Kirkland Planning Commission Meeting – March 14, 2024: TSP, Economic Development, Code Amendments
Kirkland Planning Commission Study Session – March 14, 2024
The Kirkland Planning Commission met on March 14, 2024, from 7:00 PM to 9:14 PM in the Council Chamber. All seven commissioners were present: Chair Scott Reusser, Vice Chair Rodney Rutherford, Katya Allen, Bria Heiser, Aaron Jacobson, Angela Rozymn, and Sandeep Singhal. Staff included Planning & Building Director Adam Weinstein, Deputy Director Allison Zike, Transportation Manager Doug McIntyre, Planning Supervisor Denise Russell, Senior Planner Janice Swenson, Transportation Planner Kim Scrivner, and others. The meeting covered three study-session topics: an update on the Transportation Strategic Plan (TSP), a policy briefing on the Economic Development Element of the 2044 Comprehensive Plan, and a review of 2024 Miscellaneous Zoning and Municipal Code Amendments.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes Approval (unanimous, 7-0): The commission approved the minutes of October 25, 2023 (as amended to note Commissioner Allen attended the joint Planning/Transportation Commission meeting but not the regular Planning Commission meeting that day), January 11, 2024, and January 25, 2024. Motion by Angela Rozymn, seconded by Vice Chair Rutherford.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Samuel Rodriguez (Kirkland business owner, Busy Diversity): Speaking during public comment on the Economic Development Element, he asked about opportunities for diverse small businesses to contract with the City as primes or subcontractors, seeking assurance of sustainability and job creation beyond pop-up or temporary models. Staff committed to follow up with him.
- Doug Rough (Chair, Juanita Neighborhood Association): Requested that the Juanita Public Pathway be included in the Transportation Strategic Plan, citing benefits such as increased health, lower medical costs, reduced crime, environmental improvements, safety for Juanita High School students, and reduced air pollution. He noted the project was proposed over 10 years ago.
Discussion Items
Transportation Strategic Plan (TSP) Update
- Overview (Presenter Kim Scrivner, Transportation Planner): The TSP is a standalone document that will become the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. It includes goals, policies, a fiscally constrained 20‑year project list, and a project web‑map.
- Project Identification: 450 projects have been identified through previous planning processes (active transportation plan, safe routes to school, corridor studies) and reconciled for overlaps.
- Public Engagement: The project web‑map generated over 2,600 reactions (likes/dislikes/comments) and 600+ unique comments. Approximately half of comments were project-specific; the rest were service requests. Likes outnumbered dislikes by more than 1,000 to about 300.
- Revenue Projections: Estimated ~$317 million over 20 years (approx. $15 million/year), excluding Transportation Benefit District funds, school and safety cameras, and unpredictable grants. This funding level is a high‑level estimate and will shift as the plan is implemented.
- Cost Estimation: High‑level planning cost estimates exclude right‑of‑way costs but include stormwater costs and anticipated new requirements effective in 2027 that will increase project costs.
- Commissioner Feedback:
- Commissioner Allen praised the web‑map tool and suggested replicating it for other city surveys.
- Commissioner Jacobson asked about the portion of funding dedicated to maintenance (street levy, striping, etc.); Manager McIntyre clarified that maintenance is funded from a separate budget source, not the capital projects under the TSP.
- Commissioner Singhal raised the need to modernize concurrency/level‑of‑service metrics to emphasize multimodal and active transportation, not just vehicular traffic. Staff confirmed they are exploring this approach and that it may be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan.
- Chair Reusser acknowledged the $317 million figure is modest relative to the scope of identified projects and asked about funding flexibility; Scrivner noted that grants, coordination savings, and an unfunded project list will allow the prioritization framework to adjust over time.
- Next Steps: Council briefing scheduled for March 19, 2024; public hearing on the draft TSP anticipated in June 2024.
