Laserfiche WebLink
PC Public Hearing Minutes <br />October 25, 2012 <br />• Page 19, Freeway Frontage Corridor type tree spacing requirement will be 30 -50 ft, depending on <br />species. <br />• Page 22, 18.28.30.A.5 — The suggested change would create a lower design review threshold for non- <br />conforming structures than for conforming structures. Typically when repair costs are more than 10% of <br />the assessed value it would trigger corridor standards. No change <br />• Page 29, 18.28.130.A.8 — Standard only applies when the transportation impacts of an intensification of <br />use make the frontage improvements reasonably necessary. Therefore, if a new street and sidewalk were <br />put in, lighting would be required. No change. <br />• 30, 18.28.140 Building orientation requirement. Raise the threshold for compliance in existing buildings. <br />Use a reconstruction threshold similar to what is currently required for non - conforming structures (TMC <br />18.70.050). ADD to 18.28.030.0 4. Compliance with building orientation and ground level transparency <br />is required for existing buildings only if they are destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% <br />of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, in the judgment of the City's Building Official. <br />• Page 40, 18.28.200 Ground level transparency requirement. Raise the threshold for compliance in <br />existing buildings. Use a reconstruction threshold similar to what is currently required for non- <br />conforming structures (TMC 18.70.050). ADD to 18.28.030.0 4. Compliance with building orientation <br />and ground level transparency is required for existing buildings only if they are destroyed by any means <br />to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, in the judgment of the <br />City's Building Official. <br />• Page 41, 18.28.220, Special Corner Features — Revision — Remove reference from the Corridor Type <br />Map and make it optional permitted but not required in the TOD, Regional Center, and Pond districts. <br />• Page 59, 18.28.260.B.5.b under Parking Reductions. Increase the walking distance from stations for a <br />parking reduction for residential development. Revision — "Parking requirements for commercial <br />development within 600 feet of the Sounder transit station or the Tukwila bus Transit Center, or <br />residential development within 1,320 feet of either station may be reduced or modified..." <br />• Page 59, Table 4 — Do not reduce parking requirements for dwelling units within 1/4 mile of stations to <br />only 1 space. Proposed standard has already been lowered from current code requirements. Retain <br />proposed parking space requirements for dwelling units. <br />Additional changes to - New Comments Section - Added 10 -1 -12 <br />Chapter 18.28 <br />• Page 18 & 19, Commercial Corridor and the Freeway Frontage Corridor types — change word, <br />"minimum" to "maximum ". Maximum lengths will address the concern of ensuring that the length of <br />any new or renovated building facade maintains the desired human scale and urban character in <br />Southcenter. <br />• Page 7, New Street - south of the pond — Corridor Type changed from "Urban Corridor" to <br />"Neighborhood Corridor ". Add a new footnote to New Thoroughfare Cross - section "New street south <br />of Tukwila Pond shall only have on- street parking on the south side of the street. Revised corridor <br />map handed out to the Commissioners. <br />• Page 7, Nelson Place and S. 156"' St, changed from "Workplace Corridor" to "Neighborhood <br />Corridor ". These streets were incorrectly coded. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the revised Southcenter Subarea Plan, dated <br />10/16/2012, and forward the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council for their <br />review. Commissioner McLeod seconded the motion. All were in favor. <br />Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the revised Southcenter Design Manual, dated <br />10/16/2012, and forward the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council for their <br />review. Commissioner McLeod seconded the motion. All were in favor. <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />