Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/23/1991 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 1991 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7: 00 P.M. , September 23, 1991, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED: Gwen Dahle PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Anne Watanabe, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary KENT CITY STAFF: Alana McIalwain, Executive Assistant, Administration APPROVAL OF AUGUST 26, 1991 MINUTES Commissioner Grant MOVED that the minutes of the August 26, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW - ZCA-90-5 Commissioner Martinez reported that she presented the Multifamily Design Review recommendations to the City Council and they were approved 7 to 0 with the exception that the recommendation to include 1/4 of a person to do the Design Review was deleted. She hoped that the Planning Commission would see fit to recommend that Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 it become a priority on the work plan for the Planning Department. Chair Faust asked Commissioner Martinez to draft a letter to that effect to Jon Johnson. PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Chair Faust reminded the Commissioners that there will be a continuation of their retreat on October 7 at 7: 00 P.M. in Council Chambers. ARCO AM/PM ON 180TH - SMV-91-2 Anne Watanabe of the Planning Department presented a proposal by the Atlantic Richfield Company for a variance to place an impervious surface within the shoreline setback area. The property is located at 18009 West Valley Highway and approximately 40 percent of the site lies within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River. The site is already developed and is occupied by an old service station. There are several structures there including underground storage tanks. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site and, as part of that proposal, they would be removing the underground storage tanks and prior to any development, any contamination from past practices at the site would have to be cleaned up. The property is zoned General Commercial and the area surrounding the site is developed in a manner consistent with that designation. An environmental review under SEPA was done and a Declaration of Nonsignificance with 17 mitigating conditions was issued on August 13, 1991. There were numerous conditions identified including storm drainage, provisions for hazardous waste cleanup, water quality and traffic impacts and all of those were addressed through the environmental review process. A variance application must meet both State and local criteria. The State requirements include a determination that the variance does not thwart the State' s policy that calls for protection of the natural environment and public access to the shoreline. It is felt those policies are not being thwarted because of the conditions put on the project through SEPA and also because the site is already separated from the Green River shoreline by the West Valley Highway. Also, there is discussion on potential contributions from the applicant which would be taken up at the shoreline permit stage. Another issue is whether the application of the performance standard (the prohibition on impervious surface) would preclude reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. The property is commercially zoned and was used in 2 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 the past as commercial property. Staff would prefer to see recycling of such sites and cleanup if there is contamination rather than use other undeveloped properties. Another issue is whether the hardship is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions. The unique condition here is that it's located on the other side of the highway from the river and is already developed. The design is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and there will be environmental improvements at the site. The requested variance cannot constitute a grant of special privilege and must be the minimum necessary to afford relief. The applicant has shown that this project does meet that requirement. Local Shoreline Master Program requirements are very similar to the State requirements. Upon review of this application and the applicable criteria for granting a shoreline variance, City staff recommends approval. It should be noted that no specific conditions are recommended for approval of this variance. However, as part of the shoreline substantial development permit, the City will be requesting the imposition of conditions, including all SEPA conditions, and a condition requiring the applicant to contribute to enhancing public access along the river. Will Wolfert, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. , 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA commended Ms. Watanabe on her report. Mr. Wolfert stated that the existing tanks have been removed and they will be placing new tanks as far away from the river as they can be on the site. The new tanks are double wall fiberglass and are monitored not only at the tank, but at the pumps as well. Also, all the storm water runoff will now go through biofiltration before it enters the City storm drain system. There will also be much more landscaping than is on the site currently. Chair Faust asked if there were any leaks from the tanks that were removed which would create a hazardous waste problem. Mr. Wolfert said there was a soil study done by Unocal when they removed the tanks, but he had not been told what the results were. There are, however, requirements of DOE that if there is contamination on the site, it must be reported to the Department of Ecology. Chair Faust asked if the applicant would not only follow SEPA conditions, but also be willing to contribute to enhancing public access along the river. Mr. Wolfert stated that the conditions of 3 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 the DNS were acceptable, but he didn't know about enhanced river access. Ms. Watanabe reiterated that there was no specific proposal, but discussions with the Parks Department were taking place to identify an appropriate and fair policy for enhancing public access. Commissioner Haylor MOVED that the request for a variance be approved. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - ZCA-90-6 (Verbatim minutes) Chair Faust: The only other item of business tonight is a continuation of the public hearing that we started four months ago. The Commissioners have talked about this and we've also talked about it with staff. We also have a letter from Gwen Dahle, who is one of our absent members who has a medical problem and can't join us, and she's asking that we not complete our voting tonight. I sincerely doubt that we will do any voting, or at least not all of it tonight, and therefore, Commissioners, I 'm recommending that we proceed now, go ahead and reopen up the hearing, but that we close the hearing at 10: 00 because we're going to have to come back next month. If there' s maybe one speaker left at ten, we' ll go ahead and take the additional speaker, but I 'm recommending that we go ahead and close it at ten. What say you all? Commissioner Martinez : Hear, hear. Commissioner Heineman: Agreed. Chair Faust: OK, fine. Well that's what we' ll shoot for then is 10:00. I think that procedurally what I need is a motion because four months ago we tabled this and I need a motion to bring it back. Yes, Al? Commissioner Haylor: Madam Chairman, since I 'm the individual that made the motion to table this item, I would like to now bring that off the table and to proceed with the meeting. Chair Faust: Is there a second? Commissioner Heineman: Second. Chair Faust: It' s been moved and seconded that we bring back the public hearing that we started four months ago. All those in favor, please say aye. 4 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Voices: Aye. Chair Faust: All those opposed, nay. Silence. Chair Faust: OK, the public hearing is now reopened on the matter we tabled four months ago and staff if you have something that you would like to bring up, that's fine. Otherwise, we will go straight to the continuation of testimony, which is where we were when last we were here. Yes, Fred? Fred Satterstrom: We just have a very short introduction. For the record, I 'm Fred Satterstrom from the Planning Department. I just wanted to review for the benefit of the Planning Commission and the audience that is here this evening, a word about what has transpired since May when the Planning Commission continued this hearing and tonight's meeting. Essentially, the request that came to the Planning Commission in May was a motion to table this for a period of about four months so that an alternative to that that had been presented by the City staff could be prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration. That request came through Administration from the Mayor's office, was honored by the Planning Commission. You voted to continue it and resume that tonight. What happened in between during the months of July and August primarily was that the Mayor formed, appointed a committee composed of several individuals. Commissioner Haylor was your representative from the Planning Commission, Leona Orr was the designate from the City Council, Alana McIalwain, who is with us this evening, was the Administration's representative. There were representatives from industry, notably Barry Miller from Northwest Metals, Morgan Llewelyn, Raul Ramos and Bill Stewart. Raul Ramos had the distinction of being elected chair of the committee and I guess one of the primary roles of chair is that he gets to be the main speaker to that proposal that was put together and finalized toward the end of August. As I said, a proposal was finally put together. It went through a number of gyrations before it got to its finalization and, of course, after the workshop that the Planning Commission held on this a couple of weeks ago, it went through a final revision which you should have in front of you this evening. Is that correct? Does everyone have a copy of it? It should be dated September 17 and should include pages one through nine. Um, the role of the Planning Department through this period of coming up with this alternative was a rather unique one because we had not been a part of before helping to develop an alternative that was different than the staff's proposal. The group of citizens that we worked with 5 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 was a good committee to work with. Our role was basically one of staffing the committees and trying to more or less play the role of secretary and resource person. Of course, when this proposal is put to you this evening, the committee themselves are probably the best persons to represent that alternative and, of course, staff will speak to any issues or questions that you have concerning the staff's proposal. I think that while the process of getting here tonight may be somewhat clumsy for some of us, I think that the eventual results of the consideration of a number of alternatives will hopefully prove to be fruitful. Um, I think that both alternatives, the one developed by the staff, as well as the one that's been developed by the zoning, downtown zoning committee will both attempt to provide a framework that is favorable for revitalization in the downtown. So with that, I ' ll turn it over to your speaker's list and those are it as far as introductory remarks by staff. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you very much, Fred. Then we will begin the public, we will reopen then the public hearing. Our first speaker is Mayor Dan Kelleher. Mayor Kelleher: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you members of the Commission. Um, five, four months ago about, I came before you and asked that you delay action on implementing the downtown zoning so that we could have an opportunity to develop an alternate alternative and you granted that request and I want you to know that I am grateful for that. Uh, I think that I also want to thank the members of the Planning staff who I think have done an excellent job, not only in developing their initial proposals, but also in facilitating the committee that I appointed to address a somewhat more liberal downtown zoning plan. I do want to emphasize that the fact that we might have a committee that' s looking at an issue like this to develop an alternative to a staff proposal should not in any way be construed as being critical of the Planning Department in any way. They've done an excellent job with this program and many of you were involved with some of the earlier committees that developed the philosophical and fundamental policy framework that is now being implemented in one of these alternatives. Those of you who have worked on those kinds of projects know that we sometimes have a committee that develops a policy framework for some zoning and it's very easy for us to have two different ways of interpreting those general, broad policy directives. In this case, the Planning Department came up with a set of implementation plans that did, in my opinion, a good job of addressing downtown issues and making things a little bit more liberal and I and Councilmember Leona Orr, who chaired the Enterprise Zone Committee which preceded this process, and some other people who were involved in the process felt that perhaps the 6 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Planning Department's alternative didn't go as far as we would like to in terms of providing a more liberalized downtown zone in order to lure business into the downtown. And so I think what we have here is not anything that should be viewed as critical, or the Planning Department being at odds with anybody. It should simply be viewed as differing interpretations of the policy direction that was developed and differing alternatives and I think that we'd all agree that it's healthy to have differing alternatives before us