HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L01-055 - CITY OF TUKWILA - DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR INNOVATIVE MIXED USE CODE AMENDMENTLO1-055
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR INNOVATIVE MIXED USE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
(PO1-054)
Minutes, 12/10/01 . Page 4 of 5
APPROVED RESOLUTION #1481 EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately
NEW BUSINESS:
a. Authorize Mayor Mullet to Sign a Contract with Ellsworth Builders, Inc., for Tenant Improvements to
the building located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, in the amount of $299,767.00 (including
Washington State Sales Tax)
Department of Community Development $142,505.00
Human Resources/Human Services $115,812.00
Police $ 18,838.00
Suburban Cities Association $ 22,612.00
DUFFIE MOVED; FENTON SECONDED; TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR MULLET TO SIGN
FOUR INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS WITH ELLSWORTH BUILDERS, INC., FOR TENANT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 6300 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $299,767.00, INCLUDING WASHINGTON STATE SALES TAX.*
John McFarland, City Administrator, noted Suburban Cities Association will reimburse the City for their
tenant improvements. Councilmembers asked City staff to provide copies of future contracts within the
Council packet, as these did not appear.
*The motion carried 7 - 0.
b. Demonstration Program — Innovative Development — Tukwila International Boulevard — Urban
Renewal Area (Discussion)
Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, DCD, noted additional efforts are being recommended to stimulate
the type and intensity of development desired for Tukwila International Boulevard corridor. To that end,
City staff suggests modification of the Tukwila Municipal Code to allow "Demonstration" projects that
have the ability to deviate from the "norms" and standards of the Zoning Code.
It was reported the Community Affairs and Parks Committee agreed with most recommendations made
by the Planning Commission on this issue; yet believe other inducements should be offered, including
design flexibility (on a trial basis) within the proposed area.
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended land use permit fees be waived on projects in the
affected area; and that a Type 4 process (Board of Architectural Review, or "BAR ") is the appropriate
decision - making body for review of projects in the "Demonstration Program." The Community Affairs
and Parks Committee opposed the Type 4 process and suggested, instead, a Type 2 process, wherein
DCD Director, Steve Lancaster, would be charged with the responsibility of initial decision making.
Considerable discussions, questions and clarifications took place between City and staff. In the end, it
was decided City Staff would set a public hearing, do additional work on this item, and return to Council
at a later date with a proposed draft ordinance, encompassing suggestions /direction of Council.
FENTON MOVED; HAGGERTON SECONDED; TO DISPENSE WITH REPORTS.*
Councilmember Carter spoke in favor of being able to provide "short" reports. In the interest of the late
hour, fellow Councilmembers spoke in opposition to reports.
http: / /www.ci .tukwila.wa.us /clerk/docs01 /rm 12- 10.htm
07/17/2002
z
~ w
o:
00
0) CI
J
2 w
w
2
co
I— In
Z
zI-
L11
U • ❑
O ( 12
• t-
ww
F-
u. O
w
=
0
z
iusys,
Standard
Existing Discretionary Waivers
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Front yard
setback
Average of yards on adjacent lots
Type 1
DCD staff
Tree
Replacement
• Project feasibility or reasonable use would be jeopardized
• Alternative proposal meets purpose and intent of chapter
• Exception would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to
other property in the vicinity
• Size of project cannot support tree replacement and off-site planting is
proposed.
• Smaller sized replacements are more suited to the species, site and
planted in sufficient quantities to meet purpose and intent of chapter
• On site planting is not feasible and there is an equivalent contribution in
funds and or labor and materials for off site planting
Type 1
DCD Director
Landscape
perimeter
averaging
• Plant material is clustered to more effectively screen parking areas and
blank building walls
■ Enables significant trees or existing built features to be retained
• Averaging is used to reduce the number of driveways and curb cuts and
allow joint use of parking
• Reduction is not to the point that activities on site become a nuisance to
neighbors
• Does not diminish the quality of site landscape as a whole
Type 2
DCD Director
Wetland or
watercourse
buffer — up to
50% reduction
• Buffer does not contain slopes of 20% or more;
• Reduction will not result in direct or indirect short or long term adverse
impacts to wetland or watercourse; and
• the buffer is vegetated and includes enhancement plan to improve the
buffer function and value; or
• If no vegetation in buffer exists, an enhancement plan is provided
• 15 ft. min. wetland and 10 ft. min. watercourse
Type 2
DCD Director
C: \mcb\'I'V \wuivcr mutrix.doc
,
Page 1 of 3
10/31/01
Attachment C
z
=H
W
JU
00
U U
J =
F
J
IL ?
a
= W
H .
F-
0 .
Z ~
U
O
0 I—
w W
I—
LL I=
w z
°
H =
O ~
z
Standard
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Sensitive area
buffer setback
• Site plan demonstration of no impacts
Type 2
DCD Director
1. Sensitive
. Areas Study
PRD for new
subdivision
or multi-
family
development
3. Pre -
development
conference
4. Construction
Monitoring
• Substantial evidence that the classification is correct that no detrimental
impact to the sensitive area or buffer and the goals and requirement of
SAO are met
• Size and complexity of project does not warrant the requirement
Type 2
DCD Director
Off - street
parking — up to
10% reduction
• All shared parking opportunities are explored
• On -site park and ride is explored .
• Site compliance with Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance (CTR)
• Site is at least 300 feet from SIR district
• Report substantiating less parking and suggesting mitigation for
potential negative impacts
Type 2
DCD Director
Off street
parking — over
10% reduction
Type 4 — Design Review
Board of
Architectural Review
(BAR)
Front Yard
Setbacks in TIB
corridor
Pedestrian Oriented Space provided'
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
Front Yard
Landscape
Pedestrian Oriented Space provided'
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
I Pedestrian oriented space is an area between a building and a public street that promotes visual and pedestrian access onto the site and that provides pedestrian oriented
amenities and landscaping that enhances the public's use of the space. To qualify as a "pedestrian oriented space an area must have:
• visual and pedestrian access into the site from the public right of way,
• paved walking surface of either concrete or approved unit paving,
• onsite or building mounted lighting providing at least 2 foot candles avg. on the ground,
• at least 2 feet of seating area or one individual seat per 60 S.F. of plaza area or open space.
C; \nteb \'I'V \waiver mutrix.duc
Page 2 of 3
10/31/01
z
H W
0
U c
W =
J F
• LL.
W
g
• a
w
z
o .
z t-
W
U
O
0 —
W w
I - U
w z
=
O~
z
. Standard
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Side Yard
Setback or
Landscape
Amount of landscape area waived is located elsewhere on the site; and
Shared access between adjoining sites
Party wall structures, common driveway and or shared parking
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
Wetland or
Watercourse
Removal
• Standard would deny all reasonable use of property
• No reasonable use with less impact is possible
• No feasible on site alternative
• No increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off site public or
private property and no threat to public health safety or welfare on or off
the development site
• Alternations shall be the minimum necessary to allow the reasonable
use
• Proposed development is compatible in design scale and use with other
development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity
• Disturbance of sensitive area is minimized by locating necessary
alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible
• The inability to derive reasonable use is not the result of actions by the
applicant by segregating or dividing the property
A mitigation plan is approved
Type 4
Planning
Commission
Up to 15% Lot
size reduction
• 15% natural vegetation is retained
• advantage is taken of or enhancement is achieved of significant site
features
• separation of auto and pedestrian movement
• Development complements policies of Comp Plan
Type 5 PRD application
City Council
Up to 20% more
dwelling units in
multi- family
residential
districts
■ Multi - family residential district
• A variety of housing types
• At least 15% natural vegetation is retained
• Advantage is taken or enhancement achieved of unusual or significant
site features
• Separation of auto and pedestrian movement
• Development complements policies of Comp Plan
Type 5 PRD application
City Council
Y
(': \mch\'1'V \waiver nialrix.Aloe
Page 3 of 3
10/31/01
Agenda, 12/10/01 -- - Page 1 of 2
z
• W
o:
1. CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL 6
O 0
0) o
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION J i
a. Oath of office administered to Councilmembers Joe Duffle, Jim Haggerton, Pam Linder, and David -J LL
Fenton. w O
b. World Trade Center, New York - Tukwila Fire Department.: Lt. Chris Flores, Firefighters Jack
Stevens and Rich Rees.
c.Update for Cascade View Park design.
I
F w
3. CITIZENS COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items that are not included on z
this agenda. If you wish to comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until I-- O
the issue is presented for discussion. w w
U
O 5 '
o F-
w w
" - - O
w z
U (1)
1- _
O F
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Presently no ideas for the Consent Agenda.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
December 10, 2001
Special Meeting
7:00 p.m.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
An ordinance amending Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18, the City's Zoning Code, to regulate the
location and development of commercial parking lots and structures, including park -and -ride uses.
6. OLD BUSINESS
a. An ordinance adopting the proposed 2002 budget.
b. A resolution approving the Financial Planning Model.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a.Authorize the Mayor to sign contracts with Ellsworth Builders, Inc., in the total amount of
2 ' 767.00 includin • 8.8° W ST for tenant im . rovements at the 6300 Building
- Department of Community Development $142,505.00
-Human Resources/Human Services 115,812.00
- Police Department 18,838.00
- Suburban Cities 22,612.00
TOTAL (all improvements) $299,767.00
Demonstration program for innovative development for the Tukwila International Blvd. urban
'f\ renewal area (discussion only).
8. REPORTS
a) Mayor
b) City Council
c) Staff
http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/age12-10.htm
07/17/2002
z
Agenda, 12/10/01
d) City Attorney
e) Intergovernmental
9. MISCELLANEOUS
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
11. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 2
)The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's
Office by noon on Monday if we can be of assistance. (206 433 -1800 or TDD 206 248 -2933)
Please be advised that all Tukwila City Council Meetings are Audio Taped
Return to Home
http: / /www.ci.tukwila. wa.us /clerk/docs01 /age12- 10.htm 07/17/2002
Meeting Date
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS Number: d 1 - k(
Original Agenda Date 8/13/01
Agenda Item Title:
Demonstration Program for Innovative Development for the Tukwila International Boulevard
urban renewal area
Original Sponsor:
Council Admin. X
Timeline:
•
Sponsor's Summary:
Additional effort is recommended to stimulate the type and intensity of development desired
for Tukwila International BI. corridor. Staff suggests modification of the Zoning Code to
allow " demonstration" projects that have the ability to deviate from the standards of the
zoning code.
Recommendations:
Sponsor:
Committee:
Administration:
Approve Planning Commission Recommendations with modifications. See CAP 11/27/01
meeting minutes ' ,
Approve
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
8/13/01
mcb
12/10/01
mcb
,1k.,6' ,,
r; k
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
CORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date
8/13/01
Action
Forwarded issue to Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation.
APPENDICES
Meeting Date
Attachments
Memo from Steve Lancaster
CAP 11/27/01 minutes
12/10/01
12/10/01
C :lmcblTVlcas.doc
^.
Dept. Of Community Development
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I '
S t.- j HEREBY
DECLARE THAT:
Project Number: L. 01^ D E3
Mailer's Signature: ega-O-A--t- ,
Notice of Public Hearing
Determination of Non - Significance
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt•Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt
Permit
_ _
F A X To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
I
Other L A Y p i 6iD
Aim' f 'r '&UFt"'`Y
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 7r day of 4 the
year 20 NI
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Project Name: ZoJ lC7 (...cmo A Mek)01-1 `iS
Project Number: L. 01^ D E3
Mailer's Signature: ega-O-A--t- ,
Person requesting mailing: I`- p i 12-,>1
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 7r day of 4 the
year 20 NI
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
City of Tukwila
Memorandum
Date: December 6, 2001
To: State Agencies Reviewing Development Regulations
From: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Subject: Zoning Code Amendments to create a Demonstration Program for
Innovative Development on Tukwila International Bl.'s urban renewal
area.
Attached is the Staff Report, Planning Commission Recommendation and Council
Committee response to proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Code.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me a (206) 431 -3651 or email me at
mbradshaw@ci.tulcwila.wa.us.
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
December 5, 2001
Committee of the Whole
Steve Lancaster
cX
Demonstration Program for Tukwila International Boulevard Urban
Renewal Area L01 -055 Zoning Code Amendments
Background
In August, the City Council reviewed the option of creating additional flexibility in the
City's Zoning Code in order to attract development activity on Tukwila International
Boulevard. They directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and make a
recommendation to the City Council on amendments to the City's Zoning Code.
Discussion
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2001. There was no
testimony and the Planning Commission concluded their deliberations on the Staff Report
issues and options. Their decision is attached. They agreed with the concept of additional
design flexibility on a trial basis within the Tukwila International Boulevard Urban
Renewal Area. However, they recommend that limits be placed on the amount of waivers
that can be allowed on building heights and landscape area. Given their recommendation
of limits on certain standards they concluded that a Type 4 process (the Board of
Architectural Review) is an appropriate decision making review for projects in the
"Demonstration Program." In addition, as an added inducement, the Planning
Commission recommends that all land use permit fees be waived on projects in the
"Demonstration Program."
The CAP agreed with most of the Planning Commission recommendations; however the
CAP felt that an additional inducement should be offered. The CAP recommends the
substitution of the "Type 2 with Notice" process for the Type 4 process.
Page 1 of 2
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665
Process Type
Type 2 with Notice
Type 4
Initial Decision Maker
DCD Director
Planning Commission/BAR
Notice
Notice Board and mailings to
tenants and/or taxpayers within
500 feet
Notice Board and mailings
to tenants and /or taxpayers
within 500 feet
Public Comment
Verbal and written
correspondence
Written correspondence &
formal public hearing
Public Comment
Period
14 days
14 days
Appeal Body
Can vary; the City Council could
choose the Hearing Examiner,
the Planning Commission/BAR
or the City Council
City Council
Next Step
Attachments:
C:\mcb\TV\Olcapmcm1127.doc
The CAP was concerned about the limit of 3 projects. Staff responded that since this is a
"demonstration" project, the number was a point at which an evaluation and report would
occur and an opportunity for further modification of the Demonstration Program.
Deliberate on the issues so that staff may draft an ordinance reflecting Council direction
and schedule a public hearing.
Planning Commission Recommendation
October 31, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report
Planning Commission Draft Minutes
Page 2 of 2
Planning Commission Recommendation
Items 1., 2., 3.
Project Eligibility
• A total of three "demonstration program" applications will be accepted and reviewed.
• A program evaluation must occur on three BAR approved projects prior to acceptance
of any further "demonstration program" applications. ~ w
• Each project site must be a minimum of 3/4 acres in size; and w 2
• Projects must be located within the Tukwila International Boulevard urban renewal v 0
area, which is bounded by S. 146 St., S. 140 St., 37 Av. S., and 42 Av. S. 0 ❑
J
=
Item 4. '-
w
Discretionary Waivers w o
Standards of the following Chapters may be waived in the Demonstration Program:
5
• Supplemental Development Regulations (TMC 18.50;) u_<
• Landscape, up to 25% of the required area, and Recreation Recycling /Solid Waste Space co d
Requirements (TMC 18.52;) (The Planning Commission felt that landscaping is
important to a high quality environment and set a minimum of 75% of the required area z F'
for landscaping be maintained.) w O
• Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations, except that some accommodation for on-
site loading must be provided, i.e. no off -site loading will be allowed (TMC 18.56;) and o
• Setback and Height standards of each zone may be waived. Height waiver limits will be o
up to and including 4 stories or 45 feet and office may be allowed in the these portions w w
of additional building heights /levels in the NCC zone. }'
u.
.z
U -
Decision Criteria F=
The decision makers shall make findings using the following criteria: z
1. Is compatible with on -site and /or off site residential;
2. Serves as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented commercial areas
into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas;
3. Expands the consumer market through jobs or housing that supports the retail and
commercial goods and services of the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor;
4. Meets the criteria and guidelines of the Tukwila International Boulevard Design
Manual; and
5. Provides functional public spaces that have materials that complement the adjacent
civic places and streetscape.
Item 5.
Item 6.
Procedures
A Type 4 review process shall be followed for any proposed project.
Item 7•
No additional fee should be charged for a project in the Demonstration Program and both the Design
Review and SEPA fees should be waived.
C: \mcb \TV \pc recommend.doc
City of f Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
z
_ �
w :
00
U) o
w=
HEARING DATE: November 8, 2001 — F-
w
w 0
NOTIFICATION: Seattle Times Notice of Public Hearing on October 31, 2001 2
City of Tukwila Web Page: www.ci.tukwila.wa.us LL Q
ca
FILE NUMBER: L01 -055 — Zoning Code Amendment
z'
APPLICAiNT: City of Tukwila z O
w
REQUEST: Zoning Code Amendment to add a new chapter entitled
"Demonstration Program for Innovative Development." The new o -(2,
chapter creates a standards waiver process for eligible projects. = w
0
O •
..
w (I) ,
LOCATION: Citywide or within the Tukwila International Bl corridor v —.
0
Staff Report to
Tukwila Planning Commission
Prepared October 31, 2001
ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA Determination — File E01 -022
SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance
RECOMMENDATION: Forward Zoning Code amendment recommendations to the City
Council
STAFF: Moira Carr Bradshaw
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
(8/13/01)
B. Urban Renewal Map
C. Existing Discretionary Waivers
D. Zoning Code Standards Matrix
E. Summary Recommendation
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite . =100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
Background
Findings
The City continues its efforts to revitalize and set in motion development that will create a
physical and social center on Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB.) The goal is to have
commercial goods and services for }he area's residents, to expand the market for commercial
goods and services, provide civic space and activities, improve the aesthetic environment, and to
create a pedestrian friendly place along Tukwila International Boulevard, that is active and safe
around the clock.
In conjunction with public capital projects for the TIB street improvement and a new
neighborhood park at 37 Av. S. and S. 144 St, the Revitalization Plan included a strategy for the
development of a model project or projects at the heart of the corridor. The hope is that a model
new development will set the stage for the transformation of other properties along Tukwila
International B1.
New capital investment in redeveloped properties has been minor in the last four years. There are
two development models that occur within the region that are envisioned for the corridor — some
combination of commercial with residential or commercial with office. Natural and existing
economic market forces are not inclined to create this type of development in this section of
corridor. There are a wide number of reasons. First, there was uncertainty over the future of light
rail locating in the corridor and how it's design would impact properties and the commitment of
Sound Transit to a station location. Secondly, land is available elsewhere in the region at similar
prices but where higher rents occur or where land is less expensive. Third, no significant physical
change in the area is visibly apparent — other than the removal of several uses and the creation of
a vacant lot.
There is some additional flexibility possible in the City's Zoning Code that could be allowed on
an experimental basis under special review. Waivers from City standards already exist in the
Code. Allowing additional opportunities for waivers from code standards may induce specific
proposals and the type of development the community would like to see in the corridor.
City Council Review
The City Council reviewed the concept of a "Demonstration Program" and requests the Planning
Commission consider code changes that allow additional flexibility for the redevelopment of the
corridor. Attached are the minutes from their meeting when this issue was discussed.
(Attachment A)
Policy Options
Below are the policy options being considered for creating additional inducements or eliminating
regulatory impediments to redevelopment and infill development. This proposal would be in the
form of a program for demonstration projects.
Page 2 of 11
.
Location
Advantages /Disadvantages
TIB urban renewal area
•
The urban renewal designation identifies this area as
(See Attachment B)
subject to unique challenges, which should qualify it
for special techniques.
■
The community knows what it wants — and standards
shouldn't be waived in an area that will have higher
amounts of public activity and that is important
because of its central location.
Anywhere in the TIB corridor
•
Dispersed affect of variations from standards.
•
Potential stimulus impact on other properties in the
corridor.
Within a V4 or V2 mile radius of
•
Supports transit oriented development.
transit stops
•
Bus stops are variable and can move depending on
transit operations budget, rerouting of bus lines, and
property owner opinions.
■
Further dispersal of impact.
•
Loses stimulant impact.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
1. Where in the City should the waivers in development standards be allowed to
occur?
Although the focus of City efforts have been in the TIB corridor and specifically around the
intersection of S. 144 St., in creating and designing this program, the City could consider a
"Demonstration Program" elsewhere in the community.
Discussion:
The City adopted an urban renewal plan in January 2000 that includes a map of the urban
renewal area. (Attachment B) The area is bounded by streets except for the one block that
contains Larry's Market, which is bordered by two apartment complexes on the west side.
By adopting this program for the TIE urban renewal area, a message is sent about the importance
of this area's redevelopment and seriousness of the efforts to transform its development.
Recommendation:
The TIB urban renewal area.
Page 3 of 11
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
2. Should there be a limit on the number of projects that may apply under the
"Demonstration Program ?"
Discussion:
There are a number of reasons to pursue this program, and to some extent the reasons will vary
depending on where the program is implemented (Question 1.) A demonstration program by
definition is meant to show what can be done given a set of circumstances. This program can be
seen as an opportunity to test the development market
Recommendation:
Three completed projects and then prepare an evaluation of results from the program.
Page =1 of 11
Number of Projects-
Advantages/Disadvantages
No limit
•
Unknown demand.
•
Implications and results of program are
unknown.
•
Greater potential impact of either good or
bad.
Three
•
As a test, there should be some limit so that
an evaluation can be done of the successes
and failings of approved projects.
•
A sufficient sample is needed to obtain
consequential results.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
2. Should there be a limit on the number of projects that may apply under the
"Demonstration Program ?"
Discussion:
There are a number of reasons to pursue this program, and to some extent the reasons will vary
depending on where the program is implemented (Question 1.) A demonstration program by
definition is meant to show what can be done given a set of circumstances. This program can be
seen as an opportunity to test the development market
Recommendation:
Three completed projects and then prepare an evaluation of results from the program.
Page =1 of 11
Size
Advantages/Disadvantages
Three quarters of an acre
•
•
The area around TD was originally platted in 37,000 —
39,000 square foot rectilinear tracts.
Many of the lots have been reconfigured and the size
varies considerably.
2 acres
•
As a policy option this requirement would send a
message that the City is looking for the development of
larger sites and may cause the aggregation of separate
parcels.
•
Potentially limits the type and number of projects.
•
Staff resources and Commission/Council time would be
better spent on fewer and larger projects.
Projects that contain a
•
Supports Comp Plan Policy that directs the
two story building
component
encouragement of two — four story buildings.
.50 Floor area ratio
•
Identifies and benefits a project that provides a
significant structural presence.
i.e. A 20,000 sq. ft. site
•
A development with more floor area is likely to be more
would need to propose
people oriented than car oriented.
10,000 sq. ft. of floor area
•
Limits potential projects.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
3. Should there be a minimum project size?
L01 -uo5 Demonstration Program
This is an eligibility question like the one above. Not only where a project in the "Demonstration
Program" may be located but what other characteristics should a project have?
Discussion:
As an example of site sizes, the Larry's Market is approximately 50,000 square feet and in one
story and sits on approximately. 5 acres; Pete's Flying Aces and the Pawn Shop sit on
approximately 2 acres; the demolished Newporter Apartment site is a little over 3 /4 of an acre.
In urban areas, the smaller (less than an acre) lot is not uncommon and creative design can
produce high quality projects regardless of the size of the lot. The size of the project and its
design is more pertinent to the overall impact of a project.
Although more intensive development is desired, there is the potential of limiting desirable
projects by specifying some standard. Because the majority of the sites within the corridor are
less than an acre, because smaller sites are more restricted and arguably difficult to develop, the
small sites should be eligible for the program.
Recommendation:
Three quarters of an acre
Page 5ofll
Standards
Advantages/Disadvantages
Height
•
Potential of providing the most positive economic returns
and therefore provides the greatest inducement.
In order to provide a height
waiver option for office uses in
the TIB NCC district, a
variation in the permitted use
section is also required.
•
Most visible departure from current code when built.
Landscape, Recreation,
Recycling/Solid space
•
The City's current standards are geared toward suburban
commercial strip. The goal of the program is to try to
requirements
achieve a new model of development that is more pedestrian
than auto.
i.e. Tree, shrub and
•
Current waivers are only allowed in situations where
groundcover specifications;
pedestrian oriented space is provided in front or access is
Landscape island every 10
shared on properties that share a side yard and access across
stalls;
the side yard.
100 square foot min planting
•
There may be situations where a rear yard or other yard
bed.;
400 sq. ft. rec. space /unit;
waiver would be of assistance.
max. 50 % rec. space indoor
•
There may be situations where an off -site facility would be
and covered.
more efficient and practical given the size of a project.
•
Depending on the location of the project, the neighborhood
may o r m a y not currently meet adopted park space ratios.
•
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
4. What standards should be considered for waivers?
Currently a wide array of standards may be waived subject to certain criteria being met.
Attachment C summarizes the specific standards and criteria as well as the types of processes
required for waiver requests.
Below is a list of the standards that currently have no waiver mechanism other than through a
Type 3 variance, which has specific state mandated decision making criteria, or the waiver criteria
may allow for limited application.
Page 6 of 11
Setbacks
See Attachment D for
standards.
•
•
Waiving landscaping requirements will not yield a benefit
unless the setback can also be manipulated.
Yard patterns vary considerably especially along TIB where
there is older development.
Off Street Parking and
Loading Chapter
•
Rely on developer and public review to create successful,
marketable parking.
•
There may be waivers to general requirements that are not
i.e. clearance at loading
zones, degree of slope to
parking lots, ratio of compact
stalls to standard stalls,
dimensions for stall/zone
size;
covered by the number of parking stall waivers.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
L01 -u55 Demonstration Program
Discussion:
There is a significant price point for buildings in the City due to the High -Rise Buildings chapter
of the TMC. Any building over four stories is required to install fire fighting equipment with
significant costs. Major height waivers are therefore not anticipated.
The other items listed above are fairly minor but have the potential of providing some helpful
flexibility.
Recommendation:
Allow all zoning code chapters listed above to be included in the "Demonstration Program."
`�.✓ - , • •
z
_t”
z
et
6 =
0
00
co 0
w =
J
CO LL
wO
co 3
= W
H Z
z �
I— O
z I—
no
0
O -
O I--
w uJ
H
I .
U_ O .
.. z'
w
U=
0
z
N.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -Ua5 Demonstration Program
5. What should be the decision criteria for waivers from the above standards?
What are the expectations of the City with respect to a demonstration project? Designers and
decision makers need guidance on what to design and what to approve, how to condition and
what to deny. Design costs are typically 10% of a project's total cost. If the programming of a
site is significantly different than what will be approved then redesign could eliminate a potential
project.
Analysis:
Because of the flexibility offered by the Demonstration Program, the criteria should be wide -
ranging but explicit. The developer should view the Demonstration Program as an opportunity to
be creative without the strictures of specific Zoning Code standards. The Program also needs to
convey what is feasible from an approval standpoint
Recommendation:
The decision makers approving a demonstration project should use all of the above six criteria.
Page 8 of 11
..... ,'�, ..,..
Size
Advantages/Disadvantages
Type 2 — Director's
Decision
• More certainty, less time and money spent on a review process.
• Fewer types of opportunities to comment on a project.
Type 4- Planning
Commission/BAR
Decision
Maintains the status quo because all development currently goes to the
BAR for design review.
Type 5 — City
Council Decision
• The Council sets the standards of the City and therefore might be
most appropriate for waiving from those standards.
• More opportunity and lengthier time frame for commenting.
• The City Council does not routinely review development design.
• More time, more money, less certainty spent on a design resulting in
less flexibility for applicant.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
6. What process should be used to decide on these waivers from the Code?
Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests would be laid
out in a staff analysis /report of findings and conclusions on the project's design. The City has
five types of approval processes. From a Type 1 to a Type 5, each type has increasingly greater
degrees of public notice and review and therefore decision uncertainty for an applicant.
Discussion:
All of the above processes allow public review and comment. Attachment C gives an example
of the current review process for various types of waivers. A Notice of Application is posted on
site and mailed to property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the property lines for
all types of applications. A public comment of 14 days is established for Type 2 and 4 and 21
days for Type 5. Additional opportunities for comment are allowed with Type 4 through a public
hearing and with Type 5 through a public meeting and a public hearing.
All substantial new development must go through a design review process, which is the type 4
process. A Type 4 process is shorter than the Type 5 because of the required public meeting prior
to the public hearing and the longer comment period.
Another option would be to use a tiered waiver system. For example, the types of standards being
waived would be tied to a type of process. The most significant potential waiver is the height
waiver; therefore in all instances other than when a height waiver is requested, a demonstration
project could go through a Type 4 process. A height waiver would require a Type 5 process.
Review processes are a disincentive because of the time and uncertainty involved and this is
meant to be an incentive program. By using a Type 4 for the majority of waivers, no additional
requirements are asked of the developer.
Recommendation:
Type 5 for projects requesting a height waiver, otherwise a Type 4.
Page 9 of 11
,...�'-
Fee
Advantages /Disadvantages
No fee
•
Appropriate for an incentive program
•
The land use review fees are nominal and
do not cover the costs of review
•
Applicants are already paying for design
review and the demonstration project
review requires no additional steps.
$900
•
A more flexible system requires more
review and negotiation with an applicant
•
Tukwila development fees are reasonable
compared to other jurisdictions in the
region
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
7. Should there be a fee charged?
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
Discussion:
The fee for design review, a type 4 process is $900.00 and for SEPA is $325.00. This is the
minimum current City charge for development design approvals. There are also traffic
concurrency fees, which depend on the number of new vehicular trips generated during the peak
hour at locations that are below adopted minimums, and the building permit fees, which are a
little less than 10% of the value of the project.
The impact of a flat fee will vary with the overall budget for a project. On a million dollar
project, a $900 fee is less than .1 percent. It makes sense to charge no additional fees other than
the $900.00 design review fee for either a Type 4 or Type 5 demonstration project because this is
an incentive program and because land use fees are not important revenue sources for the City.
Recommendation:
All projects must complete in conjunction with a Demonstration Program review, design review
with its accompanying fee of $900.
Conclusions
1) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (City of Tukwila, 1995, amended) includes as its #2
priority (page 3) the redevelopment and reinvigoration of the Pacific Highway corridor, later
renamed Tukwila International Boulevard. It also reads:
Policy 8.5.7 Encourage two to four story building within the NCC to emphasize their
importance and desired activity level, limiting commercial uses to two lower levels except
in urban renewal areas.(page 102)
Policy 2.1.5 Act in partnership with the private sector to fund infrastructure as part of a
sub -area plan to encourage redevelopment as an inducement to convert outdated and
underutilized land and buildings to high valued and or appropriate land uses. (page 34)
Page 10 of 11
-- EN
" ,;
' Minutes, 8/13/01
minimize the ongoing usage of the existing unit.
To that end, Mr. Morrow spoke in favor of Council allowing staff to proceed with the purchase of the
mechanical sweeper with delivery and invoicing in 2002.
Council consensus existed, allowing the Public Works Director to place the order now.
f. Selection of contest winner — Clean -up ideas.from Tukwila Days
Councilmember Linder noted this item appeared on the Community Affairs and Parks Committee
agenda recently; where no consensus among the members existed. The City Council sponsored a contest
for the best anti - littering suggestion, during the 2001 Tukwila Days event.
While at the Committee level, there was no clear consensus as to who the winner should be as all
suggestions were very good. One item the Committee did agree upon was to send a letter to all those
who submitted suggestions, thanking them and stating appreciation for their involvement.
Council conducted a ballot vote to determine the winner of the contest. Six responses were received;
with Councilmember Duffle abstaining from the vote. The winning idea (#19) received three votes. It
states, "I have two boys 3 and 6 years old. Whenever we go to a park or playground we bring a bag and
pick up garbage before we leave. If everyone did this it would help control the litter problem. The
person presenting this idea will be awarded a 345.00 gift certificate to a local area restaurant. The 345.00
was collected. personally, by members of the City Council.
Second place, and the winner of 335.00 gift certificate (also to an area restaurant), was "suggestion ;47."
It states, "Have a pride in community contest. A lot of Tukwila looks like a dump. People don't take
care of their yards, fences, or parking strips. Let's get some pride in where we live. Maybe some seniors
need some help! Provide permanent garbage cans around the neighborhood." Money for this gift
certificate was also donated, personally, by members of the City Council.
Winners will be notified by Lucy Lauterbach, Legislative Analyst. Additionally, the Council President
will work with Ms. Lauterbach to formulate a thank you letter, previously mentioned.
Finally, this item will be forwarded to the Community Affairs & Parks Committee for further action and .
- consideration of ideas presented. Consideration of a hoped -for, long -term plan will be the focus of that
discussion.
g. Demonstration program: Innovative mixed -use development for urban renewal area along T. I. B.
