Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 87-02-CPA - CITY OF TUKWILA - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN87-02-CPA CITYWIDE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT CITY OF TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. / 5/6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN AS A COMPONENT OF THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 35A.63 RCW AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11.64 AND CHAPTER 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council desires to generally implement several Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies while focusing on the following: Transportation Objective 6: Create a functional, safe, and convenient sidewalk or pathway system. Policy 1: Create a sidewalk or pathway system where every link is a part of an integrated network. Policy 6: Construct sidewalks and pathways within and between commercial areas and promote their use, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have a complete and continuous sidewalk system for pedestrian safety within the Central Business District generally shown in Figure 1, of Exhibit B, attached hereto, and WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official, on August 26, 1987, issued a Declaration of Nonsignificance, and WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission held several public hearings and other public meetings between August 27, 1987, and October 27, 1988, and has made recommendations to the City Council, and been met. WHEREAS, all of the procedural requirements of Chapter 35A.63 have NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan Findings. The Comprehensive Plan Findings contained in Exhibit A attached hereto and by the reference incor- porated herein are hereby adopted for the area generally shown on Figure 1 also attached hereto. Section 2. CBD Sidewalk Plan Policies. The Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Policies set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein are hereby adopted as policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 35A.63. Section 3. Chapter 11 TMC Amended. Chapter 11.64 of the Tukwila i;iuii i ci pal Code is hereby amended to read in full as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 4. Chapter 18.70 TMC Amended. Chapter 18.70 of the Tukwila Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Section 18.70.120 which shall read in full as follows: Section 4. - Cont. 18.70.120 -- Sidewalk Dedication. No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become nonconforming by reasons of such donation or easement. Section 5. Severability. If any section of this ordinance, or any portion of any section of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstances, is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of this ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a ta4 regular meeting thereof this /.5 day of App oved as to Form Attest /Authenticated Of ce . the C ty)_. rney i FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:'S - �5- a'°1 PUBLISHED VALLEY DAILY NEWS: S• .)1-a EFFECTIVE DATE: - -db 09 ORDINANCE NO. /5/42 , 1989. A 71 4t e/044t..t.. Max i rson City Cl ef'k CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES October 27, 1989 GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall strive to create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be the con- struction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system should link various CBD land uses with transit sites, recreational parks, trail systems, and resi- dential neighborhoods. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 3: Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of- way or easements for sidewalks, and build sidewalks on their prop- erty consistent with City policy. After a reasonable amount of time, sidewalks will be built by the City pursuant to provisions for sidewalk improvement districts in RCW 35.70. The City is .responsible for the design of sidewalk grades, con- struction specifications and plan approval, and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Property owners shall be responsible for construction engineering and construction costs. Policy 4: Developers shall be required to build sidewalks to City specifica- tions in new developments or redevelopment pursuant to existing Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). This means that existing developments without sidewalks which satisfy TMC standards are legally noncon- forming. Policy 5: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan in three years. Construction phasing shall be guided by priority of need shown in Figure 1. Policy 6: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations when the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 7: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be at least six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be at least five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph and the sidewalk is adjacent to road, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN F I NDI fL March 1989 EXHIBIT A A. Adopted Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies call for developing a safe, convenient sidewalk system within and between business areas (Transportation Element, Comprehensive Plan, 1982). B. There is a need to safely accommodate the existing and potential demand for pedestrian facilities. This is accentuated by observing pedestrians walking in high speed, vehicle travel lanes when there are no sidewalks. C. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. 0. There were four pedestrian vehicular collisions between January 1, 1984 and December 31, 1988, in the project area which is a relatively low amount. E. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). F. There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. G. Existing pedestrian facilities include informal unpaved foot paths adjacent to the road, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. H. Sidewalks have been required when improvements have been made to private property since 1980. I. Sidewalks are required of new development pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code 11.64. Existing development without sidewalks were developed prior to this standard and are thus legally nonconforming. J. Existing sidewalks have been installed at the expense of adjacent property owners. Use of a local improvement district funding mechanism to assign the cost of new sidewalk construction to adjacent property owners would provide an equitable distribution of costs. K. Sidewalks should be designed primarily to provide safe pedestrian travel. A four foot wide, curbline• sidewalk will provide for single file pedestrian travel. L. Preserving existing development conformity with the Zoning Ordinance build- ing setback, landscaping and parking standards is important to avoid unreasonable hardship on existing developments. M. There is cumulative long -term benefit from an area -wide sidewalk system to both property owners and the City. The primary responsibility for the pro- vision and maintenance of sidewalks rests with the property owners, whose developments generate trips, and whose land values are enhanced by such a facility. The City will share in a portion of construction costs to reflect area -wide benefits. This share would be approximately 27% of total costs if it assumes responsibility for sidewalk design, grades, construction specifi- cations, plans approval, and establishing a sidewalk benefit district. The City Council is empowered to require sidewalk construction, repair, or replacement by State law (RCW 35.69 and 35.70). 25 /VU.FIND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES October 27, 1989 EXHIBIT B GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall strive to create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be the con- struction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system should link various CBD land uses with transit sites, recreational parks, trail systems, and resi- dential neighborhoods. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 3: Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of- way or easements for sidewalks, and build sidewalks on their prop- erty consistent with City policy. After a reasonable amount of time, sidewalks will be built by the City pursuant to provisions for sidewalk improvement districts in RCW 35.70. The City is responsible for the design of sidewalk grades, con- struction specifications and plan approval, and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Property owners shall be responsible for construction engineering and construction costs. Policy 4: Developers shall be required to build sidewalks to City specifica- tions in new developments or redevelopment pursuant to existing Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). This means that existing developments without sidewalks which satisfy TMC standards are legally noncon- forming. Policy 5: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan in three years. Construction phasing shall be guided by priority of need shown in Figure 1. Policy 6: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations when the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 7: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be at least six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be at least five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph and the sidewalk is adjacent to road, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. ( -- CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 Policy 8: Where a full width sidewalk is not feasible, the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Plan- ning and Public Works Directors. Policy 9: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections/ - blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Policy 10: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 11: Curbline sidewalks should be provided whenever feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the non - feasibility of curbline sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. Existing and proposed site grades. D. Public safety considerations. E. Impacts on existing parking. F. Convenience to pedestrian traffic. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 12: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 13: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks. The need for pedestrian safety, parking, landscaping and general conformance to municipal codes shall be balanced. However, pedestrian safety will be foremost. The City shall strive to preserve the existing number of parking spaces through restriping and use of compact stalls. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE Policy 14: Property owners shall be responsible for long -term (structural) and daily maintenance of sidewalks. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 15: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings may be built when an engineering study satisfies warrants of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Policy 16: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. (25 /VU.CBD15) SOUTNC,NTla ` '1 f.• . a .. • 1, t :'• • - , : r iir • I • • _ � __ i. • y : ': s. , , -) i • • r ` z -- t.ktyc 11 , _ r te _ ■ 1 I.•0 1!T ;ir y( r0A r11 Ill Yl,' 1 . iff _ 8 • N:'' \ FIGURE 1 . N ' of Vic. 1,.y EXHIBIT B • Ir y 11 1 l I f u _ Figure 1 Central Business District Sldsw* Plan Map MARCH 1919 COMO SCIWALKS MON TO •909 VIM ZION MOWN' SCIWALKS TO N OAT ONOMONMI WON POSOINTT 5101 WAIIIS TON MAT %%%% YONNATS MIONRY SC9 *ALAS TON MILT ▪ 1X$TNO SI0NALS • FUTONS SIGNALS ■ PRO=T LIMITS O 50O 00C Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances EXHIBIT C 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi - family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single - family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ZONE DISTRICT TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS N.A. P- 0 /CP /CM 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets C -1 /C -2 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets M -1 /M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets All Other Areas 5 feet CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Page 2 Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5feet Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances /i,.;in the provisions of this ordi nce may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. (25 /VU.SWCONST) A,F F IDAV IT OF DIST.PIBUTION WENDY BULL hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing [l Notice of Public Meeting C1 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [] Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on June 1, 1989. , 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS MAYOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR Name of Project CBD Sidewalk Plan File Number 87 -2 -CPA 0 Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice in Other C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan Status Q Other �t;(: 43i:::. S. ia'. i�.„ w-( r..,. e......,.,.....»,.,......,_, ......................_........ City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner U r-' To: Tukwila Planning Commission RE: C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan Status Date: May 31, 1989 The Central Business Sidewalk Plan was adopted by the City Council with modifications to the Planning Commission's recommendation on May 15, 1989. This memo summarizes the Council's review process and adopted ordinance. I have attached a copy of the adopted plan and implementing ordinances. City Council Review Process All Interested Parties were notified of Council review. Most in depth review and significant modifications were made at two Transportation Committee meetings. Planning and Public Works staff were present to ensure that the Committee was apprised of public and Commission, discussions and rationale to the maximum extent possible. The Plan was adopted at the second of two Council meetings. The Transportation Committee directed to consider modifying the long- term sidewalk maintenance responsibility. This consideration has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 1989. Summary City Council Actions Retained Elements MEMORANDUM A. The basic sidewalk design is 5 ft. in industrial zones, 6 ft. in commercial zones, and 8 ft. along 35+ m.p.h. roads and at bus stops; B. An L.I.D. method of sidewalk funding; and C. That sidewalk construction for existing developments will not increase the level of landscaping or building setback non - conformity. - .....�..................o-,,..va wa S11 •'s:`ti,i�::�:.":��1.'iY':'..`: iSSv�r.;' » ^: t�.;,o:::�b�urn+vvnuau� Planning Commission May 31, 1989 Page 2 Modified Elements 1. Construction shall be completed in three years instead of six. 2. Pedestrian safety shall be given precedence in balancing the need for project conformity with parking, landscaping and general municipal code requirements; instead of parking being given priority over sidewalks. The City will work with property owners to preserve the existing number of spaces through restriping and using compact stalls. The Council was concerned about liability and safety if a pedestrian were to be injured and the City was shown to value parking over human life (i.e. pedestrian safety). 3. Long -term maintenance was made a property owner responsibility. The Council reasoned that Tukwila was already doing more than other cities in absorbing 27 percent of total sidewalk construction costs, and that sidewalk maintenance costs, while relatively minor to abutting property owners, would be cumulatively significant for the City to bear. 4. Sidewalks shall be required upon building reconstruction even if due to a catastrophic event. The Council reasoned that sidewalks are required of new developments per TMC 11.64. Existing projects without sidewalks were developed before this standard and are thus legally non - conforming, and the C.B.D. should satisfy the same standards that all other City areas must meet. There was also some discussion that rebuilding after a catastrophic event is a business decision which takes in all costs, and sidewalks are a very small cost of total site improvements. In addition C.B.D. sidewalks will be constructed in three years, thus out dating this C.B.D. exemption in three years. There did not seem to be support for extending the lower sidewalk requirement on a City -wide basis; especially in light of the need along Highway 99. Planning Commission May 31, 1989 Page 3 Crosswalks will be established based on Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. Statements on the City absorbing all costs of crosswalk improvements were deleted. The Council agreed with this Public Works Department request because: A. The City already pays for general pedestrian signal improvements. B. Some pedestrian improvements are funded by developers as impact mitigation. This practice would be prohibited by the deleted policies, and lead to extreme complications trying to separate and proportion out pedestrian signal costs from overall intersection signal costs. Please call me at 433 -1858 if I can be of further help. TR I - LAND CORPORATION May 10, 1989 Members of the City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan Executive Summary Dear Council Members: Sincerely, TRI 1,AND CORPORATION h •"rt J ck J. Link President JJL /ea cc: Mayor Gary VanDusen / Tukwila Planning Department/ 1325 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1940 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -2510 (206) 624 -4494 FAX:(206) 624 -5014 We have received today a copy of the Executive Summary of the recommended plan modifications by the Transportation Sub Committee to the full Council. In Element Number 4 of the Executive Summary, the Transportation Committee placed long -term as well as short -term daily mainten- ence responsibilities on the adjacent property owner. Unsaid in the Element and unaddressed is the liability responsibility. It appears to us that the Transportation Committee is recommending the shifting of the liability onto the adjacent property owner based on a design created by the city. We respectfully suggest that before the Council adopts the modified plan, the whole liability question should be aired and made specific. May 9, 1989 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 RE: City Council Adoption of the C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan and Implementing Ordinances. Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer, This letter is to update you on City Council review of the C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan. The Transportation sub - committee of the Council recommended Plan modifications to the full Council on May 2nd. Those modifications met no Council objections at its meeting last night. An adopting ordinance for the modified plan will be prepared for review and action at the Council's next regular meeting on May 15th, 1989. Attached is a summary of the modified Sidewalk Plan. All public comment must be received by Monday, May 15, 1989. Written comments should be addressed to: Lucy Lauterbach Council Analyst Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98116 Please feel free to contact Lucy Lauterbach or myself at 433 -1800 if we can be of any help. Sincere y, ernon Umetsu, Associate Planner AFFIDAVIT WENDY BULL hereby E] Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet a Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1989. MAYOR CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS R. BEELER J. PACE V. UMETSU CORRESPONDENCE LUCY ALSO: (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87 OF O IST BUT I0N declare that: O Notice of Action O Official Notice Q Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice (R� Other MEMO - SIDEWALK PLAN Other , 19 . May 9, 1989 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 RE: City Council Adoption of the C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan and Implementing Ordinances. Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer, This letter is to update you on City Council review of the C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan. The Transportation sub - committee of the Council recommended Plan modifications to the full Council on May 2nd. Those modifications met no Council objections at its meeting last night. An adopting ordinance for the modified plan will be prepared for review and action at the Council's next regular meeting on May 15th, 1989. Attached is a summary of the modified Sidewalk Plan. All public comment must be received by Monday, May 15, 1989. Written comments should be addressed to: Lucy Lauterbach Council Analyst Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98116 Please feel free to contact Lucy Lauterbach or myself at 433 -1800 if we can be of any help. Sincere y, ernon Umetsu, Associate Planner • Executive Summary This document contains the Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinances necessary to complete a continuous sidewalk system in the Tukwila Central Business District. With adoption of this plan, the City Council will have the option to require construction of street front sidewalks by adjacent property owners to City standards. A summary of substantive Plan elements would include the following: 1. Sidewalk design to be based on curb -line sidewalks, five feet wide in industrial zones, six feet wide in commercial zones, and eight feet wide at bus stops. 2. Construction to be started by 1990 and completed in phases through 1993. 3. Construction costs to be borne by adjacent property owners through a local improvement district. Design and administrative costs to be borne by the City. 4. Long -term structural maintenance and short -term daily maintenance shall be done by the adjacent property owner. 5. Sidewalk construction shall not increase the level of Zoning Code nonconformity for building setbacks or landscaping. The Planning Commission and City Council conducted extensive public review and deliberations on this plan; with the business community receiving every opportunity for its participation. The public review process is shown in Table 2 of this plan. Executive Summary wurrsv.ntranAet This document contains the Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinances necessary to. complete a continuous sidewalk system in the Tukwila Central Business District. With adoption of this plan, the City Council will have the option to require construction of street front sidewalks by adjacent property owners to City standards. A summary of substantive Plan elements would include the following: 1. Sidewalk design to be based on curb -line sidewalks, five feet wide in industrial zones, six feet wide in commercial zones, and eight feet wide at bus stops. 2. Construction to be started by 1990 and completed in phases through 1993. 3. Construction costs to be borne by adjacent property owners through a local improvement district. Design and administrative costs to be borne by the City. 4. Long -term structural maintenance and short -term daily maintenance shall be done by the adjacent property owner. 5. Sidewalk construction shall not increase the level of Zoning Code nonconformity for building setbacks or landscaping. The Planning Commission and City Council conducted extensive public review and deliberations on this plan; with the business community receiving every opportunity for its participation. The public review process is shown in Table 2 of this plan. TO: Transportation Committee FROM: Lucy Lauterbach DATE: May 30, 1989 SUBJ: Sidewalk Maintenance and Liability The issue of who is responsible for the repair and long term maintenance of sidewalks can be decided by looking at what the R.C.W. says about it, and by looking at sidewalk ordinances from other cities. The Sidewalk Plan has already been adopted as part of our City's Comprehensive Plan. You remember it includes a policy saying property owners are responsible for long term sidewalk maintenance. If the Council decides that the City and not the abutting property owner should be made responsible for maintaining or rebuilding sidewalks, the Comp Plan will need to be amended. Otherwise, that issue and other details about who builds sidewalks can be added to the T.M.C. Revised Code of Washington (R.C.W.) Three sections of the R.C.W. directly pertain to responsibility for sidewalks. All three can apply to Tukwila, and the City Council can decide which to use. R.C.W. 35.68 . Applies to all cities and towns. . Authorizes cities to build /rebuild sidewalks, and either pay the cost themselves or require abutting property owners to pay. . Council must pass resolution saying who pays what and when. • Public hearing required for resolution and again for assessment roll. . Works like an L.I.D., but no protests are allowed. R.C.W. 35.69 • Applies to 1st, 2nd, 3rd class cities. ▪ Applies only to sidewalk sections of less than 1 block long. • Council must pass resolution if they want the abutting property owner to pay for construction /reconstruction. ▪ Property owner can protest if sidewalk costs more than 50% of his unimproved property's assessed valuation. ▪ No second public hearing required if owner pays; owner is notified she or he must build by date certain. R.C.W. 35.70 • Applies to third class cities (Tukwila included). ▪ Only applies to sidewalk construction, not reconstruction. ▪ Works like R.C.W. 35.69 but isn't limited to 1 block. • Applicable to whole CBD sidewalk construction plan. Besides these three sections, a regular L.I.D. can also be used to pay for sidewalk maintenance, but that can be protested. All three of these R.C.W. sections require the City Council to pass a resolution saying who will pay for the cost of building or improving sidewalks. The implication in the laws seems that the City will be responsible unless they pass resolutions requiring property owners to build or rebuild. TO: Transportation Committee FROM: Lucy Lauterbach DATE: May 30, 1989 SUBJ: Sidewalk Maintenance and Liability PAGE: 2 Included with this memo is a letter from a Municipal Research attorney which says in any case cities are not likely to be absolved of all liability for sidewalks. Regardless of what the Council passes, liability appears to remain partly with the City and partly with the property owner if the owner is dinged for some of the cost and responsibility for building and maintaining sidewalks. If the City retains the responsibility, they would probably assume all the liability. Other Cities' Practices Sidewalk ordinances from other cities give examples of different ways to assign responsibility for sidewalks. These are all ordinances, rather than being in Comp Plans, as our policies are. I have not seen any ordinances that give a city the responsibility for sidewalks. Several municipal codes adopt the R.C.W. which requires the City Council to pass a resolution when they want someone to rebuild their sidewalks. In that case it's the City's responsibility to decide when a sidewalk needs repair, and then the City Council has to pass a resolution requiring the property owner to fix it. The City can also choose to go out and fix these sidewalks themselves. Seattle, Auburn, Puyallup, Edmonds and Oak Harbor specify this method in their ordinances. Other cities spell out the definitions of broken sidewalks. Sumner and Oak Harbor, for example, give points for sidewalk deficiencies such as 1/4" stub -toes, cracks of certain widths, depressions, root bumps, and the like. Once a sidewalk gets over a certain number of points, the property owner must fix it. Again, the City is responsible for checking the conditions of sidewalks on a regular basis. Edmonds and Lynnwood have an interesting way of assigning responsibility. If a sidewalk needs repair less than five years after it's built, the City pays. If repairs are needed when the sidewalk is between five and ten years old, the City and property owner share the cost equally. Over ten years, the property owner pays the total cost. In Monroe, repair and maintenance costs will be shared by the City if the sidewalk work was originally done or approved by the City. In addition, Monroe pays 100% for sidewalks for seniors and low income families. Similarly, the City of Ferndale repairs sidewalks if there is enough money in their budget. In Marysville the City Council decides when sidewalks need repair, though the property owner is responsible for fixing them. The majority of these cities mentioned do assign the responsibility for repairing side- walks to the abutting property owner. Sumner's ordinance says even the City's liability is the property owner's responsibility. Recommendation It makes sense for Tukwila to keep its Comp Plan policy giving property owners the responsibility for both short and long term maintenance. As the attorney points out, the City is liable in any case, and such a policy at least gives the City some change of sharing that liability. TO: Transportation Committee FROM: Lucy Lauterbach DATE: May 30, 1989 SUBJ: Sidewalk Maintenance and Liability PAGE: 3 My recommendation is for the Council to wait until next year to adopt more in the sidewalk ordinance in the T.M.C. At the time the City passes a Sidewalk Improvement District to build CBD sidewalks, the City Council can also adopt a procedure for determining when a sidewalk should be repaired, and can require it be ordered to be rebuilt by resolution by either the property owner or the City. Requiring the property owner to be responsible on the books, and leaving flexibility for the City to do it when justified is not as clear cut as might be preferred. Still, that kind of policy best walks the line between all -city or all- property owner responsibility. Please let me know if you'd like more information on this issue. .��. • .. RE: S 4.2* - SIDEWALK REPAIR, Request for sample ordinances which place primary responsibility for sidewalk care and maintenance on the abutting property owner. INQ. NO.: 88 -0366 LANGLEY /PWM February 1, 1988 Ms. Jessie Valentine City Attorney of Langley P. O. Box 460 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 Dear Jessie: This letter is in response to your request for sample ordinances which place primary responsibility for sidewalk repair and maintenance on the abutting property owner. We are enclosing as a loan a compilation entitled "Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance ". Many of the ordinances in this compilation provide that the primary responsibility for sidewalk repair and maintenance does rest with the abutting property owner. Such a pattern is specifically authorized by RCW 35.68.010, which is made applicable to noncharter code cities by RCW 35A.47.020. We do point out that while a municipality may enact an ordinance fixing responsibility for sidewalk repair and maintenance upon a private party (normally the abutting property owner), it is doubtful that this would relieve the municipality for all liability resulting from defective sidewalks. The basic obligation of the city to exercise ordinary care to keep its public ways in a reasonably safe condition cannot be delegated away and we doubt that the city could shift all liability for injuries or damages sustained by reason of defective sidewalks to a private party. We trust the above information will be of some assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any further assistance in this matter. We would appreciate return of the loan materials by the due date indicated on the loan slip. Sincerely, Patrick W. Mason Legal Consultant PWM /gb Enclosures .�... ; MARCH 1989 CITY OF TUKWLA P('ANAit/ C vMMiSSl f oM M �rnf CBD SIDEWALK PLAN CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN A Component of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Tukwila, Washington February 16, 1989 <: CITY COUNCIL Marilyn Stoknes, President Edgar Bauch Joe Duffle Mabel Harris Joan Hernandez Clarence Moriwaki Dennis Robertson Gary Van Dusen, Mayor City of Tukwila, Washington PRINCIPAL CITY STAFF Department of Public Works Ross Eamst, Director Ron Cameron, City Engineer Byron Sneva Former'Director Department of Community Development L. Rick Beeler, Director Jack Pace, Senior Planner Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION Jim Haggerton, Chair Lee Cagle Randy Coplen Jerry Hamilton Richard Kirsop Gerald Knudson Philip Verhalen Executive Summary This document contains the Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinances necessary to complete a continuous sidewalk system in the Tukwila Central Business District. With adoption of this plan, the City Council will have the option to require construction of street front sidewalks by adjacent property owners to City standards. A summary of substantive Plan elements would include the following: 1. Sidewalk design to be based on curb -line sidewalks, five feet wide in industrial zones, six feet wide in commercial zones, and eight feet wide at bus stops. 2. Construction to be started by 1990 and completed in phases through 1996. 3. Construction costs to be borne by adjacent property owners through a local improvement district. Design and administrative costs to be borne by the City. 4. Long -term structural maintainance shall be done by the City while short-term daily maintenance shall be done by the adjacent property owner. 5. Sidewalk construction shall not reduce the absolute number of parking spaces or increase the level of Zoning Code non - conformity. The Planning Commission conducted extensive public review and deliberations on this plan; with the business community receiving every opportunity possible. The public review process is shown in Table 2 of this plan. T; cPSrC ( f\7>Nto) 7 5_ 10 Table of Contents I. Purpose II. Background III. Plan Elements to be Adopted A. Comprehensive Plan Findings and Policies B. Amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance C. Amendment to the Tukwila Sidewalk Construction Ordinance List of Tables and Figures Table 1. Needed Sidewalk Segement Lengths by Priority Need Table 2. Planning Commission Sidewalk Plan Review Process Figure 1. Existing and Proposed Priority Sidewalk Locations Appendices A. Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Study (1985) SECTION I. PURPOSE The Central Business District Sidewalk Plan (C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan) is to provide sidewalks in the CBD area shown in Figure 1. This heavily commercialized section of Tukwila is the only area in the City without a program for comprehensive sidewalk development. The C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan is to generally implement several Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies while focusing on the following: Transportation Objective 6: Create a functional, safe, and convenient sidewalk or pathway system. Policy 1: Create a sidewalk or pathway system where every link is a part of an integrated network. Policy 6; Construct sidewalks and pathways within and between commercial areas and promote their use. CBD Sidewalk Plan policies form the basis for specific implementation ordinances and programs (Section III). SECTION II. BACKGROUND Analysis of the CBD sidewalk system was completed for Tukwila in 1985 (Appendix A). The CBD (shown in Figure 1) is generally bounded by Southcenter Boulevard on the north, 1 -5 on the west, and Tukwila's city limits on the south and east. The CBD is typically retail uses on the north and west, a mix of office and light industrial uses in the central and east areas, and light industrial uses to the south. This 1,510 acre area developed rapidly beginning in the mid- 1960's with automobile oriented light industrial uses and the Southcenter Shopping Center. Vehicular travel was maximized and sidewalks were not required. A more comprehensive approach' to transportation systems began' in the early 1980's. This is reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan of 1982, which incorporated a continuous sidewalk system. In the CBD, a gradually evolving sidewalk system was envisioned as properties developed or redeveloped, until a continuous route was completed (Sidewalk Construction Ord., 1980). This strategy was only partially successful because most of the properties had already been developed. Existing standard concrete sidewalks are a minimum of 4 feet wide and shown in Figure 1. Almost all missing sidewalk segments front existing developments which are not expected to redevelop in the foreseeable future. With the CBD now almost fully developed, there remains 10 miles of sidewalk system to be completed. Completion of the needed, continuous sidewalk system is not likely without City action. Needed sidewalk segement lengths and priority of need are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 Needed Sidewalk Segement Lengths by Priority Need Sidewalk Priority Rating No. Mile6 Very High 3.4 High 2.6 Moderate ..Q TOTAL 10.0 Table 2 Planning Commission Sidewalk Plan Review Process Public Review and Identification of all Concerns . ^:.. cTn`�. 1p nrtJe;v w.Ml."Snt7x� s;r, --:': The City has committed to achieving a continuous sidewalk system in the near future by its funding of a Central Business District Sidewalk Plan study (April, 1985). A final draft of policies and implementing ordinances was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review in September, 1987. The Plan review process is summarized in Table 2 below. 08/27/87 Central Business District Sidewalk Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) transmitted to the Planning Commission. Elaborated Review Process Begun 10/22/87 Planning Commission adopted a Plan review process. 11/05/87 Planning Commission edited Plan for textual clarity. This is the draft Plan which is the focus for all further review. Public Notification 11/17/87 Letter notifying all businesses in Tukwila of Plan review mailed. All persons responding were viewed as "Interested Parties" and mailed all further materials. 11/18/87 Draft Plan policies and implementing ordinances mailed to all interested parties. A thirty (30) day comment period was established. 12/17/87 Planning Commission held a public hearing to take any additional public testimony, new written comments or clarifications of summarized comments. A complete list of public concerns was established at the close of the public hearing. 01/13/88 A consolidated list of public comments was compiled and mailed to all interested parties for a thirty (30) day comment period. Input received caused no change in the list of consolidated comments. These concerns became the focus of all subsequent Plan review. > >0 Evaluation of all Public Concerns ........-..,.,....,,... a^.. rr a., .."v. :s...: .en , - r ^m:gnrnc..l:' Pad , y ,, .R , niR:?rg: ✓.:tnnY.,Y ?:7: 02/24/88 Part I, Staff Evaluation of Concerns mailed to all interested parties. Evaluation consisted of significant findings and options. A twenty -eight (28) day review period was established. 03/24/88 Planning Commission held a public meeting to take public comment on Part I Evaluations. 03/29/88 Part II, Staff Evaluation of Concerns mailed to all interested parties for a thirty (30) day review period. 05/12/88 Planning Commission held a public meeting to take public comment on Part II Evaluations. Commission began deliberations on resolving public concerns. (Planning Commission review was interrupted by extensive work on pre- annexation zoning for the Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexation areas; in addition to its normal work on project design review.) Planning Commission Resolution of Public Concerns and Revision of Central Business District Sidewalk Plan and Implementing Ordinances 10/27/88 Planning Commission determined how public concerns about the Plan should be resolved. Planning Commission directed the Planning Department to revise Plan policies and implementing ordinances pursuant to Commission actions, and transmit the Plan directly to the City Council. (Planning Department work on the Plan was interrupted by annexation studies and a high number of current planning projects.) 03/17/89 Planning Department transmits the recommended Plan and implementing ordinances to the City Council. SECTION III. PLAN ELEMENTS TO BE ADOPTED The following items are proposed for adoption by the City Council: A. Comprehensive Plan Findings. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies. C. Amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance. D. Amendment to the Tukwila Sidewalk Construction Ordinance. an equitable distribution of costs. 25 /VU.FIND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS October 27, 1988 'm..��+�: �...rxa�•:.;, n�,:' w.��.,.,.�.� " ..:•�: rr -.nY. r.f�v:.v�..r: +�s .+(,�� .c _,,,.,.:: u^. xv�5n:: +�,t':' ^siW:S:�eC;::. a... .�r.�.�...•:7..r. _.,, .:R'7. ,. F_�,.. .., .� i.. A. Adopted Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies call for developing a safe, convenient sidewalk system within and between business areas (Transportation Element, Comprehensive Plan, 1982). B.' There is a need to safely accommodate the existing and potential demand for pedestrian facilities. This is accentuated by observing pedestrians walking in high speed, vehicle travel lanes when there are no sidewalks. C. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. D. There were four pedestrian vehicular collisions between January 1, 1984 and December 31, 1988, in the project area which is a relatively low amount. E. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). F. There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. G. Existing pedestrian facilities include informal unpaved foot paths adjacent to the road, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. H. Sidewalks have been constructed when improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Sidewalks have not generally been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. I Existing sidewalks have been installed at the expense of adjacent property �.. owners. Use of a local improvement district funding mechanism to assign the cost of new sidewalk construction to adjacent property owners would provide J. Sidewalks should be designed primarily to provide safe pedestrian travel. A four foot wide, curbline sidewalk will provide for single file pedestrian travel. K. Preserving existing development conformity with the Zoning Ordinance building setback, landscaping and parking standards are more important than installing a sidewalk. This is to avoid undue hardship on existing develop- ments. L. There is cumulative long -term benefit from an area -wide sidewalk system to both property owners and the City. Long -term maintenance could be equitably split with the City responsible for structural maintenance and property owners responsible for daily maintenance. -B- CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES October 27, 1989 GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall strive to create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be the con- struction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system should link various CBD land uses with transit sites, recreational parks, trail systems, and resi- dential neighborhoods. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 3: Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of- way or easements for sidewalks, and build sidewalks on their prop- erty consistent with City policy. After a reasonable amount of time, sidewalks will be built by the City pursuant to provisions for sidewalk improvement districts in RCW 35.70. The City is responsible for the design of sidewalk grades, con- struction specifications and plan approval, and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Policy 4: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment. Policy 5: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to' finish construction of the s'idewa'lk system recommended i n' the sidewalk plan according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tuk- wila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include side- walks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. c. In 1990, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1991. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Side- walk Plan will be constructed in 1992. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1993. • g. s-... ...,: ant �;...^ y:x w:. t; au? 3'. 3.•;^ .; Cr' �':;. r" 't3d"',`.',��!'iC!i.'"!£!'S7 ":r �-tn•; .. ' tENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Policy 6: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations when the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. NOTE: The Commission will review this policy for various issues including some minimum time period when temporary sidewalks may not be required. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 7: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be at least six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be at least five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph and the sidewalk is adjacent to road, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. NOTE: There was discussion of the City being responsible for the increased costs associated with sidewalks over six feet wide. Policy 8: Where a full width sidewalk is not feasible, the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Plan- ning and Public Works Directors. Policy 9: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to• be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections/ - blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Policy 10: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 11: Curbline sidewalks should be provided whenever feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the non - feasibility of curbline sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. Existing and proposed site grades. • .' D. Public safety considerations. E. Impacts on existing parking. F. Convenience to pedestrian traffic. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 12: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 13: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Mitigating measures may include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE Policy 14: The City of Tukwila shall be responsible for long -term (structural) maintenance of sidewalks built to City. standards. Policy 15: Property owners shall be responsible for daily sidewalk maintenance. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 16: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings may be built when an engineering study shows it is needed by the following criteria: A. At least 300 feet between crossings. B. A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. C. Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 17: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Policy 18: At existing signalized intersections, pedestrian signal controls and crossings may be added at the time sidewalks are constructed at City expense. (25 /VU.CBD7,8) rianz WN']YsVcara siNe 4N6At rG '6ASlfVli?XMAWSIVatIS MN7RCX NTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 Policy 19: Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs at City expense. 1 ■ r1 off \ Rte' I ir1 1 1 . o a• S, '� ; d r, \ ��/:, ... '— • • .^-r. •. • ` V1 A n� n:-,- 7 11 • p .1.' - ,. = i• , `- sr . i , : : - ,„, . ,,�_ao'_ J,] u Y: ., .fi I / ' 7 i /;,.Et; 14, i1F ca1i' ram 9 h t. ' . Figure 1 Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Map MARCH 1989 EXISTING SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO 1989 VERY HIGH PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BUILT •i S.+.11 HIGH PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BUILT MODERATE PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BUILT ▪ EXISTING SIGNALS FUTURE SIGNALS ■ PROJECT LIMITS O 500 1000 1500 • ?ati's4 ainttiiitgAvi,76.4 .:» 0.0.,. ....wtax. .c.emauca +..Hannn tt tocr thmafi5737Jt7u ''AD.SS�3r""�eSC"r".L 'd. .r�fiT�} TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become nonconforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allow- ance shall not apply to property when the existing structure is demolished, except when such demolition, rebuilding or remodeling is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to apply if the structure is demolished and rebuilt due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. (22 /VU.ATCH.B) .0 . Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 -D- Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION October 27, 1988 Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi- family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. Sidewalks shall not be required for building repair due to casualty loss (i.e., fire earthquake, flooding). (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall' not be required for improvements in single-family l'y zoned properties uhless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. ZONE DISTRICT N.A. P- 0 /CP /CM 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets C -1 /C -2 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets M -1 /M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets All Other Areas 5 feet (25 /VU.SWCONST) NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS •1C,4: .. ,. �:d • 6:f.. ... .::R'-- 'YC r!1.;.. .4.'.� w. ;x.: s...... :!h�iW aT, .. :1`,;. . -ic :e:= `g�°:�:.° TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Page 2 Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Pub.1 i c Wark shall, be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works . Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. 2 d TO: JOHN F. COLGROVE FROM: HUGH a. DAVIS RE; TUKWILA SUBJ; CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN This Memorandum addresses two questions posed by Vernon Umetsu with regard to Tukwila's draft Central Business District Sidewalk Plan. 1. Preservation of Parking Spaces. Although the draft sidewalk plan recognizes that additional sidewalks are necessary in the Central Business District for safety reasons, Policy No. 13 indicates that the plan does not require construction of any sidewalk that would effectively reduce the total number of parking spaces in the Central Business District. Mr. Umetsu asks whether these policies will affect Tukwila's exposure to potential liability, particularly whether the City's exposure is greater than if the City were to require no sidewalk construction at all. As I understand the question, Mr. Umetsu wants to know whether a personal injury plaintiff who asserts that his injury resulted from the absence of a sidewalk in the Central Business District especially a sidewalk that would have been built if MEMO RE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN - Page 1 11020eaILIEH /HAD MEMORANDUM March 30, 1989 ,. 3111d3S N31ldd G'dflOS31 95 : EZ ,68. 06.6t114 'd MEMO RE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN - Page 2 $O$OC3 /LLB /AJD not for Policy No 13- -will have a better case against Tukwila because of statements in the sidewalk plan. Although nothing in the sidewalk plan should affect the legal standard for liability on the part of Tukwila for failure to provide sidewalks, any statements in the sidewalk plan to the effect that sidewalks are necessary in the Central Business District for safety reasons will help plaintiff's counsel build his case. The best way to minimize this boon to plaintiff's counsel is to include in the sidewalk plan an explanation of the policy choice not to reduce the number of available parking spaces. In other words, the sidewalk plan itself should explain briefly why this policy choice is reasonable in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances. The legal standard for liability on the part of Tukwila for failure to provide sidewalks is not entirely clear. At a minimum, however, a plaintiff would have to establish that Tukwila knew or should have known that a sidewalk was reasonably necessary in a particular location. As plaintiff's counsel may seize upon Tukwila's policy statements as admissions, the drafter of these statements should not assert a need for sidewalks without qualification. In litigation, Tukwila might take the position that the City is not liable for the absence of sidewalks in the Central Business District or anywhwru else, it this position were to 3"111t13S N311dd 8 anos31 9G:61 68. 08 ddW prevail, policy statements in the sidewalk plan would not bear on the City's potential liability. In fact, there is certain authority that a city's failure to construct any sidewalks at all is simply not actionable. See McQuillin, Municipal Corporations S 54.37 (3d Ed.). Moreover, Gregory v. Seattle, 32 Wm,2d 710, 203 P.2d 340 (1949), indicates that a city is not responsible to maintain unimproved areas adjacent to an improved street for use as a means of ingress to the improved street. Despite certain favorable authority, Tukwila should not assume that there is no potential liability on the part of the City for failure to provide sidewalks in the Central Business District. In Berglu v. Spo kane C ounty, 4 Wn.2d 309, 103 P.2d 355 (1940), which involved the absense of a sidewalk on a bridge, the Washington Supreme Court held that a local government has a duty of reasonable care to maintain ways of pedestrian travel in safe condition, Under Berglund, the primary question with respect to an injury in the Central Business District is whether Tukwila has invited pedestrians to walk along the roads in the Central Business District despite the absence of sidewalks. It is certainly arguable that Tukwila anticipates or even encourages travel of all kinds through the Central Business District, If so, then Tukwila would have a duty of reasonable care. However, the decision not to require construction of a sidewalk in a particular MEMO RE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN - Page 3 3 3S MSllvi 'i (1418: S31 ZS ' fz T 64 , 4S V:H, location is not necessarily unreasonable. Liability would hinge on reasonableness under all the facts and circumstances. 2. Discrimination Re Conconforming Sidewalks. Under the implementing amendments to the zoning code and sidewalk construction ordinance, construction of sidewalks is not required in connection with any building repair due to casualty loss. In contrast, the standard nonconforming use provisions of the zoning code require full conformity with the zoning code whenever more than 50% of a structure's value is replaced for any reason. Thus the sidewalk requirements are less strict in the Central Business District, at least in this respect, than in other parts of the city. Mr. Umetsu asks whether the same relaxed standard must be extended to all other parts of the city. There is no legal rule that requires identical treatment of nonconforming uses in all parts of the city. In fact, the Washington Supreme Court observed in State ex ref. Miller v. Cain, 40 Wn.2d 216, 242 P.2d 505 (1952), that zoning codes typically allow continuance of certain nonconforming uses but not others and may allow continuance in certain zones but not others. The whole idea of zoning is to make distinctions between different areas of a city, allowing certain uses only in certain places. As I understand the situation, the real problem is that the requirement to build a conforming sidewalk is less strict in MEMO RE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN - Page 4 50=Oc21'LEU HJD 'd 3111d3S N311Hd '$ QdflOS31 LS : ti✓ti 613, 0S 8:A.1 the Central Business District where perhaps the strictest standards would be appropriate. There may be little point in imposing burdensome sidewalk requirements in areas where pedestrian traffic is sparse in comparison to pedestrian traffic in the Central Business District. As a general matter, a zoning ordinance does not violate equal protection if (1) the legislation treats all members within the designated class alike, (2) there are reasonable grounds to distinguish between those within and those outside the class, and (3) the classification has a rational relationship to the purpose of enactment. See, e.g., Grader v. Lynnwood, 45 Wn,. App, 876, 881, 728 P,2d 1057 (1986), The issue for Tukwila is whether there is any reasonable basis on which to discriminate in favor of the Central Business District with respect to sidewalks. The memorandum does not attempt to resolve this issue, although I observe that Mr. Umetsu apparently has some doubts about the reasonableness of such discrimination. MEMO RE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN - Page 5 sosoca.LxKeMJD 9 ' d 3111d3S N3lled '8 QZIl0S31. BS :Et 68 r : OE .,.2IdW`,.- i.: + • sne�3i F !fzt WagiCIYt nva: Alt V..UNV41n4warn+.v siarrmwr(wrau1VAILVIWnX1610• MMSA7110 a rr..&:truer.TORT +T1brMilano .43 .sIa 6)1' 461)A 11: VU /sjn TrA ca N r City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: February 26, 1988 The mailing date for this Part I of the sidewalk concern evaluations is 28 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, instead of the 30 days previously agreed upon. I apologize for this shortened review period. I am hoping that this shortened review period will not pre -empt your ability to effectively read and comment on the staff's findings and options. With this hope, I would like to still start Planning Commission review on March 24, 1988. If this presents a problem for you, please contact me at 433 -1858. Sincerely, ernon M. Umetsu Associate Planner GENERAL GUIDELINES Policy 1: Policy 2: Policy 3: FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 4: Policy 5: Policy 6: Policy 7: SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES October 18, 1985 Tukwila shall create a functional, safe, compatible and con- venient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD). The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be construction of missing sidewalk segments. The sidewalk and pathway system will provide a network to link CBD retail shopping centers, banking facilities, restaurants, hotels /motels, offices, manufacturing, warehousing, transit centers, recreational parks and trail systems. This system shall provide continuity to link residential neighborhoods with the CBD by providing access to bridges located along the.perimeter of the CBD. Tukwila shall amend its sidewalk system as necessary to provide pedestrian route continuity to busy stops and any future Metro transit sites. A Bond Anticipation Note for a ceiling of $1.1 million will fund the City's share of construction costs (excluding R.O.W.) in the sidewalk plan. (See Attachment "A" for a cost breakdown.) A Councilmanic Bond will be sold and then repaid from general revenues over ten years. Business will donate rights -of -way or easements adjacent to CBD properties for sidewalks. It willbe the property owner's responsibility to maintain the sidewalks abutting their property. According to Tukwila Municipal Code (T.M.C.) 11.64, developers are required to build sidewalks to City specification in new developments or redevelopment. In those cases where the City builds a sidewalk on undeveloped parcels on properties where redevelopment as defined in T.M.C. 11.64.020(a) occurs or where the use of the property or building changes the landowners will reimburse the City for the expense of that sidewalk at the time of redevelopment, change of use, issuance of a building permit for the parcel, or when the parcel is subdivided. The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan within three years. -1 Policy 8: SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 9: Policy 10: Policy 12: Policy 13: Policy 14: Policy 15: Policy 16: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations as the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future land widening or traffic improvements will displace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class 8 on prepared subgrade. New sidewalks on existing arterial streets as defined in the Statewide National Functional Classification System will be six (6) feet wide. All other new sidewalks will be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. Sidewalks will be constructed on an intesection to intersection basis, using cement concrete and American Public Works Association Standard specifications. Where full inclusion of a sidewalk is not feasible the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. Policy 11: Property owners shall have the option of installing buffer zones with the sidewalks. Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are less than the standard five or six feet and which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven shall be replaced in section /blocks by standard size sidewalks. Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Safety and traffic standards in the Transportation Comprehensive Plan will be met. Sidewalks built on donated rights -of -way will be credited as part of the donating property owner's landscape and setback requirements through exceptions in the zoning code. Sidewalks built on donated easements on private property will be included as part of the donating property owners' landscape requirements under the City's zoning code. Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking stalls, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Planning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impact on parking. -2- CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 17: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings shall be built when an engineering study shows it is needed and feasible. The study shall be triggered by the following criteria: Policy 18: Policy 19: Policy 20: * At least 300 feet between crossings * A minimum pedestrian volume of 30 people /hour at least 4 hours /day * Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right of way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian continuity. Intersections will be signed to caution the pedestrian to cross only with the proper pedestrian signal control sequence. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. At existing signalized intersections pedestrian signal controls and crossings will be included at the time sidewalks are constructed. Funding Estimates for C80 Sidewalks Cost of concrete Utility revisions, corners So.Center Pkwy. signals Strander, APE & APM signals City Cost ATTACHMENT A Easements, buffers $ 400,000 (businesses' cost) S 596,800 250,000 200,000 60000 51,106,800 $1,506,800 6/29/85 it �rt��t {,� ; ;�7f1: c,§ a:a %.lk' 3:++ : ?n:nh:.:a:xN?a'r-rt: ba:* n3oc ;n:otc..crm�scrtr•ncvuw.�mr�•c pc.�s+aa•..sc:c, z ..rratsmr. :7,1.1^..3V $Vtla_'StIVI f„'k 4 11E.7:1.M. ,:,i.7C'9ra tIC1:'th a n t MEMORANDUM I. THE TRADITIONAL LID TO: Mae Harris Members of the Transportation Committee FROM: James E. Haney Office of the City Attorney RE: Options for Non -City Financed Sidewalk Construction DATE: April 21, 1987 Mrs. Harris asked me at the last Committee of the Whole meeting to prepare a brief summary of the options available to the City for non -City financed sidewalk construction. Currently, there are five main options: 1.Construction of sidewalks as an incidental part of a larger improvement through a traditional LID; 2.An area wide sidewalk improvement district,created pursuant to Chapter 35.68 RCW; 3.A single block sidewalk improvement district created pursuant to Chapter 35.69 RCW; 4.The third class city sidewalk improvement district created pursuant to Chapter 35.70 RCW; and, 5.Developer agreements pursuant to Chapter 35.72 RCW. A more detailed discussion of each of these options follows: The most commonly used method of non -City financed sidewalk construction is the traditional LID. Under this method, sidewalks are built as part of a larger street improvement, and the costs of all improvements, including the sidewalks, are assessed against property owners within the LID in proportion to the benefits they Memo to Mae Harris and Members of Transportation Committee April 21, 1987 Page 2 receive, i.e., in proportion to the amount by which the market value of their property is increased by the improvements. The advantage of using this process, as opposed to others, is that it allows for the construction of all necessary street improvements at the same time in order to create a complete and up to standard street. The disadvantage is that the LID can be started in only one of two ways: (1) By the filing of a petition signed by the owners of a majority of the area to be included in the LID; or (2) by a resolution adopted by the City Council. If the Council starts the LID by the resolution, the LID can be stopped if the owners of property to be included within the LID which would be subject to 60 percent or more of the assessments protest creation of the LID. Thus, unless the Council can convince a majority of the owners of property within a proposed LID that the LID is a good idea, and that they should pay for the improvements, the LID simply will not work. II. THE AREA -WIDE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Chapter 35.68 RCW offers an alternative to the traditional LID when the only improvements to be constructed are sidewalks. Under this chapter, the City has the authority to require the abutting property owner to construct the improvement at his own cost or expense or to construct the improvement itself, and to assess all or any portion of the costs thereof against the abutting property owner. The process for creating a sidewalk improvement district under Chapter 35.68 RCW is a simple one. The first step is for the Council to pass a resolution which either requires the abutting property owner to construct the sidewalk at his or her own expense, or provides that the City will construct the sidewalk and assess the property owner. If the 'City is ordering the property owner to construct the sidewalk at his own expense, the resolution must also specify a time within which the construction must be completed, and state that if the construction is not completed within the time specified, the City will construct the sidewalk and assess the cost against the abutting owner. The resolution must set a time for a public hearing on construction of the sidewalks, and must be published once a week for two consecutive weeks before the time of the hearing in the City's official newspaper. In addition, notice of the date of hearing must be mailed to all property owners at least 10 days before the date fixed for the hearing. At the hearing, the Council is required to hear all property owners who appear for or against the improvement, and to make a Memo to Mae Harris and Members Transportation Committee April 21, 1987 Page 3 III. THE SINGLE BLOCK SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT determination whether the Council will proceed with the sidewalks. The decision to proceed may be taken by motion adopted in the usual manner. If the Council decides to proceed with the sidewalk improvement district, and to assess the costs against the abutting property owners, the Council may order the sidewalks constructed, and after the construction is complete, consider an assessment roll. The assessments must be based upon the benefits received by the properties assessed, and the Council must hold a hearing on the assessment roll, just as it would in any traditional LID. After the hearing, the Council may, by ordinance, affirm, modify or reject the assessment roll. Assessments are then paid and collected in installments in the same manner as in the traditional LID. The sidewalk improvement district has two major advantages over the traditional LID. First, the sidewalk improvement district may not be restrained by the protest of the property owners. Even if all owners of property within the proposed sidewalk improvement district objected to the construction of sidewalks, the City could still proceed to construct the sidewalks and assess the costs against the owners in proportion to the benefits they receive. The second advantage to the sidewalk improvement district is that it narrows the issues for the Council at the assessment roll stage by limiting the determination of benefits to how much each property has increased in market value by virtue of construction of the sidewalks, and the sidewalks alone. The practical effect of this is that those properties which already have sidewalks would have little or no assessment, and those properties which directly abutt the new sidewalks would bear all, or almost all, of the costs. Chapter 35.69 RCW provides a third alternative method of financing sidewalks on a block -by -block basis. This Chapter provides that whenever a portion, not longer than one block in length, of any street in the City is not improved by the construction of a sidewalk, but has sidewalks connected to it at both ends, the City Council may, by resolution, order the abutting property owners to construct a sidewalk along the full length of their property at their sole cost and expense. The only limitation on the Council's ability to require this is that the abutting property owner cannot be required to pay any portion of the costs of construction which exceed 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the abutting property owner's land, exclusive of improvements, for purposes of general taxation. If the Council determines that sidewalks are necessary, and that the abutting property owners should construct them, the Council is Memo to Mae Harris and Members of Transportation Committee April 21, 1987 Page 4 required to have a notice served on the abutting property owners instructing them to construct the sidewalk in accordance with plans and specifications attached to the notice. The notice must give the property owner a reasonable time to construct the sidewalk, and must state that in case the owner fails to construct the sidewalk within the time specified, the City will proceed to make the improvement and the City Council will, at a date which is specified in the notice, consider an assessment roll for the purpose of assessing the entire cost of the improvement against the abutting property. The choice then devolves upon the property owner to either construct the sidewalk within the time, or be liable for the costs. If the property owner chooses not to construct the improvement, the City may construct it, and may, after considering the assessment roll at the time fixed by the original notice to the owner, fix the assessment against the owner's property and the manner in which such assessment must be paid. This method of sidewalk construction financing is the easiest and most appropriate method of filling in one block gaps in the City's sidewalk system. It has the advantage of speed and of allowing the City to deal with a few property owners at a time. It also has the advantage of not being subject to a restraint by protest. The disadvantage is that it can only be used where the sidewalk to be constructed does not exceed one block in length. IV. THE THIRD CLASS CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Chapter 35.70 RCW provides a fourth alternative method of sidewalk construction. While this chapter is entitled "Sidewalks- - Construction in Third Class Cities and Towns," the City of Tukwila could use this method under the general authority given to optional municipal code cities to exercise any power ever given to any class of city by state law. This method of sidewalk financing is very similar to the single block method described in the previous section, with the following three exceptions: (1) There is no limitation on the number of blocks of sidewalk that can be constructed, (2) there is no 50 percent of assessed value limitation on the assessments, and (3) if the sidewalk is not constructed by the abutting property owner, the assessment against the property must be based on the benefits received, i.e., the increase in market value experienced by the property as a result of the sidewalk construction. This method of sidewalk construction has the same advantages as those methods set forth in the previous two sections. k Memo to Mae Harris and Members of Transportation Committee April 21, 1987 Page 5 V. DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS A final method of non -City financed sidewalk construction which the Council may consider is the use of developer agreements. Chapter 35.72 RCW authorizes the legislative authority of cities and towns to contract with the owners of real estate for the construction or improvement of street projects which the owners elect to install as a result of ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite to further property development. Sidewalks are considered a street project under this chapter. A developer's agreement generally provides that the developer will construct the sidewalk or street improvement and that the City will collect a portion of the costs of such construction from property owners who receive a benefit from the construction and who subsequently develop their property within 15 years from the date of the developer agreement. Essentially, the Council establishes an assessment roll which is based upon the benefit to abutting properties and agrees by contract with the developer who constructs the improvement that the City will collect the assessments against the other properties and partially reimburse the developer for his costs from those assessments. The Council must notify all property owners who would be affected by the assessments prior to entering into the agreement, and if any • property owner requests a hearing within 20 days of the mailing of the preliminary determination, the City Council would have to hold a hearing at which all property owners would be given a chance to address the amount of their assessment. Once the Council makes a determination on the assessments, the contract between the City and the developer would be recorded and would be binding on all owners of property within the assessment area. An amendment to this statute in 1986 allows the City to join in the financing of the improvement with the developer, and be reimbursed in the same manner. The City may be reimbursed only for the costs of improvements that benefit that portion of the public who will use the developments within the assessment reimbursement area, and may not be reimbursed for improvements that benefit the general public as a whole. The advantage of this method of sidewalk construction is that it ties payment of the costs of construction to those who create the need (the developers), and does not require any payment from properties which are vacant until such time as they do develop. If the vacant properties do not develop within 15 years after -the improvement is constructed, then the City is not obligated to collect the assessment, and the original developer is not entitled to be reimbursed for that portion of the cost. _ Memo to Mae Harris and Members of Transportation Committee April 21, 1987 Page 6 The disadvantage of this method of sidewalk construction is that it requires a willing developer to undertake the construction in the beginning, and requires the City to set up an administrative system for collecting the assessments and reimbursing the original developer. VI. CONCLUSION The foregoing is just a brief summary of the procedures and options available for non -City financed sidewalk construction. If you would like more information about any of the alternatives, please let me know. I would be happy to meet with you at any time. to ;discuss the matter further. JEH /totj cc: Wendy Morgan Mayor.' Van Dusen Don Morrison Ross Earnst Lucy Lauterbach COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS October 27, 1988 A. Adopted Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies call for developing a safe, convenient sidewalk system within and between business areas (Transportation Element, Comprehensive Plan, 1982). B. There is a need to safely accommodate the existing and potential demand for pedestrian facilities. This is accentuated by observing pedestrians walking in high speed, vehicle travel lanes when there are no sidewalks. C. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra - business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. D. There were four pedestrian vehicular collisions between January 1, 1984 and December 31, 1988, in the project area which is a relatively low amount. E. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). F. There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. G. Existing pedestrian facilities include informal unpaved foot paths adjacent to the road, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. H. Sidewalks have been constructed when improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Sidewalks have not generally been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. I. Sidewalks are required of new development pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code II.Io'l . Existing development without sidewalks were developed prior to this standard and are thus legally nonconforming. J. Existing sidewalks have been installed at the expense of adjacent property owners. Use of a local improvement district funding mechanism to assign the cost of new sidewalk construction to adjacent property owners would provide an equitable distribution of costs. K. Sidewalks should be designed primarily to provide safe pedestrian travel. A four foot wide, curbline sidewalk will provide for single file pedestrian travel. L. Preserving existing development conformity with the Zoning Ordinance build- ing setback, landscaping and parking standards is important to avoid unreasonable hardship on existing developments. t 'T W a «t xtag " '� .£ v �2xY Y a >amvarm r 25 /VU.FIND • ••∎ {.{chl'A';tG •4tYT.nwoun• rt /k'L:.YgtxxlmRr AMM mtvanstMmemItIllsimAtM COMEHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS Page 2 M. There is cumulative long -term benefit from an area -wide sidewalk system to both property owners and the City. The primary responsibility for the pro - vision and maintenance of sidewalks rests with the property owners, whose developments generate trips, and whose land values are enhanced by such a facility. The City will share in a portion of construction costs to reflect area -wide benefits. This share would be approximately 27% of total costs if it assumes responsibility for sidewalk design, grades, construction specifi- cations, plans approval, and establishing a sidewalk benefit district. The City Council is empowered to require sidewalk construction, repair, or replacement by State law (RCW 35.69 and 35.70). �2g�x:_.: e:'" 7�t�� >�14i:�t:5�:'�,:4�.C+:�J:3� -.'; e. �: t1 i'. L' a? ita' �Yr`. �.•- r. �.:;^ ssufwn .:pr: ?v1`J.r'w...........•C.:' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROCESS r:..J.1: °x':)<:.h'. \`:'3 r;bc:.; :5 n:.::�'.Eiit:.::.'.•; City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor 4/j MEMORANDUM Tukwila Planning Commission Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner October 20, 1988 C.B.D. SIDEWALK POLICY PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES PRELIMINARY DECISIONS ON PUBLIC COMMENTS - Planning Commission resolution of public concerns testimony /facts had been identified and received. - Planning Commission adoption of revised policies mendation to the City Council. _r.rn�..F .ul Cxr:. ..�r,�v vi trn(.c r;.�( ^'�: G" 'v^h�,,�F1c;{ : j�3:t:.•. <1 This is a summary of previous Planning Commission actions on Sidewalk Plan review. The Commission had concluded receipt of public comments to the Sidewalk Plan, and begun discussions on the identified issues, according to its adopted plan review process, on May 26, 1988. The Planning Commission adopted the following plan review process: Notify all businesses in Tukwila of the proposed CBD Sidewalk Plan and implementing ordinances, and offer them an opportunity to comment in writing and at a Commission public hearing. Planning staff summarization of all public comments with an opportunity for commentors to review for accuracy and provide additional input in writing and at a public hearing. Planning staff presentation of relevant facts and options to the Planning Commission, with an opportunity for public comment in writing and at public hearings. once all concerns and Planning staff revision of sidewalk policies and implementing ordinances to reflect Commission decisions. and ordinances, and recom- t , MEMORANDUM to Planning Commission FORMAL ACTIONS TO DATE The Planning Commission has to date identified public concerns, and completed review of "Part I - Staff Evaluations of (Public) Concerns" (Attachment A). Part I evaluations covered the general subject categories of Definitions Needed, Review Process, General Policy Comments, Geographic Scope, and Liability. Discussion of "Part I - Staff Evaluation of (Public) Concerns" concluded with the following formally adopted position: 1. Abutting property owners are responsible for the day -to -day maintenance and /or housekeeping of sidewalks and the City is responsible for major repairs /structural maintenance that are not a result of owner actions. The Commission was prepared to begin Part II staff evaluations (Attachment B) at its next meeting. TENTATIVE CONSENSUS There was a considerable Commission discussion regarding these policies at the May 26th and earlier meetings. The Commission seems to have reached a consensus on the following items although no formal actions were taken. 1. A separate recommendation should be forwarded to the City Council that land owners in residential zones are responsible for daily sidewalk maintenance while the City is responsible for long- term /structural maintenance, as in the proposed CBD Sidewalk Policies. The Commission recognized that liability will generally travel with mainten- ance responsibilities. 2. There are no objections to the proposed sidewalk locations and construction priorities with the further clarification that the Moderate Priority segment on Andover Park East between St ander Boulevard and South 180th Street be constructed last:— Oc.._ .„ 3. Sidewalks should be designed as curbline sidewalks as much as practicable. 4. There are no objections to minimum sidewalk widths being 5 feet in indus- trial zones (M -1 and M -2), 6 feet in commercial zones (P -0, C -1, C -2 and C -M), and 8 feet on streets with speed limits over 35 mph, or at bus stops. REMAINING CONCERNS TO BE RESOLVED .ice ..r •.K r,+'r. ."^' .... u.. Y^: tli n• °.. .... ... ..�. 1. ]. JL%`.C'�..�t�.e.. J.. .v L . l �.��ll�..• October 20, 1988 Page 2 Assuming the Commission adopts the above consensus items, the following items in "Part II - Planning Staff Evaluation of (Public) Concerns" (Attachment B) would remain for resolution. F. Required Sidewalk Construction Fi. Sidewalks should not be required for building repair due to casualty loss (i.e. fire earthquake, and flooding). Incorporate into 11.64.020, Sidewalk Construction Ordinance, and 18.70 Zoning Code. MEMORANDUM to October 20, 1988 Planning Commission Page 3 F2. Policy 4 and 5 should incorporate the provisions for acceptance of existing (4 foot wide) sidewalks stated in other policies. F4. Need to discuss the requirement for sidewalks when total cumulative site improvements exceed $250,000 as specified in draft TMC 11.64.020(b). G2. Should "trail system" references be included in Policy 2 given the plan's focus on sidewalks. G11. There needs to be criteria for the Planning and Public Works directors to decide when sidewalk design shall be modified. G12 How, where and when are the engineering studies referred to in Policy 15 to be done. Will the pedestrian volumes be based on five -day, seven -day or holiday volumes. G13. Is Policy 17 an informational statement only? G14. Is Policy 18 an informational statement only? G16. All vertical objects should be 3 feet clear of the curb face, such as street trees, fire hydrants, or utility poles. G17. All vertical objects should be 2 feet clear of the sidewalk (if possible). G18. Specify sidewalk thickness (Recommend 4" (for walk and) 8" for DWY (drive- way apron). G19. The design of the driveway may be critical for the safety of the pedes- trians and also for the durability of the sidewalk. (Recommend 3 foot minimum of level same as CW). See sketch 1. G20. The temporary sidewalk should be made of asphalt. (Approximately 2" asphalt over 4" crushed rock). The asphalt driveway shall be 3" asphalt over 6" crushed rock. G21. Washington State law requires the curb ramp to have a 3 -foot by 5 -foot apron for safety purposes. If there is no R/W (right -of -way) or other reason for not providing a landing space, then I recommend using a larger wing to meet a 12 to 1 slope requirement. I2. Who will pay for pedestrian signals. I3. Non -users such as industrial businesses should not have to pay for side- walks. K. Conformance to Tukwila Zoning Code K1. TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk dedication should read as follows (underlined words are additions to the existing draft section): "No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become non - conforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allow- ance shall not apply to property when the existing structure is demolished, o +a7�. S € Ii 3w MEMORANDUM to VU /sjn attachments rYCUwn:uwg.avxk:a,ccrr .o∎st ncwaai ro.r rx oa.e.vw:mmiaykiaxak o".sreSrgt kf,rC& tVrJgAih• a .n td'N. 't'itrtN.us:.wn h'+At a^ err N , gSV.M. hl8tillg fg6. .�' REMAINING REVIEW PROCESS October 20, 1988 Planning Commission Page 4 except when such demolition, rebiulding, or remodeling is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to apply if structure is demolished and rebuilt due to natural disaster, fire or similar events." K2. Ensure that Policy 13 is reflected in all other Plan elements. K3. Sidewalks built on donated easements should be counted toward satisfying the landscape requirements. K4. The provisions of 18.70 should apply both in an easement donation and a right -of -way donation. Once the Planning Commission has completed its review, the Planning staff will revise the proposed policies and ordinances for a final review, and recommen- dation to the City Council. at,:k,.N y) +:i[S•w ` ty4,... . it p'Yrq� ::''C• ,upi }.. v_.: ^: i "0. ° °Fe..'.va:!tXYYf3tt} >t:'.R•:` x rf 'i 7. r}r+. r }�. - ., :^ _ .. r t '. : i .. �`. .ay;�nr .•..r. J.0 .. .. u G... �..i..l:.tl::.e ,�. �i�. :� uc r.,i'.�'i�',....S.:P.a �...." tai? �' µ�: s. vi,{; C.;.,' eis�3�::_.:. .:i7'.v%h.�:i.�:�r::..�•.v,.t3r �: 2��w.. v�t...: ica. �,,.... l:: r. 1%::. v�... �. s�;.. a�. vhT.:. prt ,:,.....�r...�.„2.a.,.ah't..., .n.��, '. T,Y�I�� ..3�.,.....F,1,.f,..�Y�..f., .1. �:....., _.... -...r ..>,.,+.. .. 'nom S. r..�a t ,�. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 A - Definitions Needed B - Review Process C - General Policy Comments D - Geographic Scope E - Need for Sidewalks F - Required Sidewalk Construction CBD SIDEWALK PLAN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS February 24, 1988 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan Review process identified an "Inventory of (Public) Concerns ", dated January 8, 1988. This staff evaluation is being distributed to all interested parties 30 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The Commission will work on resolving these concerns based on this evaluation at their meeting of March 24, 1988. Evaluations of public concerns are being presented in two parts due to the number of concerns and staff time limitations. This is part one; evaluating concerns under the subject category headings "Definitions Needed" through "Geographic Scope ", and "Liability ". The evaluation is grouped by subject and is generally structured according to the following outline: Concern (from the January 8th inventory) Comments - • Draft Sidewalk Plan policies covering the issue • Existing substantive regulations covering the issue • Relevant facts Options The total list of category headings are shown below. Category Headings .t ;S . :f i > : J;:, , .x,. , .J , .t + xr ="y' ; :r,;. .;.re •qy��. ..V: �i :M' •.r+ .. , .. , *t`fwi: (r ;`. ..�. u. ... ,. 1... «i•f .....r ill. ... ... .. "'f':. �.. ..�... �..... ui vil�..ilLtui a- A,.a.rl; °l�.f,'n...::4+ .. -�.. ...e.an:4ii7;2:1 .Y:.�'N�y'ul:^.a �:i,a.�•.....r.n•�. •�:n� ..........^f ^�tara�naaz" ^.....a. m nn...�s.;nt ° „� f ..lC, ^ .N'.c.: ..... � ",f Sfi .. _ .�. ..-, .. . ' " •'' G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I - Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code PART ONE EVALUATIONS Sta$r Evaluation of Concerns Page 2 A. DEFINITIONS NEEDED Al. What is meant by "long term" (structural) sidewalk maintenance? A2. What is meant by "daily" sidewalk maintenance? There are no adopted City policies on sidewalk maintenance. In the absence of locally adopted policies, the following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establish the responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance, performance of daily maintenance, and the performance of struc- tural repair. These interpretations are based on RCW 35.70, legal opinions from the city attorneys of the City of Centralia and the City of Everett, and concurrence by the Tukwila City Attorney. An overview of sidewalk main- tenance policies is shown in Table 1. Recognizing the need for maintenance. The abutting property owner is primarily responsible for recognizing the need for maintenance unless this need has been sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time that City personnel should have become aware of the problem and acted to have it corrected. In the second case, the City would share primary responsibility for recognizing the need or maintenance. The criteria for "sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time” is subject to the "reasonableness test ". If there is a three inch high uplifting of the sidewalk, then there would be a longer period of "suf- ficient time," than if the sidewalk had been undermined and fallen into a six foot deep hole. There are no statutory standards for establishing this test. Performance of daily maintenance. Daily maintenance includes non - structural activities necessary to keep the sidewalk a safe and usable facility for a reasonable person. Such maintenance activities include cleaning off dirt, removing obstacles such as boards lying on the sidewalk, and limbing trees to ensure ade- quate headroom for users. Daily maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. c ' �,.. . MAINTENANCE LIABILITY FOR CITY RESPONSIBILITY USER INJURIES SIDEWALK DESIGN Kent Renton Auburn City City 5.5 -foot minimum width (+ 0.5 curb = 6 feet) Curbline sidewalks unless otherwise specified by developer. Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum width. property owner property owner Incorporate separating buffer area whenever possible. Abutting Abutting property owner property owner Des Moines Abutting Abutting property owner property owner 7.5 -foot minimum width (+ 0.5 curb = 8 feet) Additional 2.5 feet planting strip whenever possible. 6 -foot minimum width. Back of sidewalk located at property line. Remaining area between front of sidewalk and curb is landscaped. Seattle Abutting Abutting 5 -foot minimum width; with property owner property owner a 5.5 -foot curbline planting strip - OR - 8-foot minimum curbline sidewalk Tukwila (existing) (251 /SW.CITABLE) Abutting property owner property owner Data Collected February, 1988 Abutting 6 -foot minimum. City Performance of structural maintenance. Abutting Property Owner Problem Recognition A3. Pathway in Policies 1 and 2. A4. "Trail system" in Policy 2. Long -term Maintenance StiTf Evaluation of Concerns Page 3 Structural maintenance is the replacement or repair of the sidewalk surface and /or base. Structural maintenance activities include patch - ramps to smooth out uplifting of one inch or more, and replacement of cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks. Structural maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. No specific criteria is adopted for determining when cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks require structural maintenance. Instead, the City Council uses an open public process to completely examine the issues, and determine the necessity for structural maintenance. Options The options for explicitly assigning these responsibilities are repre- sented in the matrix below: Daily Maintenance There is a direct tie between the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability for injuries to users. Please see J - Liability for clarifi- cation of sidewalk maintenance and the relationship to liability. A pathway is generally a facility for non - motorized travel, and not a "side- walk" as defined in Sidewalk Policies 7 through 11. Inclusion of pathway in these policies is intended to support a variety of non - motorized facili- ties which may supplement CBD sidewalks. This integrates sidewalk systems with other transportation facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. "Trail system" are those trails in the City's Long -Range Parks and Open Space Plan. A5. "Reasonable mount of time" (for property owner construction of sidewalks) in Policy 3. No specific time frame is identified in State statute for property owners to make the required improvements. Each City Council would specify this by resolution (35.70.040). x• The Public Works Department favors 30 days, from the date of City Council action, for property owners to build their required sidewalk improvements. As a practical matter, property owners would probably be able to build their own sidewalks up to the time of the City's bidding out the construction contract. A6. "Street widening" in Policy 5b. The intent is to begin construction. A8. What is "standard size" in Policy 9? Standard size is as defined in Policy 7. s:: � ?:.... «;a iv:l• ^Y ... ....... ..:d:':J .. - -... A: '7,'i 11, °::: ..,..4...: �:'( . �,...:`^�..,�. v },Y. t: xr ..... This is a roadway improvement where the paved street width is increased or curbs are installed. A7. Does "construct: in Policy 5c through 5g mean to begin or to complete side- walk construction? B. REVIEW PROCESS B1. Additional time for public comment will be required as issues are evaluated. Comments 1. The existing process gives 30 days to review and comment on staff evalua- tions and options before a Planning Commission hearing. That period could be extended if it is too short to permit adequate public review. 2. The Planning Commission always has the option to carry over issues which they feel need additional discussion or deliberations. 3. The existing plan review process was endorsed by the Planning Commission after the Sidewalk Policies had been publicly available for at least two months. There was support expressed in all comments on the existing plan review process. 4. There may be some issues which require extensive, in -depth discussions and which might not be resolvable in the course of one meeting. Options A. Provide a second public comment period after the initial 30 -day review period and Planning Commission deliberations. B. Modify the review process to provide a longer initial public comment period than the existing 30 days. C. Retain the existing review process with its 30 -day review period; and recog- nize that the Commissioners may direct staff to gather what additional StX Evaluation of Concerns Page 4 3. See Concern B1. Options B. Postpone Commission deliberations to allow further public review. Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 5 information they feel is necessary to their decision - making. Additional staff reports resulting from this direction would be subject to the 30 -day review period. B2. A complete list of comments is not possible until several issues involving maintenance and liability are better defined (see Definitions). Comments 1. Maintenance and liability issues are herein presented to allow interested parties to evaluate the facts and recommend a preferred option (see Al, A2 and J1). 2. The Commission established 30 days as generally sufficient time for public review of information, for the public to state its objections /support of these evaluations, and for the public to state its preferences. A. Resolve maintenance and liability issues in this set of evaluations since sufficient information on the relevant facts and options have been presented on each specific concern. C. GENERAL POLICY COMMENTS Cl. Policies need to be specific to Tukwila needs, not simply carbon copies of policies found in neighboring communities. Comments 1. The existing draft policies were developed in coordination with widely accepted engineering standards, public review, and direction from the City Council Transportation Committee. These sidewalk policies tried to reflect Tukwila needs. 2. The plan adoption process involves extensive Planning Commission, City Council, and public review to help ensure that plan reflects City desires. 3. Review of other areas was done as part of this evaluation in response to specific Planning Commission comments, to identify standard amenities pro- vided in competing commercial areas, and to ensure that Tukwila standards are not burdensomely high. 4. A comparison of Tukwila sidewalk policies with other commercial area side- walk policies show the area specific nature of this City's plan (see Table 1). , : _ Stir Evaluation of Concerns Page 6 D. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE D1. All commercial areas in Tukwila should be subject to these (CBD sidewalk) policies. Comments 1. Commercial areas not subject to the CBD Sidewalk Plan are the Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue corridors (see Map A). Southcenter Boule- vard is scheduled for an eight foot wide sidewalk along its northern border, but no sidewalk along the southern border. Construction of the Southcenter Boulevard sidewalk is scheduled for 1988 -89. 2. Interurban Avenue South (north of I -405) is scheduled for six to ten foot wide, separated sidewalks on both east and west sides. The separation will be with a landscape buffer strip. Construction of the Interurban Avenue South sidewalk is being done in segments as the roadway is improved. 3. Streets to the east of Interurban Avenue are the only ones not scheduled for sidewalks in some time frame and not covered by the CBD Sidewalk Plan poli- cies. These roads are uncurbed and serve industrial uses. Options A. Expand the geographic scope of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. B. Sidewalks along streets to the east of Interurban Avenue South should be developed as necessary to serve the Green River trail system. This would generally make them high or moderate priority. C. No change in the existing geographic scope. J. LIABILITY J1. What is the exposure of property owners to liability as a result of side- walks? Comments 1. There are no draft policies assigning responsibility for liability.. 2. In the absence of any existing draft policies, State statutes apply. The following comments are based on State statutes and the opinions of legal counsel from the City of Everett and Centralia. The Tukwila City Attorney concurs with these comments. 3. Liability exposure as a result of sidewalks would generally originate from injuries to users as a result of a poorly designed or maintained sidewalk. 4. The design engineer who's professional stamp was on the sidewalk construc- tion plans would bear primary responsibility for injury claims due to poor .• ❑ ..Q.� N' mat C•1 14040•0:0 ORAL C.1 timai; CA. p i C44 I; GM 1 • 1 � c. _1 / a Y•1 1.1:11T Iai11F k / Lj .amt 1a2 1 �Glsrer Q-A / , 1 ■ C44 ,,______,/ 1, ::,. / • . ... c .,(i i , ! _i i 1' L MAP A ©077 OCR 4M KWILA :•:• :' Commercial Areas Without Scheduled Sidewalks Commercial Areas ■ With Scheduled Sidewalks 0 Nolo • a..1or Nam ,rc • we NM oa 'Pr r . . .' it5:•"`' rk"�.t'%S�Iie: >i'Fi'!'fhi e ik tirnse� rar:astuurtvsrr:+am:a�K:..urr� . vm�trnr..maz 'n+r;rtta e rafJ�±e+s?vN6rC't tt •; �?.4;.1 3r!n °iiY '° Y. `^ a'!% '' Sp x e ?. ,,, :3" ;a „i : >:. ,..: (251 /SW.EVALU1,2) Sthwr Evaluation of Concerns Page 7 design. The City, as the approving agency, would bear some secondary responsibility. Property owners using City plans for sidewalk design would not probably have any liability exposure due to poor sidewalk design. 5. Liability due to maintenance is directly associated with the body responsi- ble for recognizing the need for maintenance, and carrying out the need for maintenance. These issues were discussed in Items Al and A2. 6. Property owner would be the primary party liable for user injuries whether the sidewalk was on City right -of -way or a private easement. The City would share this primary liability if it can be shown that it should have reason- ably recognized the need for maintenance and failed to order maintenance in a timely manner. This conclusion is based on a direct relationship between responsibility for maintenance and liability for injuries as a result of poor maintenance (see Items Al and A2). Options A. The City can assume any and all responsibility for liability as a result of sidewalks. B. The City can specifically embody existing State statutory law in these Side- walk Policies. C. No change in the existing policies regarding sidewalk liability. .::;...,, A r7Ac#MiI7fi City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: March 29, 1988 This is Part Two of the staff's evaluation of public concerns. Please note the revisions to the February 28th Staff Evaluations included as a first section. Again, the Planning Commission will be reviewing these evaluations at its meeting on April 28, 1988. All parties will have an opportunity to present information on each publicly identified concern. The Commission will then close public input, consider all presented information, and resolve the issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 433 -1858 if I can be of assistance. vU /sjn Sincerely, e rnon M. Umetsu Associate Planner Recognizing the need for maintenance. REVISItAS TO STAFF COMMENTS OF FEBRUARI'i'18, 1988 Planning Department comments on Concerns Al and A2 are revised as follows based on recently received legal opinions from the City Attorney. A. DEFINITIONS NEEDED Al. What is meant by "long term" (structural) sidewalk maintenance? A2. What is meant by "daily" sidewalk maintenance? There are no adopted City policies on sidewalk maintenance. In the absence of locally adopted policies, the following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establish the responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance, performance of daily maintenance, and the performance of struc- tural repair. These interpretations are based on RCW 35.70, legal opinions from the city attorneys of the City of Centralia and the City of Everett, and the Tukwila City Attorney. In general, each city is responsible for ensuring that their sidewalks are safe. Cities are authorized by the State to make a policy choice on whether to use general public funds to maintain these sidewalks, or direct abutting property owners to maintain them. Tukwila City staff and capital costs for publicly maintained sidewalks in all commercial and residential areas would be significant, especially in light of potential annexation areas. An overview of sidewalk maintenance practices for selected cities is shown in Table 1. The City has the primary responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance. This duty is dependent upon the need being sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time that City personnel should have become aware of the problem and acted to have it corrected. This primary responsibility does not include situations when the need for maintenance is caused by the abutting property owner (i.e., a tree branch across the sidewalk or structural damage due to construction). In these types of cases, the abutting property owner is primarily responsible for restoring the sidewalk. The criteria for "sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time" is subject to the "reasonableness test ". If there is a three inch high uplifting of the sidewalk, then there would be a longer period of "suf- ficient time," than if the sidewalk had been undermined and fallen into a six foot deep hole. There are no statutory standards for establishing this test :7..t.Lu.. �...,,: Y��tv�£'c�.:.isSx,;. L 1_. g. a1., 4:," au!%. v_. ✓..v.^:iY.�.r:.......�..L.S; u�... .. d..i .ccSY.h:tP. c Performance of daily maintenance. . av:, b•: •*n,.• . ti s��. 9x3F�" Y:}! S�f^. Z'.` ..i: ° ".v1:�SC.` <[i3.7 , kith' i�.'%':":. a.:",: z� f�C�`..;��'a`T'...K'.['�? .��°:;r, �..... �. %`xr., �3�i Page 2 Daily maintenance includes non - structural activities necessary to keep the sidewalk a safe and usable facility for a reasonable person. Such maintenance activities include cleaning off dirt, removing obstacles such as boards lying on the sidewalk, and limbing trees to ensure ade- quate headroom for users. Responsibility for ensuring a safe sidewalk, once a need is reasonably recognized, rests with the City. This duty can be discharged by having City personnel maintain the sidewalk or require the abutting property owner do it at no cost to the City. Performance of structural maintenance. Structural maintenance is the replacement or repair of the sidewalk surface and /or base. Structural maintenance activities include patch - ramps to smooth out uplifting of one inch or more, and replacement of cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks. As with daily maintenance, the City has the general responsibility to ensure a safe facility. It can do this by either having City personnel maintain the sidewalk or require the abutting property owner do it at no cost to the City. No specific criteria is adopted for determining when cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks require structural maintenance. Instead, the City Council uses an open public process to completely examine the issues, and determine the necessity for structural maintenance. Options The options for explicitly assigning these responsibilities are repre- sented in the matrix below: City Abutting Property Owner Problem Recognition Long -term Maintenance Daily Maintenance There is a direct tie between the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability for injuries to users. Please see J - Liability for clarifi- cation of sidewalk maintenance and the relationship to liability. .. Page 3 Options A. The City can assume any and all responsibility for maintenance and liability as a result of sidewalks. B. The City can establish abutting property owner to be responsible. C. No change in the existing policies of maintenance responsibilities to be on a case by case basis. In light of revisions to maintenance responsibilities, comment J6. should be revised as follows: 6. The property owner would be the primary party liable for user injuries whether the sidewalk was on City right -of -way or a private easement if the City has ordered maintenance action. The City would have primary liability if it can be shown that it should have reasonably recognized the need for maintenance and failed to order maintenance in a timely manner. This conclusion is based on a direct relationship between responsibility for maintenance and liability for injuries as a result of poor maintenance (see Items Al and A2). 1. .'1 ...n:. :. , ,r �. J, .- y -Y ..; ..i, � •y':P^ n1 C�.... �. y.,. w...... Ia d+ fSn.......... Fn... .. ...,u.....r..,._.5,... ,... .,., �<. �?:: x', u,,.„ s.. �..... cd'; �' ��'. �Y�i` ?i):, Ji��f•.. �' i+ �c. t�•.. ar*'::' E:: a.. 9� .$>'. 6l TYa^ n. a.. �n:! �: 1:.':' r' Ia. Y4::: fi: t uS: n f t:.' Mm:' 1 :' d'# �^:°. fi.. 7 K! L' vl( r' � • 'tf... 'it!kK1fx.' , i. , .•X.,...� .,� CBD SIDEWALK PLAN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS March 29, 1988 A - Definitions Needed B - Review Process C - General Policy Comments D - Geographic Scope E - Need for Sidewalks F - Required Sidewalk Construction G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I - Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code Page 4 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan Review process identified an "Inventory of (Public) Concerns ", dated January 8, 1988. This staff evaluation is being distributed to all interested parties 30 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The Gommission will work on resolving these concerns based on this evaluation at their meeting of April 28, 1988. Evaluations of public concerns are being presented in two parts due to the num- ber of concerns and staff time limitations. Part One evaluated concerns under the subject category headings "Definitions Needed" through "Geographic scope ", and "Liability ". This Part Two evaluates concerns in all other categories. Evaluations are grouped by subject and are generally structured according to the following outline: Concern.(from the January 8th inventory) Comments - • Draft Sidewalk Plan policies covering the issue • Existing substantive regulations covering the issue • Relevant facts Options The total list of category headings are shown below. Category Headings PART TWO EVALUATIONS Page 5 E. Need for Sidewalks El. Sidewalks are not justified on Andover Park East, between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street, due to the very few pedestrians, the high truck hazard to pedestrians on curbline sidewalks, the cost of landscape replace- ment, the future need for greater street width, and the lack of retail or recreational facilities within walking distance. Findings 1. The Sidewalk Plan tries to incorporate future - oriented actions as well as satisfy current demands. Sidewalks in this area are shown as "moderate" priority; construction to begin in 1992 through 1995. This designation reflects the current low level of pedestrian demand and the lack of existing pedestrian generators and attractions. The current distance to major pedestrian attractions from Andover Park East between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street are as follows: Within 1/8 mile: None Within 1/4 mile: Christensen Trail Within 1/2 mile: Southcenter Mall and various retail areas. (The average walking distance of pedestrians is 1/8 to 1/4 mile.) 2. The construction of sidewalks anticipates significant market driven redevel- opment in this area, with retail and office uses envisioned in the mid -term (five to ten year) future. This is reasonable given the 25 percent higher leasing costs for industrial space in Tukwila over adjacent Kent and Renton areas. 3. A potentially significant truck /pedestrian hazard potential could result from trucks backing through driveways, climbing opposing sidewalks to back up to loading docks, and increased pedestrians in these areas of truck maneuvering. Five foot sidewalks separated from the curb by a minimum three /four foot strip (see G -9) would provide a safer facility than a five foot curbline sidewalk. 4. The only roadway improvements envisioned in this area are traffic signal modification and installation at intersections. No general road widening is planned in the City's six year capital improvement plan. Options A. Remove this segment from the geographic scope of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. This would result in sidewalks being built only as individual parcels are developed. B. Specify that this area be one of the last to receive sidewalks (i.e. con- struction to start in 1995). .t Comments Options A. Incorporate this provision into policy and ordinance. B. No change to the existing draft policies or ordinances. Page 6 C. No change to the proposed policies. E2. Sidewalks are supported in the Southcenter Boulevard and Strander Boulevard areas. Comments 1. This area is designated "Very High" priority for sidewalk construction. No changes are required to address this comment. F. Required Sidewalk Construction Fi. Sidewalks should not be required for building repair due to casualty loss (i.e. fire earthquake, and flooding). Incorporate into 11.64.020, Sidewalk Construction Ordinance, and 18.70 Zoning Code. 1. No draft policies or ordinances currently propose exempting casualty repairs except in counting sidewalks as landscaping (Policy 14). 2. Incorporation of the proposed provision would be inconsistent with the existing Sidewalk Construction and Zoning ordinances: a. The existing Sidewalk Construction Ord. (TMC 11.64.020(2)) states that sidewalks shall be required as a condition to a building permit for "...any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the previously existing building or structure." b. The existing Zoning Code requires non - conforming structures to be brought into full code compliance if 50 percent or more of replacement cost at the time of destruction is lost (18.70.050(2)) or it is aban- doned for 24 consecutive months (18.70.050(3)). The value of repairs due to casualty are not exempted from either section. 3. Draft ordinance 11.64.020 mirrors the existing Sidewalk Construction Ordin- ance, but also requires a sidewalk if cumulative building improvements after the date of adoption increases building value by $250,000 or 250 square feet. 4. The requirement for sidewalks due to casualty repair would be moot by 1996 if sidewalks are built as envisioned in Policy 5. This draft schedule should be considered as being delayed by at least one year. F2. Policy 4 and 5 should incorporate the provisions for acceptance of existing 1 sidewalks stated in other policies. Comments Options Comments Options Comments .: . b. Policy 5 clarifies how sidewalks will be funded. Page 7 1. Policies 4 and 5. are meant to clarify City policy on the abutting property owner's responsibility for providing a sidewalk: a. Policy 4 is the City's endorsement of State law by which it is author- ized to make abutting property owners responsible for sidewalk con- struction. 2. Neither Policy 4 or 5 is in conflict with the acceptance of existing side- walks provisions in Policy 10 or 9. The property owner's responsibility for sidewalk construction would be fulfilled if there existed a minimum 4 ft. wide (concrete) sidewalk as specified in Policy 10, or if the Planning and Public Works directors both concluded that the existing level of sidewalk availability was the best feasible as discussed in Policy 9. A. Amend policies 4 and 5 with clear references to policies 9 and 10. B. No change in existing policy. F3. If separated sidewalks become the City standard, will all curbline sidewalks become non - conforming and have to be replaced at redevelopment. Would the City take another four feet from presently conforming properties? 1. Policy 10 specifies that minimum 4 ft. wide (concrete) sidewalks will satis- fy the property owner's responsibility for sidewalk construction. Thus, if curbline sidewalks are a minimum 4 ft. wide, then no further such improve- ments would be necessary at redevelopment. If any curbline or separated sidewalk is less than 4 ft. wide, then a standard sidewalk as specified in policies 7 through 12 would be required. A. Amend the acceptability of minimum 4 ft. wide sidewalks. B. No change in existing policy. F4. Need to discuss the requirement for sidewalks when total cumulative site improvements exceed $250,000 as specified in draft TMC 11.64.020(b). 1. This comment was made very early in the plan review process when it was inadvertently missed in the listing of changes to the existing ordinances. The issue has since been discussed before the Planning Commission and the public is now aware of the change. �i t.71�� :�.. . .! t e•t, y :;a�.w \`: :"". ?T .`!Y7% :`l �•k'r !'��dt d� r '. �' P,1 Y a r.a�. �,y+�n 1 •.. .rY.a r��^ ':Yrh f: •:.) • J .!-� .� � J rf .. ,..3 .�, � .' �!� {.,•t..�wl_Ik.�.��1�t, µ3�,.�. .:�.1.1...,I.v._... a. S'.� .. :.,:��v....__�,a'ti:u,.- ....tita v�i;h; �r'i�Kiv. r., iii.,.: �, �.,.,,-.,,.,};, e�:..., �.'. as xi;....., rRr,>~+, r+' d: au.,. r:.. x, r4. .:r21'ti12.�,.,.,ts"."r�`.:?.t. ....�.,.r. ,. .ar�. � � .,• C. G. Sidewalk Design G1. Curbline sidewalks should be preferred whenever possible. G5. Eliminate all reference to separated sidewalks. Comments Page 8 1. Specific objections to separated sidewalks are found in G6 through G10. 2. The draft policy intent is to develop separated sidewalks whenever such sidewalks can be installed with less impacts on existing improvements or when the relative impacts of installing separated versus curbline sidewalks are essentially the same. 3. Curbline sidewalks are preferred because they provide a safe facility with much lower maintenance and property impacts. Options A. Amend draft policies as suggested. B. Amend draft policies to include the substance of Comment 2. C. No change in existing policy. 62. Should "trail system" references be included in Policy 2 given the plan's focus on sidewalks. Comments 1. Sidewalks are pedestrian facilities to link a user's origin and destination. 2. Linking various work sites with facilities such as trail systems integrate the sidewalk system with other transportation facilities and land uses. Such integration is important to the City's existing goal for a coordinated, multi -modal transportation system. Options A. Remove "trail system" from Policy 2. B. No change is draft policy. 7 G3. What is the timing for construction of temporary sidewalks in Policy 6. Comments 1. Draft policies intend temporary sidewalks required for new developments, to be built on an ad hoc basis when adjacent street design is not known or when road widening would destroy this newly built sidewalk within 5 years. Thus, there is no construction schedule for temporary sidewalks. ?fF Page 9 2. There are no significant areas where final road grades are not yet reason- ably known. G4. What streets have speed limits over 35 mph as referenced in Policy 7. Comments 1. Only West Valley Highway, south of I -405, has a speed limit over 35 mph. All other commercial through streets have 35 mph speed limits. G6. The landscape buffer strips associated separated sidewalks are costly to maintain in good condition. Comments 1. The comments of one landscaper and three architects responsible for projects in Tukwila, with both curbline and separated sidewalks are shown in Table 2 (next page). In general, there is little or no cost difference between installing and maintaining the same materials in a buffer strip and putting it in back of sidewalk. 2. Installation cost differences focus on the extra irrigation line which must be installed for the buffer strip. This is estimated to cost approximately 50 cents per lineal foot, assuming brass /steel heads at $3.00 per head and spacing 6 feet on center. 3. Maintenance costs for the same materials will be essentially the same for back of sidewalk and buffer strip situations. However, the lowest cost back of curb landscaping materials (ivy -type ground cover and trees) may cost less to maintain than the lowest cost buffer strip materials (grass and trees) after three years. The higher litter control costs for ivy -type ground cover may minimize all differences. 4. A major development has over 1,240 ft. of four foot landscape buffer strips between curb and sidewalk. This company considers the maintenance costs to be very high, much higher than would be justifiable using normal market decision making. This company is concerned that imposing such a non - market maintenance re- quirement upon the diverse property owners in the area will embroil the City in a never ending series of legal actions to get property owners to maintain landscaping. They fear that the end result will be a hodgepodge of margin- ally surviving plantings. Discussions with Redmond and Bellevue, where sidewalk buffer strips are part of many developments, showed maintenance to not be a problem. This seems to be due to a very competitive market and pride of ownership. 67. Landscape buffer strips associated with separated sidewalks represent an additional four feet taken from the property owner and another four feet lost from development (over curbline sidewalks). pp mix r. �.,::ra. s :x •- �lMeln�:t.f•: �;GCuS`. n� .., se,� ..,._ 4Xf'sF.�xr::s : ., rsi\ , :�.:r,+� .��. ..f' 4. :.f.. r .,ir fi ::t�' .i�^i �`.�..:: iS tierLG.:v:.S,:`h "qi �:�i L•{� .. .., �rs__.';t,l.,.,.Cr.1i�a.:x ?z,2E , .:a1a �::'s;.b.'.vC D, ;'<. ;'T .F,.. Y!;. r,`'.L: �; t;: ,i1r COMMENTS ON LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION No significant difference in installing same materials in buffer strip and back of curb. No difference in installation costs Irrigation will be the only significant added cost for buffers. This would be about 50t /linear foot, assuming brass /steel heads N $3 /hd and 6 feet on center. No significant difference for the same materials. (251 /TBL.COSTS) Table 2 FOUR VIEWS ON RELATIVE LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS COMMENTS ON LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE No significant difference in maintenance costs. No difference in maintenance costs as long as plantings are drought and pollution tolerant. Some increased costs if vehicles run over strip (rare). No difference in maintenance costs assuming save materials. No significant difference in maintenance costs. GENERAL COMMENTS Landscape cost differences do not become significant actual dollar amounts until they vary by 15 -20%. Such a difference would be extremely surprising and detailed questions should be asked. State - funded arterials construction will almost always include a buffer strip between curb and sidewalk. (Discussions with the State show a 50 -50 split between projects with buffer strips and without.) City of Fife decided to provide landscape CBD strips instead of paving over entire width due to very low maintenance costs. Quadrant used street landscaping and signage to visually tie together their sprawling West Campus Development. Downtown Bellevue developers view street landscape /sidewalk design as important as building design. Grass would become more expensive to maintain after 3 years, over an ivy -type ground cover, if litter maintenance is ignored. Thus, back of curb ivy would cost less to maintain than buffer strip grass after 3 years. A 4 -foot buffer strip is very marginal; will limit tree selection and care must be taken to avoid surface damage as trees grow. Seattle requires trees to be 3 feet from the curb. NOTE: Tukwila envisions trees planted 2} feet from back of curb. The choice of curbline or separated 'sidewalks has generally been a matter of corporate choice rather than one dictated by cost consideration. Comments Comments Comments G1O.Wi11 landscape buffer strips have to have automatic irrigation? . .. .. .... a r,.. <.., � :).; *; F'Y: �4T;•r., ...i'L; ^ ._. .,.. :.`.i`.7. i :fi: J+, ...� 45:: ,.. °: r.� Page 10 1. The landscaped buffer strip on an easement is counted toward satisfying landscape requirements under the existing Zoning Code. The existing draft policies do not change this provision. G9. The City is effectively taking away 9 to 12 feet of street frontage from development in the CBD. 1. The 9 to 12 foot frontage area seems to reflect a four foot buffer strip plus a 5 to 8 foot sidewalk. 2. The above assumption about the probable area required for sidewalk and landscape buffer strip is generally accurate. Discussions with architects, landscape installation contractors, and street tree specialists (arborists) all clearly indicate that a four -foot buffer, not three feet (as stated in Policy 12C) would be a much more cost effective width. A grass /tree landscape strip is the most cost - effective maintenance design. A four foot planter is necessary to center trees 2/ feet from the back of curb and lessen the probability of serious surface damage from roots. 3. Development of a separated sidewalk within this 9 to 12 feet does not mean a taking of all development potential. All plantings in the easement area would be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements (see G7), all easement area would be counted toward satisfying the 20 to 50 foot building setback requirement, and all sidewalk area could be counted as landscaping in•non- conforming situations (Policy 14). 4. All new and significantly renovated developments are required to provide sidewalks at no cost to the City. Options A. Require only curbline sidewalks. B. Maintain a 3 foot buffer strip, but provide for a 4 foot tree planter with break away root protectors incorporated into sidewalk design. C. Establish a 4 foot buffer strip. G8. Landscape buffer strips increase sidewalk costs by approximately $4.00 per lineal foot due to the expense of grass sprinklers. 1. There is no draft sidewalk policy addressing this issue. 2. The City currently requires automatic irrigation of all landscaped areas as a function of the building permit. Early landscape area approvals without kl..:r.._F'e.it.'; :i's!.ar....s.,�o..C�., ... .+. . 1- C...^ iti;;:_..........-.:.. ey1.• a. c.•t: �r:. r x .a.•,ar'�.i- c:;,rSn+: <iG�s'rx *s :"�•Y + JG. ..r.. r Comments :•`.+"w3i: ••'; , •.: , :t:%Ti .. �' i:[?' �grv`. �.' �," �T! f': ��i�:',: iKMi',�;��r'„r „c�'i :.. . 5. Irrigation is estimated to cost approximately 50 cents per lineal foot. Page 11 automatic irrigation almost always resulted in a loss of plant materials and unsightly areas. 3. Discussions with the commentator revealed that the $4.00 included other costs such as land, life -cycle maintenance, and replacement materials. (see G9 Comment 3) 4. Irrigation is the major installation cost difference between placing the same materials in a buffer strip or back of sidewalk. Options A. Specifically exempt landscape buffer strips from the automatic irrigation requirement. B. Specifically require automatic irrigation of buffer strips. C. No change. G11. There needs to be criteria for the Planning and Public Works directors to decide when sidewalk design shall be modified. 1. Draft Policy 9 generally allows modification where a standard sidewalk is not feasible, while draft Policy 14 allows sidewalk design modification only when parking would be interfered with. 2. No criteria for Policy 9 is given due to the many possible situations which may arise. However, it is the City's intent that full width sidewalks be provided except in very unusual circumstances. 3. Draft Policy 15 intends that the existing number of parking stalls be main- tained after sidewalk construction. Parking lot restriping and use of compact spaces are measures the City may take to maintain the existing number of stalls. If the pre - sidewalk number of stalls could not be main- tained, then the sidewalk would be reduced or eliminated. Options A. Identify criteria which should be considered in Policy 9 decision making. B. Include a criteria that the existing number of parking spaces must be maintained in Policy 15. No change in the draft policy. 612 How, where and when are the engineering studies referred to in Policy 15 to be done. Will the pedestrian volumes be based on five -day, seven -day or holiday volumes. •:; e.`�,E:..y.....:.: , .� S .::,uwr'v'4" i � n2 1 n � i _nt �. 1a ! S n k S� n .t ..f..., � 5.. ., i , .,. f � v :..:.:.. n:,.. l :Y+..yfv:..•.:...- :�ke..l =.�Y., �J'- :.�.ar::2. ..':.aL .....- ,.' =iCt:m.Sv.:1 �.. o 7ii':.'1::. , e::A C .., _..:.if.,Te ... .o .... ...... .... � ..: � ,a., :? ;�1fL ...w ..... ..-. �.. ..... �,. .. .......... :,.. .. .. .... . .. Comments Options A. Modify policies. B. No change. Comments VI Page 12 1. Studies are anticipated to be done by the City, as considered necessary by the Administration and Public Works Director. 2. Studies may also be done by other parties, but must be verified and endorsed by the Public Works Director. 3. Pedestrian volumes would be measured on a 7 -day period to incorporate peak periods during weekends as well as weekdays. Options A. Specify who is responsible for conducting studies. B. Specify how, where and when studies will be done. (C. No change to draft policy. G13. Is Policy 17 an informational statement only? G14. Is Policy 18 an informational statement only? Comments 1. These two policy statements provide additional policy guidance on the type of pedestrian road crossing facilities the City wishes to develop. 2. Explicit deletion or modification of these policies would establish other guidelines for pedestrian crossing facility development (i.e. deletion of pedestrian signal controls). G15. In all cases on arterials, the sidewalk should be 8 feet wide or have a 3 -foot minimum planting strip plus 5 foot (preferably 6 feet) wide CW (concrete walk). 1. The existing draft policies reflect a desire to achieve the commentators standards. 2. Draft policies 7 and 11 call for a six foot wide sidewalk with minimum 3 foot planting strip in commercial zones, and a five foot wide sidewalk with minimum three foot planting strip in industrial zones where possible. Otherwise, six foot and five foot curbline sidewalks (i.e. no planting strip) would be designed. . 1; EZkaulr� ?� %'`�i'ti�:x \,Jfti+�. tF�: ry Options Comments. •PL^.'. ..V) r,+r�trZ; " ..E Cre At+VgrS� 1zM'r+.k�:�j,"�ic n7 �Y; 5r�:.;. �. r�-: w,$ ���. n•,;. i.. ��„ rt�zcw : >.;::�.�:� err. �C �: tr>^;,e' c> �; fi. LS;�..s.C:� ^ „_ ..�;:�'n�s`e �C..<..,�,.r n�z�,r._.,,, ,�,.� , .,.,. .. ,,r a.:..x1 .... .. .. r See options for comment G9. C:1 Options A. Incorporate these provisions in the draft policies. B. No change in draft policies. Page 13 3. Draft Policy 7 calls for eight foot sidewalks only at bus stops and pull- outs, and where sidewalks are adjacent to the road and the speed limit is over 35 mph. 4. All public through streets in the CBD are arterials with speed limits of 35 mph. G16. All vertical objects should be 3 feet clear of the curb face, such as street trees, fire hydrants, or utility poles. G17. All vertical objects should be 2 feet clear of the sidewalk (if possible). 618. Specify sidewalk thickness (Recommend 4” (for walk and) 8" for DWY (drive- way apron). 619. The design of the driveway may be critical for the safety of the pedes- trians and also for the durability of the sidewalk. (Recommend 3 foot minimum of level same as CW). See sketch 1. G20. The temporary sidewalk should be made of asphalt. (Approximately 2" asphalt over 4" crushed rock). The asphalt driveway shall be 3" asphalt over 6" crushed rock. G21. Washington State law requires the curb ramp to have a 3 -foot by 5 -foot apron for safety purposes. If there is no R/W (right -of -way) or other reason for not providing a landing space, then I recommend using a larger wing to meet a 12 to 1 slope requirement. 1. These provisions reflect generally accepted engineering design standards which are supported by the Public Works Department and the City's "Standard Plans." G22. Combined trail /sidewalk provisions in the April, 1987, draft policies are not needed given the existing and planned sidewalks are unfairly burdensome on one single property owner along South 180th Street, and are inappropriate in a Sidewalk. Plan (i.e. trails should be dealt with in recreation plans). . ....i.i,.:f,.(:�;:,.,1 .•.; pa;:G c ,t.? .,.....: e: Comments _ ���! i"i,`'i ;;':Y'1..:�1:.,. ��ri." i. ;�'•.y,i:`C:�'C.`ti:.�;�l.t� ", a y.f';I`'•'�`. .. i., ,�.. Page 14 1. The Planning Commission has already concurred with this comment and removed combined . trail /sidewalk provisions from the current draft policies. H. Sidewalk Maintenance H1 No comments are possible until a decision on separated or curbline sidewalk design is made. Comments 1. See comments on sidewalk maintenance (Al and A2) and review process (B2). H2 The City should assume all sidewalk liability and maintenance responsibility as it has with roads. Comments 1. There are no existing draft policies specifically addressing sidewalk liability and maintenance issues. They have been discussed in J1 and J2 (liability) and Al and A2 (maintenance). H3. What are the specific standards for "long - term" (structural) sidewalk maintenance. Comments 1. These standards are discussed in response to concerns Al and A2. and daily H4. How will maintenance standards for sidewalks and buffer landscape strips be enforced to ensure quality continuity. Some owners are not and will not be interested in maintaining landscaping. Comments 1. No specific enforcement procedures are included in the draft policies. Therefore, the enforcement procedures per TMC 1.08.010 and 8.28.280 - -310 will apply. 2. In general these procedures make the Mayor responsible for enforcement once authorized by Council to act. The City is authorized to do all work neces- sary to maintain sidewalks and landscaping, and lien the property if the owner fails to comply. This process would take no less than two weeks. 3. There are some landscape areas which have deteriorated due to neglect. These areas have been relatively small and are usually associated with a failure to provide automatic irrigation. 4. The Planning Department has not historically been active in landscape main- tenance enforcement in large part due to a lack of jurisdiction in this area except for projects subject to design review. J >'� :.i :c:" 'wY, =�•� 74S•" �y'Fi?L: x, >•;iis);1:;fret . ki; W: iv: i^: el.. ro� ^Y��.t:;��.r�✓JA�f�.o�h��.�tt J'i�ku;'��v i�: o.' J. ��e..." u' i>; �..,: L)' i. �,. �. x. xwl':. 1�: ��,•'. v_ �7�5 ��i: d::..K:i.4d.�dt.lG�;;3!' §: ? ?�:: �?fwA.. ft';: ��T,??,:l ef.; �,._: 7` iuL :..:'.i�:��ai t`. `,. .,.. , . m... I2. Who will pay for pedestrian signals. Comments Comments H5. What are "cracked, crumbling and uneven" sidewalks. 1. See discussion of concerns Al and A2. I. Financing I1. L.I.D. financing is supported. Comments Page 15 1. The draft policies propose financing the property owner's share of improve- ment costs by L.I.D. Each property owner would be billed for the cost of installing sidewalks on the property. 1. All currently funded traffic control signals include pedestrian controls and will be paid for by the City. 2. News ria only crossings may require some private participation. I3. Non -users such as industrial businesses should not have to pay for side- 7 walks. 1. Existing draft policies call for all property owners to pay for adjacent sidewalks. 2. Existing State statutes specifically authorize cities to charge property owners to pay for adjacent sidewalks. 3. All new industrial businesses are required to build sidewalks by City ordi- nance (TMC 11.64). 4. Sidewalks enhance the value of adjacent properties. Options A. Exempt all industrial businesses from having to install or pay for side- walks. B. Exempt only existing industrial businesses from having to install sidewalks. C. No change in existing draft policy. I4. Who will pay for re- landscaping and landscape strips of separated sidewalks. �rt t . .th h •2: . ..ct.: _ t:✓ w•^ r;.u!: AR'V, , wed, �r,�,:r, ��•_` �� •M,V:�? �.! a ?1� ., +...::.1'.^ ..,. ....•. »li�,.;+.7 _,.:�S:a"It', .:' Sll; n`,.' ri` Y._htN�r� ?RVFS.41.3:t�C:t �:'t G" ,i , .e,. ,, f.�`+a:�): .. i._ � ., Options C. No change in existing policy. Page 16 Comments 1. There are no draft policies specifically assigning these costs. 2. The Public Works Department envisions this as part of total sidewalk instal- lation costs. 3. The City Attorney concurs that this is a standard definition of total side- walk construction costs. Options A. City to assume all or a portion of landscape costs. B. Amend existing draft policies to specifically include these costs in side- walk construction. C. No change in existing policies. I5. Phase sidewalk construction so that streets on which sidewalks are not currently needed can be built on an as- needed basis. Comments 1. Existing policies call for phased sidewalk construction. Sidewalks on streets with lower pedestrian demand (Moderate Priority on Sidewalk Plan, Figure 1) are scheduled for construction between 1992 and 1995. 2. The City has mandated the development and implementation of this CBD Side- walk Plan to complete the existing disjointed pattern of sidewalks in order to form a complete, continuous pedestrian system. 3. The existing Sidewalk Construction Ordinance requires sidewalks upon new construction or significant renovation (TMC 11.64). A. Remove all Moderate Priority streets from the CBD Sidewalk Plan and continue with the existing sidewalks - -upon renovation pattern of incremental improve- ments. B. Remove all areas zoned industrial and more than 1/8 mile. from a pedestrian attraction from the Sidewalk Plan (see El). 4du..umaW1 w.b «, . *'.4'u '!'r, ..c ,iLSn. ,. L: r i =:; n ,... »n Comments Comments 114ttii WYoiF :!:ri: _ �+_.p�.q.;. �Y��r�,x �, ♦VK:��v;p,:l jt"aM;+]hljv'SNti'. Y;a�:'S:lfl �}uf lh +V, �'Y: ` ": ��: Page 17 K. Conformance to Tukwila Zoning Code K1. TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk dedication should read as follows (underlined words are additions to the existing draft section): "No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become non - conforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allow- ance shall not apply to property when the existing structure is demolished, except when such demolition, rebiulding, or remodeling is due to natura disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to a.'1 structure is demolished and rebuilt •ue to natura ' saster, re or s mi ar events." 1. This proposal mirrors Policy 14 except that K1 does not specifically include donation of right -of -way. 2. The existing policy does not specify the donation as right -of -way or ease- ment. The City staff had viewed donations as either, but would tend to recommend easements because: a. Donating an easement would allow the property owner to use the area as part of the building setback upon redevelopment. This would not be possible with a right -of -way donation. b. There is no difference in maintenance or liability between having the sidewalk on an easement or right -of -way (see Al, A2, and J1). Options Adopt the language change. B. Adopt the language change including the donation of right -of -way as stated in Policy 14. C. No change in existing policy. K2. Ensure that Policy 13 is reflected in all other Plan elements. J 1. A review of other Plan elements has not uncovered any obvious conflicts. Therefore, the substantive provisions in Policy 13 will apply throughout the Plan. — K3. Sidewalks built on donated easements should be counted toward satisfying the landscape requirements. 14V ;K Eafi;SaLs.'Rkkst7.: Liz' a79ttistai":.?:7 ?:aSm YU�:,. �?urir.�ntrt tike:wer.�.vx= Comments Options Comments (251 /SW.EVALU11 -19) nrittill2rdriN t.si maa am cv + eAtV.Z9VMVA z n th VVV—VV " VIMI - w '°' 7. ;: r r !T t Page 18 1. Draft Policy 14 allows the counting of sidewalks as landscaping only where non- conforming situations would be created. This allowance would cease upon building replacement. 2. The existing Zoning Code does not allow sidewalks to count as landscaping (TMC 18.06.410). 3. Allowing sidewalks to count as landscaping would reduce the minimum required front width for plant materials from 10 or 15 feet, to 5 or 10 feet. A. Allow sidewalks to count as landscaping and amend the Zoning Code to reflect this change. B. Allow sidewalks to count as landscaping only when the minimum width for plant materials is 10 feet and amend the Zoning Code to reflect this. C. No change in the existing ordinance. K4. The provisions of 18.70 should apply both in an easement donation and a right -of -way donation. 1. The existing draft language in this section states that this is the case. Since it does not specify right -of -way or easement donation, both types would trigger these provisions. I r. cdf2y:tivi;rrx;x�P. '••,xaxx R �u; u:- u.. M,,,,.,,,,....... ._..,.._.....,.�..,...o.,. «.... — - ti...,...,....., �v. �earsoe,. r rn: wneuvanx+ txr,•.ssv�s.9na�n.•fkt,CV "∎ G3ttt ,.:,irlti:Za;E�:%..iSivitASt iMV io5 37>.+�c;i, +`au':cil� =i1 JOANNE JOHNSON AFF( DAVIT (] Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting D Q Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [[ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit [I Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project C8D SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87 -2 —CPA O F D I S T R I A T I O N hereby declare that: [[ Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [] Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action 0 Official Notice [� Other (] Other FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1988 , 19 . Sign re r' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: �...._- i',S.�.S'w.er� kin"✓,..- 1.:Jt:i' 04 4.'., ,..,t�r.i...... PROCESS City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM Tukwila Planning Commission Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner October 20, 1988 C.B.D. SIDEWALK POLICY PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES PRELIMINARY DECISIONS ON PUBLIC COMMENTS This is a summary of previous Planning Commission actions on Sidewalk Plan review. The Commission had concluded receipt of public comments to the Sidewalk Plan, and begun discussions on the identified issues, according to its adopted plan review process, on May 26, 1988. The Planning Commission adopted the following plan review process: Notify all businesses in Tukwila of the proposed CBD Sidewalk Plan and implementing ordinances, and offer them an opportunity to comment in writing and at a Commission public hearing. Planning staff summarization of all public comments with an opportunity for commentors to review for accuracy and provide additional input in writing and at a public hearing. Planning staff presentation of relevant facts and options to the Planning Commission, with an opportunity for public comment in writing and at public hearings. Planning Commission resolution of public concerns once all concerns and testimony /facts had been identified and received. Planning staff revision of sidewalk policies and implementing ordinances to reflect Commission decisions. Planning Commission adoption of revised policies and ordinances, and recom- mendation to the City Council. MEMORANDUM to October 20, 1988 Planning Commission Page 2 FORMAL ACTIONS TO DATE The Planning Commission has to date identified public concerns, and completed review of "Part I - Staff Evaluations of (Public) Concerns" (Attachment A). Part I evaluations covered the general subject categories of Definitions Needed, Review Process, General Policy Comments, Geographic Scope, and Liability. Discussion of "Part I - Staff Evaluation of (Public) Concerns" concluded with the following formally adopted position: 1. Abutting property owners are responsible for the day -to -day maintenance and /or housekeeping of sidewalks and the City is responsible for major repairs /structural maintenance that are not a result of owner actions. The Commission recognized that liability will generally travel with mainten- ance responsibilities. The Commission was prepared to begin Part II staff evaluations (Attachment B) at its next meeting. TENTATIVE CONSENSUS There was a considerable Commission discussion regarding these policies at the May 26th and earlier meetings. The Commission seems to have reached a consensus on the following items although no formal actions were taken. 1. A separate recommendation should be forwarded to the City Council that land owners in residential zones are responsible for daily sidewalk maintenance while the City is responsible for long- term /structural maintenance, as in the proposed CBD Sidewalk Policies. 2. There are no objections to the proposed sidewalk locations and construction priorities with the further clarification that the Moderate Priority segment on Andover Park East between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street be constructed last. 3. Sidewalks should be designed as curbline sidewalks as much as practicable. 4. There are no objections to minimum sidewalk widths being 5 feet in indus- trial zones (M -1 and M -2), 6 feet in commercial zones (P -0, C -1, C -2 and C -M), and 8 feet on streets with speed limits over 35 mph, or at bus stops. REMAINING CONCERNS TO BE RESOLVED r w > >.tmbe ae11 V • • , 't :.w..;..v;4f;•.:'fi' %�`F.