Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout718A r , CITY Or, KENT, WASIIINGTON RESOLUTION 10. ZLA A PBSOLUTION of the City Council of x the City of Kent, le,ashington, adopting a "spherc of interest" for the City of I:ent as recommended by the Kent Planning Com- mission. 4 t4iiEREAS, tl-:e VPlanning Commission of the City of Kent has held public hearings to determine the logical "sphere of interest" of the City of Kent, and l WHERI,A�, the purpose of determining sai - ."sphere of interest" is to allow For the orderly ftitur.'n growth of the City sof Kent, and 1AT1irRF;AS, it is in the .best: interest of the .citizens aE the City of Kent that the ": phere of interest~" of the City of Kent be determined, NOW, TIIrI2UORE, 'x j TIT ('111Y COUNCIL OF 'TiM� CITY OV Y.P.NT, WASHINGTON DO i IIEREBY RMSOLVI.' that thereport of the Planning Com -issian of the City of Kent prepared and promulgated under the title "Kent' s Sphere of Interest - Tlc2vi;ed by 1:ent Planning Commission clarcli 2). , 1972" I)a and hereby in adopted as the official policy of tho City of Kant, and it iv further a , RISSOLVED that the City ;hall, in the f%iture whenever practical ,, expand its t.err. i tcr.y an(I provide for municipal ser- "' vice:; in accordance with said "sphere of int-.ere W' so adopted F. MII PASSED at a regular moeting of the City Council of the city of, Rent, this 17th day of April, 1972. ATTEST: I.MBEL ir1OGAN, MAYOR rl,kR.TT JENSEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FO.W4- DONALD E. MIRK, Cjty ttorney I h►�,rehy certify that this is n' t:rue copy of Resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the �� d,►y of r,nril, 1972. (SiiAL) 2 i 17\IR1's SEN , Ci y Clerk a I J�. he jity of K'an Comity jullsen, Cit nl f y iuork in �% or t, t os King-, .&j., (j, I-X 14' the, attached is tlMe' luld corr`-aot Of e-o of' '-!Tltevez�t,l Rent '-,rfi ,olle ugdur Kunbor "(18: oli Ajx: 17, i) 'ooOklot and, the tin file In 1;w Ij PS INIIFN�:.', 11, i, I of the at�id 0-it'v, July, 1972. i 1 1 1 ' I1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 A 1 S Y MAYOR: ISABEL HOGAN CITY ADMINISTRATOR: JOSEPH STREET KENT CITY COUNCIL Peter Baffaro Bill Elliott Charles Martell Jeanne Masters Gary Just t Robert Kitto James Jackson KENT SPHERE OF INTEREST A POLICY GUIDELINE ADOPTED BY THE KENT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO . 718, APRIL 17 , 1972 i KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUNE 1972 �.J J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No . INTRODUCTION 1 POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS 3 LAND USE PATTERNS OF KENT 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICES g TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE 12 POPULATION PATTERNS 16 CIRCULATION PATTERNS 20 RECOMMENDED POLICIES FOR FUTURE ANNEXATIONS 20 KENT SPHERE OF INTEREST 22 LIST OF MAPS Page No . MAP I CITY BOUNDARIES 4 MAP II LAND USE - 1972 7 MAP III KENT SEWER SERVICE 9 MAP IV KENT WATER SERVICE 10 MAP V SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 11 MAP VI TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE PATTERNS 15 MAP VII 1970 CENSUS TRACTS AND BLOCK GROUPS 19 MAP VIII KENT SPHERE OF INTEREST BOUNDARIES 25 r � J .l �J J J LIST OF TABLES Page No . TABLE I KENT ZONING AND LAND USE ANALYSIS 6 TABLE II POPULATION DATA BY CENSUS TRACT - 1970 17 TABLE III POPULATION DATA BY BLOCK GROUPS - 1970 18 TABLE IV RECOMMENDED TIMETABLE FOR ANNEXATIONS 24 Introduction Annexations in the State of Washington were , until the formation of Boundary Review Boards in 1967 , piecemeal and haphazard affairs . Annexations were made without consider- ing the abilities of cities to provide municipal services , regional land use policies , the need to create balanced land use patterns for the city, and without taking into account population, drainage , topography or the extent of the city ' s relationship with adjacent areas . It is therefore a purpose of this study to investigate these considerations in order to provide a more factual basis for the City of Kent to make decisions concerning future annexations and what might be the ultimate incorpo- rated boundaries of the City of Kent . The piecemeal methods of annexations have been paral- leled by the often haphazard methods of determining the planning areas of incorporated cities . These have often been delimited by drawing a circle around the incorporated city which roughly corresponds to school district and postal boundaries but which may or may not relate to a policy of -� future annexations to the city or be physically and socially oriented to the city . It would seem more logical to relate the planning area to policies concerning the ultimate bound- aries of the city . It is to be hoped that land use problems within areas to be annexed will be resolved by regional planning agencies and through inter-governmental cooperation as Washington municipalities do not have extraterritorial zoning powers . 