CBC Part 2: Public comment roundup

Post clarification
I need to clarify a comment from an earlier post. I wrote:

Critics of mine claim that the free market of development will provide what we envision. I believe that view is sorely shortsighted. We have seen time and time again in other regional communities like Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Bothell, Sammamish, and repeated by developers on several occasions that the key to seeing successful community development is the following:
- A clear set of development guidelines
- That are consistently applied
- That work toward a central vision

I did not intend to imply that cities like Mercer Island have used the same development regulations as we have recently adopted in Newcastle. My only intention was to say that the 3 points I list are what have been key success factors for each of the those communities. And that I believe our new regulations bring us closer to meeting those 3 points.

Newspaper editorial insight
I want to clarify the use of Carol Simpson's phrase "need a time-out" in her June 1st Newcastle News letter to the editor. This appears to be a dig at me and a comment I made nearly a year ago when the council was voting to impose a development moratorium in the CBC.

Now why did I use this phrase? The context of my statement was in regard to the fact that I felt the city council was divided and our city codes were all over the map when concerning our development codes. I felt the codes were inconsistent with the visions and the visions among the councilors were varied. Now fortunately for the city we have documents that specify each of these things and planners must adhere to them when allowing new buildings. So the "time-out" was for us, the council, to step back and take stock of our regulations and for us to get back on one page. It was not intended as a slight to any of the property owners or businesses. A majority of the council concluded that the currently adopted CBC master plan contained the correct vision but a number of items in our code needed to be reviewed for consistency. My feeling was that our existing code allowed a type of development that was severely inconsistent with the vision laid out in the CBC plan and it needed to be corrected.

The council should be lifting the moratorium at our next meeting on June 19th, and I still think the decision to impose such a restriction for the past 12 months was a prudent one.

What about public improvements?
Currently the only public project for the CBC in the works are intersection improvements to Coal Creek Pkwy and Newcastle way. While these improvements are highly needed, I don't think they are a significant enough investment to spur additional development in the CBC. I think the best potential investment the city could make would be to invest in a public parking structure that would remove most of the parking burden for developers. Then i think we could see development happen rather quickly since structured parking is the one item that is repeatedly mentioned as cost-prohibitive for the type of mixed-use development we are looking for. Unfortunately with big projects like Coal Creek Parkway widening consuming most of our resources, a project like this is probably many years away.

These new regulations actually deter development
During our last council meeting a public comment was made to the effect that the new development regulation requiring a minimum density for development would "freeze the downtown into a block of ice, and by not allowing the development of a low-density, pad-style developments like Blockbuster Video, we will lose out on potential taxes in the near term".

In the short term those types of developments could be a small benefit to the city, but long-term would be harder to re-develop than if the market just waited a few years due to the density requirement. Continuing to allow the market to build that style of development is not in my mind in the best interest of the city long term.

Other items of note
Candidate filing has ended. All four council seats are contested and will make for a very noisy election season here in Newcastle. The good news is that there will be at least 3 new faces on the council this year after 3 incumbents decided not to seek re-election.

The city council will be holding a study session on emergency management at 8pm on Tuesday June 26th in the city hall chambers. The public is encouraged to attend.

CBC Part 1: Summary of development changes

Last night, during a meeting that lasted nearly 5 hours, the council approved several changes to the municipal code that will affect the future developments in our CBC zone. Following is a brief list of the changes. I fully intend to address each of the changes in more depth but will do so over the next few weeks for the sake of not having time to write a novel in this one post.

First, the changes that were enacted last night:

1. The requirement that pedestrian oriented uses must occupy 50% of the ground-level of new developments.
2. Ground-level transparency of 50% (ie. the frontage of a building must use 50% transparent materials like glass)
3. Minimum ground-floor height of 12 feet.
4. An increased building height of 75 feet (previously the max height was 5 stories)
5. Slightly lowered minimum parking requirements depending on usage and a new maximum parking requirement of 200% of the minimum. (300% max for dining and food uses)
6. The prohibition of new Drive-thru lanes
7. A minimum building size (Floor Area Ratio) of .75 FAR with a max of 4.0 FAR. (eg. a 10,000 sq ft lot would require a building of at least 7,500 sq ft with a max of 40,000 sq ft)
8. Finally we updated the permitted use tables for the MU and MU/I zones in the CBC. (permitted use tables define what types of business can locate in those zones and under what conditions)

I supported all of these changes and believe that they will finally bring our development codes into closer alignment with the vision set forth in the CBC plan the city adopted several years ago. There are a few things here that I don't think are perfect, parking is one of those things, but I understand that this is just a step in the direction we need to take to ensure quality development in our downtown and that these things can and should change slightly over time.

