Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 11/07/1989 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE November 7, 1989 3 : 30 PM COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT PLANNING STAFF PRESENT Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Lin Ball Jon Johnson Jim Harris Greg McCormick CITY ADMINISTRATION Fred Satterstrom Janet Shull Jim Hansen OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT John Marchione Judy Clegg Tony McCarthy Larry Frazier May Miller Steve Johnson Leona Orr Lyle Price HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE REVENUE OPTIONS "udy Clegg provided an overview of the Roundtable's work to date. The Aoundtable met on September 27 to discuss revenue options. She is requesting that City Councils review the regional revenue package developed by a Roundtable committee and give direction to their Roundtable representative. On December 5th the Roundtable will take action on moving forward on the revenue package. Redmond, Mercer Island, the City of Seattle and King County have voted to move forward and pass the resolution to pursue regional revenues for human services. Five priorities were identified in Phase I of the Roundtable Project: child care, employability, family support, health care, and housing. The Roundtable's goal is to work out how to pay for the solutions and services identified; cost estimates were provided by technical contractors. Guiding principles used by the committee were 1) to seek ongoing revenues for ongoing costs and look at short-term revenues for one-time only capital expense, 2) provide a broad-based revenue package including both state and local sources, and capture and redirect revenues that are already in place toward pieces of the Roundtable agenda. It is estimated to cost $40 million per year in ongoing operating costs for regional human services in the five identified priority areas and a range of $85 - $115 million for housing. In actuality to do everything needed to be able to provide affordable housing would cost over $400 - $500 million. Because this amount would be too much to absorb locally, the Roundtable's estimated cost is that needed to keep the 2000 units of subsidized housing that will roll over and become market rate housing in the next five years. In child care, the Roundtable is looking at the regional resource and referral service. The revenue package involves negotiating with the Port to use existing TTY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE �gINUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1989 property tax revenue to do employment job training, the economic development activities which are part of their mission statement. It looks at the jet fuel tax to provide health care, subsidized child care and some operating costs associated with housing. It looks at alcohol taxes to fund the housing part of the treatment facilities for alcohol and substance abusers. Also planned is work with the planning committee for Law, Safety, and Justice to build in the pieces of the action agenda related to family violence and employment. There are a number of items which can be accomplished via resources from the Children's Initiative if it passes on the November ballot. Ms. Clegg is asking for the Council to endorse the resolution to pursue a broad-based revenue package for human services. Councilman Dowell confirmed that the "bricks and mortar" will come from local taxes and the staffing of the facilities will come from state taxes. He commented that the citizens of Eastern Washington will be paying for services on the west side. Ms. Clegg responded that the state taxes such as the jet fuel tax will be administered by the Department of Community Development who will probably allocate the funds based on the number of people in poverty, perhaps one-third to King County and two-thirds to the rest of the state. It was clarified that the Kent Human Services Commission is separate from the Human Services Roundtable. Judy Clegg stated that the premise on which the Roundtable is operating is that the Roundtable is building on a base of local ontrol over local funding and resources. There are also regional services and regional issues too large and costly for local jurisdictions; this is the package undertaken by the Roundtable. The regional revenue package is in addition to the local funding recommended by the Human Services Commission. Planning Director Harris stated the Roundtable can use the Human Services Commission as the initial group through which policies are reviewed, a sounding board, a group who makes policy recommendations. Councilman Dowell is concerned about overlaps. Mr. Harris notes there is a continuum of care required in housing and pieces for both local and regional groups to solve. Councilman Dowell notes a conflict between an inability to provide the infrastructure required for people now and requesting to provide affordable housing for more people. Senior Planner Ball noted that the Roundtable is focussing not on overlapping but on adding another layer on what the cities can do for human services. She noted that the affordable housing issue is beyond the capability of local funding. Councilman Dowell noted the City of Kent has provided $12 , 300 to the Roundtable for 1988 and 1989. Ms. Clegg stated that over the last two years the total income for the Roundtable was $328, 000. The City of Seattle, the county and United Way have contributed $35,000 each. The Roundtable is targeting a county-wide housing levy for November, 1990. They are working on the jet fuel tax during this legislative session. Negotiations with the 73ort started this month. Law, Safety and Justice is estimated for revenues 2 !TY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE _.INUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1989 in 1991-92 . Councilman Dowell noted this is an additional two years and $328, 000 to keep the Roundtable Project going, a total project cost of $656, 000. Ms. Clegg anticipates estimated annual operating revenues of $40 million and a county-wide housing levy of about $100 million. She added that there have been many by-products of the project in addition to what will be achieved later, including demographic information and planning data that have been given to all jurisdictions, and an increased understanding of the issues. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Chairwoman Woods SECONDED the motion to forward to the City Council with an affirmative recommendation the resolution to proceed with the regional revenue package. Councilman Dowell voted to send the resolution to the whole Council without a recommendation. SINGLE FAMILY COMMITTEE REPORT Single Family Housing Committee Chairwoman Leona Orr stated she was hopeful the City Council will read the report. The group had found a lot of common ground. She expressed some personal reservations about applying the 5,000 sq. ft. lot blanket zoning. The Planning Commission is recommending it with guidelines for its use. One recommendation in the report is to rethink zero lot line and PUD ordinances. There are not many five-acre parcels left in he City and there was development interest in looking at reducing the minimum lot size for such proposals. Ms. Orr had looked at a very beautiful development in Renton that had 5, 000 sq. ft. lots with 35% open space; it was built on over twenty acres. She would like the Council to consider very carefully the recommendation to reduce the minimum lot size for PUD's and zero lot line developments. Councilman Dowell noted that the 5, 000 sq. ft. minimum lot size is not tied to PUD's; single-family lots could be of that size as well. Discussion occurred on proposals being addressed by the Planning Commission on the 5, 000 sq. ft. lot size. Planner Janet Shull reviewed the Action Agenda, the last chapter of the report. She noted that Chapter 6 outlines specific recommendations that were categorized to address the six problem areas identified early on in the community meetings. The key problem areas are listed and expanded on in Chapter 5. The Action Agenda is broken into five categories and have identified target dates and key players: 1) examine annexation and annexation policies in light of single family residential, 2) review regulations including 5000 sq. ft. lot, zero lot line and PUD, 3) under public policy address neighborhood concerns in existing neighborhoods, 4) utilize public education including open houses and design competition and awards programs, and 5) develop interdepartmental programs to foster single family housing. Larry Frazier stated the building industry can support the recommendations 3 ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE _INUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1989 outlined in the single family report. He added he would like to see other communities address issues in such an open forum. Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that the report outlines an ambitious program. Trying to spur single family development in Kent is not a simple project. Government can do only so much; the private sector must help out. Annexations can help balance the scenario. Mr. Frazier added he would like to present the report to the Executive Council of the South King County Master Builders. Discussion occurred on housing costs and HUD's role in housing. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Councilman Dowell SECONDED the motion to recommend the City Council endorse the report. Motion carried unanimously. BURLINGTON NORTHERN DEPOT Planner Greg McCormick provided an historical overview of the Burlington Northern Depot. It was first a depot in 1880 and was replaced with the building there now in 1926. It is on the King County Historic Site Register and the City of Kent's list of historic sites. Staff has been informed by he State of Washington that the building is eligible for listing on the National Register. The City of Kent's involvement with the site dates back to 1987 when the City committed $8, 000 in Block Grant funding for the design feasibility study. An additional $6, 000 in 1989 Block Grant funding was provided for the study. The building has not been used by BN since 1987. Through the RFP process, Johnson & Mortensen Architects were chosen to look at a conceptual design for reuse of the building. Staff requested that the Planning Committee members recommend a preferred alternative design so that they can prepare bid documents for the preferred alternative. Architect Steve Johnson stated that the objective in phase one of the project included 1) documenting the history of the site; cultural and regional development issues are as much as part of historic status as age, and the depot is one of the prime reasons Kent is where it is today. The economic activity, farming, drove the need for the depot; 2) develop alternative uses; public amenities, i.e. , restrooms, were to be included in the use; 3) assess the development costs and financial benefits for the alternatives and their impact on the budget and city policies; 4) consider the relationship to the CBD; review alternatives with community groups and the City Council; and 5) present a final report incorporating recommendations. The study reports that the building is architecturally interesting, handsome 4 TTY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE _.1NUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7 , 1989 and pleasant but not unique. However, it provides a good example of a regional depot, a stock plan of Burlington Northern depots of the time. The structure played a role in the development of Kent and thus has historical merit. Mr. Johnson believes that alternative uses can be provided for the depot without destroying its original status. If it looks like a train could stop at the site and the depot could function as it once did, one would have followed the rules for preserving the site. The architects talked to the development and real estate communities and of course the Planning Department. They looked at retail uses, e.g. , banks, food service, and general retail, as well as non-profit use for community facilities. They looked at commuter rail and discussed reusing the station as it was originally intended. They talked to METRO about their planning process for the commuter rail demonstration project. They looked at the likely cost and benefits of each of those uses and met with the community. Mr. Johnson presented renderings of four possible uses. Alternative 1 is simply to reuse the site as a train station. By the standards the heavy rail demonstration project is putting forward, it would be the grandest