1
Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, presented staff' s report on this item, which was previously before
the Community Affairs & Parks Committee. Generated by City Administration and Staff, the idea
behind the program is to look for opportunities to stimulate redevelopment in the Tukwila International
Boulevard Corridor.
The concept of the program is to develop criteria for eligible projects; project size and phasing; review
processes and types of standards and criteria within the zoning code which could be waived. Waiving of
some criteria may provide incentive for developers.
The proposed program would require an amendment of the City's Zoning Code; (requiring a
recommendation from the Council); consideration of and public hearing by the Planning Commission;
littp://www..ci.tukwila.wa.us/c lerk/docs01 /cow8- 13.htm
Attachment A.
Minutes, 8 /13/01
and remand of the item to COW and Regular meeting for adoption of an ordinance, if so chosen.
Noting City staff is in favor of more than just a retail presence �n corridor, Ms. Bradshaw reviewed
some of the ideas suggested for the basic criteria mentioned earlier.
Eligibility Project location within an urban renewal area & proposed minimum size of 2 acres
(possibility for phased development).
Review Proposed Type 5 review process, requiring a public hearing and decision by the City Council.
Due to potential for requirement waivers, staff believes Council may want to make such decisions.
Code Amend. Create /modify Board of Architectural Review Chapter of the TivIC (18.10 4); to provide
the scope and authority for the program and to specify the authority for and criteria to be followed on
waivers from TMC standards.
Amend permit application types and procedures Chapter of TMC and add Demonstration Program for
Innovative Mixed Use Developments to the Type 5 table.
Standards Waived Currently, landscaping and setbacks may be waived subject to certain requirements
being met. Examples of additional waivers to consider would be height, parking and recreation space
requirements.
Decision on Waivers Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests
would be laid out in staff analysis /report and approval would be granted by Council, using the Type 5
review process.
Waiver of other standards would be developed for the Demonstration Program and defined in the City's
design review criteria or guidelines.
Council discussed the proposed project amongst themselves and with staff. Clarification was given by
staff where necessary. While Councilmember Duffle had nothing to add, the remaining Councilmembers
spoke in favor of the concept which would (potentially) eliminate some "red tape "; department directors
being able to have greater discretion and authority in some areas; speed up processes; and jump start the
development on the T. I. B. Corridor.
Anna Bernhard, Tukwila, asked what the City would do in the event of a request from someone
outside the urban renewal area for the same concessions granted to those within the urban renewal area.
Response from Council and City Administration indicated that should this scenario occur, the City can
consider them on a project by project basis.Based upon discussions between Council and staff, Ms.
Bradshaw reiterated what was said and noted the item would be forwarded to the Planning Commission
for consideration and public hearing.
h. Transit - oriented Development Master Plan for Longacres area.
Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development briefed Council on the Transit - Oriented
Development Master Plan (TOD).
With assistance from the Ball -Janik firm, the City previously submitted an application for federal funds
to assist with the Urban Center planning effort, and to develop a detailed master plan and development
strategy for TOD in the Longacres Commuter Rail Station area. While not yet in the House
http: / /www.ci. tukwila.wa.us /clerkidocs01/cow8-13 .htm
Tukwila International Boulevard
Urban Renewal Area
City of Tukwila Zoning Map
•
North 11199
Attachment B
Figure Al
Z
W
J
U
CO 0
W
F -
WO
Q
UD
S
W
Z
I- O
Z F-
W
W
U D
O U
0 I-
W
�U
L I O
W Z
U=
O ~
Z
Standard
Existing Discretionary Waivers
•
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Front yard
setback
Average of yards on adjacent lots
Type 1
DCD staff
Tree
Replacement
.
■ Project feasibility or reasonable use would be jeopardized
• Alternative proposal meets purpose and intent of chapter
• Exception would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to
other property in the vicinity
• Size of project cannot support tree replacement and off -site planting is
proposed.
• Smaller sized replacements are more suited to the species, site and
planted in sufficient quantities to meet purpose and intent of chapter
• On site planting is not feasible and there is an equivalent contribution in
funds and or labor and materials for off site planting
Type 1
DCD Director
Landscape
perimeter
averaging
• Plant material is clustered to more effectively screen parking areas and
blank building walls
• Enables significant trees or existing built features to be retained
• Averaging is used to reduce the number of driveways and curb cuts and
allow joint use of parking
• Reduction is not to the point that activities on site become a nuisance to
neighbors
• Does not diminish the quality of site landscape as a whole
Type 2
.
DCD Director
Wetland or
watercourse
buffer — up to
50% reduction
• Buffer does not contain slopes of 20% or more;
• Reduction will not result in direct or indirect short or long term adverse •
impacts to wetland or watercourse; and
• the buffer is vegetated and includes enhancement plan to improve the
buffer function and value; or
• If no vegetation in buffer exists, an enhancement plan is provided
• 15 ft. min. wetland and 10 ft. min. watercourse
Type 2
DCD Director
l ': \ \waivcr maU is Joe
Page 1 of 3
10/31/01
Attachment C
z
cc
W
re 2
6
J U
0
CO ILI
J =
f—
("
W
Q
LL j
CO
C5
= W
F— =
1— O
WF—
0 0 Ca
O--
C1—
wW
2
F-
u
w
z
U =
O~
z
CITY OF TU1i'jYILA
ZONING CODE STANDARDS
�`�� ' * Ve' 1 Department of Community Deve!optttenl
6q) ♦ ? Suutllcenter Boulevard, T kwila, II:d 98188 1
4 •i1Z: Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 MATRIX
E -mail: lukplan@ci.lukwila.wa.us
LDR
MDR
HDR
MUD
0
RCC
NCC
RC
RCM
TUC
C /LI
LI
HI
MIC /L
MIC /H
TVS
Lot Area - (Minimum lot size in
sq. ft.)
6500
8000
9600
5000
Lot Area per Unit (Multi- Family)
3000
2000
3000
3000
2000 3
3000
2000
2000
Average Lot Width (minimum 20
ft street frontage width)
50
60
60
Maximum Building Footprint
.35 a
Setbacks
Front
20
25
25
20
6
20
20
15
25
25
25
20
20
25
Front - 1st floor
15
15
Front - 2nd floor
20
20
Front - 3rd floor
30
30
Front - 4th floor
45
Front - Decks or porches
15
Second Front
10
12.5
12.5
10
5
10
10
15
12.5
12.5
12.5
10
10
12.5
Second Front - 1st floor
7.5
7.5
Second Front - 2nd floor
10
10
Second Front - 3rd floor
15
15
Second Front - 4th floor
22.5
Sides
5
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
5
5
_
5
0
0
5
Sides - 1st floor
10
10
Sides - 2nd floor
20
20
Sides - 3rd floor
20
20
30
Sides - 4th floor
20
30
Sides - adjacent LDR, MDR, HDR
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 20'
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
- 1st floor
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
- 2nd floor
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
- 3rd floor
30
20
30
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Rear
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
0
0
5
Rear - 1st floor
10
10
Rear - 2nd & 3rd floor
20
20
Rear - 4th floor
30
Rear- adjacent LDR, MDR, HDR
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 20'
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
- 1st floor
10
10
10
10
10
10
_
10
10
10
10
- 2nd floor
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
- 3rd floor
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
30
?0
30
30
30
G: APPI IA11U ANDUSE.APP \DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.XLS, 10/31/01
Attachment D
1 of 2
Z
Z
re w
JU
0
CD U
CO W
W
I—
W
�Q
UI
I
W
Z =
H '
I— O
Z
j
U �
O (12
0 I—
W 111
u' O
..
W
• =
O �
Z
CITY OF TUKIVILA
ZONING CODE STANDARDS
�k �; Department of Community Development
`it .
vi, - Southcenler Boulevard, Thkwila, WA 98188
N �• , e r `_-' Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 MATRIX 1
1908 *" E -mail: tukplanaci.tukwila.u'a.us
LDR
MDR
HDR
MUO
0
RCC
NCC
RC
RCM
TUC
C /LI
LI
HI
MIC /L
MIC /H
TVS
Height6
30
30
45
3/45
3/35
3/35
3/35
3/35
3/35
115
4/45
4/45
4/45
4/45
125
115
Landscape
Front(s)
15
15
15
15
5
10
10
15
12.5
12.5
12.5
5
5
15
Sides
10
10
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
Sides - adjacent LDR, MDR, HDR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
Rear
10
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rear - adjacent LDR, MDR,HDR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
Development Area Coverage
(Maximum)
0.5
0.5
Recreation Space (s. f. per
dwelling unit, 1000 s. f. min)5
400
400
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Off - Street Parking stalls
Residential (per unit)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Accessory dwelling unit - See Accessory Use section of chapters for off - street parking requirements
Office
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/100
3/1000
3/1000
3/1000
3/1000
2.5/1000
3/1000
Retail stall
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
4/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
4/1000
Manufacturing
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1 /1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
Warehousing
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
Uses (see 18.56 TMC)
_Other
Performance Standards
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
FOOTNOTES
1 Numbers are minimum feet unless otherwise noted.
2 Special standards exist for senior housing.
3 where height limit is 6 stories: 622 s.l.; where height limit is 10 stories: 512 s.t.
4 On lots less than 6,500 sq h, a maximum building footprint of 2.275 sq ft and compliance with minimum setbacks. On lots In excess of 6,500 sq It and up to 19.000 sq It reduce .35 by .125 for each additional 100 sq fl.
5 12' required In NCC if located along Tukwila International Boulevard (SR 99)
6 Height — stories /feet
7 May be 4 stories or 45 II. In the NCC district of ;ha Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor, it mixed use with a residential and commercial component.
8 Required landscaping may Include a mix of plant materials, pedesuain amunibes and features, outdoor cafe -type seating and similar features, subject to approval.
P Stalls/usable floor area; ember uses see figura 18 -7 of Off Street Parking and Loading Chapter (TMC 18.56).
10 Two for each dwelling unit that contains up to three bedrooms. One additional of -steel parking (or every two bedrooms in excess on 3 bedrooms In a dwelling unit.
G: IAPPHAN\LANDUSE.APPIDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.XLS. 10/31/01
2 of 2
Z
W
it 2
J U
00
to o
W
W I
t-
U) (L
u.
d
w
Z �
O
Z t-
W
W
U c
O D-
o ff
W W
H
O
.Z
W
co
O~
Z
Item 7.
Summary
Recommendation
Items 1, 2, 3
Project Eligibility z
A total of three complete applications will be accepted prior to a program w
IX
e 2
valuation.
Each proposed project must be a minimum of 3/4 acres in size and be located _10
within the Tukwila International Boulevard urban renewal area, which is u) w
bounded by S. 146 St., S. 140 St., 37 Av. S., and 42 Av. S. J
Item 4.
Discretionary Waivers
All standards of the following Chapters may be waived in the Demonstration
Program: = e!
• Supplemental Development Regulations (TMC 18.50;) F"
• Landscape, recreation recycling /solid waste space requirements (TMC 0
18.52;) w
w
■ Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations; and
• Height standards of each zone may be waived; including the limitation on . 0 ED-
number of office stories in the NCC zone. in F-
w
Item 5.
F-
�
Decision Criteria .. z
The decision makers shall make findings using the following criteria: 0
0I
0
1. Provides innovative design solutions;
2. Is compatible with on -site and /or off site residential;
3. Serves as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented
commercial areas into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas;
4. Expands the consumer market through jobs or housing that supports the
retail and commercial goods and services of the Tukwila International
Boulevard corridor;
5. Creates high quality structures and sites; and
6. Provides functional public spaces that have materials that complement the
adjacent civic places and streetscape and
Item 6.
Procedures
A Type 5 review process shall be followed for any proposed project in the
Demonstration Program that request waivers of the height standards and a
Type 4 review process shall be followed for any other proposed projects
No additional fee shall be charged for a project in the Demonstration Program •
Attachment E
z
DRAFT
The Public Hearing was called to order by Vern Meryhew at 7:05 p.m.
Attendance:
Present:
Excused Absence:
Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw, and Wynetta Bivens.
KIRSTINE WHISLER MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AS AMENDED
FROM OCTOBER 25, 2001. MARGARET BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Vern Meryhew swore in those wishing to provide testimony.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 2001
Chair, Vern Meryhew, Vice Chair, David Livermore, Commissioners: Kirstine Whisler, Margaret
Bratcher, Bill Arthur, and Henry Marvin
George Malina.
L01 - 055 — Zoning Code Amendment
City of Tukwila
Zoning code Amendment to add a new chapter entitled "Demonstration Program for Innovative
Development." The new chapter creates a standards waiver process for eligible projects.
Citywide or within the Tukwila International Blvd. Corridor
Moira Bradshaw gave the staff report.
There were no citizens present at the public hearing.
There was deliberation on the policy options that were reviewed at the Planning Commission worksession.
The seven policy options and recommendations made by the Planning Commission:
1. Where in the City should the waivers in development standards be allowed to occur?
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approved as proposed — The TIB urban renewal area.
Should there be a limit on the number of projects that may apply under the Demonstration Program?
PC Recommendation: After three approved Design Review, evaluate then decide whether to revise program —
results should be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Should there be a minimum project size?
PC Recommendation: Approved as proposed — Three quarters of an acre (one opposed - Commissioner
Livermore)
4. What standards should be considered for waivers?
PC Recommendation: Height - Four stories and 45 ft. in the NCC and no restrictions on any use (One
opposed - Commissioner Whisler)
Landscaping - Up to 25% reduction of total landscaping and flexibility in its replacement.
Setbacks — No limitations.
Off Street Parking and Loading Chapter — Subject to provision of on site loading.
:
Planning Commission
Page 2
5. What should be the decision criteria for waivers from the above standards?
PC Recommendation: On the staff report, under Criteria, remove 5.1, re- number the criteria 5.1 -5.5, re-
numbered 5.2 under discussion Planning Commissioners noted that the criteria should be interpreted to mean
"Does the project provide a design that can and could be considered for duplication elsewhere within the corridor
or City ", change 5.4 to read - Meets criteria guidelines of the TIB Manual. z
'~ W
6. What process should be used to decide on these waivers from the Code?
PC Recommendation: All Type 4 Design Review process.
00 .
co C
7. Should there be a fee charged? =
F-
�w
w
BILL ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE POLICY OPTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE g
PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. DAVID LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION AND c
THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MOTION. WHEN THE POLICY = Cr
OPTIONS GO TO CAP CHAIR MERYHEW REQUESTED A COPY BE MAILED TO THE PLANNING ~ _
COMMISSION, SO THEY CAN REVIEW 'THEM INDIVIDUALLY. O
z [—
Director's Report �..
• No Planning Commission meeting in December 0
• Update on letter that Public Works mailed to citizens 0 1
• Planning Commission updated mailing address and telephone list • uI
• Update Comp Plan and Sensitive Area ordinance for next year I
u' O
.. z
W
U u
F= _
0 1—
PC Recommendation: Waive Design Review and SEPA fees.
Adjourned at 8:25
Respectfully Submitted
Wynetta Bivens
Administrative Secretary
Q: \PLANCOM \MINUTES \11- 8- 01.doc
. �
Z 1 •
z
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW • PO Box 48350 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8350 • (360) 725 -2800
Steve Lancaster
Community Development Director
City of Tukwila
City of Tukwila
6200 SouthCenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
December 3, 2001
RECEIVED
DEC 0 5 2001
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
RE: DRAFT DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENT
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
Thank you for sending this department the following development regulation:
Zoning code amendments to create a new chapter "Demostration "Program ".
We received the notice on November 30, 2001 and forwarded a copy of the notice to other state
agencies. If you have not sent the plan to the agencies on the list (enclosed) , please do so.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at 725 -3056.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Ike Nwankwo
Growth Management Planner
Growth Management Services
oD fi Ofli nfliunityDevel fliMSE O BUILD I�t Lancaster, Director
ture tans within the coverage of BUILDINGS
the entire structure shall be fully
(Ord. 1901 §9. 2000)
16.42.100 Maintenance.
A. The owner is responsible for the condition of
the sprinkler system and shall keep the system in
operating condition.
B. Regular maintenance by a Washington State
licensed sprinkler contractor shall be done in accor-
dance with NFPA 25. If the sprinkler system is con-
nected to a fire alarm system, the contractor shall coor-
dinate with the fire alarm maintenance company for
any work involving the fire alarm system or control
panel.
C. The Tukwila Fire Department shall be notified
immediately of any impairment of the sprinkler
system. The owner shall be responsible for the repair
of the system, and shall maintain a 24 -hour fire watch
until the system is returned to normal condition. High
hazard operation may be suspended until the sprinkler
system is back in normal condition.
(Ord. 1901 §10, 2000)
16.42.110 Reinspection fee.
A $40.00 reinspection fee shall be assessed when
an inspector is requested to make an inspection or
witness a test on a sprinkler system and, upon arrival,
finds the work is not ready for inspection or the test
fails. The reinspection fee shall be paid prior to a
follow -up inspection and the receipt shall be at the job
site.
(Ord. 1901 § 1 1, 2000)
16.42.120 Exceptions.
Any exception to the items covered by this chapter
shall be made the Chief of the Fire Department or by
the Fire Marshal. Request for exception must be made
in writing; exceptions granted or denied shall be in
writing.
(Orcl. 1901 §12, 2000)
16.42.130 Penalties.
Any person violating the provisions of this
ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon
conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more
than $500.00 or by imprisonment for not more that 90
days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(Ord. 1901 §13, 2000)
Sections:
16.48.010
16.48.020
16.48.030
16.48.040
16.48.050
16.48.060
16.48.070
16.48.080
16.48.090
16.48.100
16.48.110
16.48.120
16.48.130
16.48.140
16.48.150
16.48.160
16.48.170
Chapter 16.48 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Story defined.
Scope and construction of chapter.
Sprinkler systems.
Fire hose racks.
Standpipes.
Standpipe /riser.
Emergency water supply.
Standby fire pumps.
Emergency power generator.
Emergency stair towers.
Windows.
Smoke /heat detector system.
Emergency communications system.
Emergency communications system
room.
Elevators.
Emergency evacuation notification system.
Smoke evacuation system.
16.48.010 Story defined.
As used in TMC 16.48, the definition of "story"
shall be as contained in TMC 16.04.050, as amended.
(Ord. 1 167 §I, 1980)
16.48.020 Scope and construction of chapter.
A. TMC 16.48 shall apply only to buildings in
excess of four stories. In all other respects, the
provisions of the Uniform Building Code, as found in
TMC 16.04 and the Uniform Fire Code as found in
TMC 16.16, shall be generally applicable to TMC 16.48
including, but not limited to, provisions for the
issuance of permits and collection of fees therefor, and
provisions for penalties for violations and establishing
administrative appeal procedures.
B. If, in any specific case, TMC 16.48 specifies
materials, methods of construction or other require-
ments which are different from those specified in any
other part of the Tukwila Building Code (TMC Chapter
16.04), the more restrictive requirement shall govern.
(Orcl. 1 167 §2. 1980)
16.48.030 Sprinkler systems.
Every building shall be fully sprinklered in accor-
dance with the standards set down in NFPA (National
Fire Protection Association) #13.
(Ord. 1167 §3(1), 1980)
6300 .S Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone:P8i9tYet13Se M6hlreR4; 2000431 -3665
U
h O U i
k3 Tull pwvlded wlili 73 let of
siikOaktfiVerlineVOIMnittritY
s. The hose racks shall have a 2-1/2 -
m the sprinkler riser with a 2 -1/2 inch to
reducer provided for each rack. Additional
racks, if required for approved coverage, may be taken
off of the sprinkler cross - mains. The reducer shall not
be required in these racks, which will have a 1 -1/2
inch valve.
16.48.050 Standpipes.
With regard to TMC 16.48.040, separate dry
standpipes shall not be required if the standpipes and
the sprinkler risers are the same pipes, that is, "wet"
standpipes, as defined in Section 3801(c) of the Uni-
form Building Code.
6300 Sout>2cen
(Ord. 1167 53(2), 1980)
(Ord. 1167 53(3), 1980)
16.48.060 Standpipe /riser.
One standpipe /riser will penetrate the roof and be
provided with a 2 -1/2 inch wye outlet and valves.
The portion of the standpipe /riser which penetrates
the roof shall be protected from freezing by appropriate
insulating materials.
(Ord. 1 167 53(4), 1980)
16.48.070 Emergency water supply.
An on -site emergency water supply shall be pro-
vided with a capacity of not less than 15,000 gallons.
(Ord. 1167 53(5), 1980)
16.48.080 Standby fire pumps.
Two standby fire pumps shall be provided and
shall have automatic controls to utilize the emergency
water supply. One pump shall be diesel powered.
The other shall be electric and shall be capable of being
powered from the building emergency power genera-
tor.
(Ord. 1167 53(6), 1980)
16.48.090 Emergency power generator.
An emergency power generator shall be provided
and shall provide power for the following:
1. Emergency elevator;
2. Minimum lighting, including all exit stairs,
exit lights and exit corridors;
3. Stair tower pressurization;
4. Emergency communications system, in-
cluding phone jacks;
5. Fire alarm system;
6. Electric fire pump;
7. Smoke removal equipment (if otherwise
required);
8. Emergency evacuation notification system;
9. Fire Department control room.
(Ord. 1 167 53(7). 1980)
•r
TITLE 16 — BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
16.48.100 Emergency stair to M. Mullet, Mayor
Lmergency stair towers shall be pressurized w_hen
Det 1Q P(s detected. Steve Lancaster,
(Ord. 1167 53(8), 1980)
16.48.110 Windows.
If the building is not provided with openable
windows on each floor, 10% of the windows on each
floor shall be tempered glass with a 1 -3/4 inch
diameter red circle on the upper left -hand corner of
each window.
(Ord. 1 167 53(9), 1980)
16.48.120 Smokelheat detector system.
The building shall be provided with an approved
smoke /heat detector system combined with manual
pull- stations. Smoke detectors shall be installed in the
elevator lobby of each floor and outside of the
emergency stair tower doors on each floor. Fixed
temperature heat detectors shall be installed in all
mechanical equipment rooms. Both this detector
system and the sprinkler system shall be monitored
by an approved central station alarm agency, providing
24 -hour supervision.
(Ord. 1 167 §3(10), 1980)
16.48.130 Emergency communications system.
An emergency communications system shall be
provided with jacks on each floor of each emergency
stair tower and beside the emergency elevator. A
minimum of six handsets shall be stored in a room,
the location of which shall be designated by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
(Ord. 1 167 §3(11), 1980)
16.48.140 Emergency communications system
room.
The room referred to in TMC 16.48.130 shall be of
fire - resistive construction (according to the standards set
out in Part VII of the Uniform Building Code), shall
ordinarily remain locked (the lock shall automatically
release upon activation of either the fire detection or
sprinkler system), and shall contain the following:
1. Emergency communication system
controls;
2. Fire alarm and sprinkler flow annunciator
panels;
3. Controls to manually start and shut down
the fire pumps;
4. An outside line telephone (Pacific
Northwest Bell);
5. Smoke evacuation controls;
6. Elevator status panel.
(Ord. 1167 53(12), 1980)
: . ar■ , "r'e #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • 1R12tge?Q��(
z
z ~
re w
QQ �
0
N o
w
J = ..
w
to
u_ ?
- d
I
z
1—
w F-.
U • �
O -
o '-
w W
u"
w
U
0
z
S.City of Tukwila
ti n, all cicvator C813 al,ull N MANA
d v li t of f munity De&f 9 G 1 AT
d with a Fire Department override
control. One elevator shall be of a
hough to accommodate a standard
stretcher in the full horizontal position.
(This elevator is to be on the emergency power
system.)
(Ord. 1167 §3(13), 1980)
siz
ambulance
16.48.160 Emergency evacuation notification
system.
The building must contain an emergency
evacuation notification system which has been
approved by the Chief of the Fire Department for use
in that building.
(Ord. 1167 §3 (14), 1980)
16.48.170 Smoke evacuation system.
The building must contain a smoke evacuation
system which has been approved by the Chief of the
Fire Department for use in that building, taking into
consideration the design of the heating, ventilation and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems of the building.
(Ord. 1167 §3(15), 1980)
Sections:
16.52.010
16.52.020
16.52.030
16.52.040
16.52.050
16.52.070
16.52.080
Chapter 16.52 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Findings.
Purpose.
Policies for reducing flood losses.
Definitions.
The flood control zone permit process -
General provisions.
Provisions for flood hazard reduction.
Penalties for noncompliance.
(Ord. 1462 §2(parc), 1988)
caster, Director
16.52.010 Findings.
The City Council of the City finds that:
1. The City has entered into the Green River
management agreement with other jurisdictions to
create policies and requirements for the management
of drainage into the Green River.
2. The City is committed in cooperation with
other agencies to a dike /levee program for the
protection of adjacent low -lying properties.
3. The City is committed to carrying out the
local responsibilities for the flood insurance program to
assist eligibility for flood insurance.
4. The City is committed to securing/
obtaining right -of -way easements for future dike /levee
protection system to assure maintenance.
5. The City is committed to adequate bank
protection of properties.
16.52.020 Purpose.
It is the purpose of TMC 16.52 to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare, and to
minimize public and private losses due to flood
conditions in specific areas by enacting provisions
designed to:
1. Protect life, health and property by
controlling the use of lands below the 100 -year
floodplain in flood zone area No. 2;
2. Minimize business interruptions;
3. Ensure that those who occupy the areas of
special flood hazard assume responsibility for their
actions at the time of development or substantial
redevelopment of their properties;
4. Protect downstream or surrounding
property from higher velocities or higher flood levels
which may be caused by loss of holding capacity in the
floodplain;
5. Minimize the expenditure of public
money for remedial flood control measures;
6. Minimize the need for rescue and relief
efforts associated with flooding which are generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public;
.,•_,, •
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: P-6 , 20 0431 3665
Community and Parks Committee
Tuesday, November 27, 2001
5:00 p.m. •
Pam Linder,-Chair
. Joe Duffie
Richard Simpson
Agenda
Agenda items
Action
1. TIB Urban Renewal Area
2. Contract for Services for
Urban Center Sub Area Study
3. Park Facility Rental Fee
Adjustment
4. Park Activity Fee Adjustment
5. Park Funding and Metropolitan
Park Districts
6. Litter in the City
/„0 di V)(. , tAi A
_ _____
Staff and the Planning Commission have
planned some standards to use in a trial
urban renewal area. The committee can
discuss these issues, and recommend
them to the full Council.
Recommend contract to Dec 3rd Regular
Meeting.
Discuss rental rate fees and recommend
fee schedule to COW.
Discuss activity fees and ways to offer
pass cards for extended use.
Bruce will update the committee on King
County's funding problems and the
possibility of a Metro park district.
Discuss alternatives for cleaning up litter in
the City.
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate persons with disabilities. Please call Lucy Lauterbach
at 433 -1834 if you need special accommodations.
/ 0 .
I
d uct
..'.�
Memorandum
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: November 20, 2001
To: Community Affairs and Parks
From: Steve Lancaster
Subject: Tukwila International Boulevard Urban Renewal Area —
Design Flexibility: L01 -055 Zoning Code Amendments
Background
In August, the City Council reviewed the option of creating additional leniency in the
City's Zoning Code in order to create a more attractive development environment on
Tukwila International Boulevard. They directed the Planning Commission to hold a
public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on amendments to the
City's Zoning Code.
Discussion
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2001. There was no
testimony and the Planning Commission concluded their deliberations. Their decision is
attached. They agreed with the concept of additional design flexibility on a trial basis
within the Tukwila International Boulevard Urban Renewal Area. However, they
recommend that limits be placed on the amount of waivers that can be allowed on
building heights and landscape area. Given their recommendation of limits on certain
standards they concluded that a Type 4 process (the Board of Architectural Review) is an
appropriate decision making review for projects in the "Demonstration Program." In
addition, as an added inducement, the Planning Commission recommends that all land
use permit fees be waived on projects in the "Demonstration Program."
Request
1. Prior to preparing an ordinance, staff would like to know Council's policy direction
on the proposal. Substantively the CAP should discuss the issue and either:
a. Forward the issue to a City Council COW meeting for further review and
discussion; or
b. Ask for a draft ordinance to be prepared reflecting the Planning
Commission or OAP's recommendation.
0 .:auth. cente arRP, 1.g;Y,. oln4g1
,
Page 1 of 2
a , _ as/�' gton 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
2. The CAP may also wish to ask the City Clerk to schedule an additional public hearing
on the issue for the public and City Council's benefit.
Attachments:
C:\mcb\TV\Olmem710.doc
Planning Commission Recommendation
October 31, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report
Planning Commission Draft Minutes
Page 2 of 2
..._...
Item 4.
Item 5.
Planning Commission Recommendation
Items 1., 2., 3.
Project Eligibility
• A total of three "demonstration program" applications will be accepted and reviewed. z
• A program evaluation must occur on three BAR approved projects prior to acceptance I
of any further "demonstration program" applications. w
• Each project site must be a minimum of 3/4 acres in size; and 6 D
Projects must be located within the Tukwila International Boulevard urban renewal 0 0
II
area, which is bounded by S. 146 St., S. 140 St., 37 Av. S., and 42 Av. S. w w
J f..
Discretionary Waivers
Standards of the following Chapters may be waived in the Demonstration Program:
• Supplemental Development Regulations (TMC 18.50;)
• Landscape, up to 25% of the required area, and Recreation Recycling /Solid Waste Space
Requirements (TMC 18.52;) (The Planning Commission felt that landscaping is
important to a high quality environment and set a minimum of 75% of the required area
for landscaping be maintained.)
• Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations, except that some accommodation for on-
site loading must be provided, i.e. no off -site loading will be allowed (TMC 18.56;) and
• Setback and Height standards of each zone may be waived. Height waiver limits will be
up to and including 4 stories or 45 feet and office may be allowed in the these portions
of additional building heights /levels in the NCC zone.
Decision Criteria
The decision makers shall make findings using the following criteria:
1. Is compatible with on -site and /or off site residential;
2. Serves as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented commercial areas
into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas;
3. Expands the consumer market through jobs or housing that supports the retail and
commercial goods and services of the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor;
4. Meets the criteria and guidelines of the Tukwila International Boulevard Design
Manual; and
5. Provides functional public ,spaces that have materials that complement the adjacent
civic places and streetscape.
Item 6.
Procedures
A Type 4 review process shall be followed for any proposed project.
Item 7•
No additional fee should be charged for a prdject in the Demonstration Program and both the Design
Review and SEPA fees should be waived.
C: \mcb \TV \pc recommend.doc
z
HEARING DATE:
NOTIFICATION:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
ASSOCIATED PERMITS:
LOCATION:
SEPA DETERMINATION:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Tukwila
Staff Report to
Tukwila Planning Commission
Prepared October 31, 2001
SEPA Determination — File E01 - 022
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
November 8, 2001
Seattle Times Notice of Public Hearing on October 31, 2001
City of Tukwila Web Page: www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
L01 -055 — Zoning Code Amendment
City of Tukwila
Zoning Code Amendment to add a new chapter entitled
"Demonstration Program for Innovative Development." The new
chapter creates a standards waiver process for eligible projects.
Citywide or within the Tukwila International Bl corridor
Determination of Nonsignificance
Forward Zoning Code amendment recommendations to the City
Council
Moira Carr Bradshaw
A. City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
(8/13/01)
B. Urban Renewal Map
C. Existing Discretionary Waivers
D. Zoning Code Standards Matrix
E. Summary Recommendation
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 8100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
Staff Report to the Planning Coil,snission L01 -0a0 Demonstration Program
Background
Findings
The City continues its efforts to revitalize and set in motion development that will create a
physical and social center on Tukwila International Boulevard (TDB.) The goal is to have
commercial goods and services for the area's residents, to expand the market for commercial
goods and services, provide civic space and activities, improve the aesthetic environment, and to
create a pedestrian friendly place along Tukwila International Boulevard, that is active and safe
around the clock.
In conjunction with public capital projects for the TDB street improvement and a new
neighborhood park at 37 Av. S. and S. 144 St, the Revitalization Plan included a strategy for the
development of a model project or projects at the heart of the corridor. The hope is that a model
new development will set the stage for the transformation of other properties along Tukwila
International Bl.
New capital investment in redeveloped properties has been minor in the last four years. There are
two development models that occur within the region that are envisioned for the corridor — some
combination of commercial with residential or commercial with office. Natural and existing
economic market forces are not inclined to create this type of development in this section of
corridor. There are a wide number of reasons. First, there was uncertainty over the future of light
rail locating in the corridor and how it's design would impact properties and the commitment of
Sound Transit to a station location. Secondly, land is available elsewhere in the region at similar
prices but where higher rents occur or where land is less expensive. Third, no significant physical
change in the area is visibly apparent — other than the removal of several uses and the creation of
a vacant lot.
There is some additional flexibility possible in the City's Zoning Code that could be allowed on
an experimental basis under special review. Waivers from City standards already exist in the
Code. Allowing additional opportunities for waivers. from code standards may induce specific
proposals and the type of development the community would like to see in the corridor.
City Council Review
The City Council reviewed the concept of a "Demonstration Program" and requests the Planning
Commission consider code changes that allow additional flexibility for the redevelopment of the
corridor. Attached are the minutes from their meeting when this issue was discussed.
(Attachment A)
Policy Options
Below are the policy options being considered for creating additional inducements or eliminating
regulatory impediments to redevelopment and infill development. This proposal would be in the
form of a program for demonstration projects.
. :. ��
z
Q 1-
6
=z
~ • w
O 0
CO 0
L11
� u_
w 0
• CI
U-
r-0
Z ~
O • -
• F-
ill W
1 —
u. ~O
..z
w
=
0
z
Location
Advantages/Disadvantages
TIB urban renewal area
•
The urban renewal designation identifies this area as
(See Attachment B)
subject to unique challenges, which should qualify it
for special techniques.
•
The community knows what it wants — and standards
shouldn't be waived in an area that will have higher
amounts of public activity and that is important
because of its central location.
Anywhere in the TIB corridor
•
Dispersed affect of variations from standards.
•
Potential stimulus impact on other properties in the
corridor.
Within a V4 or V2 mile radius of
•
Supports transit oriented development.
transit stops
•
Bus stops are variable and can move depending on
transit operations budget, rerouting of bus lines, and
property owner opinions.
•
Further dispersal of impact.
•
Loses stimulant impact.
Staff Report to the Planning Cori „nission L01 -0.,,, Demonstration Program
1. Where in the City should the waivers in development standards be allowed to
occur?
Although the focus of City efforts have been in the TIB corridor and specifically around the
intersection of S. 144 St., in creating and designing this program, the City could consider a
"Demonstration Program” elsewhere in the community.
Discussion:
The City adopted an urban renewal plan in January 2000 that includes a map of the urban
renewal area. (Attachment B) The area is bounded by streets except for the one block that
contains Larry's Market, which is bordered by two apartment complexes on the west side.
By adopting this program for the TIB urban renewal area, a message is sent about the importance
of this area's redevelopment and seriousness of the efforts to transform its development.
Recommendation:
The TIB urban renewal area.
Page 3 of 11
Number of Projects : ° • .'"
Advantages/Disadvantages • •
No limit
•
Unknown demand.
•
Implications and results of program are
unknown.
■
Greater potential impact of either good or
bad.
Three
•
As a test, there should be some limit so that
an evaluation can be done of the successes
and failings of approved projects.
•
A sufficient sample is needed to obtain
consequential results.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
2. Should there be a limit on the number of projects that may apply under the
"Demonstration Program ?"
Discussion:
There are a number of reasons to pursue this program, and to some extent the reasons will vary
depending on where the program is implemented (Question 1.) A demonstration program by
definition is meant to show what can be done given a set of circumstances. This program can be
seen as an opportunity to test the development market
Recommendation:
Three completed projects and then prepare an evaluation of results from the program.
Page 4 of 11
'+
Size
Advantages/Disadvantages
Three quarters of an acre
•
•
The area around TIB was originally platted in 37,000 —
39,000 square foot rectilinear tracts.
Many of the lots have been reconfigured and the size
varies considerably.
2 acres
•
•
•
As a policy option this requirement would send a
message that the City is looking for the development of
larger sites and may cause the aggregation of separate
parcels.
Potentially limits the type and number of projects.
Staff resources and Commission/Council time would be
better spent on fewer and larger projects.
Projects that contain a
two story building
component
•
Supports Comp Plan Policy that directs the
encouragement of two — four story buildings.
.50 Floor area ratio
i.e. A 20,000 sq. ft. site
would need to propose
10,000 sq. ft. of floor area
a
•
N
Identifies and benefits a project that provides a
significant structural presence.
A development with more floor area is likely to be more
people oriented than car oriented.
Limits potential projects.
Staff Report to the Planning Colifinission
3. Should there be a minimum project size?
This is an eligibility question like the one above. Not only where a project in the "Demonstration
Program" may be located but what other characteristics should a project have?
Discussion:
As an example of site sizes, the Larry's Market is approximately 50,000 square feet and in one
story and sits on approximately. 5 acres; Pete's Flying Aces and the Pawn Shop sit on
approximately 2 acres; the demolished Newporter Apartment site is a little over 3 /4 of an acre.
In urban areas, the smaller (less than an acre) lot is not uncommon and creative design can
produce high quality projects regardless of the size of the lot. The size of the project and its
design is more pertinent to the overall impact of a project.
Although more intensive development is desired, there is the potential of limiting desirable
projects by specifying some standard. Because the majority of the sites within the corridor are
less than an acre, because smaller sites are more restricted and arguably difficult to develop, the
small sites should be eligible for the program.
Recommendation:
Three quarters of an acre
L01 -0aa Demonstration Program
Standards
Advantages/Disadvantages
Height
•
Potential of providing the most positive economic returns
and therefore provides the greatest inducement.
In order to provide a height
waiver option for office uses in
the TIB NCC district, a
variation in the permitted use
section is also required.
•
Most visible departure from current code when built.
Landscape, Recreation,
Recycling/Solid space
•
The City's current standards are geared toward suburban
commercial strip. The goal of the program is to try to
requirements
achieve a new model of development that is more pedestrian
than auto.
i.e. Tree, shrub and
•
Current waivers are only allowed in situations where
groundcover specifications;
pedestrian oriented space is provided in front or access is
Landscape island every 10
shared on properties that share a side yard and access across
stalls;
the side yard.
100 square foot min planting
•
There may be situations where a rear yard or other yard
bed.;
400 sq. ft. rec. space /unit;
waiver would be of assistance.
max. 50 % rec. space indoor
•
There may be situations where an off -site facility would be
and covered.
more efficient and practical given the size of a project.
•
Depending on the location of the project, the neighborhood
may or may not currently meet adopted park space ratios.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
4. What standards should be considered for waivers?
L01 -05a Demonstration Program
Currently a wide array of standards may be waived subject to certain criteria being met.
Attachment C summarizes the specific standards and criteria as well as the types of processes
required for waiver requests.
Below is a list of the standards that currently have no waiver mechanism other than through a
Type 3 variance, which has specific state mandated decision making criteria, or the waiver criteria
may allow for limited application.
Page 6 of 11
Setbacks
See Attachment D for
standards.
•
•
Waiving landscaping requirements will not yield a benefit
unless the setback can also be manipulated.
Yard patterns vary considerably expecially along TIB where
there is older development.
Off Street Parking and
Loading Chapter
•
Rely on developer and public review to create successful,
marketable parking.
•
There may be waivers to general requirements that are not
i.e. clearance at loading
zones, degree of slope to
parking lots, ratio of compact
stalls to standard stalls,
dimensions for stall /zone
size;
covered by the number of parking stall waivers.
Staff Report to the Planning Lommission
L01 -Ob0 Demonstration Program
Discussion:
There is a significant price point for buildings in the City due to the High -Rise Buildings chapter
of the TMC. Any building over four stories is required to install fire fighting equipment with
significant costs. Major height waivers are therefore not anticipated.
The other items listed above are fairly minor but have the potential of providing some helpful
flexibility.
Recommendation:
Allow all zoning code chapters listed above to be included in the "Demonstration Program."
Page 7 of 11
I 0
_-
ce w
6
00
N o
LLI
J z
F-
U) u_
w
LQ
co
=
�w
z F
�
Z
W
w
U �
O N
o 1-
w • w
t-�
LL O
..z
w
U =
F. O
z
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -05o Demonstration Program
5. What should be the decision criteria for waivers from the above standards?
What are the expectations of the City with respect to a demonstration project? Designers and
decision makers need guidance on what to design and what to approve, how to condition and
what to deny. Design costs are typically 10% of a project's total cost. If the programming of a
site is significantly different than what will be approved then redesign could eliminate a potential
project.
Analysis:
Because of the flexibility offered by the Demonstration Program, the criteria should be wide -
ranging but explicit. The developer should view the Demonstration Program as an opportunity to
be creative without the strictures of specific Zoning Code standards. The Program also needs to
convey what is feasible from an approval standpoint
Recommendation:
The decision makers approving a demonstration project should use all of the above six criteria.
Page 8 of 11
iI
Size
Advantages/Disadvantages
Type 2 — Director's
Decision
• More certainty, less time and money spent on a review process.
• Fewer types of opportunities to comment on a protect.
Type 4- Planning
Commission/BAR
Decision
Maintains the status quo because all development currently goes to the
BAR for design review.
Type 5 — City
Council Decision
• The Council sets the standards of the City and therefore might be
most appropriate for waiving from those standards.
• More opportunity and lengthier time frame for commenting.
• The City Council does not routinely review development design.
• More time, more money, less certainty spent on a design resulting in
less flexibility for applicant.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
6. What process should be used to decide on these waivers from the Code?
Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests would be laid
out in a staff analysis /report of findings and conclusions on the project's design. The City has
five types of approval processes. From a Type 1 to a Type 5, each type has increasingly greater
degrees of public notice and review and therefore decision uncertainty for an applicant.
Discussion:
All of the above processes allow public review and comment. Attachment C gives an example
of the current review process for various types of waivers. A Notice of Application is posted on
site and mailed to property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the property lines for
all types of applications. A public comment of 14 days is established for Type 2 and 4 and 21
days for Type 5. Additional opportunities for comment are allowed with Type 4 through a public
hearing and with Type 5 through a public meeting and a public hearing.
All substantial new development must go through a design review process, which is the type 4
process. A Type 4 process is shorter than the Type 5 because of the required public meeting prior
to the public hearing and the longer comment period.
Another option would be to use a tiered waiver system. For example, the types of standards being
waived would be tied to a type of process. The most significant potential waiver is the height
waiver; therefore in all instances other than when a height waiver is requested, a demonstration
project could go through a Type 4 process. A height waiver would require a Type 5 process.
Review processes are a disincentive because of the time and uncertainty involved and this is
meant to be an incentive program. By using a Type 4 for the majority of waivers, no additional
requirements are asked of the developer.
Recommendation:
Type 5 for projects requesting a height waiver, otherwise a Type 4.
i
L01 -050 Demonstration Program
z
Iz
w
.J U
O 0
rn a
111 I
w °
Q
d
w
z
z0
w
w
U �
O -
a �-
w
• 0
u'O
Z
U=
o
z
::'Fee .- =
•
•
•
Advantages/Disadvantages
Appropriate for an incentive program
The land use review fees are nominal and
do not cover the costs of review
Applicants are already paying for design
review and the demonstration project
review requires no additional steps.
No fee
$900
•
•
A more flexible system requires more
review and negotiation with an applicant
Tukwila development fees are reasonable
compared to other jurisdictions in the
region
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
7. Should there be a fee charged?
L01 -05a Demonstration Program
Discussion:
The fee for design review, a type 4 process is $900.00 and for SEPA is $325.00. This is the
minimum current City charge for development design approvals. There are also traffic
concurrency fees, which depend on the number of new vehicular trips generated during the peak
hour at locations that are below adopted minimums, and the building permit fees, which are a
little less than 10% of the value of the project.
The impact of a flat fee will vary with the overall budget for a project. On a million dollar
project, a $900 fee is less than .1 percent. It makes sense to charge no additional fees other than
the $900.00 design review fee for either a Type 4 or Type 5 demonstration project because this is
an incentive program and because land use fees are not important revenue sources for the City.
Recommendation:
All projects must complete in conjunction with a Demonstration Program review, design review
with its accompanying fee of $900.
Conclusions
1) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (City of Tukwila, 1995, amended) includes as its #2
priority (page 3) the redevelopment and reinvigoration of the Pacific Highway corridor, later
renamed Tukwila International Boulevard. It also reads:
Policy 8.5.7 Encourage two to four story building within the NCC to emphasize their
importance and desired activity level, limiting commercial uses to two lower levels except
in urban renewal areas.(page 102)
Policy 2.1.5 Act in partnership with the private sector to fund infrastructure as part of a
sub -area plan to encourage redevelopment as an inducement to convert outdated and
underutilized land and buildings to high valued and or appropriate land uses. (page 34)
Page 10 of 11
IZ
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
L01 -050 Demonstration Program
2) The Tukwila International Boulevard Urban Renewal Plan (City of Tukwila, 2000) calls for
maximizing opportunity for private enterprise and reiterates the strategies listed earlier in the
Revitalization Plan regarding real property investment; specifically:
Allow more efficient use of sites and encourage pedestrian friendly development by
providing flexibility in applying landscaping and setback standards in the commercial
district. (page 21)
3) The obstacles to redevelopment have not changed since the Plan's adoption and continued
efforts are required before changes will occur.
4) Waivers from standards have precedent within the Code and are established subject to
reasonable review and are guided by adopted criteria.
5) The State Growth Management Act states that growth should be accommodated within the
urban area. The proposed Demonstration Program is a safeguard that allows the market and
developers the opportunity to take advantage of flexibility and site intensification in order to
accommodate increased utilization of property.
6) The three projects that could be reviewed under the Demonstration Program are tests and
would be evaluated for success and applicability elsewhere in the City.
7) The proposed public review process will allow for community and legislative review of
appropriateness and desirability of potential changes in development proposals.
Recommendation
Make a recommendation (See Attachment E) to the City Council on proposed changes:
C: \mcb \TV\STAFF rpt.doc
Page 11 of 11
�`, �.. ,. ..
Minutes, 8/13/01
minimize the ongoing usage of the existing unit.
Page 4 of 9
To that end, Mr. Morrow spoke in favor of Council allowing staff to proceed with the purchase of the
mechanical sweeper with delivery and invoicing in 2002.
Council consensus existed, allowing the Public Works Director to place the order now.
f. Selection of contest winner — Clean -up ideas from Tukwila Days
Councilmember Linder noted this item appeared on the Community Affairs and Parks Committee
agenda recently; where no consensus among the members existed. The City Council sponsored a contest
for the best anti - littering suggestion, during the 2001 Tukwila Days event.
While at the Committee level, there was no clear consensus as to who the winner should be as all
suggestions were very good. One item the Committee did agree upon was to send a letter to all those
who submitted suggestions, thanking them and stating appreciation for their involvement.
Council conducted a ballot vote to determine the winner of the contest. Six responses were received;
with Councilmember Duffle abstaining from the vote. The winning idea ( #19) received three votes. It
states, "I have two boys 3 and 6 years old. Whenever we go to a park or playground we bring a bag and
pick up garbage before we leave. If everyone did this it would help control the litter problem. The
person presenting this idea will be awarded a $45.00 gift certificate to a local area restaurant. The $45.00
was collected, personally, by members of the City Council.
Second place, and the winner of $35.00 gift certificate (also to an area restaurant), was "suggestion #7."
It states, "Have a pride in community contest. A lot of Tukwila looks like a dump. People don't take
care of their yards, fences, or parking strips. Let's get some pride in where we live. Maybe some seniors
need some help! Provide permanent garbage cans around the neighborhood." Money for this gift
certificate was also donated, personally, by members of the City Council.
Winners will be notified by Lucy Lauterbach, Legislative Analyst. Additionally, the Council President
will work with Ms. Lauterbach to formulate a thank you letter, previously mentioned.
Finally, this item will be forwarded to the Community Affairs & Parks Committee for further action and
consideration of ideas presented. Consideration of a hoped -for, long -term plan will be the focus of that
discussion.
g. Demonstration program: Innovative mixed -use development for urban renewal area along T. I. B.
Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, presented staffs report on this item, which was previously before
the Community Affairs & Parks Committee. Generated by City Administration and Staff, the idea
behind the program is to look for opportunities to stimulate redevelopment in the Tukwila International
Boulevard Corridor.
The concept of the program is to develop criteria for eligible projects; project size and phasing; review
processes and types of standards and criteria within the zoning code which could be waived. Waiving of
some criteria may provide incentive for developers.
The proposed program would require an amendment of the City's Zoning Code; (requiring a
recommendation from the Council); consideration of and public hearing by the Planning Commission;
Attachment A
:
Minutes, 8/13/01 - Page 5 of 9
and remand of the item to COW and Regular meeting for adoption of an ordinance, if so chosen.
Noting City staff is in favor of more than just a retail presence on corridor, Ms. Bradshaw reviewed
some of the ideas suggested for the basic criteria mentioned earlier.
Eligibility Project location within an urban renewal area & proposed minimum size of 2 acres
(possibility for phased development).
Review Proposed Type 5 review process, requiring a public hearing and decision by the City Council.
Due to potential for requirement waivers, staff believes Council may want to make such decisions.
Code Amend. Create /modify Board of Architectural Review Chapter of the TMC (18.104); to provide
the scope and authority for the program and to specify the authority for and criteria to be followed on
waivers from TMC standards.
Amend permit application types and procedures Chapter of TMC and add Demonstration Program for
Innovative Mixed Use Developments to the Type 5 table.
Standards Waived Currently, landscaping and setbacks may be waived subject to certain requirements
being met. Examples of additional waivers to consider would be height, parking and recreation space
requirements.
Decision on Waivers Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests
would be laid out in staff analysis /report and approval would be granted by Council, using the Type 5
review process.
Waiver of other standards would be developed for the Demonstration Program and defined in the City's
design review criteria or guidelines.
Council discussed the proposed project amongst themselves and with staff. Clarification was given by
staff where necessary. While Councilmember Duffle had nothing to add, the remaining Councilmembers
spoke in favor of the concept which would (potentially) eliminate some "red tape "; department directors
being able to have greater discretion and authority in some areas; speed up processes; and jump start the
development on the T. I. B. Corridor.
Anna Bernhard, Tukwila, asked what the City would do in the event of a request from someone
outside the urban renewal area for the same concessions granted to those within the urban renewal area.
Response from Council and City Administration indicated that should this scenario occur, the City can
consider them on a project by project basis.Based upon discussions between Council and staff, Ms.
Bradshaw reiterated what was said and noted the item would be forwarded to the Planning Commission
for consideration and public hearing.
h. Transit - oriented Development Master Plan for Longacres area.
Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development briefed Council on the Transit - Oriented
Development Master Plan (TOD).
With assistance from the Ball -Janik firm, the City previously submitted an application for federal funds
to assist with the Urban Center planning effort, and to develop a detailed master plan and development
strategy for TOD in the Longacres Commuter Rail Station area. While not yet in the House
. cle doc 1 cow8- 13.htm
(
Tukwila International Boulevard
Urban Renewal Area
City of Tukwila Zoning Map
•
North 11/99
Attachment B
Figure AI
Standard
Existing Discretionary Waivers
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
DCD staff
Front yard
setback
Average of yards on adjacent lots
Type 1
Tree
.Replacement
• Project feasibility or reasonable use would be jeopardized
• Alternative proposal meets purpose and intent of chapter
• Exception would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to
other property in the vicinity
• Size of project cannot support tree replacement and off -site planting is
proposed.
• Smaller sized replacements are more suited to the species, site and
planted in sufficient quantities to meet purpose and intent of chapter
• On site planting is not feasible and there is an equivalent contribution in
funds and or labor and materials for off site planting
Type 1
DCD Director
Landscape
perimeter
averaging
• Plant material is clustered to more effectively screen parking areas and
blank building walls
• Enables significant trees or existing built features to be retained
• Averaging is used to reduce the number of driveways and curb cuts and
allow joint use of parking
• Reduction is not to the point that activities on site become a nuisance to
neighbors
• Does not diminish the quality of site landscape as a whole
Type 2
DCD Director
Wetland or
watercourse
buffer — up to
50% reduction
• Buffer does not contain slopes of 20% or more;
• Reduction will not result in direct or indirect short or long term adverse
impacts to wetland or watercourse; and
• the buffer is vegetated and includes enhancement plan to improve the
buffer function and value; or
• If no vegetation in buffer exists, an enhancement plan is provided
• 15 ft. min. wetland and 10 ft. min. watercourse
Type 2
DCD Director
C: \mcb \TV\waivcr matrix.doc
Page 1 of 3
10/31/01
Attachment C
Z
�
w .
00
J
2 LL
w
5
co
= a
w
z =
z0
• w
U �
O ( -2
• F-
w w
F- �
• O
w z
U P-
H =
o ''"
z
Standard
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Sensitive area
buffer setback
• Site plan demonstration of no impacts
Type 2
DCD Director
1. Sensitive
Areas Study
2. PRD for new
subdivision
or multi -
family
development
3. Pre -
development
conference
4. Constriction
Monitoring
• Substantial evidence that the classification is correct that no detrimental
impact to the sensitive area or buffer and the goals and requirement of
SAO are met
• Size and complexity of project does not warrant the requirement
Type 2
DCD Director
Off - street
parking — up to
10% reduction
• All shared parking opportunities are explored
• On -site park and ride is explored
• Site compliance with Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance (CTR)
• Site is at least 300 feet from SFR district
° Report substantiating less parking and suggesting mitigation for
potential negative impacts
Type 2
DCD Director
Off street
parking — over
10% reduction
Type 4 — Design Review
Board of
Architectural Review
(BAR)
Front Yard
.Setbacks in TIB
corridor
Pedestrian Oriented Space provided'
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
Front Yard
Landscape
Pedestrian Oriented Space provided'
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
Pedestrian oriented space is an area between a building and a public strect.that promotes visual and pedestrian access onto the site and that provides pedestrian oriented
amenities and landscaping that enhances the public's use of the space. To qualify as a "pedestrian oriented space an area must have:
• visual and pedestrian access into the site from the public right of way,
• paved walking surface of either concrete or approved unit paving,
• onsite or building mounted lighting providing at least 2 foot candles avg. on the ground,
• at least 2 feet of seating area or one individual scat per 60 S.F. of plaza area or open space.
C: \mcl \TV\waivcr matrix.doc
Page 2 of 3
10/31/01
z
2 i
re W
_r 0
U0 to
W =
Jt...
w 0
J
u. j.
w
tw
-- _
z �
H 0
Z • ~
U �
0 Y
0 h-
w
0
w z
U �
H � .
0
z
Standard
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Side Yard
Amount. of landscape area waived is located elsewhere on the site; and
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
Setback or
Shared access between adjoining sites
Landscape
Party wall structures, coiiimon driveway and or shared parking
Wetland or
• Standard would deny all reasonable use of property
Type 4
Planning
Watercourse
• No reasonable use with less impact is possible
Commission
Removal
• No feasible on site alternative
• No increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off site public or
private property and no threat to public health safety or welfare on or off
the development site .
• Alternations shall be the minimum necessary to allow the reasonable
use
• Proposed deVelolimeiit. is compatible in design scale and use with other
development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity
• Disturbance or sensitive area. is minimized by locating necessary
alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible
The inability to derive reasonable use is not the result. of actions by the
applicant by segregating or dividing the property
• A mitigation plan is approved
Up to 15% Lot
size reduction
• 15% natural vegetation is retained
• advantage is taken of or enhancement is achieved of significant site
features
Type 5 PRD application
City Council
• separation of auto and pedestrian movement
_
• Development complements policies of Comp Plan
Up to 20% more
dwelling units in
multi-family
residential
districts
• Multi- family residential district
• A variety of housing types
• At least 15% natural vegetation is retained
4 Advantage is taken or enhancement achieved of unusual or significant
site features
Type 5 PRD application
City Council
• Separation Of auto and pedestrian movement
• Development complements policies of Comp Plan
C: \mcb \TV\waivcr matrix.doc
Page3 of3
10/31/01
■J
CITY OF TUKWILA ZONING . ti2 CODE STANDARDS
45� rp 6 ; Department of Co,u,niurifh Development
'��� "cam Soulhcenier Boulevard, Tukwila, iVA 98188 1
4 0: Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 MATRIX
jsag . E-mail: lukplan@ci.tukivila.wa.us
LDR
MDR
HDR
MUO
O
RCC
NCC
RC
RCM
TUC
C /LI
Li
HI
MIC /L
MIC /H
TVS
Lot Area - (Minimum lot size in
sq. ft.)
6500
8000
9600
5000
Lot Area per Unit (Multi- Family)
3000
2000
3000
3000
2000 3
3000
2000
2000
Average Lot Width (minimum 20
ft street frontage width)
50
60
60
'aximum Building Footprint
.35
Setbacks
Front
20
25
25
20
6 5
20
20
15
25
25
25
20
20
25
Front - 1st floor
15
15
Front - 2nd floor
20
20
Front - 3rd floor
30
30
Front - 4th floor
45
Front - Decks or porches
15
Second Front
10
12.5
12.5
10
5
10
10
15
12.5
12.5
12.5
10
10
12.5
Second Front - 1st floor
7.5
7.5
Second Front - 2nd floor
10
10
Second Front - 3rd floor
15
15
Second Front - 4th floor
22.5
Sides
5
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
0
0
5
Sides - 1st floor
10
10
Sides - 2nd floor
20
20
Sides - 3rd floor
20
20
30
Sides - 4th floor
30
30
Sides - adjacent LDR, MDR, HDR
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 20'
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
- 1st floor
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
- 2nd floor
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
- 3rd floor
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Rear
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
0
0
5
Rear - 1st floor
10
10
Rear - 2nd & 3rd floor
20
20
Rear - 4th floor
30
Rear - adjacent LDR, MDR, HDR
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
1,5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 20'
1.5 ft
height =
1 ft.
setback;
min 10' &
max 30'
- 1st floor
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
- 2nd floor
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
- 3rd floor
30
30
30
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
(
G: VIPPNANILANDUSE.APPIDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.XLS, 10131/01
Attachment D
1 of 2
z
w
ce N , • a
W W
LL
J H
WO
2
u_ Q
2
I-W
Z =
F-
1— O
Z 1—
W ui
2 • p
O • -
0 1--
L1.1
1— • U
W -
-- O
z
W
U=
0
Z
y J- �r wgs y, CITY OF I'UIfIVII.A ZONING CODE STANDARDS
. [�; Department of Community Development
• "'� \to O % Southcenfer Boulevard, Tukwila, ll'A 98188 1
1n \ r D w, _ / Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 MATRIX
1908 _ l3 -mail: ntkplan@ci.lukivila.wa.us
LDR
MDR
HDR
MUO
0
RCC
NCC
RC
RCM
TUC
C /LI
LI
HI
MIC /L
MIC /H
TVS
Height°
30
30
45
3/45
3/35
3/35
3/35
3/35
3/35
115
4/45
4/45
4/45
4/45
125
115
Landscape
Front(s)
15
15
15
15
5
10
10
15
12.5
12.5
12.5
5
5
15
Sides
10
10
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
Sides - adjacent LDR, MDR, HDR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
Rear
10
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oar- adjacent LDR, MDR,HDR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
L)evelopment Area Coverage
(Maximum)
0.5
0.5
Recreation Space (s. f. per
dwelling unit, 1000 s. f. min)5
400
400
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Off- Street Parking stalls
Residential (per unit)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Accessory dwelling unit -See Accessory Use section of chapters for off -slree parking requirements
Office
2.5/1000
7_.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/100
3/1000
3/1000
3/1000
3/1000
2.5/1000
3/1000
Retail stall
2.5!1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
4/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
4/1000
Manufacturing
1/1000
1 /1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
Warehousing
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
Other Uses (see 18.56 TMC)
Performance Standards
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
FOOTNOTES
1 Numbers are minimum feet unless otherwise noted.
2 Special standards exist for senior housing.
3 Where height limit is 0 stories: 822 s.f.; where height limit Is 10 stories: 512 s.f.
4 On lois less than 8,500 sq ft. a maximum building footprint of 2,275 sq ft and compliance with minimum setbacks. On lots in excess of 6,500 sq It and up to 19,000 sq It reduce .35 by .125 for each additional 100 sq ft.
5 12' required in NCC if Located along Tukwila International Boulevard (SR 99)
0 Height — slories/leel
7 May be 4 stories or 4511. in the NCC district of the Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor, If mixed use with a residential and commercial component.
8 Required landscaping may Include a mix of plant materials, podestrain amenities and features, outdoor cart -type sealing and similar features, subject to approval.
P Sleltslusable floor area; orlher uses see figure 18.7 of On Street Parking and Loading Chapter (TMC 18.50).
10 Two for each dwelling unit that contains up to three bedrooms. One additional oft- street parking for every Iwo bedrooms in excess o13 bedrooms in a dwelling unit.
G:lAPPHAMLANOUSE.APP \DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.XLS, 10/31/01
•
2of2
Z
W
JU
0
NI WW
W • O
u
a
� W
Z =
F-
1- O
Z1-
W
W
U �
O P-
O 1-
W W
S
F- --
u"
Z
W
U=
O 1—
Z
Item 7.
Summary
Recommendation
Items 1, 2, 3
z
Project Eligibility
A total of three complete applications will be accepted prior to a program
evaluation. 6
Each proposed project must be a minimum of 3/4 acres in size and be located o 0
�w
within the Tukwila International Boulevard urban renewal area, which is � w
bounded by S. 146 St., S. l40 St., 37 Av. S., and 42 Av. S.
U) w.
Item 4. w o
Discretionary Waivers g 5
All standards of the following Chapters may be waived in the Demonstration u
Program: ▪ w
• S upplemental Development Regulations (TMC 18.50;) z j •
• Landscape, recreation recycling /solid waste space requirements (TMC z o
18.52 ;) w w
■ Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations; and 0
• Height standards of each zone may be waived; including the limitation on . S
number of office stories in the NCC zone. w '—
w
H U '
Item 5. u. 0
Decision Criteria w z
The decision makers shall make findings using the following criteria:
1. Provides innovative design solutions;
2. Is compatible with on -site and /or off site residential;
3. Serves as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented
commercial areas into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas;
4. Expands the consumer market through jobs or housing that supports the
retail and commercial goods and services of the Tukwila International
Boulevard corridor;
5. Creates high quality structures and sites; and
6. Provides functional public spaces that have materials that complement the
adjacent civic places and streetscape and
Item 6.
Procedures
A Type 5 review process shall be followed for any proposed project in the
Demonstration Program that request waivers of the height standards and a
Type 4 review process shall be followed for any other proposed projects
No additional fee shall be charged for a project in the Demonstration Program»
Attachment E
Attendance was taken.
Adjourned at 7:00
Respectfully Submitted
Wynetta Bivens
Administrative Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSIOI,
WORKSESSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2001
The worksession was called to order by Vern Meryhew at 6:00 p.m.
z
Present: Chair, Vern Meryhew, Vice Chair, David Livermore, Commissioners: Bill Arthur, Kirstine Whisler, ;i- w
George Malina, Margaret Bratcher, and Henry Marvin. rX 2
Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw, and Wynetta Bivens. J v
Moira Bradshaw provided the Commission with a background report on the proposed City Zoning Code Amendments. She v M
stated the City Council reviewed the proposed Amendments and recommended forwarding it on to the Planning Commission. The H
Council consensus was that they should be the reviewing body, in particular, for the proposed height waivers. u) w0
w
Moira also reviewed each of the policy options with the Planning Commission: g
u_Q
• Where in the City should the waivers in development standards be allowed to occur? u)
• Should there be a limit on the number of projects that may apply under the Demonstration Program? H w
• Should there be a minimum project size? z t--
• What standards should be considered for waivers? z O
• What should be the decision criteria for waivers from the above standards? W
• What process should be used to decide on these waivers from the Code? D 0
• Should there be a fee charged? (.) N
O E-
ww
F-P
L - O
z
w
O -
1— _
O ~
`.•_.,
z
•
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 2001
The Public Hearing was called to order by Vern Meryhew at 7:05 p.m.
Attendance:
Present:
Excused Absence:
Chair, Vern Meryhew, Vice Chair, David Livermore, Commissioners: Kirstine Whisler, Margaret
Bratcher, Bill Arthur, and Henry Marvin
George Malina.
Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw, and Wynetta Bivens.
KIRSTINE WHISLER MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AS AMENDED
FROM OCTOBER 25, 2001. MARGARET BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Vern Meryhew swore in those wishing to provide testimony.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L01 -055 — Zoning Code Amendment
City of Tukwila
Zoning code Amendment to add a new chapter entitled "Demonstration Program for Innovative
Development." The new chapter creates a standards waiver process for eligible projects.
Citywide or within the Tukwila International Blvd. Corridor
Moira Bradshaw gave the staff report.
There were no citizens present at the public hearing.
There was deliberation on the policy options that were reviewed at the Planning Commission worksession.
