pursues land
acquisitions to meet anticipated demand for open space based upon estimated population growth.
As suitable land becomes available for development, the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department considers purchases in balance with the anticipated population growth for the
entire City. More detailed levels-of-service for Parks and Recreation services and facilities are
provided in the Park & Open Space Element and the Wer-im 2000 C—ompr-ehen:m=ePan-,,
010 Parks&Open Space Plan.
Capital Facilities 8-15
168
PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES
The City of Kent is one among several providers of public utility services, for water distribution
and storage, sewerage, and stormwater management. Other public providers adjacent to City of
Kent utilities franchise areas coordinate with the City of Kent Public Works Department through
interlocal service agreements. Privately-provided services such as energy distribution and storage,
cable television, and telephone services are discussed in the Utilities Element.
Sanitary Sewer Facilities
The service area of the City of Kent Sewer Utility encompasses twenty-three (23) square miles and
includes most of the incorporated City, as well as adjacent franchise areas within unincorporated
King County. Since the existing collection system already serves most of the City's service area,
expansion of this system will occur almost entirely by infill development, which will be
accomplished primarily through developer extensions and local improvement districts. In general,
the existing sewer system is sized based on existing standards which will carry peak flows
generated by the service area for ultimate development. However, the City of Kent
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan has identified various undersized lines, as well as others that
require rehabilitation. King County-METRO has assumed the responsibility for interception,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater from the City of Kent and communities throughout south,
east and north King County at the South Treatment Plant located in Renton. Therefore, the City
does not incur any direct capacity-related capital facilities requirements or costs for sanitary sewer
treatment. METRO pump stations in Pacific, Black Diamond, and three (3) in the vicinity of the
South Treatment Plant(Interurban and New Interurban) serve South King County.
King County will provide additional wastewater capacity to serve a growing population in the
Puget Sound area by constructing a new North Treatment Plant in the north service area (to be
located in the vicinity of the boundary of King and Snohomish counties) and by expanding the
South Treatment Plant to handle additional flow from south and east King County. The North
Treatment Plant is anticipated to provide a capacity of thirty-six (36)million gallons per day(mgd)
when operational in 2010, and the expansion of the South Treatment Plant in the year 2029 will
increase system capacity from one hundred fifteen(115)mgd to one hundred thirty-five (135)mgd.
Two conveyance improvements serving the South Treatment Plant are scheduled for completion
both in the near-term and long-term. The improvements of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Parallel
Auburn Interceptor are anticipated to be completed by 2004, and the planned three (3) to five (5)
mgd expansion of effluent storage capacity is projected to be completed by 2029.
Adjacent sewer utilities providing service to Kent homes and businesses include Soos Creek Water
& Sewer, the City of Auburn, Lakehaven Utility District, Midway Sewer District, the City of
Tukwila and the City of Renton. Service connections exist between the City of Kent and these
service purveyors, and interlocal agreements ensure continuous service. A complete inventory of
sanitary sewer facilities and appropriate levels-of-service are found in the City of Kent
Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, and operating comprehensive plans of adjacent purveyors of sewer
service. These documents are on file with the City of Kent Public Works Department. Figure 8.3
illustrates the locations of the sanitary sewer service areas and facilities.
Capital Facilities 8-16
169
FIGURE 8.3
SEWER SERVICE AREAS & FACILITIES
Capital Facilities 8-17
170
Capital Facilities 8-18
171
Stormwater Management Facilities
The majority of the City of Kent is located within the Green River watershed, with stormwater
flowing either directly to the Green River or to the Green River via a tributary creek. A smaller
portion of the City, generally located west of I-5, flows either to Massey or McSorley Creeks,
which drain directly to Puget Sound. Significant creek systems draining to the Green River are:
Johnson Creek;
Midway Creek;
Mullen Slough;
Mill Creek(Auburn);
Mill Creek(Kent);
Springbrook/Garrison Creek;
Soosette Creek;
Soos Creek/Meridian Valley Creek; and
The"Lake Meridian Outlet"Creek.
The last three creeks listed are tributary to Big Soos Creek, which in turn drains to the Green River
east of Auburn. Figure 8.4 illustrates the drainage basins of Kent's storm drainage service area.
The stormwater system is comprised of an extensive network of ditches, pipes, and stormwater
quantity and quality control facilities which connect individual parcels with the City's surface
water systems. The City also owns, operates and maintains several regional quantity and quality
control facilities. These are the Green River Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), the Upper and
Lower Mill Creek Detention Facilities, the 98th Avenue Garrison Creek Detention Facility, the
Meridian Meadows Detention Facility, and the South 259th Street Detention Facility, the
Horseshoe Acres Pump Station and the constructed wetland at Lake Fenwick.
Using the City's GIS database records, the Drainage Master Plan (DMP) indicates a total of 17
City-wide drainage basins within the planning area (corporate limits) totaling approximately 28
square miles. In addition, the storm drainage system consists of approximately 285 miles of
pipeline along with an extensive system of open channels. The DMP was structured to first look at
the existing watersheds and drainage basins, determine the subbasins within the watershed, analyze
any open channel components (receiving water) for insufficient capacity, determine and prioritize
projects needed to reduce flood risks, improve water quality, enhance fish passage and
instream/riparian habitats, and efficiently serve planned growth, determine alternative
solutions to alleviate potential flooding, and determine cost —effective solutions to the identified
needs. Each project within the DMP has been reviewed for multiple benefitsthenthen given
either a "High, Medium, or Low" ranking. Further details on each project are located in
Chapter 7,Table 7-1 of the DMP. Total project costs range from$52 Million to $67 Million.
The City has operated a stormwater utility since 1981 as a means of financing the design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of the City's surface water system. Fees are collected
based on specific subbasin location, type of development, and percent impervious surface
coverage. Revenue is used for operation and maintenance activities and capital improvement
programs.
Specific requirements (level-of-service standards) for on-site stormwater management and stream
protection are contained in the City's 2002 Surface Water Design Manual, which is a modified
Capital Facilities 8-19
172
version of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Portions of the stormwater
system are improved to these standards as public and private development projects are constructed.
These standards will be adjusted as necessary to meet equivalency requirements of the Washington
State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington(20015) in
the future.
