HomeMy WebLinkAbout873RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council
of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding a
plan conunonly called the "Valley Floor Plan",
an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS an amendment of the City of Kent's Comprehen-
sive Plan has been proposed as indicated on the attached
Appendix "A", and commonly referred to as the "Valley Floor
Plan", and
WHEREAS in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington, hearings were
held before the Planning Conunission of the City of Kent,
and
WHEREAS after the final hearing of the Planning Com-
mission on April 24, 1979, the proposed amended plan was
forwarded to the City Council with the recommendation that
the amendment be adopted, and
WHEREAS the City Council held public hearings on the
proposed amendment on June 4 and June 17, 1979 and following
said hearings concurred with the reconunendation of the Plan-
ning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DO
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. That the amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Kent, attached hereto as Appendix "A",
and conunonly called the "Valley Floor Plan", be and hereby
is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth
herein, and the same hereby is adopted.
Section 2. That the Comprehensive Plan amendment be
filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning
Department and be made available for public inspection upon
request.
PASSED at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council
this 2nd day of July, 1979.
ATTEST:
ALD E. MIRK, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Resolution
No. o7 .. 3 ' passed by the City Council of the City of Kent I
Washington, the 2nd day of July, 1979.
- 2 -
;E. m
t/)
:r -· :::J co ,....
0 ::s
I
> z
li
MAYOR
Isabel Hogan
CITY ADHI.l:\liSTRATOR
~.i::-har~~ r--1st
KENT CIT'r' COUNCIL
William Carey
Gary B. Just
Jeanne Masters
Billie Johnson
Jon Johnson
Len McCaughan
CITY OF KENTJ WASHINGTON
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION
Irv Hamilton
Donald Baer
Barbara Dell
(:;loria BYOW~';
Darrell E. Phillipson
Michael J. Powers
Tom Sharp
Harry Williams
ON APRIL 24, 1979, THE KENT PLANNING COMMISSION RECO~lliNDED
TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN
I. FoRE~~oRD •
II. INTRODUCTION
I I I. HISTORY OF KENT
IV. GoALS AND PoLICIEs
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING
APPENDICES
I I
II.
I I I.
IV I
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
OPEN SPACE,
NATURAL RESOURCES
WATERWAYS
URBAN DESIGN QUALITY.
IMPLEMENTATION
POPULATION
STATUS OF EXISTING PLANS
DEFINITIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE Lf
PAGE 6
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
I. FOREwORD
IN 1Y77~ THE CITY CoUNCIL ADOPTED THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AS THE GUIDE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ITS PLAN-
NING AREA, UNE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN WAS TO FORM
THE OUTLINE FOR PREPARATION OF COMMUNITY PLANS FOR THE EAST 1
WEST 1 AND VALLEY AREAS THAT DEALT MORE SPECIFICALLY WITH THE
PERCEPTION OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS HELD BY THE PARTICULAR
AREA'S CITIZENRY,
THE FOLLOWING DRAFT OF THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN IS A FIRST
STEP REALIZATION OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES LAID
OUT BY THE 1977 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, lN EVERY RESPECT~ THE
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MUST RESEMBLE THE ALL EMCOMPASSING 1Y77
CoMPREHENSIVE PLAN1 FOR BOTH SHARE A COMMON BOND: THE COOR-
DINATED AND MANAGED USE OF THE VAST RESOURCES PARTICULAR
TO THE KENT AREA,
THE VALLEY FLOOR IS LIKE AN OFFSPRING} IT EMBODIES TRAITS OF
ITS PARENTS} YET 1 IT EXHIBITS A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER
AND PURPOSE IN LIFE, THUS~ THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN SHOULD BE
THOUGHT OF AS A PLAN ESPECIALLY RELEVANT TO SOLVING THE
PARTICULAR PROBLEMS FACING THE VALLEY FLOOR AREA AND ITS
CITIZENS,
-1-
THROUGH THE DEVELOPME~T OF GOALS1 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES}
THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN HAS BiCUME A B~FINEMENT OF Trl~ UN-
GOING 1977 COMPR EHE,~S I VE PLANNING PROCESS,
KENT HAS RETAINED A STRONG IDENTITY IN THE PAST 1 AND LOCAL
CITY GOVERNMENT HAS SERVED ITS RESIDE,~TS V'IELL, HoPEFULLY BY
ADDRESSING THE FUTURE THOUGHTFULLY A~D PURPOSELY 1 WE CArl
OVERCOME THE PHYSICAL 1 CULTURAL AND GOV~RNMENTAL SPRAWL
WHICH TREATENS To ABSORB us, v~E CA1~~ IF wt. cHoosE~ DIRECT
AND CONTROL OUR GROWTH, THIS SPECIAL PLAN AND ITS POLICI~S
ARE PRESENTED TO THE CITY AS ONE MEANS OF SO ADDRESSING
OUR FUTURE,
II.
PURPOSE
A Comprehensive Plan has been defined as "The official state-
ment of a municipal legislative body which sets fo:cth its ma-
jor policies concerning future development". As such, the
Plan document should provide the City, specifically the legis-
lative body or City Council, with comprehensive, general and
long range policies: "comprehensive" means that the Plan
covers a~l geographical areas and functional aspects of the
City which affect future development; "general" means that
the Plan itself is not legislation or specific regulations
but rather an official guide and summary of desired pro-
posals; and "long range" means the Plan addresses itself
to a future state in time and the process of arriving at
~~at future state. For the City of Kent, which is an op-
tional Municipal Code City, Washington State Enabling Leg-
islation states: "Every code city, by ordinance, shall
direct the Planning agency to prepare a Comprehensive Plan
for anticipating and influencing the orderly and coordinated
development of land and building uses of the code city and
its environs". (Optional Municipal Code-RCW 35 A.63.060)
SCOPE
This Plan, known as the Valley Floor Plan, addresses itself
to the geographical area known as the upper and lower Green
River valley floor, and especially to those areas within the
corporate limits of the City of Kent. The Plan does not set
time limits to its application or any termination date.
