No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 05/11/2015 (2) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director 4^40 PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KEN T WASHINOTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MAY 11, 2015 7:00 P.M. LUPB MEMBERS: Randall Smith, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius; Navdeep Gill; Katherine Jones; Jack Ottini and Binoy Varughese CITY STAFF: ECD-Planning Services: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager. City Attorney's Office: David Galazin, Civil Attorney This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. The hearing will be held in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA. The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed amendments may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to Charlene Anderson at: canderson(a)kentwa.gov. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the April 13, 2015 and April 27, 2015 Minutes 4. Added Items 5. Communications 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 1.) LAND USE PLAN & ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS: Consideration of city-wide amendments of the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map; including four amendments proposed by private parties in the 2014 Docket for properties located at S 272"d Street/26th Avenue S., SE Kent Kangley Rd/116th Avenue SE., S 222"d Street/881h Avenue S., and SR 5/S 2401h Street. Also under consideration are amendments to Zoning Code regulations related to definitions, allowed uses, development standards, and standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone. - Charlene Anderson 2.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: Consideration of an update to the Comprehensive Plan; including amendments to the text, goals and policies; amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map. Also under consideration are amendments to Zoning Code regulations related to definitions, allowed uses, development standards, and standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone. - Charlene Anderson For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the City's website at: http://kentwa.ipm2.com/cltlzens/Default.aspx?DepartmentID=1004. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at(253) 856-5725. For TTY/TDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388. For general information, contact Economic& Community Development Department Planning Division at(253) 856-5454. 1 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 May 4, 2015 TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use and Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map and Text Amendments [CPA- 2011-3/CPZ-2011-1] [KIVA#2142820/2142822] For Public Hearing on May 11, 2015 MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval/denial/ modification of the map and text amendments recommended by staff and provided in Attachment Two. SUMMARY: Staff presented options and recommendations for docketed and staff- proposed map and text amendments to the Land Use & Planning Board at the public hearing on April 27, 2015. Attached are staff summary and related maps for the staff recommendations, with information added for clarification purposes. Staff is not proposing changes to the recommendations that were included in the packet for the Board's April 271h public hearing but will provide information that may assist the Board in making a recommendation. Additionally, staff is withdrawing C2 Fern Crest from consideration at this time because it will be included in the 2016 Work Program pertaining to Urban Separators. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: At the April 27th public hearing, staff presented to the Board several options for consideration, including a 'No Action" or as-is option. Additionally, the Board may consider other options presented to them during public testimony. For example: • B1.b. East Hill South: A resident testified there is a mixture of residential in the area and the proposal puts properties in limbo. The existing Office or Office/Mixed Use and staff-recommended CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) zoning districts allow rebuild, repair and change to existing dwellings; also allowed is construction of accessory uses such as garages, carports, storage sheds, and fences. • B1.c East Hill East: The property owner/representative testified for high- density multifamily designations. The City has Land Use Plan Map designations of Low or Medium Density Multifamily that depending on which is chosen could accommodate Zoning Districts map designations of SR-8 (Single Family Residential), MR-D (Duplex), MR-G (Low Density Multifamily), MR-M (Medium Density Multifamily), MR-H (High Density Multifamily), MRT- 2 12 or MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse). Multi-storied senior housing that is not provided in a duplex or townhouse housing type is allowed in the MR-G, MR-M and MR-H districts. • B2.a Valley West: The property owner/representative testified for a Land Use Plan Map designation of I (Industrial) and a Zoning Districts Map designation of M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) for the entire KOA Campgrounds property. Recreational vehicle parks are not allowed currently in the M-1 zoning district which staff has recommended. However, Kent City Code Section 15.03.010.H. provides flexibility in regulations up to 50 feet in certain circumstances. This flexibility would allow the existing MHP zoning district regulation to extend up to 50 feet into the staff-recommended M1 portion of the parcel. If the Board supports the owner's request, Kent City Code 15.04.110 would need to be amended to allow recreational vehicle parks in the M1-C zoning district, and 12.06.070.H. would need to be amended to add the M1-C zoning district as a district where recreational vehicle parks are principally permitted, subject to the development standards and procedures of Chapter 12.06, the Recreational Vehicle Park regulations. Also included in the Board packet are staff responses to questions that arose during the hearing or in exhibits entered into the record at the public hearing. Staff will be available at the May 11t" public hearing to present information and answer questions. CA:ah\S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-1_CompPlanUpdate\LUPB\5-11- 15_Public_Hearing\051115_LUPB_Hearing_Map_and Text_Amendments_ca-2.doc Attachments: 1)Responses to Questions; 2)Summary of Staff Recommendations; 3)Maps CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 2 3 Attachment One Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning Districts Map and Text Amendments — Responses to Questions 1. DKT-2014-4: a. This proposal is being considered as part of citywide amendments to the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts maps rather than a site-specific proposal which has different publication, posting and notification requirements. b. As the property taxpayer, the Federal Way School District was sent a public notice of the April 27th public hearing and is being sent a copy of the public notice for the May 11th public hearing; as of the date of this staff report, staff has not received comments from them. c. Staff reviewed the standards of review for comprehensive plan amendments (Kent City Code (KCC) 12.02.050) and the standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone (KCC 15.09.050.0 and D) in formulating the staff recommendations. d. Compliance with the City's development regulations is required with any development and is not a condition of approval of map amendments. These regulations pertain to drainage, road improvements, sensitive areas, driveway access, and so forth. 2. DKT-2014-6: a. Tax revenues, job classifications, employee pools and specific business locational preferences are not a direct consideration during Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts mapping amendments. Differences in perspective about the standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone or the standards of review for comprehensive plan amendments are part of the public hearing process to inform the Land Use & Planning Board in making a recommendation to the City Council. b. Compliance with the City's development regulations is required with any development and is not a condition of approval of map amendments. These regulations pertain to drainage, road improvements, sensitive areas, driveway access, and so forth. c. The 2010 Wetland Map referenced at the public hearing is outdated. City records do not currently indicate any sensitive areas on the site. d. The intersection of Kent Kangley and 116th Avenue SE is within the top 10 intersections for collisions responded to and documented by the Kent Police Department. There have been 136 such reports taken for incidents at that intersection since 2010. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 3 4 Attachment Two Summary of Staff Recommendations #DKT-2014-4 Staff Recommendation: Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change from LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)/MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) to MU (Mixed Use)/CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) (Parcel: 768280-0195) 1. Property Location: 2526 S. 272nd Street 2. The applicant states the property is close to the I-5 freeway exit and is on a very busy street (S. 272nd St.), so the best use would be consistent with CC- MU zoning. 3. One of the City Council's strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. #DKT-2014-6 Staff Recommendation: Change in Zoning Districts Map designation (Parcels: 675670-0050 and -0060; 282205-9153) from O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) and SR-6 (Single Family Residential) to CC (Community Commercial); and change in Land Use Plan Map designation for one parcel (282205-9153) from SF6 (Single Family Residential) to MU (Mixed Use) 1. Property Location: NE corner of Kent Kangley Road and 116th Avenue SE 2. The applicant states the concentration of multifamily residential along the Kent Kangley corridor creates a significant amount of pedestrian and transit riders and a demand for neighborhood-friendly retail uses. 3. The applicant is proposing a 14,500 square foot retail pharmacy with drive- through service and surface parking, although the proposal is not a conditional rezone that is tied to the pharmacy project. 4. One of the City Council's strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Furthermore: Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps for two adjacent parcels (282205-9221 and -9270) from SF6/SR-6 to MU/CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) 1. The CC zoning district allows 100% commercial uses. CC-MU zoning allows both 100% commercial (e.g., retail, office) uses as well as mixed commercial/residential uses provided the commercial component encompasses a minimum of 25% of the mixed use development. 2. The CC-MU designation would be compatible with the CC-MU designation directly south across Kent Kangley Rd. and would not include properties that are part of the Seven Oaks Terrace and Seven Oaks Division III plats to the north of the property. 3. See also, below, the proposal to amend the development standards for the CC-MU zoning district to require a minimum commercial component of only 5% rather than 25% for mixed use development on properties of two acres or less in size. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 4 5 #DKT-2014-7 Staff Recommendation: Change in split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for two parcels (775780-0225 and -0222) from SF6/SR-6 (Single Family Residential) and I (Industrial)/CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1) to the adjacent LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)/MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) 1. Property Location: 22202 and 22204 881" Avenue SE 2. The applicant characterizes the current designations as "apparent mapping errors." 3. The applicant is proposing to develop these parcels and adjacent parcels as a 154-unit townhouse development, although the proposal is not a conditional rezone that is tied to the townhouse project. 4. The property is adjacent to the future 2281" St. Corridor project. #DKT-2014-8 Staff Recommendation: Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for three parcels (779000-0005, 222204-9113 and 212204- 9068) from C (Commercial)/GC (General Commercial) to TOC (Transit Oriented Community)/MCR (Midway Commercial-Residential) 1. Property Location: 3101 S. 240th Street and 24481 32nd Avenue South 2. The Transit Oriented Community/Midway Commercial Residential designations provide additional flexibility in the types of land uses permitted on the property, consistent with the Midway Subarea Plan. 3. The applicant states the plans for the property are primarily residential, although the proposal is not a conditional rezone tied to a residential project. A. STAFF PROPOSALS — Expand Commercial Opportunities In Strategic Locations In The Industrial Area: Al. Intersection of West Valley Highway/S. 190 Street. Staff Recommendation: Maintain Land Use Plan Map Designation of I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Maps from M-1 (Industrial Park) to M 1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 660021-0010, -0020, -0030, -0040, -0050, - 0060, -0070, -0080, -0090, -0100, -0110, -0120, -0130, -0140; 788880-0220, -0250; 382900-0025, -0030, -0040, -0055, - 0065; 000020-0041; 883660-0140; 331060-0185, -0250, - 0260, -0261, -0285 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The S. 1961" Street/West Valley Highway intersection is a major nodal location. 2. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 5 6 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. 6. An analysis of vacant and redevelopable lands in this area indicates capacity for job growth. A2. S. 1801n Street (south side) from 72--d Avenue S. to Lind Avenue (if extended). Staff Recommendation: Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change from I (Industrial)/M-1 (Industrial Park) to MU (Mixed Use)/GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) Parcel Numbers: 000020-0003, -0006, -0007, -0008, -0012; 125371-0010, -0050; 312305-9121, -9129, -9151; 362304- 9018, -9086, -9096, -9100, -9101 Furthermore, except for the Puget Power and Railroad rights of way, as well as Springbrook Creek, whose existing designations will be retained, follow parcel lines and thereby remove split land use plan and zoning districts map designations by effecting the following designations: 125371-0060, 362304-9005: Change Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps from I (Industrial)/MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to MU/GC-MU 125372-0016: Retain OS (Parks and Open Space) Land Use Plan Map designation and change Zoning Districts Map designation from M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to GC-MU 125372-0010, 312305-9013, 362304-9004 and -9103: Change split Land Use Plan Map designation of I (Industrial)/MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) to MIC and change Zoning Districts Map designation from M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to M2. 1. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated no vacant or redevelopable parcels that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. The GC zoning district provides for commercial areas along certain major thoroughfares. The allowed uses include a range of automobile-oriented trade, service, entertainment and recreation land CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 6 7 uses; manufacturing and warehousing uses are not allowed in the GC zoning district. With the GC-MU zoning overlay, residential uses also would be allowed. Residential uses can provide housing to accommodate the work force in the industrial area. 2. The GC-MU zoning district does not allow manufacturing or warehouse uses. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. A3. NE corner of intersection of 72—d Avenue S. and S. 2771h- Street. Staff Recommendation: Maintain Land Use Plan Map Designation of I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Maps for 2 parcels from M2 (Limited Industrial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 000680-0036 (southern portion) and 000680- 0064 1. Property Location: 27430 72nd Avenue S. 2. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The intersection of 72nd Avenue S., SR 167, and S. 2771" Street is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 3. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate vacant or redevelopable parcels in this area that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. There would be additional flexibility in allowed uses under the M1-C zoning designation, and employment growth could occur. 4. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the MI-C zoning areas. 5. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 6. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 7 8 7. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. A4. East Valley Highway and S. 212!h Street. Staff Recommendation: Maintain Land Use Plan Map designation of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and change Zoning Districts Map designation from M2 (Limited Industrial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 012204-9045; 122204-9002, -9063, -9068, - 9075, -9080, -9088, -9090, -9091 Furthermore, for parcel numbers 122204-9075 and -9080, remove the split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations by changing the portions of the parcels designated C (Commercial)/GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The intersection of S. 212t" Street and East Valley Highway is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate vacant or redevelopable parcels in this area that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. There would be additional flexibility in allowed uses under the M1-C zoning designation. 3. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 4. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 5. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. B. STAFF PROPOSALS — Eliminate certain zoning districts, simplify, consolidate. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 8 9 131. Eliminate the Office (0) Zone, including O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) B1.a: East Hill North: Staff Recommendation: Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map from O (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Parcel Numbers: 101100-0010, -0015, -0020, -0025; 172205- 9015, -9079, -9084, -9130, -9178; 202205-9004, -9047, -9068, -9091, -9098, -9099, -9112, -9117, -9120, -9121, -9133, -9208; 414163-0000; 783080-0268, -0269, -0270, -0271, -0273, - 0275, -0289, -0290, -0291, -0292, -0293, -0299, -0430, -0431, -0432, -0433, -0450 Furthermore: • Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the split Zoning Districts Map designations of O (Office)/CC (Community Commercial) for Parcel Number 783080-0006 so that the entire parcel is zoned CC. • Change the split MU (Mixed Use) and SF8 (Single Family Residential)/O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) and SR-8 (Single Family Residential) Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for Parcel Numbers 783080-0294, -295 and -0425 so that the entire parcels are MU/CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). • Maintain the split MU (Mixed Use) and LDMF (Low Density Multifamily Residential) Land Use Plan Map designation for Parcel Number 202205-9066 and change the Zoning Districts Map designation for a portion of the parcel from O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) 1. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated redevelopable parcels in this area that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. The CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 9 10 East Hill North area can provide opportunities for increased commercial uses and small business development. B1.b: East Hill South: Staff Recommendation: Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map from O (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Parcel Numbers: 116400-0100, -0110; 221570-0000; 292205-9005, -9006, -9064, -9065, -9068, -9083, -9084, -9086, -9087, -9088, -9094, -9101, -9102, -9107, -9114, - 9127, -9143, -9169, -9174, -9175, -9185, -9190, -9233, - 9234, -9235, -9245, -9252, -9274, -9304, -9333, -9334; 292205-UNKN; 667310-0005, -0010, -0015, -0020, - 0025, -0030, -0035, -0040; 883040-0005, -0007, -0011, - 0010, -0012, -0013, -0015, -0020, -0030, -0031 Furthermore: • Maintain the MU Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map designation for the following parcels from O (Office) to CC (Community Commercial): Parcels 116400-0100, -0110; 292205-9094, -9169, -9190 These parcels are immediately adjacent to the CC zoning district. • Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the following parcels with split Zoning Districts Map designations from O (Office) and CC (Community Commercial) to CC: Parcel Numbers: 292205-9044, -9117, -9192, -9250 1. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated redevelopable parcels in this area that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 10 11 The East Hill South area can provide opportunities for increased commercial uses and small business development. 6. See also Docket #DKT-2014-6, above. B1.c: East Hill East: Staff Recommendation: Change the Land Use Plan Map from C (Commercial) to split designations of MU (Mixed Use) north of the southernmost stream and SF6 south of the southernmost stream, and change the Zoning Districts Map from O (Office) to a split zoning of CC-MU on the north side of the stream and SR-6 (Single Family Residential) on the south side of the stream. Parcel Number 282205-9164 1. Property Location: 12633 SE 270th Street 2. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 3. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated there may be a redevelopment opportunity on this parcel that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment, although the effect of the wetland and streams has yet to be determined. 4. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC-MU zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 5. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. 7. The existing residence on the south side of the property is accessed via a residential street to the west. B1.d: Valley South: Staff Recommendation: Maintain the C (Commercial) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map for two parcels from O (Office) to CM-2 (Commercial Manufacturing-2) Parcel Numbers: 346280-0260; 346280-UNKN 1. Property Location: Generally 1851 Central PI. S. 2. The CM-2 zoning district provides areas which combine retail and small-scale, light industrial operations, heavy commercial and wholesale uses, and specialty manufacturing. Office uses are allowed within the CM-2 zoning district. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 11 12 3. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 4. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CM-2 zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. B1.e: West Hill: Staff Recommendation: Maintain the NS (Neighborhood Services) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map for two (2) parcels from O (Office) to NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 282204-9153, -9158 1. Property Location: 27105 and 27115 Military Rd. S. 2. The NCC zoning district provides small nodal areas for retail and personal service activities convenient to residential areas, and ready access to everyday convenience goods for the residents of such neighborhoods. Examples of allowed uses in the NCC zoning district are medical and neighborhood clinics, financial and personal services, grocers, eating and drinking establishments without drive- throughs, gasoline stations, drug stores and florist stops. 3. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment, although the single family residence arguably could change to another use allowed in the zoning district. 4. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The NCC zoning district provides flexibility in allowed uses. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. 6. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. B2. Eliminate the MA (Industrial Agricultural) zoning district 1132a. Valley West: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designations of OS (Open Space) and I (Industrial) and change the Zoning Districts Map to M1 (Industrial Park District) Parcel Numbers: 000620-0011, -0017, -0020, -0025, - 0027, -0034; 102204-9016, -9021, -9024, -9027, -9153, - 9176, -9191, -9196, -9217; 112204-9014, -9025, -9026, - 9056, -9066, -9075 CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 12 13 Furthermore: • Maintain the split Land Use Plan Map designations of I (Industrial) and MHP (Mobile Home Park) for Parcel 112204-9065 and change the portion of the parcel with a Zoning Districts Map designation of MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). • Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of OS (Open Space) for Parcels 112204-9073, -UNKN and 000620-0005 and -0018, and change the portion of the parcels with a Zoning Districts Map designation of MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). • Parcel Number 000620-0023: Change the split Zoning Districts Map designations of MR-G (Garden Density Multifamily) and MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). This is a publicly-owned parcel just north of Veterans Drive. 1. Property Location: Generally South of S. 212th Street between the Green River and 64th Avenue S. 1. The M1 zoning district provides for a broad range of industrial, office and business park activities where the environmental amenities are protected through a high level of development standards. It is unlikely the nature of publicly-owned properties would change. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate significant redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The M1 zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. The Economic Development Plan supports small business entrepreneurs. 132b. Valley North: Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designations of OS (Open Space) and change the Zoning Districts Map to M1 (Industrial Park District) Parcel Numbers: 000020-0044 and portion of 000020- 0043 that abuts -0044 1. The M1 zoning district provides for a broad range of industrial, office and business park activities where the environmental amenities are protected through a high level of development standards. However, it is unlikely the publicly-owned park and open space would redevelop into industrial uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 13 14 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The M1 zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. However, it is unlikely the public open space and park would redevelop into industrial uses. 1132c. Valley South: Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of OS (Open Space) and change the Zoning Districts Map from MA to AG (Agricultural General) Parcel Numbers: 242204-9108, -9176; 252204-9001, - 9008, -9022; and portions of 242204-9178 and -9185 that are zoned MA 1. The AG zoning district provides for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. However, it is unlikely the publicly-owned park and open space would redevelop into these types of uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. Although the AG zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses, it is unlikely the public open space and proposed park area would redevelop into other uses. B3. Eliminate the Gateway Commercial (GWC) zoning district. Staff Recommendation: Change the Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change the Zoning Districts Map from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 072205-9010, -9023, -9026, -9096, - 9101; 122204-9006, -9007, -9028, -9040, -9048, -9049, - 9052, -9065, -9068, -9071, -9073, -9082, -9087, -9094, - 9095; 132204-9001, -9354, -9355; 182205-9009, -9355, -9356, -9357; 383000-0005, -0007, -0014, -0020, -0023; 775780-0010, -0020, -0030, -0031, -0032, -0035, -0041, -0042, -0043, -0044, -0055, 0060, -0070, -0071, -0074, - 0090, -0091, -0094, -0100, -0102; 775980-0010, -0020, - 0021, -0022, -0023, -0030, -0031, -0032, -0033, -0035 Furthermore: • For Parcel Number 775980-0021, change the Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change the Zoning Districts Map from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M3 (General Industrial) CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 14 15 • Parcel Number 072205-9010: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations of C (Commercial)/GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M2 (Limited Industrial) • Parcel Numbers 122204-9001: Change Land Use Plan Map designations of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Map designation of M2 (Limited Industrial) and GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) • Parcel Number 122204-9080 and -9075: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan Map designations of C (Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and change portion of parcel with Zoning Districts Map designation of GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M2 (Limited Industrial) • Parcel Numbers 383000-0006, -0015, -0021, -0022, 122204-9107 and 775980-0040: Change portion of parcels with Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations of C (Commercial)/ GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M3 (General Industrial) • Parcel Number 775780-0072: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations of C (Commercial)/Gateway Commercial to I (Industrial)/CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1) • Parcel Number 775780-0080: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change portion of parcel with Zoning Districts Map designations of GWC (Gateway Commercial) and CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) • Parcel Number 775780-0101: Change Land Use Plan Map designations of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Map designations of M2 (Limited Industrial) and GWC (Gateway Commercial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) • Parcel Number 072205-9024: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Map designations of GWC (Gateway Commercial to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). This parcel still would have split designations. Furthermore: See proposed code amendment G., below, related to Secure Community Transition Facilities, allowing them in the newly- designated zoning districts within the same boundaries as the previous GWC (Gateway Commercial) district. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 15 16 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the surrounding industrial area. The spine of 84t" Avenue South is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated vacant and redevelopment opportunities on parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have not had the market support, and the market would in fact support alternative uses. The Gateway Commercial zone is has been difficult to develop. The M1-C zoning would allow industrial uses but also provide flexibility for additional uses to serve the industrial area. 4. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 5. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 6. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 7. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. C. Eliminate inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Districts Map C1. Vista Landing: Property Location: 10040 SE 267t" St. Staff Recommendation: Change the Land Use Plan Map designation from SF4.5 to SF6 to correspond with the Zoning Districts Map designation of SR-6. Parcel No. 292205-9211 C2. Fern Crest: ***Withdraw and consider during Urban Separator Work Program beginning in 2016 Property Location: Between approximately SE 224t" St. and SE 227t" PI. at approximately 135t" Avenue SE Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Numbers 251701-0060, -0070, and -0760 should be designated SF8 and SR-8 on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps respectively. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 16 17 • Tract L of Fern Crest Division 2 should be designated Urban Separator/SR-1. • Parcel 152205-9085 and -9168 should be designated entirely Urban Separator/SR-1. C3. Megan's Meadow: Property Location: Approximately SE corner of 132nd Ave SE and SE 233rd Street Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Numbers 543760-0030 through -0090 and 543760-0160 and the adjacent access tracts should be designated SF6 (Single Family Residential) and SR-6 (Single Family Residential) on the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps respectively. C4. Maplewood Grove: Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 512698-0000 which has a Land Use Plan Map designation of MU (Mixed Use) and a Zoning Districts Map designation of MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) should be deemed consistent: o Correct Table 4.1 in the Land Use Element to allow MRT-16 zoning as implementation of MU. C5. West Hill - 46Lh Avenue South: Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Numbers 677780-0010 through -0050: The Land Use Plan Map designation of MDMF and a Zoning Districts Map designation of MR-D (Duplex Multifamily Residential) should be deemed consistent: o Correct Table 4.1 in the Land Use Element to allow MR-D zoning as implementation of MDMF. C6. Bonel Mobile Manor: Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 232204-9052: Change the split Zoning Districts Map designations of MHP (Mobile Home Park) and GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) to MHP in its entirety. C7. Frager Rd South Right of Way: Property Location: SW corner of Frager Rd S. and 68t" Avenue S. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 17 18 Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations so that the right-of-way is not designated A-10 (Agricultural). A-10 is a zoning district typically reserved for properties which are part of the King County Agricultural Production District or whose development rights have been purchased by King County. This would maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of AG-S (Agricultural Support) and change the Zoning Districts Map designation from A-10 to AG (Agricultural/General). C8. Central Avenue South: Property Location: 702 Central Avenue S. Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 918370-2430: Change the Zoning Districts Map from SR-6 to CM-2 (Commercial Manufacturing-2) to be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial). C9. Scenic View Condos: Property Location: 317 Kennebeck Avenue S. Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 758070-0000: Change the Land Use Plan Map designation from LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) to MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily) to be consistent with the Zoning Districts Map designation of MR-H (High Density Multifamily Residential). C10. Earthworks Park: Property Location: South of intersection of 100th PI SE and SE 264th St. Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Number 292205-9322: Change the Zoning Districts Map designation for a portion of the parcel from MR-G (Low Density Multifamily Residential) and SR-4.5 (Single Family Residential) to SR-4.5 (Single Family Residential) to be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map. C11. 116Lh Avenue SE and SE 274 Wy: Staff Recommendation: Reconcile the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations, ensuring the following: • Parcel Numbers 322205-9001 and -9205: Change the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 18 19 for a portion of the parcels from SF4.5/SR-4.5 (Single Family Residential) to SF6/SR-6 (Single Family Residential). C12. North Central Commercial: Property Location: Between approximately S. 2281h St. and S. 2351h PI (if extended) and between SR 167 and Central Avenue N. Staff Recommendation: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of MU (Mixed Use) and change the split Zoning Districts Map designations as follows: • Parcel Number 132204-9018, -9108, and -9113: Change the Zoning Districts Map designations from M2 (Limited Industrial) and GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) to GC-MU for the entire parcel. • Parcel Number 132204-9052 and -9221: Change the Zoning Districts Map designations from M2 (Limited Industrial) and GC (General Commercial) to GC for the entire parcel. C13. 100tn Avenue SE and SE 240tn Street: Property Location: Between approximately SE 236th and 240th Streets and between 1001h and 102nd Avenues SE. Staff Recommendation: Change the Land Use Plan Map designation of LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) to MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily) to be consistent with the zoning designation of MR-M (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) on the following parcels: Parcel Numbers: 172205-9027, -9088, -9092, -9110, -9133, - 9134, -9142, -9146, -9147, -9149, -9150, -9153, -9160, -9216; 365740-0000 (365740-0010 through -0100) CODE AMENDMENTS D. Broaden allowed uses in industrial zones to include supportive retail and commercial activities. The Kent Zoning Code describes uses that are allowed in the industrial zoning districts (M1, M2, and M3). In the M1 (Industrial Park District), the allowed uses generally include manufacturing, wholesale distribution, retail and service uses such as restaurants, financial, business and educational services. In the M2 (Limited Industrial District) the service uses are limited to 25% of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. In the M3 (General Industrial), the uses are generally limited to only manufacturing and wholesale distribution. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 19 20 Furthermore, there are areas in the M1 district that are designated M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) where additional retail and service uses are allowed, e.g., auto repair and drive-through food and drink establishments. The purpose of the M1-C zoning district is to allow certain limited commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The M1-C designation typically occurs at centralized, nodal locations where major arterials intersect. Staff Recommendation: • Broaden the uses in the M1, M2 and M3 areas such that manufacturing and warehousing uses are allowed to sell the product accessory to and directly related to the manufacturing or warehousing use on the site. • Clarify KCC 15.04.080(5) as follows: o Uses shall be limited to twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which exceed the twenty-five (25) percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis. For example, in the case of a business park with several buildings, 25% of the buildings' combined floor area may be devoted to these retail and service uses. For single building parcels, 25% of the floor area of the single building may be devoted to these retail and service uses. • Broaden the uses allowed in M1-C such that grocery stores would be allowed without a size limitation. Also allow tire, battery and accessory sales for both industrial or personal vehicles and equipment. E. Standards Of Review - KCC 12.02.050 and KCC 15.09.050(C) and Staff Recommendation: Amend #6b of the standards and criteria for granting a request for rezone as shown below (KCC 15.09.050(C) and (113))• 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 20 21 3. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city. 6. Furthermore, for rezones to M1-C: a. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the comprehensive plan map as being appropriate locations for commercial-type land uses. b. Except for city-wide mapping proposals, rezoning to M1-C shall not be speculative in nature, but shall be based on generalized development plans and uses. F. Community Commercial-Mixed Use Code Amendments Staff Recommendation: 1. Amend 15.02.260 Mixed use development definition and 15.04.200 Site coverage for the CC-MU overlay to: a. Add a provision that for parcels two acres or less in size, the gross floor area of the commercial component in the CC-MU zoning district may be a minimum of five percent rather than twenty-five percent. i. This provision creates viability for a mix of uses on small parcels. 2. Amend 15.04.200 Design Review for CC-MU overlay to: a. Clarify that Mixed-Use Design Review is required, as noted in the development standards of 15.04.190. G. Secure Community Transition Facilities Staff Recommendation: • Amend KCC 15.04.020 by creating a line item for Secure Community Transition Facilities, with a note #24, allowing them as a Conditional Use Permit in the portions of the zoning districts that replace the GWC (Gateway Commercial) zoning district boundaries through the proposed Zoning Districts Map amendments detailed under B3., above. • Amend 15.04.030(23) as follows: Secure community transition facilities are permitted only an within the boundaries depicted on the following map (Insert map depicting former GWC boundaries). CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 21 22 .2MS 1N WC szx Ste_ � i 4 TII .11 • Amend 15.04.030(24) as follows: 24. -ileyVed- ;n this 4gf, ,n distr; + A secure community transition facility shall also comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to Chapter 71.09 RCW. Secure community transition facilities are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.280 for class III group homes, but they are subject to a six hundred (600) foot separation from any other class II or III group home. In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk potential activities or facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. Within line of sight means that it is possible to reasonably visually CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 22 23 distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of six hundred (600)feet to be "within line of sight." During the conditional use permit process for a secure community transition facility, "line of sight' may be considered to be less than six hundred (600) feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than six hundred (600) feet. This distance shall be measured by following a straight line, without regard to intervening buildings, from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. For the purpose of granting a conditional use permit for a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall give great weight to equitable distribution so that the city shall not be subject to a disproportionate share of similar facilities of a state-wide, regional, or county-wide nature. CA/a h Attachments: Maps of staff recommendations 5:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AM ENDM ENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011-1_CompPlan Update\LU PB\5-11- 15_Public_Hearing\051115_LUPB_Hearing_Map_and Text_Amendments_ca-2.doc cc: Ben Wolters, ECD Director Kurt Hanson,AICP, Economic Development Manager Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Project File CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing May 11, 2015 Page 23 24 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments 25 #DKT-2014-4 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) 71 US SR-1 LDMF 'll � MRT-1670 2St 9;4t •,II r_ ya,� , LU Plan: LDMF to MU Mk-ix_ Zoning: MRT-16 to CC-MU wll � �" •SF 6 �r� u. iMi1gr ' V R-M LDMF II - ' ►, � 1410,10 ' OFF F� F � � � TOW MDMF FrPO A94- 166 OFF II V > FFFF FF II - Legend t Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) ,.A,.:, Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations X Parcels ■ Kent City Limits (CENT r - m ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments #DKT-2014-6 26 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Single Family Residential (SF-6) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from Office/Mixed Use (O-MU) and Single Family Residential (SR-6) to Community Commercial (CC) and Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) LU '~ LU Plan: MU (no change) � .� �� Zoning: O-MU to CC s LU Plan: SF6 to MU ' ► � ;� ` Zoning: SR-6 to CAj A91W _ O-MU 41*1 41 ,�, 1,,,.�..."� . - 1 by� � �� ♦ � r••gip. .� .. _ * 100^ ` `♦ a y �� -: ♦ � LU Plan: SF-6 to MU MU :. _ 1,L: ♦♦ Zoning: SR-6 to CC-MU or 1 Legend W*L 1 s 1 Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change �■■� ____—_�`��� Affected Parcel(s) w ` Existing Zoning Districts a , �•3 1� Existing Land Use Plan Designations Q Parcels SE 264 p� ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments #DKT-2014-7 27 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Split Industrial (I) and Single Family Residential (SF-6) to Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) Zoning: Rezone Split Commercial Manufacturing-1 (CM-1) and Single Family Residential (SR-6) to Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) S 222 St � r LU Plan: SF-6 to LDMF Zoning: SR-6 to MRT-16 -{ LU Plan: I to LDMF Zoning: CM-1 to MRT-16 A_ MRT-16 } N Legend E LDMF S Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) t + MR-G . Existing Zoning Districts _- Existing Land Use Plan Designations r Parcels A ECD-Feb. 2015 if Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments #DKT-2014-8 28 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Commercial (C) to Transit Oriented Community (TOC) Zoning: Rezone from General Commercial (GC) to Midway Commercial- Residential (MCR) I'C-2 �� w ORA 1 . 1 ®® Film can y LU Plan: C to TOC r Zoning: GC to MCR �-,- fWC =TOC NM M -���''�� `k__ - III■ ��- 1 I Legend wE Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change 1 Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments 29 Al. Intersection of West Valley Hwy/S. 196th Street Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Park (M1) to Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) S 1901S_t S191P' M 2 cn 'o 194 St LU Plan: No Change S 193 PI Zoning: Rezone from M1 to M1-C - S 194 PI Q N �O _ M2 r Q MIC 0 Q ' S 200 St I ' N Legend WE s - Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) :r �-y AN:�:• Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ✓N' +��- ECD-Feb. 2015 S�t� - •,41 U ` U Zs 3 ro LA U o 0 ro W . c c c m 0 C L ro L C J T d L r LA p a� r nl _ C U "p N o fMWW J N , U) a •_ a N -J J o 0) 0) Ln Ln O C C U O - c- LA LA L c 9 o a LL S a Q w w a Y � 1 1 _ �I J r � ■11! t S�� 08 .•w*4 c w MS^b'al�Psa�� �61 rn i C N au co 0 •• U C � 0 O •v _ __ o � SIdL notcg � ^ G7 a a = .■ E ' nl o c o c •- L. *' 0. 74 00 cn ra o � ,4 Es0N f oG a n fl- `' F -- _ �.�a��•��.. (Acd (A S Q V) J N Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrpjnts A3. NE Corner of 72nd Ave S. and S. 277th St. Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Limited Industrial (M2) to Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) ,i 1 LU Plan: No Change r Zoning: Rezone from M2 to M1-C - N •w 1 N 1� II � -- S27.2St ; . S2+72St •n . r. r co AG-S AG M2 U L 1 � 1 I � 1 6 i .■••r•1�•rr•rrlrru' rr�r�n■■i■■ ._urrrlrr�r•�r•■rr>.rr■r7ft'Ift'rL7r - - - 1 S 277 St N - Legend W E � � s Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) y Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels 'rr■rrr Kent City Limits ' ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments 32 A4. East Valley Highway and S. 212th St. Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Limited Industrial (M2) to Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) Amend S lit Zoned Parcels iigJ1� - k $ 202 St C � - LU Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from M2 to M1-C 1 -206a$t �lowf f.+--� S�20:6=St- - 206_.St IV2081St CO r: GWC S210St 0 � S 2,10iSt N ® Legend WE Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Split Zoned Parcels: Affected Parcel(s) LU Plan: C portion to MIC Zoning: GWC portion to M1-C Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designation _ Parcels `ANT ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments 33 Bi.a East Hill North Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) and Office/Mixed Use (O-MU) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) Amend Split Zoned Parcels ' ED DMF S.r,,UF, r - _ J■■ D Q yI LU Plan: No Change a _ k7oZoning: O & O-MU to CC-MUw SE, e.r's: ,�i O a MDMF o- � i4 i ? •T MDMF ; '- , ~ �•� si-• __,� � " iNIRT=1'6 SE 241 PI ` JIL a II 'I�i9 �i SE+2424mill P.1����s , ._ [ � _ — ih � �� •I� v Split Zoned Parcel: 9 $Et243 Sty w Rezone O portion to CC o Wom Q �\ mill o ►.M I ® T-il � � � �- SE 244 St SF-8 Iw,wi I IN con ' ;•;SF.�8 ���R'8 ��o " � SE►2�4*R ���>"�o�- LL h. �T SE�245 P1 II1fy� - � mom eM S±�I Split Zoned S 8 ports r r T• ».: LU Plan: Change SF-8 portion to MU SF-6 iiio�lf•_ Rezone 0-MU and SR-8 portions to CC-MU SE 247 1® au w OSlilt _ Split Zoned Parcel: F- LU Plan: No Change Rezone 0-MU tail- 5116 - portion to CC-MU R-G = SS� ' � , o MDMF Legend S MR-M Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change a_ Affected Parcel(s) ci L OS SE 250 PI A. Existing Zoning Districts CC=MU ' ! O-MU Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels - rcT-16 ECD-Feb. 2015 :. Ln C . 3 (n U � p LL t r Q � (0WIN Ln u 1Lnfu F�tC _ E _ �y Q J =r 1 r-�..... 01 OU _0 1 1 �.rn. 4f N o L- c N a N J m a) _0 01 01 ' � 'a wLALAoa Q w w a :9p 1 0 J i 1 rdl .,Af I A K LU �_ 3S Id 044 r L 7,.a 11 LLI. In O E oo ol� G � co x g �LL to o w L ,00 O V o € O = a - OC `in rb'tiA14 m O U N �. N 1rx (n U w ++ a7 ` — 1G— „ _ �a.. !` F is neeiw.� C Q) U '�'..[" Ow W i tl ; f0 iU CZ 6 sM 0 U J5 o a) 0u9 V9 aJ O O O r y 0 N 10 L N �. t 0 W OC I fl. ��LL-� Ln y_ N rl C C U �F'� � ' -tee 1 f'• •f`"�r,r- `� (n 00VIJNWQ "i ' x Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments 35 Bi.c East Hill East Staff Recommendation: LU Plan: Change from C to MU north of the southernmost stream; Change from C to SF6 (Single Family Residential) south of the southernmost stream Zoning: Rezone from O to CC-MU north of the southernmost stream; Rezone from O to SR-6 (Single Family Residential) south of the southernmost stream r1i*-I -- A' ` rm :2 LDMF � SF-6 � � R 3 �. •. 11. 4 - C F IF !s ;r- f v� ♦ Jot • I Q SR-6i � +• North of Stream: LU Plan: C to MU k.' ;'. Vw♦ .+ Zoning: O to CC-MU South of Stream: LU Plan: C to SF6 Zoning: O to SR-6 - ,,ram,# r '�.� E -. , `, r+r."■�` �'° I I - -_ _ Legend WE - - LDMF Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) SESE 27r37P,� _ Existing Zoning Districts ® Existing Land Use Plan Designations SF-6 Stream ® : ;a Parcels �KEH= B1.d Valley South Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Commercial Manufacturing 2 (CM-2) jT " MHP t r' - -F Of — � dl . r` � * "yea':=� -. :� �x.'�='• - �,'�`-�'�'''+Lr-•,.ram.,^ 1.r �4 MDMF l MR-M a h R r f � N LU Plan: No Change %N as �� Zoning: O to CM-2 AN NO SON Son SWOON _Q Legend S d Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) QExisting Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ■ Kent City Limits ���■��■% ECD-Feb. 2015 B 1.e West Hill Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) _ *� . '� S 2+70 Sty r ` SF-6 SR-b a S 271 St LU Plan: No Change rt Zoning: O to NCC W. NCIL Legend Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations f Parcels f s ■11■11� Y �u■u: Kent City Limits ECD-Feb. 015 / i B2.a Valley West Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Industrial Park (M1) Amend split-zoned parcels SR`8 OS OS a 15242St �S_ SF-8 MA M J - iVIvi I - II US 3� MA Split Zoned Parcel: I LU Plan: No Change r- �¢, Maintain split zoning; rezone MA portion to M1 _�_S:2;1'6:St SR-4. �■ LU Plan: No Change .� Zoning: MA to M1 1% -A M 1 OS Split Zoned Parcels: r LU Plan: No Change Zoning: MA portion to M1 OS I i .os 4 I • _ MA Sf226tSt ;,- Split Zoned Parcel: r.rl L LU Plan: No Change I r {- Zoning: MA/MR-G portion to M1 Legend wE f" Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Veterans-Dr SR-i _ i �r � Affected Parcels) US IN Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ' ,. LE) ECD-Feb. 2015 t - B2.b Valley North Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Industrial Park (M1) pr rr � i qj Q� � .��,, .cam • r p � �-...5 n / yO ■ r , Y 47 k LU Plan: No Change _ r — Zoning: MA to M1 �t■u ttuit�p Z���� S 190 St wr" + of �k� t Legend 14 S Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) pt�tt�n■u■"!!■u�u■u■n■n■u■n■t►�n��un��� Existing Zoning Districts M1 - + Existing Land Use Plan Designations - ��Y � - Parcels .� �,• S 19 - ■ Kent City Limits , � -j [ I 'u■n■: ECD-Feb. 2015 B2.c Valley South Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Agricultural General (AG) ► S�251 St ' ; MDMF, F Fly. M1- L1' N R�p� Prager Rd S `c M U f� GCMDMF�,r LMR MJ�° .� LU Plan: No Change ~` Zoning: MA to AG M2 Os N 9 1. Legend S r AG-S AG Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts - '••'' S 262 St �� Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ■ Kent City Limits �11■11■: ECD-Feb. 2015 x Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments B3. Eliminate Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning District 41 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Commercial (C) to Industrial (I) Zoning: Rezone from GWC to Industrial Park/Commercial (MI-C) (except one parcel to M-3) Amend Split Zoned Parcels p: n1l I ro S I, ! GWC - ,. 1� .r �k C 1 N& Split Zoned Parcel: C�� r Split Zoned Parcels: 1 LU Plan: C portion to MIC V. LU Plan: MIC/C to I Zoning: GWC portion to M2 !i Zoning: M2/GWC to MI-C �.*. -- _ ` SR W. % Split Zoned Parcel: S lit Zoned Parcel: —•-• - LU Plan: C to I P Zoning: GWC to M1-C LU Plan: C to MIC Zoning: GWC to M2 = Q CO Split Zoned Parcel: a ao LU Plan: MIC/C to I Zoning: M2/GWC to M1-C oo.- MIC L Split Zoned Parcel: SF- ' LU Plan: C to I Z-4�r Split Zoned Parcels: Sw� .J Zoning: GWC/CM-1 to M1-C � s2=18�St LU Plan: C to MIC `ui � � e y Zoning: GWC to M3 GWC Split Zoned Parcel: �> a "-lR-M LU Plan: C to I MHP Zoning: GWC to CM-1 � w � GRIN - - ! �/ .■NSF�6� �J t -1 LU Plan: C to I I�� is_1 Zoning: GWC to M1-C s/22 Parcel77598O-0021: Legend s LU Plan: C to I L Zoning: GWC to M-3 Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts v� MU'-gyp ` Existing Land Use Plan Designations Sul 28 Sty - K., KEHr -� .�: � - � •�,� ��� - - Parcels - �� ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments C1. Vista Landing 42 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: SF4.5 to SF6 Zoning: No Change Ik 02 OS M R-G 77 ' ■ !tlYk'1�� LU Plan: SF4.5 to SF6 ► Zoning: No Change ` SR-6 t =� M� SE 26.7 St M6­4= SF-4.5 SR-4.5 ups SE 268 St •- Legend W E - Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) *,. US _ �� '�`' dab. Existing Zoning Districts } ; j � ii _ • � ::fir • �; Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels �::�^i�l• t: �� -��-` ,. - f k all■11� y � - x-�;• • ^.��'�- ">'• Kent City Limits (CENT ." G �r -',.. ..,.�� �11■11� ECD-Feb. 2015 C2. Fern Crest Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Redefine boundaries of Urban Separator (US) and Single Family Residential (SF8) Zoning: Redefine boundaries of Single Family Residential (SR-8)and Residential Agricultural (SR-1) Lj SR-4.5 �� _ � y '�� /• \ r , LU Plan: US portion to SF8 Zoning: SR-1 portion to SR-8 SE 224 St LU Plan: SF8 portion to US �. )O Zoning: SR-8 portion to SR-1 21 LU Plan: SF8 portion to US ,^ Zoning: SR-8 portion to SR-1 SEt225 F—. lid Hit .. A IOSPRO FIF $�2261P1 AMSEt227_ LU Plan: No Change 11111 r �' Zoning: SR-8 portion to SR-1 ,; I�SE22�7/PI - k;c N Legend W E - Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change o Affected Parcel(s) SF=4.5 SR-4.5� Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Q Parcels M all■11� .i r �u■ui Kent City Limits (CENT SE 230 St ECD-Feb. 2015 C3. Megan's Meadow Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendm4e4nts Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Single Family Residential (SF4.5) to Single Family Residential (SF6) Zoning: No Change N �x M SEAL 238 St r, SR-4-' •. ��A a� 1W, LUI Plan: SF4.5 to SF6 Zoning: No Change OW SF f� e Ilk. `A, 1 - � 41 t� Legend Wt . +� Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) 16M L"Wmv `•. Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 C6. Bonel Mobile Manor Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) portion to Mobile Home Park (MHP) Nook i MR-M a' N � OS SR-1 mit MDMF W Sh Ct = _ II if ,Q k. cr jn MH MHP : P LU Plan: No Change 'A Zoning: GC-MU to MHP � 3 -�4 ps•• '� h'� .�,1 ,_ „i -��_ � � ;.ems - ' ' _ - -Ok 40 AM rT 11111111101111111a N IF _ 1 r UC 1 Cc-Mu Legend S t ; Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change I li Affected Parcel(s) -• li= - Q Existing Zoning Districts AL- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Existing Land Use Plan Designations MDMF MR-M _ Parcels Kt- ECD-Feb. 2015 C7. Frager Rd South Right-of-Way Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone Right-of-Way from Agricultural (A-10) to Agricultural General (AG) I rya, it O • o MDMF MR-M _ * w 4 Y ,ram `�� -- �o w r a. Plan: No Change 1 1 S Zoning: A-10 to AG �.. , A—10 F w OS -S MA n Legend WE • 'e; , k �_ Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change �" ► �,� �`•" 1 _ Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations iw k f Parcels kEd l ECD-Feb. 2015 r-► ALti C8. Central Avenue South Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Single Family Residential (SR-6) to Commercial Manufacturing-2 (CM-2) CIea�Av S r _ � p; LU Plan: No Change :eft; Zoning: SR-6 to CM-2 I F - , I N -SF II .ti V �w �- Legend W N s ` Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change • Affected Parcel(s) - Q Existing Zoning Districts "w '► Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels r' ECD-Feb. 2015 J, ' 'tili. • . Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments C9. Scenic View Condos 48 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) Zoning: No Change UC DCE-T GC-MU r rf Q , °r � r LU Plan: LDMF to MDMF Zoning: No Change E Titus $zFPA 6 m AF* • ; ,. LDMF 7 ' M R-H I� 1 - J U) SF-6 Y!!--♦ Legend WI ,�. Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change .; Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts N� Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 C10. Earthworks Park Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendm4egnts Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone portion from Low Density Multifamily (MR-G) to Single Family Residential (SR-4.5) �=f • �T 4 , F SR-1 ' LU Plan: No Change r Zoning: MR-G portion to SR-4.5 VW LDMF ILI 17 SR-8 gn-MMI, OVIL -41L, i =, .+ _ �~ SR-6 :` i . Ile � _ i 3 ry N i N Legend W ` - I N i , o ■ Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) - SE 268 St - C3 Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations US ►• -- Parcels + ri ECD-Feb. 2015 C11. 116th Avenue SE and SE 274th Way Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendm5eOnts Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change portion from Single Family Residential (SF4.5) to Single Family Residential (SF6) Zonin : Rezone portion from Sin le Famil Residential SR-4.5 to Single Family Residential SR-6 SE 272 P' w w N •.,- Q - SE 272 PI r 'T. W a OS ,Ad-- � 1 r r 0 r a► LU Plan: SF4.5 portion to SF6 ; a - Zoning: SR-4.5 portion to SR-6 SF-4.5 . lo ISR-4.5w --�r J N f Legend WE • LL` s it A Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) 1:3 Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations i •� _.+ •`` .. Parcels k`h' ECD-Feb. 2015 �r i' C12. North Central Avenue Commercial Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Staff Recommendation: 51 Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone Split-Zoned Parcels from Limited Industrial(M2) and General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) to GC-MU; Rezone Split-Zoned Parcels from Limited Industrial (M2) and General Commercial (GC) to GC. ! __ Art - Z F MIC M3 do- LU Plan: No Change �♦ �f; Zoning: Rezone M2/GC to GC, I Novak Ln MU GC-MU -- � 4 LDML t ? LU Plan: No Change *` . Zoning: Rezone M2/GC-MU to GC-MU ICI ■� F.F� f J.. . '_—�i f8 4 1 T' 17 f t• -1 Legend „'L��NF i Mon Proposed Zoning/ Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts �J Existing Land Use Plan Designations I Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments C13. 100th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street 52 Staff Recommendation: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) Zoning: No Change 35stvWjiu - - - _ _ - v Q r • . II j*F R .. + SE 235 PI II, _ wes, �Ipin ' 4 M R-G I ...— —.——.————A- _ ,_i LU Plan: LDMF to MDMF Zoning: No Change641, -W-f 197 ML I1 rr_ II J ;r SE1236 Pal AM M RT=16 IF 1 _ ' �t I 1 rII 1 � LDMF -_----- JL fowl 1 W a: NSF n II ' — o. I ' �Al F ;r`. jp6jMDMF '' • u III IFS PI - SE 239 St ..,.,, ,� � -:�A��T+Itr a 1 - •�� 4 1 � ►a r�^ r Legend WE s 70 or Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change S 240 St- MU " i - Affected Parcel(s) ; ..