The seven policy options and recommendations made by the Planning Commission:
1. Where in the City should the waivers in development standards be allowed to occur?
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approved as proposed — The TIB urban renewal area.
2. Should there be a limit on the number of projects that may apply under the Demonstration Program?
PC Recommendation: After three approved Design Review, evaluate then decide whether to revise program —
results should be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council.
3. Should there be a minimum project size?
PC Recommendation: Approved as proposed — Three quarters of an acre (one opposed - Commissioner
Livermore)
4. What standards should be considered for waivers?
PC Recommendation: Height - Four stories and 45 ft. in the NCC and no restrictions on any use (One
opposed - Commissioner Whisler)
Landscaping - Up to 25% reduction of total landscaping and flexibility in its replacement.
Setbacks — No limitations.
Off Street Parking and Loading Chapter — Subject to provision of on site loading.
Planning Commission
Page 2
5. What should be the decision criteria for waivers from the above standards?
PC Recommendation: On the staff report, under Criteria, remove 5.1, re- number the criteria 5.1 -5.5, re-
numbered 5.2 under discussion Planning Commissioners noted that the criteria should be interpreted to mean z
"Does the project provide a design that can and could be considered for duplication elsewhere within the corridor = :
or City ", change 5.4 to read - Meets criteria guidelines of the TIB Manual. w
6. What process should be used to decide on these waivers from the Code? 6 = v
U O
w
CD LU
7. Should there be a fee charged? E
cn u_
wO
BILL ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE POLICY OPTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE u-
PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. DAVID LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION AND = d
THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MOTION. WHEN THE POLICY 1— _
OPTIONS GO TO CAP CHAIR MERYHEW REQUESTED A COPY BE MAILED TO THE PLANNING z }—
COMMISSION, SO THEY CAN REVIEW THEM INDIVIDUALLY. I-- O
Ili al
o
• No Planning Commission meeting in December 0 0
• Update on letter that Public Works mailed to citizens w
• Planning Commission updated mailing address and telephone list 0
• Update Comp Plan and Sensitive Area ordinance for next year u. O
PC Recommendation: All Type 4 Design Review process.
PC Recommendation: Waive Design Review and SEPA fees.
Director's Report
Adjourned at 8:25
Respectfully Submitted
Wynetta Bivens
Administrative Secretary
Q: \P LANCOM \MINUTES\ 1 1- 8- 01.doc
.. z
w
UN
0 H
O
z
Moira Bradshaw - Draft Planning Commission Recommendation. Page 1 ,
From: "David Livermore" <davidl @proctorinc.com>
To: "Moria Bradshaw" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us>
Date: 11/14/01 12:48PM
Subject: Draft Planning Commission Recommendation.
Hi Moria,
I'd like to make two comments on your Draft. The first would to be in Project Eligibility bullet 2. A program
evaluation must occur on three BAR approved projects prior to
The second is the 2nd bullet under Discretionary Waivers. While I do not have a personal problem with a
greater reduction the way I remember what was said was that landscaping could be reduced by up to 25%
not to 25 %. Check with Henry on this as I believe he is the one who came up with the 25% reduction.
Outside of these 2 items I feel this Draft represents what we generally agreed to.
Regards,
David Livermore
CHAIRMAN, VERN MERYHEW, VICE CHAIRMAN, DAVID LIVERMORE,
COMMISSIONERS, BILL ARTHUR, GEORGE MALINA, HENRY MARVIN, KIRSTINE
WHISLER, AND MARGARET BRATCHER
THURSDAY, November 8, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION — 6:00 PM
Zoning Code Amendment Demonstration Program
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ATTENDANCE
III. ADOPTION OF MINUTES — October 25, 2001
IV. CASE NUMBER: L01 -055 (Zoning Code Amendment)
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Zoning Code Amendment to add a new chapter entitled "Demonstration
Program for Innovative Development." The new chapter creates a standards
waiver process for eligible projects.
LOCATION: City Wide
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
♦ Status of Group Health Improvements (see memo)
VII. ADJOURN
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 20&431 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSESSION
and
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers
Item 5.
Planning Commission Recommendation
Items 1, 2, 3
Project Eligibility
• A total of three "demonstration program" applications will be accepted and reviewed.
• A program evaluation must occur on three approved projects prior to acceptance of any
further "demonstration program" applications.
z
• Each project site must be a minimum of 3/4 acres in size; and
• Projects must be located within the Tukwila International Boulevard urban renewal 6 v
area, which is bounded by S. 146 St., S. 140 St., 37 Av. S., and 42 Av. S. U o
co Item 4.
Discretionary Waivers o
A standards of the following Chapters may be waived in the Demonstration Program: 2
• Supplemental Development Regulations (TMC 18.50;) g
• Landscape, up to 75% of the required area , and Recreation co
Recycling /Solid Waste Space Requirements (TMC 18.52;) (The Planning Commission 1. w
felt that landscaping is important to a high quality environment and set a minimum of z F--
2S% of the required area for landscaping be maintained.) z O
• Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations, except that some accommodation for on-
site loading must be provided, i.e. no off -site loading will be allowed (TMC 18.56;) and v o
• Setback standards of each zone na.a and the Height up o
to 4 stories or 45 feet; office may be allowed in all portions of an allowable building in w w
the NCC zone. v
4-- o
w
z
U =
0 I '
Decision Criteria
The decision makers shall make findings using the following criteria:
1. Is compatible with on -site and /or off site residential;
2. Serves as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented commercial areas
into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas;
3. Expands the consumer market through jobs or housing that supports the retail and
commercial goods and services of the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor;
4. Meets the criteria and guidelines of the Tukwila International Boulevard Design
Manual; and
5. Provides functional public spaces that have materials that complement the adjacent
civic places and streetscape.
Item 6.
Procedures
A Type 4 review process shall be followed for any proposed project.
Item 7.
No additional fee should be charged for a project in the Demonstration Program and both the Design
Review and SEPA fees should be waived.
C: \mcb \TV \pc recommend.doc
Attachment E
z
•
•
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
z
CC 111
O 0
cr)
J • =
HEARIN DATE: November 8, 2001 !- .
w
NOTIFICATION: Seattle Times Notice of Public Hearing on October 31, 2001
City of Tukwila Web Page: www.ci.tukwila.wa.us u-
co
FILE NUMBER: L01 -055 — Zoning Code Amendment
z �'
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila z o
2
REQUEST: Zoning Code Amendment to add a new chapter entitled v �.
"Demonstration Program for Innovative Development." The new o �
chapter creates a standards waiver process for eligible projects. = w
0
..z
w
LOCATION: Citywide or within the Tukwila International Bl corridor o
Staff Report to
Tukwila Planning Commission
Prepared October 31, 2001
ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA Determination — File E01 -022
SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance
RECOMMENDATION: Forward Zoning Code amendment recommendations to the City
Council
STAFF: Moira Carr Bradshaw
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
(8/13/01)
B. Urban Renewal Map
C. Existing Discretionary Waivers
D. Zoning Code Standards Matrix
E. Summary Recommendation
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665
- '. }
WI
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
Background
The City continues its efforts to revitalize and set in motion development that will create a
physical and social center on Tukwila International Boulevard (TIB.) The goal is to have
commercial goods and services for the area's residents, to expand the market for commercial
goods and services, provide civic space and activities, improve the aesthetic environment, and to
create a pedestrian friendly place along Tukwila International Boulevard, that is active and safe
around the clock.
odl go
In conjunction with public capital projects for the TIB street improvement and a new
neighborhood park at 37 Av. S. and S. 144 St, the Revitalization Plan included a strategy for the
development of a model project or projects at the heart of the corridor. The hope is that a model
t a1A new development will set the stage for the transformation of other properties along Tukwila
International Bl.
Findings
3 BLS New capital investment in redeveloped properties has been minor in the last four years. There are
O/ 2 two development models that occur within the region that are envisioned for the corridor — some
combination of commercial with residential or commercial with office. Natural and existing J �,� '
economic market forces are not inclined to create this type of development in this section of j
corridor. There are a wide number of reasonskFirst, there was uncertainty over the future of light VA
rail locating in the corn or an ow it's design would impact properties and the commitment of
Sound Transit to a station location. Secondly, land is available elsewhere in the region at similar
prices but where higher rents occur or where land is less expensive. Third, no significant physical
change in the area is visibly apparent — other than the removal of several uses and the creation of
a vacant lot.
There is some additional flexibility possible in the City's Zoning Code that could be allowed on
an experimental basis under special review. Waivers from City standards already exist in the
Code. Allowing additional opportunities for waivers from code standards may induce specific
proposals and the type of development the community would like to see in the corridor.
City Council Review
The City Council reviewed the concept of a "Demonstration Program" and requests the Planning
Commission consider code changes that allow additional flexibility for the redevelopment of the
corridor. Attached are the minutes from their meeting when this issue was discussed.
(Attachment A)
Policy Options
Below are the policy options being considered for creating additional inducements or eliminating
regulatory impediments to redevelopment and infill development. This proposal would be in the
form of a program for demonstration projects.
Page 2 of 11
�:
Location
Advantages/Disadvantages
TIB urban renewal area
•
The urban renewal designation identifies this area as
(See Attachment B)
subject to unique challenges, which should qualify it
for special techniques.
•
The community knows what it wants — and standards
shouldn't be waived in an area that will have higher
amounts of public activity and that is important
because of its central location.
Anywhere in the TIB corridor
•
Dispersed affect of variations from standards.
•
Potential stimulus impact on other properties in the
corridor.
Within a Y4 or 1/2 mile radius of
■
Supports transit oriented development.
transit stops
•
Bus stops are variable and can move depending on
transit operations budget, rerouting of bus lines, and
property owner opinions.
•
Further dispersal of impact.
•
Loses stimulant impact.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
1. Where in the City should the waivers in development standards be allowed to
occur?
Although the focus of City efforts have been in the TIB corridor and specifically around the
intersection of S. 144 St., in creating and designing this program, the City could consider a
"Demonstration Program" elsewhere in the community.
Discussion:
The City adopted an urban renewal plan in January 2000 that includes a map of the urban
renewal area. (Attachment B) The area is bounded by streets except for the one block that
contains Larry's Market, which is bordered by two apartment complexes on the west side.
By adopting this program for the TIB urban renewal area, a message is sent about the importance
of this area's redevelopment and seriousness of the efforts to transform its development.
Recommendation:
The TIB urban renewal area.
$. .. ,
z
w
a:
i
O 0
rn o
w
w • 0
2
LL <
rn�
t— =
z1..
t— 0
Z t—
w
U • �
o t—
w w
I
U-
Li;
U=
0
z
Number of Projects
Advantages /Disadvantages
No limit
I
•
Unknown demand.
•
Implications and results of program are
unknown.
•
Greater potential impact of either good or
bad.
Three .• 5 /:)
'
'
As a test, there should be some limit so that
an evaluation can be done of the successes
and failings of approved projects.
•
A sufficient sample is needed to obtain
consequential results.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
2. Should there be a limit on the number of projects that may apply under the
"Demonstration Program ?"
Discussion:
There are a number of reasons to pursue this program, and to some extent the reasons will vary
depending on where the program is implemented (Question 1.) A demonstration program by
definition is meant to show what can be done given a set of circumstances. This program can be
seen as an opportunity to test the development market ,
Recommendation:
Three completed projects and then prepare an evaluation of results from the program.
V Ak - S Naga G-c.
J/ I l 4(evu lugyBed3 ,
Page =1 of 11
. ✓
Size
Advantages/Disadvantages
Three quarters of an acre
•
•
The area around TTR was originally platted in 37,000 —
39,000 square foot rectilinear tracts.
Many of the lots have been reconfigured and the size
varies considerably.
2 acres
•
As a policy option this requirement would send a
message that the City is looking for the development of
larger sites and may cause the aggregation of separate
parcels.
•
Potentially limits the type and number of projects.
•
Staff resources and Commission/Council time would be
better spent on fewer and larger projects.
Projects that contain a
•
Supports Comp Plan Policy that directs the
two story building
component
encouragement of two — four story buildings.
.50 Floor area ratio
•
Identifies and benefits a project that provides a
significant structural presence.
i.e. A 20,000 sq. ft. site
•
A development with more floor area is likely to be more
would need to propose
people oriented than car oriented.
10,000 sq. ft. of floor area
•
Limits potential projects.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
3. Should there be a minimum project size?
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
This is an eligibility question like the one above. Not only where a project in the "Demonstration
Program" may be located but what other characteristics should a project have?
Discussion:
As an example of site sizes, the Larry's Market is approximately 50,000 square feet and in one
story and sits on approximately 5 acres; Pete's Flying Aces and the Pawn Shop sit on
approximately 2 acres; the demolished Newporter Apaitinent site is a little over 3 /4 of an acre.
In urban areas, the smaller (less than an acre) lot is not uncommon and creative design can
produce nigh quality projects regardless of the size of the lot. The size of the project and its
design is more pertinent to the overall impact of a project.
Although more intensive development is desired, there is the potential of limiting desirable
projects by specifying some standard. Because the majority of the sites within the corridor are
less than an acre, because smaller sites are more restricted and arguably difficult to develop, the
small sites should be eligible for the program.
Recommendation:
Three quarters of an acre
Page 5of11
Standards
Advantages/Disadvantages
Height /
l s ;
m
Potential of providing the most positive economic returns
and therefore provides the greatest inducement.
In order to pro ide a heig t
waiver option for office uses in
the TIB NCC district, a
variation in the permitted use
section is also required.
•
Most visible departure from current code when built.
Landscape, Recreation,
Recycling/Solid space
•
The City's current standards are geared toward suburban
commercial strip. The goal of the program is to try to
requirements
achieve a new model of development that is more pedestrian
than auto.
i.e. Tree, shrub and
•
Current waivers are only allowed in situations where
groundcover specifications;
pedestrian oriented space is provided in front or access is
Landscape island every 10
shared on properties that share a side yard and access across
sta Use lit 6V )4045
the side yard.
100 square toot mm plantin
•
There may be situations where a rear yard or other yard
bed.;
400 sq. ft. rec. space /unit;
waiver would be of assistance.
max. 50 % rec. space indoor
•
There may be situations where an off -site facility would be
V
and covered.
more efficient and practical given the size of a project.
•
Depending on the location of the project, the neighborhood
may or ma not currently meet ado • ted •ark s •ace ratios.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
4. What standards should be considered for waivers?
Currently a wide array of standards may be waived subject to certain criteria being met.
Attachment C summarizes the specific standards and criteria as well as the types of processes
required for waiver requests.
Below is a list of the standards that currently have no waiver mechanism other than through a
Type 3 variance, which has specific state mandated decision making criteria, or the waiver criteria
may allow for limited application.
i(t,rts-A0•4 Iwttrta.►vt" hail/T. loo
5 re-Aux-Hon
CitabtalkatrWS I l ip .,
10 � redvj/? (`)A, S
Page 6 of 11
/1<to'(
Setbacks D
See Attachment D for
standards.
•
■
•
Waiving landscaping requirements will not yield a benefit
unless the setback can also be manipulated.
Yard patterns vary considerably expecially along TM where
there is older development.
Off Street Parking and
Loading Chapter
i.e. clearance at loading
zones, degree of slope to
parking lots, ratio of compact
stalls to standard stalls,
dimensions for stall /zone
size;
•
■
Rely on developer and public review to create successful,
marketable parking.
There may be waivers to general requirements that are not
covered by the number of parking stall waivers.
s � f f/ ' 4
A /(,� ` "
b'
A •
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
Discussion:
There is a significant price point for buildings in the City due to the High -Rise Buildings chapter
of the TMC. Any building over four stories is required to install fire fighting equipment with
significant costs. Major height waivers are therefore not anticipated.
The other items listed above are fairly minor but have the potential of providing some helpful
flexibility.
Recommendation: $411
Allow all zoning code eliftpl-gps listed above to be included in the "Demonstration Program."
Page 7 of 11
I
Criteria
Discussion -
'
raWatiliTortauct.m...- -...-
- _ • - e mg new; to introduce.
solutions.
5.2
Compatible with the on -site or
adjacent residential areas.
TIE is essenfiaiiy a residential corridor with a strip of
commercial edging the street; the design should
accomplish a desirable transition between the street and
the neighborhood behind. The transition should allow the
benefits of proximity to the services within the corridor
while preserving the peacefulness expected at one's home.
5.3
Serves as a model for the
redevelopment of low scale auto
oriented commercial areas into
pedestrian oriented multi -use
higher intensity areas.
Does the project provide a design that caa-socl-erkett44 be
duplicated elsewhere within the corridor or City?
A. COO I d■ ilk-.
Ce1\5 C J icl ` ' m .
( .
.4
Expands the consumer market
through jobs or housing that
supports the retail and commercial
goods and services of the Tukwila
International Boulevard corridor.
Will the project add jobs or housing that serve the
commercial market?
II
l/1
Creates high quality sites and
structures.
T4"`- at 1-eir 11.. -?
, ,,
Ot �� l �" S s
Are the materials proposed of a high quality and durable
nature?
Does the project adequately address the needs of the site's
users in terms of access, parking, recreation, and services
such as loading, parking, and refuse.
5.6
Provides functional public spaces
that have materials that
complement the adjacent
streetscape.
Does the project compliment the materials and style of the
public improvements in the vicinity?
Does the project expand and improve on the public
streetscape?
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
5. What should be the decision criteria for waivers from the above standards?
What are the expectations of the City with respect to a demonstration project? Designers and
decision makers need guidance on what to design and what to approve, how to condition and
what to deny. Design costs are typically 10% of a project's total cost. If the programming of a
site is significantly different than what will be approved then redesign could eliminate a potential
project.
Analysis:
Because of the flexibility offered by the Demonstration Program, the criteria should be wide -
ranging but explicit. The developer should view the Demonstration Program as an opportunity to
be creative without the strictures of specific Zoning Code standards. The Program also needs to
convey what is feasible from an approval standpoint.
Recommendation:
The decision makers approving a demonstration project should use all of the above six criteria.
Page 8 of ii
?
Size
Advantages/Disadvantages
Type 2 — Director's
Decision
• More certainty, less time and money spent on a review process.
• Fewer types of opportunities to comment on a project.
Type 4- Planning
Commission/BAR
Decision
Maintains the status quo because all development currently goes to the
BAR for design review.
Type 5 — City
Council Decision
• The Council sets the standards of the City and therefore might be
most appropriate for waiving from those standards.
• More opportunity and lengthier time frame for commenting.
• The City Council does not routinely review development design.
• More time, more money, less certainty spent on a design resulting in
less flexibility for applicant.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
6. What process should be used to decide on these waivers from the Code?
Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests would be laid
out in a staff analysis /report of findings and conclusions on the project's design. The City has
five types of approval processes. From a Type 1 to a Type 5, each type has increasingly greater
degrees of public notice and review and therefore decision uncertainty for an applicant.
Discussion:
All of the above processes allow public review and comment. Attachment C gives an example
of the current review process for various types of waivers. A Notice of Application is posted on
site and mailed to property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the property lines for
all types of applications. A public comment of 14 days is established for Type 2 and 4 and 21
days for Type 5. Additional opportunities for comment are allowed with Type 4 through a public
hearing and with Type 5 through a public meeting and a public hearing.
All substantial new development musf go through design review process, which is the type 4
process. A,Type 4 proc s is d 0+ than.the Type 5 ,because of the required public meeting:prior
to;theptiblic:hearirigand the longer comment period.
Another option would be to use a tiered waiver system. For example, the types of standards being
waived would be tied to a type of process. The most significant potential waiver is the height
waiver; therefore in all instances other than when a height waiver is requested, a demonstration
project could go through a Type 4 process. A height waiver would require a Type 5 process.
Review processes are a disincentive because of the time and uncertainty involved and this is
meant to be an incentive program. By using a Type 4 for the majority of waivers, no additional
requirements are asked of the developer.
Recommendation:
e+ype°317ir projects re
�
Page 9 of 11
ea Type 4.
z
z
2
JU
00
u) ❑
cn
J =
H
co LL
al
co
= w
z �
1— 0
w ~
U • ❑
O 92
❑ I-
wW
F-
..z
w
U=
O 1—
z
Fee
Advantages/Disadvantages
No fee
•
Appropriate for an incentive program
•
The land use review fees are nominal and
do not cover the costs of review
•
Applicants are already paying for design
review and the demonstration project
review requires no additional steps.
$900
•
A more flexible system requires more
review and negotiation with an applicant
•
Tukwila development fees are reasonable
compared to other jurisdictions in the
region
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
7. Should there be a fee charged?
L01 -055 Demonstration Program
Discussion:
The fee for design review, a type 4 process is $900.00 and for SEPA is $325.00. This is the
minimum current City charge for development design approvals. There are also traffic
concurrency fees, which depend on the number of new vehicu trips generated during the peak
hour at locations that are below adopted minimums,kd th Sui 'fding permit fees, which are a
little less than 10% of the value of the project.
The impact of a flat fee will vary with the overall budget for a project. On a million dollar
project, a $900 fee is less than .1 percent. It makes sense to charge no additional fees other than
the $900.00 design review fee for either a Type 4 or Type 5 demonstration project because this is
an incentive program and because land use fees are noimportant revenue sources for the City.
Recommendation:
All projects must complete in conjunction with a Demonstration Program review, design review
with its accompanying fee of $900. (i(J4iVt 4-t. FZ5
Conclusions
1) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (City of Tukwila, 1995, amended) includes as its #2
priority (page 3) the redevelopment and reinvigoration of the Pacific Highway corridor, later
renamed Tukwila International Boulevard. It also reads:
Policy 8.5.7 Encourage two to four story building within the NCC to emphasize their
importance and desired activity level, limiting commercial uses to two lower levels except
in urban renewal areas.(page 102)
Policy 2.1.5 Act in partnership with the private sector to fund infrastructure as part of a
sub -area plan to encourage redevelopment as an inducement to convert outdated and
underutilized land and buildings to high valued and or appropriate land uses. (page 34)
Page 10 of 11
Staff Report to the Planning Commission L01 -055 Demonstration Program
2) The Tukwila International Boulevard Urban Renewal Plan (City of Tukwila, 2000) calls for
maximizing opportunity for private enterprise and reiterates the strategies listed earlier in the
Revitalization Plan regarding real property investment; specifically:
Allow more efficient use of sites and encourage pedestrian friendly development by
providing flexibility in applying landscaping and setback standards in the commercial
district. (page 21)
3) The obstacles to redevelopment have not changed since the Plan's adoption and continued
efforts are required before changes will occur.
4) Waivers from standards have precedent within the Code and are established subject to
reasonable review and are guided by adopted criteria.
5) The State Growth Management Act states that growth should be accommodated within the
urban area. The proposed Demonstration Program is a safeguard that allows the market and
developers the opportunity to take advantage of flexibility and site intensification in order to
accommodate increased utilization of property.
6) The three projects that could be reviewed under the Demonstration Program are tests and
would be evaluated for success and applicability elsewhere in the City.
7) The proposed public review process will allow for community and legislative review of
appropriateness and desirability of potential changes in development proposals.
Recommendation
Make a recommendation (See Attachment E) to the City Council on proposed changes.
C: \mcb \TV\STAFF rpt.doc
Page 11 of 11
z
Z 61/
6
.J 0
00
CO 0 .
CO W
J =
H
w
u _
d .
= w
=
z �
0
z I-
w
0
o�
w
_
t- -
O
w z
= ..
0 1—
z
I'
Dept. Of Community Development
City of Tukwila •
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I Z- HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
9 a 5 /60/ 5t
Notice of Public Hearing .
It-4 - 97i ii
Determination of Non - Significance
Project Name: D b 7 Si 72A I (0 T .062P.A A
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
1.0X___- .
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
K Planning
Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt
Permit
_
_
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Other
A L 4 FfLeg., c-,
9 a 5 /60/ 5t
It-4 - 97i ii
Project Name: D b 7 Si 72A I (0 T .062P.A A
- 01- X 55
Project Number: 1
Mailer's Signature:
1.0X___- .
Person requesting mailing: }IoIR
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 2N1). day of NV/ in the
year 20 0/
P:GINAWYNETTAV FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
•
November 1, 2001
city of Tukwila
Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director
FROM: Director, Public Works
TO: Director, Community Development
RE: Group Health Status — Road Improvements
•
The SEPA Determination of Non - Significance for the construction of Group Health
Buildings A and B required numerous improvements to be performed. The following
status addresses these improvements:
• Traffic Concurrency Improvements — The applicant contributed to the following
projects: Note that these projects will be under construction within the next six
years.
(1) New traffic signal at East Marginal Way South/South 112 Street
(2) New traffic signal at S 133 and SR599 On and Off ramps
(3) Widening of East Marginal Way between Boeing Access Road and South
115 Street.
• The applicant has signed a proportionate fair share agreement to participate in the
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of East Marginal Way and South
130 when the City determines that a signal is required.
• Applicant is responsible for improving the intersection of East Marginal
Way /South 124` Street and the main entrance to Group Health, including the
installation of a traffic signal. The applicant has received a permit from the City
for the improvements and material is being ordered.
• Group Health has signed an agreement to participate in a 5 -year Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program that will monitor traffic and construct any
necessary improvements.
• Traffic Bollards on 35 Avenue South — The City Council just approved the street
vacation petition and the applicant is ordering the bollards.
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Sake #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 433 -0179 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665
z
I < •
-
s
6
00
u) O
(/)
u.
J H
w
Q
= a
I— II
z
zF-
w uj
0
O N
❑ 1-
WW
1
F^
u- O
. Z
01
z
NAME
Bill Arthur
ADDRESS
PO Box 88028
CITY, STATE, ZIP
Tukwila, WA 98138
HOME
WORK
206 -575 -2000
Margaret Bratcher
13003 56 S
Tukwila, WA 98178
206 -246 -0189
206- 386 -6153
David Livermore
13212 31 Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98168
206 - 243 -1512
425- 881 -7000
George Malina
15617 47 Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98188
206- 244 -3893
Henry Marvin
5327 S 140`"
Tukwila, WA 98188
206- 241 -2633
206- 682 -4956
Vern Meryhew
4431 S 148 St
Tukwila, WA 98168
206- 244 -3659
Kirstine Whisler
14711 58 Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98168
206- 246 -0198
p: \planning forms \pingcommaddlist.doc
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION CONTACT LIST
10/26/01
"
City of Seattle Legislative Information Service
Information updated as of March 2, 2001 8:42 AM
Council Bill Number: 112417
Ordinance Number: 119241
AN ORDINANCE establishing the Demonstration Program for innovative Housing Design and
adding a new Section 23.40.050 to the Seattle Municipal Code to implement the Demonstration
Program.
Date introduced /referred: Oct 12, 1998
Date passed: Nov 30, 1998
Status: PASSED AS AMENDED
Vote: 6 -
Date of Mayor's signature: Dec 2, 1998
Committee: Business, Economic and Community Development
Sponsor: DRAGO
Index Terms: LAND- USE -CODE, HOUSING, APARTMENT - BUILDINGS, URBAN- DESIGN,
DESIGN - REVIEW, ACCESSORY - HOUSING, COMPREHENSIVE -PLAN
Text
Note to users: {- indicates start of text that has been amended out
-} indicates end of text that has been amended out
(+ indicates start of text that has been amended in
+) indicates end of text that has been amended in
AN ORDINANCE establishing the Demonstration Program for
Innovative Housing design and adding a new Section 23.40.050 to
The Seattle Municipal Code to implement the Demonstration
Program.
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan, originally adopted in
1994 and most recently amended in 1997, includes housing goals
for accommodating growth and maintaining affordability, and for
encouraging housing diversity and quality; and
WHEREAS, the cost of owning or renting housing continues to
increase faster than the rate of inflation, making it
increasingly difficult for many of the citizens of Seattle to
afford housing in the city; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 1998 City Council, with the Mayor
concurring, adopted a resolution that established the City's top
budget priorities for the 1999 -2000 biennial budget and the 1999-
2004 Capital Improvement Program, which resolution stated that
the "City is committed to developing and implementing an
affordable housing action agenda for both home ownership and
rental housing;" and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 1998, Mayor Paul Schell published the Housing
Action Agenda, which includes a goal to "increase our community's
supply of moderate income housing and preserve existing
affordable housing," including providing opportunities for
... ...
innovative housing designs, and' - evaluating zoning.to� find.':
41p4:01iiities for new'housing; and
WHEREAS, AIA (American Institute of Architects) Seattle's Housing
Action Task Force sponsored the "Housing Seattle, Design
Demonstration Projects," seeking entries for a competition of
real projects that demonstrate neighborhood- appropriate
approaches to increasing the inventory and quality of affordable
housing in Seattle; and on September 10, 1998, announced the top
eleven entries identified as "Should Be Builts," selected by an
interdisciplinary jury representing a broad range of public and
private housing interests and expertise; and
WHEREAS, detached accessory dwelling units are a type of housing
that several neighborhood planning groups are considering as an
option to accessory dwelling units only within principal
structures; detached units could provide additional flexibility
to accommodate such a unit on a site, allowing limited additional
density without significantly changing the appearance of the
neighborhood, and could help home owners afford to stay in their
homes or be able to afford to purchase a home; and
WHEREAS, cottage, tandem and small lot single family housing are
types of in -fill housing that several neighborhood planning
groups have recognized as providing a housing option not readily
available today that would fit with their neighborhoods desire
for affordable, -'? home:. ownership: opportunities for a variety of
liousehoId'>types; and
WHEREAS, when the Design Review process was being developed in
the early 1990s, the issue of allowing additional height through
Design Review departures was discussed at length, but height was
eventually determined to be a standard that could be included in
neighborhood- specific guidelines rather than in the citywide
program; however, since that time, Design Review has had four
successful years as an operational program and neighborhood -
specific guidelines have yet to be adopted, so that there has not
yet been an opportunity to test the concept of height departures
through design review; and
• - o e r eig�ib
'
D612goadmentcofsCommunity Development Steve Lancaster, Director
review whether the Demonstration Program should
monstration projects to test whether to allow further
ility for cottage housing developments in an effort to
encourage such developments and will propose possible amendments
to the Demonstration Program by mid - January 1999;
mite to) to u yevelopml de artures
D v) 17 be redeveloped for
rl
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Establishment of Demonstration Program.
This ordinance establishes the Demonstration Program for
Innovative Housing Design, subject to the conditions established
below.
Section 2. Purpose.
The purpose of this Demonstration Program is to use a limited
number of projects to test innovative'- residential design
solutions; using alternative development standards and processes:.
'The:Demonstration Program will allow a limited number of projects
that use certain specified housing types, development standards,
and.. processes that are not currently allowed'under existing land
use regulations, while continuing to be consistent with the
City!s land use, housing and neighborhood goals. These projects.;,
will be evaluated,to determine whether and to what extent each of
'the changes did or can accomplish the goals. contained in Section
3 of this ordinance, and therefore, whether 'amendments should be
made :to the City of Seattle Land Use Code Ito «allow these housing
: :types, »development standard changes and prodess changes
:; .generally
Section 3. Goals.
The goals of the Demonstration Program are to test new or more
flexible regulations and processes in an effort:
1. To encourage housing production, particularly types of
housing that are not readily available in Seattle, or are not
currently being produced.
2. To stimulate innovative housing design that is consistent
with the housing goals of a neighborhood, and that fits in with
or improves the character of the neighborhood.
3. To encourage the development of housing that will serve as a
catalyst to stimulate housing production, particularly in
neighborhoods where new or rehabilitated residential development
has been limited.
4. To serve as a model for other neighborhoods, demonstrating
housing solutions that could have broader application in other
neighborhoods.
Page 3 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 lift REIVIZ SL t'I :ckaaigi— Vilits' /rriit- f[ deg ? §V iiicriA idn f ..A 1 E=3 203121M-3665
% }..
as
he divers of housiji• types and levels of
e 14,1) r • goals of a
yppepartfibentgO/LCOMMianiOtnettelOPineats and Steve Lancaster, Director
be Tested.
er to meet these goals, through the Demonstration Program
the Director of the Department of Construction and Land Use will
be allowed to modify certain existing Land Use Code requirements
in order to test projects in the four categories listed below.
In addition, all demonstration projects will be required to go
through the Design Review Process. All other regulations and
requirements of the Land Use Code will continue to apply except
as modified in Section 8 below.
1. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: A maximum of five units
per submittal period for a total of up to ten such units may be
allowed in Single Family zones under the Demonstration Program,
according to the development standards for accessory structures
and accessory dwelling units, some of which standards may be
modified through the citywide Design Review Guidelines (adopted
by Ordinance 116909) used in the administrative Design Review
process. Additional height above the current height limits for
accessory structures may also be requested and approved through
the administrative Design Review process in order to test the
concept of developing accessory units, limited to a single story,
above garages.