Because the Plan is a "policy" plan, it is more flexible in
interpretation, but will require periodic updating if it is
to reflect the changes in the valley floor.
-2-
I 1~TROD UCT I ON
WHY THE VALLEY FLOOR PI~~?
The city-wide Kent Comprehensive Plan was originally adoptee
by the Kent City Council in January, 1977, and revised in Jul_
1978. Why then, with so recent a plan, are we again in the
process of developing another plan. The primary reason is
that the 1977 plan, even with its broad application, does not
give the City 3pecific direction for dealing with tne future
the valley floor area. The Valley Floor Plan is specific,
dealing with a prescribed geographical area. The overall goa,
and policies of the parent plan form the framework witnin wnl
the Valley Floor Plan is developed.
The Valley Floor Plan deals with policies on eight subjects:
Economic Development, Housing, Circulation, Public Utilities,
Open. Space, Natural Resources, 1/Jaterways, and Urban Design
Quallty.
The Valley Floor Plan is a "policy" plan. A "policy" plan
refers to a plan which is based upon written goal, objective,
and policy statements which represent a synthesis of the idea
and desires of the community, rather than on a "map" whicn
identifies the geographical patterns and interrelationships o
the Plan elements -Land Use, Circulation, Community Facilitie
etc. By utilizing the policy statement approach, tne City
Council can adopt concise, clear statements which can be used
as a guide for a multitude of future decisions. As stated
earlier, this plan's policy statements were written to be
consistent with those statements found in the City-wide 1977
Comprehensive Plan. The valley floor planning process pur-
posefully follows the 1977 planning process, to insure con-
sistency and specificity between both plan documents.
HOW THE PLAN SHOULD BE USED
This plan wil1 be utilized by many people and in many ways: in
day-to-day policy decisions; in short and long range develop-
ment decisions; as a statement of public policy; for educa-
tional purposes; as an advisory document; as an evaluative
device; and as an aid to legislative action.
The Kent City Council is the principal client of the Plan.
It is this legislative body which makes the ultimate poli-
cies and decisions regarding public improvements, regula-
tion of private development, involvement of the City govern-
ment in various programs, etc. The Valley Floor Plan is a
policy instrument of the City Council. If the Council does
not agree with or understand the Plan, the Plan will not be
used.
The Kent Planning Commission will also use the Plan exten-
sively to convey its advice to the Council through recom-
mendations regarding the Plan itself or implementation
strategies (e.g., zoning and subdivision decisions). Also,
the Commission will use the Comprehensive Plan as an educa-
tional tool, especially when working with citizen groups.
The City Staff will administer many of the programs designed
to implement the Plan (e.g., the Zoning Code, the City Sur-
face Water Management Program, etc.). Also, it will use
the Valley Floor Plan as a guide for its general work program
and its day-to-day administration of City regulations.
The Citizens of Kent will recognize the Valley Floor Plan
as a formal statement of the developmental policies adopted
by the City Council. For many citizens, the Plan can be
used as an educational tool.
AMENDMENTS
The Plan should be reviewed at least every two years by
-3-
the City Council and Planning Commission, •·.ri th input from
the general public.
Hmv THE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED
In January, 1977, the City Council adopted the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Kent. Approximately, ten
months later, in November of the same year, the Valley Floor
Plan Committee met for tneir first of fifteen meetings held
to develop goals, objectives and policies for tne valley
floor. Though attendance varied throughout the citizen
participation process, extensive discussions on such issues
as flood control, land use and open space preservation
ensued which helped form the basis for staff development of
policy statements reflecting these concerns. Since the City-
wide Comprehensive Plan covered most areas of concern, only
one committee was formed to focus on the valley floor.
The Planning staff presented its conclusions and recommenda-
tions to the Planning Commission on October 10, 197d. Eight
workshops were held on the proposed policy statements for
the Valley Floor Plan by the Planning Commission prior to
beginning its public hearings on February 27, 1979.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Today, Kent is an industrial community composed of approxi-
mately 21,500 persons. Within the valley floor there is a
broad range of industrial, commercial, and residential
developments. Since the City-wide Comprehensive Plan was
adopted in January, 1977, there has been record-breaking
building activity on the valley floor. Much of the develop-
ment has made it difficult to maintain a balance between
the desires of the developers and the needs of Kent's
citizens.
III. HISTORY OF THE VALLEY FLOOR
The geographical area known as "Kent" has undergone consider-
able change since the time the Green River Valley and its
East and West Hills were formed. Before there was a "Kent",
there was a valley enclosed with hillsides covered with
dense underbrush and forested with conifers, maple, ash,
alder, and cottonwoods. Wild game and waterfowl were
abundant, as were fish in the Green River and many streams.
The river flooded annually, covering la~ge sections of the
valley floor. The first inhabitants o£ the area, the Indian
peoples, were nomadic and their culture was tied closely to
the natural environment; Indian bands were unified around
the geographical concept of the regional drainage system.
As the settlers came, around 1853, to the Green River, then
known as the White River, the Indian peoples were relocated
to the Muckleshoot Reservation and much of the Indian way of
life disappeared. Early settlers cleared the land with the
help of Indian labor and established small subsistence farms.
