June 21 Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission
Commissioners Olson, Vanderlinde and Thompson were absent from this meeting.
NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
Brittany Chue gave a short presentation. Staff is still researching code components, so there is no draft to present. Topics for discussion are signs for neighborhood retail, light manufacturing, and mobile food service.
SIGN CODE
C. Macias asked about whether the six-square-foot size of an A-frame sign would be each side, or both sides combined. She also asked if there were a sign on a fence if this would be considered a “wall sign”. Brittany said that it would be any sign that was attached on the face of a building or structure, and she was not sure if a fence was a structure.
VC Dorrian pointed to Staff's recommendation to not allow freestanding signs. He is OK with following the recommendation. He doesn’t believe that someone wouldn’t start a business because they couldn’t have a freestanding sign.
C. Lassalle said that the challenge of a freestanding sign is when they are a permanent fixture; that’s very different from something like an A-frame. If it’s easily removable, he doesn’t see why we wouldn’t allow it. He asked if we could alter the freestanding sign definition so that there is an allowance for signs that are not permanent, not A-frames, but still freestanding.
Chair Banasczynski said that she wants to proceed deliberately and slowly on signage. Signs cause a lot of concern for neighbors and she wants to go one step at a time. She wants to only allow wall signs and a-frames.
Brittany read the definition of freestanding signs: standing directly upon the ground, having one or more support, and being detached from a building or fence. C. Lassalle’s comment would fall under “portable signs.” She needs to check with the Building Development about whether a fence is a structure.
LIGHT MANUFACTURING
VC Dorrian expressed hesitation about allowing light manufacturing. He understands retailers may want to create their own products onsite but he believes this is a tough spot with the community; a number of these wouldn’t have a retail arm as part of their business. We want to encourage light manufacturing from an economic development sense. He wonders if we need to expand light manufacturing to encourage some neighborhood retail uses. The definition of retail sales says that you can render services "incidental to the sale” and he thinks that is going to raise issues.
Chair Banaczynski asked if we got any feedback about light manufacturing from the community. [Brittany said that it wasn’t specifically asked; art studios are currently allowed as a home occupation, but not a retail presence]. She said the types of people who want to make things and sell them on their property are probably artisans. If someone is making furniture and has a table saw running all day it would be very noisy. She said sometimes the city blows the right-of-way outside her house with a leaf blower and it is so loud and she doesn’t like it; she wouldn’t like a woodworker running a saw next door all the time, either. The crafting language sits better for her; we could add a definition of crafting to the code if we don’t have it.
C. Lassalle views light manufacturing as something that is being made onsite and sold in an immediate retail vicinity; we want to encourage the production that leads to retail. He expressed concern about the proposed definition not allowing the type of business that we want to encourage, and the scale of what is being produced, though if you have to sell in the same space that will limit scale. Some light manufacturing may generate noise. He suggested easing up on the definition so that someone couldn’t make a claim to remove the business based on noise. He lived next to a woodworker for 3.5 years and “it was awesome” – he doesn’t light manufacturing itself is the issue, but wants to ensure the code is written in such a way that a nuisance neighbor can’t weaponize the description.
C. Macias astutely observed the difference between home occupation and neighborhood commercial is that customers can only come by appointment with home occupation businesses. Neighborhood retail allows walk-ins. She believes the people selling at farmers markets are making their wares at home and it may be helpful for our code to allow people to sell it from the same spot they make it.
Debbie said we are trying to regulate land use, and that’s typically by impact or size. Because we are limiting neighborhood commercial to 2,500sf, these are already very small spaces, so you’re not going to get a huge manufacturing place. The issue here seems to be about selling, not making, so maybe it’s going to come down to accessory use where most of the use is retail. Debbie noted that Tacoma has “Craft production permits” including small arts, and they have limits on size.
Brittany said staff will bring back some additional language for small manufacturing allowance and enforcement.
MOBILE FOOD SERVICE
C. Macias says she’s comfortable with no motorized units, but a cart or stand would be fine. She buys bread from the Puppy Manners Dog facility stand and noted people also have flower stands, or confectionary stands.
C. Lassalle expressed concern about the definition of “motorization” and whether it would apply to refrigerators as well. He would like the definition clarified.