The Drainage Master Plan (DMP) encompasses all Capital Improvement Program (CIP) related
projects for stormwater systems with the city limits. The 2008 DMP replaces the 1985 DMP and
the Capital Improvement Programs completed individually for the Mill, Garrison, Springbrook
Creek and Soos Creek Basin CIP. The 2008 DMP has incorporated elements of the CIP, such as
flood conveyance needs for open channels, determination of replacement needs of the City's
stormwater pipe system, drainage facility requirements of the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and levee repair and replacement needs for flood protection along the Green River.
The DMP further recommends specific projects for enhancing critical areas and fish passage and
addresses engineering staff needs to oversee such projects.
Program components of the DMP include compliance with the Washington State Department of
Ecology (DOE)-mandated Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
Permit and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs. These unfunded federally mandated
programs were included in the DMP to determine if there were deficiencies in the City's current
operation and maintenance and monitoring programs and identify subsequent additional workload
and staff requirements needed to fully meet the permit requirements. The DMP has included
recommendations to meet the required elements of the TMDL and NPDES Phase II Permit for
tracking, monitoring, maintenance, and operation elements including the necessary resources to
meet these needs.
Critical area habitat protection is an important aspect of water quality, habitat protection and flood
protection. To be successful in improving the water quality of the streams and open channel
systems within the City, there is a continuing priority of acquisition of buffers along the main
stream corridors. Section 8 of the DMP further discusses the needs of this program and
provides areas of potential expansion of habitat protection. As properties become available, the
City's environmental engineering section will continue to pursue grant funding and work
towards the protection of habitat and water quality.
The existing storm drainage pipelines, approximately 285 miles, form a labyrinthian connection of
pipes, catch basins, and manholes under the public right of ways with the ability to alleviate the
surface flooding that would occur on the city streets.As these pipes age and reach their service life,
a replacement program has been established by the PW Operations and Maintenance staff to repair
or replace segments of the pipes each year. During the life of the pipe system, segments may be
targeted also for improvements before the end of the service life, usually due to inadequate
capacity after years of development. An analysis was completed of the existing storm drainage
pipes within the City.A total length of 135,000 feet of 18" or larger diameter pipe was analyzed for
capacity and 55,350 feet or 41% has failed to meet the minimum requirements for passing a 25-
year storm event. These systems are noted within the DMP for updating.
As a result of the 1998 listing of Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout listing under the Federal
Endangered Species Act, the City has been participating in various regional salmon restoration
efforts, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration
Program and the steering committees for Watershed Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 and 9.
WRIA 8 includes the watersheds of the Cedar and Sammamish Rivers as well as Lake Washington.
Capital Facilities 8-20
173
FIGURE 8.4
STORM DRAINAGE SERVICE AREA
Capital Facilities 8-21
174
Capital Facilities 8-22
175
WRIA 9 includes the Green/Duwamish River Watershed as well as some nearshore area of Puget
Sound. The salmon recovery plans will require capital expenditures for various stream restoration
projects. There is a possibility of federal and state matching funds for these projects.
King County and its cities(including Kent)also participate in the King County Flood Control Zone
District. The District is funded by a property tax on parcels county-wide. The principal
responsibility of the District is the maintenance and repair of all levee systems within King County.
In addition,the City is involved in other regional programs to provide an expanded greenway along
the Green River. This involvement may require future capital expenditures.
The inventory of current stonnwater management facilities is on file with the City of Kent Public
Works Department.
Stormwater Management Facilities Financing Options
The City has operated a stormwater utility since 1981 as a means of financing the design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of the City's surface water system. Fees are collected
based on specific subbasin location, type of development, and percent of impervious surface
coverage. Revenue is used for operation and maintenance activities and capital improvement
programs.
A number of funding options are available to the City to meet the needs of a fully functional
stormwater program. The options typically used are street funds, general funds, special
assessments (Local Improvement Districts), special fees, general facility charges, fees in lieu of
on-site detention, public — private partnerships, conventional debt, special grants and loans, and
stormwater utility charges. A further discussion of these types of funding follows:
A Street Fund sets aside a portion of the drainage infrastructure often constructed with streets, and
the street department tends to provide system maintenance in the right of way. However,
stormwater management is not the primary function of a street department, and competing
demands for these limited street funds may not be the most appropriate means to actively promote
the City's ongoing objectives in stonnwater management. Therefore, securing funding for the
DMP through the street fund is not an option.
The General Fund, as with the street fund, is a non-dedicated funding source for stormwater
programs, is subject to competing demands on an annual basis, and therefore proves to be an
unreliable source for ongoing commitments. The City currently does not use the general fund as a
revenue source for the stormwater program and it is assumed this will not be a source of future
drainage program funding.
The third type of funding is special assessments, also known as Local Improvement Districts
(LID). LIDS are most appropriate for specific capital improvements that benefit identifiable
geographic service areas. By nature, these options are voluntary; that is, the property owners
choose through a vote whether or not to accept the assessment on themselves. This restriction
causes program funding to be unreliable; furthermore, the assessed valuation basis of charging
provides only a loose nexus between the amount charged and the benefit received. The City
currently is assuming that no funding will be secured from the use of Special Assessments or Local
Improvement Districts for the DMP implementation.
Capital Facilities 8-23
176
A fourth funding option would involve the City charging special fees for operating activities such
as inspections. These fees are best applied when they are set to recover the costs, or a portion of
the costs, of the specific activity for which payment was received. Special fees are not generally
intended to fund an ongoing stormwater program in its entirety; however, they would be well
suited for the recovery of specific program-related costs. The DMP is currently not funded through
Special Fees, and using a conservative funding approach, these Special Fees are not included as a
funding source at this time.
General Facility Charges (GFC) are one time fees paid at the time of development and are intended
to recover an equitable share of the costs of existing and planned future facilities that provide
capacity for growth. They are an essential tool used to recover the cost of growth from growth.
Estimated future revenues from the GFC are expected to average $860,000 per year. Current
estimates are for a potential of approximately 13,000 additional ESUs within the City, and GFCs
for those could be a source of revenue in the next 10 years assuming that the development will
occur in that time period. A high estimate using the City's current GFC per ESU would generate
approximately $16 million over 10 years, assuming all development would occur within the next
10 years.
Creating a fee in lieu of on-site detention is another method of funding required capital projects.
