HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/19/1997 (3) CITY OFLSV� zS
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
/ AGENDA Jim White, Mayor
AUGUST 19, 1997
• � �li
rti °4a 3 2; rti s 1 L — aV�,—W,
.t OM d mip'w� ' "#. s � I Ana >"
*, W_ t N Ix� }p��-. fi z �'7��y�'i� �y. Sy'3n' s7k 1>7 iti�.° i '�
4^ �1�4#` �:f1K.S'LY1� L LE 14tT�'Cs �d lY1Aw �Tl "�,
T 'EJUNCI C7 �ERSE�`STRflt��l'=' '`T 1
T9 Qf1 p M. 7N
22(I F(? IRTH�4CIENUE SOUTH
J
Committee Members
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
. Tim Clark
AGENDA
1. Proposed regulatory review - Residential ACTION ITEM - 5 Minutes
to Professional and Office District, O -
(J. Harris)
2. Downtown Strategic Action Plan - (L. Phillips) ACTION ITEM - 50 Minutes
3. Billboard Issue - (T. Clark) INFORMATION Y EM-5 Minutes
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN ADVANCE FOR
MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993 OR THE CITY OF KENT AT
(206)813-2068.
mp:c:pco81997.agn
220 dth AVE.SO., /KENT WASfIl�CTO'V 98032-52i95/TELEYHOKE (206)8?93300/FAX#R59-3334
2067621173 JPR 056 Pal JUL 22 '97 14:44
Li _lr_
CITY OF KENT
REGULATORY REVIEW
The Kent City Council has determined that ongoing review of the City's regulatory process Ss in the
public's best interest, The Council wants the public to be aoie to participate In this review. The
outline an tnts page Is intended to give the public an opportunity to write down those things that
they do not like about an ordinance or regulation. The Council will then review the public's comments
and, when appropriate, make changes to ordinances and regulations,
0 What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review?
S 1 S,04 .150, If Ito roCw5101-1 et_ sil"D or-,^ICAM R E C E I V E D
SDI�T�z1�T , 4P, rT�M Pt .3
0 What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation? >J U L 2 2 1997
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
0 What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation?
G4-,�ry4 'g, 1-0 — �$SiO�tJrIJ(t— 'Z�DNC-
0 What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change?
}.l outs
0 What effect, if any, will your proposed change have on related ordinances,
regulations, plans and policies?
POW--
0 Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member?
0 Do you have any general comments you wish to make (can be about the or-
dinance/regulation you want changed or about anything else to do.with
ordinances/regulations or the permit process)?
w"ili iT I S u PP 1R.-
v�pik�� 5 -� GtrlalU
Wj& Wo
��-Lull- ctL
NAME �► t11�0 p6 VZiil � LUG� Nl�ul�Ll� r
Tlyc
ADDRESS lJ MtGL� C.I1Jlet, op- �-3�+'�i � O � S>✓
RHONE NO.
• t 0/65
CITY OF Jwri\. 'A ZS
Jim White, Mayor
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE, TIM CLARK AND JON JOHNSON
From: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
Date: AUGUST 14, 1997
Subject: PROPOSED DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN AND INTEGRATED
PRELIMINARY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
As discussed in a memo to the Planning Committee from Linda Phillips, dated July 15, 1997,
the Land Use and Planning Board recommended approval of the Downtown Plan to the City
Council, on June 2nd with 9 modifications.
The Board's recommendation was presented to the Council at its Public Meeting on July 1st.
• At that time the plan was referred to the Planning Committee where two meetings have been
held; July 15th and August 6th.
Following is an outline of the plan's proposals with an emphasis on the different Downtown
districts. The document that this outline comes from is dated June 13, 1997 and is titled:
CITY OF KENT
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
AND
INTEGRATED PRELIMINARY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ]M[PACT STATEMENT
PART I
INTRODUCTION page I-1
This is a straight forward section that explains how the plan was formulated.
PLANNING CONCEPT page II-1
This section deals with the market analysis and a redevelopment strategy. It is
important to note here that the Downtown Strategic Plan is intended to implement
• the goals and policies contained in the City's Growth Management Act
Comprehensive Plan,adopted on April 18, 1995.
220 4th AVE SO /KENT W ASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE 12061859-33001 FAX N 859-3334
One suggested addition in this section is-to add a bullet after Hotel/Convention
Center on page II-3 with the title Natural Medicine Center and which states that
the City Council has supported this concept.
The redevelopment strategy, begins on page U-3 and contains 5 parts:
1. Connect and unify important downtown features.
2. Enhance the periphery of the downtown to achieve a higher quality
development that supports its central activities.
3. Define special activity districts.
4. Select "target" areas as a basis for a phased implementation program to
accomplish redevelopment and/or infill consistent with the plan.
5. Enhance civic identity.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS page III-1
This section needs to have the following general recommendations added to the
plan:
A. Encourage residential development in the downtown.
B. Adopt street standards for the entire downtown area. Currently,
• street standards are often determined on a case-by-case basis. The
street character could be enhanced by matching street standards to
specific areas of the downtown in order to accentuate the character of
each area. t41#, A1A0 —y,C,4,(/,
C. Develop a street tree/vegetation plan for downtown which provides a
guide for creating an attractive pedestrian network of green spaces.
D. Continue to incorporate pubic art into the downtown design pattern
to reinforce Kent's downtown character and unique traditions.
Provide for public art that appeals to children and that is easily
accessed by children.
E. Work with developers to ensure high-quality development on
designated building sites:
a. Signature Buildings: New buildings on highly visible gateway
sites should receive special attention. For example, commercial
development on these sites should not include parking in front
yards. The City may provide incentives, such as expediting
project review, to encourage high-quality design as specified by
the guidelines.
2
The above recommendations were in the draft that the Land Use and Planning
Board approved but were inadvertently omitted from the June 13, 1997 draft.
The map on page II-2 presents the Summary of Recommended Actions contained
in the different districts beginning on page IV-1. It should be noted here, and
will be noted again in the district discussion, that the Land Use and Planning
Board's modifications affect the summary proposals as follows:
A. The depot location, both north and south be further studied.
B. The North Park area east of Fourth Avenue South and on the north
side of James Street, remain residential.
C. The North Park area between Fourth Avenue South and Fifth Avenue
South, and lying between James Street and Cloudy become mixed use.
D. .111liminate the parking shown on the Commons playfield.
E. Create angle parking on the west side of an improved Fifth Avenue
�V South, adjacent to the Commons play field and create a drop-off and
pick-up area for children along this improved right-of-way.
F. Study traffic patterns in North Park for ingress, egress and safety.
kin for the Uplands la field located between Meeker
G. Study the parking p p y
Street and Smith Street adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.
H. Develop realistic costs for the plan.
I. Develop a gateway at the intersection of North Central Avenue and the
Valley Freeway.
This section also has an important phasing strategy of which the Transportation
part will need to be revised when the actual location for the RTA depot is
determined.
KENT DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS page IV-1
This section is the main part of the plan. The Downtown Districts are:
* North Frame District
* Central Avenue District
* East Frame District
* West Frame District
3
* South Core District
* North Core District
* Historic Core District
A. The North Frame Area (North Park) page IV-1
Important elements of the North Frame Area are:
1). Upgrade Commons Park. Remember, the Land Use and
Planning Board recommends modifying the Commons Park as
Follows: 44
a). Eliiv�the parking on the Commons playfield.
b). Create parking on the west side of an improved Fifth
Avenue South adjacent to the Commons playfield and
create a drop-off and pick-up area for children along
this improved right-of-way.
2). Improve James Street.
The plan states that, ultimately, James Street will be an important
pedestrian and bicycle route connecting the Commons Park and
Interurban Trail to the Bordon site redevelopment and the
commuter rail station." Note: The Land Use and Planning
Board did not recommend a specific RTA depot site but rather
made the statement that, "The depot location, both north and
south, be further studied."
3). Provide Gateway Improvements at Fourth Avenue and James
Street.
The gateways are discussed on page IV-5. Note: The Land Use
and Planning Board recommends that a gateway improvement
be placed at the intersection of North Central Avenue and the
Valley Freeway (SR 16 ).
4). Encourage Office/Residential Mixed Use Development at the N.
Fourth Avenue/N. Fifth Avenue Target Area.
��IT,aND '1 Note: The Land Use and Planning Board recommended that
,eta46 N GF 7 this mixed use end at Cloudy Street; the staff recommendation
was that it extend three properties north of Cloudy Street.