�....... l� ,gip Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 53 EXHIBIT 23 LAND USE PLAN & ZONING DISTRICTS MAP & TEXT AMENDMENTS ENTERED INTO RECORD AT 4-27- 15 HEARING 54 55 Exhibit From: Mel Roberts (mel@cvclel<ent.com) Date Reed- Staff-ff LLL To: Charlene Anderson Land Use 2t Planning Board City of Kent Subject: LUPB Public Hearing April 27,2015 Attached are Paper copies of the pages that have been marked up with ideas, comments,suggestions, and questions about the revisions to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (and all it's pieces). (25—0s,w^9 WL4 � The comments are mostly about people using bicycles to move abouXent. FYI—How many walkers and riders are in Kent? Using Just a small sample from about an average day (not winter or summer)the count or walkers and riders at the Interurban and Green River Trail intersection by S 259th St was 220. This is from 7-9 Am and 4-6 PM,the commute hours. Multiplying 5 days per week times 50 weeks per year times 200 uses in one day gives (5*50*200=50,000)50 thousand riders and walkers at that location per year. This doesn't include weekends and other locations. We need to better prepare for larger numbers of riders and walkers in our future plans than we planned for in the past. Mel Roberts KBAB, Chairman 425-417-8931 qQ/. - 56 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters,.Director PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 WA-9 H IN G T O N Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD APRIL 27, 2015 7:00 P.M. LUPB MEMBERS: Randall Smith, Chair; Barbara Phillips, Vice Chair; Frank Cornelius; Navdeep Gill; Katherine Jones; Jack Ottini and Binoy Varughese CITY STAFF: ECD-Planning Services: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager. City Attorney's Office: David Galazin, Civil Attorney This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing followed by a Workshop on MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. These meetings will be held in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers, 220 Fourth Avenue S, Kent, WA. The public is invited to attend and all interested persons will have an opportunity to speak at the Hearing. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed amendments may do so at the hearing or prior to the hearing by email to Charlene Anderson at: canderson@kentwa.gov. No public testimony is taken at the Workshop, although the public is welcome to attend. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the April 13, 2015 Minutes 4. Added Items 5 Communications b 6 Notice of Upcoming Meetings t /� 7. PUBLIC HEARING. - LAND USE PLAN & ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS: Consideration of the 2014 docket items: DKT-2014-4, and DKT-2014-6 thru DKT- 2014-8, as well as the Staff proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts maps, and city code. - Charlene Anderson COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: Consideration of an update to the Comprehensive Plan; including amendments to the text, goals and policies of all elements; amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Districts Map. Also under consideration, are amendments to Zoning Code regulations related to definitions, allowed uses, development standards, and standards for review of map amendments. - Charlene Anderson For documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board, access the City's website at: ht :Ilkentwa igm2 com/c/tlzens/Defau/t.asox?DepartmentlD=1004. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at(253) 856- 5725. For TTYITDD service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at (800) 833-6388. For general information, contact Economic& Community Development Department, Planning Division at(253) 856- 5454. f7 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager KENT WASH 1N GTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 20, 2015 TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use and Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map and Text Amendments [CPA- 2011-3/CPZ-2011-1] [KIVA#2142820/2142822] For Public Hearing on April 27, 2015 MOTION: Recommend to the full City Council approval/denial/ modification of the map and text amendments recommended by staff. SUMMARY: On September 1, 2014, the City of Kent received applications for docketing Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map amendments for properties located in five areas of the City. Staff proposed consideration of additional map amendments. At their November 10, 2014 meeting, the Economic & Community Development Committee recommended consideration of four of the docketed map amendments as well as the staff proposed map amendments during the 2014-15 update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan. On November 18, 2014 the City Council concurred with that recommendation. Staff presented options for docketed and staff-proposed map and text amendments to the Land Use & Planning Board at the workshop on January 26, 2015. Maps relating to the proposals are attached. BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION: #DKT-2014-4 — Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map 'U designations for a 2.3-acre parcel (768280-0195) located at 2526 S 272nd Street from LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)/MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) to MU (Mixed Use)/CC-MU (Community Commercial-Mixed Use). Applicant (Agent): Baljit Singh and Amritpal S. Sahoter EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) MU (Mixed Use) Zoning Districts Map MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential CC-MU (Community Townhouse) Commercial/Mixed Use There is a single family residence on the site and the site is otherwise wooded. Much of the site terrain can be characterized as vegetated and sloped from east to west. The property abuts S. 272nd St. on the south and 26th Ave. S. on the east. Properties immediately north of the site have beenAe subject of residential platting activity. Immediately to the west is a multifamily development. The Zof)�Z_ `>V Mllg - 8 LK ---� 2 — #DKT-2014-7 — hange in split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts flap designations f9i two parcels (775780-0225 and -0222) totaling 1.6 acres located at 22 02 and 22204 88th Avenue SE from SF6/SR-6 (Single Family Residential) and I (Ind ustrial)/�-(o—m—mercial Manufacturing-1) to the adjacent LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)/MRT-16 (Multifamily Residential Townhouse) Applicant (Agent): Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. as agent for MPR Holdings, LLC EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map I (Industrial) and SF6 (Single Family LDMF (Low Density Residential) Multifamil Zoning Districts Map CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1) MR-T16 (Multifamily and SR-6 (Single Family Residential Residential Townhouse Both parcels are currently developed with a single family residence. There are a significant number of trees on the site. The terrain slopes to the west, with some slopes reaching 40%. The property abuts 88th Avenue South on the west. Properties in the immediate vicinity are either vacant or single family residences on a variety of lot sizes. Farther south of the site is a multifamily development. The surrounding properties also are zoned for either single or multiple family residences. To the west, across 88th Avenue South is SR-167. OPTIONS: No Action - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain I/SF6 and CM- 1/SR-6 1. These parcels appear to be remnant land use plan and zoning map designations. Option 1 - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to LDMF/MR- T16 1. The applicant characterizes the current designations as "apparent mapping errors." - 2. T-h-e-applica-n-t is-proposing-to-develop-these-parcels-and-adjacent-parse-Is-as a 154-unit townhouse development, although the proposal is not a conditional rezone that is tied to the townhouse project. 3. The property is adjacent to the future 228th St. Corridor project. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. pry - � ' #DKT-2014-8 — Change in Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for three parcels (779000-0005, 222204-9113 and 212204- 9068) totaling 14.57 acres located at 3101 S. 240th Street and 24481 32"d Avenue South from C JCommercial)/GC (General Commercial) to TOC (Transit rien a ommunity)/MCR (Midway Commercial-Residential) CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 4 69 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map I (Industrial) No Change Zoning Districts M1 (Industrial Park) M1-C (Industrial Map Park/Commercial nj Except for approximately 38.7 vacant acres of the Pacific Gateway site AAA bounded by 62"d and 681h Avenues S. east/west and S. 1961h St eet an mir Iq� 199th Place th/south, the parcels, are ev oiled with a variety of �t wareh nisuo g, manufacturing and service uses. The 38.7 acres have been cleared and graded. The terrain of the properties is relatively flat. The properties generally abut 68th Avenue South (West Valley Highway) between S. 190th Street and S. 199th Place (if extended east). Surrounding zoning is generally M1 (Industrial Park District). owever, properties north of S. 196th Street between 62"d and 66th Avenues S. are zoned M2, Limited Industrial. MONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain I/M1 1. The parcels would be retained for manufacturing, warehousing and / service uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains I (Industrial) and Zoning Districts Map is changed to M1-C 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary. personal and business services for the general industrial area. The S. 196th Street/West Valley Highway intersection is a major nodal location. 2. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. ' 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structureI revenue eficits for Kent's warehousing operations i the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. -�� 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and ® contribute to its overall vitality. 6. An analysis of vacant and redevelopable lands in this area indicates capacity for job growth. Option 2 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to MU (Mixed Use)/GC-MU (General Commercial-Mixed Use) CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 i Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 6 fo 1. The GC zoning district provides for commercial areas along certain major thoroughfares. The allowed uses include a range of automobile- oriented trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses. With the GC-MU zoning overlay, residential uses also would be allowed. Residential uses can provide housing to accommodate the work force in the industrial area. 2. The GC-MU zoning district does not allow manufacturing or warehouse uses. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue,deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. ixteLn S1801hded). Maintain Land Use Plan Map Designation of I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Maps for 15 parcels totaling 44.17 acres from M-1 (Industrial Park) to MI-C (industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 000020-0003, -0006, -0007, -0008, -0012; 0& 125371-0010, -0050; 312305-9121, -9129, -9151; 362304- 9018, -9086, -9096, -9100, -9101 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use�'1an Map. I (Industrial) No Change Zoning Districts M1 (Industrial Park) M1-.0 (Industrial Map Park/Commercial Further, except for the Puget Power and Railroad rights of way, as well as Springbrook Creek, whose existing designations will be �I retained, follow parcel lines and thereby remove split land use plan and zoning districts map designations by effecting the following f designations: 125371-0060, 362304-9005: Change Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps from I (Industrial)/MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to I (Industrial)/M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) 1 CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 7 �1 125372-0016: Retain POS (Parks and Open Space) Land Use Plan Flap designation and change Zoning Districts Flap 114 designation from M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to MI-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) 125372-0010, 312305-9013, 362304-9004 and -9103: Change split Land Use Plan Map designation of I (Industrial)/MIC (Man uffactu ring/Industrial Center) to MIC and change Zoning Districts Map designation from M1 (Industrial Park)/M2 (Limited Industrial) to M2. This area is located on the south side of S. 180th Street between 72"d Avenue S. and Lind Avenue (if extended), and is a major east/west arterial. Springbrook _Creek runs through a portion of the area. The properties are de eloped with various warehousing, service and bulk retail uses. To the north, across S. 180th Street, are a variety of bulk retail, offices and food services. Properties to the east are zoned GC (General Commercial), to the west M1-C (Industrial Park-Commercial), and to the south M2 (Limited Industrial). To the north in the cities of Renton and Tukwila, the zoning is Medium Industrial, Commercial Office, Commercial Arterial, and Commercial Light Industrial. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain I/M1 1. The parcels would be retained for manufacturing, warehousing and service uses, and the split designations would be retained. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains I (Industrial) and Zoning Districts Map is changed to MI-C. The split designations would be resolved as noted above. 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The area along S. 180th Street is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses and is consistent with the type of uses allowed to the north in adjacent jurisdictions. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated no vacant or redevelopable parcels that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. There would be additional flexibility in allowed uses under the M1-C zoning designation. 3. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 4. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 i Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 8 62 5. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the ,recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Option 2 - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps change to MU (Mixed Use)/GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use). The split designations for parcels 125371-0060, 362304-9005 and 125372- 0016 would also be changed to MU/GC-MU. However, the other 4 split-zoned parcels would be amended as noted above. 1. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated no vacant or redevelopable parcels that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. The GC zoning district provides for commercial areas along certain major thoroughfares. The allowed uses include a range of automobile-oriented trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses; manufacturing and warehousing uses are not allowed in the GC zoning district. With the GC-MU zoning overlay, residential uses also would be allowed. Residential uses can provide housing to accommodate the work force in the industrial area. 2. The GC-MU zoning district does not allow manufacturing or warehouse uses. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. S—The Economic-Development-P-la-n-r-ecommends-su.pp-or-tive-r_eta.il-and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Staff Recommendation: Option 2. O 7 A3. NE corner of intersection of 72"—d Avenue S. and S. 277t—" Street. intain Land Use Plan Map Designation of I (Industroa and change Zoning Districts Maps for 2 parcels located at 274�30 72"d Avenue S. totaling approximately 32.6 acres from M2 (Limited Industrial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 000680-0036 (southern portion) and 000680- 0064 CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 9 �v 1 f3 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Option 2 — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Flaps change to MU (Mixed Use)/GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) 1. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate vacant or redevelopable parcels in this area that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. The GC zoning district provides for commercial areas along certain major thoroughfares. The allowed uses include a range of automobile- oriented trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses; manufacturing and warehousing uses are not allowed in the GC zoning district. With the GC-MU zoning overlay, residential uses also would be allowed. Residential uses can provide housing to accommodate the work force in the industrial area. 2. The GC-MU zoning district does not allow manufacturing or warehouse uses. 3. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. 4. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. rkoj A4 East Valle Hi hwa and S. 2121h- Street. Maintain Land Use Plan ap desianation of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and change Zoning Districts Map designation for 14 parcels totaling approximately 86 8 acres from M2 (Limited Industrial) to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 012204-9045; 122204-9002, -9063, -9068, - 9075, -9080, -9088, -9090, -9091; 631500-0420, -0421, -0422, -0440, -0460 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial No Change Center Zoning Districts Mz (Limited Industrial) M1-C (Industrial CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 11 124 Map Park/Commercial) 91 7 Furthermore, for parcel numbers 122204-9075 and -9080, remove the split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations by changing the portions of the parcels designated C (Commercial)/GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). Existing uses on the property are industrial including warehousing and outdoor storage. The property abuts 84th Avenue South on the east, the_BN railroad tracks on the west and S. 2f2�Street on the south. The property is generally flat. There are inventoried wetlands within the area. A majority of the property is paved. Property to the north is zoned M2 (Limited Industrial). Property to the west, across the railroad tracks, is zoned M3 (General Industrial), and to the east is zoned GWC (Gateway Commercial). See also B3, below. OPTIONS: No Action - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain MIC/M2, as well as have split designations 1. The parcels would be retained for manufacturing and warehousing uses. Option 1 Land Use Plan Map remains MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed to MI-C. The split designations would also be resolved as noted above. 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the general-indust�iahrea. Thentersectior>-otS. 212th Street and East Valley Highway is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 41 -M 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate vacant or redevelopable parcels in this area that would contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. There would be additional flexibility in allowed uses under the M1-C zoning designation. 3. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 4. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 J Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27,2015 Page 12 1§5 S. With approximately 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing for additional commercial uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable. 6. The Economic Development Plan recommends supportive retail and commercial uses in the industrial area to modernize the district and contribute to its overall vitality. Option 2 - Same as Option 1, except Parcel Numbers 631500- 0420, -0421, -0422, -0440, -0460 would not be considered for amendments 1. The excepted properties are located farther away from the intersection and would remain industrial in character. Staff Recommendation: Option 2. 0 STAFF PROPOSALS - Eliminate certain zoning districts, simplify, consolidate. 131 Eliminate the Office (0) Zone, including O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) BI.a:East Hill North: Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the Zoning Districts Map for 39 parcels totaling approximately 36.82 acres from O (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Parcel Numbers: 101100-0010, -0015, -0020, -0025; 172205- 9015, -9079, -9084, -9130, -9178; 202205-9004, -9047, -9068, - /�0 9091, -9098, -9099, -9112, -9117, -9120, -9121, -9133, -9208; 414163-0000; 783080-0268, -0269, -0270, -0271, -0273, -0275, - 0289, -0290, -0291, -0292, -0293, -0299, -0430, -0431, -0432, - 0433, -0450 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE 1 Land Use Plan Map MU (Mixed Use) No Change Zoning Districts O (Office) and O-MU (Office/Mixed CC-MU (Community Map Use) Commercial/Mixed Use Furthermore: ® Maintain the MU (Mixed Use) Land Use Plan Map designation and change the split Zoning Districts Map designations of O (Office)/CC (Community Commercial) for Parcel Number 783080-0006 so that the entire parcel is zoned CC. ® Change the split MU (Mixed Use) and SF8 (Single Family Residential)/O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) and SR-8 (Single Family Residential) Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map ea y CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 13 146 designations for Parcel Numbers 783080-0294, -295 and -0425 so that the entire parcels are MU/CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). © Maintain the split MU (Mixed Use) and LDMF (Low Density Multifamily Residential) Land Use Plan Map designation for Parcel Number 202205-9066 and change the Zoning Districts Map designation for a portion of the parcel from O-MU (Office/Mixed Use) to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use) Existing uses on the properties are generally office and service uses, with scattered single family residential and senior or assisted living housing. The spine of the properties is 104th Avenue SE, although there are portions around he intersection of 100th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street and there is a portion of the Kent-Merl Ian High School property also prol2osed for change in design at'a,6. The area has mild slopes. There are some scattered wetlands invent red in the area. Single and multiple family residential as well as c mercial uses and zoning surround the properties. OPTIONS: QP No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain No- (. / MU/O or O-MU, as well as have split designations p 1. The parcels would be retained for office and service uses. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains MU (Mixed Use) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed to CC-MU (Community Commercial/Mixed Use). The split designations would also be resolved as noted above. 1. The CC zoning district provides areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. CC-MU zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying CC zoning district as well as mixed multiple family residential and commercial uses. 2. A recent ana sysy is of-buildable lands lnd'Icated redevelopable---Va-reels in this area that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Office zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The CC zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. One of the City Council's Strategic goals is to Create Neighborhood Urban Centers. Providing additional mixed use areas can foster neighborhood urban centers. 5. The Economic Development Plan recommends strengthening Kent's commercial centers and supporting small business entrepreneurs. The East Hill North area can provide opportunities for increased commercial uses and small business development. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 I Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 14 2f7 9176, -9191, -9196, -9217; 112204-9014, -9025, -9026, - 9056, -9066, -9075 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map OS (Open Space) and I (Industrial) No Change Zoning Districts MA (Industrial Agricultural) M1 (Industrial Park) Ma Furthermore: ® Maintain the split Land Use Plan Map designations of I (Industrial) and MHP (Mobile Home Park) for Parcel 112204-9065 and change the portion of the parcel with a Zoning Districts Map designation of MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). ® Maintain the Land Use Plan Map designation of OS (Open Space) for Parcels 112204-9073, -UNION and 000620- 0005 and -0018, and change the portion of the parcels �ry with a Zoning Districts Map designation of MA (Industrial d Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). 6 Parcel Number 000620-0023: Change the split Zoning a Districts Map designations of MR-G (Garden Density Multifamily) and MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). This is a publicly-owned parcel just ® north of Veterans Drive. The area is predominance the Green Rive . tural Resource Area, other publicly-owned park and open space or vacant propertles. However, there are single family residences along Russell Road as well as animal care and strial-agricultura- ls in the area. There are we an s inventoried it n� he area South 212"' Street is located at the northern boundary of the area, the Green River/Russell Road is to the we 4ti, Avenue South to the east. and the MA zoning district generally has Its southern boundary at the electrical power riaht f d �—way-that-runs-east/_west. _RusselLEtoad-i.s designated-a_ cenlc and recreational road and is a lim t-at Ion on he intensity of industrial uses that have access to that road. OPTIONS: No Action - Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain OS (Open Space)/I (Industrial) and MA (Industrial Agricultural). 1. The parcels would be retained for industrial agricultural uses. ace O I Option 1 - Land Use Plan Map remains OS (Open en S p )/ (Industrial) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). The split designations would also be changed as noted above. 1. The M1 zoning district provides for a broad range of industrial, office and business park activities where the environmental amenities are protected through a high level CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 21 2�8 of development standards. It is unlikely the nature of publicly-owned properties would change. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate significant redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. The M1 zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses. 4. The Economic Development Plan supports small business entrepreneurs. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. 1132b Valley North: Maintain the Land Use Plan Map Signations of OS (Open Space) and change the Zoning Districts Map for one (1) parcel totaling 6.78 acres and the portion of Parcel 000020-0043 that abuts this parcel to M1 (Industrial Park District) Parcel Numbers: 000020-0044 and portion of 000020- 0043 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE, Land Use Plan Map OS (Open Space) No Change Zoning Districts MA (Industrial Agricultural) M1 (Industrial Park) Ma The parcel is developed as Briscoe Park and the adjacent parcel is vacant public property and open space that abuts the Green River. IndustriaLd_evelopment is located to the east. A multi-use master planned development called Tukwila South is tanned for the areas on d the opposite sidle of the Green River. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain OS 9AJo 7 (Open Space) and MA (Industrial Agricultural). �� 1. The parcels would be retained for industrial agricultural uses, �4 although it is unlikely the park would be redeveloped. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map remains OS (Open Space) and the Zoning Districts Map is changed from MA (Industrial Agricultural) to M1 (Industrial Park). 1. The M1 zoning district provides for a broad range of industrial, office and business park activities where the CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 I Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 22 2469 1. The AG zoning district provides for agriculturally related industrial and retail uses in or near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. However, it is unlikely the publicly-owned park and open space would redevelop into these types of uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands did not indicate redevelopment opportunities on these parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have been less useful over the years. The Industrial Agricultural zone is very restrictive in terms of allowed uses and, therefore, has been difficult to develop. Although the AG zoning district provides additional flexibility in allowed uses, it is unlikely the public open space and proposed park area would redevelop into other uses. Staff Recommendation: Option 1. B3 Eliminate the Gateway Commercial (GWC) zoning district. Change the Land Use Plan Map designation of C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change the Zoning Districts Map for 62 parcels totaling approximately 82 acres from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MI-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) Parcel Numbers: 072205-9010, -9023, -9026, -9096, -9101; 122204-9006, -9007, -9028, -9040, -9048, -9049, -9052, - 9065, -9068, -9071, -9073, -9082, -9087, -9094, -9095; 132204-9001, -9354, -9355; 182205-9009, -9355, -9356, - y 9357; 383000-0005, -0007, -0014, -0020, -0023; 775780-0010, -0020, -0030, -0031, -0032, -0035, -0041, -0042, -0043, -0044, -0055, 0060, -0070, -0071, -0074, -0090, -0091, -0094, -0100, -0102; 775980-0010, -0020, -0021, -0022, -0023, -0030, - 0031, -0032, -0033, -0035 `9 EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map C (Commercial) I (Industrial) Zoning Districts GWC (Gateway Commercial) M1-C (Industrial map Park/Commercial i Furthermore: ® Parcel Number 072205-9010: Change portion of parcel with Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations of C (Commercial)/GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center)/M2 (Limited Industrial) ® Parcel Numbers 122204-9001: Change Land Use Plan Map designations of MIC (Manufacturing/Industrial Center) and C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and change Zoning Districts Map CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 24 290 include a mixture of warehouse/distribution, truck and auto repair, restaurants and taverns, apartments, offices, hotels, medical and other uses. The spine of the area is 84th Avenue South, extending generally from S. 212th Street on the north to SR 167 on the south. The area is surrounded by the Manufacturing/Industrial Center, although to the southeast is Commercial Manufacturing-1 and a mobile home park. There are inventoried wetlands in the area. See also A4, above. OPTIONS: No Action — Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps remain C (Commercial) and GWC (Gateway Commercial). 1. The parcels would be retained for mixed use/residential, small scale industrial, retail and services with no outdoor sales, storage or display. Option 1 — Land Use Plan Map changes from C (Commercial) to I (Industrial) and the Zoning Districts Map changes from GWC (Gateway Commercial) to MI-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). The split-zoned parcels would also be amended as noted above. 1. M1-C zoning allows the land uses permitted in the underlying M1 zoning district (including bulk retail with a minimum of one acre in gross floor area) as well as certain limited commercial land uses at nodal locations where major arterials intersect. These limited commercial uses would provide necessary personal and business services for the surrounding industrial area. The spine of 84th Avenue South is an appropriate area for additional flexibility in uses. 2. A recent analysis of buildable lands indicated vacant and redevelopment opportunities on parcels that could contribute additional capacity for growth in population and employment. 3. Certain zoning districts have not had the market support, and the market would in fact support alternative uses. The Gateway Commercial zone is has been difficult to develop. The M1-C zoning would allow industrial uses but also provide flexibility for additional uses to serve the industrial area. 4. See also the staff-proposed code amendment to expand the commercial uses that are allowed in the M1-C zoning areas. 5. The State's Streamlined Sales Tax provisions create significant structural revenue deficits for Kent's warehousing operations in the industrial valley. As such, it is prudent to allow additional commercial uses while maintaining the overall industrial character of the area. ith approxima e y 60,000 daytime employees in the industrial valley, allowing or a I Iona commercla uses and services providers which add to the appeal of the area for high-tech companies and the recruitment of talented people is also desirable.� CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 26 3D (:�P AvenueSE�andE 274 W : Reconcile the Land Use an an Zoning Distrap designations, ensuring the following: ® Parcel Numbers 322205-9001 and -9205: Change the Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations for a portion of the parcels from SF4.5/SR-4.5 (Single Family Residential) to SF6/SR-6 (Single Family Residential). EXISTING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED CHANGE Land Use Plan Map SF4.5 and SF6 (Single Family SF6 (Single Family Residential Residential Zoning Districts SR-4.5 and SR-6 (Single Family SR-6 (Single Family Map Residential) Residential This is a housekeeping amendment to resolve split Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Map designations. The properties are publicly owned, include a storm water detention area, trees and sensitive areas. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C12?designation th Central Commercial: Maintain the Land Use Plan ap of MU (Mixed Use) and change the split Zoning Districts Map designations as follows: 0 ® Parcel Number 132204-9018, -9108, and -9113: Change the Zoning Districts Map designations fr6m M2 (Limited Industrial) and GC-MU (General Commercial/Mixed Use) to GC-MU for the entire j parcel. ® Parcel Number 132204-9052 and -9221: Change the Zoning Districts Map designations from M2 (Limited Industrial) and GC (General Commercial) to GC for the / entire parcel. i This area includes single family and multiple family developments, a mini-warehouse facility, a commercial parking lot and a vacant parcel. Sensitive areas are located within the area. Staff Recommendation: Approval. C13. OOt—" Avenue SE and SE 240th Street: Change the Land se Plan Map designation of LDMF (Low Density Multifamily) to CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 32 3S2 MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily) to be consistent with the zoning designation of MR-M (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) on the following parcels: Parcel Numbers: 172205-9027, -9088, -9092, -9110, -9133, - 9134, -9142, -9146, -9147, -9149, -9150, -9153, -9160, -9216; 365740-0000 (365740-0010 through -0100) Multifamily development exists in this area. Staff Recommendation: Approval. In the review of the above amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and text, and the amendments to the Zoning Districts Map, staff considered the standards of review for comprehensive plan amendments (KCC 12.02.050), and for granting a request for rezone and rezoning to M1-C (KCC 15.09.050(C) and (D)). As noted in the comments for each amend ent above and considering the January 30, 2015 memorandum from Fehr and Peers finding no si nificant effects on e i pe ormance o e ov al ransportation system staff found the ropose amen men s mee e s an ar s o review, as proposed to be amended below � pertaining to granting rezones to M1-C (Industrial Park/Commercial). CODE AMENDMENTS D. Broaden allowed uses in industrial zones to include sug1portive retail and commercial activities. The (Cent Zoning Code describes uses that are allowed in the industrial zoning districts (M1, M2, and M3). In the M1 (Industrial Park District), the allowed uses generally include manufacturing, wholesale distribution, retail and service uses such as restaurants, financial, business and educational services. In the M2 (Limited i-ndustr-ial-District)-the service-uses-are I.i.rnited.to 25% of the-gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. In the M3 (General Industrial), the uses are generally limited to only manufacturing and wholesale distribution. Furthermore, there are areas in the M1 district that are designated MI-C (Industrial Park/Commercial) where additional retail and service uses are allowed, e.g., auto repair and drive-through food and drink establishments. The purpose of the MI-C zoning district is to allow certain limited commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area. The MI-C designation typically occurs at centralized, nodal locations where major arterials intersect. CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 a Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 33 343 Staff proposes the following amendments: ® Broaden the uses in the M1, M2 and M3 areas such that manufacturing and warehousing uses are allowed to sell the product accessory to and directly related to the manufacturing or warehousing use on the site. ® Clarify KCC 15.04.080(5) as follows: o Uses shall be limited to twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of any single- or multi-building development. Retail and service uses which exceed the twenty-five (25) percent limit on an individual or cumulative basis shall be subject to review individually through the conditional use permit process. A conditional use permit shall be required on an individual tenant or business basis and shall be granted only when it is demonstrated that the operating characteristics of the use will not adversely impact onsite or offsite conditions on either an individual or cumulative basis. For example, in the case of a business park with several buildings, 25% of the buildings' combined floor area may be devoted to these retail and service uses. For single building parcels, 25% of the floor area of the single building may be devoted to these retail and service uses. © Broaden the uses allowed in M 1-C such that grocery stores would be allowed without a size limitation. Also allow tire, battery and accessory sales for both industrial or personal vehicles and equipment. E. Standards Of Review - KCC 12.02.050 and KCC 15.09.050(C) and Staff proposes to amend #6b of the Zoning Districts Map Amendment criteria as shown below. Land Use Plan Map Amendments (KCC 12.02.050) 1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an amendment to the plan. r 3. The amendment will result in long-term benefits to the �� community as a whole and is in the best interest of the community. 4. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, and that the amendment will maintain CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 34 364 Amend 15.04.030(23) as follows: Secure community transition facilities are permitted only within the boundaries depicted on the following map (Insert map depicting former GWC boundaries). , Est ?7 6 I z TENT r ; TI 13 RA f A 5� OZ s r.. t ti _. r Amend 15.04.030(24) as follows: 24. ;G+.,,,+ A secure community transition facility shall also comply with applicable state siting and permitting requirements pursuant to Chapter 71.09 RCW. Secure community transition facilities are not subject to the siting criteria of KCC 15.08.2BO or class III group homes, bun0 hey are CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use &Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 36 7 3�5 subject to a six hundred (600)foot separation from /to, r III group home. In no case shall a secure community transition facility be sited iately across the street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of risk ofacilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. Within line of sigh means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals. For the purposes of granting a conditional use permit for siting a secure community transition facility, the hearing examiner shall consider an unobstructed visual distance of six hundred (600)feet to be"within line of sight." During the conditional use permit process p for a secure community transition facility, "line of sight" may be considered to be less than six hundred (600)feet if the applicant can demonstrate that visual barriers exist or can be created that would reduce the line of sight to less than six hundred (600)feet.This distance shall be measured by following a straight line,without regard to intervening buildings,from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located,to the nearest point of the parcel or property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed use is to be separated. For the purpose of granting a conditional use permit for a secure community transition facility,the hearing examiner shall give great weight to equitable distribution so that the city shall not be subject to a disproportionate share of similar facilities of a state-wide, regional, or county-wide nature. RECOMMENDATION: ARRroval of proposed code amendments. CA/ah Attachments: Docket Applications;Maps;January 30,2015 memorandum from Fehr and Peers s:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011=3_CPZ-2011-1_CompPlanUpdate\LUPB\042115_LUPB_Hearing_Map_and Text_Amendments_ca.doc cc: Ben Wolters,ECD Director Kurt Hanson,AICP,Economic Development Manager Matt Gilbert,AICP,Principal Planner Charlene Anderson,AICP, Planning Manager Project-File CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use&Zoning Districts Map Amendments LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Page 37 76 5;-4 "Z,b cvs tl1�� awua CRY M r Ummtmm NEWSiONE x01 WR[f iD l f61N 91�1 IMF ' f KJ C��i+61ni PnE IA Cv601LN1 �q pEILTR CQWgD3Mc: 4-' N318'� 1_ __-' C9RIQECftF60EFi W09 #�, Lt-- 1, r A�•A D NuOPM VELMxEIR a] �� OVERLAY , " —.. dl CIfaTD fL7 Cecla[6�i I I 77 / R ® A SOUtH 227ND BTREET _.-.._..-._.._._. - - -- -- -- : A5 too � I\fin` �% '11N' - �'(�: �`.J�.:�. �"'•' OPEN TRACTIE TRACT I G LL tl %, •--- ROAD A C�:<. I SITE PLAN , 0 SITE PLAN A1.® a 78 SITE PLAN FOREST RI LS ; PWII1G49 0P TIE�V9 of Crrf 1 OF VIBM EELlk.17,TOMFlB u r(NJpE S k W1A r CrrY� R,WARBGIiION0 6(r If VICINfY IAAP �. J t lli lo.mtlm.m�l �I P l�11 p� �I' � `l� ili\ mom. �11� AI\I\.\ / *��.. rv.�r.� � '•I.a.���� � \ / � I `'�ili �k`k�1��\\�\\\�6I- ����r,. °^°,® 3��3 / f /o II t ' t .a fi m I lli kI IIVk 1 V1A \� V�llll m. u°�9 / :,.� Cf /r` `n> t :x.__ x ♦ i 4 Y ` r '�` \ (\\\\\A\ lr\ V r p Mom., DEVELOPER ~ovwau ,......� ,�'U /�,_ � � a G a •� ,�c N�rLi Ric�c v� n a I ail ills 41 II \i�\I\cl r II --'�x.,m~i r .,- '_ .s'G mras,av � •_• .. ••• , , ___,n .m„ m�I ENGNE�I6°UAVEYoR/1!1-4NNER MEAS vcn vxu - y I ns rn-ros ,� UI ¢r nva u.cul°I ���g ,C SiGU C] f 5 0 Sr tf0W ,.y l nliw-Gml g enro-.9 I rifu as ic� .,..,.w..,,,K..�,>�w.-,�wno:"' Mes°�,x`rl°rn —N��� E _. m ns>au-ers ].c.r cos a^I m v,,,,,.�„wl..:n-,r-I, ,FI, Sirq- r v:e,a,e.nrw,or av wn .. �e0-W>yl t t]A.AI N�_n N, n,n.aml � x 5 LEG D IF O YAPPPOVED=v ati 0^^ °.v.,G,v,t — bH Et ^.ry w f~w @ E a -- ..,.».a,..�r,,..,,..n.. =Y= le 2 79 SITE ANALYSIS The ssle is over 14 and a hall acres,with Interstate 5 to the east and S 2-0th Street to the north.The terminus of Link Light Rail will W very,close,near the n:erseclion of Pacific Highway South(SR 99) and S.240th Street. The pc9de of!he propertyyapftV is generally anlle,wih a wetland created by 1.5 on III--ea u- -_.�- Access is via South 2Wth on the north side of the p'opehy;S 240111 ends at 1-5.Access exists in the southern end of the property from an easement connection to Pacific Hlghtway South.Internal v circulation will connect through the property north south. � ICy W r Because the freeway cuts off connections,the site will have I'rttle through-traffic,and is well suii to being a quieter,residentially focused area. Landscaped buffers are expected on along property lines to screen `w "' T '�•p•+ x ? 1-5 and neighboring properties, w r Freeway noise is an issue,and measures to mitigate the noise may be warranted. It is possible that taller buildings may have a view of Mount Rainier across the freeway. '.. r I YR Aerial Photo/BING Maps/2012 q I ) Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amend�gts #DK '-2014-8 �" Land s - Ian: ial (C) to Transit Oriented Community (TOC) Zoning: Rezone fror o Midway Commercial- Residential (MCR) 81 53/TQ� FIVE OVER ONE STRUCTURED PARKING -cat- r �111 IflHN+N lIINIIIIIIIHIII111, I a i FIVE OVER ONE 12 ' i � 82 RECEIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/ REZONE EXHIBIT NORTH DEC 30 2014 CA EfvT gO Ji - ie 1 oAssrA'noN r '���, '�'�: a.�' �'- emu„•� '>f?„ �. � �. 4 ,1�,� �� �a "'a �r ��-'w`� __�rca�t'Leenen�r �.�` � �'>' �'-»��""`', �."'• � �exrAuu n�� ��,x�rF`'z+ , RETAIL' NEE r" v RETAIL 4,. � ,r t ,�'1„„c✓ b,jr""�^,„£w^'. _°T- � '��, tad r .t •` � z dC ye J axe e s f S�PM.ENTE yPR19E9 1-51 SOUTH 272ND STREET CORRIDOR-SINGH PROPER SCALE:1-20' �T L Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amend� s �# vo T 2 14- Land s LU'" an: Change from Low/ Density Multifamily (L F) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from Multifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) to Community Commercial-Mixed Use (CC-MU) x n� US SR-1 . a 4 ' LU Plan: LDMF to MU Zoning MRT-16 to CC MU x S R 6 , zr i MRT-16 LDMF „ r N 0 AW—c dam' wr: ;ed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change �d Parcels) ig Zoning Districts fig Land Use Plan Designations :ity Limits E"ois ECD Feb. 2 J Zoning District Map Amend its #D T-2014-6 Land Use LU PIS "&� ��f/� ly Residential (SF-6) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone fr ) and Single Family Residential (SR-6 (CC) 1 3 • S h� may{ �" �-- a ^'"�'�" r 9 2 MR- iv r LU Plan: MU (no change) S� Zoning: O-MU to CC OMER LU Plan: SF6 to MU Zoning SR-6 to CC = � � " a 'LSO i Option 2: Also change these two parcels ` LU Plan: SF-6 to MU Zoning: SR-6 to CCd CG-MU, Sic J Y �aOption 3: Also change these two parcels n 9�e LU Plan: SF-6 to MU N Zoning: SR-6 to CC-MU Legend ' Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change i v ��� Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations _.... E D e . ^\ Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amend m7s #D T-2014-7 La -t� (-L-U Plan: Change from Split Industrial ( 1 ) and Single Family Residential (SF-6) to Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) Zoning: Rezone Split Commercial Manufacturing-1 (CM-1 ) and Single Family Residential (SR-6) toMultifamily Residential Townhouse (MRT-16) Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendments Al . Intersection of West Valley Hwy/S. 196th Street 7§6 Option 1 : Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Park (Ml) to Industrial Park/Commercial (Ml -C) Option 2: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Industrial (1) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from M1 to General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) x 5= OS �r 4 c2M1 Option 2: >` LU Plan: Change from I to MU Zoning: Rezone from M1 to GC-MU Option 1 : A P LU Plan: No Change S Tg4 Zoning: Rezone from M1 to M1-C . l e ,n. sXj S 200 St ; - N Legend `" ` s Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change ® Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts ®© ® C9 Existing Land Use Plan Designations i Parcels T t -- ECD-Feb. 2015 z . iJ rn �,N ra En { 1xi. Q O En U QUO O pc _O u c C L O N t ro a as \ u' En cm rJ ° u CD o J d E �- N -i 7 0 rn rn T L I N En N (n U N En In u CLfu Uy. d Q W W d Y _ d ° q C � xOff J cp L A E� MS�b'.a�epsa�ep` d O Y 4 x CC N L L _ N O O O _N NU N OV N L) N O U O O mzv mz � CL CL )( Oa � V ON V \ N Y O C O — N � OU \ N \ J O 4J -I c O _ O 'O 2 O p-� (n - r -� N rl ! 1!-c u O O c0 C O d m Nd N � C a J N a N v _ 3 N O N -' . N 2 co m a n � � E , - _ c O -� `� -� 0 ° L N C N C u +, .. a) C — � Q -- O .. � CL co O r Z p N V N �- r- O 00 m.p O m.p m _`" J C 4„ r — uia-� cca. .� cc 'cs � � � � � r N [ s Q N o Q N O Q VSf A3. NE Corner of 72nd Ave S. and S. 277th St. Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amends Option 1 : Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Limited Industrial (M2) to Industrial Park/Commercial (M1-C) Option 2: Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Industrial (1) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from M2 to General Commercial/Mixed Use (GC-MU) w, Option 1 : T R LU Plan: No Change t N 4 Zoning: Rezone from M2 to M1-C _ Option 2: LU Plan: Change from I to MU Zoning: Rezone from M2 to GC MU _ a 9 n b , i N Nf V 5 , ling/Land Use Plan Change C° :el(s) ` ing Districts J Use Plan Designations nits ECD Feb 2015 " A4. East Valley Highway and S. 21 2th St. Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendm r�ts Option 1: 7� Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Limited Industrial (M2) to Industrial Park/Commercial (MI-C) Amend Split Zoned Parcels Option 2: Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Remove 5 parcels from Rezone Consideration Amend Split Zoned Parcels u S a s w Option 2 1 r LU Plan: No Change Zoning: Same as Option 1, except does not include rezoning these five parcels KA N f r Option 1 LU Plan: No Change Zonin : Rezone from M2 to M1-C x � 4 S 2081S,t � 4 r OFF s ` _ IC to Ju � '•�, Sn"3 b,. -M h ztw$ Legena Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change `r Split Zoned Parcels: ® Affected Parcel(s) LU Plan: C portion to M I C Zoning: GWC portion to M1-CR Existing Zoning Districts " ® ®� Existing Land Use Plan De signations ,. Parcels KENT g ECD Feb 2015 �r 3�` "��' x�' ;.v+.. w "�.3 •.�'+�is'_^.`w�.`f��,.^r'a�;: +4'� i.gr�"}'.. cli".:iiY.c. z,N,%>. 3 ,'v"5 ., . .t+r*,,. B1 .a East Hill North Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amend i-pts Option 1 : gnu Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change; Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) and Office/Mixed Use (O-MU) to Community.Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) Amend Split Zoned Parcels Option 2: LU Plan: No Change; Zoning: Rezone O and O-MU to Community Commercial (CC) Amend Split Zoned Parcels e m w w ,� w� SF 6 ® Opt a , 1O n 1 SR-6 � Ty LU Plan: No Change- -MU .. � .� Z to CC-MU oning O & O MR-Mrs � - C n DMF R-M r �� � s o 1 5 If � IMRTg1�6 .�._ 60 E LU Plan: No Change C Option 2: _ rn SE2'42�PI � ,: Zoning: O & O-MU to C 'v Split Zoned Parcel: SE�243 Stw w Rezone O portion to CC 11H 0, II N_ l^ � LU -OS LjI ` Id (n MNRN WVP Q ° C p SFm8IMSR 8 0 mum L jMI � Env w `- SF w :_ -- SER,245 PI a SPIit EI I omw LU Plan: ChaWAS - o Option 1: Rezor �SE�246 PI `- ,' Option 2: Rez e g SE2.4;7P1( Im m0rq mill Split Zoned Parcel: SE 248 St m � �� --------- LU Plan: No Change F NS =6 Option 1 : Rezone O-MU v portion to CC-MU ! r� SR-C Option 2: Rezone O-MU MR G� -� portion to CC -} P � . QM .� Legend MR- + Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change ® Affected Parcel(s) SE 250 PI Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels _ - .ova..' „. � - 1c v ECD Feb. 2015 RT �r;C B1 .c East Hill East Z55 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amends rp Option 1 : Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Commercial (C) to Mixed Use (MU) Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU) Option 2: LU Plan: Change from C to MU north of the southernmost stream; Change from C to SF6 (Single Family Residential) south of the southernmost stream Zoning: Rezone from 0 to MU north of the southernmost stream; Rezone from 0 to SR-6 (Single Family Residential) south of the southernmost stream Ew ti SR 8 LDMF, � k r Option 1 C LU Plan: C to MU Zoning: 0 to CC r f Y e r77- CCf w = � Option 2: ®' North of Stream: Q LU Plan: C to MU a Zoning: O to CC-MU "K South of Stream LU Plan: C to SF6 �a Zoning:0 to SR-607 07 [� ' ]I` a,i wJnS N Legend Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) a. Existing Zoning Districts .SE2734PI � a @ ®® Existing Land Use Plan Designations w � 4 Stream S F 6 s KENT Parcels Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amend Ws B1 .d Valley South ZS Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Commercial Manufacturing 2 (CM-2) Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrps B1 .e West Hill ZZSS Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Office (0) to Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) EL s w r S 2�71 St z* 1 LU Plan: No Change Zoning: O to NCC r C J ! JJJiii E , .. TM --NCC "o x # 3 I Legend Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ® Kent City Limits ✓` ECD Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrps B2.a Valley West ��55 Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Industrial Park (M1) S � OS S2,12 6t OS ,, +� MA rn -8 - SR-1 IVIHF SR 1 k Split Zoned Parcel: LU Plan: No Change Maintain split zoning; TM v a � rezone MA portion to M1 �521i6.St F�Q �S�2,16aSt LU Plan: No Change Zoning: MA to M1 ,1. KA �J Split Zoned Parcels: �`� LU Plan: No Change Zoning: MA portion to M1 w O OS t MA4T e 113 Split Zoned Parcel: LU Plan: No Change �If Zoning: MA/MR-G portion to M1 WN_ a.Y N Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts ® ® Existing Land Use Plan Designations _ Parcels . LDMF ECD Feb 2015 �5 S�232$I?I Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amend rp s B2.b Valley North ��55 Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Industrial Agriculture (MA) to Industrial Park (M1) OW x Q fi 2kr ,w y LU Plan: No Cl- oning: MA to 101 m r> v .s z , 44' c 1 � A ,„?•`� ^ =gip; t: lfl M J N Legend S Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts ® d Existing Land Use Plan Designations s Parcels iL x ® Kent City Limits ECD Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrn B3. Eliminate Gateway Commercial (GWC) Zoning District - OPTION 1 Ms Land Use (LU) Plan: Commercial (C) to Industrial (1) Zoning: Rezone from GWC to Industrial Park/Commercial (Ml -C) Amend Split Zoned Parcels nug;,"ro, C ------------- C I Split Zoned Parcels: LU Plan: M I C/C to I vfl Zoning: M2/GWC to M1-C 5ri e5, "M "A 7.3 1 FEW :'arcel: Split Zoned arcel: to M LUP[an: CtoMIC Z g- GWC to M2 VLV el: it , LU Plan: M I U/U to I Zoning: M2/GWC to M1-C Sp F-1 Y IPA,ffl, b Ing Zoned Parcel: SE�4._ofi LU Plan: C to I - !5 Mm Zoning: GWC/CM-1 to M1-C nLm3 Split Zoned Parcels: LUP[an: CtoMIC 4' N­1 - - 90: Zoning: GWC to M3 oned Parcel: an: C to I X' A -;,6 �7_6 M ON "M W E Legend Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) jr- Existing Zoning Districts Existing Land Use Plan Designations KENT Parcels E -Feb. 2015 CD Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map AmendnWs C3. Megan's Meadow Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Single Family Residential (SF4.5) to Single Family Residential (SF6) Zoninq: No Change Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrrws C8. Central Avenue South ��" Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone from Single Family Residential (SR-6) to Commercial Manufacturing-2 (CM-2) » � Glearuiew Av S - x k LU Plan: No Change Zoning: SR-6 to CM 2 d S00 F 6 S 4 6'` •., 11YaL4 s3 3y r ,,,(}��� '4 J -dnd Use Plan Change -acted Parcels) r� Existing Zoning Districts cm Existing Land Use Plan Designations Parcels ECD-Feb. 2015 7 � �� ` Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amend%lkws C9. Scenic View Condos y �nsity Multifamily (LDMF) to Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amends C1O. Earthworks Park Land Use (LU) Plan: No Change Zoning: Rezone portion from Low Density Multifamily (MR-G) to Single Family Residential (SR-4.5) } + weer-- 4 r r s r f s LU Plan: No Change w. F Zoning: MR-G portion to SR-4 5 3Yys» O F SR-8 r � J a ya_ � A SR-6 �I Iasi u W Q Legend W. . 5 Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) .. Existing Zoning Districts o ® � Existing Land Use Plan Designations USParcels f =' ECD-Feb. 2015 Land Use Plan and Zoning District Map Amendrs C13. 1 OOth Avenue SE and SE 24Oth Street y'�' Land Use (LU) Plan: Change from Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Medium Density Multifamily (MDMF) Zoning: No Change 4 � 1, SE 235 PI «1� 64 LU Plan: LDMF to MDMF � w Zoning: No Change �� 3 IT . v SE rt, ej 4 w n r .� . � w v = S 23T E237 St 7-11 UW x n E r MDMF "HI r � " — �� ate, r Q /Al- N ��✓ t egend "' F t Proposed Zoning/Land Use Plan Change Affected Parcel(s) Existing Zoning Districts 1 Existing Land Use Plan Designations -. Parcels ECD Feb 2015 ia62 FEHR PEERS MEMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2015 To: Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson, City of Kent From: Don Samdahl, Fehr& Peers Subject: Review of Transportation Implications of Dockets and Potential Land Use Map Amendments We have conducted a preliminary review of the proposed dockets and potential land use plan amendments documented in the January 20, 2015 memorandum from Charlene Anderson to the Land Use and Planning Board. Our review focused on potential implications of these proposals to the transportation system in the context of the Transportation Element. Since most of these proposals do not contain specific development assumptions, it is difficult to calculate traffic generation. We used our best judgment based on the likely mix of land uses to form some perspectives on the likely transportation impacts. In summary, none of the land use proposals appear to have significant effects on the performance of the overall transportation system. Should these proposals be adopted, the land use changes can be incorporated into the travel model for more detailed analysis during the next Transportation Master Plan update. The following table summarizes our review. 7 V\.11'Lv 10014t'Avenue Suite 4120 Seattle,WA 98154 (206) 576-4220 Fax(206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com 103 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 KENT Fax: 253-856-6454 w A 5 H IN r,7 ON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 May 4, 2015 TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Comprehensive Plan Update For May 11, 2015 Public Hearing MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval/denial/modification of the ten chapters or elements of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, including associated Background and Technical Reports, Maps and Memos as recommended by staff, and including amendments #1 and #2, below. SUMMARY: The City is scheduled to complete an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) by June 30, 2015. As noted at the April 27t" public hearing, amendments to elements since the last workshop are noted in track- change mode. Furthermore, the Shoreline Element is included in the packet for the May 11t" public hearing. Also included in the packet are responses to questions that arose at the April 27t" public hearing or in exhibits entered into the record at the hearing. The chapters and elements replace previous versions of the Plan. Staff proposes the following amendments in addition to what was in the April 27t" public hearing packet: 1) Kent Profile and Vision - Organization of the Plan - correction to state 8 elements (rather than 7) by including the Shoreline Element as one required by GMA 2) Parks and Recreation - Administration of the Parks Element and its Policies - Replace with this verbiage: Policy that guides the funding and operation of Kent's park system is administered by the Director of the Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Policy direction is set by the three-member Parks Committee of the Kent City Council. The city's 16- member Parks Commission advises the Council on most park- and recreation-related matters. The city's 12-member Arts Commission advises staff and approves public art and cultural programming. Both advisory commissions are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Council. BACKGROUND: At the August 11t" Land Use and Planning Board workshop, staff introduced the Comprehensive Plan update project, the schedule, and the public outreach activities. This update to the Plan refreshes the current conditions and trends, integrates recent planning initiatives, complies with state, regional and local mandates, and reformats the Plan. Some of the Chapters and Elements include Background Reports; the Transportation Element includes as background a Technical Report, and two memos dated 1/30/15 and 2/16/15. MEMORANDUM: Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing May 11, 2015 104 Page 2 Staff will be present at the May 11th public hearing to present the materials and answer questions. BUDGET IMPACTS: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval MEMORANDUM: Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing May 11, 2015 105 Page 3 Attachment One Comprehensive Plan Responses to Questions 1. Transportation: a. The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is expected to be updated beginning in 2017. In the meantime the City had a consultant prepare a Transportation Element Technical Report (included in the April 27tn public hearing packet) to summarize existing conditions of the roadway network, provide a foundation for the travel demand analysis of the 2035 roadway network, recommend revisions to the City's project list, and discuss potential additional changes for the next Transportation Master Plan update. Furthermore, the report reviews transportation implications of the proposed Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map amendments. Discussion of non-motorized transportation is in the existing TMP and will be analyzed in the next TMP update. Also note recommended Policy CF-1.5 of the Capital Facilities Element which provides options for accommodating growth forecasts. b. CTR (Commute Trip Reduction) is discussed on Page 16 of the Transportation Element. c. Note Policy 2 of the Transportation Element's Non-Motorized Goals and Policies pertaining to establishing a network of bicycle routes/connections. d. The Right-Size Parking Pilot Project is discussed on Page 7 of the Transportation Element. e. Figure TE.2 Bicycle System Map is an updated version of the map in the TMP. 2. Housing Element: a. AMI stands for Area Median Income. The area median income is used to determine the eligibility of applicants for both federally and locally funded programs. It sets the maximum limit that a household can earn to be eligible for our programs, essentially defining who we can serve given the particular funding source. Income limits are calculated for specific geographic areas. They are based on HUD estimates of median family income with adjustments for family size. For example, one hundred percent of the 2009 area median income for a four-person household in Seattle is $84,300, which means that 50% of the population earned more than $84,300 and 50% of the population earned less. Moderate Income = 80% AMI, Low Income = 50% AMI, Very Low Income - 30% AMI. (2014 Median Income in King County: $88,200) b. There are data within the Housing Element that come from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS data) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. MEMORANDUM: Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing May 11, 2015 106 Page 4 Housing Problems - There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems. • Overcrowding - More than 1 person per room. • Severe overcrowding - More than 1.5 persons per room. • Cost burden - monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 30% of monthly income. • Severe cost burden - monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 50% of monthly income. c. HAMFI - This acronym stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. This is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. HAMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made (For full documentation of these adjustments, consult the HUD Income Limit Briefing Materials). If you see the terms "area median income" (AMI) or "median family income" (MFI) used in the CHAS, assume it refers to HAMFI. Median Family Income is used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to determine eligibility for HUD's assisted housing programs. Income limits are adjusted for family size. MFI is an annual income figure representing the point at which there are as many families earning more than that amount as there are earning less than that amount. d. The City's Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development is a report which informs the community, stakeholders and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) how the City of Kent will invest its Community Development Block Grant. The report also identifies the objectives and strategies that will guide the City's investment. Objectives and strategies are fueled by the City's overarching goal to build a healthy community. e. City staff is very active in planning efforts related to affordable housing, and there is a lot going on in this arena. Affordable housing is a regional issue and the City will participate in the regional planning efforts to ensure our interests are represented at these tables. Proposed Policies H-3.4 and H-4.5 address collaborations for housing. 