`:'l :ln ^rn!1 ••:. Assuming the Commission adopts the above consensus items, the following items in "Part II - Planning Staff Evaluation of (Public) Concerns" (Attachment B) would remain for resolution. F. Required Sidewalk Construction F1. Sidewalks should not be required for building repair due to casualty loss (i.e. fire earthquake, and flooding). Incorporate into 11.64.020, Sidewalk Construction Ordinance, and 18.70 Zoning Code. MEMORANDUM to October 20, 1988 Planning Commission Page 3 F2. Policy 4 and 5 should incorporate the provisions for acceptance of existing (4 foot wide) sidewalks stated in other policies. F4. Need to discuss the requirement for sidewalks when total cumulative site improvements exceed $250,000 as specified in draft TMC 11.64.020(b). G2. Should "trail system" references be included in Policy 2 given the plan's focus on sidewalks. G11. There needs to be criteria for the Planning and Public Works directors to decide when sidewalk design shall be modified. G12 How, where and when are the engineering studies referred to in Policy 15 to be done. Will the pedestrian volumes be based on five -day, seven -day or holiday volumes. G13. Is Policy 17 an informational statement only? G14. Is Policy 18 an informational statement only? G16. All vertical objects should be 3 feet clear of the curb face, such as street trees, fire hydrants, or utility poles. G17. All vertical objects should be 2 feet clear of the sidewalk (if possible). G18. Specify sidewalk thickness (Recommend 4" (for walk and) 8" for DWY (drive- way apron). G19. The design of the driveway may be critical for the safety of the pedes- trians and also for the durability of the sidewalk. (Recommend 3 foot minimum of level same as CW). See sketch 1. G20. The temporary sidewalk should be made of asphalt. (Approximately 2" asphalt over 4" crushed rock). The asphalt driveway shall be 3" asphalt over 6" crushed rock. G21. Washington State law requires the curb ramp to have a 3 -foot by 5 -foot apron for safety purposes. If there is no R/W (right -of -way) or other reason for not providing a landing space, then I recommend using a larger wing to meet a 12 to 1 slope requirement. I2. Who will pay for pedestrian signals. I3. Non -users such as industrial businesses should not have to pay for side- walks. K. Conformance to Tukwila Zoning Code K1. TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk dedication should read as follows (underlined words are additions to the existing draft section): "No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become non - conforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allow- ance shall not apply to property when the existing structure is demolished, October 20, 1988 Planning Commission Page 4 MEMORANDUM to except when such demolition, rebiulding, or remodeling is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to apply if structure is demolished and rebuilt due to natural disaster, fire or similar events." K2. Ensure that Policy 13 is reflected in all other Plan elements. K3. Sidewalks built on donated easements should be counted toward satisfying the landscape requirements. K4. The provisions of 18.70 should apply both in an easement donation and a right -of -way donation. REMAINING REVIEW PROCESS Once the Planning Commission has completed its review, the Planning staff will revise the proposed policies and ordinances for a final review, and recommen- dation to the City Council. VU /sjn attachments . f ��xt�bllf �. ���::& Y. ilf�°. L��S�SC�N��ws7 `i�uY }�9'1t'fFnviHMprur,.r»+ +'wwr%.ar.r+w VU /sjn rrA citmev City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: February 26, 1988 The mailing date for this Part 1 of the sidewalk concern evaluations is 28 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, instead of the 30 days previously agreed upon. I apologize for this shortened review period. I am hoping that this shortened review period will not pre -empt your ability to effectively read and comment on the staff's findings and options. With this hope, I would like to still start Planning Commission review on March 24, 1988. If this presents a problem for you, please contact me at 433 -1858. Sincerely, ernon M. Umetsu Associate Planner n.,.,.„ r.,.,. r..,...............,.. .,.._..�...._�._.._..,�..,_.._ Citi of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan Review process identified an "Inventory of (Public) Concerns ", dated January 8, 1988. This staff evaluation is being distributed to all interested parties 30 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The Commission will work on resolving these concerns based on this evaluation at their meeting of March 24, 1988. Evaluations of public concerns are being presented in two parts due to the number of concerns and staff time limitations. This is part one; evaluating concerns under the subject category headings "Definitions Needed" through "Geographic Scope ", and "Liability ". The evaluation is grouped by subject and is generally structured according to the following outline: Concern (from the January 8th inventory) Comments - • Draft Sidewalk Plan policies covering the issue • Existing substantive regulations covering the issue • Relevant facts Options The total list of category headings are shown below. Category Headings A - Definitions Needed B - Review Process C - General Policy Comments D - Geographic Scope E - Need for Sidewalks F - Required Sidewalk Construction CBD SIDEWALK PLAN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS February 24, 1988 G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I _ Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code A. DEFINITIONS NEEDED Al. What is meant by long term (structural) sidewalk maintenance? A2. What is meant by daily sidewalk maintenance? There are no adopted City policies on sidewalk maintenance. In the absence of locally adopted policies, the following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establish the responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance, performance of daily maintenance, and the performance of struc- tural repair. These interpretations are based on RCW 35.70, legal opinions from the city attorneys of the City of Centralia and the City of Everett, and concurrence by the Tukwila City Attorney. An overview of sidewalk main- tenance policies is shown in Table 1. Recognizing the need for maintenance. The abutting property owner is primarily responsible for recognizing the need for maintenance unless this need has been sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time that City personnel should have become aware of the problem and acted to have it corrected. In the second case, the City would share primary responsibility for recognizing the need or maintenance. The criteria for "sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time" is subject to the "reasonableness test ". If there is a three inch high uplifting of the sidewalk, then there would be a longer period of "suf- ficient time," than if the sidewalk had been undermined and fallen into a six foot deep hole. There are no statutory standards for establishing this test. Performance of daily maintenance. PART ONE EVALUATIONS Sttcr Evaluation of Concerns Page 2 Daily maintenance includes non - structural activities necessary to keep the sidewalk a safe and usable facility for a reasonable person. Such maintenance activities include cleaning off dirt, removing obstacles such as boards lying on the sidewalk, and limbing trees to ensure ade- quate headroom for users. Daily maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. a Kent Renton Auburn Table 1 Des Moines Abutting Abutting property owner property owner Data Collected February, 1988 (251 /SW.CITABLE) SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE, LIABILITY AND DESIGN FOR COMMERCIAL AREAS IN SELECTED CITIES MAINTENANCE LIABILITY FOR CITY RESPONSIBILITY USER INJURIES SIDEWALK DESIGN City City 5.5 -foot minimum width (+ 0.5 curb = 6 feet) Curbline sidewalks unless otherwise specified by developer. Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum width. property owner property owner Incorporate separating buffer area whenever possible. Abutting Abutting 7.5 -foot minimum width property owner property owner (+ 0.5 curb = 8 feet) Additional 2.5 feet planting strip whenever possible. 6 -foot minimum width. Back of sidewalk located at property line. Remaining area between front of sidewalk and curb is landscaped. Seattle Abutting Abutting 5 -foot minimum width; with property owner property owner a 5.5 -foot curbline planting strip - OR - 8-foot minimum curbline sidewalk Tukwila Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum. (existing) property owner property owner Performance of structural maintenance. Si'`aff Evaluation of Concerns Structural maintenance is the replacement or repair of the sidewalk surface and /or base. Structural maintenance activities include patch - ramps to smooth out uplifting of one inch or more, and replacement of cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks. Structural maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. No specific criteria is adopted for determining when cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks require structural maintenance. Instead, the City Council uses an open public process to completely examine the issues, and determine the necessity for structural maintenance. Options The options for explicitly assigning these responsibilities are repre- sented in the matrix below: City Abutting Property Owner Problem Recognition Long -term Maintenance Daily Maintenance Page 3 There is a direct tie between the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability for injuries to users. Please see J - Liability for clarifi- cation of sidewalk maintenance and the relationship to liability. A3. Pathway in Policies 1 and 2. A pathway is generally a facility for non - motorized travel, and not a "side- walk" as defined in Sidewalk Policies 7 through 11. Inclusion of pathway in these policies is intended to support a variety of non - motorized facili- ties which may supplement CBD sidewalks. This integrates sidewalk systems with other transportation facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. A4. Trail system• in Policy 2. "Trail system" are those trails in the City's Long -Range Parks and Open Space Plan. A5. •Reasonable amount of time• (for property owner construction of sidewalks) in Policy 3. No specific time frame is identified in State statute for property owners to make the required improvements. Each City Council would specify this by resolution (35.70.040). A6. "Street widening in Policy 5b. The intent is to begin construction. A8. What is "standard size' in Policy 9? Standard size is as defined in Policy 7. Stairf Evaluation of Concerns Page 4 The Public Works Department favors 30 days, from the date of City Council action, for property owners to build their required sidewalk improvements. As a practical matter, property owners would probably be able to build their own sidewalks up to the time of the City's bidding out the construction contract. This is a roadway improvement where the paved street width is increased or curbs are installed. A7. Does "construct: in Policy 5c through 5g mean to begin or to complete side- walk construction? B. REVIEW PROCESS B1. Additional time for public comment will be required as issues are evaluated. Comments 1. The existing process gives 30 days to review and comment on staff evalua- tions and options before a Planning Commission hearing. That period could be extended if it is too short to permit adequate public review. 2. The Planning Commission always has the option to carry over issues which they feel need additional discussion or deliberations. 3. The existing plan review process was endorsed by the Planning Commission after the Sidewalk Policies had been publicly available for at least two months. There was support expressed in all comments on the existing plan review process. 4. There may be some issues which require extensive, in -depth discussions and which might not be resolvable in the course of one meeting. Options A. Provide a second public comment period after the initial 30 -day review period and Planning Commission deliberations. B. Modify the review process to provide a longer initial public comment period than the existing 30 days. C. Retain the existing review process with its 30 -day review period; and recog- nize that the Commissioners may direct staff to gather what additional information they feel is necessary to their decision - making. Additional staff reports resulting from this direction would be subject to the 30 -day review period. B2. A complete list of comments is not possible until several issues involving maintenance and liability are better defined (see Definitions). Comments 1. Maintenance and liability issues are herein presented to allow interested parties to evaluate the facts and recommend a preferred option (see Al, A2 and J1). 2. The Commission established 30 days as generally sufficient time for public review of information, for the public to state its objections /support of these evaluations, and for the public to state its preferences. 3. See Concern B1. Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 5 Options A. Resolve maintenance and liability issues in this set of evaluations since sufficient information on the relevant facts and options have been presented on each specific concern. B. Postpone Commission deliberations to allow further public review. C. GENERAL POLICY COMMENTS Cl. Policies need to be specific to Tukwila needs, not simply carbon copies of policies found in neighboring communities. Comments 1. The existing draft policies were developed in coordination with widely accepted engineering standards, public review, and direction from the City Council Transportation Committee. These sidewalk policies tried to reflect Tukwila needs. 2. The plan adoption process involves extensive Planning Commission, City Council, and public review to help ensure that plan reflects City desires. 3. Review of other areas was done as part of this evaluation in response to specific Planning Commission comments, to identify standard amenities pro- vided in competing commercial areas, and to ensure that Tukwila standards are not burdensomely high. 4. A comparison of Tukwila sidewalk policies with other commercial area side- walk policies show the area specific nature of this City's plan (see Table 1). , iixP.•w_.r �,:3:1_�... M_.. .. x._....'a i'3l. . +t:L'.r...�!v.i .:.<;'. (.... r. .✓. n...,�..., zi C. No change in the existing geographic scope. Options A. Expand the geographic scope of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. SthY Evaluation of Concerns Page 6 D. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE D1. All commercial areas in Tukwila should be subject to these (CBD sidewalk) policies. Comments 1. Commercial areas not subject to the CBD Sidewalk Plan are the Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue corridors (see Map A). Southcenter Boule- vard is scheduled for an eight foot wide sidewalk along its northern border, but no sidewalk along the southern border. Construction of the Southcenter Boulevard sidewalk is scheduled for 1988 -89. 2. Interurban Avenue South (north of I -405) is scheduled for six to ten foot wide, separated sidewalks on both east and west sides. The separation will be with a landscape buffer strip. Construction of the Interurban Avenue South sidewalk is being done in segments as the roadway is improved. 3. Streets to the east of Interurban Avenue are the only ones not scheduled for sidewalks in some time frame and not covered by the CBD Sidewalk Plan poli- cies. These roads are uncurbed and serve industrial uses. B. Sidewalks along streets to the east of Interurban Avenue South should be developed as necessary to serve the Green River trail system. This would generally make them high or moderate priority. J. LIABILITY J1. What is the exposure of property owners to liability as a result of side- walks? Comments 1. There are no draft policies assigning responsibility for liability.. 2. In the absence of any existing draft policies, State statutes apply. The following comments are based on State statutes and the opinions of legal counsel from the City of Everett and Centralia. The Tukwila City Attorney concurs with these comments. 3. Liability exposure as a result of sidewalks would generally originate from injuries to users as a result of a poorly designed or maintained sidewalk. 4. The design engineer who's professional stamp was on the sidewalk construc- tion plans would bear primary responsibility for injury claims due to poor • • :PP.= • c..,,,tet, •.:•.,41-4,,,,,,,, .,t4.1 egrqM ,- • : " Waal Ia., • 1 1144-i20 A-A C4A • a _ 4.01.11 L MAP A ©NV ©EF 1.64 iSf %—*L- r OM i =0111== KWILA gge Commercial Areas Without Scheduled S i dews 1 ks Commercial Areas ' With Scheduled • Sidewalks • 12 re r. wane • aimmor Iwo __ CA AIL OA WAD. r '"""• ""iirmagrar- r "s.A.."'1�:39:'Y 66Y•c�r�rttxw..cvr Start Evaluation of Concerns Page 7 design. The City, as the approving agency, would bear some secondary responsibility. Property owners using City plans for sidewalk design would not probably have any liability exposure due to poor sidewalk design. 5. Liability due to maintenance is directly associated with the body responsi- ble for recognizing the need for maintenance, and carrying out the need for maintenance. These issues were discussed in Items Al and A2. 6. Property owner would be the primary party liable for user injuries whether the sidewalk was on City right -of -way or a private easement. The City would share this primary liability if it can be shown that it should have reason - ably recognized the need for maintenance and failed to order maintenance in a timely manner. This conclusion is based on a direct relationship between responsibility for maintenance and liability for injuries as a result of poor maintenance (see Items Al and A2). Options A. The City can assume any and all responsibility for liability as a result of sidewalks. B. The City can specifically embody existing State statutory law in these Side- walk Policies. C. No change in the existing policies regarding sidewalk liability. (251 /SW.EVALU1,2) ..ri VMagMrr.E3ub_°nYk 77.=:;dfC•c?tw..s;r : u,• �wwra* xv. ��. �+a.e�.e,w.w...+ .............. a.... n. r�. w, K. rza,.. mvmxtm2i�reM�: tri' W. F( i.' Tttk;. aTY± �' L' �i& �G7; �.,. Oi�?7i4&. t' ��' ii5+: �n` :Sat�':i^�ii�`'a.�M�ter���' =`.� . Cit y O f Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: March 29, 1988 This is Part Two of the staff's evaluation of public concerns. Please note the revisions to the February 28th Staff Evaluations included as a first section. Again, the Planning Commission will be reviewing these evaluations at its meeting on April 28, 1988. All parties will have an opportunity to present information on each publicly identified concern. The Commission will then close public input, consider all presented information, and resolve the issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 433 -1858 if I can be of assistance. VU /sjn Sincerely, e rnon M. Umetsu Associate Planner • REVISILS TO STAFF COMMENTS OF FEBRUARY -8, 1988 Planning Department comments on Concerns Al and A2 are revised as follows based on recently received legal opinions from the City Attorney. A. DEFINITIONS NEEDED Al. What is meant by "long term" (structural) sidewalk maintenance? A2. What is meant by "daily" sidewalk maintenance? There are no adopted City policies on sidewalk maintenance. In the absence of locally adopted policies, the following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establish the responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance, performance of daily maintenance, and the performance of struc- tural repair. These interpretations are based on RCW 35.70, legal opinions from the city attorneys of the City of Centralia and the City of Everett, and the Tukwila City Attorney. In general, each city is responsible for ensuring that their sidewalks are safe. Cities are authorized by the State to make a policy choice on whether to use general public funds to maintain these sidewalks, or direct abutting property owners to maintain them. Tukwila City staff and capital costs for publicly maintained sidewalks in all commercial and residential areas would be significant, especially in light of potential annexation areas. An overview of sidewalk maintenance practices for selected cities is shown in Table 1. Recognizing the need for maintenance. The City has the primary responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance. This duty is dependent upon the need being sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time that City personnel should have become aware of the problem and acted to have it corrected. This primary responsibility does not include situations when the need for maintenance is caused by the abutting property owner (i.e., a tree branch across the sidewalk or structural damage due to construction). In these types of cases, the abutting property owner is primarily responsible for restoring the sidewalk. The criteria for "sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time" is subject to the "reasonableness test ". If there is a three inch high uplifting of the sidewalk, then there would be a longer period of "suf- ficient time," than if the sidewalk had been undermined and fallen into a six foot deep hole. There are no statutory standards for establishing this test: � : �• S. 11r.: i:'.: isii '�5 ^�!.'i.• ?t's'.tii;�;.'':!�r "n'2�t.;U,. Performance of daily maintenance. Page 2 Daily maintenance includes non - structural activities necessary to keep 'the sidewalk a safe and usable facility for a reasonable person. Such maintenance activities include cleaning off dirt, removing obstacles such as boards lying on the sidewalk, and limbing trees to ensure ade- quate headroom for users. Responsibility for ensuring a safe sidewalk, once a need is reasonably recognized, rests with the City. This duty can be discharged by having City personnel maintain the sidewalk or require the abutting property owner do it at no cost to the City. Performance of structural maintenance. Structural maintenance is the replacement or repair of the sidewalk surface and /or base. Structural maintenance activities include patch - ramps to smooth out uplifting of one inch or more, and replacement of cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks. As with daily maintenance, the City has the general responsibility to ensure a safe facility. It can do this by either having City personnel maintain the sidewalk or require the abutting property owner do it at no cost to the City. No specific criteria is adopted for determining when cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks require structural maintenance. Instead, the City Council uses an open public process to completely examine the issues, and determine the necessity for structural maintenance. Options The options for explicitly assigning these responsibilities are repre- sented in the matrix below: City Abutting Property Owner Problem Recognition Long -term Maintenance Daily Maintenance There is a direct tie between the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability for injuries to users. Please see J - Liability for clarifi- cation of sidewalk maintenance and the relationship to liability. ^ . fd'^ F�; �. �' 1��2¢ �; a�+ t�b��� ".�s'4i':sL`cY�SttirsSxavtcYGa uww.,.dn.R. J1. LIABILITY Page 3 Options A. The City can assume any and all responsibility for maintenance and liability as a result of sidewalks. B. The City can establish abutting property owner to be responsible. C. No change in the existing policies of maintenance responsibilities to be on a case by case basis. In light of revisions to maintenance responsibilities, comment J6. should be revised as follows: 6. The property owner would be the primary party liable for user injuries . whether the sidewalk was on City right -of -way or a private easement if the City has ordered maintenance action. The City would have primary liability if it can be shown that it should have reasonably recognized the need for maintenance and failed to order maintenance in a timely manner. This conclusion is based on a direct relationship between responsibility for maintenance and liability for injuries as a result of poor maintenance (see Items Al and A2). CBD SIDEWALK PLAN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS March 29, 1988 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan Review process identified an "Inventory of (Public) Concerns ", dated January 8, 1988. This staff evaluation is being distributed to all interested parties 30 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The Commission will work on resolving these concerns based on this evaluation at their meeting of April 28, 1988. Evaluations of public concerns are being presented in two parts due to the num- ber of concerns and staff time limitations. Part One evaluated concerns under the subject category headings "Definitions Needed" through "Geographic scope ", and "Liability ". This Part Two evaluates concerns in all other categories. Evaluations are grouped by subject and are generally structured according to the following outline: Concern.(from the January 8th inventory) Comments - • Draft Sidewalk Plan policies covering the issue • Existing substantive regulations covering the issue • Relevant facts Options The total list of category headings are shown below. Category Headings A - Definitions Needed B - Review Process C - General Policy Comments D - Geographic Scope E - Need for Sidewalks F - Required Sidewalk Construction G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I - Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code Page 4 PART TWO EVALUATIONS Page 5 E. Need for Sidewalks El. Sidewalks are not justified on Andover Park East, between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street, due to the very few pedestrians, the high truck hazard to pedestrians on curbline sidewalks, the cost of landscape replace- ment, the future need for greater street width, and the lack of retail or recreational facilities within walking distance. Findings 1. The Sidewalk Plan tries to incorporate future - oriented actions as well as satisfy current demands. Sidewalks in this area are shown as "moderate" priority; construction to begin in 1992 through 1995. This designation reflects the current low level of pedestrian demand and the lack of existing pedestrian generators and attractions. The current distance to major pedestrian attractions from Andover Park East between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street are as follows: Options Within 1/8 mile: None Within 1/4 mile: Christensen Trail Within 1/2 mile: Southcenter Mall and various retail areas. (The average walking distance of pedestrians is 1/8 to 1/4 mile.) 2. The construction of sidewalks anticipates significant market driven redevel- opment in this area, with retail and office uses envisioned in the mid -term (five to ten year) future. This is reasonable given the 25 percent higher leasing costs for industrial space in Tukwila over adjacent Kent and Renton areas. 3. A potentially significant truck /pedestrian hazard potential could result from trucks backing through driveways, climbing opposing sidewalks to back up to loading docks, and increased pedestrians in these areas of truck maneuvering. Five foot sidewalks separated from the curb by a minimum three /four foot strip (see G -9) would provide a safer facility than a five foot curbline sidewalk. 4. The only roadway improvements envisioned in this area are traffic signal modification and installation at intersections. No general road widening is planned in the City's six year capital improvement plan. A. Remove this segment from the geographic scope of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. This would result in sidewalks being built only as individual parcels are developed. B. Specify that this area be one of the last to receive sidewalks (i.e. con- struction to start in 1995). Comments Page 6 C. No change to the proposed policies. E2. Sidewalks are supported in the Southcenter Boulevard and Strander Boulevard areas. Comments 1. This area is designated "Very High" priority for sidewalk construction. No changes are required to address this comment. F. Required Sidewalk Construction F1. Sidewalks should not be required for building repair due to casualty loss (i.e. fire earthquake, and flooding). Incorporate into 11.64.020, Sidewalk Construction Ordinance, and 18.70 Zoning Code. 1. No draft policies or ordinances currently propose exempting casualty repairs except in counting sidewalks as landscaping (Policy 14). 2. Incorporation of the proposed provision would be inconsistent with the existing Sidewalk Construction and Zoning ordinances: a. The existing Sidewalk Construction Ord. (TMC 11.64.020(2)) states that sidewalks shall be required as a condition to a building permit for "...any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the previously existing building or structure." b. The existing Zoning Code requires non - conforming structures to be brought into full code compliance if 50 percent or more of replacement cost at the time of destruction is lost (18.70.050(2)) or it is aban- doned for 24 consecutive months (18.70.050(3)). The value of repairs due to casualty are not exempted from either section. 3. Draft ordinance 11.64.020 mirrors the existing Sidewalk Construction Ordin- ance, but also requires a sidewalk if cumulative building improvements after the date of adoption increases building value by $250,000 or 250 square feet. 4. The requirement for sidewalks due to casualty repair would be moot by 1996 if sidewalks are built as envisioned in Policy 5. This draft schedule should be considered as being delayed by at least one year. Options A. Incorporate this provision into policy and ordinance. B. No change to the existing draft policies or ordinances. F2. Policy 4 and 5 should incorporate the provisions for acceptance of existing sidewalks stated in other policies. Comments Page 7 1. Policies 4 and 5. are meant to clarify City policy on the abutting property owner's responsibility for providing a sidewalk: a. Policy 4 is the City's endorsement of State law by which it is author- ized to make abutting property owners responsible for sidewalk con- struction. b. Policy 5 clarifies how sidewalks will be funded. 2. Neither Policy 4 or 5 is in conflict with the acceptance of existing side- walks provisions in Policy 10 or 9. The property owner's responsibility for sidewalk construction would be fulfilled if there existed a minimum 4 ft. wide (concrete) sidewalk as specified in Policy 10, or if the Planning and Public Works directors both concluded that the existing level of sidewalk availability was the best feasible as discussed in Policy 9. Options A. Amend policies 4 and 5 with clear references to policies 9 and 10. B. No change in existing policy. F3. If separated sidewalks become the City standard, will all curbline sidewalks become non - conforming and have to be replaced at redevelopment. Would the City take another four feet from presently conforming properties? Comments 1. Policy 10 specifies that minimum 4 ft. wide (concrete) sidewalks will satis- fy the property owner's responsibility for sidewalk construction. Thus, if curbline sidewalks are a minimum 4 ft. wide, then no further such improve- ments would be necessary at redevelopment. If any curbline or separated sidewalk is less than 4 ft. wide, then a standard sidewalk as specified in policies 7 through 12 would be required. Options A. Amend the acceptability of minimum 4 ft. wide sidewalks. B. No change in existing policy. F4. Need to discuss the requirement for sidewalks when total cumulative site improvements exceed $250,000 as specified in draft TMC 11.64.020(b). Comments 1. This comment was made very early in the plan review process when it was inadvertently missed in the listing of changes to the existing ordinances. The issue has since been discussed before the Planning Commission and the public is now aware of the change. • v- . =,u.rx• ",,R,.._.n.... G. Sidewalk Design G1. Curbline sidewalks should be preferred whenever possible. G5. Eliminate all reference to separated sidewalks. Comments Options A. Remove "trail system" from Policy 2. B. No change is draft policy. G3. What is the timing for construction of temporary sidewalks in Policy 6. Comments Page 8 1. Specific objections to separated sidewalks are found in G6 through G10. 2. The draft policy intent is to develop separated sidewalks whenever such sidewalks can be installed with less impacts on existing improvements or when the relative impacts of installing separated versus curbline sidewalks are essentially the same. 3. Curbline sidewalks are preferred because they provide a safe facility with much lower maintenance and property impacts. Options A. Amend draft policies as suggested. B. Amend draft policies to include the substance of Comment 2. C. No change in existing policy. 62. Should "trail system" references be included in Policy 2 given the plan's focus on sidewalks. Comments 1. Sidewalks are pedestrian facilities to link a user's origin and destination. 2. Linking various work sites with facilities such as trail systems integrate the sidewalk system with other transportation facilities and land uses. Such integration is important to the City's existing goal for a coordinated, multi -modal transportation system. 1. Draft policies intend temporary sidewalks required for new developments, to be built on an ad hoc basis when adjacent street design is not known or when road widening would destroy this newly built sidewalk within 5 years. Thus, there is no construction schedule for temporary sidewalks. G4. What streets have speed limits over 35 mph as referenced in Policy 7. Comments Page 9 2. There are no significant areas where final road grades are not yet reason- ably known. 1. Only West Valley Highway, south of I -405, has a speed limit over 35 mph. All other commercial through streets have 35 mph speed limits. G6. The landscape buffer strips associated with separated sidewalks are costly to maintain in good condition. Comments 1. The comments of one landscaper and three architects responsible for projects in Tukwila, with both curbline and separated sidewalks are shown in Table 2 (next page). In general, there is little or no cost difference between installing and maintaining the same materials in a buffer strip and putting it in back of sidewalk. 2. Installation cost differences focus on the extra irrigation line which must be installed for the buffer strip. This is estimated to cost approximately 50 cents per lineal foot, assuming brass /steel heads at $3.00 per head and spacing 6 feet on center. 3. Maintenance costs for the same materials will be essentially the same for back of sidewalk and buffer strip situations. However, the lowest cost back of curb landscaping materials (ivy -type ground cover and trees) may cost less to maintain than the lowest cost buffer strip materials (grass and trees) after three years. The higher litter control costs for ivy -type ground cover may minimize all differences. 4. A major development has over 1,240 ft. of four foot landscape buffer strips between curb and sidewalk. This company considers the maintenance costs to be very high, much higher than would be justifiable using normal market decision making. This company is concerned that imposing such a non - market maintenance re- quirement upon the diverse property owners in the area will embroil the City in a never ending series of legal actions to get property owners to maintain landscaping. They fear that the end result will be a hodgepodge of margin- ally surviving plantings. Discussions with Redmond and Bellevue, where sidewalk buffer strips are part of many developments, showed maintenance to not be a problem. This seems to be due to a very competitive market and pride of ownership. 67. Landscape buffer strips associated with separated sidewalks represent an additional four feet taken from the property owner and another four feet lost from development (over curbline sidewalks). s':}r. { <+Q'i��k'l v.xv..vi illi54���r. :mSMlhnlfiavrlt+ COMMENTS ON LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION No significant difference in installing same materials in buffer strip and back of curb. No difference in installation costs Irrigation will be the only significant added cost for buffers. This would be about 50t /linear foot, assuming brass /steel heads g S3 /hd and 6 feet on center. No significant difference for the same materials. (251 /TBL.COSTS) Table 2 FOUR VIEWS ON RELATIVE LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS COMMENTS ON LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE No significant difference in maintenance costs. No difference in maintenance costs as long as plantings are drought and pollution tolerant. Some increased costs if vehicles run over strip (rare). No difference in maintenance costs assuming same materials. No significant difference in maintenance costs. GENERAL COMMENTS Landscape cost differences do not become significant actual dollar amounts until they vary by 15 -20%. Such a difference would be extremely surprising and detailed questions should be asked. State - funded arterials construction will almost always include a buffer strip between curb and sidewalk. (Discussions with the State show a 50 -50 split between projects with buffer strips and without.) City of Fife decided to provide landscape CBD strips instead of paving over entire width due to very low maintenance costs. Quadrant used street landscaping and signage to visually tie together their sprawling West Campus Development. Downtown Bellevue developers view street landscape /sidewalk design as important as building design. Grass would become more expensive to maintain after 3 years, over an ivy -type ground cover, if litter maintenance is ignored. Thus, back of curb ivy would cost less to maintain than buffer strip grass after 3 years. A 4 -foot buffer strip is very marginal; will limit tree selection and care must be taken to avoid surface damage as trees grow. Seattle requires trees to be 3 feet from the curb. NOTE: Tukwila envisions trees planted 2} feet from back of curb. The choice of curbline or separated sidewalks has generally been a matter of corporate choice rather than one dictated by cost consideration. Comments Page 10 1. The landscaped buffer strip on an easement is counted toward satisfying landscape requirements under the existing Zoning Code. The existing draft policies do not change this provision. G9. The City is effectively taking away 9 to 12 feet of street frontage from development in the CBD. Comments 1. The 9 to 12 foot frontage area seems to reflect a four foot buffer strip plus a 5 to 8 foot sidewalk. 2. The above assumption about the probable area required for sidewalk and landscape buffer strip is generally accurate. Discussions with architects, landscape installation contractors, and street tree specialists (arborists) all clearly indicate that a four -foot buffer, not three feet (as stated in Policy 12C) would be a much more cost effective width. A grass /tree landscape strip is the most cost - effective maintenance design. A four foot planter is necessary to center trees 2} feet from the back of curb and lessen the probability of serious surface damage from roots. 3. Development of a separated sidewalk within this 9 to 12 feet does not mean a taking of all development potential. All plantings in the easement area would be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements (see G7), all easement area would be counted toward satisfying the 20 to 50 foot building setback requirement, and all sidewalk area could be counted as landscaping in•non- conforming situations (Policy 14). 4. All new and significantly renovated developments are required to provide sidewalks at no cost to the City. Options A. Require only curbline sidewalks. B. Maintain a 3 foot buffer strip, but provide for a 4 foot tree planter with break away root protectors incorporated into sidewalk design. C. Establish a 4 foot buffer strip. G8. Landscape buffer strips increase sidewalk costs by approximately $4.00 per lineal foot due to the expense of grass sprinklers. G1O.Wi11 landscape buffer strips have to have automatic irrigation? Comments 1. There is no draft sidewalk policy addressing this issue. 2. The City currently requires automatic irrigation of all landscaped areas as a function of the building permit. Early landscape area approvals without ._. �......,__.._... ..__......«..........,- ,..... -. ^..�,....+o.....�^ v+..^ ^ ei. n.-.« ^.w+rx«•snx:es+r.'r,•s.ux.• -�: arK.�^;titYp;s : tad; pr�rrfK q, �Ty�, p�•.:. �yi .,Y.dyEiC•r�al.E': °: ``��. �:'.�' ^ Page 11 automatic irrigation almost always resulted in a loss of plant materials and unsightly areas. 3. Discussions with the commentator revealed that the $4.00 included other costs such as land, life -cycle maintenance, and replacement materials. (see G9 Comment 3) 4. Irrigation is the major installation cost difference between placing the same materials in a buffer strip or back of sidewalk. 5. Irrigation is estimated to cost approximately 50 cents per lineal foot. Options A. Specifically exempt landscape buffer strips from the automatic irrigation requirement. B. Specifically require automatic irrigation of buffer strips. C. No change. G11. There needs to be criteria for the Planning and Public Works directors to decide when sidewalk design shall be modified. Comments 1. Draft Policy 9 generally allows modification where a standard sidewalk is not feasible, while draft Policy 14 allows sidewalk design modification only when parking would be interfered with. 2. No criteria for Policy 9 is given due to the many possible situations which may arise. However, it is the City's intent that full width sidewalks be provided except in very unusual circumstances. 3. Draft Policy 15 intends that the existing number of parking stalls be main- tained after sidewalk construction. Parking lot restriping and use of compact spaces are measures the City may take to maintain the existing number of stalls. If the pre- sidewalk number of stalls could not be main- tained, then the sidewalk would be reduced or eliminated. Options A. Identify criteria which should be considered in Policy 9 decision making. B. Include a criteria that the existing number of parking spaces must be maintained in Policy 15. C. No change in the draft policy. 612 How, where and when are the engineering studies referred to in Policy 15 to be done. Will the pedestrian volumes be based on five -day, seven -day or holiday volumes. ��ili! �' v't ai��o; yi�i} 5•: 11'%', f. z�.:- V :it';h•..tsza:�+:cc�nxra.-uati.. �.,,., Comments 1. Studies are anticipated to be done by the City, as considered necessary by the Administration and Public Works Director. 2. Studies may also be done by other parties, but must be verified and endorsed by the Public Works Director. 3. Pedestrian volumes would be measured on a 7 -day period to incorporate peak periods during weekends as well as weekdays. Options A. Specify who is responsible for conducting studies. B. Specify how, where and when studies will be done. C. No change to draft policy. 613. Is Policy 17 an informational statement only? G14. Is Policy 18 an informational statement only? Comments 1. These two policy statements provide additional policy guidance on the type of pedestrian road crossing facilities the City wishes to develop. 2. Explicit deletion or modification of these policies would establish other guidelines for pedestrian crossing facility development (i.e. of pedestrian signal controls). Options A. Modify policies. Comments Page 12 B. No change. G15. In all cases on arterials, the sidewalk should be 8 feet wide or have a 3 -foot minimum planting strip plus 5 foot (preferably 6 feet) wide CW (concrete walk). 1. The existing draft policies reflect a desire to achieve the commentators standards. 2. Draft policies 7 and 11 call for a six foot wide sidewalk with minimum 3 foot planting strip in commercial zones, and a five foot wide sidewalk with minimum three foot planting strip in industrial zones where possible. Otherwise, six foot and five foot curbline sidewalks (i.e. no planting strip) would be designed. Options See options for comment 09. Comments. Options A. Incorporate these provisions in the draft policies. B. No change in draft policies. Page 13 3. Draft Policy 7 calls for eight foot sidewalks only at bus stops and pull- outs, and where sidewalks are adjacent to the road and the speed limit is over 35 mph. 4. All public through streets in the CBD are arterials with speed limits of 35 mph. G16. All vertical objects should be 3 feet clear of the curb face, such as street trees, fire hydrants, or utility poles. G17. All vertical objects should be 2 feet clear of the sidewalk (if possible). G18. Specify sidewalk thickness (Recommend 4" (for walk and) 8" for DWY (drive- way apron). G19. The design of the driveway may be critical for the safety of the pedes- trians and also for the durability of the sidewalk. (Recommend 3 foot minimum of level same as CW). See sketch 1. G20. The temporary sidewalk should be made of asphalt. (Approximately 2" asphalt over 4" crushed rock). The asphalt driveway shall be 3" asphalt over 6" crushed rock. G21. Washington State law requires the curb ramp to have a 3 -foot by 5 -foot apron for safety purposes. If there is no R/W (right -of -way) or other reason for not providing a landing space, then I recommend using a larger wing to meet a 12 to 1 slope requirement. 1. These provisions reflect generally accepted engineering design standards which are supported by the Public Works Department and the City's "Standard Plans." G22. Combined trail /sidewalk provisions in the April, 1987, draft policies are not needed given the existing and planned sidewalks are unfairly burdensome on one single property owner along South 180th Street, and are inappropriate in a Sidewalk Plan (i.e. trails should be dealt with in recreation plans). Comments Comments Comments Page 14 1. The Planning Commission has already concurred with this comment and removed combined . trail /sidewalk provisions from the current draft policies. H. Sidewalk Maintenance H1 No comments are possible until a decision on separated or curbline sidewalk design is made. Comments 1. See comments on sidewalk maintenance (Al and A2) and review process (62). H2 The City should assume all sidewalk liability and maintenance responsibility as it has with roads. 1. There are no existing draft policies specifically addressing sidewalk liability and maintenance issues. They have been discussed in J1 and J2 (liability) and Al and A2 (maintenance). H3. What are the specific standards for "long -term" (structural) and daily sidewalk maintenance. Comments 1. These standards are discussed in response to concerns Al and A2. H4. How will maintenance standards for sidewalks and buffer landscape strips be enforced to ensure quality continuity. Some owners are not and will not be interested in maintaining landscaping. 1. No specific enforcement procedures are included in the draft policies. Therefore, the enforcement procedures per TMC 1.08.010 and 8.28.280 - -310 will apply. 2. In general these procedures make the Mayor responsible for enforcement once authorized by Council to act. The City is authorized to do all work neces- sary to maintain sidewalks and landscaping, and lien the property if the owner fails to comply. This process would take no less than two weeks. 3. There are some landscape areas which have deteriorated due to neglect. These areas have been relatively small and are usually associated with a failure to provide automatic irrigation. 4. The Planning Department has not historically been active in landscape main- tenance enforcement in large part due to a lack of jurisdiction in this area except for projects subject to design review. H5. What are "cracked, crumbling and uneven" sidewalks. 1. See discussion of concerns Al and A2. I. Financing I1. L.I.D. financing is supported. Comments I2. Who will pay for pedestrian signals. Comments Options 4. Sidewalks enhance the value of adjacent properties. Page 15 1. The draft policies propose financing the property owner's share of improve- ment costs by L.I.D. Each property owner would be billed for the cost of installing sidewalks on the property. 1. All currently funded traffic control signals include pedestrian controls and will be paid for by the City. 2. New, pedestrian only crossings may require some private participation. I3. Non -users such as industrial businesses should not have to pay for side- walks. Comments 1. Existing draft policies call for all property owners to pay for adjacent sidewalks. 2. Existing State statutes specifically authorize cities to charge property owners to pay for adjacent sidewalks. 3. All new industrial businesses are required to build sidewalks by City ordi- nance (TMC 11.64). A. Exempt all industrial businesses from having to install or pay for side- walks. B. Exempt only existing industrial businesses from having to install sidewalks. C. No change in existing draft policy. I4. Who will pay for re- landscaping and landscape strips of separated sidewalks. .ur- f . u� :� ?�;.i:fi�.� ::.1':d'i•L u•. :.Plr:4.ltr, h. . . »...........w........ «.»."avan i.w.rv�c. run. aryrycx ^.t.�x^::a'x*.n:5r.;r�tr� +.f7 �t'. P"" YY. Y�' iS?t•^ f? 23��:* V.^ ,'.f.Yf4.i1:;?i:.YT.?�..y.i.;d� '1;.. Page 16 Comments 1. There are no draft policies specifically assigning these costs. 2. The Public Works Department envisions this as part of total sidewalk instal- lation costs. 3. The City Attorney concurs that this is a standard definition of total side- walk construction costs. Options A. City to assume all or a portion of landscape costs. B. Amend existing draft policies to specifically include these costs in side- walk construction. C. No change in existing policies. I5. Phase sidewalk construction so that streets on which sidewalks are not currently needed can be built on an as- needed basis. Comments 1. Existing policies call for phased sidewalk construction. Sidewalks on streets with lower pedestrian demand (Moderate Priority on Sidewalk Plan, Figure 1) are scheduled for construction between 1992 and 1995. 2. The City has mandated the development and implementation of this CBD Side- walk Plan to complete the existing disjointed pattern of sidewalks in order to form a complete, continuous pedestrian system. 3. The existing Sidewalk Construction Ordinance requires sidewalks upon new construction or significant renovation (TMC 11.64). Options A. Remove all Moderate Priority streets from the CBD Sidewalk Plan and continue with the existing sidewalks - -upon renovation pattern of incremental improve- ments. B. Remove all areas zoned industrial and more than 1/8 mile from a pedestrian attraction from the Sidewalk Plan (see El). C. No change in existing policy. Comments Comments 1 13r2: 3 R , ;.: 4 Page 17 K. Conformance to Tukwila Zoning Code K1. TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk dedication should read as follows (underlined words are additions to the existing draft section): "No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become non - conforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allow- ance shall not apply to property when the existing structure is demolished, except when such demolition, rebiulding, or remodeling is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to apply if structure is demolished and rebuilt due to natural disaster, fire or similar events." 1. This proposal mirrors Policy 14 except that K1 does not specifically include donation of right -of -way. 2. The existing policy does not specify the donation as right -of -way or ease- ment. The City staff had viewed donations as either, but would tend to recommend easements because: a. Donating an easement would allow the property owner to use the area as part of the building setback upon redevelopment. This would not be possible with a right -of -way donation. b. There is no difference in maintenance or liability between having the sidewalk on an easement or right -of -way (see Al, A2, and J1). Options A. Adopt the language change. B. Adopt the language change including the donation of right -of -way as stated in Policy 14. C. No change in existing policy. K2. Ensure that Policy 13 is reflected in all other Plan elements. 1. A review of other Plan elements has not uncovered any obvious conflicts. Therefore, the substantive provisions in Policy 13 will apply throughout the Plan. K3. Sidewalks built on donated easements should be counted toward satisfying the landscape requirements. sue» Arfit SC�Y'taaaaltctrc .11555i:1 z 171' Comments Options Comments (251 /SW.EVALU11 -19) Page 18 1. Draft Policy 14 allows the counting of sidewalks as landscaping only where non - conforming situations would be created. This allowance would cease upon building replacement. 2. The existing Zoning Code does not allow sidewalks to count as landscaping (TMC 18.06.410). 3. Allowing sidewalks to count as landscaping would reduce the minimum required front width for plant materials from 10 or 15 feet, to 5 or 10 feet. A. Allow sidewalks to count as landscaping and amend the Zoning Code to reflect this change. B. Allow sidewalks to count as landscaping only when the minimum width for plant materials is 10 feet and amend the Zoning Code to reflect this. C. No change in the existing ordinance. K4. The provisions of 18.70 should apply both in an easement donation and a right -of -way donation. 1. The existing draft language in this section states that this is the case. Since it does not specify right -of -way or easement donation, both types would trigger these provisions. 4 k4.- tfla ...__..,NXhYaWfe;Z'i:wr:'avar.satoataogw:zfkatiue,, AFr !DAVIT I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby 0 Notice of Public Hearing El Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet ED Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87-2-CPA 0 F OISTWBUTION declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance El Mitigated Determination of Non- significance D Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Ei Official Notice O Other O Other FRIDAY. OCTORFR 7, 1988 19, ! VU /sjn City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: >:aa. -..Kr . RAM ::Fr,: n.. ...._.r....... ']' 4t"?• �'. r rd , 132. 1:' �J: 4F;..ti.a:w)5'n., .�:iYS ? � l: �l:`....,. . t.' �;? i. n�.... tT �.. `.'.!'"7 ...........:...34i;�,. r.,..;. .;dr.:,.a::✓aJ.`:y`... October 7, 1988 Subject: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN The Planning Commission resumes its review of the CBD Sidewalk Policy Plan and implementing ordinances at its meeting on October 27, 1988. Plan review will be continued based on the process adopted earlier by the Planning Commission. The public input phase had been completed, and the Commission was almost done evaluating public comments on the proposed policies when plan review was suspended. This evaluation will be continued and probably completed on October 27th. The Planning Department will revise the policies and implementing ordinances to reflect Commission decisions for its December 20th meet- ing. After final Commission approval, these policies will be transmitted to the City Council for review and adoption. The City Council will likely hold its own public hearings to allow for any final public comments prior to adopting, modifying or rejecting the plan. Please feel free to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. Sincerely, a t-tft. Vernon Umetsu Associate Planner ka a Yi s� �'''''+�t`.:`�H�:u''`r tA 7e'll ' '.C ie.t?4 tsocrs, „k Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Q4 S.C.?' 13 I S'') , 19 Name of Project File Number R7-9—CPA A I D A V V I T T O F D I STr„,.? B U T I O N hereby declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance (] Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action J Official Notice O Other • Other (Mailed to interested parties) Signature 9,( tll) 4MIPi eir�'h. }�iwo :lwY,`rtk h: 4'SliitGtl 64JE11ib 9M5rrrhrdrwnwrusanr. rw-. r�.. �....�.�....e.u...�...�...w+w++ City of Tukwila September 12, 1988 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 RE: POSTPONEMENT OF C.B.D. SIDEWALK PLAN REVIEW The Planning Commission will not be able to resume Sidewalk Plan review in September due to a heavier than expected work load. Therefore, please disregard the prior letter of September 1, 1988. The Planning Commission has been meeting twice monthly for several months to deal with the many issues associated with three major annexations. The items on both September meetings preclude any reasonable expectation of working on the Plan. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. I hope to resume Sidewalk Plan review in October (1988). • Si ncer ly, Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner tr1w .�an¢rM�.nwnww+rsr�+r��ran�tw: i �¢ 4}:Lbu'+•iewfvd WIl'S", GA GA' Y..'u�f�CvYu`U:•/A.tAaw4leM�er. 1aWartr... nw++ rre. vr. r... a: ww... r+ w+ rnverr�. rm• wenwsawS.+ rm. a« wrw+ rM+.. wwww�nwr+ vr« amanw.+< rn+ nauswJaw; N•h. �mn�n• wra+ ue�vvnrv.• www+ wwwrr ...,�..........�T�.�._..._.... . 1, MARILYN MARX hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet [I Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [] Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit AF( I D A V I T O F D ISTf- :; BUT I ON was mailed to each of the following addresses on SEPTEMBER 1, SIDEWALK PLAN TO INTERESTED PARTIES File Number OOP Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN F c P4 0 Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [l Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice Other O Other S i/d ignature d'ncei , 1 g 8 :.�' J 4,:?. % n�; si.¢: lt�i '.'�.t� •::k llL"�1• Sit' A�u4adrNr�: aU•.: aht�.., xasa. v. e. r..•.• nv��.. aw. �n+ r�...,>+........:.n.we...:....0 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: VU /sjn City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Subject: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN Sincerely, September 1, 1988 The Planning Commission anticipates resuming its review of the CBD Sidewalk Policy Plan and implementing ordinances at its meeting on September 22, 1988. Plan review will be continued based on the process adopted earlier by the Planning Commission. The public input phase had been completed, and the Commission was almost done evaluating public comments on the proposed policies when plan review was suspended. This evaluation will be continued and probably completed on September 22nd. The Planning Department will revise the policies and implementing ordin- ances to reflect Commission decisions for its October 27th meeting. After final Commission approval, these policies will be transmitted to the City Council for review and adoption. The City Council will likely hold its own public hearings to allow for any final public comments prior to adopting, modifying or rejecting the plan. Please feel free to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. Vernon M. Umetsu Associate Planner • 7iii&4 . +' l. - ag 1411: it . n5.., u�ah. i. 6; � �t. e. �7kY., s. iiticv7. 2 kHtk6RM3ra'. ivcx :�.ew��v,:aw: «r.M+:�amr�r.w: m.n,er.. maw.-., va- �,« o.. enuu- a..' wv. a.. n,..�:n.✓� +:..kc-wn.r�.zT wzx. �n.✓ vxaW��ra: ciSYM1eNN' F�.* �:... 1LK711U9S Ek7�': �? Y�1J: c�1: d ° ':S�t'c AF(.IDAVIT Q Notice of Public Hearing C1 Notice of Public Meeting [j Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project &iturArOIL et File Number 87 -2 -CPA OF DI STR ION hereby declare that: [� Determination of Nonsignificance E1 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [] Notice of Action Q Official Notice [j Other [[ Other 5( /9y ) , 19 • Sig e tur '��5�e4'1�tH:7a rub 'r A'ki:4 ?3.': 7.4".`,.� kA: Ad+: tt6' kesn5 ixesL k uar.v,v .xTaw:rcrrx+mr.us.+xx+.;,su , nc: �. raer '+mew.wrw..uv.asw+xrsnnf>awn.kw Ra: asrt» eweru*S :.catMe+LSenteaAsgxlcr..: name+.m. vu[ mn.e.. «,..`.—__ . City f Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewers: July 7, 1988 This letter is to update you on the CBD Sidewalk Plan that the Planning Commission has been reviewing for several months. This review was originally scheduled to be completed this summer, however several large development projects and annexation requests will delay completion to late summer or early fall. Planning Commission review is anticipated to resume in September 1988. All interested parties will be notified by mail when a specific meeting date has been identified. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. VU /sjn Sincerely, Vernon M. Umetsu Associate Planner ift .k4 4l 1;i.0 ;a� KYKrri .iY.c' nISW1 V I, BEVERLY L. ROGERS O Notice of Public Hearing • Notice of Public Meeting nt .a..n .:xn . a trxr.pes. A F .I D A V I T Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [[ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit [I Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses Mailed to interested parties Name of Project CBD SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87 -2 -CPA ntEmmt.. - ;. ;tsrvs:.• r?>Tvmoum yn.'f <+e',sWt'.,' }ITgring W i4+3..`?rrr' VIEV . .. OF D I STRBUT I ON hereby declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice • Notice of Action O Official Notice [l Other [] Other on MAY 19, 1988 , 19 . A"3 reeeta efet=i4IS :: IVIT .WtStwAxecatt.:vx.f =.r.,,..., it ,... r x�isw. V DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Status of Annexations B. Work Program VII ADJOURNMENT (21 /AGDA.5 -26) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 :.. rcr. ec. vaarmxmora7er72tt 'on :.:n!h+WM1.01%, ff City of Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday May 26, 1988 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall I CALL TO ORDER II ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 12, 1988 IV WORK SESSION AGENDA Planning Commission Public Meeting Case Number: 87 -2 -CPA: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES Applicant: City of Tukwila Request: Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction) Location: City of Tukwila, south of I -405 and east of I -5. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by Mr. Coplen, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Kirsop, Knudson, Cagle and Haggerton. Mr. Larson and Mr. Hamilton were absent. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Rebecca Fox and Joanne Johnson. MINUTES MR. HAGGERTON MOVED THAT THE MARCH 24, 1988 AND APRIL 14, 1988 MINUTES BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lee Cagle from N C Machinery Co. was introduced as the new member of the Planning Commission. 87 -5 -DR: GENCOR - Request for approval of landscape plan modification. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner reviewed the proposal recommend- ing approval. He entered into the record the Gencor Memorandum, File No. 87 -5 -DR, dated May 6, 1988 as Exhibit 1. Steve Friedman, 1633 - 72nd Avenue S.E., Mercer Island, WA represented the applicant. He further explained the proposal. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REVISED ADDENDUM TO THE LAND- SCAPE PLAN BASED UPON THE STAFF REPORT AND INFORMATION PRESENTED AT THE MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HAGGERTON AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. (MR. CAGLE ABSTAINED). 87- 14 -DR: STATE FARM - Request for approval of a two -story office building with 18,401 square feet on a 4.42 acre site. Vernon Umetsu reviewed the proposal recommending approval subject to conditions. He entered into the record the State Farm Memorandum, File No 87- 14 -DR, dated May 6, 1988 as Exhibit 1. r The APPROVED conditions are as follows: r, .� ryr�na:.x:a���:.:cr!: rf - :vy r. YA c. n:..:: frrr,r ;"irigdi._itt∎rynru,`.*STIF Ps ° li, ZWw ?blV7 R1 ∎I ;� , Planning Commission May 12, 1988 Page 2 David Parker, Phoenix, AZ represented the applicant. He further clarified the proposal. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR STATE FARM BASED ON THE MATERIAL PRESENTED, STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. REGARDING ITEM 7, THE GLASS WALL REFLECTIVITY SHOULD BE NO GREATER THAN 20 %. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. (MR. CAGLE ABSTAINED). 1. Drainage and flood control structures to be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. The short platting and establishment of a 40 -foot access easement as discussed in Background 2.a to completed without significant changes in the site plan. Any significant changes, as determined by the Planning Director, shall be reviewed by the Board. 3. Final landscape design to be approved by the Planning Director as discussed in Background 2.b. 4. Automatic irrigation shall be provided. Irrigation plans to be approved by the Planning Director. 5. A pedestrian path to the Christensen Trail from the building shall be constructed per approval of the Parks and Recrea- tion Director. 6. Building facade /colors to be specified by applicant and approved by the Board. 7. Glass wall reflectivity should be no greater than 20 %. 8. Luminaire plans to be approved by the Planning Director based on BAR Criteria 3 and 4. Light standards shall be harmonious in height and design with that provided by the facing development, and provide for no off -site spillover. 9. Modify drainage swale to filter as much parking lot runoff as possible, as determined by the City Engineer. 87 -2 -CPA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES - Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks of the central business district to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). cc ti......j.; 1, :t`a �,.,�.r. :J : S��'fiI N:r;:, E: ., ,,: A�• 5 _vn•,t,.:,,..v.r.,.t.- .,o...r., .M1 u Planning Commission May 12, 1988 Page 3 a.i�a, xf• Ana �...r-...e..ivaz`*.41,0 ::B ..f•!".':�'.:}e.pi ��r tic. Kin 4_: 1- �r, <tn;�v ;:•;; :3is:e^°4 , .i"�lY mK�? , `4!'.rtiV-52tV Mr. Richard Chapin, representing Southcenter Mall. He reviewed a Memorandum to Vernon Umetsu, dated April 29, 1988 and which was subsequently entered into the Record as Exhibit 1. Vernon Umetsu, discussed the memorandum adding clarification. Ann Nichols, representing Segale Business Park expressed concerns that the Sidewalk Plan be practical and discussed the maintenance responsibilities by the City versus property owners. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission will review the material presented thus far and come to a decision on the recommendation to the City Council at the May Planning Commission meeting. 88 -2 -DR: SCHNEIDER TOWNHOMES - Request for approval of a 9 two - story townhouses on two separate lots. Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Pictures of an existing development were entered into the Record as Exhibit A. The color selection was entered as Exhibit B and trim as Exhibit C. Mr. Carl Bloss, 6510 Southcenter Blvd. represented Schneider Homes. He expressed his concerns with the staff's suggested placement of townhouses on the site. The site plan was entered into the record as Exhibit D. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, BASED UPON THE STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 a,b,c, &d, 2, & 4,; LEAVING THE LAYOUTS OF THE BUILDINGS THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY INTENDED THEM TO BE. MR. CAGLE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. THE REVISED CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Submittal of a revised landscape plan prepared by a lands- cape architect to include the following items, subject to the approval of the Planning Director: a. Detailed landscape plan identifying plant materials to be used. ruK :.:.•a..- s +rzenr;:x <t«xet,':+:: ::.t :..:r7:'f•r:EtrtiPA. .. ,W FeY.:=2 Planning Commission May 12, 1988 Page 4 b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted along the west edge of the property to enhance the transition between the development and existing residential structures. c. Break the eight -space south parking lot with a land- scape island. d. Show details of landscaping near individual units patio /fence areas. 2. Use of lighting fixtures similar to those shown in photos provided by the applicant. 3. Detailed drawings of rear yard fences and patios with materials and dimensions. A 10- minute recess was called, and the meeting resumed at 9:30 p.m. 88 -3 -DR - 6450 Building - Request to construct a one - story, 15,000 square foot office building on a 53,000 square foot parcel. Vernon Umetsu reviewed the proposal. He entered slide pictures into the record as Exhibit A through E. The display board depicting the glass color, paint color and chrome used on the building were entered into record as Exhibit F. David Kehle, 12878 Interurban Avenue S., Seattle, WA 98168 discussed various aspects of the proposal. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AND, RELATIVE TO ITEM G IN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT PLANS BE PROVIDED FOR SCREENING OF THE EXTERIOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (DELETING THE WORD "FULL ") AS WELL AS AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS DEFEATED WITH HAGGERTON, CAGLE AND COPLEN VOTING NO; AND MR KIRSOP AND KNUDSON VOTING YES. MR. CAGLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE PROVISION THAT PLANS BE PROVIDED FOR SCREENING OF THE EXTERIOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING TO BE AS SHOWN ON THE BUILDING ELEVATION ORIGIN- ALLY SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT. Planning Commission May 12, 1988 Page 5 MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED WITH CAGLE, COPLEN, KNUDSON, KIRSOP VOTING YES AND MR. HAGGERTON VOTING NO. Mr. Haggerton went on record saying he had reservations as to the traffic impacts of the development. 88 -4 -DR - PARKWAY RETAIL BUILDING - Request to construct a one - story, 14,143 square foot retail building on a 66,000 square foot parcel. Vernon Umetsu reviewed the proposal pointing out the modifica- tions to the original landscaping and building design. He entered the May 6, 1988 addendum to the April 7th staff report as Exhibit 1. Mr. Bob Schofield, 3806 130th Avenue N.E., Bellevue represented the applicant. He clarified the proposal. Lance Mueller, 130 Lakeside, Seattle, 98122, architect for the building explained the design and signing of the building. Mark Wiseman, 2329 E. Madison, Seattle, WA 98112 landscaped architect, clarified the landscaping design. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ACCEPT THE DESIGN AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPTION OF EITHER USING HANGING BASKETS OR AWNINGS IN THE DESIGN. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kirsop was excused. 88 -5 -DR - METRO INTERURBAN PUMP STATION ODOR SCRUBBER Request to construct and screen a 9.33 -foot tall odor scrubbing pipe and tank. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, described the proposal, recommending approval with conditions. Matt Harris, 821 - Second Avenue Seattle further clarified the proposal. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. MR. CAGLE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 1988 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson Secretary • • TO: FROM: . .'.: 0.',4P- O>101.111WISA4 fswwtt. ut+. v..nw i. .,.,,... n...+.......-,.............«....,,..r................... v,. e.,...., ww.. mn. r: w.. soa... a� ..w. :••n- r....m..«ao..a..n....n rwa w. s. ���r�...,... wura.. wx.. �i ......�,.....�.__._..._..._... Tukwila Planning Commission Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner DATE: May 18, 1988 SUBJECT C.B.D. SIDEWALK PLAN City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM The Planning Commission has now completed all work on compiling the com- plete list of public concerns, and receiving testimony on pertinent facts regarding these concerns in two public hearings. This work has been done in accordance with the Commission's adopted plan review process. The current task is to resolve the identified concerns based on the pertin- ent facts. Once these concerns have been resolved, all sidewalk policies will be revised as appropriate. Pursuant to the Commission's directions, a work session has been scheduled for Thursday May 26, 1988. The adopted plan review process does not anti- cipate additional public testimony, but all interested parties are being notified and the Commission is free to ask clarifying questions of anyone present. Please feel free to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. VU /sjn cc: C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan, Interested Parties < OF 0! STRr;BUT ION hereby declare that: [� Determination of Nonsignificance (� Mitigated Determination of Non - significance (� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Ei Other [I Other on MAY 19, 1988 , 19 . VII ADJOURNMENT (21 /AGDA.5 -26) City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Status of Annexations B. Work Program PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday May 26, 1988 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall I CALL TO ORDER II ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 12, 1988 IV WORK SESSION AGENDA Planning Commission Public Meeting Case Number: 87 -2 -CPA: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES Applicant: City of Tukwila Request: Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction) Location: City of Tukwila, south of I -405 and east of I -5. t li&i .,[tea4 i'a�. . :1 11ib.'. '.'Stpr'N.i4'z.WU.f�xw.in.au«.. haw. r. w., w. wrn... w«......... .- ...�....