Early travel was by means of canoe on the Green River or
by foot on Indian trails. In the early 1860's, flat-
bottom scows were run up the river from Seattle. In
1871, Captain Simon Randolph ran the first steamboat up
the Green River.
The settlements of Thomas, Christopher, O'Brien, Orillia,
Kent, and Slaughter (Auburn) were formed and were collec-
tively known as "White River".
The Town of Kent was incorporated in 1890. The location of
the Northern Pacific Railroad depot in Kent had established
Kent as the business location for much of the valley and
the City began a modest growth as a commercial center for
the surrounding agricultural lands.
-4-
By 1917 there was a definite shift in the farming sector
toward the intensive growing of vegetables. Tnis shift was
due in part to the immigration of EuroJ?ean and Japanese
farmers into the area. The first great truck farm crop was
lettuce. As lettuce declined, otner vegetaoles sucn as peas,
beans, broccoli, and cabbage became commercially prominent.
Canneries located in Kent and became major employers.
At the end of World War II, the Kent Valley was still
basically rural and agricultural. Tne J?opulation was still
concentrated in Kent and the City, itself, still enco~passed
little ~ore than one square mile. The City of Kent 1950 populatlon was 3,278.
Flood Control was still a concern in tne Valley as tne Green
River continued to flood annually and surface J?Onding of
water was common during the wet season. A serious flooo in
1946 again caused major property damage and tnis led to ~
flood control study conducted by the u.s. Army Corps of
Engineers. As a result of this study, Congress autnorized
the construction of the Howard Hanson Dam in 1955.
The decision to construct the dam was based, partially, on
the potential benefits to industry, as well as uenefits to
agriculture. Some industry had always been desired by Kent
area residents; by the late 1950's a distinct effort was
being made to attract industrial develoJ?ment. From 1950-54
both the number of commercial farms and the amount of land in
farms decreased for King County as a wnole, and this trend
had an impact on the Kent area. At this same time, planning
for significant improvements to the regional transportation
system, specifically Interstates 5 and 405, and SR-167
(the Valley Freeway) was underway. These flood control and
freeway planning projects contributed significantly to the
major changes which were soon to occur in the Valley.
In anticipation of future urban or industrial development of
the valley floor, large speculative land purchases began.
In 1957, several small parcels totalling 425 acres were
purchased for what was to become the Southcenter Shopping
Center and Andover Industrial Park ten years later. Most
of the farmland still lay within the unincorporated areas
of the County, however, and the County's agricultural
zoning policies and its inability to provide urban services
posed a problem to those who wished to develop their lands.
The cities, anxious to increase their limited tax base,
agreed to annexations and grew rapidly. The City of Kent
grew from one square mile in 1953 to 12.7 square miles in
1960.
The Howard Hanson Dam was completed in December, 1961, and
the past overbank flooding of the Green River was sub-
stantially restricted. The Valley lands were attractive
to industrial developers due to the flat terrain, the avail-
ability of major rail lines and transportation routes,
and the proximity of Seattle, Tacoma, and Sea-Tac Inter-
national Airport. Urban development occurred first in ~1e
northern end of the Valley, around Tukwila. In 1965/66,
this urban development jumped south when the Boeing Company
decided to construct two major facilities in the Valley
lands of Kent and Auburn. The Kent Aerospace Center was
situated in the middle of Kent's agricultural land, isolated
from the existing pattern of urban development. As indivi-
dual industrial sites and larger industrial parks became
available, other industrial uses began to locate in the
Valley.
Tradewell Stores, Inc., came in 1965, Cam Industries, and
Northwest Steel Rolling Mills in 1966, Western Electric in
1967, and Tally Corporation in 1968. To provide the utility
service needed by these firms, the City designed large water
and sewer projects which were financed through Local
-s-
Improvement District. These L.I.D.'s resulted in high
assessments to farm land and a higher charge for water; tne
higher cost of water directly affected tne agriculturally-
oriented industries such as the canneries. By tne late
1960's these agricultural industries were leaving Kent.
Interstate 5 was completed in 1966, Interstate 405 was
completed in 1967, and the Valley Freeway (SK-167) to Kent
was opened in 1969. This regional transportation network
provided more incentive to industrial development of the
lowland.
By 1970, the major land-use changes and growth of tne Kent
area were obvious. As new industries located in the Valley,
the small truck farms vanished. This transition was not
instantaneous, however, and in 1971, over one-tnird of the
Valley lands were unused or "in waste". This is the situa-
tion we see today -land being held for future industrial
or commercial development, but no longer farmed. Recent
residential growth has been oriented to the hills, and
residential development of tne valley floor has been limited.
Old residential farming communities such as Orillia and
O'Bri~n have virtually disappeared and the only remaining
old residential areas are those adjacent to the Kent CBD.
\
\
\
i
I
I) ;
. I
~ -.,~-... ........ -\ . I I . . I I .
I .I -..... _.1.
SJOBJJ.-a~eas ua<lo
hJ)SOpuJ
6Uitf9MQ hf!WBj·9f0UtS
!!UIIJaMQ AJ!WBj·JIIO~
9~1110
9:)J9WWO:)
poa691
3Sn ON\f1 03S0d0l:ld
r':··--~ . , . -. .,
1
1'HOO'It!I .X.fii'I'IVA:,
NOHlNIHS\IM .,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GRO\'lTH \'liTH ORDERLY
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
Objective 3: Encourage guidelines to improve welfare of
employees within proposed developments.
GOAL 1: Promote fill-in development of industrially developed
area.
Policy 1: Development plans for proposed uses should
include passive and active recreational
elements for employees.
Objective 1: Minimize unnecessary public improvements and
provide efficient municipal services.