3. Capital Facilities Element a. The Information Technology (IT) project needs in 2015-16 are consistent with the City's adopted budget, whereas year 2017 and beyond reflect the IT needs. b. Speed cameras mentioned in the Police list of capital facility needs ave approved for use. MEMORANDUM: Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing May 11, 2015 107 Page 5 c. The City of Kent leases some properties it owns to the Kent Fire Authority. d. The Facilities Management project list includes lifecycle repair and replacement projects for various facilities buildings. 4. Kent Profile and Vision a. OFM refers to the State Office of Financial Management. b. The "All Respondents" graphs in the Kent Survey Snapshot of Results refers to all respondents to the survey, whether on-line or specific categories of respondents. c. HH refers to households. 5. Economic Development Element a. Covered Employment generally pertains to jobs/wages covered by unemployment insurance. b. The general concept of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is a U.S. Census Bureau-defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 inhabitants with a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000. Additional contiguous counties are included in the MSA if they meet certain requirements of commuting to the central counties and other selected requirements of metropolitan character (such as population density and percent urban). c. A metropolitan statistical area identified as a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) has a population of one million or more and also has separate component areas (PMSAs - primary metropolitan statistical areas) meeting statistical criteria and supported by local opinion. d. It is problematic to link employment with sales tax revenue. However, according to Exhibit 4.28 of the Puget Sound Regional Council's March 2015 Industrial Lands Analysis, in 2012 the City lost $12.7 million in wholesaling and warehousing local sales tax revenues due to the effects of Streamlined Sales Tax. This analysis was based on 2012 data provided by the Department of Revenue and represents a significant ongoing loss of sales tax revenue for the City dating back to July 1, 2008. e. Goal E-4 of the Economic Development Element, and Implementation Strategies and Actions #2.6.6 (see Background Report), highlight the importance of inclusiveness and cultural diversity in strengthening and enhancing Kent's competitiveness, and will help guide Kent's economic development efforts. f. Goal E-3 of the Economic Development Element, and Implementation Strategies and Actions #2.2.5, 2.7.2, 2.7.4, and 4.2.3 (see Background Report) emphasize the important of trail and roadway connections, bicycling, and outdoor amenities for RecTech firms. The MEMORANDUM: Land Use and Planning Board Public Hearing May 11, 2015 108 Page 6 goal, strategies and actions will help guide Kent's economic development efforts for the life of the plan. 6. Land Use Element a. All Zoning Districts designations are appropriate under the OS (Park and Open Space) Land Use Plan Map designation because parks and open space are uses that may be located in any zoning district. 7. Parks Element a. Goal V of the Parks and Recreation Element recognizes diverse cultures and languages by supporting diversified cultural arts facilities and programs. In recognition of the changing demographics in the city (see Changing Demographics on page 6), several other goals and policies support a recreational system for all interest groups (see P&OS-3, P&OS-3.2 - 3.4, P&OS-5.3, P&OS-10, P&OS-12.1, P&OS-17 - 17.2, P&OS-21.1 - 21.2). b. Properties managed by the City's Public Works Department but which provide some recreational value, although not as a primary use, include the Green River Natural Resource Area. CA\ah:S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3_CPZ-2011- 1_CompPlanUpdate\Chapters_For_Public_Hearing\05-11-15\Staff_Report_LUPB_051115.doc Encl:1) Responses to Questions; 2)Shoreline Element cc: Ben Wolters, Economic and Community Development Director Matt Gilbert,AICP, Principal Planner David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney Hayley Bonsteel Project File 109 C14 A PTIE T1499EEN Chapter Ten - SHORELINE ELEMENT The City of Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is a planning document that outlines goals and policies for the shorelines of the City, pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW (SMA) and the Shoreline Guidelines (WAC 173-26) and also establishes regulations for development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction. The goals and policies associated with the SMP are summarized below. The SMP addresses a broad range of uses that could be proposed in the shoreline area. This breadth is intended to ensure that the Kent shoreline area is protected from activities and uses that, if unmonitored, could be developed inappropriately and could cause damage to the ecological system of the shoreline, displace "preferred uses" as identified in Chapter 90.58 RCW, or cause the degradation of shoreline aesthetic values. ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION POLICIES Pursuant to the Shoreline Guidelines, shorelines of the state that meet the criteria established in WAC 173-26-211 are given a shoreline environment designation. The purpose of the shoreline designation system is to ensure that land use, development, or other activity occurring within the designated shoreline jurisdiction is appropriate for that area and that consideration is given to the special requirements of that environment. Policies related to each environment designation are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP. 1. "Natural-Wetlands" (N-W) Environment c. Management Policies Uses 1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the designated wetland area should be prohibited. Shoreline Element 13-1 110 2. New land division, development or shoreline modification that would reduce the capability of the wetlands to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. 3. Uses that are consumptive of physical, visual, and biological resources should be prohibited. Access and Improvements 4. Access may be permitted for scientific, historical, cultural, educational, and low-intensity water-oriented recreational purposes such as nature study that do not impact ecological functions, provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result. S. Physical alterations should only be considered when they serve to protect or enhance a significant, unique, or highly valued feature that might otherwise be degraded or destroyed or for public access where no significant ecological impacts would occur. Implementing Regulations 6. The ecological resources in the Natural-Wetlands environment should be protected through the provisions in the Critical Areas section of this SMP. 2. "High-Intensity" (H-I)Environment c. Management Policies Uses 1. In regulating uses in the "High-Intensity"environment,first priority should be given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Given the fact that commercial navigation on the Green River is limited by the channel configuration, nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed on shorelands separated from the shoreline by other properties, such as the Green River Trail corridor, and where public access improvements and/or shoreline restoration is included as part of the development. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be permitted where water-dependent uses, public access, and shoreline restoration is infeasible, as determined by the City's Shoreline Administrator. The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration and/or public access required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of development in the "High-Intensity"environment. Shoreline Element 13-2 111 2. Developments in the "High-Intensity" environment should be managed so that they enhance and maintain the shorelines for a variety of urban uses, with priority given to water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment uses. Public Access and Aesthetics 3. Existing public access ways should not be blocked or diminished. 4. Aesthetic objectives should be actively implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. These objectives may be implemented either through this SMP or other City ordinances. S. In order to make maximum use of the available shoreline resource and to accommodate future water-oriented uses, shoreline restoration and/or public access, the redevelopment and renewal of substandard, degraded, obsolete urban shoreline areas should be encouraged. 3. "Urban Conservancy—Open Space" (UC-OS)Environment c. Management Policies Uses 1. Water-oriented recreational uses should be given priority over nonwater- oriented uses. Water-dependent recreational uses should be given highest priority. 2. Commercial activities enhancing the public's enjoyment of publically accessible shorelines may be appropriate. 3. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated. 4. Development that hinders natural channel movement in channel migration zones should not be allowed (refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report). Ecological Restoration and Public Access 3. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts, as determined by the City, should be taken to restore ecological functions. Shoreline Element 13-3 112 4. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "Urban Conservancy-Open Space" designation to ensure that new development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat. S. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 4. "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" (UC-LI) Environment c. Management Policies Uses 1. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water-dependent uses should be given highest priority. 2. Uses in the "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity" environment should be limited to those which are non-consumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses that do not substantially degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural character of the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat restoration and environmental enhancement are preferred uses. 3. Agricultural practices, when consistent with provisions of this chapter, may be allowed. Except as a Conditional Use, nonwater-oriented commercial and industrial uses should not be allowed. 4. Where allowed, commercial uses should include substantial shoreline restoration and public access. S. Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, wildlife viewing trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated. 6. Developments and uses that would substantially degrade or permanently deplete habitat or the physical or biological resources of the area or inhibit stream movement in channel migration zones should not be allowed. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report). Shoreline Element 13-4 113 Ecological Management and Restoration 7. During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts should be taken to restore ecological functions. Where feasible, restoration should be required of all nonwater-dependent development on previously developed shorelines. The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration required. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of development in the "Urban Conservancy—Low Intensity"environment. 8. Regulatory standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "Urban Conservancy-Low Intensity"designation to ensure that new development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an overall goal to improve ecological functions and habitat. 9. Where appropriate, standards for landscaping and visual quality should be included. Shoreline Modification and Development Impacts 10. Construction of new structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works should not be allowed except where there is a documented need to protect public safety, an existing structure or ecological functions and mitigation is applied (See Chapter 4: Shoreline Modification Provisions). New development should be designed and located to preclude the need for structural shoreline stabilization or flood control. 11. Development of the area within shoreline jurisdiction should be limited to a maximum of 12 percent total impervious surface area, unless an alternative standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions. 12. New shoreline stabilization,flood control measures, vegetation removal, and other shoreline modifications should be designed and managed to ensure that the natural shoreline functions are protected and restored over time. Shoreline ecological restoration should be required of new nonwater- dependent development or redevelopment where the shoreline ecological functions have been degraded. 13. Activities or uses that would strip the shoreline of vegetative cover, cause substantial erosion or sedimentation, or adversely affect wildlife or aquatic life should be prohibited. Shoreline Element 13-5 114 14. Preservation of ecological functions should be balanced with public access and recreation objectives and should have priority over development objectives whenever a conflict exists. 5. "Shoreline Residential" (SR)Environment c. Management Policies Uses 1. Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses and not conflict with the residential character of lands in the "Shoreline Residential" environment. 2. Water-oriented recreational uses should be allowed. 3. Adequate land area and services should be provided. 4. Land division and development should be permitted only 1) when adequate setbacks or buffers are provided to protect ecological functions and 2) where there is adequate access, water, sewage disposal, and utilities systems, and public services available and 3) where the environment can support the proposed use in a manner which protects or restores the ecological functions. S. Development standards for setbacks or buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has occurred, restore ecological functions over time. 6. Multi family development and subdivisions of land into more than four parcels should provide community access for residents of that development. 7. New residential development should be located and designed so that future shoreline stabilization is not required. 6. "Aquatic" Environment c. Management Policies 1. New over-water structures should be prohibited except for water-dependent uses,public access, or ecological restoration. 2. The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use. Shoreline Element 13-6 115 3. In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple uses of over-water facilities should be encouraged. 4. Provisions for the "Aquatic" environment should be directed towards maintaining and restoring habitat for aquatic species. S. Uses that cause significant ecological impacts to critical freshwater habitats should not be allowed. Where those uses are necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated according to the sequence defined in Chapter 3 Section B.4. 6. Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions. 7. Abandoned and neglected structures that cause adverse visual impacts or are a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare should be removed or restored to a usable condition consistent with this SMP. GENERAL POLICIES General policies are applicable to all uses and activities (regardless of shoreline environment designation) that may occur along the City's shorelines. General Provisions policies are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP. 1. Universally Applicable Policies and Regulations b. Policies 1. The City should periodically review conditions on the shoreline and conduct appropriate analysis to determine whether or not other actions are necessary to protect and restore the ecology to ensure no net loss of ecological functions, protect human health and safety, upgrade the visual qualities, and enhance residential and recreational uses on the City s shorelines. Specific issues to address in such evaluations include, but are not limited to: a. Water quality. b. Conservation of aquatic vegetation (control of noxious weeds and enhancement of vegetation that supports more desirable ecological and recreational conditions). c. Upland vegetation. Shoreline Element 13-7 116 d. Changing visual character as a result of new residential development, including additions, and individual vegetation conservation practices. e. Shoreline stabilization and modifications. 2. The City should keep records of all project review actions within shoreline jurisdiction, including shoreline permits and letters of exemption. 3. Where appropriate, the City should pursue the policies of this SMP in other land use, development permitting, public construction, and public health and safety activities. Specifically, such activities include, but are not limited to: a. Water quality and storm water management activities, including those outside shoreline jurisdiction but affecting the shorelines of the state. b. Aquatic vegetation management. c. Health and safety activities, especially those related to sanitary sewage. d. Public works and utilities development. 4. The City should involve affected federal, state, and tribal governments in the review process of shoreline applications. 2. Archaeological and Historic Resources b. Policies 1. Due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of the resource, public or private uses, activities, and development should be prevented from destroying or damaging any site having historic, cultural, scientific or educational value as identified by the appropriate authorities and deemed worthy of protection and preservation. 3. Critical Areas Critical Areas in SMP jurisdiction are regulated under Kent Critical Areas Regulations, Ordinance No. 3805 (08115106), codified under Chapter I1.06 KCC. The policies and goals for critical areas are found in section 11.06.020 KCC and in the Land Use Element: L U-21, L U-22 L U-25, L U-26, L U-27, and L U-28. 4. Environmental Impacts b. Policies 1. In implementing this SMP, the City should take necessary steps to ensure Shoreline Element 13-8 117 compliance with Chapter 43.21 C RCW, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, and its implementing guidelines. 2. All significant adverse impacts to the shoreline should be avoided or, if that is not possible, minimized to the extent feasible and provide mitigation to ensure no net loss of ecological function. 5. Flood Hazard Reduction and River Corridor Management b. Policies 1. The City should implement a comprehensive program to manage the City's riparian corridors that integrates the following City ordinances and activities: a. Regulations in this SMP. b. The City's Critical Area Regulations. c. The City's zoning code. d. The City's Drainage Master Plan, Surface Water Design Manual, and implementing regulations. e. The City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and compliance with the State's floodplain management law at Chapter 86.16. RCW. f. The construction or improvement of new public facilities, including roads, dikes, utilities, bridges, and other structures. g. The ecological restoration of selected shoreline areas. 2. In regulating development on shorelines within SMA jurisdiction, the City should endeavor to achieve the following: a. Maintenance of human safety. b. Protection and, where appropriate, the restoration of the physical integrity of the ecological system processes, including water and sediment transport and natural channel movement. c. Protection of water quality and natural groundwater movement. d. Protection offish, vegetation, and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic food chain. e. Protection of existing legal uses and legal development (including nonconforming development) unless the City determines relocation or abandonment of a use or structure is the only feasible option or that there is a compelling reason to the contrary based on public concern and the provisions of the SMA. f. Protection of recreation resources and aesthetic values, such as point and channel bars, islands, and other shore features and scenery. Shoreline Element 13-9 118 g. When consistent with the provisions a. through f. above, provide for public access and recreation, consistent with Chapter 3 Section B.7. 3. The City should undertake flood hazard planning, where practical, in a coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and consider entire drainage systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes, or marine shorelines. This planning should consider the off-site erosion and accretion or flood damage that might occur as a result of stabilization or protection structures or activities. Flood hazard management planning should fully employ nonstructural approaches to minimizing flood hazard to the extent feasible. 4. The City should give preference to and use nonstructural solutions over structural flood control devices wherever feasible, including prohibiting or limiting development in historically flood prone areas, regulating structural design and limiting increases in peak storm water runoff from new upland development, public education, and land acquisition for additional flood storage. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline hazard should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to reduce the hazard. Where structural solutions are rebuilt,fish friendly structures such as setback levees should be used. In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable. S. In designing publicly financed or subsidized works, the City should provide public pedestrian access to the shoreline for low-impact outdoor recreation. 6. The City should encourage the removal or breaching of dikes to provide greater wetland area for flood water storage and habitat; provided, such an action does not increase the risk of flood damage to existing human development. 6. Parking b. Policies 1. Parking should be planned to achieve optimum use. Where possible, parking should serve more than one use (e.g. serving recreational use on weekends, commercial uses on weekdays). 2. Where feasible,parking for shoreline uses should be provided in areas outside shoreline jurisdiction. 3. Low-impact parking facilities, such as permeable pavements, are encouraged. Shoreline Element 13-10 119 7. Public Access b. Policies 1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public developments with the exception of the following: a. One-and two-family dwelling units; or b. Where deemed inappropriate due to health, safety and environmental concerns. 2. Developments, uses, and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair or detract from the public's access to the water or the rights of navigation. 3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge without causing significant ecological impacts and should be designed in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. Opportunities for public access should be identified on publicly owned shorelines. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights-of-way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced. S. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and comfort and to minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy. There should be a physical separation or other means of clearly delineating public and private space in order to avoid unnecessary user conflict. 6. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean excessive removal of existing native vegetation that partially impairs views. 7. Public access and interpretive displays should be provided as part of publicly funded restoration projects where significant ecological impacts can be avoided. 8. City parks, trails and public access facilities adjacent to shorelines should be maintained and enhanced in accordance with City and County plans. 9. Commercial and industrial waterfront development should be encouraged to provide a means for visual and pedestrian access to the shoreline area wherever feasible. 10. The acquisition of suitable upland shoreline properties to provide access to publicly owned shorelands should be encouraged. Shoreline Element 13-11 120 11. The City should acquire and develop waterfront property on Panther Lake, in the event of annexation, to provide public access to the shoreline. 8. Shorelines of State-Wide Significance b. Policies In implementing the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 for shorelines of statewide significance, the City will base decisions in preparing and administering this SMP on the following policies in order of priority, I being the highest and 6 being lowest. 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing state-wide interests by circulating the SMP, and any proposed amendments affecting shorelines of state-wide significance, to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen's advisory committees and local officials and state-wide interest groups. b. Recognize and take into account state agencies'policies,programs and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations and in approving shoreline permits. c. Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with expertise in ecology and other scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. a. Designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to protect and restore the ecology and environment of the shoreline as a result of man-made intrusions on shorelines. b. Upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development already exists in order to reduce adverse impact on the environment and to accommodate future growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend into low-intensity use or underdeveloped areas. c. Protect and restore existing diversity of vegetation and habitat values, wetlands and riparian corridors associated with shoreline areas. d. Protect and restore habitats for State-listed 'priority species. " 3. Support actions that result in long-term benefits over short-term benefits. Shoreline Element 13-12 121 a. Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments relative to the long-term and potentially costly impairments to the natural shoreline. b. In general, preserve resources and values of shorelines of state- wide significance for future generations and restrict or prohibit development that would irretrievably damage shoreline resources. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. a. All shoreline development should be located, designed, constructed and managed to avoid disturbance of and minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources, including spawning, nesting, rearing and habitat areas and migratory routes. b. Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new development, redevelopment of existing facilities or general enhancement of shoreline areas. c. Shoreline development should be managed to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. S. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline. a. Give priority to developing paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access along the shorelines, especially to the maintenance and enhancement of the Green River Trail, which is a regional recreational and transportation resource. b. Locate development landward of the ordinary high water mark so that access is enhanced. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline. a. Plan for and encourage development of facilities for recreational use of the shoreline. b. Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on uplands well away from the shorelines with provisions for nonmotorized access to the shoreline. 9. Signage b. Policies 1. Signs should be designed and placed so that they are compatible with the aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline and adjacent land and water uses. 2. Signs should not block or otherwise interfere with visual access to the water or shorelands. Shoreline Element 13-13 122 10. Utilities (Accessory) b. Policies 1. Accessory utilities should be properly installed so as to protect the shoreline and water from contamination and degradation to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. 2. Accessory utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located outside of the shoreline area to the maximum extent possible. When utility lines require a shoreline location, they should be placed underground. 3. Accessory utility facilities should be designed and located in a manner which preserves the natural landscape and shoreline ecological processes and functions and minimizes conflicts with present and planned land uses. 11. Vegetation Conservation b. Policies 1. Vegetation within the City shoreline areas should be enhanced over time to provide a greater level of ecological functions, human safety, and property protection. To this end, shoreline management activities, including the provisions and implementation of this SMP, should be based on a comprehensive approach that considers the ecological functions currently and potentially provided by vegetation on different sections of the shoreline, as described in Chapter S of the June 30, 2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report. 2. This SMP in conjunction with other City development regulations should establish a coordinated and effective set of provisions and programs to protect and restore those functions provided by shoreline vegetation. 3. Aquatic weed management should stress prevention first. Where active removal or destruction is necessary, it should be the minimum to allow water- dependent activities to continue, minimize negative impacts to native plant communities, and include appropriate handling or disposal of weed materials. 4. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds and replacement with native vegetation should be encouraged. Removal of noxious or invasive weeds should be conducted using the least-impacting method feasible, with a preference for mechanical rather than chemical means. Shoreline Element 13-14 123 12. Water Quality and Quantity b. Policies 1. All shoreline uses and activities should be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to avoid significant ecological impacts that alter water quality, quantity, or hydrology. 2. The City should require reasonable setbacks, buffers, and storm water storage basins and encourage low-impact development techniques and materials to achieve the objective of lessening negative impacts on water quality. 3. All measures for controlling erosion, stream flow rates, or flood waters through the use of stream control works should be located, designed, constructed, and maintained so that net off-site impacts related to water do not degrade the existing water quality and quantity. 4. As a general policy, the City should seek to improve water quality, quantity (the amount of water in a given system, with the objective of providing for ecological functions and human use), and flow characteristics in order to protect and restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of shorelines within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. The City should implement this policy through the regulation of development and activities, through the design of new public works, such as roads, drainage, and water treatment facilities, and through coordination with other local, state, and federal water quality regulations and programs. The City should implement the 2002 City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, as updated and adopted by City ordinance. S. All measures to treat runoff in order to maintain or improve water quality should be conducted on-site before shoreline development creates impacts to water. 6. Shoreline use and development should minimize the need for chemical fertilizers, pesticides or other similar chemical treatments to prevent contamination of surface and ground water and/or soils, and adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions and values. SHORELINE MODIFICATION POLICIES Shoreline modifications are structures or actions which permanently change the physical configuration or quality of the shoreline, particularly at the point where land and water meet. Shoreline modification activities include, but are not limited to, structures such as Shoreline Element 13-1 S 124 revetments, bulkheads, levees, breakwaters, docks, and floats. Actions such as clearing, grading, landfilling, and dredging are also considered shoreline modifications. Generally, shoreline modification activities are undertaken for the following reasons: 1. To prepare a site for a shoreline use 2. To provide shoreline stabilization or shoreline protection 3. To support an upland use The policies in this section are intended to prevent or mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of proposed shoreline modifications. Policies related to each shoreline modification are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP. 1. General Policies and Regulations b. Policies 1. Structural shoreline modifications should be allowed only where they are demonstrated to be necessary: a. To support or protect an allowed primary structure or a legally existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage, or; b. For reconfiguration of the shoreline to mitigate impacts or enhance the shoreline ecology. 2. The adverse effects of shoreline modifications should be reduced, as much as possible, and shoreline modifications should be limited in number and extent. 3. Allowed shoreline modifications should be appropriate to the specific type of shoreline and environmental conditions in which they are proposed. 4. The City should take steps to assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions, as stated in WAC 173-26-231. This is to be achieved by preventing unnecessary shoreline modifications, by giving preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions, and by requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. S. Where applicable, the City should base decisions on available scientific and technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions provided by the applicant, as stated in WAC 173-26-231. Shoreline Element 13-16 125 6. Impaired ecological functions should be enhanced where feasible and appropriate while accommodating permitted uses, as stated in WA 173-26- 231. As shoreline modifications occur, the City will incorporate all feasible measures to protect ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide processes. 7. In reviewing shoreline permits, the City should require steps to reduce significant ecological impacts according to the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e). 2. Shoreline Stabilization (Including Bulkheads) b. Policies 1. Non-structural stabilization measures are preferred over "soft" structural measures. "Soft" structural shoreline stabilization measures are strongly preferred over hard structural shoreline stabilization Proposals for hard and soft structural solutions, including bulkheads, should be allowed only when it is demonstrated that nonstructural methods are not `feasible", as defined in Chapter 6. Hard structural shoreline stabilization measures should be allowed only when it is demonstrated that soft structural measures are not feasible. 2. Bulkheads and other structural stabilization should be located, designed, and constructed primarily to prevent damage to existing development and minimize adverse impacts to ecological functions. 3. New development requiring bulkheads and/or similar protection should not be allowed. Shoreline uses should be located in a manner so that bulkheads and other structural stabilization are not likely to become necessary in the future. 4. Shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively shall not result in a net loss of ecological functions. This is to be achieved by giving preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions and requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications. 3. Over-Water Structures — Including Piers and Docks, Floats, Boardwalks and Boating Facilities b. Policies 1. Moorage associated with a single-family residence is considered a water- dependent use provided that it is designed and used as a facility to access watercraft. Shoreline Element 13-17 126 2. New moorage, excluding docks accessory to single family residences, should be permitted only when the applicant/proponent has demonstrated that a specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent or public access use. 3. To minimize continued proliferation of individual private moorage, reduce the amount of over-water and in-water structures, and reduce potential long-term impacts associated with those structures, shared moorage facilities are preferred over single-user moorage. New subdivisions of more than two (2) lots and new multifamily development of more than two (2) dwelling units should provide shared moorage. 4. Docks, piers, and other water-dependent use developments including those accessory to single family residences, should be sited and designed to avoid adversely impacting shoreline ecological functions or processes, and should mitigate for any unavoidable impacts to ecological functions. S. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be spaced and oriented in a manner that minimizes hazards and obstructions to public navigation rights and corollary rights thereto such as, but not limited to, fishing, swimming and pleasure boating. 6. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be restricted to the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed use. The length, width and height of over-water structures and other developments regulated by this section should be no greater than that required for safety and practicality for the primary use. 7. Moorage and other water-dependent use developments should be constructed of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals in the long term. 4. Fill b. Policies 1. Fills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to support allowed water-dependent or public access uses, cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments, and other water-dependent uses that are consistent with this SMP. 2. Shoreline fill should be designed and located so there will be no significant ecological impacts and no alteration of local currents, surface water drainage, channel migration, or flood waters which would result in a hazard to adjacent life,property, and natural resource systems. Shoreline Element 13-18 127 5. Dredging and Disposal b. Policies 1. Dredging operations should be planned and conducted to minimize interference with navigation and adverse impacts to other shoreline uses, properties, and values. 2. When allowed, dredging and dredge material disposal should be limited to the minimum amount necessary. 3. Disposal of dredge material within a channel migration zone shall be discouraged. (Refer to the Channel Migration Zone Map, Figure No. 10.2 in the Inventory and Analysis Report). 6. Shoreline Restoration and Ecological Enhancement b. Policies 1. The City should consider shoreline enhancement as an alternative to structural shoreline stabilization and protection measures where feasible. 2. All shoreline enhancement projects should protect the integrity of adjacent natural resources including aquatic habitats and water quality. 3. Where possible, shoreline restoration should use maintenance free or low- maintenance designs. 4. The City should pursue the recommendations in the shoreline restoration plan prepared as part of this SMP update. The City should give priority to projects consistent with this plan. S. Shoreline restoration and enhancement should not extend waterward more than necessary to achieve the intended results. 7. Dikes and Levees b. Policies 1. Dikes and levees should be constructed or reconstructed only as part of a comprehensive flood hazard reduction program 2. Environmental enhancement measures should be a part of levee improvements. Shoreline Element 13-19 128 SHORELINE USE POLICIES The provisions in this section apply to specific common uses and types of development to the extent they occur within shoreline jurisdiction. Policies related to each shoreline use are found below. The policies are numbered exactly as they are found in the SMP. 1. General Policies b. Policies 1. The City should give preference to those uses that are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline areas. 2. The City should ensure that all proposed shoreline development will not diminish the public's health, safety, and welfare, as well as the land or its vegetation and wildlife, and should endeavor to protect property rights while implementing the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. 3. The City should reduce use conflicts by prohibiting or applying special conditions to those uses which are not consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are not unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. In implementing this provision, preference should be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water- related uses and water-enjoyment uses. 4. The City should encourage the full use of existing urban areas before expansion of intensive development is allowed. 2. Agriculture b. Policies 1. The creation of new agricultural lands by diking, draining, or filling marshes, channel migration zones, and associated marshes, bogs, and swamps should be prohibited. 2. A vegetative buffer should be maintained between agricultural lands and water bodies or wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and resulting sedimentation, enhance water quality, reduce flood hazard, and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife. 3. Animal feeding operations, retention and storage ponds, and feedlot waste and manure storage should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction and Shoreline Element 13-20 129 constructed to prevent contamination of water bodies and degradation of the adjacent shoreline environment. 4. Appropriate farm management techniques should be utilized to prevent contamination of nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant, fish, and animal life from fertilizer and pesticide use and application. S. Where ecological functions have been degraded, new development should be conditioned with the requirement for ecological restoration to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. The City's Shoreline Administrator will consult the provisions of this SMP and determine the applicability and extent of ecological restoration. The extent of ecological restoration shall be that which is reasonable given the specific circumstances of an agricultural development. 3. Boating Facilities b. Policies 1. Boating facilities should be located, designed, and operated to provide maximum feasible protection and restoration of ecological processes and functions and all forms of aquatic, littoral, or terrestrial life—including animals, fish, shellfish, birds, and plants—and their habitats and migratory routes. To the extent possible, boating facilities should be located in areas of low biological productivity. 2. Boating facilities should be located and designed so their structures and operations will be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected and will not unreasonably impair shoreline views. However, the need to protect and restore ecological functions and to provide for water-dependent uses carries higher priority than protection of views. 3. Boat launch facilities should be provided at appropriate public access sites. 4. Existing public moorage and launching facilities should be maintained. 4. Commercial Development b. Policies 1. Multi-use commercial projects that include some combination of ecological restoration, public access, open space, and recreation should be encouraged in the High-Intensity Environment consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Shoreline Element 13-21 130 2. Where possible, commercial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects. 5. Industry b. Policies 1. Ecological restoration should be a condition of all nonwater-oriented industrial development. 2. Where possible, industrial developments are encouraged to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques into new and existing projects. 6. In-Stream Structures b. Policies 1. In-stream structures should provide for the protection, preservation, and restoration of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and natural scenic vistas. Within the City of Kent, in-stream structures should be allowed only for the purposes of environmental restoration or water quality treatment. 7. Recreational Development b. Policies 1. The coordination of local, state, and federal recreation planning should be encouraged to satisfy recreational needs. Shoreline recreational developments should be consistent with all adopted park, recreation, and open space plans. 2. Recreational developments and plans should promote the conservation of the shoreline's natural character, ecological functions, and processes. 3. A variety of compatible recreational experiences and activities should be encouraged to satisfy diverse recreational needs. 4. Water-dependent recreational uses, such as angling, boating, and swimming, should have priority over water-enjoyment uses, such as picnicking and golf. Water-enjoyment uses should have priority over nonwater-oriented recreational uses, such as field sports. Shoreline Element 13-22 131 S. Recreation facilities should be integrated and linked with linear systems, such as hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements, and scenic drives. 6. Where appropriate, nonintensive recreational uses may be permitted in floodplain areas. Nonintensive recreational uses include those that do not do any of the following: a. Adversely affect the natural hydrology of aquatic systems. b. Create any flood hazards. c. Damage the shoreline environment through modifications such as structural shoreline stabilization or vegetation removal. 7. Opportunities to expand the public's ability to enjoy the shoreline in public parks through dining or other water enjoyment activities should be pursued. 8. Residential Development b. Policies 1. Residential development should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive areas including, but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodways, and buffers. 2. The overall density of development, lot coverage, and height of structures should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site and consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. Recognizing the single purpose, irreversible, and space consumptive nature of shoreline residential development, new development should provide adequate setbacks or open space from the water to provide space for community use of the shoreline and the water, to provide space for outdoor recreation, to protect or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to preserve views, to preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics, to protect the privacy of nearby residences, and to minimize use conflicts. 4. Adequate provisions should be made for protection of groundwater supplies, erosion control, stormwater drainage systems, aquatic and wildlife habitat, ecosystem-wide processes, and open space. S. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, shall be provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations. 6. New residences should be designed and located so that shoreline armoring will not be necessary to protect the structure. The creation of new residential lots should not be allowed unless it is demonstrated the lots can be developed without: Shoreline Element 13-23 132 a. Constructing shoreline stabilization structures (such as bulkheads). b. Causing significant erosion or slope instability. c. Removing existing native vegetation within 20 feet of the shoreline. 9. Transportation b. Policies 1. Circulation system planning on shorelands should include systems for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. Circulation planning and projects should support existing and proposed shoreline uses that are consistent with the SMP. 2. Trail and bicycle paths should be encouraged along shorelines and should be constructed in a manner compatible with the natural character, resources, and ecology of the shoreline. 3. When existing transportation corridors are abandoned, they should be reused for water-dependent use or public access. 10. Utilities b. Policies 1. New utility facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline protection works. 2. Utility facilities and corridors should be located so as to protect scenic views, such as views of the Green River from the Green River Trail. Whenever possible, such facilities should be placed underground, or alongside or under bridges. 3. Utility facilities and rights-of-way should be designed to preserve the natural landscape and to minimize conflicts with present and planned land uses. SHORELINE RESTORATION Activities that have adverse effects on the ecological functions and values of the shoreline must provide mitigation for those impacts. By law, the proponent of that activity is not required to return the subject shoreline to a condition that is better than the baseline level at the time the activity takes place. How then can the shoreline be improved over time in areas where the baseline condition is severely, or even marginally, degraded? Shoreline Element 13-24 133 Section 173-26-201(2)(f) WAC of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines says: "master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards." In total, implementation of the Shoreline Master Program (with mitigation of project- related impacts) in combination with this Restoration Plan (for restoration of lost ecological functions that occurred prior to a specific project) should result in a net improvement in the City of Kent's shoreline environment in the long term. RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES According to the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near- Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation, the Green/Duwamish watershed suffers from detrimental conditions for fish and fish habitat due to major engineering changes, land use changes which have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to salmon habitat, and water quality which has declined due to wastewater and industrial discharges, erosion, failing septic systems and the use of pesticides (WRIA 9 Steering Committee 2002). The June 30, 2009 City of Kent Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report provides supporting information that validates these claims specifically in the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The WRIA 9 Near Term Action Agenda established three high priority watershed goals for salmon conservation and recovery: • "Protect currently functioning habitat primarily in the Middle Green River watershed and the nearshore areas of Vashon/Maury Island. • Ensure adequate juvenile salmon survival in the Lower Green River, Elliot Bay/Duwamish, and Nearshore subwatersheds. Meeting this goal involves several types of actions, including protecting currently functioning habitat, restoring degraded habitat, and maintaining or restoring adequate water quality and flows. Shoreline Element 13-25 134 • Restore access for salmon (efficient and safe passage for adults and juveniles) to and from the Upper Green River subwatershed." The following recommended policy for the lower Green River subwatershed, including Kent, is also taken from the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King (Steering Committee 2005). • In the Lower Green River, every opportunity should be taken to set back levees and revetments to the maximum extent practicable. Habitat rehabilitation within the Lower Green River corridor should be included in all new developments and re-developments that occur within 200 feet of the river. The WRIA 9 restoration goals, in combination with the results of the City's Final Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, the direction of Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, and the City's commitment to support the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King, are the foundation for the following goals and objectives of the City of Kent's restoration strategy. Although the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9) Near-Term Action Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conservation and the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King are salmon-centered, pursuit of improved performance in ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions that favors salmon generally captures those processes and functions that benefit all fish and wildlife. Goal 1: Maintain, restore or enhance watershed processes, including sediment, water, wood, light and nutrient delivery, movement and loss. Goal 2: Maintain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat during all life stages and maintain functional corridors linking these habitats. Goal3: Contribute to conservation and recovery of chinook salmon and other anadromous fish,focusing on preserving, protecting and restoring habitat with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse, harvestable populations of naturally spawning chinook salmon. 1. System-Wide Restoration Objectives a. Improve the health of shoreline waterbodies by managing the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff, consistent at a minimum with the latest Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Shoreline Element 13-26 135 Western Washington. Make additional efforts to meet and maintain state and county water quality standards in contributing systems. b. Increase quality, width and diversity of native vegetation in protected corridors and shorelines adjacent to stream and lake habitats to provide safe migration pathways for fish and wildlife,food, nest sites, shade, perches, and organic debris. Strive to control non-indigenous plants or weeds that are proven harmful to native vegetation or habitats. c. Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in WRIA 9 to implement the Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King. d. Base local actions and future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate local government activities on the best available science presented in the WRIA 9 scientific foundation and habitat management strategy. e. Use the comprehensive list of actions, and other actions consistent with the Plan, as a source of potential site-specific projects and land use and public outreach recommendations. f. Use the start-list to guide priorities for regional funding in the first ten years of Plan implementation, and to implement start-list actions through local capital improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities. g. Seek federal, state, grant and other funding opportunities for various restoration actions and programs independently or with other WRIA 9 jurisdictions and stakeholders. h. Develop a public education plan to inform private property owners in the shoreline area and in the remainder of the City about the effects of land management practices and other unregulated activities (such as vegetation removal,pesticide/herbicide use, car washing) on fish and wildlife habitats. i. Develop a chemical reduction plan which focuses on reducing the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides near shoreline waterbodies or tributary streams and otherwise emphasizes only their localized use. j. Where feasible, protect, enhance, and restore riparian areas surrounding wetlands where functions have been lost or compromised. 2. Green River Restoration Objectives a. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by identifying hardened and eroding streambanks, and correcting to the extent feasible with bioengineered stabilization solutions. Shoreline Element 13-27 136 b. Improve the health of the Green River by removing or setting back flood and erosion control facilities whenever feasible to improve natural shoreline processes. Where levees and revetments cannot be practically removed or set back due to infrastructure considerations, maintain and repair them using design approaches that maximize the use of native vegetation and large woody debris (L WD). c. Improve the health of the Green River and its tributary streams by increasing LWD recruitment potential through plantings of trees,particularly conifers, in the riparian corridors. Where feasible, install LWD to meet short-term needs. d. Improve the health of the Green River by reestablishing and protecting side channel habitat. e. Where feasible, re-establish fish passage to Green River tributary streams. 3. Lakeshore Restoration Objectives a. Decrease the amount and impact of overwater and in-water structures through minimization of structure size and use of innovative materials. b. Participate in lake-wide efforts to reduce populations of non-native aquatic vegetation. c. Where feasible, improve the health of lake shorelines by removing bulkheads and utilizing bioengineering or other soft shoreline stabilization techniques to improve aquatic conditions. RESTORATION PRIORITIES The process of prioritizing actions that are geared toward restoration of the City's shoreline areas involves balancing ecological goals with a variety of site-specific constraints. Briefly restated, the City's environmental protection and restoration goals include 1) protecting watershed processes, 2) protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and 3) contributing to chinook conservation efforts. Constraints that are specific to Kent include a heavily confined and leveed Green River shoreline area, a highly developed shoreline along Lake Meridian with predominantly private ownership, and heavy commercial development along Springbrook Creek. While other areas may already offer fairly good ecological functions (Big Soos Creek, Lake Fenwick, Jenkins Creek, and the GRNRA), they tend to include opportunities to further enhance ecological functions. These goals and constraints were used to develop a hierarchy of restoration actions to rank different types of projects or programs associated with shoreline restoration. Programmatic Shoreline Element 13-28 137 actions, like continuing WRIA 9 involvement and conducting outreach programs to local residents, tend to receive relatively high priority opposed to restoration actions involving private landowners. Other factors that influenced the hierarchy are based on scientific recommendations specific to WRIA 9, potential funding sources, and the projected level of public benefit. Although restoration project/program scheduling is summarized in the previous section (Table 14), the actual order of implementation may not always correspond with the priority level assigned to that project/program. This discrepancy is caused by a variety of obstacles that interfere with efforts to implement projects in the exact order of their perceived priority. Some projects, such as those associated with riparian planting, are relatively inexpensive and easy to permit and should be implemented over the short and intermediate term despite the perception of lower priority than projects involving extensive shoreline restoration or large-scale capital improvement projects. Straightforward projects with available funding should be initiated immediately for the worthwhile benefits they provide and to preserve a sense of momentum while permitting, design, site access authorization, and funding for the larger, more complicated, and more expensive projects are underway. 