�i. De��.v �6f.✓��"Nr'
�¢T' rff� N. vG06fy,
� ). Encourage Office Development of Properties Within the North
James Street Corridor Target Area.
Note: The Land Use and Planning Board recommends that the
North Park area east of Fourth Avenue South and on the north
side of James Street remain residential.
B. The Central Avenue Corridor District page IV-9
The Downtown Plan targets this area for redevelopment. Important
elements of the Central Avenue Corridor are:
1). Upgrade Streetscape Along Central Avenue.
2). Establish gateways.
The plan recommends gateways at the intersections of Central
Avenue with Smith and Titus Streets.
3) Design Guidelines
The plan calls for specific standards to be added to the Downtown
• Design Guidelines - see page IV-11.
4). The map on page IV-10 indicates the RTA depot at the north
site and improvements of Smith Street at the depot: remember
the Land Use and Planning Board did not recommend a
specific depot site, but rather a study of the north site and
south site.
The following recommendation needs to be added to this section:
Conduct a corridor study to serve as a basis for improvement
of the Central Avenue corridor. Include Railroad Avenue as
related to the proposed commuter rail station. Address design
guidelines, buffers for adjacent residential neighborhoods,
zoning code enforcement, zoning use issues, and streetscape
improvements.
This recommendation was in the draft approved by the Land Use and
Planning Board but was inadvertently omitted from the June 13,1997
draft.
C. East Frame District page IV-15
• 5
Residents of this area emphasize the need for a more stable residential
neighborhood. Key elements of this district are:
1). Construct a Pedestrian Trail along Mill Creek.
2). Improve Meeker and Gowe Streetscapes
3). Design Guidelines to:
* Increase compatibility between commercial and
residential uses through screening and design.
* Increase security and safety in the area by providing
lighting and pathways, reducing hazardous area, and
providing visible entries.
* Provide useful open space and pedestrian-oriented
streetscapes.
D. West Frame District page IV-16
The plan envisions the area south of Smith Street experiencing dynamic
redevelopment. Key elements of this district are:
• 1). Review Proposal for a New Access Street. This street would
extend northerly of Willis Street to Meeker Street easterly of
Naden Avenue.
2) Connect Interurban Trail to Core Districts.
The Land Use and Planning Board recommends the following:
3). Study parking for the Uplands playfield located between
Meeker Street and Smith Street adjacent to the Union Pacific
Railroad.
E. South Core District page IV-19
The Downtown Plan encourages residentially-oriented mixed use in this
district to help achieve the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals and to
provide a built-in market for downtown businesses. Important elements
of this district are:
1). Extend Angled Parking Along Saar Street to the Union Pacific
• 6
Rail Road.
• 2). Extend Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths from the Interurban Trail to
the Core.
3). Design Guidelines page IV-21
4). Other Redevelopment Incentives page IV-23
F. North Core District page IV-24
Although this district indicates that the RTA depot would be developed in
this district, north of Smith Street, the Land Use and Planning Board
recommends that no definitive station site be identified at this time, but
that the depot location, both north and south, be further studied.
Many of the elements of this district revolve around the siting of the depot
at the northern site, but until a specific site is determined, through City
input to the RTA and the RTA's own determination as to the ultimate site,
these elements need to be placed on hold. A statement dealing with this
situation is recommended as follows:
• At the time of the determination of the site for the RTA depot,
the Downtown Plan transportation elements shall be revised in
the North Frame, North Core, Historic Core South Core and
Central Avenue Corridors, to accommodate peak commuter
travel times with an emphasis on public transportation.
Elements of this district not related directly to the location of the Rta
depot are:
1). Locate a Town Square Park Near the Smith Street/Meeker
Street Spine of the Core.
2). Construct Pedestrian "All Cross" or Scramble System at the
Corner of Fourth Avenue and Smith Street.
3). Redefine Design Guidelines page IV-31
4). Establish Design Parameters and Review process for
Redevelopment of the Borden Site.
5). Support a Civic and Performing Arts Center Between Meeker
and Smith Streets. This element is very site specific. Perhaps
one way to address this issue is to support the development of a
Civic and Performing Arts Center Downtown, but without
identifying a specific site.
6). Support the Public Market
G. Historic Core District. page IV-34
The Plan points out that the Historic Core District is the traditional and
geographic heart of downtown Kent. Several actions are recommended
for this district:
1). Enhance the historic architectural character and pedestrian
amenities.
2). Develop vacant or underutilized sites.
3). Visually and physically connect the Historic Core District to the
surrounding districts.
• 4). Make pedestrian Improvements
5). Enhance Gateway (Meeker and Fourth Avenue).
6). Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Activities page IV-
36
PART II page VI-1
IMPLEMENTATION
This section of the downtown Plan deals with the Preliminary Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives and mitigating factors will change
as the plan is amended. Traffic impacts, discussed on page VI-9 will change as
the Downtown Plan is amended.
The Land Use and Planning Board recommends that, Realistic costs associated
with the plan should be developed.
As discussed in PART I, C PROCESS, page I-2, the Plan was prepared to be
consistent with the requirements of State Law (ESHB 1724) which contains a
8
provision to allow cities to adopt a "Planned Action" ordinance if the city has an
adopted comprehensive plan. A city can create a subarea or neighborhood plan-
in this case the Downtown Strategic Action Plan is a subarea plan - develop a 20
year vision for the "Planned Action", and analyze the environmental impacts of
the actions with a Planned Action environmental impact statement. This is the
course of action Kent's Downtown Strategic Action Plan has followed and as
stated on page I-4, "This plan meets the requirements of the Planned Action State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)provision by providing public participation and
environmental analysis in advance, in conjunction with a subarea plan."
This Implementation Section contains the required elements of the Planned Action
environmental impact statement. Section A is the typical EIS fact sheet(page VI-
1). Section B is a summary of the process used to arrive at a preferred alterative
(page VI-3). Section C is a summary of the preferred alternative and the
recommendation process (page VI-5). Section D is organized by recommended
action. It contains a discussion of each action, the environmental impact
evaluation, the mitigation measures, and it identifies the entity responsible for the
action (VI-6). Section E outlines a monitoring system which would be further
refined for administration by the Planning and Public Works Department (page
VI-58).
An analysis of the current capital facilities plan for downtown in relation to the
. planned actions recommended by this plan will take place when the plan is
adopted. The phasing schedule for the actions will be revised if necessary, and
the capital facilities plan will be updated to reflect the actions proposed.
• 9
CITY OF :Q� JSV
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253)850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
August 6, 1997
Planning_Committee Members Present:
Leona Orr, Chair
Tim Clark
Christie Houser(substituting for Jon Johnson)
Planning Staff
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Linda Phillips, Planner
Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary
• DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN PLAN - (L. Phillips)
The City's consultant, John Owen of MAKERS, explained what a strategic action plan is. He
explained that the strategic action plan is intended to make things happen in downtown Kent. It's
a development plan; a way of shaping development.
Mr. Owen explained that the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development
(DCTED) has recognized that there is a problem in the urban centers. He explained that the overall
state growth management plan is relying on urban centers to grow and that is tough to do. He stated
that there are lots of impediments to good strong solid responsive growth in the core areas of our
communities. DCTED recognized the difficulties and has given the City of Kent a grant to develop
a strategic action plan.
One of the key elements of the strategic action plan is that it integrates both the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) and the permit review processes. The state is trying to implement the City's
vision into the daily permitting procedure. Kent is a leader in this and is one of two or three projects
that the state has decided to focus on and carry forward as an example to other communities.
The strategic action plan contains a vision as a general statement of wants and objectives, and
recommends specific zoning,land use, transportation, urban design,streets, and parks using zoning
ordinances and other programs. These can be a joint partnership with the development community
or cultural programs. That is what is in a strategic action plan.
• This helps the development proposal in many different ways, The project review process would
have a regulatory review to enme it meets budding~'and zoning codes, other city and state
I'.
220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)8593300/FAX#859-3334
City Council Planning Committee Minutes c y
June 17, 1997
•
regulations such as SEPA, and capital infrastructure requirements to make sure that the project does
not create a burden on other parts of the downtown or other parts of the community. The developer
may be required to provide infrastructure improvements to mitigate for expected impacts.
The strategic action plan takes the objectives from the introduction, and these concepts help to allow
a much more flexible regulditory review. One item that may come out of the plan, is some design
guidelines which is a more effective way of achieving the City's objectives in permit review. Going
back to SEPA, the plan anticipates different kinds of projects that might come in. If these projects
do come in and they comply with the plan, it saves the city from going through an additional SEPA
process. It is a little complicated as to how the different departments work, but it really streamlines
the permitting process and benefits both the city and the applicant. It also identifies capital
infrastructure needs. The plan has identified some of the things that need to be done to make sure
that as development comes it fits in with the overall plan and does not place a burden on other parts
of downtown. It should be a big benefit not only to the City but other proponents here as well. It
is important not to lose sight that this is a good solid operational plan.