2. Cottage Housing, Tandem Housing or Small Lot Single Family
Development: A maximum of three projects per submittal period
for a total of up to six such projects that will test these
concepts may be allowed under the Demonstration Program in any of
the Single Family zones. Such projects will be developed
according to the development standards for cottage housing,
tandem housing or residential small lot single family development
contained in SMC chapter 23.43, except as those standards may be
modified as provided in the citywide Design Review Guidelines
used in the Design Review process. Additional height, up to a
maximum of 15 percent over the maximum height allowed for cottage
housing, tandem housing or small lot single family development,
may also be granted through the Design Review process. Under no
circumstances, however, may any height departure be granted that
would result in a structure that is higher than the maximum
allowed for single family structures in single family zones other
than RSL.
3. Height Above Current Height Limits through Design Review
Departures: A maximum of three projects per submittal period for
a total of up to six projects that are either multifamily
development in multifamily zones or are part of a mixed -use
development in commercial zones, additional height up to 15
percent over the maximum height limit allowed in the zone may be
approved through the Demonstration Program, as long as no
additional floors are constructed as a result of this additional
height; the overall scale of development as viewed from the
street front has generally not changed; and the structure remains
compatible with the neighborhood and scale of development allowed
in the zone. This departure is to be used to accommodate unusual
site or development conditions such as topographic depressions or
6300 EftVillirdieinPgdittregvaSAP4dRi3OnTilioNfeig1§4iBEItailoN idn W8CA MVJit =fig 203121M-3665
Page 4 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
nts het affec ight mea rement toward the center
p n t/n c es not change the
tr aY 9 { e ont .
DepazintenteofeCommunitolkivelopmentbe
h a height exception for mixed use structures under
008C3 or C4, nor will a height departure be granted
he Demonstration Program if the departure requested would
block the views protected by SMC 23.47.008C4c more than an
exception granted under that section would.
4. Design Review Process for Development Standard Departures for
Existing Structures: In an effort to encourage the reuse of
existing structures, a maximum of three projects per submittal
period for a total of up to six projects that include residential
development in existing structures in multifamily or commercial
zones (including mixed -use development) may be allowed to use the
Design Review process to request development standard departures
that are currently only allowed for new development.
Section 5. Individual Project Selection Process.
1. Submittal Deadline: There shall be two project submittal
periods:
a. Applications submitted by January 15, 1999; selection
decisions by February 12, 1999.
b. Applications submitted by July 1, 1999; selection decisions
by August 1, 1999.
2. Neighborhood Support and Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
and Neighborhood Plan Goals: The demonstration project must be
consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A brief
statement of support from a neighborhood organization or
neighborhood planning group, and opinions from a sizable sampling
of adjacent neighbors and property owners, must be submitted with
the application. No project shall be expected to show 100
percent neighborhood concurrence, but shall demonstrate how and
when the proposed project was discussed with community
organizations and neighbors adjacent to the project. If located
within a neighborhood planning area, the applicant shall indicate
how the project would further the goals of the neighborhood plan.
3. Project Selection Committee: The Department of
Construction and Land Use shall convene a selection committee to
include at a minimum, an Urban Design Planner from the Department
of Construction and Land Use and a representative from the
Planning Commission's Housing subcommittee.
4. Project Selection Criteria: The following criteria shall
be used to rate and selectyindividual projects to be a part of
the Demonstration Program.
a. The extent to
purpose and goals
b. The extent to
goals of the City
Action Agenda and
which the proposed project fulfills the
of the Demonstration Program.
which the proposed project furthers the
's Comprehensive Plan, the Mayor's Housing
the City's Housing Framework.
6300 fi@l' ifirdl@iRrc gel : vas{ l4i - clAOOnfifitlf exi'g$ §li ii%o'M
Page 5 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
2G2-3665
•� • - .� ct supports the
ho2S i c - •� of ect is located, and
ood plan goals, when applicable.
Department of Community Development
eral level of support from the community
ons and the neighbors surrounding the proposed project.
e. The extent to which the proposed project reduces the per
unit costs, is proposed to result in affordable units, or
proposes to add to the diversity of affordability in the
neighborhood.
f. The rating given to the project in AIA Seattle's Design
Demonstration Project competition, or other similar competition
of innovative housing and quality design selected by a jury of
design professionals and other housing experts.
In addition a proposed project should include a description of
the extent to which the project proposed serves as a good test of
future code amendments, either for specific types of
neighborhoods or citywide. Projects that may be approved through
existing processes and regulations shall not be accepted as a
demonstration project.
5. Public Notice. Immediately following the close of each
submittal period, DCLU shall post notice and provide mailed
notice to owners of real property within 300 feet of a proposed
demonstration project site, indicating receipt of an application
for a demonstration project. The notice shall also explain the
two week public comment period, the selection process and the
process for permit approval for demonstration projects.
6. Project Selection Process. The project selection committee
shall recommend to the Director of DCLU proposed projects to be
included in the demonstration program. The final decision
whether to include any individual project in the demonstration
program shall be made by the Director. The decision whether a
proposed project is included in the demonstration program is not
appealable, although any final decisions on any demonstration
project's MUP application, including design review are appealable
as provided in SMC 23.76. In the Director's discretion, the
Director may decide to approve fewer than the maximum number in
each category, but may not approve more than the maximum number
specified in each category.
Section 6. Design Review Required.
Once selected to be a demonstration project, each project shall
be subject to the Design Review process contained in SMC Chapter
23 and specifically at Chapter 23.41, except as the process is
modified by this ordinance. Category one, detached accessory
dwelling units, shall be reviewed through the administrative
Design Review process at SMC 23.41.016; all other demonstration
projects shall be reviewed through the Design Review Board
process. The adopted citywide design guidelines, which were
originally developed to apply only to new multifamily and
commercial development, will also be used for the demonstration
projects in the same manner that they are used for other projects
subject to Design Review. No departures shall be granted from
6300 fioe!' cEQevas {fgl- gctRitnnKfYeQ §elfloll
Page 6 of 13
Steven M Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
idn9981:.Mbt fi ='3 20
,,
numb r par paces r;
t .
+t k' a ,�„
• in . - a o - - •
uired; no departures
limits allowed for the
rc a aR'ttnef QfaGonunitttl1fiDevelopment Steve Lancaster, Director
of each project selection period, DCLU shall report to
ouncil on the types of projects being submitted and
selected for the Demonstration Program and the responses to the
neighborhood notice and comment provisions. Within one year of
adoption of the Demonstration Program, DCLU, in conjunction with
the Selection Committee, shall prepare a report to City Council,
summarizing the types of projects submitted, types selected, and
an evaluation of how well the proposals have met or are meeting
the purpose and goals of the Demonstration Program. A full
evaluation of the program shall be conducted within 24 months of
the end of the second selection period, or as soon after 24
months that the demonstration projects have been completed and
are occupied so that the effectiveness of demonstration projects
in achieving the goals of the ordinance can be evaluated.
Recommendations for code amendments that result from the
demonstration projects, whether to be applied citywide or to
carry out the goals of specific neighborhood plans, may, if
appropriate, also be submitted to City Council at that time. If,
however, the evaluation of a portion of this Demonstration
Program (e.g., evaluation of one of the four test categories
included in this ordinance) can be completed earlier than the
evaluation of the full ordinance, then that evaluation and any
recommended code changes may also be submitted to City Council at
an earlier time.
The evaluation of the four categories of projects will include:
1. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units:
a. What are appropriate development standards for detached ADUs
that "fit" on a single family lot and within a single family
neighborhood, but still allow the development of a livable unit?
Is there a minimum lot size that would be appropriate?
b. Are ADUs above garages a viable option in terms of cost to
construct and fit in single family neighborhoods?
c. What was the cost of construction, whether a new structure or
an addition or remodel of an existing structure?
d. What do the neighbors think of this type of housing? What is
the reaction of the residents of the detached ADU in terms of
livability of the unit and how it could be improved?
e. Was administrative Design Review cost effective for this type
of small project?
f. If Design Review is to be used for this type of development,
are additional design guidelines needed to address more directly
the issues relevant to detached ADUs?
g. Did this project provide a design concept that would
likely be applicable and acceptable in other neighborhoods?
Page 7 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 AR !cP.Q tlY ash[tP d ts' /nf31 t{ ?exl'g$ §Ii glio #Aidngf3QBg:.. hi 3- 2 29al -3665
fe t nf r T s ti i project? What
ti ul
artmexkofc t unity neu p nen'
j. e there certain neighborhoods or types of neighborhoods
that are more appropriate for this type of housing than others?
2. Cottage Housing, Tandem Housing or Small Lot Single Family
Development:
a. Do the development standards that are already in the code work
for this type of development? Should some standards be modified
and if so, how?
b. What was the cost of construction? Does this type of
development result in affordable units? What are the factors
that help or hinder the affordability of this type of
development?
c. What do the neighbors think of this type of housing? What is
the reaction of the residents of the housing in terms of
livability of the unit and how it could be improved?
d. If Design Review is to be used for this type of development,
are additional design guidelines needed to address more directly
the issues relevant to this type of single family development?
e. Did this project provide a design concept that would likely
be applicable and acceptable in other neighborhoods?
f. What were the positive results of this project? What were
the negative results?
g. Were there any unintended consequences that need to be
resolved?
h. Are there certain neighborhoods or types of neighborhoods
that are more appropriate for this type of housing than others ? { -
3. Height Above Current Height Limits through Design Review
Departures:
a. Should height departure be allowed through Design Review in
all zones? For all types of residential development? If not,
for which zones? For what types of residential development?
b. Is 15 percent the appropriate amount of departure? For all
types of residential development? For which zones?
c. Does a maximum percentage need to be specified?
d. What were the circumstances or site conditions that prompted
the requested departure?
e. Are there other ways (without having to go through Design
Review) to address the height issue while still resulting in
compatible development, such as an alternative height measurement
Page 8 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
6300 1Wh t vaS4 Edgtg/n #VSf ek $io Aiong48g:. of 13fitfi ='3 2°312164-3665
a oral inc e hei9 t allowed?
le Ai II d he development �i'�ty � �ii -f� ment cost on P
ss.s? Did it help the affordability of the units?
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
the neighborhood response to the allowed departure?
h. this project provide a design concept that would likely
be applicable and acceptable in other neighborhoods?
i. What were the positive results of this project? What were
the negative results?
j. Were there any unintended consequences that need to be
resolved?
k. Are there certain neighborhoods or characteristics of areas
where height departures would be more appropriate than other
areas?
4. Design Review Process for Development Standard Departures for
Existing Structures:
a. Did the process allow for enough flexibility to encourage or
at least allow for the reuse of existing structures? If not,
what other departures are needed?
b. Are additional design guidelines or departures needed to
address more directly the issues relevant to the reuse of
existing structures?
c. Are there changes in the process that are needed for existing
structures since there isn't such a thing as a pre- design
meeting?
d. Did the flexibility in development standards reduce the
development cost on a per unit basis? Did it help the
affordability of the units?
e. What is the neighborhood response to the remodeled
development?
f. Did this project provide a design concept that would likely
be applicable and acceptable in other neighborhoods?
g. What were the positive results of this project? What were
the negative results?
h. Were there any unintended consequences that need to be
resolved?
i. Are there certain neighborhoods or characteristics of
neighborhoods where Design Review for existing buildings would be
more appropriate than other neighborhoods?
Section 8. A new Section 23.40.050 is hereby added to the
Seattle Municipal Code, as follows:
23.40.050 Demonstration Program for Innovative Housing Design
6300 gfl'pth @trc 3L t' :gvaaigr- Ell/nfiritig eiNl iiio V idnM48g:. f 13fitME ='3 202161 -3665
Page 9 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
f(7; ec n h a Demonstration
nnovacive Housing vesign. Tne oals or the
ar t,
tmeno eeommunit ent Steve Lancaster, Director
and processes in an effort:
urage housing production, particularly types of housing
that are not readily available in Seattle, or are not currently
being produced.
To stimulate innovative housing design that is consistent with
the housing goals of a neighborhood, and that fits in with or
improves the character of the neighborhood.
To encourage the development of housing that will serve as a
catalyst to stimulate housing production, particularly in
neighborhoods where new or rehabilitated residential development
has been limited.
To serve as a model for other neighborhoods, demonstrating
housing solutions that could have broader application in other
neighborhoods.
To increase the diversity of housing types and levels of
affordability to meet the varied needs and goals of a
neighborhood.
vB. Scope of Authority to Modify Land Use Code Requirements.r
Demonstration projects shall be selected and reviewed in
accordance with the Demonstration Program for Innovative Housing
Design adopted by Ordinance . Each demonstration
project shall comply with all of the requirements of the Land Use
Code otherwise applicable to the project, except as specified
below:
1. ';Each demonstration project, including single family
development and redevelopmentof existing structures, shall be
reviewed'through the Design Review process contained in SMCi
chapter 23.41 and in SMC chapter 23.76. Detached accessory
dwelling unit projects selected in category one of the
Demonstration Program shall use the administrative Design Review
process at SMC 23.41.016.
2. A maximum of ten (10) detached accessory dwelling units
may be allowed in Single Family zones contrary to the requirement
in SMC 23.44.006(A). For purposes of this ordinance, a "detached
accessory dwelling unit" means an additional room or set of rooms
that are located within a structure accessory to an owner -
occupied single family structure, that is not connected to the
principal structure and is designed, arranged, occupied or
intended to be occupied by not more than one household as living
accommodations independent from any other household. Such units
must be developed according to the development standards for
accessory structures and accessory dwelling units in Single
Family zones, Sections 23.44.040 and 23.44.041, except that:
Page 10 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
a. Contrary to SMC 23.44.041(A)(4) the accessory dwelling unit
may be located in a structure that is detached from the single
6300 fip t/ 6€krc g8ttl :6✓as(40- VA9tSh 31 1K §?eiga § 3fio i idn 48g:. bfi13 M=3 20.3'z1-3665
,
ing that is the rin use on the lot; and
Cas 'tk!i�'El P ment standards
SAIL 13.44.040 ana sMC 13.44.U41 may be allowed as
rDepartmenkeftGaninpuiritoDettelapmentoter Steve Lancaster, Director
nd
addition to the development standard departures
allowed in Section 23.41.012, a departure may be allowed for
additional height if the accessory dwelling unit is a single
story unit and will be located above a detached garage, provided
that, no height departure may be granted that would result in a
structure that is higher than the maximum allowed for single
family structures in single family zones other than lots zoned
Residential Small Lot.
3. A maximum of six (6) projects that include cottage
housing, tandem housing and small lot single family development
may be allowed in a Single Family zone, contrary to the minimum
lot area requirements of SMC 23.44.010 and other development
standards contained in SMC 23.44. Such development must comply
with the Residential Small Lot development standards, SMC Chapter
23.43, except that modifications to the development standards
contained in SMC 23.43 may be allowed as departures through the
Design Review process. In addition to the development standard
departures allowed under SMC 23.41.012, departures may also be
allowed for:
a. Additional height up to a maximum of fifteen (15) percent
over the maximum allowed by SMC 23.43.012 for cottage housing, by
SMC 23.43.010 for tandem housing and by SMC 23.43.008 for small
lot single family development, provided that, no height departure
may be granted that would result in a structure that is higher
than the maximum allowed for single family structures in single
family zones other than lots zoned Residential Small Lot.
b. The maximum total floor area of each cottage as required by
SMC 23.43.012D, as long as the maximum amount of total floor area
for the entire cottage housing development is not increased.
4. A maximum of six (6) multifamily demonstration projects in a
multifamily zone or as a part of a mixed -use development project
in a commercial zone outside of downtown, may be granted height
departures through the Design Review process, contrary to SMC
23.41 which, with one exception, does not allow height
departures. A height departure of up to fifteen (15) percent
over the maximum height limit of the zone, may be allowed as long
as:
No additional floors are constructed as a result of this
additional height;
b. The overall scale development as viewed from the street
front has generally not increased; and
height departure under the demonstration program.
5. A maximum of six (6) residential projects in an existing
structure in multifamily or commercial zones outside of downtown,
including mixed -use development, may use the Design Review
Page 11 of 13
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 li 4VOikrcP tl : asitge-edig9t /n tliblexggg cRA idg f3PBg:..Ms> fi't =3 2(j29d f -3665
Z
II—
' W
cc 2
- J
U O
ND
UJ
J
F-
• W
W
u Q
I
F- _
Z I-
I- O
ZF-
W
• W
U �
O C S. .
O I-
W W
F � .
U_
..
W
U
H �.
O
Z
Awomma
tgak
��i+
velo ment stan ar departui s currently allowed only
o ne y be granted for the
o e s r c s.
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
s of the Demonstration Program, all projects selected
a onstration projects are subject to the vesting of
development rights and Master Use Permit expiration rules
applicable to projects subject to Design Review contained in SMC
23.76.026 C.
D. Master Use Permit Expiration.
For purposes of the Demonstration Program, all projects selected
as demonstration projects are subject to the Master Use Permit
expiration rules applicable to Master Use Permits with a Design
Review component contained at SMC 23.76.032 Alf.
E. Master Use Permit Renewal.
For purposes of the Demonstration Program, all projects that are
selected as demonstration projects are subject to the Master Use
Permit renewal standards contained at SMC 23.76.032 B1 and 2
only; the renewal standards in SMC 23.76.032 B3 shall not apply
to demonstration projects.
Applications.
F. Cancellation, Renewal and Reestablishment of Building Permit
All projects that are chosen as demonstration projects must
comply with all applicable provisions of the Seattle Building
Code, except as follows:
1. Cancellation of Permit Application. For purposes of this
Demonstration Program and for purposes of the cancellation of
permit application standards contained in Section 106.6.4 of the
Seattle Building Code, all projects selected as demonstration
projects shall be considered to be projects that are vested to
prior Land Use Code provisions and ones which do not conform to
the codes currently in effect.
2. Renewal of Building Permits. For purposes of this
Demonstration Program, Section 106.9.2 of the Seattle Building
Code does not apply and building permits for projects selected as
demonstration projects shall not be renewed unless:
a. The building official determines that the permit complies, or
is modified to comply, with the code or codes in effect on the
date of application renewal; or
b. The work authorized by the permit is substantially underway
and progressing at a rate approved by the building official.
"Substantially underway" means that work such as excavation,
inspections, and installation of framing, electrical, mechanical
and finish work is being completed on a continuing basis.
c. Commencement or completion of the work authorized by the
permit was delayed by litigation, appeals, strikes or other
causes related to the work authorized by the permit, beyond the
Page 12 of 13
Steven M Mullet, Mayor
6300 fiftim// agrAtift'1 :i✓as{{ gig - clROtvn wi ?ex $ §41 Rflo idnqwBg:.. iVi 3 2 (v29di -3665
a been renewed pursuant to subsection F2 above, shall be
reestablished. The exception to section 106.9.3 of the Seattle
Building Code does not apply.
Section 9. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any particular
provision shall not affect the validity of any other provision.
Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty (30) days from and after its approval by the Mayor, but if
not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten (10) days after
presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Municipal Code
Section 1.04.020.
Passed by the City Council the day of , 1998,
and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage
this day of , 1998.
President of the City Council
Approved by me this day of , 1998.
Mayor
Filed by me this
City Clerk
V 3a
Building Code does not apply.
Section 9. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
separate and severable. The invalidity of any particular
provision shall not affect the validity of any other provision.
Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty (30) days from and after its approval by the Mayor, but if
not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten (10) days after
presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Municipal Code
s ontrol ; a d ��
P P !`t 41 i :1 dslide- rove area, the Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
of SMC: 25.09.345 also apply..
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
ishment of Expired Building Permit. For purposes of
stration Program, no building permit that has expired
abi
deF
hie
i.ab(
2.daF
3.hie
r b( eF
ie4
day of , 1998.
15
a
El
Page 13 of 13
6300 fiflV @iR!'cP.ge t'l : vasiW-661130h Oft ?e § iiiogi idn QBg:. f113WAgg-='3 20312M1-3665
Title 33, Planning and Zoning Chapter 33.800
3/1/01 General Information on Land Use Reviews
Sections:
33.800.010
33.800.020
33.800.030
33.800.040
33.800.050
33.800.060
33.800.070
33.800.080
CHAPTER 33.800
GENERAL INFORMATION ON LAND USE REVIEWS
(Amended by: Ord. No. 175204, effective 3/1/01.)
General
Explanation of Discretionary Reviews
Procedures and Review Bodies for Discretionary Reviews
The Land Use Review Chapters
The Function of Approval Criteria
The Burden of Proof
Conditions of Approval
Land Use Reviews Involving Signs
33.800.010 General
The zoning code uses a combination of nondiscretionary and discretionary reviews to
evaluate land use proposals for compliance with the use and development requirements of
the code. The combination is necessary to provide a comprehensive set of implementation
tools. The nondiscretionary reviews provide the certainty needed in most situations by
providing straight- forward, clear, and objective standards. Discretionary reviews provide
needed flexibility by allowing more subjective standards and objectives, and providing for
the modification of regulations in response to specific site conditions. This chapter
addresses discretionary reviews. Nondiscretionary reviews are addressed in 33.700.010.
33.800.020 Explanation of Discretionary Reviews
A discretionary review is one that involves judgement or discretion in determining
compliance with the approval requirements. The review is discretionary because not all of
the approval requirements are objective. That is, they are not easily definable or
measurable. The amount of discretion and the potential impact of the request varies
among different reviews. Some have less discretion or impact, such as the reduction of a
garage setback for a house on a hillside. Others may involve more discretion or potential
impacts, such as the design review of a new downtown building or the siting of a firm
which uses hazardous materials. Discretionary reviews must provide opportunities for
public involvement.
33.800.030 Procedures and Review Bodies for Discretionary Reviews
Procedures are the type of processing a land use case receives. Discretionary reviews are
assigned either to a quasi - judicial or legislative procedure. The type of procedure is stated
with the review. A description of the procedures are stated in Chapter 33.730, Quasi -
Judicial Procedures and Chapter 33.740, Legislative Procedure. The assignment of review
bodies is stated in Chapter 33.720, Assignment of Review Bodies. A description of quasi -
judicial and legislative decisions is found in 33.700.070. When formulating zoning
regulations, the determination of which of the quasi - judicial procedures to assign a review
800 -1
..∎.! •
Chapter 33.800 Title 33, Planning and Zoning
General Information on Land Use Reviews 3/1/01
to is based on consideration of the type of approval criteria, the potential impacts, and a
balance between the need for prompt decision - making and the need for public
involvement.
33.800.040 The Land Use Review Chapters
The land use review chapters state the review process and approval criteria for most of the
discretionary reviews. They include the reviews which apply to many zones or situations.
Some reviews which relate only to a specific topic or to a limited area, are located in the
chapter on that topic. These include environmental review, greenway review,
nonconforming use review, substandard lot review, convenience store review, and planned
unit development review. The information in this chapter applies to all discretionary
reviews regardless of where they are located in this Title.
33.800.050 The Function of Approval Criteria
A. The approval criteria that are listed with a specific review reflect the findings that
must be made to approve a request. The criteria set the bounds for the issues that
must be addressed by the applicant and which may be raised by the City or affected
parties. A proposal that complies with all of the criteria will be approved. A
proposal that can comply with the criteria with mitigation measures or limitations
will be approved with conditions. A proposal that cannot comply with the criteria
outright or cannot comply with mitigation measures will be denied.
B. The approval criteria have been derived from and are based on the Comprehensive
Plan. Reviews against the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not
required unless specifically stated. Fulfillment of all requirements and approval
criteria means the proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. When approval criteria refer to the request meeting a specific threshold, such as
adequacy of services or no significant detrimental environmental impacts, the
review body will consider any proposed improvements, mitigation measures, or
limitations proposed as part of the request when reviewing whether the request
meets the threshold. All proposed improvements, mitigation measures, and
limitations must be submitted for consideration prior to a final decision by a
review body.
33.800.060 The Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the approval criteria are met. The
burden is not on the City or other parties to show that the criteria have not been met.
800 -2
June 16, 2000
THE POTENTIAL FOR REVISING PARKING STANDARDS
TO REDUCE HOUSING COSTS
Problem: Zoning regulations for many jurisdictions require more on -site parking than needed. The
cost of providing on -site parking can be significant, particularly underground or structured parking
(more than $20,000 per space). Requiring excessive parking promotes the inefficient use of land,
unnecessarily adds to the cost of housing construction and may even cause housing construction to
be infeasible at certain locations. Housing developers have indicated that easing parking standards
would be a significant contributor to reducing housing cost.
Goal: Reduce unnecessary housing costs and allow for the efficient use of land. Establish a rational
basis for regulating parking.
Potential Solutions: Local Zoning Codes could be revised to reduce parking requirements, for
example, in the following circumstances:
1. For smaller dwelling units. Studio and one - bedroom apartments typically house fewer people
and consequently need fewer parking spaces than larger units.
2. For transit - oriented development. Housing built near transit centers or in high density urban
centers with nearby employment opportunities and services offers residents non - automobile
mobility options and allows for reduced car ownership.
3. To allow shared parking. Housing mixed with other land uses offers the opportunity for shared
parking when peak - parking demand for the different uses occurs at different times of day.
Parking can be shared among mixed uses within the same development or between two or more
nearby developments.
4. Where on- street parking is available. Housing located in areas with available on- street parking
has less need for on -site parking, particularly for parking to serve visitors.
5. For large buildings. Research suggests that tenants of buildings with greater density have lower
automobile ownership. There may also be economies of scale in larger buildings that allow
sharing of on -site spaces.
6. For special needs housing. Senior housing, assisted living facilities, transitional housing and
other types of housing that serve unique populations have very different and typically lower
parking needs than conventional housing.
7. To reduce unneeded visitor parking. Parking standards are sometimes set higher than necessary
to accommodate resident parking needs in order to assure that there is ample visitor parking.
However, visitor parking needs may differ based on such factors as available on street parking,
the potential for shared off -site parking, and economies of scale that allow guests to park in
unused resident spaces.
Page 1
Minutes, 8/13/01
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Calling the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., Council President Joan Hernandez led the flag salute.
OFFICIALS:
Mayor Steven M. Mullet; City Administrator John McFarland; Council Analyst Lucy Lauterbach;
Deputy City Clerk Bob Baker; Steve Lancaster, Community Development Director; Jim Morrow, Public
Works Director; Public Works Coordinator, Frank Iriarte; and Associate Planner Moira Bradshaw.
COUNCIL ATTENDANCE:
Present were Council President Joan Hernandez; and Councilmembers Joe Duffle; Pam Carter; Jim
Haggerton; Pamela Linder; David Fenton and Richard Simpson.
CITIZEN COMMENT /CORRESPONDENCE:
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
August 13, 2001 7:00 p.m.
Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers
Page 1 of 9
Jackie Dempere, 4033 South 128th, Tukwila, spoke against an alleged discrepency between
documents received early in the bidding process for surplus property. Ms. Dempere was the highest
bidder for that surplus property. Recently, she spoke with a representative from the Department of
Community Development and learned about a bond requirement by the owner of the home as well as the
housemover. She spoke out against this requirement. She asked Council to "do something" or she will
have to relinquish the home to the City.
Mayor Mullet assured Council and the audience that all must abide by this rule. It is nothing new and
other homes have been moved within the City under this requirement.
SPECIAL ISSUES:
a. Temporary, non - exclusive franchise agreement: XO Communications
Frank Iriarte, Public Work Coordinator, presented the staff report on this item. No staff representative
was present from XO Communications.
XO Communications was formerly known as Nextlink Washington, Inc. They provide a wide array of
voice and data telecommunications services including local and long distance, video conferencing, high
speed internet access and other business to business solutions.
XO Communications recently purchased an existing 4 -inch conduit system that was constructed by 360
Networks in 1998. They have submitted a permit request to pull fiber optic cable through the conduit
system. When completed, this project will allow XO to service customers within the Puget Sound area
and provide redundancy to the entire network. The proposed agreement will exert very little impact to
the City's right of way.
http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow8-13.htm
9/19/01
z
Z
cc 2
6
JU
00
0)
CD 111
J =
w
w°
- a
= W
�— _
z �
I— 0
Z ~
w
U�
0 D
o1-
w W
1 z
u
U
O
z
The fiber optic line will consist of belowground and aboveground components. The
belowground facilities are the fiber optic line, conduit, and manholes/handholes. The
aboveground facilities are the line marker posts and OP -AMP stations.
Fiber optic line, which is made up of bundled glass optical fibers wrapped in thin plastic
ec
~ w
sheathing, is inserted into the flexible, high- density polyethylene conduit. The conduit will have --I v
an outside diameter of 1.25 to 1.5 inches. The Portland and Seattle Laterals will consist of 6 to o o
20 conduits, while the Pipeline Lateral will have 6 to 9. Each conduit will accommodate one w =
fiber optic line, which measures approximately 0.85 inch in diameter and is composed of 96 to -J I-
288 hair -thin glass fibers. w 0
Manholes and handholes are usually placed at intervals of 3 to 5 miles to serve as splice
points and assist fiber optic line installation and maintenance. The fiber optic line is installed by co a
using compressed air to blow it through the conduit. The handholes measure approximately 30 � w
inches wide by 48 inches long and 24 inches tall, and will typically be buried 24 inches below ?i._
grade. Generally, road shoulders or other easily accessible areas are the preferable locations for z O
handholes. In some areas, at streets or OP -AMP stations, manholes measuring 6 feet wide by 4 LU uj
feet tall may be installed. Only the manhole lids, which measure approximately 36 inches in v o
diameter, will be visible at the surface and will be at grade. Manholes are typically used when 0 Y
the line is installed under city streets or other urban/developed areas. Placement of the handholes w u j
and manholes along the routes will avoid sensitive biological, archeological, and geological i v
resources. u.. ~
O
. Z .
w
Line marker posts will be located at approximately 700- to 1,000 -foot intervals to alert v
people of the presence of the fiber optic line. The posts are typically 3.5- inch - diameter round 0
PVC posts with embossed lettering 4 feet aboveground.
The proposed fiber optic line includes three OP -AMP stations, each of which will be
located approximately every 44 miles along the route, and sited to avoid sensitive resources. An
OP -AMP station boosts the signal.
The three stations will be placed on either 2.24 acre or 5 acre sites. Stations will consist
of three to eight 12- by 30 -foot precast concrete buildings on concrete pads. The concrete pads,
including concrete stoops, will cover approximately 3,850 square feet. The maximum height
will be approximately 11 feet. Each building is shipped from the manufacturer equipped with
one or two heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units to maintain a steady temperature for
the electronic equipment housed inside the station. The unstaffed, locked facility will require
commercial electric power and telephone service. Periodic maintenance will occur to assure that
the facility is operating properly. A diesel - powered generator (maximum 255- horsepower) and
Williams Communications, Inc.
Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project
Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington
FACILITIES
Overview
OP -AMP Stations
Appendix A
A -5 Portland to Seattle Project Description
March 2000
<
Minutes, 8/13/01 �:.
Page 2 of 9
To avoid confusion, Ms. Carter clarified the fiber -pull route will be located along Interurban Avenue
South to South 56th Street; not South 156th Street.
Council consensus was to forward this item to the August 20, 2001, City Council Regular meeting
agenda.
b. Temporary, non - exclusive franchise agreement: Electric Lightwave
Electric Lightwave has been doing business within Tukwila for nearly 12 years. At this time, they are
seeking new routes which would need to be incorporated into a new franchise agreement.
In January 1999, Electric Lightwave was granted a franchise agreement when they added routes to those
which were currently existing. The initial franchise agreement was encapsulated into Ordinance 1764.
That ordinance was then repealed by Ordinance 1858 in 1999.
Electric Lightwave has now submitted a fiber optic proposal to service the Tukwila Qwest Cybercenter.
They will add new, critical routes, which of course, are not part of either Ordinance 1764 or 1858,
therefore a new franchise agreement and subsequent ordinance are being sought. The preferred route
will be laid out in the final ordinance.
Additionally, Electric Lightwave is seeking a waiver from the undergrounding ordinance which requires
undergrounding for new lines. Their routes will be on the Interurban trail, and down by Segale in the
south. Public Works staff will work to resolve waiver request issues through the permitting process,
while the franchise agreement and corresponding ordinance may be considered and/or adopted.
The proposed project will consist of a mixture of boring, trenching, and aerial operations.