2044 Comprehensive Plan Update – Economic Development Element Policy Briefing
- Overview (Senior Planner Janice Swenson): The element must align with regional frameworks (PSRC, VISION 2050, King County Countywide Planning Policies). Key focus areas include business development, diversity/equity/retention, home occupations, and neighborhood commercial. Study issues include startup incubator spaces, pop‑up shops, affordable stores, arts destination promotion, and local investment.
- Student Presentation (McKenzie Boyle and Damian Morden‑Snipper, UW Evans School):
- They evaluated the draft goals and policies against community feedback (surveys, focus groups with general population, youth council, seniors).
- Three themes warranting additional policy attention: (1) commercial rent affordability (caps not feasible at city level, but strategies like tax incentives, eviction prevention, limiting personal‑guarantee requirements are possible); (2) youth‑focused pop‑up commerce spaces; (3) development of third spaces (indoor/outdoor places where people can gather without required consumption) near businesses to drive foot traffic.
- Incubator Space Case Studies: Pike Place Market (1971 public development authority, now supports 90+ farmers, 200 craftspeople, 240 food purveyors daily); Spice Bridge Global Food Hall in Tukwila (2020, 2,800 sq ft, 8 rotating vendor spots, kitchen space for 5 off‑site pop‑ups, serves East African immigrant/refugee community); CTAC International Mall (Somali community hub). Success factors include connection to community priorities, unique local context, deep collaboration with nonprofits, reduced rent, technical assistance, and planning for growth.
- Recommendations: (1) Conduct targeted community‑needs assessment for underrepresented businesses before launching any incubator space; (2) connect equitable development initiatives to a larger community purpose; (3) consider Houghton Village as a potential pilot site.
- Commissioners questioned the Houghton Village choice due to size and transportation constraints, and suggested alternative sites like Rose Hill. Students noted that farmers markets could also serve as laboratories for pop‑up and incubator concepts, including interest in year‑round/weekend markets.
- Policy Review (Commission Discussion):
- Economic Development Strategy: Commissioners generally supported the revised overarching strategy. Added language emphasizing goods/services for the entire community, diversity/equity/inclusion, and distribution of economic growth. Commissioner Rozymn suggested explicitly referencing neighborhood commercial; the word “vibrant” for business districts was debated—Commissioner Singhal proposed a more descriptive adjective to capture destination and community value. Commissioner Allen cautioned against forgetting the role of part‑time and service‑sector jobs that may not be “living wage.”
- Policy ED1.3 (Diversify Tax Base): Supported as a lesson from over‑reliance on a single industry (e.g., Boeing in Everett).
- Policy ED1.5 (Home‑Based Businesses): Discussion on whether to focus on businesses serving neighborhood needs vs. allowing any compatible use. Commissioner Rutherford worried about drive‑through espresso stands; staff noted detailed use regulation occurs at zoning‑code stage. Commissioner Heiser suggested “surrounding community” instead of “neighborhood.” Commissioner Jacobson asked that drive‑throughs and alcohol sales be included in implementation discussions.
- Policy ED1.8 (Incubator Spaces/Pop‑Ups): Supported. Commissioner Rozymn noted the high cost of ground‑floor retail in new buildings and suggested incorporating shared/lower‑rent spaces into new developments. Commissioners asked for re‑wording to clarify size categories and added semicolons for readability. Commissioner Singhal proposed a policy encouraging small‑business licensing fee adjustments to support early‑stage hiring, and suggested exploring early notice of commercial rent increases.
- Next Steps: Staff will revise draft goals/policies based on commission input and prepare the element for public hearing in June 2024.
2024 Miscellaneous Zoning and Municipal Code Amendments
- Overview (Deputy Director Zike & Planning Supervisor Russell): 39 proposed amendments in three buckets: (1) 16 error corrections (obsolete references, sign categories, missing uses in station‑area form‑based code); (2) 18 clarifications (definitions, cross‑references, tree‑code alignment); (3) 5 minor code updates that change how the code is applied.
- Minor Updates Discussed:
- Shoreline Development Standards: Propose a narrow public‑safety exception to allow over‑water coverage for emergency‑response watercraft (e.g., fire‑department jet ski canopy at a public marina). Would require state Department of Ecology approval of the Shoreline Master Program amendment; may not proceed if timing does not align with city needs.
- Vegetative Buffer Standards for Parks: Currently, parks projects (e.g., restrooms, shelters) adding >1,000 sq ft of impervious surface must restore the entire on‑site vegetative buffer, which can be tens of thousands of square feet on large park properties. Proposed change: apply a one‑to‑one restoration ratio instead of full restoration for parks, when the impact is small relative to total park size. Commissioners generally supported, with Commissioner Singhal suggesting a threshold above which full restoration would still be required.
- Affordable Housing In‑Lieu Fee Calculation: Allow the Planning & Building Director (in coordination with ARCH) to adjust the in‑lieu fee calculation to better reflect actual costs of purchasing affordable units. Currently the fee is insufficient to buy a unit. Commissioner Heiser raised concerns about delegating fee‑setting to a third party; staff clarified this is already the collaborative process and the change would further align fees with real costs. Commissioner Rozymn noted that inclusionary‑zoning units are a net loss of ~$350,000/unit, so the in‑lieu fee should be realistic.
- Downtown (CBD) Parking Standards: Eliminate the requirement to provide additional on‑site parking when a change of use triggers a higher parking ratio (e.g., restaurant replacing retail) in the entire Central Business District. Currently, such changes have stalled tenanting vacancies; public parking data shows ample available spaces. Commissioners supportive, with Commissioner Singhal suggesting a reasonable delta threshold to prevent gaming. Commissioner Rozymn and Rutherford expressed interest in extending the change to other districts (e.g., Totem Lake) with more community outreach.
- Homeless Encampment Duration: Permit the Planning & Building Director to grant a one‑time extension of the current 92‑day maximum for city‑permitted homeless encampments, based on public health and safety reasons (e.g., no alternative location available). Motivated by Camp Unity/United’s situation in fall 2023. Commissioner Heiser stressed the need for a clear time limit to reassure neighbors; Commissioner Singhal suggested “exigent circumstances” as clearer framing. Staff will include extension limits and noticing provisions.
- Next Steps: Public hearing tentatively scheduled for April 11, 2024; commission recommendation expected same evening. City Council adoption anticipated May 7, 2024.
Administrative Reports – Public Meeting Calendar
- Deputy Director Zike previewed the March 28, 2024 meeting: second policy briefings on the Housing Element (supply, stability, subsidy), Human Services Element, and Land Use Element (including historic preservation policies moved from the retired Community Character Element). She noted City Council expressed interest in more front‑end involvement, so a joint council‑commission retreat on housing and land use policies is being considered.
Key Outcomes
- The commission unanimously approved the minutes of October 25, 2023 (as amended), January 11, 2024, and January 25, 2024 (7‑0).
- Staff received direction on the Economic Development Element to: add neighborhood commercial references; refine language on business‑district vitality, home‑based businesses (with safety and noise as key concerns), and incubator/pop‑up policies; consider small‑business licensing fee adjustments; and explore early‑notice protections for commercial rent increases.
- Staff will incorporate commissioner feedback on the five minor code updates (shoreline exception, park buffer ratio, affordable‑housing fee flexibility, downtown parking relief, encampment extension) and bring revised language to a public hearing on April 11, 2024.
- The TSP update will proceed to City Council on March 19, 2024, with a public hearing in June 2024.
- A joint meeting with City Council on housing policies is under consideration.
- No decisions were taken on the TSP or Economic Development Element; both are in study‑session/policy‑briefing phases.
