Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/28/1991 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 1991 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7: 00 P.M. , October 28, 1991, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 23 , 1991 MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the September 23, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion with the exception that he be shown as excused instead of absent. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to approve the minutes with that correction. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - ZCA-90-6 (Verbatim minutes) Chair Faust: All right, the moment you've all been waiting for, number seven public hearing, the Kent Downtown Plan Implementation Program public hearing is now reopen from last month and what we're going to be doing first is having a staff report to answer some questions that we had quite some time ago and we hadn't gotten answers on everything all together. So who's going to be reporting? Janet? Come on up. Janet Shull: Good evening, Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. This is Janet Shull from the Planning Department and I 'm going to start off the staff presentation. Actually, Lauri, Kevin and I will all make brief presentations on different issues. What I am going to start out covering is a memo dated April 15, so we're going to go back a ways and rediscuss some, or recover some issues that we had in a written form responded to you and then tonight we're going. . .what I 'm going to do on these is go through them very quickly unless there are questions just to get these items into the Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 record and then Kevin is going to cover some items in memos dated May 13 and September 16 and Lauri is also going to cover some other issues in those same memos. And they're all up here on the front table if there are some that you can't find, but for the moment I 'm going to be covering the April 15 memo. And then following the staff presentation, we're going to be turning the podium over to Raul Ramos who is going to come back and discuss some issues that were left outstanding, I guess, at the last meeting and some clarification. And then from there it' ll be your call, I guess, how we proceed. Chair Faust: Thanks, Janet, before you get started though, Commissioners, how many of you after a flurried search through your materials, have found that you did not bring with you the April 15 memorandum? Voices: Unclear. Chair Faust: I think there's probably more, but they're just not going to raise their hand. Why don't you bring a big stack and while your back is turned to the audience, you can slip them to people. Laughter. Janet Shull: And also, for those of you in the audience who would like to follow along, there are extra copies up here at the front. What these issues are in this. . .we actually had started to go through these back in May, I believe. . . Voice: I 've got two of them. Chair Faust: Why don't you wait until the crowd thins down. Janet Shull: Sure. Chair Faust: (Unclear) Voices: (Unclear. ) Chair Faust: It's all yours, Janet. Janet Shull: OK. Um, this memo dated April 15 is actually something that we had started to discuss, I believe it was back in May, the last time that we met, and we had gone through issue. . .up and to. . .and through issue number 5 in the memo which is on page 4 of the memo. So we're starting with number 6 and what I 'd like to do is basically state for the record what each of these issues 2 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Issue number 12 , the Mixed Use zone will result in spot planning. There will be no predictability in land use patterns. Brought up by one speaker. Issue number 13 , will single family land uses, this is a question, will single family land uses become nonconforming application of the Mixed Use zoning district? That was brought up by one speaker. Issue number 14, areas which are currently zoned DC-1 and are being recommended for Mixed Use zoning will result in a change in parking requirements. That was brought up by two different speakers. That dealt with the parking. . .the LID for parking in downtown Kent. Issue 15, that was brought up, need to take into con. . . into account all relevant codes, such as the building code, in making staff recommendations. That was brought up by one speaker. Issue 16, some historic buildings are only one story The new development standards call for a two story minimum. Brought up by one speaker. Issue 17, we need to establish a vision for downtown. Brought up by two of our speakers. Issue 18, the plan has too much emphasis on parking problems. Who will pay for the structured parking? That' s issue. . .one person brought up that issue. Issue 19, downtown should have corridors for pedestrians and bicycles. That was brought up by one speaker. And the final issue, number 20, the downtown planning area should include K-Mart and other commercial areas on the valley floor. And that was brought up by one speaker. And for the record, I think I did mention this, we have responded in written form to all of these in the memo dated April 15, so if there aren't any specific questions, I ' ll assume that those responses are adequate for this time. I 'm sure we' ll have some further comment on some of these from the citizens. Chair Faust: Commissioners, take a couple of minutes to review this and review your notes and see whether you have any questions or need for additional clarification from Janet before we go on. Any questions for Janet at this point? Do you want a little more time or can we move on? 4 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 were, basically what the issues are. . .these were all, I should say, brought up by people who testified at the first public hearing on this and then we were asked to respond to all the issues that were brought up. Is there a question? OK. And anyway, we had started to do that and we got as far as number 5 and, and there were so many questions that we ran out of time. So I 'm going to. . .what I propose to do is go through these very quickly, say what the issues were and not elaborate on the staff response unless there' s a question that you have on what's written. But in the interest of time, we have a lot of issues to go through and people that I know want to testify, so I 'm going to go quick. Chair Faust: Thanks Janet. Janet Shull: OK. Number 6 was, an issue was brought up by one person that large, tall buildings would be allowed in the planning area and might be inadequately served by the Fire Department. I should also make clear for the record that these are all, all these issues were brought up in regards to the staff proposal, since we now have two proposals on the table. Issue number 7 was brought up by three different people and that dealt with some parcels for which we had recommended a Mixed Use designation. These people felt they would prefer to have the DIM or Downtown Limited Manufacturing designation because they have a manufacturing use on their property. Were there any questions on that, on number 8, I mean, I 'm sorry, number 7? I 'm at the top of page 5. OK, issue number 8 dealt with Class A or B streets on two sides of a corner lot. There was a concern that that would produce a hardship because windows are required on the building facade fronting both streets. This has to do with the pedestrian plan overlay. That was brought up by one speaker at the hearing. Issue number 9 was brought up, again, by one person. There may be problems with access to a lot with frontage on a Class A street. That, again, is related to the pedestrian plan overlay and if there. . .are there any questions on our response? OK, issue number 10, businesses need parking in close proximity to the building in which they were housed, or which they are housed. That was brought up, again, by one person. Issue number 11, staff should consider how property values may be affected by zoning changes. This was brought up by two different speakers. 3 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Commissioner Dahle: I have a question that we were speaking about, that I was speaking about at the planning meeting, but I don't see it in here. Chair Faust: What's that? Commissioner Dahle: That, that's the, the. . .on this new map where they have downtown commercial enterprises going up into what is basically in our one area. Is this the time to bring it up? Chair Faust: Janet, is someone, either yourself or someone else on the staff, going to be talking about that particular issue a little later on in your presentation? Janet Shull: We hadn't planned to talk about the alternative proposal ourselves. Chair Faust: Gwen. . . Janet Shull: If there's a specific question, I could attempt to answer it, but probably the downtown zoning committee would be best to answer specific questions on that. Chair Faust: So Gwen, what you're talking about is actually under the committee' s recommendations? Commissioner Dahle: Correct. Chair Faust: I think it would probably be more appropriate for you to hold that until the committee comes forward. Commissioner Dahle: Fine. Chair Faust: Anybody else have any questions for Janet about what she' s just reviewed briefly with us? Fine Janet, why don't you go on. Janet Shull: OK, that was, that's my portion of the presentation. What I 'd like to do is turn it over to Kevin who is going to address in greater detail three issues that are addressed in your memos dated May 13 and September 16 and I can pass those out while Kevin's coming up to the podium. Voices: (Unclear) Kevin O'Neill: Good evening. Again, I 'm Kevin O'Neill and I 'm a member of the Planning Department. I 'm going to be addressing, as is Lauri Anderson following me, some issues that we wanted to 5 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 clarify from the April hearing and these are actually issues that the Planning Commission had asked staff to do more research on. We put a little bit of information together in the memorandum dated May 13th. We were going to present some additional information at the May hearing, but then the hearing was postponed so now we're, we're coming back to you with that information. The first item covered on that May 13th memo is language pertaining to existing manufacturing uses in the proposed DIM zoning district. Again, one of the new zoning districts staff is proposing is a Downtown Limited Manufacturing zone. As you recall, one of the issues we've been struggling with is how to list the existing manufacturing uses as permitted uses. And as you recall, we've come up with a couple of alternatives, neither one of which have been satisfactory as yet to the existing manufacturers located there. So we had two meetings in May with that group and agreed to try to come up with another alternative in terms of language for those existing uses and that language is actually in the September 16th memorandum which you were sent prior to the September hearing. On Attachment A, which is on the second page of that memorandum, so do you all have that in front of you? OK, and that' s. . .the. . .that proposed language is under Principally Permitted Uses, number 2 , the bolded language with the double underlines and essentially, would you like me to read that into the record? OK, essentially what it says, manufacturing, processing, assembling, and packaging of articles, products or merchandise from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials, including but not limited to bristles, bone, canvas, cellophane and similar synthetics, chalk, clay, cloth, cork, feathers, felt, fiber, fiberglass, fur, glass, graphite, hair, horn, leather, paper, paraffin, plastic, metals, semiprecious and precious metals or stones, putty, pumice, shell, textiles, tobacco, wire, wood, wood and yarn which generate low levels of noise, dust, vibration, truck traffic, or odors. Prohibited are those manufacturing activities having potentially deleterious operational characteristics, such as initial processing of raw materials (forging, smeltering, refining and forming) . Now most of that language is very similar to existing language that' s used in the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts, however, what we've done is add, um, language which first of all stipulates that low levels of noise, dust, vibration, truck traffic and odors would be generated, which is similar to previous language we had, and we also added prohibitions of those types of heavy industrial uses which may have the type of impact on the downtown which could possibly be detrimental. So this is the proposed language that we've come forward with. Presently, we also at the request of the manufacturers that we met with and this is listed on page 3, come up with proposed 6 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 definitions for both what a material is, because that's a term that's referenced in that use delineation and what processing is, because that's another term that's somewhat vague that's used in that language. So that language there, and I ' ll just read those quickly: material - a substance which may be composed of liquid, solid or gas, with which a product is made; and processing - a series of steps utilized in the changing of materials from one state to another used in the manufacturing of a product. Are there any questions about that before I move on with some of the other recommended changes in the DIM zone? Chair Faust: Just something real nit picky, on page 2, under 7 at the bottom, you've taken out the word construction. . . Kevin O'Neill: Um hum. Chair Faust: It says business, professional, education, and it did say and construction services. Obviously, you're going to have to move your and around. Kevin O'Neill: Oh, OK, OK. Thank you for pointing that out. A couple of other recommended changes we've made to the DIM langua. . .uh, zoning language, and again this is based on some of the comments that have been made at the hearing and some of our meetings with the manufacturing. First of all, the top of page 10, the top of page 3 rather, I 'm sorry, under number 10, we've added public facilities and uses, such as libraries, government office buildings, and parks. That's language that we're proposing for the two other zoning districts and you're all I think aware, both of the justice center sites are in the proposed DL. . .what' s proposed to be zoned DIM so we thought it would be appropriate to add that language to the DIM zone. We've also added, in recognition of all the existing single family residences that are on, in proposed DIM area, language which is again similar to our other zoning districts, that existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. And again, that language is exactly how it appears in the other zoning districts. Two other small changes or amendments we've made to the DIM zone are at the bottom of page 3 stating that other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a Principally Permitted Use would be permitted as accessory uses, which is actually just an amendment of how it already is written under number 2 there under Accessory Uses. It should have been noted that way. 7 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 And on page 4, towards the bottom, under subsection I, Performance Standards - The performance standards as provided in Section 15. 08. 