Council consensus was to forward this item to the August 20, 2001, City Council Regular meeting
agenda.
c. Temporary, non - exclusive franchise agreement: MCI Worldcom
Mr. Iriarte reported MCI Worldcom Network Services (MWNS) was granted a route - specific franchise
ordinance in 1997 (Ordinance 1791). This agreement allowed the construction, operation and
maintenance of telecommunications transmission lines within the City's right of way.
MWNS has submitted a fiber optic proposal to place additional fiber optic ducts and cables within the
City's right of way. This proposal will allow additional, diverse routes for redundancy and would tie
into the MCI Switching Office at 12682 Gateway Drive Center.
Again, a new ordinance is proposed, which would include the routes suggested as well as those
contained in Ordinance 1791. It is proposed that future routes would be handled through the
miscellaneous permit process. The preferred route will be laid out, as an exhibit to the final, draft
ordinance.
Finally, MWNS will use direct boring as the primary construction method and will dig bore pits and pits
for placement of handholds. Staff has mandated a comprehensive traffic control and restoration plan to
ensure minimal disruption in the right of way.
Councilmember Carter stated appreciation for the layout to the ordinance as shown on page 27 of the
http: / /www.ci.tukwila .wa.us /clerk/docs01 /cow8- 13.htm 9/19/01
z
w
00
NO
• W
J
CO IL
w o
u_ Q
=
w
z =
I— o
z i--
w
w
U O
o -
O f-
ww
u
u.. z
U=
o F-
z
jai
aboveground and bermcd fuel tank will be installed for emergency back -up use. More buildings
could be added if network traffic levels required it.
Williams will construct the stations on or near previously disturbed sites. In addition to
making construction easier, it will eliminate or minimize potential environmental impacts.
Stations will not be sited in areas that: z
• have not been surveyed, documented, and ensured clear of sensitive biological and w w
cultural resources by Williams' environmental consultants; u� D
• are within a designated floodplain; v p
• are adjacent to waterbodies, including wetlands, drainages, rivers, streams, or lakes; u) w
• are on sites with known contamination; or w s
• are in areas that are designated as scenic. u) u ..
w
2
Staging Areas and Access Roads
0 d
Staging areas for construction equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants, and solvents will be F- s
established along the project ROW during construction to allow more efficient use and 1- ~ o
distribution of materials and equipment. Whenever possible, staging areas will be located on w F-
private lands in existing contractor yards; existing commercial areas used for storing and w
maintaining equipment; previously cleared, graded, or paved areas; or level areas where grading v w
and vegetation clearing are not required. o
111 Il i
The construction contractor, as needed, before and/or during construction typically 1 '
selects staging areas. Each area is expected to be 4 to 5 acres in size. This practice is consistent - O Z
with construction methods used throughout the United States. To ensure that sensitive v cn
environmental resources are adequately protected or are avoided, the locations of staging areas o 1
will be determined in consultation with environmental resource specialists. Since fuels, z
lubricants, and solvents will be stored on staging areas, all staging areas will be located at least
150 feet away from sensitive stream/drainages.
Access to the project ROW will be by existing access roads or previously disturbed areas.
While no new access roads will be created, some existing roads may require minimal repairs to
make them usable for construction. After completion of the line installation, access roads will be
repaired and/or improved, if necessary, to prevent future erosion.
Access roads will not selected until the early stages of construction planning. Selection
of access roads will be determined after consultation with qualified biologists and archeologists
to ensure that sensitive environmental resources are adequately protected or avoided.
Since not all of the rights -of -way follow improved roads and some areas lack bridges,
construction equipment may need to be transported through some streams (i.e. Type 5 waters).
In many cases, roads already cross small or ephemeral streams along the existing right -of -way to
be used by Williams. In most of these instances the stream banks are gradually sloped and water
flows will be nonexistent to sufficiently low to allow vehicles to drive through the channel with
Williams Communications, Inc.
Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project
Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington
Appendix A
A -6 Portland to Seattle Project Description
March 2000
�
Minutes, 8/13/01 Page 3 of 9
packet; versus that which was shown on page 45. This clarifies the area in question for the proposed
routes. She asked that process be followed when completing the final, draft ordinance for consideration.
Council consensus was to forward this item to the August 20, 2001, City Council Regular meeting
agenda.
d. An ordinance amending street vacation procedures.
Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, presented the proposed ordinance to Council and spoke in favor of
its adoption at the Regular meeting on August 20, 2001. The work on the newly proposed ordinance has
been done to clean up the record and to reflect current City practices.
The responsibility of Street and Alley vacations has shifted from the City Clerk's Office to that of Public
Works. Additionally, the Planning Department will be removing from its code, the $120.00 filing free
for the vacation petition. Due to the shift of duties and the need for improvements to the Tukwila
Municipal Code, Public Works staff has created the newly proposed ordinance.
The draft ordinance changes responsibility from the City Clerk's Office to the Public Works
Department, adds definitions, adds a $120.00 filing fee and denotes what constitutes a complete
application, adds a two -year expiration period; re -words the valuation and compensation sections (and
adds a 3 -month time limit for an appraisal), describes property trade in lieu of payment; allows for
waiving compensation for governmental agencies; provides procedural direction to the application, adds
verbiage to ensure a vacation does not cause landlocked lots, explains when the vacation is approval and
when it takes effect.
Mr. Morrow emphasized the desire to make the process as simple as possible for the applicant.
Council consensus was to forward this item to the August 20, 2001, City Council Regular meeting
agenda.
e. Equipment purchase for 2002 — Mechanical Street Sweeper
Noting the need to replace the mechanical street sweeper, Mr. Morrow presented the proposed purchase
to Council. He explained this would complete the plan which began in 2001 with a supplemental
$67,000.00 Street Fund contribution to the 501 Fund and $13,000.00 in 2002.
The sweeper may be purchased from the State of Oregon's contract; and takes approximately 4 months
for delivery. It is imperative to order now as the Oregon State contract expires on February 7, 2002.
Waiting until next year to order could result in our missing out on the opportunity to order from the
Oregon State contract.
This contract allows for the purchase of a sweeper by Washington State municipalities provided the
purchase does not have a negative impact on Oregon customers. In this case, there would be none.
The anticipated cost of the street sweeper is $145,000.00 Depreciation accumulation of $65,000.00,
along with the supplemental contributions in 2001 of $67,000.00 and $13,000.00 in 2002, will fund the
necessary $145,000.00.
Using the Oregon contract, the City will save time and effort of developing bid specifications and
soliciting bids. Moreover, receiving the sweeper at the beginning of the fiscal year (January), will
http: / /www.ci.tukwila .wa.us /clerk/docs01 /cow8- 13.htm 9/19/01
{!.
negligible impact to the channel. In some cases, these access points may need to be modified to
accommodate construction equipment by placing clean drain rock, cutting fords, or installing
temporary culverts. Such modifications will be permitted through the appropriate agencies, and
will not occur in streams supporting sensitive resources.
CONSTRUCTION
w
This section begins with a discussion of the construction management and environmental Q:
management response plan. Next is an explanation of the spread crews, followed by a - o
description of the conduit and line installation. This section concludes with a discussion of the w o
construction of the OP -AMP stations. J
w
w
Construction Management and Environmental Management Response Plan
u
The construction management and environmental management response plan consists of
two components, personnel and training, which are discussed below. I
z �.
�
Z (—
Personnel w
w
U
A proper management structure, adequate training of field personnel, an environmental
training program, and the ability to respond to changing circumstances are critical components to w w
the success of the proposed fiber optic line. Training classes for the contractor and construction 1
crews will be held covering issues such as environmental protection, safety, spill prevention and "-- z
response, fire prevention and management, and proper management of stormwater runoff. ui
U =
O ~
The field management structure will include engineering, construction, and
environmental personnel such as spread superintendents, spread supervisors, contract compliance
inspectors, environmental resource coordinators, and biological, archeological, and geotechnical
support. The roles and responsibilities of each onsite representative will be clearly understood
and communicated during the training program and are summarized below.
The contractor and Williams' spread superintendents will be onsite to address
engineering questions, make field decisions, and coordinate with permitting agencies. The
spread superintendents have overall responsibility for onsite decisions and direct reporting
responsibilities to the Williams' project manager for contract compliance. The superintendents
also have the ability to shut down the construction operations in case of environmental
noncompliance, emergencies, safety issues, and disputes with the construction contractor.
Williams' spread supervisor will be onsite for each contractor to oversee the individual
contract compliance inspectors and work with the contractor to resolve field conflicts. The
spread supervisor will report directly to the construction superintendent and also perform most of
the administrative duties. The spread supervisor will communicate daily all construction
activities related to compliance, safety, and administration.
Williams Communications, Inc.
Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project
Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington
Appendix A
A -7 Portland to Seattle Project Description
March 2000
Minutes, 8/13/01 - ,: Page 6 of 9
appropriation bill, the City has learned from Senator Patty Murray's office that its request for $1.5
million has been included in the Senate transportation appropriation bill for fiscal year 2002.
City staff is anxious to begin discussions with stakeholders with regard this project. Stakeholders
include, but are not limited to Boeing, WSDOT, Sound Transit and the City of Renton. The goal of the
stakeholders meeting is do develop a very preliminary development concept that Tukwila and their
representatives in Washington DC can use in explaining the proposal during the upcoming budget
negotiations. z
�
The following items are expected to be "explored" during the stakeholders meeting:
0
0
1. Potential benefits and need for changes to land use regulations in that area (building height,
residential uses, parking standards, etc.) 1/1 I-
2. Relocation of Union Pacific RR tracks toward the east (adjacent to existing BNSF RR tracks) to IA p I A improve access, visibility and parcel size /shape for future development.
3. Extension of Strander Boulevard to the east, connecting with the Renton street system. g
4. Potential extension of an additional east -west street south of I -405. N
5. The need for additional surface street and interchange improvements. = w
6. Opportunities for enhancing the multi -modal nature of the Longacres Transit Station. z
7. Opportunities for local circulator busses, pedestrian facilities, people movers or other options for O
connecting the Longacres area to the Southcenter area. w !—
w
8. Options for use of the City's property holdings in the area.
9. Pedestrian and other amenities. o
10. Incentives to attract desired land uses and intensities. o i-
L11
Mr. Lancaster noted no commitments of any kind will be made during the stakeholders meeting. It will ~
u
be an exploration of possibilities to help focus our master planning work for the coming months. Z
w
0 (1)
Councilmembers Haggerton, Linder and Fenton all spoke in favor of the project and noted they would o
like to see the tracks moved. Councilmember Carter also spoke in favor of the plan. Z
Council consensus existed to allow City staff and Administration to move forward with and begin
discussions with stakeholders, previously mentioned.
i. FAST Corridor Interlocal Agreement for Funding between Port of Tacoma & City of Tukwila
Noting the proposed interlocal agreement went to the Transportation Committee earlier this evening, Jim
Morrow, noted it is one of two remaining interlocal agreements the City must secure to obtain funding
associated with the South 180th underpass. The Ports have combined to contribute $1.2 million to the
project itself. The project is nearly $22 million in total.
How the dollar value was split between the two ports has come about purely as a result of which entity
has the largest amount of money. The focal point for this agreement works for both Ports. He has been
able to move money around and the $950,000.00 will come from Port of Tacoma funds.
Tukwila has experienced a recent incident wherein a freight mobility project came in significantly under
the cost estimates; yet one of the funding partners removed their original funding commitment, equal to
the amount the project came under. The opportunity and the concern it created was that any cost savings
were not distributed amongst all funding partners.
http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow8-13.htm
9/19/01
Williams anticipates hiring multiple contractors depending on the amount of time
available to install the conduit and line and construct associated facilities. Each spread will
consist of the following 6- to 12- person crews:
• Preparation Crew — The preparation crews will prepare the right -of -way for
construction by placing temporary gates in fences, clearing vegetation where Z
necessary, and repairing erosion problems on existing roads to provide access.
• Conduit and Line Installation Crew — The conduit and line installation crews will w
install the conduit and line. 6 =
• OP -AMP Station Crew — The OP -AMP station crew will prepare the site and p
construct the stations. cn O
• Cleanup Crew — The cleanup crews will perform final cleanup of the right -of -way, w =
restoring preinstallation ground contours, installing erosion protection measures (e.g., cn
erosion control blankets), restoring affected stream channels and removing fences and w O
gates. Clean up will be ongoing and will take place immediately after all work is
completed per segment.
• Seeding Crew — The seeding crews will apply seed and mulch where necessary. = C5
�
Z =
Conduit and Fiber Optic Line Installation w O
Conduit and line installation will not threaten overhead utilities due to the amount of v
Ca
vertical clearance under the utilities. For underground facilities, the "One Call" utility location 0 ~_
services will be contacted a minimum of 48 hours before construction. The "One Call" services =
will alert all registered utilities about the scheduled construction activities, allowing the utilities
u. O
to identify the location of their underground facilities and thus greatly reduce the possibility of
interruptions in utility services. v
In many instances, the project will cross private property. Landowners, with whom z
easements will have already been obtained, will be contacted before construction. Right -of -way
personnel will be available to answer landowners' questions and to negotiate any cleanup or
restoration issues that may arise. Williams will negotiate with the owners and tenants regarding
any project - related crop losses. The timing of construction will, wherever practicable, be during
idle field time. Any trenching activities in farmland will be done according to the above -
mentioned procedures.
Three methods will be used to bury the conduit, based on several factors, including site
conditions. The methods of plowing, trenching, and drilling are described below.
Plowing installation uses a Cat with a cable reel in front and a plow blade in back (See
typical(s)). As the Cat moves, it simultaneously furrows the soil and installs the conduit. The
plowing Cat weighs approximately 43 tons. The plow furrow will typically be one foot wide and
48 inches deep. In some instances, the soil may be pre - ripped by a tractor in front of the plow.
Ripping is a technique in which a slit is made in the surface of the soil to loosen it. The
construction corridor is usually up to 30 feet wide. Up to 2 miles of plowing can be completed
per spread, per day.
Williams Communications, Inc.
Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project
Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington
A -10
"'
Minutes, 8/13/01
Based upon that, the City would like to expedite this item before language is added to every local
agreement, trying to protect the interests and making a mess out of the various situations. Both Ports, as
reported by Mr. Morrow, have been very good funding partners, and easy to work with.
Councilmember Carter, on behalf of the Transportation Committee, spoke in favor of the project.
Council consensus existed to forward this item to the August 20, 2001, Regular meeting for action.
j. A resolution expressing support for the campaign to support racial justice, and for the observance of
September 19, 2001, as Race Equality Day
Council President Hernandez reported there is sufficient time to handle this item at a future meeting. To
that end, she suggested it be forwarded to the September 10 COW meeting for discussion; and
September 17 Regular meeting for acceptance.
Having additional time to review the materials, Ms. Hernandez thanked the Council for forwarding this
item to the September 6 Equity & Diversity Commission meeting. Additionally, Ms. Hernandez asked
Councilmembers to respond to the National League of Cities Campaign to Promote Racial Justice
Survey found within the Council packet for this meeting.
9:00 p.m. Council President Hernandez called a recess.
9:18 p.m. Council President Hernandez reconvened the meeting.
REPORTS:
a. Mayor
For general information, Mayor Mullet noted at least three houses have been moved within the City of
Tukwila in the last three years. Two have been from his neighborhood. All had to put up bonds. Without
arguing with Ms. Dempere earlier, Mayor Mullet did want the record clarified. All bidders received the
same information; and all are treated fairly. The Mayor then reported the second of two bidders has
written the City and informed them she has a lot ready should Ms. Dempere be unsuccessful in her
ability to follow through with the process.
b. City Council
Councilmember Duffie reported receipt of a telephone call from Bill Holstein, Crestview Park area,
regarding the fence. He expressed concern the City did not erect a fence "all the way down to the end of
the park." Mr. Holstein would like Council to reconsider their decision and continue the fence "on down
to the woods" thus, the end of the park. Ms. Linder noted a call from Mr. Holstein as well. She
suggested the item be forwarded to the next Community Affairs & Parks Committee. Mr. McFarland
also reported receipt of a telephone call from Mr. Holstein. He agreed the item should be forwarded to
subcommittee for consideration. The Mayor has asked Mr. Morrow to work with the Highline Water
District to negotiate additional consideration.
Next, Mr. Duffie stated dissatisfaction with his denied request for travel.
http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow8-13.htm
<.;., Page 7 of 9
Councilmember Carter attended the August 7 Utilities Committee as well as the Annual Night Out
Against Crime. Additionally, she attended the August 9 Transportation & Policy Board meeting; August
9/19/01
z
~ w
Q :�
J U
00
a) 0
CO W
J =
F--
w
g
=
�
z =
�- 0
z f-
w
w
O • —
o F-
LU
W
I 1-
• O
w
Z
• =
O 1—
z
Trenched installations will predominantly be used at tie -in points to connect conduit at
handholes and manholes. The trenches will be 4 to 6 feet wide, 8 to 10 feet long, and 48 inches
deep. Other narrow trenching will be done in certain metropolitan areas where drilling or
plowing is not feasible. Trenching is typically done with a rubber -tired backhoe or an excavator,
using an 18- to 24 -inch bucket. A backhoe weighs approximately 8 tons. If conditions do not
allow for small isolated areas, such as handholes or assist points, to be backfilled at the end of z
each day, appropriate safety, erosion, and wildlife control features will be installed. A 30 -foot
wide right -of -way is needed where trenching is to take place, of which ten feet is required for v
tracked/rubber -tired equipment and vehicular construction traffic. The construction corridors will ° o
fin
typically be coned to within the existing rights -of -way. w i
J I—
Directional drilling will be used in various locations along the ROW to cross -areas where uj "-
u j 0
surface disturbance must be avoided (e.g., crossing railroads, highways „rivers, sensitive streams,
and wetlands). Directional drill lengths could range from less than 100 feet to 750 feet. To g
Complete the drill, a work area is established on each side of the crossing (see typical(s)). For c
river, stream, and wetland crossings, the work areas, will be located at distances stipulated by the w
local jurisdictional buffer ordinance distance from the bank or edge of the resource. One work z
area contains the "pilot hole” and drilling equipment. The other work area contains the t— O
"receiving hole" where the drill bit emerges. Depending on the length of the drill, the drill entry uj
areas range from 2 feet by 2 feet to 4 feet by 4 feet. Drilling equipment most suitable for :
site - specific conditions will be used for each drill. Silt fences, straw bails, and other erosion p N
control measures will be installed around these work areas. Approximately 500 feet of drilling
could be completed per day, per drill rig. = v
E- I-
During the drilling process a bentonite slurry typically is pumped through the drill hole to z
El co
help lubricate the drill bit, prevent the drill tunnel from collapsing, and carry drill cuttings to the 2
surface. Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay known for its hydrophilic characteristics. The p /-
slurry is pumped through the drill hole, collected at the surface, passed through machinery to z
remove the drill cuttings, and then recirculated through the hole. The slurry may be stored in
tanks at the drill site when not in use. Any excess slurry remaining after the drill is complete will
be removed from the site and either reused by the drilling contractor or disposed of at an
appropriate facility.
Although highly unlikely, the drilling slurry could escape the drill hole through cracks or
fissures in the soil and reach the ground surface. All efforts will be made to complete directional
drills at sufficient depths to prevent bentonite releases. Drilling under roads will be at a depth of
at least 5 feet, while under flowing streams, the minimum depth will be 10 feet.
While plowing will be used at some stream crossings (i.e. Type 5 Streams), flowing
streams with sensitive resources (e.g., high -value habitat for threatened or endangered species)
will be crossed by attaching the conduit to an existing bridge or by drilling under the stream (see
typical(s)). The work areas will be located outside the stream area. No in -water trenching is
proposed in flowing streams with sensitive resources located at or downstream of the crossing.
Williams Communications, Inc.
Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project
Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington
A -11
Appendix A
Portland to Seattle Project Description
March 2000
Minutes, 8/13/01 Page 8 of 9
10 Chamber of Commerce meeting; and this evenings Transportation Committee meeting.
Ms. Carter reported an informal tour of a senior housing project with assisted and independent living
conditions in Vancouver, WA. Although some units cost $1,400.00 per month, amenities include a
workout room; dining facilities; etc. in two buildings.
Finally, Ms. Carter reported purchase of the City of Renton's Centennial Playing Cards set. The deck
includes historic photos of the City; and are available for $6.00 per deck. A planning committee began
work on the project two years in advance of the celebration. Ms. Carter suggested Tukwila consider
planning their Centennial events early, too.
Council President Hernandez participated in the Annual Night Out Against Crime on August 7 as well
as the Utilities Committee meeting earlier in the evening. Next, Ms. Hernandez reported receipt of an e-
mail from Jim Street, former Seattle City Councilmember and retired King County Superior Court
Judge. Mr. Street has invited Ms. Hernandez to serve on a Reinventing Task Force. She has declined the
invitation at this time; yet noted she'd pass the invitation on to other elected officials in the south King
County region. She also noted he sent information on a free conference related to reducing juvenile
crime, where Mr. Street is a panel member.
Councilmember Haggerton attended the August 7 Utilities Committee meeting for Councilmember
Simpson as well as the Annual Night Out Against Crime (with Police Officer Ted Rutt).
Next, Mr. Haggerton reported the Washington State Department of Ecology issued a full, 401 permit for
the third runway, which has been on the burner for three years; and been rejected twice. The permit was
issued on Friday, August 10, 2001. The Airport Community Coalition is filing an immediate appeal to
the Pollution Control Hearing Board.
Finally, he reported an absence from August 15 through August 19, 2001.
Councilmember Linder reported attendance at the "best" Annual Night Out Against Crime ever. She
did suggest, however, that in the future, no committee meetings be held on the same night as the Night
Out as it makes for late start. Next, Ms. Linder reported an August 9 Tukwila Backyard Habitat meeting.
Their goal is for Tukwila to be the 4th community in the nation to be completely certified by September
21 (two years post project commencement).
Councilmember Fenton also reported attendance to the "best" Annual Night Out Against Crime. He
spoke positively of his experience in riding with Lt. Lori Sutter. He also noted how well Sutter knew
community members by their first names and where they lived, etc.
Secondly, he spoke in favor of inviting police officers who recently competed in the Police Olympics to
an upcoming (Regular) Council meeting, so Council may show appreciation for their efforts.
Councilmember Simpson thanked those who filled in for him (at Committee meetings) during his
absence.
c. Staff
City Administrator John McFarland reported recent distribution of information on the Open Public
Meetings Act as it relates to e- mails. He, too, attended the Annual Night Out Against Crime.
http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow8-13.htm
_ .:.. ,,. _ ...,
The drill entry site for the Columbia River will be located on Port of Vancouver property.
The exit site will be in Kelly Point Park in Portland. The work areas on each end of the drill will
be approximately 100 feet wide and 300 feet long. The entry area will be a maximum of 15 feet
by 15 feet and one foot deep. The drill will be approximately 4,300 feet long. The conduits,
which will be in a 10 -inch steel casing, will be at least 20 feet below the river bottom. The
drilling operation will take approximately two weeks. After completion of the drilling, the work
areas will be refilled with the same material taken out and the work area will be restored to its
pre - construction condition.
J U
00
OP -AMP Stations °
w =
The following is a description of the construction process of the OP -AMP stations:
WO
• grade site level;
• fence off the site;
• hook -up electrical service; _ a
• gravel site;
• install concrete pads; ? 0
E -O
• place precast buildings on pads; and, w w
• install electronic equipment, and other appurtenances. v
-
O
°I--
OPERATIONS = 0
Operation activities will consist of maintaining erosion control measures, repairing or z
replacing line conduit due to of storm damage or other emergencies, and routine maintenance of
the OP -AMP stations. In most emergency situations, access to inspect damaged areas will be p (-
accomplished via helicopter or public roads. After installation, access for maintenance will also z
be by existing access roads to the right -of -way.
Williams Communications, Inc.
Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project
Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington
MITIGATION
Williams will be responsible for implementing the mitigation measures identified in this
document and other measures that will be determined by the associated permitting agencies and
through the permitting process. The general mitigation measures that are known at the time of
the preparation of this document are described below. The measures have been developed and
designed as part of the proposed fiber optic line to avoid or reduce potential significant impacts
to less- than- significant levels.
Appendix A
A -12 Portland to Seattle Project Description
March 2000
Minutes, 8/13/01 Page 9 of 9
Next, he reported four Mariner's tickets were presented to the Mayor's Office, as a gratuity, from Puget
Sound Energy. In turn, they were given to the manager /residents of the Okara Apartment Complex.
d. City Attorney
Not present.
e. Legislative Analyst
No report.
f. Intergovernmental
None.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Ms. Linder noted that during her Night Out tour, she went to the Hill Crest. There, she learned it had
been sold and the manager was looking for a new job.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
10:05 p.m. Fenton moved; Linder seconded; to adjourn the meeting.
The motion carried 7 -0.
Return to Home
http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow8-13.htm
9/19/01
Avoidance Measures
Sensitive resources will be avoided through various means identified during the project
design phase. However, there also will be avoidance measures occurring in the field during
construction as a result of preconstruction surveys or at the direction of construction inspectors.
If required, the construction technique will be coordinated through a monitoring resource
specialist familiar with the resource issue being avoided. Typical avoidance measures include
minor rerouting of the cable around the sensitive resource within the disturbed right -of -way,
drilling under the resource, or attaching the line to an existing bridge.
Significant impacts will be avoided at sensitive drainages, including perennial stream
crossings or streams that are flowing at the time of construction and have sensitive resources
located at or downstream of the crossing. At all streams that provide important habitat,
contribute significantly to water quality, or support sensitive or listed aquatic species, conduit
and the fiber optic line will be installed either by drilling under the drainage or by attaching the
. line to existing bridges. In many situations, these methods will also be used for wetlands. The
avoidance methods for each sensitive resource will be shown on the construction drawings.
Best Management Practices
Best management practices detailed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) will be implemented.
Spill prevention countermeasures contained in the SWPPP (required under the NPDES
permit) are designed to prevent or minimize the risk of bentonite entering surface waters during
directional drilling. Although bentonite releases rarely occur, bentonite can reach the ground
surface and enter surface waters if the drill encounters a rock fracture during high- pressure
drilling operations conducted over long distances. However, the risk of bentonite reaching the
surface or surface waters is minimized because contractors typically use the smallest practicable
drilling equipment which injects the bentonite at lower pressures.
Erosion is the process of soil particles being displaced and transported by wind or water.
Conduit and fiber optic line installation will disturb soil and vegetation, exposing sites to
possible erosion. The hR7ard of erosion is increased by the presence of steep slopes,
concentrated or channelized water flow, and high streamflows. The best management practices
that will be undertaken in accordance with all applicable regulations and standards will be
implemented by Williams' contractor as specified in the SWPPP that will be prepared for the
project.
Erosion and sediment control measures are used to reduce the amount of soil that is
carried off a land area, and to control the discharge of soil particles that are carried away. The
following standard erosion and sediment control measures and practices will be used during and
after construction to control accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation.
• minimize site disturbance;
Williams Communications, Inc.
Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project
Portland, Oregon to Seattle, Washington
Appendix A
A -13 Portland to Seattle Project Description
March 2000
Minutes, 8/13/01
minimize the ongoing usage of the existing unit.
To that end, Mr. Morrow spoke in favor of Council allowing staff to proceed with the purchase of the
mechanical sweeper with delivery and invoicing. in 2002.
Council consensus existed, allowing the Public Works Director to place the order now.
f. Selection of contest winner — Clean -up ideas from Tukwila Days
Councilmember Linder noted this item appeared on the Community Affairs and Parks Committee
agenda recently; where no consensus among the members existed. The City Council sponsored a contest
for the best anti - littering suggestion, during the 2001 Tukwila Days event.
While at the Committee level, there was no clear consensus as to who the winner should be as all
suggestions were very good. One item the Committee did agree upon was to send a letter to all those
who submitted suggestions, thanking them and stating appreciation for their involvement.
Council conducted a ballot vote to determine the winner of the contest. Six responses were received;
with Councilmember Duffle abstaining from the vote. The winning idea (419) received three votes. It
states, "I have two boys 3 and 6 years old. Whenever we go to a park or playground we bring a bag and
pick up garbage before we leave. If everyone did this it would help control the litter problem. The
person presenting this idea will be awarded a $45.00 gift certificate to a local area restaurant. The $45.00
was collected, personally, by members of the City Council.
Second place, and the winner of $35.00 gift certificate (also to an area restaurant), was "suggestion 47."
It states, "Have a pride in community contest. A lot of Tukwila looks like a dump. People don't take
care of their yards, fences, or parking strips. Let's get some pride in where we live. Maybe some seniors
need some help! Provide permanent garbage cans around the neighborhood." Money for this gift
certificate was also donated, personally, by members of the City Council.
Winners will be notified by Lucy Lauterbach, Legislative Analyst. Additionally, the Council President
will work with Ms. Lauterbach to formulate a thank you letter, previously mentioned.
Finally, this item will be forwarded to the Community Affairs & Parks Committee for further action and .
-consideration of ideas presented. Consideration of a hoped -for, long -term plan will be the focus of that
discussion.
http: / /www.ci.tukwila .wa.us /clerk/docs01/cow8- 13.htm
g. Demonstration program: Innovative mixed -use development for urban renewal area along T. I. B.
Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, presented staff's report on this item, which was previously before
the Community Affairs & Parks Committee. Generated by City Administration and Staff, the idea
behind the program is to look for opportunities to stimulate redevelopment in the Tukwila International
Boulevard Corridor.
The concept of the program is to develop criteria for eligible projects; project size and phasing; review
processes and types of standards and criteria within the zoning code which could be waived. Waiving of
some criteria may provide incentive for developers.
The proposed program would require an amendment of the City's Zoning Code; (requiring a
recommendation from the Council); consideration of and public hearing by the Planning Commission;
Attachment A •
Minutes, 8 /13/01
and remand of the item to COW and Regular meeting for adoption of an ordinance, if so chosen.
Noting City staff is in favor of more than just a retail presence on corridor, Ms. Bradshaw reviewed
some of the ideas suggested for the basic criteria mentioned earlier.
Eligibility Project location within an urban renewal area & proposed minimum size of 2 acres
(possibility for phased development).
Review Proposed Type 5 review process, requiring a public hearing and decision by the City Council.
Due to potential for requirement waivers, staff believes Council may want to make such decisions.
Code Amend. Create /modify Board of Architectural Review Chapter of the TivIC (18.104); to provide
the scope and authority for the program and to specify the authority for and criteria to be followed on
waivers from TMC standards.
Amend permit application types and procedures Chapter of TMC and add Demonstration Program for
Innovative Mixed Use Developments to the Type 5 table.
Standards Waived Currently, landscaping and setbacks may be waived subject to certain requirements
being met. Examples of additional waivers to consider would be height, parking and recreation space
requirements.
Decision on Waivers Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests
would be laid out in staff analysis /report and approval would be granted by Council, using the Type
review process.
Waiver of other standards would be developed for the Demonstration Program and defined in the City's
design review criteria or guidelines.
Council discussed the proposed project amongst themselves and with staff. Clarification was given by
staff where necessary. While Councilmember Duffle had nothing to add, the remaining Councilmembers
spoke in favor of the concept which would (potentially) eliminate some "red tape "; department directors
being able to have greater discretion and authority in some areas; speed up processes; and jump start the
development on the T. I. B. Corridor.
Anna Bernhard, Tukwila, asked what the City would do in the event of a request from someone
outside the urban renewal area for the same concessions granted to those within the urban renewal area.
it Response from Council and City Administration indicated that should this scenario occur, the City can
consider them on a project by project basis.Based upon discussions between Council and staff, Ms.
Bradshaw reiterated what was said and noted the item would be forwarded to the Planning Commission
for consideration and public hearing.
h. Transit - oriented Development Master Plan for Longacres area.
Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development briefed Council on the Transit - Oriented
Development Master Plan (TOD).
With assistance from the Ball -Janik firm, the City previously submitted an application for federal funds
to assist with the Urban Center planning effort, and to develop a detailed master plan and development
strategy for TOD in the Longacres Commuter Rail Station area. While not yet in the House
http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow8-13.htm
Tukwila International Boulevard
Urban Renewal Area
B
Z
`~ W
6
J U
00
co a
UJ
W
F--
W 0
2
Q
= W
Z
F- 0
Z F-
W
D p
U
O !
O F-
W
2
LL-O
.. Z
W
U =
0
Z
111Wq0D, II:
-
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Meeting Date
8/13/01
Prepared byl
mcb
Mayor's review
Council review
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date
Action
APPENDICES
Meeting Date
8/13/01
8/13/01
Attachments
CAP Meeting Minutes from 7/10/01
Memo with attachments
Initials
�
ITEM NO.