Policy 2: Land uses should be compativle with existing
and proposed hike and bike trail system.
Policv 1: Locate industrial land uses contiguous to the
West and East Valley Highways to minimize
sprawl.
Policy 3: Encourage private development of limited
recreation parks within industrial areas.
Policy 2: Industrial development of MA designated land
should be phased to coincide with service
growth.
Policy 4: Promote industrial developments with open
spaces and sidewalks.
Policy 3: Propose a Growth Management Co~~ittee to
study a phased development plan.
Policy 5: Encourage development of employee support
facilities within proposed developments.
GOAL 2: Assure suitable locations for commercial developments.
Policy 4: Develop a Capital Improvement Program. Objective 1:
Policy 5: Coordinate 201 Waste Water Facilities and 208 .
Water Quality Planning with capital improvement Polley 1:
plans.
Objective 2: Minimize adverse environmental impacts from Policy 2:
development.
Policy 1: Encourage support of the Green River Basin .
Management Study. Polley 3:
Policy 2: Encourage preservation of wetlands with signi-.
ficant wildlife habitats and/or unique environ-Polley 4:
mental characteristics.
Policy 3: Develop and promote an open space land acquisition
program for the Green River.
-6-
Policy 5:
Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip
commercial development.
Encourage planned retail commercial business
developments.
Encourage rehabilitation of existing shopping
centers to reduce visual blight, eliminate
haphazard parking.
Strip commercial districts should incorporate
sidewalks when located near residential areas.
Maintain an effective sign ordinance.
Promote recreational buffer zones between
residential and business districts.
GOAL 3: Encourage the retention of agriculture in the Valley area.
Objective 1: Participate in King County and state agricul-
tural preservation programs.
Objective 2: Identify lands having significance as uses for
agriculture, open space, recreation and setback
levees.
GOAL 4: Assure adequate and suitable residential developments.
Objective 1: Provide for planned residential development
between industrial areas and the Green River.
Policy 1: Encourage low density residential uses along
the Green River.
Policy 2: Preserve open spaces and public access when
permitting any development along the Green
River.
Policy 3: Permit higher densities when developer provides
open space or other amenities.
Policy 4: Prohibit development on setback levee areas.
Policy 5: Discourage resirlential development on
agricultural, r~creational and potential
setback levee areas.
Policy 6: Prepare and execute interlocal agreements
to establish scenic routes.
-7-
HOUSING
OVERALL GOAL:
Increase the residential population on the Valley Floor, assuring
a decent home and suitable living environment
GOAL I: Preserve and expand existing residential neighborhoods
located close to necessary public facilities and services.
OBJECTIVE 1: Encourage the rehabilitation of existing
resldentlal neighborhoods.
POLICY 1: Encourage neighborhood rehabilitation
through the Housing and Community Development
Program.
POLICY 2: Ensure that the needed cor.munity servic~s
are easily accessible to neighborhood residents.
GOAL 2: Guide new residential development into suitable areas on
the Valley Floor.
OBJECTIVE 1: Encourage diverse residential developments
into areas adjacent to commercial and retail districts.
POLICY 1: Develop a capital improvement program for
public streets, utilities and facilities on the Valley
Floor.
POLICY 2: Permit and encourage multi-family
resldential development where necessary services are
available.
POLICY 3: Encourage construction and rehabilitation
of housing units offering a diversity of size, densities,
age, and style.
POLICY 4: Emphasize planned unit developments where
densities and dwelling types are mixed.
POLICY 5: Provide for assisted housing (e.g., for the
elderly, low income, etc.).
-8-
GOAL 3: Assure environmental quality in residential
areas.
OBJECTIVE 1: Preserve and maintain as much of
the Natural Environment as possible.
POLICY 1: Prohibit residential development
in areas unsuitable for development (e.g.,
steep slopes, swamps, etc.)
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF
TRAVEL.
GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe, efficient and scenic
routes for vehicular traffic within the Valley
areas of Kent.
Objective 1: Provide adequate traffic ways for both
local and through traffic, separating
the systews when necessary.
Policv 1: Discourage through traffic routes 1n
residential areas.
Policv 2: Establish an advisory truck route.
Policy 3: Encourage construction of proposed streets
between the West and East Valley Highway
to further centralize industrial land uses.
Objective 2: Maintain scenic routes along both sides of
the Green River.
Policy 1: Designate Frager Road and Russell Road as
scenic routes.
Policy 2: Encourage designation and/or dedication of
lands along the Green River as a green belt
and passive recreation corridor.
Policy 3: Discourage through -route truck traffic
on Frager and Russell Roads.
GOAL 2: Insure safe and efficient terminal facilities for
both truck and other vehicular traffic.
-
Objective 1: Provide safe egress and ingress and adequate
on-site traffic manuverability.
Policy 1: Provide adequate truck loading and unloading
zones.
GOAL 3: Assure safe and convenient pedestrian movement within
the Valley floor of Kent.
-9-
Objective 1: Complete improvements on the interurban
trail system.
Policy 1: Actively s~ek resources ~nd funds to
improve th~ interurban trail system.
Policy 2: Interconnect the interurban trail system
with bike trails.
Policy 3: Designate anc improve shoulders of
selected Valley floor streets as jog
or bike trails where feasible.
Policy 4: Provide for adequate sidewalks within
the Valley area.
GOAL 4: Provide for public transportation systems.
Objective 1: Encourage the establishment of an efficient
local feeder mass transporation system,
both public and private.
Policy 1: Encourage bus routes to interconnect with
industrial, residential, commercial,
recreational and educational areas.
Policy 2: Encourage the private sector, industrial
firms and commercial establishments to
become involved in providing transportation
to and from work.