as we consider these types of issues. Having that healthy debate helps us, I think, to understand the issues better, at least it does me when I 'm hearing them. In any case, if I may, I 'd like to put the issue in context a little bit. Uh, the downtown issue is one of the most important issues to this administration and to this City Council and if you' ll turn around over your shoulder, you' ll see our target issues for 1991 and 1992 and one of our top goals, and it' s been one of our top goals for many years now, is renewing and revitalizing our downtown and there are many people in Kent who are interested in that. Many people have different visions and different goals and ways that they'd like to go about addressing a revitalization of downtown and what we've tried to do, administration and the Council, is come up with one approach that we know is going to have some tangible results. There are many approaches one could take that are very ambitious, we might not be able to get results on, but we've tried to take some tacks that we know would have results. I 'd like to talk about some of the steps that we've taken over the past few years. First, we've tried to work with local citizen and business activist groups like the Kent Development Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Merchants Association, and we tried to have staff members attend those meetings when we can and provide support when requested. We have provided, I believe, $25, 000 to be used as a match in one of our recent budgets with the Kent Development Association and we want to provide more support to those groups as well. It's important to understand that in those groups, since they are basically merchant or property owner oriented groups, we try to let those groups take the leading role. We try to provide support for those. They do excellent work. The. . .their. . . if. . .when they're able to coordinate their marketing efforts, it works very well and I think it's a healthy thing for downtown. There are some other steps that we've taken. We've been more direct in providing more direct involvement and direct leadership of the City rather than deferring to local businesses. I 'd like to talk about some of those. We've tried to stimulate local investment. As you know, there are many, many times when we, as a City, have space needs. Space needs for libraries and for public 7 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 safety space, for City office space. Several years ago we made a commitment that we were going to try to look at those issues when they come up, and they come up almost every year, and we were going to try to focus those local public investments in the downtown rather than just putting them anywhere else in Kent. When we looked at a decision to buy a piece of property for the siting of some City facility, we wouldn't necessarily just look for the cheapest open parcel, which might not be in the downtown, but we would look for the parcel that would have a maximum possibility of improving our downtown and redeveloping that area. We have also tried to use that same principle of focusing our investments in the downtown in such a manner as to leverage private investment. The best example of that is the Centennial Building which is immediately to the east of this building where we knew that we needed additional space for, uh, for City Hall expansion, so instead of going out and building an annex or using our own money to buy our own building, we went to the private sector and said that we would commit to least 26, 000 square feet if developers would, in turn, come and make proposals to us and build a building that would go far beyond meeting our needs. And that was a very successful project and we got a developer who went three times beyond meeting our needs and in that way we were able to leverage private investment. In addition, we've also tried to use the same principle of focusing our investments in downtown and leveraging public investment. The best example of that is the library where we agreed to put up half the money for the new Kent/King County library and the County library district would put up the other half. And that' s been a successful program. We've also had programs where we've just focused City money alone into downtown projects and the best example of that would be the soon to be constructed 94 unit senior housing project. And so we have tried to focus that local investment in the downtown. In addition, we've tried to lure regional investments, regional public investments which we have, perhaps, less control over, but which we do have some persuasive control over. There are two that come to mind. One is commuter rail and many of you know that that's an issue that we've been lobbying the County and lobbying Metro to try and get commuter rail investment into the downtown. A second is the recent proposal that the City of Kent put forward to King County Department of Corrections for a regional justice center. I can announce to you that I 've heard today that all three of the sites that have been proposed in Kent's downtown have made 8 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 the cut to the top ten sites that are being considered at this time. You may have read an article in the local newspaper that said that one of the downtown sites made the cut. Well the committee met today and they revised that. Now all three of the sites in downtown have made the cut and I think, frankly, that we have an excellent chance of getting that investment into the downtown. If it comes, you're looking at 800. . . I believe it's 800 employees who will be new employees into the downtown and I can assure you that we' ll be talking to the County if that happens and trying to get them to undersize their cafeteria so those people will be spilling out into downtown shops and downtown restaurants in order to stimulate demand in the downtown. In addition, I 'd point out that there are a lot of lawyers that are going to need to be close to the south end justice center and I think that they might be able to fill up some of the, some of the empty office space we have in the downtown right now. And they need to eat too. I think that if we were to get either or both of these regional facilities in the downtown, that it would have just an overwhelming impact on upgrading the downtown economy. So encouraging public investment in the downtown. That' s one of the things we've tried to do. Secondly, we tried to, over the past five or eight years, develop activities in the downtown, particularly in the summertime. Give people a reason to come to downtown. I think as suburban jurisdictions go, we have more summertime activities than other jurisdictions. We, of course, have the Cornucopia Days, which we've had for many years. We've tried to support that and provide funding when we can in order to make that a better event. We also have the Canterbury Faire, which is a major summer activity. The Balloon Classic which is a major summertime activity. All summer long we have summertime concerts, free concerts on Friday evenings, on Wednesdays and also every Saturday at noon for our Saturday Market. The Saturday Market is another project that we have tried to use to stimulate downtown activity. We provided funding for that and over the past few years, the number of vendors and the number of participants have dramatically increased. In addition, we've also tried to improve the small areas of parks that we're able to have in the downtown and we have funneled public money into parks improvements. Examples of those over the past several years have been improvements to the Japanese garden park, our Kaibara Park, our Kherson Park, which is a park dedicated to our other sister city in Kherson, the Republic of the Ukraine. Also, recently we have developed the 1st Avenue walkway project, which is a small pocket park which ultimately will have a couple of murals on either side and some benches to beautify and improve downtown. And, of course, we have the mural project itself where 9 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 last year the Council approved $50, 000 for five additional murals over and above the ones that we already have in the downtown to further beautify downtown and to make it an attractive place to be. I want to invite all of you, if you have time, on October 12, Saturday, at 12:00 noon, we're going to be dedicating the new library and then at 12:30 we're going to be unveiling the new mural that's going to be placed in the Japanese garden park, a mural which was designed by a junior high school student from Kaibara, Japan, and she will be there to dedicate her mural. In addition, we have tried to publicize and communicate the fact that Kent shouldn't be looked at any more as the place where the landfills are or where the toxic waste is. We're trying to get a grip on those kinds of problems. We've tried to convey an image of Kent, downtown Kent as an activity place and a pleasant place to walk and do business. We've wanted to try to make downtown a place where people will want to locate their offices, a place where people will want to locate their retail businesses, a place where people will want to locate their commercial businesses, and I think we've done a darn good job of doing the things we can to make downtown more attractive, more appealing, more appealing to people in business. Now the final element, well I hope it's not the final element, but the final one that I can think of right now is the issue that's before you and that is that now that we've made downtown a more attractive place, we want to open up the gates and let a larger, more dense type of development occur in downtown. We want to open up a freer course by which businesses can move into the downtown. Now I do know that there are legitimate concerns. We've talked about the basic elements of this plan and Mr. Ramos and Miss McIalwain and others will be talking more about the details, except basically this proposal eliminates height restrictions and makes it easy to build taller buildings. It eliminates density restrictions in downtown and I want to emphasize that there's been no change in the Council's policy nor the administration's policy with respect to continuing to discourage multifamily use outside of the downtown area. In the past few years, we have significantly downzoned multifamily areas in down. . .undeveloped multifamily areas and that policy has not changed. In fact, if anything, it could even go farther although there are no immediate proposals to do that. But, specifically in the downtown, in order to have people, enough people to run restaurants and businesses and to support retail, we need more density and in any case, I want to address some of the legitimate concerns that I know some of you have. I know that there, there may be a concern that this may be just opening up a carte blanche and allowing development without any concern whatsoever for addressing the impacts that come off of that 10 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 type of development and I want to assure you that there is no one in this administration or on the City Council that wants to have development without addressing legitimate concerns; concerns such as where are people going to park; concerns such as how are we going to deal with the surface water runoff and the treatment of that surface water; issues such as fire flow. We need to have adequate fire flow if we are going to have adequate, have larger buildings. And we formed a committee to address this issue, to develop a comprehensive program which could be implemented over several years, a program of capital improvements which specifically address parking, surface water, fire flow and other infrastructure type of issues in order to accommodate the kind of growth and the kind of development that we're talking about in the downtown. The City's Economic Development Committee has approved $60, 000 to. . .for the retaining of a consultant to develop that plan and I guess I want to assure the members of the Commission that this administration and the City Council are committed to addressing the issues that are, that are related to this growth. Now, I want to talk a little bit more about that in a different way. If we have, if we pass a new zone in the downtown that allows skyscrapers to go up tomorrow, I wouldn't anticipate that probably happening at all except if, if, if, if, if skyscrapers ever were to come, they wouldn't come now even if you passed unlimited height. It would be impossible. It would be physically impossible and the reason for that is precisely because of the infrastructure issues that, that I know are legitimate concerns of yours. It's not a situation where a developer can come in under an unlimited type of height zoning and simply build an unlimited height building. It can't be done. It's not just because they won't do it because of the market, although that's a good reason and that will prevent people from doing that. They won't build a large building if they know that they don't have parking, because it's bad business. But that's not the only reason. There are legal, structural obstacles to them doing that and the best one that I can think of is fire flow. Over the past couple of months, as an example of how fire flow limits the potential for development, over the past couple of months, we've been working on the senior housing project and that project is scheduled to be about four stories tall. It's a dense, pretty tall building, kind of like City Hall or the Centennial building in terms of, in terms of height except it couldn't be built any larger than it is. In fact, initially it was rejected and we were told that we were not going to be able to build that building. We were going to have to significantly reduce the size of it because there wasn't sufficient fire flow and I think what you're going to find is that until we address infrastructure issues, digging up the streets, increasing the size of water pipes, and doing all of the