�..................ra TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT C.B.D. SIDEWALK PLAN The Planning Commission has now completed all work on compiling the com- plete list of public concerns, and receiving testimony on pertinent facts regarding these concerns in two public hearings. This work has been done in accordance with the Commission's adopted plan review process. The current task is to resolve the identified concerns based on the pertin- ent facts. Once these concerns have been resolved, all sidewalk policies will be revised as appropriate. Pursuant to the Commission's directions, a work session has been scheduled for Thursday May 26, 1988. The adopted plan review process does not anti- cipate additional public testimony, but all interested parties are being notified and the Commission is free to ask clarifying questions of anyone present. Please feel free to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. VU /sjn City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor Tukwila Planning Commission Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner May 18, 1988 MEMORANDUM cc: C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan, Interested Parties t i v itiz z Y r; t asita'w TO: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor VPA'i.RS ZAV2∎ZillsW}.+xaAr cr narrxxnit,i: o,nar : +rxaxvr .rismsur. l- hlgAai.SCATP ;! , tti 3ir.r.-M9kn ;lirt12 '.S3 ?ATL VU /sjn Tukwila Planning Commission FROM: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner DATE: May 18, 1988 SUBJECT: C.B.D. SIDEWALK PLAN MEMORANDUM The Planning Commission has now completed all work on compiling the com- plete list of public concerns, and receiving testimony on pertinent facts regarding these concerns in two public hearings. This work has been done in accordance with the Commission's adopted plan review process. The current task is to.resolve the identified concerns based on the pertin- ent facts. Once these concerns have been resolved, all sidewalk policies will be revised as appropriate. Pursuant to the Commission's directions, a work session has been scheduled for Thursday May 26, 1988. The adopted plan review process does not anti- cipate additional public testimony, but all interested parties are being notified and the Commission is free to ask clarifying questions of anyone present. Please feel free to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any questions.' cc: C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan, Interested Parties ,x 'tCS?: I, 551T 'AITt.•sF . Planning Commission May 12, 1988 Page 2 David Parker, Phoenix, AZ represented the applicant. He further clarified the proposal. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN FOR STATE FARM BASED ON THE MATERIAL PRESENTED, STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. REGARDING ITEM 7, THE GLASS WALL REFLECTIVITY SHOULD BE NO GREATER THAN 20 %. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. (MR. CAGLE ABSTAINED). The APPROVED conditions are as follows: 1. Drainage and flood control structures to be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. The short platting and establishment of a 40 -foot access easement as discussed in Background 2.a to completed without significant changes in the site plan. Any significant changes, as determined by the Planning Director, shall be reviewed by the Board. 3. Final landscape design to be approved by the Planning Director as discussed in Background 2.b. 4. Automatic irrigation shall be provided. Irrigation plans to be approved by the Planning Director. 5. A pedestrian path to the Christensen Trail from the building shall be constructed per approval of the Parks and Recrea- tion Director. 6. Building facade /colors to be specified by applicant and approved by the Board. 7. Glass wall reflectivity should be no greater than 20 %. 8. Luminaire plans to be approved by the Planning Director based on BAR Criteria 3 and 4. Light standards shall be harmonious in height and design with that provided by the facing development, and provide for no off -site spillover. 9. Modify drainage swale to filter as much parking lot runoff as possible, as determined by the City Engineer. 87 -2 -CPA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES - Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks of the central business district to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). >,r ,n u,. ✓vns ,.v.. + 11,4;er •g•a• r?. :::'trr.<.�t�. , "ru Planning Commission May 12, 1988 Page 3 Mr. Richard Chapin, representing Southcenter Mall. He reviewed a Memorandum to Vernon Umetsu, dated April 29, 1988 and which was subsequently entered into the Record as Exhibit 1. Vernon Umetsu, discussed the memorandum adding clarification. Ann Nichols, representing Segale Business Park expressed concerns that the Sidewalk Plan be practical and discussed the maintenance responsibilities by the City versus property owners. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission will review the material presented thus far and come to a decision on the recommendation to the City Council at the May Planning Commission meeting. 88 -2 -DR: SCHNEIDER TOWNHOMES - Request for approval of a 9 two - story townhouses on two separate lots. Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, reviewed the proposal and recommended approval, subject to conditions. Pictures of an existing development were entered into the Record as Exhibit A. The color selection was entered as Exhibit B and trim as Exhibit C. Mr. Carl Bloss, 6510 Southcenter Blvd. represented Schneider Homes. He expressed his concerns with the staff's suggested placement of townhouses on the site. The site plan was entered into the record as Exhibit D. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, BASED UPON THE STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 a,b,c, &d, 2, & 4,; LEAVING THE LAYOUTS OF THE BUILDINGS THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY INTENDED THEM TO BE. MR. CAGLE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. THE REVISED CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Submittal of a revised landscape plan prepared by a lands- cape architect to include the following items, subject to the approval of the Planning Director: a. Detailed landscape plan identifying plant materials to be used. t�' fat: °.l'�v'C7N , ... .. '� Vernon M. Umetsu RE: City of Tukwila Sidewalk Policies DATE: April 29, 1988 Thank you very much. MEMO TO: FROM: Richard U. Chapin, Ferguson & Burdell, Attorneys for Southcenter Separated sidewalks shall be provided, except where limited by existing utilities or parking and the lack of four feet of available landscape separation from the roadway. Exceptions to this rule may also be granted by the Public Works Direc- tor, based on public safety considerations. NOTE: I do not have a copy of the November, 1987, draft of Proposed Sidewalk Plan Policies, etc., which is currently before the Planning Commission. I would appreciate it if you would forward me a copy as quickly as possible. zrs P..61 11-n14:4.; 5 ' /a - X < .,6 As we discussed by telephone, it is my opinion that Policy 14 should be amended to more clearly express what I understand to be its intent, namely, that sidewalks will be required to be modified in design or eliminated so that there is no resulting reduction in the number of pre- existing parking stalls. As written, Policy 14 directs modifications so that there will be a minimum impact on parking. As written it does not make clear that if design modification cannot maintain the existing number of stalls, that the requirement for sidewalks will be eliminated. I suggest that the follow- ing amendment would accomplish that purpose: Policy 14: Where sidewalks would [ }}'nte fere with existing parking], reduce the numbef` parking stalls the sidewalk design will [be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Planning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking] either be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Planning so that the pre -side- walk number of parking stalls maintained, or if that is not possible, the requirement for sidewalks will be eliminated. [Minimum impacts shall include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaced.] Where possible, restriping and use of compact stalls can be utilized to retain the existing number of parking spaces or otherwise minimize impacts on parking. On Attachment H of Planning Department memo dated 9/16/87, it is my suggestion that the first stated policy be amended as follows: - cc: P. Schmitz P. Gradecky Keith Masters I4 35 J)7wA��z. 'J+ 7.?Y+ Si5i1C:. F� \ 3' 1 .4414.4.4'Mb— iwmv.+woe....Y.vwv I S RFVFRIV I RO o Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet File Number 87 - - CPA ty tea IOOW ,riG`XJr by:;5_:, ztratct e igeAr rAZu •'.5' OrAn s tatinl','uagOkM4K0 'Xs1 11$40107 :t;a; AF(L OF DISTRj.3UTION hereby declare that: (] Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action C1 Official Notice Q Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit [] Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on May 7, 1988 , 19 . Mailed to interested parties Name of Project CENT_ BUS. DIST. SIDEWALK City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW May 12, 1988 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall AGENDA I CALL TO ORDER II ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 24, 1988 April 14, 1988 IV OLD BUSINESS Board of Architectural Review Public Meeting 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: IV NEW BUSINESS 87 -5 -DR: GENCOR Steven M. Friedman Review modifications to the landscape plan. 5700 Block of Southcenter Boulevard 87- 14 -DR: STATE FARM Castillo Company, Inc. Construct a two -story office building with 18,401 square feet on a 4.42 acre site. Approximately 100 feet east of the Interurban Avenue South /Southcenter Boulevard intersection in the NW i of Sec. 24, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, WA Planning Commission Public Hearing 1. Case Number: 87 -2 -CPA: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES Applicant: City of Tukwila Request: Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). Location: City of Tukwila, south of I -405 and east of I -5. 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 3. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 4. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: VI DIRECTOR'S REPORT VII ADJOURNMENT (21 /AGDA.5 -12) Board of Architectural Review Public Meeting 88 -2 -DR: SCHNEIDER TOWNHOMES G. Schneider Construct 9 two -story townhouses on two separate lots. East of 65th Avenue South, at the east end of South 153rd Street, Tukwila, WA. 88 -3 -DR: 6450 BUILDING Bruce Solly Development Company Construct a one - story, 15,000- square foot office building on a 53,000 - square foot parcel. NW corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /65th Avenue South Intrsection, Tukwila, WA. 88 -4 -DR: PARKWAY RETAIL BUILDING A. Shimatsu /Y. Mikami Construct a one - story, 24,243- square foot retail building on a 66,000- square foot parcel. On Southcenter Parkway, immediately north of 17015 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, WA. 88 -5 -DR: METRO INTERURBAN PUMP STATION ODOR SCRUBBER Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Construct and screen a 9.33 -foot tall odor scrubbing pipe and tank. On Interurban Avenue South, across from Foster Golf Course, Tukwila, WA [] Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet [] Short Subdivision Agenda Packet A F G O A V I T OF D I S T R3 U T I 0 N BEVERLY L. ROGERS hereby declare that: Mailed to interested parties Name of Project CENT,BU .DIST. SIDEWA►K File Number 87 -2 -CPA Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [] Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [] Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Notice of Application for Q Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on r April 29. 1988 , 19 . 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 3. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 4. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 5. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: Published: Distribution: (21 /NTC.5 -12) City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on May 12, 1988, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: Planning Commission Public Hearing 87 -2 -CPA: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES City of Tukwila Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Noncon- forming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). City of Tukwila, south of I -405 and east of I -5. Board of Architectural Review Public Meeting 87- 14 -DR: State Farm Castillo Company, Inc. Construct a two -story office building with 18,401 square feet on a 4.42 acre site. Approximately 100 feet east of the Interurban Avenue South/ Southcenter Boulevard intersection in the NW } of Sec. 24, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, WA 88 -2 -DR: SCHNEIDER TOWNHOMES G. Schneider Construct 9 two -story townhouses on two separate lots. East of 65th Avenue South, at the east end of South 153rd Street, Tukwila, WA. 88 -3 -DR: 6450 BUILDING Bruce Solly Development Company Construct a one - story, 15,000- square foot office building on a 53,000- square foot parcel. NW corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /65th Avenue South Intersection, Tukwila, WA. 88 -4 -DR: PARKWAY RETAIL BUILDING A. Shimatsu /Y. Mikami Construct a one - story, 24,243- square foot retail building on a 66,000- square foot parcel. On Southcenter Parkway, immediately north of 17015 South - center Parkway, Tukwila, WA. 88 -5 -DR: METRO INTERURBAN PUMP STATION ODOR SCRUBBER Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Construct and screen a 9.33 -foot tall odor scrubbing pipe and tank. On Interurban Avenue South, across from Foster Golf Course, Tukwila, WA. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Valley Daily News - Sunday May 1, 1988 Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. Q Q Q [j Determination of Nonsignificance �] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice C1 Notice of Action O Official Notice [D Other Other on April 0U, 1988 , 19 . City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 I CALL TO ORDER II ATTENDANCE III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 24, 1988 April 14, 1988 (to be distributed at meeting) IV NEW BUSINESS 1. Case Number: 87 -2 -CPA: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES Applicant: City of Tukwila Request: Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). Location: City of Tukwila, south of I -405 and east of I -5. 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 3. Case Number: Applicant: Request: (21 /AGDA.4 -28) Location: 4. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: V DIRECTOR'S REPORT VI ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW April 28, 1988 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall AGENDA Planning Commission Public Hearing Board of Architectural Review Public Meeting 88 -2 -DR: SCHNEIDER TOWNHOMES G. Schneider Construct 9 two -story townhouses on two separate lots. East of 65th Avenue South, at the east end of South 153rd Street, Tukwila, WA. 88 -3 -DR: 6450 BUILDING Bruce Solly Development Company Construct a one - story, 15,000- square foot office building on a 53,000- square foot parcel. NW corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /65th Avenue South Intersection, Tukwila, WA. 88 -4 -DR: PARKWAY RETAIL BUILDING A. Shimatsu /Y. Mikami Construct a one - story, 24,243- square foot retail building on a 66,000- square foot parcel. On Southcenter Parkway, immediately north of 17015 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, WA. 88 -5 -DR: METRO INTERURBAN PUMP STATION ODOR SCRUBBER Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Construct and screen a 9.33 -foot tall odor scrubbing pipe and tank. On Interurban Avenue South, across from Foster Golf Course, Tukwila, WA I, BEVERLY L. ROGERS AF:DAVIT El Notice of Public Hearing El Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit El Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN File Number cc/ cp OF DISTR( BUTION hereby declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non- significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice Other Other APRIL 15, 1988 , 19 . 0 Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on April 28, 1988, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: 1. Case Number: 87 -2 -CPA: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK POLICIES Applicant: City of Tukwila Request: Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Noncon- forming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). Location: City of Tukwila, south of I -405 and east of I -5. 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 3. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 4. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday April 17, 1988 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. (21/NTC.4 -28) City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Planning Commission Public Hearing Board of Architectural Review Public Meeting 88 -2 -DR: SCHNEIDER TOWNHOMES G. Schneider Construct 9 two -story townhouses on two separate lots. East of 65th Avenue South, at the east end of South 153rd Street, Tukwila, WA. 88 -3 -DR: 6450 BUILDING Bruce Solly Development Company Construct a one - story, 15,000- square foot office building on a 53,000- square foot parcel. NW corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /65th Avenue South Intersection, Tukwila, WA. 88 -4 -DR: PARKWAY RETAIL BUILDING A. Shimatsu /Y. Mikami Construct a one - story, 24,243- square foot retail building on a 66,000- square foot parcel. On Southcenter Parkway, immediately north of 17015 South - center Parkway, Tukwila, WA. 88 -5 -DR: METRO INTERURBAN PUMP STATION ODOR SCRUBBER Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Construct and screen a 9.33 -foot tall odor scrubbing pipe and tank. On Interurban Avenue South, across from Foster Golf Course, Tukwila, WA. 1.6 v3e7 n 'T.1T t i 7J L f Y� galt L`1f'p ���WJ � �73��. giW". A$ k^ F,`* Y"$ �lYLI�CS` �SiL1: IS�i. 71tiFYL1.c TnYGSTOi ,L.Sid.'YW:.r:L»rvaka.YS�vv^ NSW?. 0' r2xA��4Sri�v YZ�4+.R«`:F�S �"�llY+4��..• �'7.s/�i ! ,t+F..�S c �`# . d;., �r_ ott,+ i"t,$;? twsa Q hereby declare that: Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting U Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet A F F C D A V I T O F D I S T R Fes U T I O N 0 Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on La 47%tr,,,LL.," Tha,14 4 r c2, File Number 87 -2 —CPA 0 Determination of Nonsignificance U Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice J Notice of Action C1 Official Notice 3 -2,- , 19 . (Mailed to interesteed parties) Name of Project Signat a ;ht• i Ozieie ilwlar:atatig ;CI.:.L' qc�H:, 4ZGtxLaunvsasanmucwrmsavr�m :u City Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: VU /sjn March 29, 1988 Sincerely, ernon M. Umetsu Associate Planner >.:41s4+ rvwti.'d13?L:;wmt .'S :a m — �-' This is Part Two of the staff's evaluation of public concerns. Please note the revisions to the February 28th Staff Evaluations included as a first section. Again, the Planning Commission will be reviewing these evaluations at its meeting on April 28, 1988. All parties will have an opportunity to present information on each publicly identified concern. The Commission will then close public input, consider all presented information, and resolve the issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 433 -1858 if I can be of assistance. f.. .,,...:..;� .�v �..1'�s:!..>: -�: �.:e.'r •..^::�..:,. f . r mss. �.. r�:" -'- ..... .... :..: �. •. , - :: r; .^.v.:....^... .. �. , .,.. . .. .. ... .. .. .. .... ..,.. ..." . Recognizing the need for maintenance. REVISInS TO STAFF COMMENTS OF FEBRUARYZ8, 1988 Planning Department comments on Concerns Al and A2 are revised as follows based on recently received legal opinions from the City Attorney. A. DEFINITIONS NEEDED Al. What is meant by "long term" (structural) sidewalk maintenance? A2. What is meant by "daily" sidewalk maintenance? There are no adopted City policies on sidewalk maintenance. In the absence of locally adopted policies, the following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establish the responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance, performance of daily maintenance, and the performance of struc- tural repair. These interpretations are based on RCW 35.70, legal opinions from the city attorneys of the City of Centralia and the City of Everett, and the Tukwila City Attorney. In general, each city is responsible for ensuring that their sidewalks are safe. Cities are authorized by the State to make a policy choice on whether to use general public funds to maintain these sidewalks, or direct abutting property owners to maintain them. Tukwila City staff and capital costs for publicly maintained sidewalks in all commercial and residential areas would be significant, especially in light of potential annexation areas. An overview of sidewalk maintenance practices for selected cities is shown in Table 1. The City has the primary responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance. This duty is dependent upon the need being sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time that City personnel should have become aware of the problem and acted to have it corrected. This primary responsibility does not include situations when the need for maintenance is caused by the abutting property owner (i.e., a tree branch across the sidewalk or structural damage due to construction). In these types of cases, the abutting property owner is primarily responsible for restoring' the sidewalk. The iteria for "sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time" is:::0110doct to the "reasonableness test ". If there is a three inch high upliftfing.of the sidewalk, then there would be a longer period of "suf- ficienttime," than if the sidewalk had been undermined and fallen into a six foot deep hole. There are no statutory standards for establishing this test. Performance of structural maintenance. Page 2 Performance of daily maintenance. Dailymaintenance includes non - structural activities necessary to keep the sidewalk a safe and usable facility for a reasonable person. Such maintenance activities include cleaning off dirt, removing obstacles such as boards lying on the sidewalk, and limbing trees to ensure ade- quate headroom for users. Responsibility for ensuring a safe sidewalk, once a need is reasonably recognized, rests with the City. This duty can be discharged by having City personnel maintain the sidewalk or require the abutting property owner do it at no cost to the City. Structural maintenance is the replacement or repair of the sidewalk surface and /or base. Structural maintenance activities include patch - ramps to smooth out uplifting of one inch or more, and replacement of cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks. As with daily maintenance, the City has the general responsibility to ensure a safe facility. It can do this by either having City personnel maintain the sidewalk or require the abutting property owner do it at no cost to the City. No specific criteria is adopted for determining when cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks require structural maintenance. Instead, the City Council uses an open public process to completely examine the issues, and determine the necessity for structural maintenance. Options The options for explicitly assigning these responsibilities are repre- sented in the matrix below: City tang rty Problem Recognition Long -term Maintenance Daily Maintenance There is a direct tie between the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability for injuries to users. Please see J - Liability for clarifi- cation of sidewalk maintenance and the relationship to liability. .tax! •t2'r. ;f' iTist. t3k4 eY da'i4t! 4. LIABILITY 441."!4M6Vt,ntiWutor. er....c .knat ....r runanix ..rsUal artmci" SfaattgaulltitiMhSPXOEKLYM 7.",vvai `a'4'r"'eu.`MM... n3' `Sebw'tw e�lYr}n `?4 Page 3 Options A. The Cityzc n assume any and all responsibility for maintenance and liability as a result of sidewalks. B. The City can establish abutting property owner to be responsible. C. No change in the existing policies of maintenance responsibilities to be on a case by case basis. In light of revisions to maintenance responsibilities, comment J6. should be revised as follows: 6. The property owner would be the primary party liable for user injuries whether the sidewalk was on City right -of -way or a private easement if the City has ordered maintenance action. The City would have primary liability if it can be shown that it should have reasonably recognized the need for maintenance and failed to order maintenance in a timely manner. This conclusion is based on a direct relationship between responsibility for maintenance and liability for injuries as a result of poor maintenance (see Items Al and A2). . �': 4fu. i• e�. 2t��: �«:. C�' �.. h:. �'-: 1: �.:'. �:. t.' 2: a' 44'41t:.:,: C✓ n: v.. l. ti.. �. f:'. i. ��t..:: .:,.:: �: N�'::• 1. a.."..,: � rt: t:....:. �,. fa::. �r...... ir.:. nw. u. �:.. �e. �_.. rw.. r. e. r.. h n. .: r.e.�•rrlY..A': ^�:v, ..r•: CBD SIDEWALK PLAN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS March 29, 1988 Page 4 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan Review process identified an "Inventory of (Public) Concerns ", dated January 8, 1988. This staff evaluation is being distributed to all interested parties 30 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The Commission will work on resolving these concerns based on this evaluation at their meeting of April 28, 1988. Evaluations of public concerns are being presented in two parts due to the num- ber of concerns and staff time limitations. Part One evaluated concerns under the subject category headings "Definitions Needed" through "Geographic scope ", and "Liability ". This Part Two evaluates concerns in all other categories. Evaluations are grouped by subject and are generally structured according to the following outline: Concern (from the January 8th inventory) Comments - • Draft Sidewalk Plan policies covering the issue • Existing substantive regulations covering the issue • Relevant facts Options The total list of category headings are shown below. Category Headings A - Definitions Needed B - Rev:i; r Process C - Gen: Policy Comments D - Geo . 1C. Scope E - Nee � ; ; ; `Sidewalks F - Required'Sidewalk Construction G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I - Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code PART TWO EVALUATIONS Within 1/8 mile: None Within 1/4 mile: Christensen Trail Within 1/2 mile: Southcenter Mall and various retail areas. ., "' x�37i[ r;; t: 1: •5P!C7,'"1... "','�i".'fF:,2;'_ ,, ��, . i'1;."....�`r.:. . Page 5 E. Need for Sidewalks El. Sidewalks are not justified on Andover Park East, between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street, due to the very few pedestrians, the high truck hazard to pedestrians on curbline sidewalks, the cost of landscape replace- ment, the future need for greater street width, and the lack of retail or recreational facilities within walking distance. Findings 1. The Sidewalk Plan tries to incorporate future-oriented actions as well as satisfy current demands. Sidewalks in this area are shown as "moderate" priority; construction to begin in 1992 through 1995. This designation reflects the current low level of pedestrian demand and the lack of existing pedestrian generators and attractions. The current distance to major pedestrian attractions from Andover Park East between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street are as follows: (The average walking distance of pedestrians is 1/8 to 1/4 mile.) 2. The construction of sidewalks anticipates significant market driven redevel- opment in this area, with retail and office uses envisioned in the mid -term (five to ten year) future. This is reasonable given the 25 percent higher leasing costs for industrial space in Tukwila over adjacent Kent and Renton areas. 3. A potentially significant truck /pedestrian hazard potential could result from trucks backing through driveways, climbing opposing sidewalks to back up to loading docks, and increased pedestrians in these areas of truck maneuvering. Five foot sidewalks separated from the curb by a minimum three /four foot strip (see G -9) would provide a safer facility than a five foot curbline sidewalk. 4. The onl roadway improvements envisioned in this area are traffic signal modificat.onrand installation at intersections. No general road widening is planned:n the City's six year capital improvement plan. Options A. Remove this segment from the geographic scope of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. This would result in sidewalks being built only as individual parcels are developed. B. Specify that this area be one of the last to receive sidewalks (i.e. con- struction to start in 1995). 1. This area is designated "Very High" priority for sidewalk construction. No changes are required to address this comment. Page 6 C. No change to the proposed policies. E2. Sidewalks are supported in the Southcenter Boulevard and Strander Boulevard areas. Comments F. Required Sidewalk Construction Fl. Sidewalks should not be required for building repair due to casualty loss (i.e. fire earthquake, and flooding). Incorporate into 11.64.020, Sidewalk Construction Ordinance, and 18.70 Zoning Code. Comments 1. No draft policies or ordinances currently propose exempting casualty repairs except in counting sidewalks as landscaping (Policy 14). 2. Incorporation of the proposed provision would be inconsistent with the existing Sidewalk Construction and Zoning ordinances: a. The existing Sidewalk Construction Ord. (TMC 11.64.020(2)) states that sidewalks shall be required as a condition to a building permit for "...any alteration or repairs including interior,' plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the previously existing building or structure." b. The existing Zoning Code requires non - conforming structures to be brought into full code compliance if 50 percent or more of replacement cost at the time of destruction is lost (18.70.050(2)) or it is aban- doned for 24 consecutive months (18.70.050(3)). The value of repairs due to casualty are not exempted from either section. 3. Draft ordinance 11.64.020 mirrors the existing Sidewalk Construction Ordin- ance, but also requires a sidewalk if cumulative building improvements after the date of adoption increases building value by $250,000 or 250 square feet. 4. The req P nt. for sidewalks due to casualty repair would be moot by 1996 if sidks> are built as envisioned in Policy 5. This draft schedule should tie= considered as being delayed by at least one year. Options A. Incorporate this provision into policy and ordinance. B. No change to the existing draft policies or ordinances. F2. Policy 4 and 5 should incorporate the provisions for acceptance of existing sidewalks stated in other policies. Comments 1. Policies 4 and 5. are meant to clarify City policy on the abutting property owner's responsibility for providing a sidewalk: a. Policy 4 is the City's endorsement of State law by which it is author- ized to make abutting property owners responsible for sidewalk con- struction. b. Policy 5 clarifies how sidewalks will be funded. 2. Neither Policy 4 or 5 is in conflict with the acceptance of existing side- walks provisions in Policy 10 or 9. The property owner's responsibility for sidewalk construction would be fulfilled if there existed a minimum 4 ft. wide (concrete) sidewalk as specified in Policy 10, or if the Planning and Public Works directors both concluded that the existing level of sidewalk availability was the best feasible as discussed in Policy 9. Options Comments Options Comments A. Amend policies 4 and 5 with clear references to policies 9 and 10. Page 7 B. No change in existing policy. F3. If separated sidewalks become the City standard, will all curbline sidewalks become non - conforming and have to be replaced at redevelopment. Would the City take another four feet from presently conforming properties? 1. Policy 10 specifies that minimum 4 ft. wide (concrete) sidewalks will satis- fy the property owner's responsibility for sidewalk construction. Thus, if curbline sidewalks are a minimum 4 ft. wide, then no further such improve- ments would be necessary at redevelopment. If any curbline or separated sidewalk is less than 4 ft. wide, then a standard sidewalk as specified in policies 7 through 12 would be required. A. Amend the acceptability of minimum 4 ft. wide sidewalks. B. No chan i policy. F4. Need is 4tscess the requirement for sidewalks when total cumulative site • improvement's exceed $250,000 as specified in draft INC 11.64.020(b). 1 This comment was made very early in the plan review process when it was inadvertently missed in the listing of changes to the existing ordinances. The issue has since been discussed before the Planning Commission and the public is now aware of the change. G. Sidewalk Design Gl. Curbline slrewalks should be preferred whenever possible. G5. Eliminateall reference to separated sidewalks. Comments Options A. Remove B. No chap Comments ;,system" from Policy 2. raft policy. Page 8 1. Specific objections to separated sidewalks are found in G6 through G10. 2. The draft policy intent is to develop separated sidewalks whenever such sidewalks can be installed with less impacts on existing improvements or when the relative impacts of installing separated versus curbline sidewalks are essentially the same. 3. Curbline sidewalks are preferred because they provide a safe facility with much lower maintenance and property impacts. Options A. Amend draft policies as suggested. B. Amend draft policies to include the substance of Comment 2. C. No change in existing policy. 62. Should "trail system" references be included in Policy 2 given the plan's focus on sidewalks. Comments 1. Sidewalks are pedestrian facilities to link a user's origin and destination. 2. Linking various work sites with facilities such as trail systems integrate the sidewalk system with other transportation facilities and land uses. Such integration is important to the City's existing goal for a coordinated, multi -modal transportation system. 63. What 1s the timing for construction of temporary sidewalks in Policy 6. 1. Draft policies intend temporary sidewalks required for new developments, to be built on an ad hoc basis when adjacent street design is not known or when road widening would destroy this newly built sidewalk within 5 years. Thus, there is no construction schedule for temporary sidewalks. Page 9 2. There are no significant areas where final road grades are not yet reason- ably known. G4. What streets have speed limits over 35 mph as referenced in Policy 7. Comments 1. Only West Valley Highway, south of I -405, has a speed limit over 35 mph. All other commercial through streets have 35 mph speed limits. G6. The landscape buffer strips associated with separated sidewalks are costly to maintain in good condition. Comments 1. The comments of one landscaper and three architects responsible for projects in Tukwila, with both curbline and separated sidewalks are shown in Table 2 (next page). In general, there is little or no cost difference between installing and maintaining the same materials in a buffer strip and putting it in back of sidewalk. 2. Installation cost differences focus on the extra irrigation line which must be installed for the buffer strip. This is estimated to cost approximately 50 cents per lineal foot, assuming brass /steel heads at $3.00 per head and spacing 6 feet on center. 3. Maintenance costs for the same materials will be essentially the same for back of sidewalk and buffer strip situations. However, the lowest cost back of curb landscaping materials (ivy -type ground cover and trees) may cost less to maintain than the lowest cost buffer strip materials (grass and trees) after three years. The higher litter control costs for ivy -type ground cover may minimize all differences. 4. A major development has over 1,240 ft. of four foot landscape buffer strips between curb and sidewalk. This company considers the maintenance costs to be very high, much higher than would be justifiable using normal market decision making. This company is concerned that imposing such a non - market maintenance re- quirement upon the diverse property owners in the area will embroil the City in a neverending series of legal actions to get property owners to maintain landsca I9k They fear that the end r esult will be a hodgepodge of mar in �;rr y 9 ally sur *Ving plantings. Discussions 'with Redmond and Bellevue, where sidewalk buffer strips are part of many developments, showed maintenance to not be a problem. This seems to be due to a very competitive market and pride of ownership. 67. Landscape buffer strips associated with separated sidewalks represent an additional four feet taken from the property owner and another four feet lost from development (over curbline sidewalks). �tL'i".:;is���;, " ^ „:;k`lu' •:a`s':iCti�r?�'.�U;7a {:v r +.re:tv�'..:.•�m�.r asr,+a:o: ux.�vx. COMMENTS ON LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION No significant difference in installing same materials in buffer strip and back of curb. No difference in installation costs Irrigation will be the only significant added cost for buffers. This would be about 504 /linear foot, assuming brass /steel heads B $3 /hd and 6 feet on center. (251 /TBL.COSTS) No significant difference for the .same materials. ..•..., e. se... cww. a��rn- m: rn�+ n� .�s:Srarp Yi'YY "Fay �1. ?r ?:�i -'w'i Table 2 FOUR VIEWS ON RELATIVE LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS COMMENTS ON LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE No significant difference in maintenance costs. No difference in maintenance costs as long as plantings are drought and pollution tolerant. Some increased costs if vehicles run over strip (rare). No difference in maintenance costs assuming same materials. No significant difference in maintenance costs. GENERAL COMMENTS Landscape cost differences do not become significant actual dollar amounts until they vary by 15 -20%. Such a difference would be extremely surprising and detailed questions should be asked. State - funded arterials construction will almost always include a buffer strip between curb and sidewalk. (Discussions with the State show a 50 -50 split between projects with buffer strips and without.) City of Fife decided to provide landscape CBD strips instead of paving over entire width due to very low maintenance costs. Quadrant used street landscaping and signage to visually tie together their sprawling West Campus Development. Downtown Bellevue developers view street landscape /sidewalk design as important as building design. Grass would become more expensive to maintain after 3 years, over an ivy -type ground cover, if litter maintenance is ignored. Thus, back of curb ivy would cost less to maintain than buffer strip grass after 3 years. A 4 -foot buffer strip is very marginal; will limit tree selection and care must be taken to avoid surface damage as trees grow. Seattle requires trees to be 3 feet from the curb. NOTE: Tukwila envisions trees planted 2f feet from back of curb. The choice of curbline or separated sidewalks has generally been a matter of corporate choice rather than one dictated by cost consideration. Comments Page 10 1. The landscaped buffer strip on an easement is counted toward satisfying landscape requirements under the existing Zoning Code. The existing draft policies do not change this provision. G9. The City is effectively taking away 9 to 12 feet of street frontage from development in the CBD. Comments 1. The 9 to 12 foot frontage area seems to reflect a four foot buffer strip plus a 5 to 8 foot sidewalk. 2. The above assumption about the probable area required for sidewalk and landscape buffer strip is generally accurate. Discussions with architects, landscape installation contractors, and street tree specialists (arborists) all clearly indicate that a four -foot buffer, not three feet (as stated in Policy 12C) would be a much more cost effective width. A grass /tree landscape strip is the most cost - effective maintenance design. A four foot planter is necessary to center trees 2i feet from the back of curb and lessen the probability of serious surface damage from roots. 3. Development of a separated sidewalk within this 9 to 12 feet does not mean a taking of all development potential. All plantings in the easement area would be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements (see G7), all easement area would be counted toward satisfying the 20 to 50 foot building setback requirement, and all sidewalk area could be counted as landscaping in non - conforming situations (Policy 14). 4. All new and significantly renovated developments are required to provide sidewalks at no cost to the City. Options A. Require only curbline sidewalks. B. Maintain a 3 foot buffer strip, but provide for a 4 foot tree planter with break away root protectors incorporated into sidewalk design. C. Establ isl4;: 4 foot buffer strip. G8. LandscaE4biffer strips increase sidewalk costs by approximately $4.00 per lineal fait due to the expense of grass sprinklers. 610.W1ll landscape buffer strips have to have automatic irrigation? Comments 1. There is no draft sidewalk policy addressing this issue. 2. The City currently requires automatic irrigation of all landscaped areas as a function of the building permit. Early landscape area approvals without .�. ..:I' F:.r., � , !:li:!.`3_t :: Comments a...w..ym.on.r. nrrru•s!Kr::: h - .x•N l:, %.e i:, .a • ral ... Page 11 automatic irrigation almost always resulted in a loss of plant materials and unsightly areas. 3. Discussions with the commentator revealed that the $4.00 included other costs such as land, life -cycle maintenance, and replacement materials. (see G9 Comment 3) 4. Irrigation is the major installation cost difference between placing the same materials in a buffer strip or back of sidewalk. 5. Irrigation is estimated to cost approximately 50 cents per lineal foot. Options A. Specifically exempt landscape buffer strips from the automatic irrigation requirement. B. Specifically require automatic irrigation of buffer strips. C. No change. G11. There needs to be criteria for the Planning and Public Works directors to decide when sidewalk design shall be modified. 1. Draft Policy 9 generally allows modification where a standard sidewalk is not feasible, while draft Policy 14 allows sidewalk design modification only when parking would be interfered with. 2. No criteria for Policy 9 is given due to the many possible situations which may arise. However, it is the City's intent that full width sidewalks be provided except in very unusual circumstances. 3. Draft Policy 15 intends that the existing number of parking stalls be main- tained after sidewalk construction. Parking lot restriping and use of compact spaces are measures the City may take to maintain the existing number of stalls. If the pre - sidewalk number of stalls could not be main- tained, then the sidewalk would be reduced or eliminated. Options A. Identify criteria which should be considered in Policy 9 decision making. B. Include 'a criteria that the existing number of parking spaces must be maintained in Policy 15. C. No change in the draft policy. 612 How, where and when are the engineering studies referred to in Policy 15 to be done. Will the pedestrian volumes be based on five -day, seven -day or holiday volumes. Comments 1. Studies are anticipated to be done by the City, as considered necessary by the Administration and Public Works Director. 2. Studies may also be done by other parties, but must be verified and endorsed by the Public Works Director. 3. Pedestrian volumes would be measured on a 7 -day period to incorporate peak periods during weekends as well as weekdays. Options A. Specify who is responsible for conducting studies. B. Specify how, where and when studies will be done. C. No change to draft policy. 613. Is Policy 17 an informational statement only? G14. Is Policy 18 an informational statement only? Comments 1. These two policy statements provide additional policy guidance on the type of pedestrian road crossing facilities the City wishes to develop. 2. Explicit deletion or modification of these policies would establish other guidelines for pedestrian crossing facility development (i.e. deletion of pedestrian signal controls). Options A. Modify policies. B. No change. 615. In all cases on arterials, the sidewalk should be 8 feet wide or have a 3 -foot mliimum planting strip plus 5 foot (preferably 6 feet) wide CM (contra. ; Wa1k). Comments Page 12 1. The existfinc policies reflect a desire to achieve the commentators standards. 2. Draft policies 7 and 11 call for a six foot wide sidewalk with minimum 3 foot planting strip in commercial zones, and a five foot wide sidewalk with minimum three foot planting strip in industrial zones where possible. Otherwise, six foot and five foot curbline sidewalks (i.e. no planting strip) would be designed. :uJi3ii 3. Draft Policy 7 calls for eight foot sidewalks only outs, and where sidewalks are adjacent to the road over 35 mph. 4. All public through streets in the CBD are arterials mph. Options .Yit xY n!n�A1 nnssn e.n rru n See options for comment 09. G16. All vertical objects should be 3 feet clear of street trees, fire hydrants, or utility poles. G17. All vertical objects should be 2 feet clear of the Comments. Options A. Incorpol; Ahese provisions in the draft policies. B. No chap "1n policies. Page 13 at bus stops and pull - and the speed limit is with speed limits of 35 the curb face, such as sidewalk (if possible). 618. Specify sidewalk thickness (Recommend 4" (for walk and) 8" for DWY (drive- way apron). 619. The design of the driveway may be critical trians and also for the durability of the minimum of level same as CM). See sketch 1. 620. The temporary sidewalk should be made of asphalt over 4" crushed rock). The asphalt over 6" crushed rock. for the safety of the pedes- sidewalk. (Recommend 3 foot asphalt. (Approximately 2" driveway shall be 3" asphalt G21. Washington State law requires the curb ramp to have a 3 -foot by 5 -foot apron for safety purposes. If there is no R/M (right -of -way) or other reason for not providing a landing space, then I recommend using a larger wing to meet a 12 to 1 slope requirement. 1. These provisions reflect generally accepted engineering design standards which are supported by the Public Works Department and the City's "Standard Plans." 622. Combined trail /sidewalk provisions in the April, 1987, draft policies are not needed given the existing and planned sidewalks are unfairly burdensome on one single property owner along South 180th Street, and are inappropriate in a Sidewalk Plan (i.e. trails should be dealt with in recreation plans). Comments 1. The Planning Commission has already concurred with this comment and removed combined,trail /sidewalk provisions from the current draft policies. H. Sidewalk Maintenance H1 No comments are possible until a decision on separated or curbline sidewalk design is made. Comments 1. See comments on sidewalk maintenance (Al and A2) and review process (B2). H2 The City should assume all sidewalk liability and maintenance responsibility as it has with roads. Comments 1. There are no existing draft policies specifically addressing sidewalk liability and maintenance issues. They have been discussed in J1 and J2 (liability) and Al and A2 (maintenance). H3. What are the specific standards for •long - term• (structural) and daily sidewalk maintenance. Comments 1. These standards are discussed in response to concerns Al and A2. H4. How will maintenance standards for sidewalks and buffer landscape strips be enforced to ensure quality continuity. Some owners are not and will not be interested in maintaining landscaping. Comments 1. No specific enforcement procedures are included in the draft policies. Therefore., the enforcement procedures per TMC 1.08.010 and 8.28.280 - -310 will app"' Page 14 2. In generi; these procedures make the Mayor responsible for enforcement once authoriiet by Council to act. The City is authorized to do all work neces- sary to maintain sidewalks and landscaping, and lien the property if the owner fails to comply. This process would take no less than two weeks. 3. There are some landscape areas which have deteriorated due to neglect. These areas have been relatively small and are usually associated with a failure to provide automatic irrigation. 4. The Planning Department has not historically been active in landscape main- tenance enforcement in large part due to a lack of jurisdiction in this area except for projects subject to design review. rmrssa.e.e,i.�,rt :u .,.., . d.•, a .,,.,r.:. 1M,.n.: acv A tit nz:.Inurhntz' X, Er. A: i,' eE; r,• 21.;' i7f. Yi$< ti`. rs'" fr+M? iS!M.l Y'. tiY`,` E� ,Y"f•.,ei�c +`L ^MisMT. ; H5. What are "cracked, crumbling and uneven" sidewalks. 1. See discussion of concerns Al and A2. I. Financin I1. L.I.O. financing is supported. Comments I2. Who will pay for pedestrian signals. Comments 4. Sidewalks enhance the value of adjacent properties. Options A. Exempt'.: walks. Page 15 1. The draft policies propose financing the property owner's share of improve- ment costs by L.I.D. Each property owner would be billed for the cost of installing sidewalks on the property. 1. All currently funded traffic control signals include pedestrian controls and will be paid for by the City. 2. New, pedestrian only crossings may require some private participation. I3. Non -users such as industrial businesses should not have to pay for side- walks. Comments 1. Existing draft policies call for all property owners to pay for adjacent sidewalks. 2. Existing State statutes specifically authorize cities to charge property owners to pay for adjacent sidewalks. 3. All new industrial businesses are required to build sidewalks by City ordi- nance (TMC 11.64). ndustrial businesses from having to install or pay for side- B. Exempt only existing industrial businesses from having to install sidewalks. C. No change in existing draft policy. I4. Who will pay for re- landscaping and landscape strips of separated sidewalks. • Comments 1. There are•no draft policies specifically assigning these costs. 2. The Public Works Department envisions this as part of total sidewalk instal- lation costs. 3. The City Attorney concurs that this is a standard definition of total side- walk construction costs. Options A. City to assume all or a portion of landscape costs. B. Amend existing draft policies to specifically include these costs in side- walk construction. C. No change in existing policies. I5. Phase sidewalk construction so that streets on which sidewalks are not currently needed can be built on an as- needed basis. Comments 1. Existing policies call for phased sidewalk construction. Sidewalks on streets with lower pedestrian demand (Moderate Priority on Sidewalk Plan, Figure 1) are scheduled for construction between 1992 and 1995. 2. The City has mandated the development and implementation of this CBD Side- walk Plan to complete the existing disjointed pattern of sidewalks in order to form a complete, continuous pedestrian system. 3. The existing Sidewalk Construction Ordinance requires sidewalks upon new construction or significant renovation (TMC 11.64). Options A. Remove all. Priority streets from the CBD Sidewalk Plan and continue with the;:existing sidewalks - -upon renovation pattern of incremental improve - A-� ii B. Remove s� `1 ;;areas zoned industrial and more than 1/8 mile from a pedestrian attraction from the Sidewalk Plan (see E1). C. No change in existing policy. Page 16 Comments i. rx, �� .:.�,•Ya�•,....t..r•..z�•v ;.r. _.....,,.; Fir ... .n .x , r«:: c. n.o-...cx.r,n.,..._....��2,•.r Page 17 K. Conformance to Tukwila Zoning Code Ki. INC 18.74:110 Sidewalk dedication should read as follows (underlined words are additions to the existing draft section): "No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become non - conforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allow- ance shall not apply to property when the existing structure is demolished, except when such demolition, rebiulding or remodeling is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to apply if structure is demolished and rebuilt due to natural disaster, fire or similar events.' 1. This proposal mirrors Policy 14 except that K1 does not specifically include donation of right -of -way. 2. The existing policy does not specify the donation as right -of -way or ease- ment. The City staff had viewed donations as either, but would tend to recommend easements because: a. Donating an easement would allow the property owner to use the area as part of the building setback upon redevelopment. This would not be possible with a right -of -way donation. b. There is no difference in maintenance or l i a b i l i t y between having the sidewalk on an easement or right-of-way (see Al, A2, and J1). Options A. Adopt the language change. B. Adopt the language change including the donation of right -of -way as stated in Policy 14. C. No change in existing policy. K2. Ensure as pI11 cy 13 is reflected in all other Plan elements. Comments 1. A review of other Plan elements has not uncovered any obvious conflicts. Therefore, the substantive provisions in Policy 13 will apply throughout the Plan. K3. Sidewalks built on donated easements should be counted toward satisfying the landscape requirements. ; titw:%i i:::�i'1!'1514'_o'`4c1ne'i34 'i.' lxZGt7h: SSC roi:��mesrrsxr. ova. -w. »....v.n�,„�.., e...r nm.wz+ui. wunn n«n.:+>wwraranbrm, H.^Cn w..*.xv,tslrnretk5r4`a A:tY.? M-m R:ttal;t;E "., V!E'n'1�_ kn't`ffa': KKfi'X ' fi. 4 "d . 5T,"5r.:,r. Comments 1. Draft Pol: ty 14 allows the counting of sidewalks as landscaping only where non - conforming situations would be created. This allowance would cease upon building replacement. 2. The existing Zoning Code does not allow sidewalks to count as landscaping (TMC 18.06.410). 3. Allowing sidewalks to count as landscaping would reduce the minimum required front width for plant materials from 10 or 15 feet, to 5 or 10 feet. Options A. Allow sidewalks to count as landscaping and amend the Zoning Code to reflect this change. B. Allow sidewalks to count as landscaping only when the minimum width for plant materials is 10 feet and amend the Zoning Code to reflect this. C. No change in the existing ordinance. K4. The provisions of 18.70 should apply both in an easement donation and a right -of -way donation. Comments 1. The existing draft language in this section states that this is the case. Since it does not specify right -of -way or easement donation, both types would trigger these provisions. (251 /SW.EVALU11 -19) Page 18 A F F I D A V I T JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: Q Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet El Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet (I Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1988 MAYOR CITY CLERK PUBLIC WORKS R. BEELER J. PACE V. UMETSU CORRESPONDENCE ALSO: (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project, SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87 -2 -CPA OF OIST;PIBUTION Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non- significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice El Other MFMO - STDFWAI K PLAN Q Other Signatur t •`��, From: Vernon Umetsu Associate Planner;` ‘i To: C.B.D. Sidewalk Plan, Interested Parties RE: Status of Plan Review Date: March 20, 1989 The Planning. Commission completed its plan review and modifications on October 27, 1988. After being delayed by the recent annexations to Tukwila, the completed Sidewalk Plan was forwarded to the City Council on Friday, March 17, 1989. The provisions of the Plan will be reviewed by the Transportation Committee of the City Council today. A presentation to the full City Council and a public hearing will be held at a future date. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 433 -1858 for further information on Council review. Copies of the Plan are available at the Tukwila Planning Department. I �,, , JOANNE JOHNSON A F C D A V I T Notice of Public Hearing [j Notice of Public Meeting [] Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [I Planning Commission Agenda Packet [I Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [[ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit [[ Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project Cent_ Rug Sipwalk Plan File Number 87 - - CPA O F D I STR'''` -.BUT I ON hereby declare that: [j Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [I Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice (] Notice of Action [� Official Notice Other Other MARCH 11, 1988 , 19 . .. �4. ...n 1.. 7 +M✓. .i .. .,.. alt �: /.: 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: ,Request: 3. Case Number: Applicant: Request: 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on March 24, 1988, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: 87 -4 -CPA, 87 -5 -R John C. Strander Comprehensive Plan map change from Low Density Residential to Commercial, and pre- annexation zone designation of Regional Retail Business (C -2). 13530 - 53rd Avenue South 88 -2 -CA: Adult Entertainment Ordinance City of Tukwila Text amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Code establishing regulations for Adult Entertainment uses. 87 -2 -CPA: Central Business District Sidewalk Policies City of Tukwila Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing 87- 14 -DR: Castillo Company, Inc. Construct a two -story office building with 18,401 square feet on a 4.42 acre site. Approximately 100 feet east of the Interurban Avenue South/ Southcenter Boulevard intersection in the NW } of Sec. 24, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, WA Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday March 13, 1988 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 31 }yV/wir'Z "l.4cf8 '4i:3nfiflii:;'w JOANNE JOHNSON [l Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet E] Planning Commission Agenda Packet [] Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [l Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit • Shoreline Management Permit A F F F ,DAVIT O F D I STRF.3UT I ON hereby declare that: was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1988 , 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87 -2 —CPA O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice Other STfFWAI K P1 AN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS 2- 26=88 O Other Signatu VU /sjn ct�xw�x °a=t,nRLIK r^ A+d^ Cit of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: :ux egOMM ISC.t :.rnsAVItzK3 ::k :anti = rat ArArn&aWarg`.AVI. titOrtOI i PIMUMIVI. February 26, 1988 The mailing date for this Part I of the sidewalk concern evaluations is 28 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, instead of the 30 days previously agreed upon. I apologize for this shortened review period. I am hoping that this shortened review period will not pre -empt your ability to effectively read and comment on the staff's findings and options. With this hope, I would like to still start Planning Commission review on March 24, 1988. If this presents a problem for you, please contact me at 433 -1858. Sincerely, ernon M. Umetsu Associate Planner i t4i 7Zi SJV4145.64Z arD Atirlian∎ 9 i l tVta v:[ r1tYnY. �raita. llrr ;!x:r..v.nr_Y.vttnxrrrrw�.+. +. Citiof Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433-1849 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan Review process identified an "Inventory of (Public) Concerns ", dated January 8, 1988. This staff evaluation is being distributed to all interested parties 30 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The Commission will work on resolving these concerns based on this evaluation at their meeting of March 24, 1988. Evaluations of public concerns are being presented in two parts due to the number of concerns and staff time limitations. This is part one; evaluating concerns under the subject category headings "Definitions Needed" through "Geographic Scope ", and "Liability ". The evaluation is grouped by subject and is generally structured according to the following outline: Concern (from the January 8th inventory) Comments - • Draft Sidewalk Plan policies covering the issue • Existing substantive regulations covering the issue • Relevant facts Options The total list of category headings are shown below. Category Headings A - Definitions Needed B - Review Process C - General Policy Comments D - Geographic Scope E - Need for Sidewalks • F - Required Sidewalk Construction •mnrrHtutruW CBD SIDEWALK PLAN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS February 24, 1988 v+M dt,, i,tt°.GM.C.0.•N'✓ C4r.M.L't.`4:'"_t`Z%ntv.YvS`.`I: X1Ll.:Sa •Cti1�1iY ''" :it. KXC'1iC,M1".� �.L Tl: A?t,g':. G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I - Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code Performance of daily maintenance. +rt: ^nxt gib. 0 IV. PART ONE EVALUATIONS A. DEFINITIONS NEEDED Al. What is meant by long term (structural) sidewalk maintenance? A2. What is meant by daily sidewalk maintenance? Sta"1rf Evaluation of Concerns Page 2 There are no adopted City policies on sidewalk maintenance. In the absence of locally adopted policies, the following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establish the responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance, performance of daily maintenance, and the performance of struc- tural repair. These interpretations are based on RCW 35.70, legal opinions from the city attorneys of the City of Centralia and the City of Everett, and concurrence by the Tukwila City Attorney. An overview of sidewalk main- tenance policies is shown in Table 1. Recognizing the need for maintenance. The abutting property owner is primarily responsible for recognizing the need for maintenance unless this need has been sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time that City personnel should have become aware of the problem and acted to have it corrected. In the second case, the City would share primary responsibility for recognizing the need or maintenance. The criteria for "sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time" is subject to the "reasonableness test ". If there is a three inch high uplifting of the sidewalk, then there would be a longer period of "suf- ficient time," than if the sidewalk had been undermined and fallen into a six foot deep hole. There are no statutory standards for establishing this test. Daily maintenance includes non - structural activities necessary to keep the sidewalk a safe and usable facility for a reasonable person. Such maintenance activities include cleaning off dirt, removing obstacles such as boards lying on the sidewalk, and limbing trees to ensure ade- quate headroom for users. Daily maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. SE rUtItPH:�aoC...vtiaac.xirwx rmra,xrru.aa.cev, r MAINTENANCE LIABILITY FOR CITY RESPONSIBILITY USER INJURIES SIDEWALK DESIGN Kent Renton Auburn Tukwila (existing) (251 /SW.CITABLE) Table 1 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE, LIABILITY AND DESIGN FOR COMMERCIAL AREAS IN SELECTED CITIES City City 5.5 -foot minimum width (+ 0.5 curb = 6 feet) Curbline sidewalks unless otherwise specified by developer. Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum width. property owner property owner Incorporate separating buffer area whenever possible. Abutting Abutting 7.5 -foot minimum width property owner property owner (+ 0.5 curb = 8 feet) Additional 2.5 feet planting strip whenever possible. Des Moines Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum width. Back property owner property owner of sidewalk located at property line. Remaining area between front of sidewalk and curb is landscaped. Seattle Abutting Abutting 5 -foot minimum width; with property owner property owner a 5.5 -foot curbline planting strip - OR - 8-foot minimum curbline sidewalk Abutting property owner property owner Data Collected February, 1988 Abutting 6 -foot minimum. w.,�•.Gt3';. ,- �is..,i'd:ri.i,:�.. ,,.':.vrs'�:s.U:; ?itnv :a na;,.. -. w:,u_v.� �•, • Performance of structural maintenance. City Abutting Property Owner A3. Pathway in Policies 1 and 2. A4. "Trail system' in Policy 2. surr�sy:nn'2•ru ar;; n;r,.w::y!tltrtx.3m ' i+i'd <?.:!'"..i..� "',,'T.'•t; Y.b it'J^, 1. �'.:'i.;'i _R =:.3:F : iS�Y: y �f1t!`: t.' lt^,'. r...'; G^C ^ISR ^!ti-?.^nW+;'^.4:.. <.rnsr»ia Problem Recognition Long -term Maintenance Serf Evaluation of Concerns Page 3 Structural maintenance is the replacement or repair of the sidewalk surface and /or base. Structural maintenance activities include patch - ramps to smooth out uplifting of one inch or more, and replacement of cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks. Structural maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. No specific criteria is adopted for determining when cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks require structural maintenance. Instead, the City Council uses an open public process to completely examine the issues, and determine the necessity for structural maintenance. Options The options for explicitly assigning these responsibilities are repre- sented in the matrix below: Daily Maintenance There is a direct tie between the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability for injuries to users. Please see J - Liability for clarifi- cation of sidewalk maintenance and the relationship to liability. A pathway is generally a facility for non - motorized travel, and not a "side- walk" as defined in Sidewalk Policies 7 through 11. Inclusion of pathway in these policies is intended to support a variety of non - motorized facili- ties which may supplement CBD sidewalks. This integrates sidewalk systems with other transportation facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. "Trail system" are those trails in the City's Long -Range Parks and Open Space Plan. A5. •Reasonable amount of time" (for property owner construction of sidewalks) in Policy 3. No specific time frame is identified in State statute for property owners to make the required improvements. Each City Council would specify this by resolution (35.70.040). ; �- ::i:;ll S Evaluation of Concerns Page 4 The Public Works Department favors 30 days, from the date of City Council action, for property owners to build their required sidewalk improvements. As a practical matter, property owners would probably be able to build their own sidewalks up to the time of the City's bidding out the construction contract. A6. "Street widening" in Policy 5b. This is a roadway improvement where the paved street width is increased or curbs are installed. A7. Does "construct: in Policy 5c through 5g mean to begin or to complete side- walk construction? The intent is to begin construction. A8. What is "standard size" in Policy 9? Standard size is as defined in Policy 7. B. REVIEW PROCESS B1. Additional time for public comment will be required as issues are evaluated. Comments 1. The existing process gives 30 days to review and comment on staff evalua- tions and options before a Planning Commission hearing. That period could be extended if it is too short to permit adequate public review. 2. The Planning Commission always has the option to carry over issues which they feel need additional discussion or deliberations. 3. The existing plan review process was endorsed by the Planning Commission after the Sidewalk Policies had been publicly available for at least two months. There was support expressed in all comments on the existing plan review process. 4. There may be some issues which require extensive, in -depth discussions and which might not be resolvable in the course of one meeting. Options A. Provide a second public comment period after the initial 30 -day review period and Planning Commission deliberations. B. Modify the review process to provide a longer initial public comment period than the existing 30 days. C. Retain the existing review process with its 30 -day review period; and recog- nize that the Commissioners may direct staff to gather what additional information they feel is necessary to their decision - making. Additional staff reports resulting from this direction would be subject to the 30 -day review period. B2. A complete list of comments is not possible until several issues involving maintenance and liability are better defined (see Definitions). Comments 1. Maintenance and liability issues are herein presented to allow interested parties to evaluate the facts and recommend a preferred option (see Al, A2 and J1). 2. The Commission established 30 days as generally sufficient time for public review of information, for the public to state its objections /support of these evaluations, and for the public to state its preferences. 3. See Concern B1. r Stall Evaluation of Concerns Page 5 Options A. Resolve maintenance and liability issues in this set of evaluations since sufficient information on the relevant facts and options have been presented on each specific concern. B. Postpone Commission deliberations to allow further public review. C. GENERAL POLICY COMMENTS Cl. Policies need to be specific to Tukwila needs, not simply carbon copies of policies found in neighboring communities. Comments 1. The existing draft policies were developed in coordination with widely accepted engineering standards, public review, and direction from the City Council Transportation Committee. These sidewalk policies tried to reflect Tukwila needs. 2. The plan adoption process involves extensive Planning Commission, City Council, and public review to help ensure that plan reflects City desires. 3. Review of other areas was done as part of this evaluation in response to specific Planning Commission comments, to identify standard amenities pro- vided in competing commercial areas, and to ensure that Tukwila standards are not burdensomely high. 4. A comparison of Tukwila sidewalk policies with other commercial area side- walk policies show the area specific nature of this City's plan (see Table 1). D. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE D1. All commercial areas in Tukwila should be subject to these (CBD sidewalk) policies. Comments 1. Commercial areas not subject to the CBD Sidewalk Plan are the Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue corridors (see Map A). Southcenter Boule- vard is scheduled for an eight foot wide sidewalk along its northern border, but no sidewalk along the southern border. Construction of the Southcenter Boulevard sidewalk is scheduled for 1988 -89. 2. Interurban Avenue South (north of 1 -405) is scheduled for six to ten foot wide, separated sidewalks on both east and west sides. The separation will be with a landscape buffer strip. Construction of the Interurban Avenue South sidewalk is being done in segments as the roadway is improved. 3. Streets to the east of Interurban Avenue are the only ones not scheduled for sidewalks in some time frame and not covered by the CBD Sidewalk Plan poli- cies. These roads are uncurbed and serve industrial uses. Options A. Expand the geographic scope of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. B. Sidewalks along streets to the east of Interurban Avenue South should be developed as necessary to serve the Green River trail system. This would generally make them high or moderate priority. C. No change in the existing geographic scope. Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 6 J. LIABILITY J1. What is the exposure of property owners to liability as a result of side- walks? Comments 1. There are no draft policies assigning responsibility for liability._ 2. In the absence of any existing draft policies, State statutes apply. The following comments are based on State statutes and the opinions of legal counsel from the City of Everett and Centralia. The Tukwila City Attorney concurs with these comments. 3. Liability exposure as a result of sidewalks would generally originate from injuries to users as a result of a poorly designed or maintained sidewalk. 4. The design engineer who's professional stamp was on the sidewalk construc- tion plans would bear primary responsibility for injury claims due to poor W . 0 1. NO Ma 0 C 1asemOm Pros C•2 0 PUNIC SAKAI u+re+ C AMAY. AY. Pea 0� M•2 1iNr IMAM :• ea . A 1 • I W A 000000 • \ 0000 I w "1: JL! — Jt _ \ I CM 1 Ce C40 I i Cif ©F • a _ J L % �� • '-1 1r ( ' Md , I 'r -77:1 I '• '- ul MAP A :• :•: Commercial Areas Without Scheduled Sidewalks ••• Commercial Areas With Scheduled Sidewalks Ifia Tr KWILA St y_ team or mow sum Ai a 11e __ ON I MI6 ewr friar Winalkar- • • AU r^;KHIRrtr. 