Planning 2011-10-27 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET

Browse Search

INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 address the internal departmental concerns separately from the external stakeholder comments. All of the comments are available on the Tukwila Urban Center Plan section of the City's web site, both in their original form and summarized in a matrix with staff analysis and recommendations. Staff responded to public comments concerns regarding the economic feasibility of the vision and the draft development regulations by contracting with ECONorthwest (ECO), the consultant that prepared economic and market analyses during the preparation of the draft plan. We held three focus groups with property owners, businesses and regional developers to evaluate the vision, approach and regulations in the draft plan. ECO's summary memo recommended the following revisions to the development standards and changes to the implementation strategies: General comments and recommended strateaies: Almost all stakeholders agreed the vision is the right long -term goal for development in TUC. The vision is achievable in the mid to long term with significant, targeted public investment to catalyze and support types of development the City would like to see. Code appears to be more complex than it actually is: it is designed to provide certainty while minimizing discretionary interpretive decisions. Specific recommendations comments: Revise high -rise ordinance to allow mid -rise construction will make the Plan more economically viable and allow Tukwila to be more competitive with other cities. (Note: this has already been accomplished) Achieving multiple storied development is limited due to difficulty in meeting parking requirements When reducing parking requirements, need to provide other options to avoid negative consequences Open space requirements are consistent with other jurisdictions. Staff presented these findings to the Planning Commission (PC) on December 10 2009 and the Community Affairs and Parks Committee on March 22, 2010. Almost all stakeholders commenting on the draft plan agreed the City's vision is the right long- term goal for development in the TUC. The conflict, however, was in how and when the vision should be implemented. Some members of the PC thought that additional public outreach was needed outside of the formal hearing process. WHERE WE ARE Now To address the concern about input from property and business owners, staff proposed establishing a second stakeholders' process to address key issue areas that were identified by ECONW and /or raised during the public comment period. The process was designed to allow the consultant/staff team to work out the individual concerns of the stakeholders, with the anticipated outcome of a set of regulatory refinements to the draft Plan that work for both the stakeholders and the City. In March 2011 staff presented three stakeholder process alternatives to the City Council: the process described above, an advisory group similar to the Sign Code Advisory Committee and a standard legislative process with public hearings. The Council chose the third option along with reducing the scope of the project and directed staff to revise the draft Plan to meet the minimum requirements for accommodating growth and fulfilling regional policy goals. The Council wanted a streamlined review process since the changes from the existing code would be limited. 3