Meeting Transcript
It will become like the most of it and the core pieces of it will become the transportation element to the comprehensive plan that includes the goals and policies as well as the fiscally constrained project list, which I'm going to talk about. The plan itself does, since it's a standalone document, we will get into more detail than the transportation element. Which, as I mentioned, it'll include the goals and policies. We look at the existing conditions of our transportation system, but we also look at analysis of the future transportation system and in particular how we are balancing the transportation system with planning for future growth. So we've been working hand in hand with the planning team in terms of not just growth in general, but with where that growth happens and how the transportation system is responding to that. And so we're looking at that now. As we look into, which is my next topic I'm going to talk about our fiscally constrained project list. Those projects that support and that are required to support future growth will be included in that in that in that 20-year project list. Before you was listed, the transportation plan goals. Of course, is a really big part of our work program. What we've been doing more recently is putting together the project list, which is a very big part of our transportation plan. Those projects, most of those projects have been identified through previous planning processes, such as our active transportation plan, our safe routes to school plan. We've done various modal studies, corridor studies. Those do go through an engineering review. And we have identified 450 projects through those processes. We've worked really hard to not only just identify them but reconcile them because in some cases there may be projects that overlap on a corridor and they might not always agree with each other. So we've worked really hard to put these together. And then we are looking at our forecasted revenue because we do have to have a fiscally constrained project list that goes into the comprehensive plan, specifically our capital facilities plan. And I hope you all got to dive in with it a little bit. But it allows it allowed people to select projects and comment on them or like or dislike. We had over 2600 reactions, and what I mean by reactions is that's the like, the dislike, or comments, but specifically over 600 unique comments, about half of those were not related to projects, and about half of them were about the projects themselves. But specifically over 600 unique comments, about half of those were not related to projects, and about half of them were about the projects themselves. What we're doing with that information is that we're summarizing all of the kind of the themes of the comments that we've received. I think if a memory serves me correctly, we had well over, so in terms of the likes and dislikes, we had well over a thousand likes and maybe in around the 300 range of dislikes. So seems like you know we're doing pretty good job. Um we are summarizing what we heard from the comments in terms of themes. Um we and then um and then identifying which of those comments might um be a candidate for a future project. Um and then there are a number of projects that go that are um really would kind of fall into what we're calling service requests. And so um we receive these online on a daily basis, and we respond to them, or um people are asking about site distance and speeding and that type of thing. Um those we will do our best to respond. There are a lot. We can't you know promise that we're gonna have that same level of service for responses, but we are looking at them. Um we've looked at every single comment, and then the ones that we you know really feel like we should we should probably go and check that site distance. Um we will because um all of all of the comments that we receive are really important. Um as we start to put together this 20-year fiscally constrained project list, we have to balance it with our future projections for what we expect to receive over the next 20 years. So this is a very high level estimate, um, about 317 million. I should mention it does not include some categories, such as our transportation benefit district, that's really really new, um our schools and safety cameras, that's very, very new, and grant money, which is very unpredictable. Um, and so that that funding level line will move, move around as we as we implement the plan. And there are opportunities with a capital facilities list and our capital improvement program when we update our six-year CIP and we update this plan every, you know, now there's an opportunity every five years. Um but this is what we're looking at now. We have also put together cost estimates for the 20-year project list, and that is a that is a pretty high-level planning cost estimate, and we're not looking at right-of-way costs. Um, we are looking at um stormwater costs. Um we are expected um over time that a particularly um new requirements coming into effect in 2027 that will significantly increase the costs of projects. So those are included at a at again at a high planning level. We have a range of costs that we're looking at. Um there are some federal requirements that impact costs that we're not including because we're also not including grants, which would be federal, and so keeping that all aside. Um we plan to um go to council next Tuesday to talk with them about our public engagement from the projects, the um uh planning to talk with them about our cost estimation and our revenue projections, and so that's really that's one of the reasons why I'm talking with you about that tonight, because that's our really big push right now, is getting through this fiscally constrained 20-year project list. Um we have our um draft uh goals and policies that has um uh been available and and kind of we've gone through that process, but it's still available for public review, and this is our next push. Um then um, and then we'll be obviously going back to the Transportation Commission pretty much every month or the rest of the until the plan is adopted. Um we are looking forward to um public hearing in June, which is when you can expect to see a draft plan.
openpublica.com