Planning 2014-04-24 Item 3 - Adoption of 3/27/14 Minutes

Browse Search

BAR Public Hearing Minutes March 27, 2014 interested in the development of the project but she has not been involved in any of the planning and stated she could be unbiased and fair. There were no objections to the Commissioners hearing the case. Ms. Bradshaw gave the presentation for staff. She provided a summary of the BAR's role, and gave an overview of the review process. She noted as part of negotiations that an additional five feet in height is allowed for Building D, which is proposed to be 70 feet. She also went over the project statistics, discussed building design, the adjacent site, and the compatibility of Phase land Phase 2. Staff recommends approval with revised conditions, which were entered into the record as Attachment H. There were seven conditions recommended in the staff report, staff is recommending five conditions in the revised attachment. Ms. Bradshaw also addressed questions from the Commissioners. Brian Park, gave the presentation for the applicant, he discussed how paring for different phases was planned He stated they exceeded the parking requirement in Phase 2 and that the extra parking stalls will be available to the other phases of the project. He noted that they do not expect to have any security issues. Mr. Park stated that the applicant concurs with staff, and the conditions are mostly acceptable. However, they think there are some excessive and micromanaged requests. Diana Keyes and Chris Peterson, for the applicant,: exterior space, and answered questions. over general concepts of the building and Commissioner Mann asked a number of questions and communicated a number of concerns. She expressed security concerns with the area along the south wall of Building E, the lack of visibility and low lighting attracting unwanted attention. The King County parking adjacent to the units on the east side is confusing and a potential parking management problem. She also stated that the pedestrian crossing of S. 144"' Street needed to be different from the mid -block crossings on Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB). She stated that "the in- pavement blinking lights do not work and overhead lighting is needed" and that she is looking for some improvements." Commissioner Mann suggested that TIB' should be referred to as Tukwila International Boulevard in the documentation so it is portrayed in a softer manner, such as an avenue in the residential neighborhood. TESTIMONY: Pam Carter, citizen, testified in support of the project, stating she was excited to see phase 2. She also complimented the applicant on the focal point at the corner of 144"' International Boulevard (TIB) unlike the library that chose to ignore the corner Coletha Albert, citizen, testified in opposition of the plan for buildings D and E. She stated she wants to be able to walk in her neighborhood from TIB and to have a project in which they can be proud. She asked if they can do better. Bonnie Parrish, citizen, was in support of the project, and said that it works very well with Phase 1. She also commented on the applicant's hard work on doing a good job of involving all of the members of the community. There was no further testimony. The public hearing was closed. 2 Page 2 of 3