VC. Dorrian said there’s an image of a little bakery with a refrigerator, so he believes “motorized” would refer to vehicles, not a refrigerator motor.
Chair Banaszynski asked about food safety. She asked about the pop-up taco tents on 522 and whether they’d fall under this category or not. She said the little carts would not be making the food on-site, they’d be bringing it out. She expressed that food tents are generating waste and that’s a particular environmental concern.
Brittany clarified that food service would have to be licensed by the Department of Health, who would regulate their food safety. The ones on 522 would be on commercial property; she doesn’t know what type of permit that they fall under, but these are not neighborhood retail. Code enforcement has had some complaints about these around Safeway, but these would be on someone’s own property so it would be different.
MEDICAL OFFICES
Commissioners support this section.
HOUSING STRATEGY PLAN
Andrew from ARCH and Debbie Bent presented. The goal of this conversation is to get a scope of what they are moving forward so they can update the HSP to something that is workable, practical, and actionable. Andrew has been looking more into permit-ready ADUs and housing; the new housing bill that passed congress includes provisions for pattern books.
Logic Model Structure
VC Dorrian asked about the third column; some are things that we’ve done, and some are what we wish to improve. He asked about the reference to 30-80% AMI, and whether these were the only actions that would result in these outcomes. He thinks that we need to add something about market rate; this doesn’t come from him, but Council has been clear that they want to focus on housing at all levels of affordability.
Andrew said this is something that they want to take another stab at; outcomes and impacts need to be directly related to what’s in the Comp plan, since if Council adopts this it may be seen as something they’re obliged to do. We want to tie the housing element to something a little more aspirational. Andrew said that they were trying to measure the outcomes.
C. Lassalle noted that affordable housing can be seen in two blocks; affordable and deeply affordable. He wondered if there is a way to call out the nuances and differences between the two, to the extent of what we’re seeing from a racial exclusion route. He thinks that’s not specific to Kenmore that 0-30% AMI is most challenging, and if we are going to advise City Council to act one of the actions would be for the affordable housing category.
Chair Banaszynski is glad we have all AMI bands represented but doesn’t see an activity that would get us STEP. Getting STEP housing built is just different, and housing at that level is the difference between life and death for people. She noticed DEIA plan is listed as a resource and wondered if there’s a way to bring the Climate Plan in because housing impacts climate. She said that we are producing single-family homes at 3x the rate that we need to meet our goal, but we really need to get people housed now.
C. Macias said that if we are incorporating climate or electrification these should be incentives, not mandates, since adding it as a requirement will be a barrier due to increased costs.
Andrew said that climate could be incorporated; there is a lot to cover with housing, and there are a lot of things that we could cover in here but for the purpose of moving the ball down the field, we are demonstrating there is an actionable plan.
Mobile Home Parks (MHPs)
Debbie noted that there was a resolution passed in 2019 that the two MHPs south of 522 would be held long-term; the North MHPs would be held for 10 years and then look at upzoning with inclusionary zoning. There is no pending legal appeal. Debbie said it is too early for engagement; this will happen when MHPs are part of the workplan.
Andrew said that there needs to be a clear inventory of what these look like and who is living there, and it needs to be approached with sensitivity. That is why resident and stakeholder engagement is done at the same time. Surveys and interviews of residents, and building relationships, are an important part. Purchase programs can be a part. It’s the work on the ground, and ongoing engagement, that is the important part of this.
Chair Banaszynski wants to engage low income communities as co-designers. She did see that there would be outreach to the MH communities, and that this would sweep up a lot of low-income residents. She asked if this could be added as an assumption, the same way that the BIPOC community is.
C. Lassalle would like to keep housing options open for low-income residents; he expressed concerns about owners charging hidden fees or shirking maintenance responsibility. He wants to be sure these are affordable on paper and in reality, and that they are maintained.
C. Macias would like to know if these communities could be classified as high displacement risk. The MHPs hold a large portion of our BIPOC community as well.