Mr. Owen explained how;the plan was organized. He explained that the supplemental EIS
compliments the Comprehensive Plan EIS. It describes the implementation, the impacts, and the
mitigation(what needs to be done to make sure that a particular development project or public action
doesn't cause impact or harm to other entities). •
Committee member Tim Clark asked for an example of how the plan would work. Mr. Owen
explained that if someone wanted to come in with a movie theater complex it would usually require
a traffic analysis and a review of impacts to neighboring land use and land values. The developer
may be required to put in a traffic light or a left turn lane. In the strategic action plan, these issues
have already been considered and the infrastructure that may be needed for the different development
projects, whether they are public or private, have already been integrated in the plan. Instead of
having a case by case look atipublic infrastructure,it is done on a more planned base(strategic way).
Planning Director Jim Harris explained that as development comes in for downtown, the new
strategic plan would have tho mitigation devices in place. The developer would not be required to
go through a lengthy SEPA process. A shortened process will be developed.
Mr. Clark commented that we have to be very careful about the master plan. Mr. Hams explained
that this is why the cost figures are so important. x'
Mr. Owen remarked that there are also some geographically strategic elements of the plan. He
explained that the individual actions in the plan are built to work together to accomplish certain
goals.
Mr. Owen explained some of the issues that are directly effecting the downtown. He stated that
based on Greg Easton's report downtown Kent has a strong diverse economy a good base on which
to grow. He commented that some of the things that don't work as well with the downtown is the
2
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
June 17, 1997
RJC and the Commons park are separated by barriers. It is hard to walk between features in
downtown. They are not visually linked. The downtown uses tend to be separate. Mr. Owen
explained that healthy downtown's aren't cut up, and they tend to focus more on getting around by
foot.
Another issue is there are certain areas which are less than attractive. These areas tend to be the
gateways into downtown. These gateways leave a lasting impression to the general public.
Mr. Owen explained that the plan tries to link some of the new activities and the Commons park.
He commented that the plan tries to bring the areas together with an all-way cross, the performing
arts center, and the improvements to the parks.
The plan focuses on improvements through design guidelines, gateway improvements, and public
infrastructure on the outlining areas. A strong emphasis is placed on Central Avenue.
Mr. Owen stated that there is a hole at the Borden site because the plan does not consider
redevelopment of this property. He commented that in the long term, the Borden site will be one
of the premier sites in an urban area in South King County.
• Mr. Owen explained that a very important implementation aspect of the plan is the design guidelines.
This will allow the City to carefully shape the development of downtown. Mr. Owen presented
some conceptual sketches to illustrate same of the improvements proposed and some design
guidelines.
Mr. Owen explained that with better design guidelines and streamlining the permit process the
chances of getting higher quality residential development particularly in the south core will be much
greater. Developers will come in, who are comfortable with working with a community that cares
about the character and specifies design quality, but is also responsive and efficient in terms of the
design review.
Planner Linda Phillips presented the Committee with preliminary conceptual drawings for gateway
designs. Ms. Phillips explained that the downtown gateways are being considered in the capital
improvement budget this year. The downtown gateways include entry portals at SR-167,
intersection designs, lighting,and directional features. Ms.Phillips discussed the cost breakout.
Committee member Tint Clark voiced his concern with an already cluttered landscape with existing
buildings and the difficultly with identifying landmarks. He commented that the City is trying to
create something that is be pedestrian friendly. A
Ms. Phillips explained that the portal designs are automobile riented. She explained that the
. sketches are very preliminary and there will be a design phase. Mr. Hams explained that the portal
designs will be placed on the side of SR-167 so when you come under the freeway you seethe entry.
3
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
June 17, 1997 "y
•
He explained that the freeway will be landscaped on each side as it has in the past. Mr. Harris
explained that this concept will not be all over downtown;just at the freeway underpasses.