Policy 3: Encourage active public transportation
information programs.
Objective 2: Minimize conflicts between rail transpor-
tation and other modes of transportation
and land use.
Policy 1: Encourage installations of crossing gates
at all railroad crossings.
Policy 2: Utilize multiple sources of funding to
insure installation of crossing gates at
all railroad crossings.
-10-
CITY
OF
KENT
WASHINGTON
CIRCULATION·
EXISTING
FREEWAY M
EXPRESS-
WAY
ARTERIAL:
PRIMARY -
~~J5~6~~y ,., .• *11
COLLECTOR-
SCENIC DRIVE 11111111'
RAILROAD ""'"'~
PROPOSED
••••
•••• --
I
i ·-=·-J.-,
• • •
I
( .
I
!
I
!
•
• • • 0 • • • • • • • • • .. • .. • • • • • • • • • • •
S 2 77 TH
• • • • • •
• • : .
• ~ • • ...
• u • .. • .. ·~· ..
• • z • 0 • • %
;)
• • • •••• • 0 . ..
" .... . ... .· .. • :I . .. • :~
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
r
I
'· I I
I
oL---~~~~~~1
c
0 •
PUBLIC UTILITIES
OVERALL GOAL: PROVIDE A PLANNED AND COORDINATED UTILITY SYSTEM FOR
THE VALLEY AREA.
GOAL 1: Assure an ample supply of high quality water.
Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive water plan encompassing
both facilities and service.
GOAL 2:
Policy 1: Develop water systems based on phased develop-
ment decisions.
Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficient sanitary
sewer system.
Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive sanitary sewer plan
encompassing both facilities and services.
Policy 1: Develop the sanitary sewer plan based on phased
development decisions.
Objective 2: Work with Metro, King County and local sewer
· districts to insure adequate and efficient sewer
service.
GOAL 3: Provide for a planned, coordinated and efficient storm
drainage and retention system which uses the natural
drainage system.
Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive storm drainage plan
encompassing both facilities and services based
on phased development decisions.
GOAL 4:
Policy 1: Develop specific programs to minimize increased
storm water runoff.
Provide an efficient means of refuse collection and disposal.
Objective 1: Work with State, County and surrounding cities
to develop a regional solid-waste disposal system.
Objective 2: Encourage development of alternative methods of
waste disposal.
-11-
GOAL 5: Assure a balanced, continuous and adequate
power supply.
Objective 1: Encourage studies of comprehensive
power needs and resources.
OPEN SPACE
OVERALL GOAL: INSURE THE PRESERVi\TION OF VALLEY LANDS FOR A
VARIETY OF OPEN SPACE USES WITHIN THE CITY OF
KENT SPHERE OF INTEREST.
GOAL 1: Establish a comprehensive strategy to protect and
prGserve the Green River and environs.
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
Policy 4:
Consider development of outdoor recreation
facilities along the Green River.
Determine the fiscal impacts of a bond issue
to acquire open space along the Green River.
Work with Federal, State, local and special
governments on finding solutions to preserving
open space along the Green River.
Conduct a vigorous campaign to acquire funds
for open space along the Green River.
Policy 5: Encourage owners to deed to the City land along
the Green River when those areas are proposed
for cevelopment.
GOAL 2: Reserve, conserve and preserve open spaces.
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
Encourage interlocal cooperation to preserve
open spaces west and east of the Green River.
Encourage participation in interjurisdictional
flood control plans and programs.
Seek alternative solutions to alleviate flooding
problems on the Valley floor.
-12-
NATURAL R!:'SOURCES
OVERALL GOAL: PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES
OF THE VALLEY FLOOR.
GOAL 1: Ensure the preservation of ecosystems.
Objective 1: Preserve and protect vital habitat for
species common to the Valley floor.
GOAL 2:
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
Encourage property owners to deed, to the
City, land for open space and water retention.
Encourage use of mineral and soil resources
in ha.rrrony with the existing ecosystems.
Insure the preservation and improvement of existing
atmospheric conditions.
Objective 1: Control Valley floor sources of pollution,
both point and non-point.
Policy 1: Seek local compliance with Federal
Air-Quality standards.
WATEI~WAYS
OVERALL GOAL: PROVIDE FOR PRESERVATION OF THE VALLEY FLOOR'S WATEm'iAYS.
GOAL 1: Provide optimal usage of the Green River, creeks and other
Valley Floor waterways for fish, wildlife habitat, general
recreation and aesthetic enjoyment.
Objective 1: Restore, preserve and enhance water quality and
biotic habitats.
Policy 1: Sign interlocal agreements with other agencies
and jurisdictions on water quality.
Policy 2: Restrict use of pesticides and other pollutants
in land cultivation activities.
Policy 3: Retain vitally needed natural buffer strips
along the Green River.
Objective 2: Develop a Land Acquisition Program to preserve
open space along the Green River.
GOAL 2:
Policy 1: Acquire easements along the Green River for
hikers and non-motorized vehicles.
Policy 2: Discourage non-recreational development of water-
ways and natural wetlands.
Preserve natural water resources.
Objective 1: Natural water resources should be conserved by a
Surface Water Management Proqram.
Policy 1: Encourage enlargement as necessary of creeks and
tributaries to support aquatic life and associated
ecosystems.
Policy 2: Encourage use of Kent sewage lagoon for water
retention and n3tural wildlife.
-13-
URBAN DESIGN QUALITY
OVERALL GOAL: Promote the potential general design
qualities of natural, cultural and historical resources.
GOAL 1: Promote use of an Urban Design Strategy to
.improve the visual and aesthetic environments
in the Valley area of Kent.