1. Priority 1: Levee Modifications and Floodplain Reconnection Because of the isolation of the Green River floodplain from the Green River by the levee, floodplain habitats, including off-channel and side channel habitats, are typically described as the most diminished types of salmonid fish habitat relative to the pristine condition. The lack of these habitat types is a limiting factor for chinook salmon recovery. As discussed above, the historic use and prevalence of levees has greatly diminished the habitat value of extended floodplains. Restoration of these areas has been found to be one of the most beneficial of all types of stream and river enhancements. Projects in this category include the WRIA 9 recommended projects listed in Table 11 in Chapter 8 of the SMP: • Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River) Park, Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek Restoration Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks) • Project LG-9 - Rosso Nursery Off-Channel Rehabilitation and Riparian Restoration Between RM 20.8 and 20 (Left Bank) [being implemented by City as "Lower Green River Property Acquisition" in nearby locations] • Project LG-10 - Mainstem Maintenance (including the Boeing Levee Setback and Habitat Rehabilitation) Between RM 20.5 and 16.3 Shoreline Element 13-29 138 • Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank) 2. Priority 2: Continue Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Participation Of basic importance is the continuation of ongoing, programmatic, basin-wide programs and initiatives such as the WRIA 9 Forum. Continue to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in WRIA 9 to implement the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King (Habitat Plan). This process provides an opportunity for the City to keep in touch with its role on a basin-wide scale and to influence habitat conditions beyond its borders, which, in turn, come back to influence water quality and quantity and habitat issues within the City. 3. Priority 3: Improve Water Quality and Reduce Sediment and Pollutant Delivery Although most of the streams and their basins located within the City are outside of shoreline jurisdiction, their impacts to shoreline areas should not be discounted. Many of these streams have the potential to provide fish and wildlife habitat. They are also a common receiving body for non-point source pollution, which in turn delivers those contaminants to shoreline waterbodies. Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include four actions focused on addressing water quality and stormwater controls: • Program WW-11: Expand/Improve incentives Programs • Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other Regulations • Program WW-13: Increase Use of Low Impact Development and Porous Concrete • Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built GreenTM Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon These recommendations emphasize the use of low impact development techniques, on-site stormwater detention for new and redeveloped projects, and control of point sources that discharge directly into surface waters. They involve protecting and restoring forest cover, riparian buffers, wetlands, and creek mouths Shoreline Element 13-30 139 by revising and enforcing Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Master Programs, incentives, and flexible development tools. 4. Priority 4: Reconnect Fish Passage to Green River Tributaries Expanding available fish habitat and rearing opportunities for anadromous fish is a high priority for the City. One of the key mechanisms is to improve fish passage by reconnecting mainstem river habitat to local tributaries. The City is currently involved with improving fish habitat within the outlet from Lake Meridian (Lake Meridian Outlet Realignment Project). This project involves realigning the lake outflow of Lake Meridian, otherwise known as Cow Creek, through a forested area to improve fish habitat on its way to Big Soos Creek. This project currently is funded through Phase 2 of 3, with Phase 2 expected to begin in 2009. Recommended projects from the Habitat Plan include: • Project(s) LG-7 - Lower Mill Creek, Riverview (Formerly Green River) Park, Hawley Road Levee, Lower Mullen Slough, and Lower Mill Creek Restoration Between RM 21.3 and 24 (Both Banks) 5. Priority 5: Public Education and Involvement Public education and involvement has a high priority in the City. While this is especially important for areas directly affected by residential development (i.e. Lake Meridian) or floodplain and levee management (i.e. Green River), it has already resulted in vast improvements to the GRNRA and Green River projects. Opportunities for restoration outside of residential property are extensive along most shoreline areas in the City. Only Lake Meridian is highly impacted by residential development. Therefore, in order to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in this Chapter 8, "Restoration Plan," most of the restoration projects (except for those on Lake Meridian) would likely occur on public property. Thus, providing education opportunities and involving the public is key to success, and would possibly entail coordinating the development of a long-term Public Education and Outreach Plan to gain public support. Shoreline Element 13-31 140 6. Priority 6: Acquisition of Shoreline Property for Preservation, Restoration, or Enhancement Purposes The City should explore opportunities to protect natural areas or other areas with high ecological value via property acquisition. Mechanisms to purchase property would likely include collaboration with other stakeholder groups including representatives from local government, businesses and the general public in order to develop a prioritized list of actions. Such a coordinated effort is listed as a watershed-wide programmatic action in the Habitat Plan: • Program WW-15: Develop a Coordinated Acquisition Program for Natural Areas The Habitat Plan also includes the following specific acquisition project: • Project LG-13 - Acquisition, Levee Setback, and Habitat Rehabilitation Between RM 15.3 and 14.7 (Right Bank) 7. Priority 7: Improve Riparian Vegetation,Reduce Impervious Coverage Similar to Priority 3, Section G.3 above, to improve water quality and reduce sediment and pollutant delivery, improved riparian vegetation and reduction in impervious surfaces are emphasized throughout the Habitat Plan. All of the specific projects listed in Table 11 (LG No. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 13) include some form of protecting and improving riparian vegetation. Watershed-wide programmatic actions also described in the Habitat Plan include many references to improving vegetative conditions and reducing impervious surface coverage. Specific reference to planting vegetation is listed in Program WW-5: Promote the Planting of Native Trees. In addition to the items listed in the Habitat Plan, Section E.2 above lists many areas where improvements to riparian vegetative cover and reductions in impervious surfaces are warranted. 8. Priority 8: Reduce Shoreline and Bank Armoring, Create or Enhance Natural Shoreline and Streambank Conditions The preponderance of shoreline armoring and its association with impaired habitat conditions, specifically for juvenile chinook salmon, has been identified as one of the key limiting factors along the Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). While it is recognized that levees and revetments cannot practically be removed in all Shoreline Element 13-32 141 circumstances, considerations should be made to maintain and repair them using design approaches that incorporate native vegetation and large woody debris. Improvements to levees and revetments are discussed in Priority 1, Section G.1 above. It is also recognized that reduction in shoreline armoring along lakes is also important (i.e. Lake Meridian and Lake Fenwick). While no specific lake project sites have been identified under this restoration priority, emphasis should be given to future project proposals that involve or have the potential to restore shoreline areas to more natural conditions. The City should explore ways in which to team with local property owners, whether through financial assistance, permit expedition, or guidance, to restore multiple contiguous lots. 9. Priority 9: Reduction of In-water and Over-water Structures Reduction of in- and over-water cover by piers, docks, and other boat-related structures is one mechanism to improve shoreline ecological functions. While not necessarily prevalent along the Green River, pier and docks are extensive along Lake Meridian with nearly 90 percent of all parcels having a pier or dock. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife already regulates the size and materials for in- and over-water structures throughout the State and generally recommends finding ways to reduce both the size and density of these structures. Although no specific project sites to reduce in-water and over-water structures within residential areas are identified here, future project proposals involving reductions in the size and/or quantity of such structures should be emphasized. Such future projects may involve joint-use pier proposals or pier reconstruction and may be provided with an expedited permit process. 10. Priority 10: Reduce Aquatic Invasive Weeds in Lakes While not specifically listed in the Habitat Plan, reduction of aquatic invasive weeds from the City's lakes is emphasized in Section E.2. All three lakes (Lake Fenwick, Lake Meridian, and Panther Lake) have experienced growth of non- native and often invasive aquatic vegetation. Problem species include Eurasian watermilfoil, Brazilian elodea and water lily. Future mechanisms to control weed growth range from possible substrate blankets (Lake Meridian) to introduction of grass carp (Lake Fenwick). Not only are aquatic weeds a problem for boats and Shoreline Element 13-33 142 swimmers, but they also tend to reduce dissolved oxygen to lethal levels for fish, hampering foraging opportunities. 11. Priority 11: City Zoning, Regulatory, and Planning Policies City policies and development regulations are listed as being of lower priority in this case simply because they have been the subject of a thorough review and have recently been updated accordingly. Notably, the City's Critical Areas Ordinance was recently updated (August 2006) consistent with the Best Available Science for critical areas, including those within the shoreline area. The City received its final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit in January 2007 from Department of Ecology. The NPDES Phase II permit is required to include the City's stormwater discharges into regulated lakes and streams. Under the conditions of the permit, the City must protect and improve water quality through public education and outreach, detection and elimination of illicit non-stormwater discharges (e.g., spills, illegal dumping, wastewater), management and regulation of construction site runoff, management and regulation of runoff from new development and redevelopment, and pollution prevention and maintenance for municipal operations. Watershed-wide programmatic actions listed in the Habitat Plan include three actions focused on regulatory mechanisms to restore ecological functions: • Program WW-11: Expand/Improve Incentives Programs • Program WW-12: Improve Enforcement of Existing Land Use and Other Regulations • Program WW-14: Provide Incentives for Developers to Follow Built GreenTM Checklist Sections Benefiting Salmon Shoreline Element 13-34 143 EXHIBIT 9 COMP PLAN UPDATE ENTERED INTO RECORD AT 4-27- 15 HEARING 144 145 From: Mel Roberts (mel@cyclelcent.com) s 5 Crete rler, d Staff� To: Charlene Anderson Land u z Land ce &. Planning Board city of Kent Subject: LUPB Public Hearing April 27, 2015 Attached are Paper copies of the pages that have been marked up with ideas,comments,suggestions, and questions about the revisions to the Kent Comprehensive Plan(and all it's pieces). The comments are mostly about people using bicycles to move about Kent. FYI—How many walkers and riders are in Kent? Using Just a small sample from about an average day (not winter or summer)the count or walkers and riders at the Interurban and Green River Trail intersection by S 259th St was 220. This is from 7-9 Am and 4-6 PM,the commute hours. Multiplying 5 days per week times 50 weeks per year times 200 uses in one day gives (5*50*200=50,000) 50 thousand riders and walkers at that location per year. This doesn't include weekends and other locations. We need to better prepare for larger numbers of riders and walkers in our future plans than we planned for in the past. Mel Roberts KBAB,Chairman 425-417-8931 Ym� - > 146 111 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager Phone: 253-856-5454 KENTFax: 253-856-6454 W A S N I N O T O N Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 April 20, 2015 TO: Chair Randall Smith and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Comprehensive Plan Update For April 27, 2015 Public Hearing MOTION: Recommend to the City Council approval/denial/modification of the nine chapters or elements of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, including associated Background and Technical Reports, Maps and Memos as recommended by staff. SUMMARY: The City is scheduled to complete an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) by June 30, 2015. Staff has presented all but the Capital Facilities Element to the Board in previous workshops; amendments to those elements since the workshop have been noted in track-change mode. The chapters and elements replace previous versions of the Plan. BACKGROUND: At the August 11th Land Use and Planning Board workshop, staff introduced the Comprehensive Plan update project, the schedule, and the public outreach activities. Since that time, the Board has reviewed all of the chapters or elements in workshops, except the Capital Facilities Element which is new. This update to the Plan refreshes the current conditions and trends, integrates recent planning initiatives, complies with state, regional and local mandates, and reformats the Plan. Some of the Chapters and Elements include Background Reports; the Transportation Element includes as background a Technical Report, f_o_ur—ma:ps=and=two=memos=dated 1/30/=15=and 2-/=16/=15. Staff will be present at the April 27th public hearing to present the materials and answer questions. BUDGET IMPACTS: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval CA\ah:S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2011\CPA-2011-3CPZ-2011- 1_CompPlanUpdate\Chapters_For_Public_Hearing\Staff_Report_LUPB__042715.doc Encl:Plan Chapters or Elements; Background Reports; Transportation Element Technical Report; Fehr & Peers Memos dated 1/30/15 and 2/16/15; Exhibits X through X cc: Ben Wolters,Economic and Community Development Director Matt Gilbert,AICP,Principal Planner David Galazin,Assistant City Attorney Hayley Bonsteel Project File 1 147 Chapter One - KENT PROFILE AND VISION, Formatted:Font:18pt What you will find in this chapter: • Introduction to the Plan • How the Plan was developed • Organization of the Plan • Population and Employment Data • Vision and Framework Policies Purpose Statement: To introduce the Kent Comprehensive Plan and provide the City's community profile, context, and vision for 2035 U Udngtng 1h&Ward Homo I n t ro CI, I n v Welcome tort Kef�Comprehensive Plan (the "Bringing the World Home" is Plan). Citywide;leent is Bringing the World Home. the result of a campaign Wtia is that place lied home. The Plan cue�rrb he visi n , . 2035 and provides goals_ initiated by the Lodging Tax ' an ORR41fe achie� it through the following: Advisory Committee to >, � Jobsg tl ices AI market Kent. The proposed Ec6` ic ci`ices i. � 5' branding and markets • ations for categories of land uses slogan captures the(�d}"kale st in Kent business�srade • H sing r • Par s and recreational opportunities school districts an'- i S` — for etting around L �d httoWdown o a c w ays . '-.2A�15� of communicating -- content/ p1q9dU-1Q'#Z _ :¢ • Natural resources era din 11 7`' Utilities you depend on q • Aesthetic values Y r • Sustainable funding for desired goods and r services �" The Plan is used by staff, elected officials and :. others in making decisions regarding funding of 9 9 9 9 capital facilities and projects, implementing development regulations, and developing future neighborhood or specific department master plans. Furthermore, the Plan provides to the community and other public agencies a clear expression of the City's choices for accommodating growth and implementing the vision for 2035. Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 1 / Kent-GeMpFehetisive Plan 1— 148 117 Vancouver 167,400 Bellevue 134,400 Kent 121,400 Source:April 1,2014 OFM ofncial estimate Table 1.2 Growth Forecasts Households 10 Jobs PSRC Forecasts 2035 53,549* 81,854 2010 Baseline (2010 Census for HH; Jobs are 42,793 � 1 61,654 Calculated from PSRC data) C " a. Growth Targets 2035 as extended for tannin Policies, 10,85 1 5," 'kV 648 Buildable Lands Capacity ' (as of 12/31/2011) 5i,52 ** 8 Capacity to Accommodate , PSRC Forecasts 2035 - 24 + 1,424 "using an average 2014 OFM population per occupl6ftgusehold of 2.58,th8;pop,l tion estimate Is 138,156. ••8ulidabie Lands Capacity applies historic tr,ds `M(tom+ rowth on vacant aril t evelopabie lands. The capacity numbers do not Include potential additional capacty provided zonlq es in Midway an E town Subarea Plans. Ethnicity - . Kent is an ethn 'verse conity (see Table 1.3). Kent School -. District stude speaC " ver 10Q 'fferent languages at home (see Table s divert y creates vibrancy that can be seen in small businesses arocal,cu tare `` S. lip �, .. Table 1.3 lac and Et hnicity Characteristics bJect ;Aq "cZ Kent city,Washington Estimate Percent RA Toka�, pulation 120,964 Y-a,9 �,..,_ . One rat 113,245 93.6% Two or mo,'e"Kes 7,719 6.4% One race 113,245 93.6% White 70,901 58.6% Black or African American 11,237 9.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 757 0.6% Asian 20,197 16.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,840 3.2% Some other race 6,313 5.2% IKent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 5 Kent GempFehensive Plan April 17. 2015flkr,��, �815 1169 Two or more races 7,719 6.4% White and Black or African American 1,595 1.3% White and American Indian and Alaska Native 911 0.8% White and Asian 1,410 1.2% Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 85 0.1% Race alone or in combination with one or more other races Total population 120,964 12 White +76,526 63.3% Black or African American .13,976 11.6% American Indian and Alaska Native 1,968 1.6% Asian 817 19.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander fJ' . 66 4.4% Some other race 7;'f8. 6.3% 4 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE ° �V Total population �� ;" 120,964 12 Hispanic or Latino(of any race) 20,354 16.8% Mexican K _. s 16,594 13.7% Puerto Rican 1;y r, y,s 383 0.3% a Cuban �t :: Kr 177 0.1% Other Hispanic or Lai G +" V 3,200 2.6% Not Hispanic or Laft ., ?` 100,610 83.2% �s r �N White alone' 59,035 48.8% .A.f. C.s. Y.. Black or Africapt erican, l 10,886 9.0% American Indian 404 NaMdV atq W 728 0.6% Asian aion 19,981 16.5% tive Hawailari d Othen tax F 3,840 3.2% ific Islander alone Some other race{df a ` '� 269 0.2% T 1Ivvl% w' wo or more races` 5,871 4.9% [tip races includiij Some other race 289 0.2% TW rd es exc Rd g Some other race,and Three or more races 5,582 4.6% source: 2010-Sg12'„-..erican Community survey 3-Year Estimates For more info`ripafio'on understanding race and Hispanic origin data,please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, overview of Rac�f.'t d Hispanic Origim 2010,Issued March 2011. Table 1.4 Language Spoken at Home Subject Kent city,Washington Estimate Percent LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME /do Population 5 years and over 111,120 English only 66,063 59.5% Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 6 Kent Gempitehensive Plan April 17, 2015",;aFeh 17, MIS i 150 119 Language other than English 45,057 40.5% Speak English less than"very well" 20,955 18.9% Spanish 14,488 13.0% Speak English less than"very well' 6,923 6.2% Other Indo-European languages 11,121 10.0% Speak English less than"very well' 5,392 4.9% Asian and Pacific Islander languages 15,726 14.2% Speak English less than"very well' 7,408 6.7% Other languages 3,722r`: 3.3% Speak English less than"very well' 1 232 =" 1,1% source: 2010-2012 American community survey 3-Year Estimatesy„ da •, Household Character The age of Kent's population represen grown families 8ht Table 1.5). The housing mix is nearly eve splifibe een single-i" mily and multiple-family housing (See Table � fig1cr st 84% of fihose over 25 years of age in Kent have completed them, igh sc oo education See Table 1. Recen ouse a i come stafisf s ow a mean �. t�f�/���household income level of4���`�$�r�See Tabl1`.8). A e f�Rq ulatio 7 Under 5 years �G cs '9 8.1% g, 5 to 9 years 7.0% r 10 to 14 years 7.1% `0 15 to 19 years 7.2% f�F-- 20 to 24 years J�°` 7 8% 25 to 29 years 7.9% 30 to 34 years N }s 35 to 39 years 7.3% 1� 40 to 44 yet _ fit,. 6.9% 45 to 49 years 7.5% S0 ' 4 year`s N ram '7.0% 55 to 59 years 4.8% to 64 years � ��'"�'`.8% 65 to 69 years 3.6% 7ff o 74 years 1.9% 75 to 79 Years 1,5% .r 80'0 9years B 1.2% 85 years and over 1.3% Source w20i012 A can Community survey 3-Year Estimates eMM Table 1.6 Housinq Mix Units in Structure Total Housing Units 44,932 1-unit detached 47.4% 1-unit,attached 5.3% 2 units 1.4% 3 or more units 41.8% 3 or 4 units 5.2% Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 7 +e�empiceheflsive Plan April 17, 2015;"��a" i 7 ^fill C r 5 to 9 units 12.1% 10 to 19 units 12.9% 20 or more units 11.7% Mobile home 3.8% Boat,RV,Van,Etc. 0.3% Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Table 1.7 Education Subject Kent city,Washington Estimate Percent J d SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Population 3 years and over enrolled in school 31,286 31 Nursery school,preschool 1,256 4.0% Kindergarten 1,586 5.1% Elementary school(grades 1-8) 13,836 44.2% High school(grades 9-12) 6,789 21.7% College or graduate school 7,819 25.0% EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 1 Population 25 years and over 75,934 Less than 9th grade 6,350 8.4% 9th to 12th grade,no diploma 6,193 8.2% High school graduate(Includes equivalency) 20,136 26.5% Some college,no degree 17,984 23.7% Associate's degree 7,062 9.3% Bachelor's degree 13,317 17.5% Graduate or professional degree 4,892 6.4% =P_ercenthioh_school_acaduate_or_higher =( 83.5% Percent bachelor's degree or higher (X) 24.0% Source 20 gq2012 AmeI n Community Survey 3-Year Estimates An'M meaitc that' �stimate Is not applicable or not available. Table 1.8 Household Income Subject Kent city,Washington Estimate Percent INCOME AND BENEFITS(IN 2012INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS Total households 41,854 41 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Kent Profile and Vision Page 8 Kent Gel"Fiffehensive Plan April 17 2015",aFeh 17, 20 Environment and Open Space Participants were asked to place their sticker on a range between low investment and higher investment in environment and open space improvements. Sixty-nine Kent residents responded to this question. The distribution of stickers was divided into thirds, with the lowest third indicating favoring less investment, the middle third representing generally favoring continuing current levels of spending, and the top third favoring increased spending. Twenty-four people (35%) felt that current spending is appropriate, and 42 people (61%)thought that more money should be spent in this area. Outdoor Recreation Participants were asked to write 'L d,.x #r fi..c.ti6x .2,+c a �,rr '' � Rk�CREA tDNAtv'AM 171G7 �� � ��� � down their favorite outdoor ootourooRsa � � � recreational activities: 40 of 110 ay, paruNp � � (36%) respondents listed their r W--" 7w DO -� xe acc s roua�nEc��rar�o ► a` favorite outdoor activity as ....., ,J .u;,: .icy w r, ,. ry q,+`Y,` 3 �+ a1x ► walking, hiking and running, while 14 (13%) noted cycling was their favorite. A follow-up ME `' at�►—MIs ` question asked what respondents Try needed to better access their T' 7 a(17 /M� jZIP.f: 4��6'. f x x7 favorite activity. 17 of 79 M � respondents (22/°) reauested r ,y trails, 11 people (14%) requested V 06(" sidewalks 6 (7.6%) wanted park RM 7 maintenance, and 5 (6.3/o) asked Y '� r� 'xe z f' Y .%r-`fy l�C �Y-✓4 '�„ ..,x Yy'� } lam zY for bike lanes. All LM OW z3.4z r 7 J�3 Commute. SpeakOut participants were asked to draw a line; representing their,most common commute on a simplified'graphic,ofKing County. It was explained verbally to respondents that the route could be to a workplace;to school,or to a place they regularly travel. _ Of 73 commuters Whose route began in-Kent, 19.(26%); drew fines to,Seattle, I (15%0)to Renton, and another : 1 l:wither Kent. Tran portation The final set of questions in the SpeakOut:coiicerned transportation.practices, concerns and potential improvements to public transit. f . { The questions prompted respondents to vote on what transportation issues were 4 s+ f ��� lac�d'gfs,.avoi�one#rans�orint�grrtssues ,� � �r most important, how participants travel �rOrfli�n tau awn) V� s p + most often,and what might help iit�rirae�ponai�o f5suas are Most im or an�to ou r '00A participants take public transit more? 37 of 102 people (36%) cited traffic as Z g tcl on+�1 � Sn, a y the biggest transportation issue in Kent. j 18 of 102 people(18%) agreed with a write-in comment that more transit options are named:5&ofTG17 — ------ �� .respondents(55%) also said they commute b car most frequently, and 19 y people (19%) ride the bus most frequently. It seems that expanded bus '� fir" `.+,* � �t")AlhaCrSOC�teY�olpyo��t6ietmt�tltmone�i�' ,t �cx ri d and tram service is desired,as 25 of 108 PSI slip � wx � ��� ��� 24%) a m _ - _-. • * � people ( want ore routes, and 13 MUM of 108(12%)want more buses per route., 4 Write-in ideas included later hours for buses and trains, faster commute times and more stops in residential areas. 344 Attachment 1: SpeakOut data by residence of respondent in order of questions in booth Housing: Place a dot next ta the housing type that you would like to live in within the next 10 years! Housing type Kent Auburn, Bellevue,Burien, Des Moines, Unincorporated Covington,Maple Renton,SeaTac, Federal Way, King County Valley,North Seattle,Tukwila Puyallup,Tacoma Bend,Pacific Apartment building 2 2 2 1 0 Apartment building with 6 1 2 0 0 balcony Apartment building with 0 0 0 0 0 rooftop communal outdoor space Attached home/townhome 3 2 2 0 0 (higher density)with private yard Attached home/townhome 0 1 0 0 b (higher density)with shared yard Attached home/townhome 3 4 1 0 0 (medium density)with private yard Attached home/townhome 0 1 0 0 0 (medium density)with shared yard Duplex/triplex/four- lex 1 0 0 1 0 Mid or high rise mixed use 0 0 1 1 0 apartment with commercial space or near commercial district Mid-rise mixed use 3 1 1 2 0 apartments Mixed use apartments with 1 1 0 0 0 recreation options Senior housing 3 0 1 0 0 Single family residence(1- 15 2 3 3 2 2 bedrooms =Single-famil-_y=residence-(3—A —1_t =8 =4 3 4 bedrooms) Single family residence(5- 1 10 5 4 2 0 8 bedrooms) Skinny lot single family 0 0 0 0 0 home Addenda: Shared house 6 bdrm 1 0 0 0 0 Mobile Home/Cabin 0 1 0 0 1 SRO/Boarding House 1 0 0 0 0 10 i Ay What Provides You with Great Quality of Life Place stickers on the two top things that are most important to you for good quality of life in your community. Service or Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Unincorporated Additional Additional amenity Covington, Burien, Moines, King County Comments(Kent Comments Maple Renton, Federal residents) (non-Kent Valley, SeaTac, Way, residents) North Seattle, Puyallup, Bend, Tukwila Tacoma Pacific Access to good 5 2 5 3 0 food Attractive streets 5 1 3 1 0 Clean water and 17 3 2 2 1 environment Energy efficient 0 1 2 3 0 buildings Good cell 5 2 0 1 0 And wifi coverage Good 21 8 7 5 0 Horse trails,bike Places to walk, walking/biking lanes(4) bike lanes trdf F:-:- """"'-- Great access to 6 3 1 1 2 Social services health services Great school 29 8 7 1 1 system Less train noise 6 1 0 0 0 Live close to wor 2 0 1 0 0 No graffiti/junk 2 0 l 1 Enforcement cars Recreational 9 5 7 1 0 opportunities Safe communit 35 9 8 6 3 Shopping within 0 8 2 1 0 walking distance Transit options to 10 3 7 6 2 et to work Variety of housing 2 1 1 0 0 —o tions Variety of senior 4 0 0 1 0 programs Well-maintained 7 0 3 1 0 public assets Addenda: Air quality 0 0 l 0 0 Bars walking 3 0 0 1 0 distance Better metro 3 2 l 0 0 options Better shopping 1 0 0 0 0 downtown Church 2 1 0 0 0 community Free bus system 2 0 0 0 0 914/916 Good childcare 1 0 0 0 0 13 I 156 140 Environment and Open Space: What is your favorite recreational activity to do outdoors? Activity Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Moines, Unincorporated Covington, Burien,Renton, Federal Way, King County Maple Valley, SeaTac,Seattle, Puyallup, North Bend, Tukwila Tacoma Pacific 4x4 0 1 0 0 0 Airsoft 1 0 0 0 0 Basketball 0 1 0 0 0 Bike Riding 14 2 2 2 2 Bird Watching 0 1 0 0 0 Boating/water s orts 0 0 0 1 0 Camping 6 1 0 1 0 Enjoying outdoors/open s aces 1 0 1 0 1 Exercising 2 0 0 0 0 Exploring 3 0 0 0 0 Fishing 2 0 0 0 1 Gardening/Farming Gardening/Farming 7 3 1 1 0 Geocaching 1 0 0 0 0 Going to Park 4 1 2 0 1 Golf 2 1 0 0 0 Horseback Riding 2 0 0 0 0 Kayaking 2 0 0 0 0 People Watching 0 0 1 0 0 Picnic/BBQ 4 0 1 0 0 flaying Outside 2 0 0 0 0 Racing 1 1 0 1 0 Sailing 0 0 0 0 0 Soccer 3 1 0 0 0 Softball 2 0 0 0 0 Swimming =5 =3 Walking/Hiking/Running 11 8 10 7 Walking/Playing with dog 5 1 0 1 0 Watching Sports 0 1 0 0 0 Water Park I 1 1 0 0 Yard/Patio 0 0 0 0 1 16 14V7 Environment and Open Space•What�you need to be able to access your recreational activity more easily? Service Kent Auburn, Bellevue Des Unin.King Additional Additional Covington, ,Burien, Moines, County Comments(Kent Comments Maple Renton, Federal residents) (non-Kent Valley,North SeaTac, Way, residents) Bend,Pacific Seattle, Puyallup, Tukwila Tacoma Better transit 5 0 0 1 0 Buses,don't cut Bus to water service(2),nicer front bus drivers, 167 Bike Parking 0 5 2 0 0 0 Bike-Paths and 1 1 0 0 Bike lanes Further trails _. - 7 Trails Clean water, 2 0 0 0 0 swimming opportunities Do Park 3 1 0 0 0 Off-leash arks Covington Drinking fountains 1 0 1 0 0 Equipment 1 1 0 0 0 Kayak rentals Golf courses l 1 0 0 0 more cheaper Interactive maps of 2 1 0 0 0 Yearly maps Trails/Amenities Lakes l 1 0 2 0 Motorized lakes More boating access,cleaner Maintenance 5 0 2 0 0 Clean campsites, Trail trail maintenance maintenance Money 1 1 0 0 0 Neighborhood 1 0 0 0 0 Activity group No homeless camps 2 0 0 0 0 in public zones Open spaces 3 1 0 0 1 Smoke free space Quiet fields, 2) Parking 0 0 1 0 1 Parks 6 0 1 2 1 More/safer/not just public rec tot lots,more hours, areas,more playgrounds(2) Places to dance 2 0 0 0 0 =PublicPool 2 =0 =0 =0 =0 Water_-arks Rec center 1 0 0 0 0 Retirement 0 0 0 0 1 Safety 2 1 0 0 0 Fewer gangs Safe ball courts, Sidewalks 11 1 0 4 Better,more, West valley, lighting, 132"d St lighting,more, trees/safer feel Soccer fields 3 0 0 0 0 Time 0 1 0 0 0 Trails 17 5 3 6 3 More parking(2), More trails more multi-use s aded,well lit trails w/access, pnority for horse trails open space, more,jeep trails, more/easier rails,more 17 158 142 Waste 2 1 0 0 0 Less trash,more Access to yard waste pickupcompost Water fountains 0 0 1 0 0 Transportation: Map your commute by drawing a line from where you live to where you work! (Or where you commute most often) Commuters in Kent: Lake Meridian To Covington I Lake Meridian To Seattle _ 3 Lake Meridian To Renton 1 Lake Meridian To East Hill 1 Lake Meridian To Puyallup 1 Lake Meridian To Downtown 2 Downtown To Seattle 4 Downtown To West Hill Downtown To Surrounding 2 Downtown To Renton 2 Downtown To Burien 1 East Hill To Downtown East Hill To Auburn 3 East Hill To Tacoma 2 East Hill To Ed ewood 1 East Hill To Puyallup 1 East Hill To Unincorp.King 1 East Hill To Issaquah 1 East Hill To Bellevue 2-12 East Hill To Everett 3 East Hill To Renton 4 East Hill To Lake Meridian 1 East Hill To Federal Way 2 East Hill To Seattle The Lakes To Federal Way The Lakes To Des Moines 1 The Lakes To Bellevue 1 The Lakes To Seattle 2 Scenic Hill To Renton 1 —Scenic=Hill=To=Sea`P��=1 Scenic Hill To Renton 1 Scenic Hill To Seattle 2 Riverview To SeaTac 1 Riverview To Renton 1 West Hill To Surrounding Area 1 West Hill To Downtown 1 West Hill To Federal Way 1 West Hill To Seattle 1 West Hill To Renton 1 Total(In Kent) 73 18 159 144 Transportation: W t transportation ssues are most important to you? Issue Kent Auburn, Bellevue, Des Unincorporated Additional Additional Covington, Burien, Moines, King County Comments Comments Maple Renton, Federal (Kent (non-Kent Valley, SeaTac, Way, residents) residents) North Bend, Seattle, Puyallup, Pacific Tukwila Tacoma Less traffic 37 8 7 5 0 More sidewalks 4 3 2 0 Nature park/trails, Covington Hills to lib 7 sidewalk Better-connected 2 1 1 0 0 41'w streets ��r�aks More bike paths 9 1 1 1 0 �G Better bike safety 1 2 0 0 Railroad 4 2 0 0 0 safety separations Addenda: More transit 18 4 9 3 4 Expand light Weekend options rail(2) options,light rail,bike racks on UA buses Later buses 1 1 4 2 0 local! Daily trains 4 0 0 1 0 Better designed 2 0 0 1 2 Hwys More housing 1 0 0 1 0 near transit More parking for 6 0 0 0 0 sounder/more times of departure Slower Speeds 1 0 0 0 0 88 1h St Infrastructure 1 0 0 0 0 Central Ave maintenance tire damage, crosswalks Reliability 0 1 0 0 0 Less lights 0 0 0 1 0 Safe Rts to 1 0 0 0 0 School(Newly O'Brian Russell) 20 i 145 Transportation: How do you travel most often? Transportation Kent Auburn, Bellevue,Burien, Des Moines, Unincorporated Covington,Maple Renton,SeaTac, Federal Way, King County Valley,North Seattle,Tukwila Puyallup,Tacoma Bend,Pacific Biking 3 1 2 1 0 Walking 0 0 3 0 0 Riding the bus 19 2 11 3 1 Carpooling 3 0 2 0 0 Driving 20 12 9 4 Taxi/rideshare 1 1 0 1 0 Commuter rail 7 1 0 1 1 Addenda: Scooter 1 0 0 0 0 Schooibus 1 0 0 0 0 W,I ✓ /0 6'2.6 Za 1"° 21 a r Race/Ethnicity and Age of Respondents 4 Overall Race/Ethnicity a 55%of all respondents identified race as"White." ® 22% identified race as"Black." - __.____.._. . ..._._.. Number of Respondents in Each Age i 0 8% identified race as"Hispanic." I Bracket -All Respondents ® 6% identified race as"Asian." 250 ® 6% identified race as"Other." 200 ® 2% identified race as"Pacific Islander." lso ; ® 1% identified two or more races. i 100 , ® 1% identified race as"American Indian." i s0 ........ ... ���`�. _ .. As a note, this question was optional and was phrased as 0 0, rac%thnicity, the responses are not 100%inclusive ©<20®20-29 ®30-39 ®40-49 a Sa59 ®60-69 ®>69 i because the survey categories did not include a complete ---- ----- ----- --------------------------------.--- -- list of options that are typically available in the census. Age—see graph to right Number of Respondents in Each Age Online Respondents Bracket- Online Respondents Race/Ethnicity 140 0 76%identified race as"White." lzo ® 6% identified race as"Asian." j 100 j 80 i ® 5% identified race as"Black." i a 60 5% identified two or more races. ! ... ..... ._ y-... .. _.. ® 4%identified race as"Hispanic." ao - �. zo ® 1% identified race as"American Indian." ® 1% identified race as"Pacific Islander." i o a<20®20-29 a 30-39 a 40-49 a 50-59 a 60-69 a>69 i Age= Seegraph=at=right. _____ - ___.._. ___..._......__..____..__._ ._-.---------_....._ __. .__- _.__ ___._ ______.__.__.----.. __.____ ____..-_._ -_.... Number of Respondents in Each Age Food Bank Visitors Bracket - Food Bank Visitors Race/Ethnicity ® 54%identified race as "White." 15 i 0 25%identified race as "Black." 10 m 8% identified race as"Other." S, ® 4% identified race as"Asian." S 0 4% identified race as"Hispanic." o 0 4% identified two or more races. �� 19<20 ®20-29 3 30-39 ®40-49 a 50-59 a 60-69 ®>69 �� ® 1 participant wrote in Middle Eastern. Age—See graph at right. 2 Community Priorities for Quality of Life 1=Not Important, 2=Somewhat Important,3=Important, 4=Very Important, 5=Essential Overall Priorities for Kent citizens(all respondents)are - — --- -- - — — community-safety,clean groundwater,schools, Qualltyof lice-Overall-904responses lur" , and roadways.Maintained public assets, Neadby food healthy food, safe parks,affordable recreation, fka less junk,quality housing options and attractive all cby g. street all ranked highly as well. _Npmb�NutlNOpdvna MalmNrcdPvbUc Atteb Egt tea Tnln N6. mmmunlry salary _ l Sd,vvh ' Anracme sl'_u I A Rvadwaya ~ PublkTo 0 VaneN of Ynbr lnv{raml I 401 � Sale PorW -- ARvldable ReuNtlan J Tnlh 0.00 0.50 l.lq 7.50 I.00 7.50 3.00 ].50 4.00 e.50 5.00 Av ap forum(]-5) Online Respondents Community safety is the top priority for the Quality of life-Online Respondents-450 Responses online respondent group,with roadways,clean F lunk groundwater and schools ranked highly as well. €� NealthyRvvd 5 Dean Groundwater I I I I _._.Cell cvvenye Neudn,°valRy Ogtivmxm nl j AamtakwdP.burAtaela i L Le Trims __. Community Salty I t scbmh t7aserc - Att—SlReta li Roadway. i Publk Tr 0 F vorlery al Yruvr Prvpnm Mvrdatle Reaeativn � '. � _ _._._...-SbvppinR j Tnih _—DW 030 L00 I30 I00 7,50 7.00 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.00 --hoop C^neen(1.5) I J 4 100 Transportation <:Overal ea v ra is or congestion was identified as the primary transportation issue (30%)for the next five years. Other concerns that rated highly include easy access to major roads(17%), more public transit(16%), and railroad separation (16%). Other Biggest Transportation Issues Overall More Bike Paths 87 133 4% More Sldew: gestion ✓ 231 552 11% 10% ®Congesdan ®Easy Access to Major Roads ®Railroad Grade Separation G More Public Transit More Public Transit C More Sidewalks 337 c M More Bike Paths 16% s Other s to Major ads Railraau uraue 3epd1auu11 377 336 17% 16% 64%of all respondents indicated Motivating Factors for Increas d Transit se- overall that their primary Easier to Find/Understand transportation mode Route and Schedule is to drive alone. Information7% If the Bus/Train Came More Often I More options for Need to Feel Safer j` 15% ®If the Bus/Train Came More where people need to on the lBus/Train a Often go (19%) would help a More Options for Where I Need to Go motivate the overall group to use transit ®A Bus Stop Near My Home f more.Additionally, I Need To Feel51 to/from the B " Options for n Lower Cost to Ride the Bus faster travel time and 11% 1 Need to Go more frequent service 19% 0 Faster Travel Time to My were identified as Destination motivators. 01 Need To Feel Safe Walking to/from the Bus Station Faster Travel Ti a I Need to Feel Safer on the to M Destination }' ;xi ��% � �' y 1596 f 41� Bus/Train s ', us Stop Near My Home a a Easier Find/Understand tLower Co - P14% Route and Schedule Ride the Bus Information 9% I 10 164 157 Online Respondents 76%of online respondents drive alone (362 out of 474 people) as their primary mode of transportation.The biggest transportation issue for this group is congestion (30%).The next most important transportation issue is railroad grade separation,then easy access to major roads and more public transit. Increased ridership for public transit may result from providing more options where people want to go, as well as faster travel times. Biggest Transportation Issues- other Online Respondents More Blkr Paths 73 67 6% s% More Sidewalks Congestion 366 lie N' 30% 10% 0 Congestion 0 Easy Access to Maim Roads a Railroad Grade Separation a More Public Transit Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Online More Pub rwF` ■More Sidewalks 17 � '� Respondents 14 aMoreOlkePaths Easier to Find/Undesstand' Is Other Route and Schedule Information If the Busiffnln I Need to Fed Safer on ame More Often the Bus/Tratn 6% Easy Access to Major 10% a if the Bus/Traln Came More Often Railroad Gra Roads Separation 103 740 16% I Need To Feel Safe a More options for Where I Need to 19% to/From the Bus. Go 1016 a A But Stop Near My Nome 0lower Cola to Ride the Bus a Faster Travel Time to My Optionsfor Oestlnation e I Need to Go zB% 01 Need To Fe el Safe Walking to/from Laster Travel Tim the Bus Station MY Destination 18% 1111 Need to Feel Safer on the Bus/Train a Easter to Fnd/Undentand Route and Schedule Information Food Bank Visitors tower Cost to Ri the Out A But S op ear Congestion is also the primary transportation 3% RayHome issue for visitors to the food bank(30%).35% drive alone (13 out of 37),while 27%walk and 27%ride the bus(10 out of 37 each). Lower cost and more frequent service would help this group take transit more. More options where people need to go and bus stops closer to homes would help as well. Biggest Transportation Issues- Bl;' Food Bank Visitors MotivatingFactors for Increased Transit Use-Food Bank Visitors More Bike Palls 1% s 11% Easier to Flnd/Undentand g, Cnneestfon Route and Schedule t: !3 Information 3BK fig' Bus/Train Came More More Sldewal a a ConBestbn INeed to Feel Sat, 8fG ill ifthe Bus/stain Came More 9% on the Often •Easy saws m Mafor Roads a More Options for Where I Need .Rallmad Grade Separation =,l a. 1r`;1 . to Go .More Pula,lrmut ��p�aas''' 0 A Bus Stop Near My Home .More Sideuahs INenl To Few _ More Puhi .More Bike Path to/hom tiro 1 Options for 0 tamer Coat to Ride the Baas o •Other 1 Need to Go tat% 16% a Faster TravN Time to MY Destination Faller T-0 TI My Oestirullo ! a I teed To Feel Safe Walking S% to/horn the Bus Station Railroad Grade\,_1 Easy aueu to Motor s I Need to Feel Safer on the separation Rmds Bus/Traln S 9 a Easier to r d/Undentand Route 11% 13% �' I—Cost to and Schedule InfomaaLlon Ride the Bus us Stop Near lEr% My Home 11 16% 1gg5 Soccer Game Attendees Congestion is again the primary transportation issue for attendees at soccer games(35%).62%(143 out of 242) drive alone, and another 19%(45 out of 232)carpool. More options for where people need to go would help this group take transit more,followed closely by increased frequency and faster travel time. Biggest Transportation Issues- Other Mae Bike Path, 9 Soccer Game Attendees 34 2% B% Mae5irkvralks Genaertlen Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Soccer Game 57 143 14% 35% Attendees a Congestion a E.,yAccess to MaJor Roads fader to Find/Undetstand e FUlf—d Grade Sepaalion Route and Schedule it the B a More Public Transit Information ore Oft Came e More Often a More side-3a; &"■Mote Rite Paths 1 Need to Feel Safer me r 5*M1x a If the Bus/Traln Ca More Often on the BUSAR111 :a ■More Puhll Mer 9% #i $ #'i aMao Opllansla Wheroi Need to 57 ET f 1t Go 14% a A But Stop Near My Nome i Need Tal Walking to as tower Cost to Ride the Bus Railroad Grade asy Access to Malor g1 options for Sepantlal Isoads I Need to Go 35 73 1996 a Faster Travtl Time to My Destination 9% 18% a 1 Need To Feel Safe Walking lo/from the Bus Station Faster Travel a l Feed to feel Safer an the Bus/Traln My Oestinab 15% ®Easier to Fnd/UtWttstand Route Ous Stop and Schedule Information Immigrants and refugees Lower Cc Neu%Home Ride the Bus The immigrant and refugee respondents 10f6 prioritized easy access to major roads(22%)and more public transit(22%) along with congestion (22%)as the top transportation issues.57%(123 out of 215)drive alone, while 18%(39 out of 215)take the bus. Frequency of service,faster travel times,and closer bus stops to homes would help this group take transit more often. Biggest Transportation Issues- MoeBlkePath off- Recent Immigrants 21 1 —7%—— Congestion More Sidewalks I 72 35 23% 71% ■Congestion GEM Access to Major Roads Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Immigrants and ■Railroad Grade Sepalattnn Refugees O Mae Palk Transit ■Mae sldesratks Easier to Find/Understand Route and Schedule More Public t ■Mae Bike Paths Inlamaifon If the Bus/Traln 69 Gene More oft. 22% mOther 4 16% l' a It the Bus/rraln Came More Often Fast Access to Malor i Need to Feel Sale, � � �� Roads on the Bus/Ira aj� y3 69 it% FY a Mae Options for Where l Need to 22% Go ■A Bus Stop Near My Nome Setud More Options for 4G here 1 Need to Go 15% 12% [lower Cost to hide the Bus I Need To Walking to a Faster Travel Tim to My our St Destination 13. e 1 Need To Feei 5.1fe Walking ta/from the Bus Stalk n Slap Neu a i Need I.Feel Safer-iise Myllnme Bus/lrafn 1 rafter Trash 14% a Faster to Fktd/Undentand Route My Best lion and Schedule lnlarrotion 12 15% ..Lower Cost to Ride the Bus 11% ���6 Senior Activity Center (Seniors and Staff) Congestion is once again the primary transportation issue for this group(36%). More public transit was also identified as a secondary priority in transportation.58%of respondents(42 out of 73)drive alone,and 21% (15 out of 73) ride the bus. Bus stops closer to homes would help this group take transit more,as well as more options for where people need to go,as well as safety walking to and from stops. Other Biggest Transportation Issues- Mum Blue Paths 4 Senior Activity Center 6 3% 5% More Sldmyalks , 15 Sl% rC Congestion 45 36% aCongesUon Motivating Factors for Increased Transit Use-Senior n Easy Access to Major Roads Activity Center a Ul,oad Grade Separatlmn a More Public Transit Easier to Find/Understand ■More SldewaFn Route and Schedule It the Bus/Train information Came More Often ar, ■More Pub Othe Muer 01ke Paths 11% ■ 2 e If the Bus/rraln Came More i 22%. 1 Need to Feel Safer Often an the Rus/Traln� t ®More Options for Where l More options for Need to Go ere I Need to Go Railroad r asy Access to Major 17% O A Bus Stop Near My Home Separallon Roads 10 19 B% 14% IN To Feel ®lower Cost to Ride the But to/from the B r.. 15% ■Faster Travel Time to My Destination s Stopy Near M ®1 Need To Feel Safe Walking Faster Trawl Tin Home to/from the Bus Station My Destination 19% 7% e 1 Need to Feel Safer on the 0us/rrain Lowe r os o Ride the Bus ®Easter to Find/Understand 12% Route and Schedule Information "Where would you take an out-of-town guest?" In an open-ended question, Kent residents overwhelmingly indicated that they would take out-of-town guests to Kent Station,followed by parks,trails, and lakes. j21 There were four specific locations of Places to Take a Guest in Kent parks/trails/lakes that respondents identified most 5nowarn - requently: Lake Meridian,Soos Creek Trail, Green Crain Restaurants River Trail and Lake Fenwick. For local businesses, Senior Center ,13 C----"-'�`— KentCommons o there were four most identified:the farmers market, Home n Maggies on Meeker, Mama Stortini's and the Outside Rent ^"-'" Loral Business Nigia Carpinito farms. Downtown Kent rr !Parlcs,Trails and sakes - KentStadon -.__. _..� _.......... _.,.„. .._. D 5o 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 400 450 Number of Respondents 13 161 Categories of Comments for All Responders to "What would make Kent a better place to live?" Jobs Downtown Revitalization Less Police(includes discrimination,brutality) i m More Police ZHomeless Services/Less Homeless I i C Better Schools I E i — -- RestaurAn ats I ! Retail More Grocery Options Crime/Safety/Security(Includes gangs,drugs,guns) 1J1� _ i a Trees and Vegetation E Parks and Green Space I � m — — Less Low-income Housing/Apartments 1 Affordable Housing I = More Houses/Apartments More Cohdos/Higher Income Housing a Sidewalks Traffic/Congestion j Transportatioh/Transit/Access 2 --�— Roads/infrastructure j Bike Lanes/Trails Youth and Child Activities(Includes after-school programs) o Recreation Facilities(includes YMCA) AHMMIMM — Athletic Facilities(Specific) �00 Community Identity/Community Center Entertainment/Events Destinations i Lower Taxes More Respect and Inclusion of Cultures dOrderliness/Law Compliance Ix. FamilY f r[en.dly Affordability(General) (� Beautification/Cleanliness/Graffiti/Appearance/Maintenance More Parking Enforcement/Junk Car Removal ' v i 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Number of Respondents I 15 162 i 169 163 Cha 4erwo - ND USE ELEMENT Formatted:Font:18pt What y Wi Ind in this chapter: • Foundation and framework for the Element • How anticipated future growth of households and employment can be accommodated; • Goals and Policies for vibrant commercial centers, well-designed neighborhoods and job centers; and consideration of healthy environment and lifestyles. Purpose Statement: To foster a growth pattern that ensures Kent is a safe connected and beautiful city, culturally vibrant with richly diverse urban centers 4mplenients utilizing limited r-eseuF------,- --,--'4 --,—,--UFes land uses- th;4 r-r-p;4tp Purpose The Land Use Element guides they; eneral�_ Is t ibutio ` nd location of various land uses, as well as the scheduling" f ca i Oki r vement expenditures. It also will guide the chgracte of the d'eelo , ent pa tern which has impacts on aesthetics, mobility, otng envirorimtal and public health, and economic development. Final , the Lar! Use EIeCn, nt provides the internal consistency among all the elemeri which rans,[q, ip o coordinated qrow the City of Kent. F� , ..,. . . Issues -- Formatted Table What is that place called home? What attracts people to Kent and what keeps them here? As the City accommodates growth, it must be creating vibrant places. Coordination with Adjacent]urisdictions The City must coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure land use decisions of one jurisdiction are not adversely affecting other jurisdictions. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element(1^ ;) Page 1 I 170 165 Table�LU.1* 2015 CITY OF KENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS I LAND AREA % OF ALLOWED t -- Formatted Table USE (ACRES) TOTAL ZONING AREA Agricultural AG-R r1:353.5 9.30_3 A-10 r AG S@223.3 3 31_0 AG y Subtotal � ��-3276 8_ . 3�1M3 SF Res�dent�al't rUS 87's:41,637.2 rr.37 `6 SR-1 y �� SF-3 64.588.8 @- SR-3 r r .fin SF-4.5 4452,301.2 10 SR-4.5 SF-6 6;394:56 7�69 9: 31 4'��, „ 4.5, SR-6 SF-8 481.3631. 2_9 SR .5, SR-6, SR-8 MHP 115.8166` 0.8 MH Subtotal �,v�^s'-'r11 5 4 7 r5 =353 8 ' a �x 4.63_9 SR-8, M R-D, M R-G,MF Rd§ldentlal LDMF �61:5836.1 N 4 MRT-12, MRT-16 MDMF a, .8 MR-D, MR-M, MR-H, v. w - z MRT 12,MRT 16 ` , Subtotal ', 1,660 5 9-37 7� _ Commercial56, 4.0 4.62_8 GC, CC, O, MRT 16, M2 (legacy) ' �� � S fi 15 9:040_1 NCC, MRT-12, MRT-16 $5G`: 707.0 4-.73_3 GC, GWC, CC, O, CM-1, CM-2, MRT-12, MRT-16 �62_3 DC, DCE, GC MRT-12, MRT-16 yip MR-M, MHP OC 271.7 1_3 MTC-1, MTC-2, MCR. MHP Subtotal 4, 62 100 6 � 9'8 T 1 _ ;..Industrial I z =2,285.3 1:3.510.6 MA, M1, M2, M3, M 1-C MIC 16,968.61,984 3 12.09.2 M2, M3 Subtotal 4,288-84 269 6 a5-619`8 3 Park&Open' POS ,Dad 911 641.1 7.6 met i4p—ite Ali ace f. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Eleme t-TT2Q'^) ^A4 Page 3 7 I 171 171 The 2014 methodology to estimate capacity for household and employment is based on the Buildable Lands Program (RCW 36.70A.215). Under Buildable Lands, the City is required to conduct a review and evaluation to deterFaiHe "^ auoguaey—of the current supply of "lands suitable for development" to �� d and to evaluate the effectiveness of local plans and regulations. to erder to aeeemplish this,, tjhe Buildable Lands Program requiFescollects annual data eelleetieft-to determine the amount and density of recent development, an inventory of the land supply suitable for development, and an assessment of the ability to ac o`Vmodate expected growth for the remainder of the twenty (20) year plannkl. orizon. Figure FLU-5 shows the location and extent of va. t and`re evelopable sites in Kent. Table **LU.2 summarizes the househok and employnieht capacity for the Kent Planning Area based on Buildabl lands lysis, a �p ridY_vides the existing household and employment as of200. E FI.U LU 5 r KENT VACANT A 1 READ:__ELOPABM ND Formatted:Left BUILDABLE LANDS / 1 a CAPACITY jj��,,�. 'A P i "�,• lilmw LEGEND DEVELOPMENT STATUS t I Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element—(***�20 4) ^A G"r Page 9 1 172 172 TableA-*.LU.2 KENT PLANNING AREA 2010 and 2014 RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY Activity Type 2010 Existing 2014 Capacity Total Households 42,793 10,732 53,525 Employment 61,654 21,624 83,278 Evaluation of Development Cap'i , Growth Targets ' As stated in the Kent Profile and Vision�c LLpter, the Kent PIal3ng Area's AN growth target for residential from the Kmg linty Co' tywide Planni"ng Policies (CPPs) is 9,360 households, and its employ' t,t et is 13,490 employees to the year 2031. The planning hori on for Kent's rnprehensive Plan is 2035 which required a mathematicaltIe` to s'on of CPR` targets. The result is a residential 2035 target of 10,85$ ous ,14 and� mployment target of 15,648 jobs. "Y ' Targets are not inheretly reflectioi 1tarket trends in a specific city. Over the next two decades ound{ ransit will:continue to expand the Link Light Rail which could dranat cally shag the co�r� unities with stations. Midway the Kent-Des Moines are alon he_-S 9 < corridor is slated to have a rail station by 2023. MidVifa i a so ari-area that did not figure into the Buildable Lands Anal s becau there are no new developments from which t calcuW .capacity�T e capaci in Kent's Downtown Urban Center and Midway is d1 lilt to predict o lit to 2(1 5. What is known is that there is substantial eapacit both of the e areas t�provide rre w=housingand amp l-=ym­e-nt=in I Kent -�netftal:e-€alle-�ettt--s��-�a�.,._fin al-e tt f is clear that there is adequate housing capacity and � q 9 P Y more than de a ` employment capacity to accommodate the 2035 targets a (see Table A ' Land Use Scenario 4.0 in the Midway Subarea Plan adopted on December 13 2011 anticipated a light rail station, with transit-oriented development and future capacity for 11.821 housing units and 9.481 jobs in the Midway Subarea The Downtown Subarea Action Plan adopted on November 19. 2013 looks toward a dense mixed- use urban center that complements transit The plan expanded the downtown subarea to approximately 550 acres and considered different growth alternatives ranging from 5.285 - 20,001 for households and 23,496 - 30,076 for jobs from the 2006 base year to 2031. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-(***,'2014)DP.4 Page 10 i i Policy LU-1.1: Establish land use map designations that accommodate a portion of the CWty's overall growth targets into Kent's Potential Annexation Area. Policy LU-1.2: Do not extend any urban services t_ adjacent Unincorporated King County Rural Areas Policy LU-1.3: Monitor sLto_household and employment growth trends and consider chan'es, to the land use Wan ma �7 nd deve%meet regulationsthanges to ensure Kent meets the y density on *e—net buildable acreage allowe the zoning district desi nation. r Goal LU-2: - ` Kent will locate public facilities and sec s withsensrtrvity to mmunity needs and environmental conditions , ? = Policy LU-2.1: Work with, gional ands; tate entities when public capital facilities are consrdered� �" folc,location in or near the City to ensu at impacts�a ben a equi,"ably dispersed. C� Policy LU 2 2• Promote a ddsu porfp blWc tran ', bicycle nd .. pedestrian circu := i rn f-ufqp ',qCt Ur Van settings. Policy LUt2z Give ding peon to capital facili projects which are ti. consistent wit the Cis.,Land ` e Element a support � , pport. projected housing and emp oy ertt grorgets. I LU'�� Via ary,ublic particlpa ' process, allow certain public Band private rnfastruc ' com ity open space and social service "ifs lities that se a the eral population the freedom to locate btro ou�j URBA ND USE Downtown Kent is the heart of Kent. The Downtown Planning Area contains Kent s Ur an Center as recognized y Countywide Planning o ccies an the Puget Sound Regional Council, and affirmed y the Downtown u area Action -PTan (DSAP). There are of er urban nodes and corridors in Kent that contain a mix of residential and commercial uses. The Midway Subarea Plan focuses on an important node that by 2035 will contain a light rail s a ion near ig ine Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-- r***r2g1"'PW Page 12 174 175 Community College. The following Goals and Policies reflect community values and are consistent with.the Plan's framework: Goal LU-3: Kent will focus house Qld and employment growth in the Urban Center and designated ActiwV Centers to provide adequate land and densities to accommodate a large portion of the adopted twenty(20)year housing target of 1 58 new we ing units and 15,648 new jobs within Kent's Planning Area. Owl a6l- Policy LU-3.1• Encourage mixed-use developr►�it that combines retail, office o resi en ra uses to rovi e a ,iv a and economically vibrant Urb n Center and designated Activrty�r�te Policy LU-3.2: Encourage medium nd hi h�de:.gsity residential development ' "' in t e Urla Center that su orts hi h g aci transit and'rs affordable to aIf_;: n es of income. Policy LU-3.3: Utilize rth, Downtow ubarea Action Plan and Downtown Design GuideHnetc�ensre eve�paent in the Ur an enter is a rac constructed t7�lri�t ah materials develops 4 maximizes livability and rernf as as r3se.'o lace. Policy LU 3,4' es' ate Acts ' in areas which currently contain cons nt atlon of commer is development with surrounding kJ-s41�v441 medium-dens4F y housing;are„sup"'rted by transit; or have an existing ,a � su area an . ` -- F 7 ' �E Pa icy LiJ % Pen. really evaluate household and employment . r forecasts to ens e thal nd use policies based on previous assumptions a. current Policy, U 3 6y monitor economic trends and consider land use changes I and incefi' s, to maintain the vitality of the Urban Center and designates' ctivity Centers. Goal LU-4 Kent will lawn and finance transportation and other public infrastructure which support medium- and hi =density mixed-use evelopment of the Urban Center and designated Activity enters. I Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element _.(***i2014) nnn Page 13 175 176 Policy LU-4.1: Establish transportation levels=of---service (Los) which facilitate medium- to high-density development in the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers that are consistent with concurrency requirements. Policy LU-4.2: Focus future public transportation investments in the> 110-J . Urban Center and designated Activity Ce ers. c� Y� Policy LU-4.3: Enhance pedestrian c/rculat/on, ystems and bicyc% lanes in the Ur an Center an designated Asti,." Centers with an C � emp asis on circulation systems w rch hnk acent neighborhoods to Centers. >1 Policy LU-4.4: Take actions to etas �ment that ade uate ublicr arking is available to facilitate develop rnhe ObOn Center and designated 2��,r Activity Centers, and monitor the effectiveness of actions taken. rp FxJ J Policy LU-4.5: P/an andf ance waiter d sewer s stems t support medium and high den ity deve ap nt m the Urban Center and designated Activ/ Centers, °ands w rk wi't outside purveyors where necessatryvv. Policy LU 4. Re downtown parks, and expand the system where`fe srb e, o maximize ;easst�e recreational opportunities for re �den employees, and visitors in the Urban Center in support of a r�� althy lif sty ' C , nsure_d_esignated--Acti_vity—Centers=provide-recreational oQ unities for a diversity of residents, employees, and visitors to suppor� hea lifestyle and creme oval brecommunity. .. Policy LU'4.8.. Designate a portion of Midway as an Activity Center to ensure that local and regional infrastructure investments are cap ure in or er o pr re an transform t e nerg or ood in o a dense dense center served by Sound Transit Link Light Rail. �\ n q ' ' L u G`k) urc Y ,Ke---�/ IKent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element--����8-1�,9R_AFT Page 14 176 177 Goal LU-5: Kent will emphasize the importance of good design, pedestrian first, and healthy-living for development in the ran Center and designated Activity en ers,- U e-� f A 41 'W� Policy LU-5.1: Adopt and m ' ta/ policies, codes, and land use patterns that promote walkin bikin ubl/c trans ortation and social interaction to increase public hea and sense of place. Policy LU-5.2: Ensure that the street t stair yrds in the Kent �LJ/ I Construction and Design Standards support and are consistent with the Downtown Subarea Ac 0 P and Downtown Design Guidelines. Policy LU 5.3: Ensure that the Kent yonstructio and Design ytandards support the community vision or esig ate d ctivity enters, including enhanced pedestrian and cyclist ci culatioin" ub7ic tra sit opportunities, and an e p asis on aesthetl an pu is;s Policy LU-5.4: Continue t and'stake beauti ication projects in the Urban Center and designat A + Ce�ers, including pedestrian amenities, street"Ce art t nd parks. Policy LU 5 Imp/", "ent design�i view for development in designated Activity Cen It V, �` "'• s5�.. Po tcysLU`1%6 Enco ge development of public or semi-public spaces � re tail, olfrce or re"' tia/areas in desAgnate c w� enters. PoNN icy=L=U 5 6 w—De►Telop—site and parking esign standards in �. d Centers which support public transit and are pedestrian Policy LU-5.7: Promote food security,- local food production and ..... Formatted:Font:Not Boid public health by encouraging locally-based food production distribution and choice through urban agriculture community gardens farmers markets, food access initiatives, and shared resources IPelieY W 5-7- Institute a Station Area Plan in ant�e��� IKent Comprehensive Plan—Land Use Element—L*inn,n,DRA cm Page 15 i 177 179 Policy LU-7.3: Allow and encourage a variety of multifamily housing forms and densities within designated commercial mixed-use land use areas. Policy LU-7.4: Allow a diversity of single-family housing forms and strategies in all residential districts (te e.4., accessory dwellings, reduced lot size, cottage or cluster housing), subject to design and development standards, to ensure minimal impa,, t to surrounding properties. �" Policy LU-7.5: Allow attached single-fami( ,-h�sn, within multifamily land use areas (e.g., MRT-12 and MR7 %6), and' a demonstration projects in mixed-use land use areas Goal LU-8: Kent will revise development regulations"to,,e coura a sinale-tami/v and multifamily development that is ore flexiblear,.r d innovative in terms of building design, street standar sfv 'pn a e roads,n site design. Policy LU-8.1: Support the a ieve //owab/e density in single- family develop�mdfi s` rough A` !b'l°ty and creativity in site design. Policy LU 81X : Establr h residen a/ streetsca a patterns which foster more opportUhhli e fa►►- M-7 th,�livi`g and community interaction. Pol 'llR4 k3 De . lop design standards for high-quality, compact r` ivesmle far»i�'x� , ousing to ensure such housina#i - •- w in rates into surrounding neighborhoods. r� t � . 