Mr. Harris discussed the all-sway cross at Fourth and Smith. He explained that people coming from
the RJC at noon have to wait along time to cross. Mr. Harris explained that the gateway lighting
proposed is similar to what is already located on First Avenue. The original lights from 1900 were
used as a model. Mr. Harris explained that this is a preliminary sketch. He commented that if the
City wants to have gateways we need something bold and we need to spend some money. He
explained that this would be put out over the capital improvement program over a period of time.
This would not be a one year program.
Mr. Clark questioned whether staff had considered a unified architectural design that could be
utilized by the RTA. Mr. Harris explained that this issued would be discussed with the RTA.
Mr. Clark strongly suggested some direct correspondence with the RTA. He explained that the City
is trying to establish an identity and the RTA should try to incorporate this into their plan whenever
possible. HIV 14 v AV 01ti
40 6 �3o)090 � go,
MS.�iilips expl�ihed that the Public Works Department was reluctant to give any cost estimates
fo icycle paths.. She explained that James Street has had some recent improvements and bicycle
paths have been added. She commented that Meeker, Saar,and Kennebeck has no extra right-of-way
and may end up with an extra wide sidewalk in order to try to accommodate some bicycle traffic.
Mr. Clark questioned whether Planning was aware that the City Council was considering a proposal
to make downtown a free bicycle zone. Ms. Phillips stated that Planning was not aware of this
proposal. Mr. Clark explained that the City Council has been working on this proposal with the
Public Works Department. Mr. Harris stated that this is something that should be integrated into the
downtown plan.
Mr. Clark explained that the Council has basically signed off on the concept. Clark asked to adopt
a free bicycle zone element into the downtown strategic plan. Mr. Harris suggested adding this
element to the final recommendation.
Ms.Phillips discussed the"town square"park. She explained that this although a very detailed plan
is still conceptual. She stated that the park should be integrated with the performing arts center. The
Parks Department developed:a preliminary cost estimate of$520, 160 which includes demolition
costs earthwork utilities concrete landscaping, fountain;> engineering costs- and contingency. �
Ms. Phillips explained that this again is a very preliminary estimate but the cost does include some i
of the amenities that are envisioned in the plan.
Ms.Phillips explained that they Public Works Department has provided street improvement estimates.
? These estimates a pW r'„ed „�¢ed i4th a F caxea"--vavca
. 44Y3-yyLR
preside tin irrfor ar3c to stEMMU=I=gCMaXDCGW. She explained that the estimates •
for street improv ents include sidewalk costs, full surface improvement, lighting, street tree
711P 4 ,ec11 ,p is ��UcolE �'UGy
•rya�vsx
City Council Planning Committee Minutes Wij /T1zfg�57
June 17, 1997 � �j3t�
•
improvements, and landscaping. In the case of Smith, it includes straightening out the curve if the
station is placed in the north location.
Mr. Harris commented that the City has made strong commitments to the downtown over the years
in regard to infrastructure (sewer, water, street trees and new pavement). Mr. Harris stated that if
the City is going to develop downtown in the manner that is being planned the City will have to be
willing to put money into the downtown.
Mr. Clark commented that he supports the concept of the performing arts center but does not support
a specific site location for it. He suggested developing the area on Smith between Second and
Fourth into a community plaza.
Mr. Owen explained that the downtown plan suggested incorporating a community plaza into the
performing arts center design possibly in conjunction with the library setting. He commented that
this is a very important need.
Chair Leona Orr asked Ms. Phillips to briefly discuss the high points of each district. Mr. Clark
stated that the plan should address bicycle parking. Ms. Phillips identified the districts on the map
and briefly summarized each district.
Central Avenue Corridor District.
Street improvements (sidewalks and improve walking environment along Central), a detail study of
the area, streetscapes improved, and gateways.
Historic District.
Enhance the historic architectural character,pedestrian improvements,and design guidelines tailored
for the historic district.
South Frame District.
Good residential area,some sites still redevelopable, good relationship of buildings to streets, quiet,
good area for housing to develop. Parking and street improvements that may include more angled
parking.
West Frame District.
Improve Nadan Avenue,add an access into the area from Willis, connect the Interurban Trail into
the downtown on Willis, Meeker, and James.
Committee member Tim Clark commented that James will be excessively cluttered with arterial All
traffic. He would like to see either Willis or Smith developed as bicycle friendly to promote an
alternative form of transportation. Mr. Clark remarked that the Interurban Trail is a great value and
will become a bigger asset when it's expanded into the downtown.