1 It is recommended that we do not plan beyond 1The Optional Municipal Code does permit Municipal Plan- ning Commissions to hold a public hearing to consider zoning for areas that are not annexed to the City , but which might be in the near future . The Planning Commission can then make 11 recommendations to the City Council concerning the logical zoning an area designated to be annexed might have . Y -1- I these ultimate boundaries . This study will attempt to delimit the future boundaries of Kent and establish guidelines and a rough timetable for future annexations . The considerations to be investigated include : provision of municipal services including where municipal services are being provided outside of present city limits , present revenue and expenditures for municipal ser- vices , levels of services in unincorporated areas , census tracts , drainage and topographic factors , land use , circula- tion and population , natural or man made barriers and polit- ical considerations . The Kent Sphere of Interest , defined for the purposes of this report , refers to the geographical area that the City of Kent should be concerned with in relationship to ultimate boundary lines , public services , natural phenomena , and land use . This definition can be compared to the term "sphere of influence" -which has a very different connotation. The term "sphere of influence" refers to that area upon which a city has an economic and social impact . Thus employment patterns in Seattle greatly influence Kent ' s economic activity while Kent has little influence on Seattle 's economic activity . Likewise , Seattle ' s cultural and recreational amenities exert an influence on Kent . Much of the eastern seaboard of the United States is within the sphere of influence of the City of New York, but is not in New York ' s sphere of interest . The Sphere of Interest Report is essentially an elabora- tion of the policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and is not an official amendment to the Plan. The Kent Comprehen- sive Plan , on page 30 , calls for "review of policies on annexations and utility expansions" . This section asks a series of questions , many of which are answered in the Kent Sphere of Interest Report . The Comprehensive Plan is a document that must be constantly revised. Some revisions are in the nature of official amendments to the Comprehensive -2- Plan, while other revisions are merely expansions of poli- cies of the Plan not requiring a formal amendment procedure . The Kent Planning Area which is indicated on the Comprehen- sive Plan Maps "does indicate the relationship of the City of Kent to its immediate environs and serves as a means for coordinating the development and the programs of several public agencies ; and it provides a perspective for evaluat- ing and guiding the future development of those areas for which Kent ' s city officials do have , or may have in the future , direct responsibility" (page 4 , Kent Comprehensive Plan) . Thus the Sphere of Interest Report does not contra- dict the Comprehensive Plan , but enlarges and expands upon its adopted policies . Political Considerations Attempts have been made by the various local govern- ments in the Green River Valley to define where the ultimate boundaries of the valley cities will be . Official agreement was reached by Kent and Auburn , at the City Council level , establishing S. 277th Street extended easterly across the valley floor to 104th Avenue S .E . as the boundary of the two III cities . East of 104th Avenue S . E . the southern boundary is still not well defined. I Discussions with Renton and Tukwila have not yet re- sulted in formal