Faith-Based Land / Surplus Lands Strategy
Andrew said that faith-based lands often have a surplus, such as a parking lot or worship space that has been shut down. The Kenmore code is fairly discretionary about what is allowed for affordable housing on faith-based land, and they could present the best opportunity for STEP housing. This requires doing a deeper dive to identify the sites, see if there are limitations, what the development capacity is.
In response to Commissioner questions, Andrew said that when faith-based organizations use density bonuses, the exemptions under Fair Housing no longer apply; they cannot discriminate. The catholic church is very well-versed in building housing; other organizations may not be.
Andrew said he used to volunteer at St. Lukes and there is a lot of financial pressure on places that are 100% affordable. Having a mixed-income community is great but it’s also born out of necessity.
Multi-Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) and Incentives
Commissioners discussed MFTE with Andrew and Debbie. MFTE uses deferred tax revenue as an incentive for new housing development. Andrew explained that MFTE exempts the property tax on residential improvements on site; you’re only taxed on the land and any commercial/ non-residential use. This is revenue the City is foregoing, similar to tax-increment financing (TIF). Andrew explained that the tax increases only allow the city to increase collection 1% per year, and the assessor may assess value to that development that allows taxes to be raised among the rest of the tax base
We want to ensure that this is used to reach the housing targets that we have, and it’s crafted to reach the identified targets. The housing market is slowing down; Andrew said he talks with developers a lot, and developer engagement may be useful with understanding obstacles. When developers are trying to get things to pencil in environments like this, the fewer barriers the better.
Community Housing Outcomes Reports
Commissioner discussed the Housing Outcomes Reports. Andrew recommended the City not overly complicate this with a dashboard when a written report would suffice. The goal is to track the data. The information in this would be similar to what King County asks us to report; the King County Reporting is a more technical level, this would be more clearly tied to the goals in the housing element of the Comp plan, and the actions that the City is taking.
C. Lassalle said Kenmore has had a history with deeply affordable housing, and he stays stuck to the belief that this is due to miscommunication on the nature and need of deeply affordable housing. A 50-page document that nobody will read doesn’t meet this goal of communication. The report should show where we are relative to our goals and how they are going to be achieved; because of the timelines, the progress would be analyzed on a yearly cycle.
C. Macias said that this was noted in the 2017 HSP. She would like to see pipeline projects there.
VC. Dorrian said that this is a priority but it only leaves us with three practical things that we’re doing; the fourth is just reporting.
Chair Banaszynski asked if we would have to rely on anyone else to collect this data. She asked about the risks of creating the report and what might lead to failure. Do we need data from someone else? Are they not going to give it to us? We need to get units built and we don’t want to take time from that. Maybe we can take a lesson from our climate reports, and we are supposed to be doing those every year. Doing a report for the sake of doing a report doesn’t get us very far. These have to be regular to be successful.
Andrew mentioned a number of resources that have useful data; it’s not going to cost money to buy the data and this isn’t just creating the report but creating the process to create it. The major point of failure is responsibilities for reporting, staff turnover, and changing goals. This is just reframing and developing the report itself.
Candidate actions discussion
Commissioners discussed the four priority candidate actions, and their presentation to Council.
C. Lassalle The measurement of success would be on how many of the levels of affordable housing that we are creating; he wants this progress to be a standalone that overtakes the rest, although what we are doing and why we are doing it is also important.
Chair Banaszynski interpreted this as how we address priorities that aren’t in the top four. She wants to explain to Council why they picked the four priorities and not the others. If we can’t pick the 5th stretch, she thought perhaps they could come up with a methodology for moving other goals up.
C. Macias said the candidate actions are all really good; it would be nice to have a stretch goal so that if we have the capacity we can take that on as well. Her stretch goal would be the permit-ready catalog.
VC Dorrian said there are different interpretations of our housing goals. We’re relying on the interpretation of ARCH that deeply affordable housing is the biggest need; that’s not everyone’s interpretation, so we have to explain it. We need to represent deferred actions and priorities in the report. The key outcomes of MHP preservation and faith-based partnership are important. We want the TOD to be ready for when we do get transit it’s attractive to developers. We’re not quite dealing with some at-risk communities like tenants and seniors who are aging in place.
The Planning Commission is not as far along on Neighborhood Retail discussions as Staff would like, however they will be taking an August recess.
