Mill Creek staff preview South Town Center plan: three EIS alternatives, new street grid, central park and 'sponge park' stormwater plan
Loading...
Summary
City planning staff presented a draft South Town Center subarea plan with three EIS alternatives (60‑foot baseline, 85‑foot higher‑density, and a mixed 60–85 ft option), a proposed new street grid and pedestrian improvements, a Central Park and 'sponge park' stormwater vault strategy, and commercial ground‑floor requirements; board members raised questions about parking, fiscal impacts and design standards.
City planning staff presented a lengthy draft of the South Town Center subarea plan to the Mill Creek Design Review Board, outlining goals, three EIS alternatives for allowable heights and uses, proposed street‑grid and pedestrian improvements, a suite of new parks including a "sponge park" that integrates stormwater vaults, and a package of design standards and commercial frontage requirements.
Staff summarized three primary goals for the project: extend and enhance Towne Center southward, support long‑term community and economic vitality with expanded housing and employment choices, and align growth with infrastructure, mobility and stormwater planning. The EIS is testing three alternatives: a baseline that keeps current zoning (60‑foot height limit), a higher‑density approach with an 85‑foot limit and stronger commercial requirements, and a mixed‑height alternative that varies between 60 and 85 feet across the subarea.
The draft proposes breaking existing large "super blocks" into smaller blocks to improve walkability, triple the number of intersections from six to 18, and shorten crossing distances. Staff described a new primary commercial street (Main Street) with parallel parking and a two‑way cycle track, continuous bike lanes on Main Street and Mill Creek Boulevard, and several pedestrian‑only or flexible event streets. The plan also envisions a Central Park, a Gateway Park, trail connections to North Creek Trail and a "sponge park" concept intended to meld stormwater detention with public open space: "The idea of the sponge park is ... where the pond is," staff said, describing vaults beneath parks that would detain water during storms and allow recreational use in dry periods.
On financing for parks and stormwater infrastructure, staff said it will likely be a combination of developer park impact fees, grants tied to stormwater improvements and latecomer agreements; staff did not provide a comprehensive funding breakdown. Board members pressed staff on fiscal impacts and whether residential redevelopment would generate sufficient sales‑tax revenue; staff said an economic analysis in the EIS scenarios anticipates net revenue benefits in many scenarios but several board members drew on their own experience arguing multifamily does not always cover costs.
Parking drew extended discussion: staff said underground parking is unlikely because of wet ground conditions and described a strategy of on‑street parking complemented by above‑ground structured parking wrapped by retail uses. Board members suggested demand management and time limits for street parking to ensure turnover for retail customers.
Staff also presented proposed design standards for building massing, materiality and upper‑level setbacks, asking the DRB to provide input on objective criteria (for example, what percentage of a façade must be natural materials and whether multiple materials should be mandated). The presentation included examples of curb bulbs, curbless festival streets, pedestrian promenades and requirements that certain frontages must provide ground‑floor retail to activate streets and generate sales tax.
Staff announced next steps: a volunteer board workshop on the '20 eighth' (as said at the meeting), an EIS draft meeting with council on March 3 and publication of the draft EIS on the city website "on the 20 seventh, I believe," followed by a 45‑day public comment period. The board asked staff to return with refined materials, massing models and detailed sections on parking and frontage implementation.
"We want input," staff said, asking the DRB to flag features they like or dislike before the next round of revisions. The planning team said adoption could still be phased and long‑term, with full implementation dependent on council direction and developer actions.
The DRB’s discussion focused on the technical details of implementation, parking and fiscal tradeoffs rather than a vote; the board did not take formal action on the plan at the meeting.