12201tst 4141itoos r: (251 /SW.EVALU1,2) C hbi1 k St C. No change in the existing policies regarding sidewalk liability. Evaluation of Concerns Page 7 design. The City, as the approving agency, would bear some secondary responsibility. Property owners using City plans for sidewalk design would not probably have any liability exposure due to poor sidewalk design. 5. Liability due to maintenance is directly associated with the body responsi- ble for recognizing the need for maintenance, and carrying out the need for maintenance. These issues were discussed in Items Al and A2. 6. Property owner would be the primary party liable for user injuries whether the sidewalk was on City right -of -way or a private easement. The City would share this primary liability if it can be shown that it should have reason- ably recognized the need for maintenance and failed to order maintenance in a timely manner. This conclusion is based on a direct relationship between responsibility for maintenance and liability for injuries as a result of poor maintenance (see Items Al and A2). Options A. The City can assume any and all responsibility for liability as a result of sidewalks. B. The City can specifically embody existing State statutory law in these Side- walk Policies. kk«iu" +':`lid's lB'74i `i"z Jtied,Qlu" - VU /sjn azzimm„'+YLy4Y3ii gvalC;emoty.wo'S65GRfiYFw3" 'iA '^�tfifii' tai a c .S`.•:it'nI . cwi;`: li IPMF i:,' n - rd4" t i tK City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Dear Sidewalk Plan Reviewer: February 26, 1988 Sincerely, Associate Planner k c CiYtt.tti, -L y .c �. )140 rb--41 o/ lit (0h-.L.7y, The mailing date for this Part I of the sidewalk concern evaluations is 28 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, instead of the 30 days previously agreed upon. I apologize for this shortened review period. I am hoping that this shortened review period will not pre -empt your ability to effectively read and comment on the staff's findings and options. With this hope, I would like to still start Planning Commission review on March 24, 1988. If this presents a problem for you, please contact me at 433 -1858. lea:7: ernon M. Umetsu • >,Ca'ui✓:.•wx�.y +wwan City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 A - Definitions Needed B - Review Process C - General Policy Comments D - Geographic Scope E - Need for Sidewalks F - Required Sidewalk Construction CBD SIDEWALK PLAN STAFF EVALUATION OF CONCERNS . February 24, 1988 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan Review process identified an "Inventory of (Public) Concerns ", dated January 8, 1988. This staff evaluation is being distributed to all interested parties 30 days prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. The Commission will work on resolving these concerns based on this evaluation at their meeting of March 24, 1988. Evaluations of public concerns are being presented in two parts due to the number of concerns and staff time limitations. This is part one; evaluating concerns under the subject category headings "Definitions Needed" through "Geographic Scope ", and "Liability ". The evaluation is grouped by subject and is generally structured according to the following outline: Concern (from the January 8th inventory) Comments - • Draft Sidewalk Plan policies covering the issue • Existing substantive regulations covering the issue • Relevant facts Options The total list of category headings are shown below. Category Headings 4 :. '7 G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I - Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code PART ONE EVALUATIONS 4>:: FTda`t:.TS7F: ^,?tb�MCg:g "`+; ".. �'Y. "'. ` %ti:T'Ci.','� „ i .. '.�. .. ...: }4 ?'. .;vet ,, cl�. Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 2 A. DEFINITIONS NEEDED Al. What is meant by "long term" (structural) sidewalk maintenance? A2. What is meant by "daily" sidewalk maintenance? There are no adopted City policies on sidewalk maintenance. In the absence of locally adopted policies, the following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establish the responsibility for recognizing the need for maintenance, performance of daily maintenance, and the performance of struc- tural repair. These interpretations are based on RCW 35.70, legal opinions from the city attorneys of the City of Centralia and the City of Everett, and concurrence by the Tukwila City Attorney. An overview of sidewalk main- tenance policies is shown in Table 1. Recognizing the need for maintenance. The abutting property owner is primarily responsible for recognizing the need for maintenance unless this need has been sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time that City personnel should have become aware of the problem and acted to have it corrected. In the second case, the City would share primary responsibility for recognizing the need or maintenance. The criteria for "sufficiently obvious for a long enough period of time" is subject to the "reasonableness test ". If there is a three inch high uplifting of the sidewalk, then there would be a longer period of "suf- ficient time," than if the sidewalk had been undermined and fallen into a six foot deep hole. There are no statutory standards for establishing this test. Performance of daily maintenance. Daily maintenance includes non - structural activities necessary to keep the sidewalk a safe and usable facility for a reasonable person. Such maintenance activities include cleaning off dirt, removing obstacles such as boards lying on the sidewalk, and limbing trees to ensure ade- quate headroom for users. Daily maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. r. 8.1; ,r,. `n ;. n„ .� .ac'. wc'; Y,°.,!,.t "s . � , yi: . n: «tli ?�i 7 {`N�'1!- "ti%'*`�.'1t. 71�•: {a u `� y 4 d:;^ s ...,, .. i;... __ �s� I? e�. 4" is�' ✓+;..` �r`.}..;n 4 N., t.:riii i�s, �•.:; ';^`:: , rs q tr" ?.`: � _'r:C= a; �:. ..,: i' �.; i..,.. iL. n, E�, i,.�'Ae`t:cic.u�:,..t� :,t�.'a�0... «,�...... .... $., � ?:: �D: ;f. "d o:F a 3'.:Y.'..}S::S^.'.:LYkt:ti�f. al t3:t''ll,�:s!k'+�L"iYG�':'YY, :v t�Tl T+Z . Ks:•. „ �'u:.. o��'r:,..��i w Kent Renton Auburn Tukwila (existing) Data Collected February, 1988 (251 /SW.CITABLE) Table 1 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE, LIABILITY AND DESIGN FOR COMMERCIAL AREAS IN SELECTED CITIES MAINTENANCE LIABILITY FOR CITY RESPONSIBILITY USER INJURIES SIDEWALK DESIGN City City 5.5 -foot minimum width (+ 0.5 curb = 6 feet) Curbline sidewalks unless otherwise specified by developer. Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum width. property owner property owner Incorporate separating buffer area whenever possible. Abutting Abutting 7.5 -foot minimum width property owner property owner (+ 0.5 curb = 8 feet) Additional 2.5 feet planting strip whenever possible. Des Moines Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum width. Back property owner property owner of sidewalk located at property line. Remaining area between front of sidewalk and curb is landscaped. Seattle Abutting Abutting 5 -foot minimum width; with property owner property owner a 5.5 -foot curbline planting strip - OR - 8-foot minimum curbline sidewalk Abutting Abutting 6 -foot minimum. property owner property owner • ,v ... .!!�.. .t ..,.� fly.: s . ... .. .. .. ... Performance of structural maintenance. Structural maintenance is the replacement or repair of the sidewalk surface and /or base. Structural maintenance activities include patch - ramps to smooth out uplifting of one inch or more, and replacement of cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks. Structural maintenance is the responsibility of abutting property owners. No specific criteria is adopted for determining when cracked, crumbling or broken sidewalks require structural maintenance. Instead, the City Council uses an open public process to completely examine the issues, and determine the necessity for structural maintenance. Options The options for explicitly assigning these responsibilities are repre- sented in the matrix below: City Abutting Property Owner Problem Recognition A3. Pathway in Policies 1 and 2. Long -term Maintenance Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 3 Daily Maintenance There is a direct tie between the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability for injuries to users. Please see J - Liability for clarifi- cation of sidewalk maintenance and the relationship to liability. A pathway is generally a facility for non - motorized travel, and not a "side- walk" as defined in Sidewalk Policies 7 through 11. Inclusion of pathway in these policies is intended to support a variety of non - motorized facili- ties which may supplement CBD sidewalks. This integrates sidewalk systems with other transportation facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. A4. "Trail system" in Policy 2. "Trail system" are those trails in the City's Long -Range Parks and Open Space Plan. A5. "Reasonable amount of time" (for property owner construction of sidewalks) in Policy 3. No specific time frame is identified in State statute for property owners to make the required improvements. Each City Council would specify this by resolution (35.70.040). The Public Works Department favors 30 days, from the date of City Council action, for property owners to build their required sidewalk improvements. As a practical matter, property owners would probably be able to build their own sidewalks up to the time of the City's bidding out the construction contract. A6. 'Street widening• in Policy 5b. : �,': .. Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 4 This is a roadway improvement where the paved street width is increased or curbs are installed. A7. Does "construct: in Policy 5c through 5g mean to begin or to complete side- walk construction? The intent is to begin construction. A8. What is "standard size in Policy 9? Standard size is as defined in Policy 7. B. REVIEW PROCESS Bi. Additional time for public comment will be required as issues are evaluated. Comments 1. The existing process gives 30 days to review and comment on staff evalua- tions and options before a Planning Commission hearing. That period could be extended if it is too short to permit adequate public review. 2. The Planning Commission always has the option to carry over issues which they feel need additional discussion or deliberations. 3. The existing plan review process was endorsed by the Planning Commission after the Sidewalk Policies had been publicly available for at least two months. There was support expressed in all comments on the existing plan review process. 4. There may be some issues which require extensive, in -depth discussions and which might not be resolvable in the course of one meeting. Options A. Provide a second public comment period after the initial 30 -day review period and Planning Commission deliberations. B. Modify the review process to provide a longer initial public comment period than the existing 30 days. C. Retain the existing review process with its 30 -day review period; and recog- nize that the Commissioners may direct staff to gather what additional 3. See Concern B1. Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 5 information they feel is necessary to their decision - making. Additional staff reports resulting from this direction would be subject to the 30 -day review period. B2. A complete list of comments is not possible until several issues involving maintenance and liability are better defined (see Definitions). Comments 1. Maintenance and liability issues are herein presented to allow interested parties to evaluate the facts and recommend a preferred option (see Al, A2 and J1). 2. The Commission established 30 days as generally sufficient time for public review of information, for the public to state its objections /support of these evaluations, and for the public to state its preferences. Options A. Resolve maintenance and liability issues in this set of evaluations since sufficient information on the relevant facts and options have been presented on each specific concern. B. Postpone Commission deliberations to allow further public review. C. GENERAL POLICY COMMENTS Cl. Policies need to be specific to Tukwila needs, not simply carbon copies of policies found in neighboring communities. Comments 1. The existing draft policies were developed in coordination with widely accepted engineering standards, public review, and direction from the City Council Transportation Committee. These sidewalk policies tried to reflect Tukwila needs. 2. The plan adoption process involves extensive Planning Commission, City Council, and public review to help ensure that plan reflects City desires. 3. Review of other areas was done as part of this evaluation in response to specific Planning Commission comments, to identify standard amenities pro- vided in competing commercial areas, and to ensure that Tukwila standards are not burdensomely high. 4. A comparison of Tukwila sidewalk policies with other commercial area side- walk policies show the area specific nature of this City's plan (see Table 1). C. No change in the existing geographic scope. Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 6 D. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE Dl. All commercial areas in Tukwila should be subject to these (CBD sidewalk) policies. Comments 1. Commercial areas not subject to the CBD Sidewalk Plan are the Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue corridors (see Map A). Southcenter Boule- vard is scheduled for an eight foot wide sidewalk along its northern border, but no sidewalk along the southern border. Construction of the Southcenter Boulevard sidewalk is scheduled for 1988 -89. 2. Interurban Avenue South (north of I -405) is scheduled for six to ten foot wide, separated sidewalks on both east and west sides. The separation will be with a landscape buffer strip. Construction of the Interurban Avenue South sidewalk is being done in segments as the roadway is improved. 3. Streets to the east of Interurban Avenue are the only ones not scheduled for sidewalks in some time frame and not covered by the CBD Sidewalk Plan poli- cies. These roads are uncurbed and serve industrial uses. Options A. Expand the geographic scope of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. B. Sidewalks along streets to the east of Interurban Avenue South should be developed as necessary to serve the Green River trail system. This would generally make them high or moderate priority. J. LIABILITY J1. What is the exposure of property owners to liability as a result of side- walks? Comments 1. There are no draft policies assigning responsibility for liability._ 2. In the absence of any existing draft policies, State statutes apply. The following comments are based on State statutes and the opinions of legal counsel from the City of Everett and Centralia. The Tukwila City Attorney concurs with these comments. 3. Liability exposure as a result of sidewalks would generally originate from injuries to users as a result of a poorly designed or maintained sidewalk. 4. The design engineer who's professional stamp was on the sidewalk construc- tion plans would bear primary responsibility for injury claims due to poor ti::0is s% Lit'' rt 'rr:,5iti" it 45 rsWank :i sn a ` Div:`.:r?Y`i Will uw xv Sti uiFe6.,?m; iamtre m .1WM. MA ova`'C$S"Std'ty?i'f ":MV :2 71iu' .+Cr: :Tb..'£ 7 YAI11i1.171'Srs`cr{.'>iL'139 , Staff Evaluation of Concerns Page 7 design. The City, as the approving agency, would bear some secondary responsibility. Property owners using City plans for sidewalk design would not probably have any liability exposure due to poor sidewalk design. 5. Liability due to maintenance is directly associated with the body responsi- ble for recognizing the need for maintenance, and carrying out the need for maintenance. These issues were discussed in Items Al and A2. 6. Property owner would be the primary party liable for user injuries whether the sidewalk was on City right -of -way or a private easement. The City would share this primary liability if it can be shown that it should have reason- ably recognized the need for maintenance and failed to order maintenance in a timely manner. This conclusion is based on a direct relationship between responsibility for maintenance and liability for injuries as a result of poor maintenance (see Items Al and A2). Options A. The City can assume any and all responsibility for liability as a result of sidewalks. B. The City can specifically embody existing State statutory law in these Side- walk Policies. C. No change in the existing policies regarding sidewalk liability. (251 /SW.EVALU1,2) _1 :J o 147=0161. NO ova Li pacoscaom C•2 MOW. NUL Li C•P •A• OS SAMS COTO r--1 C-14 Li *CUM& PAM LT MOM twi rn AWl Li MIMI MOM • ; • ; I , • '••••••!, ........ ........... — • •••• • ...... . 04- t. too...11 C411 C461 ! I mmu.4 :MO= 11 Cl CM ; I; C4A a • po 1 C44 [ 400 . • • *a C41 I MAP A cur C)F z • • I c.11 1 g ••:. Commercial Areas Without Scheduled Sidewalks Commercial Areas • With Scheduled Sidewalks •-• K W It. A WO rill: KOMI • 011110111, %AM .1111 co As ma, ow NAIL 5001 • '• EJ X )u,G l „DL( tL c' 'a c ?`/. /98V March 24, 1988 Dear Board: Tukwila Planning Commission (Hand Delivered) Thank you for considering my opinions. Very truly yours, i4w1.6 i24 Ernest N. Patty President THE ANDOVER COMPANY A THE ANDOVER COMPANY CORPORATE REAL ESTATE 8009 S. 180th Street, Suite 103, Kent, Washington 98032 I i 11 VI 1 i.1 ±. s � .'1 24 1988 r a • I Pi With regard to your CBD sidewalk ordinance; as an industrial real estate broker and property owner in Andover since 1973 I wish to make the following comments: a) Due to existing parking codes and the site coverage allowed in the 60's and 70's the lack of parking and on site truck maneuvering room dictates that most warehousing in Andover is obsolete. b) Further, due to the same reasons, most properties cannot be retrofitted to commercial uses, unless expansion land exists alongside (i.e. the former Abbott Labs, Grainger, B.M.& T., and G.E. Appliance bldgs.). c) The need for sidewalks is somewhat limited, and where needed, is spread out around Tukwila, and specifically Andover. d) If you proceed with the sidewalk plan, long term (next 10 years and beyond) it's a fine idea, the sidewalks should parallel all streets and be on an area wide L.I.D. or, more probably... e) The city should purchase the land, pay for the sidewalks, own the sidewalks, and maintain the sidewalks. f) At the very minimum, I'm not interested in removing beautiful trees, grass, and shrubs and then maintaining the sidewalks myself, as having liability for public use across my property. (208) 251 -0770 iii i �:. ":i2 ,�; .�' 7•,�.:• t'S \:..� .. nc.. +•,:'G.r..; -., r..l�.,....... -. >7..�..w,vL. 3:c.,�,:._x.:. .. }t,n..,..•_,r .�.,u.r..IGs..rus... t:,.::i' =� 'ir+':. ^'s :::rA '. i1i¢ r,;..^•; isrr .[�,BS;..•.:.iFC�: >i= ko:T.,". `I lhtL d : ; /f'sY Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Gentlemen: .�. a.a..lr.. .w..ryyy�s -. .ex'!. ^: K.�;ry•.:iav:k,.!:5w;r iF�.``?,�� f,`3;:?rY.l ,.sn;`;h:i � <�l: a�iiU .,.. ,,, ,vl�. .:,ttJ. .....n,.w. .��F.x:::.•tta�:: (:i: }�r.,..,vu N. .... SEG ALE BUS /NESS PARK March 24, 1988 Reference: Planning Commission Public Hearing 87 -2 -CPA Central Business District Sidewalk Policies - Part I We were pleased to receive the staff summary of issues - Part I dated February 24, 1988, and commend them for pulling together and collating all the diverse comments and concerns. Now that there has been some study, analysis, and definition of the various maintenance issues which could occur, and the concomitant liability, we would suggest that, as the City of Kent has undertaken, the City of Tukwila undertake the maintenance and liability responsibilities for central business district sidewalks. Part of the rationale for this is that sidewalks are indeed one avenue for public mobility. Sidewalks are part and parcel of a fully developed transportation and roadway system and are extensions thereof. Because of this development for the public good, utilizing private property owners' rights and property owners' money, the public ought to then accept the responsibili- ties for those benefits granted them by the property owner. Public streets and public walkways are necessary for a well functioning community. Government has the ability to provide the linkages between properties to provide for the public good, and should also accept the responsibility for those linkages once they have created them. We continue to maintain that any reference to trails ought to be eliminated from the sidewalk policy, as they are a separate issue. Additionally, the definition of pathway and discussion of the intent of including pathway in the sidewalk policies as expressed in Item A -3 should also be eliminated as it more properly deals with trails and not sidewalks. P.O. BOX 88050 • TELEPHONE: (206) 575.3200 N TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 ... Rif C + ftt7��r Planning Commission While we recognize some people's desires to travel about by non - motorized means, there are rules of the road and laws which allow for this on the streets, and we should not have to provide a further transportation system when one is already available. Once again we thank both you and the staff for the completeness of this latest review packet. We continue to urge that the policies adopted be those that are best for Tukwila and /or its citizens rather than policies structured for other communities on the general theory that, "what is good for them must also be good for us." AJN:dem -2- March 24, 1988 Very truly yours, SECALE BUSINESS PARK Ann J. Nichols :'SAA4eta".0.1 C;(.4 ;FS%Y'r clia av:').:1?t". ifi.:xi:44;g1tniwrl rant..: 1f41. a. ;a:+:.rr..r,:. >.wwxr..a....ra es+u+.rw.ay. >.w.seswusm :1dMie ta•.ar.:WCICAV f! VIVNtnni ti ceiPk:•i•fi�i'. . fir} e .r gatiV n Vi JOANNE JOHNSON A FFCDAV I T Notice of Public Hearing - BAR 0 Notice of Public Meeting [J Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet C1 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet U Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [] Notice of Application for [I Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project SIDEWALKS a File Number 87 -14 OF DISTRO UTION hereby declare that: [j Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action Official Notice (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) SignOtire FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1988 .. ) . 4- ePAA - Atg- , 19 . : a� ytni: L. �" �" S$;ti;•k4'SC;,..?;J, <svt,ew.y.n 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: ,Request: 3. Case Number: Applicant: Request: 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on March 24, 1988, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: Planning Commission Public Hearing 87 -4 -CPA, 87 -5 -R John C. Strander Comprehensive Plan map change from Low Density Residential to Commercial, and pre- annexation zone designation of Regional Retail Business (C -2). 13530 - 53rd Avenue South 88 -2 -CA: Adult Entertainment Ordinance City of Tukwila Text amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Code establishing regulations for Adult Entertainment uses. 87 -2 -CPA: Central Business District Sidewalk Policies City of Tukwila Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing 87- 14 -DR: Castillo Company, Inc. Construct a two -story office building with 18,401 square feet on a 4.42 acre site. Approximately 100 feet east of the Interurban Avenue South/ Southcenter Boulevard intersection in the NW } of Sec. 24, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, WA Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday March 13, 1988 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. Q6i'N;�j.�ra •' 1v. � . yam .., . , R; ,'. '•' vo! -!! :.yrr ; � ';:•r. �a� tr, � 1�';:' .,zI 1� i::':`:S"„'. ( S Sf :l�.iSSY7A C3" l,.AS.� }M.rl,... 1.4 <. r. .,. . .,�. �,�.. n :< ... u.. ... a... .. a .,..... ....�.w;x.,�...u,. za .h... .. NSRxd' ''a1S.`b':S` .tr. 5,.r.NtT` s M�R � ;ti.".g:..3:..c. A :i ...s.. _anrL.i.... ,.�. TO: JOHN F. COLGROVE FROM: HUGH J. DAVIS RE: TUKWILA SUBJ: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE MEMO RE SIDEWALKS - Page 1 2957C2 /LEH /HJD MEMORANDUM February 26, 1988 There is no Washington statute that imposes on abutting landowners a duty to perform maintenance of public sidewalks. Under RCW 35A.47.020, sidewalk maintenance in optional code cities, such as Tukwila, is regulated as provided in RCW 35.68. However, RCW 35.68 does not impose any affirmative duty on abutting landowners. Under RCW 35.68.010, a city has the authority to repair sidewalks, or to require butting landowners to do so, or to assess costs against abutting landowners. This statute does not impose an affirmative duty on abutting landowners to perform maintenance of public sidewalks. In the absence of a city ordinance, sidewalk maintenance is largely a matter of state common law. It is clear that under Washington common law, a city has a duty to exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of its public sidewalks to keep them in ��.�i.'�f b. iA tG: is�14" a1 ": +�: �t..j �n'4 j i.' 4i.'4r.• .4i f Ai.T. �. .t %e'.i .Cr',*t ?.i. ;tr.'i MEMO RE SIDEWALKS - Page 2 2957C2 /LEH /HJD such condition that they are reasonably safe for ordinary travel. See Johnson v. Ilwaco, 38 Wn.2d 408, 229 P.2d 878 (1951). See also Boeing Co. v. State, 89 Wn.2d 443, 572 P.2d 8 (1978). A city cannot breach this duty of care unless the city has either actual notice of an unsafe condition or the condition has existed long enough that under the circumstances the city should have discovered the unsafe condition in the exercise of ordinary care. See Wright v. City of Kennewick, 62 Wn.2d 163, 381 P.2d 620 (1963); Skaggs v. General Electric Co., 52 Wn.2d 787, 328 P.2d 871 (1958). There is nothing in Washington common law that imposes a general duty on abutting landowners to perform maintenance of public sidewalks: However, an abutting landowner has a duty to exercise ordinary care in connection with the use or condition of his property so as not to render the adjacent sidewalk unsafe for ordinary travel. See Misterek v. Washington Mineral Products, Inc., 85 Wn.2d 166, 531 P.2d 805 (1975); Collais v. Buck & Bowers Oil, Co., 175 Wash. 263, 27 P.2d 118 (1933). In addition, an abutting landowner who uses the sidewalk for his own special purposes has a duty to use reasonable care that the use does not create unsafe conditions for pedestrians. See Stone v. Seattle, 64 Wn.2d 166, 391 P.2d 179 (1964). For example, a landowner who uses part of the sidewalk as a driveway must use reasonable care that this use does not create _ .: 1.: w , ,�... .,yti: :!."T'.o- :�M•:" ..,, • xf*.:: �:l rru'" IfsfF•! :Y,•;;4�.�r »,•it`�''R r• < +Y'7:� .. „ ct`:..,...,;:C:....`✓' +LAS,'?:. i?�'if•w......1: :, 1:r .,. .�rt......._r. ,.x... ....1s ... .n ^.f.4 ), S.. _.. x.6..na.. ,�...t. .t. unsafe conditions. If the condition of a sidewalk deteriorates for some reason that bears no relation to the abutting landowner's use of his property or the sidewalk, then the abutting landowner does not have an affirmative duty to repair the sidewalk. If an abutting landowner's use of his property or the sidewalk creates an unsafe condition, then a person injured as a result of the unsafe condition may seek relief against both the abutting landowner and the city. See Stone v. Seattle, 64 Wn.2d 166, 391 P.2d 179 (1964). As one of two or more persons jointly and severally liable for the same harm, the city might seek contribution under RCW 4.22.040. Moreover, the city may seek common -law indemnity from the abutting landowner as long as the city is not an active tortfeasor. See Guard v. Friday Harbor, 22 Wn. App. 758, 592 P.2d 652 (1979). The city may become an active tortfeasor through failure to repair an unsafe condition caused by an abutting landowner if the city allows the condition to exist for an unreasonably long period. See Turner v. Tacoma, 72 Wn.2d 1029, 435 P.2d 927 (1967) (condition allowed to exist for 38 years) While there is some authority from other jurisdictions that the relative duties of the city and abutting landowners to maintain the sidewalks depends on whether the city or the abutting landowner owns the fee, there is no Washington MEMO RE SIDEWALKS - Page 3 2957C2 /LEH /HJD +.iyGVatteigzM.°.9.i`:*finewriv :c:Shia:.:ra�' mtiv.wczczyr_t -': ..Rmslrx;:l•64ns r.n 74,1var,loz rsw' • vg.1104L't'Snx'41 C'a "s Axk":CZNVIiis '. 'il' :Z,, : ralis;' Y 5 i giVI' `.r.`•M^'„ MEMO RE SIDEWALKS - Page 4 2957C2 /LEH /HJD authority to this effect. One should not assume, therefore, that an abutting landowner has a greater duty of care with respect to the sidewalks if he owns the fee and the city merely has an easement. At common law, the owner of an underlying fee does not have any duty to maintain safe conditions on an easement. See 25 Am. Jur. 2d Easements & Licenses § 85 (1966). Moreover, imposition of a greater duty of care on an abutting landowner on the basis of his technical ownership of the underlying fee to the sidewalk would tend to elevate form over substance. In summary, the City of Tukwila should not assume that abutting landowners have an affirmative duty to perform maintenance of public sidewalks. The City itself has the duty to perform such maintenance or to arrange for the performance of such maintenance in the absence of a relevant ordinance. Abutting landowners merely have a duty to use reasonable care not to create unsafe conditions on the sidewalks. VU /sjn attachment k.r h'�:ru•� A:x�x Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Reviewers Ci t of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Subject: SIDEWALK PLAN INVENTORY OF CONCERNS t.�.in:Jlk:._a_ic.}7S:.T�..' v2'!' u`, a_' 4' rk1!' R. �T..'$" 1y e`'> Ei' f,' �: i�`. r�'.- + '' �kCy�i5•' �1;' PifYd�� '>:�1w'f'uti�`7''.yif�.�i3.,` 4".�' January 13, 1988 ,k{ We are now at the last stage of inventorying public concerns about the Sidewalk Plan. Attached is my understanding of all the concerns raised to date about the draft Central Business District Sidewalk Plan as well as a complete inventory of all the written and verbal testimony submitted to the Planning Commission. This draft is being circulated to allow a last review prior to finalizing the list of concerns to be evaluated. Please contact me by January 27, 1988 at (206) 433 -1858 if I have misunder- stood.or omitted an item of concern, if you feel some further elaboration is needed to better focus the issue, or if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Vernon M. Umetsu Associate Planner .. . I BACKGROUND II THE CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CONCERNS Category Headings CBD SIDEWALK PLAN INVENTORY OF CONCERNS January 8, 1988 This inventory of concerns is part of the Planning Commission's Sidewalk Plan review process. It is a complete list of all the concerns various groups and individuals have about the Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan. The Planning Commission's adopted process envisions that only the final list of concerns will be evaluated. Therefore this list of concerns should be the only ones evaluated by the Planning Department. The Planning Department will be evaluating each concern for Commission review and action. Pursuant to the adopted process, the Planning Department will distribute evaluations 30 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting at which they will be discussed. The following pages are organized into two sections: a consolidated list of concerns by topical group and the complete record of testimony submitted as comments to the CBD Sidewalk Plan since its introduction to the Planning Commission on August 27, 1987. This section represents the complete list of concerns identified by the various reviewers. It is based on a consolidation of all written and verbal comments expressed by various reviewers (Section III). There are 11 topical categories and a total of 56 comments in this list. Several of these comments were made on earlier drafts and are no longer applicable due to policy revisions. The topical categories are identified below. Consolidated comments follow, arranged by category. A - Definitions Needed B - Review Process C - General Policy Comments D - Geographic Scope E - Need for Sidewalks F - Required Sidewalk Construction G - Sidewalk Design H - Sidewalk Maintenance I - Financing J - Liability K - Conformance to Tukwila Municipal Code :;�4 .` %a' r' s,rr.� . W "'.rr,t'nS111'sc:P ; r„1.. • *.�l.yr;•' !r"42 + ..`3!St .:! )tiny;,�.7q. n , ,. y f,... t y.• :, . �+)' ' �. .`. "t;``.3_t ^y � t' � t, ,. . 'KS:" ... �� ..ai�t..i :4 � , n�.•. �. .. . > : y .. �., , v�; e���: r�s: t• rzxa.: ��t�?:.. t. a. rm.._, �..,... K1C�_.: �::,: a+• �. c,....,. U,.: �; i:;• ra,:, �.<„ w;. c• �. ��!,: �.. �� ^._:...k. ,....M. . ',i._''baS:l h..IiG:Y�:id4.lfi'Y�. .� .: t �.. W. k�✓ n"` �:[ �, t+' i. .... Y.:; 3s. Y:l'.' s�. 5° ali /f�Er�,�l:.Y.3.:.r;.:ft't4�... �:2.i�.r, :.'.Si": ^ }in_.+4'lfn ••3.�9 ?:L w h. ... CBD SIDEWALK PLAN . Definitions Needed 1. What is meant by "long- term" (structural) sidewalk maintenance. 2. What is meant by "daily" sidewalk maintenance. 3. "Pathway" in Policy 1 and 2. 4. "Trail system" in Policy 2. 5. "Reasonable amount of time" in Policy 3. 6. "Street widening" in Policy 5b. 7. Does "construct" in Policy 5c through 5g mean begin or complete sidewalk construction. 8. What is "standard size" in Policy 9. B. Review Process 1. Additional time for public comment will be required as issues are evaluated. 2. A complete list of comments is not possible until several issues involving maintenance, and liability are better defined (see Definitions). C. General Policies Comments 1. Policies need to be specific to Tukwila needs, not simply carbon copies of policies found in neighboring communities. D. Geographic Scope 1. All commercial areas in Tukwila should be subject to these policies. E. Need for Sidewalks 1. Sidewalks are not justified on Andover Park East, between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street; due to the very few pedestrians, the high truck hazard to pedestrians on curbline sidewalks, the cost of landscape replacement, the future need for greater street width, and the lack of retail or recreational facilities within walking distance. 2. Sidewalks are supported in the Southcenter Boulevard and Strander Boulevard areas. Inventory of Concerns Page 2 CBD SIDEWALK PLAN Inventory of Concerns Page 3 F. Required Sidewalk Construction 1. Sidewalks should not be required for building repair due to casualty loss (i.e., fire, earthquake, and flooding). Incorporate into 11.64.020, Sidewalk Construction Ordinance, and 18.70 Zoning Code. 2. Policy 4 and 5a should incorporate the provisions for acceptance of existing sidewalks stated in other policies. 3. If separated sidewalks become the City standard, will all curbline sidewalks become non - conforming and have to be replaced at redevelopment. Would the City take another four feet from presently conforming properties? 4. Need to discuss the requirement for sidewalks when total cumulative site improvements exceed $250,000 as specified in draft TMC 11.64.020(b). G. Sidewalk Design 1. Curbline sidewalks should be preferred whenever possible. 2. Should "trail system" references be included in Policy 2 given the plan's focus on sidewalks. 3. What is the timing for construction of temporary sidewalks in Policy 6. 4. What streets have speed limits over 35 mph as referenced in Policy 7. 5. Eliminate all reference to separated sidewalks. 6. The landscape buffer strips associated with separated sidewalks are costly to maintain in good condition. 7. Landscape buffer strips associated with separated sidewalks represent an additional four feet taken from the property owner and another four feet lost from development (over curbline sidewalks). 8. Landscape buffer strips increase sidewalk costs by approximately $4.00 per lineal foot due to the expense of grass sprinklers. 9. The City is effectively taking away 9 to 12 feet of street frontage from development in the CBD. 10. Will landscape buffer strips have to have automatic irrigation? 11. There needs to be criteria for the Planning and Public Works directors to decide when sidewalk design shall be modified. -, yap. ;i =r?t,v.u:�'Yq!➢;}T�(:g i's f.., YM CBD SIDEWALK PLAN Inventory of Concerns Page 4 12. How, where and when are the engineering studies referred to in Policy 15 to be done. Will the pedestrian volumes be based on five -day, seven -day or holiday volumes. 13. Is Policy 17 an informational statement only? 14. Is Policy 18 an informational statement only? 15. In all the cases on arterials, the sidewalk should be 8 feet wide or have a 3 -foot minimum planting strip plus 5 foot (preferably 6 feet) wide CW. 16. All vertical objects should be 3 feet clear of the curb face, such as street trees, fire hydrants, or utility poles. 17. All vertical objects should be 2 feet clear of the sidewalk (if possible). 18. Specify sidewalk thickness. (Recommend 4" 8" for DWY) 19. The design of the driveway may be critical for the safety of the pedestrians and also for the durability of the sidewalk. (Recommend 3 foot minimum of level same as CW) See sketch 1. 20. The temporary sidewalk should be made of asphalt. (Approx. 2" asphalt over 4" crushed rock) The asphalt driveway shall be 3" asphalt over 6" crushed rock. 21. Washington State law requires the curb ramp to have a 3 -foot by 5 -foot apron for safety purposes. If there is no R/W or other reason for not providing a landing space, then I recommend using a larger wing to meet a 12 to 1 slope requirement. 22. Combined trail /sidewalk provisions in the April 1987 draft policies are not needed given the existing and planned sidewalks, are unfairly burdensome on one single property owner along South 180th Street, and are inappropriate in a Sidewalk Plan (i.e, trails should be dealt with in recreation plans). H. Sidewalk Maintenance 1. No comments are possible until a decision on separated or curbline sidewalk design is made. 2. The City should assume all sidewalk liability and maintenance responsibility as it has with roads. 3. What are the specific standards for "long- term" (structural) and daily sidewalk maintenance. 4. How will maintenance standards for sidewalks and buffer landscape strips be enforced to ensure quality continuity. CBD SIDEWALK PLAN J. Liability Some owners are not and will not be interested in maintaining landscaping. 5. What are "cracked, crumbling and uneven" sidewalks. I. Financing 1. L.I.D. financing is supported. 2. Who will pay for pedestrian signals. 3. Non -users such as industrial businesses should not have to pay for sidewalks. 4. Who will pay for relandscaping and the landscape strips of separated sidewalks. 5. Phase sidewalk construction so that streets on which sidewalks are not currently needed can be built on an as- needed basis. 1. What is the exposure of property owners to liability as a result of sidewalks. 2. Who would be liable for truck /pedestrian accidents. K. Conformance to Tukwila Zoning Code Inventory of Concerns Page 5 1. TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication should read as follows (underlined words are additions to the existing draft section): "No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become non - conforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allowance shall not apply to property when the existin structure is demolished, except when such demolition, re uilding, or remodeling is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to apply if structure is demolished and rebuilt due to natural disaster, fire or similar events." 2. Ensure that Policy 13 is reflected in all other Plan elements. 3. Sidewalks built on donated easements should be counted toward satisfying the landscape requirements. 4. The provisions of 18.70 should apply both in an easement donation and a right -of -way donation. III. CBD SIDEWALK PLAN - INVENTORY OF TESTIMONY December 17, 1987 City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Planning Commissioners: The Transportation Committee of Our Chamber would like to thank you for the opportunity to review your latest documents on the Central Business District Sidewalk Policies. We appreciate being able to present our comments, but feel that more time will be needed as we go through the documents. Tukwila should strive to keep its uniqueness, which has given the City the growth it has today and has laid the groundwork for future growth. We encourage you to adopt Sidewalk Policies that are specific to the needs of Tukwila, not simply carbon copies of those policies found in other neighboring communities. At present, we would like to make the following suggestions: A. The Planning Commission broaden the scope of the area that the CBD Sidewalk Policies and changes are being applied to, to include all the commercial areas of the City of Tukwila. The Planning Commission should consider prioritizing those other links or routes as necessary and put these new priorities in prospective in relation to priorities currently found in the proposed CBD construction plan. We suggest that a time -line for these routes also be established. B. We wholeheartedly agree with your decision to remove the combined trail /sidewalk policy, as it does belong elsewhere. C. It is our opinion that the policy should stipulate "sidewalks next to the street" whenever possible. We cannot address maintenance policies until we know the final proposed design of the sidewalks (specifically in relation to separated or non - separated). Tukwila /SeaTac Chamber of Commerce Parkside Bldg.. 5200 Southcenter Blvd., Suite II, P.O. Box 58591, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 244 -3160 TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication City of Tukwila Planning Commission Page 2 CBD Sidewalk Policies December 17, 1987 D. We recommend that you revise Attachment B (Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code) to read as follows: "No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or easement to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become non - conforming by reasons of such donation or easement. This allowance shall not apply to property when the existing structure is demolished, except when such demolition, rebuilding, or remodeling is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. This allowance shall continue to apply if structure is demolished and rebuilt due to natural disaster, fire or similar events." E. We suggest that an exception be added to Item 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required, to read "For construction necessitated by the replacement or rebuilding of a casualty loss." F. We would like to once again state our position on funding of the sidewalk construction. We support the L.I.D. method of funding as long as anyone who has already paid for their sidewalks is excluded from paying again. Before Our Chamber can present you with its opinion on several of the other issues, we will need further definitions of the following subjects brought up in the sidewalk plan. 1. What is meant by long term (structural maintenance) and what does it include? 2. What is meant by daily maintenance and what would this include? 3. How is the level of maintenance determined or defined? 4. How would these types and levels of maintenance be enforced? 5. We have major concerns about the levels of responsibility for liability or participation therein between the property owners and the City. ti. City of Tukwila Planning Commission Page 3 CBD Sidewalk Policies December 17, 1987 It is our - opinion that as far as liability and maintenance of the sidewalks is concerned, the responsibility should be the same as for City streets - the responsibility of the City. teven A. Emery Chairman of the Board cc: Chamber Transportation Mayor VanDusen Council member Harris Planning Director Rick Again, we appreciate being given further opportunity to comment on this complicated subject. Sincerely, TUKWJLA /SEA T CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Committee Beeler Dear Mr. Umetsu: RED DOT HEATERS AND ;\ CO RPORATION AIR CONDITIONERS 1 495 Andover Park East, PO. Box 58270, Seattle, Washington 98188 Mr. Vernon Umetsu Associate Planner CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 December 17, 1987 L MI\'11 DEG 17 1987 CITY Oi-- T∎.s1'5 iLA PLANNING DEPT. Red Dot Corporation has been at its Tukwila location for the past 10 years. Our corporation is locally owned and we lease our facilities from principles of the firm. We currently employ about 250 employees, all of whom drive to work. We are not conveniently located for bus service nor are we close enough to retail shopping which would give rise to the need for sidewalk usage. At this time we are not convinced of the need for sidewalks. Cost of the sidewalks may not be justified for the following reasons: 1. Exceptionally light foot traffic would not require sidewalks on both sides of the street. 2. From a practical standpoint, curb side sidewalks are dangerous as the proximity of pedestrians to vehicles is very close. 3. During wet, rainy periods use of the sidewalks would be questionable due to vehicle spray. This is espe- cially acute given the high truck traffic in our area. 4. It would be a shame to remove and redo much of the landscaping attributes of our area. 5. It seems that in the future our area may have greater need for a wider street, maybe a turn lane. If this need is a possibility, then constructing sidewalks and later destructing sidewalks does not seem the best of ideas. Phone: (206) 575 -3840 TWX: 910 -444 -4140 TELEX: 152 -194 FAX: (206) 575 -8267 Mr, Vernon Umetsu CITY. OF TUKWILA December 17, 1987 :Page Two In conclusion, we hope you will concur with our position that sidewalks are unnecessary in our area, namely Andover Park East, from Strander Boulevard South to 180th. Yours very truly, RED DOT CORPORATION /bUte-e Jgel/MIVOI1 R. Bruce Channer Vice President Finance RBC /em . cc Mr. David Larson — Chairman, Planning Commission Ms. Wendy Morgan - Chairman, Tukwila City Council POLICY 1: POLICY 2: POLICY 3: POLICY 4: POLICY 5: POLICY 6: POLICY 7: POLICY 8: POLICY 9: POLICY 11: POLICY 12: POLICY 13: POLICY 14: POLICY 15: POLICY 17: POLICY 18: t—a .w;;,:wr..waa•4k.e.y xaacnnrr ap.:r isa.: nz.ri crttka,,a.1=tti.Y.F. ?M) °rOMIT&l ';t?1' PetA. ';R 5 °""r+'.c'`; P.O. BOX 88050 • TELEPHONE: (206) 575 -3200 ■TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 r��LA crn /7 /FS' 7 f � SEG ALE BUS /NESS PARK December 17, 1987 COMMENTS ON NOVEMBER 5, 1987 CENTRAL BUSINES DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Define pathway Define pathway. Define trail system. Why is this here in this policy? This is a sidewalk policy. Define reasonable amount of time. This policy should be consistent with other policies addressing acceptance of existing sidewalks. A. Same as comment for policy 4 above B. Define street widening C. Define constructed. Does it mean commence or complete? a, d, e, f, g What is timing for construction of temporary sidewalks? Is it the same as policy 5 schedule? What streets have over 35 mph speed limits? Define "full width." Is it equal to required width or what? Need set of criteria for decision making. Define "standard size". Same as comment on pol icy 4 . Eliminate all reference to separated sidewalks. Define "maintained " - same comment as on policy 4. Same comment as on policy 4. Need criteria for decision making. A. How, where, and when are engineering studies generated? B. Pedestrian volume based on five -day or seven - day week? Holidays? This is an informational statement ?? How is it a policy? Who pays for these? Same as policy 17. 8 Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Umetsu: cc: Mr. David Larson Chairman, Planning Commission FIBERC ELE M INC. Serving the Plastics Industry - :..y,•1....w!: �'�:. f <k::.;� r}�>•: ��sfitrr., e ?:.LM' ^1: {�:"`rss'.x�;.7:: "ssy .,i �..:e;4.; ..i;.i�- .s.•::� :�.::7....X....,......l �.r a. t. ...�... .. ..r u,..... .. ....... ..Sr: ,.., ... r.i +z .,fY.:TO.;. :•1:..., ..,. .. ..�. .. n Corporate Headquarters P.O. Box 88279 • FAX (206) 575 -3907 • (206) 575-0270 1120 Andover Park East • Seattle, Washington 98138 -2279 December 15, 1987 RE: Central Business District Sidewalk Plan NI Il7 `q 198 i CITY OF TAUK' ILA PLANNING r :FPT.. Fiberchem, Inc. Roy G.Ballinger Vice President, Finance Ms. Wendy Morgan Chairperson, Tukwila City Council R B / k k LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA • PORTLAND, OREGON • DENVER, COLORADO PHOENIX, ARIZONA • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON This letter is written to express the feelings of Fiberchem, Inc., the tenant in the Fiberchem building located at 1120 Andover Park East. The letter is also written at the request of Don and Carolyn Leuthold, the owners of the Fiberchem building. Fiberchem, Inc., and the Leutholds want you to know that they are totally against the addition of sidewalks to our street, that is Andover Park East, south of Strandler Blvd. to 180th; and designated in the Plan referred to above as being of moderate priority. This area is, and always has been, designated as an Industrial Park and the buildings are occupied by commercial /wholesale businesses with no traffic requiring sidewalks. All of our employees drive to work as there is no bus service, and we do not encourage will -call pickup by our customers. There are no retail or recreational facilities within walking distance of our building, and we feel that none need be encouraged to come to this area. We do sincerely hope that you will take our thoughts into consideration during your planning process. If you have any questions or are in need of further response from us or our landlord, please do not hesitate to call. Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner City of Tukwila, Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Umetsu, December -2-1, 1987 EflTig,17,Erirro Thank -you for giving me an opportunity to review your proposed sidewalk plan. My recomendations are as follows: 1) In all the cases on arterials, the sidewalk shall be 8 feet wide or have a 3 foot minimum planting strip plus 5 foot (preferably 6 feet) wide CW. 2) All vertical objects shall be 3 feet clear of the curb face, such as street trees, fire hydrants, or utility poles. 3) All vertical objects shall be 2 foot clear of the sidewalk. (if possible). 4) Specify sidewalk thickness. (Recommend 4" 4 8" for DWY) 5) The design of the driveway may be critical for the safety of the pedestrians and also for the durability of the sidewalk. (Recommend 3 foot minimum e442 of level same as CW) See sketch 1. 6) The temporary sidewalk should be made of asphalt. (Approximately 2" asphalt /4" crushed rock) The asphalt driveway shall be 3 "asphalt /6" crushed rock. 7) Washington State Law requires the curb rampt to have a 3 feet by 5 feet landing area for safety purposes. If no R/W or other reason for not providing a landing space, then I recommend using a larger wing to meet t2to 11 slope requirement. See sketch 2. If you have any questions regarding my proposal, please call me at 684 -5298. I would gladly answer any questions about my recommendations. Yours truly, 4.} c S•: f (0O , a :t:!. ^'.R• ?:71 �;t: ; t ',ii'"t�s'f.'.;:.'cyt.'s�'xS'�� �'� - DEC 1987 CITY (i i LA PLAN NN,NG DEPT. Mr. Hiro Takahashi ?63 / ,vA u r �tI eq.( S L S 7 be / ' g SKETCH 1 • SKETCH 2 I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting [( Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q [[ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit AFF� AVIT OF DISTRI.,UTION Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87 -2 -CPA [[ Determination of Nonsignificance [� Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice O Other 0 Shoreline Management Permit [[ Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1987 (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Signature , 19 . fir+lziss7,yx' . iin! %7'L'3?iiiF:!'iCLI Akt,``,05.(v ="47?i' il:a4t0:11 hkfAG- :1:74 H. ae hrxw.,..vg I, - JOANNE JOHNSON AFF fLAV I T In Notice of Public Hearing [l Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet [( Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project SIDFWAI K PI AN File Number 87 -2 —CPA hereby declare that: O F D I S T R P U T I O N 0 Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [[ Notice of Action 0 Official Notice [[ Other Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1987 , 19 Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on December 17, 1987, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 3. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 4. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 1. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: 2. Case Number: Applicant: Request: Location: Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors, and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday December 6, 1987 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File (21 /NTC.12 -17) City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Planning Commission Public Hearing 87 -2 -CPA: Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Tukwila Public Works Department To adopt Sidewalk Plan policies and ordinances. Tukwila business district, south of I -405 and east of I -5. 87 -5 -CA: Radovich Zone Text Amendment John C. Radovich Expand building height exception for the area generally located N.E. of I -405 and West Valley Highway. Height limit would increase from 35 feet to greater than 115 feet. Dead end of Southcenter Boulevard, south of Fort Dent Park, in the N.W. * of Sec 24, Twn 25, Rge 4. 87 -4 -R: Shimatsu /Mikami Rezone Shimatsu / Mikami Rezone 66,685 square feet from R -1 -7.2 Single Family Residential to C -2, Regional Retail. On Southcenter Parkway, immediately north of the 17015 address (Center Place); otherwise known as T.L. 9011 -07 and 9012-06 in S.W. } of Sec 26, Twn 23, Rge 4. 87- 2 -UCU: Renton Sand and Gravel Renton Sand and Gravel Unclassified use permit for mixing, screening and storing topsoil. 1602 Monster Road (vacated) Board of Architectural Review Public Meeting 87- 12 -DR: Renton Sand and Gravel Renton Sand and Gravel Design review and approval of topsoil mixing and storage operation with accessory structures. 1602 Monster Road (vacated) 87- 11 -DR: Riverbend L. Hansen Design Review of a three - story, 13,647 square foot office building. S.W. corner of South 180th Street and Sperry Drive, within N.E. } of Sec 35, Twn 23, Rge 4. Allpak Container, Inc. 480 ANDOVER PARK EAST, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 December 3, 1987 Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Dear Mr. Umetsu, FULL COLOR CORRUGATED AUM71 DEC -91987 CITY OF TLWONILA PLANNING DEPT. We own and operate our manufacturing business in buildings at 480, 500, and 520 Andover Park East. As Andover Park building owners for over seventeen years, we would like to express our opinion with regard to the proposed central business district sidewalk plan. For the following reasons we are totally against the addition of sidewalks in our area; specifically, the designated moderate priority street of Andover Park East, south of Strander Boulevard to 180th: 1. Our employees drive to work. We are not located on a bus route nor are we within convenient walking distance of a bus stop. Andover Park East, south of Strander Boulevard is over one mile from the Southcenter Mall. Our employees drive there. 2. This area is virtually 100% concrete tilt -up buildings occupied by commercial /wholesale businesses with no walk -in traffic. Consequently, we do not see a need for sidewalks in our area for business use. 3. If sidewalks are being proposed in our area for recreational use, rather than business use, we strongly oppose that concept because it is not in harmony with the current industrial use of our property. We were attracted to this location because of it's M -1 industrial park zoning and protective covenancy which called for truck and trailer maneuvering areas and off - street loading. We want to discourage people from walking around maneuvering trucks. A serious question: Who would be liable for truck /pedestrian accidents? 4. Cost of proposed sidewalks? Any amount is too much for non - users. (206) 575 -0900 14 1g Mm .Yceco`737 ::3 rg.".4 Xit0AUVJiav:fn .vtieramt ..w.nca. ., 5. The addition of sidewalks would necessitate landscape redesign, a major cost consideration. Probable regrading of elevations as well as uprooting of now very mature flowering cherry trees which were installed as required by property covenants. We do not see any provision in the proposed plan for covering the cost of re- landscaping. Who is going to pay for this? In conclusion, we want to be good neighbors and are proud property owners; however, we see no need and can only anticipate obvious problems with sidewalks in our area. We urge no sidewalks on Andover Park East south of Strander Boulevard. Sincerely, ALLPAK CONTAINER, INC. Donald Anderson Chief Executive Officer DA /kal cc: Mr. David Larson Chairman, Planning Commission Ms. Wendy Morgan Chairman, Tukwila City Council Allpak Container, Inc. 480 ANDOVER PARK EAST, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 December 3, 1987 Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Dear Mr. Umetsu, FULL COLOR CORRUGATED Jll UllTE0 EC -7 1987 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. We own and operate our manufacturing business in buildings at 480, 500, and 520 Andover Park East. As Andover Park building owners for over seventeen years, we would like to express our opinion with regard to the proposed central business district sidewalk plan. For the following reasons we are totally against the addition of sidewalks in our area; specifically, the designated moderate priority street of Andover Park East, south of Strander Boulevard to 180th: 1. Our employees drive to work. We are not located on a bus route nor are we within convenient walking distance of a bus stop. Andover Park East, south of Strander Boulevard is over one mile from the Southcenter Mall. Our employees drive there. 2. This area is virtually 100% concrete tilt -up buildings occupied by commercial /wholesale businesses with no walk -in traffic. Consequently, we do not see a need for sidewalks in our area for business use. 3. If sidewalks are being proposed in our area for recreational use, rather than business use, we strongly oppose that concept because it is not in harmony with the current industrial use of our property. We were attracted to this location because of it's M -1 industrial park zoning and protective covenancy which called for truck and trailer maneuvering areas and off - street loading. We want to discourage people from walking around maneuvering trucks. A serious question: Who would be liable for truck /pedestrian accidents? 4. Cost of proposed sidewalks? Any amount is too much for non - users. (206) 575 -0900 5. The addition of sidewalks would necessitate landscape redesign, a major cost consideration. Probable regrading of elevations as well as uprooting of now very mature flowering cherry trees which were installed as required by property covenants. We do not see any provision in the proposed plan for covering the cost of re- landscaping. Who is going to pay for this? In conclusion, we want to be good neighbors and are proud property owners; however, we see no need and can only anticipate obvious problems with sidewalks in our area. We urge no sidewalks on Andover Park East south of Strander Boulevard. Sincerely, ALLPAK CONTAINER, INC. Donald Anderson Chief Executive Officer DA /kal k 'ittatsikedisalteivranoustrnYvzvito .s:.xsaQ:r.�asrn H 13f#f�f#��J�O 1205 ANDOVER PARK WEST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 Sidewalk Plan Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Dpi 98188 Dear Sirs: Please keep us informed. RDW /pc yours for Service since 1906 wholesale distributors a , ;tam1: - Oxeag at71i?fl?' P. ti`7414 ' :"' ri,." VISISAliSI R.D. Wachter Waco Enterprises November 24, 1987 We are interested in a sidewalk development plan for our area. After 15 years in Tukwila: 1.) We cannot walk from our offices to nearby restaruants, stores, and other businesses except through parking lots and on streets. 2.) A bus stop installed on our parking strip has no provision for a standing - waiting area. 3.) The area is heavily congested with auto traffic, sane of which could be eliminated if walking was encouraged. 206/575 -0560 �7; i.S.Sk x�.3itE1Yi': 'i:FnteEL:Nv'a■V T,:.:& etlIiTitt e;'.; Ci< Y.;r tiw 1m4c...:, e: re :n.nwrvnxax.aaveurnxrrsswNUV:eety actu:mr: I, Wendy Bull AFFCJAVIT Q Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on November Name of Project CBD Sidewalk Plan Review File Number 87 -2 -CPA :ttt4c Silttnowidicz -At zeVYw3.S;: S,a t7rS'ttt l : IVaTili xis" ' isC'1iiAVV+.'�i 4 "L- ii':1..'• 3iY:c'; OF DISTRI,„:`UTION hereby declare that: O Determination of Nonsignificance [J Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [( Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action [j Official Notice jJ Other CBD Sidewalk Plan Review Other 18 SEE ATTACHED: (Mailed to interested parties) , 19 87. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 November 17, 1987 RE: Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Review. Dear Plan Reviewer, Thank you for your continued interest in this very important area improvement plan. The Planning Commission workshop on November 5, 1987. At this workshop, produced revised Sidewalk Policies. No public input was taken, but interested parties listened to the discussion. This November 5th draft will be the basis for public comments at the Commission's meeting on December 17, 1987. It is very important that you review the November 5th draft and express your comments to the Planning Commission at the December meeting. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's adopted schedule, only those issues raised through the December 17th meeting, will be evaluated afterwards. Enclosed are the following latest documents for your review: 1. Mass mailing letter sent to all CBD property owners and businesses, inviting their participation; 2. The latest Sidewalk policies draft, as revised by the Planning Commission on November 5, 1987; 3. An editorial draft showing the changes which were made by the Planning Commission to the original draft which you are familiar with; 4. The amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Code previously shown; and 5. The amendment to the Sidewalk Construction ordinance previously shown. Please do not hesitate to call me at 433 -1858 if I can be of help. Sincer ernon Umetsu, Associate Planner CBD SIDEWALK PLAN NOVEMBER 5, 1987 YOU are urged to help develop Tukwila's policies for sidewalks in the Central Business District (CBD). The Planning Commission is now reviewing draft sidewalk policies which identify location, design, and responsibility for construction and maintenance. These policies have been extensively revised since 1985, and edited for clarity at a Commission meeting on November 5, 1987. The Commission will revise these draft policies further based upon public concerns. Things that you can do are: 1. FIND OUT WHAT THE PLAN SAYS. Copies of the plan are available upon request (433- 1858), and Vernon Umetsu is more than happy to meet with individuals or groups to discuss their questions. 2. HELP FINALIZE A LIST OF CONCERNS. The Commission is depending on public comment during plan review. It will finalize a comprehensive list of concerns for further review at its December 17th meeting at 8:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. Written or verbal comment on a list of concerns will be taken up to, and at that meeting. 3. ON -GOING MONITORING. All concerns will be evaluated; relevant facts will be listed, conclusions will be made and policy options provided by Planning staff. The public will be invited to review and comment on the staff's work before Planning Commission decisionmaking. YOU are strongly urged to be a part of this process. To become an "interested party ", mail in the coupon below or telephone the Tukwila Planning Department at 433 -1849. NO further individual mailings such as this are anticipated so you must register to receive further information. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. Please include me as NAME: an interested party to receive further ORGANIZATION: information on the Sidewalk Plan review. ADDRESS: Mail to or call: Sidewalk Plan Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433-1858 CITY OF TUKWILA Building Division 6200 Southcentir Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 91188 (206) 433 -1849 SUMMARY SIDEWALK PLAN REVIEW PROCESS c4e' DRAFT SUMMARY LIST OF SIDEWALK PLAN CONCERNS 4. Commission recommendation of Sidewalk Plan to City Council. i_: ;; t ",•y.. ^ .`S;`, e .'3 �rii �i:� ✓'7. u'� r: L �;!'c :S' ?f;w. 1. Need more opportunity for business community input. 2. Clarify who is responsible for long -term (structural) and daily maintenance. 3. Responsibility for liability for injury by sidewalk users. 4. Clarify where are combined trail /sidewalks and what is their design. 5. What is the applicability of policies to casualty (i.e, fire) replacement? 6. Will development provisions in sidewalk easements be applied when sidewalks are built on donated rights -of -way? 7. Clarify new sidewalk requirement when total additions to a building exceed 25,000 square feet or $250,000. 8. Separated sidewalks are expensive to build and maintain. 1. December 17, 1987: Establish a list of interested parties based on respondents to general CBD mailing of November 17, 1987. Further mailings to be sent only to these interested parties. Additional names to be added upon request. 2. December 17, 1987: Establish a comprehensive list of Sidewalk Plan "concerns" at the end of the December 17th Planning Commission meeting, based on public comment and Commission deliberations. 3. Meetings as necessary: Commission resolution of concerns based upon the staff's and public's input. • ..,. n• x: �iw ..,rs;e::xz•z'.s:�.T,1^4cre.: eL3 +it,SS' Phi' �g +'..�s'- rrSrv�n� .. .,... ..,..tip ,. ..,. ...,.aY: (25 /VU.ATCH.A) Attachment "A" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS A. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. B. Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Most sidewalks have been constructed since 1980. C. There is no contiguous CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. D. There were pedestrian vehicular collisions since June 6, 1978 in the project area. of this total involved pedestrians in crosswalks. NOTE: This data to be updated. E. Many employees are pedestrians. There is an increasing trend toward more pedestrian traffic throughout the CBD. This generates the need for improved facilities. F. Sidewalks which are separated from roadways by a landscape strip encourage pedestrian use by providing a much more pleasant experience. Curbside sidewalks link pedestrians with adjacent vehicular traffic. Separated sidewalks shield them from traffic and provide a stronger linkage to site developments. G. Sidewalks separated from roadways present more expensive initial construc- tion, and increased landscape maintenance costs. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES November 5, 1987 GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall strive to create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be the con- struction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system should link various CBD land uses with transit sites, recreational parks, trail systems, and resi- dential neighborhoods. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 3: Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights-of- way or easements for sidewalks, and build sidewalks on their prop- erty consistent with City policy. After a reasonable amount of time, sidewalks will be built by the City pursuant to provisions for sidewalk improvement districts in RCW 35.70. The City is responsible for the design of sidewalk grades, con- struction specifications and plan approval, and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Policy 4: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment. Policy 5: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tuk- wila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include side- walks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. c. In 1988, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Side- walk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1991. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 g. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Policy 6: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations when the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. NOTE: The Commission will review this policy for various issues including some minimum time period when temporary sidewalks may not be required. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 7: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be at least six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be at least five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph and the sidewalk is adjacent to road, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. NOTE: There was discussion of the City being responsible for the increased costs associated with sidewalks over six feet wide. Policy 8: Where a full width sidewalk is not feasible, the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Plan- ning and Public Works Directors. Policy 9: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections/ - blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Policy 10: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 11: Curbline sidewalks may be provided where separated sidewalks are not feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the non - feasibility of separated sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. The ability to provide a minimum three -foot landscape strip along the road. D. Existing and proposed site grades. E. Public safety considerations. F. Impacts on existing parking. G. Convenience to pedestrian traffic. Policy 12: All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. NOTE: The Commission plans to review potential policy impacts in non - conforming situations created by road widening. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 13: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 14: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Mitigating measures may include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 Policy 15: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings may be built when an engineering study shows it is needed by the following criteria: A. At least 300 feet between crossings. B. A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. C. Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 16: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. saawnaaex. W.:X4,44:...51, irx .xearn..x+xrs :4gt.A vii^:.rrsr.:l.4Vig NW?:' Sid iS'14A ?r,✓..,':YF•:= Mies SIV -i= yin -1. "u ,1 Policy 17: At existing signalized intersections, pedestrian signal controls and crossings may be added at the time sidewalks are constructed. Policy 18: Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate . pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. (25 /VU.CBD7,8) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page.4 Figure 1 EXISTING ICITY OF RENTON! 0.(121G10 SIDEWALK PRIORITIES VH Very High H High M Moderate CITY OP TUKWLA. WA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SCEWALK PLAN RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES BO 1 eat AXER eN - Inc [Deleted text] Added text CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall strive to create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be the con- struction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system should [ ] link various CBD land uses with transit sites [centers], recreation- al parks, [in47 trail systems, and C. Thies sy tom 6.h 1 11_ - provide ] residential neighborhoods [ - - __• FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 4: Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of- way or easements for sidewalks, and build sidewalks on their prop- erty consistent with City policy. After a reasonable amount of time, sidewalks will be [4044444-4X43 built by the City pursuant to ] provisions for [4-440-141—c-1454-444.] sidewalk improvement dis- tricts in RCW 35.70 C J. The City is [-s all --1be] responsible for the design of sidewalk -4-] grades, construction specifications and plan approval, and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. [ 7 Policy 5: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment. [ Policy 6: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan [ ] according to the following schedule: Policy 7: [4464444—text] Added text CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tuk- wila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include side- walks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. c. In 1988, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Side- walk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1991. g. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations when E.s-J the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. NOTE: The Commission will review this policy for various issues including some minimum time period when temporary sidewalks may not be required. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 8: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be at least six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be at le ast five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph and the sidewalk is adjacent to road, E.G. J sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. NOTE: There was discussion of the City being responsible for the increased costs associated with sidewalks over six feet wide. Policy 9: Where a full width [44,64144434] sidewalk is not feasible, the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. • ItENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 Policy 10: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which Care 1e c th n ] are badly cracked, crum- bling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Policy 11: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts., and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 12: Curbline sidewalks may [Sop r°tod cidowalc ° h 11] be provided where separated sidewalks are not feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the non - feasibility of separated sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. The ability to provide a minimum three -foot landscape strip along the road. D. Existing and proposed site grades. E. Public safety considerations. F. Impacts on existing parking. G. Convenience to pedestrian traffic. Policy 13: All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. NOTE: The Commission plans to review potential policy impacts in non - conforming situations created by road widening. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 14: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or [De4ctcd tcx.t] Added text CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 15: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Mitigating measures may ] include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 16: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings may [shall] be built when an engineering study shows it is needed - gered] by the following criteria: A. At least 300 feet between crossings. B. A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. C. Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 17: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Policy 18: At existing signalized intersections pedestrian signal controls and crossings may [4h444 be added [ 4cd] at the time sidewalks are constructed. Policy 19: Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. (25 /VU.CBD5,6) [Deleted text] Added text (22 /VU.ATCH.B) REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT B Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become noncon- forming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to property when the structure is demolished, except when due to natural disaster, fire or similar events,. Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT C Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi - family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single - family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. ZONE DISTRICT P- 0 /CP /CM C -1 /C -2 M -1 /M -2 All Other Areas (25 /VU.SWCONST) N.A. 5 feet TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Page 2 Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. 9d4 AN3l. Nrv,_' 1 'ef:3 °.&'::SL:.t'•.5 ?:tik!itYV nJ'.1 4 d . T C%:.iL'.:•Lws++ Sal. �nsl me. s. nn.. n: s»! n. uvxown. �rn. wwwanx+ ni. w+ y. rr�v. rv�nnxrct��isM. �Y.' t' i.•^ nPS 1' +'..;i5t91:A^::tY'(`Ix.:.:'_S1 J V! W.:•' !�'C..'G*�i'B4?�.�`..'L%r� +.�10 {{�'o�fx•.^1'.�� av�.. 'sl:M�'i�'ri.'3'.:Y JOANNE JOHNSON A FF(_.. AV IT 0 Notice of Public Hearing J Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet {J Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit [[ Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN File Number 87 -2 -CPA OF D I STR I',;.UT I ON hereby declare that: [[ Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [[ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action O Official Notice In Other LETTER ADDRESSED TO BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING SIDE- WALK PLAN. O Other addresses on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1987 , 19 . Please include me as NAME: an interested party to receive further ORGANIZATION: information on the Sidewalk Plan review. ADDRESS: Mail to or call: NOVEMBER 5, 1987 Sidewalk Plan Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1858 CBD SIDEWALK PLAN YOU are urged to help develop Tukwila's policies for sidewalks in the Central Business District (CBD). The Planning Commission is now reviewing draft sidewalk policies which identify location, design, and responsibility for construction and maintenance. These policies have been extensively revised since 1985, and edited for clarity at a Commission meeting on November 5, 1987. The Commission will revise these draft policies further based upon public concerns. Things that you can do are: 1. FIND OUT WHAT THE PLAN SAYS. Copies of the plan are available upon request (433- 1858), and Vernon Umetsu is more than happy to meet with individuals or groups to discuss their questions. 2. HELP FINALIZE A LIST OF CONCERNS. The Commission is depending on public comment during plan review. It will finalize a comprehensive list of concerns for further review at its December 17th meeting at 8:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. Written or verbal comment on a list of concerns will be taken up to, and at that meeting. 3. ON -GOING MONITORING. All concerns will be evaluated; relevant facts will be listed, conclusions will be made and policy options provided by Planning staff. The public will be invited to review and comment on, the staff's work before Planning Commission decisionmaking. YOU are strongly urged to be a part of this process. To become an "interested party ", mail in the coupon below or telephone the Tukwila Planning Department at 433 -1849. NO further individual mailings such as this are anticipated so you must register to receive further information. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. CITY OF TUKWILA Building Division 6200 Southcentar Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DRAFT SUMMARY LIST OF SIDEWALK PLAN CONCERNS 1. Need more opportunity for business community input. 2. Clarify who is responsible for long -term (structural) and daily maintenance. 3. Responsibility for liability for injury by sidewalk users. 4. Clarify where are combined trail /sidewalks and what is their design. 5. What is the applicability of policies to casualty (i.e, fire) replacement? 6. Will development provisions in sidewalk easements be applied when sidewalks are built on donated rights -of -way? 7. Clarify new sidewalk requirement when total additions to a building exceed 25,000 square feet or $250,000. 8. Separated sidewalks are expensive to build and maintain. SUMMARY SIDEWALK PLAN REVIEW PROCESS 1. December 17, 1987: Establish a list of interested parties based on respondents to general CBD mailing of November 17, 1987. Further mailings to be sent only to these interested parties. Additional names to be added upon request. 2. December 17, 1987: Establish a comprehensive list of Sidewalk Plan "concerns" at the end of the December 17th Planning Commission meeting, based on public comment and Commission deliberations. 3. Meetings as necessary: Commission resolution of concerns based upon the staff's and public's input. 4. Commission recommendation of Sidewalk Plan to City Council. I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [[ Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1987 , 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project SIDEWALK PLAN File Number AFF tL)AV IT OF D I STRI b'UT ION 87 -2 -CPA O Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance (J Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice Mg] Other PACKETS CONTAINING LETTER AND REVISED POLICIES ON THE SIDEWALK PLAN MAILED TO INTERESTED Other PARTIES. . �. n,. si+ e+.+, rro..,.. t. cr. azrvlmnucr.. �• rrrr+ c: A'..* 1y'. ur.' �:!^. r+;•:/' K+ o! sti + ^t ^.t ^�: °.f::Mp`•.a..:tli;.2i C .....,.<. <�wT' +�''a!�?�'+F.o J.;k�,. }. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 r' November 17, 1987 RE: Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Review. Dear Plan Reviewer, Thank you for your continued interest in this very important area improvement plan. The Planning Commission workshop on November 5, 1987. At this workshop, produced revised Sidewalk Policies. No public input was taken, but interested parties listened to the discussion. This November 5th draft will be the basis for public comments at the Commission's meeting on December 17, 1987. It is very important that you review the November 5th draft and express your comments to the Planning Commission at the December meeting. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's adopted schedule, only those issues raised through the December 17th meeting, will be evaluated afterwards. Enclosed are the following latest documents for your review: 1. Mass mailing letter sent to all CBD property owners and businesses, inviting their participation; 2. The latest Sidewalk policies draft, as revised by the Planning Commission on November 5, 1987; 3. An editorial draft showing the changes which were made by the Planning Commission to the original draft which you are familiar with; 4. The amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Code previously shown; and 5. The amendment to the Sidewalk Construction ordinance previously shown. Please do not hesitate to call me at 433 -1858 if I can be of help. Sincer rat ernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Please include me as NAME: an interested party to receive further ORGANIZATION: information on the Sidewalk Plan review. ADDRESS: Mail to or call: NOVEMBER 5, 1987 Sidewalk Plan Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1858 CBD SIDEWALK PLAN YOU are urged to help develop Tukwila's policies for sidewalks in the Central Business District (CBD). The Planning Commission is now reviewing draft sidewalk policies which identify location, design, and responsibility for construction and maintenance. These policies have been extensively revised since 1985, and edited for clarity at a Commission meeting on November 5, 1987. The Commission will revise these draft policies further based upon public concerns. Things that you can do are: 1. FIND OUT WHAT THE PLAN SAYS. Copies of the plan are available upon request (433- 1858), and Vernon Umetsu is more than happy to meet with individuals or groups to discuss their questions. 2. HELP FINALIZE A LIST OF CONCERNS. The Commission is depending on public comment during plan review. It will finalize a comprehensive list of concerns for further review at its December 17th meeting at 8:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. Written or verbal comment on a list of concerns will be taken up to, and at that meeting. 3. ON -GOING MONITORING. All concerns will be evaluated; relevant facts will be listed, conclusions will be made and policy options provided by Planning staff. The public will be invited to review and comment on. the staff's work before Planning Commission decisionmaking. YOU are strongly urged to be a part of this process. To become an "interested party ", mail in the coupon below or telephone the Tukwila Planning Department at 433 -1849. NO further individual mailings such as this are anticipated so you must register to receive further information. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 if you have any questions. DRAFT SUMMARY LIST OF SIDEWALK PLAN CONCERNS • 1. Need more opportunity for business community input. 2. Clarify who is responsible for long-term (structural) and daily maintenance. 3. Responsibility for liability for injury by sidewalk users. 4. Clarify where are combined trail/sidewalks and what is their design. 5. What is the applicability of policies to casualty. (i.e, fire) replacement? 6. Will development provisions in sidewalk easements be applied when sidewalks are built on donated rights-of-way? 7. Clarify new sidewalk requirement when total additions to a building exceed 25,000 square feet or $250,000. 8. Separated sidewalks are expensive to build and maintain. CITY OF TUKWILA Building Division 6200 Southeenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washineton 9$1B$ (206) 433-1849 SUMMARY SIDEWALK PLAN REVIEW PROCESS December 17, 1987: Establish a list of interested parties based on respondents to general CBD mailing of November 17, 1987. Further mailings to be sent only to these interested parties. Additional names to be added upon request. 2. December 17, 1987: Establish a comprehensive list of Sidewalk Plan • "concerns" at the end of the December 17th Planning Commission meeting, • based on public comment and Commission deliberations. 3. Meetings as necessary: Commission resolution of concerns based upon the staff's and public's input. 4. Commission recommendation of Sidewalk Plan to City Council. • .: ii ::iLt!s3:�Crc:une�..+w..._.... ......____"__................� ...........�. (25 /VU.ATCH.A) Attachment "A" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS amt::raxerstM 5 wSTVI =. Y^wx�s:.^,'k tR "; ; �'S•�A�T'n.. 'aY`.'t r ?,:+:•. A. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. B. Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Most sidewalks have been constructed since 1980. C. There is no contiguous CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. D. There were pedestrian vehicular collisions since June 6, 1978 in the project area. of this total involved pedestrians in crosswalks. NOTE: This data to be updated. E. Many employees are pedestrians. There is an increasing trend toward more pedestrian traffic throughout the CBD. This generates the need for improved facilities. F. Sidewalks which are separated from roadways by a landscape strip encourage pedestrian use by providing a much more pleasant experience. Curbside sidewalks link pedestrians with adjacent vehicular traffic. Separated sidewalks shield them from traffic and provide a stronger linkage to site developments. G. Sidewalks separated from roadways present more expensive initial construc- tion, and increased landscape maintenance costs. >. u','d.. ? ?..',��ib �:V;.L'ei>ii.:i'L,':,•td,'. •.:..:;<:.�a:..:. +.,r...a. w.e. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES November 5, 1987 „ r- v.;,•a -.s ;• �:v" :;h^ i.iSrr!s: ppr ^.�.i;. ny,e ;�.. .... .. a .....,. ..G i.r_ .. ........ ... ..... .. .. .....d i... .e... �ji i�C'1.. � ��. .� ,,. �:: 1. w,��. `:A.•,.- . -3:s. .:•i;. ^. _. GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall strive to create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be the con- struction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system should link various CBD land uses with transit sites, recreational parks, trail systems, and resi- dential neighborhoods. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 3: Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of- way or easements for sidewalks, and build sidewalks on their.prop- erty consistent with City policy. After a reasonable amount of time, sidewalks will be built by the City pursuant to provisions for sidewalk improvement districts in RCW 35.70. The City is responsible for the design of sidewalk grades, con- struction specifications and plan approval, and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Policy 4: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment. Policy 5: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tuk- wila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include side- walks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. c. In 1988, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Side- walk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1991. ::,^ n.,,wh i•••■••r.{ •..411 ,JN•.vaM++M74:N• �':...a.�.'r•.. • ^�'M i:Ci•t.'MN.it•7•7* „•,",. ...,• • ••• .:. .......•:. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 g. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Policy 6: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations when the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. NOTE: The Commission will review this policy for various issues including some minimum time period when temporary sidewalks may not be required. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 7: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be at least six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be at least five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph and the sidewalk is adjacent to road, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. NOTE: There was discussion of the City being responsible for the increased costs associated with sidewalks over six feet wide. Policy 8: Where a full width sidewalk is not feasible, the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Plan- ning and Public Works Directors. Policy 9: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections/ - blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Policy iOc Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 11: Curbline sidewalks may be provided where separated sidewalks are not feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the non - feasibility of separated sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 C. The ability to provide a minimum three -foot landscape strip along the road. D. Existing and proposed site grades. E. Public safety considerations. F. Impacts on existing parking. G. Convenience to pedestrian traffic. Policy 12: All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. NOTE: The Commission plans to review potential policy impacts in non - conforming situations created by road widening. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 13: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 14: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Mitigating measures may include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 15: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings may be built when an engineering study shows it is needed by the following criteria: A. At least 300 feet between crossings. B. A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. C. Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic.volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 16: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Kara >r+ �s.. �' MN' crRrc• WNa .M'mv�anaairr_rinip�aer�.'.:.: ��trrsq. utl77YSYMvY. 1� '"^.^�"M.,....:..xu-r.••••.y�y. t'• v+••••••. e' i'it2? in)' tSS•„ i>.'. a> in`: u"; a.:.: fav5rr�• Xm:. v:: d m•Avasay.. sc rttl cnirrn,: niw' sw.4zvl^. 2')'. R& .tr: 512R+.'+ i»: 7, M::' b:.?:, 1:' .. 7'. Cfi3Yr.' i;:_? r"..' MIMI: in",. 1", ,V4t�. p�. IJifaMSYNXMO:Cit:igr-M ::. • Policy 17: Policy 18: (25 /VU.CBD7,8) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 At existing signalized intersections, pedestrian signal controls and crossings may be added at the time sidewalks are constructed. Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. CITY upon C. B. D. LIMITS EXISTING (CITY OF RENTONI L II 2 3 II GI) SIDEWALK PRIORITIES Very High High Moderate sit citcc.] GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall strive to create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be the con- struction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system should C ] link various CBD land uses with transit sites [4944044-J, recreation- al parks, Eat] trail systems, and E. r 6-- cyctem ch 11 pr ] residential neighborhoods [ [Deleted text] Added.text CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES -L .-I-. D . ] c Metro tran FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 4: Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of- way or easements for sidewalks, 'and build sidewalks on their prop- erty consistent with City policy. After a reasonable amount of time, sidewalks will be C ] built by the City pursuant to 44e-] provisions for [4 sidewalk improvement dis- tricts in RCW 35.70 C ]. The City is Cali —Jbe.] responsible for the design of sidewalk[ -&.Q grades, construction specifications and plan approval, and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. [ Policy 5: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment. [ Policy 6: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan C ] according to the following schedule: 9 . [—Deleted—text..] Added text .1.tiV::+:t�Y Ctil 4' LTi:! f a' v .+. 7' �v' r..: n . i „.. `j ...... r � ..3H1, A4 • :T'�"..,= : ;�•�T:' + ...v �.'' i ir_..� ._..: �`I�.1i �:'' r a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tuk- wila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include side- walks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. c. In 1988, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Side- walk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1991. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Policy 7: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations when Pas.] the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. NOTE: The Commission will review this policy for various issues including some minimum time period when temporary sidewalks may not be required. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 8: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be at least six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be at least five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph and the sidewalk is adjacent to road, Gep • CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 ] sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. NOTE: There was discussion of the City being responsible for the increased costs associated with sidewalks over six feet wide. Policy 9: Where a full width C' ] sidewalk is not feasible, the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. Policy 10: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which [- • ] are badly cracked, crum- bling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. - i•.] CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 Policy 11: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 12: Curbline sidewalks may C ] be provided where separated sidewalks are not feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the non - feasibility of separated sidewalks based on factors such as the following: .c :.2w ::"'.'IY. ^... "Lf .';>.,P7'. _. .._1 A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. The ability to provide a minimum three -foot landscape strip along the road. D. Existing and proposed site grades. E. Public safety considerations. F. Impacts on existing parking. G. Convenience to pedestrian traffic. Policy 13: All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. NOTE: The Commission plans to review potential policy impacts in non - conforming situations created by road widening. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 14: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or [Deleted tcxt] Added text Policy 15: CROSSWALKS Policy Policy Policy Policy (25 /VU.CBD5,6) A. B. [Deleted text] Added text AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Mitigating measures may ] include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. 16: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings may [cM� be built when an engineering study shows it is needed - - cd] by the following criteria: At least 300 feet between crossings. A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. C. Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. .rmTecrn.oe. W. r:. 124 allUi 'et. ?' . 17: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. e 18: A d xin signalized ntersections pedestr signal controls n crossings may [ ized ] i be added [ d at ian the time sidewalks are constructed. 19: Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become noncon- forming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to property when the structure is demolished, except when due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. (22 /VU.ATCH.B) Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT C Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi - family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single - family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. ZONE DISTRICT All Other Areas 5 feet (25 /VU.SWCONST) N.A. TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS P- 0 /CP /CM 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets C -1 /C -2 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets M -1/M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Page 2 CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by'the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. rya Wendy Bull AFF LJ Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting File Number X7-c;- �l9 [( Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet X Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet AVIT OF DISTRIUt1TION [[ Notice of Application for [( Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Friday, October 16, SEE ATTACHED: (Mailed to interested parties) hereby declare that: Q Notice of Action O Official Notice Name of Project /=bltcres Signature 0 Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice �,a:l`rt r. r..s- : �erC .•. �... �.. ,t .t,4, .': lit,: !'.;t:L:+:Yji..�... City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1987 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION PARTIES OF RECORD FROM: RICK BEELER, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1987 REGARDING THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK POLICY PLAN Please accept our apologies for the confusion we caused in our processing this Plan to the Planning Commission. We now know a lot more about your concerns and what we should have done. To get this process back on track, I suggest the upcoming Planning Commission be a work meeting to list the issues surrounding the Plan and solicit alternative solutions to those issues. No decision by anyone would occur, except agreement on the process to be followed, scheduling of meetings and further information needed. After the September 24, 1987 Commission meeting, we held an informational meeting on October 8, 1987. Notices were sent to 1,246 businesses and property owners, but the lead time we gave was insufficient for that meeting and probably for the upcoming meeting of October 22, 1987. Attached is a preliminary list of issues and our preliminary comments about them. We also added some possible options to resolving those issues. This is preliminary and is to begin our listing of issues and options on October 22nd for further study and discussion. You may have more /other information and issues. I am interested in getting that before, during or after the Commission meeting. Your input will help the Commission direct us in future study of the issues and options. Another attachment is a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the issue of liability. This is an important issue concerning the Sidewalk Plan. d: znzW'+^ .trFLIVAIA MtAt at*AiSLtRKOtfiuUffYNMrAnts. c MEMORANDUM October 16, 1987 Page 2 .:<xx2.vavu tilaTISVAStillalWelgiVag q use I anticipate that Commission meetings on the Plan will be necessary on November 16th and December 17th, as well as possibly January -- depending on our progress in this process. Because of the lead time property owners need, I suggest that any information staff generates be given a 30 -day review period prior to any Commission meeting. An exception might be for the November 16th meeting (already scheduled to accommodate Thanksgiving). Attached for your convenience are colored -keyed preliminary drafts of the Sidewalk Plan and accompanying ordinance revisions. Thank you for your patience and cooperation in reviewing the Sidewalk Plan. I trust that we can get this project back on track, with your help, at the October 22nd meeting. If you have any suggestions or wish to give me your comments on the issues and options before that meeting, do not hesitate to call Vernon Umetsu (433 -1858) or myself at 433 -1846. !`; �l' t. 7 .�z.ti•L ±ttta;v.� ?w�:r�..�,�'. un -..:. xu.. .��- :,:,.....+.,•,�..,�.:s,,... October 7, 1987 Dear Reviewer, Yellow: 1. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 .rtrner - coax ∎•Te!e'i7:kir,77•V•7,1 iM9 ,5: ".;i01=4:int:?1w1.141iM iare:Vr.T The Planning Commission is currently reviewing proposed sidewalk policies and implementing ordinances for the central business district. The Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who will take final action. This recommendation could be made on their public meeting on October 22, 1987. The Public is invited to this meeting to speak. Attached are the draft Comprehensive Plan Sidewalk Policies and associated implementing ordinances. They are arranged on colored paper as follows: Comprehensive Plan Sidewalk Findings and Policies - -To establish basic City policy on the provision and design of sidewalks in the central business district. Blue: Sidewalk Dedication amendment to the Zoning Code - -A special allowance to ensure that no existing improvements become non - conforming in building setback or landscaping due to dedicating land for sidewalks. Orange: Sidewalk Construction Ordinance amendment - -Amend the existing sidewalk construction ordinance to reflect the draft Sidewalk policies and establish an amount at which all new developments will have to provide sidewalks ($250,000 or 25,000 s.f.). City staff are available to provide you with more detailed information and meet with you. Please do not hesitate to contact Vernon Umetsu (433 -1858) or Ross Earnst (433- 1855). 22 /VU.ATCH.A... ATTACHMENT "A" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS A. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. . Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Primarily sidewalks have not been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. C. There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. D. The pedestrian facilities include informal gravel or grass foot paths adja- cent to the edge of pavement or behind the curb and gutter, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. E. There were over six pedestrian vehicular collisions between June 6, 1978 and February 28, 1983 in the project area which is a relatively low amount. F. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). G. Sidewalks which are separated from roadways by a landscape strip encourage pedestrian use by providing a much more pleasant experience. Curbside sidewalks hem in pedestrians and link them with immediately adjacent, heavy vehicular traffic. Separated sidewalks shield pedestrians from traffic impacts and provide a stronger linkage to site developments. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be construction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system shall provide a network to link various CBD land uses with transit centers, recreational parks and trail systems. This system shall provide continuity to link resi- dential neighborhoods with the CBD by providing access to bridges located along the perimeter of the CBD. Policy 3: Tukwila shall improve its sidewalk system as necessary to provide pedestrian route continuity to bus stops and any future Metro transit sites. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 4: Sidewalks which are built by the City shall by financed by an area - wide improvement district based on the provisions for a third class City sidewalk improvement district in R.C.W. 35.70 should be adopted. The City shall be responsible for the design of sidewalks and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of -way or easements for sidewalks and for building sidewalks on their property as consis- tent with City policy. Policy 5: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment, as defined in the TMC. An area -wide sidewalk benefit district shall require all those property owners who do not currently have sidewalks where sidewalks are planned, to either build their sidewalks to City specifications, or be assessed for the cost of building their sidewalks. The City's contribution will be the design of the sidewalks and the cost of administering the L.I.D. Policy 6: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan within seven years according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tukwila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street 'construction and street widening will include sidewalks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. \_..JTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 c. In 1988, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1991. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Policy 7: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations as the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. g. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 8: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined as specified in the Tukwila Long Range Park and Open Space Plan, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. Policy 9: Where full inclusion of a sidewalk is not feasible the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. Policy 10: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are less than the standard five or six feet and which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Comment: There are currently few four foot sidewalks in the City, and they are not heavily used by pedestrians. Where a section of sidewalk is crumbling, the replacement should be made on a block basis or in a long enough section to assure route continuity and fit. Policy 11: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 12: Separated sidewalks shall be provided where feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the feasibility of separated sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. The ability to provide a minimum three -foot landscape strip along the road. D. Existing and proposed site grades. E. Public safety considerations. Policy 13: All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 14: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance• shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 15: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Minimum impacts shall include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 16: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings shall be built when an engineering study shows it is needed and feasible. The study shall be triggered by the following criteria: A. At least 300 feet between crossings. B. A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. ., .A'a?'i�Mit a4�G��: ��1A:.-+. v r:.. c;.V;. f: i2.ru:v. »7.:crv:N+.G:9:: +Y.'i": � \t"dL ��+Yi::YChYSL>.i..�.�..�.., n•.::ha ro.. ., (25 /VU.CBD3,4) reaA •.a+. 1.4W f xar=rk,Kt a.:r.':k,L• :r,KJ.S 7: 71 .'w:=`SF. }VA'liaM 't;' EiNM Rj i nt•�,aT: }�: swf: , �,., S ,a,• .l i�l,f' Nid:' ��S '' kt.YL CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 C. Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 17: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Policy 18: At existing signalized intersections pedestrian signal controls and crossings shall be included at the time sidewalks are constructed. Policy 19:. Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. Figure MOO OOOOOOOOOOO ••••• • • O. & D. LIMITS EXISTING ICITY OF RENTON I SIDEWALK PRIORITIES VH Very High H High M Moderate CITY OP TUKWILA, TM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SCE WAUC PLAN Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become noncon- forming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to property when the structure is demolished, except when due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. (22 /VU.ATCH.B) ATTACHMENT Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT C Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi - family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single - family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public. Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. ZONE DISTRICT NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS N.A. P- 0 /CP /CM 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets C -1 /C -2 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets M -1 /M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets All Other Areas 5 feet (25 /VU.SWCONST) TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Page 2 Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the. City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class 6 on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the. Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. JEH00382M/0042.90000 ,. ;..yam x_- r....,rr• Attachment D M E M O R A N D U M TO: Tukwila Planning Commission FROM: James E. Haney, Office of the City Attorney DATE: October 8, 1987 RE: Sidewalk Liability City of Tukwila OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2001 6th Ave., Suite 2300 Seattle, Wa. 98121 { • Vernon Umetsu asked me to provide you with some comments on the liability of the City and the liability of abutting property owners where sidewalks are concerned. In particular, Vernon has asked: 1. For a discussion of the relative liability of the City and property owner a. Where the sidewalk is constructed on property in which the City acquires the fee, or entire interest; and b. Where the sidewalk is constructed on property in which the City is given an easement; and 2. For a description of the City's past practice concerning the assumption of liability on sidewalk easements. With respect to the relative liabilities of the City and the property owner, these vary with the type of ownership interest that the City acquires. When the City acquires an ownership in fee of the property on which the sidewalk sits, the City assumes all liability for injuries to individuals who may use that sidewalk, except where those injuries are caused by some third party. Thus, for example, where the City has the fee interest in the underlying property and the sidewalk becomes cracked because of subsidence of the soil, the City would be liable for any person injured who stumbled over the crack. The only circumstance where the City would not be liable would be where the injury was not caused by any defect in the land or .: : rk:5i:(�t:. .. •.-. �:. +4'�44L•.*YI::I F ?_e,,trt.+e. .r-, -. cc: Vernon Umetsu Don Morrison JEH00382M/0042.90000 ,. « :....: :�, ^.:r. �st�•> �z. �.:... xasr xi...,.,., Mn: �,. isv: r;::' 1 T+ �' C:< nS' i.',$v �:• lia: :fro'� °4� .��r;'�:5 �. �, Tukwila Planning Commission October 8, 1987 Page -2- sidewalk, but was caused by some action of a third party. By contrast, in a situation where the City owns a mirror easement in the property, the abutting property owner, who owns the underlying interest in the land, continues to bear some liability for its use. Using the example set forth in the paragraph above, if the soil subsides and the City's sidewalk cracks, both the City and the abutting property owner would bear some liability. Since Washington is what is known as a "comparative negligence" state, each of the parties, the City and the property owner, would bear liability in proportion to their fault. Turning to the second question, that is, the historical practice of the City with respect to liability for sidewalks, the City does not, to the best of my knowledge, have an established practice as to when it will or will not agree to indemnify and hold the abutting property owner harmless from any liability for injuries which may occur on the sidewalk. The City has, however, routinely agreed to such indemnity clauses where the City acquires an easement to build a recreational trail. This has been one means of inducing individuals who are contacted about donating recreational trail easements, to do so. One final matter that should be borne in mind is the City's ability to require abutting property owners to construct sidewalks or to repair sidewalks that have become damaged. The City does have authority under state law to require any owner of property abutting a City street on which there is no sidewalk between the street and the property to construct the sidewalk at no cost to the City. The City also has the authority under state law to require property owners to repair sidewalks at no cost to the City where the sidewalk has become damaged or in need of repair. This authority of the City exists whether the sidewalk is built on right -of -way in which the City owns the entire interest, or on easements where the City's interest is limited. I hope that these comments will prove of use to you in formulating your recommendation to the City Council concerning sidewalk policies. ATTACHMENT E City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC COMMENTS Comments on the Sidewalk Plan and implementing ordinances are consolidated into the following eight issues. These issues are discussed and potential options are presented below. 1. NOTICES: More opportunity for the business community to review the Sidewalk Policy Plan and implementing ordinances is needed. A consistent comment is that the documents are too complicated to understand in the short amount of time provided before each meeting. All property owners are not located in Tukwila. Many owners can't respond in less than four weeks. Options a. Provide 30 days notice prior to public meetings. b. Take no action at the October 22, 1987 meeting, but gather more comments on the issues and suggestions for options to explore. c. (Write in additional options) d. 2. MAINTENANCE: Who shall be responsible for the daily maintenance of sidewalks? No policy addresses day to day maintenance, e.g., keeping them clean, free of ice and the like. State statutes give the City authority to require this of abutting property owners at no cost to the City. Daily maintenance of sidewalks in residential areas is the responsibility of abutting property owners. SIDEWALK PLAN_ ( Public Comments Page 2 Options a. Have the City be responsible for day to day maintenance. b. Abutting property owners are responsible for day to day maintenance. c . d. 3. LIABILITY Who will be liable for injury sustained by sidewakusers? No existing or draft sidewalk policies address the assumption of any liability on sidewalk easements or rights of way. The City Attorney generally addressed this issue in an attached memo. Liability is different between easements and rights of way, but not on location. With a plain easement, underlying owners are exposed to some level of liability in proportion to their level of fault. The City routinely indemnifies property owners who donated trail easements from liability for injuries to users. But trail easements are highly discretionary and assumption of liability is an incentive for donation. Sidewalk construction is mandatory upon City direction at no cost to the City, by State statute. Options a. The City shall indemnify property owners in all actions taken pursuant to this Plan. b. City liability is only for sidewalks in the public rights of way. c . d. SIDEWALK PLAN Public Comments Page 3 c . d. 4. LINKAGES AND COMBINED SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS: Sidewalk links to trails and minimum eight foot combined sidewalk /trails. Combined sidewalk /trails" are not in any City document. Those sidewalks could encourage non - motorized travel from residential and commercial areas to the Christiansen /Green River trails. These links are shown on the Parks and Open Space Plan as "Primary Bicycle & Pedestrian Routes." The routes through the project area which overlap sidewalks are along Southcenter Parkway and So. 180th Street. A determination for construction of a combined facility would require Council action and be subject to the public notification requirements of such an action. The minimum eight foot width is less than the minimum national design standards. However, the Public Works Department has determined that eight feet meets minimum safety standards. Options a. Leave policy as stands with no changes. Actual combined sidewalk /trails are to be developed and construction widths to be established on a case by case basis by the City, in consultation with affected property owners. No uncompensated taking is to occur for combined facility development. b. Delete the combined trail provision from the policy until the City amends the Parks Plan to establish combined trails and more specific design standards. .. 'star .r:Y'ti %:s`•1.'h8:::. SIDEWALK PLAN Public Comments Page 4 5. CRACKING AND CRUMBLING: What are cracked or crumbling sidewalks? Policy 10 exercises the City's statutory authority to require property owners repair /replace such sidewalks at no cost to the City. State statutes contain no more evaluation criteria. The City would only be able to impose this requirement after a public review process involving the affected property owners and in block long sections. Options a. Leave policy as is. The City has statutory authority to require this for public safety purposes. b. Develop guidelines for identifying maintenance criteria based on City Construction standards. c. Delete this requirement until specific criteria and process can ensure an equitable and predictable basis for Council action. d. e . 6. CASUALTY LOSS: Need to specify applicability of the Plan to casualty loss (i.e. natural disaster, fire, and the like). Policy 14 states that the credit for application of donated easement area to landscaping requirements ceases upon building replacement. TMC 18.70.110 would allow the counting of donated sidewalk easements if building replacement or repair is due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. Options a. No change to either policy. b. Amend Policy 14 to be consistent with TMC 18.70.110. c . d. '+' t42�� CNi�`.T':'✓' ti"< �d, �: 4: xi. 3eA• ix `ctrvtbMre;myr.owu:x�..•vvr.xue . u: nwNrs. rmn. ��awa. nnuwu.. vsr .Nnuxrusx�..cxrwtv..ne..r�.'YSU .rrwo:'a::GeM.CWSC:1tY 7Y74V!." I!:` A' Lt.: 1 :::G ° .'6J:1Mii�:`.i� , Y`ra K :� • Y' '��l•:".3ii S�. ��• iY Yr �i' �%. Si." �':":• �K �U�' 4��t:' .a•A:1�' ;�:i,: SIDEWALK PLAN Public Comments Page 5 7. APPLICABILITY TO EASEMENTS AND /OR RIGHTS OF WAY: TMC 18.70.110 does not resolve whether the sidewalk allowance applies to donations of both easements and rights of way. The applicable policies and the Tukwila Zoning Code indicate intent to apply this provision only to easements. Inclusion of rights of way would move property lines and require the amendment of many other sections of the Zoning Code as well as raise various equity issues. Options a. Amend the ordinance to specify the donation of sidewalk easements. b. Amend the ordinance to include both the donation of easements and rights of way. c . d. 8. APPLICATION TO BUILDING ADDITIONS: No where is the new requirement for sidewalks discussed relative to total cumulative building improvements. These policies and ordinances require increases in building square footage by 25,000 s.f. or building value by $250,000 to include sidewalk construction. Several large developments were able to expand to a much greater extent than identified above without putting in a sidewalk under the existing ordinance. At the same time, many projects one - quarter this size were required to put in sidewalks. This .provision is proposed to address this unequal treatment. Options a. Delete this criteria. b. Amend the standards. c . d. l t$ 7w' isv;. ' 7 .tre r a ;r �r o '7t r r :: .ass.�a�s:*r�:.Fr.!�u:�.crt:xr> e�: ��..% yr . ..f?xt ;. }3i :� Fe. �n 'f� x; meta, �,: M;o. AFF AVIT OF DISTRI UTION j, JOANNE JOHNSON Q Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet [] Short Subdivision Agenda Packet hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Application for ig Other CBD SIDEWALK - PUBLIC INFO Shoreline Management Permit MEETING NOTICE (10 -8 & 10- 22 -87) [[ Shoreline Management Permit [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10. 1987 , 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) NOTE: THE ABOVE MAILING WAS PERFORMED BY'SKCAC" AND PAID FOR BY THE CITY. Name of Project CBD SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING ORD. Signature File Number 87 -2 -CPA O Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [[ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [l Notice of Action O Official Notice {J'f . ,. +.. .•r �.•+-• "J. rl� 'T::::SE'�t t :w'xR ��, ,?„rt r F`yt rg.`�r.P 1`tJ! �•. r •-� ...� ... ,:sue. `2 ,��:r. �.: � .a„_...... ::c Z: a' i:k".•..,. 2.:. 1�Y./:_':: tt, 4 . is7: ti", ��....:<„ r... �,. aiisa:? t: n... �,.>.,.. �u. . 7tr ;:a.F...- .`,. ��Yx.._-:T. su :f:k,.._.;���T�;,�t••....., :s, .r.. _., .,., +: r, ,; .r... .. �?�'t� ^,;. �.± na„t r s1 . . �'r +'.•i'.'.7'Si;::':i September 30, 1987 (;;,' City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Subject: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES Dear Central Business District Property and Business Owner: The City of Tukwila Planning Commission is currently reviewing the following: • proposed Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies • a Sidewalk amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Code • amendment of the Sidewalk Construction Ordinance. These documents will specify sidewalks along all public streets in the CBD, who shall be responsible for construction and maintenance, timing of construction, and other matters related to policy implementation. Information is available at the Tukwila Planning Department, Tukwila City Hall. The opportunities for comment on these actions are listed below. All meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. OCTOBER 8, 1987 Public information meeting held by the Planning and Public 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. Works Departments to explain the content of policies and ordinances. After the presentation, staff members will be available for one -on -one discussions. OCTOBER 22, 1987 Planning Commission public hearing where formal comment will 8:00 p.m. be taken. The Planning Commission will recommend that the City Council adopt, modify or reject the sidewalk policies and ordinances. The City Council will review and act on Planning Commission recommendations. The Council may also hold a public hearing for additional public comment. We encourage you to attend one or all of these meetings. Please do not hesitate to contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 or Ross Earnst at 433 -1855 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ross Earnst, City Engineer ernon Umetsu, rssociate anner �fl(r�[IIU.0 OCT -• 0 1987 CITY Cat= 'i'�.�6CLb'il.l� PLANNING D iPT. - -- - - — .. .....-..-... r...-.+,. w....+. a.. a.eot..a�werwa+.vw►llarrt9nL:�dA ,'&�?u13:T`.("ri7.T.AtQ.r Vernon M...Uir etsu City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 30236 8th Ave. So. Federal Way, WA. 98188 October 5, 1987 Subject: Central Business Dist. Sidewalk Plan Dear Mr. Unetsu: I work in a local business located on Strander Blvd and your notice came across my desk. I enjoy walking across the river to 7 -11 for lunch several times a week, and I have often thought how nice it would be to have steps down the west end of the bridge to the park, so when walking back one could go down the steps and walk through the park. I do not know if this would be a possibility, however I felt I wanted to write and suggest it. I do appreciate the work you all have done in these areas and thank you very much for making Tukwila such a beautiful city to work in. I do live out of the City, however I do enjoy working here. Joanne Sturm V: :,:4;. , t.- ..r,.,..:,w.,.,:„ City of Tukwila OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2001 6th Ave., Suite 2300 Seattle, Wa. 98121 OCT 3 1987 u TO: Tukwila Planning Commission FROM: James E. Haney, Office of the City Attorney DATE: October 8, 1987 RE: Sidewalk Liability Vernon Umetsu asked me to provide you with some comments on the liability of the City and the liability of abutting property owners where sidewalks are concerned. In particular, Vernon has asked: 1. For a discussion of the relative liability of the City and property owner a. Where the sidewalk is constructed on property in which the City acquires the fee, or entire interest; and b. Where the sidewalk is constructed on property in which the City is given an easement; and 2. For a description of the City's past practice concerning the assumption of liability on sidewalk easements. With respect to the relative liabilities of the City and the property owner, these vary with the type of ownership interest that the City acquires. When the City acquires an ownership in fee of the property on which the sidewalk sits, the City assumes all liability for injuries to individuals who may use that sidewalk, except where those injuries are caused by some third party. Thus, for example, where the City has the fee interest in the underlying property and the sidewalk becomes cracked because of subsidence of the soil, the City would be liable for any person injured who stumbled over the crack. The only circumstance where the City would not be liable would be where the injury was not caused by any defect in the land or JEH00382M/0042.90000 M E M O R A N D U M .. • • • Tukwila Planning Commission October 8, 1987 Page -2- ..... n....,........,..........., ................ aw.. y.,, rv. .s.,mr_wriurspuserawecooenrrrox! 7.F'�Yt�!f 5a": ,M sidewalk, but was caused by some action of a third party. By contrast, in a situation where the City owns a mirror easement in the property, the abutting property owner, who owns the underlying interest in the land, continues to bear some liability for its use. Using the example set forth in the paragraph above, if the soil subsides and the City's sidewalk cracks, both the City and the abutting property owner would bear some liability. Since Washington is what is known as a " comparative negligence" state, each of the parties, the City and the property owner, would bear liability in proportion to their fault. Turning to the second question, that is, the historical practice of the City with respect to liability for sidewalks, the City does not, to the best of my knowledge, have an established practice as to when it will or will not agree to indemnify and hold the abutting property owner harmless from any liability for injuries which may occur on the sidewalk. The City has, however, routinely agreed to such indemnity clauses where the City acquires an easement to build a recreational trail. This has been one means of inducing individuals who are contacted about donating recreational trail easements, to do so. One final matter that should be borne in mind is the City's ability to require abutting property owners to construct sidewalks or to repair sidewalks that have become damaged. The City does have authority under state law to require any owner of property abutting a City street on which there is no sidewalk between the street and the property to construct the sidewalk at no cost to the City. The City also has the authority under state law to require property owners to repair sidewalks at no cost to the City where the sidewalk has become damaged or in need of repair. This authority of the City exists whether the sidewalk is built on right -of -way in which the City owns the entire interest, or on easements where the City's interest is limited. I hope that these comments will prove of use to you in formulating your recommendation to the City Council concerning sidewalk policies. cc: Vernon Umetsu Don Morrison JEH00382M/0042.90000 tt }`�%iw' \ •i:. �F,: y + .YZi :•xis: r aYr..,.�+c. 1 �:Ma �kq� r:.xr,�,j P,n;�asl:��sn'ts Y;' w' +j ^'i�J. L� ���, �s1�Fi.n,....�4i.}Y \..rr..R .. �•��.0 :.n.,.M1�1 '.�,C4'1v:x:ii �:�::Ck':55 /%.7�i}L'S:`. �SR`3S "ihSl`:�v�3i.:eCS::t J7]!•Rk. ,-r..;rr::. ,... r7�,.. . k, ? .,,,... +,... ^.�C.'�1... .�.�,.: J... ..... s.. asp. �..m -... .., <SL.. ., ...r....�. �R:�r�.. ,�:...,.._. A' October 7, 1987 Dear Reviewer, Yellow: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 The Planning Commission is currently reviewing proposed sidewalk policies and implementing ordinances for the central business district. The Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who will take final action. This recommendation could be made on their public meeting on October 22, 1987. The Public is invited to this meeting to speak. Attached are the draft Comprehensive Plan Sidewalk Policies and associated implementing ordinances. They are arranged on colored paper as follows: Comprehensive Plan Sidewalk Findings and Policies - -To establish basic City policy on the provision and design of sidewalks in the central business district. Blue: Sidewalk Dedication amendment to the Zoning Code - -A special allowance to ensure that no existing improvements become non - conforming in building setback or landscaping due to dedicating land for sidewalks. Orange: Sidewalk Construction Ordinance amendment - -Amend the existing sidewalk construction ordinance to reflect the draft Sidewalk policies and establish an amount at which all new developments will have to provide sidewalks ($250,000 or 25,000 s.f.). City staff are available to provide you with more detailed information and meet with you. Please do not hesitate to contact Vernon Umetsu (433 -1858) or Ross Earnst (433- 1855). -...n •?f .....,,�.�, GIF .,..•. h' <<.. -. ;; .:. :.. „- ,. ,H ..... ..,�.. . -,... ........ ,.: �..... ..«..,» .-. .... .. .. .., ... n� .v.-r- u:rt!ntaY,,,: ^:j, �c::.. - «.= Cr+'l .m,..r ;O5 v!` �J'. ,s ^ ^: :;t�sY. `Su.,R;v,x.x ..is.✓ ..a2� �sa'i -„� i+ sa;":: uasSw,l:. a” eit'X:+." 7i:.^,,•.:. 1.: h0.:,.,:.>•...' �5.,, �.. ��t.: rScsz!�'..1ttL,:�a3.z�ix�:,R;sN �zz3:`." a., �, 1: h: d+^'. �,.,.?..,, !.a�.71;stY sx�s�2t+.:Ssa. r�9.+. s) rt._ u. ✓.AV1i�'s•�,:r,-r7.`%�...C. -d :.r.:u�un; • 22 /VU.ATCH.A ATTACHMENT "A" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS A. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. B. Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Primarily sidewalks have not been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. C. There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. D . The pedestrian facilities include informal gravel or grass foot paths adja- cent to the edge of pavement or behind the curb and gutter, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. E. There were over six pedestrian vehicular collisions between June 6, 1978 and February 28, 1983 in the project area which is a relatively low amount. F. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). G. Sidewalks which are separated from roadways by a landscape strip encourage pedestrian use by providing a much more pleasant experience. Curbside sidewalks hem in pedestrians and link them with immediately adjacent, heavy vehicular traffic. Separated sidewalks shield pedestrians from traffic impacts and provide a stronger linkage to site developments. x., CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be construction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system shall provide a network to link various CBD land uses with transit centers, recreational parks and trail systems. This system shall provide continuity to link resi- dential neighborhoods with the CBD by providing access to bridges located along the perimeter of the CBD. Policy 3: Tukwila shall improve its sidewalk system as necessary to provide pedestrian route continuity to bus stops and any future Metro transit sites. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 4: Sidewalks which are built by the City shall by financed by an area - wide improvement district based on the provisions for a third class City sidewalk improvement district in R.C.W. 35.70 should be adopted. The City shall be responsible for the design of sidewalks and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of -way or easements for sidewalks and for building sidewalks on their property as consis- tent with City policy. Policy 5: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment, as defined in the TMC. An area -wide sidewalk benefit district shall require all those property owners who do not currently have sidewalks where sidewalks are planned, to either build their sidewalks to City specifications, or be assessed for the cost of building their sidewalks. The City's contribution will be the design of the sidewalks and the cost of administering the L.I.D. Policy 6: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan within seven years according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tukwila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include sidewalks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. g. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 c. In 1988, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1991. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Policy 7: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations as the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 8: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined as specified in the Tukwila Long Range Park and Open Space Plan, sidewalks shall be a of eig feet wide. Policy 9: Where full inclusion of a sidewalk is not feasible the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. Policy 10: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are less than the standard five or six feet and which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Comment: There are currently few four foot sidewalks in the City, and they are not heavily used by pedestrians. Where a section of sidewalk is crumbling, the replacement should be made on a block basis or in a long enough section to assure route continuity and fit. Policy 11: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 12: Separated sidewalks shall be provided where feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the feasibility of separated sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. The ability to provide a minimum three -foot landscape strip along the road. D. Existing and proposed site grades. E. Public safety considerations. Policy 13: All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 14: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 15: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Minimum impacts shall include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 16: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings shall be built when an engineering study shows it is needed and feasible. The study shall be triggered by the following criteria: A. At least 300 feet between crossings. B. A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. » ;r., -• .. ,yu.. ctt ,2A . rT:Efg n ',iu• -•r r.;1; i?`1 °`�«.% ;` �.r >.d` +'. - ...i, •v. :a � y ,,. 't'�i- ''' %.'si'.!' .,. td' _:L ,�rd.L•.,.riCi, a.h a.. acY�. r. �.:: ....:!,.:rv�...::J......�".i'3�: ii�u+ Kati;.'.'..: �fy: �5> ��+, e�.✓ �6� 'i�:a>itfi4';Y#'..'>?;.l:��xiti a Y7i!: i.>';; :F,1.i *.i�eiLl.}�'.�.'•:,",JF.2 pS: E.;: t� .`.,.::: "9..,cn.i4L'(ti1...aYU. bK t_ . .:.:.u. .a.t xo � (25 /VU.CBD3,4) CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 C. Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 17: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Policy 18: At existing signalized intersections pedestrian signal controls and crossings shall be included at the time sidewalks are constructed. Policy 19: Crosswalks. will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. _-- - ___--_ -z_~_- `~ __.~~~° ._^ ~`.„°^~-°^°-="„,~ ==^ =° ~~°,~=~=°= �" ^==:omMMn' Figure | ~~^~^~~~~^ CMY wan EXISTING ICITY OF RENTJN' SIDEWALK PRIORITIES Very High High Moderate RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication (22 /VU.ATCH.B) ATTACHMENT Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code No .building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become noncon- forming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to property when the structure is demolished, except when due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT C Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi - family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single - family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the 'Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ZONE DISTRICT N.A. TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS P- 0 /CP /CM 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets C -1 /C -2 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets M -1/M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets All Other Areas 5 feet (25 /VU.SWCONST) CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet Page 2 Sidewalks which are less than . 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete. Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. c,?g?. ai +.i'2?: 4trt7 :rvi ea�xriF+:urv:sv�y - .zxan JOANNE JOHNSON 0 Wotice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting in O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet xxc [x Planning Commission Agenda Packet J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Name of Project CBD SIDEWALK POLICIES ✓lc -r- Sign File Number 87-2-CPA MIA R. AFFtLJAV IT OF DISTR:,,,.UTI ON hereby declare that: [[ Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit [[ Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1$, 1987 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) (Mailed to interested parties) Q Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action 0 Official Notice s City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 To: Tukwila Planning Commission From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Date: September 16, 1987 (for P/C Meeting of 9/24/87) u { !,. Yl ..:u.` } YeinFF WA :a M <s „c' I ;•a;,7y;n;"Pn Subject: Addendum to Staff Report of August 27, 1987, Central Business District Sidewalk Plan and Associated Implementing Ordinances. The Planning Commission has four proposed actions before it for recommendation to the Tukwila City Council; all of which revolve around adoption and implementation of sidewalk policies in the central business district. These actions are summarized below. List of Actions For Planning Commission Recommendation to the Tukwila City Council A. Adopt Central Business District Sidewalk Plan (hereafter referred to the Sidewalk Plan) findings and policies into the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (revised Attachment A), B. Amend the Tukwila Zoning Code to count donated sidewalk area in building setback and landscape calculations (revised Attachment B), C. Amend the Sidewalk Construction ordinance to incorporate the new Sidewalk Plan policy standards (revised Attachment C), and D. Incorporate findings and policies call for separated sidewalks where possible into the Sidewalk Plan and appropriate ordinances (Attachment H). At the August 27, 1987 public hearing on these actions. No objections were raised to the overall thrust of any proposed actions or the Planning Department recommendation for adoption. Five issues were raised regarding specific policies and each ordinance at the public hearing. Each of these issues is discussed below. 1. Policy 10: Need objective standards to determine when sidewalks must be replaced to avoid arbitrary actions by the Public Works Director. MEMORANDUM September 16, 1987 Page 2 Policy 10 is recommended to read as follows: . ,.1 ; <„ •,e ^"c"• ..�:,r.. ,: �::'. + +':' 'its'�a: , . q:#;! rf ±h: +cna�,.y ^:.^S'.�'.^c „'•�''- Further research on this matter disclosed that only the City Council can make this decision and such an action can only be taken on a case by case basis (RCW 35.68 and 35.69). No criteria for establishing public need have been specified in State legislation. The criteria for action in the existing policy are thus more specific than required by law. No further detailed criteria are recommended in light of the many varied situations which may require sidewalk replacement, and because the open public process required for Council action will allow all parties to fully present their positions. Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are less than the standard five or six feet and which are badly cracked crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at the sole cost of the abutting property owner. 2. Policy 8: Need to specify location of combined sidewalks and trails to avoid the arbitrary designation of all CBD areas as "trails” and thus require unreasonably wide sidewalks be provided. The designation and location of pedestrian and bicycle "trails" under this section . would be the "Primary bicycle and pedestrian routes" in the Long Range Park and Open Space Plan (Attachment I). There has been no decision on which routes would be developed as combined sidewalk /trails. The Planning and Public Works departments recommend that Policy 8 be revised to read as follows: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD [distribution warehouse] zoned areas will be five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph, or [and] where a trail and sidewalk are combined as potentially shown in the Tukwila Long Range Park and Open Space Plan, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. Provision for minimum eight foot wide sidewalks for combined trails shall not be made unless the specific segments are programmed for construction in the City's six year capital improvement plan. ,.+;. �:5� {'.id'�t..i:v1 ��i1a.�: /4 }i.':.t :�� zi. {�. .Y ..u. ��. {wr .I.I�Ct ✓.:1:.. ., .r.....:.A�l. �C: ... t �`1 :. ... MEMORANDUM September 16, 1987 Page 3 5. Separated Sidewalks ,y.. 'tK'4''�*z.j�',<i,';�z: . -' - rC•�i�i. ?:I r�xO jiC�.`j: ?YS'IMS,r.,;sl ' fr ,,.� .TY�rri� 't•: J,,, I..w.= r�•�:...:> :. ...:.I:I..f:.o riY }i.r... <. �.. ..., :, .r.e ....�.. 'S.. _�'4 t.. �t. 3. Policy 12: Need to clarify the property owner's right to count donated sidewalk easements as building setback and landscape area. The intent of this policy provision is to clearly establish the property owner's right to counting donated sidewalk area. Therefore, the Planning Department supports revising Policy 12 from: "...the donated area max be counted toward satisfying these requirements." to "...the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements." 4. TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication: Make allowance for structure replacement when destroyed due to no fault of the property owner (voiced by two business representatives). The intent of this Zoning Code amendment is to not increase the level of non - conformity as a result of donating a sidewalk easement. The Planning Department recommends the following language. TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become nonconforming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to property when the structure is demolished, except when said demolition is a due to natural disaster, fire, or other similar cause. The Public Works Department is currently studying construction of the proposed CBD sidewalk system. They will soon be at a design decision point regarding the choice of building curbside or separated sidewalks. The proposed sidewalk policies do not address this issue and it is felt that some guidance is necessary prior to establishing a design direction. Separated sidewalks have been provided by the City as part of the Interurban Avenue improvement project and West Valley Highway improvements and been provided in a large, south Tukwila business park. Separated sidewalks are buffered from roadway traffic by a landscaped strip. With a minimum four feet of landscaping, pedestrians are buffered from traffic; providing an enhanced walking experience and greatly encouraging facility use as an alternative to . the car. +M5k4G,.r MEMORANDUM September 16, 1987 Page 4 Both the Public Works and Planning departments recommend using separated sidewalks when possible. The findings and policies on separated sidewalks in Attachment H are recommended for adoption. Implementation of these policies will require minor modifications of the Zoning and Sidewalk Construction ordinances in attachments B and C. These changes will be made as necessary prior to City Council review. AZO?