9 r Poh LU 8 4.:� Allow more flexibility in single-family and multifamily resider set ticks, vehicle access, and a�rking, particularly on small lots, to of rage more compact infill evil elopmen�and innovative site design. Policy LU-8.5: Lay out neighborhoods that are oriented to the / pedestrian-provide natural surveillance of public and semi-pint p aces and foster a sense of community by orientation of buildings, limiting block lengths, encouraging continuity of streets among neighborhoods, +pease-connectivity to pub ic�aces, and supp sa a pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicular movement. Kent Comprehensive Plan—Land Use Element—(***,2814)DP.4,�"' Page 17 I 178 182 the North Valley Industrial Area. The City anticipates that by 2035, approximately 49,500 jobs will locate in the North Valley Industria rea. �� �Z( Analysis indicates there is substantial capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth, which includes office parks, bulk retail, and commercial activities along with manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Kent has designated 3.1 square miles as Manufacturing/Industrial Center f (MIC). The MIC meets the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) key components for a manufacturing center designation. At th�l, west point during the Great Recession, the MIC provided over 12,000 fobs an % oday that number is growing. The MIC is located in the North Valley Industrial Area, which is an extreme) p p y'y important art im of both the Cit sand th Reg n s economic and employment base. Goal LU-12: } Kent will supportensure the Industrial area a d Man,fa�turing/Industrial Center for manufacturing, warehousing and relate la uses Policy LU-12.1: Enst3 e t Mir p ing/Industrial Center boundaries reflect accessrbI to thick rail c"'ridors. Al N � Policy LU 12`2 F iscourage $ and limit la uses other than manufactur' "high`i`e: no%gy`a N warehousing within the boundaries of the Mana unng/Ir' ustria!Cen r. Nil" !2 3 P vide for a mix of land uses which are compatible wit marru a nng; dustrial, and warehouse uses, such as office, tail, and serrii< in fis ea designated Industrial. Goal Lty= Kent will p a anq-im Wance in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center those transportationads-'nfrastructure systems which can accommodate high- rn ensr manu ac ring, in ustry and warehouse uses. Policy LU-13.1: Work with the Regional Transit Authority and King County to facilitate mobility to an wr in a anu ac unng n us nal Center for goods, services, and employees. Policy LU-13.2: Upgrade water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater management facilities as necessary to support development in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center. IKent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-(***/2n,^)D94 Page 20 I 179 184 Policy LU-14.96: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial and uilt re ai com_p_exes occurs adiacent to environmentally-sensitive areas, require landscaping improvements that will maintain or strengthen existing aesthetic qualities and environmental functions. Policy LU 14.97: Design industrial and bulk retail developments in consideration of human scale. Vic. rho PARKING While parking may be linked to mobility, it is co sere a land use issue n ter' g because it is inte ral to land deve o men atterns�_' Wheth'Ceri„ is commercial, industrial, or housing development, all mus Vaccommod vehicl y providing parking. The goals and policies�F6ound i oVis section"a�ly to all forms"of development and are intended to,p ote`;I nd develop nt patterns that are less auto-dependent and that better��,s' port travel o tions. They recognize that compact large- andpts all-scale sited,resign close to services and transit will reduce vehicular tnli __Y -eeat�� by supporting transit ridesharin bi F ` ' Pp 9 9, cycl'ng, oc al ing. Goal LU-15: �„h Y v Promote a reasonable Tian betwee tFarkmg supply and parking demand. Polio LU 1b" _ a , y b zDe,elop p rki g ratios which take into account existing parking yl MWIMurns and maximums, land use intensity, a} f sa d ride ,aring goals. P, j ' { *< olicy LU 15`2" Incorporate ground-level retail or service facilities into a -parking stru ures=that-are constructed=within=the=Downtown=Urban F 3. Cent fF POlicy L_ .3: Provide an option for developers to construct the minimum number of parking spaces on-si a or paFan in-lieu fee to caver- F the itv s construction and operation of parking at an off-site location. Policy LU-15.4: Evaluate and re-evaluate the parking requirements for F G4/I�B'�iti' all uses with the Urban Center and designated Activity Centers in J accordance with the following factors: �f Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element Page 22 I 185� • the potential of shared parking and transit facilities in proximity to the site; • the employee profile of a proposed site, including the number and type of employees and the anticipated shifts; • the potential for "capture" trips that will tend to reduce individual site parking requirements due to the aggregation of uses within concentrated areas; T • the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation report and other publications which prow e,p rking generation indices, and • any studies of similar specific uses conduct ' either by the City of Kent or the applicant. ' ' Z` } r IF00 Policy LU-15.5: Develop bicycle par, ing s. rds for r m deled and new commercial, office, or industrial deir lop` ent. "t_3 NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS" �,. CIES mot' b 9s Kent s natural environment resides in the a;1,51 en Rive Valley and adjacent �; hillsides and p ateaus, which toga herehe provide- unique and distinctive character to the o Kenti+1deve opment has altered this sr 'tom environment, and the ity is dressin ; mpacts. In consort with the GMA, r� I.,,, Kent has establisher Critical ulat_pns and the Shoreline Master Plan to guide future develop gent in _nd�nea� s� sitive areas. e MY sa o ates . '... x '� . 's with federal, state, and tti�pal governments, and other major stakeholders in the Puget u_n egion, t identify early actions and develop long-range strategi s 'to�conse t.. and�re .ore critical natural resources. Preservation of openace, fish and life ha itat, and other critical areas occurs through the deveI op IN u; ing Sensitive=Area=Easements=:—City=stor=mwater=is N, monitore water,q Iality con itions, an problems that are identified are addressed tfI gh ca" tal improvement projects. Preservation and restoration of native plant _ terials, particularly near streams and wetlands, are considered for ne development to enhance environmental qualil-y for fish and wildlife habitat. Kent is committed to a multi-faceted approach toward the protection and enhancement of local and regional natural resources. As such, the City will continue to protect natural resources through the promulgation of development standards, enhancement of natural resources through a variety of capital Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element T/20144 Dm9�T Page 23 support of environmental management programs, park master programs, and environmental education and incentive programs. Formatted:Indent:Left: 0",First line: 0" .Feasible-, require that develeper-s prev. f . ,6^ry > • SRN Capital imp%94 Policy LU-17.12: Minimize t lose Lion as new development occurs. Continuaa cognize't ea/ue of trees and other vegetation in increasing the "abUrty�a�f Kent. 'f Policy LU 17 ProCt estabhed reenbelts to preserve existing ---� r naturaegetat�on/1 geolog�cafiazardous areas, along stream banks and xet�an Hy er-i r if / reereation/ habitat, Reed / / an epen-space. features such as rive FS/ .,F.-eaFfg.-I ..Feel..-I wetlands.- etl-,n ds ' Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-(*****120'4)n^RA Page 26 19162 Policy LU-20.1: Ensure Urban Separators are low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling urn per acre. J� Policy LU-20.2: Link iJr an Separators within the Cl of Ken o those of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County. Policy LU-20.3: Provide open space linkages within or to designated Urban Separators when new ev dopment occurs. Policy LU-20.4: Coordinate with appropriate a encies and adjacent cities to create a regional approach to Urban 5e ara r ' Policy LU 20.5: Inventory local pan Ecounty oyes g ated Urban Oe` Separators in an effort to manage de ve pment egulahons Y Policy LU-20.6: Encourage well de- ed and use patterns, including clustering of housing units, ero lot lineN_ _ other techniques to protect and enhance urban separao ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES G ALSO& POLICIES Y1516-- The City of Kent?ha estab{i. ed sitin , riteria for essential public facilities which are defined _ he Stan in RCW 5470A.200 1 to "include those facilities that are t icall difficult site "R IROWR-6ts state education facilities and state or regional trans , ation faciht a as define m CW 47. 6.140 regional transit authority acilities4 d i " i2.020 state and local correctional facilities solid waste handq�ciiities an'-r atienff ilities including substance abuse facilities mental healtfi%cilities roup RA es, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71',' 020" The G fallowing goals and policies reaffirm Kent s'comm t to a fair pQess for loc tin such facilities. Goal CF-30. . The City shall participate in a cooperative inter-jurisdictional process to determine siting of essential ublic 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. i i Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element (***i2n,n) P.4 c-r Page 28 1 183 192 FIGURE LU-6 LAND USE PLAN MAP — Formatted:Centered LAND USE PLAN r I.EGEND f to r `ty�� Y •c ,-' � � A�Ji ) _ / Y t I k e•+ Ory � NA`LL111p1Nw R 1_lT` • �N�W I�wn uwn7 §+ o ®w+wu..q n rD Y 3 6 a ,Single-Family Restd"'ttfI ( ;SF) t xz The Single-family-Residentia designati allows single-family residential development at varym dens ti ing forms (e.g. cottage and cluster). In the city limits there`tar "° our sin family designations: SF-3, SF-4.5, SF-6, and SF 8 }These�designat� ns allow development of up to 3, 4.5, 6, and 8 dwellin its per �c . resp �,'vely and could accommodate lower densities as we "0 units per engmedate less than that. l FIGURE 6nn19 USE nnnn - — Formatted:LeR In the unincorporated area, there are two single-family designations: Urban Residential, Low (UR-1) allows one (1) dwelling unit per acre; and Urban Residential, Medium (UR-4-12) allows development at a range of four (4) to twelve (12) units per acre. On a eewntywide basis, these designatiens have Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-r*—**1129 41 DAV Page 30 i 184 194 activities. Many areas on the Land Use Map, which were previously designated for commercial uses, now are designated as Mixed-Use areas. Manufacturing/Industrial Cente (N1IC) The Manufacturing/Industrial Center is an area reserved for manufacturing, industria an a van c no ogy uses, or those uses closely related to Industrial deve opment such as warehousing. Office uses related to the _p�r_i_m_a.�—and use is permitted, but they are otherwise limited. Retail uses are a sT I o permitted, but limited in the Manufacturing/Industrial ,e ter. ��;..:... Industria (I) { The Indust designation is an area for manufaetu ng a--t warehouse uses. However, o ice and business park development I a owei s area as are certain `-types of retail uses which serve the,,,-- rrounding ma nu during and office park uses, and bulk retail. , Transit Oriented Community T;1qCwsretail, The Transit Oriented Commune y a offie" and multifamily residential �A , uses together m the same area or s<��stapd alon This area allows high- density uses in support of hich-ca6ghity to sit invg"stments. I Agricultural Resource -R) The Agricultural Re urce d signation `'s for land reserved for long-term agricultural use.'S�,gle famil, resident- uses may also be allowed, but at very low densities Agricultural"Sapp (A(a The Agicultural Sup ort des nation is reserved for agriculturally—_related industiial and retail use near areas designated for long-term agricultural use. , Urban Sepa at (US The Urban Sd" _. esignation is reserved for low-density lands that define community or "icipa i en i ies an and rotect 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. Parks and Open Spac POS The Parks and Ooen Space esignation represents publicly owned land that is �Yti L either large active park area or undeveloped or developed€e -passive recreational open space land that may have environmental sensitivities. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element—(*** 20 ,,) non crEMMM Page 2 i 185 196 Land Use Element Background Report Urban Center Kent's Downtown has been a focus of the City's planning and policy development for some time. Over the past sever a re residents n siness owners ave made recommendations to the Mayor and City Council to improve the function of Kent's downtown as a city and regional Urban Center. The Downtown Plan adopted by the City Council in 1989 established a policy framework for creating a vibrant downtown community witl,�an abundance of r'< employment, housing, shopping, and recreational opportuhi ies. The City took important steps toward implementation of this plan 4w ten it adopted zoning changes in 1992, and in 1995, completed st downtown parking I �„ management and infrastructure capacity. The D. own�K Strategic Action {' Plan, adopted in 1998 and updated in 2005, hel''ed guide deve'loment within �Jr the Downtown area. The Downtown Subarea A n Plan adopted' ri t ovember, p 2013 re laced the 1998 05 Plan, ands portsrcg timed urbazation of owntown as a memorable, compact, livab e j om nity that is economically vital, environmentally sustainable and supported,l a variety of transportation The Council's policy direction for he DovVh own area was reaffirmed in September 1992, when they elected prop se rriui of Downtown Kent as an Urban Center pursuant , .e Court Plannin PoTcies CPPs The CPPs envision urban cen rs as aai as of caentrated employment and housing which are served high opacity trJO.c�J"t. Past Buildable Lands Analyses showed the market tre, d in..- nW a nt had been slow to capitalize on the zonin district'p enr es`;'to increased residential development. However, recent o ice, rIe at ands tertainment developments are energizing the mar ke interest. r crite=t ffo-F-0-F-155ncenters also are applicable to the Do t , n area Tf�e, a include: convenient access to the Sound Transit���_____- commute rail and a her regional transit opportunities; a bile'and pedestrian��Jfta � etscape; zoning which encourages a mixture of uses at high densitimp asis on superior urban design; historic preservation and adapti historic places; proximity to facilities to meet human services needs; and a local commitment to fund infrastructure and public improvements in the area. Collectively, goals for the Urban Center are placed in the context of the overall Land Use Element. I IKent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-r***i2n,,,, P.4 T Page 34 i 1 191P6 Activity Centers 22 One of the fundamental themes behind many of the state, regional, and local planning goals is the idea of using urban land more efficiently in order t reduce sprawl of residential and commercia evelopment into rural area . In the pas eca e, severa commercial areas in Kent have seen a large-5—mount of pew development. ese areas, which are located on East Hill, West Hill, and t/Il '', in the a e cent to Downtown, have an existing base of retail a office , uses, and typically are surroun ed by medium-density residential areas. e idea behind they iv p is o encourage ° developmen in these areas, because infrastructure o sur port gr wth Jst (ready in pplace, and to allow a mixture of uses (residential and comm ercial}}f hich brings housing g/ j closer to jobs and shopping, and which supportsUblict nsit. Allowing a mixture of uses in the community also will increase ousing�op� ns. v—S, .50�9 Housing z c odating the demand for housing y the greatest land use challenge confronting the City of Kent. There area any factors which influence the development of housing in the`cm, unity Th are explained in detail in ti the Housing Element. From aandu standpoint the central issue is accommodating the City's housin target upp rting the diversity of i sze, age, marital status, households found in the commu i � see., e a seho '` income s ecial needy wi h housing� pes that` are acceptable t to he community, and tha efficier,ly utilize'::,he remaining land within the Kent Since 1995 there have een some measurable successes in providing a housings ala1hce1 ",Jhere i . balance in the number of single-family and multit�amily dwelling u Y'ts iVe- housing development has typically maximized allowable densities H" ever, there is a need to balance estate housing with housingt,,_,t is afford64, to young professionals an their fami ies.-Rousing on arge lots.k"r i a esiiad"e, is not affordable for most families in Kent. The Housing Ele'ir�e t provides additional detail on income and housing costs in Kent. Commercial Kent's major centers of commercial activity are located Downtown which is n identified in the Downtown Subarea Ac�,iup flan and includes the Ur an Center• �d \ on East Hill along t e 04th Avenu corridor; and along Pacific Highway on West Hill. At this time, opportunities exist for infill development of vacant and 1 within the Urban Center and within the larger re evelo able properties wi in P P P Kent Comprehensive Plan—Land Use Element (***T2B'"z )DP.4 Page 35 19�7 The Utilities Element contains additional information on water and stormwater goals and policies. R'lsto�rically, ands the commercial agricultural lands in the Green River Valley have added to the City's economic support. Today, the majority of protected agricultural resource lands in the Valley are located south of Kent's municipal limits within mg oun y s older Green River Agricultural Production District. !�( ✓� ' There are a few designated "Agricultural Resource"lands im Kent whose _ development rights have been purchased and protected from conversion to a ��J more intensive land use. Activities within the land us�,�deji ation Agricultural Support"(i.e. AG-S) will help sustain the agricultu Vcomm In } by providing land dedicated to the processing and retailing,- .. agricultural= roduction. I V M 4 / J ,hS yp s t'te.5�1' to Kent Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Element-**/2014) ^R r Page 37 1 188 201 Chapter Three - HOUSING ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: • An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs; • A statement of goals, policies an objectives for the preservation, improvement and development of housing; • entification of sufficient land for housing, including but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, rrmanufactured housina_tnultifamily housing,group homes and foster re facilities. • A-dequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments o the community Purpose Statement: Encourage divers�h �G�n �pnortu_ni�ties that are affordable to all income levels and household needs. PURPOSE g T Healthy and strong nee oods wit adequate supply of quality and affordable housing` a fun�a ental tortJ well-being of Kent and its residents. Beyondusa ply fu Ill ng a asi t eed for shelter, adequate and z affordable housing u rin enefits. Studies show that children in stable sin do Bettschool and are less likely to experience isrupti ii �ieir e ucatiorr�� ue to moves. Living in decent, affordable ousi also provide ' diviclua s and families with a sense of economic secure' ,:and the ability- o focus on their needs. There needs to a ide range of��,using type`sa o make housing affordable for every household in Kent re g rd s of inc` e. lF An adequate supp of a variety of housin4 types and prices is also important to Kent's employment base and its economic vitality. A mix of homes affordable to a range of income levels can attract and help retain a diverse employment base in the community, support the local workforce so they can live close to their jobs, and support economic development objectives. Shorter commutes allow workers to spend more time wit t eir ami ies while benefitting from reductions in traffic congestion, air pollution, and expenditures on roads. Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element(19 g/2014) Page 1 I 189 203 objectives. Housing Stock ' ili Aging housing stock can be an important <'+ source of affordable housing for low- , income families. AP �k x� COMMUNITY CONTEXTr Age distribution is an important indicator for�de rminin the'fEa re demand r ousing types in the City. Traditional asl9i ` ption are that the:., Dung a u t population (20 to 34 ears old hasa' o e for choosin apartments, low to moderate priced condomm m and smaller single-family w.nN units. The adult, o u ation 35 to�6 rs olt�� i ,v.he rims mar�f r moderate o igh-end apartmerif"" o ominiums�',1 d lar Ingle-family —ffomes. This age group traditional has,jyj h nd larger household sizes. The senior population 65 vea, and,, r generates demand for low to moderate costa artm, is and can om sums, group quarters, and mobile w omes. Table H_1 Sex and Acle N , Kent, WA ` Estimate SEX AND AGE Total population 124,410 Male 62,995 Female =61,4-15— Under 5 years 7,530 5 to 9 years 9,374 10 to 14 years 7,412 15 to 19 years 8,642 20 to 24 years 8,557 25 to 34 years 22,300 35 to 44 years 15,601 96 K W o v i< 45 to 54 years 18,512 55 to 59 years 7,543 60 to 64 years 6,820 7 65 to 74 years 7,526_[) 6X 75 to 84 years 2,721 -_r' I K n C m rehensive Plan-HotisinLy Elemeii rage 3 14 I �,vl 190 204 85 years and over 1,872 Median age(years) 34.3 2010.2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates DEMOGRAPHICS The city's population growth over the past 25 years has been primarily a result of annexations but the number of new housing units also 1"6��. contributed to population growth. The forecast for 203§� or a twenty-nine V-- percent increase in the number of households in`Kent' e" ulting in an additional 38,000 residents. Significant changes incl� a ncrease in the number of family households in the city and the�`' I compo,-'t!on of the city Z036- shifting from anon-Hispanic white majority to "`majority mna%�i community. Over 27% of the population isfei n. A la gra e pPortion of residents living in Kent are young, middle�cl s am s that seek�avariety of housing options that are affordable and locate' st.., egically to access the region. As noted in the Land Uses lement asvei s the 2012 Buildable Lands R rowth taraets for 2035. — y HOUSEHOLDit r i , ACTEw ISTICS In 2012, there we�total 0�41,481 dvue ling units in the city, an increase C v, of a little over 5,0 is d — rirn 1, o the Panther Lake annexation. Kent's housings ock isca prised of approximately 50% single family and 50% mui,Y Tamil singe hould be noted that over 4-0�° -o-f the housing }� stock" more thann3 ears oI and may be in need o repf air or e a ilitation. The Mid wa ubareai n and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan both encourage trari 't-b. nted development. The Downtown Planned Action Ordinance propoV9 new SEPA thresho d levels below which no SEPA review is required. Kent has also adopted increased SEPA thresholds for the rest of the City, providing categorical exemptions to the maximum allowed by the State. g Q 7 �T _� �,rYt�3�..c�.�.0 ��"H".�'u-ct��` cZY�-dam^-•-C. Kent will foc on preservinLi d enhancing existing housing to maintain the �---- affor a i it w o ousing or residents at 120%+ o median incomeently approximately 50% of households are paying less t an 0% of their ncome for ousing resu ing in e more ` - Kent Comprehensive Plan-Ugming Element Page 4 14 361 191 205 �Q affordable housingbeing occupied b households that could afford to _a 9 P Y --� Y Tgrea er ercen a of their income toward housing costs. This forces seholds with lower incomes into overcrowding, overpayment or substandard housing. These housing problems are defined and shown below. Table H_2XX HousingCosts �� Income Monthly Housing Units Units Cost Needed Available f >30% = or > $750.00 5133 4 6 S ANTI >50% = or > $1250.00 4665 „' a=,0 ANTI >80% = or > $1810.00 6230 �, 7620 M A Ni I 100% = or > $2500.00 3339 hg 709 ANTI <120% = or > $3000.00 19900�A- 5550 ANTI ,: Data " Source: 2005-2009 CHAS Table H. sM h using NJ ummary Tables 1. Housinq Problem" Househ! Ids with' a of the listed needs r - Rent r Owner >80- Total 0- >30- >50- >80- Total 300/ 50% 800/0 1000/0 30% 50% '80% 1000/o 41,P ANiI r Nil AN98 Af�II ANiI AW9I ANTI ANiI Substand Housing LackincpleteP. � --plumbing-'aX tchen facilities �'µ 60 35 55 45 195 0 0 30 0 30 Severely Over6rRo ded ' - With >1.51 peop per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 145 34 15 4 198 0 15 4 0 19 Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the aboveproblems) 365 340 275 49 1029 0 45 75 1 35 155 Housing cost burden greater than 50% of 2,55 income and none of 1 51 2601 40 1 0 1 2,855 1 579 1 5951 535 170 1,879 Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 5 Kent GeMpFehensive Plan Heusing Element Page 14 192 207 Renter Owner 0- >30- >50- Total 0- >30- >50- Total 30% 50% 80% 30% 50% 80% AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI income Data Source: 2005-2009 CHAS n Overcrowding refers to a household where there are more members than C�11,0 a stable rooms in a home. Overcrowds falls into s_moderate (1.0 to 1.5 person per room) and severe (more then Ii-v ersons per oom). �.V Overpayment refers to a househ a s moreta 3 .�, f household income towar n . ACcording to federal cfe itions, over yment falls into two categories: moderate (pays 30-500 nd severe (paysore than 50% of income) toward housing. ` Substandard Housing refers to a home with s�gnK, ant need to replace or repair utilities (Plumbing, electric ating, etc t_ make major stru ural repairs to roofing, walls, foundatio s;It Cher maja.-components. Table XFH 4 Totalz useholds hl"� 0 >30- >50- >80- >100% HAMFI 30°/ar y 50% 80% 100% HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI Total Households *' ? 4,665 6 230 3,339 Small Fami1 -H useholdW 1 5-f 0 2054 2,485 8,315 Lar e,F 1' [V`F(6dkhold9 760 470 760 1,259 House old contain leash on rson 62-74 yea s of age 739 645 715 435 1 650 Housell0 ,, ontams a east one ersoN" e 754.Q'Voider 519 535 410 184 590. Households v�i,vFo,�' or more children 6 yeas d or younger * 1,299 1,229 1,575 2,459 * the highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI Data 2005-2009 CHAS Source:------ _-__ HOMELESSNESS I Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Pagel 14 193 208 The City has recognized for many years the impact of homelessness on the community and its residents. Homelessness impacts individuals, families,_ children and vauth The reasons for and causes of homeless are numerous. Nationally there has been an emphasis on addressing chronic homelessness particularly for single adults. 2012 saw a call from national leaders to ocus on the plight of homeless veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The recent recession has created an increasing number of homeless in Kent as well as in the balance of the county. Unemployment coupled with the high cost of rent, utilities and food in they pion made it n ^ difficult for some families to maintain their housing. The° iculty in J/$' determining accurate numbers rests in the fact that,.,,,,,a families share housing, dou a up with grandparents, or couc su iffy ily and friends. An increased focus on homeless preventionlIed uding activitie ch as partnerships with landlords, eviction preys hn educ tion, and Wi g for , emergency rent I assistance can help preV6 ome'"'ssness. While shortLF - term emergency and transit-tonal housing will" roue to be a necessary service for people in need in our,co munity, pre tion of homelessness is less traumatic for people in crisis _ s costly foC. nders. The recession also caused a decreas. m f I mg Is. The decreased funding couple wit t e J reased rem d. "suited Mn a more visual presence of the homeless part "fa lye., urban qe ters. Kent, like its neighbors, saw more street homele: sin they wntown°a, a. Addressing the neeriG of the chronicall homeless ho struggle ui(Jj h m'ntal health addiction issues is difficul Best practicesSlousirti_ First, are expensive programs. hese typeY ='too ram r tfie Eest results with positive long term outcom �* ECON" IC C ARACTERISTICS Assessin incor; et` u s is a major component of evaluating housing affordability. According to the American Communities Survey 2010-201 the median 91 household income in Kent was $554244 per .ye The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: • Very Low-Income: 50 percent or less of the are MFI • Low-Income: between 51 and 80 percent of the area MFI; I Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 8 14 194 209 • Moderate-Income: between 81 and 120 percent of the area FI; • Upper-Income: greater than 120 percent of the area MR. The income distribution of the City of Kent based on 2010-2012 ACS Survey 3-Year Estimates is presented in Table XX. In 2010, it is estimated that: 13 % of the households earned less than 30% of AMI annually; ® 12 % earned less than 50% of AMI annually; • 19 % earned less than 80% of AMI annually; 8 % earned less than 100% of AMI • 12 % earned less than 120% of AMI . 35% percent of households eared over 1r1 /o of I Table XXH Household Inc crle = ' INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) .4:L- (�8 Total households 41,8 4 Less than $10,000 2,470 5.9% $10,000 to $14,999 1,757 4.2% $15,000to$24,999 4,706 11.2% $25,000 to$34,999 4,112 9.8% $35,000 to $49,999 5,815 13.9% $50,000to$74,999 8,134 19.4% $75,000 to $99,999 5,681 13.6% $100,000 to$149,999 6,138 14.7% $150,000 to $199,999 2,095 5.0% $200,000 or more 946 2.3% Median household Income(dollars) 55,244 (X) Mean household Income(dollars) 67,853 (X) With earnings 34,809 83.2% Mean earnings(dollars) 68,397 (X) With Social Security 8,814 21.1% Mean Social Security Income 17,378 (X) dollars With retirement Income 5,891 14.1% Mean retirement income(dollars) 19,937 1 (X) With Supplemental Security 2,409 5.8% Income Mean Supplemental Security 9,250 (X) Income dollars With cash public assistance income 2,442 5.8% Mean cash public assistance 4,262 (X) Income dollars With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in 8,571 20.5% the past 12 months Families 27,902 Less than$50,000 1,678 6.0% I K n n i Pla -Ho sin El men P 9 14 I� I 195 211 /Le,"t Policy H-1.5: Pursue comprehensive neighborhood preservation ` strategies for portions of the community that need reinvestment. Policy H 1.6: Promote additional funding for rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization by supporting legislation at the state and federal level to expand these programs. Program Code Enforcement The enforcement oexisting property maintenance codes ' a primary means to preserve Housin a qua i y o neighborhoods ,; e o e n orcement Program is responsible for enforcing City ordinances+'afe'ct ,g property -maintenance, building conditions, and other hous11t►g and h4rdhborhood issues. The Code Enforcement Program handle"approximately,complaints a month for these types of violations ,. Program Objective: Continue to conduct s ectiori ' on a com aunt hasis through the City's Code Enforcement Prograr�l�01" crease outreach to homeowners and renters to work.towards orea`ie:, nderstandin of the importance of code compliances � Program 2 - T Home. tepair ra x The Home Repair rc ��am ' I offer horn owners the opportunity to apply for sma grants to comp ete imps vement o'ects on their roperties. The rogram prove eslgs js an „ . ve to T come households, offering grants up 10,000 t Ilai esi o` 'ess code enforcementviolations, health a3�"ane, oncern.;,and energy efficiency. The Ge ra P gram also provi ecf sY€iindi�r g side nt" o complete exterior and interior home repairs `as vie as perform art_itectura modifications to achieve ADA-compliance or reasons a accommoda ion for residents with disa is il ties. Program, ective dress property, structural, an- energy/water conservati rove dents for low income homeowners in the City. The City � �P Y• Y anticipates thaU 'f ojects will be assisted annually based on funding availability. Program 3 - Monitor an Prc eserve Affordable Housin The City will continue to keep an inventory of affordable housing units and promote through the Housing and Human Services Division, the use of additional affordable housing assistance programs, as appropriate, to preserve existing affordable units at are at risk of converting to market- Kent Comprehensive Plan-Housing ElementElement Page 11 14 I 196 217 �ZZ The characteristics of the City's current housing need have be dentified through the housing needs assessment, specifically the a ysis of the special needs groups. Based on the needs analysis in the Ho ing E ement, there is a need to provide affordable rental units for larg�ifamilies and housing for those at or above 120 o o e come. T e City will also prioritize its ogram active ies o meet the needs of other special needs groups, including extremely-low income households, and people wit disabilities including developmental disabilities. Program Objective: Identify housing needs and prioritize:°using program activities to meet those needs through annual updates toK, fie t 's wVV Consolidated Plan. � '; ` Program 11 - Planning and DevelopmenCs u' t The City conducts annual internal reviews o lannin i and develop:+„ nt fees to ensure that the fees are not excessive ate are,,ap"`opriate to co er the os of services provided. Kent also streamline , permitting process for rest ential projects, to minimize-t�h }holding an '1— or costs assumed by the project applicant. Program Objective: Continue to n�ucf a dual revi s of planning and development fees. ' " Goal 14-5: * .- Promote ual Hou, n � q � g p ortIA .itie PRII-C Enco age the use of barrier-free architecture in new . r nh sing deve menu fi Program - Reason' le Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities Pursuant toy ; Was n n Law A ainst Sese��Discri: in�at o RCW .60.030 th e t of Kent is obligated to remove potential and actual governmental co'straints u on the maintenance, impr , eve opment of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, requires that cities and counties provide reasonable accommodation to 4gles practices, and procedures where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities. Reasonable accommodation provides a basis for residents with disabilities to request flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some IKent Comprehensive Plan-Housing Element Page 17 Kent C-eFnpFehensive Plan HeEising Element 14 219-7 Chapter Four - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT - Formatted:Font:18pt What you will find in this chapter: • A description of the existing transportation network in Kent; • A discussion of how transportation planning, economic development and lapL ,mare entwined; • A discussion of how d� gma.ndsmade of the transportation network is managed; and • Goals and policies for providing adequate transportation levels of service. Purpose Statement: Provide a safe, reliable, and balanced multimodal transportation system for all users which will support current and projected growth using context-sensitive design. Purpose The Transportation Elemen (TE) s, blisFie_s a 's tr`ahsportation goals and policies for t air planning hori nt",r to2�03 rovides direction for WX r tra ation decisipnsg're rding plarvry da s, including: • The Six-Year ranspo t i o n Im, Ivement Plan (TIP); �F! • The Six-Ye-a"",,6 pital Iry p oveme"�JProgram (CIP); • The biennial u'" eti'nt • T_e' gt and Co. truction Standards. T T key to acho"w ng Ken 's overall goal of providing a balanced, m_ imp I tr_ansportat n_s_y_stem_tha.t_s.up.ports-current-and_p.roj.ected_land _ use and pr des an a. quate level of transportation service. It also provides guidance for relop' ent review and approval, land use and zoning e�,' ecisions, and`corw uing transportation and maintenance programs. stablishes a basis for decision-making that is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA), King County's Countywide Planning Policies (CPP), and the Puget Sound Region?Counci s-(F5R ransportation The requirements of each of these plans are fulfilled by the City of ent �— Transportation Master Plan (TMP)and the TE Technical Report. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 1 P P 9 Kent-Gempicehensiv e;'a 1— J 198 220 The TMP is the City's blueprint for long-range transportation planning in Kent. It functions as the overarching guide for the continued development of the City's transportation system. The plan identifies key assets and improvement needs. The TE Technical Report includes a detailed update to the TMP of current land use assumptions, travel demand forecasts, and project list to inform the Comprehensive Plan. The TMP', Midway Subarea Plan Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) Update, Cgmmute Trip Reduction Plan the annually-updated six-year TIP, six-year CIP, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Ketat ComprehenzAive Plan__ The TE is multi-modal; it addresses all forms of trans ation in Kent. This VJ includes. the street network, truck and rail traffic,,rioima rized travel, and transit. Evaluating all modes uniformly has enabl"` the City address future network needs in a comprehensive and balan ej manner. The TE also supports community livability'a econ is vitality by addressing connections for people and places ',an' streetscape design that complemens surrounding land use Furthermor: transportation facilities Sa :: are an essential part of the City!ii,, ub r aim and a _ uch need to balance a variety of goals and objectives T. goals n olicie t this element generally pertain to moving peopled d god ,. � W ISsue ­V d' ltyse and Geographic Features 4n Steep hills, a river valley, two national rail l lines, and multiple regional highways are crucial, if not determinative, features of our -+ � � �- �Q: =landscape-th°at=profoundly=influence=our !� ��r �d,4 I� w. transportation system. Coordination of Transportation Systems wr �� The City is heavily reliant upon regional transportation providers including the State, Ports, Sound Transit and King County Metro. This integration with regional systems means levels of service for the City's transportation system are affected by levels 1 Contents of the City of Kent Non-motorized Transportation Study and Transit Master Plan are summarized in the TMP. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 2 v Plan npFil i� 2015 �ef�� ♦=e�ef�$i'�F=�-ivt �prrr rs, �vz.� 199 221 of service in adjacent jurisdictions. _ Encouraging Multi-Modality Land use policies encourage development .�.. patterns of mixed use activity centers and ,,.. high residential densities downtown. This supports a shift in travel modes from single occupant vehicles to transit and non- motorized travel. Quality-of-Life Quality-of-life for .0 a is in Kent is J ` significantly im a: d byd well the transportatio m fun�ctio for cyclists ped nsit users, m66- sts, truck N and rail tra` ic. Busit sses, like,re s dents, also make to tim- choices in response to the nature o pu i environments, such as A a� treets� es 3ysteri 3 lit Replacement Replacement and Rd$ofit ' To p Vi adequate safety and efficiency of the portation system, ongoing mainten no is required in addition to e pap in infrastructure. Balance of Scarce Resources There is limited funding at the local, state t and federal level to satisfy competing --=priorities.=Public=streets=serve=many ` functions in our communities, and levels of t service and maintenance of roads mu"—sE6e `` a = balanced in full consideration o the City's '§ many interests. Transportation and Land Use The Transportation Element (TE) supports the City's Land Use Element. It demons rates how the City will improve upon the existing transportation net wor , s we as a ress a iciencies, main enance an accommo ate Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 3 i 200 222 a projected gro h over the next 20 years. The City's land use forecasts for e'year-2031 are based on regional forecasts from the Office o' financial Managemen OEM and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). By 2035, the City of Kent is projected to have 81,900 jobs and 53,500 households. To plan for the transportation nee s associated with this growt' h�e newi households and jobs are assigned to more than 300 traffic-analysis zones ased on the avaTal ility of III::!11:;J iff an i re-deve o;1:11 a land. The City's travel demand model uses that rowt distribution to forecast traffic volumes - oug out the city. Details of this analysis can be fou-n i e TE Technical --- Report. e , Transportation and Land Use Goals and Pol(c1 Goal: tfi Coordinate land use and transportation Wing to?YYf.l et forecast demand and policies o t e City consistent with the _ „wtl3 anagement Act. Po/icy 1: Locate cod, ercial, Iri t ..trial, Concurrency Tr,raanseortation and other multifamily, and other uses t generated_i h capitafacilities must be in eve traffic in design ed atir.3 centers lace by the time aroun intersections of p ncrpa nor - inor needed otd accommodat a eria s, oi-ar , eway interc nges. growth. �1x' 5y;yr Po/icy 2'�� oordinat new mercial and The Economic residential velopr�r _ �with Deve oppment Plan for the trans ortat '``7ects '9 assure that ot_Kent was adopted trI� aorta facrlr capaci is sufficient o in August 2014 by the commodate _ e ne ve% ment or a financial City Co�There is f Y UK=N.,. p department-wide :�.{� mmltment i n la"a to meet the a opted response y_for _ s_ lord withlrrsx years. implementation of the n. Po/icy Ba nce travel efficiency, safety and quality in residential areas though context- The Plan's strategy for sensitive esign. "placemaking &gateways" is a strong collaborative Po/icy 4: Pr-once mod—use—patterns—gin area for Parks, Economic and Community Development, and Public Works. Adopt and maintain policies, codes and land use Datterns that Dromote For more, refer to the walkina, biking, public transportation and social Economic Development Element. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 4 a 201 223 l 4 A,, interaction to increase public health and sense of (21 place.— Po/icy 5. Incorporate street trees in transportation facility planning to enhance neighborhood aesthetics, improve air quality and provide traffic calming. Po/icy 6: Beautify Kent streetscapes to reflect quality and integrated design supportive of usinesses and a livable, vibran community. Po/icy 7. Coordinate with BNSF Railroad, Uf q ailroad, Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC), ands 6M' Transit to ensure maximum transportation utility on both ra and ra'i cW� Po/icy S. Coordinate transportatt n f' ope ations, pIa„ 'ng, and *L� �t improvements Wiff the State, they „r unty� "ighbon' 9 jur sdictions, " and all transportation planning agecle tom nsure e itys interests �- are well represented in ional planni� strategies, policies and projects. " Po/icy 9. Coordinate with t,.; Co un e boring jurisdictions to imp leme conc_. mcy strafe s `�d provi�e for miti ation of shared raffic impa—CtW't/rro street s` provements, signal improvements, intelligent IftiMnsporta n sys e s improvements, transit system improvement or trap ortation sand management strategies, t W Policy 10 l�is i iI i um and maximum arkin j re, ui�ement consi _ent with the t�sportation -allu tat o'ject' orrmp,, hensive Plan. Allow for a'reduction in Parking f up to twenty`; (20) p"`rcent of the minimum standard of off street ��p �V`"f r - s . rng=stalls fa =businesses=which=have an approved=CTR = rogram — file th the C[ G F Street System W The City of Kent is served by an extensive street network that provides the primary means of transportation for all modes of travel within the City - personal vehicle, freight, public transit, wa ing, and biking. Streets are also part of the public realm used for, parkin4. festivals, marches and other events. To develop a citywide plan and policies that will guide the maintenance and improvement of this vital infrastructure system, Kent analyzed existing street conditions. The findings from this analysis may be Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 5 t 202 224 found in a 2008 TM P_d the TE Technical Report. Key components of the analys' in u . • Examining the infrastructure of the street network and determining the role of each street in that network; the inter-relations iilp wit a jacent State highways and regional arterials; and local land use context, • Evaluating how well the existing street network operates, ,. • Evaluating 'the forecasted traffic conditions for the future street,,/ network, and • Identifying the preferred future street network a he improvement /""" projects for that network. � /Ir The street network operates as a system and ha w ,rM variety of modal users. It is important to define the role(s) th_t any pa rticr� r road should ! d play in serving the flow of traffic through th``network and"' mmodatin other modes as nee a gee unctional lassific#t'ons are a r.1 lished in r the 2008 TMP to balance and recogriz d,�'tfFe` g nee s o vehic es, , businesses, residen , and non-motorized tra eRrs. Functional classification also defines the character of se?u ce that a ro: is intended to provide. Specific standards for streets 4ar, adway detailed in Kent's s, N r------�'1 ` Construction Standards - Sec tion` T Standar b or Strts and Roadways. V I T rtation Eler• eta echnicall`. d Ilustra es the Cit 's recommended % nro'ect list . hich des four types of improvements: r6: n aw s et treet widening, and railroad radeerse ment e s s arations. The : clud taling near) 509 million. ,,. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 6 i 2Z�3 Figure TE.1 Formatted:Line spacing: single Preferred Street Network i PREFERRED STREET'NET WORK is 4. lyl " f , ron MW weLLta.Wf M 1 - ` G " vj l f ., 1 4fe�f M7,,♦'"}, � tt _ .� , � 1tl 191i 1k.•` � V; 4 , Right a Parking. ol�cy`,,�ot Project -� In Atag t, 20113 the c� of Kent was approved for a pilot project under the p Kin Cot : _Metro RI h-5'ize Parkin- RSP-Pro ect:The RSP-is a three- ear grant proje unded b' the Federa TrigigTiway Administration's Value Pricing o Pilot Program :"a erarching goal of the RSP project is to os er ivable communities byo imizing the allocation of parking resources.- More specifically, the purpose is to impart data and strategies to help developers, , jurisdictions and neighborhoo s accurately project the optimum amount of , parking for multifamily developments. The amount of parking is optimized (`right-sized ) when it strikes a balance between supply and demand. L� Kent' pilot project ad several deliverables consistent with implementation of Do wn u area Action Plan objectives: 7 Kent Com reh nsive Plan - Transportation Element Page 7 204 226 • Inventory of on- and off-street parking supply and utilization in downtown • Recommendations for Parking Management ecommendations or Parking Code Alternatives Kent began implementing some of the recommendations in 2014, including shared parking, consistent parking signage and striping, and new parking ours.—These strategies and other future implementation measures show d `l7e p mprove traffic management within the downtown area. Context-Sensitive Street Goals and Policies Design Context-Sensitive D C""" oa _ = is a model for Provide a balanced transportation sv-stem�i��" transporta ' project recognizes the need for maad devel ent. Proposed ------ tr sportation projects improvements to accommodate multiple=2r, vel u must be planned not only modes. Create a comprehensive street syst rt�'I" for their physical aspects that provides reasonable and safe circulation fqr f as a facility serving all users throw hout the Ci '" '� 9 h'• ��k � specific transportation objectives, but also for Policy 3: Assign a function s/�t ass#flc t#p their effects on the to each street ins t Ci ase o �acto rr aesthetic, social, � economic and /ncludin traveldemd of mots #zed and ,----- environmental values non-motociz. ' raffic` ° ccess to d'acen needs, constraints and and use n1dhdco"` ec vi f the opportunities in a larger ., . ransportation n M'D community setting. r�lid' rfia.., ... .:.... r. ,....- N"-f��' .. icy 2. Co r4 3 ' lementation of street construction standards ,2 or each run ai classification wifF nsporration �i ent= o—pro' 'de=at(rac=Uv7e sa e=aci i ties= ,a= e n= e= _ - adja nt land its and support emergency response and operation. ' Level of Services LOS) There are a variety of ways to determine transportation level of service and the City may decide to adopt a different measurement with the next update of the Transportation Master Plan. Currently, the City's, roadw�leveFof service (LOS) is a measure of the traffic operational performance of a transportation facility. In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are approaching capacity, and LOS F in icates congested conditions where IKent Comorehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 8 `lam dl C'L'A fve - A o_ i _ —4— 205 227 co� demand excee"caDacitv. he City of Kent analyzes intersections along 16 corn ors and wi Fin a separate zone covering downtown—this analysis includes a total of 71 intersections. The City of Kent calculates the LOS operation for key corn or (in seconds of delay) during the PM peak period and then calculates an average based on a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. This method provides a corridor-wide result, allowing some intersections to operate at a congested LOS as long as the overall corridor operation is maintained. The City's adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or be, er during the PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highwa corridor and the Downtown zone, which are allowed to operate at LOSA The existing LOS analysis was recently update, ing 201 traffic volume! w� The evaluation found that all corridors M_e' Kent's LO r ,tandard.��/An V evaluation of projected 2035 traffic volcJs was also conYi� d. Traffic p �7 operations are expected to be very Simi aro the fd casts develop d for the "' �- "I o year 2031 during the 2 rocess. is ' may be found in t e TE Technical Report. __ GG/Y► �4^-'K Using the LOS analysis, the 200�,. Ml�s,' ,et proj c 4st as reviewed and revised for this TE update. Since TMP'1 ted in 2008, ten projects n- have been completed . A and twit hay ' been artially completed. Other projects are identified bo ential re�rl ons during the next full TMP update. The revised ro'ecttst mclu" s inte ection improvemen s, new street connections 4 Me,4widen"Is and a ilroad grade separations. In total,these 40 project $509 million (in 2007 dollars). Of 4 that totalroUh1 $413 lion are expected to be the City's responsibility. A complef` isi o inclu in the TE Technical Report. ti How are projects selected? LOS Goal and PolliciA s Level of service(L�S)is just one measure h that is evaluated for projects included in the Goal. TE, Technical Report, and TMP. The TMP is the foundation for the TE and included Deve/op stratege' to improve smooth traffic flows extensive stakeholder outreach and input. in areas experiencing extreme congestion by Safety, preservation, freight movement, employing strategies that better accommodate transit mobility, pedestrian and bicycle various modes of travel including automobiles, mobility, accessibility, environmental freight, transit, trains, pedestrian and bicycle preservation, neighborhood protection, cost mo es. effectiveness, funding availability, and project readiness were considered at the Street LOS time the TMP project list was developed. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 9 206 228 Policy 1, Develop a system of level-of-service standards which promote growth where appropriate while preserving and maintaining the existing transportation system. Policy 2. Establish a network of heavy commercial freight routes to ensure the mobility of goods and services, as well as of people, and to improve the reliability of freight mobility. Policy 3. Ensure reliable traffic flow and mobility on arterial roads, especially on regiona through routes, w ile. protecting local neighborhood roads from increased traffic volume" Pedestrian LOS Policy 4. Establish 'pedestrian priord, as' based o the 'highest' and 'high'Pedestrian Priority Index GP? scores as defirred 'n the Kent Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (!inure 6):., 6- PolicyS. Within the designated a st a n� norit areas: provide 9 P n� P Y P A . sidewalks or upgrade side, k condition���, both sides of streets as designated in the plan. w Policy 6. Along designd , 'me, . no ity pedestrian streets (Figure 6-7): provide sideway OR °pgra idewalk conditions on at least one sider f tre as desig ted in the plan. qa� , Bicycle LOS s Policy7. Prov►d7,P'4 '� ' .,,A. �c%==fach' es consistent with the bicycle rou es called��.a � the (Fig_ure 6-11). Bicycle facilities include roadway _ riping tad eate , cle lanes and designation of shared bicycle outes. f Po is 8. Pr�vr e adequate bicycle crossing of arterial or collector stree Transit LOS r Policy 9. Along designated Regional and Local Primary Transit Network (PTN) routes identified in the TMP (Figures 7-5 and 7-6) work with King County Metro and Sound Transit to: a. Increase or maintain high peak and all-day service frequencies (specified by route in Table 7-5) Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 10 -- 207 229 b. Provide high level of transit stop amenities, including pads, bus shelters, pedestrian access, and transit speed and reliability_ Non-Motorized Transportation The City of Kent is committed to providing the benefits of walking and cycling to all residents by supporting pedestrian an bicycle travel as a safe, efficient, desirable, and accessible mode through; ut the City's neighborhoods. In 2007, the City prepared the Non Mote{zed Trans ortation Study (NMTS) obi entify'critical gaps in the Cit s estrian and bic cie transportation sys em. a contents of the NM TS; ere't integrated into the Non-Motorized System.Chapter of the TMP4'�i The Non-Motorized System Chapter ofA TM P valuates�ho , well the existing pedestrian and Bicycle systems, rate ntifies pede` rian and bicycle needs and a future non-motorized neti7Dor` and provides a prioritized-,, list of projects to achieve t e utue network Th rojects consist of: (1) missing sidewalk segments„ L;b ps, aridwA'nfrastructure repairs, prioritized by need and f riding f a` pilityZIN d` � bike networfC nts .a' o occur with roadway improvements descn In' Stree S stem Chapter; (3) new bike lane hared' a route'''y, and shared- paths that would „s expand the existing system ".`ono=2" a ized neighborhood connections; (4) futur tttdie, t, deter; ine how to connect various corridors that are implo,N nt for bike n ork cgtj a ion ut physically constrained; air d (5) tray,{control reed mendations-to-facilitate biking-iri-Downtown=Kent.------- - -- Additionan -motor ed projects and strategies were identified in the Midway SubaC" and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) update and wil a inc rated rated into the next TMP update. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 11 208 230 I Figure TE.2 —" Formatted:Centered Bicycle System Map i lYif I m F BICYCLE SYSTEM MAP as a LEGFND Li yy M _.. m1•Ntouse PATH i � `� '. � _ � AMRCG IOI PATH JlP1CT101tl s1 ` „.. NH N MN� •�Swav"im PATH EXTIEpalm ROURl PWIPt67i11[R 6TUOr { L � .rosamia RtaTmPfro F t'. �• ,, -f �. '�' �.. w .. ,PAfrr OP nnur2 STREET MPROuEMW Y¢ALIERNATE TE ROU 9IW}ES RIILRCAO �•1 ') ' W1fr.. '� � t SQgOL _� { P f f_ i t f�trt IRANURCE111ER B6 T Ag :` sauE:i+-4.000 ll �. , ._.. :. vu NIZP ... .... 1 y� Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 12 'L^ KefltF6Flffehensive Plan nail 1�- e I 209 231 Figure TE.3 Formatted:Centered Existing & Missing Sidewalks & Curb Ramps EXISTING&MISSING z SIDEWALKS& a CURB RAMPS e _ HE=xs e LEGEND CAM aaw t {1 � � � FueetenwlmwMr e1DEVAIK ON OBE SIDE Of STREET Lm 20. ny I t i � I• q+ 13 g}j� r y+t i a EI g '._ —__ _ -._..—.. SGIL 1 . Nn- None otoriaed Goan an icies Goal. F ta}, improve~th ,. on mo ized transportation system for both internal circulation ABU, ka" s to regional travel, and promote the use of non- motorized tran5paation. Policy 1. Provide non-motorized facilities within all areas of the City. Policy 2, Establish a network of bicycle routes within the City to connect Il� those land uses likely o produce significant concentrations of bicycle usage. U Work with interested parties in the planning of such a network. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 13 I 210 232 Policy 3. Create a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the City of Kent too _.__----- --' define specific goa s and priorities for the non-motorized transportation systerrr Transit j The City of Kent collaborates with the region's transit providers to ensure convenient transit service for its residents and work rs. New capital investments in transit-focused projects and improved nsit service are integral in meeting the City's land use goals and'41 ducing the cost of maintaining roadway level of service. � •a The Transit System Chapter of the TMP describe existing Craw it service and facilitiesZ, identifies community needs and�� rved gaps iT rvice, and �J y recommends service improvements to Igea rculat-I within Kerit d which connect Kent residents to other communit a Als,I cluded in the chapter is a discussion of transit-supportive goals an t icies related to land use {}-, designations, parking policies,Ah the then e` ting Downtown Strategic Action Plan. - a King County Metro (KC Metro) lam" pr vide. 1,g ,rtc� South County-specific routes, and local Dial;a-lde (DAF2 bra" service within the City of Kent. Eight different KC t "` ror utes proms a regional services to destinations within King, Snoho ish, and= ierce Ca" ties. There are ten local and South County routes prau,: 'ng coiaeGtions w' in the City of Kent and to other South King County .c nit)ess as Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Des Moines, Covilrgto ands deral Way. Additionally, Sound Transit operates three ce iexp'r tes through Kent which connect to SeaTac and Redriik The Soun _ r co rrj ter rail serves the Kent Transit Center with ,"d k;: eonne3 ns=to=commd ities=between=Seattle=and Tacoma.The=Kent T=r-ansit - — Center prop 'des 994 a k-and-ride spaces for transit riders. t During the T. kl7r ess, community input and a technical gaps analysis identified rec endations for transit service and infrastructure improvements. Service recommendations are categorized by one of three route types: 6 Primary Transit Networ (PTN) provides frequent service (typically 15 minutes or better) over a ong service span in markets where there 2 The Kent TMP was originally published in June 2008. Transit service summarized in this document (Transportation Element) reflects the September 2014 KC Metro service revisions and the most recent round of Sound Transit service changes(2013). Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 14 i 211 233 is high demand for travel throughout the day. It is narrowly focused on the densest corridors in the region where potential ridership is highest. It can also be used as a policy tool to help focus transit-oriented development around corridors where transit can be provided cost- effectively. ® Local Urban Service - provides all-day service at lower frequencies (20 to 60 minutes) in lower density areas. These services should provide connections from moderately dense areas to PTN rvices as well as local destinations. AA ® Specialized Commute Service - runs a SI ific high-demand times and only operates at times of days Ltd in the ' ection of peak demand. Most Sound Transit serviced "C in Kent is in in this category. 3 v } The TMP transit reco endations foco, o near- and long-term improvements for PTN and cal Urban��� rvices. In some cases, recommendations wo Id enha cs ing Specia ed Commuter Services, creating all-day PTN service to a ess eed foi- erse-commute travel and off-peak connections r`� ort to� ommendations include infrastructure improve me is to busy"" elte an si ewalk connections. Transit Goals and> ol1cie Goal Work�vi! 53 nsit p x iders to provide frequent, coordinated, and compr ensive public t ansi(s ces and facilities in all residential and em fo ent=ar=eas in _Kent_P-tannin -Area:-=P_ublic_transit_services and__ __ fa c �Dr ibties<,n ude train,' rvice, bus service, vanpool services, vanshare �1 services, -Ride, ccess, park and ride lots, car-sharing services, as well N tag as marketmjrri' zonal activities for all the above). ' Policy 1. Emphasize transit investments that provide mobility and access within the community and make it possible for citizens to access local i5a, _ services and support local businesses while reducing auto-dependent travel. Policy 2. Work with Washington State Department of Transportation and regional transit providers to identify appropriate sites for a network of park and ride lots which feed into the regional transit system. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 15 A 4 Po/icy 3. Implement Kent's Transit System Plan as identified in the Transportation Master Plan. Po/icy 4. Foster transit-oriented development opportunities and leverage public and private funds to achieve other City objectives related to economic development and housing. Policy 5. Work with regional transit providers to provide a high level of transit stop amenities including ads bus shelterspedestrian access, safety and visibility features such as lightina, and transitspeed andif bili . Transportation Demand Management Using the existing network of streets more,0 It! tly is a fi a'l sound way -4 - to improve traffic conditions and safety Tr �sportat o demand'- agement � D olicies and strategies are designe` re u e o ombi el ravel and shift some vehicle trips to non-peak period y�fore or after the commute ,z hours). Transportation syste ,0 : a e ent 7! M is the practice of i improving a flow of traffic with. re on capacity expansions or new roadways. The City of Kent's,,, orts its it lemd ng TDM and TSM are detailed in the Managing Demand ch� tec<m �n , Kent's TDM activitie -"redir cted ate' ployers, workers, business owners, residents and vi4it'rs. I pliance "';;,; h the Washington State Clean Air Act, Kent has en a y, a o"ca ppq t' Trip_Reduction (CTR) ordinance, requiring that all rn" oy rs in tle City with more than 100 full time employees y to�wo morning peak commute hours develop a CTR prog,a- . Kent's pro�r_ provides information and connections for em la ees to a var_ y of al ernative co mu a op ions inc u mg flex schedi,e —compresse.,- ork= a s;to ecommu mg; ransit—and=ri es acing— _ eie City�a actively!our inates wi transit organizations that administer marketing c aigr� such as Wheel Options, Rideshare, and the Commuter I 31 CTR worksites participate in the program, making Challenge. Currey p p p g 9 1�# Kent's program a fourth largest in-King To owing Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond. The TMP recommends the City: • continue to promote alternative commute methods (particularly through ride-matching programs that link carpool, vanpool, and van- share participants), Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 16 rreR't G6fnpfeh'efl5i1r" Plan npFn 17,, z-vT..a 213 235 • encourage businesses in the community to voluntarily participate in the CTR program, and • review and update the CTR Ordinance as appropriate to meet the C�tif needs of employers and the community. `-�._. M jjlchniques, which make more efficient use of the existing transportation system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. These techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors approach the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques ide.tified in the TMP include the following: • Rechannelization/restriping, adding turn .4- rfe adding/increasing number of intersection through lanes, • Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes • Signal interconnect and optimization : • Turn movement restrictions; • Access Management; and • Intelligent Transportation S. stems (ITS ' The City is incorporating appropr to TS r,. chrnqu s part of its ongoing transportation program. ,. Transportation. and Ma age men Goals and Policies Goal: '" ; >ri Use TranspR o Dertia management Techniques to achieve efficient use of trans ration"n struc�u and to help meet the City's land use oboe°ct ` Policy l ork with=: a'or institutions, Activity Centers, and employers through th�'ty's '; mute Trip Reduction Program and their motion of alterna occupancy vehicle SOV) use to reduce congestion and enhance safety.` Policy 2. Promote measures to increase the use of high-occupancy vehicles, public transit, and non-motorized travel modes among employers located 6-64 within the City who are not required to comply with commute trip reduction. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 17 i Related Information TE Technical Report City of Kent 2008 Transportation — Master Plan Right-Size Parking Pilot Project lS Y r �r y IKent Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element Page 18 215 239 TransportationCity of Kent Comprehensive Plan Update x Prepared for: City ®f !Cent y 5f � u Y �ry � f January 20�.3 tE e^ . ,.. W.— SE14-0368 FEHR/� PEERS 216 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................4 2.1 Existing Level Of Service Analysis.................................................................................................................6 3.0 2035 LAND USE FORECAST............................................................... .....................................10 3.1 2035 Level of Service Analysis............................................. Y ...............11 4.0 PROJECT LIST............................................................... ::.............. ...................................14 z .y'k 4.1 Intersection Improvements.................... } �* .... .................................18 4.2 New Streets.................................................. `{ ................................................................20 y 4.3 Street Widening ..............................................................22 ............................ 4.4 Railroad Grade Separation E .. w.�. 4.5 Project List Summary... ter ' ...............................................................25 5.0 DO KET REVIEW.............. ..: � ... ...... ......................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. x cE 2, u o{� ¢wr � +� r 2 217 List of Figures Figure 1.Study Corridors and Intersections..................................................... .........Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2.Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor............................................ .............................................................................6 Figure 3. Existing Level of Service...................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4.2035 Level of Service.........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. A Figure S.Recommended Projects....................................................................... ......fror! Bookmark not defined. List of fables ,.Q-4- /V t Table 1.Intersection Level of Service Criteria..... ............... .... •••............................................... Table 2. Existing PM Peak H �r Auto L el of Seri e... "',. . ................................................ 8 111 Table 3. City of Kent Land Use Forecasts.............. .. ............................................................................10 Table 4. 2035 PM Peak Hour Auto Le If S ice�.F:`�............................................................................................12 ... x 14 TableS. 2008 TMP Project List .......................................................................................... r4 r f 3 .............15 Table 6.Completed Projects... ........................................................................................ Table 7. Revised Project!:ism I terse- Improvements..............................................................................................18 ct List—New �Streets .................................................................................................................. Table 8. Revised .....20 —Table 9:Revised Prrt ct-List—Street, rdenmg..........................................................:......... ... ...... ..... ... ......... 22 -- r Table 10. Revised Pr j ad Grade Separation.............................................................................................24 Table11. 2015 Project List ;`., ............................................................................................................................................25 3 218 1.0 INTRODUCTION This tec=reportupports the City of Kent's 2015 Transportation Element (TE) update. The report begins by summarizing the existing'conditions of the roadway network. Next,the 2035 land use forecast is compared to other recent citywide forecasts.That land use forecast provides the foundation for the travel demand analysis of the 2035 roadway network. Based on the 2035 auto volume oroiections, this report documents recommended revisions to the City's project list as well as discusses pot tial additional changes that could come about based on the next Transportation Master Ps update. astly, this report includes a review of transportation implications of the proposed dockets,,` 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS _ VAl ' '' In 2014, existing traffic conditions throughout the cif , re anal ed to determine ho congestion patterns may have changed since the previous analysis was`yca yleted in 2006. The City o Kent collected PM peak hour traffic data in May 2014 at the tnterrsections t a were evaluated as art of the 2008 Vl'—B4 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update.As with -e-PI 200 analysis,t a intersection co nts were grouped C sir F;v"� into 16 corridors and a separate zone coverin c3`o nto �n, as swn in Figure 1. tersections serving both a key north/south route and eas"wes oute aret1 eluded in more than one coy idor. �n. . Figure 1.Study Corridors and` tersectia Y y r , /p' 3 S (ev, U 4 219 243 STUDY CORRIDOR AND INTERSECTION LOCATIONS Figure I LEGEND t—.— S � ..._..® • ® '1® y ® I ®sIWYCmtlor v. �-• -' POrENML ANNEXATION AREA •••• :�� C - cd ` �jcrrvuNrre =l �# •' L ;'�'X•- Somm . 31 ;� �rt I 220 The 2014 traffic counts were found to be lower than the 2006 counts on nearly every corridor, as shown in Figure 2. Citywide traffic volumes declined by about four percent between 2006 and 2014. This trend of lower traffic volumes is not unique to Kent; similar patterns have been observed around the region since traffic volumes peaked in 2006-2007. Figure 2.Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor Vehicle Volumes by Study Corridor 2006 0 2014 50,000 f 40,000 N, Ar,r , E x 3 r 30,000 20,000 V 10,000 �'- s r 4. 4. J �a r r r aQ' ��e �e as oa Je s� �e p� aS aS o0 Q 1�ti g 'L'1 'Lam � ova �, ah�`ti a�� sac ��aA'r q�P soo eco eco �1. 4 yk. \S yk. �`' .Fa y� ,�,yo 0�3 •��` `rw Ja \ eo P, Q, �o� r$\ `rS`\ �Xci yS`\ a\ ��� �r5 a � 4c�Cr CP '�� ti� a� �r p�A Z1 S'1 S 1 �� o° ',4 � P,e Lec S \i 4 NY 2.1 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Roadway level of service (LOS) is a measure of the operational performance of a transportation facility. A letter grade, ranging from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned based on the delay experienced by drivers. LOS standards are used to assess existing and projected future traffic conditions.In general, LOS A and B indicate minimal delay, LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indicates that traffic volumes are approaching capacity, and LOS F indicates congested conditions where demand exceeds capacity. For signalized intersections and unsignalized, all-way stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined by the average delay experienced by all vehicles. For unsignalized, side-street stop-controlled intersections, 6 221 LOS is determined by the movement with the highest delay. Table 1.displays the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) thresholds used to determine LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections. TABLE 1.INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA A < 10 < 10 8 > 10 to 20 R > 10 to 15 C > 20 to 35 > 15 to 25 /j i D > 35 to 55 4 ., 25 to 35 E > 55 to 803 50 M. F > 80 gI >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual,2010,Transportation Research Board. 2?0 The City of Kent calculates the LOS for ke inecons along Y g ea corridor (in seconds of delay) and then calculates an averacie based on a weighting of theto idol ntersection volumes. This method provides acorridor-wide result, allowing some ante ect ns t operate at a more congested LOS as long 6 tlf..: as the overall corridor operation is rmarrtam gyp . 11 .ff M The City s adopted LOS stand#j equines t 'a -nearl. a corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. The only exception Pacific Highway S corridor nd the downtown zone which are allowed to operate --oo For this TE upda, , auto S an sis was completed using the 2014 vehicle eounts._Auto_LQS_was_ calculated using the � 5yychro softuv ` e package. In the downtown area, the SimTraffic module of Synchro L t .: was used to calculate mte sec S. While Synchro is appropriate for determining LOS at relatively isolated intersections, the' program does not always capture queuing and congestion between intersections, which is common in downtown Kent. For these conditions, traffic simulation tools such as SimTraffic produce more accurate results. The results of the corridor LOS analysis are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3. The analysis of 2014 conditions indicates that overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the city. The 2014 analysis indicates that all corridors are currently meeting the City`s LOS standard. 7 222 TABLE 2. EMSTING PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE Corridor" 1 S 196th Street/SE 192nd Street E D b C 2 S 212th Street/SE 208th Street E C C 3 S 224th Street/S 228th Street E D C 4 James Street/SE 240th Street E D D 5 S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street ,45EEC D D 6 Canyon Drive/Kent-Kangley Road E E C E: o 7 S 256th Street x EE c D f 8 S 272nd Street' ; - • E F o E V111, 9 Pacific Highway SE F 1 D x 10 Military Road 13 '` P ..: E E r D 11 64th Avenue S �� y 12 Washington Avenue/68th A_vent, 5 .West VIIe Highway E p p ' .A 13 Central Avenue N/84/dye ue S by E p A C t i 5 1Y 14 SR 515/Benson Avenue' E E p 15 116th Avenue SEA �R.' E p ,�'r 1 �.r 4" �t � 16 132nd AvF nue SE A E D D 17 Downtown Z x*, -- — F `— E C --- n Source:City of Kent Transportatto,%n asVPlan,2008,and Fehr&Peers,2014. u Notes:1.WSDOT's level of service stdard for this facility is LOS D. Snz— Figure 3. Existing Level of Service 8 223 _ 247 EXISTING 1 �a LEVEL OF SERVICE Figure 3 LEGEND J)' �E I%—.n(LOS C) ~ q 5 ( POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA CITY LIMITS l t • —Linsert r i Cf c T5 r. 224 3.0 2035 LAN® USE FORECAST In preparation for the Comprehensive Plan update, the City developed 20-year land use forecasts. The forecasts project land use growth to the year 2035 based on the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) regional Land Use Target (LUT) forecasts. Table 3 summarizes how the 2035 LUT forecast compares to previous land use forecasts. TABLE 3 CITY OF KENT LAND USE FORECASTS r Poh Doc�ume r x r i s x k ,xk F r ore it '7t nz /� castlfear�'' f �rrploymenti"� ~�Households��r� JT�''J„'n s ,-*• f (. -l,. aX�. 1.u*,fk ;,w,�.,.xKS ,w tG r^4• ,.a [;"'. -f. ei c-�,"'* . 2008 Transportation Master Plan(TMP) 2031 81,9 48,400 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS Proposal 2031 93,6 68,900 2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS Proposal `20F, x 73,300 57,100 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035x�� 81,900 53,500 Notes:1.Employment totals do not include construction a 1 Compared to the 2008 Transportation Master Pla' 11 the 2Q35 L orecast includes the same number of jobs throughout the City, but rough{x,5;1,00 morel:tot eholds. The 2035 LUT forecast is well below the employment and household figure``assume` for the2 11 Midway Subarea Planned Action Environmental `� tFfi Impact Statement (EIS) Proposal Therefore,the=2Q08 TjIP and 2011 Midway Proposal forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of th"es sc "ros were=analyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS. In addition to co nsi eri g landp'us totals the citywide level, the distribution of growth was compared to determine how traffic patterns may iffer. and uses are divided into more than 300 traffic analysis zones called K-zones,which rbasic geo ra hic units for estimatin travel demand. K-zones range in size from a few city blocks to an etie ' sidential neighborhood. Each of the aforementioned forecasts was distributed at the K-zone lee. The comparisons indicated that a new run of the Kent Travel Demand Model was warranted to explore how traffic distribution along the City's study corridors would differ between the land use scenarios.The City's travel demand model was used to forecast PM peak hour traffic volumes for the 2035 LUT forecast.The model focuses on the Kent Planning Area (city limits and Potential Annexation Area), and includes external zones that represent land uses for the greater Puget Sound region.'The updated model run was used to evaluate 2035 LOS, as described below. ' The 2011 Midway EIS included two network scenarios: the Baseline, which included a short list of known roadway projects, and the Preferred Network, which included a more extensive list of improvements based on the 2008 TMP needs assessment.The current modeling exercise assumes the Pref erred Network.k. i 10 225 3.1 2035 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS As stated in the previous section, the 2031 TMP and the 2031 Midway Proposal land use forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Therefore, the auto LOS for the 2035 LUT forecast should fall within the LOS bookends developed for the 2031 TMP and 2031 Midway Proposal forecasts. That citywide analysis was conducted for the 2011 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS. Given the similarities between these forecasts, Fehr & Peers took a si p ified approach to the LOS evaluation. To compare these three scenarios, projected auto volume, compared at the intersection level. For each study intersection, the travel demand model's fore cas'of enterg vehicles was compared ._, among the three scenarios. Based on that relationship, th.v Irage delay at the t tersection under the 2035 LUT forecast was estimated. The calculation assumes; li lationship be"'" een the number of vehicles enterinq the intersection and the average delay�oy t e m�rsection. As an example, consider an intersection with the following assumptions: ` ® 3,000 entering vehicles and 35 seconds o�elaizrinie203 TMP forecast ® 5,000 entering vehicles and 45 seconds of }, layi der th�2031 Midway Proposal forecast /.�" If the 2035 LUT forecast had 4 000 ntenng Vehicles,the delay is estimated to be 40 seconds.This process was completed for each study�i*n ersection corCtdortvrage was calculated based on a weighting of the corridor intersection volumes. The r s ' are sho n`ih Table 4 and Figure 4. ------------ �•..1 ;- guy � � t s- i i 11 226 TABLE 4. 2035 PM PEAK HOUR AUTO LEVEL OF SERVICE Corr�d r, 1 S 196th Street/SE 192nd Street E D D D 2 S 212th Street/SE 208th Street E D E D 3 S 224th Street/S 228th Street E E E E 4 James Street/SE 240th Street E E s E E 5 S 260th Street/Reith Road/W Meeker Street ED F D 6 Canyon Drive/Kent-Kangley Road E .; E �` E E 7 S 256th Street E;. D 51 , D 8 S 272nd Street E F E 9 Pacific Highway S Fig r F F F � 4� 10 Military Road _ E D E D {xr*^ 11 64th Avenue St� � D D D 12 Washington Avenue/68th Av nublt, West rsa E Valley Highway f{ x E E E 13 Central Avenue N/84 AVe ue S r, ` E D D D 14 SR 515/BensonAvenue, s E E E E 15 116th Ave ue SEA E D D D 16 132nd Ave ueeSSE —E-- —D— —D— D-- 17 Downtown an F F F F Source:City of Kent TransportationW 'er Plan,2008,and Fehr&Peers,2014. Notes:1.WSDOT's level of service d and for this facility is LOS D. Though the average seconds of delay varies, the 2035 LUT scenario results in the same corridor LOS grades as were calculated for the 2031 TMP forecast. All corridors are expected to meet the City's LOS standards, assuming the Preferred Network is in place. Figure 4. 2035 Level of Service I 12 227 251 2035 v LEVEL OF SERVICE in i; LEGEND Figure4 � F �1��� �� ❑ � .. �q L°wlof 5arv1ee(LOS) ® E r 1 •^�N ) ,pT Lc�� N' I '' 5� O POTENTIAL ANN FXAT)ON AREA 1 v \� •l t� CM]Cn LIMITS 77 -— a ll� 8 l5 � - 4a� •{�,� �• 1 FS�I 7 ..-1• �I I� I 41111?jSiff' `�-: ��� H .•.. ��Ci ci El y,,. �• I `�`- _ I •r _scn�e:i~=ao,000• 228 4.0 PROJECT LIST Given that the base year conditions_hatie_chaanng_ed little since the 2008 TMP was completed, and the 2035 LUT forecast is projected to be very similar to the 2031 TMP forecast, the 2008 TMP project list remains relevant to this Comprehensive Plan update. The 2008 project list included four t pes of improvements: intersection improvements, new streets street widening, and railroad grade separations. The project list included 553 projects totaling nearly $600 million. Of that total, the City's share was estimated to be approximately $502 million. Table 5 summarizes the type and cost of eachr>p`eject type in the 2008 TMP (all costs are in 2007 dollars). Street widening projects accounted for neaet alf the total cost and railroad grade separations accounted for the next largest cost. Due to the jai ' cos„of railroad cirade separation X. projects, they accounted for more than a quarter of the total prof_c list cost;d s ite there being only six projects. o"k. TABLE .2008 P PROJEMMUST as cr TYpe of Project �� �; s � � NUmbePro�e �{ � � � � }� Sha /:CIr4 tr' Intersection improvements P 23r� � `'�� .. 63,309,500 62,079,500 New Streets 5 i y= r 84,715,000 42,827,000 Street WideningPsx 288,895,000 235,151,000 Railroad Grade Separation w 6 162,300,000 162,300,000 Total 53 $599,219,500 t }. $502,357,500 Source:City of Kent 7fa;sportation Master 200C ZI� Of the 53 projects reCo; ende,01. he 2008 TMP, eleven have been completed. These projects are listed below in Table 6. The complete' projects cost a total of$47 million. 14 229 TABLE(.COMPLETED PROJECTS I 8 S 212th St/SR 167 Northbound Ramp-Modify signal 220,000 220,000 timing by making northbound right turn free. A.G L I-10 4th Ave N/Cloudy St-Provide northbound and N'd gL_ 2,160,000 2,160,000 southbound exclusive left turn lanes.Install traffic signal. V" I-12 Smith St/Lincoln Ave(Smart Growth Initiative)-Add 4 stbound left turn pocket. ICQM� ,'a L =]r 90,500 1,990,500 ,L to d M I-13 W Meeker St and W Smith St-Interconnect Interurban 3A2 000 342 000 -- crossing signals. 1 E 'It N-4 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I(Military`�R —S to 4t Ave S)� � ti Construct new roadway with 5 lanes. N r"' Completed by 200$;-; Completed by 2008 6G3,�4 ,. W-4 84th Ave S(SR 167 to S 212th St) -Widen to 7 lanes.tr 5,106,000 5,106,000 W 7 S 228th St Corridor-Phase I(Military Rd S fr m SR 516 to� t Bolger Road) -Widen to 5 lanes. "6pleted by 2008 Completed by 2008 W-8 James St(Union Pacific Railroad to 4th Ave -Pro�� ., 1,800,000 eastbound and westbound exclusive left turn;la es' �( ' 1,800,000. < � xf W-14 SE 256th St-Phase II(SR 51� ent Ka' gley Rd�"t 116th 5,100,000 5,100,000 Ave SE)-Construct a 5 is roadway: ith bike Ia11e.. � fdk W-16 S 277th St Corridor(116thAe 5 'from Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)to SE 256t 0 Wid ' to 5 lanes with bike lanes. 7,500,000 7,500,000 S 228th,S B Imgton here Sa,to Fe Railroad- R 4 Grade se aration. /== 23,000,000 23,000,000 ---- Total ,,$47218500.e $47,218,500 Source:City of Kent,2015. F= � U O? In addition to the completed projects,two other projects were removed from the list: ® I-4: SE 208th Street/SR 515-Benson — Add dual southbound left storage lane and modify signal phasing. This project, with a cost of $690,000, has committed funding and a bid for construction is expected in the near future. I-21: I-5/272nd Street Interchange Reconstruction-Phase I— Provide transit and HOV direct access between S 272nd Street and I-5. This project, with a cost of$42,330,000,was envisioned as a partnership with Sound Transit and WSDOT. At this time, partner agency support for the project appears unlikely so it has been removed from the project list. 15 �. '�`$,,, 1"cr � �.„b>��,..,,-'� ..f �„».��� .� y�.;"hr.., "!`.�'"� �,e,��"-rx'r,.�-..w:.?'.t% r a'°-",,,xf t �" �- A",�',,�+ t;.e+f �•-k��s-a�x."�� :?3`sr z' ��„��� ? .��*z ,,...� � �r°x'a,�r�i 4�x�,"'r�..� s'x.��,�x'2^'�' ,.,r�pr 'x,,,�•�.x" 3 .��.�.ss.�y+-,�" x'�'�'-'t� x` e i�3�, �".rri�"*+� NN d' ','yt�-" x�s��,�.`at,-�sk y�,�s�y `%n +�"is c s•,�y" Y °�'�'^!a „1'.' s� -^t,m��.s'�r'�v' �-r.3�z e'':?-,x-" �� .c. ,,rr;„''"y'�x =�...;. "#�Y ..: �',ss+4'�`"�;��.,.��,''�� ,..,�� �.�"��' � 5���""�'�, �' c, 'y��"�•�C�' .1 s.c� �.s-`-�,. � '* �'- _�� �.,ts^��", ,��` .".�,�, is �,.'y�.: '.__.s`" �*' UMur" .�- projects partiallycompleted. �7 n V,!,X� Two ro ects have been artiall 0 Project 1-16: S 260t St/SR 99 — the westbound right turn pocket has been completed. That I component has been removed from the revised project list. l- 0 Project E-22: S 272"d St/Military Rd—the northbound dual left turn lanes have been completed. All other projects from the 2008 TMP remain on the revised project list. Figure 5 shows each project's location.The following four tables list the recommended projects by project type: 0 Table 7: Revised Project List—Intersection Improvements 0 Table 8: Revised Project List—New Streets f,,� t A 0 Table 9: Revised Project List—Street Widening - � 0 Table 10: Revised Project List—Railroad Grade Separatf eta• �. Figure S. Recommended Projects �rx i 04 r' s J 16 231 255 t h PREFERRED STREET NETWORK 11� eT-u111 Figure 5 LEGEND r R:11.d Old,I*p*,,I," st-1 S-1 MdWng b MTEN71ALANNEXATION AREA C�Umas R 3 Aff W-1 5 ri t- SCALE:V-40,000' 232 4.1 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Table 7 lists 17 intersection improvements, totaling roughly $15.6 million. Of that total, the City's share would be approximate$15.0 million. TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST—INTERSECTION IMPRO /EMENTS M Capital Protect(Locat�or�and Description)SE 192nd St/SR515-13enson-Add southbound righ turn }~ » I 1 pocket. F .. 540,0 Q 0 I 2 S 196th St/80th Ave S -Change intersection phasing a w lane approaches. } 250,000 250,000 fitM I-3 S 196th St/84th Ave S -Add eastbound ngh Tgrnz, o ket `�`11 and southbound dual left turn lanes. ` -_' 1,190,000 1,190,000 ( as , 1_5 S 212th St/72nd Ave S-Add southbound dual , tt t and.., : b 330,000 330,000 I-6 S 212th S 84th Ave S ` , end ea nd left tu`rn,= ne S.V 1,710,000 1,710,000 ana add northbound aridF outhb ound: ua efts n lanes. I-7 S 212th St/SR 167 So thbound Ramp-Add southbound `l 400,000 400,000 l—eft turn lane q_ > I-9 S 240t1tfS, SR 99-Changes, na)ph'asing. 420,000 420,000 4 SE 240th$ S 15-Add du l northbound and ' I-11 u oundcle rn lanes� dd northbound and t 1,650,000 1,650,000 southbound nglt3ur ''kets. �� �'`�ti"�'ti.�B:�r uJ �►Jam_:¢? Smith St/Central Ave- Revise southbound and I 14 northbound turn lane assignment. 20,000 20,000 eeker St/Washington -Modify signal phasing.Add`i,6Ge yv✓r �Aj I-15 780,000 780,000 t5oun right turn pockets. �1`/�,� I-16 S 260th S SR 99-Add westbound dual left turn lane.Add 1 right turn pocket. f>� 1,180,000 1,180,0001 7 I 7 Military Rd S/Reith Rd-Widen in ersection to provide turn `lane&nn all approach 1,945,000 1,945,000 �Q� i 18 233 TABLE 7. REVISED PROJECT LIST-INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS `h�- - w-"'w „' Capitai Project(L�ocatiorrand Descrip ian} SE 256th St SR515-Benson-Add northbound right turn 550,000 550,000 I-18 lane and change signal phasing. r 7 Kent-Kangley Rd 108th Ave SE-Add eastbound and (�z�,1 ,� -.� 1.6y S I-19 —Westbo-u-n-d-dual left turn lanes.Add eastbound right turn 1,410,000 1,410,000 pocket.Change northbound right turn phasing. 7,�C ��- SE 256th Stree and 132nd Ave SE-Extend northbound ^ lfthboun -0e ,sout d left,and westbound left turn pockets. 302,000 302,000 Construct new eastbound and southbound right turn ` 'N + r/ lanes. S 272nd S Military Rd Ad a southbound through lane 0 1 I-22 1,540,000 �' 1,540,000 at intersection. '¢'�'�`' I-23 Kent-Kangley R /132nd Ave SE Add northbound ands °` southbound dua a turn lanes. ` 1,360,000 1,360,000 Total * $15,577,000 $15,037,000 Notes:1.Portion of project already completed;remaining cos y�_I I ss han S tow here. Y �n f4 2 LP lh'' t 3sti { ti I �N 19 N�'� �y,�. o-a':`�� — '`�" 2`t .,,,, .. �G � •�" .wu' v``1i' a "'�'�a+'�� ,s 2,� « �t 't r"' £ r'�"',, isi���...v:".=.+, 4.2 NEW STREETS Table 8 lists four new street connections, esliMe to cost $84.7 million, of which $42.8 million would be �. the City's responsibility. TABLE 8. REVISED PROJECT LIST-NEW STREETS MM N-1 SE 192nd St(84th Ave SE to 108th Ave SE) -Create new roadway rA , 45,200,000 14,329,000 connection with 4-5 lanes and bicycle lanes. 4 - -- N 2 72nd Ave S(S 200th St to S 196th St)-Extend roadway to coect to S 196th St. 10 5 000 1,015,000 S 224th St(84th Ave S to 104th Ave SE(Benson Rd`Sk- 5)) N-3 Extend roadway to connect to E Valley Hwy and widewe trn`i 36,000,000 24,983,000 road to 3-5 lanes. ) r L 108th Ave SE (SE Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)toxS_� 56t St) _ r �Q N-5 2,500,000 2,500,000 J Extend roadway connection t�5EZ5b'fh—Sf Total D p q(� ^ (] $84,715,000 $4Z827,000 06 These street connection concepts were de eloped to se congestion on existing roadways. Therefore, ro�-A AU; v not completing the new connec iQr) OS effects on alternate routes. To evaluate the �� � . repercussions,the travel,,6 d mode was used to predict which routes would see the highest increases in traffic absent tf�e ew connects S. Mor .detailed analysis could be completed in the next TMP update. T _v__Two=ofthe=prcject = n- -1V uld-construct-n—ewN-east=westconnezfions across SR-167.IfProject N-- 1 is not constructed, tra, wouldprimarily divert to S 180th Street and SE 208th Street. The intersections , most affected are expe e the S 212th Way/SR 167 interchange and S 212th Way/96th Avenue S. The LOS on those intersections is likely to fall by at least one letter grade compared to the condition if Project N-1 were constructed. If Project N-3 is not constructed, intersections along S 212th Street are likely to be most affected, with LOS at 84th Avenue S and the SR 167 interchange falling by up to one letter grade. Project N-2 would complete the 72nd Avenue S corridor north to S 196th Street, providing an alternate route to SR 181/West Valley Highway/68th Avenue S and 84th Avenue S. If this project were not completed, the LOS on the intersections of S 196th Street/W Valley Highway, S 196th Street/80th Avenue S, and S 196th Street/84th Avenue S is expected to fall by up to one letter grade. 20 235 Project N-5 would create a north-south connection along 108th Avenue SE between Kent-Kangley Road and SE 256th Street, an 7bound. section of SE 256th Street between Kent-Kangley Road and 108th Avenue S one-way whis project would result in simpler operations at heSE 256th Street/Kent-Kangley Road and the SE 256th Street/SR 515 intersection immediately to the west.Therefore, not comp ject would adversely affect LOS at those two intersections. ,x Y n j �s yt� NNE �VcrAj::... � !n �4�qT 1�' 21 236 4.3 STREET WIDENING There are 14 street widening projects on the revised project list, as shown in Table 9. These projects constitute the largest share of costs at$269.4 million.The City's share is estimated to be $215.6 million. TABLE 9. REVISED PROJECT LIST—STREET WIDENING mgjectENI Number ost($ W-1 80th Ave S Widening(S 196th St to S 188th St)-Widen to 5 lanes,s v 1,323,000 1,323,000 W-2 S 212th St(SR 167 to 108th Ave )-Widen to 5-6 lanes. ��; 011001000 6,046,000 W 3 SR 181/West Valley Hwy/Washington Ave Widening (Mee r St . north to 218th block)-Widen to 7 lanes. - 16150q ✓ �w>• DO 16,150,000 W 5 116th Ave SE(SE 208th St to SE 256th St)-Widen toy' nes bike lanes. 46,430,000 17,730,000 W 6 132nd Ave SE(SE 200th St to SE 236th Sty 1 V1.ettto 5 lanes wit a bike lanes. �11 � _ 20,990,000 0 W 9 132nd Ave SE-Phase III(SE 248th to SE 236t St 1 en ,Y'S '� lanes with bike lanes11,950,000 11,950,000 ( W-10 Military Rd S (S 272nd S o S 240th S� Widen to rovide a center turn lane, bike lanes anii pewalk! jt,, 13,630,000 13,630,000 .. W-11 W Meeker St Pbase,II(Lake>e. ick Road to east side of the Green River)-W de� '0 5'an' nclud nt new bridge. �/l -�' 70,000,000 70,000,000 W-12 W Meek St Phase I(64th' ve S toreen River Bridge)-Widen to 55 lan _ c 51960,000 5,960,000 W-13 SE 248th St(11 Ave SEA 132nd Ave SE)-Construct a 3 lane roadway. s e _ 5,640,000 5,640,000 , W-15 SE 256th St-Phase (132nd Ave SE to 14A Ave SE)-Widen to 5 lanes with 16,980,000 16,980,000 bike_(bike I^�aness W 17 132nd Ave SE-Phase II(Kent-Kangley Rd (SR 516)to SE 248th St)- Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. 23,200,000 23,200,000 W-18 S 272nd St-Phase II(Pacific Hwy S to Military Rd S)-Add 2 HOV lanes and a center left-turn lane. 13,916,000 13,916,000 W 19 132nd Ave SE-Phase I(SE 288th St to Kent-Kangley Rd(SR 516))- Widen to 5 lanes with bike lanes. 13,120,000 13,120,000 Total $269,389,000 $215,645,000 901 �- �y`s.,�� a -� x The 2008 TMP included two projects al ng t e 116th�Avenuecorridor. Project W-5 from SE 208th Street to SE 256th Street and Project_W'i6 from SE 256th Street to SR 516. Project W-16 has already been completed, bringing the corridor to five lanes with bicycle lanes between SE 256th Street and SR 516. This project benefited intersections that were forecast to operate at LOS E and F in the future absent the street widening. The intersections to the north (SE 208th Street, SE 240th Street, and SE 248th Street) were forecast to operate at LOS D or better without the roadway widening. Therefore, a ending the fi a-lane cross-section to the north may not be necessary from a capacity perspective E�tiweverk &M-0 o � capacity needs, improvements along the northern portion of the corridor are still recommended as a complete streets project to ensure all modes are accommodated.At this tim roject W-5 remains on the project list as envisioned in the 2008 TMP, but may be revised in a futu' TMP update pending further ELF ,,e� study. For example, additional study may indicate that acceptab operati,rns can be maintained by widening the roadway to a three-lane cross section with bicycle 'anes and si u Iks. This would provide more continuity of the non-motorized network,a modest inc s ase in capacity with sa ety benefits, but at a r , lower cost. The 2008 TMP also included street widening Projects alon the 2 d Avenue rridor Projects W-6, W-9, W-17, and W-19. These projects would wlde Ah'- ,co,ndor a�fiiue lanes with bicycle lanes from SE 208th Street to SE 288th Street. Based on the Vi odelJn _co I ted for the 2031 TMP Baseline, this corridor is likely to operate acceptabi ,without they -lane cross-section. As with 116th Avenue SE the 132nd Avenue SE projects remai- the cu ent proje t list, but may be revised in a future TMP update. � ' t Potential changes would be ba ed on rnore^detai udy, but may include a three-lane cross-section rather than a five-lane cross-sectio r five laness-section on only the most congested portion of e corridor south of S =256tt eet 'b is t.et L_.c�,-►.,--Q...� T S 260th Stre eith Road eeker Street corridor (Projects W-11 and W-12) was re-evaluated for this planning-level evi w of the,, °ject list. The findings indicated that the recommended intersection J� improvements alone would o'ng the corridor to an acceptable level of service in the future, indicating some wideningis necessa herefore, Projects W-11 and W-12 remain on the project list, although they � N'wT J will be studied at a more detailed level during the next TMP update. 23 238 4.4 RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fee (BNSF) Railroad run parallel to 4,5 one another in the north-south direction through the City of Kent. The arterials most affected by those ���G grade crossings are S 212th Street, S 228th Street, and Willis Street (SR 516). An overpass of the BNSF -- Railroad at S 228th Street was completed in 2009 at a cost of roughly $20 million.This leaves five railroad grade separation projects remaining on the project list, as shown in Table 10. TABLE 10. REVISED PROJECT LIST—RAILROAD GRADE: EPARATION V;. ''ay` Number l .--.: R-1 S 212th St/Union Pacific Railroad-Grade Separation 33,000;O 0 33,000,000 R-2 S 212th St/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Gra" 33,000,000 33,000,000 Separation. R-3 S 228th St/Union Pacific Railroad-Grad Sep ra:ion. 24,200,000 24,200,000 R-5 Willis St(SR 516)/Union Pacific Railroad Gra a Separ tan= 26,500,000 26,500,000 2 R-6 Willis St(SR 516)/Burlington Norte r Santa F`eA, i road Grade r. 5 22 600 Separation. _:} 000 22,600,000 ,a Total r f F $139,300,000 $139,300,000 Source:City of Kent,2015. These grade sepaEr- M6r project rovide substantial benefits to city streets, but they are expensiv d fit# t enerall re uireng partners meefhe total project cost. Currently, approximately 46 rains travel 9 Y q u � .. —. —• — ugh�t on the NSF_Railroad n a daily basis.—This results in a daily closure time of one hour and 14 minutes. The UPRR has;; proxim tely 19 closures per day, totaling 25 minutes in daily closure time.Z These estimates reflect the�f".0 er bound of traffic delay. Actual delay is longer than the closure since it S takes time for queues to dissipate once the road reopens. During the development of the 2008 TMP, the City solicited feedback from the public on the most needed y street projects. Railroad grade separation projects were the most often listed high priority need. In addition to widespread public support, the need for these projects has been documented by City studies l� of average delay, as cited above. In the next TMP update, the effects of each grade separation project "_fs•—�� could be studied further to determine which projects would provide the most benefit to the street system. This prioritization will ensure th t limited financial resources re directed to the most needed projects. z City of Kent,2014. 24 239 4.5 PROJECT LIST SUMMARY Table 11 summarizes the revised 2015 project list. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509 million. The City's share of that total is estimated to be approximately $413 million. As mentioned previously, this list may be revised further pending the next update of Kent's TMP. TABLE 11.2015 PROJECT LIST 3 Yn .r a " xy - A rta m s Y""�''r +�^r°"t�"' r �'^^�r '�' T e Of Pru eCt r '" i v : r r MOM r Projer " Cost [�ty Share($)i . Intersection Improvements 17 ' 1 , 77,000 15,037,000 New Streets 4_ 84,y7S, ,.,0 42,827,000 Street Widening 14 ,��,_ 269,389,000 ,, 215,645,000 Railroad Grade Separation 5 ` , 139,300,000 139,300,000 Total 40 x. $508,981,000 $412,809,000 Source:Fehr&Peers,2015. t U Z 6 J/ i 72�y Z �3 s Lt 0 y 3 Z2 3 5 240 264 F Ai Al s a s x' f r rr� w x� 241 265 17EHR/� PEERS MEMORANDUM r Date: January 30, 2015 /plications To: Monica Whitman and CFrom: Don Samdahl, Fehr& PSubject: Review of Transport and Potential Land Use Map Amendments We have conducted a preiew of the proposed dockets and potential land use plan amendments documented,/ary 20, 2015 memorandum from Charlene Anderson to the Land Use and Planning Boiew focused on potential implications of these proposals to the transportation system. ext of the Transportation Element. Since most of these proposals do not contain specific development assumptions, it is difficult to calculate traffic generation. We used our best judgment based on the likely mix of land uses to form some perspectives on the likely transportation impacts. In summary, none of the land use proposals appear to have significant effects on the performance of the overall transportation system. Should these proposals be adopted, the land use changes can be incorporated into the travel model for more a ai a analysis during the next Transportation Master Plan update. The following table summarizes our review. 10014t'Avenue I Suite 4120 1 Seattle, WA 98154 1(206)576-4220 1 Fax(206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com 2d62 Monica Whitman and Charlene Anderson January 30, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Land Use Proposal Comments DKT-2014-4 Relatively small parcel located along S 272nd St.Although S 272"d St Ael and Pacific Highway corridors are both very congested, the change in (j��'�� traffic is unlikely to substantially affect the level of service conditions in the area. DKT-2014-6 Located at corner of Kent Kangley Rd and 116`h Ave SE. Proposed to QJ rezone to commercial and likely construction of a pharmacy. The two affected corridors would be LOS D in 2035 and the proposed l land use is unlikely to change those conditions. Property access would need to be examined given the heavy traffic at that corner. DKT-2014-7 Proposal to change to multifamily housing along 88th Ave SE. Likely development of up to 154 townhouses. This location is not adjacent to one of the transportation corridors, but the traffic from this development would access via 84th Ave S,which operates at LOS D. Local street access would need to be analyzed. DKT-2014-8 Proposed to change to transit-oriented commercial-residential within the Midway area. The Transportation Element included assumption of growth in Midway,so this change would likely be compatible with that analysis. More detailed analysis was prepare �s as part of th Midwa EIS. �'jij C916_ • Expand Commercial Would allow some commercial land uses in addition to current Opportunities in Industrial industrial uses. The intent appears to allow for commercial uses and Area (Al-A4) service providers to support the large employment base in the industrial areas. While retail generates higher traffic volumes than �^ industrial uses, the type of retail envisioned would be less likely to generate-new=trips_from_outside=of_the=existing=industrial-area.T_he— _ overall transportation impacts would therefore be fairly limited. Eliminate Office Zone (Bl) This change would make certain parcels on the East Hill more developable with mixed commercial uses. These would serve the nearby residential areas and offer more services to the a neighborhoods. The transportation effects would likely be positive by creating commercial opportunities closer to residences. Eliminate the MA Zoning Affects a dispersed number of properties in the valley. This appears 7 District(132) to be more of a housekeeping change in zoning that would likely have few changes in transportation conditions. Eliminate Gateway Located along 841h Ave South to the north of SR 167. It seems that Commercial Zone (133) the land uses with the proposed change would continue to be auto- oriented commercial which is consistent with the land usesuses—analyzed in the Transportation Element. Without further analysis, it is difficult to assess the potential change in traffic generation. i 243 267 FEHR/� PEERS MEMORANDUM Date: February 16 2015 To: Monica Whitman, City of Kent From: Don Samdahl and Ariel Davis, Fehr& Peers Subject: iVon-nllotorized LOS Discussion This memo addresses a question asked regarding the non-motorized LOS and its implications on impact fees and other funding needs. Initially, the non-motorized LOS was established as part of th SD AP It recognized the importance of non-motorized modes in downtown Kent and wanted to make sure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities were properly prioritized by the city and new development. The multimodal LOS guidelines were expanded to the rest of the city in the comprehensive plan update. The LOS guidelines give emp asis to the non-motorized components alrea y included i` n the TMP and do not identify any new facilities other than those that were previous) identified. They are not ixed standar s must be met by new eve opment before being approved, nod , o t e re uir cit to start making non-motorized projects the first riorit . However, by �b 1ing 1hese LOS policies, it is i e y at the importance o implementing non-motorized projects will increase, but they do not prescribe any specific priorities. --- —-------- �da'`Q�- The impact fee program can stay the way it is, since many of the non-motorized projects are already inc ded as art of street projects in the impact fee ro ect list The city is making a good-faith effort to implement fios projects as funds become available. When the impact fee program is updated in concert with the next TMP revision, it would be possible to modify the project list to include other non-motorize projects i t e ci y esires. f1 Regarding concurrency, the city's current concurrency program is focused on implementing the TMP project list, which includes no'n-motorized ro'ects. In t e next update, we would recommend creating a more exp fc multimodal concurrency program to bring the city into better compliance with the regional planning guidelines. rri . f I th 10014 Avenue I Suite 4120 1 Seattle, WA 98154 1 (206)576-4220(Fax(206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com 244 268 i 245 269 Chapter Five - PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: • A description of how and why parks and recreation facilities are planned- • A discussion of existing conditions and trends impacting parks and recreation services; • A discussion of current and proposed approaches to measuring Levels --: of Service; and • Goals Policies related to the provision of parks and recreation facilities Purpose Statement: Practice responsible stewardship of parks, significant open spaces, recreational facilities and corridors to provide active and passive recreational opportunities for all persons in a comrtlunity. Purpose Although the Parks and Recreation'Ey men "sre"Cued under the Growth Management Act, Ken h ong maiht f d a park and open space element, because park and r0 ation: o ortu�t ies are viewed as an integral part of :x PP the city and essentt I to the" alit of li or its residents. The Parks and Recreateftmen 'a' tla city's Comprehensive Plan is intended.a , rviev" he city's planning efforts related to the provision of par recrea i f S. It, combined with the other elemen s oftf e om �ehensive Planr ,,escribehe city's goals and priorities in a general way` ; The Compre nsive P1`n is a useful and mandated city planning document; it is supplemen11 t 'd,,b�f number of other city planning efforts, including the gas... Park and O en S "ce Plan (P&OS Plan). The P&OS an fleshes out the basic policies covered in t is Parks and Recreation Element, as it can go into far greater detail. It is also update on a different schedule than the Comprehensive Plan. The last P&OS Plan update was adopted in 2010 and preparations are underway to begin the next P&OS P an update which is scheduled to be completed in 2016. As that update will be adopted after this Comprehensive P an up a e—,7is Element will look back to the prior update to inform it. At the same time, this Element will look forward at some of the IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 1 1— i 246 270 policy shifts that began in the prior P&OS Plan and are expected to see further development in the next Pla e. Issues De g Resources For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere in this Plan, the city continues to face revenue shortfalls. These shortfallsTiah��r F api al funds hard. exacerfia ing cape a :h maintenance backlo t a ad begun long a ore t e 2008 rece!E( Aging Infrastructii e Each categorygIo park asset ha typical ex ected lifet' e, along with it ow typical amount o utine '" - rpa`) tenance and�ypical r to amount of`ca rn r"ntenance. Changing De""- raphics C : ' KEOD G an increas ; o ulation of foreign- � resin incIu i, a sizea le ' pop ation w Oy s n t speak English. In addlti n� t � nums show that our . popula,, ' is qettinq older. Changee n Focus VII�t_ the�P y's lower revenues, the fact that a per ge of that revenue is going toward Care ire` men a the aging park �� w irifFfruc�ure, the primary focus for the Parks fi a apital program has been on redevelopment,- or, what we're calling "ma—king—better use of what.w_e-have.—_ Parks PI TV i ng In Kent The Parks and Recreation Element works in concert with the Park and Open Space (P&OS) Plan, which provides direction for the planning, acquisition, development, and renovation of parks, open space and recreational facilities. The P&OS Plan was last updated in 2010, and is due to be updated again in 2016. Since the last update of the P&OS Plan, fiscal realities for many local governments have changed significantly. Kent has been no exception. While IKent_Comore h-nsive Plan -...Parks and Recreation Element Page 2 April 17, 2615 i 247 271 we still aspire to a system that provides a high level of service to the community, our current budget realities require an entirely new approach to planning an maintaining our park system. Over the past several years, Kent has managed to make a number of improvements to its park system. These projects include an expanded playground at Lake Meridian Park (2011); new playground and park improvements at Tudor Square Park 2012), Turnkey Park (2013) and Green Tree Park (2014); planting improvements at ervvicn Club Ballfields (2 1 and the rep acement of synthetic turf at WilsonSports ie,;. D14). The city has also managed to make some significant strai'egic a siti�e Huse Matinjussi and Van Dyke properties in the Panther Lake" ea (2012); anJ_ con roue assem age at Clark Lake Park (2013)� eadows Park (2014). All the property acquisitions and several off park improvemn were funded either entirely or primarily through= pants. Tplaygroun�d'":. improvements also benefitted from the use o _P `� �"se labor and contributions made by volunteers z" The use of in-house labor, gr�nh Q unteer�a ertainly help leverage limited financial resources; but it'S- impl�n easib1-g , rely heavily on these sources for the basic renovati, s and . ments needed to keep a park system vibrant and evant to'itcxo munit`. ns Relationship tTp er�� Q�•, , Recreation and Cons atiod-und' a Bo d's Manual 2� The Recreatio nd Co risei, ation Fun ng Board, or RCO, is a state agency tasked , 11 istr�b t ng arh er of state and federal grant funds. These'�'J grantnds are detlNt ed to ,� acquisition, development and redeyet pment of recce tional4facilities across Washington State. Eligibility,.'= —these fun.: is based, in part, on having a state-approved Parks Com rehe-si. 4 Plan" ich must be updated every six years. en s Parks an Opens ac YP) ast updated in 2010, met the state's requirement and, as a resu , qua ifi'ed Kent to receive the $1,809,959 it has received in RCO funding since 2010. As has been mentione , e city is preparing to embark on the next update, scheduled to be adopted in 2016. Because the P&OS Plan is related to the Parks and Recreation Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan, the RCO's grant requirements impact not only the contents of the P&OS Plan but also those of the Parks and Recreation Element. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 3 Kent Gefnpprelhensive Plan April 17, 2015 248 272 Washington's 2013 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Washington's State Corn ensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, commonly referred to as SCO , provides a statewide look at recreation, with a focus on recreation on public lands. It examines trends in recreation, identifies current issues and sets recommendations four ways to improve outdoor recreation in the state. It a so` es the priorities for RCO funding. To receive RCO funding, a project must be consistent with the goals laid out in SCORP. Public Outreach When the Park and Open Space Plan was last updated, 1.tts olides were shaped, in part, from the responses the city receivedji. Tts 20nQ Park Plan survey. The survey was widely advertised, was avai "e onU". and hard copies were available at the city's facilities and ifi x borhood co Is. The outreach effort resulted in 631 responses. So' " of the question answers ., were included in the Plan.. T i�e entire survey_ esults ca a found ohlI at the l ; city's website. Likewise, during the next update, t e city plans to',T ave several conversations ✓ � ur� with Kent residents to discuss rior't nd resource The analysis and discussion provided briefly in is en f, a ex p rid, d upon in the P&OS Plan. The capital goals laid out her II be u ,.P „dann all as part of the budget process. Administrationo fie :y rks Ele: ent and its Policies r N41 Policy that guidest fundrn` and operatr n of Kent's park system is administered by the;t, ctot c; ,e, Parks Recreation and Community Services Dea ent. Poli ire ion is set y the three-member Parks Commit theK .mot, t CI uncil. The city's 12-member Arts Commission, appose ed by the NTay anc�co.firmed by Council, advises staff and approves pubh and cuI ur ogramming. EXISTING C( DITIONS AND TRENDS Every large pla`ri '"'g effort needs to consider its context. Part of doing so involves analyzing and accounting for current and anticipated trends. This effort is no exception. Significan ren s in Kent, and their impact on parks and recreational facility planning, include decreasing resources, aging infrastructure, and changing demographics. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 4 April 17, 2015 249 273 Decreasing Resources For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere in this Plan, the city What's the difference between routine maintenance continues and capital maintenance? 'shortfalls.,These shortfalls have Most people are aware that many cities, including hit parks capital funds hard, Kent, have park maintenance employees on their staff. exacerbating a capital These employees are generally responsible for: maintenance backlog that had begun long before the 2008 O Routine maintenance tasks, including such things recession. During the parks as r mowe ng Grass, cleaning restrooms and emptying facilities assessment work that trash. was last updated in 2012, the ° Minor construction projects, such as making repairs city's parks capital maintenance to plumbing and roofs and filling in potholes in was determined to be parking lots, as well as repairing sidewalks and over $60 million. If current trails in the parks. fun ingcT'®tr ds continue, the This work is considered routine maintenance and is backlog will continue to grow. funded through the city's operations budget. One of the larger questions to projects, be addressed in the upcoming ��� Larger 9 P ] ts, such as building a new restroom Park and Oo_en Space Plan building, repaving a park's parking BT,—or rep update will have to do with how f orn-out athletic fields' synthetic turf, are typically to respond to this tree, a considered canitaT_1 maintenance projects, are o ` ` i contracte ou to private construction firms and are Options include ideftti "mg n sources of reven4 ad* tin paid for through the Parks capital budget. the size of the parr terrivo a combination of both:' .77 Ag ng41,ii rasfiruct �- � � � . Kent ark syste s a to g and proud history. ---Keats s-par=k,—Rose�b d=Park=was=opened-in 1906---_ i Over oneKhb dred y� later, our system continues to receive g rev � s locally and nationally. One wr indication of ou ,Futation is that we consistently attract regional and national athletic tournamen s ' ' ra ecause players enjoy playing on our well- maintained grass fields. That reputation is something of which we are proud. Unfortunately, not all of our assets have aged as well as some of our grass fields. Even at our most . 7 popular sports field sites, there are assets that are in desperate need of re- investment. For example, at Kent Memorial Park, the restroom building is in near-constant need of repair, be it a leaky roof or the crumbling plumbing I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 5 April 17, 2015 i 250 274 system. At Russell Rid, the parking lots have been patched so many times that it is getting increasingly difficult to patch the patches. Each category of park asset has a typical expected lifetime, along with its own typical amount of routine maintenance and typical amount of capital maintenance. The expected lifetime of a restroom building, and the amount uired t of maintenance reqo keep it functioning, are entirely different from that of, say, a playground, whose expected lifetime and maintenance are different from that of a grass athletic field. What tfiey all hve in common is the fact that they all have finite life expectancies, and they 11 require continuing investments t roughout the course of their) " imes. Not ' surprisingly, maintenance costs increase as assets a h older assets requiring more frequent maintenance than their, `e . erc p rparts. In 2012, Parks undertook an asset anal p sis y to to invento , d assess the condition of every park asset valued $ov 2 0.: . The analys` � ooked, at 240 assets. The scores ranged from 1 (ne ing,th'"'^end of its use life) to 5 (functionally new). Seventy nine assets (3Q`" he total) were ranked 1 or 2. Sixty-three percent of Kent'S arks contame at least one asset ranked - 1 or 2. " ' The analysis included a list of recorp ended p� iects o address the failing assets in the park syste The estimaeWfo he recmmended work totaled ov�60millioFro " 20 ° hrouZh 2 f3 theci y spent approximately $3.5iTaps a probe s.At tFie rrent average rate of investment it would take 69 ears„ compl to the prof" is on our list of assets waiting to be repairec�or rep aces" - — Changan el MQ aphics Kent' population haay change` significantly over Formatted:Justified,w9nc: 2.1" the pad two decade .and continues to change. — Ct thei of the last arks and Open Space Plan (P&OS P an: , date&, a city's population stood at t 88,380. ShortI a the plan was adopted, the city annexed tl area known as Panther Lake. The latest (2014) three-year American Community Survey shows Kent's population at 121,400. 2015 current Kent's -- ( population is es imated to be 122 300. E It's not just the number of residents that has changed. The city has become increasingly racially and culturally diverse. In 2000, 71 percent of Kent's residents were white. The most recent American Community Service count IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 6 April 17, 2015 251 275 put the percentage of white residents in Kent at 59.5 percent. In 2000, eight percent of Kent's population was Hispanic. In 2010, that percentage jumped to 16.7 percent Kent has an increasing population of foreign-born res' ents, including a sizeable population who does not speak English. The Kent School District's web�orts tha t eir student population comes from families'speaking 137 languages. In addition, the numbers show that our population is gettiolder. In 2000, 7.4 percent of Kent's population was over 65. The most r`�ent data shows that popu ation_at 9.1 percent. r ; These changes are expected to impact not only ,`I� ur pax_ offer, but the quality t "q y and type of access to our parks and th�e�` rious amern�t. they offer. The changing needs and priorities of Kent.re i ents ill require'gr¢ ter flexibility than ever in p anni re,� va a Jd' lities that er suit Hang ng citizenry. Kent's changing demographics are'b, changing we engage the YFj"��} community in conversations regard ng t. recreati I needs and priorities. The old-st le "town hall" type of pu is meetg , n't a effective as it used to be. The city contra s to 0o at newt nd�i oval v- ways to engage residents, in order to e a broad a re r sentation of thoughts and ideas as possible. The ne t Park an n Spac= RIa will include an extensive public ou rei ichco nen , a ,e erm ne-where and how our parks are meetinrg the— n s an pp iro�r ies of Ker1 residents, and how they can improve to continue to prove a evanta d vibra recreational opportunities to the community. Cha"i in Focus --- ----- ---------- The city's t period�o park facility expansion included the construction of Service Club` „_II F�e� , Wilson Playfields, Arbor Heights 360 Park, and Town Square Plaza `F ",.y for ese projects were prove e y councilmantic T Yv,., won-dss. Tieci till a ing on these bonds, with the last of the bonds expected to be paid off by 2024. With the city's lower revenues, the fact that a percentage of that revenue is going toward debt retirement, and the aging park infrastructure, the primary focus for the Parks capital program has been on redevelopment, or, what we're calling "making better use of what we have." I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 7 April 17, 2015 i 252 The Three Legs of the Parks Capital Program "Stool" Historically, parks departments all over the country have compared their parks capital program to a three-leced stool, with the "legs" consisting of acquisition, development and redevelopment. "Acquisition" is about obtaining new park land, and is most commonly achieved through purchase of private proper "Development" refers to the design and construction of new parks. "Redevelopment" can include either the refurbishment or replacement of,-A n-out facilities through capital maintenance or t e reimagining o � k amenities-- or even entire parks-- based on changes in recreat o trends and local < t demographics. The city of Kent has been acquiring and eloping p r operties for several decades. As previously menti,,�o ed, the city has se� any changes over that time. Even withau the cityi' urrent fins al pressures, the time is right for a ru�dena:Ij ccommunity-based look at the system o assess which, roperties arks: or king well, which properties could use haven is .rfa,e of their' .µ1j_ent amenities replaced in-kind, an w is prope ieF nee .m9 a create re-imagining. When initiating this discussion; then ►ifs ke it clear that the discussion isn'tf�ifi'�Iot aising The discussion will be focused very clearly on they°"'Frk sys m, then munity, and what the community's desires andsorities fo the futur f the system are. Park Inxu tort' sification The 20 P&OS PIS; pdateEwy unted 1,434 acres of park and open space I Ian ' d59 pars (i �-.-- T n orync -31094.68 acrese nc 160 acres of undeveloped,properties_) of land underour direct ste dship, a a system of 53 developed parks. (Please see Figure P=1 `F ) — Formatted:Centered,Space After: 0 pt I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 8 .V,.....,Kent Gehens Pla-R April 17, 2015 253 277 Figure P-1 Parks and Recreation Facilities w t r PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITES '" T !r:. . m '• 0 Figure ws W• � 1J t�x.� Q.OTF41NM0(A110H lAEA .. urruMun ME Pool. .r Fi } •. yi�yi 51 ®M.Jnb —F-ft. gIM HmM.R � n.0 3_ �" �.'{1... ( -::rwm�{/} '}�•111 6.�'1' �S I r' 1 i' w. 19, 1N'� =00.(9 C •Y^t l: i% gam,7i r 1 it1. 4 r a]- r a - EI u � � - � Y... •uu.n s �r 4i` _ '�I.^5.