HOW TO TESTIFY
If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for
the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to five
minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but may not be able to take immediate action on
comments received until they are referred to a Committee or discussed under New Business.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given.
Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all Regular Council
Meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. Official Council action in the
form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular
Council meetings. . •
Committee of the Whole Meetings - Council members are elected for a four -year term. The Council
President is elected by the Council members to preside at all Cormittee of the Whole meetings for a
one -year term. Committee of the Whole,meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m. '
Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular Council meeting for official action.
GENERAL INFORMATION
At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are not
included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your comments to five minutes.
Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the same as
those used in Regular Council meetings.
Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, or personnel .
matters. , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public
interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 2.04.150 of the
Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings:
1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation.
2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
4. Citizens Who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second
time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken.
5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the
question, but may not engage in further debate at this time.
6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among themselves without further
public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or postponed to another date.
August 13, 2001
7:00 PM
3. SPECIAL ISSUES
4. REPORTS
5. MISCELLANEOUS
7. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City COU Agenda
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
John McFarland, City Administrator
Joan Hernandez, Council President
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items that are not
COMMENTS / included on this agenda. If you wish to comment on an item listed
•. CORRESPONDENCE on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is
presented for discussion.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff
d. City Attorney
e. Intergovernmental
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office by noon on Monday if we may be of assistance.
(206 -433 -1800 or TDD 206 -248 -2933)
Agenda is also available at City of Tukwila's website: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
PI enoe Inc nnvlc=n THAT AI I Ti Ill1MI1 A (:ni Intrll 11AGFTInM( AIaF Al Inln m oan
a. Temporary, non - exclusive franchise agreement: XO Communi-
cations. pg3
b. Temporary, non - exclusive franchise agreement Electric Light -
wave. Pg23
c. Temporary, non - exclusive franchise agreement MCI Worldcom. pg43
d. An ordinance amending street vacation procedures. Pg63
e. Equipment purchase for 2002: mechanical street sweeper. g
P 77
f. Selection of a contest winner: Clean-up ideas ( "Tukwila Days "). Pg81
g. Demonstration program: Innovative mixed -used development
for urban renewal area along Tukwila International Boulevard. Pg87
h. Transit - oriented Development Master Plan for Longacres area. Pg95
1. FAST Corridor. Pg103
j. A resolution expressing support for the campaign to support Pgni.
racial justice, and for the observance of September 19, 2001, as
Race Equality Day.
Councilmembers: Pam Carter • Joe Duffle
Dave Fenton • Jim Haggerton
Pamela Linder • Richard Simpson
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
Memorandum
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: August 8, 2001
To: Community of the Whole
From: Steve Lancaster
Subject: Tukwila International Boulevard Urban Renewal Area —
Development Stimulus
Background
The City continues its efforts to revitalize and jump start development that will create
commercial goods and services to serve its residents, expand the market for commercial
goods and services, improve the aesthetic environment, and create a pedestrian friendly
place along Tukwila International Boulevard.
Natural and existing economic market forces are not inclined to create the type of
development the City would like to see in its urban renewal area. By way of inducement
and in order to allow creative design approaches, staff proposes a "Demonstration
Program for Innovative Mixed Use Developments."
Proposal:
A "Demonstration Program for Innovative Mixed Use Developments" would require an
amendment of the Zoning Code in order to allow a new review process for innovative
developments.
The goals of the program would be:
1. To stimulate redevelopment of property adjacent to a principal arterial in urban
renewal areas;
2. To encourage innovative design solutions that create pedestrian oriented areas that are
compatible with the on -site or adjacent residential areas;
3. To encourage pioneering development that will serve as a catalyst to redevelopment
of other areas within the urban renewal area and its vicinity;
4. To serve as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented commercial
areas into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas.
Page 1 of 2
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
In order to meet these goals through a Demonstration Program the following items
outline the project.
Who could apply?
Eligibility for the demonstration program would be:
1. Project location within an urban renewal area; (See Map) and z
2. A minimum project size of 2 acres, which may have phases of development.
How would a demonstration project be reviewed? 0 0
1. The proposal would follow a Type 5 review process, which requires a public hearing c
and a decision by the City Council.
2. Full compliance with Tukwila Municipal Code standards unless modified through the �-
design review process, which is the subject of a Type 5 decision.
w
3. The City's existing design criteria would be the decision - making criteria for review of g
any projects. co
4. A time limit or expiration would be applicable to all approvals.
z �
What Code amendments would be required? I, 0
1. Create /modify the Board of Architectural Review Chapter (18.60 TMC) to provide w
the scope and authority for the "Demonstration Program for Mixed Use >
Developments," and to specify the authority for and criteria to be followed on waivers o � .
from Code standards. 0 t —
2. Amend Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter (18.104 TMC) to add = 0
"Demonstration Program for Innovative Mixed Use Developments" to the Type 5
table. —
w z
co
What standards could be waived? o
Currently landscaping and setbacks may be waived subject to certain requirements being z
met such as shared parking with adjoining property, provision of pedestrian oriented
space, and reduction in number of driveways. Examples of additional waivers to consider
would be height, parking, and recreation space requirements.
How would decisions be made on waivers from the Code?
1. Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests
would be clearly laid out in the staff analysis /report, and approval would be granted
by the City Council as part of the Type 5 review process.
2. The Board of Architectural Review, using provisions in the Design Manual, currently
may waive setback and landscaping standards. Similar provisions would be developed
for the Demonstration Program and laid out in the City's design review criteria or
guidelines. In addition to those mentioned above, examples of potential waivers that
might induce pioneering development within the City's urban renewal area would be
building heights and parking /loading standards.
Recommendation
Forward issue to Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation.
C:\mcb\TV\Olmem813.doc
Page 2 of 2
S 146 ST 11
Tukwila International Boulevard
Urban Renewal Area
City of Tukwila Zoning Map
S 142 ST
Vicinity Map
Figure Al
North 11199
•• _
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
City Council
Mayor's Offic
August 10, 2001
Demonstration Program for Innovative Mixed Use Development
The Mayor's Office enthusiastically endorses the proposed demonstration project
for Tukwila International Boulevard. It has been the clear objective of the Council
and Mayor's Office to stimulate responsible growth and re- development along this
corridor. From our initial efforts in identifying the Boulevard as an Economic
Development Incentive Zone, to our most recent efforts in declaring a portion of the
area as an Urban Renewal District, it has been obvious that it will take a mix of
creative concepts to attract and stimulate the type of economic activity that we all
envision for the area.
The Department of Community Development has outlined a program that we believe
will add another positive dimension to the growing number of positive actions that
are occurring along Tukwila International Boulevard. Starting with our successes in
mobilizing the community, reducing crime and changing the image or "feel" about
the corridor, we have moved to actual property acquisition, the removal of marginal
or unacceptable business activity and are close to realizing a specific proposal for
the development of Tukwila Village. Your support for this latest initiative is strong
recommended.
Standard
Existing Discretionary Waivers
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Front yard
setback
Average of yards on adjacent lots
Type 1
DCD staff
Tree
Replacement
.
• Project feasibility or reasonable use would be jeopardized
• Alternative proposal meets purpose and intent of chapter
• Exception would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to
other property in the vicinity
• Size of project cannot support tree replacement and off -site planting is
proposed.
• Smaller sized replacements are more suited to the species, site and
planted in sufficient quantities to meet purpose and intent of chapter
• On site planting is not feasible and there is an equivalent contribution in
funds and or labor and materials for off site planting
Type 1
DCD Director
Landscape
perimeter
averaging
• Plant material is clustered to more effectively screen parking areas and
blank building walls
• Enables significant trees or existing built features to be retained
• Averaging is used to reduce the number of driveways and curb cuts and
allow joint use of parking
• Reduction is not to the point that activities on site become a nuisance to
neighbors
• Does not diminish the quality of site landscape as a whole
Type 2
DCD Director
Wetland or
watercourse
buffer — up to
50% reduction
• Buffer does not contain slopes of 20% or more;
• Reduction will not result in direct or indirect short or long term adverse
impacts to wetland or watercourse; and
• the buffer is vegetated and includes enhancement plan to improve the
buffer function and value; or
• If no vegetation in buffer exists, an enhancement plan is provided
• 15 ft. min. wetland and 10 ft. min. watercourse
Type 2
DCD Director
\inch \ \ 'C I' nr,Uris.iIn
10/31/01
Attachment C
z
= Z
W
re 2
J U
0
0
J =
• <L
W
• Q
d
w
z =
1- O
w ~
U
0-
0 I-
w
s
u. 0
z
U �
O ~
z
Standard
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
DCD Director
Sensitive area
buffer setback
• Site plan demonstration of no impacts
Type 2
1. Sensitive
Areas Study
2. PRD for new
subdivision
or multi-
family
development
3' Pre -
development
' conference
4; Construction
Monitoring
• Substantial evidence that the classification is correct that no detrimental
impact to the sensitive area or buffer and the goals and requirement of
SAO are met
• Size and complexity of project does not warrant the requirement
Type 2
DCD Director
Off - street
parking — up to
10% reduction
• All shared parking opportunities are explored
• On -site park and ride is explored
• Site compliance with Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance (CTR)
• Site is at least 300 feet from SFR district
• Report substantiating less parking and suggesting mitigation for
potential negative impacts
Type 2
DCD Director
Off street
parking — over
10% reduction
Type 4 — Design Review
Board of
Architectural Review
(BAR)
Front Yard
Setbacks in TIB
corridor
Pedestrian Oriented Space provided'
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
Front Yard
Landscape
Pedestrian Oriented Space provided'
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
I Pedestrian oriented space is an area between a building and a public street that promotes visual and pedestrian access onto the site and that provides pedestrian oriented
amenities and landscaping that enhances the public's use of the space. To qualify as a "pedestrian oriented space an area must have:
• visual and pedestrian access into the site from the public right of way,
• paved walking surface of either concrete or approved unit paving,
• onsite or building mounted lighting providing at least 2 foot candles avg. on the ground,
• at least 2 feet of seating area or one individual seat per 60 S.F. of plaza area or open space.
C: \mcb \TV \waiver matrix.doc
Page 2 of 3
10/31/01
z
°~ W
-J U
U
U
WI
F-
(f) u_
WO
2
g
d
w
z �
I- 0
Z I—
w
n o'
co
U
O —
w W
I
tL 0
.. z
w
U=
O ~
z
Standard
Review Criteria
Review Process
Review Authority
Side Yard
Setback or
Landscape
Amount of landscape area waived is located elsewhere on the site; and
Shared access between adjoining sites
Party wall structures, common driveway and or shared parking
Type 4 — Design Review
BAR
Wetland or
Watercourse
Removal
• Standard would deny all reasonable use of property
• No reasonable use with less impact is possible
• No feasible on site alternative
• No increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off site public or
private property and no threat to public health safety or welfare on or off
the development site
• Alternations shall be the minimum necessary to allow the reasonable
use
• Proposed development is compatible in design scale and use with other
development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity
• Disturbance of sensitive area is minimized by locating necessary
alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible
• The inability to derive reasonable use is not the result of actions by the
applicant by segregating or dividing the property
• A mitigation plan is approved
Type 4
Planning
Commission
Up to 15% Lot
size reduction
a 15% natural vegetation is retained
• advantage is taken of or enhancement is achieved of significant site
features
• separation of auto and pedestrian movement
• Development complements policies of Comp Plan
Type 5 PRD application
City Council
Up to 20% more
dwelling units in
multi- family
residential
districts
'
• Multi - family residential district
• A variety of housing types
• At least 15% natural vegetation is retained
• Advantage is taken or enhancement achieved of unusual or significant
site features
• Separation of auto and pedestrian movement
• Development complements policies of Comp Plan
Type 5 PRD application
City Council
C: \mcb \TV\waiver matrix.doc
Page 3 of 3
10/31/01
z
• Z
ce W
6
JU
U O
U U
LIJ
J I
h-
N LL
W O
2
La
w
z =
zI-
w
w
U �
0 S
O r—
w w
I L - O
w z
UU)
O I
z
�1lLA : •.
= y�� -. -- • � , CITY OF TUKWILA
2 ; Department of Community 4 ty Development ZONING CODE STANDARDS
r O
%:� O • Soidhcenter Boulevard, 7irkwila, IVA 98188 MATRIX 1
4 4 i1 � � / Z Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
". f 1
190 _ rr
ithi 8 E -mail: tukplan ci. tukwila. x•a. us
LDR
MDR
HDR
MUO
0
RCC
NCC
RC
RCM
TUC
C /L1
LI
HI
MIC /L
MIC /H
TVS
Hei ht6
30
30
45
3/45
3/35
3/35
3/35
3/35
3/35
115
4/45
4/45
4/45
4/45
125
115
Landscape
Front(s)
15
15
15
15
5
10
10
15
12.5
12.5
12.5
5
5
15
Sides
10
10
5
5
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
Sides - adjacent LDR, MDR, HDR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
Rear
10
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rear - adjacent LDR, MDR,HDR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
15
10
10
Development Area Coverage
(Maximum)
0.5
0.5
Recreation Space (s. f. per
dwelling unit, 1000 s. f. min)5
400
400
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Off - Street Parking stalls
Residential (per unit)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Accessory dwelling unit - See Accessory Use section of chapters for off-stree parking requirements.'
Office
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/100
3/1000
3/1000
3/1000
3/1000
2.5/1000
3/1000
Retail stall
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
4/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
2.5/1000
4/1000
Manufacturing
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/1000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
1/2000
_Warehousing
Other Uses (see 18.56 TMC)
Performance Standards
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
FOOTNOTES
1 Numbers are minimum feet unless otherwise noted.
2 Special standards exist for senior housing.
3 where height limit is 6 stones: 622 s.f.; where height limit is 10 stones: 512 s.f.
4 On lots less than 8,500 sq ft, a maximum building footprint of 2,275 sq ft and compliance with minimum setbacks. On lots In excess of 6,500 sq ft and up to 19,000 sq ft reduce .35 by .125 for each additional 100 sq It.
5 12' required in NCC if located along Tukwila International Boulevard (SR 99)
6 Height — stories/feet
7 May be 4 stories or 45 ft. in the NCC district of the Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor, if mixed use with a residential arid commercial component.
8 Required landscaping may Include a mix of plant materials, pedestrain amenities and features, outdoor cald -type seating and similar features, subject to approval.
P Stalls/usable floor area; orther uses see figure 18-7 of Off Street Parking and Loading Chapter (TMC 18.56).
10 Two for each dwelling unit that contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off-street parking for every two bedrooms in excess of 3 bedrooms in a dwelling unit.
G :IAPPHANLLANDUSE.APP\DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.XLS, 10/31/01
,.... moo., ...,,.,,,,f ,'.!:hk' [r . .nF.. , �...,,, .... ..: .,?4 ".txn ?e.t.- .Y'.^". °s' six' "i:'4: �� : ��" !vr „ °rx7;Yt';4;= Yr"t'± rc:: ! 'Ff'!!'q'.t . r{MA.:A ^ ` 8 h + - .:RA'P..I'AIIiRWCVIO 'AY %.
2of2
Z
}
W
r �
JU
J
ti)
in
J =
W
2
? .
w
= W
F- _
Z
I- O
Z F-
W
2
U Ca
iO H
WW
Z
W
U =
O H
Z
Items 1, 2, 3
Project Eligibility
A total of three complete applications will be accepted prior to a program
evaluation.
Each proposed project must be a minimum of 3/4 acres in size and be located
within the Tukwila International Boulevard urban renewal area, which is
bounded by S. 146 St., S. 140 St., 37 Av. S., and 42 Av. S.
Item 4.
Item 5.
Decision Criteria
The decision makers shall make findings using the following criteria:
Item 6.
Procedures
A Type 5 review process shall be followed for any proposed project in the
Demonstration Program that request waivers of the height standards and a
Type 4 review process shall be followed for any other proposed projects
Item 7.
Summary
Recommendation
Discretionary Waivers
All standards of the following Chapters may be waived in the Demonstration
Program:
• Supplemental Development Regulations (TMC 18.50;)
• Landscape, recreation recycling /solid waste space requirements (TMC
18.52;)
• Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations; and
• Height standards of each zone may be waived; including the limitation on
number of office stories in the NCC zone.
1. Provides innovative design solutions;
2. Is compatible with on -site and /or off site residential;
3. Serves as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented
commercial areas into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas;
4. Expands the consumer market through jobs or housing that supports the
retail and commercial goods and services of the Tukwila International
Boulevard corridor;
5. Creates high quality structures and sites; and
6. Provides functional public spaces that have materials that complement the
adjacent civic places and streetscape and
No additional fee shall be charged for a project in the Demonstration Program ••
Attachment E
Agenda items:
1 -- "Committee chair approval
Community and Parks Committee
July 10, 2001
Present: Pam Linder, Chair; Richard Simpson, Joe Duffie
Steve Lancaster, David St. Pierre -city attorney; John McFarland. Lucy Lauterbach
1. Tukwila International Boulevard Although there has been some interest. getting
developers in the urban renewal zone of Tukwila has been difficult. The zone runs from S. 140`
146` and from 42 to just behind Larry's Market. Steve suggested that if the standards for
development in the area were tweaked, there could be more interest. The choices are for the
Council to keep the current development standards; to change the code to allow more intensive
uses; or to have a pilot program to test using different standards in that area. One way that could
work is to name the urban renewal zone as the test area, with a certain time for the pilot program
(perhaps 5 years, or longer or shorter), and see how the developments come out. If the Council
likes what they see, the code could be broadened to apply to more areas; if they don't like what
they see. it could be limited to the test area. Requirements that are likely to be changed include
parking requirements. number of stories on building, setbacks, and landscaping areas. Joe
commented that he wanted to be sure that this program would be available to all property owners
in the zone. and not just to the big developers. Steve and David addressed this, recognizing it
could appear to be a favor to developers, but because it is open to all owners in the area, it could
benefit everyone there. Steve said there could be a change in development regulations to be done
in exchange for more intensive development. John noted the City has not been able to get
developers to come forward for the past year or iwo the properties have been open. The options
are to wait until the market is ready, or to encourage development with a new program. Richard
said he hoped the street improvement on Tukwila International Boulevard could be an incentive
to attract new business. Recommend issue to COW.
2. Sign Code Amortization Steve said the City is investigating options for the sign code,
which has heretofore been scheduled to go into effect by the end of the year. The committee
suggested some issues could be discussed by the full Council. Schedule issue when DCD has
options ready.
z
z ~.
2
00
U
J =
w 0
2
gQ
co
I Cr
_
z �
1-0
Z 1—
w
U
O
w
0 I-
111 w
IL O
w z
0
0
z
caw low
Lawsril
AINK NNW'
�e
rentals. Weekend rentals are very labor intensive, as taking the carpet up and putting it
down takes a lot of time and work, and when it has to be cleaned it can be in the
thousands of dollars. Alcohol - related events are often difficult, too, and most social
events like weddings and anniversaries do have alcohol. Jesse pointed out most weekend
rentals are from non - residents. Fees are recommended to increase 5% for residents, and
15% for non - residents. Pam said she wanted the city to stay competitive, and for residents
to get a break. Weekday events will maintain current fees, and non - profits and
government rates will be the same as residential. The mayor sets the fees, and the Council
Committee concurred with the fee rate proposal. Information only.
4. Activity Fee Adjustments Fees for activities haven't been raised since the
community center opened. Staff has proposed raising the fees slightly, and then allowing
people to do more than one activity, since that is what many do now on the sly.
Extending the time on passes to include 1, 3, and 6 month passes, and a buddy pass that
allows people to bring a friend and get a 10% discount on the second pass, are all part of
the package. Information only.
5. Park Funding There has never been adequate funding for parks statewide, and some
maintenance and operations have suffered as a result. With I -747, parks are in more
danger of closing or being neglected than in the past. Washington Recreation and Parks
Association (WRPA) has recommended some funding alternatives that could help. Many
of them need legislative action at the state and/or local levels. Bruce noted King County
wants the City to take over the pool and Fort Dent, but together they could be an annual
$600,000 - $700,000 deficit. Bruce said he would keep the committee apprised of the
recommendations the WRPA was making. Information.
6. Litter in the City John pointed out that the only way to get rid of trash in the City
could be to pick it up. A memo showed that Jim Morrow thought the same. Pam
protested, saying she was sure the City picking it up wasn't the only solution. Educating
people, talking to Metro about bus stops, and making Foster and Showalter kids
responsible about litter were suggestions she had. Another suggestion, to encourage
whoever sees litter being part of the solution by picking up some litter, was also
mentioned. There are both short and long term issues with litter, and though the City will
definitely be a center piece in controlling litter, other measures are also part of the
solution. Information; follow up.
7. Other The Historical Commission request for money this week was discussed, and
the committee agreed they would guarantee the $1,000 and an intern, and more money if
it were available.
In other news, Pam asked that the historical photos in the Council chamber be labeled
and ordered along one wall with no other distractions on the wall or blocking the pictures.
Information; follow up.
G -Committee Chair approval
.
Community and Parks Committee
November 27, 2001 NOV 3 0 2001
Present: Pam Linder, Chair; Joe Duffle, Richard Simpson DE O E OPiv 7
D
NT
ave Johnson, Jesse Richardson, Tracy Thomas, Bruce Fletcher, Rick Still, Lynn
Miranda, Moira Bradshaw, Jack Pace, John McFarland, Lucy Lauterbach z
~ w
cc
1. TIB Urban Renewal Area The City Council had agreed that the urban renewal area u6 =
should have special development criteria. The Planning Commission had a public hearing 0 0
on this, and no one commented. The Commission's recommendations were discussed by u) W
the Committee and recommended to the Council. Though the Commission had
recommended a total of three demonstration projects, the Committee hoped that if four N L.L.
w
developers wanted to try to develop, they could all be accommodated. They agreed with 2
the requirement for 3 /a acres minimum in order to make it a big enough project to be -
worth giving the benefits of development to. u) J
Some of the issues discussed by the committee were what made developers anxious to Z
Ili
develop or not develop in a particular place. One issue raised by DCD was the fact that F- 0
Tukwila has some fire standards that are more restrictive than the Uniform Fire Code. w F- ill
These fire codes make it quite expensive to develop both buildings taller than four >
stories, and subdivisions in Tukwila, when in surrounding cities developers do not face vo
those same requirements. o 1—
ww
In the decision criteria section, after discussion the Committee recommended the „
developments go through a Type 2 decision, which is administrative, as long as it w z
includes public notice to surrounding properties. The Planning.Commission had 0 N
recommended a Type 4 decision process, which requires a public hearing and approval iz
o I
from the BAR. No fees will be charged for permits in the demonstration projects, and z
design review and SEPA fees will also be waived. The Committee concluded they were
quite interested in getting rid of impediments to development, while still retaining
standards that are adequate to ensure good quality. Recommend to Dec 11 COW.
2. Land Use Consultant on Tukwila Urban Center Lynn explained that DCD has
been working on a plan for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). The first phase was the
economic development phase done by ECO NW for $58,000. The next phase to be done
will be to prepare a subarea plan and do the EIS on the whole area to make it easier for
developers to develop. The consultant will look at the current land uses, and recommend
what would be the best use for that land. Lynn explained that wouldn't preclude the
current use, which could turn out to be the best use. The firm chosen for this task is the
Freedman Tung and Bottomley firm from San Francisco. Their whole firm would be
engaged in this task next month, trying to finish it in December, though the contract
allows the work to be done through March. The committee remembered Michael
Freedman who spoke to the Council earlier this year, and they recommended the contract.
Authorize mayor sign contract at Dec 3 Council meeting.
3. Facility Rental Fees Staff talked about the use of the community center, and showed
their recommended fee increases. Jesse talked about some of the issues they have with
!
RECEIVED
Memorandum
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: July 3, 2001
To: Community Affairs and Parks
From: Steve Lancaster
Subject: Tukwila International Boulevard Urban Renewal Area —
Development Stimulus
Background
The City continues its efforts to revitalize and jump start development that will create
commercial goods and services to serve its residents, expand the market for commercial
goods and services, improve the aesthetic environment, and create a pedestrian friendly
place along Tukwila International Boulevard.
Natural and existing economic market forces are not inclined to create the type of
development the City would like to see in its urban renewal area. By way of inducement
and in order to allow creative design approaches, staff proposes a "Demonstration
Program for Innovative Mixed Use Developments."
Proposal:
A "Demonstration Program for Innovative Mixed Use Developments" would require an
amendment of the Zoning Code in order to allow a new review process for innovative
developments.
The goals of the program would be:
1. To stimulate redevelopment of property adjacent to a principal arterial in urban
renewal areas;
2. To encourage innovative design solutions that create pedestrian oriented areas that are
compatible with the on -site or adjacent residential areas;
3. To encourage pioneering development that will serve as a catalyst to redevelopment
of other areas within the urban renewal area and its vicinity;
4. To serve as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriented commercial
areas into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas.
Page 1 of 2
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
.> .' ?+!
In order to meet these goals through a Demonstration Program the following items
outline the project.
Who could apply?
Eligibility for the demonstration program would be:
1. Project location within an urban renewal area; and
2. A minimum project size of 2 acres, which may have phases of development.
How would a demonstration project be reviewed?
1. The proposal would follow a Type 5 review process, which requires a public hearing
and a decision by the City Council.
2. Full compliance with Tukwila Municipal Code standards unless modified through the
design review process, which is the subject of a Type 5 decision.
3. The City's existing design criteria would be the decision - making criteria for review of
any projects.
4. A time limit or expiration would be applicable to all approvals.
What Code amendments would be required?
1. Create /modify the Board of Architectural Review Chapter (18.60 TMC) to provide
the scope and authority for the "Demonstration Program for Mixed Use
Developments," and to specify the authority for and criteria to be followed on waivers
from Code standards.
2. Amend Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter (18.104 TMC) to add
"Demonstration Program for Innovative Mixed Use Developments" to the Type 5
table.
�,;
How would decisions be made on waivers from the Code?
1. Applicants would be required to request waivers from code standards, any requests
would be clearly laid out in the staff analysis /report, and approval would be granted
by the City Council as part of the Type 5 review process.
2. The Board of Architectural Review, using provisions in the Design Manual, currently
may waive setback and landscaping standards. Similar provisions would be developed
for the Demonstration Program and laid out in the City's design review criteria or
guidelines. In addition to those mentioned above, examples of potential waivers that
might induce pioneering development within the City's urban renewal area would be
building heights and parking /loading standards.
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks discuss this potential program, provide feedback to staff
and then forward to COW for further review and direction.
C: \mcb \TV\01 mem7 1 0.doc
Page 2 of 2
z
a
w
J U
O 0
• 0
cn u.1
J
w 0
c a
w
Z =
F-�
F— 0
z F—
LU
�o
U
O N
D F—
w w
F— H
u. O
Iii Z
U=
O
z
4fisiiir wow
atim
r► a—r
WW1. If
0.
Tukwila Village Options
Code waivers currently allowed:
• Parking located more than 1000 feet from the principal use may be allowed with type 4 decision.
• Off -site parking may be allowed with a property covenant between City and property owners.
• Parking space reduction may be approved with administrative review or type 4 decision, depending on amount
• Building setbacks and side and front yard landscaping may be waived as part of type 4 decision.
Question:
Are there uses that are desired but not allowed?
r
01 L.01
. •:`.° RPY, �6. 1 &.i. ` . aSG4
1-r 4iU o6
`Issue:
What options are available to allow modifications in building height in the NCC zone?
C .
z
2 F" •
'~ W
.�U
U
U) 0
J =
H
w O
Q 2 Q
LL Q
= • 3
▪ w
•F- 0
Iz I-
w
D o
0
off'
0 1-
w W
F-
u. 0
i
U
0 • ~
z
Options
Advantages
Disadvantages
1.
PRD - Overhaul or duplicate (sort of) for
commercial applications
Type 5 decision - City Council Review
• It's currently only allowed in
Residential Districts with sensitive
areas; therefore, changes would be a
distinct departure
• Proposed designs are not addressed
in TIB Design Manual which would
still apply unless they are to be
exempted.
2.
Amend the TIB Design Manual and BAR
section of the Zoning Code to allow additional
waivers for height and interior parking lot
landscaping, etc.
Opportunity to create guidelines for parking
garages as well as guidelines for tall
buildings adjacent to low scale residential
Remains a Planning Commission type 4
3.
Amend Urban Renewal Plan
(Must make a finding that the urban renewal
project is financially sound and involves private
enterprise as much as feasible.)
May create support for variation from code
by creating findings that justify the
project(s)
Planning Commission Review (not
necessarily a hearing but imagine they'll
want one) and Council hearing and
adoption.
Still requires zoning code amendments
to allow height exceptions
Requires notice of all property owners in
Tukwila Village Options
Code waivers currently allowed:
• Parking located more than 1000 feet from the principal use may be allowed with type 4 decision.
• Off -site parking may be allowed with a property covenant between City and property owners.
• Parking space reduction may be approved with administrative review or type 4 decision, depending on amount
• Building setbacks and side and front yard landscaping may be waived as part of type 4 decision.
Question:
Are there uses that are desired but not allowed?
r
01 L.01
. •:`.° RPY, �6. 1 &.i. ` . aSG4
1-r 4iU o6
`Issue:
What options are available to allow modifications in building height in the NCC zone?
C .
z
2 F" •
'~ W
.�U
U
U) 0
J =
H
w O
Q 2 Q
LL Q
= • 3
▪ w
•F- 0
Iz I-
w
D o
0
off'
0 1-
w W
F-
u. 0
i
U
0 • ~
z
Review Process for any of the above is
CAP /COW
'ode Development
• PC
COW then CC
C: \mcb \TV\Tukwila Village Options.doc
1 month
2 month
2 month (HMMM)
1 month
Important to ensure there will be legislative support for project/ideas
May want consultant design assistance for Design Manual/
Assume one work session and one hearing.., O
Assume one work session and one hearing with adoption
i
U C_
s.
Page 2 of 2
fr/
plan area
4.
Combination of the above
Type 5 decision — City Council Review
New guidelines would assist review by
decision makers
May take more time to develop
Review Process for any of the above is
CAP /COW
'ode Development
• PC
COW then CC
C: \mcb \TV\Tukwila Village Options.doc
1 month
2 month
2 month (HMMM)
1 month
Important to ensure there will be legislative support for project/ideas
May want consultant design assistance for Design Manual/
Assume one work session and one hearing.., O
Assume one work session and one hearing with adoption
i
U C_
s.
Page 2 of 2
fr/
, REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 1
Chapter 35.81 RCW
URBAN RENEWAL LAW
SECTIONS
35.81.010 Definitions.
35.81.020 Declaration of purpose and necessity.
35.81.030 Encouragement of private enterprise.
35.81.040 Formulation of workable program.
35.81.050 Findings by local governing body required.
35 .81.060 Comprehensive plan -- Preparation -- Hearing -- Approval --
Modification -- Effect.
35.81.070 Powers of municipality.
35.81.080 Eminent domain.
35.81 .090 Disposal of real property in urban renewal area.
35.81. 100 Bonds -- Issuance -- Form, terms, payment, etc.
35.81.110 Bonds as legal investment, security.
35.81.115 General obligation bonds authorized.
35.81.120 Property of municipality exempt from process and taxes.
35.81.130 Aid to public bodies.
35.81.140 Conveyance to purchaser, etc., presumed to be in compliance with
chapter.
35.81.150 Exercise of urban renewal project powers.
35.81.160 Exercise of urban renewal project powers -- Assignment of powers --
Urban renewal agency.
35.81.170 Discrimination prohibited.
35.81.180 Restrictions against public officials or employees acquiring or
owning an interest in project, contract, etc.
35.81. 910 Short title.
http: // search. leg .wa.gov /wslrcw/RCW %20... /RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20 %20chapter.ht 6 /18/01
Consultant Services Agreement
IV. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement is personal in nature and may not be subcontracted, assigned or
transferred in whole or in part without the express written agreement of the City.
V. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
In the performance of its duties under this Agreement, the Consultant shall act as
an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. A relationship of
employment shall not exist or be deemed to exist between the City and the Consultant.
VI. SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT
A. The City retains the right to terminate or suspend this Agreement at any time
by giving ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant. In such event, all finished or
unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs
and reports, or other material prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement
shall be submitted to the City, and the Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and
equitable compensation for such work.
B. If the City requests termination of the work prior to completion, the Consultant
reserves the right to complete such analyses and records as may be necessary to place
its files in order.