+tc5i ire %a`U";m"h�' °_S�:r.o:s:mix, 22 /VU.ATCH.A y y ita t J 9f l -: :F�'I�S6k ad�ar'SS..?+�,r..n"1-,�.��c�� z .� � ��' �� "�-�'�f'��f'.�'w�`#:w�t'�N�'`� v ;f REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS A. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. B. Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Primarily sidewalks have not been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. C . There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. D. The pedestrian facilities include informal gravel or grass foot paths adja- cent to the edge of pavement or behind the curb and gutter, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. E. There were over six pedestrian vehicular collisions between June 6, 1978 and February 28, 1983 in the project area which is a relatively low amount. F. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). [-Option - -2 ] o-.. ,,.. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES GENERAL [GUIDELINES] Policy 1: Tukwila shall create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be construction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system shall [3 provide a network to link various CBD land uses Ca , -w4r44.19m44-4g with transit centers, recreational parks and trail systems. This system shall provide continuity to link residential neighborhoods with the CBD by providing access to bridges located along the perimeter of the CBD. Policy 3: Tukwila shall improve [ - amen its sidewalk system as necessary to provide pedestrian route continuity to bus stops and any future Metro transit sites. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 4: [ - - C- pt i --1-] Sidewalks which are built by the City shall by financed by an area - wide improvement district based on the provisions for a third class City sidewalk improvement district in R.C.W. 35.70 should be adopted. The City shall C ] be responsible for the design of sidewalks and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate [will be rc°po °•' i b' c 'ng] rights -of -way or easements for sidewalks and for building sidewalks on their property as consistent with City policy. Policy 5: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) [-11.64], developers are required to build sidewalks to City specifications in new develop- ments or redevelopment, as defined in the TMC [ ]. An C ] Recommended Addition 9. ':?^:'.l; ?'.1'... ..�i`�:'::i �: .,. c'�� °;. .... _ 1TRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 area -wide sidewalk benefit district shall [ -1--] require all those property owners who do not currently have sidewalks where sidewalks are planned, to either build their sidewalks to City specifications, or be assessed for the cost of building their sidewalks. The City's contribution will be the design of the sidewalks and the cost of administering the L.I.D. 1 Policy 6: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan within seven years according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tukwila Municipal Code [T.M.C. 11.64], sidewalks shall 6.4441 be con- structed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include sidewalks as shown on the adopted [44 —444-] Sidewalk Plan. c. In 1988, [ ] construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall Gwi -1-1.3 be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall [wi -1-1 -] be constructed in 1991. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall Gw1 -] be constructed over the following three years. Policy 7: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations as the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 8: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD [ ] C ] Recommended Addition 'bt.NTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 zoned areas will be five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph, or [and] where a trail and sidewalk are combined as specified in the Tukwila Long Range Park and Open Space Plan, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. Policy 9: Where full inclusion of a sidewalk is not feasible the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. Policy 10: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are less than the standard five or six feet and which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Comment: There are currently few four foot sidewalks in the City, and they are not heavily used by pedestrians. Where a section of sidewalk is crumbling, the replacement should be made on a block basis or in a long enough section to assure route continuity and fit. Policy 11: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the C J Comprehensive Plan will be met. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 12: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or buildfn9 setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 13: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking [4.ta4 the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Planning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on park- ing. Minimum impacts shall include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of "parking spaces. [ ] Recommended Addition t<± atal' a: ::i*. Y, cse7. �dgit' ed..:+ 111 i�ctL.wii;�'-,....za:5.*x�"a.`ir. iX „mtY s:%',',i,:u "tC w:K;,: #*as >:m:=7'"• (25 /VU.CBD1,2) CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 14: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings shall be built when an engineering study shows it is needed and feasible. The study shall be triggered by the following criteria: * At least 300 feet between crossings. 1 ', y�.imAr '.`: . ,: .4 ��.'.i n^r�5,,g•cw 1 �:p�, 1,T,^C VI . ' x..'�.r�^,� t.t GSC.'i.G.'.v`.`7a.t�:: ..f,�k�:{w' # »s �:' plat: : .. • NTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 * A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. * Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 15: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Policy 16: At existing signalized intersections pedestrian signal controls and crossings shall Ew4 l-] be included at the time sidewalks are constructed. Policy 17: Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. [ Into . i ons ] All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. Recommended Addition r 1 yu 400 OOOOOO •••••••••• •• CITV UMITS c. a o. umn IL 3 2 3 GI 3D EXISTING ICITY OF RENTONI SIDEWALK PRIORITIES VH Very High H High M Moderate • CITY OP MONA, wa comm. IMAM =TACT SIDEVALIC PLAN (22 /VU.ATCH.B) Ys � amut! o 'ikl womwd.7L2,Stt 5: X.u".ri1 uw TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT B Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become noncon- forming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to property when the structure is demolished, except when due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. agni Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT C Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi - family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single- family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. ZONE DISTRICT NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS N.A. TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements P- 0 /CP /CM 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets C -1 /C -2 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets M -1 /M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets All Other Areas 5 feet (25 /VU.SWCONST) :C:L.. ...... ...:.. ..� G;:',:ii:: . �. ".s `i(�� Y Z, r.. •:r.t:ra 5 h .. ".N, h'o ,:Y�•:`.r,-rti�v,' �: 5�,;. .Xt „ecr.'�il�.'•a1���.�- i °i, ^'7 �;:' ., .t , . "i�`. .. .. .. k.., r... �. .r..... .._... �..,. ,.�:� /.. ... 21. .. .1.. ., a. r. .� .. .. .... .. ...�_Ut,.l•.Y. �U H».IS..• SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Page 2 CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. S ael}, gthiai4z4i_Xn"t'+' Y x�i`Y�`.�ra`ar t5u: w°k,9k�{.;t�::T3,r; .i r?u c: r. +c q t .�i {Siia..��SYGS�., s.$s.4U �l� t b'k..,.t%.u�. Findings * Policies Attachment H Separated Sidewalk Findings and Policies 'r1 &iCS '::+.Ti '1V Sidewalks which are separated from roadways by a landscape strip encourage pedestrian use by providing a much more pleasant experience. Curbside sidewalks hem in pedestrians and link them with immediately adjacent, heavy vehicular traffic. Separated sidewalks shield pedestrians from traffic impacts and provide a stronger linkage to site developments. ## Separated sidewalks shall be provided except where limited by existing utilities and the lack of four feet of available landscape separation from the roadway. Exceptions to this rule may also be granted by the Public Works Director based on public safety considerations. ## All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward .satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. Renton L-B sites )..r.T•et .V.7. 0 1 2000 It. k-41, CAREY/ CALDWELL PARTNERSHIP Nashua Wa. • 4t)3 21% Legend Slum1 /Luigi. jir(atth S- 1 eit lung K.ingt• pmiet is• ett k Nig fang'. 0.111 s)■14.111 1 1.141 \ b lou 11101,11.111.6114 (WW1 1.1, 1 0 11111111g p.*ik 0.110 St ION /11 „ St•t 'AN !JIM' I. 1 r S-4 amass I'Lmoulog av Ismits 114111. ATTACHMENT I v*st 1 '' I i 11 :: if .; . , 11 .,. I ,' . i ' ,. .... •-- -......J I -, 1 i • r•-•.. ... ' V '. N.....12 k , ... • ". _i., ,......41 7 .7 . . ..... ...,..- \, 1 S.' :t... ..... tll kettloll 7 -' SHORT & LONG RANGE PROJECTS Cft off .1pL.11(om W.7 c` SB .4!'a it;C .4<45:2 71.4... p..70.rs 14vdm: msyhmvala mtrata +.rem:rdr.oz wmer::[:c^t *.r. . a'dr.S: •' .' ?'itSS+<•:'�Htig:.c k '3�1.:".lx, ia;,' "ea,. a PEW 22 /VU.ATCH.A ATTACHMENT "A" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS A. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. B. Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Primarily sidewalks have not been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. C. There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. D. The pedestrian facilities include informal gravel or grass foot paths adja- cent to the edge of pavement or behind the curb and gutter, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. E. There were over six pedestrian vehicular collisions between June 6, 1978 and February 28, 1983 in the project area which is a relatively low amount. F. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). G. Sidewalks which are separated from roadways by a landscape strip encourage pedestrian use by providing a much more pleasant experience. Curbside sidewalks hem in pedestrians and link them with immediately adjacent, heavy vehicular traffic. Separated sidewalks shield pedestrians from traffic impacts and provide a stronger linkage to site developments. • CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES m „Y• • - terrrn r2jN':iv",7.C "%Y'iY'-":� ^: ';"1!�: GENERAL Policy 1: Tukwila shall create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be construction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system shall provide a network to link various CBD land uses with transit centers, recreational parks and trail systems. This system shall provide continuity to link resi- dential neighborhoods with the CBD by providing access to bridges located along the perimeter of the CBD. Policy 3: Tukwila shall improve its sidewalk system as necessary to provide pedestrian route continuity to bus stops and any future Metro transit sites. FUNDING AND PHASING Policy 4: Sidewalks which are built by the City shall by financed by an area - wide improvement district based on the provisions for a third class City sidewalk improvement district in R.C.W. 35.70 should be adopted. The'City shall be responsible for the design of sidewalks and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate rights -of -way or easements for sidewalks and for building sidewalks on their property as consis- tent with City policy. Policy 5: According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), developers are re- quired to build sidewalks to City specifications in new developments or redevelopment, as defined in the TMC. An area -wide sidewalk benefit district shall require all those property owners who do not currently have sidewalks where sidewalks are planned, to either build their sidewalks to City specifications, or be assessed for the cost of building their sidewalks. The City's contribution will be the design of the sidewalks and the cost of administering the L.I.D. Policy 6: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan within seven years according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tukwila Municipal Code, sidewalks shall be constructed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include sidewalks as shown on the adopted Sidewalk Plan. g. G' (rRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 c. In 1988, construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall be constructed in 1989. e. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets shall be con- structed in 1991. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan shall be con- structed over the following three years. Policy 7: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations as the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 8: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD zoned areas will be five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined as specified in the Tukwila Long Range Park and Open Space Plan, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. Policy 9: Where full inclusion of a sidewalk is not feasible the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. Policy 10: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are less than the standard five or six feet and which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the City Council, pursuant to RCW 35.68 and 35.69, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Comment: There are currently few four foot sidewalks in the City, and they are not heavily used by pedestrians. Where a section of sidewalk is crumbling, the replacement should be made on a block basis or in a long enough section to assure route continuity and fit. Policy 11: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will . -.:.•,o. • -, :.. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the Comprehensive Plan will be met. Policy 12: Separated sidewalks shall be provided where feasible. The Public Works Director shall determine the feasibility of separated sidewalks based on factors such as the following: A. Impact upon existing utilities. B. Impact upon existing trees. C. The ability to provide a minimum three -foot landscape strip along the road. D. Existing and proposed site grades. E. Public safety considerations. Policy 13: All landscaped areas between curb and building shall be counted toward satisfying landscape requirements if maintained by adjacent private property owners. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS Policy 14: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area shall be counted toward satisfying these requirements. This allowance shall cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 15: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking, the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Plan- ning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on parking. Minimum impacts shall include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 16: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings shall be built when an engineering study shows it is needed and feasible. The study shall be triggered by the following criteria: * At least 300 feet between crossings. * A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. :. dYdJ6uF:i' WasA i ii"": ixaaitn.Stf3: (25 /VU.CBD3,4) % YT t? ra 4SUST' kY ;4,7OXPS,f•;MVXM , , A11vs1.P" ^ .. 4 `u' *.':' Y CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 * Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 17: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Policy 18: At existing signalized intersections pedestrian signal controls and crossings shall be included at the time sidewalks are constructed. Policy 19: Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. (22 /VU.ATCH.B) Viu TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT B Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become noncon- forming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to . property when the structure is demolished, except when due to natural disaster, fire or similar events. Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 REVISED 9/16/87 ATTACHMENT C Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi- family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single - family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. ZONE DISTRICT (25 /VU.SWCONST) N.A. C -1 /C -2 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets P- 0 /CP /CM 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets M -1 /M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets All Other Areas 5 feet TABLE 1 Sidewalk Width Requirements NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Page 2 Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. • EXISTING ICITY OF RENTON! 1/4 MI.E MD rIDISIRw1 MGUItf raaae ICIvAut •Shoal OM COICMTI Mww l000•0YID Mai RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 31 ' FIGURE 7 11/18/87 thru 12/17/87 12/17/87 Elaborated Review Process Begun 10/22/87 Planning Commission adopts a Plan review process. Public Notification gyal Ltati on of all Public Concerns 03/24/88 03/29/88 PLANNING COMMISSION SIDEWALK PLAN REVIEW PROCESS A 7 C-1q, 08/27/87 Central Business District Sidewalk Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) is transmitted to the Planning Commission. 11/05/87 Planning Commission edits Plan for textual clarity. This is the draft Plan which is the focus for all further review. 11/17/87 Letter notifying all businesses in Tukwila of Plan review mailed. All persons responding are determined to be Interested Parties and mailed all further materials. Public Review and Identification of all Concerns Draft Plan policies and implementing ordinances mailed to all interested parties. A thirty (30) day comment period is established. Planning Commission holds a public hearing to take any additional public testimony, new written comments or clarifications of summarized comments. A complete list of public concerns is established at the close of the public hearing. 01/13/88 A consolidated list of public comments is compiled and mailed to all interested parties. A thirty (30) day comment period is established. No input received which results in changing the list of consolidated comments. These concerns will be the focus of all subsequent Plan review. 02/24/88 Part I, Staff Evaluation of Concerns mailed to all interested parties. Evaluation consists of significant findings and options. A twenty -eight (28) day review period is established. Planning Commission holds a public meeting to take public comment on Part I Evaluations. Part II, Staff Evaluation of Concerns mailed to all interested parties. A thirty (30) day review period is established. I .1 Maitar;:gie t5r4ht • vcesitgelfostatsizonvtiaelmtai.VMSMTATWVAAMMITFtWATA*IM trilMIN al.TOMMIVAINATITM 05/12/88 Planning Commission holds a public meeting to take public comment an Part 11 Evaluations. Commission begins deliberations on resolving public concerns. Planning Commission review is interrupted by extensive work on pre-annexation zoning for the Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexation areas; in addition to its normal work on project design review. #fita.- . k4 to .Y �b Y A's ..:or s.m rom .ItICM4CNitP6sTtC ." IPL .^d?tGiE t.RQY:.E.it7.i."CiE:Rv '"�P (*ifr.�it1:�:m;{, r t'A , Totir Planning Commission Resolution of Public Concerns and Revision 0+ Centra). Business Di str i ct €i dewa], k Plan and Impl ement i n..g, Ordinances 10/27/88 Planning Commission deliberates and determines how public concerns about the Plan should be resolved. Planning Commission directs Planning Department to revise Plan policies and implementing ordinances pursuant to Commission actions, and transmit Plan directly to the City Council. Planning Department work on the Plan is interrupted by annexation studies and unusually high levels of project compliance problems. 02/15/89 Planning Department transmits the recommended Plan and implementing ordinances to the City Council. '�+n f��'T. `� wW.'?.ta.'+hr.Yf?i..'f'� .� •1����A�:'C <fSl:P�i„':T:� City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 1987 The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by Mr. Larson, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Knudson, Larson, Kirsop, Sowinski, Coplen, and Haggerton. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Moira Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. MINUTES MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 13, 1987 MEETING AS WRITTEN. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 87 -2 -CPA & 87 -3 -CA: SIDEWALK PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CODE AMENDMENT Request to add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70 (Non - Conforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction). Vernon Umetsu, staff representative, reviewed the request, entering into the record the staff report (Exhibit I) and recommending approval of the amendments as shown in Attachment A. Ann Nichols, representing Segale Business Park at 18010 South - center Parkway, distributed comments addressing the amendments discussed in Attachment A which was entered into the record as Exhibit II. Letters commenting on the CBD sidewalks were also distributed to the Commission. These letters were entered into the record as Exhibit III. Discussion ensued on Policy 12 under Conformance to City Stand- ards and agreement was reached that the word "may" be changed to "shall be ". Jack Link, 1411 Fourth Avenue Building, Suite 1120 expressed concerns he had with the amendments to the sidewalk plan. Ross Earnst, City Engineer for the City of Tukwila, answered questions regarding the plan. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. COPLEN SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THIS REQUEST UNTIL A LATER DATE, DUE TO THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. MOTION CARRIED, UNANIMOUSLY. A date for action on this item was established for Thursday, September 24, 1987. !14!:t:fi�.. fit - «Y. - :+ann r. i:'• .T, P.ti a.�mr: mt. .Gyyy. v p. fir. o y ., .; 47 :.i:. �'• ... t ,....� ° ""�Y ^i.�Y, ...,ru'�'.: ���. �. .. ,,- .. �... ii:...,.. w� �,':`•-...: R•i;&: Sa...":' rFC rr�.... r: d:..^:: rt xcert�:: r1: i• u^ t:: Ta::' �,;>•._., s. : °r1K,..,.,..r_,.�sr�n:�:�:�;., .. ...._.._,...'�i'. ,1 a, .,.. ..X, .,.. .. .. *. �I�.iJ1.�P'...N,Y �•..�ru.r .��: Y�. J`!'i. _ rt.a.. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 HEARING DATE: August 27, 1987 STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared August 20, 1987 FILE NUMBER: 87 -2 -CPA: Sidewalk Plan (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) and 87 -3 -CA: Sidewalk Plan (Code Amendment) APPLICANT: Tukwila Public Works Department REQUEST 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Append the proposed Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan Findings and Policies to the Transportation and Utilities Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan (Attachment A) 2. Amend TMC 18.70 (Non- conforming Lots, Structures, and Uses; Tukwila Zoning Code) to reflect CBD Sidewalk Plan Policies (Attachment B) 3. Amend TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction) to reflect CBD Sidewalk Plan Policies (Attachment C) SEPA DETERMINATION: SEPA determination will be made on August 26, 1987 RECOMMENDATION: Approval as revised ATTACHMENTS: (A) Central Business District Sidewalk Plan: Findings and Policies (B) Amendment of TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code (C) Amendment of TMC 11.64, Sidewalk Construction (D) Central Business District Sidewalk Plan: Background Report (E) Existing Sidewalk System (F) Chronological History of the Sidewalk Policy Plan (02/07/84 to 09/23/85). '(G) Existing Comprehensive Plan Sidewalk Policies • STAFF REPORT 87 -2 -CPA / 87 -3 -CA to the Planning Commission Page 2 VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS 1. Project Description: The CBD Sidewalk Plan policies are proposed to estab- lish a comprehensive CBD sidewalk system, design standards, and prioritize improvements. These policies are applicable only within the area shown in Figure 1 of Attachment A. Associated revisions to the Zoning Code and Sidewalk Construction ordinances are also required and included as part of the proposed action. The Planning Department has also recommended revisions to the original Sidewalk Plan policies in order to clarify City intent and improve implemen- tability. These revisions have been very generally reviewed by the Council Transportation Committee and Public Works Departments who concur with Planning Department recommendations. 2. Existing Development: The CBD sidewalk system exists in segments and has been built in an ad hoc manner as road improvements have been made or as private development projects have been approved. A 1985 analysis of the sidewalk system and potential improvements is contained in Attachment D. In general, CBD sidewalk segments vary in width from four to eight feet and are built to American Public Works Association (APWA) standards. The existing sidewalk system is shown in Attachment E. 3. Surrounding Land Use: The Tukwila CBD is a relatively mature suburban retail /industrial area. Building improvements are generally setback 25 to 50 feet from sidewalk areas, behind landscape strips and parking lots. Four and five lane roads adjacent to sidewalks carry high traffic volumes with large trucks. BACKGROUND The CBD Sidewalk Plan has undergone extensive review between 1984 and 1985 as shown in Attachment F. This included numerous meetings of the City Council Transportation and Community Affairs committees. In, June, 1987, the Transportation Committee directed the Public Works Department to make formal application to incorporate the CBD Sidewalk Policy Plan within the Comprehen- sive Plan and for the Planning Department to revise the Tukwila Zoning Code as necessary. The Tukwila Zoning Code and Sidewalk Construction ordinances must be amended in order to implement the CBD Sidewalk Plan. The proposed CBD Sidewalk Plan Policies and ordinance amendments are shown in Attachments A, B and C respec- tively, and discussed below. Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan Policies The proposed CBD Sidewalk Policies and accompanying ordinances elaborate on and implement the existing Comprehensive Plan sidewalk policies listed in Attachment s STAFF REPORT 87 -2 -CPA / 87 -3 -CA to the Planning Commission Page 3 G. The proposed policies are necessary to clearly define the City's program for sidewalk design and construction. In order to clarify, the Planning department proposes the separate existing Comprehensive Plan Element 5: Transportation /Utilities into two elements: 5. Transportation and 6. Utilities. Existing sections would be separated with Section 1: Transportation Objectives and Policies, and Section 2: Utilities Objectives and Policies; forming their own respective elements. The proposed CBD sidewalk policies would be appended to Objective 6. SIDEWALKS /PATHS. The CBD Sidewalk Plan is summarized by the following charateristics. 1. Priority will be given to connecting existing sidewalk segments. 2. The City shall complete all very high priority sidewalks by 1989, all high priority sidewalks by 1991, and all moderate priority sidewalks by 1994. 3. New sidewalks shall be six feet wide in P -0, C -1, C -2, C -P, and C -M zones and five feet wide in all other areas. 4. Sidewalks not covered by previous developer agreements shall be financed through a sidewalk improvement district. 5. Properties shall not become non - conforming with the building setback and landscaping standards in the Tukwila Zoning Code due to donating a sidewalk easement or right-of-way. A sidewalk exception shall be enacted in the Tukwila Zoning Code to implement this policy. Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.70) Policy No. 12 mandates that donated sidewalk easements or rights -of -way may be counted as landscape and building setback area in specific non - conforming situations. However, there are no provisions for this in the Zoning Code. Therefore, a Sidewalk Allowance is proposed to be added to Chapter 18.70, Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses. With the minimum five- and six -foot sidewalk easements, required front yard landscaping would be reduced in the various zones as shown in the following table. �:'3't &S:G 3_'i2i'i12:w'.y •.P.ca�, .< txrM3t::t:avarvsvrrr r,..�.:ex'•�..:.s:etvr:%LS. STAFF REPORT 87 -2 -CPA / 87 -3 -CA to the Planning Commission Page 4 TABLE 1 Changes in Required Front Yard Landscape Areas Existing Required Minimum Remaining Zone Front Yard Sidewalk Front Yard District Landscaping Width Area Width Landscaping Width P -0 15 6 9 C -1 10 6 4 C -2 10 6 4 C -P 15 6 9 C -M 15 5 10 M -1 15 5 10 M -2 15 5 10 The most critical landscape reductions are in the C -1 and C -2 zones where land- scape widths could be reduced to four feet. An analysis of the CBD area shows that reduced landscaping would only result along the west side of Southcenter Parkway, along an 880 foot segment at Levitz and RB Furniture. Sidewalk Construction (TMC 11.64) The Sidewalk Construction ordinance must be amended to avoid a conflict between City -wide sidewalk standards and proposed CBD sidewalk standards. The conflict- ing elements between the two sets of standards are design widths and upgrading substandard sidewalks as are shown in the table below. Sidewalk Width C -1 /C -2 Zones P -0 Zones M -1 /M -2 Zones Table 2 A Comparison Between Existing Sidewalk Standards and Proposed CBD Sidewalk Standards Existing Sidewalk Proposed CBD Standards Sidewalk Standard 8 feet along arterials 6 feet (1) 6 feet along local access streets 6 feet along arterials 6 feet (1) 5 feet along local access streets 6 feet along arterials 5 feet (1) 5 feet along local access streets 'dSii:i:..::L.ii`. _n,..',ii'�ti..,A:a.:i�^: :l( ^ .......•e (1) Minimum bined. .s<x;++. , Wit:, � �;CyL.;h'!•v:r� ; �nvx#',�'�'ayrr 5'tl4l�rt'SD_ a ... t "; ". r'" '4' se :1S•i.,n„ r�,,b... '. ;,* •x u _. 'tt ,an +•rav x�t . r:, x' 6i :k'n:5k'f�Ytit'.'.�.F'�.... -.,. r.?:Sii'.?r: ?'fi`Y,i ;.<,.....�-i.iv s.,.7s ._,tJ.'., ..,,..:s,..wa�.- �r:'�......._.» :+R .l :a:+S ; .!`. _ .,, 4- .r�....Cv,i.'.. .'� ?:Z 1... ,•v:C�k ..,Ir. .+l'M;fCA'�a. .1tfi. .., .1 R'kY STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Substandard Sidewalks (22/87- 2- CPA.1,2) Existing Sidewalk Standards All substandard sidewalks are acceptable. No further improvements required under this ordinance. (2) 8 foot width at bus stops and where a CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATION Proposed CBD Sidewalk Standard 87 -2 -CPA / 87 -3 -CA Page 5 Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide must be upgraded to meet City standards. trail and sidewalk are com- (2) Other ordinances may be some times used to require acceptable sidewalks, depending upon individual circumstances. A review of CBD road classifications show that all Very High, High, and Moderate priority sidewalks lie along arterials. Therefore design standards are identi- cal with existing city -wide requirements except for C -2 zones where proposed CBD sidewall eight feet. The existing sidewalk ordinance does not address substandard sidewalks. The proposed CBD Sidewalk Plan requires upgrading sidewalks less than four feet wide. The proposed policies are consistent with the existing policies in the Compre- hensive Plan and serve to more specifically state the City's desires for side- walks in the CBD. The amendments to the Zoning Code and Sidewalk Construction ordinances are also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are necessary for the efficient implementation of the CBD Sidewalk Plan. Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Planning Department recommends approval of the amendments as shown in Attachment A. ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS A. Alleviating the need to use autos for short - distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CBD amenity. B. Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since 1977. Primarily sidewalks have not been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. C. There is no CBD sidewalk system which provides pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. D. The pedestrian facilities include informal gravel or grass foot paths adja- cent to the edge of pavement or behind the curb and gutter, asphalt . shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish. E. There were over six pedestrian vehicular collisions between June 6, 1978 and February 28, 1983 in the project area which is a relatively low amount. F. Most employees are pedestrians only infrequently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions (based on a business survey). • Policy 1: Policy 4: [Policy Policy 5: GENERAL [GUIDELINES] FUNDING AND PHASING ,Y \U rJr. •P. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES �I J ?' .... �. :��Y.� ;r.'�f.J Mf:..l r,.�.J N Tukwila shall create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the Central Business District (CBD) as shown in Figure 1. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be construction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: The sidewalk and pathway system shall [will] provide a network to link various CBD land uses [retail shopping center, banking f acilities,restaurants, hotels /motels, officers, manufacturing, warehousing,] with transit centers, recreational parks and trail systems. This system shall provide continuity to link residential neighborhoods with the CBD by providing access to bridges located along the perimeter of the CBD. Policy 3: Tukwila shall improve [amend] its sidewalk system as necessary to provide pedestrian route continuity to bus stops and any future Metro transit sites. [Two alternatives are presented here, representing divergent views on the Transportation Committee.] [Option 1] Sidewalks which are built by the City shall by financed by an area - wide improvement district based on the provisions for a third class City sidewalk improvement district in R.C.W. 35.70 should be adopted. The City shall [will] be responsible for the design of sidewalks and for the costs of establishing a sidewalk benefit district. Property owners in the CBD shall be encouraged to donate [will be responsible for donating] rights -of -way or easements for sidewalks and for building sidewalks on their property as consistent with City policy. [It shall be the property owner's responsibility to maintain the sidewalks abutting their property.] [Option 2] [A combination of easements, developers' agreements, LIDs and a City allocation of $200,000 per year will be used to pay for sidewalks.] 5: Business will shall donate rights -of -way or easements on CBD properties for sidewalks. It shall will be the property owner's responsibility to maintain the sidewalks abutting their property.] According to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) [11.64], developers are required to build sidewalks to City specifications in new develop- ments or redevelopment, as defined in the TMC [11.64.020(a)]. An . t••4..��.t CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 2 area -wide sidewalk benefit district shall Cwill] require all those property owners who do not currently have sidewalks where sidewalks are planned, to either build their sidewalks to City specifications, or be assessed for the cost of building their sidewalks. The City's contribution will be the design of the sidewalks and the cost of administering the L.I.D. [Comment: An area -wide improvement district based on the provisions for a third class City sidewalk improvement district in R.C.W. 35.70 should be adopted.] Policy 6: The City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to finish construction of the sidewalk system recommended in the sidewalk plan within seven years according to the following schedule: a. As properties develop or redevelop in accordance with the Tukwila Municipal Code [T.M.C. 11.64], sidewalks shall [will] be con- structed by the developer or property owner at no cost to the City. b. New street construction and street widening will include sidewalks as shown on the adopted [in the] Sidewalk Plan. c. In 1988, [a program is planned to] construct the sidewalks on Southcenter Parkway and on one side of the very high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan. d. The sidewalks remaining to be built on the very high priority streets shall [will] be constructed in 1989. e. 9. Sidewalks on one side of the high priority streets in the Sidewalk Plan will be constructed in 1990. f. The remaining sidewalks on high priority streets constructed in 1991. Moderate priority sidewalks in the sidewalk plan constructed over the following three years. shall [will] be shall [will] be Policy 7: Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations as the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements, as identified in the City Capital Improvement Plan, will replace the sidewalk within 5 years. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. SIDEWALK DESIGN Policy 8: New sidewalks in retail /commercial /office zoned areas will be six feet wide. Sidewalks in all other CBD distribution warehouse] CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 3 zoned areas will be five feet wide. At bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 mph, or [and] where a trail and sidewalk are combined, sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight feet wide. Policy 9: Where full inclusion of a sidewalk is not feasible the design will be adapted to the available space through joint planning by the Planning and Public Works Directors. Policy 10: Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four feet wide shall be deemed to be acceptable by the City. Sidewalks which are less than the standard five or six feet and which are badly cracked, crumbling or uneven, as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced in sections /blocks by standard size sidewalks at no cost to the City. Comment: There are currently few four foot sidewalks in the City, and they are not heavily used by pedestrians. Where a section of sidewalk is crumbling, the replacement should be made on a block basis or in a long enough section to assure route continuity and fit. Policy 11: Sidewalks and traffic intersection designs will be coordinated to accommodate both pedestrians, handicap curb cuts, and the largest allowable vehicles on the streets. Handicap access to sidewalks will be provided at intersections and driveways. Safety and traffic standards in the [Transportation] Comprehensive Plan will be met. CONFORMANCE TO CITY STANDARDS [Policy 13: For existing developments, sidewalks built on donated rights -of -way or easement will be credited as part of the donating property owner's landscape and setback requirements. through exceptions variances in the zoning code.] [Policy 14: Sidewalks built on donated easements on existing developments on private property will be included as part of the donating property owner's landscape requirements under the City's zoning code.] Policy 12: Where the donation of easements or right -of -way for sidewalks in existing developments causes them to fall below City landscaping or building setback standards, the donated area ,be counted toward,Sy4.L . satisfying these requirements. This allowance slial cease upon building replacement, at which time all City ordinances shall be met. Policy 13: Where sidewalks would interfere with existing parking [stalls,] the sidewalk design will be modified by the Directors of Public Works and Planning to accommodate sidewalks with minimum impacts on park- ing. Minimum impacts shall include restriping and use of compact stalls to retain the existing number of parking spaces. '�ciliW. %11lMi srd '.:xvsJ.ve,.•....m•.aw«..w.uw CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Page 4 CROSSWALKS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSINGS Policy 14: Streets with sidewalks may require mid -block crossings with traffic signals. Such crossings shall be built when an engineering study shows it is needed and feasible. The study shall be triggered by the following criteria: * At least 300 feet between crossings. * A minimum pedestrian volume of 300 people /hour at least 4 hours /day. * Traffic analysis determines that signal timing and traffic progression can be maintained. A gap delay of 30 seconds in traffic volume on an arterial street is acceptable. Policy 15: Painted crosswalks will not be provided where sidewalks do not exist. Pedestrians have the right -of -way at all marked crosswalks and unmarked crossings at intersections. Policy 16: At existing signalized intersections pedestrian signal controls and crossings shall [will] be included at the time sidewalks are constructed. Policy 17: Crosswalks will be marked at all CBD signalized intersections with sidewalks to indicate pedestrian route continuity. [Intersections will be signed to caution the pedestrian to cross only with the proper pedestrian signal control sequence.] All new CBD signal control equipment where sidewalks exist must incorporate pedestrian signal controls and signs. (25 /VU.CBD1,2) l 't, �r ?. v;.... c�;B�.. °nti'il.. `r;•'i t "i .. EXISTING (CITY OF RENTON1 OD g mamma MCAUIY SIDEWALK PRIORITIES VH Very High H High M Moderate CITY OF TUKWILA, WA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (22 /VU.ATCH.B) TMC 18.70.110 Sidewalk Dedication ATTACHMENT B Amendment to TMC 18.70, Tukwila Zoning Code No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation to the City of Tukwila for sidewalk purposes shall become noncon- forming by reasons of such donation. This allowance shall not apply to property when the structure is demolished. Sections: 11.64.010 11.64.020 11.64.030 11.64.040 ATTACHMENT C Chapter 11.64 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Administration Sidewalks Required Standards of Construction Delays and Variances 11.64.010 Administration. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for administering this chapter unless construction of a standard sidewalk con- flicts with the requirements of the Tukwila Building Code or Zoning Code, whereupon concurrence of the Planning Director shall be required. 11.64.020 Sidewalks Required. (a) Sidewalks shall be required for any new multi - family residential, commercial, or industrial structure; or upon substan- tial remodeling of an existing structure; or subdivision activity. (b) For purposes of this chapter, "substantial remodeling" means construc- tion which increases the floor area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty percent or any alteration or repairs including interior, plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve -month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent of the value of the previously existing building or structure; or total cumulative building improvements from the date of this ordinance increase building square footage by 25,000 square feet or building value by $250,000. (c) Sidewalks shall not be required for improvements in single - family zoned properties unless associated with subdivision activity or a larger development which would require a sidewalk. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the Public Works Director has certified that the required sidewalk has been provided. 11.64.030 Standards of Construction. (a) All sidewalks required by this chapter shall be built according to the construction specifications of the American Public Works Administration or City of Tukwila "Roadway Standard Plans" as revised, whichever is greater. (b) The Central Business District (CBD) Sidewalk Plan policies are hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully stated herein. Sidewalks within the CBD shall be built and located subject to those policies which shall supersede all other conflicting provisions of this chapter. Sidewalks shall otherwise be designed based on Table 1 below. (c) A sidewalk construction plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Director in a form acceptable to him and demonstrate consistency with the stan- dards of this chapter. ZONE DISTRICT (25 /VU.SWCONST) N.A. All Other Areas 5 feet TABLE 1 ac Sidewalk Width Requirements NON -CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS P -0 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets C- 1 /C- 2 /CP /CM 8 feet along arterials 6 feet along local access streets M -1 /M -2 6 feet along arterials 5 feet along local access streets CBD SIDEWALK STANDARDS Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide at bus stops and pullouts, or where the speed limit is over 35 MPH, or where a trail and sidewalk are combined. Sidewalks shall otherwise have the widths specified below. 6 feet 6 feet 5 feet 5 feet SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Page 2 Sidewalks which are less than 4 feet wide or are in poor condition as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be replaced by the adjacent landowner at no cost to the City, pursuant to this Ordin- ance. 11.64.040 Delays and Variances. (a) A delay in satisfying the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Public Works Director for technical reasons. Technical reasons are typified by need to coordinate with overall street improvements, and unavailable street and /or utilities design. A devel- oper's agreement or equivalent shall be executed to assure later sidewalk construction at no cost to the City. (b) In the CBD only, the Director of Public Works is authorized to require the construction of temporary sidewalks (see Comprehensive Plan Policies), using two -inch compacted depth asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. All costs of temporary sidewalks shall be borne by the applicant and shall be in addition to the cost of permanent sidewalks. (c) Variances from the provisions of this ordinance may be granted by the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the criteria and procedures in TMC 18.72. MN BELL•WALKER ENGINEERS, InG Attachment D CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN City of Tukwila, WA . � f)}. te. YJwwYr�v�iu�.uww�fw.rw'.n.w�u.. SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Introduction 1 2 Analysis of Existing Conditions 2 3 Ordinances, Plans and Guidelines 16 4 Employee Concerns 24 5 Policy Concepts 25 6 Design Standards 28 7 Pedestrian Routes 28 8 Funding 39 FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 APPENDIX TABLE DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Employee Questionnaire Summary Pedestrian Improvements Matrix A -1 B -1 DESCRIPTION PAGE Existing Zoning 3 Land Use Planning 4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 12 Traffic Counts and Accident Data 14 Metro Transit Routes 15 Six -Year CIP Program (1985 -1990) 18 Recommended Pedestrian Routes 31 Time -Space Diagram - Southcenter Parking 35 Time -Space Diagram - Andover Park W. 36 Time -Space Diagram - Andover Park S. 37 Time -Space Diagram - Strander Blvd. 38 PAGE 1 Existing Park and Recreation Facilities 5 2 Street and Pedestrian Facility Inventory 7 3 Motor Vehicle /Pedestrian Accidents 13 4 1979 Transportation Improvement Plan 17 5 Six -year CIP Program (1985 -1990) 19 6 Basic Weight, Setback and Area Requirements 23 (18.50.020) 7 Recommended Pedestrian Routes 30 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purposes of this planning report are: (1) summarize information concerning existing pedestrian facilities and relevant plans, studies, policies, ordinances, regulations, and budgetary information; (2) establish goals and objectives for the sidewalk plan; and (3) identify recommended improvements based on suggested standards and implementation program. 1.2 Background The Central Business District is a vehicular oriented retail, office, industrial complex. It was planned for businesses to be accessed by auto and intra- business pedestrian traffic was not emphasized. As development and in -fill of building sites have occurred, vehicular traffic volume has increased and traffic movement has created a demand for additional facilities. Alleviating the need to use autos for short- distance intra- business trips by promoting pedestrian /sidewalk facilities will improve traffic conditions and provide a missing CID amenity. In 1977 the City recognized this situation and initiated efforts to promote a CID Sidewalk System by passing Ordinance No. 1029 which directed the Planning Commission to develop a sidewalk plan for the City. In May, 1980, the City passed Ordinance No. 1158 which required submittal of a sidewalk construction plan for projects adjacent to streets or public right- of-way and which adopted APWA standards for construction. Ordinance No. 1217 amended No. 1158 to require that sidewalk construc- tion be completed before a final certificate of occupancy may be issued. Ordinance No. 1233 amended No. 1158 and No. 1217 to require construction approval by or approval of alternate arrangements by the Director of the Department of Public Works; and established conditions for granting of delay, waiver, or exception to sidewalk construction requirements. However, in spite of the ordinances, the City of Tukwila is without sidewalks in much of the CBD today. Sidewalks have been constructed where improvements have been made to private property since the ordinances have gone into effect. Primarily sidewalks have not been constructed adjacent to property developed prior to 1980. The City needs a CBD sidewalk system to fulfill the goals of the ordinances, and to provide pedestrian links with transit facilities, recreation areas, and residential neighborhoods. Metro is developing park -and -ride lots, bus stops, 'and a transfer station in Tukwila. The City is developing new recreational facilities including parks and trails. The planning for these developments must incorporate pedestrian facilities into their final plans. This report provides requirements to which future development should adhere. Existing sidewalks, especially those four -feet wide or greater should be deemed conforming to standards and should not be required to be upgraded to standards contained in this report unless appropriately incorporated into future street /traffic revisions by the City of Tukwila. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Project Area This analysis primarily addresses the availability and condition of pedestrian facilities in an area bounded by Interurban Avenue S. to Southcenter Parkway and South City Limits to Southcenter Boulevard. However, the plan also considers adjacent facilities and pedestrian attractions and generators (See Figure 1). 2.2 Zoning The project area is zoned according to Tukwila Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning, and includes the following zoning districts (See Figure 1): R -A, Agricultural R -1, Single Family Residence R-4, Low Apartments P -0, Professional and Office C -1, Neighborhood Retail C -2, Regional Retail C -P, Planned Business Center ,C -M, Industrial Park .. .. M -1, Light Industry M -2, Heavy Industry Industrial parks (C-M) comprise more than half of the area. Next in order are Planned Business Centers (C -P), Regional Retail (C -2), Heavy Industry (M -2) and then smaller pockets of the other zones. As a result of the zoning, decision factors and other factors, retail shops, restaur- ants, services, lodging and entertainment are located primarily along Southcenter Parkway. Business parks and light industry are located west of Andover Park West and east to the Green River. Heavy industry is clustered south of S. 180th Street. Most of the zones are nearly built -out. The major exceptions are Tukwila Pond Site (zoned C -P), about half of Segale Business Park (zoned (M -2), and all of the Regional Retail zone at Strander Blvd. and Andover Park West (C -2). 2.3 Park and Recreation Facilities the park facilities within the project area consist of Bicentennial Park and the Christensen Greenbelt Trail (See Figure 2). Facilities adjacent to the project area which may influence pedestrian activity in the CBD include: Tukwila Park, Crestview Park, Briscoe Park, Interurban Trail and Fort Dent Park. Several private facilities, open for public use, which afford passive or active recreational oppor- tunities also exist in the CBD. Information regarding park facilities is summarized in Table 1. Christensen Trail and Bicentennial Park, the only developed parks within the CBD core, experience peak use during the week at lunch time, after work, and on weekends. Bicentennial Park is basically a passive activity space which accommodates picnicking, lounging, reading, and supervised small children games. Christensen Trail is primarily an active strip for walking, exercising, jogging, and biking; and accommo- dates picnickers and loungers. Both Christensen Trail and Bicentennial Park suffer from lack of exposure, inadequate parking facilities, and poor approach access for pedestrians who may come from farther than a block. Based on discussions with some of the pedestrians, knowledge of the Trail is spread by word of mouth. One pedestrian indicated that when she 2 3 - n „ Figure 1 .4 . FIGURE 2 NAME EXISTING FACILITIES PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF TUKWILA Bicentennial Park Picnicking, Log Cabin, Parking (121), Christensen Restrooms, changing rooms, more Trail, Irrigated lawn, playground. parking. Christensen Greenbelt Tukwila Park Crestview Park Tukwila Trails Hazelnut Park Parking (13), tot -lot, sitting areas, library, historic site. Softball Field, Soccer Field, Parking, Play Expand Parking, Improve Area, Sanican, Tennis Court Field Drainage Foster Park KING COUNTY Fort Dent Park P -17 Pond Interurban Trail KENT Green River Park Corridor Briscoe Park Interurban Trail PRIVATE General Elec. Fields Souuncenter Mall Parkway Plaza The Pavilion EXISTING PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES (1993) Picnicking, Trail for walking /jogging /biking; Extensions to north & south. Fitness course. Tennis (4), Picnicking, Playground, Trails, Renovation of lower tennis courts. Gazebo, Restroom None (Summer 1984) Foot Trails TABLE 1. 4 Softball, all- weather soccer w /bleachers, Parking, Football, Playground. Pump station and sediment pond. Paved trail, bike andwalking. Trails, Tennis Court, Picnic Area•, Perking Paving Constructed 1983 -84. Additional fields possible. N.A. N.A. Frager & Russell Roads, Bike & Walking Trails, Expansion, additional parks and Paks, River shore. trails. None Picnicking. Paved Bicycle Trail Extension to north, side connections. Two fields for little league play. A 1,250,000 Sq. ft. "shopping city ". The mall is used for art shows, performances, trade shows, seasonal displays. Parking for over 7,000 cars. A smaller (400,000 sq. ft.) climate - controlled shopping center. N.A. N.A. N.A. Indoor mall N.A. used to work at the Pavilion, she had no idea the trail existed. Another pedestrian lamenting about the accessibility problem, said he drove two blocks from his office at Andover Park East and Strander Blvd. because there are no sidewalks to the trail. Neither of the facilities is well marked at the street access points although there are small gray signs for each. They are both accessible by foot from the street at the formal entry. points. Pump Station Pond is accessible by way of Christensen Greenbelt Park Trail and the extension of Minkler Blvd. 2.4 Street and Pedestrian Facilities The nature of the street and pedestrian facilities in the CBD is rather diverse. Information concerning the character of the facilities is summarized in Table 2. Right -of -ways are generally 60 feet; the range is 30 feet (Evans Black Dr.) to 175 feet (W. Valley Highway). Street width ranges from 22 feet (Klickitat Drive) to 61 feet for portions of Southcenter Parkway and Tukwila Parkway. Most of the streets are 46 to 50 feet wide. All the streets within the study area have curb and gutter; however, some of the streets in the adjacent area of influence have none. Most street segments have speed limits of 25 or 35 mph. The range is 15 to 40 mph. West Valley Highway is signed for 40 mph. Generally the streets are illuminated at night. Street alignments are generally straight. Curved sections exist on Southcenter Parkway, S. 180th St., Andover Park East, Industry Drive, West Valley Highway, Southcenter Blvd., Strander Blvd., and S. 178th St. Street grades are primarily flat. S. 178th St. has the most extreme grade, 21 percent. There are crosswalks at some of the intersections. At most of the crosswalks there are also pedestrian signal heads. The pedestrian facilities include informal gravel or grass foot paths adjacent to the edge of pavement or behind the curb and gutter, asphalt shoulders or sidewalks, and concrete sidewalks with a broomed or exposed aggregate finish (See Figure 3). The shoulders vary in width from two to eleven feet. Sidewalks are generally five to six feet wide. Within the area which this study considers, there are approximately 21.5 miles of public street and 3.2 miles of private streets. Consider- ing both sides of the street there are approximately 5.8 miles of sidewalk and 7.3 miles of shoulder which pedestrians might use. Approximately 64 percent, 3.7 miles, of the sidewalks are on Southcenter Parkway (2.4 miles) and Andover Park West (1.3 miles). The density and style of planting varies along the streets. Where property is undeveloped the plants consist of scrub such as around Tukwila Pond, or there are minimal or no plants as along the property at the southeast corner of Strander Blvd. and Andover Park West, and areas along the south side of S. 180th St. Where landscaping exists it varies from trees and grass such as along the east side of Southcenter, to more diversified and ornate designs as along McDonalds on South- center Parkway and along Penney's on the north side of S. 180th St. 2,5 Traffic Accident Data here were over six pedestrian - vehicular collisions between June 6, 1978 and February- - 28, 1983 in the project area (See Table 3) which is a relatively low amount. One occurred on Andover Park West, two on Southcenter Blvd. and three on Southcenter Parkway. Of the accidents, four involved vehicles moving straight and two involved vehicles turning left. Four accidents occurred beyond intersections. Five of the six occurred on dry pavement. There was daylight when four of the six collisions happened. In all cases the pedestrians sustained injuries. 6 TABLE 2 STREET b PEDESTRIAN EDGE TYPE -No Edge CIG -Curb b Gutter C -Curb Ext.- Extruded Curb FACILITY INVENTORY ALIGNMENT Graphic Indicator of Street Align- ment PED. PATH TYPE 0 -No Path SH- Shoulder SW- Sidewalk WIDTH V- Varies SURFACE G- Gravel C- Concrete A- Asphalt CROSSWALK Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PED. SIGNALS Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PLANTING 0 -gone N- Native L -Lawn C- Buslness- Campus Sty -Mixed N,l bC l HAOIM MOS STREET WIDTH 1 3dAl 3903 I JAM 1 0334 30n, I INDOIDITV ILLUMINATION PED. PATH TYPE H10 IN 33V OS I (ti %IYMSSOII) PED. SIGNALS it 9NIN91S 9Ni1Nr14 SA3IA N be il Kinkier Blvd. APE to APW Industry onto APE City Shops to Industry Dr. Upland Or. E to W Midland Dr. APW to End Triland Dr. E to W 90' 48' C&G 25 0t '— Yes 0 Stop a APE C - 90' 48' CAD 25 0% Yes 0 Stop C 1Prirate 90' 27' C&G 15 0f — Yes 0 C 60' 39' CIA 25 0f ..-p Yes 0 /SW /5' Stop C S0' 28' CAG 25 ` 0f �O Yes SN /0 11'/ Stop C 50' 48' CAD 25 0f _ No 0 - Stop C Private 5.178th St. 0f � 1151 20 I 2� 11 0 21f �+ um O ' Yes SH 151/101A t 1 1 N Mt. Rie1 1 1uuui South Cents r. •5. 180th St. Interurban Ave. to APE APE to APW I APW to South Center Pkwy. - 60' 60' CIO 35 0f �- Yes I Note i �-+ o 0 0 Note SW on bridge. 3' Wide. Intermittent planting. 60' 60' ClG 35 0% f Yes 0 N 60' 60' C$6 35 0f -.-. Tes SW 5' /C • o 0 0 0 Stop C SW intermittent on N. side Drive 0 E. W 60' 48' CIA 25 01 _ Yes SW /0 5'/ C/ A ' .r.. Stop C North side undeveloped Private I Drive C E W 60' 46' CiG 25 01 — Yes 0 /SW /5' /C Ley/ �� Stop C/0 i undeveloped Riverside St. E W 60' 46' GAG 25 0f _ Yes 0 /SW /6' /C C Todd Blvd. E W 54' CIA 25 0f _„ Yes SW /0 5'/ C/ C Exp. aggregate SW. Median planting Glacier St. E W 60' 46' CiG 25 Of 1 Yes 0 C 1 TABLE 2 STREET b PEDESTRIAN EDGE TYPE -No Edge CIG -Curb b Gutter C -Curb Ext.- Extruded Curb FACILITY INVENTORY ALIGNMENT Graphic Indicator of Street Align- ment PED. PATH TYPE 0 -No Path SH- Shoulder SW- Sidewalk WIDTH V- Varies SURFACE G- Gravel C- Concrete A- Asphalt CROSSWALK Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PED. SIGNALS Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PLANTING 0 -gone N- Native L -Lawn C- Buslness- Campus Sty -Mixed N,l bC INULL L STREET & PEDESTRIAN EDGE TYPE 0 -No Edge CMG -Curb & Gutter C -Curb Ext.- Extruded Curb FACILITY INVENTORY ALIGNMENT Graph c Indicator of Street Align- ment PED. PATH TYPE WIDTH 0 -No Path V- Varies SH- Shoulder SW- Sidewalk SURFACE G- Gravel C- Concrete A- Asphalt CROSSWALK Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PED. SIGNALS Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PLANTING 0-None N- Native L -Lawn C- Business- Campus Sty -Mixed n BC H10IR MOH I 1110IM 1331113 I 341.1.1. 3903 SPEED LIMIT I . 30V1D 1n3NNSC1v NOi1VNIw111t PED. PATH TYPE H10IR I 37ViW%S 4 1 11VMSSO1q I� S1VN9IS '03d I 9NiN9IS I DNI1NVld SM3IA at i Ninkler Blvd. APE to APW Industry onto APE City Shops to Industry Dr. Upland Dr. E to W Midland Or. APW to End Triland Dr. E to W 90' 48' CSG 25 Of Yes 0 Stop # APE, C 90' 48' GIG 25 Of •■• Yes 0 _ Stop C Private I it 27' CAD 15 Of — Ves 0 C 60' 39' CiG 25 Of ...o Ves 0 /SW /5' Stop C 50' 28' C&G 25 Of Yes 5N /0 11') Stop C 50' 48' CIG 25 Of No 0 Stop C Private St. Of r 5.178th l to Center 1 I 24' 0 15 t to 1 2lf ^' Yes SH 1 5'/10 A II N I: Valley II _ •5. 180th St. Interurban Ave. to APE APE to APW APW to South Center Pkwy.- 60' CIS 35 Of �. Yes Note o o Note I lttefli 60' 60' C&G 35 Of f Ves 0 M i s 60' CAD 35 Of _ Ves SW 5' /C • o 0 0 Stop C SW Inter•lttent on N. side Drive 0 E. W 60' 48' C&G 25 Of Ves SW /0 5'/ C/ 41VI Stop C North side undeveloped Private Drive C E W 60' 46' C1G 25 Of _ Yes 0 /SW /5' /C /Au ../.- Stop C/0 5,iv undeveloped Riverside St. E W 60' 46' C&G 25 Of _ Yes 0 /SW /6' /C C Todd Blvd. E W 60' 54' C&G 25 Of .� Yes SW /0 5 C/ C Exp. aggregate SW. Median planting Glacier St. E W 60' 46' C&G 25 Of — yes 0 - 1 C INULL L STREET & PEDESTRIAN EDGE TYPE 0 -No Edge CMG -Curb & Gutter C -Curb Ext.- Extruded Curb FACILITY INVENTORY ALIGNMENT Graph c Indicator of Street Align- ment PED. PATH TYPE WIDTH 0 -No Path V- Varies SH- Shoulder SW- Sidewalk SURFACE G- Gravel C- Concrete A- Asphalt CROSSWALK Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PED. SIGNALS Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PLANTING 0-None N- Native L -Lawn C- Business- Campus Sty -Mixed n BC TABLE L STREET & PEDESTRIAN EDGE TYPE 0 -No Edge C &G -Curb & Gutter C -Curb Ext.- Extruded Curb FACILITY INVENTORY ALIGNMENT Graphic Indicator of Street Align- ment PED. PATH TYPE 0 -No Path SH- Shoulder SW- Sidewalk WIDTH V- Varies SURFACE . G-Gravel' C- Concrete A- Asphalt CROSSWALK Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PED. SIGNALS Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PLANTING 0 -None N- Native L -Lawn C- Business- Cawpus Styi N -Mixed N.L, aC HIAIM AN HMOIM 1331LLS 3dA1 3903 .INI1 0334 30V95 I 1N3NN9I1Y 1/0I1VNI111111I PED. PATH TYPE HAIR SURFACE 1wsso3 I�a nna,a WUI 9NIN9IS 9111 L1Y1d 1 SM3IA 1 1 Black Or Andover Pk. E.to End of Rd. 30' 27.5' C66 25 02 No 0 Stop C 2 Lane Street Baker Blvd. APE to APW Christensen to APE 60' 50' C66 2S OZ _ No SW/ 5'/ C/ Stop C 60' I S0' CMG I I 25 I Ot I _ No I SW/ S'/ C/ Stop C K1lckitat Qr. S. Center Pkwy. to 15 on ramp 15 on ramp to 518 60' _ 22' 0 35 OZ to /N. Yes SW 3' -6' M , 60' 22' 0 35 to SZ Yes 51 8' ISCI1 M Strander Blvd. Interurban to Christensen Rd. Christensen Rd. to APE APE to APW _ APW to S. Center Pkwy._ Varies 60' CIG 35 OZ to ./' Ves 0 /SW /5' /C N — 60' ^ 50' C&6 30 02 _ Ves 0 m ' C 60' 50' C5G 35 02 _, Ves 0 Q Rte! • • • e N/C 60' 50' CIG 35 02 — Ves 0 N/C Treck Or. APE to End of Road 60140' 1 C&G 125 102 I _. I Yes 10 I I 1 1 1 I C I 'Private Corp. N. APW to End of Road 45' 1 38' I CIG 125 102 I —GI Ves 1 0/511/5' I /C 1 1401 I Stop I C 1 'Private 1 Corp. S. APW to End of Road 45' r 38' I CIG 1 25 102 I „_.oI Yes I 0 /SWI /5' 1 /c pu I Stop I C 1 I TABLE L STREET & PEDESTRIAN EDGE TYPE 0 -No Edge C &G -Curb & Gutter C -Curb Ext.- Extruded Curb FACILITY INVENTORY ALIGNMENT Graphic Indicator of Street Align- ment PED. PATH TYPE 0 -No Path SH- Shoulder SW- Sidewalk WIDTH V- Varies SURFACE . G-Gravel' C- Concrete A- Asphalt CROSSWALK Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PED. SIGNALS Schematics Oriented w/ North Arrow PLANTING 0 -None N- Native L -Lawn C- Business- Cawpus Styi N -Mixed N.L, aC ROW WIDTH HIOIM U3U1S 3dAi 3903 SPEED LIMIT I 3OWNS 1N3WNOI1V ILLUMINATION I PED. PATH TYPE! HAIM SURFACE CROSSWALK fll PED. S1GNALS I 9NIW*IS ONI1NVld VIEWS N Y 1 W IZ Christensen Rd. South Center Blvd. to Tukwila Tukwila Pkwy. Riverview Plaza Riverview Plaza to End of Road Industry Drive APE to ',inkier Bridge 25' Rail 25 5% ••-• No SH 5' . • Stop 0 E. side begin Christensen Trail after bridge 8^' 22' Ext. /C 25 0% — No SW /SH 6'/5' C/G r Stop C 4 34' C&G 25 02 —0 Yes SW /0 5'/ C/ • , C Cul -d -sac 60' 48' C&G 25 02 Yes 0 Stop C Private Road W. Valley IWy. 58th Ave. to South Center Blvd. South Center Blvd. to Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. to City Lipits _ _ 70'- 175' 52' C /C &G 40 02 J Yes - SH 2'/6' (ei _ M 175'- 100' 50' 0 40 02 Yes SH 4'/10' - LI • ogja M Green River 60'- 174' 52' 0 40 02 -%--%, Yes SH 3' -8' rf yl S 0 0 _ , N Green River SW at Van Oaal & Cello Bag South Center Blvd. Fort Dent Park to Interurban Ave. Interurban Ave. to 62nd Ave. 60' 39' C&G 25 0% — Yes 0 /SW /9.5' /C L 60' 25' 0 35 0'L to ._ 5% r"' No SH - 3' - - 1 M Tukwila Pkwy. Christensen Rd. Andover Pk. E. to 5. Line Bldg. 80' 61' CMG 35 02 _ Yes 0 L 80' 61' C&G 35 02 _, Yes 0 L ROW WIDTH STREET WIDTH 3dAl 3903 1I1411 O33dS 3011119 ALIGNMENT ILLUMINATION PED. PATH TYPE WIDTH SURFACE CROSSWALK 1- PED. SIGNALS 4 9NIN9IS 9NI lNtl1d SM3IA 11 ll CC Andover Park M. Minkler Blvd. to Midland Dr. Midland Dr. to 180th St. 180th St. to Or. C 60' i' CAG 35 01 — Yes SW 5' C C 60' i' LAG 35 01 .-- No 0 I!'1�/ C Crosswalk at Corp. Or. N.AS. i' CAG 25 01 — Yes SW 5' C Stop c Private Andover Park E. Tukwila Pkwy. to Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. to Ninkler Blvd. Ninkler Blvd. 180th St. Tukwila Pkwy. to Strander CAG 35 01 — Yes 0 Stop C 46' CO 35 01 — Yes SW /0 5' C • • • . C 25 in S- Curve.S /W at Fire Station 48' CIG 35 01 — Yes 0 44001 • 0 Stop c 60' 50' CAG 35 01 — Yes 0 C SW 8 3M on E. side Olympic Ave. - Todd Bl Glacier v St. to 60' L 1.--IYes1011111 1 C 1 I Cascade Riverside St. Glacier St. 46' CAG 25 OZ — Yes SW /0 6'/ C/ StoQ C SW E. side of Todd to Riverside. No plants on E. side. Sperry 180th St. 64' 48' C&G 25 01 _ No 0 Stop C r r ROW WIDTH STREET WIDTH I 3dAl 3903 1IWI1 033dS 3ava9 1N3WN9I1V ILLUMINATION PED. PATH TYPE H10IM SURFACE 1ITVMSSON3 STVN9IS '03d 9NIN9IS 9NI1NVTd I SM3IA N be 1 W AZ 53rd Klickitat to Slade Way South Center - End of Rd. - 60' 24' 0 25 5% - Yes 0 Stop N 0 Ped. Trail • 158th to Klickitat C&G 25 3% No SW 5' C C 57th 180th to City Limits 60' 22' 0 35 0% "•••• No SH V G N Nt. Rainier Green River Pasture South Center Parkway S -Line Bridge to Klickitat Or. • Klickitat Dr. to Toys R Us Toys R Us to 180th St. 80'- 72' 61' C&G _ 35 0% _ '"' Yes SW /6' _ A L ne- 141 11 1' 3 .114 • • C 11' Median 72' R/W • Nordstrom 72' 59' CO 35 0% t — Yes SW 5' A • M 72' 48' C$G 35 01 ._ Yes SW 5' C N Intermittent Sidewalks West side Dr. B Drive C to Drive 0 48 I CO I 25 I 0% I _ Yes I SW I 5 I C G Stop C I 'Private Rd. Mid- Block Crosswalk Andover Park W. Strander Blvd. to Winkler Blvd. f u 1 47' CIG I 35 I OY I I Yes I SW 5 I C ( 11211:10 St op N I I E.W. sides no planting north of BCS r r 12 LOCATION NO. INJ. TYPE OF ACCIDENT DATE TIME CONDITIONS *P1. APW 200F S 180 1 injury veh. going straight 121878 1702 Ory Ok -SL -On P2. S. Ctr. Blvd. 61S 1 injury veh. going straight 061678 1345 Dry Daylight P3. APW @ Upland Dr. 1 injury veh. going straight 061180 1245 Dry Daylight P4. S. Ctr. Pkwy @ 15500 1 injury veh. going straight 072781 1100 Dry Daylight P5. S. Ctr. Pkwy 400F S. Strander 1 injury veh. turning left 122981 1211 Dry Daylight P6. S. Ctr. Pkwy 500F S. Strander 1 injury veh. going straight 022883 1818 Wet Dk -SL -On TABLE 3 MOTOR VEHICLE /PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS *ACCIDENT REFERENCE NO. SEE FIGURE 4. 13 2.6 Traffic Counts Traffic congestion in the Tukwila vicinity is a concern to businessmen and residents of the City of Tukwila during peak retail periods. Access to the CBD is primarily served by bridge structures from I -5, I- 405 /Southcenter Blvd. and the Green River Bridge crossings. A concentration of freeway access points is located on the north side of the CBD which in turn creates traffic circulation problems within the CBD. Several projects have been identified to improve capacity and safety of existing facilities. Existing volumes of daily traffic is shown in Figure 4- . 2.7 Transit Routes and Facilities Metro Transit serves the project area with van and bus routes, which are delineated on Figure 5. The buses enter and exit the area primarily by SR 405. Only buses 150 and 155 exit the area at S. 180th St. and W. Valley Highway. Four buses, 150, 244, 187, and 155 provide north -south transportation through the CBD on South - center Parkway or Andover Park West. There are two east -west corridors, Tukwila Parkway and S. 180th St., along which the buses move. Most of the buses are routed to the transfer point at Southcenter Mall. There is also a transfer point at Andover Park West and S. 180th St. Metro serves peak hour patrons with Express Routes on West Valley Highway. Express Routes 154, 158 and 159 provide this service with a bus stop adjacent to Strander Blvd. 1 rrs c 1 411114•0 * jI ramalt■gaillEle • nt a • • I PROJECT Limn 14 \,‘ 1 1 111111•1•11. 3 1 24 CITY OF YUKVALA. WA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN TRAFFIC COUNTS AND ACCIDENT DATA EILLVOL101111111211111111 It ••■ rap /NM 4:11./Y• 43610 MOO AIMS •010 9 •••• or qua wary or *moon gm PO Ma I PI mil•Illuir *mai ecmos -.7CAna OINOWOM 4 ioa • vaLL Figure 4 c 15 METRO TRANSIT ROUTES IIILLVAU111 IMAM IC FIGURE 5 The long -range plan recommended three classes of projects: 16 3. ORDINANCES, PLANS, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS 3.1 Transportation Improvement Plan, 1979 In 1979 the City completed a Transportation Improvement Plan which provided recommen- dations for a comprehensive program of short -range and long -range improvements. With-regard to pedestrians the plan recommended that "...all major arterial improve- ments should include provision of sidewalks..." Among the short -range projects, those which specifically intended to enhance the pedestrian environment were Tukwila Parkway at S -Line Bridge and Andover Park West in the vicinity of Minkler. The former which required relocation of the crosswalk to the east leg of the Parkway has been completed. The latter project required a midblock crosswalk and signing on Andover park West, which has yet to be completed. 1. Major widening and upgrading of existing arterials. 2. Nev arterial links and freeway access improvements. 