Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews Downtown Kennewick Area‑Wide Planning Study; asks for time to prioritize actions
Summary
Consultants presented a comprehensive Downtown Kennewick Area‑Wide Planning Study funded by BFCOG/EPA brownfields grants; council praised the work but asked staff to redistribute the materials, gather individual council prioritizations (Moscow exercise), and return with compiled results and a timeline.
Consultants from AHBL presented the Downtown Kennewick Area‑Wide Planning Study (AWP) to the City Council on June 9, explaining that the Benton‑Franklin Council of Governments used EPA brownfields grant funds to commission the study and that a draft was delivered at the end of the grant term in September 2025. The study area was described as covering much of downtown (including the public market site) but excluding the civic campus.
Emily Weimer, a senior planner with AHBL, told council the team conducted public engagement including staff listening sessions, public working groups and a 2025 survey that received 196 responses. She summarized six community themes that emerged from the outreach: create a downtown destination for daytime activity; enhance the public realm, safety and functionality; create gathering spaces; support economic development and adaptive reuse; expand housing options downtown; and host annual events and traditions.
The AWP’s urban framework plan presents four non‑ranked strategies with associated actions: (1) diversify downtown land use through subdistricts, zoning refinements and objective design standards; (2) revitalize properties via catalyst site designation, incentives, adaptive reuse and environmental remediation tools; (3) enhance safety and connectivity through streetscape improvements, trails/bikeways, gateways, CPTED, a parking strategy and utilities analysis; and (4) market and brand downtown and the Creative District with events, branding, business recruitment and interim uses.
Council members responded with initial priorities and concerns. Several identified parking, safety/connectivity and incentivizing revitalization as top needs; others emphasized the need for a utilities analysis and cautioned that absentee property owners and funding constraints are practical barriers to rapid change. One council member argued that branding and community events could be low‑cost first steps to attract visitors; another urged more time to read the lengthy study before finalizing priorities.
Consultants proposed sending the materials and the exercise sheets to council, collecting prioritized responses, compiling the results and returning to council with next steps. Staff and consultants suggested a roughly two‑week window to collect council feedback and produce a synthesis tied to the contract scope and timeline. No formal motions or votes were taken at the workshop.
The council directed staff to circulate the HDKP prioritization and the study materials, to solicit rankings from council members, and to schedule a follow‑up after compilation of council input.