The fees are most appropriately used to fund regional facilities through the payments of developing
properties. These fees are collected when a developing property decides not to construct facilities
to mitigate runoff on site. As such, fees in lieu must be used in concert with requirements for on-
site mitigation and a community's goals favoring regional facilities over on-site solutions. When a
property does construct such facilities, the fee is not charged. While effective in funding a part of
(regional) infrastructure construction, fees in lieu are not a reliable source for ongoing stormwater
programs. Due to the high cost of the purchase of buildings and real estate for additional new
regional detention facilities, and the potential for widening of stream channels and expansion of
existing regional detention facilities, additional regional detention facilities are not included in the
DMP.
Another funding option is a Public/Private Partnership for funding a portion of the DMP. This
partnership is a different approach to funding stormwater capital construction and results in joint or
private funding of specific improvements. This approach helps mitigate the direct impacts of new
development. While a popular idea, in practice it is difficult to persuade private development to
fund stormwater projects if other funding alternatives are available to the City. Estimates of future
funding developed from public/private partnerships are not incorporated into the drainage fund as
there would be no guarantee of a level of funding able to fund the projects and programs included
within the DMP.
A Conventional Debt, such as revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, is available to fund
stormwater capital construction. While these mechanisms are well suited for funding large capital
construction projects, an ongoing revenue stream is required to support the annual debt service
owed on the amount borrowed. The low estimate for incurring conventional debt is $10 million
over the next 10 years for the DMP. The high estimate is a series of new revenue bonds issued
every 2 to 3 years depending on the project need over the next 10 years. The high estimate would
be approximately $ 218 million generated in conventional debt to fund implementation of the
DMP.
Capital Facilities 8-24
177
Special Grants and Loans could be used as a supplement to conventional debt service. Special
grants and loans may be an important option for the City. Many state and federal programs are
available for applications, including the Centennial Clean Water Fund, the Public Works Trust
Fund, the State Revolving Fund, the Flood Control Assistance Account Program, and the Federal
319 Non-point Source Program. These programs draw more applications every year than there are
available funds, and they are highly competitive. Most of the assistance programs award aid in the
form of low interest loans that still require an ongoing revenue stream to support payback or a
percentage of matching contributions by the City. Although the DMP will continue to pursue
special grants and loans funding sources, it is risky to base future revenue funding on past success
of securing grants. A low estimate of grant availability is $50,000 per year, and a high estimate is
$500,000 per year.
The stormwater utility service charge provides a significant portion of the stormwater management
costs. The utility service charges are recovered through ongoing rates to utility customers. This
option is and could continue to be a financially independent entity free of reliance on the other City
funds, with all of its revenues dedicated to surface water management programs and capital
construction. Currently,the City receives approximately$8.6 million in stormwater utility services
charges per year, a low estimate assuming that the rate would not change. A high estimate,
including future growth as stated within the GNU, would include an assumed increase within the
utility rate to increase revenues collected to$12 million per year.
The City's existing rate structure features area- or basin-specific rates, a density multiplier, and an
impervious surface area basis. Details of the rate structure can be found in Section 10.5 of the
DMP. Under the existing rate structure, all customers pay a uniform base rate, $2.57 per month.
Additionally, a basin specific rate is charged ranging from $1.68 per month to $5.05 per month.
There are 17 basins and these basins are grouped into eight different basin specific rate categories.
Refer to Section 10.5 of the DMP and Kent City Code 7.05.090 for additional information.
The key assumptions used within the rate study are as follows: a customer base annual growth rate
of 0.58 percent, an annual inflation rate of 4 percent, personnel benefits costs escalation of 6
percent per year, construction cost escalation of 5 percent per year, and an annual fund earnings
rate of 2.5 percent. The Capital Improvement Projects for stonmwater systems and the drainage
component of the street projects are assumed to be implemented over a 10-year period (2009 to
2018). Finally, system replacement funding will be equal to annual depreciation expense.
Water Supply, Distribution, and Storage Facilities
The service area of the City of Kent Water Utility encompasses twenty-four (24) square miles and
serves most of the incorporated City. Some small areas of unincorporated King County and the
City of Auburn are also served by the City of Kent Water Utility. Adjacent franchise areas of
neighboring water purveyors serve the remainder of Kent and the PAA. To the east, the service
area boundary coincides with the boundary of Water District No. 111 and the Soos Creek Sewer
and Water District. To the north, the service area boundary coincides with the mutual Kent/Renton
and Kent/Tukwila city limits. To the west, it coincides with Highline Water District's boundary,
and to the south, the City's service area boundary coincides with the City of Auburn, and
Lakehaven Utility District.
The principal sources of water supply for the City's proprietary water system are Kent Springs and
Clark Springs. During high demand periods, the capacity of these two sources is exceeded, and
supplemental well facilities are activated. These sources are adequate to meet current and near
Capital Facilities 8-25
178
future peak day demands, however, they are insufficient to meet long term peak day demands. In
2002, the City executed an agreement to participate as a partner along with Tacoma Water Utility,
Covington Water District, and Lakehaven Utility District in the Green River Second Supply Water
Project. Water from this source of supply, coupled with the City's existing sources, is sufficient to
meet the City's long-term peak day demand projections.
System wide, annual water consumption is roughly 2.7 billion gallons, with average day demands
of 7.5 million gallons per day and peak day usage of approximately 13.75 million gallons per day.
Utilizing current land use and population projections for 2030, annual use would rise to 3.6 billion
gallons, or 9.9 million gallons per day. Existing water supply can produce roughly three times this
amount, or 30 million gallons per day; however, additional storage reservoirs will be needed to
deliver this water to customers.
Water system interties are presently available with the Highline Water District, the City of Tukwila,
the City of Renton, the Soos Creek Sewer and Water District, Water District No. 111, the City of
Auburn, and the City of Tacoma. However, based on water use projections developed for the
Water System Plan, these interties would only be required to serve as emergency back-up if
problems with existing sources were to arise.
The water distribution system exists throughout the City's service area. Expansion will take place
almost entirely through infill development, which will be accomplished primarily through
developer extensions. Most of the remaining projects identified in the City's Comprehensive
Water System Plan would be constructed to provide water service at existing levels of service.