050 shall apply. That's an existing section of the Zoning Code that places limits on the amount of noise, odors, etc. that can be generated by uses. So we thought it would be appropriate to apply that section to the DIM zoning district. So that's all I had to say on number 1, the DIM zoning, unless there's other questions from the Commission. Chair Faust: Yeah, why don't you hold up and let's see if anybody has any questions for you to that point. Any questions, Commissioners, about what Kevin's gone over so far? I must say I 'm pleased because I was reading over all of the letters and public comments that we've gotten last night, and I 'm really pleased that what you all have done is addressed a lot of the questions that I saw keep coming back. So, so I 'm please that this new language is being put in there. Kevin O'Neill: Uh, continuing now on the May 13th memorandum, going back to that, and I ' ll be speaking from that memorandum for the rest of the time that I 'm up here. Number 2 I ' ll just cover quickly. There was a comment at the April hearing regarding a concern with the staff' s proposal to require that new buildings be two stories or 25 feet in height due to the elevator issue. So at the request of the Commission, we did research that issue and in fact the state building code council does require under the barrier free handicapped regulations, elevators in two story buildings. Although there are exceptions allowed, the second floor must be accessible by either ramp or elevator and as it says in the memorandum, in two story buildings where the occupancy of the second floor is under 30 persons, the barrier free requirement may be waived as long as there are bathroom facilities on the, located on the first floor. So there are some exceptions whereas a ramp may be permitted, but otherwise an elevator would be required under the building code for two story buildings, the cost being approximately $30, 000 for that. Under number 3 , the inventory of land uses and site development that you had asked us to do, Lauri is going to come up as soon as I 'm done and cover that in more detail. And the final item which the Commission asked that we look into or come back with more information is the commuter rail project and as I think. . .at the time this was written, that was very much alive and it's even more so now. As I think some of you may be aware, the federal government has allocated $10, 000, 000 or will quite possibly be allocating $10, 000, 000 towards that project. Metro is 8 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 right now involved with a series of public forums throughout the county getting public input on its overall plans for regional transportation improvements which includes a broad variety of things and it' s, I think the schedule is that the draft EIS on the Metro 2000 would be out next spring so obviously nothing' s been decided as yet, but the potential for commuter rail in Kent is still very much a possibility. Also under the Vision 2020 plan that the Puget Sound Council of Governments adopted last year, Kent is designated as a potential subregional center which means, again, under that proposal, Kent as a potential transit hub is also very much a possibility. So, are there any questions on either of those two items before I turn it over to Lauri? Chair Faust: Commissioners? Great, thanks a lot Kevin. Lauri Anderson: Good evening. This is Lauri Anderson with the Planning Department. I am the last one from the Planning Department, you will be happy to know. Tonight I 'm going to talk about the inventory that we did, at your request, of nonconforming uses and nonconforming developments. Again, we had done a very brief overview of the material in the May 13th memorandum and we expanded on that as Attachment B on page 5 of the September 16th memorandum and that's what I will be speaking off of tonight. If you' ll recall the nonconforming use in development standards issue was brought up at a number of the downtown hearings. Excuse me. At your request, we went out into the field and did a survey. We had mentioned at the time that we would be doing a sample survey and we did that. We went into the three proposed zones under the staff proposal, the DLM, the Mixed Use and the DC. We chose representative portions. For example, in the Mixed Use area, we tried to pick sites and areas from all of the existing zoning designations and then we developed a, a field note form wherein we listed existing development standards compared with proposed develop standards or existing uses versus proposed uses and then we took notes on those, so that's where the material came from. I ' ll just briefly again run down the summary of the survey and then you can ask me if you have questions. In the Downtown Commercial area, and again we're comparing the proposed zoning with the existing zoning, in the Downtown Commercial area we surveyed 33 sites concentrated on Meeker Street, 1st, 2nd and Railroad Avenues. We found in summary, and this is actually on page 6 of the memorandum, that in the downtown core most uses, and again the distinction is made between uses and development standards, most uses would remain conforming under the staff proposed zoning changes with the exception of auto-oriented and drive-through businesses. So in those cases, auto-oriented businesses because we're recommending that those not be permitted 9 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 uses, those type of businesses would become nonconforming uses. We also looked at the sites with regard to their development standards. We found that many sites in the downtown core, about 36% are already nonconforming with regard to development standards, but that most of the remaining conforming sites would become nonconforming. So there was a large change here. They became nonconforming primarily as a result of the awning and the minimum height provisions. If you' ll remember, in the pedestrian plan we had requested that there be awnings on certain streets and then we had proposed that there be a minimum two story height. Do you have a question? Chair Faust: Yes. You say primarily as a result of the awning. Can you give me any sort of ballpark percentage as to how many sites would be nonconforming because of that? Lauri Anderson: Um, I couldn't. I can go back to my notes and. . . Chair Faust: Over 50 percent? Lauri Anderson: No, I 'm sure it's not that high. I think probably the height provision was the primary, primary reason. If you have a minimum two story height, then of course all the one story buildings would become nonconforming. Chair Faust: And over 50 percent of the reason that they would be nonconforming is because of the height? Lauri Anderson: I would assume so. Again, I can look at my notes, but I don't. . . Chair Faust: That's OK. I'm just trying to get a sense, Lauri. . . Lauri Anderson: Um hum. Chair Faust: . . .because you're saying primarily as a result of either the awning or the minimum height. . . Lauri Anderson: Right. Chair Faust: . . .and I 'm just trying to get a sense of what primarily means. Lauri Anderson: Yeah. In other words, most of them either because of one or the other would become nonconforming here. Chair Faust: OK, and most is over 50 percent? 10 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Lauri Anderson: Is over 50 percent. Chair Faust: Is it over 75 percent? Lauri Anderson: Um, again I would think that the two of them in tandem would be over 75 percent. Chair Faust: OK, thanks. Lauri Anderson: We would have. . .we tried to call out the most distinctive, the top one or two or three items that were causing the nonconformity, nonconformity. OK? All right. In the Mixed Use zoning district, this is the largest area, we surveyed 118 different sites. Again, we looked at a variety of existing zones, Office, General Commercial, there's some Downtown Commercial, some Multiple Family, High Density Multifamily. In terms of the uses, current uses, 77 of those 118 are conforming, 41 are nonconforming. Most of the currently conforming uses in the Mixed Use district would remain in conformance. As with the DC, the uses didn't seem to be much of an issue. Um, of the. . .there would be new nonconforming uses created, 34, and 12 of those would result from the single family residences that are currently in the MRH zoning district. And I go into this report in detail, the issue of single family housing, and I think at this point I might bring this up. Single family residences as noted in most of our zoning categories and under the new proposed DIM zoning district, are allowed uses. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for use as a residence. However, they are still considered nonconforming in that new single family development cannot come into the district. OK. Existing dwellings are permitted, but new development cannot come in. In the MRH zoning district, single family dwellings are principally permitted use as a new use. So in that MRH zone, single family, new single family would be conforming. In the proposed change, although an existing single family could exist, it would be considered nonconforming, and that's a real important distinction when you're looking at these statistics. OK. We're not saying that they would be nonconforming and they couldn't be used for human occupancy, but no new single family could come into the district. So it's kind of an unusual case. The CM, Commercial Manufacturing, MRH and DC zones are most impacted by the use changes proposed. So again, a lot of those came under that MRH zoning district. Most of the sites in the proposed Mixed Use area, are already nonconforming with regard to development standards. In other words, 81 percent of the sites we surveyed were already nonconforming with regard to development 11 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 standards. However, the few remaining sites which were conforming, would become nonconforming. OK. Again the single family residences were an issue here and in a couple of cases some of the presently nonconforming sites would become conforming. So I think there were about 4 that actually changed back. They met the new standards. The Downtown Limited Manufacturing zone, we surveyed 8 sites. This is not a large area and there are a number of large properties. Of those, of the sites surveyed, most were conforming uses. All but one of the sites we surveyed were conforming uses and they would remain conforming. With regard to development standards, 63 percent are already nonconforming, but all, again, as in the case with MU, all the remaining conforming sites would become nonconforming. OK? Any questions about that? The next section of the report on page 10 details that information about single family residential uses and I need to point out a couple of changes. Under the DC-1 or DC-2 zone, I had 14 single family residences identified. In the survey area, there were actually 37. They, in a couple zones these were tallied differently and I found out after I produced the report that this needs to be changed. Thirty-seven single family. In the M2 zoning district, there were 17 single family, not none, 17 single family identified. Commissioner Martinez: It goes from 14 to 37 and zero to 17? Lauri Anderson: Right. Commissioner Dahle: It goes from 14 to 54 . Lauri Anderson: OK? And then on the last page, page 11, you had asked about existing manufacturing uses in the proposed MU zone. You were concerned about existing uses which might affect residential siting. Again, in the area we surveyed, we identified some uses which we thought might be of concern to you: street sweeping operations, machine shops, cold storage facility (although this one was vacant) , auto body shops, warehouses and fenced outdoor storage. So those were the kinds of manufacturing uses which might find themselves in an area next to, for example, a mixed use multifamily project or something like that. Any questions? Chair Faust: Super. That was a real big concern that we had in the spring and I'm glad that you all went out there and hoofed it around and got us this information. Folks, I think this is what we 12 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 were asking for. Is this enough? Are you happy? Do you have questions of Lauri? This exceeds my expectations. Commissioner Martinez: I think well done. Chair Faust: Yeah. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you very much. Chair Faust: Yeah. Very good job. No questions then for Lauri? Lauri Anderson: OK. I would now like to take the opportunity. Last week we met with Raul Ramos, the representative from the downtown committee, about their proposal. On a staff level, we wanted to sort out some issues and clarify some points and Raul is here and he has some clarifications to make. I think you' ll be surprised to discover that there are perhaps more similarities even than we had been aware of last time we met. So with that I will turn it over to Raul and he has some comments for you. Chair Faust: Super. Thank you, Lauri. Raul Ramos: Thank you very much. My name is Raul Ramos. Before I get into my presentation, I 'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Alana McIalwain, who is with the Mayor's office, and who was also acting as the project staff to the committee. Alana would like to make a few comments regarding the work we've completed. So with that. Alana McIalwain: Good evening. As you know, Mayor Kelleher presented at the last Planning Commission meeting and I'd like to just recap a couple of things for you. As the Planning Commission begins their deliberations on the proposed downtown plan, we would like to draw attention to the following. The proposal presented by Mr. Ramos is a plan that has been put together by people who have committed their time to improve the quality of the downtown area. The proposal is not just Administration's downtown proposal, but it is a proposal which supports the Mayor and the Council 's vision for an improved and revitalized downtown Kent. In addition, it is a proposal which Administration will promote. It will not just be Administration's mission to carry out the plan for the downtown revitalization, but it will be the Planning Department's mission as well as all other departments. In order to have a viable, thriving downtown, we need increased density. In order to have a viable, thriving downtown, we need to lessen restrictions in building height. All of the details mentioned in the downtown committee's alternative proposal are there to make the downtown flourish yet 13 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 allow Kent to keep its identity as a place to raise a family, to do business, to work and to enjoy the culture and history of Kent. I 'd like to just take a quick moment to thank those committee members. We have not done that before and I 'm not sure who all is here, but I 'd like to just, as a matter of record, read their names for you. The committee members are Raul Ramos, our chair, Morgan Llewellyn, Bill Stewart, Barry Miller, Al Haylor, as the representative from the Planning Commission, and Councilwoman Leona Orr. And on behalf of Administration, we would like to thank you for giving us a presenta. . .our, our, again an opportunity to present to you. Thank you. Commissioner Grant: Here, here. Raul Ramos: OK, with that I ' ll proceed. As Lauri mentioned, we did meet last week and we discussed some questions that the staff had concerning the committee's recommendations and I was able to clarify for them seven points and I 'd like to, if I may, read into the record those clarifications. The one item, number one item was that it was the committee's intent to recommend that stand alone, multifamily be permitted, be a permitted use in the DIM zone which supports our, er, our strong desire of more residential in the downtown area. Number two, the committee does, or is willing to accept a maximum setback of 10 feet. I think originally we had asked, or stated that we'd prefer not to have any setbacks whatsoever in the respective zones that. . . Chair Faust: Raul, before you go on, I think it might be helpful if the comments that you're making be tied to the downtown zoning alternatives committee and if you could refer. . . I 'm assuming that most, if not all, of the changes that you are now giving us do tie in with one portion or another of this document. Raul Ramos: Oh they do, all of them. Chair Faust: Why don't you go ahead then and refer us to the sections where we can go ahead and make some changes rather than all of us just sort of taking notes here. I think that that might help put it in a better context for us. Raul Ramos: OK, if you just would be patient with me for a little bit here because I 'm not sure if these particular seven items follow the order that our recommendations do. OK, I 'm assuming that all the Planning Commissioners have the document that you spoke to. 14 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Chair Faust: Yeah, the document that I 'm assuming that we're looking at is the revision, it does not have a revision date on it, but it was the one that we last looked at. Raul Ramos: That's, that's the document I have. . . Chair Faust: Yeah. Raul Ramos: . . .myself. Chair Faust: Commissioners, do any of you need a copy of that so, Kevin, maybe you can. . . Commissioner Martinez: This is the one dated September 17th is it not? Chair Faust: Yes, I just sort of took my. . . Commissioner Martinez: Yeah. Chair Faust: I took my front page off and. . . Commissioner Martinez: It's dated September 17th, right? Raul Ramos: I think so. Actually, I only remember one document that had the changes underlined there. I don't think that we had. . . Voices• (Unclear) Commissioner Dahle: It's not the same. Voices: (Unclear) Commissioner Dahle: It' s not the same (unclear) . Voices• (Unclear) Commissioner Martinez: This is it, I 'm sure. Voices: (Unclear) Chair Faust: Right. Raul Ramos: OK, here we go. The item number one makes reference to page, I believe page 1 of the document which is titled City of Kent, Mayor's Downtown Zone Alternative Committee, and the Planning staff asked me to clarify an item that I had listed under 15 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Recommended Zoning Districts on that page and it had, and it stated eliminate conditional use permit requirement for stand alone multifamily. The questions was, did we intend that. . .that recommendation to also apply to the DLM zone and yes we did. Item number two is covered under page 2 under category tee, uh three, which is called out as setbacks and we had "eliminate all setback requirements in DCE except if property abuts residential district in which case the Planning Director may require up to a 20 ft. maximum setback" . We did not provide for, for any, any maximum setback requirements and the staff proposal's recommendation states, was stated as follows, that "a maximum building setback of twenty (20) feet shall apply to any property frontage on a