Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/19/1997 BIT CITY or I � Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253)850-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES August 19, 1997 Planniniz Committee Members Present: City Attorneys Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Tim Clark Jon Johnson PlanninQStaff James P. Harris, Planning Director Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant III REGULATORY REVIEW REQUEST (J. Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris explained that the Planning Department received a regulatory review request to review the standards of the Professional and Office District. Mr. Harris explained that the there are some highly restrictive regulations and the applicant is asking to have those reviewed. Mr. Harris suggested that we honor the applicants request and have the Land Use and Planning Board review the district regulations. Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED to send this item to the Land Use and Planning Board for further review. Committee member Tim Clark SECONDED the motion. The motion carried. DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN - (L. Phillips) Chair Leona Orr explained that the Committee held a special meeting (.august 6, 1997) on the Downtown Plan and received a lot of public input. She stated that she hopes that staff is ready to guide the Committee through this process step by step so they can make some decisions. Planner Linda Phillips asked if the Committee had any general questions. Mr. Clark commented that his biggest concern is the complexity and massiveness of the plan. He explained that there is so much information to digest all at once. Mr. Clark recommended breaking the plan up and examining • it step by step. i 220 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,W ASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (2531 859-3300 City Council Planning Committee Minutes August 19, 1997 Mr. Clark questioned the encouragement of residential development in the downtown. He asked for clarity on what is to be recommended. Mr. Clark questioned whether it was an accurate portrayal that the type of housing being encouraged is a different style from anything that currently exists. Ms. Phillips explained that the plan recommends identifying certain housing types for downtown through a pilot project. The pilot project would consider housing that would be acceptable in each planning district. She explained that residential development would be based on the individual needs of each downtown district. Mr. Clark questioned whether the plan required residential housing in the downtown core area to have a commercial base beneath it. Planning Director Jim Harris explained that the City Council decided that Kent would be an urban center and therefore committed to some density. Mr. Harris stated that the senior housing in downtown is one of the ways Kent is working toward their density goal. Mr. Harris commented that there is no way for the City to know what the housing will look like in the downtown; it will be determined by the private sector. Mr. Clark commented that he supports the goal of greater housing density but is concerned with the quality of housing. He explained that the City Council consistently opposes large scale private complexes and wonders if encouraging residential growth in the downtown area would simply open the door for this type of development. Mr. Harris explained that the private market dictates what type of housing will be developed and explained that the City's only involvement would be through the design review process. He commented that if the City prohibits multifamily development it could hinder development in downtown. He explained that the land in the downtown area is expensive and developer's may need to aggregate land together in order to make a profit. Mr. Clark commented that there is a danger here. He commented that we're looking at significant redevelopment in the downtown area and the entire nature of this plan is obviously to try and encourage a more upscale type of environment. Mr. Clark commented that with the increase in traffic downtown it will be difficult to promote a pedestrian friendly downtown while still trying to improve the commercial base. Mr. Harris suggested that Council could encourage residential development downtown. He explained it could be difficult to draw customers from easthill downtown for business. The residential population downtown would be a prime element in attracting commercial merchants. Mr. Harris explained that the Committee could direct staff to come back with examples of what residential development downtown might look like. He suggested bringing the information through the Land Use and Planning Board or the Planning Committee. • Ms. Phillips stated that the design guidelines would help shape the development in the downtown. She explained that the plan recommended studying density related to parking and stated that the 2 City Council Planning Committee Minutes August 19, 1997 density allowed downtown is unlimited. Ms. Phillips explained that the plan does contain a recommendation to study density in relation to parking because there has been a parking problem downtown relating to the very dense apartments. Ms. Phillips explained that there is an opportunity to accomplish a lot of affordable housing in downtown. She explained that this is a goal of the County Planning Policies of the Growth Management Act and one reason there is no density limit downtown. She commented that it may be time for Kent to encourage diversity in housing downtown. Mr. Clark commented that he would like to direct staff to have at least some sort of a study of the types of designs for residential housing that may take place downtown. Mr.Harris explained that staff would like the Committee to accept the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation to encourage residential development in the downtown. He commented