other things that we have to do in terms of infrastructure, I don't think that you're going to have to worry 11 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 about those issues. We're going to have to address them. So, I really think that that's an important issue to consider. I also want to address that issue about the infrastructure improvements which we all know are needed in terms of a little philosophical way of looking at the issue. One of the reasons that I 've always liked land use planning in terms of the various issues that we deal with in city government is because the land use planners are the people that get to be the visionaries. They're the people who get to sit down and say, "What would I like my community to look like and how can we go about making that happen?" . And whenever you're talking about land use, whether you're talking about here in the downtown or whether you're talking about out on the hillsides, the issue often times comes up of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Do we put all the infrastructure improvements in first and then let that set our vision? Or do we look at what we have in terms of infrastructure right now and let our vision be determined by what our infrastructure is today? Or do we start with a vision and then let the infrastructure follow and set goals for ourselves to address those infrastructure problems in response to the vision that we've created for ourself? The reason that I like land use planning is because planners have an opportunity to set such vision and my opinion is that that's the chicken that comes before the egg. That you and I and members of the City Council and the planners, we have an opportunity to set a vision, a vision for our downtown that is dense enough to support a few good restaurants, that is dense enough to maybe provide some people an opportunity to live downtown. You know, there aren't that many apartments or condos downtown. People can't live right in the core. We have an opportunity to develop a vision where there are people who are going to want to locate their businesses in downtown because they know that there's a lot of people that work in offices or live in apartments right in the core. That we have a critical mass of people in the downtown to support the kind of business that I know that we'd all like to see. I assure you that if you help us set that vision, that we will then immediately in turn take that vision and start work on those infrastructure items. If the vision is not set, if we don't have some kind of a vision for greater density in the downtown, then there's a serious question whether it's appropriate for us to be moving ahead and spending a lot of money on developing improved infrastructure in the downtown. So basically I apologize for taking so long. That's basically the message that I want to carry to you. Downtown is an important priority with me, an important priority with City Council, I hope it's an important priority with the community. I think that we can build a downtown that is not only attractive and appealing to businesses who might want to locate here. It's an attractive and 12 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 appealing place to live and work and walk around and just spend time. So anyway, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to talk. Again, I apologize for taking so long. Thank you very much. Chair Faust: Thank you very much, Mayor Dan. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the Mayor? Thank you. I was going to ask you what your vision was so I'm glad you got into that. Before I call the next speaker, I know some people have come in. Would any of you like to speak? If you do, then we need to get you signed up on the list. You want to go ahead and just take this one? OK. I 'm going to also call the names of everybody who has put their name down on this list, even if you may have just said that you wanted information, just in case you've changed your mind and you'd like to speak. The next speaker is Raul Ramos. Raul Ramos: Thank you very much. Do you want me to state for the record my name and address? Uh, yes, my name is Raul Ramos, spelled R-A-U-L, Ramos R-A-M-O-S. I 'm a Planning and Development Consultant and I live in, at 25222 38th Avenue South, Kent. Before I get into my presentation, I 'd like to kind of have a little reality check if you will and reconfirm if, in fact, the document that I 'm looking at is the same document that you're also looking at and I would ask if you have page 10 titled "Addendum A - Incentive Program Recommendations"? One yes, one no. Two yes. Chair Faust: Commissioners, this is the one we got in the mail within the last week, in case you're wondering. Voices: Unclear. Raul Ramos: Also, another item is, is an item that Commissioner Haylor brought up at the workshop of September 9 having to do with the appearance of fairness application, uh, doctrine application to the fact that he participated in the committee, the Downtown Zone Alternatives Committee, and I just wanted to present you with a copy of an opinion written by the City Attorney on that very subject. It's not specifically addressed to Mr. Haylor's situation, but it is a very good reference and a guidance document for the Planning Commissioners in their, in their deliberations on various, on similar type of hearings. Chair Faust: Thank you, Raul. I spoke with Roger Lubovich this morning about this subject, so I 'm glad to get a copy. Raul Ramos: Would you like a copy? James Harris: Yeah. Anything anybody passes out to these folks, we need to get it too. 13 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Raul Ramos: During the course of my presentation, I 'm not going to refer to the document because I think that generally the Planning Department has historically, has made every effort to inform the Planning Commissioners as to their roles regarding the appearance of fairness doctrine and its application. I would like to thank the Mayor for making his comments this evening. It makes it, uh, more expedient for me to get into the nuts and bolts of our particular proposal, that is the proposal of the Downtown Zoning Alternatives Committee. I think he set the stage. I think he described the context within which we're presenting this proposal here tonight and I think it's very, it's very easy for me to, I should say its, I have no question, I have full confidence that all of the members of the committee felt, agree with the Mayor and the Council's priorities regarding downtown revitalization. The Mayor felt, as he stated, that based on all the previous studies that have been done regarding the downtown, and that downtown revitalization remained a very important issue with the Council. When he saw, as he stated, that the Planning Department' s downtown zoning plan did not fully go as far as he felt the previous studies seemed to indicate they should have gone, he felt imperative that he form a special committee to, to make a, a review of the proposal and determine if, in fact, his perceptions were correct. The committee was formed with a specific charge, or I should say, mission statement, to develop an aggressive alternative to the downtown zoning plan which would provide a more flexible and open set of regulations in order to promote a more dense development pattern in the downtown planning area. I don't think there was any, any dissention regarding that particular mission statement and we took our charge with a great degree of confidence and determination. The, some of the major sub-goals that the committee formulated to also give additional guidance to their deliberations on the matter, were as follows: To encourage more dense development by removing height and density restrictions and unnecessary traffic standards. To develop a zoning plan that primarily emphasizes health and safety requirements. To create a win-win scenario in which the downtown developer receives additional concessions if the project incorporates higher density and/or building heights. To promote a program of incentives that will make the downtown area more attractive to developers. Couched within those respective sub-goals you will find reflected some of our major recommendations and I might re-emphasize for the 14 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 record that our major recommendation is that the Planning Commission consider removing any height restrictions and any density restrictions as they apply within the downtown area. I think it just as important, it would be, we would be remiss or I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the committee felt that no attempt be made to de-emphasize the health and safety requirements as they might be reflected in the downtown development standards. We didn't want to get in a situation where we tackled issues that were clearly those that could be labeled health and safety, health and safety oriented, if you will. In addition, the committee felt that it would have been highly appropriate for the staff to have produced an incentive or a bonus or a concession component to the downtown zoning plan as proposed. I don't think that that opportunity, that type of component has, has in recent history or if at all, has ever been considered as a, as a, as a, a substantive part of any zoning plan, but we felt that the incentive aspect of it is one that should have been an integral part of the downtown zoning plan and as, as, as I read on through the recommendations, you will note that I, I continue to reiterate the incentives aspect of our proposal. Very briefly I think some major highlights, I think that that partly explains some of the major highlights of our proposal, some additional highlights would be that the City form only two districts, a DCE, which is downtown commercial enterprise, and DLM, which is downtown limited manufacturing classification. The DCE zone would allow for a combination of uses permitted in the staff proposal MU, which is a mixed use, and the DC, which is the downtown commercial here, your traditional downtown commercial zone. I think the, the, the objective here was to, to further simplify a zoning framework within which potential investors, outside investors and even local investors, if you will, could, could, could best operate. The other, an additional highlight would be our recommendation to have the Planning Commission consider removing the pedestrian plan overlay boundary which, in our estimation, is, represents an additional tier of regulatory structure. It tends to emphasize more small lot development. It, it tends to also emphasize uniformity and sometimes uniformity can result in monotony. The committee felt that they would like to see more of an incentive program which would. . .and an open kind of set of regulations which would allow for, first of all, an opportunity for developers to make a decision to really investigate the potential for investment in the downtown and also allow the staff as well as City administration an opportunity to sit down and negotiate within prescribed legal standards, if you will, or parameters, a very creative project which would, obviously, try to incorporate all of 15 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 the, all of the concerns, aesthetic and otherwise, that the City might have. An additional highlight of our proposal would be to eliminate the conditional use permit for stand alone, multifamily. The committee felt that multifamily development within the downtown should be a high priority. It certainly should be promoted. It certainly should be. . .reasonable, significant attempts should be made to attract more multifamily development to downtown. Essentially, we need more people in the downtown. We want to continue to promote that idea and we wanted to remove one layer of regulatory review, if you will, that obviously does not negate the possibility of, or not the possibility, does not negate the necessity of the staff having to sit down with the development and making sure it complies with all the applicable zoning standards and SEPA requirements. I think that the next highlight I would present to you would, would reflect kind of our emphasis on seeing more vertical development rather than, than horizontal. Because land in downtown Kent represents a very scarce commodity and because, based on all the physical development that we have, particularly in the outlying areas, areas outlying or beyond the downtown core which the committee feels is, is essentially between 4th Avenue and 1st Avenue, there is essentially underutilization of the land. It' s very, as I said, it's very scarce and we need to, we need to kind of concentrate more development on the, on these scarce parcels and essentially that means going essentially vertical and that, that' s, that's one of the, that's one of the drivers behind our, our recommendation to remove the height and density restrictions. We want to see more density. We want to see more height. We want to see maximum utilization of the land in the downtown area. The last comment that you have on your page 1 really probably should have been taken out because we don't have any transparencies. I had a chance to, and I appreciate the opportunity, I 've had, I appreciate the opportunity, I have made an overview presentation to the Planning Commission at the September 9 workshop and before I go into the detail portion of the proposal, do you have any questions at this point? Chair Faust: Commissioners, do you have any questions of Mr. Ramos? Commissioner Havlor: Madam, Madam Chairman. Are you going to basically be going over pretty much what you did in the workshop? 