Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2017-09-28 Minutes - Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing - Alliance Realty Partners Design Review and Parking Variance City of Tukwila Planning Commission BOARD OF ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW(BAR) MINUTES Date: September 28, 2017 Time: 6:30 PM Location: Council Chambers Present: Chair, Miguel Maestas; Commissioners, Mike Hansen, Sharon Mann, Dennis Martinez, and Louise Strander Absent: Vice Chair, Nhan Nguyen and Commissioner Brooke Alford Staff: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor; Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary Chair, Maestas called the public hearing to order at 6:45 PM. Note: There was a prior event in the Council Chambers. AdoptionCommissioner Mann requested two corrections to the August 24, 2017 minutes. ofMinutes:Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Mann seconded the motion. The motion passed with four votes, Commissioner Maestas th abstained from voting, he was not present at the August 24 meeting. Chair Maestas swore in those wishing to provide testimony and opened the public hearing. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NUMBER: L17-0041, L17-0042 APPLICANT: Jeremiah Jolicoeur, Alliance Realty Partners REQUEST: Request for public hearing design review and a parking variance for development of a seven-story building with 166 dwelling units for residents aged 55 years and older. A total of 186.5 parking spaces are required; the applicant is requesting an 11% reduction. The project includes a total of 167 parking spaces within a combination of structured parking and surface parking spaces, along with frontage improvements, recreation space, landscaping, and utilities. LOCATION: 415 Baker Blvd. (parcel #0223100080) Staff asked the Commissioners the Appearance of Fairness questions, there were no disclosures from the Commission, and no one objected to any of the Commissioners presiding over this matter. I. STAFF PRESENTATION Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development gave the presentation for staff. She provided explanation on the review process and gave an overview of the project. Page 2 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 PARKING VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: th Staff recommended approval of the parking variance with one condition, as listed in the September 28 staff report. QUESTIONS: Staff and the applicant responded to the following inquiries from the Commission on parking: The Commute Trip Reduction Program requirements; Location of parking proposed with the development; Management of parking at the site; And on-street parking proposed on Baker Blvd. DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval with 11 conditions. QUESTIONS: Following are some questions that staff and the applicant addressed for the Commission. - Clarification on short term parking on the East side of the project, there’s no way to pull up to the entrance? (Hansen) - Does the proposed parking reduction affect any ADA stalls? (Martinez) - How many stalls are there on the south and west side of the project? They don’t say visitor? Clarification of the number of parking stalls each unit is allowed; Requested explanation of shared parking for special events with adjacent property owners for short term parking; What if the adjacent neighbors do not want you to park there? Why ask for 11% reduction instead of 10%? Are utilities under the sidewalk? (Strander) - When the 31 spaces are put on Baker can visitors use that on-street parking, will the on-street parking also be used for people using the salon? Are the two flexible units on level two counted in the 167 spaces? Can the cornice be extended on the rooftop? (Mann) - Are there any stalls being designed to accommodate electric cars? (Maestas) Jeremiah Jolicoeur , the applicant, addressed questions from the Commission. He noted, based on their location they are within the specified distance of the transit so there is an administrative approval of a 10% reduction. They are asking for a reduction of an additional three spaces, which he said they lost when they put the fire room in, but they may gain a few spaces back. Ian Morrison , Attorney, for the applicant, addressed shared parking. He said, they will have an on- site concierge to manage parking for events and coordinate rides for residents. Participation in the City’s Commute Trip Reduction Program will also help them monitor parking usage and plan for special events. He said, the applicant is willing to work privately with the neighbors to make sure they are not bringing any off-site parking spillage to surrounding properties. II. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION Ian Morrison , Attorney, for the applicant, thanked staff for an excellent and comprehensive staff report, and said they were 99.9% in agreement. He said they have met with staff and worked out many other issues. Page 3 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 The applicant said they really look forward to the project being a part of Tukwila, and it provides a diverse and unique housing type. Also, the site allows walkability, and a social scene for age 55 plus, and will act very much like a mixed-use building. Following are the applicant’s comments and proposed amendments to conditions number 2, 7, and 10: Condition #2, Comments: The applicant doesn’t think the reason why the planting strip has been moved to the building side was established. The applicant said the City has six high volt lines running underneath current sidewalk on Andover Park East along with fiber and telecommunication lines all at a shallow depth. The logistic of being able to put plantings and trees there and still make those utilities accessible is impossible. Condition # 7, Comments: The applicant said they inherited some significant utility boxes. Clarification was provided on their intent to screen all the “new” utilities and mechanical equipment that they add to the site, but there is no way to screen existing equipment. Proposed: Add the word “new” after the