5
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
June 17, 1997
•
Mr. Harris commented that the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation for area north of
James Street between Fourth and Fifth stopped at Cloudy. He explained that the plan recommends
that the area include three parcels north of Cloudy where the multifamily zoning designation begins.
Ms. Phillips explained that the downtown plan recommends limited office for the North Park area
just north of James. The limited office would act as a buffer between the single family residential
area and the increased activity on James. Mr. Harris commented that it is important to know that the
Land Use and Planning Board did not recommend a rezone for this area. They recommended that
the area remain single family residential.
Chair Orr opened public testimony.
Jim Bitondo, 106 E. Titus! Street. Mr. Jim Bitondo is a business owner in downtown Kent.
Mr. Bitondo is representing the Downtown Partnership. He commented that it seemed that the
commuter rail station location was carefully avoided this evening.
Mr. Harris explained that the Land Use and Planning Board did not make a site recommendation for
the commuter rail station instead, they recommended a detailed comparison for both the north and
the south site. Chair Orr commented that the RTA has the final say.
Mr. Bitondo commented that the plan is based on many generalities and few specifics. The location •
of the commuter rail station was one of the specifics. He commented that when the recommendation
was made to place the station in the north location a lot of citizens came forward in support of the
south location. The railroad currently owns the property where the historical station is located.
Mr. Bitondo stated that the location meets the needs of the RTA and would better benefit the
pedestrian traffic for downtown.
Mr. Bitondo discussed the possibility of adding a parking garage with retail on the first floor. The
garage would house 550 cars and would be centrally located. He presented the Committee with
several conceptual drawings to illustrate a plan alternative.
Chair Orr commented that she supports the parking structure concept. She believes that the structure
will pay for itself.
Linda Johnson,Kent Downtown Partnership,P. O.Box 557. Ms. Linda Johnson represents the
Kent Downtown Partnership.''Ms.Johnson commented that the KDP has concerns with turning the
North Park area into a commdreial district She commented that there are already so many areas in +
downtown that is divided or sectioned off. There is a problem with connections. Ms. Johnson
commented that the downtown hasn't filled up yet and it may be premature to add new commercial
nodes. She would like the board to consider waiting until changes happen in the downtown before
selecting new commercial areas.
6
_City Council Planning Committee Minutes
June 17, 1997
Ms. Johnson commented that the performing arts center design is expected to give a plaza feeling
and takes into consideration the pedestrian amenities in the area.
Carol Schneider, 232 S. Railroad Avenue. Ms. Carol Schneider represents the St. James Thrift
Store. Ms. Schneider stated that the thrift store has been in their current location for a long time.
She commented that the consultants and the Planning Department spent a great deal of time on an
analysis between the north and the south commuter rail locations and the Council should go along
with their recommendations. Ms. Schneider stated that it seems like an awful waste of money if the
City paid a consultant to study the best location for the commuter rail station and the City ignores
the recommendations.
Ms. Schneider stated that the St. James Thrift Store supports the Kent food bank, Kent suppers,
Catholic Community Services, and the Kent Police DARE program. All the money that is collected
from the thrift store is put into community charities. Ms. Schneider remarked that the thrift store
does not have the money to relocate.
Ms. Schneider asked the Committee to go with the recommendation made by the consultants and
the staff.
Pam Newcomer, 839 Third Avenue North. Ms. Pam Newcomer asked that the Committee
consider the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation not to rezone the area located north
of James and east of Fourth Avenue in Northpark. She commented that Northpark is a vital
neighborhood and she would like to see it stay that way.
Ms. Newcomer supports the performing arts center but would like to see a bigger center proposed.
She does not believe that the size being proposed will be nearly big enough. She would like to see
a great big center that could bring in top name entertainers.
Hugh Leiper, 815 Reiten Road. Mr. Hugh Leiper discussed a plan for developing a three story
mall in downtown Kent. He suggested a seven story parking structure at Smith and Second and a
six story parking structure north of Smith with a bridge between both parking structures and the
mall. Mr. Leiper suggested building a$175,000,000 cultural arts center as part of the project.
Jack Lehrkind,220 S. Railroad. Mr. Jack Lehrkind is a business owner in downtown Kent.
Mr.Lehrkind stated that it would be a hardship for him to relocate his business. He commented that
there is a real traffic concern with the south commuter rail station location. For those reasons, he
supports the north location.