16 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Raul Ramos: Yes. I ' ll be as brief as I can if that's your concern. Commissioner Haylor: Well, it's not my concern. What does concern me is that, you know, we have given you an opportunity twice to come in front of us, this will be the second time. Raul Ramos: But not before a public hearing. Commissioner Haylor: That's true. Raul Ramos: Yeah. This is part of the public record. I think it's very essential that I provide as much detail for the full knowledge of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Havlor: I understand that, but also no one else had the opportunity to do the same that you will do here tonight and that is one, have a workshop with this committee, and two, be able to present it again in a public hearing. Thank you. Chair Faust: Mr. Ramos, we do have several people that I know want to speak. Let me ask staff this question. Jim, have copies of this proposal been made available to the public? James Harris: They've been made available this evening, the revised copies. Let me beseech the Commission to get this into the record. I think that this document is a document that has been presented to you and I think that if it' s left hanging here with just the introductory comments, I don't think it' s. . .we've got the record going. You've got to get it into the record, otherwise you have a void there. Whether people in the audience have seen it or not, I think it needs. . . it's been presented to you at a workshop, yes. It' s been revised since then and I think you need to, as far as you want to go with it, get it into the record. So I agree with Mr. Ramos on that point. Chair Faust: We've received a lot of comments in writing about this plan which is very important. I know that some of the people who have submitted written comments are here this evening. I want you all to know that we have reviewed your written comments and we will review all of the written comments that we have received regardless of whether people are here to speak to them or not, tonight or next month. Mr. Ramos, you may proceed to briefly go through the downtown committee' s proposal. Raul Ramos: Thank you Madam Chairman. 17 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Chair Faust: However, I would like to ask you to allow Commissioners to interrupt you and ask you questions as you go along. Raul Ramos: Certainly. Chair Faust: I think that will speed the process up. Raul Ramos: Certainly. Chair Faust: Commissioners, I would like for you to feel free to ask Mr. Ramos questions as he briefly goes through this document. Commissioner Havlor: Madam, Madam Chairman, the only thing I would like to make clear is that I don't question getting this onto the record. Where I questioned was having the workshop on it to begin with, outside of a hearing. But I do think we should go forward tonight and do get this on the record. Chair Faust: That's duly noted. Mr. Ramos. Raul Ramos: Thank you. The first item is the minimum lot size. Essentially, based on our DCE, we recommended a 5, 000 square feet or minimum lot of record, whichever is smaller, which essentially is very consistent with the staff proposal. In the DLM zone, we recommended also to retain the same standard as, as, as proposed by the staff. We asked that certain uses be further affected by the minimum lot size, essentially eliminate minimum lot size for residential uses, there again, consistent with our desire to have more dense develop, multifamily development in the downtown. We ask to reduce the minimum lot size to 5, 000 in the DLM for low impact manufacturing uses. Again, it's a desire for us to offer incentives to development which presents some more desirable type of land uses, in this case, low impact. I know the Planning Commission asked for a definition of that and I have the definition which at least attempts to answer that particular question. Low impact is defined as a use that does not have excessive noise, odor, smoke, traffic and/or bulk characteristics. Back to item #1, minimum lot size, we ask that minimum lot size in DLM zones, for example, allow a 25% reduction in minimum lot size if the building exceeds two stories. This is just basically an additional attempt to encourage more vertical type of development within the downtown. In item #2. . . Commissioner Martinez: Excuse me. Raul Ramos: Go ahead. 18 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Commissioner Martinez: A question I had there is that in light of the remarks to, that the whole plan is to make larger developments and to encourage larger development, doesn't this do just the opposite? Raul Ramos: In a sense, it does, but it's also an attempt to provide more equitability. There are obviously, there's going to be some lots that are not conducive to assemblage of. . . into larger parcels which would then facilitate more larger development. In the one hand, we're trying to create an environment within which we can have more assemblage of parcels to create, to have a chance to get a hold of more creative projects, larger projects. But on the other hand, we have to recognize that some parcels are caught between already existing sizable, substantial development and those parcels need to be considered. And certainly if they, if they decide to go more vertical, in addit. . .more than one story, two plus stories, then we'd like to recommend that there be every attempt made to offer them some concession--or not concession, but I should say some incentives for doing so. Number 2 is the maximum site coverage. We essentially have kept very consistent with the staff proposal on both the DCE zone, which as I said, is a combination of DC and MU in the staff proposal. We wanted to encourage more increased, we wanted to increase permitted site coverage in the DLM for low impact manufacturing uses. There again emphasizing the desirability to have those uses that are, that are, that are (unclear) to, to other uses, that are much more compatible to downtown uses. Item #3 is, has to do with setbacks. We propose that we eliminate all setback requirements in the DCE except if the property abuts residential district, in which case the Planning Director may require up to a maximum 20 foot setback. There was a question asked by the Planning Commission at the workshop and I think to the best of my recollection had to do with did we mean to not have any setbacks for all development within the DCE area which under the staff proposal is the DC and MU, and that is correct. That is, that was our recommendation, to not have any setbacks required. On page 3 the Department, and what I 'm speaking to is the staff proposal at the top under staff proposal, page 3 , we essentially did not support that. Essentially we would like to have a development have an opportunity to build up to the property line. I might add that there's still obviously substantial opportunity for the staff to sit down and negotiate out with the developer accommodating a pedestrian, a pedestrian walkway or some additional sidewalks and so forth. All we're simply trying to do is to eliminate the mandatory requirement. Instead of prescribing this is the way you're going to do it, whether you like it or not, whether it fits or not, we essentially want the staff to sit down 19 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 with the developer. We want to facilitate, we want to maximize every opportunity for the developer and the, and the staff to sit down and cooperatively do something creative and something that would fit within, within the downtown. Our, obviously as I indicated before, our goal is to eliminate pedestrian overlay map area because we feel it's too, too, too restrictive and would discourage large lot development. On page 4, we get into the height area and there again is our major, one of my major proposals, major recommendations is to eliminate the height limits and FAR restrictions. I understand that the current Zoning Code allows up to four stories, maybe 60 feet, and anything additional to that up to two stories would be subject to the Planning Director's approval. That's the best of my recollection of that flexibility. We'd like to remove the artificial requirem. . .artificial ceiling on height and basically let the eventual existing infrastructure and the soil conditions govern and obviously the free market govern what could best fit on the site, on the respective site. Only again within the downtown as I, you know, made quite clear. One of our themes, one of our philosophies is that we require, require at least two stories before any development is eligible for incentives or concessions. Again this reflects our desire to see more elevation, more building height, and we're willing to, we're certainly recommending that the City offer some incentives to, to accommodate that, to facilitate that. Page 5. Yes? Chair Faust: Before you go on, on page 4, for buildings that exceed two stories. . . Raul Ramos: Um huh. Chair Faust: That seems to be in conflict with what you said later on about retaining one parking spot for each unit in a multifamily building. Do you mean then for non-multifamily buildings that exceed two stories, reduce the number of off street parking spaces? Raul Ramos: Uh, yes. Yes. Chair Faust: Shouldn't that. . .I think that we talked about that at the workshop. Raul Ramos: Yeah, we did. Chair Faust: I thought that you were going to put that into this final draft. 20 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Raul Ramos: We did. With this proviso, one of our essential programatic components of our recommendation is that the City take on a very aggressive program to provide a comprehensive parking plan, not in the planning traditional sense, but really in the facilities sense. In other words, identify specific need, quantity, recommend a specific solution, structuralwise, timetable, and also a cost sharing program for such. Now I know that in here we're recommending a lot of relaxation of, for example, the parking and we're offering, we're recommending that the City offer parking as a concession, a reduction in parking requirements, but that's only, that, that, that's kind of looking ahead and that' s looking at as Dan, as the Mayor has indicated, these things are not going to happen overnight. It's gonna take time and it's gonna give us an opportunity to develop a parking facility plan and the ideal situation is that when we get, uh, further down the road and we do have some more economic activity and more interest in the downtown, we can really feel confident accepting these projects with minimal parking because we've already got a parking structure program set up that will eventually provide short, mid and long term parking needs. Uh. . . Chair Faust: Did your committee look into (1) where the funding was going to come from for the City to build parking or (2) whether there was going to be some sort of parking plan sort of in the wings and once a critical mass of new building came on board, that that was going to be built and things would be ready for that. Raul Ramos: Well, if I can answer that in reverse. I think we would proceed and do the strategy plan, the facility strategy plan first and a part of that would be to identify various funding sources. Secondly, no, we, we, we were not charged with the duty of looking at funding sources for that. Uh, it's just simply a concept that we feel has got some substance, some. . .and should be looked into. I understand the Planning Department has even, has recommended as part of their proposal to develop a parking, parking feasibility plan, parking facility feasibility plan and we're talking about. . . Chair Faust: So, so you all agree about that then? Raul Ramos: I think we're essentially talking about that, but what I 'm suggesting is that, is a parking feasibility plan or, I 'm getting a little tongue tied here, but structured parking plan or feasibility study would, we feel it should be a component part of the, of the infrastructure facilities. . .plan, strategy plan for the City that Mayor Kelleher was giving you a hint on essentially. But what we would envision is basically a plan in place or at least run concurrently with uh, uh substantially far enough concurrently with, uh before actual development came into place and, I mean, was 21 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 located in the downtown area. That's, that's a very high priority. We would, we would recommend that that be undertaken very quickly here. Item 4 had to do with height and I think we've essentially covered everything there. On page 5 if I make, make reference to the section 5 landscaping, we would recommend that we eliminate open space requirements for multifamily in the DC and the DIM zone. We feel that anything that directly affects density or tends to reduce density is, is, is not desirable especially within the context that we're representing this plan, this proposal, and that we encourage as bonuses, different types of street trees. We briefly spoke to that last at the workshop. We're definitely not against street trees. I think a lot of committee members felt there should be more flexibility in the type of trees that should be allowed within the downtown area. Chair Faust: Raul, are you talking about different kinds of trees other than are already on the official street tree plan? Raul Ramos: Yes. Chair Faust: OK. Raul Ramos: Um hum. I think we can proceed on to page 7 and in particular item #7 which is labeled Development Plan Review. This is uh, this is an example of a programatic type of recommendation that really isn't part of the zoning proposal, but we wanted to express to you what we had in mind in conjunction, to go along with our, our proposal on the development standards, removing the height and removing the density restrictions. We wanted you to understand where we were coming from essentially and I think Mayor Kelleher referred to this to some extent by, by referring to the infrastructure needs committee which might in some time in the near future be expanded, its role might be expanded to, to include this particular element and I might, you know, for the record, just state that the City should establish a special policy and create a committee appointed by the Mayor to include plan review staff with the express authority to grant discretionary exemptions from SEPA and other staff requirements if a developer voluntarily provides public purpose amenities. Public purpose amenities are basically child care facilities, open space, a public courtyard, anything that connotes access to, open access to the general public. Obviously, this committee would function within the parameters of the law and the SEPA regulations. If the SEPA regulations obviously don't allow any discretion whatsoever and don't meet the parameters of the law, then obviously it cannot be done. I 'm not proposing that we just, you know, damn the torpedoes, full steam 22 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 ahead on this thing. It still has to do a lot of legal, you know, review on this matter, but certainly that would be our intent is to, is to create or have a committee primarily composed of staff people that are fully committed to this priority--revitalized downtown Kent. Chair Faust: Raul, have you talked with Roger about this? Raul Ramos: I have not talked to him directly, but I believe Mayor Kelleher and Alana, certainly Alana might speak to it. I believe he's been asked to at least begin the initial review of the matter and offer some guidance on it. Chair Faust: Until we get some sort of response from legal, I am unwilling to allow this to go forward, this particular one. . . Raul Ramos: Right. Chair Faust: . . .to be considered. Raul Ramos: Yeah. Madam Chairman, as I said, this is really, this is, this is not really a part of the, of the zoning proposal and I think that I was, this and some other programatic type of recommendations that we have, were made evident to, to us, I think that some of the members voiced concern that these were recommendations, programatic type of recommendations that the staff unilaterally, or administration or, and of course there's certainly some opportunity there for these matters to come before the Planning Commission and City Council as a normal planning process. But we're, I 'm just presenting this particular item here and some additional ones that I ' ll point out in a few minutes as, as kind of background information for you, as kind of let you know, clue you in as to where we're comin from. Chair Faust: So, should #7 then be back with your Addendum A Recommendations. . . Raul Ramos: I guess, yes. Chair Faust: . . .that really aren't. . . Raul Ramos: That is correct. Chair Faust: . . .aren't part of what you're proposing. . . Raul Ramos: Right. Chair Faust: . . .as an alternative but it's just sort of additional things to be, to be thought about but not to be actually voted on? 23 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Raul Ramos: That, that's correct. Yeah, that's correct. Chair Faust: ok. Commissioners, would you please take note of that, that #7, Development Plan Review, is to be considered along the same lines as the items on page 10. Thanks. Thanks for that clarification. Raul Ramos: Um hum. I, I did want to bring it up to the forefront here so that I can kind of give you a preview of that. It would seem to be within the proper context here. Item #8 on the same page, and I ' ll quickly move on, we desire to eliminate any, any mandatory design criteria or design, or design administrative process to projects as they, uh within the downtown area. If certainly, if, if these processes act to reduce density, to discourage more height, then we certainly we've got to stress some kind of balance, some kind of, it would be inconsistent with our recommendation. Commissioner Martinez: I have a question. In fact I have two questions in that area. Raul Ramos: Sure. Commissioner Martinez: Last week the Council passed a multifamily design review recommendation. Would you like it not to be applied in the downtown area? Raul Ramos: I would like it to be applied on a purely voluntary basis and on a. . . Commissioner Martinez: It is not voluntary. Raul Ramos: Yeah, well, as it relates to the downtown, our recommendation is that it be applied on a voluntary basis. Again I say I want to create an environment within which the developer comes in and is given an opportunity to present something creative and, obviously, you negotiate out with the staff. Now the staff will obviously have certain, you know, threshold level of development standards that they always have to rely, or will always be able to rely on. But there 's some areas that I think we want to eliminate and, and, and leave them open for discussion. . . Commissioner Martinez: I guess. . . Raul Ramos: . . .and certainly the design standards, I understand that the staff will quickly be moving toward completing a design handbook which would very, you know, which is very appropriate for, 24 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 for distribution to the downtown project, downtown projects as well. Commissioner Martinez: I guess I 'm mi. . .not understanding how your committee feels that an un, an unlimited ability to do anything you want in the downtown will have any other kind of consequences than the same unlimited ability to build in the valley has. . .or on the hillside in multifamily. Why you think that the developers' unlimited ability to do whatever they want will have any better results down here than it has anywhere else in our City. Raul Ramos: Well, first of all we're not, we're not, we're not proposing that the developers be given unlimited opportunities to do whatever they want. The two major recommendations that we have is to eliminate height restrictions, eliminate any density restrictions, and we have the sight coverage requirements, we have, we desire to have some relaxation of parking standards for those projects which go beyond one story because you have a scarce commodity of land in the downtown area. To answer your question, how can we sit here and how can I stand here and represent the committee's desire to, to give special attention to the downtown is because I think that downtown represents a very unique, public purpose. I mean, I think the, oh the, it behooves us in the community to support the downtown and anything that happens within the downtown. It, you can't, you know its a little different than other, other parts. We've neglected the downtown over the years. I know that Kelleher has addressed all the projects, Mayor Kelleher has addressed all the projects that we've done and certainly the Planning Department's done a lot of studies. But we still gotta do more and I think that the downtown, and the committee does too, that it should be given special attention and certain special, if you will, opportunities to, to allow more dense development in the downtown. We're not throwing away opportunity to require good design in the high office buildings or, or, oh, or financial centers or whatever. We just want to maximize the opportunity to, to sit down and negotiate out a creative, well designed project. And if the design standards act to reduce height and act to reduce density, it's contrary to our recommendation and we oppose it. Item #8 has to do with parking and, Madam Chairman, I think that probably would fall under the same category that we assigned to the other one. So if you want, I can hold off to that or I can very speedily go through that. May I go through that very quickly? Chair Faust: Yes, I 'd prefer that you would. Go right ahead. Raul Ramos: What we've talked about, I've stood up here and talked about how much I 'd like to have some of these regula. . .how much we'd like to have these regulations relaxed, how much we'd like to 25 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 emphasize more height and less density restrictions, but how we gonna all have it happen without the appropriate parking being available? Well, first of all, the things that I 'm proposing, the scenario that I 'm proposing, the vision that I might be suggesting, it's not going to happen overnight. It's going to happen gradually and it's not going to probably happen within the next year, maybe 18 months. But what will happen was, is that the City will move very aggressively and deliberately toward, toward developing a comprehensive downtown parking facilities plan as part of, as a component part of the infrastructure facilities strategy plan and in the plan essentially would try to, would coordinate and compliment earlier parking proposals. In addition, the City will be asked to make a financial commitment to the formation of structured parking facilities to support mid and long term needs and concurrently develop reasonable parking mitigation agreements which is one small source of funding, if you will, for, for the users of or for the developers or owners of properties that would impact, impact the parking situation in downtown. These agreements, these mitigation agreements would then replace existing transportation corridor type of agreements for projects within the downtown planning area, only as they relate within the downtown planning area. If I could move on, on page 9, simply stated under the Parking category that we want to maintain a off-street ratio of one parking space per unit on multifamily projects in the DCE zone, which is I believe, Fred, is, is what the staff proposal, it's consistent with the staff proposal. Is that correct? We also suggested off-street parking may be located at rear or side of development. We ask that the Planning Commission and the Council consider a recommendation to reduce the number of off-street, surface parking spaces. For example, reduce by 50 percent the number of required off-street, surface parking spaces for buildings that exceed two stories in DCE and DIM. Again, I gotta go back and emphasize a comprehensive parking facility plan. We're not recommending that this be done in a vacuum. We're recommending that the City move very quickly on the comprehensive parking facility plan to eventually allow this to become a reality, to offset any parking impacts that might result of this recommendation. And the other two small, the other two minor recommendations have to do essentially with the same, the same type of item. The last item, very quickly, is labeled Addendum A which is an incentive program recommendations and for the lack of a better term, we, we termed it Incentive Program Recommendations and I guess it's because it's, it's kind of, kind of a desire of ours to have the Planning Commission, if we haven't done, uh, well first of all I 'd have to say that there's a lot more work to be done on the incentive program aspect of any downtown zoning proposal, much more 26 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 so than we have presented here today. The point I wanted to make is that the committee felt very strongly that there should be an incentive type of component to the downtown, any downtown zoning plan. I think it's about time. I really do. I think it' s about time. Certainly considering the importance of this issue and keeping in mind what Mayor Kelleher has spoke to, spoke to earlier, I think it's very imperative, I think, that we clearly address particularly his concerns and those of the Council on this particular item. Essentially, we recommend that all legal, non-conforming uses remain. As you remember, at the workshop there was a question, there was a kind of a, and allowed to be, expand freely if you will. Well we just basically lobbed that off (unclear) which is very much consistent with the existing legal standards anyway. Low impact (non-dense) type of uses i.e. , non-gasoline mini marts, service stations and fast food businesses may be allowed within the DCE if part of buildings that are above two stories and I think it's important to understand that concept again. We essentially are not promoting a McDonald's, we're not promoting an AM/PM Arco station unless, of course, it's part of a, of a larger building. You know as well as I do, in the, in, maybe in Renton and certainly in downtown Seattle you have buildings that are 10, 20 stories and yet in some of them you do have, limited albeit, service stations. You know, an opportunity to go in there and get some gas and things like that. What, we essentially want to create the same situation. We don't mind these type of uses located within the downtown, but certainly they've got to be part of, of a, of a one story office building, or a one story structure. I just, it's just very inconsistent with our desire to have maximum utilization of land in the downtown area. In addition and we state that we allow, we would like to allow for future maximum development of City parking area north of North Harrison. I think that's, we had in our mind that that would be an opportunity to provide some structured parking since it's already City owned property behind, behind Penney's. I think that in the, in the staffs proposal, I, we read some, some recommendations which we felt would, would deter that possibility. We felt that that's, that would be the end result. It certainly was not pointed out in that way, but we just kind of read into it a little bit. I have some other items here, but I just want to read basically only three more, Madam Chairman, and I think I 'm essentially done here. And those have to do with another very important element of our recommendation and that's, from the programatic standpoint, if, if we're going to recommend that we eliminate height restrictions, eliminate density restrictions, then part of our total program is 27 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 to, is to get the City administration to institute a fast track review process that guarantees a 50 percent reduction in review time if the project applicant adheres to voluntary set of design standards. In the same vein, we'd like a fast track review bonus be provided and rewarded to applicants who provide public space, daycare facilities, landscaping, public art and other public purpose amenities. It is within, it is within the purview of the City to fast track development projects. King County has done it for schools. They brought them up to the top of the stack. They did it by ordinance. Cities have that opportunity. Obviously they have to be well aware of other legal requirements for SEPA and so forth, but there is room for, for fast track review process there, particularly as it relates to the downtown now. I 'm only talking about the downtown. Chair Faust: Raul, then are you talking about a fast track review bonus meaning that the bonus is going to be a fast review? Raul Ramos• Yes. Chair Faust• OK. Raul Ramos: Um hum. For downtown projects. The, the other item is we would like to see and I guess again, Madam Chairman, we would ask the question of the City Attorney on this particular item, the feasibility of the City preparing an extensive five year environmental impact statement for the downtown area, the downtown planning area, and then subsequently require only abbreviated project data from applicants with proposals therein. Essentially this is to eliminate the repetitive process in the SEPA ordinance as it applies to the City of Kent. I 'm not a, I 'm not an attorney so I can't, I can't really go further than that, but it's the concept. Other jurisdictions that I know, Clark County years ago, years ago did their comprehensive plan, did a massive environmental impact statement and then subsequently for projects within not the downtown, but the entire portion, geographical portion of Clark County and Vancouver, Washington require only abbreviated data, required, I mean provided for an expedited review, SEPA review process. And that's essentially what we're asking for here as it relates to projects within the downtown. And last but not least is, is, I guess, a reiteration of what Mayor Kelleher has alluded to being a very important, oh, task to complete in order to lure, attract, motivate if you will, more downtown investment and that's to, to develop a specific infrastructure strategy plan to allow more dense development pattern for the downtown. Essentially it's very consistent with 28 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 the growth management act and certainly it would be very consistent with the Council's desire to revitalize the downtown. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you, Raul. Before anybody else gets their licks at you, I would like to ask you on one additional item on the Addendum A about eliminating biofiltration requirements in the downtown zoning plan. Did you talk with anybody over in Don Wickstrom's shop about that, what the effect of that would be on existing or future infrastructure? Raul Ramos: Uh, no but I am aware that they have proposed some kind of mitigation, uh engineering solution to water quality within, for projects within the downtown, but within the context of this proposal tonight, no I have not spoken to him about that. Chair Faust: OK. OK Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Ramos? Commissioner Martinez: Madam Chair? Chair Faust: Yeah? Commissioner Martinez: I 'd like to reserve the right to invite Mr. Ramos back as we progress through our discussions and through the rest of the hearing. Raul Ramos: I 'd be more than happy to do so. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Chair Faust: Anybody else? So that I can get this straight, what the committee is proposing is a set of alternatives to what the Planning Department already proposed. Those alternatives are included on pages 2 through 9 of the document dated September something, 17th? Raul Ramos• Yes. Chair Faust: That does not include #7, Development Plan Review, which has now been moved back to Addendum A. And it is also my understanding that the items which appear on page 10 of this document are advisory and they are not to be considered part of your alternative plan. Raul Ramos: Correct. Chair Faust: All right. Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much. Raul Ramos: Thank you. 29 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Chair Faust: The next speaker on our list is Barry Miller. Barry Miller: My name is Barry Miller, 401 North 4th in Kent. I 'm the president of Northwest Metal Products Company and was a member of the downtown zoning alternatives committee and I just would like to take a moment to speak out in strong support of these recommendations for a more flexible downtown zoning plan. Thank you. Chair Faust: Boy, that was short and sweet, Mr. Miller. Any questions, Commissioners, of Mr. Miller? Thank you. The next speaker is Chuck Howard. Chuck Howard: Yes, my name is Chuck Howard, Howard Manufacturing Company, 421 6th Avenue North and I also would support this. I think the flexibility that it affords the City of Kent would help it grow the way we all want it to. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Howard. Any questions for Mr. Howard, Commissioners? Mr. Howard, I 'd like to ask you a question. Chuck Howard: Yes. Chair Faust: Are you familiar with the, the earlier draft of this document, specifically the section of the document that had originally, great, recommended that, oh here we go, page 9, #10 under what used to be Incentive Bonuses? Originally it had said all legal non-conforming uses to remain with express right to expand freely. The committee has now changed that to read as an incentive addendum, "All legal non-conforming uses to remain" . I 'd like to know whether you support that change? Chuck Howard: I, I don't know. Chair Faust: Is that something you can buy into, or. . . Chuck Howard: I would have to sit down and read both the things you're talking about before I could answer that just off the cuff. Chair Faust: OK. Basically, that's all it said. Chuck Howard: Would you repeat that again? Chair Faust: Sure, if I can find the page. When they first came out with these recommendations, the legal non-conforming use recommendation was, and I 'm just reading it, "eliminate" , oops, "All legal non-conforming uses to remain with expressed right to expand freely" . That's what their first set of recommendations said. Their final draft says, "All legal non-conforming uses to 30 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 remain" . And I 'm not trying to put you on the spot, Mr. Howard, I 'm really not, but I just wanted to know whether that change was acceptable to you. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Chuck Howard: I 'm not going to answer it. I. . . Chair Faust: That's fine. Chuck Howard: I don't know it just off hand. Chair Faust: OK. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dick McCann. Dick McCann: My name is Dick McCann. I 'm an attorney with Perkins Coie, 1201 3rd Avenue, 40th Floor, Seattle. I 'm here tonight on behalf of Northwest Metal Products, Howard Manufacturing and Borden Chemical. Mr. Rico Yingling, plant superintendent of Borden Chemical, is unable to be here tonight and so I am here in his place to tell you that Borden has carefully considered the outlines of the proposal recommended to you by the committee, the alternative downtown rezone committee, and endorses that proposal. If I may, I would also speak to your last question. There have been some changes in the overall concept that we have not yet had an opportunity to review, but recognize that there's a good deal of implementation left to be done and believe that particular concerns of that kind can be worked out during that process. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. McCann? Thank you. Our next speaker is Alden Eld. Alden Eld: My name is Alden Eld. I live at 43510 192nd Avenue in Enumclaw. I own property here in Kent. I have a question for the alternative board. Did they change any of the boundaries to their proposal? Chair Faust: Well, you need to ask us and we' ll ask them. Alden Eld: OK. Chair Faust: Raul, did you change the borders? Raul Ramos: We did. Do you have a copy of the. . . Alden Eld: I have, yes. Raul Ramos: You have. . . Alden Eld: No, no I didn't. Yes, I have that, but. . . 31 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Raul Ramos: OK. Alden Eld: . . .you didn't have a map on it. Raul Ramos: The answer is yes. Rather expanded your, what used to be the DC area and it's not. . . Chair Faust: And Raul when you. . . Alden Eld: Maybe, maybe I could just let him explain that to me while the next person speaks. Chair Faust: Oh no, no, no. I think that we all ought to hear it, so what I 'd like is for Raul to grab a mike and explain so that it' ll be on the record because that's an excellent question and we want to make sure that we get it answered for everybody. Raul Ramos: I think, I think another good, good question would be is it. . .do we have a graphics that's on the staff proposal for the downtown zoning districts that I might offer a comparison. Essentially what we've done, sir, is that we've combined what is the DC with the MU zoning districts and formed only one. So your MU district was within this respective area now referred to as DCE and here you have. . . Chair Faust: OK and what you have to do, Raul, is address your comments to us. Raul Ramos: OK. Any case, this is a little difficult here, but essentially what we have, Madam Chairman, is a prop. . .a graphic representation of the staff's proposal showing the various zoning districts. . . Whispers: Unclear. Voice: OK, sure. Whispers: Unclear. Chair Faust: Thank you, Janet. Voices: Unclear. Raul Ramos: Anne Watanabe left her (unclear) here. (Unclear. ) Madam Chairman, here, this is the graphic representation of the staff s proposal regarding the various zoning districts and, as you can see, the DC and the MU areas will eventually merge under the downtown zoning alternatives committee's proposal into this respective graphic. Essentially, we've, we've held to the 32 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 boundaries, the combined boundaries of the DC and the MU zoning districts and just simply created one DCE, downtown commercial enterprise. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Ramos about this issue? Voices: Unclear. Chair Faust: Raul, would you please turn off the machine if we're done. Voice: Madam Chairman, Madam Chairman. Chair Faust: Technically, you're not supposed to be asking questions from the floor. Voice: I withdraw. Chair Faust: OK, I think you're signed up to speak anyway so why don't you just hold on your question. Mr. Eld, did you have anything else? Alden Eld: Uh, yes. My concern is in really two areas there, one being James Street and the other being Willis Street, that we're stopping this plan right in the middle of the two busiest, probably two busiest streets and what impact does that really have on the people that live on the other side of the street from where you've stopped that line right in the middle of the street? My feeling is it would be fairer, er better, to stop this into the property line, into the property across the street from where you are rather than in the middle of the street. I mean, who, people would not, I don't think, want to live directly across the street from some of these other things that are going to be built in the area right directly in front of them. Where if the plan is stopped in the property itself, then you have setbacks and that where you can put setbacks between whatever's built there and the residential, rather than stopping it right there on a very, very busy street. That's my concern. Thank you. Chair Faust: OK. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. The next people who signed up really didn't sign up either to speak or to be on the mailing list, but being good citizens, I guess they just signed the form, but I 'm going to give them an opportunity to speak anyway if they so desire and that's Florence and/or Charles Hauf? Clarence Hauf: Clarence Hauf. No. 33 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Chair Faust: Clarence. Well, would you like to be put on any mailing list so that you can receive any mailings that we send out. Clarence Hauf: Yes. Thank you very much. Chair Faust: OK, fine, you hadn't put a little "x" here so I ' ll put it down here for you. Clarence Hauf: Thank you. Chair Faust: Great. If you want to speak though, you certainly may. OK. Thanks for coming. The next speaker is Jerry Klein. Jerry Klein: Thank you. My name is Jerry Klein and I 'm an attorney. I represent Washington Cedar and Kent Building Materials who are within the downtown zone. My address is 425 Lyon Building in Seattle, 98104 . We strongly would support the alternative proposed by Mr. Ramos and would suggest perhaps a compromise of the two could be worked out, or that there are, there are some very positive benefits for the community and the downtown region in taking a more liberal approach. And the reason why is because the, the company, Washington Cedar, who has facilities in a number of areas throughout the Puget Sound area, number of cities throughout the Puget Sound area, has witnessed a substantial impact in those communities which adopt a conservative approach such as the staff has suggested for the local community. For an example, in a town like Edmonds, who now has a rather restricted approach in development for the downtown area, is faced with a situation where there' s a lot of facilities that can no longer economically be supported with the original concept of a commercial, solely a commercial facility in their downtown core and they will soon be in a very difficult situation where people simply will not be able to maintain existing uses that are prescribed by their zoning in that facility. Other communities which have a more liberal approach similar to that that was proposed by Mr. Ramos, have enjoyed continued growth in a natural maturation of the, of their community. On behalf of my clients, I would strongly suggest that you listen carefully to the approach, or to the more liberal approach that Mr. Ramos is suggesting and allow for the natural maturation. All communities have to go through a natural maturation unless they are artificially restricted by a conservative zoning requirements which will ultimately just lead to their decay. You can see this in such communities such as Ballard or Seattle or others where development has been severely limited. Thank you. Commissioner Havlor: Madam Chairman? 34 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Chair Faust: Yes, Al. Commissioner Haylor: Mr. Klein, I 'd like to direct a question toward you. Your clients, are they in, would they be in the new DCE zone or would. . . Jerry Klein: That's correct. Commissioner Haylor: . . .they be in the GC? Jerry Klein: Yes, they would. If I can figure out how to operate this thing, I can show you. There. They'd be in, Washington Cedar is in this facility here and Kent Building Materials, I believe, is right here. Commissioner Haylor: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Klein. You've given us an example of a city such as Edmonds that has had a more conservative approach. Can you give us examples of cities that have the more liberal approach that you have been talking about? Jerry Klein: Well, I think one would be Silverdale, that comes to mind. our experience is that in Silverdale the, a more liberal approach that their county, or that their city has adopted has allowed for substantial growth. Now there are different factors there than there are here. For example, they would not enjoy the benefits that Kent could po. . .could potentially enjoy with such things as this criminal, or the. . . Chair Faust: Regional justice center. Jerry Klein: Thank you. That, which, Kent has a lot of benefit because of its proximity to both Tacoma and Seattle that some place like Silverdale would not, but I think that the idea is that where Silverdale, of course, has the benefit of the naval base and they have all their, they've allowed this, like I say, what I called the natural maturation of the community to facilitate growth. They've had phenomenal growth in that area and they've been able to accommodate it quite well. It's a beautiful town and I think that Kent would be a different structure, of course. It would be, I think that the vision that Mr. Ramos has presented would be that of a number of office facilities that would accommodate a more business, business community. Bellevue has had quite a few problems, but I think that they have been very, have been quite successful in adopting a fairly open program and also in accommodating a large number of growth, of office facilities. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. 35 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Chair Faust: Mr. Klein, what is it about the alternative proposal, the committee's proposal in particular, that is important to your clients? Jerry Klein: I think that to try to distill it out, it's, it allows the natural market forces of development. It gives an input to the, to the market forces of development rather than attempts to shape the community with sort of an artificial vision of what the community would be. I think that both, I speak, I can speak for both Washington Cedar and Kent Building Materials. We realize that our sort of activities are not really consistent with either the vision proposed by the staff or the vision proposed by Mr. Ramos. We understand that, but for, we will be in the Kent area for a long, long time and we would envision that our services, we would like to make our services available to a Kent that has the economic stability of a, of a large, of a commercial and business center which Mr. Ramos would propose as opposed to sort of a, I suppose a yuppified whatever, well like an Edmonds or something. I don't, we don't, we see that as sort of a poor vision for Kent. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any more questions for Mr. Klein? Thank you. I, I skipped over someone and I apologize. She's only signed up to receive information, but I ' ll ask her anyway. Mary Hofling, would you like to speak anyway. You didn't sign up to speak. Mary Hoflina: I didn't sign up to speak, but I 've heard that. . . I came here to find out. Chair Faust: Fine. Mary Hoflina: Thanks. Chair Faust: Well, I hope you're finding out and thank you for coming. Mary Hoflinq: Cause I'm right in the middle of one of those streets. Chair Faust: Well, if you'd like to get up and say a few words to us, feel free. This is your opportunity. We'd love to hear from you. There's a mike back there or one up here. Mary Hoflina: I ' ll just speak next time. Chair Faust: Good enough, good enough. Thank you for coming. Our next speaker did not sign up either to receive information or to speak, but for some strange reason I have a feeling that Mr. Leiper would probably like to speak. 36 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Hugh Leiner: Good evening and thank you very much. My name is Hugh Leiper. My company is American Commercial Industries, Inc. in Kent, 1819 South Central, Suite 116. Mr. Ramos' report, I think, is a very excellent approach to a more liberal downtown and allowing it to really flourish. There is one thing that I think that we need to perhaps even think more deeply, though, is what are we really trying to do? We need to pinpoint ourselves in the direction of are we trying to make downtown Kent the focal point of the community or are we just simply going to keep putting it on the priority list and are we simply going to keep using this as perhaps a political football to keep the ball rolling? Now the time is ripely approaching that we need to really talk about what do we want downtown Kent to be in terms of its true importance, in terms of its true image for itself and in those contexts, once you have come to that thought, then you can begin to develop what you need for the zoning. The, when, when Mr. Ramos was talking about the parking facilities. Right now on the north side, pardon me, on the south side of Smith Street between Smith and Harrison, you have a lot of businesses downtown right now, but the chances are extremely great that you're going to find a lot of vacancies in that parking lot already that' s not being used. Now, you have to really understand what it takes to attract businesses to an area and make it function. There is no point in re. . . in trying to reinvent the wheel. Bellevue already did. Now, you have to remember in Bellevue, the largest building that used to be there was the Puget Sound building and that was before the center was built. You have to have the goods and services for, available for the entire community before you're going to be able to attract office space other than attorneys for a justice center. In, for instance, in downtown Seattle, the reason why those office buildings fill up so very well is because they already had the goods and services, in abundance, available for the people that are working in those buildings. Now if we're going to try to get office buildings down here, you're going to have to first, fulfill the requirements of the other goods and services for the people that are going to be working in those buildings. And then, we also need to, while we're on it, we need to think about the fast transit and we need to tie that in with the pivot point of downtown and really make this a beautiful city. We can do it, but we've all got to get our visions and our priorities in the right direction. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Leiper. Any questions for Mr. Leiper? Commissioner Martinez: Yes, it's one I meant to ask everyone. What is your vision of our City? 37 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Hugh Leiper: I thought you'd never ask. Laughter. Commissioner Martinez: Short, remember. Chair Faust: Mr. Leiper, you can tell us as long as you want about your vision. I had, I was counting on you. . . Hugh Leiper• I. . . Chair Faust: . . .counting on you to give us a vision, your vision. Hugh Leiper: Well, the vision that I really have for your downtown is simply to develop a regional center downtown here that can attract the kinds of businesses that is necessary to support 140, 000 people within your trade area and tie that in with a, your train depot, and so that these whole things match together and work functionally right. The opportunity, believe me, is unbelievable because it's here. The, the true essence of business can be understood if you understand three things. It takes really three things to attract people and you've got to be able to attract people or you're not going to be able to conduct business. One is bigness, the other is variety, the other is a circus or carnival type psychology. Now you have Cornucopia Days, that takes care of your carnival or circus type activity. Now, you don't need that if you're in the true community you're trying to serve. I can give you an example. For instance, Northgate, which is the granddaddy of all centers, was built in 1950, opened up in 151 long before the freeways were even on the map. Now that center was a success from day one, the reason being, it's nestled right directly in the community it's trying to serve. Now, you take away the freeways from Northgate, it would still survive. You take away the freeways from Southcenter, it would die because it's not in part of the total community you're trying to serve. Now as another example, Capitol Mall, which is having some deep, deep troubles, and this is down by Olympia on the north side. Now generally speaking, you can take a bowling ball and put down the mall during the day or the weekend, you're not going to hit very many people. Now that thing is roughly 1, 300, 000 square feet. About the same size as the Southcenter. Now it has the bigness and it has the variety, but it's not in the community it's trying to serve. Now if you put a circus in its parking lot 365 days out of the year, it might make it work. That's not really a practical thing. 38 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Now there's another center that's further down the freeway called South Sound, closer to downtown Olympia. That particular center outdraws the big one five to one. Why? Because it's nestled in the community it's trying to serve. Now Bellevue, when it happened, it happened by accident. Originally, the (unclear) went up between Redmond and Bellevue and acquired 100 acres. This was in the 60s with the thought in mind of developing a true center there. When it came to the time of doing that they needed the zoning and they needed the utilities and here is Redmond on one side and Bellevue on the other side and they just pulled this thing totally apart. All right, they even sent the big fellow in, DeBartolo, and he couldn't do it either. But then, then they had a fellow over in Bellevue who had Penney's and he had Frederick & Nelson already there and he kept telling these fellows, "All right, if you really want a center, bring it over here and we can do it" . They finally did that and now that is what Bellevue is today in terms of a true center, nestled in the true community it's trying to serve and that particular center is the most successful one there is in the United States. Now there's no reason why we can't do the same if we want to. You gotta have the will to do it. There is the opportunity to do it. There is availability of the type of ownership and the cooperative things that can make this happen, but it has to be done in terms of both the City and a financing people. Thank you very much. Did I miss anything? Laughter. Chair Faust: Um, what do you think about making some extra concessions for downtown? Maybe fast tracking permits, doing away with the height restrictions, bagging various kinds of design review. What do you think of all of those things? Hugh Leiper: There's mixed feelings with that. We need to make it so that this thing works. We need to all plan this thing together because believe me, you're not planning this just for the next few days. You're gonna try to plan a city for the next hundred years. Now we just got through not too long ago, of experiencing the birthday of Kent of 100 years. The downtown showed that it was a focal point of the community, but it's been dying because you haven't had it, you haven't let it be fed and become what it should be. Chair Faust: Any more questions for Mr. Leiper? Thank you. I want to thank you for not asking us to answer any questions. You didn't give us a poll tonight. Thank you very much. 39 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 The next person has only marked that he wishes to be on the mailing list, but I ' ll give him an opportunity to speak anyway and that's Chris Kirsop. Chris Kirson: I don't wish to speak, thank you. Chair Faust: OK, fine. The next speaker is Jack, is it Camer, Camer? Jack Gamer: Gamer, G-A-M-E-R. Chair Faust: Fine, Mr. Jack Gamer. Jack Gamer: Madam Chairman, my name is Jack Gamer. I 'm an engineer by trade. I live in the City of Kent at 705 4th Avenue North and someone raised the issue of visions. Within visions I have another subcategory is what I call treasures. What, what are the treasures that I 'd like to see for Kent. One of the treasures that I know I would not like to see for Kent is a regional justice center. I 've gone, I 've gone through downtown Los Angeles where they have their four, four and five story justice centers. What do you see there on a Saturday night? You see the mothers and the little children lined out. . . lined up outside of the jail waiting to see their loved ones for whatever reasons they are in the criminal justice center. That is not my vision for Kent. One of the other speakers raised the point that, I don't know if at one time Kent had a lot of landfills that were dumps. I don't know if we're storing radioactive material. I think now in our culture, in our society, we believe the storing of radioactive material in the City of Kent is bad, but what we're substituting in for the radioactive material are what I call possibly the unfortunates of our society, which are the people we're going to put in this regional justice center. And what are we gonna have going to the regional justice center? We're gonna have busloads bringing the prisoners there that are gonna, say from King County, from this county, from that county. I don't want my children or my grandchildren looking at all these buses bringing in these shackled people who will be chained and handcuffed. They will be handcuffed