word all. Condition #10, Comments: The applicant is opposed to the idea of putting a different material and color on the top floor. Saying, they want to keep it simple, which makes a more attractive building. And they feel like they have done that in a way that meets the design guidelines. Proposed: Requested the Commission consider this condition fulfilled, instead of working out something else with staff. Minnie Dhaliwal , Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development stated that there was discussion with the applicant regarding setting the top floor of the building back, which they did not want to do. Staff agreed to work with them to achieve the similar effect, by using materials and texture and patterns for the windows. Since this issue wasn’t worked out, the recommendation in the staff report was to defer it, and give the applicant the opportunity to do more work, to see if they could achieve the effect without stepping it back. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: - Inquiry regarding aesthetically pleasing screening of the units(Martinez) - Clarification on the high volt lines location. (Strander) Minnie Dhaliwal , Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development provided clarification on the applicant’s comments regarding condition # 1 and the location of the utilities. She said the condition states that the frontage improvements along the streets be approved as part of the building permit. There are a lot of utilities along Andover Park East, but the exact location and the depth was not provided to staff, when staff requested the information it was not available. Staff has had meetings with the City Engineer, and he would like to see the details and work with the applicant regarding where the utilities are, and what can be planted around them. To meet the intent of the Neighborhood Corridor Standard, which is to provide “an intimately-scaled pedestrian environment”, there should be a buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk. Two options, (1) split up the landscaping. into two different areas; one area at the back of the curb with landscaping that can be planted around/on top of the utilities and one area with trees, shrubs, and groundcover at the back of Page 4 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 the sidewalk; or (2) landscaping located in planters that are above grade. Once staff gets more detailed information about the utilities, they are recommending the frontage design be handled at the building permit stage. Ian Morrison , Attorney, for the applicant requested, “a friendly amendment to condition #1”, if they can establish as part of the building permit review that those easements are cumbersome and wouldn’t allow plantings to be located closer to the street. He asked the Commission if they would state for the record, if those things are true and the applicant demonstrates them they support the design solution currently being proposed. Commissioner Maestas asked about the weather protection along the façade, and said it is important to create a buffer between the pedestrian and the street Commissioner Hansen said he agreed with the applicant that if the planting strip is against the building, weather protection should not be required. He also expressed concern with the planters along the edge of the sidewalk, saying they would be hard to maintain, and wanted to know if there was another option. He said, the applicant’s explanation on Condition #10 made sense. He inquired whether staff was asking for the top treatment on the back of the building, or just the north and east facades? Staff said the treatment could be different, there may be some opportunities that weren’t explored. Commissioner Hansen said, ”I am having difficulty being at the Board of Architectural Review and there is not a design to review, so review is turned over to Administrative review.” Also, “it feels like there is work still to be done, and the language is broad.” Staff commented that the Commission can modify the language or provide direction to staff. Commissioner Martinez said, “at this stage this stuff should be ironed out.” There was extensive discussion on condition number 10, regarding what it would take to achieve a substantial horizonal articulation at the uppermost floor of the building to “create a top”. Maestas asked for clarification on the location of substantial articulation. Staff provided clarification regarding the horizontal articulation of the upper most floor. Staff referenced page 24 of the staff report of pictures demonstrating the criteria. The applicant said that a set-back at the upper level is not an appropriate solution for this project, they said that the two top floor designs on page 24 really are not applicable to their project. Ian Morrison , Attorney, for the applicant requested that the Commission support their request for a friendly amendment to condition #2, #7 and omit condition #10 because, they felt the design and the intent of the design guidelines had been met. Commissioner Mann made a recommendation to add the following language to condition #10, “To be accomplished by making the upper most floor a continual color of white except for the front corner and the gray in-set.” Commissioner Hansen and Martinez said they were comfortable with the design and thinks it meets the criteria. Page 5 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Maestas was not comfortable with the substantial articulation, and said it may not be meeting the criteria. Also, that it may be leaving the City open to others not following the criteria in the future because of a precedent. He was supportive of Commissioner Mann’s recommendation. Ian Morrison , Attorney, for the applicant requested a friendly amendment to condition #10. He asked the Commission to give direction for staff to work with them to take the current proposal and the proposal from Commissioner Mann and determine which would achieve the intent. Commissioner Strander noted as a point of clarification, the top floor will go around the entire building but will not include the special corner feature. Staff