�� IN.T.B,a.r umww R, I I The nu- rsL ppeto mdi_ to that the system has shrunk, when the city ` .. hasj, • all added aC�es to t.T_, park property inventory. How to explain this seem) contrad c }on?There are four factors that explain the differing (—� -nombers , tweer 20t s count and-to day's. -------- ------- ---------------------------------- a. The it�y has' cquired 72.57 acres of new park land since 2010. These were al", gic acquisitions that contributed to long-term ,,,assemblages an system goals. b. We have built no new parks since 2010. That park plan update signaled a change in direction from system expansion to a focus on "taking care of what we have." c. During the facilities assessment process the parks department undertook in 2012, the department took another look at how it defined I "park".. One result of this effort was that they broadened their park I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 9 April 17, 2015 254 278 categories list. -In addition to neighborhood and community narks and open space propf_q es,_they acknowledged that there are a number of special-use ar s that don't really provide the traditional functions fulfilled by— neighborhood an community parks. Some parks that provide specialized uses such as skate parks were reclassified as special use parks. Properties utilized primari y b` y sports groups, like Wilson laLie s, were classified as Recreational Facility - Outdoor. In addition to revising park categories, the `Department de-listed a handful of properties that, according to any objective measure, didn't function as parks and had little potential fo. ever serving that role well. d. An administrative decision was made to dtse n,i:: a counting the 310 acre Green River Natural Ressllr.LP_ Area as rk. Be use its primary undt on is to cap ure an eta stormwater, wW Ich makes lar. 1 portions of the property inaccessible to the public, and bCause it is steward t by the city's Public orks Department, it was fe t`t at it dis ed an disc sion on sj x�fi:a; Y parks acreage in Kent by including a props f haS recreational functions are secondary to its public works functions. Recia sifying the GRNRA doesn't take away the enjoyment peopler when theye the property for recreation, but it does better refleihe L ection of perties stewarded by the city for the primary p p ry purpose of�r.., creatforr � The ultimate result Is than hile the"" 171 stem h s seen minor growth in acreage since 2010, nu T1„;ers don': eflect the growth. N � ��; ,a .1— Formatted:Font:Bold,Not Highlight Parks and Facilities b the umbers: 1993- 20142015 An- �R, 1993 2003 20/42015 Formatted Table Po ion �tTM 4< ,000 84,275 '`"�Q122 300 Yrw F-�.. Park pro rty 849.5 1346.63 !095.31094.68 (total acre II categories) > Golf Course 0.656 0.2-732 0.22 (holes per 1000) Indoor Recreation 2.33 1.13 1.2-916 Facilities (sq. ft./person) IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 10 Kent Gemffel�� April 17, 2015 i 255 279 Our System by Category Following is a list of the various arks and roperties stewarded by the Kent park system, and an explanation of the role they serve in at t system.`The list includes the number of properties in each category. Neighborhood Parks Kent has twenty five nei hchbborhood parks. These tend to be small, intimate parks, tucked into residential neighborhoods. They're typically accessed on foot or by bike. They include amenities that tend to caus 11 m to be natural ga hering�--Ip s for the neighborhoods they serve, but tp5 y're not intended to be destinations that attract use from outside of t ei ighborhood. ,b Community Parks ��`� ,, Kent has ten community parks. These parksA�r typically larger: an neighborhood parks, and contain amenitie5, at attract a larger us ,area. For that reason, parking lots are typica y ound}1 these Marks. As larger gathering spaces, they are often used for co mti rri -wide special events like concerts or movies. M Special Use Parks ft Not all parks fit into neat categorien� omen b e t e size of neighborhood parks, b ey cater'f ar.s I zit audience. Arbor Heights 360 is such a park Wi`' itsimary fea`ires being a skate park and a— -' c i b ng wall, it dra s a veryu- ctive, ust lly young adult, seeking a very specialized reer tional.' enence. Other examples of spec tf ` ' IriC ude several downtown "pocket parks "The spa are no 'n a residential neighborhood; there o-re,they don't" residen . I co stj uency. They are typically activated during wedI s by business,: e le eeking a short break from work. — -- Kent has ne-special :, Natural Reso rces ` While Kent is kno for its industrial and warehouse resources, the city also benefits from a large amount of protecte open space, both in he form of publicly owned lands and critical areas protected by regulation. The Green River which runs south to north through the valley, is protected t rough its designation as waters of the state. Other shoreline areas include Lake Meridian ake FenwickLthe Green River Natural Resources Area, Springbroo reek, portions of oos Creek and the Mill Creek Auburn Floodway. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 11 Kent April 17, 2015 i 256 280 = Recreational ilities _.-- Kent has a number of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. These are spaces that are heavily Programmed. As a result, they tend to have a low incidence of use outsr a of their programmed use. Kent's outdoor recreational facilities include Wilson Playfields, Hogan Park at Russell Road, Service Club Ball Fields, and Kent Memorial Park. Inc o� or facilities include the Kent Valley Ice Centre, the Nealy-Soames Historic Home, the Kent Historical Society Museum, the Kent Commons, the Kent- Meridian-Pool, and the Senior Activity Center. Since the 2010 Park Plan update, our Resource Cente ':. s closed and the property was removed from the city's inventory. Undeveloped Park Land As noted above, over the years Kent has obt ned a number of'pr erties it has not yet developed as parks. Since this9 reage,s tend ed for a entual use, it is included as par propert • still, the p op' ies have few to no facilities, and so recreationa use t these sitesi of supported by our `T ite maintenance resources EICejq, ns 148 27 cres of undeveloped parkland. c' Other Facilities PZ7 In addition to parks at, space;i:, �ity's parks system includes a golf complex, and a corm in ty p,,, patch (o property owned by others). The 167-acre g Co ex in tides an 1 ` hole course, a par 3 course, a v. driving range and a rni; p ft'couKse There arev*so QVe, 8 mike of off-ri ht-of-waytrails in the ciI G2'� The,ne t update to T-n,, P&66S4 n will include a broader discussion of the -�U city's*rpy or recreatro " acilities than in the last update. It will be based on a planned:4iague wit ,t a community to determine the community's satisfaction* i�h then_" rent level of service as well as their desires and priorities for ch',Its to the level of service. The upcoming P& S Plan update will include a detailed list of Kent's parks, open space and recreational properties. Other Local Recreation Facilities The city is not the only public provider of recreational facilities in and around Kent. The Kent School District owns a number of playgrounds and play fields on its various school properties. ome o S ft ese are av for general public use when school is not in session. Other facilities, like their synthetic I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 12 4 April 17, 2015 _ �f e� 257 281 turf sports fields, are not open to the general public, but____do host programmed activities, such as Kent recreation league games. In addition, King County owns several recreational properties in the local area. They have the primary maintenance responsibility for the Interurban ,.---- Trail owne y Puget Sound Energy, but leased to the County), as well as the Soos Creek Trail. They also own the northern portion of North Meridian Park, which they maintain as open space. — In addition, the city's Public Works department owns a number of properties that provide some recreational value (typically via the trailer�"'-' hey maintain for access but allow the public to utilize for recreation), altloligh that is not their primary use. 4 �— These properties provide some recreational oppo. pities tots nt residents, VA-e— but they are not included in Kent's Level of Se '` ce equations ke._.ause the Parks Department has no control over ho y are ogramme`d, .,anaged and maintained. LEVELS OF SERVICE �°g° . Determining a level of service G a , ecreation� ilities and open space for a community is challenged by�t facf there`s lly isn't a one-size- fits-all approach to providing these c mmun 1faies. Po ulation Kent's most recen date t PX ur Parks d Open Space Plan was adopted in 2010. At the time o updrtaze K ulation stood at 88,380 residents. Since that plan, the Ra l*h tion added five square miles and approxi%Atel}� OO�y nts to the city. Kent's current 2015 population ;r standsaa ohut` 1 00. The population is fairly evenly split bet veen genders, wit: 50 4 p ent male and 49.6 percent female. Nearly 30 perce t of Kent's 6, 'dents are under the age of 20, and 51.4 per_cent_ar_e -�— between t e ages of 2, and 54. The city's median a e is approximately 34 years old. Mo"1re detach information on Kent's population may a found in the Profile an /si chapter.of this Plan. Needs Analysis The P&OS Plan's Needs Analysis detailed the challenges of establishing Levels of Service for parks and recreation facilities. Other public services enjoy straightforward metrics, such as response time for emergency services, quantity of materials disposed of or processed for waste management services, and intersection wait times for transportation. We know that parks and recreation facilities provide immense value to a community. We know that communities with good parks tend to b ealthier IKent Comorehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 13 April 17, 2015 258 282 than communities with few or no parks. We know that neighborho_oo well-used and well-maintained parks tend to have hiafir hiac and^lower crime ra es than comparable neighborhoods without parks. Because t�® benefits accrue over time, it's really difficult to track them back to specific budget years. As a result, it's very difficult to provide metrics for the value that parks and recreation acilities ring o t eir communities. Communities all over the country have struggled and continue to struggle to provide a quantifiable Level of Service for parks and recreation facilities. The 2010 P&OS Plan looked at the traditional means of measurfl,g Levels of Service (based on acres per thousand for different facil,iti and traced the decades-long trend of declining Levelss o Servf ice in KeIR based on that approach. It also looked at Levels of Service on aft, ighbgrod-by- neighborhood basis. This approach identified 32r� hborhoourrently served by parks, four neighborhoods with pait dy met needs an e t four with no park space. Three additional neighborho tin theat-that-tim - annexed Panther Lake area were a so park icien Below is a table illustrating how Kent's parks andopen space Levels of Service have changed over tim ., Falb e P "" Le, el of Sere ce,`" 93 2 35 1 3 '�-; _03 21A42015 2035 1 Formatted Table Population 0 84� . 5 121,4014122� 300, 138,156 Neighborhood Parks _f 53` a" .13 .59^ 52* acres 1.0G0 i Mi, _ Commb'*r Parks i .= 9 14.85 -.431.24A acr..e 000 Golf C, se 0.6�6 0.32 0.22 .19* =(Vol es — Indoor Red , cilities 2.33 1.13 1.�916 1.1303* _ s . ft. ersorr Parks propertyk:0 849.5 1346.63 1 1�1094.681116. 3-Z1094.68* acres 1 Natural Resource # # 4 3.71 �-693,28* Overall LOS 20.72 15.98 9-4-38.95 8 897.92* acres 1000 Overall LOS Dev. # # 3-;--723.82 3-.2-73.38 Parks - incl. golf cou (Ac./1000) ^Some of this change is due to reclassification of parks.Please refer to Park Inventory and Classification section for further Information. I Kent Comprehensive Plan.- Parks and Recreation Element Page 14 April 17, 2015 i 259 283 *This assumes no additional acquisition or new development. #Figure not available. Using the above approach to Levels of Service, Kent would need to develop its 1 7�60.55 of its 160.16 acres of currently-undeveloped land aed-aE d develep an additi ' xx aeFes by 2035 in order to stem any further erosion to its developed parks Levels of Service for its projected population of IXXXXXXXXXXXXXX138,156. While the 2010 P&OS Plan update did not propose a new a proach to Level of Service, it recognized the need for one. ow Mu��a ? ry G 5. "Level on attempt to provide a gauge r a�pa,icular public good or service being provided to a communit °Is also use , o establish goals for that good or service, according to4h' overall priorit e _ d resources of the community. For examples en a c munity setgoal of having emergency services respond to a dais hel ithin a certain number , of minutes, that number is then used to in resources a leaders how many resources need to be allocated to,,' ergency sere s in order to achieve the response time goal. K Parks, recreation facilities and opus& pace Level f Se ice measures are used in the same way. 'a How many parksydi enou'g for a community? How 7 many arks is the co will in kto pport?Those are difficult ' questions, but give � , e on', g revenu shortfall, they are very relevant questions that Mill%q�, wire ext'nsive cor`r unity discussion during the next park plan update The chart be f om 20,` shows the developed park acreage for Kent and some oaf st a onah' eer citie . Looking at what Kent is providing in relation eer citie s prOVI` s some"some"points of reference when discussing what's right fo , ent. Looke"� in isolation, Kent's numbers, and the Levels of _Service f1a -represent"have little meaning. r IKent_Comorehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Paae 15 April 17, 2015 260 284 Figure P-2 Acres of Developed Park Land per 1000 Residents 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 _ KENT Kirkland Renton Aubur Fed raI Evere, Bellevue ." 4.. Meaningful Measures According to the chart above, Ken••,;_ ehind its pe cities in providing developed park land to its resident . Haw'eu, r, acres thousand, while a useful measure, isn't the only met►j;�used �a ssin' Levels of Service. Manual 2 Plannin Policies and Guide nes a'publish�d by Washington's Recreation and Conservatia ,Office, i tatewide reference for cities developing and upd ing thei""`. Parks an pen Space Plans. Its Level of Service Summary fo s ocal,�"ecte disc ses a variety of approaches to g parks and r"ec f n facilitle' Levels of Service. Options include � measur n raanfi y g quali,� and distribution and access of local parks and recrea " n facilities Kent ; xt P&OS upca a will consider using these and other potential _ _ approache as part o shift to a performance-based Level of Service assessment a up 4 a will include determining which pars and recreation facilities in the system are performing at a high level and which parks are underperforrr in . By focusing on preserving recreational value of high- performing parks and increasing recreational value of low-performing parks, the update will examine the potential for increasing Kent's parks and recreational facility Level of Service without relying exclusively on adding acreage. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 16 April 17, 2015 261 285 Goals and Policies The following goals and policies are from the last Parks and Open Space Plan update. That plan noted a shift in expressing how the City's park and open space system would best develoQ over the coming years and details measurable steps toward achieving these goals. —. Overall Goal: Encourage and provide opportunities for local residents to participate in life- enrichment activities via the development:., park land and recreational facilities ` ��preservation and enhancement o,fen onmentally sensitive areas, professional programming, and the op`'l' utilization of community resources. I. Park&Recreation Facilities Goals& Poli ies Develop a high-quality, diversified recreatA system r all abilities ages and interest groups. N r PTI Goal P&OS-i: Work with other agencies to rese acid -rease waterront access and 9 P facilities. t - Policy P&OST11C�o erate"viit King County, Kent, Federal Way and Highline Schio I Distri x and other ublic and private agencies to acquire and p erve. ditiona.� line access for waterfront fishin , -19P of e' wading swimmin d o her tel'to recreational activities and pursuits, es' c`�allyo _the Gre River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, r fid Panther Le , Develop a mixture of opportunities for watercraft acces�� ncludi(t` canoe, kayak, sailboard, and other non-power-boating activities, sp "cially n the Green River, Lake Fenwick, Clark Lake, Lake Meridian, aid Panther Lake, w6ere practicable. Goal P&OS-2: 7 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. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks a d Recreation Element Page 17 April 17, 2015 262 286 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. 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 I Oil, P&OS-2.3: Develop, where a ?p, ppropriate�� elect number of facilities that provide the highest standard fora c mR titive playing, possibly in conjunction with King County, KeJ 'and Fede al Way School Districts, and other public agencies and,,-,,,pr ate organi atlo ts. A�A Goal P&OS-3: Develop, maintain, and operate a high- uali s �t of indoor facilities q tY litres that provide activities and programs fool;a interests o ' physical and mental capabilities, age, and interest groin commune Policy P&OS-3.1: Maintain s e.. d}'riiu le-use indoor community centers such P. n enter and Kent Memorial Park Building, that ovide`a s and c , music, video, classroom .. instruction, y ting fa ci it es, eati R nd health care, day care, and other spacesgrouKle uding preschool, youth, teens, and senio-rs 6-To, ear rcf d basis. olicy P&OS=3°: Mn Cain and expand multiple-use indoor eational cent, =s,--such=as=Kent C=ornmons=and=the=Kent=Meridian=Pool, — -- tha ovide aqt c, physical conditioning, gymnasiums, recreational z. courts; d o ' r athletic spaces for all abilities, age groups, skill levels, and comR;ai 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 7 otential Annexation Are . IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 18 April 17, 2015 263 287 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. Goal P&OS-4: Where appropriate, develop and operate specialized park an recreational enterprises that meet the interest of populations who are p' and willing to finance them. Policy P&OS-4.1: Where appropriate an.,"0 om1 I feasible (i.e., self-supporting), develop and operate seialized and specI interest recreational facili ies i e go , ice s a. , frisbee golf, mountat biking :3 and archery ranges. Polio P y &OS-4.2: Where.a`pR oprrate, inilaa with other public agencies and private organFiz t-,In-! a'nt plannm and operating programs to determine and p foF7s ecial a' vities like golf, arch gun ran es, off-leash xa ea s odel a lane flying areas, frisbee golf, mountain-lSiCUig d camp n n a regional basis. Goal P&OS-5: Develop and operate Iaeds} e neighborhood and community parks, witft a nd pass►..-e recreational opportunities throughout the City. ` olicy P&OS-5: AcgUI a and develop parks to meet the level-of- _. Ice=needs as ent's=population=grows=and=areas=are=annexed. -- PoliOS� .2: Identify neighborhoods bordered by arterial streets and geograp is features that act as natural barriers. Set aside neighborhood park land within each neighborhood 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. Kent Comprehensive Plan,- Parks and Recreation Element Page 19 April 17, 2015 264 288 Policy P&OS-5.4: Encourage new single-family and multifamily residential, and commercial developments to provide recreation elements. H. Open Space and Greenway Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified and interconnected park system that preserves and sensitively enhances significant open spaces, greenways and urban forests. The establishment of greenways as urban se p~a ators is a strategy that promotes connectivity`ot`-Kent's open space�.s,::'' " em. Goal P&OS-6: �` Establish an open space pattern that will provide inition of ari separation between developed areas, and provide open}5p ce and green wayz�l ages among park and recreational resources IA , Policy P&OS-6.1: Define and conserve�a stern of open space and greenway corridors as urb2e a ators to p"r 'de definition between natural areas and urban Ian ; ses Wi,hi the Ke rea. Policy P&OS 6 2._ crease lm g 'j of trail in-street bikes lanes, or other existin9f an connect1 ns with greennwa s; and open space, re G� particularly al ng the G en River,(�z'll Creek, Garrison Creek, an Creek condors round:,[ a Fe►a C La< Lake Meridian` Panther-Lake, an e Yount"s nd around significant wetland and Qu� 400 ways s as tha reen River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA). t, ,-L icy P&OS fir. : Preserve and enhance, through acquisition as _ ? ol _ necessary, enviro mentally sensitive areas as greenway linkages and �t�r urbans`rparato , particularly along the steep hillsides that define both , �. sides en River Valley and the SE 277t'/272"d 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 IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 20 April 17, 2015 2Eg5 recreational f ities before the most suitable sites are lost to evelopment. Suitable sites include wooded, undeveloped, and sensitive lands along the Green River Soos Creek, Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek anyon 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 I�se of and access to these areas. Cooperate with other public and privA + agencies and with private landowners to protect unique features-" areas as low- impact publicly accessible resources, particular) to the Green River, Soos Creek,Garrison Creek, Mill Canyon, a� 277 Y 2"d Street �o'{'J corridors. III. Trail and Corridor Syste Goals 8E P'°'ticies op u *- •f`G""� eve a igh-qua ity system of multipurpose ttarp '' ils and corrido at provide access to significant environmental featUr public f ies, and developed neighborhoods and bue s�districts -------------------- Goal P&OS-8: Formatted:]usaBed,Right: 1.9° Create a comprehensive stem of _ ip po `�:. road and on-road trW sys . m thatc h` k park and recreational rescip s with F. sidentiaC eas, public " facilities, commercia_ nd drpr�la t nters both �i .. R within Kent and within��f� g ion. lion c P&OS r 1 Wh, appropriate, create a comprehensive system multi-purpose fF road trails using alignments of the Puget Power rlg_is ofzway, S`C s-Creek Traii;Mi11=CreelrTrail;Lake=Fenwick=Trail, Green fiver Trai Interurban Trail, Parkside Wetlands Trail, and Green River N'a: ra., esource Area (GRNRA). Y`� l Policy P&OS-8.2: Create a comprehensive system of on-road trails to 1 improve connectivity for the bicycle commuter, recreational, and touring a- e enthusiasts using scenic, co iector, and local road rights-of-way and alignments. I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 21 April 17, 2015 266 290 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. C Ja& 5119-4 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 tr ils to other community and regional trail facilities i-!e th Gree iver, Interurban, and Soos Creek Trails. Policy P&OS-8.5: With proposed vacation of ngf� �of-way and street potential c improvement plans, consider onn gt,lty .iy h existing or trail corridors "'`K proposed , parks neigh, �poods. k� Policy P&OS-8.6: Link trails with el - -ntaryr nd middle sc;y, ols the downtown core, and other commercial d re activity centefs on East and West Hills. �� Policy P&OS-8.7: Extend t ail* hr, ugh natU, area corridors like the Green River, Mill Cree , arrsVWCEr7WO, dos% reek, and around natural features like Lake Fen1 �C �rc La Lake Meridian and Panther Lake mho er ko provwo ed a� If i-quality, diverse sampling of Kent's envir, ntal re ourcesIRAY Policy P&OS �R �rise�de e q ent regulations so that key trail 4 4,v- , X`' -�-- links h-ft ide d within the corridor map are provided to the city ng a dev� a opmep . Furnish t .Rith orridors f' ilheads, and other supporting sites wi convenient amenities an Ojff' prov ments.�' Policy P&OS-9.1: Furnish trail systems with appropriate trailhead supporting improvements t atnterpretive and directory signage, rest stops, rin ing 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 I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 22 April 17, 2015 267 291 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 n by maintenance, security, and other appropria a personne, equipment,and vehicles. IV. Historic and Cultural Resources Goals&Policies Develop a high-quality, diversified park system that inc@' s preservation of ...a,. significant historic and cultural resources, as well a� 9 to recognize the city's multicultural heritage. Goal P&OS-10: � �` Viz; Preserve, enhance and incorporate historic an cu11 ` 1 resources and multi- cultural interests into the park an recreationa �y em. Policy P&OS-10.1: Identi prese and enh ce Kent's multi- cultural heritage, traditions, n cultu'i" Q rc including historic 10 sites, buildings, art ork, viewson enters ad archaeological resources. 4�; Policy P&OS 12 nt�€yy orporate significant historic and cuitu urcl n , sites;xartl acts, and facilities into a park system Aeseto "er�ve ese rat s and to provide a balanced social experience. a r< < areas a' c de the iginal alignment for the interurban electric rail NiMV v rvice between ea le nd Tacoma, the James Street historical �u -rfront s1te,� d-Ehe Downtown train depo� t, among others. PohcyeQ.,OS' 0.3: Work with the Kent Historical Society and other cultural recce 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. I Kent Comprehensive Plan --Parks and Recreation Element Page 23 April 17, 2015 268 292 ,cl Policy P&OS-11.1: Incorporate interesting, man-made environments, structures, activities, and areas into the park system to preserve these << eatures 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 ies Develop high-quality, diversified cultural arts facilitie n rams that increase community awareness, attendance, anal' er opport ' ies for participation. rv > n ' Goal P&OS-12: Work with the arts community to utilize local res urces and talents to increase public "e to artwork d programs. Policy P&OS7!nrt 12 9: Su po suct ssf collaboration ��a�nong the A, Commiss' n, business qo� munity, ' ervice gr.ups, cu Ural organizationsg�`Sm ools or .,patrog " and artists to utilize istic resQ rces an talents to the fopt� ice e pos e. r� licy P&OS 4r 2: Develop strategies that will support and assist local -- arts an art or anizations. Where appropriate, develop and support poll 11 nd p� ams that encourage or provide incentives to attract and retats 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 / I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 24 A ' April 17, 2015 269 293 order to expand access by residents and to furnish public places in an appropriate manner. Policy P&OS-13.2: Develop strategies that will support capital and operations funding for public artwork within parks and facilities. VI. Wildlife and Natural Preservation Goals&Policies Incorporate and preserve unique ecological features and resa, ces into the park system in order to protect threatened plant and an do species, preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and retain migrati n, orridors for local fish and wildlife. Such incorporation is intended `li it ha6i degradation associated with human activities. �. Goal P&OS-14: Designate critical fish and wildlife habitat re sou es "d areas. M Policy P&OS-14.1: Iden � onserve cn al fish and wildlife habitat including nesting sites,f ragin ,.a eas an' wildlife migration corridors, within o ar djacent i atural'ar'eas pen spaces, and developed urban, a . 6" Policy P&lO 4 2 Ad uire, en ha ce and preserve habitat sites thatVVV support threats d sq ..Ies � qr �n wildlife habitat, in priority �. �7 corndorssc-r. tiura areas with habitat value such as the Green River �Co r►dor;theme een`Ri� r Natural Resources Area (GRNRA), North Indian Park; os Cre , Mill Creek, and Clark Lake Park. Pol c P&OS i 3: Enhance fish and wildlife habitat within parks, open spa`� d enii nmentally sensitive areas by maintaining a healthy urban fo � ith native vegetation that provides food, cover, and shelter, by tilizing 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. I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 25 April 17, 2015 270 294 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 si es at are pecially unique to the Kent area, such as the Green Fiver, Soos Creek, Garrison Creek and Mill Creek corridors, the Green R�iv Natural Resource Area (GRNRA), and the shorelines of Lak ?Meridian Panther Lake, Lake Fenwick, and Clark Lake. M Goal P&OS-16: Develop and maintain an Urba Forestry Manag ant Program. N N` t Policy P&OS-16.1 Connect people to`na u and improve the quality of �- life in Kent by restoring urba orests and atR r urban open spaces. 44 `t Policy P&OS-16.2 Galvarnze,h cai tm n ty ara nd urban forest restoration and stewardship t ol n�r restoration program. c) Policy P&OSf 6 3 m ove urban,forest health and enhance urban �Mx forest long to usta' bility, by re,• oving invasive plants and maintaining fuhi-,v qna rrativ'`ore communities. 0 . VII b ign and A ss Goa & Policies Designg nd develop fa ties th t are accessible, safe, and easy to maintain, --- with life le=fe "' at=account=for=long-te-rm-costs-and=benefits. -- -- �— Goal P&OSz� ~ Design park aridly, eational 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 D supporting facilities to be accessible to individuals and organized groups of all physical capabilities, skill levels, age groups, income levels, and activity interests. Lt-_t Q-VartJ IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 26 April 17, 2015 ,�+ 271 295 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,C "` -maintenance fry materials. Policy P&OS-18.1: Design and develop ies th`fi ,. e of low- maintenance and high-capacity design to" duce overal a .ity maintenance and operation requireme is and c sts. Policy P&OS-18.2: Where appropriat , 5 ow-maintenance materials, settings, or other."b ue-engineer, considerations that reduce care and security rep'relrt Fly s, whiVt ining the natural conditions and environment k Policy P&OS 18 3w here possi in landscaping parks, encourage the use of lav�°� amte� ce lams Goal P&OS-19: Identify d --Ptq en t th ecurity and safety provisions of the American Disabiht' Act (ADA Crime.. evention through Environmental Design (C i. and other sta Bards.' ter- _ p- C� vl/ - Poll P&OS 1 1: Implement the provisions and requirements of the !~�.k v� _S1J )-5 A nca Disa IMities Act ADA), Crime Prevention through Enviro e " I Design (CPTED), and other design and development standards that will improve park safety and security features for 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. I Kent Comprehensive Pian - Parks and Recreation Element Page 27 April 17, 2015 Policy P&OS-19.3: Define and enforce rules and regulations— concerning park activities and operations that will protect user groups, department personne, and the public at large. � Cav►��� nano Policy P&OS-19.4: Where appropriate, use adopt-a-park programs, I" neighborhood park watches, and other innovative p at will increase safety anc security awareness and visibility. VEEE. Fiscal Coordination Goals&Policies ` 5 Create effective and efficient methods of acquiring, dev o.ing, operating and maintaining facilities and programs that distribute c s an nefits to public and private interests. ,_ �� Goal P&OS-20: I ' Investigate innovative methods of financing,,----,,p k ands' creational requirements,q including joint ventures with other�p0 I�ic agencies and private organizations, and private donation Policy P&OS-20.1: Investig e i ndva i avafI ble methods, such as t growth im act fees land set a= deTopee rn-i u-of-donation ordinances, aq '` e►-7 ca agree nts to finance facility development, maintenancend ope ing needy order to reduce costs, retain financial flexii ty, mate se r be s and interests, and increase facility service's04, w., . . rx Policy P&OS { 0 2 re feasible and desirable, consider joint t�entures wi n Kent, Highline, and Fe era ay School D1icts, regions state federal,_and_other_public_agencies=and-Private organ atio6s, " uding for-profit concessionaires to acquire and develop regional.C (i.e. swimming �,. g 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. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 28 April 17, 2015 i 273 297 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, fe eral, and private park an recreational lands and facilities, in a manner that will best serve,,,, provide for the interests of area residents. Policy P&OS-21.2: Cooperate, via joint p{ ing and velopment efforts, with King County,, e� Fede�r School Q icts and ....--.� i r other public and private agencies to aIV. duple tion, improv., acility quality and availability, reduce costs, a reprent interests o area residents. Goal P&OS-22: Create and institute a method_of cos ben'fi�a derfoinance measure assessment to determine equitable par an ¢tecreat n costs, levels of service, and provision of facilities: taw Policy P&OS 2 1 In orde p eff"ctively plan and program park and � , recreational needs in w�h the`e i in ci imits and the potential ann to io ea, d4Mi existing and proposed land and facility levels-of- at differ" tiate requirements due to the impacts of ^opulation grown as opposed to improvements to existing facilities, v ne j"borhood a5j pposed to community nexus of benefit requirements in th ty asosed to requirements in t otential Annexation re Policy P$pS-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 (LOS) standards. Policy P&OS722.3: Develop and operate lifetime recreational programs that serve the broadest needs of the population and that recover I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 29 April 17, 2015 274 298 program and operating costs using a combination of registration fees, user fees, grants, sponsorships, onations, scholarships, volunteer efrorts, and the use of general funds. Related Information http://kentwa.gov/content aspx?id=1282 City of Kent 2010 Park & Open Space Plan A� f itk.. a " .y /S. �A 4 s ,a k ., 3 /z.. s" n•x IKent Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation Element Page 30 April 17, 2015 275 299 Chapter Six - UTILITIES ELEMENT Formatted:Font:ISpt What you will find in this chapter: • A description of the utility systems and providers in the City of Kent; • Goals and Policies for providing utility services to Kent's residents; and • Strategies for implementing the City's policies and working with private utility providers. Purpose Statement: Provide utility services and facilities to support the envisioned urban growth pattern. Purpose Oin Utility facilities and services that are addle rs this element include electricity, natural gas, domesti water, stir[ sewer, solid waste, and telecommunications. Availabilityo{tktese facilite nd services affects the health, safety and general welf o i Kent imunity, as well as whether, how and when growth occ Both City and non City�o ned utilitie op°`ang ifilI hin Kent are described in this element, and an, compreh save util� plans are dopted by refer . Thesgegc tnpre a ive util p ans provilJe as ditional decal on e bility of�,pi I ices M eet the g wth strategy, forecasts and targets adopted under the Pp ' p �rget Sou d�'Reg�oc► Council s Vision 2040 and the King County Count wide Piaq# PolicleUs .{,Issues Kent tility Provider — -1Nater r=4 — r - -- - --- ------------ ---- City of Kent : Coordination of Service Providers City of Auburn The City-managed utilities must coordinate with providers of utility services outside of City of Renton the City service areas. Neighboring water and Highline Water District sewer districts may include service areas within the city limits of Kent. These districts King County Water District have completed concurrency analyses on No. III their systems and provide for planned growth Lakehaven Utility District through infrastructure upgrades that are Soos Creek Water & Sewer funded through service rates District Formatted:Font:Verdana I ,Kent Comprehensive Plan"'- Utilities Element---(-48¢ 8141 Page 1 276 306 The city is also an active participant in the Technical and Advisory Committees for the King County Flood Control District which constructs,.,operates and maintains the levees along the Green River and other areas of King County. Solid Waste Solid Waste collection, transportation and disposal in Kent is governed by State and local regulations, an interlocal agreement with King County, and collection contracts with solid waste providers. Through a competitive multi- year contract with the City, Republic Services provid, s comprehensive garbage, recyclables Ad yar an oo waste col le" ion services to residential, multifamily and commercial customers ° Kent has im lemented mandato arba a coliectio� 9 ��. Q.,cu b illegal dumping, littand accumu ation of trash/garbage on privy prope The City's solid waste is ultimate) taken to:, n County's Ce ills Landfill for disposal. As part of the Solid Waste In;rloca g ement (ILA: ith ing County, Kent and other parties will develop la. s" d alternatives to waste disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill in advancqi o its closure in 2025; the information will be incorporatedA, o the King N my Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. , Kent has entered into an interiocar reerf It i King County Solid Waste and most other municipalities in tl� cn`nty toy o ec ivefmanage as e. At the Curren Q,at y Cedar H�i(ls . hich is the a — ai ing landfill in the county, will last ill 20" . Alterna:"ves are id i ie in the King ounty o pre ensive aSol d as anagem t Plan. Municipalities operating under this plan st`ny to dive, uclwaste from the landfill as possible. sr. s The residential sector�� Ke t°tseu "" diverting just over 50% of the solid was a romth` *_ i M recyc ing an yar an oo waste collection. Since 2p,�1NA parici , tion Ii e yard and food waste collection program has increa` d from 36%d= over 9 ; o. Kent res. eats_are al, to_participate-in-the=countywide=Hazardous=Waste- -- ----- ----- Managem'e t proara '' adopted by the King Count oar o eat in - 010^ Its1C issio�i- is o protect and enhance public health an environmental alla in King county by reducing the threat posed by the production, useorage and disposal of hazar ous materials." Electricity Kent is served by-Puget Sound Energy (PSE) a private electric utility whose operation and rates are governed by the Washington Utilities .and Transportation Commission, the National Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy Re u atory omm sssion ERC . Electricity is produced elsewhere and transported to switching sty ions m and Renton through high-voltage transmission lines, then reduced and redistributed Formatted:Font:Verdana I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Utilities Element Page 8 277 331 Chapter Seven - HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: 1. Demographic, economic and social trends 2. Statement of goals and policies to provide a framework defining the city's role in contributing to the social development of the community 3. Goals that support the provision of services to assist those in need and opportunities to encourage a healthy community. Purpose Statement: Invest in the delivery of human services programs which are essential to the community's growth, vitality and health. PURPOSE'- 4 Kent will be a place where chtidre`n, individuals and families can thrive, where neighbors care for each other, and Where our residents,,share Me esponsibility of ensuring a sa a and healthy community for all ;. A healthy city depends onthe,health acid well7 being of Its'residents. Human i^ services programs are essential to the health growth and vitality of the Kent community. Programs assist individuals and families meet their basic needs and create a pathway to seif':sufficiency:,By investing in e e(very of these services to Kent residents, the;Clty of:`Kent is working to promote building a healthy community. Housing and Human Services invests in the community to create measurable, sustainable change and to improve the lives of its residents. Investmen'ts;are focused �n order"to generate the greatest possible impact. They address the`is es that matter most" our community and are targeted in order to --deliver=meaningfui,Cesuit.. — — — To achieve community impact; investments are made in a variety of ways: • Meeting Community Basics Ensuring that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic nee s. • Increasing Self-Reliance Helping individuals break out of the cycle of poverty by improving access to services -- and removing barriers t eemployment. Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana m Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana I .Kent_Comorehensive Plan - Human Services Element ___„ �Paoe.iy`;� 278 336 The City's investments in the community are not only monetary in nature, but are also evidenced through the dedication of staff time and resources to community initiatives that will benefit the greater Ken community. Several divisions of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department are involved in providing human service programs and assistance. The department provides a variety of education, recreation, prevention and intervention services for children, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. Other ivisions within ttFie City of Kent also play important roles in the provision of human services. The City's Neighborhood Program was created to promote and sustain an environment that is responsive to resident involvement while wilding pa Hers ips a weep the city and its residents. T e o ice Department coor mates a very successful Youth Board, that exists to educate and raise awareness of youth issues through youtfi- r�iven�� activities, inc uding having a positive influence on peers toward making ealthy choices, and community based projects focused on drug and alcohol prevention. DATA In 2010-2012 there were approximately 42,000jhouseholds in Kent CTh°e average household size was 2.9 people 73% of the people living in Kent were native�residents�of.the United States. 27% of Kent's residents were foreign born Ofwthe oreign orn Kent residents, 4707.were naturalized U.S. citizens a'nd 93% entered the:;country,,,.prior` to the year 2010. Foreign born residents of Kent,-,.come from,mahy different parts of the world. Oceania Regions of the World Iz--,„,�}- 2.2% G t r Northern America 1.9% �{. 1 1# ly Formatted:Left,Bonier:Top:(Thin-thick small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Une width) Source: 2010-2012 American Community Survey Data Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana I .Kent_Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Paae.6; � 279 337 Racial Diversit More Other Asian/Pacific Native Black White than one Islander American race 1990 0* 1.2% 4.4% 1.4% 3.8% 89.2% 2000 5.4% 9.8% 10.2% 1% 8.2% 70.8% 2010 6.6% 18.5% 17.1% 1% 11.3% 55.5% *More than one race was not an option in the 1990 Census. — Formatted:Space After. Opt Source: 1990,2000 2010 U Census Data Among people at least five years old living in Kent fn 2010-2012, 41% spoke a language other than English at home. Of those speaking a`,,language other than English at home, 32% spoke Spanish and 68% some other language. 47% reported that they did not speak g�iT v ry wel - Percent of Populati6n`5 years and who Speak a Language other than English Spanishmuml32.2 Other Indo-European languages 24 7Q In Percent of Population S years Asian and Pacific Islander and who Speak a Language ` languages 34.9 other than English �a Other languages 8.3 0 10 20 30 40 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Education In 2010-2012, 27% of people 25 years and over had a high school diploma or —.- — �---- Formatted:Left,Border;Top:(Thin-thick equivalency and 24% had a bachelor's degree or higher. 17% were dropouts; they small gap,Accent2, 3 pt Line width) were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school. Formatted:Font:Verciana®� Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana IKent Com reh en ' e Plan - Human Services Element pa a 7 I ja4 280 339 Some college,no degree 23.790 +/-1.5 23.8% +/-2.0 23.6% +/-2.0 Associate's degree 9.3% +/-0.9 9.2% +/-1.3 9.49c +/-1.2 Bachelor's degree 17.5% +/-1.4 17.6% +/-1.9 17.5% +/-2.0 Graduate or professional degree 6.4% +/-0.8 6.2% +/-1.0 6.7% Percent high school graduate or higher 1 83.5% +/-1.2 82.9% +/-1.7 84.0% 41.6 Percent bachelor's degree or higher T24.0% +/-1.4 23.8% +/-1.8 24.1% +/-2.1 =orhigher 34 years 18,062 +/-1,311 8,888 +/-851 9,174 +/-876 uate or higher 81.0% +/-3.7 79.5% +/-5.4 82.5% +/-3.8 e or higher 20.8% +/-2.8 20.1% +/-4.3 21.6% +/-3.6 44 years 17,173 +/-1,235 8,230 +/-705 8,943 +/-802 High school graduate or higher 79.5% +/-2.9 78.7% +/-4.5 80.3% +/-4.1 Bachelor's degree or higher 25.2% +/-3.2 20.2% +/-3.6 29.7% +/-4.6 Population 45 to 64 years 29,170 +/-1,233 14,873 +/-782 14,297 +/-775 High school graduate or higher 87.6% +/-2.4 86.4% +/-3.0 88.8% +/-2.8 Bachelor's degree or higher 26.0% +/-2.6 26.4% +/-3.0 25.5% +/-3.4 PopulatioE65years and over 11,529 +/-590 4,739 +/-425 6,790 +/-515 High schote or higher 82.9% +/-3.0 85.6% +/-3.881.1% +/-4.3 Bachelor' r higher 22.1% +/-2.7 28.8% +/-4.8 17.4% +/-3.1 POVERTY RATE FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER FOR WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS DETERMINED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT LEVEL Less than high school graduate 32.2% +/-5.3 26.0% +/-6.4 38.4% +/-6.4 High school graduate(includes 13.9% +/-3.4 11.4% +/-4.0 16.1% +/-4.2 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 10.490 +/-1.9 9.890 +/-2.5 10.9% +/-2.6 Bachelor's degree or higher 4.8% 41.8 4.7% +/-2.7 4.990 +/-2.4 (continued) MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS(IN 2012INFLATION-ADJUSTED _ DOLLARS) - -- --- --. Population 25 years and over with 36,231 +/-1,353 41,689 +/-1,885 30,642 +/-1,438 earnings spy ' Less than high school graduate 23,785 +/-3,519 27,171 +/-3,597 14,035 +/-2,876 Ala High school graduate(includes 30,570 +/-2,453 37,137 +/-3,457 25,731 +/-3,073 equivalency) Some college or associate's degree 35,906 +/-1,429 41,128 +/-3,396 31,451 +/-1,829 Bachelor's degree 53,131 +/-2,181 65,766 +/-3,989 39,857 +/-5,945 Graduate or professional degree 65,873 +/-7,549 92,149 +/-23,593 58,1 77 47,696 PERCENT IMPUTED Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(thin-thick Educatio nal attainment 6.0% (X) (X) (X) (X) I (X) small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font (Default)Verdana Kent ComDrehensive Plan - Human Services Element Pie g�"/ 281 341 (s") Migrant(May 2014) 39 0.1% Section 504(May 2014) 1,095 4.0% Foster Care(May 2014) 146 0.5% ' Unexcused Absence Rate(2013-14) 348 0.4% Adjusted 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rate(Class of 2013) 78.7% Adjusted 5-year Cohort Graduation Rate(Class of 2012) 82.8% College/Universi*y .+r u *rates of graduates i Office of Superintendent of Public Education s; !y3 While the Kent School District serves the majority of Kent residents several neighborhoods have children and youth who attend schools in nearby Federal Way. The demographics of the two school districts�are similar h many ways 67% of Federal Wav Public Schools students are an'ethnicity oth4'i�an white 6D°o live in ✓ or near the federal overt level based:'6n', ree and re uce Junc i ures . 160/_ 1 are transitional bilin ual English Lan ua"arners Over 112 Ian a es are spo en in the district ; 4. •-`'��. . , nit�� ^� �,Jf' IN •J� A October 2013 SLUdent Coun , MaV'2014 Student gun Male s44,86o511:1*94T-,� �� 0) Fernal � ( AmericamIndian/Ala`skan'Na Iv c16,417 1.6% ���CJ �,�!- Asian Native Hawaiian/Other Paciric Isslander 10.099 1.0% Asian/Pacinc Islander Rum _of Black/African Am`riran 47.840 4.5% �_Hisoanic-/-Latino:of_anv races) —222=4 3-2-1:1% --_ — — - White 612,836 58.0% Two or More Races 71.463s. .81/. Free or Reduced Price Meals(May.014) 484_363 45.9% C Special Education(May2 14) 139_601 13.2% d� 6 Transitional Bilingual(May 2014) 102,339 9.71q Migrant(May 2014) 20,295 1.9% Section 504(May 2614) 25.591 2.4? Foster Care(May 2014)-, 7,914 0�7% * Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Unexcused Absence Rate(201 -14) 525,714 5°o small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Adjusted 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rat (Class of 76.0% Formatted:Font:Verdana LD 2013) IFormatted:Font:Verdana Adiusted 5-year Cohort Graduation Rate(Class of 78.8% _ Formatted:Font:(Default)Verdana IKent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page.11�;°� i 282 342 2012 College/University enrollment rates of graduates Source:Office of Superintendent of Public Education The r e/ethnicity makeup of students as of October 2013 was: as% x ra 71 30% 25% vs' s 'f 5% clt 0% M 4 +..L' i it^° ✓r 3"I ?l L n✓ Y:1 ,'ice \ grop �i Source: Office of Superintendent of PubllcInstruction 2013 2014 Report Card 4 Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thlck small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Font:Verdana Formatted:Front:(Default)Verclana Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Paae 1Z';� 283 345 Policy HS-2.1: Ensure that people facing hardship have access to resources to help meet immediate or basic needs Policy HS-2.21: Improve access to services that allow individuals to improve their mental and physical health, overall well-being, and ability to live independent y. Policy HS-2.3-2: Promote access to jobs and services, especially for lower- income individuals, when planning local and regional transportation systems and economic developmen active ies. `A Goa/HS-3: w Build community collaborations and seek strateg►c approaches to meet the needs of Kent residents. Policy HS-3.1: Lead efforts to improvd'the ability of human services �I�R systems to meet demands and ex ectations b increasing capacity, utilizing I technology, coor mating efforts and gleveraginea resour e Policy HS-3.2: Collaborate with churches,.empioyers, businesses, schools, and nonprofit agencies in the community. Policy HS-3.3: Encourage collaboratiVe partnerships between the City and the school districts to'align`cesources t accomplish mutual goals tha kle� meet the needs`of children and`families. Goa/HS-4: Support equa/access to seMces, through a service network that meets needs across age, ability, 4*re, and language. Policy HS-4.1 ;;Promo�te'.services that respect the diversity and dignity of individuals and farm ies`T d are, ca cessi[ le to all members of the community. Policy HS 42 Encourage service enhancements that build capacity to better meet the needs of"the community, reduce barriers through service g , and are responsive'to changing needs. IT B desi n —r —� ef"b munhty tt4th respeet and di9fiii4- W;y Policy HS 49 31; Ensure that services are equally accessible and ' responsive to a wide range of individual c ures an ami-y structures and are free of discrimination and prejudice. non native English speal(era. Formatted:Left,Border:Top:(Thin-thick Goa/HS-56: small gap,Accent 2, 3 pt Line width) Formatted:Font:Verdana / Formate.Font:(Default)' rm Formatted: erdana .Kent Comprehensive Plan - Human Services Element Page T/ 343" Chapter Eight - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Formatted:Font:11 Pt What you will find in this chapter: • A short summary and analysis of the local economy's strengths, weaknesses, and issue areas; • A description of the City s approved strategies and breakdown of planned activities to foster economic growt and development; • Brief reference information descriptive of thejp-c aac>1y,'s composition and a list of resources for additional and supporting data. Purpose Statement: Foster businesses that economically and socially enrich neighborhoods, growth centers, and the overall community. 4, Purpose r The Economic Development Element describes it's existing business community, in us nay c e s s comae I ive "aav na ages and disa vantages, 6 n udes an Iew of strategies for conomic growt a purpose or @e, onom�, velopme t is to"'os e—f-r conditions for economic growth thr houtry t, This Element outlines the Ian's mun p centere strategies for community enrichment throu h,t 'rv�din" . ibrant a." diverse urban places. It also reflects 't e City Council's von of"a afe, corm ed and beauti u city, culturally vibrant with ric rse urt n center"' rticulated in the City of Kent's Economic Developmet�tla ado ugust 2014. -(Formatted-Font:8 p as t � :Issues Telling Kent s Story r t�x Development of a brand and marketing r350 " n • +� •- strate can help a c`ITy better understand Notr:Overlay arrows do not Indicate i self and communicate its strengths to dlrectlonalityof worker flow between potential residents and businesses. home and employment locauans. Employed and uve Creating Conditions for Growth In Selection Apia EmployedwsaleettonArea, Building a vital, growing city means creating uve Outside multifaceted and engaging s� tr_ e�„�ets parks, uve in Selectloil Area,. a Employed Outside nd_p__a_z_a_�. Kent s commercial centers and corrors will need updating t�ommodate - development and pop`ula 'on.grow _ s - - - - Fo tted:Font:Verdana,6 pt Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 1 Kent GeFAPFehensive Plan -7 285 348 7 Number of residents lea ing Kent Welcoming and Supporting Businesses and number o wor ers arriving in Ke every wor ay, respectivelX. Advancing and maintaining the City's avora a perception amongst businesses 16.401b: Percentage of Kent impac s nvestment decisions, local residents who also worked in Kent employment, and quality-of-life. ram-' _ Collaborating to Foster Innovation 13.7%: Percentage of jobs Collaboration between publi institutions and ocate In Kent recorded as held priva a em to ers is o en{ne a to a va e r si ents. mon economic or pub interests. 21.7°! The Increasing local compet�C, eness in areas Pg rcentage of commuters who such as environmen��l''sus. 'nabilit or live in Kent broadban tec .uire City elryand report to work in government en�"' ement and le ership. Seattle. and ies ,r Promo ingI portu ities for tCe 's r Residents Tol P cities for in-commuting: The City needs i nsider both demand and Seattle (7.7%), Auburn (5.4%), sissues e#i _. kforce development Tacoma (4.4%), Renton (4.2%) .q — - Wor ing and Federal Way (4.1%). wig ea" rs and bus esses to ensure --mot es. Source: U.S. census Bureau, OnTheMap be tte anew to experiential learning Application and LEHD Origin-Destination }. Y h Employment Statistics (Beginning of Q arter and tr inin pt7 sties suppo i�rmG Empbyment,2nd Quarter of2002 2011 reten II�nr d growth. Equally important, streng nina business within KentA serves Ec nomy-at-a-Glance` �' r nt resi�Tm nts' needs to gain employment. Sou e: Economic Developme-A-P k �a3 C Median Family Income $5$�� -Covered Employmeni*„3,900 rfi Re ail Sales P, r` apta. 7,865 Total Firrill 007): 8,09 " A HousingU (2010) 36;�4 =Median=Age; .010):33yea old=--- --------------- Total Populatio 123,000 Ay^,v Top Employers Z t SchDOI District;'" in REI• _ Exotic Metals Forming Co; City of ent, Carlis a Interconnect Techno ogies; �H.ex—c_eell* Kiln _ County; Colurh ib a Distributing; Sysco; O erto�, Starbuc ; Alaska Alil—bes; Flow; Omax Corpora i Blue Origin IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page_2 286 349 Local Economy Overview The City of Kent's local economic performance is intricately tied to the Seattle-TacctTTi�"r�i�tropo i"ah areaarea. The Kent Val ef`y''s tla ads formed by VoTca-Mic a ars—w ose fertile soi s once grew lettuce and other cash crops— in the late 20th century gave ground forte eve opment of extensive and nationally significant manufac uring warehousing, an is n ion operations. Served by two rai roa s (the nion Paci is and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe), the I-5 interstate, and equally close t..I a Po of Seattle and Tacoma, the F�en� n us nal Valley is the seo larges y+ manufacturing and warehouse center on the West Cq-as en s Jurisdiction encompasses over 45 million so. ft. of industrial andi omy;e pace within the Kent IndustriaMalley witt more than 7,500, it sand r 60,000 'obs. Remarkably, every workday morning nearl 00 residents� __part Kentfor work while near) as ma fors heir jo s�T e tens o thousan so prim `p ry jobs in manufacturfti�• w olesa and trad tors which are loco e m ent also comprise as ba to$t Puget Sound's fie€ base ef(regional economic strengt n fact, the regional land use and transportation p-Tnning age ,�t Sound Regional Council cy, i � designated the area as a "Manufac u gTMIndustriaR* ter."Manu arc of ring, wholesale trade, transpo ation an ware jtR ng accou-t for approximately 44% of Kent's overall emnlovment ( y comp"ts these three major .. . r sectors account for about 19% of the egfo""s ovel em to ment). any manufacturing firms,ip ens, re counte '` mong the most advanced in the United States witlp loGF I RAS s in aero ace, outer space, and defense .research and deveirment Kent's central locatiaiP ithi ' -al.ge or market, relative lower housing and trans orta ; d its ig ua ity services—especially the well- regarded Kent 5c oI Distrl, —are defining, 9 � ning, desirable ualities for attracting, new r5' ents. or e�s Re i er wage sectors e information business mans ement finance;. nd professional, scientific an ec nical se vices co�npns 12.50 o en s outbou`�Inc-commut_ers._An im,portant_factor for_the City of Ke 's fisca sta. ility given current state and regional tax policies is the contint{e choicel' these thousands of workers to invest their housing dollars in Ken s p locally. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 3 Kent Gemprehensive Plan April 14,-2-G-� 287 350 Figure E-1 Building Permit History Annual Building Permits,City of Kent =TotalUn'ds —Averageyearypermits1990to1999 —Average yearypermb2000to2013 IRSAnnual Avg(1990-2000)=508 units 14 Ow Ma SU 4 g � ars 41a 41B1*� 3 nnual Avg/( 00-2013)=312units r III[IM13 ieD 210 f. Ae J. 70 T.. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 19D5 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2DD2 20D3 20D4 2005 2006 2007 2DD8 2009 201D 2011 2012 2013 2014 PIN ApIII F u •:. �r �— -- Formatted:Centered,Space After: 0 pt Kent Em mend-lit it r .un ryl .r ,erMM � rt Formatted:Font:Bold r td Boo 4 S+4ps Jobol'q.M11® FTi. Fr.•n s¢»" .ate 4ar, a� .-�t' 68B �F' f h�vlt xkw{ tw4g'!'N`� Y 91448'1,YB9 Johmisq.Mile f b z r Y I ra����+"�,r� ����° �Bk¢s W�rE da"tt 5B<1(t a eok{`ste�•f r r1 �� ;Is t yrrg."}no�n1�� r ®1 769-3,971 J ohel9q.Mlle I�++ 7 t{�.'� ,972-7,957 JobslSq.Mll® r x, T, Jobslsq Mlt c1os3 4 R i fit✓ � I F r x ro r x t c �} ljlghl°ndP 1 1} x ��1rv�¢ xir r I c5tf s5 {! SO 1�t�i��'+-.. 'j �-d'"�a�'*'•. w�'� I �i � �.:�2 �➢ �� d%I.F'��r.�� t� 7°4fr8't,�, r ��J4� 'x�s-4N��,�y",'"�A'�^-'��t�.xt`,�Sr'.#t"�3�1 29 �� a`� � t"1'( � ?'" i*. to olnntl.NorBt *tn� �1 II �r'" :H•r r 4} {..1r1r+ 4,. n ° '� &IQ-.>i z'4 }.. 2r8r1..waaa ( IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 4 Kent Gemprehensive Plan >- 2015 i 288 351 Goals and Key Strategies The five goals from the Economic Development Plan associate with six major strategic areas for action. The five goals are: Goal E-1 Develop & Implement a Sustainable Funding Model; Continue to prioritize public services, execute new fund reserve policies, and identify and implement efficiencies. Goal E-2 E� Create Neighborhood Urban Centers; Identify and develop niches unique to Kent. "hs " Goal E-3: � Create Connections for People & Places; " ^� Create connections for people&places by pr oving and expan trails and v roadways and establishing welcomin en ies into�l�- �4 ay Goal Foster Inclusiveness; �` Broaden o pportunities to ce ebr�t,, and showcase.t a diversity of our community and ultimately`pro� ote ihu e Goal E-5: i Beautify Kent. Update design stdnda for resides `"`, commercial and downtown Kent to I ' include a plaiv "tea ree Kent' o>s� etter use of the city's assets. �w These five goals area rthere' b City a , i ns within six key strategic areas. The six strategies des bel4k,1o�nt'a.e mplementary. Greate s �eificti!�, to irrip11 mentable strategies and descriptive actions are avail& in t e ack ound-re rt. 4v ey Stra 4n�eJ�� Formatted Table ter_. Images City Image & Branding Making the case for Kent to businesses and attracting new residents means promoting Ken 4p e l y s sing in us strengths and ' public amenities: such as the ShoWare Center, downtown shopping, and the W A S H I N G T O N F;;;°E significant presence of industry business leaders like REI, Boeing, Amazon and Starbucks. Leveraging existing assets to IT I improve outsider perceptions and telling the IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 5 289 352 story of Kent's development depends on execution and focused communication to media outlets. Equally important is substantiating the city's image and ensuring the brand matches authentic qualities of place. All municipal activities should consider' and use the City's brand. 7w Place-Making & Gateways Creating conditions for a onomic growth requires attentivenessb local government officials o o e, j ions decisions and interpretations o in uencing the --built envircSP�"-`me Inve en in hngn quality urbansign and . sistent a f gx programmm in the public r._ey, m add to the overall a�t'i�activeness and co i f"f eness o ca i or business. a.r cen�Beautif in coat e ' corridors and `tfie,"'nurse of transportationy 7P, o'ects, desig, ti g ey gateways and - --~ ~ -==--- Cott ions fora ed investment, and s ccolt.. dating p-, lation growth will e tribu X ident quality of life and ca aci{ `iYor gr h. Adequately factoring th1,e BEd for these new amenities and ublic =r spa into transporia ion and land use ewill be important for Kent's future Selo ment. µ Bu```�ness Climate Advancing and maintaining a Ci ' _ favorable perception am04, st usiness and �. in us ry ea ens depends u clear ru es _.s a'nd-tra-ns arenc -in decision-makin - ---- ------- ----- processesp It also demands active listening and rrpativity frQ sta persons in all positions. Involving businesses in irgw 3 * ' transpoEtption and land use lanning c activities which wi imTl pact their operations - is especially critical. Before feedback is � R r1ss collected from businesses there should , always be discussion and communication as to how information will later be utilized in decision-making. To foster a favorable t business climate, the City can also take proactive steps to collect and present data valuable to developers and firms. IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 6 290 353 Industrial cluster Growth & Retention The Kent Industrial Valley is an epicenter for ^ much of Puget Sound's advanced'��� , manufacturin active onsequently, the c s er o arms and establishm n Kent largely reflects those a Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, MSA with leading employers in retaTran3 outerwear, logistics, aerospace, food processing, and establishments in relate"tksectors. Investments in outdoor recreation amenities, sponsor(h, f thematically related -u industry cluster�a�;�+ivt or networking �'7 y events, prove fi ,prof inceh„'ves to regional industrial cluers, and con „,ued support for the cent1.er, Advanced Manufacturing in PugeSo �n A. ) e a e�Cp e action ; uppoof retain d growing businesses;� i 'in these major clusters. ter. dent Industri,. �Valley: Regional ---__ 'Ton ator N sitiorr!'