However, several key improvements to the system have been identified. Proposed projects
include construction of a new maintenance facility on Kent's East Hill,development of a new
640 pressure zone on the East Hill to improve water pressures at high elevations, a new
reservoir on the West Hill to meet increasing storage demands, and water main replacements,
including upsizing older portions of the distribution system to improve capacity.
The Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list developed for the Comprehensive Water System Plan
was based on identifying: 1) system deficiencies via a hydraulic modeling analysis, 2) long-term
maintenance and operations needs, and 3)projects that are required to meet local, state and federal
requirements. The existing water system has and continues to provide clean, safe, and reliable
water; however, improvements to the system are needed to improve it for future development and
meet existing requirements. The costs of improvements to the water system range from $150-
million to $160 million in 2008 dollars, and funding of these projects will be accomplished through
a combination of water rate increases and bonding.
A Comprehensive Water System Plan update is required by the Washington State Department of
Health (DOH) every six (6) years. The City's most recent Water System Plan was submitted to
DOH in 2002completed in 2008. Adjacent water utilities providing service to Kent homes and
businesses include Soos Creek Water & Sewer, the City of Auburn, Lakehaven Utility District,
Highline Water District, King County Water District #111 and the City of Renton. Service
connections exist between the City of Kent and these service purveyors, and interlocal agreements
ensure continuous service. Water supply service area and facilities serving Kent's Planning Area
are illustrated on Figure 8.5. A detailed inventory of current water system facilities, and City water
rights records, and operating plans of adjacent service agencies are on file with the City of Kent
Public Works Department. As noted previously, the purchase of additional water rights from the
Capital Facilities 8-26
179
FIGURE 8.5
WATER SUPPLY SERVICE AREAS & FACILITIES
Capital Facilities 8-27
180
Capital Facilities 8-28
181
Tacoma P5 Pipeline project will provide a sufficient supply of water for future peak demand for the
next twenty years.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Within the City there are city, state, county, and private roads totaling 273.38 centerline miles. Of
those that the City maintains,there are 48.02 lane miles of Principle Arterials; 116.51 lane miles of
Minor Arterials; 129.84 lane miles of Collectors; and 241.91 lane miles of Residential roads. There
are also nine (9) bridges in Kent. A complete assessment of transportation facilities is considered
in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
anticipated in 2004. Figure 9.1 and 9.3 found in the Transportation Element illustrates Kent's
transportation facilities.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
Most of Kent's residential areas are served by the Kent School District No. 415. The Renton
School District serves students from an area of Kent near the north city limits, and Kent students
residing along the western city limits attend Federal Way Schools or Highline Schools. Kent
students residing along the southern city limits might attend Auburn Schools. Most school districts
also have historically considered acceptance of transfer requests or waivers for students residing in
households located outside of district boundaries. Detailed inventories of school district capital
facilities and levels-of-service are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) of each school
district. The CFPs of the Kent, Auburn and Federal Way School Districts have been adopted as
part of the City's Capital Facilities Element. Updates of the CFPs of these three (3) districts reflect
changes in their CIPs, and school impact fees assessed on residential development within Kent are
adopted annually. CFPs for other school districts serving Kent households are incorporated by
reference, although no school impact fees are collected by these school districts for residential
development within Kent. Estimated total student enrollment figures of Kent's Planning Area
households for each school district are provided in the Table 8.7 below.
Locations of schools within the Kent School District and the boundaries of other school districts
serving Kent's Planning Area are illustrated in Figure 8.6.
Table 8.7
ESTIMATED STUDENT ENROLLMENT
Kent Auburn Federal Highline Renton
School School Way School School
District District School District District
District
Estimated Total Kent
Planning Area Resident 16,909 108 1,912 314 56
Student Enrollment
Capital Facilities 8-29
182
PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
The City of Kent is served by the King County Library System in the 22,500 square foot Kent
Library building at 212 2nd Avenue West, which was built in 1992. Replacement of a portion of
the roofing for the Kent Library is anticipated to occur during the next ten years. The King County
Library System is planning to develop 10,000 square feet of library space in the East Hill area,
pending passage of a bond measure scheduled tentatively for March 2004. The Covington Library
facility,which serves many Kent East Hill residents,would also become the largest library in South
King County after a planned 15,000 square foot expansion. Detailed information regarding the
King County Library System is available on the internet at www.kcls.org.
Location of the Kent Library building and King County libraries located in proximity to Kent's
Planning Area are illustrated in Figure 8.6.
Capital Facilities 8-30
183
FIGURE 8.6
EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AREAS & FACILITIES
Capital Facilities 8-31
184
Capital Facilities 8-32
185
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN COSTS & REVENUES
The following section outlines the capital costs and financing for the public facilities which are
provided by the City of Kent per the most recent Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (see Figure
8.7 and Table 8.8). This type of information for the Kent,Auburn and Federal Way School districts
is available in the districts' capital facilities plans, which have been adopted by reference as part of
the Capital Facilities Element.
Figure 8.7
2004-2009 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
PROJECT COST STATISTICS
(In 000's)
Transportation
18%
Utility Fund Projects
35%
Public Safety
8%
Parks, Recreation &
General Government Community Services
21% 18%
Table 8.8
2004-2009 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECTS
Projects 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
Transportation 11,220 2,804 1,521 2,599 2,768 1,853 22,765
Public Safety 80 240 9,745 200 200 200 10,665
Parks,Recreation 3,891 2,789 5,595 3,568 3,323 3,796 22,962
&Community Services
General Government 1,010 985 8,047 954 11,093 4,637 26,726
Utility Fund Projects 1,737 10,063 4,229 6,122 21,593 2,647 46,392
Total Projects 17,938 16,881 29,137 13,443 38,977 13,133 129,510
Not included in this plan:
Estimated$40,000,000 voted bond issue for Public Safety.
Capital Facilities 8-33
186
FINANCING
The revenue sources that are available to the City of Kent for capital facilities include taxes, fees
and charges, and grants. Title 3 of the Kent City Code, Revenue & Finance, specifies the
collection and allocation of revenue sources. Some sources of revenue for capital facilities can also
be used for operating costs. A comprehensive list of revenue sources and a discussion of
limitations on the use of each revenue source is contained in the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). Existing City revenues are not forecast, nor are they diverted to capital expenditures from
maintenance and operations.