3. Local transit service improvements. The projects are summarized in Table A The widening projects would especially impact pedestrian activity by increasing crossing times. Among the Class 2 projects three would especially enhance the pedestrian environment: S. 178th Street, Minkler Boulevard Extension, and Interurban Avenue redevelopment. The most significant aspect of the first project, curve realignment, would hopefully reduce the steep grade. The Minkler Blvd. extension from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway would create half of a direct pedestrian access from the J.C. Penney /Parkway Plaza area to Christensen Park. The Interurban Avenue project will specially provide crosswalks, sidewalks and bikeways to improve pedestrian access. On May 22, 1984, the Transportation Committee submitted a prioritized list of projects for the 1985 to 1990 Transportation Improvement Program. Those projects which pertain to this sidewalk plan are shown on Figure 6 and summarized in Table 4. The projects consist primarily of street widening and street construction. The most significant changes resulting from the program will be improved east -west access on Strander Blvd., Minkler Blvd., and Tukwila Parkway and improved intersection signalization and channelization throughout the CBD. 3.2 Long Range Park and Open Space Plan This report, adopted April 16, 1984, defines the need for parks, recreation facilities and open space with connecting pedestrian routes and pathways within the City and the surrounding planning area. Parks and recreational facilities are an important part of the community, and are an important ingredient in long range city planning. Figure 2 identifies parks, recreational facilities and open space designation within the CID study area. 3.3 Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan This document, completed and adopted in 1982, addressed the City of Tukwila's dramatic growth in population and employment during the previous fifteen years. Based on this growth, it established goals and objectives which were developed to shape the future living and working environment for the City of Tukwila. 3.4 Tukwila Municipal`Code Several sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code relate to the planning, design and construction of sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. Chapters 9.68 and 9.72 of Title 9 relate to control of bicycle and pedestrians. Title 11, 18 and 19 �1 d v' „ b 'w �i:� %`�2.}.;Vlan . rw� i}fii:`:�14�'j.lTl+itiit'.'•�e:U u/ l." fF4��3:i+ n. L': isA*?},' I�NI. �t�XUtnq'/ S' �vtSJ.«' l�wMtN_ yA:•. �n+. uin.• va+ 4rr.. t„ tmM. u. lcxvT. vRJIY. uu:' M: K' �S. itLi. iO' IL:. C`: �' .'�(ne�?'Si:`r{✓.;ji7()�c. {.�+: �i:r'!n:trr° 0+ 1���y1: ����; �, �' w.» 1� ca N:: Y` iE.: Yn���i�J�A�v� ; TABLE 4 1979 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN LONG -RANGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY 1. WIDENING AND /0R MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR SEGMENTS OF EXISTING ARTERIALS No. of Future Lanes Southcenter Parkway Tukwila Pkwy. to Minkler 7 Minkler to 180th 5 180th St. to S. city limits 5 Tukwila Parkwa S -Line to T -Line 6 Andover Park West Tukwila Pkwy. to 180th 5 S. 180th (178th- 180th) Street Military Rd. to 1 -5 4 I -5 to Southcenter Pkwy. Southcenter Pkwy. to SR -181 6 Southcenter Boulevard S -Line to east of 62nd Ave. 5 East of 62nd Ave. to T -Line 5 T -Line to SR -181 4 T -Line Bridge Southcenter Blvd. to Tukwila Pkwy. 4 Interurban Avenue (SR -181) Southcenter Blvd. to S. city limits 6 2. NEW ARTERIAL LINKS AND OTHER MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS I-405 Corridor Ramp Improvements Grady Way Extension 5. 200th Street Corridor Minkler Boulevard Extensions S. 178th Street Southcenter Parkway Extension Interurban Ave. Redevelopment 3. LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS New Local Residential Routes Linked to Southcenter Shopping Center and Line -Haul Route Transfer Points: Route R -1: Tukwila Hill Route R -2: Allentown- Foster Route R -3: McMlcken Heights New Local Distribution Routes for Southcenter Area Commuter Transit Trips: Route SC -1: Southcenter Loop (Southcenter and Tukwila Parkways, S. 180th Street, SR -181) Route SC -2: Andover Park East and West Route SC -3: Strander- Minkler Boulevards 17 +. r" 9e� : *.1i:!Gf':`::: ^f Mi.y.:i.�rwi`.'t:'�.".. J.�.��`%!i`i'�. .. 18 CRY Wrf►S =a`inewpo Yea wan are • visit awwowerf ▪ aver CITY OP TUKWLA. MM CENTRAL RUMNESS DISTRICT SDEINAUC PLAN Figure 6 PIRLICT 1111131FICATIOR total Lama CIL 11011011 UMW noilillog SCAM (rn.) Ist 16 Ire 4.1 6 6 T tI Prier= 11.4.0. Total Local 7,•ft 141111 1161111 • MON 11 00.16 US IS/1 roms /1 60 6 SC Blvd. to 10614 1 viii 660 1. MI6 11616006 1 6 00.40 313 1147 633 11111 7111 1138 616 IMMO 11861 01111140111 01 4.16e teraretsul 6 110 00. Sou 17th PIM VW Vtdon to S Isms. Instill Opal at S/th title. 666 sees clentel ttttt se 616411 681160000 08.311 MN 66 1412 ISIS 191 NOS 07 erslerer Part ent to Seetteontor Pleiv. nom St. • 0 .100. 2 .1001. A.P.O. 00 Sait0e6ter Partway 001111 16611 SIIIIIT 06.18 124 67 914 1241 13611 08 S/C Pew,. to Andswar Pere Intl emw Mane street. 2 me Opole st Assarser lisrt int 1111 00011.0007 RM. AIIIIIIII POOR MIST ?SO 611 1 Strode, 616.. 1018 to wee - &steep 061110166. 6606 end 11111111* 61111161 106001811 08.11 472 108 66 1411 66 1109 4644 11 from refteer Pave Cost ts South 11611 Street Prel P100 VW RINKS 8111.11010 011.38 48 114 162 162 13 Palmer Pot Vest to Mester Pere fest Wide, Ism 4 to 1 Imes. we nes sigiol at Maw Perli fest 111111111* 1 144 119 700 16 IS %410 to Antsate Port vest . signs! coordiestfee and right tore It esst Merest* to 1-486 te.moil Son. Slooel S.R. 1111 00.10 12 I/ 16 st Streeter bosismord, right turn rer meth approock Bevelseer provides 11.0.11 total 0110111* 161116 II 111 101 7616 22 121 17 At amtwer PsO Int. ese 11161 a4 chemottatow wawa Pani IMP II 111 106 129 121 1 Toketio Perevey to Stentior Blvd. 1.1.0. Conttrat 0661 steps 13011 1686 011117 6 es 14 6 20 Sit* Amass So. to IIIIIIIIIM Para lest left and right tore sodt ttttt 140e L.1.6. MOM PARR VIST 28 308 321 111 21 Strsodor Blvd. to Seta 180th Street 1.1.0. Contnect Treestt Steps 07161110116116110 22 At Awhiver Psi linti 1041 tmes 0000 1- L.I.O. 1sat055 aed slime meificatione sirm 181111 VINT 6 68 44 66 23 at Maw Park Vests .000 01 1.40,1511110 sell. 666 emettleallee L.1.0. S.A. 111 08.41 101 1672 1014 1174 V) 1-4000017.00711041 whiso Tree 5 to L.1.0 7 lams. Opel medificattem at 1 lelor. sections $1111111111 61611016 00.38 33 314 117 31 Maw Pk. V. to the bridles vide freo L.1.0. 4 6 1 Imes 6661 rettsion - cesedlestad rim Now; 00 Ira se. Imo. N100 m 001 011.12 316 2381 1177 1 46 2623 Mt AP460r Pt. I. to 11.181. S Ise. Whips 7010 6666 Orem River. 1 me Opel 11.181 6 1111 05.24 101 18711 116 1179 011150000 1111111 33 Streedmr 816. to 54010 Street; mu 3. loae street. 1 nor sionsi at Stronder L.1.0. Onlovard 1011111 161311 611111 06.16 27 256 316 314 34 Aneover Part Vest 15 MOW Park 144t nee 1.166 street L.1.0. 31111 AVON NOM 06.68 146 1616 1702 1702 300000 Commiter to City 1.1011111 vides free 2 to II Is 1.1.0. 1111611,611101111 00.38 / 66 13 /3 37 Want Port Vest to Chrtstsesse 66 L.1.0. Prolde sasedory 6600 street lam. 611 ACCISS 141111101611 11111 001 16 118 164 1114 II at 040. Bridge to S/C Skimping Pell L.1.6. 16 mess 6661 segific6616101660 00.111 4 6061 1186 11161 II 111061 awitIcatiss 112 tost 4 6 11 Boma TABLE 5 6-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1985 to 1990 MACY 0611 lo 11016011111 01 ORLARS 9.72.030 11.36.010 11.36.020 11.64.010 11.64.030 18.50.020 relate to streets and sidewalks, zoning and sign code respectively. Key provisions of each of these elements are as follows: 9.68.050 No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district. Pedestrians crossing a roadway other than at intersection crosswalks shall yield the right - of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. Restricted trees designated. No one shall plant in any public place any maple, lombardy poplar, cottonwood or gum, or any other tree, the roots of which cause injury to the sewers, sidewalks or pavements, or which breed disease dangerous to other trees or to the public health or alloy to remain in any public place any planted tree which has become dead or is in such condition as to be hazardous to the public. Any such trees now existing in any such planting (parking) strip or abutting street area may be removed in the manner hereinafter provided for, the revocation of permits and removal of obstructions. No tree shall be planted within two feet of any sidewalk or pavement, except by special permit (Ord. 563 S24(A), 1969). Overhanging or obstructing sidewalk or roadway. No flowers, shrubs or trees shall be allowed to overhang or prevent the free use of the sidewalk or roadway, or street maintenance activity, except that trees may extend over the sidewalk when kept trimmed to a height of eight feet above the same, and fourteen feet above a roadway (Ord. 563 S24(B), 1969). Sidewalk construction along entire property frontage as part of substantial remodeling. Standards of construction. (a) All sidewalks required to be constructed under the provisions of this section shall be of portland cement concrete and sidewalks shall otherwise conform to standard specifications and plans for municipal public works construction, commonly known as APWA Standards. All sidewalks required to be constructed pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be six feet in width for arterial streets; provided, however, that in C -1 and C -2 zones, sidewalks shall be eight feet in width. All other sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet. (b) No fire hydrants shall be installed within the borders of any sidewalk. Fire hydrants may be located between the curb and sidewalk (Ord. 1158 S3, 1980). Height, setback and area regulations. height, and minimum setback, and area principal and accessory buildings in districts are set forth in Table 1. materials shall not exceed twenty feet S1(part), 1982). 20 The maximum basic regulations for all the various zoning Outdoor storage of in height (Ord. 1247 '.Y v . ry,.v „, . - '.. •.s :n :.,.sw.?-ax :� :,n..: .,r „r� % ^.r..w�•.. ply ,,.e., ..v4 } C,.c..G.,;S :_.,.. <...... :., ... �{ t :1Vk, �... :, >.t;f. {.a:. a.`:s: r...�. :..�. :. :. � ..•. 18.60.050 Review guidelines. (1) (A) The site should be planned to accomplish a desireable transition with the street -scape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement; (2) (D) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; (3) (E) Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; (C) Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade; (D) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury_ by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taien; 19.20.010 Projections over public right -of -way. (a) No permanent signs shall project over the public right - of-way except for twelve inches allowed for flat signs mounted on the face of a building. (b) Where the proposed signs are perpendicular. or at an angle to the right -of -way, the building or support shall be set back as necessary so that no portion shall extend over the public right -of -way. (c) Minimum height above grade for flat signs projecting more than four inches over public right - of-way on the face of buildings shall be eight feet, but in no event shall a sign be located to create a safety hazard (Ord. 1274 S1(part), 1982). 19.20.020 Signs on public right -of -way. (a) Nothing in this code shall be interpreted as controlling public and informational signs placed on the public right- of-way by any governmental agency or utility having underground or overhead installations. (b) Public service directional signs for public buildings such as city -owned buildings, public schools, libraries, hospitals and other similar public service facilities, may be placed entirely on the public right -of -way. Such signs are limited to one of the foregoing types at locations approved by the planning commission. Each sign must be of size, height, color, design and mounting and so located as to comply in all respects with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, current edition published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 21 (c) No sign may be placed in, or over city utility rights - of-way or easement areas, except under prior agreement between the City and the property owner (Ord. 1274 S1(part), 1982). The Municipal Code is supported by respective ordinances passed by the City Council and signed by the Mayor. Ordinances relating to sidewalk construction in Tukwila date back to 1975 when Ordinance 1025 was passed to establish a sidewalk plan as an element of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. It identified existing sidewalks and defined a sidewalk system for commercial and residential areas. This ordinance vas repealed by Ordinance 1158, dated May 19, 1980 which related the ordinance to sidewalks for new construction, existing streets and arterials and standards of construction. Subsequent to May, 1980 Ordinance 1217, dated June 2, . 1981 and Ordinance 1233, dated October 6, 1981 amended Ordinance 1158 to further refine the building permit application process. A result of this study will be to develop a new ordinance which will be based on the establishment of the recommended sidewalk plan for the CID. An issue that must be resolved is ,the development of this reccmmended_plan is the. legal status of the Protective Covenants for Andover Industrial Park. It is understood these covenants, which preclude the construction of sidewalks, are superceded by the more recently passed City Ordinances. A legal opinion by City Council should be obtained to accurately define existing conditions. At the present time represen- tatives of current private property ownerships are attempting to delete the covenants, except for building setback requirements. ampler 11.50 NAS1t: 1101t:11T, SITMACK, AN11 AIWA NI:QIIINONENTS • llacepllons to the beliIt 11m11s lw designated areas of the City may be authorized pursuant to procedures specified in Sect ions 10.58.838, 10.58,040 sad 10.SO.OSO of this cote. SETBACKS mania MINIMUM LOT 5128 ( -) N1N1NUN AREA 'mums) PER UNIT (SQ. 1•T.) MAXIMUM WILDING . 1101611T (IN FEET) FNONT WOW (IN FNET) SIDE VARY (1N FEST) MEAN YAM (IN POET) 11111/01 MEAN 1 NIIITH (IN FEET) R-A 3 acres --- 30 10 6 SO 120 11-1 7.200 - -- 30 30 180 of lot 18 SO 0.600 - -- 30 38 less thaw � less o4' 10 SO 12,000 - -- 30 38 . weed mot be 18 SO 20,000 - -- 30 3O more then 18 SO 0-2 0,011 4,008 30 30 0 IS 60 11-3 0,600 3,800 30 30 0 25 60 0-4 0,600 2,000 31 30 0 2S 68 8101 0,680 1,500 4S 311 III 25 60 ' -O ___ ..... 3 stones or 35 feat 25 . 18 18 C 1 ___ -_ 3 stories or 3S feet 28 18 10 - -- C 2 ___ ___ 3 stories or 3S feet 20 10 10 C -p - -- --- 75 20'; or when height 1s over 28', front yard shall be 28' piton 1' for each foot of bldg. be*Obt over 20' mot t0 J 75'. 10 2O - -- C - N - -- - - 4 stories saJ 4S (eel SO S S • - -- N -1 - -- - -- 4 stories sod 45 feet 25 - -- S N-2 - -- - -- 4 stories and 45 feet 25 S .... - ampler 11.50 NAS1t: 1101t:11T, SITMACK, AN11 AIWA NI:QIIINONENTS • llacepllons to the beliIt 11m11s lw designated areas of the City may be authorized pursuant to procedures specified in Sect ions 10.58.838, 10.58,040 sad 10.SO.OSO of this cote. 4 . EMPLOYEE CONCERNS A questionnaire was prepared and circulated to selected businesses within the CBD. area for the purpose of identifying employees concerns and to solicit their comments on needed improvements. A summary of the approximately 350 questionnaires is provided as an appendix to the report. In,summary, the questionnaire indicated most employees are pedestrians only infre- quently, due to a lack of needed facilities and difficult traffic conditions. Most pedestrian useage occurred during the time period 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. in the Southcenter, Parkway Plaza- Pavillion Corridor. Fever but, respectively, approz- imately equal'amount of pedestrian useage occurs in the Andover Park East /Andover Park West Corridor and the Longacres /West Valley Righvay /Green River Recreation corridor during the same 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. time period. This pattern of pedeetrian.useage vas consistent with suggested improvements. 5. POLICY CONCEPTS The development of the sidewalk plan must be based on the most realistic view of future land use designations, arterial route continuity and configuration, and cost analysis. In order to establish a framework that can be used to develop sidewalk guidelines, proper direction must be provided by the adoption of sidewalk policies. Suggested policies are listed below for review and comment prior to final plan preparation. These suggested policies are a refinement of existing policies contained in several City of Tukwila official documents. It was necessary to refine these existing policies to present a more cohesive statement regarding sidewalk improve- ments. Official City of Tukwila ordinances will be prepared as part of the implemen- tation program based on the recommended plan. Based on community interest in improving all modes of transportation serving the CBD it is prudent to anticipate an increased pedestrian demand for improved facili- ties. The framework for these improvements must be founded on the common goal that the pedestrian system be direct and compatible with patterns of useage and afford improved route continuity and public safety. Meeting this goal will result in a system that is attractive to the user and a benefit to the community. It must be noted that the Tukwila CBD is unique in its structure in that the CBD sidewalk system must only provide a network to encourage pedestrian access to and from primary nodes of activity consisting of retail shopping centers, banking facilities, restaurants and hotel /motels, offices, manufacturing, warehousing and recreational parks and trail systems. Concentrations of pedestrians will occur at major intersections and not "enroute" as the system does not cater to "window shopping" but to direct access. Pedestrian facilities on private properties, where concentrations of pedestrians will continue to be found, must be accommodated by development and improvements to those properties. It is recommended those improvements be consistent with the standards developed as part of this planning process. Emphasis must be placed on improvements to provide continuity by constructing missing segments of pedestrian routes rather than declaring existing sidewalks in non - conformance. Pedestrian access to residential neighborhoods from the CBD is constrained by Interstate 1 -5, 1 -405 and the Green River. Improvements to these facilities have been incorporated into other projects. The following policies have been established to meet these special conditions which will continue to effect transportation in the Tukwila CBD. Policy 1: Tukwila shall create a functional, safe, compatible and convenient sidewalk and pathway system to encourage pedestrian use within the CBD. Existing sidewalks that are a minimum of four (4) feet wide shall be deemed to be in conformance with guideline and standards set forth in this document. The focal point in improving the sidewalk system shall be construction of missing sidewalk segments. Policy 2: Tukwila shall create a sidewalk and pathway system that provides a network to link CBD activity nodes consisting of retail shopping centers, banking facilities, restaurants, hotels /motels, offices, manufacturing warehousing, transit centers, and recreational parks and trail systems. This system shall provide continuity to link residential neighborhoods 25 with the CID by providing access to bridges located along the perimeter of the CBD. Policy 3: Tukwila shall construct sidewalks at the locations delineated in Table 7 and Figure 7. Sidewalks shall be constructed to a standard width of 6 feet with a minimum allowable of 5 feet. Sidewalks shall be con- structed using cement concrete and American Public Works Association Standard Specifications. Temporary sidewalks shall be constructed using two -inch compacted depth of asphaltic concrete Class B on prepared subgrade. Temporary sidewalks shall be allowed at such locations as the final grade of the adjacent street has not been determined and where future lane widening or traffic improvements will displace the sidewalk. Sidewalk segments shall be constructed on an intersection to intersection basis to assure route continuity. Sidewalks adjacent to planned office /retail use shall be constructed with a standard buffer width of 6 feet between face of street curb and edge of sidewalk. Variances to the buffer requirement shall be reviewed on a block by block basis. Buffers shall be maintained by City if buffer is grass lawn or converted to lawn'by property owner. All other types of landscaping shall be maintained by property owner. Property owner shall be responsible for providing sprinkling system. Sidewalks within commercial /industrial areas shall not require buffers. Private ownerships to receive credits in building permit review process for exceeding requiremnts of landscape buffer criteria. Policy 4: City of Tukwila shall amend its present landscaping policy criteria where adequate lateral space is not available to allow sidewalk construction within landscaping, parking and setback requirements. Construction shall be in accordance with approved standards where adequate lateral clearance is available based on formal City of Tukwila building permit review process. Policy 5: City of Tukwila shall be responsible for construction of sidewalks on routes recommended in Table 7 and Figure 7 in which street improvements or new street construction occurs prior to new property owner improvements. Property owners shall be responsible for construction of new sidewalks delineated in Table 7 and Figure 7 adjacent to properties with proposed developments which are submitted for building permit review. The City shall assist property owner's sidewalk project on a case by cane basis in accordance with accepted practices. Policy 6: Property owner shall transfer right-of-way to City of Tukwila for con- struction of minimal pedestrian sidewalks. At such locations existing public right - of-way is not adequate to accommodate the sidewalk system. At such locations where this action is necessary the property owner shall be relieved of all other responsibilities relating to the construction of the sidewalk system. Policy 7: City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to accommodate recommended sidewalk system on a timely basis. At such locations where vehicular parking is adversely impacted by the construction of sidewalks the property owner shall determine if reorganization of the parking area will restore required spaces in a convenient manner. Should reorganization of parking area not allow for minimal pedestrian facility, mutual cooperation between City and property owner shall 26 Policy 8: Policy 9: Policy 10: Policy 11: investigate alternative solutions. City shall not construct, nor require the property owner to construct new sidewalks which could result in loss of public safety due to vehicles parking in the street in no parking areas. City of Tukwila and private property owners shall mutually strive to accommodate vehicular demand and the pedestrian system by use of mid -block pedestrian crossings. Normal conditions in most CBD's provide for pedestrian crossings at each intersection on approximately 300 lineal foot intervals. Due to the long "blocks" currently experienced along Southcenter Parkway, Strander Blvd., Andover Park West and Andover Park East pedestrians have great difficulty crossing these arterials and are routed considerable distances to the closest intersection. It is generally the policy of the City of Tukwila to not provide painted crosswalks but to rely on walkways at intersections in accordance with RCW 46.61.230- 46.61.269. Pedestrians have the right- of-way at all marked crossings and unmarked crosswalks at intersections. Therefore, except for unusual circumstances where crosswalks are marked, this utilization of intersection crosswalks is the primary location of the pedestrian to safely cross the roadway. For this reason, mid -block crossings should be evaluated and provided if prudent on all streets which have a length longer than 300 feet between intersections. These crossings must be located to provide maximum visibility for the pedestrian as well as the motorist, must be adequately signed, and should not interfere with signalized traffic progression. Pedestrians should have median refuge areas constructed within streets wider than 50 -feet for adequate street crossing protection. Crosswalks should be marked at all indicate pedestrian route continuity the pedestrian to cross only with the sequence. Pedestrian signal controls into all CBD signal control equipment. 27 CBD signalized intersections to but should be signed to caution proper pedestrian signal control must be signed and incorporated Property owners shall be encouraged to incorporate pedestrian amenities into sidewalk improvements. The sidewalk shall be kept free of signal and street lighting poles, fire hydrants, signs and all other obstacles that diminish pedestrian utilization. Amenities shall be provided at signalized intersections to provide sufficient pedestrian capacity and enhance time period pedestrian is delayed. Rest areas may be provided in areas such as parks, setbacks, arcades, plazas or intersection corners. The rest area should not infringe on pathway width. Tukwila shall amend sidewalk system as necessary to provide pedestrian route continuity to future Metro Transfer site and bus stops. Intersection control of pedestrians at intersections of major arterials with fully developed retail /commercial land uses on at two quadrants shall include the provision of reservoir space for pedestrians about to cross the roadway to alleviate vehicular /pedestrian conflicts. This additional reservoir space should expand the width of the pathway by four feet for fifteen feet in length. • 6. DESIGN STANDARDS 7. PEDESTRIAN ROUTES o Density of pedestrian user group It is recommended all sidewalks in the Tukwila CBD shall be constructed to the following standard: A. Width - 6' B. Material - Cement concrete (temporary asphaltic concrete). C. Buffer - 6' between face of curb to beginning edge of sidewalk. In some cases, it will be necessary to incorporate a bikeway with the sidewalk or pathway such as at bridges and the Interurban Trail. The Interurban Trail is used for more than recreation use as it is the only pedestrian related facility in that corridor. Joint pedestrain and bicycle use sidewalks should be constructed to a standard width of 9.0 feet and a minimum width of 7.5 feet. Elongated curb cuts are required, in addition to the extra width in combining the pedestrian and cyclist pathways. Sidewalk bikeways should not be used in the CBD area due to numerous hazards with driveway crossings, inadequate curb cuts, poor vehicle driver and cyclist visibility and conflicts with pedestrians. t.. The need for adequate facilities to serve pedestrians relate to the arterial streets which share public right -of -way. Six principal factors of arterial street conditions help define need for pedestrian facilities. These six factors include: o Operating speed o Peak hour and daily traffic volumes o Traffic lane and street widths • Intersection geometrics O Pedestrian useage Table 2 - Street and Pedestrian Facility Inventory provides a review of existing street conditions and facilities within the CBD area. Pedestrian useage and the density of pedestrian user groups, namely shoppers and employees, is a function of land useage. Based on correlations between these factors the following routes are suggested for improvement. The priority in which they are listed is based on the assignment of a range of values to traffic elements which produces a numeric index to identify relative need for suggested pedestrian improvements. The traffic elements quantified in this prioritization and their relationship is discussed in the following paragraphs. Pedestrian Factor This factor identifies a range of pedestrian useage frog; 1.0 for relative low pedestrian volume; 2.0 for medium pedestrian levels and; 3.0 for high activity areas. Vehicle Volumes The arterials with higher traffic volumes increase the exposure of pedestrians becoming involved in a vehicular accident. The factor for traffic volumes is based on the following: Daily Traffic Volume Volume Factor 3,000 5,000 +8,000 Vehicular Speed Vehicular speed creates one of the greatest elements of risk exposure to the pedes- trian. A combination of the peak hour and off -peak operating speeds have been incorporated into a vehicular speed factor based on the following: MPH SPEED FACTOR 40 12 35 1O 30 8 25 6 20 4 15 3 Existing Walkway Condition Existing conditions for pedestrian useage where improvements do not exist have been rated based on: 10.0 for relatively reduced level of conflicts; 15.0 for a mid -range value and; 20.0 for severe exposure conditions for pedestrian safety. Arterial Street Width The more lanes of vehicular travel and the resultant increase in traffic volumes combines to emphasize the difficulty for pedestrians to cross CBD streets. A rating of 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 has been used to identify minor, moderate, and severe pedestrian crossing conditions. Each of these five factors multiplied together and divided by 200 produces the numeric index that indicated a priority for each of the routes identified. A matrix is included in the Appendix to reference this work. This priority was then adjusted based on conditions specific to each site. The final priority is based on a relative basis using a very high (VH), high (H) and moderate (M) rating system. The prioritization of each of the routes in Table 7 includes an estimate of construction costs. Construction cost estimates do not include signal control equipment, right-of -way costs, improvements within the 'buffer zone' or utility revision costs. The estimated costs only indicate an approximation of actual costs based on sidewalk design standards, which include a 4" depth of concrete with concrete priced at $10.00 /square yard (in place). This price is based on a construction of complete segments of work to maximize cost effectiveness. Figure 7 identifies each of the routes recom- mended for improvement. It also includes the location of recommended acquisition of easements for pedestrian in the Segale Office Park area and along the railroad /168th 29 14.0 17.0 20.0 ROUTE DESCRIPTION (1.) Strander Blvd. Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West (2.) Southcenter Pkwy. Finish Route - Strander to S. 180th St. (3.) Strander Blvd.* Andover Park West to West Valley Highway (4.) West Valley Hwy. North CBD limits to South 180th St. (5.) Southcenter Blvd. 62nd Ave. to 'T' Line (6.) Tukwila Parkway 'T'-Line Bridge to 'S' -Line Bridge ROUTE DESCRIPTION (7.) Andover Park West Tukwila Parkway to Strander Blvd. (8A.) Minkler Blvd. Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West (8B.) 168th St. Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West (9.) Andover Park East Tukwila Parkway to Strander Blvd. (10.) Baker Blvd. Andover Park West to Green River (11.) Minkler Blvd. Andover Park West to Christensen Road (12.) Andover Park East Strander Blvd. to S. 180th St. (13.) Andover Park West Midland Dr. to S. 180th TABLE 7 30 .: J ' i; Y. 7' c7Z:,!. i. 4'. •;rryylP``Y';;�'�:','P:t•;;'•:r ;�3 „�v �� a.•:i r; nr +':,;"`.R%?'y, "�ryY.Swrt...lt; t.rl '.Y:� .. .. of easements for pedestrian in the Segale Office Park area and along the railroad /168th Street Corridor. RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN ROUTES RELATIVE RATING PRIORITY (VH) (VS) (Both Sides) (VM) (Both Sides) (VH) Temporary (East Side) (VH) (North Side) (VH) (South Side) SIDEWALK STANDARD (H) (Both Sides) (H) (Both Sides) (H) (Both Sides) (H) (Both Sides) (H) (gorth , (M) (Both Sides) (M) (Both Sides) (M) ESTIMATED COSTS $ 30,000 25,000 40,000 32,300 22,200 17,000 ESTIMATED COSTS 25,000 39,000 39,000 26,000 6,500 28,000 62,500 20,000 c. r 31 FIGURE 7 4 (14.) S. 180th St. ** (15.) Private Roads SIGNAL TIMING TIME - SPACE RELATIONSHIP FINDINGS Cost of Sidewalk Improvements 20Z Engineering & Contingencies Total Cost 32 Southcenter Pkwy. to (M) West Valley Hwy. (Both Sides) Miscellaneous Not Rated 44,500 40,300 $497,300 99,500 $596,800 Total Annual Share - 6 yr. CIP 99,500 (3.)* includes sidevaik connection to Bicentennial Park & Christensen Trail. (14.) ** Christensen Trail will serve as the sidevaik on south side of 180th where cement wall curves around Andover Park East. The trail to be part of this sidewalk. As a result of suggested Policy 8 in Section 5, "Policy Concepts ", additional pedestrian crossings of Southcenter Parkway are recommended. With the completion of new streets at South 168th St. and Minkler Blvd. the spacing between intersections of Strander to S. 168th St. to Minkler would be approximately 1,200 feet respectively. Additional signalized pedestrian crossings can be provided so that a 400' spacing is maintained between Strander and Minkler. This would create four additional pedestrian crossings in addition to new intersections with S. 168th and at Minkler. Southcenter Parkway varies in street width from 59' to 48' with proposed street widening a possibility. Adequate pedestrian crossing times could vary from 12 to 20 seconds based on the following analysis. Existing peak hour volumes were determined for all movements at signalized inster- sections in the study area. Although existing controlled equipment is NEMA, traffic actuated, a 90 second cycle length was assumed for determining progression. Existing or possible signal phases were developed. Green times based on critical movement capacity requirements were calculated and signals requiring a G/C in excess of 1.0 at level of service D had their green times apportioned by volumes. Minimum green times were determined from calculated pedestrian crossing times. Yellow times for the phases were checked against the times required to clear vehicles. Green, yellow, and red timing was then developed for intersection approaches. Time -Space Diagrams were drawn for Southcenter Parkway, Strander Blvd., Andover Park West and Andover Park East. The posted speed limit for the streets is 35 mph. Platoon average speeds were assumed between 24 and 31 mph. Pedestrian crossing time was estimated at 25 second minimum which allowed for future street widening. Pedestrian crossings located at intersections and on approximate 400 ft. intervals where analyzed for interference with vehicle progressions. ° Southcenter Parkway: Pedestrian crossings at Strander Blvd. intersection, proposed S. 168th St. intersection, proposed Minkler Blvd. intersection, Boeing /Parkway Plaza intersection, S. 180th St. intersection, and on 400 ft. intervals are all possible without interfering with northbound /southbound progressions. • Strander Blvd.: Pedestrian crossings at Southcenter Parkway intersection, both Southcenter entrances, and on 400 ft. intervals are all possible without interfering with westbound /eastbound progressions. • Andover Park W.: Pedestrian crossings at Strander Blvd. intersection, proposed S. 168th St. intersection, Corporate Dr. S. intersection, Minkler Blvd. intersection, Upland Dr. intersection, Midland Dr. intersection, Triland Dr. intersection, S. 180th St. intersection and on 400 ft. intervals are all possible without interfering with northbound /southbound progressions. ▪ Andover Park E.: Pedestrian crossings at Strander Blvd. intersection, and S. 180th St. are possible without interfering with northbound /southbound progressions. Crossings at Track/Industry Dr. and Minkler Blvd. would cause some interference with progression. Some crossings located on 400 ft. intervals would cause interference with the progression which indicates revisions in existing driveway locations would be necessary to reduce conflicts. It is estimated that the additional components necessary for signalized pedestrian crossing would be $10,000 to $15,000 in addition to those costs associated with signalizing a CBD intersection. The cost of providing a signalized crossing for pedestrians only is estimated to be $40,000 and would include two -phase controller, time -base coordinator tied into master controller, signal poles with 40 foot arses for vehicular heads and pedestal mount for ped heads within 5.0 feet of crosswalk. The distance along Southcenter Parkway from Minkler to S. 180th St. is approximately 2,700 feet. A pedestrian crossing spacing of 450 feet would result in five additional crossings. These additional signalized pedestrian crossings will not only provide improved access to commercial activities located along both sides of Southcenter Parkway but will also provide gaps in traffic for employees /shoppers to make left turns upon exiting parking lots which can be quite difficult under present conditions. Using time base signal control equipment will help maintain traffic progression along the arterial. An alternative to signalized crossings for pedestrians would be pedestrian overpasses. For example, locating two overpasses along Southcenter Parkway providing 600 foot spacing between Strander and Minkler is an option but would cost approximately $200,000 per each structure in comparison to the $40,000 necessary for installation of traffic control equipment for a pedestrian crossing. For this reason pedestrian overpasses are not recommended. The installation of signalized pedestrian crossing equipment is extremely important along Southcenter Parkway between Strander and the Boeing /Parkway Plaza intersection. Additionally, crossings of Strander, Andover Park West and Andover Park East are necessary to meet existing demand. The installation mid -block crossings, with or without signal control equipment should be based on independent analysis of each site based on the following criteria: Category Variable Pedestrian 33 Travel Time Ease of Walking Convenience Motor Vehicle Travel Cost Traffic Control Safety Cost of Accidents Accident Threat (with and without crossing) The cost of pedestrian signal installation along Southcenter Parkway within the 6 year C.I.P. would include crossings located 400 feet south of Strander Blvd, 168th St., Minkler Blvd and 400 feet south of Winkler. This would result in an estimated cost of $200,000 including engineering and contingencies. Mid -block crossings of Strander, Andover Park East and West are not anticipated within the 6 yr C.I.P. period. However existing signal control equipment should be modified and intersection improvements constructed to assure route continuity. These costs are estimated to be approximately $60,000 including engineering and construction. The cost of construction of this sidewalk system, as stipulated in the text is summarised as follows: Sidewalk Construction $596,800 Southcenter Parkway Pedestrian Crossings 200,000 Strander, Andover Park S 6 W Crossings 60,00 $856,800 Time -space diagrams for traffic signal progression with mid block - crossing relation - ships are provided on the following four pages for Southcenter Parkway, Park West, Andover Park East and Strander Blvd. • 1 MIN T 9110/; /A{+r tun MU.Mt -Mls MOM'S •aH (WI L. b1INa Ib4 Gat atom. ap 8 B 8 8 r1MOE 0 I• wn utw IrM It tr Solt w• 0 I / Matt wNI r•• 1•4 IM11 • � ••••• wee I 1 y.. low, 1 ;hvw rkx ;:>•y:L:. ^,5 ue,..,.., w.•. rr s:.4z:e. -ta^;7 _ ^..�..''"l<�.._. ...... .,..�:,:;hi:�il";,`.`a�r � ::r`2.. .,. *f�:}.., ., :.' Eitc'• x:. 4+,. T{•,? r',._ !tU'T;:1:3•�;�t5r,.t� ?n::'l.'�. 7..e E • i to I • 11 IS IR ig s •' | / ` ~ 8. FUNDING The estimated cost of construction of the recommended sidewalk system is $856,800. This estimate includes right-of -way costs utility revisions, buffer zone modification or improvements, or impacts to existing parking. Additionally it does not reflect specific budgetary responsibilities between the City and private property ownerships. These relationships must be based on the accepted schedule of constructing the recommended system. Different funding options are available to the City and private sector depending on how aggressive the implementation program is structured. The city of Tukwila has the key role of determining at what rate improvements shall be programmed. Developing a unified approach between the City and private ownerships in implementing the sidewalk system will focus on the issue of non - conformance. It must be stressed that the Plan does not include removal or improvement of existing sidewalks. The Plan identifies missing links and provides a standard for future improvements. Reaching mutual agreement over non - conformance issues will result in a funding framework for recommended improvements. APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY MATRIX PROJECT Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. Tukwila Parkway Andover Park West Southcenter Parkway Minkler Blvd. Andover Park West Andover Park East Andover Park East South 180th St. Minkler Blvd. Southcenter Blvd. West Valley Highway Baker Blvd. Private Roads APPENDIX 8 PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY HAIL DESCRIPTION PF VV VSPD WC AW RANK Southcenter Parkway to 3.0 20.0 7.5 20.0 3.0 135 =1 Andover Park West Andover Park West to 2.0 20.0 7.5 20.0 3.0 90 =3 West Valley Highway ' T'Line to 'S'Line 3.0 20.0 6.0 15.0 2.0 54 =5 Tukwila Parkway to 3.0 20.0 6.0 20.0 2.0 72 =4 Strander Blvd. Finish Route - Strander to 3.0 20.0 8.0 15.0 3.0 108 =2 South 180th St. Southcenter Parkway to 3.0 17.0 5.0 15.0 2.0 38.3 =8 Andover Park West Midland Drive to 1.0 14.0 6.0 15.0 2.0 12.6 -13 South 180th St. Tukwila Parkway to Strander Blvd. Strander Blvd. to South 180th St. St. 2.0 20.0 6.0 15.0 2.0 36 =9 1.0 14.0 5.0 20.0 2.0 14 =12 Southcenter Parkway to 1.0 20.0 5.0 15.0 1.0 7.5 =14 West Valley Highway Andover Park West to 2.0 14.0 4.0 15.0 2.0 16.8 =11 Christensen Trail 62nd to 'T' Line Bridge 3.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 1.0 45 =6 North CBD to South 180th 3.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 1.0 45 =7 Andover Park West to 3.0 14.0 6.0 15.0 1.0 18.9 =10 Christensen Rd. Miscellaneous 1.0 14.0 5.0 10.0 1.0 3.5 =15 • YUG MIn OIL& PLaHHOHO ME& PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK AND TRAIL SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA • • . • • • LEGEND ...... Sidewalk r r woe mot .I, TUKWLA PLANNING DEPART1AENT•1986 • •• r•�r f Attachment E • :; •• • • j —� _ • 4/84 Consultant starts work Attachment F CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE SIDEWALK POLICY PLAN 2/7/84 Memo dated 2/6/84 discussed by Transportation Committee (TC) and continued to the next meeting when consultant selection and scope of work recommendations are to be finalized. 3/28/84 Consultant (Bell Walker) contract signed by Mayor 6/12/84 Public meeting with Bell Walker (consultant) to summarize existing conditions and review goals and objectives. 7/12/84 Tukwila objectives and policies relating to sidewalks discussed at an interdepartmental Design Review Committee meeting 7/18/84 Input from City of Renton Public Works Department received. 7/19/84 Input from King County Public Works Department received. 7/23/84 Input from Metro received. 12/20/84 Draft Sidewalk Plan sent to Tukwila Chamber of Commerce for review. 1/4/85 Preliminary review draft of CBD Sidewalk Plan (includes "Policy Concepts" 5 policies) prepared for initial review. 1/11/85 Input from Tukwila Chamber of Commerce received. 1/14/85 Input from Tukwila Mayor received. 1/15/85 Input from City of Renton received. 1/29/85 Public information meeting at Andy's Tukwila Station coordinated through the Tukwila Chamber of Commerce. 2/6/85 Community Affairs Committee (CAC) given status report on Sidewalk Policy Plan. Committee requests policy alternatives be developed for its next meeting. 2/13/85 Lauterbach (LL) distribute draft CBD Sidewalk Policy alternatives for Phasing, Funding, Non - Conformance (Conflicts between sidewalk plan requirements and other requirements for existing develop- ments) for staff review. 2/20/85 LL and Planning distribute CBD Sidewalk Policy alternatives for funding, phasing, non - conformance, and design to CAC. 2/20/85 CAC discussion of policies. 3/5/85 Memo regarding Sidewalk Policy alternatives sent to CAC for review. ?:1+7't;;;; ._ hj4< r. .f >:.'1'i:Ii:. w.J.v .F.:L'. •. c.V .t�itJ.r:.]..�1'�.._A <J. Sidewalk Plan Chronological History October 9, 1985 Page 2 rrc;r rr+ *,77. .".w„� ,P. =r ti r;M 9 . -.tl fi.1 ;'.W ,'. arZ + `' iy?.J >:... . rt•t.c� <::Shc NS'f.1. gib. ^Y.!n,!1(Y. ? �l;�i.-. .. 1.:�./... . ._..• _.. < ,•. I- ...aJ .. � �v... � ... e...J4 +•��...._ {.. JI% 3/6/85 CAC delayed further discussion of policies until committee juris- diction is clarified. 3/19/85 Transportation Committee discussed Sidewalk Comprehensive Plan in general terms. 3/26/85 Input from Tukwila Chamber of Commerce Community and Economic Development Committee received. 4/12/85 Final draft of CBD Sidewalk Plan (with 11 policies) is completed by the consultant 4/16/85 Transportation Committee reviews, amends and requests additional data on parking - sidewalk conflicts 6/4/85 Transportation Committee reviews, amends and forwards to Community Affairs Committee (CAC) 6/14/85 CAC sent a memo regarding Policy options 6/19/85 CAC reviewed policies, recommended changes. 7/2/85 Tukwila Chamber of Commerce Community and Economic Development Committee input received. 7/2/85 Transportation Committee given status report and continues review to the next meeting 7/3/85 CAC Discussed 6/27 85 draft of policies; recommended revisions and forwarded to Transportation Committee. 7/13/85 Letter to Chamber of Commerce inviting comment on draft policies. 7/16/85 Transportation reviewed and commented on draft; forwarded it to August 12 C.O.W. 8/12/85 Council C.O.W. reviews policy options memo dated 7/26/85. 9/9/85 Council C.O.W. holds public information meeting. 9/18/85 Community Affairs Committee approved refinement, reformatting of policies. 9/23/85 Council C.O.W. reviews policy option memo dated 9/19/85 and refers it back to the CAC SDWALK.HIS (4C.2) - ,y�.,., �u. c� n' w: v.: �e. a,: n��xreraa- so�Jt*, x• Y; s• a ;:.':':PY:,i'.si^.';7tt�.Y.:f:; lf.•,'.Y lx;!�t...,,.•:,i n °Ty "7 v.sh yy , tntiuic'FA•'rtj.'•;. M .ku- '!.'i� : f... e. �. +. ^ t2:raT.Yt�Yal'i:.•aT3 Ya ��l'•Ua1 w:,; 4tiY.1.. .k��J�t Y +: 1.i. r��w.a.� .�.?F y`N -. Y�•'�Mr` �. Over the past several years, the helicopter has be- . come increasingly popular. With it has come a need for addi- tional landing areas or heliports. Presently there are no restrictions regulating the location of heliports in the City. Before this mode of transport becomes a problem instead of a benefit, regulations must be developed for their placement. Policy 4. Develop guidelines to regulate the use and location of heli- ports. Attachment G Policy 5. Discourage helicopter traffic from flying low over residential areas. Like jet air traffic, helicopters generate noise. As the number of heliports increase, the noise generated by heli- copters may become a tangible environmental problem, especially if heliports are located in proximity to or within residential areas. EFFICIENCY: SIDEWALKS /PATHWAYS OBJECTIVE 6. CREATE A FUNCTIONAL, SAFE, AND CONVENIENT SIDEWALK OR PATHWAY SYSTEM. 79 Historically, the bulk of circulation improvements have been geared for the automobile; little attention has been focused on the pedestrian or cyclist. This is not difficult to understand, con- sidering that the density of population heretofore has been low, and travel by auto was uncomplicated and cheap. These conditions have changed over the years, however, and the importance of pedestrian and pathway systems is now pronounced. Policy 1. Create a sidewalk or pathway system where every link is a part of an integrated network. In order to provide a viable sidewalk or pathway sys- tem, connections must be made within the system to make it work- able and safe. This policy would encourage a system of side- walks or pathways totally connected within • the community. ti DESIGN: -,.- r:- .:.:auk�...r.zx Policy 2. Integrate bicycle, pedestrian, bus and street systems and de- velop accommodating and safe mechanisms of transferring from one mode of transportation to another. In order to get from Point A to Point B, it is some- times necessary to change modes of transportation along the way. An example of this would be getting off the bus and riding a bicycle the rest of the way home. Because of this factor, it is important to develop a transportation system where users can easily and safely change from mode to mode. Policy 3. Design a sidewalk or pathway system to tie residential areas to other activity nodes like schools, recreation areas,commer- cial areas, and so forth. The main purpose of a sidewalk or pathway system is to tie residential areas to high activity areas. This policy would promote the development of sidewalks between residential areas and such areas as schools, parks, and stores. Policy 4. Design the sidewalk or pathway system to allow use by the elderly and handicapped. Many of the elderly or handicapped persons within the community have no method of transporting themselves except by walking or by mass transit. This policy, in conjunction with policies integrating the sidewalk systems to mass transit, would promote the use of sidewalks for elderly and handicapped. Policy 5. Provide for pedestrian overpasses over other transportation routes which otherwise restrict safe pedestrian movement across them. When the major freeways were cut through the Tukwila area, very few provisions for pedestrian crossings were made. To tie the disjointed areas together and to implement the poli- cies in this section, this policy encourages the development of pedestrian overpasses to help integrate the sidewalk and pathway system. 80 Policy 6. Construct sidewalks and pathways within and between commercial areas and promote their use. Commercial areas generate a great deal of pedestrian activity. Tukwila has different areas of commercial activity and some pedestrian traffic is occurring between them without a safe and effective pedestrian system available to accommodate them. This policy promotes the development of sidewalks between commercial areas not only for pedestrian safety purposes, but also for the potential benefits this affords to the businesses themselves. IMPACT: Policy 7. Encourage the location, design, and maintenance of pedestrian sidewalk or pathway systems to provide security for abutting property owners. While it is important to provide sidewalk or pathway systems to the community, it is also important to consider the effect of the sidewalks on the adjacent properties. Design, placement, and construction considerations of sidewalks can oftentimes overcome the potential problems to abutting private landowners. Policy 8. Provisions should be made in each sidewalk or pathway con- structed to provide for the safety of the user. Considerations which should be taken into account to provide safety and security to the pathway /sidewalk user might include lighting, traffic speeds of the adjacent rights -of -way, setbacks from street, and the physical condition of the side- walk and streets. SECTION 2. UTILITIES OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES WATER SYSTEM OBJECTIVE 1. PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY TO THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES OF THE CITY. In the past, water service provided by the City of Tukwila (with the help of the Seattle Water. Department which supplies the water) has been a public asset: clean water for domestic use and sufficient water to allow industrial growth. This objective encourages the con- tinued striving for clean water supplies which will allow the City to grow in the future as it has in the past. 81 September 22, 1987 Ms. Mae Harris, Chairman Transportation Committee City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mae: Sincerely, TUKWILA /SEA TAC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Steve A. Emery Chairman of the Board AGt our Chamber - 1987 Cliy 01: � I PLANNING Our Chamber Transportation Committee has reviewed the materials that were submitted to the Planning Commission on August 27, 1987 relating to the CBD Sidewalk Policies. As you know, Our Chamber has had representatives involved in . the development of these sidewalk policies since October 1985. During our review of this new material, it was discovered that the following five issues were not included in those early discussions: A. Maintenance of the sidewalks B. Liability C. Sidewalks linking to trails D. A definition of "cracked, crumbling, or uneven" E. Rebuilding after a casualty Please note that Our Chamber is anxious for the City to adopt and implement the CBD Sidewalk Policies and our request for discussions on these five issues is not intended to delay this process. But we do feel that we have not had sufficient time to address these key points. We would ask that City staff contact Our Chamber as soon as possible to meet with our representatives to further discuss these issues before adoption. cc: Vernon Imetsu, City Planner Jack Link, Triland Ann Nichols, M. A. Segale Planning Commissioners Coplen, Haggerton, Knudsen Sowinski, Kirsop, Larson Tukwila /SeaTac Chamber of Commerce Parkside Bldg.. 5200 Southccnter Blvd.. Suite 11. P.O. Box 58591. Tukwila. WA 98188 (206) 244 -3160 1:01 ira:"irdliegsltVAZS:liWea.3st utat,A.:i i A`ime8a ;sv ra.waattvr tziver. City of Tukwila 10 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Mr. Del Kotz General Electric 401 Tukwila Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SIDEWALK PLAN Dear Mr. Kotz: Due to your past interest in the Central Business District Sidewalk Plan, you are now being notified that the Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on August 27, 1987, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers of Tukwila City Hall. The public hearing will provide an oppor- tunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Tukwila Municipal Code to implement the Central Business District Sidewalk Plan (see attached agenda). There will be further opportunities for public comment before the City Council prior to final adoption of the proposed amendments. Copies of the proposed amendments are available at the Planning Department. If you should have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me or Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1849. JP /sjn attachment August 21, 1987 Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner sleSipa.' twiia]:. t: tt;..: 3��: �. L:$ kkl•. iw. k' t4.: a:.,+ d? ; cr: i•:': ms.:' z s, ac-...,.. s+ ��.................,. ............... a....,...+,.-...•......... �.. �.. vn�. awa.. ...,...uw:.w�r, nFZUrua�Amnr..1 ' rk` � '+�JJ:T22. "G:�3 % itit '1 5 XK.�t."��'p`�.� �..tr'. i�r:' . . . * 1Sfi4,'N ?'S�FS:?x:8 SIDEWALK POLICIES Policy 4 LID - see letters, etc. Policy 4 "Maintenance by property owner" NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AMENDMENT TO TMC 18.70 Clear up meaning include "easements $ rights -of -way" demolition due to casualty NOT DISCUSSED Policy 8 Minimum 8' where trail and sidewalk combined NOT DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY (opens door for 8' sidewalks everywhere by declaring all sidewalks trails) Option: limit to defined places? (where /when) Policy 10 Cracked, crumbling sidewalks - need standards to be applied. Not arbitrary statement that Director of Public Works decides. Policy 12 Donated areas and easements and rights -of -way, etc. shall be included in landscape and setbacks. Replacement - due to casualty NOT DISCUSSED CONSTRUCTION TMC 11.64 11.64.020(b) after ";" $250,000 limits NOT DISCUSSED casualty concerns here May 27, 1987 • Mae Harris, Chairperson Transportation Committee City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mae: Steven A. Emery Chairman of the Board cc: City Council Members Mayor VanDusen -:r a ...: hSfY:;t " ..................., Y ^ Funding for the Central Business District sidewalks has again become a subject of potential debate and we would once again like to present our position on this subject. During the past three years representatives of the Tukwila/Sea Tac • Chamber of Commerce have attended and held various committee meetings devoted to the subject of the sidewalk development within Tukwila's Central Business District. Our Chamber and its members have offered suggestions and comments regarding design, timing and funding methods for the development of sidewalks for the CBD. In November 1985, we sent a letter to the City Council for considera tion during the November 12, 1985 public hearing to discuss the Sidewalk Plan Policies, dated October 18, 1985. These issues are now being readdressed as the Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Policies dated April 3, 1987. These "new" policies substantially incorporate the concerns which we have previously voiced, and we are generally in favor of the policies. Our Chamber and its members support a funding process which most equitably distributes the cost•burdens of the remaining sidewalks to the property owners who are directly benefitted by them. Therefore, we support the idea of an LID as a funding source for this project, provided that such a program will exempt those who have already provided sidewalks for their property (either through development or redevelopment) from LID fees. We look forward to continuing to work with you to finalize CBD sidewalk policies that meet the needs of our community. Sincerely, ZUKWIIWSEA TAC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Tukwila /Sealac Chamber of Commerce Ws, 1 . U ., n.... r Qao1 "11.L...4 %YWA MalSli 1' )nl \ 1l.n L � � �;+' ,,w �-. t om`''. -.: • ,+.% , ,. .� :-tea•. -:'- _ 1• ._i.:...Y Arlo � .:.��- t om r' . __,�c 950 Andover Park East •24 • P.O. Box 58591 • Tukwila. Washington, 98188 • Phone 206 575.1953 November 5, 1985 Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES Dear Council Members: On behalf of the Tukwila /Sea Tac Chamber of Commerce, we have the following comments on the SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES, dated October 18, 1985, which we wish you to consider as part of your Public Hearing on November 12, 1985. We have duly considered the conclusions of our Transportation Committee and the concerns which have been voiced by many other Chamber members. The consensus is that the Chamber and its members would support a funding process which most equitably distributes the cost burdens of the remaining sidewalks to the property owners who are directly benefited by them. The focus of the SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES is to fill in missing sidewalk links. The usual method employed to fund this kind of infill project is through an LID. Although there is an overall benefit t� be derived from the sidewalks to be constructed according to the proposed policies, there is a direct benefit to the infill property owner. It is this direct benefit and the fact that other property owners with sidewalks have already paid for their sidewalks which supports the notion that an LID is the appropriate method of equitably spreading the costs of sidewalks throughout the CBD. Although we first considered the propriety of using Councilmanic Bonds to fund this project, we have since learned that the City will most likely be required to raise taxes in order to retire the bonds. The Chamber is dedicated to making Tukwila an economically and aesthetically attractive place for businesses to locate and remain. We don't believe that the City should, in this instance, be using its overall bonding capacity and ability to tap general resources for the funding of a project which, in this case, will provide direct benefit to only a few taxpayers rather than for the entire City. l Tukwila City Council November 5, 1985 The original maps and plans are no longer consistent with the currently proposed sidewalk policies. We believe that the finally approved SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES should incorporate a street by street, block by block map which not only designates the size and location of the sidewalks but sets forth the order and time -line of construction and associated Costs. Finally, we recognize that certain streets are in critical need of sidewalks now. There are other streets within the plan boundaries which could easily remain without sidewalks for several years to come. We strongly urge the Council to implement the SIDEWALK PLAN POLICIES on an as.needed basis (i.e. a phased LID). Sincerely, TUKWILA/ SEA TAC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Page 2 W. Al Jordan, President Robyn K. Wilhelme, Chairperson Transportation Committee CC: Trammell Crow Company Corporate Property Investors Southcenter Shopping Center Tri Land Corporation Printing Control, Inc. 3M Segal* Business Park prt Real Estate and Geology Department /3M 900 Bush Avenue PO Box 33331 St. Paul, Minnesota 55133.3331 612/778 4389 October 31, 1985 Mr. L. C. "Bud" Bohrer, Chairman Community Affairs Committee City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Bohrer: ;Tt-C:.!v...i...1 3 a NOV 5 1965 The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) would like to make you aware of our position regarding two issues that will come before your city's Community Affairs Committee in the near future. We have been in contact with property owners in the Andover Industrial Park who serve on the Tukwila Chamber of Commerce's Industrial Council Subcommittee. During the past month we have completed a thorough review of the existing protective covenants governing land use in the Andover Park and your city's zoning code. We are fully supportive of this subcommittee's attempt to remove the antiquated covenants and replace them, wherever possible, with the land use standards defined within the City's C -M District -- Industrial Park (Chapter 18.38, The Tukwila Zoning Code). Admittedly the covenant revisions are still in the draft stages, but the suggested revisions will allow a much more workable system of land use controls than we currently have in place. We trust these changes will not place too heavy a burden on your city's administrative staff. Policy number 4 in the city's Sidewalk Plan Policies, dated October 18, 1985, provides for financing and expanded sidewalk network via councilmanic bonds. This form of general revenue bonding will serve to levy additional taxes over a ten year period on property owners like 3M who have already installed sidewalks, to city standards, on their property. We feel a much more equitable method of assessing charges for municipal improvements is to let those who benefit pay. Therefore, we endorse the LID Bond financing method where benefitting property owners are charged directly for sidewalk improvements. We trust the City's Community Affairs Committee will give full consideration to these items at your next meeting. If you need any additional information from our company, please contact me at 612/778 -4357. Mr. L. C. Bohrer October 31, 1985 Page Two Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ^ - ,tea' hi 1 avid P. Orewiske Senior Real Estate Analyst Real Estate Department DPO/ dlb -1.74 cc: Alan Jordan, Tukwila /SeaTec Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 58591, Tukwila, WA 98188 Ann Nichols, Segale Business Park L.P!b. Box 88050, Tukwila, WA 98188 J. L. Brown - 3M - 570 -1 -01 H. W. Katz - 3M - Seattle 01/021 W. L. Lundsgaard - 3M - 42 -8W -06 J. W. Stoker - 3M - 42 -8W -06 D. C. Weinke - 3M - 220- 11E -03 October 14, 1985 Mr. L. C. "Bud" Bohrer Chairman, Community Affairs Committee City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Revised Sidewalk Plan and Policies Dear Mr. Bohrer: SEG ALE BUS /NESS PARK Thank you very much for inviting us to attend your committee meeting last Wednesday evening, October 9, 1985, to review and discuss the proposed sidewalk plan policies. We think a great deal was accomplished at that meeting and we look forward as you do to a. relatively expeditious completion of the policy adoption process. One of the subjects discussed at the Wednesday meeting was the funding and phasing methodology and you asked for our written comments thereon. Our September 23, 1985 letter, Item No. 6 sets forth our opinion that the sidewalk costs should be funded by an LID with assessments being made to the property owner whose property is being improved by the sidewalk. This is Alternative No. B in your revised sidewalk plan policies. We believe that this is a fair method of payment which puts the responsibility for ultimate payment on the property owner whose property is improved. The LID funding approach would exempt those property owners who already have sidewalks on their property from effectively being assessed a second time through the use of City funds for other's sidewalks. In contrast, 'jour proposed bond funding method uses the City's general reve ues collected from the entire City to benefit only those developed property owners who have up until this time successfully avoided the expense of constructing sidewalks on their property. As the proposed policies now read, property owners who have sidewalks and those whose property is presently undeveloped will pay /or have already paid directly for their sidewalks out of their own pockets. But the property owners with developed properties lacking P.O. BOX 111050 • TELEPHONE: (206) 575.1200 • TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 66/06 Mr. L. C. "Bud" Bohrer October 14, 1985 Page 2 cc: The Honorable Gary VanDusen Mayor, City of Tukwila City Council, City of Tukwila: Lionel C. Bohrer Mabel J. Harris Doris E. Phelps Joe H. Duf f ie Edgar D. Bauch Wendy A. Morgan Charles E. Simpson sidewalks today will have their sidewalks paid for at City's expense. We do not believe the committee's proposed method of funding to be an equitable distribution of the City's resources. We ask that the committee and the council as a whole review . further the LID approach to funding. Again, thank you for inviting us to attend your committee meeting. It was very productive and we look forward to working with you, your committee, and the City in striving to make Tukwila a better place to work and live. Very truly yours, SEGALE BUSINESS PARK sa, Mario A. Segale MAS:sb Se�'i,f4lt �a:a +.... .pia•: f1; _ ,ry..r. ,.. ,. °.�, • 1,1 ..�.,s:�:` .. '"'.i'3?(?t`� ».'l, F'te�,ti�� r e i:1;�' -;?"2 •?=}.: .... ,. ,... ..... �. ..,t. .. ... „dz ,...7 r�r'71., ...,..n z f.t.t ..•+N�. 4:4 ::..., r�. �! s C t1 L C .�z. September 24, 1987 SIDEWALK POLICIES 1. Draft dated 4/3/87 and subsequent commentary stated that sidewalks would be considered as part of landscape and set bade requirements. Made additional provision for properties that, with addition of sidealk now, would be nonconforming. Staff presentation dated 9/16/87 does not accomplish this in "CBD Sidewalk Plan Policies ". Policy 12 needs to be reworked to establish allowance for natural disaster repairs /replacements. Needs to have added policy or sentence. 4/3/87 Policy 14: Sidwalks built on donated easements on existing developments on private property will be included as part of the donating property owners' landscape requirements under the City's zoning code. 2. Trail /sidewalk combination in parks and open space plan in CBD is only along 180th Street. This appears somewhat discriminatory. We have enough with sidewalks down both sides of street, don't need more. 3. Landscape buffer costly to maintain in good condition. Another 4' of land taken from property owner Another 4' lost for development Cost of sidewalk increased approximately $4 /LF for grass sprinklers This does have financial impact, City is effectively taking 9 to 10 to 12 feet of frontage away from every CBD property owner and ultimately reducing land area for development Also still have nol addressed or discussed issue of who maintains and insures - sidewalks (is even more critical if landscape buffers are mandated,i.e., previous comment abaft costs to maintain). Brings up standards of maintenance which have not been discussed. How about enforcement to assure continuity of maintenance (some people will not be interested in maintaining landscape). Haw to irrigate? Do you want Homes crossing the sidewalks? Will. you require sprinkler systems? Who is going to pay for all this? This could become quite expensive. Are all sidewalks adjacent to streets then nonconforming? What happens at redevelopment? Does City take another 4' from presently conforming properties? 1 f8 are not and( 1 egl CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE SIDEWALK POLICY PLAN :il.`.2%.7.., warn 2/7/84 Memo dated 2/6/84 discussed by Transportation Committee (TC) and continued to the next meeting when consultant selection and scope of work recommendations are to be finalized. 3/28/84 Consultant (Bell Walker) contract signed by Mayor 4/84 Consultant starts work 6/12/84 Public meeting with Bell Walker (consultant) to summarize existing conditions and review goals and objectives. 7/12/84 Tukwila objectives and policies relating to sidewalks discussed at an interdepartmental Design Review Committee meeting 7/18/84 Input from City of Renton Public Works Department received. 7/19/84 Input from King County Public Works Department received. 7/23/84 Input from Metro received. 12/20/84 Draft Sidewalk Plan sent to Tukwila Chamber of Commerce for review. 1/4/85 Preliminary review draft of CBD Sidewalk Plan (includes "Policy Concepts" 5 policies) prepared for initial review. 1/11/85 Input from Tukwila.Chamber of Commerce received. 1/14/85 Input from Tukwila Mayor received. 1/15/85 Input from City of Renton received. 1/29/85 Public information meeting at Andy's Tukwila Station coordinated through the Tukwila Chamber of Commerce. 2/6/85 Community Affairs Committee (CAC) given status report on Sidewalk Policy Plan. Committee requests policy alternatives be developed for its next meeting. 2/13/85 Lauterbach (LL) distribute draft CBD Sidewalk Policy alternatives for Phasing, Funding, Non - Conformance (Conflicts between sidewalk plan requirements and other requirements for existing develop- ments) for staff review. 2/20/85 LL and Planning distribute CBD Sidewalk Policy alternatives for funding, phasing, non - conformance, and design to CAC. 2/20/85 CAC discussion of policies. 3/5/85 Memo regarding Sidewalk Policy alternatives sent to CAC for review. ��l::: t:: s' a; �< 5'. i( �1.:. t.. :.....it.`?,F.,..,.. of •roi,..,... t.�.nu.�...c'tia..4r..v..n..... Sidewalk Plan Chronological History October 9, 1985 Page 2 SDWALK.HIS (4C.2) ..... nrr.... �ss. n' x:,, r....=' u•.• ro: �, 5'.�....� °W :1: ^re�ris5'..174)"r . u` }')rf?'c.:'::iA'�'.n i?:S;['•5':..Cufi':�".'k . 3/6/85 CAC delayed further discussion of policies until committee juris- diction is clarified. 3/19/85 Transportation Committee discussed Sidewalk Comprehensive Plan in general terms. 3/26/85 Input from Tukwila Chamber of Commerce Community and Economic Development Committee received. 4/12/85 Final draft of CBD Sidewalk Plan (with 11 policies) is completed by the consultant 4/16/85 Transportation Committee reviews, amends and requests additional data on parking - sidewalk conflicts 6/4/85 Transportation Committee reviews, amends and forwards to Community Affairs Committee (CAC) 6/14/85 CAC sent a memo regarding Policy options 6/19/85 CAC reviewed policies, recommended changes. 7/2/85 Tukwila Chamber of Commerce Community and Economic Development Committee input received. 7/2/85 Transportation Committee given status report and continues review to the next meeting 7/3/85 CAC Discussed 6/27 85 draft of policies; recommended revisions and forwarded to Transportation Committee. 7/13/85 Letter to Chamber of Commerce inviting comment on draft policies. 7/16/85 Transportation reviewed and commented on draft; forwarded it to August 12 C.O.W. 8/12/85 Council C.O.W. reviews policy options memo dated 7/26/85. 9/9/85 Council C.O.W. holds public information meeting. 9/18/85 Community Affairs Committee approved refinement, reformatting of policies. 9/23/85 Council C.O.W. reviews policy option memo dated 9/19/85 and refers it back to the CAC ws 11 r 71' 3 9 ' „/ l / TO: Council L. C. Bohrer, Chair, Community Affairs Committee MOIR: Vernon Umetsu, Associate P1 anner t: // ,,,, OATS: October 9, 1985 SUSJIGT: CBD Sidewalk Plan Chronology Attached is a chronology of the CBD Sidewalk Plan from February 1984 to the present. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance (433- 1858). cc: Brad Collins Ci ' of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433.1800 Gary L VanOusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM ar_,."A - x9.4envoo texre -g6:0 rr APY2 2-25 rY 114.1M' rIEJI '^.1°G IRttx t. 't