Objective l:
Policy l:
Polic~
Objective 2:
Policy l:
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
Policy 4:
Develop urban design guidelines to enhance
public improvements.
Establish urban design criteria for
capital improvement facilities.
Revise existing ordinances to include
urban design considerations e.g., aes-
thetic street designs in residential,
commercial and industrial subdivisions.
Promote a strategy for tree planting and
landscaping to establish continuity and
character of natural and man-made objects.
Encourage the formation of a Green River
Corridor Citizen Advisory Committee.
Designate streets for scenic, hike and
bike route designation through official
City action.
Develop a street tree program for areas
having unique street patterns.
Develop a graphic sign program to display
a singular urban design scheme.
-14-
Policy 5: Develop special design features for all
roads in the Green River Corridor planAing
area.
Objective 3: Encourage use of design guidelines to ~otec~
and preserve architectural and historical
resources.
Policy l:
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
Policy 4:
Objective 4:
Policy 1:
Policy 2:
Policy 3:
Develop an Historic Resource Inventory Study.
Review and recommend an ordinance to create
a special design district for downtown Kent.
Establish a register of architectural and
historical resources of local significance.
Support expansion of functions of the Town
Historian.
Encourage citizen awareness of urban design.
Develop an Urban Design Inventory Study for
the City of Kent.
Develop public information pamphlets
explaining basic urban design concepts and
principles.
Promote public workshops on the design
qualities of Kent.
...... ....... ........
< .......
t:l en -o ...... J:> rn -i 0 3: -o
11 )> -o -o -o ....... -i c r rn ::z c r rn z en )> 3: t=:l
-i -i rn ......... ....... 0 z \)
0 11 0 -i rn z :z: )> (/)
en rn -i
X ,_. c en :z:
-l
:z.
(i)
-o
r
)>
2:: en
I I I MPLEME.NTAI I ON
The Valley Floor Plan cannot be an instrument of change
and improvement without an effective implementation
strategy ..
An effective strategy would involve scheduling of events/
activities necessary to complete the improvements cited
in the valley Floor Plan. Examples of these activites
within the strategy would include: Capital Improvement
Program development, proposed rezones to conform to the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and code and ordinance
modifications to comply with a phased growth development
directive.
Following is a list of those activities which should be
conducted to insure effective management of urban develop-
ment on the valley floor.
1. Annual Review
If the City retains a zoning examiner system, the
Planning Commission will have sufficient time to
conduct an annual review of the Plan to determine
what problems are evident with it. The Planning
Commission may develop a report and submit it to the
City Council explaining its findings and outlining
any changes that the Planning Commission feels are
needed.
2. Growth Management/Capital Improvement Program
To insure overall implementation of the Plan, the
City administration should begin development of a
Growth Management Program. An integral part of the
program would have to be a Capital Improvement Plan
that would look at the City's short and long ranqe
capital needs and allocate the necessary resources
to reach approved growth management'goals. Such a
plan is necessary to unravel all of the exist-
A-1
ing Capital Programs. No community has enough mone~
for all the things it would like to do. Tnus, it is
imperative that an orderly process be formulated b14t
will enable the City Council to expend its resources
in those areas where the need is the greatest. The
plan is not only a fiscal planning tool out a mana9e-
ment-oriented apparatus for the City Council, Planning
Commission, and Zoning Examiner to utilize in imple-
menting the policies of the Valley Floor Plan.
3. Area Plans
The proposed Plan was drafted to reflect tne specific
intent of the City-wide 1977 Comprehensive Plan as
it related to the future of the valley floor. Devel-
opment of the Plan is an actual implementation of the
1977 Comprehensive Plan. Other plans scheduled for
work in the future are as follows:
1. West Hill Plan 1979-80
2. Upper East Hill Plan 1980-81
3. East Hill Plan (Revision) 1980-81
4. CBD Plan (Revision) 1980-81
5. Urban Design Strategy Report 1979-80
4. Urban Design
As development continues it becomes important for the
Community to retain aesthetic characteristics particular
to the Valley floor and appealing to its residents.
Included in this Plan are policies on Urban Design which
suggest to users, various means of protecting and enhan-
cing the aesthetic character of the City. For exam2le,
these design policies can be used to guide oeautification
improvements for tne Green River, Central Business Dis-
trict, neighborhoods, industrial areas and the highways
and streets within the valley floor. Because this plan
encompasses an area considered by many as a most aesthet-
ically pleasing and natural area of the City, strong
measures should be devised by the City Council and
staff to preserve and enhance these elements for the
benefit of its citizens.
5. The Comprehensive Plan as a Guide
The policies of the Plan should be used as a guide
by all the City Boards, Commissions, and the City
Council when they are considering official actions
that relate to the Plan.
When the City is embarking on a program, such as a
Capital Improvement Program, pertinent policies from
the Valley Floor Plan as well as the overall Compre-
hensive Plan should be used to guide the overall
program framework. More specific details can be
worked out as the need arises, but the main thrust
of the Capital Improvement Program should be based
on the policies of the Plan.
I I I POPULAI ION
The Kent Planning Area in 1970 contained a population of
64,331; the 1980 and 1990 projections based on present
trends for this same area indicate 80,671 and 114,903
persons respectively.l These figures represent popula-
tion totals derived by regional population analysis con-
ducted by the Puget Sound Council of Governments.
In 1978, the City of Kent had a population of 19,400 per-
sons within an incorporated seventeen square mile area.
Its population can be disaggregated to show the three
areas within the City that represent its major population
1 Regional Development Plan (RDP) : 1980 -1990 RDP Popu-
lation Forecast; Projections updated in 1978 for the AAM
(Activity Allocation Model) PSCOG.