The financing plan for these capital improvements includes the revenues listed in the pie chart
below (see Figure 8.8 and Table 8.9). The chart lists the major categories of Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP)revenue sources and the amount contributed by each source.
Detailed project lists and financing plans are contained in the Capital Improvements Program
(CIP). As noted earlier, annual updates to the CIP and City Budget Document are incorporated by
reference into this Capital Facilities Element.
Figure 8.8
2004 —2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SOURCES OF FUNDS
(In 000's)
Other
PW Trust Sources Capital
Fund Loan 2% Improvement Fund
8% 10% Street Fund
7%
Utility Funds
18%
Bond Proceeds
41% Internal Service
Funds
Grants 4%
6%
Capital Facilities 8-34
187
Table 8.9
SOURCES OF CIP FUNDS
Sources of Funds 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
Capital Improvement Fund 2,191 2,219 2,280 2,293 2,353 1,927 13,263
Street Fund 1,320 1,804 1,521 1,399 1,468 1,203 8,715
Utility Funds 1,737 8,563 2,979 6,122 2,593 1,397 23,392
Internal Service Funds 745 765 940 734 873 667 4,724
Grants 1,225 470 2,440 1,555 1,050 1,200 7,940
Bond Proceeds 18,737 29,000 5,000 52,737
PW Trust Fund Loan 9,000 1,500 500 11,000
Other Funding Sources 1,720 1,560 240 840 1,640 1,739 7,739
Total Sources of Funds 17,938 16,881 29,137 13,443 38,977 13,133 129,510
Not included in this plan:
Estimated$40,000,000 voted bond issue for Public Safety.
Capital Facilities 8-35
188
PUBLIC SERVICES & CAPITAL FACILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES
GENERAL GOALS & POLICIES
Goal CF-1:
As the City of Kent continues to grow and develop, ensure that an adequate supply and range of
public services and capital facilities are available to provide satisfactory standards of public
health, safety, and quality of life.
Policy CF-1.1: Assess impacts of residential, commercial and employment growth on
public services and facilities in a manner consistent with adopted levels-of-service.
Policy CF-1.2: Ensure that public services and capital facilities needs are addressed in
updates to Capital Facilities Plans and Capital Improvement Programs, and development
regulations as appropriate.
Policy CF-1.3: To ensure financial feasibility,provide needed public services and facilities
that the City has the ability to fund, or that the City has the authority to require others to
provide.
Policy CF-1.4: Periodically review the Land Use Element to ensure that public services
and capital facilities needs, financing and levels-of-service of the Capital Facilities
Element are consistent and adequate to serve growth where it is desired.
Policy CF-1.5: Coordinate the review of non-City managed capital facilities plans to
ensure consistency with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan.
Goal CF-2:
Base standards for levels-of-service upon the appropriate provision of public services and facilities
as outlined in the operating comprehensive plans of the City and other providers of services and
facilities to Kent and its Potential Annexation Area.
Policy CF-2.1: Establish levels-of-service appropriate to the core mission of City
departments in their provision of services and access of facilities to the public.
Policy CF-2.2: When appropriate and beneficial to the City, its citizens, businesses, and
customers, pursue national organizational accreditation for all City of Kent agencies
providing public services and facilities. Such accreditation should be linked with
performance standards applied by City agencies.
Capital Facilities 8-36
189
Policy CF-2.3: Coordinate with other jurisdictions and providers of services and facilities
to ensure that the provision of services and facilities are generally consistent for all Kent
residents, businesses, and others enjoying City services and facilities.
Goal CF-3:
Encourage effective non-capital alternatives to maintain or improve adopted levels-of-service.
Such alternatives could include programs for community education and awareness, energy
conservation, or integration of methods and technologies to improve service delivery.
Goal CF-4:
Ensure that appropriate funding sources are available to acquire or bond for the provision of
needed public services and facilities.
POLICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES GOALS & POLICIES
Goal CF-5:
Ensure that residents, visitors and businesses in Kent continue to feel safe throughout our
community.
Policy CF-5.1: Establish, maintain, and monitor effective services and programs with the
goal of increasing the sense of safety throughout our community. Such services and
programs should be consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Goal CF-6:
Establish, maintain and strengthen community relationships through direct contact opportunities,
community awareness, education and volunteer programs.
Policy CF-6.1: Establish and maintain direct contact between representatives of the Police
Department and concerned citizens, community groups, schools, business operators, local
media, and human services providers.
Policy CF-6.2: Establish and maintain community education programs that promote the
awareness of public safety, community-based crime prevention, domestic violence
prevention, alcohol and substance abuse, and available human services for impacted
populations.
Policy CF-6.3: Establish and maintain volunteer programs that meet the Police
Department objectives of increasing community awareness, involvement,public safety, and
crime prevention.
Capital Facilities 8-37
190
Goal CF-7:
Maintain responsive, quality patrol service throughout Kents service area and other areas
requiring response capability assistance.
Policy CF-7.1: Consider average response times as a level-of-service measure in
assessing needs for patrol service improvements.
Policy CF-7.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average response times to
emergency calls, where potential loss of life or confirmed hazards exist.
Policy CF-7.3: Maintain or improve annually-calculated average response times to non-
emergency calls, where no immediate danger or potential loss of life is indicated.
Policy CF-7.4: Coordinate with the City Information Technology Department and the
Valley Communications Center to improve response times.
Policy CF-7.5: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing patrol practices, and
research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-7.6: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will
improve responsiveness of patrol services.
Policy CF-7.7: To improve long-term patrol service effectiveness, work with various
members of the community to improve staff awareness of localized issues and community
resources.
Goal CF-8:
Provide effective and professional investigation services.
Policy CF-8.1: Consider annually-calculated crime clearance rates as a level-of-service
measure in assessing needs for patrol service improvements.
Policy CF-8.2: Maintain or improve annually-calculated Part I crime clearance rates,
which is a measure of the rate of arrests or clearances for reported crimes.
Policy CF-8.3: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing investigations practices,
and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-8.4: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will
improve responsiveness of investigations services.
Capital Facilities 8-38
191
Policy CF-8.5: To improve long-term investigations service effectiveness, work with
various members of the community to improve staff awareness of localized issues and
community resources.
Goal CF-9:
Provide effective corrections services that protect the community and reduce repeat offenses among
corrections clients.