public right of way" and I think the Commission asked us if we were opposed to any setbacks of any of the uses within all the respective areas and I 'd have to say at that time pretty much we were. But we do recognize that there should be a maximum setback and the committee is generally recommending a maximum setback of no more than 10 feet and that simply is because we have a strong desire to have more site coverage, more intensive development within the downtown. Item number three, or point of clarification item number three is in an interim until the downtown parking program is developed, the Planning Department' s recommended parking standards should be implemented. The committee does recognize that the staff did propose flexible standards regarding parking and that until we're able to develop the comprehensive parking strategy plan for the entire downtown which would take into account short and long term parking requirements to accommodate the more intensive development of downtown, we, we would recommend essentially that the parking standards as proposed by the staff be implemented. Chair Faust: So, Raul, that is what is now on page 9 , right, under Downtown Committee Proposal? So basically what you're saying is that what you have under Downtown Committee Proposal on page 9 is now stricken, right? Raul Ramos: Is this item nine, Parking, you say, or that's. . . Chair Faust: I 'm on page 9. Commissioner Dahle: Page 9. Raul Ramos: OK, that's. . . Chair Faust: It's item nine, Parking, but it is actually on page 9• 16 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Voices• (Unclear) Raul Ramos: Uh, yes. Chair Faust: Okey doke, great. Strike, on page 9, strike the center column. Raul Ramos: OK, the, the fourth item that we clarified for Lauri and the staff was essentially that required landscaping includes #1 street trees. . . Commissioner Martinez: Hold it one moment please. Raul Ramos: OK. Chair Faust: What page are you on there, Raul? Raul Ramos: OK, I was afraid you'd ask that. Chair Faust: OK, it must be on page 5, bottom of the page, Landscaping. Raul Ramos: We, uh, we essentially clarified that. We, we do believe that required landscaping would include street trees, a 3 ft. minimum landscape buffer to screen parking and three, would recommend that urban style open spaces be required for multifamily developments, essentially balconies and. . .just as the Planning staff had recommended. Chair Faust: So in other words, on page 5 at the bottom and continuing on to the top of page 6, we're striking the middle column, is that correct? Raul Ramos: Um hum. Chair Faust: Okey doke. Great. Raul Ramos: Our belie. . .our recommendation is that bonuses are to be provided to those who exceed these minimum requirements. That's our philosophical. . . Commissioner Martinez: That's the new proposal. Raul Ramos: Yes. The next item has to do with parking. Chair Faust: OK, that' s back on page 8, under number nine, Commissioners. 17 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Raul Ramos: I think that our statement originally read "Off street parking may be located at rear or side of development" . We essentially clarified that it would be preferable to have. . . Commissioner Martinez: We. . .I thought we struck that. Chair Faust: Raul, I 'm a little confused. It was my understanding that. . .first of all, what you're talking about now is on page 9 and it's the second thing in the middle column. It was my understanding that a couple of minutes ago you said that we were going to strike that entire column. Raul Ramos: Uh, OK, no I didn't mean that to be stricken. I. . . let's see, off street parking may be located at rear or side of development? I don't think I was speaking to that. Is that what. . . Commissioner Martinez: No. Commissioner Ward: The question was asked was whether we should strike. . . Raul Ramos• Oh. Commissioner Ward: . . .the entire center portion and you said yes. Commissioner Martinez: Earlier. Raul Ramos: The entire, the entire section? Chair Faust: That's what you said earlier, Raul, but you know, you can certainly change what you said, I mean. . . Commissioner Ward: Yeah. Chair Faust: . .that's, it's not cast in concrete. So now what you're saying is that rather than striking the section on page 9 on off street parking. . . Raul Ramos: Oh, your, your, OK. Chair Faust: . . .you wish to modify it. Raul Ramos: Your question was that if I would agree to strike all of this, all of the committee proposal recommendation? Chair Faust: Yes. 18 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Raul Ramos: Under 9? Chair Faust: Yes. Raul Ramos: Oh, I 'm sorry, no. Commissioner Ward: OK. Raul Ramos: No. Chair Faust: Well then, I want to ask you specifically then on page 9, the first one that starts off "maintain off street parking" . Do you wish that stricken? Raul Ramos: Uh, no. Chair Faust: The second one that starts off by saying, "off street parking may be located" . Do you wish that stricken? Raul Ramos: Uh, no, but I wish to offer a modification on that, or clarification. Chair Faust: All right. Raul Ramos: It would be preferable to have off street parking located at the rear or side of the development, but this is not a requirement. Chair Faust: I don't follow that. May indicates that it' s not a requirement. Raul Ramos: Well, uh, let Lauri offer some clarification on that. Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri with the Planning Department. We had asked Raul this question because we were uncertain, since it was in here, whether it was a may or a must. It was a may. It was correctly written the first time and he is clarifying that because we didn't understand it. Chair Faust: So the language is the same and it is a may. Lauri Anderson: Right, right. Chair Faust: OK, fine. Lauri Anderson: And I might also add that I think the portion of the column that Raul wanted struck was on page 8 at the bottom where there is some parking indicated and that was where he had 19 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 talked about the downtown parking program and this was the area where in the interim until that program was developed, the staff recommended standards might apply. Chair Faust: Um, OK. Commissioner Ward: So before we leave page 9, none of that should be struck. Chair Faust: I was gonna ask him. . . Commissioner Ward: It reads correctly. Chair Faust: Yeah, I was gonna ask him specifically about each of those. Um, OK, Raul, we're, I think we're pretty clear then on the may. The section on page 9 that starts "reduce the number of off- street surface parking". Do you want that left in? Raul Ramos: Uh, reduce the number of off-street parking spaces, for example reduce by 50%. . . I generally want that, want that in there. Chair Faust: OK, and the next one that starts "reduce number of surface parking spaces" . Do you want that left in? Raul Ramos: Well, let's see if we can relate it to the way the staff had stated the clarification. Uh, and I might add. . . let me just read item number six and maybe we can kind of sift through this. The number of surface parking spaces required would be reduced if the spaces were lo. . .were placed behind the building. This clarifies the comment which states "reduce number of surface parking spaces allowed if placed on interior of lot". So if anything, I 'd rather just simply substitute the, this new language for what I have there regarding reduce number of surface parking spaces allowed if placed on interior of lot. Chair Faust: OK and what is your new language? Raul Ramos: The number of surface parking spaces required would be reduced if the spaces were placed behind the building. Commissioner Martinez: The number of parking spaces. . .one more time please. Raul Ramos: Uh, the number of surface parking spaces required would be reduced if the spaces were placed behind the building. 20 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Chair Faust: All right and then the last one, "reduce off-street surface parking" . Do you wish that left in? Raul Ramos: Uh, yes. Chair Faust: OK and so as Lauri was saying then, on page 8, it's actually the, the sort of wherefore there, the whole paragraph that, that you wish stricken? Lauri Anderson: (Unclear) . . .Appendix A at your last hearing. The question was in the interim until that program was developed. . . Raul Ramos: Um hum. Lauri Anderson: . . .what standards should apply and that' s where the staff proposal comes from then. Raul Ramos: Right. I think yes, that's correct. We did decide to shift that particular statement to the appendix. It was. . . Chair Faust: OK, great. Raul Ramos: It was more of a, more of a position of City Administration that they wanted to pursue this comprehensive strategy, parking strategy plan. The last item that I was asked to clarify, which has offered some confusion here, but the committee is proposing no changes to the existing nonconforming use and development provisions of the Zoning Code and let me see if we can relate that back to a particular section there. I don't think we've listed that particularly, uh particular recommendation. I believe, I believe, Madam Chairman, it's uh, it's listed in the incentive program recommendations in the appendix. All legal nonconforming uses to remain. The Planning Department asked us for a rec. . .clarification on that. It was not the committee's intent to, to recommend that those nonconforming uses become legal conforming uses. We simply wanted to express our desire to have the existing nonconforming use and development provisions of the Zoning Code to continue to apply to them. Chair Faust: My question to you last time we visited this was whether that would apply if there were a new owner. Raul Ramos: If there what now? Chair Faust: If there were a new owner. 21 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Raul Ramos: Well, yeah, they would apply. Chair Faust• OK. Raul Ramos: Those app. . .those provisions would apply. There are specific standards or provisions in the Zoning Code which pretty much give clear guideline as to under, under what circumstances these uses are to cease. For example, if the, if the building remains vacant for more than six months or. . .that's the prominent one. These. . . Commissioner Martinez: So. . . Raul Ramos: Go ahead. Commissioner Martinez: . . .what you meant by that and let me make sure I understand completely. All legal nonconforming uses to remain legal nonconforming uses. Raul Ramos: Yeah, that's correct. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Raul Ramos: That' s correct. Those are, those are all the clarifications that the staff wanted to, wanted me to make as the chairman of the committee and what I 'd like to do now. . . Chair Faust: Are, are these, I 'm a little confused. I got the impression that this is something that the committee and some of the Planning Department staff met and worked out together, rather than the staff imposed this on the committee. Commissioner Dahle: Um huh. Raul Ramos: Yeah. Chair Faust• OK. Raul Ramos: That's correct. Chair Faust: OK, great. Raul Ramos: What I 'd like to do now is that we 've had a little bit more time to put together the final report on our recommendations and put, uh put it in a format that's a little bit more clear and easier to follow. There are no changes to the original submittal that we had to you with the exception, with the following exceptions. We included an introductory statement. We also 22 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 segregated out the recommendation of the committee from the comparison chart that we had submitted originally to the Planning Commission. And we also included several articles which address the, some of the recommendations, the recommendation that we're, that we have proposed to the Planning Commission. So as I said there are no changes to our recommendations with the exception of what I 've read here today and have stated for the record previously, but we felt that it was appropriate and the Mayor strongly advised that we put together a final report with a title sheet, with an introduction and with a little bit improved format for your consideration. So with that I 'd like to do that and that, with that I will also close my comments, I close my comments. Chair Faust: Thank you. of course, we are, once we finish public testimony tonight, going to proceed to deliberations and we will not have time to read these tonight as we begin our deliberations. Raul Ramos: I understand. One more thing if I may, we have limited copies here tonight, but we certainly can make copies available for those who are interested in having a copy, if they would just maybe leave their names with the recorder or myself during the meeting or after the meeting, I 'd be more than happy to forward a copy to them. Chair Faust: Super. Thank you. I have a sign-up sheet here. Some of you who came in late might not have had an opportunity to sign up to speak or just to be put on the mailing list. If you do wish to speak and you haven't signed up, please contact Fred, who's going to raise his hand and wave it around. There he is. Hi, Fred. Is there anybody else who would like to sign up to speak before we get going. Great. The first person who's signed up on the list tonight just asked to be put on the mailing list, but I 'm going to ask all those people anyway if they want to speak having heard what they've heard so far, and that is Cheryle Noble. Ms. Noble would you like to speak? Voice• She left. Chair Faust: Well, great. Voice: I guess not. Laughter. Chair Faust: Spoke eloquently. The next person who also only signed up to be on the mailing list, but I ' ll ask if you want to speak anyway is Pam Newcomer. 23 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Pam Newcomer: That's me and I have no comment. Chair Faust: Okey doke. Pam Newcomer: I 'm the immed. . .I 'm the neighbor immediately to the north in North Park and I just wanted to see if this would. . .any of this is going to affect our neighborhood at all. Chair Faust: The next person who has signed up to receive information is Karen Egan. Why did I know that was you? Would you like to speak anyway? Karen Egan: No. I 'm here for the same reason. Chair Faust: All right, that's fine. And the next person who really did sign up to speak is Dee Moschel and Ms. Moschel you can either speak back there or up here. Your choice. And I know that you've spoken before on the record so you know the procedure, but for the rest of you who perhaps haven't, what I need you to do when you come up to the microphone is speak your name into the mike and give your address. Dee Moschel: OK. I 'm Dee Moschel. I live at 448 Alpine Way, Kent 90831. Madam Chair and members of the Commission, I come to you tonight before you to bring you a point of information that I feel may be of interest to you. Beginning in September, a number of people who represent a variety of interests in downtown have come together in a grass roots movement. This group calls itself Team Downtown and represents business, property owners, services, manufacturing, the media, people from the City. The group is not directly affiliated with any existing organization, that being either KDA, the merchants group or the City or the Chamber, but all of these people are represented in some way on this, this group, in this grass roots group. I 'm going to read you a letter that has been composed by this group which calls itself Team Downtown and if you have any questions as I go along, I ' ll be happy to try and answer them. This is a letter that is going. . .part of the letter that's going to be included and attached to a survey that will be going out and one reason that I 'm talking to you tonight is that I thought it was important that you know another survey is going to be happening in downtown Kent. Uh, the letter, the letterhead is just Team Downtown on blank sheet of white paper with the, the most current members. About 22 interested people have currently said they are willing to participate in this grass roots effort. 24 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 I felt it was really important that you know about this since you're looking at downtown right now and I wanted. . . I guess my point of information is strictly to bring this to you so that you know this is going on while you're thinking about this zoning and perhaps take a little bit of thought. Maybe think about delaying some of your decisions, although I know this is probably not something you really want to do, but we plan to have the results of these, this survey compiled and ready to bring back to the public and to those people that we are serving by January, early, early in January. The survey will be completed by mid-November, so we' ll over the holidays compile the information and bring it back to the public. Just wanted you to know this. Thank you. If you have any questions, I ' ll be happy to answer them. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any question for Ms. Moschel? Commissioner Ward: Yeah, I'm trying to get (unclear) . I 'm trying to get. . .are you speaking for this Team Downtown or are you speaking for the Chamber? Dee Moschel: I 'm speaking for Team Downtown. Commissioner Ward: Team Downtown, uh huh. Dee Moschel: Um hum. Commissioner Ward: And so that, therefore that's why you read this into the record. Dee Moschel: That's correct. Commissioner Ward: OK. Dee Moschel: Yeah. Commissioner Ward: Uh huh. And it, and the intent of this is to, is for the Commission to give consideration to what? Delaying any decision until you reach your review. . . Dee Moschel: I just, I wanted the Commission to have this information as they were deliberating about downtown knowing that this is coming about. Commissioner Ward: Sometime in the future when you get it together. Dee Moschel: It's going to be together in January, which is only two months away. 26 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Dear Friends: It is a time of exciting change for downtown Kent. New opportunities can be seen in the opening of new businesses, the Centennial Office Building, the library, the potential for commuter rail, a regional justice center and being in the heart of a dynamic regional economy. As we move into the 1990s, a number of key questions emerge. How can we build on and focus on our momentum? How can we help existing businesses be more successful? How can the image of the area be enhanced? What, what role should downtown Kent play in the region? What new businesses should be recruited? How can business, government and the community establish a stronger working relationship and how should we best organize for the future? To respond to these questions, individuals from retail, office, professional, service and the public sectors have joined together to form a new task force, Team Downtown. Our purpose is to work toward creating a consensus vision to guide a collective effort to preserve and enhance the vitality of downtown Kent and our first step is to gather suggestions and ideas from key community leaders. You each will be contacted (and I 'm speaking to the Commission) within the very near future for an interview and completion of a survey and a brief overview of the survey, I will give to you just so you' ll know what we are talking about. Um, the first portion addresses what do you believe should be the most important priorities for efforts in downtown Kent and there are perhaps 20 different areas that you would rate as being important or less important, similar to many surveys. Some of them would be such as business retention, business recruitment, image promotion, marketing and so forth including the performing arts and cultural center, strong transit linkages. Question number two, what do you believe are the three biggest accomplishments so far in downtown Kent? You can be thinking about these. Page 2 , number three, what do you believe are the three biggest challenges facing downtown Kent? Number four, what do you believe are the three biggest opportunities for downtown Kent? And number five, what is your vision of what downtown Kent should look like in ten years and what should our efforts be after this planning survey? 25 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any other, any other questions? Fine. Thank you. The next person who signed up just to receive information, but I ' ll give him an opportunity to speak is Robert Whalen. Robert Whalen: Um, I ' ll reserve it til later. I ' ll write you something. Laughter Robert Whalen: It had to do with the public transportation. You guys seem to be pretty much ignoring the uh. . . Chair Faust: Well, Mr. Whalen, why don't you come up to the microphone anyway because from where you're sitting we can't really pick that up and it, at least put that much of your comment on the record. Robert Whalen: OK. The name is Robert Whalen. I live at 10520 SE 272nd Street, Kent. Up on the hill. Chair Faust: I just reread your letter last night. Robert Whalen: Oh. Well, we still seem to be emphasizing automobile and not taking advantage of the location that we have and the opportunities for becoming a transportation hub for the Soos Creek Plateau and the um, and the valley, valley area here. Um, I still think we need to build a transit corridor down Canyon Drive which needs only be one lane. And the other major thing was you need to lobby to get the commuter rail moved over to the Union Pacific line where, where it goes through Kent because that would tie in very nicely with the Lincoln parking location, the justice center, proposed justice center locations and allow you to put a station at the Boeing parking lot at 206th and it's much, much less traffic along there. And the other thing is that, uh, you seem to be overlooking what would be an opportunity to take advantage of your 15, 000 apartment units that you have in Kent. Um, you seem more intent on directing all of those people out of town instead of providing them an opportunity not to bring their cars into town. For instance, you have 3 , 500 apartment units within a half mile radius of the uh intersection of the Benson and Kent Kangley with not really very good trans. . .public transportation. You have 3, 000 units between Signature Pointe and the Lakes over here without a lot of public opportunity. . .transportation opportunities to get into Kent and you 27 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 don't seem to be incorporating that kind of thinking into your downtown plan. Chair Faust: Any questions for Mr. Whalen? Commissioner Dahle: Yes. Commissioner Ward: You're proposing that some transportation. . . Commissioner Dahle: Would Kent. . . Commissioner Ward: . . .transportation consideration be. . .go into the plan. Robert Whalen: Right, but Kent is not going to get the kind of public transportation that fits Kent unless they take a proactive position. Metro isn't going to do that kind of transportation for you. They're more interested in getting people in and out of, out of Seattle and other places rather than to downtown Kent. And you have all of these apartment units around here, for instance, for. . . it would only take you three buses running locally here to service 9, 000 apartment units with 20 minute frequency, you know, because of the clustering of the apartment units. . . Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Robert Whalen: . . .and I don't see any of that kind of planning being done by the Commission. Commissioner Ward: Three buses to service 9, 000 units? Robert Whalen: Right, because of the clustering, you know. You've got, for instance, on the little stretch, the half mile stretch of 248th up here you have well over 500 apartment units and no bus service on that street, you know, and you have other, 109th, you have 700 and some apartment units there and bus service way off at the end instead of serving where the people are. The bus service is as though we were serving a city that was single housing rather than multifamily housing. Instead of putting your bus stops at the apartment units, you've, you've put the bus stop off at a corner someplace that's half a mile away from where the apartment units are. Things like that are not going to be taken care of by Metro, but Kent's gonna have to, to, to work to get that kind of service and keep these people in Kent instead of building freeways to a mega mall down in Auburn. Right now you're planning to build a freeway that takes 3, 500 apartment units there and run them right down to Auburn instead of into Kent and it just doesn't seem to 28 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 make a lot of sense. So I 'm, I 'm just saying you're kind of ignoring a good opportunity. Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Whalen, actually we are and part of the reason is because of land use planning that is what. . .which is what we are doing. But that doesn't negate the validity of what you've said and it's a great idea. I think that probably some other folks are gonna be really interested in it. Unfortunately. . . Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Commissioner Martinez: Well parking is part of the plan for downtown, but it's more of a land use than a transportation. Transportation is, unfortunately, outside of our domain. Chair Faust: It's not something we do. Robert Whalen: Yeah. Commissioner Dahle: I, I do have a question. Uh, when you were talking about bringing one lane down Canyon Drive, are you proposing that we buy out all those houses on that one side? Because there' s nothing on the other side. Robert Whalen: Why don't you run it. . .right now what you do and I think it's kind of a travesty running the buses the way you do there now anyhow. Nobody. . .not very many people are going to take them because they have to run across. . .you don't have any crosswalks for 1. 2 miles down Canyon Drive. You have two bus stops there, but they have to cross four lanes of 50 mile an hour traffic in order to get to them. So you also need, in some strategic areas, you need some pedestrian overpasses. You, you're not going to stop the traffic in those areas, but you certainly need some pedestrian overpasses so that people can get to the bus service. You put your bus. . .your single lane on the south side of Canyon Drive, run it up to the Crow Road and run it across 260th. Take 260th for trans. . .transit only from 108th to 110th and run it out to the traffic light there at the apartment units. Chair Faust: Mr. Whalen, as the Mayor is fond of saying, you're preaching to the choir. Commissioner Dahle: We live up there. Chair Faust: And I think that there's probably not a person on this Commission that doesn't think you've got some really neat, cool, nifty, exciting ideas. Unfortunately, it's not something that this body tonight can deal with. 29 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Robert Whalen: Yeah. Chair Faust: But for heaven's sakes, keep preaching. Robert Whalen: That's why I said I 'd write to your (unclear) . Chair Faust: Yeah, don't. . .you can write to us which is fine. We love to get letters, but write to the Council. Robert Whalen: I 'm trying to put together a transit plan, but my schedule has not. . . it's going to be after the first of the year before I get things pulled together. Chair Faust: Well, I doubt the problems are going to go away between now and then, but put it together. You've got some really nifty ideas, it' s just that, and I don't want to brush you off because it sounds like a brush off. It's just that we can't help you with the kinds of things you're talking about. Robert Whalen: Yeah. But it' s a forum. Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Chair Faust: Hey, that's right. Commissioner Ward: And you figure if you make us aware that more people would take into consideration the. . . Chair Faust: And we appreciate it. Robert Whalen: And also the reason I harp so much on this transit lane down Canyon Drive is you have 10, 000 people going each way out of Covington down Kent Kangley. That's 15, 000 cars each way by the time it gets to, to 104th there. Chair Faust: Put it down. Those are great ideas. Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Chair Faust: But I am glad you got up and spoke. I, I remember reading your letter last night real well and remembered again what good ideas you had and we might as well have it on the record. We can't help you tonight, but it's on the record and you did have an opportunity to address us and all the people out there in the audience who also may write letters. 30 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Robert Whalen: Besides, one of these days I 'm going to get to the point where I don't want to drive any more and I'd like to have a transit system by then. Chair Faust: Right. Thanks a lot. The next person who has signed up both the receive information and to speak is Hugh Leiper? I 'm always mispronouncing your name, Mr. Leiper, and I 'm so sorry. Hugh Leiner: That's correct. Chair Faust: Fifty fifty chance. Hugh Leiner: Good evening again. My name is Hugh Leiper, American Commercial Industries, 1819 S. Central, Suite 116. Tonight, if you will, I'd like to have you bear with me while we see if we can weave this presentation together where it might even make sense to you. Some twenty years ago, I was the real estate representative for the Brunswick Corporation and I had six states of which I was responsible for and in that capacity I had to do all the market analysis, the lease negotiations, the financing, the whole ball of wax for em. After a period of about five years, they asked me to go to Chicago which is the home office and that. . .they would give me the entire United States. I finally declined that to stay here in the Pacific Northwest and at that point in time I went with a mortgage company in Seattle and became a officer of the company and as a general manager of their Commercial Loan Department. Now, before I left Brunswick, which by the way is a, is and was a very first class company. I miss them greatly. They're great. Now, before I left them, I gave them a formula for the determination of success of business of various kinds. Now I 'm going to share that with you because enough time is passed they don't have any true handle over it. (Unclear) Now, the formula simply is this, that the degree of success is inversely proportioned to the vulnerable obsolescence. The higher degree success, the lower degree of vulnerable obsolescence and the symbols was simply the degree of success, the vulnerable obsolescence, trade area, location, facilities meaning buildings, capital, management, time and competition. The grading rates was from 1 to 5, 1 meaning the least and 5 being the highest and time is always expressed in terms of 20 years. Now as an example as I give you on the side here, say that you have a good area with a good comeny, a good economy, give that a 5. And say that we had a location that was just fair, so you give it a 3 . And say the facility, the buildings was simply fair, so you give that a 3 . The capital, however, was above average so you give it a 4 . The management was tops. Now, then you always. . . in this case you had the hard competition. So when you whip this into a formula you 31 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 come up with something like 5, 31 3, 41 5 which is equal to 20 and the time is 20 years plus 5 is 25. You, when you divide that you become So% successful and 20% vulnerable. All right, now, applying this same kind of an idea to our downtown. Now I think we can all agree that we have a good economy, we have a good trade area, we need to accommodate approximately 140, 000 people within our trade area. So we can give that probably a 5. We have a location that was located here by the founders some hundred years ago and it has proven to be a good town site. Now town sites are one thing, buildings are another. Buildings you can replace, sites you cannot. All right, now we come to the uh, um, try to analyze what we have in buildings down here. I think you could probably give that a 2 . Now in terms of capital, we have no cohesive capital. Chair Faust: What. . .excuse me. What was the number you had for the location? Hugh Leiper: For the location we have a 5. I 'm sorry. And for the facilities and buildings again I think we be generous and we give it a 2. All right now, in terms of capital, we have no cohesive capital. In management, we have no cohesive management. So when you whip this into a formula, you come up with something like 5, 5 and 2 over 25. Now when you divide that, now it' s approximately 48% successful, 52% vulnerable. Now this is what kind of illustrates what you have in downtown. Now this, what we're doing here and going through is nothing unique, believe me. There's many communities throughout our good United States that are struggling with these same problems. Some of them has, have mastered it in certain way and some have not and they're still struggling. This last week I was fortunate enough to have received a copy of the Shopping Center World and in this they talked about a center in Columbus, Ohio. I 've never been there. I 've flown over it many times, but I 've never been there. It's apparently right in the center of Ohio. Now they struggled for 19 years in this thing and they finally came up with a couple thoughts. First of all, they found that their total downtown was withering away and they needed some way to bring about the business because here they had about a million four hundred thousand people in seven counties, and they have about 5 regional centers scattered around them and the downtown was totally suffering. And so they thought well now we have a theater down here. We need to bring this theater up to date and make it something that'll attract people downtown. So they struggled with this thing and struggled with it and finally they decided by the, the total area that these people need to, to all 32 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 get together and develop a thought of doing something all together downtown and what they finally ended up with is a regional center downtown patterned after Bellevue. This thing has been opened two years now and right now they're attracting people even from the other states. They have a very viable downtown. Now with that thought in mind, I 'd like to talk about one other thing. We have to come to some sort of understanding as to what we're really trying to preserve. We need to preserve a town site and when we preserve a town site, because actually the founders of this great little city really had the right idea of founding a town site that lasted a hundred years. Now I think that there's been some of you who have been into New York City and as you've flown into New York City and maybe even visited Ellis Island where we have the statue of liberty. That grand old lady was given to us by France in about 1886 and we had our centennial in 1886. Now about three years before that, a guy by the name Iacocca was appointed to see if he could bring together a way to restore it. Now they didn't have to do anything with the site. The site was already established as Ellis Island. All right now they had to really dismantle the, uh, this great lady and put it back together by restructuring it so that it would last another hundred years. Now what we have to do with our downtown, we need to bring it up to date. We need to restructure it so it'll last another hundred years for the next generation and the next generation. Now one thing that I'd like to lastly do to you. I know you're getting full of paper and et cetera. You've been offered the plan by the Planning Commission, you've been offered one by the, uh, what' s the matter there? Chair Faust: We're the Planning Commission. We are the only body in the entire City that has not offered a plan. Laughter. Hugh Leiper: OK. I 'm sorry. The planning. . .thank you. Thank you kindly. The Planning Department. Thank you. OK. And you've been offered a plan by the downtown zoning committee by the Mayor' s. Now I 'd like to offer you one more and this has to do with boundaries because I think in terms of boundaries, you need to think about what is a true town site that you're trying to describe? Pass those down. Voices• (Unclear) Hugh Leiner: All right, now, in order to describe a homogeneous downtown area, you need to be able to describe it in boundaries of 33 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 what it is. I would describe it from James Street to Willis, from railroad to railroad. Now that in the terms describes a true town site. Now, the zone that, that I'm going to follow is the same type of zoning that the downtown committee recommended, which was the downtown commercial enterprise. Now I'm going to violate that boundary on the east side and this is between Smith and Gowe, over to Central. Now this is to accommodate a transit depot, a parking garage sufficient for a ramp, plus a Metro bus depot to accommodate your close coordination of transportation both ways, both east and west, north and south. Now you need to be able to tie that in with sky bridges going across to a center which I 've described in red and this is in terms from Smith to Gowe, from 1st to 2nd, pardon me, 1st to 4th less the new library. I 'm open for any questions that you may have. Chair Faust: Why have you excluded the new library? Hugh Leiper: No, no, I 'm excluding that from the center. You don't need to do anything with the library. The library's already there. Yes sir? Commissioner Heineman: Uh, what do you visualize that center as being comprised of? Hugh Leiper: I visualize this center as being comprising of a three level shopping mall and with approximately two to three 5-6 level parking facilities at its sides encompassing in this red area that we're pertaining to. Yes sir? Commissioner Haylor: OK, now you described this City center. Hugh Leiper: Yes sir. Commissioner Havlor: Now you tell me what this committee could do with this plan and so forth that would help formulate and build this. Hugh Leiper: A couple things we're gonna have to do. First of all, we need a change of attitude. Secondly, we need to decide the true direction that Kent is gonna go. Is it gonna be wanting to be a City or is it gonna be wanting to stay as it is? One interesting exercise that you might try. Get in your car and go up and down the valley in terms of all of our industry that we have here and for the most part you're going to find good, attractive architecturally treated buildings. Now that you've done that, come downtown and I 'd like to have you truthfully tell me that's all compatible. Um, at this juncture, we have the opportunity to produce a city that can be the true mark of the true will of the 34 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 people if we all plan it together. We have that opportunity. We can say, OK why don't you get a developer in here and do all this. All right. Usually a developer isn't that cautious, unconscious. What you need to do is plan the city. What I envision is this. First of all, the City owns one quarter of the amount of the property now needed for this kind of a thing. There has to be a movement in terms of the City, its willingness to go this direction. We have, at this point, an option of either combining this idea with the City and an insurance company who wants to own it or even a pension fund who wants to own it. Lenders right now are more inclined to be owners rather than mortgagees. So if we can plan this thing correctly and do it right, we can have a situation where we've produced a beautiful downtown because what I have envisioned also around the center, we need to produce some parks for people. We need (unclear) for those parks, then we can develop some office buildings, some high rise apartments, high rise condominiums and you have a city and you have people living downtown in that city. We're at that crossroads. It depends on whether we're going to really want to be a city. Bellevue wanted to be a city and they became a city. Columbus, Ohio said that they wanted to save their downtown. As a matter of fact this afternoon in my mail I received some things from, from them. This center is 1, 400, 000 square feet. This center comprises 18 acres. What I 'm talking about is approximately 11. This is a three level, enclosed, urban. . .retail, urban development. Now, this thing, the article says (unclear) up and down history of Capitol South. Now you talk about struggles. Here's a town that really had some struggles. It says by uh, the land in question which is just south of the state house, is bound by State Street in the north, High Street in the West, Main Street in the south and Third Street in the east. Once it was a prosperous commercial district, home of a dozen store fronts, office buildings and walk up apartments, but the decades passed and downtown retail withered as suburban strip centers and malls thrived. Few people came downtown to shop. Fewer people came down to even come downtown. By 1970, the area that later was known as Capitol South had become a slum. Not exactly that, but very seedy. The trend was clearly down, not up. Gradually the land owners found common ground. Something had to be done to reverse the deterioration. It couldn't be done by piecemeal. In 1973 , after some skillful lobbying by the various business leaders, the Ohio general assembly enacted the, what became chapter 1728 of the Ohio vice code permitting private developers to receive substantial real estate tax abatements on redevelopment projects in blighted area. It also allowed cities to use the power of eminent domain to take land for such projects. Basically, that's in a very nutshell, what the history of Ohio is and we're at the crossroads and where we start is where we plan. Thank you very much. 35 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Chair Faust: Thank you. Questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Martinez: Uh, Mr. Leiper, do you have those articles that you've been referring to that we could take a look at as well. Hugh Leiper: Sure, you bet. I. . .do you want me to make copies of them? Commissioner Martinez: I really would appreciate that. Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Hugh Leiper: OK, I ' ll make copies of it and send each and every one of you a copy if I can. . .do I leave it here with the City or do I send it to your addresses? James Harris: Send it to us and we' ll get it to them. Commissioner Ward: Yeah. Hugh Leiper: Great, thank you. Commissioner Dahle: I just have. . . Chair Faust: Does anyone else have any questions? Yes, Gwen, go ahead. Commissioner Dahle: I have a comment on this plan that he has. Have you been to Louisville recently? Hugh Leiper: Louisville? Commissioner Dahle: Kentucky. Hugh Leiper: No. I 've never been there. Commissioner Dahle: OK. They have done this and so has Savannah and I 've been to both of those places in two years, but Louisville sticks out in my mind that they have in the downtown section there in about four stories high and it's an area of probably six square blocks, but all of those old buildings that have been there for a hundred years are empty. They're falling down. No one has picked up. . .come in with money to pick them up and it' s sad. They have the downtown section, but everything else down there is gone. Hugh Leiper: Uh, let me ask you a question if I may on that. Are these areas that you're speaking of, is it adjacent to this or is it divorced from it? 36 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Commissioner Dahle: They're adjacent to the downtown. I forget what they call that little center, but there are no other buildings. . .business district downtown except that shopping center and all those buildings, beautiful structured buildings, are still there and they're all empty and they're falling apart. Hugh Leiner: Are, are, are they using those buildings as historic buildings or are they using them as business buildings? Commissioner Dahle: They're not using them as anything right now. Most of them are empty. They're just standing there decaying. Hugh Leiner: There must be something else wrong there because. . . let's take for instance Bellevue. Commissioner Dahle: Well Bellevue was started as a new city. This is started as an old city with a lot of gorgeous buildings. Kent doesn't have them, but what I 'm saying is that it's a heart breaker and I took pictures of them and brought them back. It' s a heart breaker to see those gorgeous buildings standing there idle and falling apart. Hugh Leiner: There must be something else wrong because if, if people are being attracted to an area in great scales and it is a. . . let's get back to three things, maybe. There are three things that attract people and you've really got to understand them and if you don't, you miss it. One is bigness, the other's variety, the other' s a circus or carnival type psychology. All right now, there are cities that need all three of those in order to do it because they're not directly in the community they're trying to serve. Here's an example. Capitol Mall, down by Olympia. I don't know whether you've ever seen that or not. Generally speaking, you can put a bowling ball down that mall during the day or the weekend and you're not going to hit very many people. All right now that thing has bigness and it has variety, but it's not in the true community it's trying to serve. Now if you put a circus in their parking lot 365 days out of the year, they might attract the people because it's not in the community it' s trying to serve. Now there' s something else that is missing in the criteria that you've given me, cause it won't fit. Because if you know what is happening, for instance in Bellevue. Now before that center was built in Bellevue, by the way, that happened by accident and if I have to, I' ll go into that one, but before that center was built, the largest building in Bellevue was the Puget Sound Power and Light Building. After that center was built, then you find all the other buildings being built because the goods and services were there available for the people who are going to be working in those buildings. That's why downtown Seattle has flourished so well in 37 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 terms of its skyline being, going vertical. Simply because the goods and services have already been downtown in Seattle. Commissioner Dahle: I think it's a good idea if, if it would work and it certainly has worked in Bellevue, but like I said, it didn't work in Louisville. Hugh Leiper: Well, it sure is working in Columbus. Commissioner Ward: Let me speak. So what you're saying is that, that you're encouraging this group and whatever recommendations it would come up with, is to suggest to the City that Kent should make up its mind as to whether it wants to be a city. . . Hugh Leiner: That's true, absolutely. Commissioner Ward: . . .and truly wants its downtown developed. Hugh Leiper: We need, we need to get it out of the political realm. We need to get it into the realm of reality. Commissioner Ward: That's somewhat of a utopian. . . Hugh Leiper: That's true. We can sure try. Commissioner Ward: So in, in Kent's commitment to declaring that we are. . .our downtown should be developed, is by committing its resources. You mentioned the fact it owns about a quarter of the land. . . Hugh Leiper: Right. Commissioner Ward: . . .that would be needed for this and then, then also by using its influence then to encourage other property owners to take a part in, in. . . Hugh Leiper: Absolutely. Commissioner Ward: I hear you. Chair Faust: Any other questions or comments for Mr. Leiper? Hugh Leiper: I 'm sorry I stirred you up. Commissioner Martinez: Good grief. That's the least you should be sorry about. Chair Faust: We can handle it. 38 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Hugh Leiper: OK. I know that you can. Chair Faust: Thank you for your vision. Hugh Leiper: Thank you. Chair Faust: The next person who signed up just to receive information is Mr. Barry Miller, but I ' ll give you an opportunity to speak if you'd like. Barry Miller: I think I ' ll take it. Chair Faust: Might as well. Barry Miller: My name is Barry Miller, 401 North 4th in Kent. Perhaps the future Lee Iacocca of Kent. Laughter. Commissioner Ward: All right. Barry Miller: And I ' ll tell you why, Mr. Leiper. I think that perhaps in a few years, maybe a few more than a few, but two or three or four years, Columbus, Ohio will be talking about Kent, Washington as opposed to Kent, Washington talking about downtown someplace else. And the simple reason is that, you know, I think the worm has turned. For the last several years, Howard Manufacturing Company, Northwest Metal Products and Borden Chemical have worked rather long and hard to preserve our zoning to be able to keep our businesses where they've been for so many years. But over the last less than a year we've had an opportunity to step back, take a look and see the opportunity that is before us to perhaps locate a regional justice center here and, as you're well aware, Kent has two of the four final spots being considered and we're presently going through an environmental impact statement study by King County and ladies and gentlemen, I 'm here to tell you that I think Kent stands a far better than average chance of housing just that facility. If that happens, it seems to me I learned at a young age, necessity is the mother of invention and if that justice center comes to Kent, it' s gonna have an estimated $68, 000, 000 a year payroll. It will employ in excess of 800 people and the goods and the services and the support facilities that will be required as a result of it will revitalize downtown Kent in one fell swoop and I might just suggest to the Commissioners, to the Planning staff, that if you're not gettin your rest and takin your vitamins, you better start because I think it' s gonna happen. Thank you. 39 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your vision. The next person who has signed up just to receive information, but I ' ll make you the same offer, is Bernie Baker. Gonna take it? All right. And the next person who has signed up to speak is Mr. Alden Eld. Mr. Eld? Alden Eld: Right here. Chair Faust• OK. Alden Eld: Madam Chairman, committee members, I spoke briefly last meeting and learned a little bit more about what was happening and I would like to expound a little bit on what I started on last meeting. Chair Faust: That's fine, but before you do that, for the record I really need you to give me the spiel, name, address. . . Alden Eld• OK. Chair Faust: . . .serial number. Alden Eld: My name is Alden Eld. My address is 43510 192nd Avenue SE, Enumclaw. And for the committee here I have prepared some papers. On both of the proposals that were up to date. . .or on the table before Mr. Leiper's new proposal, I feel that there's one. . .two areas in that proposal that need some reconsideration and that is the boundaries of the proposal on James Street and on Willis Street. In both cases, those both, both of those proposals stop in the middle of those two streets. If we develop only the south side of West James and the north side of West Willis, I think you'll see a continuing deterioration of the properties on the opposite side of the streets. I think in most cases, those properties at the present time facing James and Willis are rental properties. Rentals on very busy arterials like that are hard to rent, do not get the best rent that is available and therefore the landlords do not invest the money to upgrade those properties and those two streets, both being arterial streets, I think it would be a shame that we would create two eye sores on each side of that. . .those two arterials. My proposal would be that they reconsider the boundaries on those two streets and move the boundary on West James north approximately 250 feet and the boundary on Willis Street south approximately 250 feet. This would move it back into residential areas to where then, as they were developed, the proper setbacks and the proper buffers could then be incorporated into the development instead of having rundown houses facing right onto the streets. The 250 feet is an approximate 40 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 figure because it would have to be adjusted by property lines as it runs through. That is my proposal. Commissioner Martinez: Excuse me, can you tell me on James Street, on the side that you're talking about moving it 250 feet, what's the zoning there? I can't remember. Alden Eld: Uh, residential. Commissioner Martinez: R? Alden Eld: R 500. Commissioner Martinez : R 500. Alden Eld: Er, 5, 000. Commissioner Martinez: R 51000. Alden Eld: R 51000. Commissioner Martinez: Yeah. Thank you. Alden Eld: And I believe that the Willis one is residential, but I don't know. . . Commissioner Martinez: Yes it is. Alden Eld: . . .what degree it is. But this would allow for development on those, those two streets and be able to put in the proper setbacks and buffers and to where you would have arterials that would be much more attractive to the City and I would ask that that be considered into both of the plans. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Eld. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Eld? Alden Eld: Oh, one further note if I may. Looking at both of the maps, both of the downtown zoning committee recommendation map and the proposed downtown zoning map, on the interior of these areas, with very few exceptions, all of the zoning has been changed in the middle of the blocks rather than in the middle of the streets if you look at both. That's why I attached the second map. The interior zonings in most cases are not in the middle of the street, they're in the middle of the blocks which is the obvious place to change the zoning, not in the middle of the street to where you have two different zones looking at each other. Instead have them 41 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 in the middle of the block where you can have the proper, proper setbacks and buffers. Chair Faust: So basically what you're recommending is that two zones which are now zoned single family be rezoned into some type of commercial. Alden Eld: Right. Chair Faust: OK. Alden Eld: Into this plan. All I 'm asking is this plan be expanded out 250 feet approximately north and 250 feet approximately south. Chair Faust: Isn't that going to require some pedestrian overpasses or something like that, especially on Willis which gets awfully wide? It' s a real busy. . .I mean it really is an arterial. Alden Eld: And that' s. . . Chair Faust: How's that gonna fit in with the concept under both of the plans that we've heard about of creating more pedestrian oriented businesses? Alden Eld: Well, the type of business, that I 'm not sure what you put in there, but right now having residential on Willis and on James and having little children in those houses, surely isn't the answer, playing on the sidewalks. So, you know, by going 250 feet, that, I feel that's probably enough depth to where you can put development in there as far as commercial or manufacturing, whatever the case may be, and, and do something with it and not have the residential right onto the arterial. Chair Faust: Any more questions for Mr. Eld? Commissioner Haylor: Yeah, I have, I have a question. Chair Faust: Go ahead. Commissioner Havlor: Part of the proposals that we have in front of us and so forth over the past few months is trying to zone downtown Kent where it would be multif. . .you know, multi use type of thing and encourage more people to live downtown Kent, but if we change and move the zoning boundaries, one thing that we will do will move out a number of residents and so forth in downtown Kent and put in more, I don't know, strip malls or whatever would go along there. So I don't know if that would uh. . . 42 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Alden Eld: Which, which was, which would they rather have. That type of development or low, low grade housing? Commissioner Havlor: Well. . . Alden Eld: I happen to have a house that's on James Street. Two out of the last three tenants, I had to ask them to leave because they were dealing in drugs. They loved the location. It was handy for them. And I know I get about thirty. . . Commissioner Havlor: Well, I 'm just, what I 'm asking is, you know, are we defeating our purpose by moving the zoning out and reducing the number of residential homes? Alden Eld: That. . . Commissioner Havlor: Now that's what I 'm asking you so. . . Alden Eld: Well I don't feel, I don't feel you will because I feel that you will upgrade the area and that you can put community type service businesses along James and that. For instance, on the corner of Willis there you've already got a 7-Eleven on the south side of Willis. I mean, you're probably not talkin. . .well in the case of James it really only affects 4 blocks and if you figure it affects 3 residents deep for 4 blocks, each block is 8 so 3 times 8 is 24, 24 residents, single family dwellings that you're affecting there and on Willis you're talking about affecting also only 4 blocks. Commissioner Havlor: Uh, also you indicated your mailing address is Enumclaw. Alden Eld: Correct. Commissioner Havlor: Is, that's your home address. Alden Eld: Correct. Commissioner Havlor: OK then you, you also said that you own several rental houses along James I think it is? Alden Eld: I have one rental house on James, yes. Commissioner Haylor: And if, if we moved out the zoning so forth this would probably direct, you know, would enhance your property value, would it not? Alden Eld: I would hope so. 43 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Commissioner Haylor: Yeah, OR, thank you. Commissioner Dahle: Have you surveyed any of the other property owners there to see how they feel about that? Alden Eld: Well I 'm sure that the landlords would, would, that own, the ones that are rentals, the landlords would be uh all be in favor of it. The people that are long time residents, no I have not surveyed them, no. Chair Faust: Any other questions or comments for Mr. Eld? Thank you, Mr. Eld. Alden Eld: Thank you. Chair Faust: Fred, did you collect any more signatures? Fred Satterstrom: Yes, I have, it's being signed by one additional person right now. Chair Faust: OR. The only other person that's on my existing list is Alana McIalwain and you've already spoken. Is there something you needed to add in some other capacity? Alana McIalwain: I have nothing more. Chair Faust: OR. Oh my goodness, look at this, and we thought we were done. The next person who signed up to speak is Steve Burpee. Steve Burpee: My name is Steve Burpee, 1048 W. James, Suite 104 , Kent. I 'm here representing the Chamber of Commerce and we believe that the Mayor's task force has a good philosophy. We support the goals and objectives. However, we would like to reserve the right to respond to specific line items such as setbacks, parking and so forth at a later time when specific regulations are developed. Businesses and the marketplace are drowning in a sea of regulations. We recognize the need for and support necessary regulations, however, how many are absolutely necessary? Can we continue to develop and enforce the level of regulations we have and are also in the process of developing? And then we need to look at the City' s budget problems for partial answer. Will we sacrifice any health and safety of our citizens by less regulations? Will the City lose the opportunity to make requirements that affect health and safety issues? If a decision must be made in the near future, then we support the Mayor's task force approach. But I think the Team Downtown has started somethin that can bring a lot to the forefront as far as a vision for 44 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 downtown Kent. It's made up of people with a real stake in downtown, business owners, property owners. And perhaps waiting to see what kind of vision that they develop can go a long way towards your decision making. Let me kind of close with this. Let's not forget what free enterprise is all about. Did communism fail in eastern Europe or did government fail by trying to be all things to all people? Do you have any questions? Commissioner Martinez: Yes. What regulations specifically do you object to. In the, in the proposal that we had before us that we started with, what regulations do you specifically object to? Steve Burpee: We do not have any specific regulations that we object to. The Chamber of Commerce position is that we like the philosophy of less regulations. We like the philosophy of lettin the free marketplace take place and to offer incentives towards development to let it happen. You're not takin away the right to say no to something that is proposed. You still have the right to respond to that and say well what about this and what about that. Commissioner Martinez: I guess I still don't know. . . if, if we put into place the original proposal, what do you object to? Steve Burpee: Again, I 'm not in a position, we haven't sat down and discussed each specific thing. I think that yourselves, as well as the Planning Department and other parties can sit there and evaluate specific setbacks. What's best? And certainly we would want to come forth at a later time when specific things are developed perhaps that we do want to comment on maybe and it certainly isn't everything. But I think we're here, I 'm here tonight to relate to you that putting forth somethin that's this thick in regulations, is that the best approach? We support the philosophy of the task force that less regulations and lettin the free market work on its own is a good philosophy. I think you have a difference here between the Mayor's task force and what else you lookin at, the Planning Department's. And I 'm not here to say is one bad and one, and, and is worse than the other. We're here saying that we. . .perhaps less regulations is perhaps a good thing to take a look at. And the philosophy and the goals and objectives of the task force is something that we support. Thank you. Chair Faust: Any questions for Mr. Burpee? Thank you, Mr. Burpee. The next person who's only signed up to receive information is Rust. . .Russ Stringham. Voice: He left. 45 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Chair Faust: He left. And the next speaker is Pete Curran. Voices• (Unclear) Pete Curran: Thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Pete Curran. My address is 300 Scenic Way and I live in Kent. Uh, I prepared a letter and I ' ll kind of walk through the letter slowly explaining what it says without reading it hopefully and then I have. . . Chair Faust: Mr. Curran, is this the three page letter that you gave us some time ago. Pete Curran: It's, it's a newer model. Chair Faust: A new letter. All right, fine. This is the 191, the late 191 model. Pete Curran: Still three pages. Chair Faust: Do you, do you have copies for us? Pete Curran: I do. I 'd like to give em to you after I talk about them. Chair Faust: That's just fine. Pete Curran: Is that OK? Chair Faust: That's fine. That means we won't have to take really copious notes. Pete Curran: You don't have to. Chair Faust: We're gonna get it. Pete Curran: No. You don't have to do that. My purpose in preparing this was to again express to you the focus that I have and why I think it's important that the Planning Commission carefully consider what's before you because of what I think is a threat to the downtown area that we have, that we know and have, I think, all grown to cherish and hope that it stays here. I think the downtown area is in jeopardy if these. . . if something isn't done by you and by the, uh, ultimately by the City Council to create the protections that it must have. And so what I 'd like to urge upon you is that there be a special district created and that district would be bounded by 4th Avenue, by Smith Street, by Central and by Titus. And the purpose of that designation would be, again, to 46 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 carve out an area within which we can lay down the protections that I think this area deserves. And what, what exactly would we do in that regard? We would first recognize that this pedestrian oriented retail is the most successful pedestrian oriented retail in any of the valley cities. We hear the word revitalize used quite. . .I mean, I guess I 'd say constantly. It's used by the Mayor continually. It's used by others who you've heard from tonight. Revitalize. I want to again say to you that there is not any store fronts in downtown Kent at this time that are not occupied and so I think that we need to recognize that downtown is successful. Now the definition of successful, by some, might be that unless you have $17 a square foot return to an owner, you're not successful. But that shouldn't be our definition because if we make that definition and create incentives that, in fact, encourage the assembling of properties within this district I 've described, you will encourage the removal of the very tenants that are succeeding. We have in this downtown a, I ' ll call it a village, which is. . .has a character to it which seems to be attracting a lot of small, startup, I ' ll call them incubator businesses and those startup businesses are. . .there's some turnover, but they continue to flow in here and the examples of why downtown, or, or the examples of the success of downtown, a good recent one is the rehabing of a small building which is next to Kent Morrill' s Virginia Tavern. That building's on Meeker Street. And in the span of about two years the new owner of that property, who I don't know, came to this town and did some rehabing of that store front and successfully encouraged, or, or secured a book store, a small gift shop, a stock broker is now, surprisingly enough, in that property. The uh the flower, the flower store that was always there is still there and of course, and a new, small, uh I ' ll call it a boutique floor covering store has moved into that space. They're not paying $17 a foot or $13 a foot or 12 or 10. The average rent in downtown Kent probably is $5-6 a foot in most of the store fronts in downtown Kent. That is why these new, small, fledgling businesses come here. Some don't succeed, some do. We've watched a parade of those businesses come to this town, basically started by the Golden Blend and basi. . .and, and probably before them that little Apple Barrel country store. Many would say why have them, I guess. I mean that, I think that's the thrust of what is being presented to you is that we should encourage the assembling of these properties into viable places in which developers can create things like the Centennial Center. And some might say to you with respect to the creation of viable places like the uh, I guess I ' ll say so called viable places like Centennial Center, that don't worry, we' ll reserve and require the first floor of those structures to be used for retail. But it won't work. And in fact, the City did say that when the City decided to create the Centennial Center and 47 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 successfully did so, the representation was that in. . .the first floor would be retail. But it was a fact then when those wishes were expressed and it's a fact now that that building is not suitable for retail because the basic rents in that building, at least the rents I see advertised in brochures, or I shouldn't say brochures, but in publica. . . independent publications like the Puget Sound Business Journal suggest that the rent is $17 a square foot. Obviously, small, startup retailers are not going to locate in that kind of a structure. And so even, even assuming that developers would choose to come down into the downtown area and attempt to assemble properties and would, would have the, the goal of keeping the down. . .the first floor for retail, it really isn't feasible. So I think you have to recognize that that kind of new development can't be accomplished, it really can't be carried off for prices which would permit average rents of five or six dollars a foot. It may be that from your perspective and maybe from the City's perspective, we shouldn't care whether we have those kind of rents in Kent. I don't think we should set any ceilings on them. We have to let the market take care of itself, but we shouldn't take steps to encourage the removal of the very downtown that we have which is without question succeeding and is going to continue to succeed and I think we should help it. I think the incentives that should be set out for this downtown area, shouldn't be incentives to encourage assembling of the property that's there which, which again I want to re-emphasize that. It would remove the little computer stores and the little boutiques and the little baskets and bows, the little antique shops that are down here. They wouldn't be here any more if that could be done because just like the Centennial Building. When it was, when it was demonstrated that you can't get retail in there, I don't really think that Doug Klappenbach really believed that he'd get retail in there. He' s too smart to ever think that he could put 14 or $16 a foot retail in that building so, you know, you can't. . .I guess I lost my train of thought, the point I was going to make on, on that suggestion. So I ' ll step away from it for a minute, but I guess what I 'm saying is that these small users that we should be encouraging. I don't. . .they're not gonna be here if we succeed in doing this and I guess that was my point. What happens is, when you suggest that you're gonna put retail in these kind of structures, is you lose it because we don't have retail there. We got the Planning Depart, the Planning Department of the City in that first floor area and the other half of that first floor area is still not occupied. So the retail use of, of the first floor areas in this town, if it's going to survive, has to survive with the assistance of this City and all of our assistance and the good ideas that I 'm sure Dee Moschel is going to generate and is generating, that what she is doing. 48 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 So I want to comment on some things that I think need to happen in that regard. First, what I 'm suggesting is that we need to have code changes that are creative and permit the potential of recreating the kind of structures we have now that can accommodate rents, lower rents, not higher rents, lower rents. This may not be possible. It just, it may not be able to be done, but I think we should study it and see if it can be done. I think this. . .the next thing we should do, or another thing that must be done and I 'm sure Dee Moschel is probably taking us in that direction, is to get the kind of workshop advice for the owners and the tenants of downtown to enlighten us all on how to make a, a, a small retail center like this continually succeeding with more and more success. One of the things that is a hallmark and a principle of successful pedestrian orient, oriented shopping areas is that you have continual store fronts, no gaps, continual store fronts and all of the property built out. No parking on the property. All built out. I think we need to seek that goal and I think we need to confirm what I think to be a principle, verify what I 'm saying with respect to that principle, by having people come to Kent and talk to us about how you make such a small retail center flourish and the best proof is in the pudding, I think, without even going to such expertise, is to look at what people like Southcenter and Northgate and Bellevue Square and wherever, the successful places, downtown Seattle, the successful places. They don't have gaps. They have built out areas that are constant, constant pedestrian oriented store fronts which attract pedestrians. One might walk, one now might stop on Railroad Avenue, not want to walk over to this other side of Kent to 4th Avenue. Not very far. Whereas if there's store fronts there and things of interest to encourage such pedestrian activity, it will happen. The cities in Europe prove it over and over again and successful shopping areas throughout the world again don't permit gaps. They don't permit parking in the middle of the pedestrian, the retail area. So I guess I would be urging that off-street parking in this enclave that I 'm describing from 4th to Central and from Titus to Smith not be required. That off. . .that on site parking not be required, not be imposed. That means we have to be creative with respect to parking in downtown. It means that we have to, to look for creative ways to get more parking on the peripheral area, the periphery of downtown. And secondly, we have to enforce, I won't say enforce. We have to be certain to monitor the use of parking in downtown when that time comes that it's beyond. . .when there's not enough parking. I don't think we're there yet by any means. We have to monitor it and be sure there's not all day parkers using it. 49 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 I think that pretty well covers what I 've expressed in this letter. I guess, I guess the last thing I ' ll say is by guiding this area toward a lower rental, that is by preserving what we have and encouraging the creation of more of it, we will, we will present to the ownerships that we have in town now the opportunity to stay in there and expand what they have and not be driven out, not be bought out by someone else who wants to come in and assemble and put in a high rise. I shouldn't say high rise, I ' ll say a four or five story building. And I guess with respect to that kind of development in downtown, one has to wonder about whether it can succeed because right now I think you would have to say there is some, some reason to wonder wheth. . .how well the Centennial Center is going to do. I don't know how full it is. From what I see in recent things I 've looked at is 40-50% occupied and the upper stories are not yet full. So I think I get. . . I think we have to also recognize that maybe none of this could ever happen. Maybe what the Mayor wants to happen, can't happen. The marketplace just won't justify it. I mean that's, that's probably a fact right now that it just can't happen. But I think we, nevertheless we can't take the chance because may. . .because Doug Klappenbach did it here and he did it because of substantial incentives granted to him by the City and by that I don't mean give. I mean they were created, they were created to make that thing work and make it kind of run against, run upstream in the marketplace. So you can't say those things won't happen. If the incentives are substantial enough, and I 'm not suggesting those incentives were bad because the Centennial Center was important I think, somewhere here to give the City the kind of room it didn't have. But it couldn't, it would never be here but for very significant incentives being created. So I guess I ' ll, I ' ll wind up by saying that I would be willing to work toward. . .work with you in any way I could to try to help see that, that the goal that I 'm expressing of protecting this downtown area is accomplished and I 'm willing to continue after tonight because I did write this today after promising I would do it sooner. I did it today. So I haven't had as much time to think about this as I would like to and I don't have as much knowledge about what I 'm saying as. . .about the, about the way of accomplishing what I 'm suggesting as I 'd like to have and I want to try to continue to develop that. So that's all I have. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Curran. Any questions for Mr. Curran? Commissioner Morrill: Pete, you said that the core area would be the 1st on the east, is that correct? First Avenue on the east? Pete Curran: I said Central. 50 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Commissioner Morrill: Central. Thank you. And then 4th on the west? Pete Curran: That's right. Commissioner Morrill: Smith on the north and Titus on the south? Pete Curran: That' s right. Commissioner Morrill: OK. That's all. Commissioner Ward: What I gather you're suggesting is that downtown Kent remains basically as it is. That some way be figured out to lower the rent structure so far as the existing buildings are concerned and that some magical form will come to being to encourage more people to come to shop downtown. It was my impression that the whole key thing that we were trying to formulate a revitalation. . .a revitalization plan for was to encourage greater numbers of people to come and shop downtown because the existing businesses and. . .existing arrangement's not to the level which were very conducive to a profitable operation of downtown. If, if what you're suggesting is that uh, uh, that it remain as is, then uh it seems the main point of your discussion would be, is that we, that we try to work together to formulate a plan to get more people to come to the existing facilities. Is that what you're saying? Pete Curran: Leave it to a lawyer to, to have you fully misunderstand what I 've just told you. . . Commissioner Ward: OK. All right. Pete Curran: I did not ever suggest that rent should be lower in downtown. I don't mean that at all. Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Pete Curran: I think they should be increased. But you can't, you can't increase them right now because people might stop coming here and right now what belies what you just said, Ray, is that in fact all these new people are coming in here and locating here and seem to be succeeding and so to suggest that we need more people downtown. Maybe we do and maybe we don't, but I think the people that are down here are quite pleased with the success they're having. They'd like more. No doubt they'd like more. And if they get more. . . Commissioner Ward: Um hum. 51 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Pete Curran: . . .and if we could build out this whole downtown. Fill up all the property within those areas I described with these kind of users, rents wouldn't stay at $6. They'd start moving up to 7, 81 9 and 10 and 15 and whatever. That could happen, but the only way we're going to get there is not by schemes of saying we're gonna build down. . .4 or 5 or 6 story buildings down here, but to do what we're doing well right now and that is to get that, those, that area protected and encourage, help it along to go faster toward the goal that maybe we should have. Maybe we should hope that there'd be $12 a square foot or $15 a square foot rents. I'm not sure that we should, but I think many would like that who own buildings in that area. I suppose they would. Does that clarify what I said? Commissioner Ward: Yeah, yeah, yeah it does. Pete Curran: It's not, it's not. . . Commissioner Ward: It's a hundred and eighty degrees out of the phase what I thought you said (unclear) . . . Laughter. Pete Curran: It's, it's not. . . Commissioner Ward: (Unclear) OK. Pete Curran: Ray, it's not gonna have droves of people like Southcenter walking up and down the streets of Kent. Commissioner Ward: That's not what we want then, huh? Pete Curran: I 'm not saying that's not what we want. I think that the retailers here would love it, but it's not gonna happen overnight that that ha. . .occurs. But that could happen. Commissioner Ward: But you feel as though it can happen, even with existing facilities. Pete Curran: It can't? Commissioner Ward: You said can, you feel as though it can happen even with existing facilities. Pete Curran: If we build out all these properties to the extent. . .to the sidewalks. That' s the way it happens. You don't get, you don't get droves of people down here for 20 businesses or 30 or 40 or you don't get as many as you get if you have 200 of 52 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 these. I mean, probably a lame example is Gilman Village. That's an example of some little odd duck piece of property that somebody, some guy started building out with all those houses and other little store fronts out there and it's quite a success. And I don't think. . .I 'm not saying that we should emulate that, but I think that's an example of what the concentration of tenancies within a small area can do. Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Pete Curran: Again, it's not gonna be, you know, Times Square. It's still gonna be kind of like it is now I think. It' ll never be over run. Commissioner Ward: But I believe Gilman Village was successful only because of the fact that someone mentioned a carnival atmosphere was created and that's one ingredient that you have to have. You have to create some type of a thing that will cause an interest among the general public to go to this, this little unique setting. Pete Curran• Ray? Commissioner Ward: Um hum. Pete Curran: Go to Gilman Village. Commissioner Ward: I, I 've been there. Pete Curran: It's in Issaquah. Commissioner Ward: Yeah, I know the. . . Pete Curran: There's not a carnival within a hundred miles of the Gilman Village. Commissioner Ward: I mean carnival in the sense that it created a magnetism for people to go there because of the unique shops and. . . Pete Curran: We're gettin them right here. Walk up and down the streets and see what's happening here. It's happening right now. The same kind of shops. Some common ownerships between the two places. That's where we're going and we should encourage it. Commissioner Ward: Um hum. 53 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Chair Faust: Any other questions for Mr. Curran? Thank you. Uh, there's one more person signed up to speak and that is Don Baer. There were some hands in the audience. What were the hands for? Steve Burpee: Point of information. Chair Faust: Sure. Please identify yourself and come up to the mike. Steve Burpee: Steve Burpee. Uh, just a point of information. The Centennial Center is now approximately 75% leased and the downstairs, I understand, has been taken. . .has been leased by Puget Power and there's, I think there' s three or four new tenants. I think the only space available for the most part is on the fourth floor. Chair Faust: Thank you. Mr. Ramos? Just a second Mr. Baer. Raul Ramos: If I may, I think my, my comments are a little bit more lengthy than Mr. Burpee's so I 'd like to defer to Don. Chair Faust: Yeah, now, I need to, before you go on, I need to remind you that the purpose of the public hearings is for the Planning Commissioners to receive information from concerned individuals and it's not a forum for various concerned individuals to engage in a dialogue. If you wish to speak to the topic under discussions, fine, but this really isn't a forum for a dialogue. So think about that one for a minute and let's put Mr. Baer on. Raul Ramos: I would like to speak after he. . . Don Baer: Well, I defer to you. Go ahead. Raul Ramos: My name is Raul Ramos and I would like to speak to some comments that Pete made and I 'd like to state first of all, for the record, that the committee is in full agreement with uh, with Pete and certainly the Mayor has expressed a great interest in, in what Pete feels is very important for the community to do and that's essentially to, to continue to institute programs that would best help to preserve the cultural and historical heritage of downtown Kent. When we undertook our task as a committee for the Mayor, in any discussions, in any policies that come out of the City of Kent Council that speak to the revitalization of the downtown, it's implied that there is a strong desire to preserve that, that important part of culture and history that makes downtown Kent so unique. So when we talk about revitalization of the downtown, what are we talking about? We're talkin about revitalization of a historical and cultural heritage center of this 54 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 community. We didn't undertake our task as a task force to suggest that we're gonna put four, six, eight story buildings in the heart of what is the cultural center of downtown, of the City of Kent. Our main focus, and it still is today, and will always be for anybody that talks about revitalization of the downtown and that's for the full, maximum, efficient development of perimeter properties that surround the historical and cultural heritage part of the community. . .of, of the downtown. Uh, you definitely do need to, to, to have a policy that requires more intensive development of properties on the perimeter of this area to insure its preservation. How you insure that uh, the, this central area is protected, protected from what, there's a number of things, but one of them is from future degradation of its, of its, of its buildings and so forth. One of the true ways that you can insure that what is occurring today in that downtown core and I would have to agree with Pete that it' s vibrant. It's important for us to preserve. That's why we're goin through this whole process and we do need to look at specific tools and methodologies to insure that that particular, that particular team and uh, and uh, and uh importance, heritage importance is preserved. One of the ways you can possibly achieve that and it's, we still need to sit down and to work out a specific program that addresses how do we insure the protection of that core area that is so important to this community while at the same time proceeding to develop these properties on the perimeter to help insure its flourish, to help insure its healthy and vibrant existence. One of the things that really needs to be done regarding insuring that that core area is preserved is to institute some kind of program to insure that the merchants or the, I should say the tenants are actually the owners of the buildings so they can bind, so they can be bound together more closely to institute specific