A-2
concentrations. These areas are known as the West Hill,
East Hill Plateau and the Valley Floor:
West Hill
East Hill
Valley Floor
TOTAL
6,700
7,200
5,500
19,400
Recent increased residential construction activity on the
Valley Floor is expected to continue within the next few
years. The 1977-78 building boom will continue into most
of the 1979 year with a possible slowing down by the third
quarter of 1979. Within the next five years, significant
contributions to the Kent population are expected to come
from continued residential growth on the Valley Floor. For
instance, a planned (mixed) residential community situated
around a man-made lake is proposed for a 250 acre area
situated on the Valley Floor near existing recreational
and commercial uses. It is anticipated, this development
may add approximately 7,500 persons, over a seven to ten
year period,to the Valley population. Although the develop-
ment will be phased over this period, the cumulative impact
on public services will be substantial.
This proposal and others could very well add a total of
10,000 persons to the Kent Valley by 1988.
Table I shows population figures for the Kent Planning Area
as forecast in the 1978 update of the Regional Development
Plan (RDP) prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments
(PSCOG). [Note: U.S. Census Tracts typically coincide with
the Activity Allocation Forecast Model (AAM) as developed by
PSCOGJ. Generally, these population projections based on
present trends demonstrate modest growth through 1980 with
a forecast of 80,671 people; this 30% population increase
from 1970 to 1980 and the population growth projected for
the Planning Area between 1980 and 1990 are plausible, parti-
cularly for the East Hill Plateau. Much of this wooded,
gently rolling area is at the present sparsely developed
for mixed residential uses. With the pending construction
of adequate roads to this plateau, the 1990 population
forecast would become more credible.
Since 1976, the City of Kent has experienced an average
population growth rate of 4.3% annually. Prior to 1976,
the City experienced the largest population growth through
annexation of residentially developed lands on the hill-
sides. Population projections for the City may be devel-
oped by simply determining the amount of land available
for single family units and apartment units and multi-
plying the average number of persons per type of unit,
The following figures are used to project maximum
population growth for the Valley Floor.
SINGLE FAMILY/APARTMENT
Average number of persons per unit 3.1 1.9
A-3
TABLE I POPULATION FORECAST FOR THE
KENT PLANNING AREA (INCLUDING VALLEY FLOOR) -1978*
PLANNING AREA
AAM (District) Census Tracts
**3050 298
3150 296
**3400 297
3410 295
3420 317
3430 318
3440 294
**3450 292
3460 293
3500 290
**3510 291
**3540 283
TOTAL
1970
8,042
3,284
4,321
3,931
5,829
2,578
6,813
6,848
8,423
6,642
4,166
3,454
64,331
1980
9,209
4,509
4,787
5,523
8,178
3,804
9,044
8,960
9 ,9 72
8,641
4,673
3,321
80,621
1990
10,854
8,263
6,919
7,573
12,509
7,556
12,061
13,132
15,411
10,270
5,872
4,483
114,903
*Puget Sound Council of Government -1978 Population Forecast
update of (RDP) Regional Development Plan.
**Encompasses all of the Valley Floor Area.
Thus, the present availability of land on the Valley
Floo1· for either of these uses is as follows:
Units/ Units X
Acreage Per Acre Persons
Single Family 149 acres 5 745 X 3.1 =
Pop.
Total
2,310
Multiple (Apts.) 518 acres 16 8,288 X 1.9 = 15,747
TOTALS 667 acres 18,057
1978 Population 5,500
Maximum Population 23,557
Under the present land availability figures, the Valley
Floor has a maximum population capacity of approximately
23,557 persons.
I I I. ZONING AND VACANCY FIGURES FOR VALLEY FLOOR
Table II represents the amount of land zoned and used by
zoning classification for land consumption purposes. No
specific land uses are identified for any of the classi-
fications. For example, the zone classification of
General Industrial may contain residential and commercial
as well as industrial uses.
A-4
TABLE II ZONING/VACru~CY OF LAND ON VALLEY FLOOR
(MA.).
(M-1)
ZONE
Manufacturing Agriculture
Industrial Park
(H-2) Limited Industrial
(M-3) General Industrial
(CM) Commercial Manufacturing
(GC)
(HC)
General Commercial
Highway Commercial
Gross
1,018
1,414
1,784
620
292
188
104
ACREAGE
Used
93
552
721
304
169
115
Vacalllt
9:25
862
1,003
316
123
(NCC) Neighborhood Community Commercial 0
(CC) Community Commercial 47
64
0
23
83
0
442
154
60
73
40
0
24
10
0
(DC)
( 9)
(RA)
Downtown Commercial
Office
Residential Agriculture
(R-1) Single Family Residential
(MHP)
(MRH)
(MRG)
(MRM)
Mobile Home Park
High Density Multi-Family
43 units/acre
Garden Density Multi-Family
16 units/acre
Medium Density Multi-Family
23 units/acre
(MRD) Duplex Multi-Family
County Acreage
SUBTOTAL
(City Acreage)
GRAND TOTAL
(Planning Area)
93
0
1,222
291
69
66
16
424
86
28
7
192
55
7,734 3,062
(40% of
subtotal)
1,718 654
Q,452 3,716
780
137
9
38
9
232
31
4,672
(60% of
subtotal)
1,064
5,736
our)' lsla"d
' \)
" "~
0
~
" 0 .,
Legend
to.ftt•IC-81<10"1 ao...n..ry
296 Census Tract
Block Gro10p
urn
City of Kent
WASHINGTON
--··
A-5
1970 CENSUS TRACTS
& BLOCK GROUPS
11.(11111 .L.UIIIUNC •CfNC• I 72
THIS MAP REPRESENT ..
