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