Policy CF-9.1: Coordinate with the Kent Municipal Court to ensure appropriate
correctional processes and facilities are available for criminal offenders.
Policy CF-9.2: Maintain or improve facilities available for the incarceration of criminal
offenders. If additional facilities capacity is necessary, coordinate with other agencies to
locate and provide appropriate facilities for the purposes of incarceration.
Policy CF-9.3: Establish and maintain effective alternative s to incarceration for lesser
criminal offenses.
Policy CF-9.4: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing corrections practices,
and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-9.5: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will
improve responsiveness of corrections services.
Policy CF-9.6: Acquire and maintain accreditation through the American Corrections
Association.
FIRE & LIFE SAFETY SERVICES GOALS & POLICIES
Goal CF-10:
Ensure that residents, visitors and businesses in Kent continue to feel safe and prepared for
emergency response throughout our community.
Policy CF-10.1: Establish, maintain, and monitor effective services and programs with the
goal of increasing the sense of life safety and emergency preparedness throughout our
community. Such services and programs should be consistent with other Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies.
Capital Facilities 8-39
192
Goal CF-11: Establish, maintain and strengthen community relationships through direct contact
opportunities, community awareness, education and volunteer programs.
Policy CF-11.1: Establish and maintain direct contact between representatives of the Fire
Department and concerned citizens, community groups, schools, business operators,
developers and building contractors, local media, and human services providers.
Policy CF-11.2: Establish and maintain community education programs that promote the
awareness of life safety,fire prevention, hazardous materials, and available human services
for impacted populations of emergency events.
Goal CF-12:
Promote an understanding that preventative measures and appropriate responses to emergency
events are a critical factor in limiting the extent of impacts resulting from an initial event.
Goal CF-13:
Establish and maintain responsive, quality fire and life hazard prevention services throughout
Kent s service area and other areas.
Policy CF-13.1: Maintain or improve the level of confidence citizens have in their ability
to respond to personal or household emergencies.
Policy CF-13.2: Maintain or improve the level of confidence citizens have in their ability
to respond to natural or man-made disasters that could impact their community.
Policy CF-13.3: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing fire and life hazard
prevention practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-13.4: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will
improve responsiveness office and life hazard prevention services.
Policy CF-13.5: To improve long-term fire and life hazard prevention service effectiveness,
work with various members of the community to improve staff awareness of localized issues
and community resources.
Goal CF-14:
Provide effective, efficient, equitable and professional fire suppression and emergency medical
response services throughout the City of Kent Fire Department service area.
Capital Facilities 8-40
193
Policy CF-14.1: Consider the response time percentage as the primary level-of-service
measure in assessing needs for fire suppression and emergency medical response service
improvements.
Policy CF-14.2: Maintain or improve the level-of-service to emergency calls, where fire or
other community safety hazards are reported to exist.
Policy CF-14.3: Maintain or improve the level-of-service to personal emergency medical
calls, where no immediate danger exists to the community-at-large.
Policy CF-14.4: Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of existing fire suppression and
emergency medical response service practices, and research best practices as appropriate.
Policy CF-14.5: Provide staff training as needed to incorporate best practices that will
improve responsiveness office suppression and emergency medical response services.
Policy CF-14.6: To improve long-term fire suppression and emergency medical response
service effectiveness, work with various members of the community to improve staff
awareness of localized issues and community resources.
PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
GOALS & POLICIES
The goals, policies and levels-of-service (LOS) appropriate to the services provided by the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department are contained in the Park & Open Space;
Housing; and Human Services Elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICES GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal CF-15:
Ensure that public utilities services throughout the City, its Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and
other areas receiving such services are adequate to accommodate anticipated growth without
significantly degrading the levels-of-service for existing customers.
Policy CF-15.1: Establish, maintain, and monitor effective provision of public utilities
services and facilities.
Policy CF-15.2: Coordinate the planning and provision of public utilities services and
facilities with other agencies providing such services to Kent and PAA homes and
businesses.
Capital Facilities 8-41
194
Policy CF-15.3: Consider existing demand units in assessing levels-of-service for future
provision of services and facilities.
Goal CF-16:
Foster recognition of the significant role played by natural features and systems in the appropriate
siting, design and provision of public utility services.
Policy CF-16.1: Educate City staff,'developers, and other citizens on the interaction
between natural features and systems, such as wetlands, streams, and geologically
hazardous areas, and the provision of public utility services.
Goal CF-17:
Coordinate with individuals and organizations to create a long-term, sustainable strategy for local
and regional natural resource protection.
Policy CF-17.1: Continue to evaluate operating plans,programs, regulations, and public
facility designs to determine their effectiveness in contributing to the conservation and
recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Policy CF-17.2: Continue to participate in regional and Water Resource Inventory Area
planning efforts to support the conservation of listed species.
Policy CF 17.3: Continue to participate in local and county wide flood control efforts to
support the repair and maintenance of flood control facilities.
Goal CF-18:
Support environmental quality in capital improvement programs, implementation programs, and
public facility designs to ensure that local land use management and public service provision is
consistent with the City's overall natural resource goals.
Policy CF-18.1: Protect and enhance environmental quality via maintenance of accurate
and up-to-date environmental data associated with public services and facilities.
Policy CF-18.2: Provide public service agencies with general and site-specific
environmental information to identify possible on and off-site constraints and special
development procedures as early in the facility planning process as is possible.
Capital Facilities 8-42
195
Policy CF-18.3: Indemnify the City from damages resulting from development in naturally
constrained areas. To the extent possible or feasible, require accurate and valid
environmental information.
Policy CF-18.4: Continue a periodic storm drainage%nvironmental inspection program to
ensure constant maintenance and upkeep of storm systems and on-going compliance with
general environmental processes.
Policy CF-18.5: Ensure that decisions regarding fundamental site design are made prior
to the initiation of land surface modifications. Grade and fill permits, which do not include
site development plans, may be issued by the City where such activities do not disturb
sensitive areas, such as wetlands.
Policy CF-18.6: Require site restoration if land surface modification violates adopted
policy or if development does not ensue within a reasonable period of time.
Policy CF-18.7: As additional land is annexed to the City, assign zoning designations,
plan for appropriate public facilities locations and capacities in a manner that will protect
natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas.