that staff could come back with examples of the type of housing that might develop in downtown. Ms. Orr commented that the housing type would depend a lot on what the market is at the time of development and what is sellable or rentable. She commented that she would like to see design review incorporated in any area where housing might be developed downtown. She would like staff to present some of the housing scenarios for the Committee to consider. Mr. Clark stated that he is also concerned with the diversity of the types of housing that would be allowed in downtown. He suggested setting limits or a ratio for the required types of housing. He would like to see a guarantee for a certain quality of standards. Mr. Johnson commented that he would like to see language that would provide incentives or encourage different types of housing mixes in the downtown area. He commented that the market is pretty much going to dictate what is going to be developed and we have to sometimes rely on the market to determine what type of housing is going to occur. He explained that sometimes it will be a type of housing that some do not like while meeting the needs of others. Mr. Johnson suggested adding incentives to encourage the type of housing the City would like to have developed in the downtown. He commented that this could significantly encourage a favorable outcome. Ms. Orr commented that she would like to limit development to solely ownership properties. She suggested creating a condominium zoning district. She commented that she had been contacted by individuals who are interested in that type of development for downtown. Mr. Harris explained that staff could come back to the Planning Committee with housing alternatives. Mr. Clark discussed the signature buildings as discussed in Section E of the plan and gateway sites. Ms. Phillips explained that there would be design review guidelines. Mr. Clark • questioned if the gateway sites would be predetermined. Ms. Phillips explained that these would be predetermined sites. Mr. Clark commented that he hoped that the incentives would offset the demands. 3 City Council Planning Committee Minutes August 19, 1997 Mr. Harris explained the summary of recommended actions and explained that some were inadvertently left off the draft plan. He explained the changes that were recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board. Mr. Clark questioned the meaning of"street standards." Ms. Phillips explained that the Public Works Department has already taken steps to identify street standards through working out those cost factors for each street that might be improved. She explained that we need to know how wide the streets need to be, how wide the sidewalks should be, what kind of storm drainage might be necessary, what kind of street lighting, and whether there are tree grates in order to do a planned action after the plan is adopted. All the engineering details that go into putting a street together must be worked out. If we have private development we're able to require improvements by using the street standards for that specific street as worked out in advance. Ms. Orr questioned whether this would add some consistency in the way the streets look in areas. Ms. Phillips explained that the Public Works Department has been working toward that in the improvements that they have been doing downtown and so they are very close to knowing exactly what is necessary. They would put that down into a booklet as an addendum to the plan. Chair Orr questioned if the Planning Committee were to approve items A through E in the staff • report would they be merged into the plan later. She wondered if there would there be an opportunity for the Planning Committee to look at the standards before they were implemented. Ms. Phillips explained that the standards would have to be approved and also that there might be changes since street standards in certain areas will be very dependent on rail station location, based on the final recommendation and determinations by RTA and the City. Ms. Phillips suggested adding a sentence that would indicate that the location of the rail station will affect street standards. Mr. Clark commented that the City is attempting to make the downtown area more bicycle friendly but doesn't necessarily want that part of the standard because it is different from area to area. He commented that he would feel more comfortable if there was a statement in there about enhancing bicycle transportation access. Planning Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED to accept the Introduction and Planning Concept sections of the Downtown Plan and Clark SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Harris explained that the Summary of Recommended Actions had some additions that were listed as items"A"through"E"in the staff report. He also outlined that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended changes to the plan as outlined on page three of the staff report (items A-I). Chair Orr questioned whether the changes could be discussed with the individual districts. Mr. Harris agreed that this would be acceptable. • Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to accept the additions to the Summary of Recommended Action items"A"through"E" as discussed above. The motion carried. 