Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-08 Committee of the Whole MinutesJuly 8, 1996 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Pacific Hwy So. Revitalization Plan (Joint Mtg w/ Hwy 99 Task Force/Tukwila City Council REPORTS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Council President Pam Carter called the Committee of The Whole Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; PAM CARTER, Council President; ALLAN EKBERG; STEVE MULLET; PAM LINDER; JIM HAGGERTON. JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; DOUG MICHEAU, Public Works Coordinator; STEVE LANCASTER, DCD DIRECTOR; DIANA PAINTER, Associate Planner; MOIRA BRADSHAW, Associate Planner. Refer to attached meeting notes of the 99 Revitalization Plan, Joint City Council/Task Force Meeting, dated July 8, 1996, prepared by Moira Bradshaw. Mayor Rants reported that last week the City had obtained an emergency court order from King County Superior Court to abate one of the apartments in the 48 -unit Suncrest Apartment Complex, due to drug activities and other unacceptable behaviors. The eviction took place on Friday, 11:00 a.m. under the auspices of Tukwila Police Officers and a crew from the Public Works Department. Mr. Kim, the Owner of the apartments, will draft a proposal that will be reviewed by DCD in hopes of salvaging his investment. The Mayor said this case will go before Superior Court on July 19 to begin the abatement process for the entire apartment complex. Councilmember Ekberg commented that he recently received in his mailbox information that the Tukwila community -wide yard sale was being advertised in the Highline Times exclusively. He said staff should be reminded that the official newspaper of the City is the Seattle Times. Any advertising, legal or otherwise, should go to the Seattle Times. A second newspaper may be used at staff's discretion. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes July 8, 1996 Page 2 Reports (Cont'd) ADJOURNMENT 10:10 P.M. /,2 4 Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director, invited the Council to participate in a van tour of the new Tukwila Community Center and the new Fire Station site on July 11. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Pam Carter, Council President Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEETING NOTES 99 Revitalization Plan Joint City Council/Task Force Meeting July 8, 1996 A draft of these notes were circulated to those members who attended the meeting, prior to finalization. These notes are being distributed to the Planning Commission and E.D.A.B. and are available to other interested members of the community. Diana Painter explained that the Draft Design Criteria and Guidelines, hereinafter referred to as "Draft," are for the RC, NCC and MUO zones within the 99 Revitalization Plan study area. DCD is also working on design guidelines and criteria for the commercial and light industrial zones city- wide, for the Manufacturing Industrial Center, and for the Shoreline zone. The work produced for 99 will be evaluated by the consultants on the other projects for applicability in those areas. This Draft 99 product is an important item because it sets the standard for the type and quality for the forthcoming design guidelines and revised Design Review criteria. She also explained that the Task Force would review and prepare comments on the Draft for the Council's review. The 99 design review criteria and guidelines are one part of the Revitalization Plan and are coordinated with the street and streetscape work currently underway. Upon City Council adoption of the Revitalization Plan, the design review criteria and guidelines would be translated into ordinance form and taken through the public hearing process, which would involve the Planning Commission. John Owen, of MAKERS, discussed the criteria and guidelines, illustrating points with slides. Concerning the illustration on page 4, a comment was made that it violated the guidelines established in 1.E. Site Design for Safety. John Owen responded that the illustrations are meant to focus on a single issue rather than try to address all the guidelines in one drawing. John Owen felt that the drawing on Page 4 could be redrawn however to address the concern expressed. Allan Ekberg asked if the parking stalls shown were sufficient to meet the City's parking standard. He also felt that in showing examples of different design solutions for the same site, like on page 4, that the size of buildings should be comparable. John Owen said that they generally show a typically parking supply for the size of building square footage drawn. Meeting Notes 99 Revitalization Plan 8/7/96 Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 431 -3670 Fax. (206) 431-3665 It was pointed out that the figure on page 8 would probably require a "street use permit" in order to allow the awning overhang or any other projection into the right of way. The shrubbery between sidewalk and parking was also too high and should be redrawn to an appropriate scale. The illustration on page 34 did not appear to provide good pedestrian access from the comer. John Owen pointed out that the comer is developed with a building pad and that the pedestrian access had been developed at three points the ends and in the center of the site. Pam Carter pointed out that the language and illustration on page 66 is confusing regarding 100 square feet of landscaping. There was a question on what and where these guidelines would apply. Staff clarified that the intention is that these would apply to all the NCC, RC and MUO parcels within the study area of the 99 Revitalization Plan. These districts extended generally from 130th to 160th. Pam Carter asked if there is an intention to distinguish between the RC and the NCC districts. John Owen responded that he didn't think that was necessary. The only major difference is the prohibition against outdoor sales and storage in the front yards in the NCC. Pam Carter pointed out that the council has excluded fast food and auto sales from this zone as