Policy CF-18.8: Continue to support waste reduction and recycling programs in City
facilities, and in the City at large, to meet State and County waste reduction and recycling
goals.
Policy CF-18.9: Work cooperatively with tribal,federal, state and local jurisdictions, as
well as major stakeholders, to conserve and work towards recovery of ESA listed
threatened and endangered species.
Goal CF-19:
Protect and enhance natural resources for multiple benefits, including recreation,fish and wildlife
resources and habitat,flood protection, water supply, and open space.
Policy CF-19.1: Maintain the quantity and quality of wetlands via current land use
regulation and review, and increase the quality and quantity of the City's wetlands resource
base via incentives and advance planning.
Capital Facilities 8-43
196
Policy CF-19.2: Protect wetlands not as isolated units, but as ecosystems, and essential
elements of watersheds. Base protection measures on wetland functions and values, impact
on water supply quality and quantity, and the effects of on-site and off-site activities.
Policy CF-19.2: When jurisdictional boundaries are involved coordinate wetland
protection and enhancement plans and actions with adjacent jurisdictions and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.
Policy CF-19.3: Maintain rivers and streams in their natural state. Rehabilitate degraded
channels and banks via public programs and in conjunction with proposed new
development.
Policy CF-19.4: On a regular basis, evaluate the adequacy of the existing public facilities
operating plans, regulations and maintenance practices in relation to goals for water
resource and fisheries and wildlife resource protection. When necessary, modem these
plans, regulations and practices to achieve resource protection goals.
Policy CF-19.5: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for water supply.
Policy CF-19.6: Update the City of Kent Critical Areas Maps as new information about
aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas becomes available.
Policy CF-19.7: In accordance with GMA regulations, update public facilities operating
plans and regulations to identify, protect, and preserve wildlife species and areas of local
significance.
Policy CF-19.8: Protect the habitat of native and migratory wildlife by encouraging open
space conservation of beneficial habitat through public capital improvement projects.
Goal CF-20:
Ensure that public facilities development on lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Green River are
compatible with shoreline uses and resource values, and support the goals and policies of the City
of Kent's Shoreline Master Program.
Policy CF-20.1: Minimize the loss of vegetation with development and operation of new
public facilities. Continue to recognize the value of trees and other vegetation in protecting
water quality.
Capital Facilities 8-44
197
Policy CF-20.2: Promote and support a systematic approach to enhancing the City-owned
facilities through carefully planned plantings and ongoing maintenance of street trees,
public landscaping, and greenbelts. Require the use of native and low water use
vegetation.
Policy CF-20.3: Require protection of ecologically valuable vegetation, when possible,
during all phases of public facilities development. In cases where development necessitates
the removal of vegetation, require an appropriate amount of native or low water use
landscaping to replace trees, shrubs, and ground cover, which were removed during
development.
Policy CF-20.4: Record and protect established greenbelts associated with public facilities
to preserve existing natural vegetation in geologically hazardous areas, along stream
banks, wetlands, and other habitat areas, and where visual buffers between uses or
activities are desirable.
Goal CF-21:
Regulate development of public facilities in environmentally critical areas to prevent harm, to
protect public health and safety, to preserve remaining critical areas, and enhance degraded
critical areas in the City.
Policy CF-21.1: Encourage appropriate enhancement of existing environmental features
such as rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.
Goal CF-22:
Implement and maintain a stormwater management program that assures compliance with the
requirements of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit which is part of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program administered by the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Policy CF-22.1: Reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
Policy CF-22.2: Use all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control
and treatment to prevent and control pollution of waters of the state of Washington.
Policy CF-22.3: Implement an education program aimed at residents, businesses,
industries, elected officials, policy makers,planning staff and other employees of the City.
The goal of the education program is to reduce or eliminate behaviors and practices that
cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts.
Capital Facilities 8-45
198
Policy CF-22.4: Provide ongoing opportunities for public involvement through advisory
councils, watershed committees, participation in developing rate-structures, stewardship
programs, environmental activities or other similar activities.
Policy CF-22.5: Implement an ongoing program to detect and remove illicit connections,
discharges, and improper disposal, including any spills not under the purview of another
responding authority, into the municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by the
City.
Policy CF-22.6: Develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in
stormwater runoff from new development, redevelopment and construction site activities.
Policy CF-22.7: Develop and implement an operations and maintenance program that
includes a training component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing
pollutant runofffrom municipal operations.
Policy CF-22.8: Develop a comprehensive long-term stormwater monitoring program.
The monitoring program will include two components: stormwater monitoring and
targeted Stormwater Management Program effectiveness monitoring.
Policy CF-22.9: Produce an annual report which includes the city detailed Stormwater
Management Plan, tracking elements, and documentation of compliance with the Phase II
permit.
Goal CF-23:
Encourage environmental sensitivity and low-impact development principles in the design and
construction of all projects.
Policy CF-23.1: Encourage participation in low-impact development and environmentally
sensitive builder programs.
Policy CF-23.2: Adopt development standards that minimize environmental impacts of
development through an appropriate balance of regulations and incentives. Incentives
could be tied to compliance with criteria applied throughout the development process.
Policy CF-23.3: Set public facility projects of the City as an example by incorporating
techniques of low-impact development design, construction, operation and maintenance.
Goal CF-24:
Capital Facilities 8-46
199
Promote Low-Impact Development and limited disturbance of natural hydrological systems, so that
water quantity and quality are protected throughout the development process and occupation of the
site.
Policy CF-24: Establish site design criteria for allowing natural hydrological systems to
function with minimum or no modification.
Policy CF-24.2: Promote the use of rain gardens, open ditches or swales, and pervious
driveways and parking areas in site design to maximize infiltration of stormwater and
minimize runoff into environmentally critical areas.
Policy CF-24.3: Promote inclusion of passive rainwater collection systems in site and
architectural design for non potable water (gray-water) storage and use, thereby saving
potable (drinking)water for ingestion.
Goal CF-25:
Provide water to the City existing customers and,for,future development consistent with the short
and long range goals of the City.
Policy CF-25.1: Maintain a constant supply of municipal water for existing and future
customers and future development consistent with the short and long range planning goals
of the City.
Policy CF-25.2: Identify capital improvement projects needed to meet the potable water
supply and fire protection needs of current customers and the forecast for future demand
within the areas served by the City of Kent Water System.