agreement as to ultimate boundaries . The boundaries of Kent on the east and west are less settled. Areas west of Interstate 5 are physically isolated from the rest of the City. Interstate 5 definitely forms a significant barrier. Had this barrier been in existence at the time the area to the west was under consideration for annexation , it is quite likely the annexations would not have taken place . Today the City is in a position to evalu- ate the desirability of maintaining the area west of I-5 as a part of Kent . In any event , future annexations and/or -3- V, 0 GCF DO Lb 0&tv 03 QN CL TE 01 "44% C-- -777- 0 A ZZ A eOP deannexations west of Interstate 5 should only round out the present jagged boundries . The major area of concern appears to be what are the ultimate boundaries of Kent to the east . The area to the east is apparently the area of future popula- tion growth , and this area traditionally identifies with Kent . However , annexations in the residential areas of East Hill have not kept pace with the City ' s annexation of industrial and commercial areas . There apparently have been reservations among the residents of East Hill that annexation would not be advantageous to them, although they do appear to be oriented to Kent . While the major concern appears to be what are the ulti- mate boundaries and sphere of interest on the east , this study will also look at all the potential future boundaries of the City . Land Use Patterns of Kent In order for a city to be self-supporting there must be a balance of land use patterns between residential , commer- cial and industrial . There is no agreement or formula for determining a proper balance and distribution of land uses ; every city is different and land uses vary as to the type of city . Obviously , a central city , a suburban town , and an independent outlying town will have a different distribution of land use activities . Table 1 on the following page indicates land use patterns and zoning for the City of Kent in 1967 . These figures serve to provide an adequate overall picture of land use activities in Kent as rezones , annexations and new developments have not significantly altered this pattern to date . The most striking feature of zoning patterns in Kent is that over 560 of the land is designated as industrial . While much of this land is not currently being utilized for -5- J TABLE 1 KENT ZONING $ LAND USE ANALYSIS (Based on 1967 figures and 14 square miles) ACTUAL ZONING PER CENT USED AS % OF TOTAL IN ACCORD ZONES ACRES ZONED LAND AREA WITH ZONING INDUSTRIAL (Ml , M2 , MA) 5 ,105 56 . 97 7 . 8% AGRICULTURE (RA) 492 5 .49 11 .6% SINGLE FAMILY (SR, Rl) 1 , 523 16 . 99 6 . 3% MULTI FAMILY (SR, R3 , R41 MHR) 985 10 . 99 0 .6% COMMERCIAL (Cl , C2 , C3) 752 8 . 39 1 .9% VACANT LAND 62 . 8% PUBLIC 2 . 5% STREETS 6 . 3% -6- 60 / _J r M N i ub X. tm / /.` /y•// r � at env eu _ V � , n•::s rq i 1 1 Y ` i I • '�M� k i�. i s .J N 9 ° aNno s NIS 7 m — 9 1 0 F industrial purposes , there seems to be little doubt that the die is cast and that industrial development will continue on the valley floor unless there is a significant reversal of City policy . With over 60% of the land designated as commercial and industrial , Kent appears to be short of residential popula- tion within its incorporated limits to support such land use . With a population of 16 , 805 in 1971 and a total land area of approximately 16 square miles , Kent ' s residential population is only 1 ,000 persons per square mile . These land use figures suggest that Kent has more than an adequate amount of commercial and industrial zoned land and should not annex land with the intent of devoting such additional areas to such uses but should annex primarily developed residential areas . Municipal Services The major public services provided by local governments to its citizens include : water , sewer , garbage , streets , parks , education, planning, health , police , and fire protec- tion . Maps III and IV indicate areas served by Kent sewers and water . As indicated, these services are provided beyond the incorporated boundaries of Kent . This provision of these basic services extends the sphere of influence of Kent but perhaps may not encourage annexations . Traditionally the desire for municipal services has been a strong incentive to annex. It would appear that providing sewer and water ser- vices should be coordinated with programs for annexation . The largest share of local government expenditures has always been allocated to education. However , the provision of education is divorced from the city and provided by inde- pendent school districts . Map V indicates the school dis - tricts serving the Kent area. - 8- 1 OTC j F w OC w CD N N y ' C l —MMMMMMMMMMM■■■■ ■■■■ MEMO■ ■MW ■■■■■■■ ■ -■■■ m i I MEX � I � -- 79 W3SOd0 _— r •a„r W A ED ca PP N: v \ CL Cal N O •• � of N °s G 0 V, 0 Lb 0&A,0 L L. 0 I All (D D __ _ �� ,.D�, � �D fl CL ........ ..... tr l.i., i", All U) M M Z 0 0 ell, ---------- ri I.., Cl) T----------- 24 tam) c.4 C) 0 4cN LL The two easily identifiable public services provided by the City of Kent are fire and police protection. These ser- vices are provided only within the corporate limits of the City, except for some provisions for mutual aid with nearby _ fire districts . Both of these services are provided on a higher level within the city than in King County . Fire pro- tection in the unincorporated areas is generally provided by volunteer fire departments with correspondingly higher insur- ance rates for homeowners . King County police protection covers a large sparsely populated area. The high percentage of vacant land in the City of Kent suggests that Kent has annexed vacant land which needs to be provided with all types of municipal services . This has put an additional burden on the city budget which tends to negate the importance of the high assessed valuation of property within Kent ' s city limits . This burden on the budget indi - cates that the City should be very hesitant in annexing vacant parcels of land in the future because of the high costs involved in servicing these areas . Topography & Drainage Kent is characterized by two plateau regions which bor- der the east and west sides of the central lowland . This lowland is drained by the meandering Green River and is at approximately sea level . Where the plateau areas join the lowland, two elongated hills stand out as significant land- marks . These are West and East Hill . West Hill ascends very rapidly with elevations of 300-400 feet in lateral dis - tances of 1/8 to 1/4 miles . These are slopes of 31% to 46% . Because of these steep slopes much of West Hill does not appear geographically oriented to Kent . Some areas of West Hill are so situated that views of the valley are readily possible . However, this visual valley orientation disappears west of Military Road as the topography dips westward from the high point of 400 feet and is reoriented toward Puget -12- Sound. On the other hand , East Hill rises more gradually than West Hill . It ascends to elevations of approximately 400 feet , as does West Hill , but achieves this height in more distance - about 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile . These are slopes of 10% to 15% . The area atop East Hill is a gently rolling plateau. Its general relief does not change signif- icantly until it approaches the Cascade Mountain Range fif- teen miles to the east . The topography of the East Hill provides an additional reason why East Hill is more oriented to Kent than West Hill . The plateau on the east varies in elevation , forming several geographic and drainage areas . The first area of the plateau levels out between 400 and 500 feet . This area roughly runs northwest from 132nd Avenue S .E . and S .E . 256th Street to approximately e ov y P tr isk Road at 108th Avenue S . E . (See Topography and Drainage Map) Two distinct drainage areas are located in this plateau area. The dominant drainage area is that of the Big Soos Creek which flows south from Petrovisky Road and 132nd Avenue S .E . across Highway 18 just east of Lake Meridian and on to the Green River just east of Highway 18 . The Little Soos Creek is an adjunct to the Big Soos Creek drainage area , flowing south from Lake Youngs into Big Soos Creek between Highway 18 and S .E . 256th Street . _1 The second drainage area is west of Big Soos Creek . Here water flows directly to the Kent lowland via Mill Creek and Garrison Creek . Drainage patterns are an Integral part of the ecology of an area and must be taken into consideration in an urban- izing area, since urban development should be compatible with existing drainage patterns . Urban development that is not planned in conjunction with drainage patterns may result in conditions in which water run-offs cause high costs to both -13- the City and the developer. 