THE PLANNING AREA
WITHIN WHICH THE
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENT'S 19~
POPULATION FORECAS-
WAS DEVELOPED,
IV. DEFINITIONS
ADEQUATE -Equal to or sufficient for some (specific)
requirement; proportionate or correspondent.
ASSURE -To secure, as against change or risk; insure.
To confirm; give confidence to.
BIOTIC HABITATS - A general term describing an environ-
ment where living animals exist, e.g., animal life exist-
ing around a small pond or wetland area.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -Scheduling/phasing of
publlc physical lmprovements for a community over a
certain period of time, with consideration for prior-
ities and financial capabilities of the community.
CONSERVE -To use while consciously attempting not to
exhaust the resource. Also, to preserve.
ECOSYSTEMS -Life systems composed of interactions
between plants and animals with other organisms in
their environs.
ENVIRONS-The surroundings common to an area, e.g.,
bird habitats and wetlands adjacent to a river or
marsh or neighborhoods surrounding a central business
district.
ENHANCE -To advance, augment or elevate; to improve
as in value or desirability.
E~SURE -To give assurance to.
INSURE -To assure against loss by a contingent event;
to give, take or procure, an insurance on or for.
A-6
NATURAL -Pertaining to, in accordance with or determined
by nature. Being found in its natural state.
NEIGHBORHOOD -An area bordered by definite boundaries,
with a sameness of social and economic background of the
residents, often identified with a significant landmark,
such as a school, shopping district, etc.
OPEN SPACE
GENERAL -Vacant lands or other areas including open
water areas, roads, streets and highways
which do not have structures built on them or
over them.
SPECIFIC -Areas of natural occurring phenomena -wet-
lands, streams, rivers and other unobstructed
waterways, lakes, etc.; woodlands, brusnlands;
open farm lands used for crop and animal
husbandry, hillsides and bluffs.
SPECIFIC -Areas of manmade features -streets, hign-
ways, canals, open yards, parking lots,
trails, alleys, landscaped areas, parks and
recreational areas without structures, vacant
lots.
To have real meaning, open space should be related to its
purpose and the benefits derived therefrom. For Example:
Type of Open Space
Characteristics
... ,
" ,
Wetlands Open Space
Open, not built on, open water
areas plus vegetation cover on
edges or reeds and other water
oriented plants.
Purpose
(Conservation)
Benefits
" I
' 7
To protect the natural drainage
systems -to act as storage areas
for storm water -for passive
recreational uses -for visual
effect -to protect and enhance
wildlife, flora and fauna.
Preservation of land as open space
with the intent that the benefits
to the general public of holding
a wetland as open space (or other
type open space land) can be meas-
ured or are measurable in relation
to harm that might occur to the
public's health, safety and general
welfare if the wetland is destroyed
or allowed to be built upon.
PHASED DEVELOPMENT - A governmental planning concept based
on the phasing of land development over an extended time
perio~ usually to coincide with a city's capacity to pro-
vide necessary services and/or minimize adverse conditions.
POLLUTION -Defilement; impurity.
POINT AND NON POI~T SOURCES OF POLLUTION -Point refers to
a specific place producing pollutants - a factory. Non
point refers to sources not tied to a specific site -
moving autos, trucks and airplanes.
PRESERVE -To keep from destruction. To keep intact or
to maintain.
PROMOTE -To contribute to the qrowth or benefit of; to
further. To advance from a given grade or class as
qualified for one higher.
A-7
PROTECT -To cover or shield from injury or destruction;
to defend; guard.
PROVIDE -To look out for in advance.
RESIDENTIAL - A human living environment involving a
prlmary shelter.
Low Density -12 to 16 apartment units per acre.
Medium Density -17 to 24 apartment units per acre.
High Density -24 to 42 apartment units per acre.
SCENIC ROUTE - A route/road classified as scenic because
of its proximity to natural environs with beautiful and
picturesque views.
SERVICE GROWTH - A term used to describe an expanding
publlc service system, i.e., extensions of roads, sewers
and water lines and other utilities.
SETBACK LEVEE - A bend in a river with a levee setback
from where the normal levee would be located. Intended
to store additional water and to be used for limited
recreational/agricultural activities during dry periods.
TRAFFICWAYS -Established or proposed rights-of-way for
movement of people and goods by different modes of trans-
portation.
URBAN DESIGN -Deals with the physical/environmental qual-
lt~es of c~ties, lt ~s concerned prlmarlly w~th the v~sual
and other sensory relat~onships between people and their
env~ronment. Correspondingly, urban design is ~nextr~ca~ly
connected to all substantive areas of planning concern,
such as housing, transportation, commerce, and industry
and it applies to regional, city-wide, district and neigh-
borhood scales of analysis. Promoting a historic preserva-
tion theme in the CBD is an example of urban design.
WETLANDS
The Soil Conservation Service has defined and located the
wetlands of the Green River Valley. The Soil Conservation
Service definition is:
TYPE I WETLANDS
Seasonable wet but dry during most of the growing
season -have value for waterfowl in the winter.
TYPE II WETLANDS
Wetlands having water at or near the surface and
seldom any standing on the surface -little if any
value to waterfowl.
TYPE III WETLANDS
Generally wet through most of the growing season with
water depths of six inches or more. Used for feeding
and nesting.
TYPE IV WETLANDS
Retain their water throughout the year. They have a high
waterfowl value.
TYPE VII WETLANDS
These wetlands have standing water for much of the year and
are covered with a growth of trees -not good for waterfowl
but can sustain small fur animals.
A-8