4 City Council Planning Committee Minutes August 19, 1997 Clark MOVED to accept the concept of a Performing Arts Center without identifying a specific location. The motion was SECONDED by Jon Johnson. Motion carried. Chair Orr commented that she has been considering the Performing Arts Center and where it might locate and what it may look like. She commented that she would like to see structured parking as opposed to surface parking for the commuter rail station. She questioned whether there was any way to incorporate the Performing Arts Center with a parking structure. She commented that the Performing Arts Center would be using the parking structure on the evenings and weekends and the commuters would be using the structure during the weekday hours. She suggested building the Performing Arts Center either above or below the parking structure. The Committee discussed coming back to the Summary of Recommendations after the individual districts were adopted. Mr. Harris explained that the North Frame District is the first district. He explained that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended changes for the North Frame District. Mr. Clark commented that he was concerned with the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation to rezone the residential areas. Ms. Phillips explained that the mixed use was recommended for these areas due to the impacts from the Commons park and the impacts from the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and Regional Justice Center(RJC). Ms. Orr questioned whether the idea of parking along Fifth Avenue North would be effected if the Planning Committee did not recommend the mixed use zoning. Mr. Harris commented that the parking area would impact the residential a great deal more than it would a mixed use development. Orr questioned whether the parking would be used by the commercial element or would the public be able to use it when using the park. Clark commented that if there was a commercial use, there would be a danger that people doing business there would be in immediate conflict with those trying to drop off or pick up their children. Ms. Phillips explained that the parking impacts can be worked out in the master planning for Commons Park. She explained that the Parks Department has stated that they are planning in their budget to master plan the Commons Park. Ms. Orr commented that they are discussing lighting. Ms. Phillips stated that parking is one of the issues that will be studied during the detailed master plan. Mr. Johnson suggested changing the language to study the parking as a part of the master plan to determine how the parking would be designed, where it would be located, how many spaces, etc. Mr. Clark concurred. • Ms. Orr commented that she is concerned with changing the zoning in the area which might draw away from downtown,potentially moving the downtown northward. She questioned whether there is a way to restrict the development maybe create a separate zone. Mr. Harris explained that this 5 City Council Planning Committee Minutes • August 19, 1997 could be very difficult. He suggested studying the effect of the park on the residential area and making a determination based upon the impacts. Ms. Orr explained that one of her concerns with the downtown plan has to do with so many unknowns. Mr. Johnson commented that with any plan there are many unknowns until you get into the details. He commented that the plan can be amended and adjusted as we go along as more things become known. Clark voiced his concern regarding pedestrian and bicycle traffic on James Street. He questioned the compatibility of bicycles and buses. Mr. Clark commented that regardless of where the station is located James Street will become a major bus route. Mr. Harris explained that the Planning Board has to be comfortable with the decisions. He stated that the bicycle routes will need to be worked out so that the safety of the cyclist and the motorist are taken into consideration. Orr commented that the plan refers to a specific location for the commuter rail station. She commented that she would not like to send the message that they are recommending a specific location for the commuter rail station. Mr. Harris suggested changing the language. Chair Orr commented that she was concerned with the encouragement of Office/Residential Mixed Use Development in the North Frame District. She explained that her concern is specifically with the office designation since it could mean a variety of uses. She commented that she would not support too intensive of development in that area. She stated that if the park is lighted she could understand the need for a buffer but would not like the development to impact the single family neighborhood. Mr. Clark stated that he has the same concerns. Ms. Phillips explained that the implementation process would define the zone through a staff recommendation and Land Use and Planning Board's public hearing. The Board's recommendation would be approved by the City Council. Mr. Harris explained that the three properties north of Cloudy are sandwiched between multifamily and the mixed use designation. The Land Use and Planning Board stopped the mixed use zoning designation at Cloudy Street. He explained that the original recommendation included the three parcels north of Cloudy. Mr. Johnson commented that the mixed use designation should include the three parcels. Clark concurred. Mr. Clark stated that as long as the City has some control over what the development is going to look like he supports this. Mr. Johnson commented that the City is fairly limited in its control. He commented that there is always going to be someone to complain no matter what is decided. That is part of land use planning. Mr. Clark questioned if there was any wording that could be added to ensure a buffer for the residential neighborhood. 0 6 City Council Planning Committee Minutes August 19, 1997 Mr. Harris explained that Fourth Avenue would act as the primary buffer and the landscaping and the design for the units that go in. Chair Orr commented that there would be a design review process. Board member Tim Clark MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to adopt the North Frame Area guidelines as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board except item 94 which was amended to include the three properties north of Cloudy and added the language "with design element that preserves the neighborhood character." Motion carried. Chair Leona Orr stated that this item will be continued to the regular September Planning Committee Meeting on the 19th at 4:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 7