marketing programs, institute maybe even to the extent of suggesting to the City that they, that the City create some kind of conservation district, conservation because it's, it's different from a historical district because you don't have, you don't have all of the, obviously all of the architectural significance to the core that would qualify for creation of a historical district. But you do have all of the cultural and historical resources that would justify to create a conservancy district. That's just kind of recognizing the importance of that core area to the history of the community. Chair Faust: Is a conservancy district part of your plan. Raul Ramos: It is not. It is not. We didn't address it and it was not intended to be part of our plan. Our focus was to insure to recommend a program where perimeter properties could be more 55 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 efficiently developed to ins. . .to further. . .to add an element of success to the downtown core which we recognize is important to preserve. But that was not our mission in the committee and I would add that that particular commission. . .uh that mission I should say, needs to be developed and does, in fact, need to be addressed more specifically by either the Planning Department or the committee or the Mayor's office. Commissioner Ward: Just how you plan on conserving it then? Are you going. . . Raul Ramos: No, I'm not planning, no. . . Commissioner Ward: Historical? The designation you said. . .most of them are 50 years old. You can do that. Raul Ramos: Well, yes, but I 'm not. . . Commissioner Ward: You don't have the architectural (unclear) . Raul Ramos: Yeah, Commissioner Ward, I 'm not suggesting any program. What I 'm saying is that most of the buildings that you have within that core area and Lauri, Lauri Anderson from the Planning Department has, has led a team of experts to, to do a historical preservation program for the downtown. She could probably better address that than I. I 'm not suggesting any program. What I 'm citing for you is that in other communities, in particular in Tacoma and other small, more smaller communities they have taken the approach of forming a conservancy district which is, which is kind of a step below a historical district. In this case you don't have buildings in the downtown and, of course, some people would dispute this, but generally the buildings that you have in the downtown do not comply or do not, do not qualify as signif. . .as highly significant architectural structures to be, to be, to qualify or to be designated as a historical district. What I 'm saying is that in other communities they have used a tool of conservancy districts, forming conservancy districts to, to, to preserve these historical and cultural, more emphasis on the cultural, parts of the community. So, no I 'm not proposing any program. What I 'm saying is that we have the same concerns as Pete does and certainly the Mayor does too. When he speaks to a program of revitalization, he's speaking to what can be do on the perimeter of this core area to preserve it? Commissioner Martinez: May I ask a question? Raul Ramos: This is just but one approach. 56 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 Commissioner Martinez: May I ask a question? Raul Ramos: Sure. Commissioner Martinez: If you're concerned with the core area, why did you include the entire area from the Valley Freeway clear over beyond, I don't know what street that is, the curvy street. . . Voice: Titus. Commissioner Martinez: . . .Titus in the DCE? The original plan had had a core downtown area. Um, and um, I appreciate your vehemence, but I don't see it reflected in your proposal. Commissioner Ward: There's no mention of it. Raul Ramos: It does. It is reflected in our proposal. Our desire is to eliminate any of those impediments, any of those artificial. . . Commissioner Martinez: Like, like review. Raul Ramos: . . .obstacles. Any of the artificial obstacles that, that uh prohibit people from deciding to build on the perimeter of this area. That was the approach we took. That's one approach. The next approach to take is for some respective department or the City Administration to, to delegate a particular mission to maybe the Planning Department, in this instance, to look into more specifically the implementation of tools for this more defined core area to do exactly and more directly what Pete had expressed a great interest in. And we share the, the same interest in that. But this is one approach and it' s not necessarily taken to be contrary to his concern. Maybe it was not stated in that regards. I do believe it was, but I just felt I needed to make these, uh these remarks here and so thank you very much. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Mr. Baer? Donald Baer: My name is Donald Baer. I live at 918 East Laurel Street. I walk to work from east hill to downtown Kent when the weather's good. It takes me 15 minutes. I 've been a resident of Kent, I own a piece of property, for the last 32 years, up on east hill, Scenic Hill I should say. I served for 6 years on the Planning Commission, the last 2 as Chairman. I own Computer Place, a retail computer store in downtown Kent. So I 'm a really a merchant in downtown Kent. I been there for almost 5 years and I like downtown Kent. I 've said this to a number of people. If you made rent free on east hill, I wouldn't move in and I 've had people 57 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 come and ask me to move up there. Part of the reason is the rent structure as Pete's alluded to is such that it puts people out of business. The recent one was Byte World went out of business just about a month ago. Um, the um feeling I have in hearing what' s been going on is an old colloquialism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It appears that about 75, I don't know, I can't get a hard figure on this, 75 to 80% of the property that you're dealing with will be legal, nonconforming. This seems rather strange to me that you're proposing changes that are going to make nearly everybody doing something wrong. I, I, I honestly can't recall in all the six years that I was on the Commission, that anything even close to that occurred. Um, it, it's, it's really strange. Bob Beaver, who owns Children's Book Shop, has a book in his store and I meant to bring it this evening and in the rush of the business at the end of the day, I didn't bring it. It's about a Roman village that was, uh, the design of a Roman village two thousand years ago and there was several things that they enumerated in that book. The first was that if you built a building, it had to be no taller than twice the width of the street. That was what they had for a downtown area. Secondly, that every building, and I want to say this with the most emphasis, every building had to have an overhang. Now my overhang and nearly every overhang in Kent, appears to be in jeopardy today. I know my sign's illegal and I can take you down Meeker Street and I can give you almost every single sign on Meeker Street is illegal today for a variety of reasons. It's not 8-1/2 feet to the bottom of the sign or some such thing and I don't have any 8 foot clients coming into my store. Another thing, they said that they to give particular emphasis and protection to pedestrians. Now this is a book, not 2 , 000 years old, but about a city, and I might point the name of the author of the book was McCauley, but it' s, it's, it's worth looking at because, you know, we've been doing city planning for a long time, but 2,000 years is plenty to look at. Um, the major problem that I have perceived in five years in downtown Kent has been the perception, not the actual, the perception of parking. There is parking. It may not be exactly in front of my store, but I can submit that I can have customers come to my store and I can tell em that there's a public parking place 200 feet north of my store, a three acre public parking space. Now tell me. Can you go to Southcenter or Northgate or Gilman Village and say you got a three acre parking place 200 feet north of your 58 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 store. And 200 feet, I 'm on 2nd Avenue, what is it? Two stores north of Meeker, about midway on 2nd Avenue. I think that's pretty nice. Um, incidentally, just a small correction, no offense meant, but there are three vacant stores in Kent. One next to the Golden Blend, just recently vacated. One across the street from the Children's Book Shop and the notorious one on 4th Avenue. Now when Pete alluded to the uh, uh, uh encouragement, what were the words you used about the Centennial Building? Please help me. Voice: Incentives. Donald Baer: Incentives. If there's ever incentives that are in need, incentives or encouragement or if you will the police arm of the state to get 4th Avenue built in conformance, if no less than to get the damn pedes. . .not pedestrian, but the street bumpers out of the pedestrian walkway. I think the City should be able to go over there tomorrow morning and get that landlord to get that darn thing off the public sidewalk. Uh, the, the building has been vacant, I 'm guessing, for maybe seven years. I don't know what kind of economic reality exists there, but it's the only building of any size in downtown Kent. Now the, our store's been quite successful. We need more space. I, I honestly don't know what I 'm going to do. I have some thoughts and ideas but they're all kind of a modification. I, I cannot afford to move in at 300% increase into the Centennial Building. I or any other computer store, as much as we've lost 22 computer stores since the first of January just to give you a little context of business climate. And we are moderately expanding all the time in our store. The, the, a couple other comments. We don't need a carnival atmosphere to invite people to come to Kent. I submit to you that the Children's Book Shop is an absolutely unique book store. You can go to almost any children's book store or adults' book store, if you will, in all of Puget Sound and not find a better children's book shop. The Golden Blend is a very unique store. Penney's store is a very profitable store and a very pleasant place to park your money. We have, I think, a fun store. I can say this almost every single day and I know this because I have a computer control of where every sale occurs. Every single day I get somebody who comes into the store that's absolutely a new customer to Kent, computers, to a computer store in Kent. They're comin from all over, uh, Tacoma, Seattle. Incidentally, it's real easy, I tell you people, it's real easy to get somebody into downtown Kent. I-5 to exit 149, go east on, on the Kent-Des Moines Freeway, uh, highway to 2nd or 4th Avenue and you're in downtown Kent. Now try that on east hill. Or try that, I had a customer try to tell me 59 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 how to get to a particular store up in Tukwila and I said forget it. I 'm not even gonna go. We have a lot of good things in Kent. One thing we don't need is a carnival atmosphere. One thing we do not need is to have us remove all the buildings because if I had to vacate my building for oh four months, it would be goodbye guys. I would be gone and I know that you can't rebuild a building in four months or a year or whatever. Again, to go back. The major thing that we need in downtown Kent is when anybody does any remodeling, to encourage them to. . .I 'd go further, to require them to put a decent overhang over the sidewalk and don't put an impediment up in front of them because it's my understanding that there is something coming down the pike that's going to put a question mark on there. . .uh, illusion that they're going to require an annual permit for having the overhang and so forth. And this is only, at this point I only know it by inference, that the Engineering Department is preparing a new ordinance in this regard. Don't impede what is good and desirable. Get the information to the new land. . .uh, not the new landlords, but, yeah to the new landlords, but more particularly to the new tenants, of what would make them a good neighbor, if you will. When someone comes in and they put a, a new sign up or overhang or cover and it' s out there 18 inches, it doesn't do anything more than keep the bird droppings off the sidewalk. What we need is out 6 or 7 or 8 feet for the kind of weather we had today and you will probably have until March? Encourage the City to consider covered intersections. Not covered streets. Merely at the intersections and they haven't given, as I understand it, very much consideration at all to go from 2nd to the parking place. To go from the center, I ' ll call it 3rd Avenue to the north parking place. To go from 4th to the parking place. Merely so that you can go from the overhang, if you will, of the Phoenix Building, which I am in, to the parking lot. To have a covered center down the middle of the parking lot. Not the covered parking lot, but just a walkway. I believe the school up in Enumclaw that I attended one meeting at, there was walkway covers. It's a consideration. We're not talking about a lot of money, but again, encourage these kinds of development. Don't try to throw the whole plan out. And in closing, as far as parking, I would agree with Pete, uh, not on parking, but I would agree with Pete that we should have continuous store fronts. If you're gonna make a change in the actual zoning requirements, think of it along this way. If you go from one store, and I 'm gonna just name some stores as uh, just as they come to mind. If you went from Blessings to the Kent Floral to Fanny Jeans to uh, the, uh, uh Apple Barrel and I believe the 60 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 next store, I believe it's uh, uh, uh a secretarial service, I 'm not sure. It's not a retail establishment and so in effect, I 'm not criticizing in the general thing, in the particular, but in the general thing, it discour. . .excuse me, it discourages (unclear) from going in there. It's not some place the person would ordinarily go to. And when you get to the end of the street, what happens? What pulls you around the corner onto 1st Avenue. The back side of a bank and a rose garden across the street. If I had a magic wand I would put retail shops where that bank is and be accessible from both sides of the street. Now that's not something that's gonna happen. But if you want to design it. If you were gonna design a Southcenter, or if you're gonna design a Northgate, you would have absolutely continuous on both sides of the street, retail establishments. And the closer you can get to that, the better it's gonna be. Now again, in closing, I 'm amazed at how many people come in our store and say, "I just walked by" . Cause I ask seven things. You came in previously? Just saw you walking by. Out of the phone book. Direct mail piece. Referred by a friend, etc. But that second one. Just walkin by. And think about 2nd Avenue. Not very pedestrian oriented. I 'm amazed at the number of people who walk down that street. It ain't broke, don't try to fix it too much. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Baer. Any question for Mr. Baer? Several days ago when we began this hearing this evening, I said that we were probably going to end it at a somewhat reasonable hour. The reasonable hour has now been reached and by an amazing stroke of good luck, we've run out of speakers. I am hereby declaring the public hearings closed on this matter. We will not begin deliberations tonight. I know you all will be thrilled, at least on the Planning Commissioners bench and Mr. Harris and Leslie, however, we will come back next month and begin deliberating. I don't think that any of us are really up to begin deliberating right now. Commissioners, where we are, where we are beginning next month, if I can find the thing. What we're going to be doing is attempting to go through this systematically and the outline that we are going to be following in our deliberations is contained, mark this down, on page 49 of this document, the Planning Department's January, 1991 document. It's this greenish document here and page 49 contains a summary of recommended actions A, B, C and D and that is the format that we are going to be using starting next month. The first thing that we will be doing is amending the Zoning Code to create zoning designations, whether we go with the zoning designations that were recommended back in early 1991, which are listed on page 49, 61 Kent Planning Commission October 28, 1991 whether we end up coming up with the zoning designations that the Mayor's committee came up with or take no action or do whatever it is that we're gonna do. That's where we're gonna start and hopefully we are going to work through it. Commissioners, for next month I would like for you to review all of this material and be prepared to come and right off the bat start with the outline on page 49. (End of verbatim minutes. ) Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ward MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /3�7 Lo�—�� 5aames!PL:iIHWrrf`s, Secretary 62