Policy CF-25.3: Identify and implement funding mechanisms necessary to construct
capital improvement projects to meet existing and future system requirements and projected
growth.
Policy CF-25.4: Implement a maintenance program to ensure the system is operated as
efficiently as possible. Utilize the City's Infrastructure Management System to 1) track
system component inventory, 2) record maintenance history and 3) produce preventative
maintenance work schedules for the water system infrastructure.
Policy CF-25.5: Ensure system capacity (i.e. sources, pump stations transmission mains,
etc) is sufficient to meet current and projected peak day demand and fire flow
conditions.
Capital Facilities 8-47
200
Policy CF-25.6: Seek to meet future supply needs with existing and new sources of supply
under the City ownership or partnering.
Policy CF-25.7: Maintain an efficient water supply system through the identification and
repair of distribution leakage and other water system losses, and reducing other system
water uses as they are proven cost effective.
Goal CF-26:
Protect public health and safety by providing an adequate supply of high quality water to the Citys
customers. The City will pursue steps to ensure that it will continue to meet or exceed all water
quality laws and standards.
Policy CF-26.1: Maintain a stringent water quality monitoring and cross-connection
control program consistent with current federal and state drinking water regulations.
Policy CF-26.2: Maintain adequate water supply and infrastructure to meet water system
needs and fire flow demands throughout the areas served by the City.
Policy CF-26.3: Utilize reasonable measures to protect the water system and the water
quality and quantity provided to customers. Give priority to those security improvements
identified as being the most critical or those providing the most cost effective benefit to the
water system.
Policy CF-26.4: Develop and maintain an emergency response plan to eliminate or reduce
the significant impacts to customers and the water system in the event of an emergency.
Policy CF-26.5: Ensure staff are continuously available to respond to water system issues
and emergencies.
Goal CF-27:
The City of Kent recognizes a clean water supply as a critical and finite resource and will secure
the health and safety of the customers through protection of existing and future groundwater
resources from contamination.
Policy CF-27.1: Participate in regional efforts to protect groundwater resources including
but not limited to the South King County Groundwater Committee.
Policy CF-27.2: Establish a groundwater monitoring network for early detection of
potential contamination in aquifers.
Capital Facilities 8-48
201
Policy CF-27.3: Notify all applicable regulatory and emergency response agencies of the
City Wellhead Protection Areas.
Policy CF-27.4: Track and provide comments on land use applications within wellhead
protection areas. Follow up on all of those identified as creating potential risk to the water
supply until protections are in place or are determined to not affect the water system.
Policy CF-27.5: Identify and track parcels of land identified as potential contaminant
sources in the Wellhead Protection Program. Provide comments to applicable regulatory
agencies related to the protection and sustainability of the City groundwater resources.
Policy CF-27.6: Educate residents, businesses and the owners of identified potential
contaminant sources in wellhead protection areas about aquifer protection.
Policy CF-27.7: Encourage the use of Best Management Practices in land management
activities to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers
Policy CF-27.8: Promote the use of native landscaping to reduce the need for pesticide
and fertilizer application.
Goal CF-28: Maintain the economic vitality of the City by ensuring adequate water supply is
available to meet existing and future customer needs, and future development as projected to meet
the short and long range goals of the City.
Goal CF-29: Meet Water Use Efficiency Goals and implement additional water conservation
measures to ensure the efficient use of water resources.
Policy CF-29.1: Implement, evaluate and monitor measures to meet the City s adopted
Water Use Efficiency Goals.
Policy CF-29.2: Develop and implement on-going educational activities regarding
water conservation as identified in the Water System Plan. This includes but is not
limited to the annual Water Festival, speaking at public forums and classrooms, booths
at fairs and theme shows, utility billing inserts, natural yard care programs and utilizing
the City s website.
Policy CF-29.3: Provide rebates for low water use toilets and washing machines as
they apply to the Water Use Efficiency Goals.
Policy CF-29.4: Promote the use of native and drought resistant plants in landscaping
in public and private projects to reduce the need for irrigation.
Policy CF-29.5: Include consumptive water use data on customer bills to encourage
water conservation.
Capital Facilities 8-49
202
Policy CF-29.6: Develop and implement a water rate structure that promotes the
efficient use of water.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES & FACILITIES
GOALS & POLICIES
The goals, policies and levels-of-service (LOS) related to the provision of transportation services
and facilities are contained in the Transportation Element of this Comprehensive Plan and the
future Comprehensive Transportation Plan to be completed in 2004.
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES GOALS & POLICIES
The City of Kent has established siting criteria for essential public facilities, which are defined by
the State in RCW 36.70A.200(1) to "include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such
as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in
RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient
facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure
community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020." The following goals and policies
reaffirm Kent's commitment to a fair process for locating such facilities.
Goal CF-30:
The City shall participate in a cooperative inter jurisdictional process to determine siting of
essential public facilities of a county-wide, regional, or state-wide nature.
Policy CF-30.1: Proposals for siting essential public facilities within the City of Kent or
within the City's growth boundary shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan during the initial stages of the proposal process.
Policy CF-30.2: When warranted by the special character of the essential facility, the City
shall apply the regulations and criteria of Kent Zoning Code Section 15.04.150, Special use
combining district, to applications for siting such facilities to insure adequate review,
including public participation. Conditions of approval, including design conditions,
conditions, shall be imposed upon such uses in the interest of the welfare of the City and the
protection of the environment.
Capital Facilities 8-50
203
Policy CF-30.3: In the principally permitted or conditional use sections of the zoning
code, the City shall establish, as appropriate, locations and development standards for
essential public facilities which do not warrant consideration through the special use
combining district regulations. Such facilities shall include but not be limited to small
inpatient facilities and group homes.
Goal CF-31:
The City shall participate in a cooperative inter jurisdictional process to resolve issues of
mitigation for any disproportionate financial burden which may fall on the jurisdiction which
becomes the site of a facility of a state-wide, regional or county-wide nature.
SAPermit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2009\CPA-2009-1(B)Parks&OpenSpac Elem-ParkPlan\LUPB\1-11-10_Ch8-CapFao-includesOrd3892-051309Rvsd010410.doc
Capital Facilities 8-51