station on the line; METRO standards include a kiosk and rain protection. The passenger load expected at the site would be amply housed. It did not appear hat the rental rates for such a use, along with the short term nature of the project, showed this use as a good one. Alternative 3 considers sole source, unidentified leasable space of about 1,850 sq. ft. excluding the restroom area. Mr. Johnson commented that the facility could not handle the number of restrooms needed for a festival in Kent. The leasable space would not be enough for most retail uses. Food service uses did not appear to be feasible because of the dust and noise associated with the site. The site would likely be too isolated for the mainstream of the business industry. Alternative 4 represents construction of additional retail for a total of 6, 000 sq. ft, including a small train station to provide shelter. This would extend Meeker and Gowe Streets to provide street frontage and continuity to the retail district. Costs associated with this alternative are well above the market for retail space in the CBD. Alternative 2 describes a shared project of a small train station, slightly larger restrooms and 1300 sq. ft. of leasable space. The White River Historical Society or a boutique operation could be housed in this space. The train station still would be the best on the commuter rail line. The site would acquire a great deal of civic presence. This alternative demanded the least from the City in terms of annual support. None of the alternatives pays for themselves. The biggest debit is the restroom facility due to high maintenance. The rent structure is different for non-profit and commercial entities. Commercial entities typically have fully-served space; rental rates in the area are not high. A non-profit tenancy raises their funds from a different source than their clients. A non-profit agency would typically pay their own utility expenses; this would 5 ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE _.INUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1989 amortize Kent's cost for the space. The commercial and non-profit organizations have been analyzed separately. There has been strong support for alternative 2, with the non-profit option, from the community, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups. Mr. Johnson looked at incorporation of public art on the site. It can be done by locating a place within the site development plan which has a sense of presence. The consultants attempted to make space for an equivalent amount of parking as exists today, considering the increased demand, as well as to provide a forecourt of a traditional railroad station. This would provide a civic building with a yard which is reasonably formal and symmetrical and which would include a piece of art. Almost anything done on the site would meet with the City's public policies. It is in a key location, it is on significant commercial and pedestrian oriented streets. The building has a presence; the way it is sited off the street would respond well to rehabilitation. Mr. McCormick stated staff also has supported alternative 2 . He added staff has received comment letters from Burlington Northern and METRO. Discussion occurred on bussing areas. Councilman Dowell questioned whether the city shouldn't negotiate with the owner of the property before deciding on alternative uses. Planner Director Harris stated staff has held discussions with several divisions of Burlington Northern; the issue is now with their Operations Division. Burlington Northern has written a letter indicating they are unwilling to give anything away free of charge. The City needs to negotiate with Burlington Northern. Mr. Johnson stated the building has no value off site and it cannot be moved because it is a slab on grade building with masonry veneer. The historical value is with the site. Councilman Dowell noted the estimated cost of maintaining the restrooms is $12, 000 per year and the value of the site to the City would be a negative one for that reason. Mr. Harris added that historical value is immeasurable and he would like to put this item in the capital improvement program. Discussion occurred on the value of the station. Councilman Dowell believes the value is much less than that stated in the study. Chairwoman Woods noted that staff is not asking for money but is asking for direction to 1) work with Burlington Northern on acquiring the depot, 2) coordinating with METRO's commuter rail project and 3) exploring possible funding sources for future implementation of preferred alternative 2 . Mr. Harris noted the cost analysis is a philosophical cost benefit one. Mr. 7ohnson stated he had surveyed other sites for land costs and the study 6 ^.ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE INUTES OF MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1989 indicates the cost of equivalent land, not the cost of the specific site. He stated that restoration and maintenance costs, as well as negative costs associated with historic status, could be items for discussion in the negotiations with Burlington Northern. Councilman Dowell MOVED and Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion to send this issue to the City Council with staff's recommendations, including negotiating with Burlington Northern on the points of view of the liability of the property. Motion carried. 1990 BUDGET Mr. Harris stated staff has no objections to the budget as recommended by the City Administrator. There were no questions from committee members. HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION - TERM OF NON-VOTING MEMBER Senior Planner Ball related the Human Services Commission had discussed the term of one non-voting member. Problems with a one-year appointment had been brought to the Commission's attention by those who have served in that capacity. Because there is no consecutive term available, the first year is spent in the learning process and then the member is off the Commission. 'he Commission will meet with the Mayor to discuss amending the ordinance to ,,rovide for a two-year non-voting membership term. The Commission will again discuss this issue on November 30 and will probably send it to the Planning Committee in December. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5: 00 PM. 7