Next post.... My responses to the public comments on this issue.

Why CBC changes?

This is an important week for Newcastle. So I feel it necessary to post more than my usual weekly update.
Tomorrow the city council will be considering a number of changes to our municipal code as they relate to the development of our Central Business Center (CBC). The CBC is an overlay zone that extends from the north end of Lake Boren, includes both the Safeway and QFC strip malls, and continues north to include the property that is currently occupied by the Mutual Materials brick plant.
Why are we considering changes? My position is very simple... Newcastle has very limited space for growth and the city needs to maximize the use of space for several reasons:

• First, Newcastle is required to accept a certain amount of population growth over the next 20 years. Current projections are that we will need to accomodate an additional 5000 people over 20 years. That equals a 55% growth in the city population over the next 20 years.
• Second, to ensure that this growth doesn't overly impact our residential neighborhoods with out-of-control and overly dense in-fill development, we need to concentrate a majority of the growth in our downtown CBC where the density is appropriate.
• Third, with increased density in the CBC we achieve a number of things... with increased population we then have the ability to attract a broader range of commercial goods and services. With an increased economic base comes an increase in revenue for the city that can then in turn be used to improve other services the city provides like parks and trails. Increased density will also attract a broader range of transportation options and local jobs.

So how do we accomplish this? Critics of mine claim that the free market of development will provide what we envision. I believe that view is sorely shortsighted. We have seen time and time agin in other regional communities like Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Bothell, Sammamish, and repeated by developers on several occassions that the key to seeing successful community development is the following:

• A clear set of development guidelines
• That are consistently applied
• That work toward a central vision

I believe that our current regulations dont work on a number of these fronts, but most importantly I dont think that our code is working toward our central vision. In fact I would go so far as to say that I think some of our codes contradict our vision. Therefor we must make changes to the code to see change in our future. Otherwise, the legacy of Newcastle will continue to be a couple of strip malls with a road down the middle.

After tomorrows meeting I will summarize each of the changes that are voted on and why I voted the way i did. I will also respond to the notion that the council is not listening to the residents by disagreeing with the "non-recommendations" of the planning commission. But that is all for a future post.

Library Update

Lorig Company has been selected by the KCLS staff as a potential co-developer of the library site. Over the next several months KCLS and Lorig will work to determine the fiasability and potential benefit of doing a multi-use development together.

The Directors report from the May 29th KCLS Board meeting has more detail. (pdf link)

Library public meeting

Last Thursday the King County Library system held another public meeting to review the status and progress of the Newcastle project. The meeting went very well and was attended by several residents in addition to the group of regulars (council, staff, commissioners). I will try to summarize the main points:

• The Library is on track to begin construction in approx one year from now (Jun 2008)
• 2 design plans are being pursued. First is a single story, single use building. The second is a Mixed use, multi story building.
• Bill Ptacek made mention that construction costs are rising and a mixed use development could help offset those costs which is why they were reviewing proposals from a handful of developers. They will make a decision on whether to continue to pursue the mixed use option in the next few weeks.
• A model and conceptual drawings of both a single and multi story building were presented by Mithun Architects.
• Discussion was had around the orientation of the building and it was fairly unanimous that a western entrance would be preferred.
• Parking in the multi story design was discussed in length. Many people had much concern about this. The Mithun representatives acknowledged this was a challenge and would continue to look at options.

In all the meeting was a great status report from KCLS. I had met with Bill Ptacek earlier in the week and was glad that the positive tenor from our meeting carried through to the public meeting on the part of everyone who attended.

I have a clear bias toward the multi use proposal the library has presented. Clearly the library will be a great addition to the city in whatever form it takes, but a mixed-use facility would be the first piece in changing our business district into a vibrant pedestrian center. Look for more information from both the library and the city on this issue in the coming weeks and months.