C. The proponent reserves the right to suspend or terminate this agreement on
ten (10) days written notice to the consultant and City, and withdrawal of all related
permit applications. If terminated or suspended, consultant shall be entitled to receive
reasonable compensation in accordance with Attachment A for services rendered to the
date of termination or suspension.
VII. NONDISCRIMINATION
The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status,
physical or other motor handicap, unless based on bona fide occupational qualification.
The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and
that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color,
sex, age, national origin, marital status, physical or other motor handicap.
Vlll. MODIFICATION
No change, alteration, modification, or addition to this Agreement shall be effective
unless in writing and properly signed by all parties.
IX. HOLD HARMLESS
The Consultant shall hold the City and its officers, agents, and employees,
harmless from all suits, claims or liabilities of any nature, including attorneys fees, costs
and expenses, for and on account of injuries or damages sustained by any person or
property directly caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its agents
or employees pursuant to this Agreement, or on account of any unpaid wages or other
c:\my docs \NorMed\ElSconsult- contract.doc
-3-
, REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 3
RCW 35.81.010
Definitions.
The following terms wherever used or referred to in this chapter,
shall have the following meanings, unless a different meaning is
clearly indicated by the context:
(1) "Agency" or "urban renewal agency" shall mean a public
agency created by RCW 35.81.160.
(2) "Blighted area" shall mean an area which, by reason of the
substantial physical dilapidation, deterioration, defective
construction, material, and arrangement and /or age or obsolescence
of buildings or improvements, whether residential or
nonresidential, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, proper
sanitary facilities, or open spaces as determined by competent
appraisers on the basis of an examination of the building standards
of the municipality; inappropriate or mixed uses of land or
buildings; high density of population and overcrowding; defective
or inadequate street layout; faulty lot layout in relation to size,
adequacy, accessibility or usefulness; excessive land coverage;
insanitary or unsafe conditions; deterioration of site; diversity
of ownership; tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the
fair value of the land; defective or unusual conditions of title;
improper subdivision or obsolete platting; or the existence of
conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes,
or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health,
transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency and
crime; substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the
city or its environs, retards the provision of housing
accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability,
and /or is detrimental, or constitutes a menace, to the public
health, safety, welfare, and morals in its present condition and
use.
(3) "Bonds" shall mean any bonds, notes, or debentures
(including refunding obligations) herein authorized to be issued.
(4) "Clerk" shall mean the clerk or other official of the
municipality who is the custodian of the official records of such
municipality.
(5) "Federal government" shall include the United States of
America or any agency or instrumentality, corporate or otherwise,
of the United States of America.
(6) "Local governing body" shall mean the council or other
legislative body charged with governing the municipality.
http: // search.leg.wa.gov /wslrcw/RCW %20 %2035.../ RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.010.ht 6/14/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 2 of 3
(7) "Mayor" shall mean the chief executive of a city or town,
or the elected executive, if any, of any county operating under a
charter, or the county legislative authority of any other county.
(8) "Municipality" shall mean any incorporated city or town, z
or any county, in the state. I z
� w
(9) "Obligee" shall include any bondholder, agent or trustees 6 =
for any bondholders, or lessor demising to the municipality v p
property used in connection with an urban renewal project, or any
u)w
assignee or assignees of such lessor's interest or any part w =
thereof, and the federal government when it is a party to any (Du_
contract with the municipality. w
(10) "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership,
corporation, company, association, joint stock association, or
co
school district; and shall include any trustee, receiver, assignee, F- _
or other person acting in a similar representative capacity. 1-0
I- O
z F- ui
(11) "Public body" shall mean the state or any municipality, 2 D
township, board, commission, district, or any other subdivision or c = 0
,�
public body of the state. o 1-
w
(12) "Public officer" shall mean any officer who is in charge H
of any department or branch of the government of the municipality �'"O
z
relating to health, fire, building regulations, or to other ai
activities concerning dwellings in the municipality. F=
O
z
(13) "Real property" shall include all lands, including
improvements and fixtures thereon, and property of any nature
appurtenant thereto, or used in connection therewith, and every
estate, interest, right and use, legal or equitable, therein,
including terms for years and liens by way of judgment, mortgage or
otherwise.
(14) "Redevelopment" may include (a) acquisition of a blighted
area or portion thereof; (b) demolition and removal of buildings
and improvements; (c) installation, construction or reconstruction
of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and other improvements
necessary for carrying out in the area the urban renewal provisions
of this chapter in accordance with the urban renewal plan, and (d)
making the land available for development or redevelopment by
private enterprise or public agencies (including sale, initial
leasing, or retention by the municipality itself) at its fair value
for uses in accordance with the urban renewal plan.
(15) "Rehabilitation" may include the restoration and renewal
of a blighted area or portion thereof, in accordance with an urban
http: // search. leg. wa. gov /wslrcw/RCW %20 %2035.../RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.010.ht 6/14/01
.; " z
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 3 of 3
renewal plan, by (a) carrying out plans for a program of voluntary
or compulsory repair and rehabilitation of buildings or other
improvements; (b) acquisition of real property and demolition or
removal of buildings and improvements thereon where necessary to
eliminate unhealthful, insanitary or unsafe conditions, lessen
density, reduce traffic hazards, eliminate obsolete or other uses
detrimental to the public welfare, or otherwise to remove or
prevent the spread of blight or deterioration, or to provide land = w
for needed public facilities; (c) installation, construction or 6
reconstruction of streets, utilities, parks, playgrounds, and other v v
0
improvements necessary for carrying out in the area the urban N ❑
renewal provisions of this chapter; and (d) the disposition of any w =
property acquired in such urban renewal area (including sale, —' I -
initial leasing, or retention by the municipality itself) at its w o
fair value for uses in accordance with such urban renewal plan.
�a
(16) "Urban renewal area" means a blighted area which the Cl) d
local governing body designates as appropriate for an urban renewal
project or projects.
I- O
Z I-
(17) "Urban renewal plan" means a plan, as it exists from time
to time, for an urban renewal project, which plan (a) shall conform v ❑
to the comprehensive plan or parts thereof for the municipality as O
a whole; and (b) shall be sufficiently complete to indicate such ❑1 =
w
land acquisition, demolition, and removal of structures, =
redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilitation as may be proposed u.
to be carried out in the urban renewal area, zoning and planning w
changes, if any, land uses, maximum densities, building U
requirements, and the plan's relationship to definite local 0
objectives respecting appropriate land uses, improved traffic, Z
public transportation, public utilities, recreational and community
facilities, and other public improvements.
(18) "Urban renewal project" may include undertakings or
activities of a municipality in an urban renewal area for the
elimination and for the prevention of the development or spread of
blight, and may involve redevelopment in an urban renewal area, or
rehabilitation in an urban renewal area, or any combination or part
thereof in accordance with an urban renewal plan.
[1991 c 363 § 41; 1975 c 3 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 177 § 6; 1965 c 7 § 35.81.010.
Prior: 1957 c 42 § 1.]
NOTES:
Purpose -- Captions not law -- 1991 c 363: See notes following
RCW 2.32.180.
http: // search.leg.wa.gov /wslrcw/RCW %20 %2035.../ RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.010.ht 6/14/01
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 1
RCW 35.81.020
Declaration of purpose and necessity.
It is hereby found and declared that blighted areas which
constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public
health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the state
exist in municipalities of the state; that the existence of such
areas contributes substantially and increasingly to the spread of
disease and crime and depreciation of property values, constitutes
an economic and social liability, substantially impairs or arrests
the sound growth of municipalities, retards the provision of
housing accommodations, aggravates traffic problems and
substantially impairs or arrests the elimination of traffic hazards
and the improvement of traffic facilities; and that the prevention
and elimination of such areas is a matter of state policy and state
concern in order that the state and its municipalities shall not
continue to be endangered by areas which are focal centers of
.disease, promote juvenile delinquency, are conducive to fires, are
difficult to police and to provide police protection for, and,
while contributing little to the tax income of the state and its
municipalities, consume an excessive proportion of its revenues
because of the extra services required for police, fire, accident,
hospitalization and other forms of public protection, services, and
facilities.
It is further found and declared that certain of such areas,
or portions thereof, may require acquisition, clearance, and
disposition subject to use restrictions, as provided in this
chapter, since the prevailing condition of decay may make
impracticable the reclamation of the area by rehabilitation; that
other areas or portions thereof may, through the means provided in
this chapter, be susceptible of rehabilitation in such a manner
that the conditions and evils hereinbefore enumerated may be
eliminated, remedied or prevented; and that to the extent feasible
salvable blighted areas should be rehabilitated through voluntary
action and the regulatory process.
It is further found and declared that the powers conferred by
this chapter are for public uses and purposes for which public
money may be expended and the power of eminent domain exercised;
and that the necessity in the public interest for the provisions
herein enacted is hereby declared as a matter of legislative
determination.
[1965 c 7 § 35.81.020. Prior: 1957 c 42 § 2.]
http: // search .leg.wa.gov /wslrcw/RCW %20% 2035... /RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.020.ht 6/21/01
z
: -z
c4 w
6
J
O 0
u) 0
w=
J I—
Q w
w
= d
Iw
Z =
I— 0
w
O • D
O -
• ff w
u"
.. z
w
U=
O
z
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 1
RCW 35.81.040
Formulation of workable program.
A municipality for the purposes of this chapter may formulate a
workable program for utilizing appropriate private and public
resources to eliminate, and prevent the development or spread of,
blighted areas, to encourage needed urban rehabilitation, to
provide for the redevelopment of such areas, or to undertake such
of the aforesaid activities, or other feasible municipal activities
as may be suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such
workable program. Such workable program may include, without
limitation, provision for: The prevention of the spread of blight
into areas of the municipality which are free from blight through
diligent enforcement of housing, zoning, and occupancy controls and
standards; the rehabilitation of blighted areas or portions thereof
by replanning, removing congestion, providing parks, playgrounds
and other public improvements, by encouraging voluntary
rehabilitation and by compelling the repair and rehabilitation of
deteriorated or deteriorating structures; and the clearance and
redevelopment of blighted areas or portions thereof.
[1965 c 7 § 35.81.040. Prior: 1957 c 42 § 4.]
http: // search. leg. wa. gov /wslrcw /RCW %20 %2035.../RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.040.ht 6/18/01
Consultant Services Agreement
remuneration for services; and if a suit in respect to the above be filed, the Consultant
shall appear and defend it at its own cost and expense, and if a judgment be rendered or
settlement made requiring payment of damages by the City, which damages are directly
caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, it agents or employees, the
Consultant shall pay the damages.
X. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws and
safety regulations.
XI. ASSIGNMENT /SUBCONTRACTING
A. The EIS Consultant will not sub
transfer or assign any claim arising purs
of the City and the Proponent. Said co
Consultant not less than five (5) days
Failure on the part of either the
ntract any portion of this contract, or
nt to this contract without the written consent
sent must be requested in writing by the EIS
nor to the date of any proposed assignment.
or the Applicant to respond to said request for
consent within five (5) days of receipt of said request will be deemed to constitute that
party's consent. Said consent will not be unreasonable withheld by either party.
B.' The consultant will obtain appropriate assurances from any and all
subconsultants that said subconsultant shall, during the life of this agreement, perform
no other services for proponent with respect to the subject property. In addition, the
subconsultant shall not perform services for the proponent with respect to other property
or proposed developments without full disclosure thereof to the City.
C. Proponent specifically agrees not to communicate with NO bconsultant,
except for such communication as may be necessary for the subconsultant to carry out
the performance of this agreement. Any such communication between the proponent
and subconsultant shall be documented by the Proponent and the subconsultant and
reported to the City within days of said communication.
XI. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The Ccncultor,t may be requested to porfcrm additional 'service's beyond the
due to abnormal conditior,e beyond the Ooncultont's control, or changes in 'scope or
Such work will be undertaken only upon written
authorization of the City bated on an agreed upon scope of cerficce and amount cf
4erati
In the event that there is, in the City's opinion, the need for additional studies or
further work on either the Draft or Final EIS beyond the scope of services identified in
Attachment A, the City shall obtain from the consultant an estimate of the total added
costs and seek proponent's a rrent's written approval which shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
c:\my does \NorMed\ElSconsult - contract.doc
-4-
. REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of2
RCW 35.81.060
Comprehensive plan -- Preparation -- Hearing -- Approval --
Modification -- Effect.
(1) A municipality shall not approve an urban renewal project for
an urban renewal area unless the local governing body has, by
resolution, determined such area to be a blighted area and
designated such area as appropriate for an urban renewal project.
The local governing body shall not approve an urban renewal plan
until a comprehensive plan or parts of such plan for an area which
would include an urban renewal area for the municipality have been
prepared as provided in chapter 35.63 RCW. For this purpose and
other municipal purposes, authority is hereby vested in every
municipality to prepare, to adopt, and to revise from time to time,
a comprehensive plan or parts thereof for the physical development
of the municipality as a whole (giving due regard to the environs
and metropolitan surroundings), to establish and maintain a
planning commission for such purpose and related municipal planning
activities, and to make available and to appropriate necessary
funds therefor. A municipality shall not acquire real property for
an urban renewal project unless the local governing body has
approved the urban renewal project plan in accordance with
subsection (4) hereof.
(2) The municipality may itself prepare or cause to be
prepared an urban renewal plan, or any person or agency, public or
private, may submit such a plan to the municipality. Prior to its
approval of an urban renewal project, the local governing body
shall submit such plan to the planning commission of the
municipality for review and recommendations as to its conformity
with the comprehensive plan or parts thereof for the development of
the municipality as a whole. The planning commission shall submit
its written recommendations with respect to the proposed urban
renewal plan to the local governing body within sixty days after
receipt of it. Upon receipt of the recommendations of the planning
commission, or if no recommendations are received within sixty
days, then without such recommendations, the local governing body
may proceed with the hearing on the proposed urban renewal project
plan prescribed by subsection (3) hereof.
(3) The local governing body shall hold a public hearing on an
urban renewal plan after public notice thereof. Such notice shall
be given by publication once each week for two consecutive weeks
not less than ten nor more than thirty days prior to the date of
the hearing in a newspaper having a general circulation in the
urban renewal area of the municipality and by mailing a notice of
such hearing not less than ten days prior to the date of the
hearing to the persons whose names appear on the county treasurer's
tax roll as the owner or reputed owner of the property, at the
address shown on the tax roll. The notice shall describe the time,
date, place, and purpose of the hearing, shall generally identify
http:// search.leg.wa.gov /wslrcw/RCW %20 %2035.../ RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.060.ht 6/18/01
z
_ �
QQ w
J U
0
J �
W
L a
co d
=
z F
I— O
z r
0
O -
O H
W W
� U
IL O
w
O H
z
Consultant Services Agreement
XII. WAIVER
Any waiver of the parties of any term or condition of this Agreement or of any
breach by the other party shall not be deemed as a continuing waiver and shall not
operate to bar or prevent the damaged party from exercising any and all available rights z
or remedies for any succeeding breach. ? z
ce w
XIII. SEVERABILITY 6 v
O 0
If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable by a final u) 0
decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall be valid and J z
binding upon the parties. U u.
w0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date
first above written.
J
Li.. 4
_ 0
CITY OF TUKWILA HUCKELL/WEINMAN z _
ASSOCIATES, INC. 0
z f-
w
w
By: By: 0 u)
0-
0 H
Date = w
Date
t-
u O .
.z
Cu
— I
O ~
z
Approved as to form:
By:
Robert Noe, City Attorney Date
By:
Larry Shaw, for NorMed
c:1my docs\NorMed\ElSconsuit- contract.doc
-5-
. REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 2 of 2
the urban renewal area affected, and shall outline the general
scope of the urban renewal plan under consideration.
(4) Following such hearing, the local governing body may
approve an urban renewal project if it finds that (a) a workable
and feasible plan exists for making available adequate housing for
the persons who may be displaced by the project; (b) the urban
renewal plan conforms to the comprehensive plan or parts thereof =.z
for the municipality as a whole; (c) the urban renewal plan will re
afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the v
municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of U 0
the urban renewal area by private enterprise; and (d) a sound and (Do
adequate financial program exists for the financing of said w
project; (e) the urban renewal project area is a blighted area as
defined in RCW 35.81.010(2). w
(5) An urban renewal project plan may be modified at any time L
by the local governing body: PROVIDED, That if modified after the = d
lease or sale by the municipality of real property in the urban F- _
renewal project area, such modification shall be subject to such ?F-:
rights at law or in equity as a lessee or purchaser, or his z O
successor or successors in interest may be entitled to assert. 1.11 u
(6) Upon the approval of an urban renewal project by a o
municipality, the provisions of the urban renewal plan with respect
to the future use and building requirements applicable to the = U
property covered by said plan shall be controlling with respect L I 0
thereto.
ai
z
[1965 c 7 § 35.81.060. Prior: 1957 c 42 § 6.]
http: / /search.leg.wa.gov /wslrcw /RCW %20 %2035.../ RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.060.ht 6/18/01
Z
Carol Lumb - RFPs fog ofd riled Page 1
.... ...
From: "Alison Moss" <amoss @halcyon.com>
To: <rweinman @huckellweinman.com >, "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us>
Date: 12/20/00 2:18PM
Subject: RFPs for Normed
W believe that h following b I Z
e e ieve the
su consu &ants will meet needs of both the
City and Huckell/Weinman. You may wish to request proposals from them. z
Stormwater /water storage issues Northwest Hydraulic Consultants - Bob 6 =
Elliot - 206 - 241 -6000 v 8 '
RW Beck - Mary Weber - 206 -695 -4700 uu 0 '.
wi
Geotech /Hydrogeology Agra Earth & Environmental 425 - 820 -4669 1"
Kleinfelder - Jim Schmidt - 425 - 562 -4200 N LV.
wO
g Q
co
= w
F- _
ZF.
I— 0
CC: "Larry Shaw" <Ims @normed.com> w
✓ O
O -
O I—
wW
_
u_
.. Z
w
z _.
0
Z
..............+ -..,«
ti
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 1 of 3
RCW 35.81.070
Powers of municipality.
Every municipality shall have all the powers necessary or
convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions
of this chapter, including the following powers in addition to
others herein granted:
(1) To undertake and carry out urban renewal projects within
the municipality, to make and execute contracts and other
instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers
under this chapter, and to disseminate blight clearance and urban
renewal information.
(2) To provide or to arrange or contract for the furnishing or
repair by any person or agency, public or private, of services,
privileges, works, streets, roads, public utilities or other
facilities for, or in connection with, an urban renewal project; to
install, construct, and reconstruct streets, utilities, parks,
playgrounds, and other public improvements; and to agree to any
conditions that it may deem reasonable and appropriate attached to
federal financial assistance and imposed pursuant to federal law
relating to the determination of prevailing salaries or wages or
compliance with labor standards, in the undertaking or carrying out
of an urban renewal project, and to include in any contract let in
connection with such a project, provisions to fulfill such of said
conditions as it may deem reasonable and appropriate.
(3) Within the municipality, to enter upon any building or
property in any urban renewal area, in order to make surveys and
appraisals, provided that such entries shall be made in such a
manner as to cause the least possible inconvenience to the persons
in possession, and to obtain an order for this purpose from a court
of competent jurisdiction in the event entry is denied or resisted;
to acquire by purchase, lease, option, gift, grant, bequest,
devise, eminent domain, or otherwise, any real property and such
personal property as may be necessary for the administration of the
provisions herein contained, together with any improvements
thereon; to hold, improve, clear, or prepare for redevelopment any
such property; to dispose of any real property; to insure or
provide for the insurance of any real or personal property or
operations of the municipality against any risks or hazards,
including the power to pay premiums on any such insurance:
PROVIDED, That no statutory provision with respect to the
acquisition, clearance, or disposition of property by public bodies
shall restrict a municipality in the exercise of such functions
with respect to an urban renewal project.
(4) To invest any urban renewal project funds held in reserves
http: // search. leg. wa. gov /wslrcw/RCW %20 %2035.../RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.070.ht 6/12/01
. . REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 2 of 3
or sinking funds or any such funds which are not required for
immediate disbursement, in property or securities in which mutual
savings banks may legally invest funds subject to their control; to
redeem such bonds as have been issued pursuant to RCW 35.81.100 at
the redemption price established therein or to purchase such bonds
at less than redemption price, all such bonds so redeemed or
purchased to be canceled.
(5) To borrow money and to apply for, and accept, advances,
loans, grants, contributions and any other form of financial
assistance from the federal government, the state, county, or other
public body, or from any sources, public or private, for the
purposes of this chapter, and to enter into and carry out contracts
in connection therewith. A municipality may include in any
application or contract for financial assistance with the federal
government for an urban renewal project such conditions imposed
pursuant to federal laws as the municipality may deem reasonable
and appropriate and which are not inconsistent with the purposes of
this chapter.
(6) Within the municipality, to make or have made all plans
necessary to the carrying out of the purposes of this chapter and
to contract with any person, public or private, in making and
carrying out such plans and to adopt or approve, modify, and amend
such plans. Such plans may include, without limitation: (a) A
comprehensive plan or parts thereof for the locality as a whole,
(b) urban renewal plans, (c) plans for carrying out a program of
voluntary or compulsory repair and rehabilitation of buildings and
improvements, (d) plans for the enforcement of state and local
laws, codes, and regulations relating to the use of land and the
use and occupancy of buildings and improvements and to the
compulsory repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal of
buildings and improvements, and (e) appraisals, title searches,
surveys, studies, and other preliminary plans and work necessary to
prepare for the undertaking of urban renewal projects. The
municipality is authorized to develop, test, and report methods and
techniques, and carry out demonstrations and other activities, for
the prevention and the elimination of urban blight and to apply
for, accept, and utilize grants of, funds from the federal
government for such purposes.
(7) To prepare plans for the relocation of families displaced
from an urban renewal area, and to coordinate public and private
agencies in such relocation, including requesting such assistance
for this purpose as is available from other private and
governmental agencies, both for the municipality and other parties.
(8) To appropriate such funds and make such expenditures as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, and in
accordance with state law: (a) Levy taxes and assessments for such
http: / /search. leg. wa. gov /wslrcw/RCW %20 %2035.../ RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.070.ht 6/12/01
£
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON Page 3 of 3
purposes; (b) acquire land by negotiation and /or eminent domain;
(c) close, vacate, plan, or replan streets, roads, sidewalks, ways,
or other places; (d) plan or replan, zone or rezone any part of the
municipality; (e) adopt annual budgets for the operation of an
urban renewal agency, department, or offices vested with urban
renewal project powers under RCW 35.81.150; (f) enter into
agreements with such agencies or departments (which agreements may
extend over any period) respecting action to be taken by such
municipality pursuant to any of the powers granted by this chapter.
(9) Within the municipality, to organize, coordinate, and
direct the administration of the provisions of this chapter as they
apply to such municipality in order that the objective of remedying
blighted areas and preventing the causes thereof within such
municipality may be most effectively promoted and achieved, and to
establish such new office or offices of the municipality or to
reorganize existing offices in order to carry out such purpose most
effectively.
(10) To exercise all or any part or combination of powers
herein granted.
[1965 c 7 § 35.81.070. Prior: 1957 c 42 § 7.]
http: // search.leg.wa.gov /wslrcw/RCW %20 %2035.../ RCW %20 %2035 %20. %2081 %20.070.ht 6/12/01
Location
TIB urban renewal area
(See Attachment B)
Advantages /Disadvantages
• The urban renewal designation identifies
this area as subject to unique challenges,
which should qualify it for special
techniques.
• The community knows what it wants —
and standards shouldn't be waived in an
area that will have higher amounts of
public activity and that is important
because of its central location.
Anywhere in the TIB
■ Dispersed affect of variations from
corridor
standards.
• Potential stimulus impact on other
properties in the corridor.
Within a 1 /4 or 1 /2 mile
• Supports transit oriented development.
radius of transit stops
• Bus stops are variable and can move
depending on transit operations budget,
rerouting of bus lines, and property
owner opinions.
• Further dispersal of impact.
• Loses stimulant impact.
Where
2. Limitations
Number of
Projects
No limit
Three
Advantages /Disadvantages
• Unknown demand.
• Implications and results of
program are unknown.
• Greater potential impact of
either ood or bad.
• As a test, there should be some
limit so that an evaluation can
be done of the successes and
failings of approved projects.
• A sufficient sample is needed
to obtain conse• uential results.
Size
Three quarters of
an acre
Advantages/Disadvantages
• The area around TIB was originally
platted in 37,000 — 39,000 square foot
rectilinear tracts.
• Many of the lots have been reconfigured
and the size varies considerably.
2 acres
• As a policy option this requirement would
send a message that the City is looking for
the development of larger sites and may
cause the aggregation of separate parcels.
• Potentially limits the type and number of
projects.
• Staff resources and Commission/Council
time would be better spent on fewer and
larger projects.
Projects that
contain a two
story building
component
• Supports Comp Plan Policy that directs the
encouragement of two — four story
buildings.
.50 Floor area
ratio
i.e. A 20,000 sq.
ft. site would need
to propose 10,000
sq. ft. of floor area
• Identifies and benefits a project that
provides a significant structural presence.
• A development with more floor area is
likely to be more people oriented than car
oriented.
• Limits potential projects.
3. Limitations
z
=~
W
S in
U
00
( 0
J i-
0
W
co
= d
�
Z F-
Z °
W
0�
0I-
Ww
`-
w
=
0
z
4. Potential Waivers
Standards
Advantages /Disadvantages
Height
In order to provide a height
waiver option for office
uses in the TIB NCC
district, a variation in the
permitted use section is
also required.
Landscape, Recreation,
Recycling /Solid space
requirements
i.e. Tree, shrub and
groundcover specifications;
Landscape island every 10
stalls;
100 square foot min planting
bed.;
400 sq. ft. rec. space /unit;
max. 50 % rec. space indoor
and covered.
• Potential of providing the most positive
economic returns and therefore provides
the greatest inducement.
• Most visible departure from current code
when built.
• The City's current standards are geared
toward suburban commercial strip. The
goal of the program is to try to achieve a
new model of development that is more
pedestrian than auto.
• Current waivers are only allowed in
situations where pedestrian oriented
space is provided in front or access is
shared on properties that share a side
yard and access across the side yard.
• There may be situations where a rear
yard or other yard waiver would be of
assistance.
• There may be situations where an off -site
facility would be more efficient and
practical given the size of a project.
• Depending on the location of the project,
the neighborhood may or may not
currently meet adopted park space ratios.
Setbacks
• Waiving landscaping requirements will
not yield a benefit unless the setback can
See Attachment D for
also be manipulated.
standards.
Yard patterns vary considerably especially
along TIB where there is older
development.
Off Street Parking and
• Rely on developer and public review to
Loading Chapter
create successful, marketable parking.
• There may be waivers to general
i.e. clearance at loading
requirements that are not covered by the
zones, degree of slope to
parking lots, ratio of compact
stalls to standard stalls,
dimensions for stall /zone size;
number of parking stall waivers.
.
5.1
Criteria
Provides. innovative
design solutions.
I iscussion
To innovate is to create something
new; to introduce.
5.2
Compatible with the
on -site or adjacent
residential areas.
TIB is essentially a residential
corridor with a strip of commercial
edging the street; the design should
accomplish a desirable transition
between the street and the
neighborhood behind. The transition
should allow the benefits of proximity
to the services within the corridor
while preserving the peacefulness
expected at one's home.
5.3
Serves as a model for
the redevelopment of
low scale auto
oriented commercial
areas into pedestrian
oriented multi -use
higher intensity areas.
Does the project provide a design that
can and should be duplicated
elsewhere within the corridor or City?
::,
5.4
Expands the
Will the project add jobs or housing
consumer market
through jobs or
housing that supports
the retail and
commercial goods
and services of the
that serve the commercial market?
Tukwila International
Boulevard corridor.
5.5
Creates high quality
Are the materials proposed of a high
sites and structures.
quality and durable nature?
Does the project adequately address
the needs of the site's users in terms
of access, parking, recreation, and
services such as loading, parking, and
refuse?
5.6
Provides functional
Does the project compliment the
public spaces that
materials and style of the public
have materials that
improvements in the vicinity?
complement the
Does the project expand and improve
adjacent streetscape.
on the public streetscape?
6. Process
Size
Advantages /Disadvantages
Type 2—
Director's
Decision
Type 4-
Planning
Commissi
on/BAR
Decision
Type 5 —
City
Council
Decision
• More certainty, less time and money spent
on a review process.
• Fewer types of opportunities to comment
on a project.
Maintains the status quo because all
development currently goes to the BAR for
design review.
• The Council sets the standards of the City
and therefore might be most appropriate
for waiving from those standards.
• More opportunity and lengthier time
frame for commenting.
• The City Council does not routinely
review development design.
• More time, more money, less certainty
spent on a design resulting in less
flexibility for applicant.
z
I
W
00
CD 0
(� W
J =
H
N LL.
W 0
Q
= d .
I-W
z �.
,—o
W �
W
U o
o -
o I--
W
. . z
U=
o �
z
7. Fee
Fee Advantages/Disadvantages
No fee
$900
• Appropriate for an incentive program
• The land use review fees are nominal
and do not cover the costs of review
• Applicants are already paying for
design review and the demonstration
project review requires no additional
steps.
• A more flexible system requires
more review and negotiation with an
applicant
• Tukwila development fees are
reasonable compared to other
jurisdictions in the region
raro
Item 4.
Discretionary Waivers
Y j�iz- X All standards of the following Chapters may be waived in the Demonstration
n Program:
• Supplemental Development Regulations (TMC 3.50;) i
space • Landscape, recreation rec cling/solid waste requirements VI
. 00 4.W., 18.52; ) a f4 - 75 0 ( D yet4A4a 07 '
le 61r,),;■1"Jv • t/Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations; and �lny -E '' 4. pro✓ u rrr� D
k eeb,• • VI-rei.g.14 of each zone may be waived; eluding the limitation on
number of office stories in the NCC zone. Nee ;,gyp
• ike$
Item o. V -11 °C4) st°*((
Decision riteria
The decision makers shall make findings using the following criteria:
Items 1, 2, 3 I �' Q
f `:
Project Eligibility Q '.._.
A total of three camke applications will be accepted prior to a program
evaluation.
Each proposed project must be a minimum of 3/4 acres in size and be located
within the Tukwila International Boulevard urban renewal area, which is
bounded by S. 146 St., S. 140 St., 37 Av. S., and 42 Av. S.
Item 6.
Procedures
YP
Item 7•
Summary
Recommendation
. i.Qw�.� �,i %• i�ivi•�`•Ti.LTC�� ��:c�i�/�.rr. w \'F.:r.wt:.a
/. Is compatible with on -site and/or off site residential; (ojt
2. Serves as a model for the redevelopment of low scale auto oriental
commercial areas into pedestrian oriented multi -use higher intensity areas;
3 . Expands the consumer market through jobs or housing that supports the
retail and commercial goods and services of the Tukwila International
Boulevard corridor;
Provides functional public spaces that have materials that complement the
adjacent civic places and streetscape and
s ration Program that request waivers of the heig t sta
Type 4 review process
I • S•• - I
No additional fee shall be charged for a project in the Demonstration Program ••
`P1si Y1 . R -c /
ny o er propose
m i ztew
Attachment •E
Date: 12 -Oct- 95.17:19
From: JACK (JACK PACE)
To: MOIRA
Subject: RE: SIERRA SYSTEM
Message -id: 054E7D3001DEDEDE
In- reply -to: 56D67B3001DEDEDE
>Date: 11- Oct -95 14:36
>From: MOIRA (MOIRA BRADSHAW )
>To: JACK (JACK PACE)
>Subject: SIERRA SYSTEM
>I would like to suggest that structure information be by parcel rather
>than by address. The value of the structural information screen is that
>we can track growth and development. ie. parking ratios, lot coverage,
>and total built square footage. All of which is very helpful in
>understanding what is happening in the City and participating in local
>and regional discussions.
>The reason why this should be by parcel is that a building could straddle
>many lots and the assessor has allocated one parcel number to a
>development. Second, there are frequently multiple addresses on a
>parcel. In order to update structural or site information it would seem
>you would have to update multiple address files.
>Finally when a parcel undergoes construction, who updates the structure
>screen and how is is updated upon tenant improvements?
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR SUGGESTION , I WOULD LIKE TO ME WITH YOU TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND YOUR REASON FOR CHANGES.
I
7
lay kitE7
M ir - ,; - 12:"3 -
./
1,\ r1 y `" 1
' 9Y ( 6
f k. s + Q
f // /G ��12t� i/41 -0 , t . l . G � , _
1745# r y t is 1/w 010;.. �� l l�1/ et