2 Drainage areas should , whenever possible , be maintained as a unit without splitting off spe - cific areas unless absolutely necessary. This would avoid some of the problems related to urban development . Map VI — illustrates the topography and drainage patterns east of Kent . The area east of Kent that drains into the Kent Valley and into Big Soos Creek is within the sphere of interest of Kent . While there are many areas to the east of Big Soos Creek that eventually drain into it , the size of the drainage area requires that some delimitation be made . Therefore , the pri - mary drainage area of Big Soos Creek , as determined by con- tour lines is just south of Lake Young in a north-south line , as another drainage pattern is established by Little Soos Creek which eventually does drain into Big Soos Creek . To the south of the present city boundary , in East Hill , the topography south of S . 277th Street is such that a sphere of interest boundary can be established in the vicinity of S .E . 284th Street . 2These costs are at least three fold : First is the physical problem caused by ignoring a drainage system . For instance , if we know an existing drainage system such as Mill Creek has , over the years , maintained a water flow within certain definable bounds and that vegetation and soils have maintained a certain stability in response to this hydrologic flow , it follows that urban development upstream which does not take into account this normal flow of water and causes an undue interference , primarily by moving a more concentrated flow of water in Mill Creek , is going to upset the balance of nature in this drainage system . This leads to the second factor which is financial . Soil erosion in Mill Creek Canyon , flooding in the valley and ponding of water upstream all cause a financial burden , both on citizens at large and on individuals who must take direct remedial action with a consequent personal capital outlay . The final factor is the social cost related to the destruction of Mill Creek Canyon and the consequent loss of the canyon as a usable park and the inconvenience caused dur- ing flooding of lower Mill Creek . -14 - / / \ cn Z L < W o G. a �c7 1j C✓� cc � // �/ 1— ?� 5x } o i' 1,�:.^ ib „.r•'C �ram'�'1�. �;,.�� f r �,zF:M:. Av rC 1 / v� � oro I I I � ✓ N C 1 v 7 r �- ` `t�F i d� r�rt •c",€ � 1.r, a1 tm CL e ro cn Al W O I � C N )))00), 1 N��' IM, 4N,7 �, Q�l 4)0 �f m 7 0 f _ d Population Patterns The 1970 U. S . Census data provides the most accurate source of population data . Unfortunately , the census tract - - boundaries do not coincide with either Kent city limits or the Kent Planning Area . Map VII indicates the census tracts in the vicinity of Kent and Table 2 contains 1970 population data for these census tracts . (The population of the incor- porated city by the 1970 census count was 16 ,275 . ) These census tracts include areas that are outside of the Kent sphere of interest , most specifically areas west of Inter- state S . The areas to the east of Kent (census tracts 293, 294 , 295 , 317 , 318) contained a population of 34 , 895 . Omit - ting tract 293 which is somewhat oriented to Renton , the population was 26 , 472 . Tracts 294 and 295 , the East Hill areas of Kent contained a population of 10 , 744 . The tracts east of 132nd Avenue S .E . (tracts 317 and 318) contained a population of 8 , 407 . These easterly tracts are almost twice as large in land area as tracts 294 and 295 , indicating that these areas are somewhat more sparsely developed . Table 3 shows population distribution by block group . Looking at the data for areas east of Kent , it is evident that much of the easterly region will remain sparsely devel - oped for some time . The population data, broken into block groups , indicates that there has been substantial leapfrog- ging of development . This leapfrogging makes it difficult to provide for contiguous annexations based on population densities . Population densities provide a practical guide- line for determining future boundaries as a certain popula- tion density and land use intensity is needed