. a Kenn lustrial Valley (KIV) o mereaed spa ikon a�nc'f a v�Fd'er ran e of risf ies-i e retail—are essential for 1 ty's fiscal stability and raising the A profs of the industrial and commercial r t ' zones: companies at the cutting edge of tion. Raising the amenity level in the K benefits the quality-of-life of Kent's u° residents, but increasingly supports local employers' missions. Expanding allowable r zoned uses, improving the pedestrian experience along maiorrqads- suppor ing development of state-of-the-art infrastructure are important undertakings � y. for keeping the valley current and "'— competitive for development of office and industrial campuses. Work Force Facilitatin workforce training and the creation uca ion o ortunities are vital economic development t'-u'nctions. City staff may serve as conduits between educators and employers to ensure Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 7 Kent GeFfl Fehensive Plan ` — I a 291 354 curriculums are current to industry demands and new trends. Strong workforce relationships and the ability to articulate G G «� local educational strengths are important for building confidence amongst employers :. about their Kent business investme eo The t w � Citymay €ffier y y support residents in_ N receiving e3uca ion, or may provide indirect support through aid and assistance to organizations and institu ions that work with educators. x Related Information Economic Developm'e'' Council of Seattle and King County,` C Data C,: t�htt dc- seaki"ri`'.or data-ceh r fO_ Workfor6' bevelo ment Cot f Seattle and Kin' ounty " �' Washin'c o OFartment of Commerce y of Kent Ec oo is Development Plan ound Re ib-al Council's Economic rate 5 :> _;PE Ke t Cha ribrt Commerce K rt r.^ ount : Data and Reports IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 8 292 355 Economic Development Element Background Report The five economic development goals are furthered by City actionG wi tlin six key strategic areas .Greater specificity as to implements e sb strategies and— escrip ive actions are described below. Implementation Strategies and Actions 1. City Image R Branding �y r. 1.1 Signal Kent Aspirations with Implemental "n of Compelling Branding Identity <; 1.1 Brainstorm a brand 1.2 Develop Kent's city-wide 6 4 il 1.3 Include District identil 1.2 Strengthen the Image of Kent• the Re ion with a Strategic Marketing Campaign 1.2.1 Plan a marketing ca pDaion 1.2.2 Execute a market aign „ 1.2.3 Brand Cl co afions 1.2.4 Build social media pre, enceA 1.2.5 Communrcate succe 1.2.6 Build `;Maki Kent"Ca p n 2. Place-Makin ,"�,_ 2.1 Begy,,y Kent Sk eetscape Public Realm with Strategic Design& Int;r en}*ions 2.1 1 Rebuild th" o reia ors of Meeker St from River to i53tnnYown; 24 in; South central; Kent-Kangl 04`�Eaet VValley, Y an Pa c 1.2 Seek gran to re de elop key corridors 3 Brand shop in areas "' ---— - --— -- 2 = r eatment f streetsca es es arks _L � 2. f5 onsisten fighting throughout Kent 2.1 6�' d4 town more walkable 2.1.7 B"a non-profit organization Downtown Partnership 2.2 Extend" he good design of 4f6 Ave, and SR 516 north to 4f6 Ave arterials 2.2.1 Support for transit-oriented development principles 2.2.2 Activate ufidFr7tilized streelf scape with more outdoor seating and j n� p other public uses M o J F 2.2.3 Improve pedestrian--connections from neighborhoods to Kent's downtown l �r 2.2.4 Use medians creatively to enrich the streetscape 2.2.5 Create a master-plan for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 9 jj ` r 293 356 2.3 Strengthen Sense of Place by Designating&Improving Key Gateways nections Into & T—h—r—o—u-gWWent 2.3.1 Designate external gateways 2.3.2 Designate internal gateways 2.3.3 Design the gateways 2.3.4 Pursue funding for holistic urban design 2.4 Encourage Quality development, Renovation, & Upkeep of New& Existing Building Stock 2.4.1 Emphasize urban design 2.4.2 Practice effective code enforcement 2.4.3 Engage with key property owners 2.4.4 Solicit pro bono design services ` 2.4.5 Formulate &implement design guidelines �N 2.5 Accommodate Growing Workforce witt / rsifle ousing Stock, Including Downtown Multifamily&Ex'cutive Hoiisin ] 1 4� 2.5.1 Implement the Downtown Subareon Plan 2.5.2 Expand housi g c oice in KentT ,, /� 2.5.3 Map and market key sites �`"y, 2.5.4 Leverage assets &local improvemen dj' acts (J 2.5.5 Update the Planned Actign Ordinance p 2.5.6 Utilize tax a at�em- tad'wrfto, n ��/�,d". Q.112.5.7 Understand what's missl g � "' , 2.5.8 Show developers the deb nd � 2.5.9 Surp us city roperty for'h s161 a comi vercial .6 Strengtheq�� ha ce Compe"iveness of Kent Commercial Y Centers��, tts�. 2.6.1 Highl�g� down 's assets 2.6 2 ConnecC t Stat a 'Meek6' St 2.6 3 Promote CI a nd nt wn 2,t a anc o etas 71 .5 Embrace, hoppin . rea character Aa f�.. a� 6.6 HighligN Itural d ersity 2 Grow Greens., ace&Connect Lacal_&_Reg[ona/_Gr_eenways_through ------ 2.7:1i pleme the Parks Plan 2 &r'nning railsCyyG� 7 2.7.3 Swaps arking for green space &pf,cket parks ' 2.7.4 Finish the Kent Valley Loop Trail 2.7.5 Enhance Green ivF ver open space 2.7.6 Assess& remeediate brbrownfieids 3.0 Business Climate 3.1 Welcome Businesses to Kent with Clear Communication of Business Support Structures& Tools 3.2 Make city resources available whenever possible to businesses r 3.3 nvolve businesses in land use an ranspo a io ing 3.4 Highlight loc business support IKent Com rehensive Plan - E onomic Develo ment Element Page 10 294 357 3.5 Listen carefully to local businesses 3.6 Place updated data into the hands of businesses 3.7 Enhance international trade and direct foreign investment opportunities in Kent 3.1 Strengthen& Communicate the Competitive Advantage in Cost of Doing Business Related to Kent Tax& Regulatory Structure 3.1.1 Streamline the permitting process 3.1.2 Make licensing easy 3.1.3 Designate a"handler"to guide businesses through the permitting processes and to city and govern. ent resources 3.1.4 Quantify and explain the value of a healthy reen River 3.1.5 Explicate where B&O Tax revenue goes 3.1.6 Show the end uses of utilit ei s taxes 3.1.7 Describe Kent's unique value pr F ition forte local businesses 4 Cluster Growth &Retention ' 4.1 Strengthen& Diversify the Ad V3 ced Manufacturin Cluster in Kent :� 4.1.1 4.1.1 Utilize Economic Dev opine Council (EDC) industry cluster services _V ¢z �+ 4.1.2 Market Kent Industrial Valley`c'a ;uses to advanced manufac urers 4.1.3 Leverage CAMPSonsult n ` 4.2 Position Kent as a Hu6:for Outdo creation Equipment "RecTech"Firms `' 4.2 1 Mark to regio n1nmf-nifinn and Kent as its hub 4,22y,'C tinuet sup port pport R Headed rter 4.2. rget out or amenitie in Kent Industrial Valley 4.3 IncreaseWent's SHare of R ail Cluster Firms, Employment& 4"S� duct c� etit vea �r �:. Revenue fn th Kent Va%Ce &Surrounding Area P analysis 4.3.2 Ince iwze`re` velopment of Meeker Street ---""- L-C" rk 4.3.3 Infill t krip''r' Is with new evd�ment ,± �_ _ 4.3.4 Encou, a companies_to make=in_back,-sell-in-the-front _. �-"'""� — 5 Locat 'Y' "Big Box"retailer within Kent 4' Res proactively proactively to retail trends Leverage ArearH /h Care, Manufacturing& Retail Anchors to Expand Kent Professional& Bhsiness Services Presence ,n/ 4.4 Market Kent as a hub of health care services � VdAkLl r� -}- 4.5 Grow hospitality amenities in a ent Industrial Valley 4.6 Market CenterPoint's assets to possible tenants 4.7 Improve the look and feel of CenterPoint's office campus /I.�l nA 4.8 Build a bike spur to the CenterPoint office campus __S,j vA 5 Kent Industrial 5.1 Enhance&Expand Industrial Zoning C/assiFcations to Accommodate a Changing State& Local Tax Structure IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 11 295 358 5.1.1 Expand the allowable uses in the Kent Industrial Valley 5.1.2 Modernize zoning codes for contemporary industry needs 5.1.3 Integrate best practices in industry land use from other cities 5.2 Position the Industrial Valley as a Regional Leader in Industrial Greening &Sustainability 5.2.1 Embrace alternative energy in Kent Industrial Valley 5.2.2 Utilize the en er for Advanced Manufacturing Puget Gmund (CAMPS) & Environmental Coalition of South Seattle (ECOSS) as resource centers F / 5.2.3 Create environmentally responsible infrastp. ture along Green ply-�C River using es green practices , 5.2.4 Secure additional funding for environme al sustainability efforts in the valley Ad 5.2.5 Join a by-product synergy netw, "r• � 5.3 Position the Industrial Valley as>anSmenity for=b th Industrial Users&Surrounding Communit_,�y 's 5.3.1 Encourage more retail and'�fiospitafit), ses m h , Industrial Valley Ax ' 5.3.2 Place a window on man ufactuf n ' y encouraging more people to visit and taketxurs of gomgkcpcerns 5.3.3 Conduct a "Mad '� e t" retail tou Y 5.3.4 Activate the slac s ac e valley b identifying under '' are ouses ah ing with property owners to make them more re enu `' enerat 5.4 SupportY1 ed Deve%p ent of Attractive Industrial Campus Envy nments, th KZ ks 5.1.4 Masr-Plan an' ndus rial ca pus 5.1.5 Ana( them;#• drake t+ pus Best Practices fit;% 5.1.6 Re ima a ie Boein-"Opus ro erties 5 ,Slg al intenx to developers with design guidelines 5 Advance tate``o - e-Art Infrastructure Connectivity in KIV >� 5.2.1 Back'5, pi do of missing link 5,2.2—Build o broa, and=in-Kent-industrial-valley_— r .3 Grow,,,:', nsit options in Kent industrial valley Certl he levees v* 6 Work Force 6.1 CdnIf ct Kent Residents&Communities to New Economic Opportunities 6.1.1 Promote Kent iob opportunities 6.1.2 Educate the educators 6.1.3 Support small business entrepreneurs 6.1.4 Develop a�maker rsspace in the Kent industrial valley 6.2 Facilitate Workforce Training, Development&Higher Education Opportunities in Kent 6.2.1 Support CAMPS career pathways program IKent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Pace 12 296 359 6.2.2 Continue leveraging regional workforce efforts 6.2.3 Sponsor internships 6.2.4 Support Washington FIRST robotics program .x �x s R� Ye' � J�. (r h V .g x!k„ xr � srryr Kent Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Element Page 13 i 297 361 Chapter Nine - CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT What you will find in this chapter: • An inventory of existing public capital facilities, including their location and capacity; ® A forecast of future needs for public capital facilities, their proposed locations and capacities; • A financing plan for the public capital facilities, including funding capacities and sources of public money; and • Goals and policies for providing public capital facilities to meet adopted levels of service, including adjusting the land use element if funding falls short of meeting the needs. Purpose Statement: To provide sustainable funding for desired public goods and services. PURPOSE Under the Growth Mana t5 itv is re" u ed to include a capital facilities e t in its Com reheh vex The Ca I Facilities Element escri es how pu is ac n 5� vicesvui„ rovded and financed. Capital facilities planning helps locar'' ri, 10ns page their limited funds to provide the greater-Val-, to reside " nd to e full a vantage of avai able funding opportunitie A key concept of ca.'tal faci It s lanniR' w's oncurrenc That is, specific public facilities will bey vai,a e t occur, or a financial comma �s r ace tc# pra ide the facilities within six ears of the devel6" clt tilled c currenc ." Concurrency o e transportation _ systems y require 41a. th r 4 Mana a —t Act. In addition to maar�ta nmg a equa a ve s a:s ervice on�ity=provided facilities, the city of - _— Kenirt t coordinate . 'th special purpose districts and regional providers on providm` dequate le, Is of service for forecasted growth. t k - Issues "Public facilities ' include streets� roads hi a s sidewalks, s reet Place-making a d road i tin sys ems, traffic Capital facilities can contribute to the signals, domestic water systems, look and feel of places, including their storm and sanitary systems, vibrancy or their decline. parks and recreational facilities, and Safefy RCW 36.70A.030.12 T e public expects capital facilities "Public services" include fire and services to maintain or enhance a Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 1 298 362 protection and suppression, law their safety, including the perception enforcement, public health, of safety.__ education, recreation, environmental 4-Lerve1sf Ser cvi e__ protection, and other governmental services. The City's level of service for capital RCW 36.70A.030.13 facilities needs to reflect an increasingly urban environment. Capita/budgeting: Cities must make capital budget decisions in Impacts on Low-Income _Communities and�opTe of Color conformance with its comprehensive plan. Public facilities seri." s, safety and FEW 36 70A.1z0 opportuniti forrccess should be accessibl - zIIFrr�embers of the Capita/ facility or improvement: tocommunit `' Capital facilities have an expected �y useful life of at least 5years and a Sustain'_ ity, Reha. elitation, cost of at least $25,6Y . — Repla 'ment and Retr kit Tale`"aintain�sQStainable pub, Pff ft s and'"ervices it is necessary aciti to plan implement main an re ac ent of infrastructure. Id ate it e As`ad. its al s`d'entific information is :. .x= � 5 , . idgn. arding climate change City wil evaluate t e po ential pacts to its existing public facilities w ra F ces. 'TWOdin g-k air ,Ar q. � u lic facilities and services may be funded by the rate payers or via _ 15M _capital.f_aci.li_t es-b-u.d.g.ets.—._W_.hen__--__— applicable, grants may also help offset ' s the cost of large capital projects. CAPITAL , LITY PLANNING Capital facilities Tanning in Kent is separated into two categories: General Government Funds which include funds for general capital needs suc anspo ation, buildings, parks and trails, and other im rovements. Enterprise Funds which include funds for which fees are received in ge or specific goods and services. These include water, sewer, storm drainage, and Me River be o Complex: Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 2 299 363 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FUNDS General government facilities are designed, built and operated for the general public, unlike enterprise funds, which serve specific fee paying customers. Any person may drive on City streets, _walk on a trail, play in a City park, etc. lu�cs cur k ent organizes it general government facilities needs into similar programmatic categories, which are referred to as funds. There are four categories of funds, which illustrate the focus of the City's capital plan inn g an`asp nd`ni g All phases of a capital project are included its,capital planning, from plan and project development, preliminary engineeriri� rig"fit-of-way acquisi ikon—permitting, construction_ engineering, to a s uction. Rod � The Street Operating Fund is specifically identified drat ns ortation nnrl street improvements, and includes arterial asph t _' erlays, „esidential jam! S _ment streets;curbs and gutters, sidewalks, illuminatio and safety and rails.` Funding for the program's projects is primar:.i1,"p' rough grants, ye I improvement districts (LIDS), motor vehicle xcise tad business arm ` occupation tax, and utility tax. A, The Capital Improvement Fund is for the ition and development of land for arks and recreational faC�l ies, includmg �ie planning and engineering cos s associ a wi "p a p g ects Th's fund is also designated for maintenance and repair project anWotRe capita .p ojects not provided for elsewhere. Funding comes fro"J.- rant',-i" tat excise tax, and a portion of sales tax revenues. F '" The Information Tec 'ro-ofor+y Fund. vides for the hardware and software_ _ to supp a ec " e s of they Primary un mg is from internal computer and netw fees a d cable ut, � y tax, after operating expenses have been aid. � ' AM. �w Th Faclilitees lea d s`faP- overn ent buildings such as the City Hall campus, en ornm ns,=Sep or Activity enter, and the maintenance shop. -- —Prima -funding=is frog.inter ,square-footage=fees;after-oiler-sting= ----- exp1 shave been pa W. General- ernment o rces of revenue for capital expenditures and allocationp centage�s-by funding category are shown in Figure CF.1. a Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 3 300 371 The police department would seek to fund both the capacity projects and infrastructure updates out of existing funding sources. (See diagram CF.3) Table CF.3 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List Project and 2021- Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2035 Total CAPACITY PROJECTS(Pro/ects Required to Meet LOSj � � � Project 1—Police Headquarters Cost$34.04 $0 $0 $8.51 $8.51 $8 51 8.51 $0 $34.04 Million Million Million Million, Million Million Revenue Source- $0 $0 $8.51 $8.51 $8 � 51 $0 $34.04 Public Safety Bond Million Million Mi 1�lhl Million Project 2—CKCF Bed Capacity t >" Increase „_ $0 $0 $350K $350 $3501'E�a $350Kk $1.4 Cost$1.4 Million .1- � A Million Revenue Source $0 $0 $350K $350K k ' 50K $350K $0 $1.4 Million Jail Capacity BOA Fund NON CAPACITY PROJECTS Project 3—CKCF Plumbing " 21 Cost$200,000 $0 Q $40K" � t K� �$ OK $40K $0 $200K Revenue Source— $0 $40 �. $40K $40K $40K $40K $0 $200K .— School Zone ��x�}`' �`G���_ Speed Camera Fund _""'_'— ,��-�� �" � • Project 4—CKCF z Apr Electrical Wiring} Cost$100 000 � 0 $5� $50K $0 $0 $0 $0 $100K Revenue ce of Zone Speed,C era Fund — $0 $50K $50K $0 $0 $0 $0 $100K Projects CKC " Camera ysv' System v $0 $40K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K Replacement ` _ { Cost$40,000 Revenue Source $0 $40K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40K School Zone peed Camera Fund roject 6—C Master Control Panel Cost$45,0000 $0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K Revenue Source $0 $45K $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45K i Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 11 301 377 Facility Location Equipment/Services Size(Sq.Ft.) Fire Stations provides services to areas of o Reserve Engine Kent Fire Prevention Fire Prevention 400 W.Gowe Street,Suite a Fire Marshal 5,000 414 a Code Enforcement o Development Services o Fire Investigations e Public Education Training I Police/Fire Training 24543 116th Avenue SE 9,600 7 Center � �# �3e,aV, p Training Annex 24611 116th Avenue SE a Inform-0, Tee., ology Unit 1,152 Drill Tower�— 24543 1116th Avenue SE . i 4,652 Maintenance Fleet Maintenance Facility 20678 72"d Avenue South 10,865 r Emergency Management and Logisticss Office of Emergency 24425 116`h Avenue SE "`4� _ eel.), - 2,860 fl Management " Logistics Warehouse 8320 South 208y5treet, 20,000 Suite H-110 Total 165,390 Level of Servicev, anti° , d y Community Resk�i eS vV t !n city of4 ent 55.E `l . The KFDRFA maintains S an 'ard ozi��: over" document as part of their accreditatro ;.Y e s th�ro h the Center for Public Safety. The Standard of Cover��the "Stands " or Le el_of Service (LOS) to which the fire __ depart en t will delive., servicto the community. The continuum of time of fire sere a performartcs to adopted level of service standard includes three compone measured t the 90t� percentile (9 out of 10 times) of performann�ce', ® Dispatch t4: The time interval from when a 9-1-1 call is answered appropriate resources dispatched through alerts to firefighters; ® Turnout time: he time interval that begins when audible or visual no I ica received by firefighters from the 9-1-1 center and ends when firefighters have donned appropriate protective equipment and safely seat-belted themselves in their response vehicle ready to drive. 'Includes 5000 square feet utilized by Fire Prevention and owned by city of Kent. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 17 302 381 T Table CF.6 Future Funding Needsll 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 2019 j 2020 j 2021-2035 I Total Capacity-P of ects :Summary of.New Construction:Coi& 407 Washington $ _ $ $ J $ 651 I $ 2,173 $ 3,578 $ 1,086 $ 7,488 --' - Benson 429 t $ 765 $ 2 574 $ 699 $ $ $ 5,032 _.. Riverview $_._ $ $ $. f $_. .._.... $_ $ 4,711 $ 4,711 75 Move $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ 9,961 I $ 9,961 _._ _ Total $ 565 $ 429 j$ 765 $ 3,225 $ 2,872 j $ 3,578 $ 15,758 I $ 27,192 r t. ........ ,�. :. ,_',,..... . ...`.. v Non-GapacitV,,,roJect,dsts-Necessary,td'Malntain:Existirfg,Assets..��„ - 407 Washington $ . $ Station 71 I $ 10 I $ $ i $ $ 26 $ 94- _$ _ .130 _ _ ..--- Statlon 72 $ 27 I $ $ - $ 27 $ 76 _ _. � _ � $ I $ � $ Station 73 $ 21 $ 15 $ ( $ $ _ _. _ ccdd _ Station 74 i $ 67 1.$ 15 $ .. I $ �s r ! $ i $ 174 $ 256. Station 75 $ 42 $ $ 25 �$ 35d 102 1 $ 204 _ _ Station _ j $ 15 $ 24 $ 30 �$ _ - j $ .. ._ 134 1.$ 208 Station 77 $ 36 f$ $ $ 69 $ 305 Station78 $ (.$ _ I $ $ > 30 I $ $ -. Benson Station $ $ - j..$. j $ 40 !_$ 40 .....p Total ( $ 218 $ 54 , $ Ss $:.-, 50 _,$? 22 l $ 2�, $ 889 ' $ 1,314 KFDREA Revenue S.o'urces E Annual Taxes to Capital $ 218 j $ 54 $ 320 I $ N"' $ 2,275 i $ 2,275 i $ 647 $ 8,064 Voter-approved Bonds $ $ j $ $ - s � Councilmatic Bonds 1$ $ � $.__. _.. $ i $ $ - - -- -- Sale of Surplus Property i $ $ ��` - $ _$.- 4.$ ._. $_ Coveng ton LOS/Im _pactfees $ 565 $ 404 � - $ ^j $ $ I $ 1000 $ 1969, .__.- ____.___._ ... Kent LOS/Impact fees $ - $ 25 I $ - 500T r�T% K(F -' $ 619 j $ 1,329 ! $ 15,000 I $ 18,473 Summary of Reven`u6,,1'ess Expens`.es,Expenses. I $ A_19 483 I $ 3,275 $ 2,894 I $ 3,604 I $ 16,647 .$ 28,506 Revenue $> , -3 ° 483 $ $Z $ 3 275 $ 2,894 $ 3,604 j$ 16,647 $ 28,506 __.. __. Unfunded Balance $� j $ j $ - i $ $ I $ _ $ gg a ,,,rxst r; w,. 11 Cost does not include fire apparatus for new fire stations. These costs are found within the KFDRFA Capital Facilities and Equipment Plan. Current 2015 cost of a fully outfitted fire engine is $850,000. New fire engines will be required for new 407 Washington, Benson and Riverview fire stations. Total apparatus cost for these new stations will be $2,550,000. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 21 303 385 Size/Amount Facility Location (Square Feet) Driving Range 2030 W Meeker 1,800 Par 2020 W Meeker 1,380 Riverbend 18 Hole 2019 W Meeker 11,296 Total Type 8 14,476 TVDe 9—Court Municipal Court 1220 Central Ave S 15,000 Total Type 9 15,000 Tvoe 10—Fire n Fire Bum Tower 24611 SE 116"Ave �,�" 3,957 Fire Headquarters 24611 SE 116"Ave 6,324 ddd Station 74 24611 SE 116"Ave {M� 14,000 Station 75 15635 SE 272nd 10,621 otal Type 10 m,.4,902 Ft Table CF �? FACILITIES MANA�a P�� T 6-Year and 20:-Ys ar Capital r�'ect List Project and Cost/Revenue ~` � : 2021- (thousands $) 2015 201 2017 2, Iy. 2016 a 2020 2035 Total F� f CAPACITY ,ROJECTS'(Projects Required to Meet LOS) None r I NOW CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needetl for Maintenance and Operations) -i Project 1-HVAC A Cost 200 , 0 0 f 100 100 100 2,592 3,292 w " t Facilities Revenues « 2 100 ,.F. ." 00 100 100 100 2,592 3,292 Project 2! mergency Repai v Cost 100 ,4' 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000 w�t� 8 ac$iijies Revenues 100 100 100 70 100 100 1,400 2,000 ProjecKitchen Equip ent � ; Cosk� 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530 Facilities Revenues." 45 40 25 20 20 30 350 530 Project 4—Roof Repairs Cost 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020 Facilities Revenues 500 0 0 35 195 145 1,145 2,020 Project 5—Kent Pool Lifecycles Cost 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500 Facilities Revenues 25 25 25 25 25 25 350 500 Project 6—Centennial Reseal Cost 45 45 45 50 0 0 185 370 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 25 304 392 - - Tab4 Total.:'-.t 2015';',.! „2016, .'201y 2018 -LL2019 �,2020 Beyond.,';. Tab-1 .Community Parks Reinvestment Program - - -- -- - 8,729_0 1 409.2 1 411.0 412.2 413.4 415.2+ 270.0 1 6,398.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 - - - -- - - -I- - - -I- - - -- - - - F - - - -I Tab-1.1 Community Parks Reinvestment Program-Unfunded 16,457.5 1 1,138.9 1,167.8 1 1,198.1 1 1,229.1 i 1,260.2 1,438.9 1 9,024.5 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 4 - - - - - - -- - - -1- - - -1- - - - - - - 4- - - - -1 Tab-2 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program 3,801_5 1 272.8 274.0 I 274.8 1 275.6 1 276.8 1 180.0 1. 2,247.5 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J - - - L - - - - Tab-2.1 Neighborhood Park Reinvestment Program-Unfunded 2,047.4 1 137.1 144.9 1 153.3 1 161.9 1 170.8 i 169.7 1 1,109.7 1 -- -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -1-- - -L- - - J- - - - Tab-3 ShoWare 6,300.01 300.0 300.01 300.01 300.01 300.01 300.01 4,500.01 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - -1-- - - -- - - F - - - + - - - + - - - 1 - - - -- - - - I Tab-4 GreenKent 353.1 15.0 y 15.0 1 15.0 1 15.01 15.0 1 15.0: 263.1 1 -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 4. -4-- - - - - - - - - - - 1 Tab-S Adapt-A-Park 590.6: 25.0 j 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.01 440.6 1 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - -i-- - - L _ - - 1 - - - -L - - - - - - -I-- - - 1 Tab-6 Eagle Scout Volunteer Program 234.3 1 10.0 1 10.0 1 10.0 1 10.01 10.0 10.0 1 174.3 1 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - J- - - -I- - - -1- - - -L - - - 1 Tab_7 Park and Open Space Plan- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -t -120A --- Tab- 7_1-Park and Open Space Pi-_Unfunded - -- - - - - - - - - 4 - -_ , -- -• -�- - _ -�- - _ _- - 467.8 Tab_a _Path and Trails wv 3,897.3 1 9.0 {i 9, 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 1 3,843.3 Tab-8.1 Path and Trails-Unfunded 12,922.6 1 1,043.L,4 4. ,ram" j 86.2 1 1,108.1 1 1,130.5 1 1,153.3 1 6,336.6 1 Tab-9 MasterPlans-Unfunded 591.01 0`1 25.0 1 1 25.0 I 25.01 25.01 441.01 -1 - � - - + 1 - - - - - I Tab 10 Architect/Englneering Unfunded 472 8 o.q0 20.0 1 20.0, 2010 1 20.0 1 20.0 352.8 1 Tab 11 Lake Meridian Park Phased" 1750 Q �� t 5000 I 450 O t 400 0 400 0t _,may Tab 12 Kent Valley loop Trail implementation Unfunded 550}0 i�d Z500 j� 150 '1500 Tab 13 Van Dofens Park Renovation'Unfunded 2 143 0 t 125 0 2,018.0 t Tab 14't(tusselkRoad Field Converslojt Unfunded 1,99310 x ,'[ Z50 0 1,743 0 Tab `S5 Kent Memorial Park Renovation Unfundetl , 932 0 t 1 r 1210 i 811`O � t i J L Tab i6 Lake Fenwick park Phase 1 Unfunded 1 28$0,�1y ` 300 0�'1,185 0 r t -j Tab 17 Springwoad Park►mprovemerlts Unfunded 2 800 U r � t t 200 0 t 2 600 0 Tah 20' West Fenwick Phase 2 Park ftenovatlo Unfunded 7310 t 1 t a p n t` t 731 Tab Z1' Mill Creek Earthworks RedeveiopmenY Unfundedq 1 027 O at r t t I 10210ri v Tab-18 StrateglcDevelopmenV - 318.0 1 + _ 1 1 - I -L _ - 1 3,318.0 -- - - - - - - - - - - + - � - - - I - - - J- - - 1 - 1 - - - r - Tab-18.1'StrategicDevelopm'. nfunded - „;�x `2, 4.2 1 1,214.0 1,238.3 : 1,263.0 1,288.3 1,314.1 1,340.4 1 20,296.1 E..� - - :- - -- - Tab-19 Strategic Acquisitions Unt ded a 6 5.4 1 250.0 i 255.0: 260.1 : 265.3 270 6 1 276.0 1 4,868.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - �_ =� - - 4 - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,, I 1` - - - Tab-22 Athletic Fields 6,050.3 1 - 1 1 I 1 1 6,050.31 ,rr " 'i - - - - - - - - - - - '1 - - - - - - 1_ - - -i- - - -1- - - -r - - -L - - - -i Tab-22_3 Atletfi:Fj'e) 5: 11, ded i - - 21,177.9 1 1,711.7 11,745.5 1 1,780.4 1 1,816.0 1 1,852.4 1 1,889.4 1 10,382.4 1 - - - - -- Tab Stra 'gicRedevelopmen Unfunded�u 17,991.4 - ! - I - I - I - I - 117,991.41 - --- T_ - - -- -- - - Total: 153127 0- ,Cr,950.8' 7,?3Q2 1146q 3,1,9 607.9 t 10, 4 5 t, 8,252 6 '99,526 71 e , y.a,{Nj I Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 32 305 395 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES #ete--a amen r-�ansportation facilities is considered in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element as well as the Transportation Master ` hkh was adopted in June 2008. Figure 5 of the ransportation Element Technical Report illustrates the City's recommended project list through 2035 Which Inc udes four types of improvements: intersection improvements, new streets, street widening, and railroad grade separations. The list includes 40 projects totaling nearly $509 million. r Table CF.10 Transportation Recommended Prof'NO List Type of Project Number of Pr Cost($) Intersection Improvements 177r 15,577,000 New Streets 4 715,000 Street Widening 1$ 69,389,000 ,t Railroad Grade Separation 5 139,300,000 Total 40 fi $508,981,000 Source:City of Kent 2015 Transportation Element Tec n cal Figures areziii'2 dollars. The goal and policies, including Leve = f S. policies and inventories related to the rovisionr.6, f:t, nsportatio, rvices and facilities are contained in the Transportation E eniri d Trans 0; ation Technical Background-Report of this' omprehen Ian and h the Tr p; nation Master Plan. Table CF.11 shows a bre dJ n of'tFre= It 's streets by classification. There are more milesiocal� treets.t n any other category, as local streets are present in al: mh-borhood Lodi tr_eets_repcesent_6_6_p_er_cent_of the_str_eets. - --- a7� — �k ry Prmcp I arterials reps ent o' y 7 percent of the roadway miles, but carry most of, daily traffic;; olume. Table CF.11 «k Transportation xisting Street Functional Classification Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total Principal Arterials 30 6.5 Minor Arterials 39 8.5 Collector Arterials Industrial 13 2.8 Residential 31 6.8 Residential Collectors 41 9.0 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 35 , 306 396 Functional Classification Miles of Roadway Percentage of Total Local Access Streets/ 303 66.3 Unclassified Total(excluding state highways 457 100 and freeways) Source:City of Kent 2008 Transportation Master Plan Level of Service (LOS) The City of Kent uses roadway corridors to evaluate LOS�4*,j oadway LOS is a measure of the operational performance of a transporE'on facility. A letter grade, ranging from A to F, is assigned based on experienced by drivers. LOS standards are used to assess ets ng ands rojected future . traffic conditions. In general, LOS A and B irgl ' e minimal e , LOS C and D indicate moderate delay, LOS E indct�es that trafficu n((umes are approaching capacity, and LOS F indlca es co, I sted condiRo s where demand exceeds capacity. For signalized i"n� r ec'#` ns and unsignalized all- way stop-controlled intersections the LOSS termined by the average tix t delay experienced by all ve Ic1 For unsl lized, side-street stop- :t -fit �x I controlled intersections, LOS 1..5�,.� eterm 11d by `th Y movement with the highest delay. Table CF-12 dispI s the High: ay rapacity Manual (HCM) thresholds used to determine Will S :" slg lized and unsignalized intersections. 4' � � , „ Q TABLEtC 42 Iit4T SECT I, LEVEL ® ERVICE CRITERIA �`�� �fi�� �Signalized lntersecttoe Delay per Ueh�cle- t;evel --—--s ---- — <h1 - — -- < lo_ — -- ------ B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15 1 � > 20to 35 C .- r > 15 to 25 D > 35 to 55 > 25 to 35 E sp j, > 55 to 80 > 35 to 50 F > 80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual,2010,Transportation Research Board. The City's adopted LOS standard requires that nearly all corridors operate at LOS E or better during the PM peak hour. The only exceptions are the Pacific Highway South corridor and the downtown zone which are allowed to operate at LOS F. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 36 3917 The LOS was re-examined in 2015 using 2014 vehicle counts to compare with 2006 data used for the adoption of the 2008 TMP. The results indicate that overall traffic congestion levels in Ken have remained about the same or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014 analysis indicates that all corridors are currently meeting the City's LOS standard. The work completed in 2015 included analyzing 20-year land use forecasts. The forecasts project land use growth to a year 2035 bas. d on the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) regional Land Use TargO UT) forecasts. Table CF-13 summarizes how the 2035 1 orecas pares to previous land use forecasts. 4 TABLE CF-13 �� CITY OF KENT LAND USE RECASTS r �"c,,. 4s d r '"' 4 i„y s y 77 ..� s �. ' 1 PohryyDocument . � , _�" Forecest� ear E`mp�oyment Households VOW 2008 Transportation Master Plan(TMP) 2031 81,900 48,400 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS 2031 93,600 68,900 Proposal a 2013 Downtown Subarea Action Plan EIS 73,300 57,100 Proposal %6?% 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update 2035 81,900 53,500 Notes:1.Employment totafs:ga of include 60 truction jobs. Compared to the 2001. �rtatio Master Plan, the 2035 LUT forecast includes4 t411 irI number of jobs throughout the City, but roughly 5,100 _ morez seholds7 y 203 T_forecast is well below the employment and houe.,old figures ass med the 2011 Midway Subarea Planned Action F" Environ ntal Impacts tatement (EIS) Proposal. Therefore, the 2008 TMP and 20 a Pro sal forecasts bookend the 2035 LUT forecast. Both of these scenario were " nalyzed in detail in the 2011 Midway EIS. The results of th' corridor LOS analysis presented in Table 2 and Figure 3 of the Transportation Element Technical Report indicate that the overall traffic congestion levels in Kent have remained about the same, or improved somewhat, since 2006 despite new growth in the City. The 2014 analysis indicates that all Corridors are currently meeting the City's LOS standard. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 37 308 398 Table CF.14wc� 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List-Transportations Project and Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total (thousands$) 2035 CAPACITY,PROJECTS(P,roj acts,Required td;MeetLOS) B&O Projects Overlay Projects 3,549.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 3,550.0 53250 74549 Sidewalks 13500 18895 895.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 900.0 Striping 226.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 22 3300 4626 .� Signal Loops ` 450 630 730.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 , �- 0 B&O Revenue 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4 700,42�4,° Q 0 70,500.0 98,700.0 €'CAPACITYPROJECTS Pro j6cts Re wired taMeet LOS Street Fund&Utility Tax , Traffic Controllers 180.0 180.0 80.0 180.02 ; .0 3,420.0 yw Traffic Signal Damage 100.0 1001i 100.0 100.0 1 50tiOmr„ 1,900.0 Street Light Mtc. 95.0 95 0 95, 95.0 1,425.0 1,805.0 UPS Cabinets-New 50.0 50.0 5 0 - - 150.0 UPS Cabinets-Repl. - - r - x 45.0 675.0 720.0 Traffic Counts � r 150.0 0.0 2,250.0 2,550.0 Traffic Cameras-Newz s 32 02 0 3 u 32.0 - 128.0 2r Traffic Cameras-Repl. Neighborhood Traffic xs - �, 150.0 150.0 Control W R14514 - 193 l r 243.0 250.0 250.0 3,750.0 4,686.0 Street Fund&Utility Taxi + U Revenue ::,_ - - 650.0 l 00 0 857.0 852.0 12,450.0 15,509.0 CAPACITY PROJECTS': Pro acts Re`"wired to Meet , Metro Transit Services R�Z. Metro Transit � S 155 0 . 5.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 2,325.0 3,255.0 �� I F'a x .Metro„Itas Revenues 0 _ 15v 155.0 155.0 1.55.0 155 0 2,325.0 3,255 0 NON.CAPACITY PROJECT$;(Mdh 'Projects Needed.foeMaintenance ansi3Operatlons),, r,. „ r.-a r i Solid Was ax Projects ° Residential Stye 2,5 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42 637.0 57,999.0 Solid Waste Utild)r�T ., 208 0 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42 637.0 57,999.0 COST,ANDi REVENUE °SUMMARY, " Capacity Projects 4,855.0 4,855.0 5,505.0 5,555.0 5,712.0 5,707.0 85,275.0 117,464.0 Non-Capacity Projects 2,508.0 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42,637.0 57,999.0 Total Costs 7,363.0 7,375.0 8,050.0 8,126.0 8,308.0 8,329.0 127,912.0 175,463.0 Baseline Funding=Estimated Available"Funds->. B&O Funds 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 4,700.0 70,500.0 98,700.0 Street Funq&Utility Tax - - 650.0 700.0 857.0 852.0 12,450.0 15,509.0 Metro Transit Services 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 2,325.0 3,255.0 Solid Waste Utility Tax Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 38 309 399 2,508.0 2,520.0 2,545.0 2,571.0 2,596.0 2,622.0 42,637.0 57,999.0 Total Revenues 7,363.0 7,375.0 8,050.0 8,126.0 8,308.0 8,329.0 127,912.0 175,463.0 Partial and Unfunded Street Projects Project and Cost/Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total (thousands$) 2035 .CAPACITY.PROJEG7S(Projeats Requiretl to'-Meet LOS) • . _,�.,, ., _�; , n Street Widening 80th Avenue South _ _ _ _ 1,323.0 1,323.0 South 212th Street 10,100.0 10,100.0 SR 181NWH/Washington d a} Avenue - - - 16,150.0 16,150.0 116th Ave SE ' 46,430.0 46,430.0 132nd Ave SE(SE 200z` -SE 236) 990.0 20,990.0 132nd Ave SE(SE 248 ; -SE 236) - - 1 j 9 0 11,950.0 �- Military Road South - - 13,63 ' 13,630.0 rS West Meeker Street n fir' (Fenwick-GR) - - - - - 70,000.0 70,000.0 West Meeker Street(64 low' -GR) - - - � - 5,960.0 5,960.0 SE 248th Street 5,640.0 5,640.0 �(( SE 256th Street } 16,980.0 16,980.0 a 132nd Ave SE(KK-SE ¢ e `,.' 248) - - �'� �• -, - 23,200.0 23,200.0 South 272nd Street 3 �k 13,916.0 13,916.0- 132nd Ave SE(SE 288 -KK rx - - s- - - 13,120.0 13,120.0er�'J . e,;. .. ,, 269,389.0 -CAPACITY PROJECTS Prod"c'ts'Re uired'to'MeetLOS -t Intersect on Improvemen . SE 192nd/S 5f -------- Bens4R = v - —— --- -- --- -- -540:0=- -540:0-- — _ South? 6th/80thAve SouSout - - - - - 250.0 250.0 South 1961 84th Ave South 1,190.0 1,190.0 South 212th172 Aver South - - - - - 330.0 330.0 South 212th 84t V South w r., - - - - - 1,710.0 1,710.0 South 212th/SR 167 -' _ _ - _ _ 400.0 400.0 South 240th/SR 99 _ _ _ _ _ _ 420.0 420.0 SE 240th/SR 515 _ _ _ _ _ 1,650.0 1,650.0 Smith/Central _ _ - _ _ _ 20.0 20.0 MeekerNVashington _ _ - _ _ - 780.0 780.0 South 260th/SR 99 - - - - - - 1,180.0 1,180.0 Military/Reith - - - - - - 1,945.0 1,945.0 SE 256th/SR 515 Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 39 310 400 550.0 550.0 Kent-Kangley/108th _ _ _ _ _ - 1,410.0 1,410.0 SE 256th/132nd Ave SE - - - - - - 302.0 302.0 South 272nd/Military - _ _ _ _ 1,540.0 1,540.0 Kent-Kangley/132nd _ _ _ _ _ 1,360.0 1,360.0 15,577.0 New Streets SE 196th Street 45,200.0 45,200.0 72nd Ave South 1,015.0 1,015.0 South 224th Street 36,000.0 36,000.0 108th Ave SEs . k r 2,500.0 2,500.0 84,715.0 'NOWCAPACITY PROJECTS Other Pro ects Needed for,Maintenarice`and O'erations .. , Railroad Grade Separations South 212th/UPRR U r 33,000.0 33,000.0 South 212th/BNRR , 33,000.0 33,000.0 South 228th/UPRR 24,200.0 24,200.0 Willis Street/UPRR c 26,500.0 26,500.0 Willis Street/BNRR 22,600.0 22,600.0 RIN 139,300.0 L-ICO Capacity Projects j, - - - 369,681.0 369,681.0 Non-Capacity Projects rx . ., . 139,300.0 139,300.0 Total Costs% - - - - - 508,981.0 508,981.0 —_ — =Baseline Fueidin Estimated.Availatile Funds�::�`-" � — - ,; tY93 0. ,. 148.0 32,700.0 3 Street= u &Utili Tax 2,941.0 Total Revenue ` 93.0 148.0 32,700.0 32,941.0 N. � { SOLID WAST The City of Kent has entered into an inter-local agreement (ILA) with King County Solid Waste and most jurisdictions in King County. This inter-local agreement expires in 2040. As a partner to the ILA, all municipal solid waste generated in the City of Kent must be taken to King County's Cedar Hills Landfill located near Maple Valley. This landfill was originally permitted in 1960 and is King County's last active landfill; King County has worked to extend the life of the landfill through waste diversion. At the present time, Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 40 311 410 Size/Amount Pump Station Location (Pump Capacity") Table CF.21 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Project List - Stormwater Project and Cost/Revenu e 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 2035 (thousands -0 $) CAPACITY PROJECTS(Projects Required 1io Meet LOS) � � j 4„ j °, y, � �; NON,CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Projects Needed for Maintenance aril Operations) Green River a Levees 500.0 6,795.0 6,190.0 6 180 6 0,180 0 6,125. $,4 0 40,400.0 2. Mill/Garrison/S $* pring&GR Tributaries 4,100.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 1r0f.0 1,000.0 58,925.0 68,025.0 NPDES - 205.0 210 0 215.0 220 p 225.0 3,975.0 5,050.0 Soos Creek& Tributaries 12,875.0 12,875.0 Storm Maintenance li< Replacement 3,400.0 - - 32,200.0 35,600.0 West Hill Drainage - O ...:: �=� - - 4,700.0 4,700.0 Drainage f ` ti � 121,100. 166,650. Revenue 8,000 U,� 8,000.0 ,x 7,400.0 4'> 0.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 0 0 two COST AND REVENUE;SUMMARY Capacity Projects Non ap ity.. � — Ym --121.,1Q0, 166,6.50_Pro ec� 8,000 0 000.0= 00:0 ;400:0 7;400:0 7350:0 _ 0 0 Total Costs., 121,100. 166,650. �rF, 8,000 0 8 00.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 0 0 Drainage Revenue 8,"Ob0.0 8,000.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 121,100. 166,650. 0 0 Total 121,100. 166,650. Revenues 8,000.0 8,000.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,400.0 7,350.0 0 0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 50 312 412 Square Feet Population requirements Current (IT Employees, Needed to Meet [Square Feet] Net Reserve or Time Period including temps) LOS standard Available (Deficit) 2021 XXX XXX XXX XXX 2035 XXX XXX XXX XXX Source:http://operationstech.about.com/od/startinganoffice/a/offSpaceCalc.htm Table CF.24 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY d 6-Year and 20-Year Capital Pr®jec IIR ist Project and ` Cost/Revenu "- e (thousands 20 $) 2015 2016 2017 2018 19 2020 2035 Total CAPACITY PROJECTS Pro ects Re Hired to Meet LOfi Level of Service) �' _ t Hardware Lifecycle ., Cost $939,700 $508,900 $622,000 $622,000 $622,00 .. $622,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,65 'A�" Revenue $939,700 $508,900 $622 000 � $62 00 $622,000 �$ 22,000 $9,330,000 $13,266,65 Source 1 0 Software Lifecycle Cost $303,750 $744,90Q , 1,125,00 $11_ ,pR�,` $875,060 $975,000 $21,425,00 $26,623,65 Revenue $303,750 $744 00 62 2 00 $625�" $125,000 $175,000 $2 970 000 $5 568 650 $ , 4 Source 1 Ad Revenue i $50,4 r 550,00 $750,000 $800,000 $18,500,00 $21,055,00 Source 3 thins, 0 0 Tech Plan NAN, Cost $ 500 $ ,200 _$_ 000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $3,000,000 $4,196,700 —__ Revenue $6,500_ Nz 0 �$ ,_ 0 $3,0.00 $3,00.0 $3,000 $45,000 -$63,500---- Source 1� Revenue, 197,000 $19320Q $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 $2,955,000 $4,133,200 Source 2 `.fix' \ Goo" NON,-CAPACITY PROJECTS(Other Protects Needed for Maintenance and Operations) .Project 1.:. T .. Cost $Xs $X $X $X $X $X $X $X Revenue $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X Source 1 Revenue $X $X $X $X $X $X $X $X Source 2 Project 2 Cost $X $X $X $X Revenue $X $X $X $X Source 1 Revenue $X $X $X $X Source 2 i Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 52 4313 Goals and Policies w GENERAL Gam"" Goal CF-1: As the City of Kent continues to grow and d elop, ensure that an adequate supply and range of public services and capi l facilities are available to provide satisfactory standards of public health, safe , and quality of life. FF{{fitiy All Policy CF-1.1: Assess impacts° of residental, commercial and employment growth on pu�Tiervices and ..h. fa Mies in a manner consistent with adopted levels-of-service Policy CF-1.2: Ensure that public servic° ' and capital facdtt►. needs are addressed in updates to Capital Faeiht es Plans�d Capital Iti ovement Programs, and development regulation. asap ropHate. Policy CF-1.3: To ensure Acia/ feast {% . provide needed public services and facilities than YW as the a _. to fund, or that the City has the authority to requ� othe t ide. Policy CF-1 4 X eriot�, lly revue;,. the Land Use Element to ensure that Vg­public serurce and caO l facilitie v# eeds, financing and levels-of-service of the Capita/ ciliti consistent and adequate to serve growth where iti erire . CF 1 .* ith th *?�016 update of the Park and Open Space Plan — <� ,and the 2017 u :, ate oFt e Transportation Master Plan, adopt one or I'll!°: m e of the folio; ing options to ensure the City can accommodate the pros.;$ ted 20 yea growth in households and jobs: Demand Manag .M ent,t 4 vised Level of Service, Land Use Revisions, Partnering o Phasing. Policy CF-1.6: Coordinate the review of non-City managed capita/ facilities plans to ensure consistency with the i y o ent Comprehensive Plan. Policy CF-1.7: Ensure that the elanning, design, construction and operation of public facilities projects will not result in conflicts or substantial inconsistencies with other Comprehensive Plan polities. Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Element Page 56 314 427 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager ® Phone: 253-856-5454 KENT Fax: 253-856-6454 WA$H INOTON 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 ADDENDUM TO CITY OF KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND MIDWAY SUBAREA PLANNED ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) (#ENV-2010-3) AND CITY OF KENT DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ACTION PLAN PLANNED ACTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) (#ENV-2012-30) KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICTS MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Responsible Official: Charlene Anderson, AICP I. SCOPE The City of Kent Economic & Community Development Department proposes a non-project action that includes an update to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS evaluated alternative growth strategies at a programmatic level for the Kent Planning Area (City limits and Potential Annexation Area). The EIS refreshed the environmental review conducted for the City's Comprehensive Plan and analyzed additional growth that would be focused in Downtown, the Midway Subarea, and five potential Activity Centers. The Supplemental EIS for the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action (Draft issued June 2013pd Final issued c o er,_ evaluated the _ - - _ growth potential for t e expanded Downtown s u y area as well as a lesser level of growth in the Mi grea The update to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments are consistent with the levels of growth analyzed in these two documents. II. SEPA COMPLIANCE On February 13, 2010, the City of Kent issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Notice of Scoping for the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action (ENV-2010-3). The City solicited public comment on the scope of the DEIS during the comment period and on October 22, 2010 the City of Kent issued a Draft EIS. The Final EIS was issued and distributed on September 1, 2011. No appeals to the EIS were filed. In 2012, the City of Kent Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) analyzed three 315 Addendum 428 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-20.11-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 alternatives and evaluated several environmental elements associated with the update to the Downtown Subarea Action Plan (DSAP) (ENV-2012-30). The SEIS also evaluated a lower level of growth in the Midway area than was evaluated in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS. The Draft SEIS was issued in June, 2013 and the Final SEIS was issued in October, 2013. No appeals to the SEIS were filed. No additional si nificant adverse environmental impacts are identified for the proposed Comprehensive P an pate, Land Use an & Zoning Districts map and text amendments; therefore an addendum to the EIS/SEIS is appropriate. III. STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY This proposal is a nonproject action pursuant to WAC 197.11. Future project actions associated-wiffITthe-Kent Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments are subject to and shall be consistent with the following: Kent Comprehensive Plan Kent City Code, f4 . Environmen a o icy, n ernational Fire Code, International-Building Code t e Cit of Ken esi n and ons ruc ion an ards the City of Kent Surface Water Design Manual, Public ors an ar s and all other applicable laws an ounces in effect' at the time a compete project permit application is filed. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - SCOPE OF ADDENDUM The City of Kent has followed the process of phased environmental review as it undertakes actions to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197- 11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and _preparation_of addenda to en_v_ir_onmenta.l_decisions.._ Nonproject Documents - An EIS prepared for a comprehensive plan, development regulation, or other broad based policy document is considered "non-project," or programmatic in nature (see WAC 197-11-704). Phased R� - SEPA rules allow environmental review to be phased so tha review coincides with meaningful_points in the planning and decision makin -ram, (WAC 197- 1-060(5)). Future projects identified and associated with implementation of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments may require individual and separate environmental review, pursuant to SEPA. Such review wi occur when a specific project is identified. Prior Environmental Documents - The City of Kent issued a Draft Enviro n a mpa P c tatement (DEIS) for the Gty ofien�Compi=ehensive an Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action on October 22, 2010 and a Final EIS on September 1, 2011 (#ENV-2010-3). The Midway Subarea Plan, Page 2 of 5 316 Addendum 429 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Midway Design Guidelines, amendments to development regulations, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts Maps were adopted by the City Council on December 13, 2011. The City of Kent issued a Draft Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in June, 2013 and a Fina IS in October, 2013 (ENV-2012-30). The SEIS evaluated a lower level of growth in the Midway area than was evaluated in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS. The proposed Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amen men s are consistent with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action E an t e downtown Subarea Action Pan Planned Action Supp ementa EIS. Scope of Addendum - As outlined in the SEPA rules, the purpose of an addendum i o ental anal sis wit o the described actions. This addendum regarding the Kent Comprehensive Plan Up ate, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments does not identify new significant adverse impacts or significantly change the prior environmental analysis; therefore it is prudent to utilize t e a en um process as outlined in (WAC-197-11-600(4)(c)). ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS All environmental elements are adequately addressed within the parameters of existin an es as well as the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and the Downtown Subarea ion ed c ion uppl_ eme_ntal EI , drafts and finals. Furthermore, subsequent project actions would require compliance with SEPA environmental policy which may include separate environmental checklists. Projects will be analyzed for consistency with mitigating conditio ntified in the EIS and may require new mitigation based upon site-specific The Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments are within the range of growth analyzed in the EIS and SEIS as shown on the following table: Page 3 of 5 317 Addendum 430 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Data Sources for Comparison of Capacity/Policy Documents/Forecast Analysis Origin of Data JOBS HH BUILDABLE LANDS 2012 Buildable Lands(2006-11) Reported Capacity Kent PAA 21,624 10,732 COMPLETEqf HN Estimated 'BL Completed006-2011 2,034 2013-2014 OFM H Comp e 452 1 al-2 I Total Comp et HH 2,486 CPP TARGET CPP Target2006-2031 13,490 9,360 CPP Target 2031-2035(Target/25 yrs x 4 years) 2,158 1,498 CPR Target 2006-2035 15,648 10,858 Completed&OFM 2013/14 Completed) 0 2,486 CPP Target 2006/2035 adjusted b4 HH completed 2006-2014(BL&OFM) 1S,648 8,372 PSRC LUT TARGET PSRC LUT 2031 Kent(Total Growth Target) (Minus Construction) 78,714 51,829 PSRC LUT 2035 Kent(Total Growth Target) (Minus Construction) 81,854 53,549 Est.LUT Annual Grow (2031-2035/4 years 785 430 Est LUT4 Years Growth 3,140 1,720 PSRC LUT Reported 2010 42,793 PSRC LUT Reported 2010(see methodology) 61,654 Methodology to Determine 2010 JOBS: 2035 jobs-2025 jobs=8oso/1oyr=808 jobs; 808x15yr=12,120 jobs;_2025 jobs 73,774-12,120=61,654 jobs representing an estimated jobs for PSRC LUT 2010. EXISTING 2010 PSRC LUT 61,654 42,793 CAPACITY - 2010 PSRC LUT+BL Cap. 2006-2011 83 278 53,525 POLICY DOCUMENTS TMP 2031 Kent PAA 81,915 48,405 Midway EIS Kent PAA 93,603 68,893 Downtown SEIS Kent PAA 73,303 57,108 V. S�U.MN1�1fRY AND I��COP_�NLEIV.D�►1'I_®Fd - --- ----- A. SUMMARY Kent City Code section 11.03.510 identifies plans and policies from ww I' he City may draw substantive mitigation under the State Environmentsl Policy Act. T5is nonprojec action has een evaluated In light of those substantive plans and policies as well as the overall analysis completed for the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea Planned Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action Supplemental EIS. B. DECISION The Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amen men s are consistent with the range, types and magnitude of impacts and c Ine in t o I y o ent Compre enslve a evlew an I way Subarea Panned Page 4of5 318 Addendum 431 Kent Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments CPA-2011-3/CPZ-2011-1 / RPP6-2142820/2142822 Action EIS and Downtown Subarea Action Plan Planned Action �Syup:p ementa si environmenta Impac s ociated with�adopfl�ionf the Comprehensive Plan Update, Lan se Plan and Zoning Districts map and text amendments have been identified. Dated: April 20, 2015 Signature: C. Q. Charlene Anderson, AICP, SEPA Responsible Official CA\ah\S:\Permit\Plan\COM P_PLAN_AM END M ENTS\2011\C PA-2011-3_CPZ-2011- 1_Ca mpPI anUpdate\Chapters_For_Public�_H earl ng\SE PA_Addendu m_042015.doc I i I I I Page 5 of 5 NEW EXHIBIT COMP PLAN UPDATE TO BE ENTERED INTO RECORD AT 5- 11 - 15 HEARING 320 321 Advisoryi Agingi iiServices Creating choices for elders and adults with disabilities in Seattle-King County Mailing Address: PO Box 34215,Seattle,WA 98124-4215 Office Address:Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 5th Ave, 51 st Floor Tel:206-684-0660 TTY:206-684-0274 FAX:206-684-0689 www.adsadvisorycouncil.org October 27, 2014 Attention: Planning Commission Members and Kent Planners Kent, WA RE: Kent's Comprehensive Plan To Whom It May Concern: The Seattle-King County Advisory Council on Aging& Disability Services (hereafter called the ADS Advisory Council) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan. Our council comprises representatives appointed by King County, City of Seattle, and United Way of King County. Our mission is to identify the needs of older people and adults with disabilities in our community, advise on services to meet these needs, and advocate for local,state and national programs that promote quality of life for these populations. King County's elder population (age 60+) will near 25 percent of the total population by 2035. A similar increase is expected among the oldest-old in King County. Since 1995, the number of residents 85 and older has almost doubled, and by 2035 will almost quadruple. As the baby boom generation ages, as older immigrants arrive in our region, and as improved health and health care contributes to greater longevity, we hope that Kent is considering the impacts of the "age wave" on accessible communities,transportation, low-income senior housing, and demand for supportive services. Our data indicates that the older populations living in south and east areas of King County are growing most rapidly. This age wave presents both challenges and opportunities for suburban and rural cities. For example, the built environment and transportation systems may be difficult for older adults to navigate, safely and conveniently. However, older adults are a tremendous resource and have much to contribute to their communities. Cities that plan for and design safe and accessible communities that support people of all ages and abilities will be well positioned to benefit from these contributions. We encourage the City of Kent to include a vision statement in their Comprehensive Plan which recognizes and values the contributions of older adults and its role in making Kent the kind of place people of all ages want to live. We believe healthy aging—at every age—should be a goal of Kent government, as is creating a caring community that nurtures and supports children, families, and elders. In association with the Area Agency on Aging for Seattle-King County and sponsored by: Co-sponsored by: U' United Y Way City of Seattle united Way of King County King County Kent's Comprehensive Plan Page 2 of 3 322 ` The ADS Advisory Council participates in the development of the Area Plan on Aging for King County, as mandated by the State of Washington every four years: www.agingkingcounty.org/area plan.htm. We request that you consider incorporating the following goals and objectives into Kent's Comprehensive plan to the greatest extent possible: 1. Address Basic Needs: Alleviate the impacts of poverty and other conditions that make people, including older adults, vulnerable. ® Access: Help older people meet their basic needs by providing information and assistance about services in the community. ® Food and Shelter: Help individuals of any age who lack food or shelter, who are vulnerable, or face barriers to functioning independently to flourish. Address food insecurity (i.e., availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways). ® Housing: Provide affordable housing designed to accommodate mobility and safety over the course of life. ® Economic Security: Promote economic empowerment and security, especially among older women, with a goal of self-sufficiency.' ® Nutrition: Encourage and support food banks and nutrition programs to meet the nutritional needs of the elderly and other vulnerable populations. ® Mobility: Provide complete streets that allow older adults and individuals with disabilities to "stroll or roll", and cross streets safely. Identify resources to provide adequate public transit, including safe, comfortable, and convenient bus service. Encourage community shuttles and volunteer transportation. Encourage transportation services that ensure that individuals with special needs—including the elderly, individuals with disabilities, children, youth, immigrants, and veterans—who depend on public transit for their mobility to get to and from school, work, shopping, and services, can participate fully in the life of the Kent.z 2. Improve Health and Well Being:There is compelling research that shows that regular physical activity and social engagement positively affect overall health for older adults and increases life expectancy. ® Parks and Recreation: Develop parks, open spaces, and community facilities to adequately serve all residents, including older adults,to expand their social and recreational opportunities. ® Social and Civic Engagement: Embrace social and civic engagement of older residents. Promote creative ways for older adults to maintain, share and grow their talents, skills, and experiences. Promote cultural preservation programs or activities that draw on the strengths of older residents, who provide a direct connection with the past. 3. Increase Independence: Enhance efforts that help older people maintain their independence as long as possible, and remain in their neighborhoods of choice. 1 Consider the Elder Economic Security Standard" Index for Washington,which includes data for Seattle(p.62),available online at www.wowonline.org/documents/WashingtonElderindexReport.pdf. z Aging and Disability Services represents the Kent of Seattle on the Puget Sound Regional Council's Special Needs Transportation Committee and the King County Mobility Coalition.The goals of the Coordinated Transit-Human Services Plan(www.psrc.org/transportation/special-needs)should be considered in the Kent's comp plan revisions. Kent's Comprehensive Plan Page 3 of 3 323 0 Senior Housing: Renew focus on affordable housing strategies that provide older adults the opportunity to remain in their own neighborhood as their housing needs change, including a range of-housing types, from independent living with supportive services nearby to skilled nursing facilities.s ® Housing with Services: Advocate for reduction of barriers to providing services to residents of subsidized housing. ® Home Ownership: Encourage, support and promote existing programs and policies that help low-income elders retain ownership of their homes. 4. Promote Aging Readiness: Ensure livable communities that welcome all ages and abilities. • Universal Design: Adopt Universal Design principles—good design for all ages and all abilities.4 ® Financial Literacy: Empower people of all ages to build financial literacy and prepare for retirement. ® Technology: Utilize technology to enhance access to aging information, programs and services. ® Negative Perceptions: Combat negative perceptions of aging, which carry a high cost to society (e.g., ageism in health care and employment, social exclusion, and elder abuse and neglect). Develop new approaches that create a new and authentic perception that the wisdom, talents, and experience of older adults are community assets. The ADS Advisory Council is a resource for all agencies that plan or implement programs or services for older adults in King County. If you have questions or concerns about this input or any other issue, please feel free to contact me via our liaison, ADS planner Gigi Meinig (gigi.meinig@seattle.gov or 206-684-0652). Sincerely, Tony Provine, Chair Seattle-King County Advisory Council for Aging& Disability Services Cc: Suzette Cook, Mayor 3 Please read A Quiet Crisis:Age Wave Maxes Out Affordable Housing, a 2009 report produced by the Cedar River Group on behalf of Aging and Disability Services,Seattle Human Services Department,Seattle Office of Housing,Seattle Housing Authority, King County Housing Authority,Seattle Human Services Department and the King County Housing& Community Development.The report is available online at www.agingkingcountV.org/docs/SeniorHousingStudy.pdf. 4 The ADS Advisory Council endorses incorporation of Universal Design principles—equity,flexibility,simpliKent/intuitive use, perceptible information,tolerance for error,and size and space for approach and use—in all aspects of the built environment, processes, and products.We are active in the Northwest Universal Design Council. Learn more at www.environmentsforall.org.