by their hands to where they're sitting. They will also have chains on their feet, well they' ll be shackled so they can't get away. I don't see the, I don't see the City of Beverly Hills trying to attract a, a criminal justice center. If we want to have a place where we're going to attract attorneys, is why don't we have an outstanding library with four or five million books. This will attack, this is how we can attract legal scholars to the City of Kent. If you will study the other large cities in the United States is, the attorneys don't live near their 40 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 prisoners. The attorneys don't live near their criminals. They try to be as far away from them as they can and the highest or best use of our land in the City of Kent is not to give the first few stories of a building over to a criminal justice center. If you want to do this, then I propose this. Put the criminal justice center on top of the downtown parking structure district building. In other words, why put the criminal justice center on the lowest level? If we're gonna go in for highrise structures, why not put the criminal justice center and our jails on top of the buildings as they're doing in the City of Los Angeles, in the City of Chicago, in the City of New York? And that's my vision for Kent is, is not to have it as a refuse dump for the dredges of our culture and society. My vision for Kent and the treasure, one of the treasures for me and the City of Kent would be is to have a nice place for people to live and this really does not mean maximum density buildings with zero setbacks where we build our buildings right up to the sidewalk. The other thing is, is let' s not grandfather in illegality. How do we grandfather in illegality? We grandfather in illegality when we make a nonconforming land use a conforming land use and the thing that my ears picked up tonight was the fact, was, I guess at one point in time and I still don't know if this is in the incentive program recommendation, is to all conforming land uses are OK and it's OK to expand the nonconforming land uses. This is not part of my vision for Kent. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you very much, Mr. Gamer. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Gamer? Thank you. Our next speaker is Steve Burpee. Steve Burpee: The name is Steve Burpee, 1048 West James, Kent, and I 'm here representing the Kent Chamber of Commerce as Vice President, Commerce and Industry. Chair Faust: I was wondering if the Chamber had a representative here. I'm glad to see that they do. Steve Burpee: I just received this on Friday and just got it out to a couple of my key committee people today and primarily I want to know what your time frame is to move forward on this so we can respond accordingly. I 'm sure that there are businesses that we represent, not only in the downtown area, but certainly on the outside that still have a stake in the downtown part that want some input. 41 Kent Planning Commission September 23 , 1991 Chair Faust: As I said when we first went back to this subject tonight, we were going to take public testimony until about ten o'clock. I didn't see any way that we were possibly going to finish this tonight. If there's more public testimony, we will take that up at our next regularly schedule, scheduled public hearing which is a month from now, the third, fourth? Gee how time flies. The fourth Monday of October and that's when we will continue this matter. We'll be taking it up in October. Considering how many people have spoken tonight, I think there's a good possibility we will begin our deliberations next month, possibly finish, I do not know. But at any rate, it will be taken up, we will not finish tonight. We will take it up next month. Steve Burpee: I hope there's an opportunity for a lot of interested parties, both businesses and citizens, to sit down and discuss and go through it and perhaps come forward with a plan that, however it may be, that's a consensus vision for everybody. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Burpee? Mr. Burpee? Steve Burpee: Yes? Chair Faust: This public hearing is going to continue next month and if other people wish to come and speak, we would be delighted to hear them. And our final speaker who at least has signed up to speak, although after this final speaker, I ' ll ask anybody who hasn't spoken yet if they would like to speak, but the last person who has signed up is Peter Curran. Pete Curran: May I speak from back here? Chair Faust: Yes you may. Pete Curran: Thank you. I 'm going to also ask to come back next month. I received these documents on the 18th and was away and so I 'd like to come back and have a chance to comment on these documents and perhaps do so in writing. I would raise a couple of questions that I thought as, as I sat here and listened tonight and one is, and I guess I should preface that by saying my essential point of view, or my point of view is that the historic heart of Kent should, we should do whatever we can do to protect that area and there may, I mean certainly there are things in both the staff effort and in the effort of the committee that's reported tonight that probably would help to some extent the downtown area. I think you have to recognize that with an existing plan that hasn't been, the existing plan now, not the plan the staff has proposed, not the plan that has been proposed tonight, but with the existing plan, it isn't too much different with respect to densities. The DC-1 area 42 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 you could build to the sidewalks before and you can, with the proposal, build there now. In fact, not too much has happened to downtown Kent for a long time with respect to building out the areas that are remaining undeveloped on the perimeters of the downtown area. And exactly what drives that, I guess maybe everybody in the room would have different perspectives, but probably it's driven by the fact that the, economically it just hasn't been that attractive to come into this community and develop yet. However, we may be there now. It's interesting to hear suggested that we should go vertical with this downtown area and I don't, I guess I think about Northgate and Southcenter and Bellevue Mall. . .Bellevue Square and Tacoma Mall, and I wonder where the vertical is in those bustling retail spaces. It really isn't there. They're one and two stories and despite the fact that we constantly hear that downtown has to be revitalized, all the storefronts of downtown have been full for quite a long time. There's turnover. There's an empty storefront, Bill Stewart's drug store's empty right now, but a lot of people don't think there's ever empty storefronts in Southcenter. You don't see them because they disappear quickly with turnover, with the covering of windows at Southcenter, but there' s a total transition of tenancies in Southcenter over the years, as downtown Kent has some turnover, but basically, downtown Kent has been full for a long time and I think it's worth remembering, when you talk about revitalizing downtown Kent, I think we have to know what we're talking about. What do we really want to do with downtown Kent? Would we be unhappy if we had only one and two story buildings in downtown Kent, throughout the area that's zoned? I 'm not urging that that would be the right way to go. But I think that at least one needs to look at downtown and wonder if we might do something to change the historical core. That's, I guess that's all I want to say for tonight, but I ' ll try to study the plan that has been proposed and make some written comments to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Curran? Mr. Curran, I want you to know that the letter that you sent us before is part of the materials that we have already, so any comments that you wish to make, do keep in mind that we do have the letter you sent us before just as we have all of the letters that everyone has sent us before, all the memoranda, all the letters. Pete Curran: I think the comments would be more directed at this new recommendation. Chair Faust: That's just fine. Thank you. Well, Mr. Curran is the last person who's signed up to speak. I know that some of you have been sitting and listening very patiently and perhaps now the 43 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 spirit will move you. If you wish to get up and say something, please do. We'd be delighted to hear from you. It's now a little after 9:30, Commissioners. I want to thank all the people who've come here tonight, the people who've spoken and the people have come and just listened. We are not going to finish tonight. I would urge all of you to go home, especially those of you who live or work in the downtown area, and tell other people that this public hearing is going to continue next month. If they do want to be part of this process or if they want to hear what's going on, please do encourage them to come. Commissioners. . .yes? Commissioner Havlor: Madam Chairman, I would like. . . Chair Faust: Is your speaker on? Commissioner Havlor: Yes, it is now. Madam Chairman, I would like to propose a motion that we continue this hearing to our regular hearing, or our regular meeting scheduled the fourth Monday in October. James Harris: Could we say the date, October 28. Commissioner Havlor: October 28, 1991, will that do? Chair Faust: Is there a second? Kent Morrill: Second. Chair Faust: It's been moved and seconded that we table the remainder of our discussion until next month's meeting. Is there any comment? Commissioner Martinez: The only question I have is, it's on, will we be looking at this, at the proposals that are in front of us in workshop? Chair Faust: Jim, what's planned for our upcoming workshop on the second Monday? James Harris: I do not know. Maybe some of the staff does, but my recommendation would be that you not take this to workshop, that you keep it in public hearing so you can keep the record going. Commissioner Martinez: OK. Commissioner Havlor: I, I would definitely like to see that also, maybe go, you know, into workshop after the hearing if (unclear) closed. 44 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 Chair Faust: Yeah, I think that we've probably heard, we have various drafts before us now. I 'm sure that next month we're going to be getting letters from people, we' ll be opening it up next month. I know that staff was asked way back when if they would please get us some answers to various questions that we had. We have a written document, do we, on those written answers? So unless staff has a burning desire to, to refresh our memories on that, we do have that document as well and I see no reason for us to go into workshop on that. Do you, Lauri? Lauri Anderson: No, I. again it's a question of whether you wanted us to go over, in the public hearing format, the answers to. . . Chair Faust: Yes. Lauri Anderson: . . .some of those questions. Chair Faust: I think that we probably would. Lauri Anderson: And we're prepared to do that whenever you're ready. Chair Faust: Good. Commissioners, I know that there's a motion on the table, um. . . Commissioner Martinez: Question. Chair Faust: Wait, wait, wait, wait. . . Commissioner Haylor: I ' ll call for the question. Chair Faust: Wait, wait, wait, I had, I was going to say something. Don't call for it yet. No, I wanted to know, since we said we were going to go until ten o'clock, would you like to go ahead and hear what staff has put together in answer to the questions we asked them four months ago? They've provided us with some written information. I think for the record we really do need to get them on the record, those comments. Do you want to go ahead and do it now since it's not ten o'clock yet? Commissioner Haylor: Uh, Madam Chairman, point of order. Chair Faust: Yes? Commissioner Havlor: There is a motion on the floor. . . Chair Faust: I know. 45 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 commissioner Havlor: . . .and I would think it would need to be voted on before we either continue on tonight or, or adjourn. Chair Faust: I wanted to give the Commissioners an opportunity to know that there was alternative for just closing down shop tonight after the, since we've gone through the public hearings for tonight. Your point of order is well taken, however. OK, Commissioners, someone, two people have called for the question, so the motion before us is shall be go ahead and table this until next month? Commissioner Martinez: We're going to continue. Chair Faust: Oh, I 'm sorry, continue until next month. All those in favor, please say aye. Voices• Aye. Chair Faust: All those opposed, say nay. Ayes have it and the public hearing is now closed and it will be continued until next month. Commissioner Martinez: Madam Chair. Chair Faust: Yes? Commissioner Martinez: I would like to propose that the staff presentation on the questions that we raised in May be presented next, at our next hearing simply because I 've been concentrating on the alternative plan and the questions really relate back to the original plan. I would feel more comfortable in refreshing myself again. Chair Faust: Also, before the folks in the audience leave, if you intend to submit something in writing to us, please make sure that it is submitted in writing within the next two to three weeks to the Planning Department, so that the Planning Department has time to get copies out to all of us so that we have time to review it. The stack of materials we now have on the subject looks something about like that. We will all be reviewing that before next month. Please, try to submit things to us at least a week to ten days before the next hearing so that you will be assured that we will have the time to read it. Thank you all very much. (End of verbatim minutes) 46 Kent Planning Commission September 23, 1991 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9 :40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ame P. Harris, Secretary 47