to support urban services . While leapfrogging creates some difficul- ties in applying this guideline it can be somewhat generally applied . Areas should have a population level which is capable of supporting urban services prior to annexation . It should be pointed out that Kent and King County -16- TABLE II POPULATION DATA BY CENSUS TRACT - 1970 Census Total Tract Population F 283 3 ,454 290 6 ,642 291 4 ,166 292 6 , 848 293 8 ,423 294 6 , 813 295 3 ,931 296 3 ,284 297 4 , 321 298 8 ,042 -� 317 5 , 829 318 2 ,578 SOURCE : U. S . Bureau of Census and Puget Sound Governmental Conference 'J J _17.. TABLE III POPULATION DATA BY BLOCK GROUPS Census Block Census Block Tract Group Population Tract Group Population 283 9 556 295 1 983 291 1 321 2 821 2 581 9 2 ,123 3 71S 296 1 S87 4 1 , 392 9 2 ,697 9 321 297 1 1 ,572 292 1 2 , 874 2 327 2 1 ,046 3 947 3 402 4 298 4 631 9 1 ,113 5 613 298 1 1 ,672 6 201 2 897 9 1 ,059 3 1 , 818 293 1 1 ,038 4 1 ,06S 2 1 ,690 5 2 ,141 3 1 , 375 9 443 9 2 ,947 317 1 767 294 1 1 ,049 9 1 ,012 2 2 ,611 318 9 4S7 3 1 , 744 9 1 ,409 SOURCE : U. S . Bureau of Census -18- cc m co �r rn N / Li rn 1 ,N� -- I- toCY) 1 Nr mi a o. N - ,a T co) - I N i t0 I --------- Co LO ITT, ,n,,,, � \' a M00 i T In cm r I V'J o N a N n e f I should do everything possible to discourage leapfrog patterns of development as such development increases costs of pro- viding all types of public services . While it is difficult to indicate a fixed line on a map , it appears that annexations should not be considered for areas east of Lake Meridian prior to 1990 . Circulation Patterns North-south traffic patterns generally consist of through traffic . This network serves the region and generally is not identified with Kent . The east-west traffic movement is con- sidered to be internal circulation and feeds into the valley floor and the downtown Kent area. The major arterials on the east include Kent Kangley Road , S .E . 256th , S .E . 240th and Petrovisky Road. The latter serves areas that chiefly are oriented to Renton. However , this arterial does traverse the northern industrial areas of Kent . The other three arterials all feed into downtown Kent . East of 156th Avenue S .E . these arterial networks are not as strong , thus 156th Avenue S .E . serves as one criteria for delimiting Kent ' s sphere of inter- est . 11 i } Recommended Policies for Future Annexations i It is recognized that Kent ' s sphere of interest goes be - yond the City 's present boundaries . However, it is not an 1 easy task to determine precisely how far this sphere of inter- } est extends . One of the major questions confronting Kent policy makers , in relation to the City ' s sphere of interest , is how much of the area surrounding Kent is it logical and practical for the City to annex and when should it be annexed. This question breaks down to these points : -20 - 1) Can Kent offer and maintain the necessary level of services such as fire , police , sewer , water and administrative support for the type of land use that is now present or may be present in the future? 2) If the City can provide services , how much further beyond the present City , especially to the east , can they be provided and in what period of time? _x 3) Can the City provide the additional cultural and physical amenities that will be needed by new popu- lation centers ? i 4) Will the City place itself in the position of over- looking needed services for areas presently within the City or provide a lower level of service within the present city boundaries by attempting to expand? If additional areas are to be annexed , guidelines must be provided for the policy makers . Also , it is necessary for agreement among other cities that they will respect Kent ' s sphere of interest concept to insure that policy makers can adapt to future changes which may greatly affect the sphere of interest boundaries . With an area of 16 square miles and a population of 16 ,000 plus , with over 60 per cent of the land in the City vacant , the City must give careful consideration to future annexations . Following are recommended policies for future annexations which if carried out would tend to cause vacant areas within the City to develop , rather than have the City annex additional vacant land. 1) Vacant land areas should not be annexed merely because a land developer cannot do the type of project he wishes in the county . -21- 2) Existing population centers such as Park Orchard should be annexed before consideration is given to adding vacant land to the City with the intention of zoning it commercial or industrial or residen- tial . 