well. Pam Carter wondered if given the nature of the guidelines whether a warehouse would be discouraged by the guidelines from locating in the area? Diana Painter responded that the size and configuration of a parcel and the allowable building envelope, given parking requirements, play a more important role in a decision on whether to develop than the more detailed issues related to a building's design. Jim Haggerton brought up an example on Lake City Way of a Fred Meyer adjoining the sidewalk that in essence "turned its back on the street." He also asked about the issue of colors. John Owen responded that these were flexible guidelines and that color palettes worked mostly in historic districts or areas with a strong context. He felt that this area would be more individual in character and treatment and therefore color should not be dictated. David Livermore expressed a concern about the pedestrian emphasis in the guidelines when most of the customers in the area would arrive by vehicle. He then asked the Council about their position on the setback standard. The group began discussion of the issue paper regarding setbacks and landscaping. Meeting Notes 99 Revitalization Plan 8/7/96 Page 2 /2 Staff emphasized that the recommendation for 0 setbacks for buildings and a 10 foot landscape strip in front of parking and storage would be effective only after the City had completed the analysis and design of the street project, in order to determine if there was sufficient right -of -way for the travel lanes and streetscape improvements. In addition, the guidelines are described such that sites regardless, must provide or have a 12 foot sidewalk along 99 and an 8 foot sidewalk along all other streets. There was confusion about whether "front" yard would refer to Military, a cross street, and/or 99. Steve Lancaster said that it was up to the Council to provide that direction and then staff could fashion language that reflected what they wanted. Concerns were expressed regarding allowing zero setbacks on the cross streets and on Military Road. David Livermore was concerned that it would dilute the development incentive and focus it elsewhere within the area, ie. on Military Road. Staff pointed out that the City would be providing street improvements on 99, which is a big distinction and benefit for those parcel owners and developer. In addition, the objective of the Revitalization Plan is to change conditions in the study area not just the parcels that front on 99. Pam Carter pointed out that a 12 foot sidewalk would probably only be appropriate south of 137th because of its commercial character and the intensity of use directly adjacent to the commercial core. The consensus was that as long as the language is permissive then the group supported the recommendation to allow 0 foot front yard setbacks and 10 feet of landscaping in front of parking and storage areas for the NCC and RC zones regardless of parcel location. Staff then outlined the issue of the application of the Design Review process. Staff pointed out that some typical developments would not be subject to design review due to the existing thresholds. For example, the size of fast food restaurants, which are typically 2500 square feet, are less than 5,000 square feet, and prevalent in the RC areas of 99, therefore, they will not be subject to the guidelines and criteria. Steve Lancaster also said that during the Comprehensive Plan deliberations, the Council expanded the scope of authority for Design Review, including for example, the entire CBD. The City Council said that if the City had more detailed guidelines then they would consider allowing staff to do administrative review, (proposed for 2,500 20,000 square feet.) Meeting Notes 99 Revitalization Plan 8/7/96 Page 3 This Draft document is an example of the type of detailed guidelines that could be used for both administrative by staff and public reviews by the BAR. Staff explained that the BAR process, because of the BAR's schedule, takes approximately 60 -90 days of review time. Administrative design review (ADR) could be shorter; the City of Kirkland's ADR takes approximately 4 weeks. Time is a very important and costly factor in the development process. The review time frame for BAR may act as a disincentive for redevelopment. This could be remedied with a shorter review time frame through administrative review. The major characteristic of a BAR process is public involvement. The BAR acts as a representative community body, and the hearing and notice provides opportunity for public comment. Administrative review as recommended by staff would involve public notice for projects that involve structures over 4,000 square feet and 20 parking stalls or a parking lot of 40 stalls or more. Pam Carter thought that regardless of who does the review she would like to see notice given of application. Jim Haggerton felt that design review was important for small projects as well and that the BAR had alot of good ideas and perspective. John Owen recommended that if the City went with an administrative process, that the City could be in a unique position if they allowed the BAR to appeal staff decisions. He felt also that Tukwila has a strong staff capable of doing administrative design review. Pam Carter pointed out that staffing is not a constant and could always change. John Owen observed that cities develop staff cultures that are maintained even when key staff people leave, that they tend to be replaced by like caliber people. Vern Meryhew suggested that the City give the new guidelines a chance to be tested in a public review process and schedule an evaluation of results, in for example 6 months, and discuss the issue of administrative review at that point. Meeting Notes 99 Revitalization Plan 8/7/96 Page 4 The consensus was to test the new guidelines and schedule a review and evaluation of an administrative process after 6 months of implementation. David Livermore suggested that the BAR could meet more often if it would speed the process. Meeting Notes 99 Revitalization Plan 8/7/96 Page 5 3/