and the applicant agreed where the roof connects the top floor would include the north, east and south elevations. The applicant was asked to create language for the amended language for condition #10. Note: The amended language is shown below under conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked for clarification on condition #7, and staff’s reaction to the applicant’s comments. Staff said the intent of condition #7 was to screen the new utilities for the project, and agreed with amending the condition to add the word “new. “ III. PUBLIC TESTIMONY There was no public testimony. The public hearing was closed. IV. DELIBERATION: Commissioner Strander expressed concerns regarding the parking reduction request. She said being asked to reduce the parking by 20 stalls seems rather significant; She was not sure how the assumption of overflow parking to adjacent property owners could be enforced long term; She’s concerned that there isn’t enough parking for the project; Therefore, doesn’t know if she can support the parking reduction request. Commissioner Hansen said he respects Commissioner Strander’s position, but he can support the parking reduction with the additional parking in the back and the short-term parking. He thinks it is adequate and he is comfortable that it’s going to work. Commissioner Maestas also stated respect for Commissioner Stander’s parking concerns, but he supports the proposed parking reduction, because it is near transit, and there will be a parking plan, which will be managed. He also stated he assumes that with the applicant’s experience of completing projects they are telling potential renters about the parking situation. Commissioner Mann said she was initially concerned with the parking, but the applicant’s rule to only allow one car per unit softened her concern. She proposed that on-street parking on Baker Blvd be for a limited amount of time. She asked staff how they can be assured of short-term parking. She said without Page 6 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 the 31 on-street parking stalls there would probably be a lot of resistance in approving the minimum parking. The expectation is for the applicant to make sure their residents understand that on-street parking is not a place for residents to park. Staff said through the transportation management plan they could put the responsibility on the applicant for parking enforcement. The applicant asked the Commission to support the City providing signage and enforcement of the short-term on-street public parking. Commissioner Martinez said he thinks the parking is going to work and he thinks this is an agreeable solution. He said the applicant would be good partners with the City in helping manage the short-term parking on Baker Blvd. He agrees with the parking reduction. V. CONDITIONS, AS AMENDED: Condition #2: Provision of weather protection along 75% of the face of the building along Andover Park East shall be reviewed during the construction permit, as part of the review of the public frontage configuration along Andover Park East, to coordinate the location of weather protection where it will provide coverage over sidewalk areas but not over landscape areas or areas where the sidewalk is not adjacent to the building. Condition #7: The location of all new utilities and mechanical equipment, including those not known now, shall be shown on plans along with screening measures to ensure that if such elements must be mounted in a location visible from a street, pedestrian pathway, or common open space that they will be screened with vegetation or architectural features. Condition #10: Substantial articulation of the uppermost floor on the north, east, and south elevations shall be accomplished by extending the white color (“Distant Gray”) along areas of the uppermost floor located underneath the long horizontal cornice. This treatment was proposed and agreed to at the Board of Architectural Review meeting after applicant, BAR, and staff review of the design on the applicant’s 3-D model, as shown on Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. VI. MOTIONS: Commissioner Martinez made a motion to approve with one condition project number L17-0042 based on staff’s findings and conclusions contained in the staff report, dated September 28, 2017 as submitted. The motion passed four to one. Commissioner Strander opposed. Commissioner Mann made a motion to amend the recommendation on project number L17-0041, condition number 7 to add the word “new” after the word all. Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Commissioner Mann made a motion to amend the recommendation on project number L17-0041, condition number 10 to approve amended language for the revised elevations. Commissioner Hansen requested to add language and an exhibit to condition number 10 to show the “top” treatment suggested by Commissioner Mann. Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to amend the recommendation on project number L17-0041, condition number 2 as presented by staff, listed under amended conditions above. Commissioner Martinez seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve case number L17-0041 based on the finding, conclusions and 8 conditions contained in the staff report, dated September 28, 2017, and amendments to Page 7 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 condition numbers 2, 7, and 10. Commissioner Hansen Seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. VII. DIRECTOR’S REPORT:  Commissioner Mann inquired on the replacement of language on page nine of the by-laws that was deleted. Staff said they will look into this and report back to the Commission.  Voting on the By-laws will be moved to the next meeting agenda due to the lateness of the hour.  Upcoming meeting agenda items through the end of the year are, Tree Code update, Tukwila Village, and Accessory Dwelling Units,  Staff informed the PC that the School District may not build the Birth to Kindergarten, and may come back to PC. ADJOURNED: 10:00 PM Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Planning Commission Secretary Adopted: 10/26/17