3) Residential areas adjacent to the City and being served by Kent water and/or sewer service should have a high priority for annexation. 4) Jagged boundaries and gaps should be filled in by annexations and should have a high priority . This is especially true where gaps are 50 per cent sur- rounded by the City . 5) Annexations should not be narrow strips which fol- low arterials without including larger areas that are contiguous to the existing Kent city boundary . 6) Individual parcels of land under 5 acres should be annexed only if they help round out the city bound- aries but not because of hardship that seemingly exists . 7) Extension of utility service should be coordinated with plans for annexation. Some areas in Kent are still not fully serviced by utilities and other pub- lic services and should have priority over areas outside of the city limits . Kent Sphere of Interest The various factors that were investigated in this report provide a general picture of the area that the Kent sphere of interest should encompass . As the goal of this study is to delimit future boundaries of the City of Kent and establish guidelines and a rough timetable for future annexations , this -22- general picture must be made more explicit . Map VIII , Kent Sphere of Interest , does this and illustrates the recommen- dations of the Planning Department as to the area of the Kent sphere of interest , with 1990 tentatively established as the date when these boundaries would be established. This rec- ommended sphere of interest is based on considerations dis - cussed in this study. However , subjective interpretations of these considerations cannot be avoided during the inter- pretation of data. Table IV contains recommendations as to areas to be annexed and the priority for annexation of these areas . These areas are also indicated on the Sphere of Interest Map . It is suggested that these guidelines are flexible but that they should be seriously considered by City policy makers as well as City staff when making decisions concern- ing future growth of the City . Such consideration would help to avoid haphazard and single purpose annexations and -� development policies . -23- TABLE IV RECOMMENDED TIMETABLE FOR ANNEXATIONS — Approximate Date Priority* Area 1972 1 West Hill - area completely surrounded by Kent 1972 2 East Hill - round out shopping and pro- fessional office area to S .E . 264th . This will enable part of the circula- tion element of the East Hill plan to be implemented. 1973-74 3 East Hill - area between James Street and Kent Kangley Road east to 116th Ave . S .E . 1973- 74 4 "North East Hill" north of James from present limits on the east to 104th Ave . S .E . north to S . 222nd St . 1973- 74 5 Northwest corner of Kent 1980 6 North of area #4 to S. 208th Street , east to 116th Ave . S .E . and south back to James Street . 1985 7 Area between James Street and Kent Kangley Road east from 116th Ave . S .E . to 132nd Ave . S .E . 1985 8 South of East Hill to S . 277th and east from the Green River to 116th Ave . S . E . 1985 9 Valley floor south to S . 277th and east to the Green River and west to Interstate S . 1990 10 Rest of areas within sphere of influence as indicated on Map VIII . * Areas are indicated on Sphere of Interest Map by priority number. 24- / Cl) IW— + Y o w r�r M Occ LLI I % i 00 No cx ;77 \ C \ ■ z ■ ,.OVA �.� as ■ ' _.J ,ssM ■ M N ■ �,�� r a, r y C „ n ■ C r _ ■ Q 0 L �� 1` A. ■ 1p W C N \ ■� \ n a ■ I .`u r � ~ oL ONE os c dl - •D 1 e y 4 m — 9 n f J KENT PLANNING COMMISSION James L . Rayfuse , Chairman - Richard Land , Vice-Chairman Noel Bicknell Willis Calhoun Vera Fredrickson Lou Koszarek Terry McKenna Dennis Neifert Paul Morford KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF James P. Harris , Director *Patricia Levine , Associate Planner Dwight Hartman , Assistant Planner Lin Davis , Secretary Robert Middleton Mike Smith Carolyn Longhofer *Project Planner for the Sphere of Interest Study - 26 - t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i