Mary Anderson,25838-68th Avenue Soutlr. Ms.Mary Anderson supports the idea of utilizing
the historic train station that is already located in the south location. She commented that the north
location does not lend itself to the casual traffic that the merchant community seems very concerned
with.
7
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
June 17, 1997
Keith Minkler,338 First Avenue South. Mr.Keith Minkler commented that placing the commuter
rail station in the south location is ridiculous. Mr. Minkler stated that the RTA is not considering
benefits for the downtown merchant. The commuter rail is way to get people off the freeway and
on to the tracks to ease the congestion on the road. He commented that a side benefit could be for
the merchants. Mr. Minkler supports the north commuter rail station location.
John Dahll, 805 Crest Avenue. Mr. John Dahll supports the Land Use and Planning Board
recommendation to add parking along Fifth Avenue for the Commons Park. He commented that
adding parking for the Commons park along Fifth Avenue is ideal.
J. R. Schneider,232 S. Railroad Avenue. Mr. Joe Schneider represents the St. James Thrift Store.
Mr. Schneider questioned whether renters would be assisted if they are made to relocate because of
the commuter rail station.
Chair Leona Orr stated that this item will be continued to the regularly scheduled Planning
Committee Meeting on August 19 at 4:00 p.m.
Committee member Tim Clark discussed several ideas for portal themes. He suggested high tech,
medieval, farming/hops and,a combination of themes and polled the audience for their preference.
They overwhelmingly preferred a combining all the different themes. •
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
a:s
8
`.;IrY OF
Jim White, Mavor
Planning Department (253)859-3390/FA,r(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
August 19, 1997
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: AZCA-97-3 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE (POLYGON NORTHWEST)
Attached for your consideration is the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board
regarding several proposed amendments to the planned unit development (PUD) ordinance. The
request to amend the ordinance was submitted by Polygon Northwest. The request was reviewed
by the City Council Planning Committee at their April 15, 1997 meeting, and the committee voted
to send it to the Land Use and Planning Board for their consideration. The Board reviewed the
request in workshops held on July 14 and July 21, 1997, and conducted a public hearing on
July 28, 1997. The Board then deliberated on the request and made its recommendation at the
July 28 meeting.
As outlined in the staff report to the Board dated July 28, 1997 (attached), the applicant seeks three
changes to the existing PUD regulations,which are outlined in Section 15.04.080 of the zoning code.
Specifically, the applicant seeks to allow PUDs to be developed in single-family zoning districts,
as long as the site is at least 100 acres in size(currently, PUDs are not permitted in any single-family
zoning district); seeks to allow attached dwelling units to be developed within a PUD in a single-
family zone; and, requests allowing a.phased, master plan process for the review and approval of
PUDs on large sites. At the July 28 meeting,the Land Use and Planning Board voted to recommend
approval of amendments to the PUD Ordinance as recommended by staff in the staff report, with
certain revisions. These revisions are outlined below.
1. Require multi-family dwellings constricted within a PUD in a single-family zoning district
to be no more than two stories in height.
2. Allow no on-street parking within a master planned development PUD.
0 3. Require an applicant for a master planned development to demonstrate documentation of
coordination with the school district.
220ath AVE.SO.. I KENT,WASHINGTON 9a032-•.495 i TELEPHONE �206,854-33W 1 FAX s,ISo-i33J
r
r
Memo To: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members
Subject: #ZCA-97-3 - Amendments to Planned Unit Development Ordinance
Page 2
4. Reduce the time period for obtaining all development permits for a master planned
development from ten years to seven years.
The Board also wished to make a revision to the staff recommendation requiring any multi-family
dwelling to be owner-occupied(a condominium). The applicant testified at the public hearing that
Polygon intended to construct only condominiums as part of their prospective development.
However, Planning Department staff advised the Board that such a requirement may not be possible
from a legal standpoint. Staff told the Board that a legal opinion would be sought on this question
from the Law Department prior to the item being considered by the City Council. Planning
Department staff has requested a legal opinion on this issue, and will present this to the Council at
the August 19 meeting.
Staff will be available at the August 19 City Council meeting to discuss the Board's recommendation
on this zoning amendment and answer any questions.
KON/tb:PUDAMDCC.MEIM
cc: JamesP. Harris, Planking Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager