HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2018-11-08 Item 3 - Adoption of 10/11/18 and 10/25/18 Minutes...Ill 111,1,1,11p11111111111111111,1,1iHI
lly
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) MINUTES
Date: October 11, 2018
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: Council Chambers
Present: Vice Chair, Dennis Martinez; Commissioners, Sharon Mann, Mike Hansen, Louise
Strander and Heidi Watters
Absent: Chair, Nhan Nguyen and Commissioner Miguel Maestas
Staff: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor; Max Baker, Assistant Planner; Jaimie
Reavis, Senior Planner and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary
Vice -Chair Martinez opened the public hearing and swore in those wishing to provide testimony.
CASE NUMBER: PL18-0018
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff, Craft Architects
REQUEST: Proposal to develop a 14,700 two-story medical office building with 39
parking spaces. Application includes Design Review, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, and Special Permission — Sensitive Areas.
Development Agreement adopted by Ordinance No. 2343 vests
development on the property to the City of Tukwila's development
regulations that were in effect as of January 1, 2009, including but not
limited to the City's Shoreline regulations.
LOCATION: 6700 Fort Dent Way
Staff asked the appearance of fairness questions. No one had any disclosures, and no one objected
to the Commissioners hearing the case.
Max Baker, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, gave the presentation for
staff. He provided an overview of the review process, background information on the site and design
review, criteria of the project.
Design Review
The property isvested to the 2009 Zoning Code, so the criteria used is for the Regional
Commercial Mixed Used District for any Commercial and Light and Industrial projects. There are
five criteria used. There are two vehicular access points on the project, the access on Interurban
Avenue South is vested as part of the Development Agreement. The SEPA and Shoreline
Substantial Decision on the project has been issued administratively. A mitigation plan for tree
replacement has been created. The applicant will be providing revisions through their development
permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application with the three informational items
listed in the staff report dated October 2, 2018.
3
Page 2 of 6
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
Staff addressed inquiries from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Watters had questions regarding vegetation inside the tree drip -line, and removal
of the vegetation. Staff asked the applicant if they would have any problems removing the invasive
vegetation in the tree drip -line. The applicant agreed to make the change, which staff stated could
be reviewed as part of the development permit.
There were no public comments.
The public hearing was closed.
DELIBERATION:
None.
MOTION:
Commissioner Hansen moved to approve Case Number PL18-0018, Design Review with staff's
conclusion, finding, recommendation and three information items. Commissioner Watters seconded.
Motion passed.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PL18-0054
Mike Overbeck
Design Review Major Modification and Preliminary Subdivision Approval
for Phase 2 of the Osferly Park Ttownhomes. Phase 2 has been redesigned
from the original approval, and proposes' development of 15 townhomes
instead of 23, and includes guest parking, access, recreation space, and
landscaping.The three existing condo buildings previously proposed to be
demolished will remain..
14426 34 'Ave S; 14424 34th Ave S; and 14401-14420 34th Lane S; (parcel
numbers 6433600090 004bt100083 6433600110 and 6391110000) 6433610240
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS QUESTIONS:
Staff asked the appearance of fairness questions. Staff noted for the record that staff had exparte
communications with Commissioner Strander by phone to answer some questions. Commissioner
Strander disclosed she had exparte communications regarding this project, as staff explained. Staff
presented a slide listing the topics of discussion and explained clarifying information provided to
Commissioner Strander, including the following:
1) Will Lot 24 (the Condo property located at 14424 34th Ave S.) become part of the Plat? The
proposal was revised for it to be removed from the plat.
2) The CC&Rs mention the 14424 34 Ave S. property; However, the 14424 property is being
removed from the plat. The CC&Rs will need to be revised prior to final approval.
3) What is the purview of the BAR? Staff said the Preliminary Plat approval criteria and the
Townhome Design Manual criteria are the criteria the BAR will use to make their decision on
the project.
4) Clarification on the CC&Rs: The CC&Rs for Phase 2 are the same CC&Rs recorded for Phase 1
but have been amended for Phase 2.
5) Will the existing Townhome owners need to sign the final Plat for Phase 2? This has not yet
been determined.
Commissioner Mann disclosed that she was familiar with the project both from her participation
with TIBAC, and she was on the Commission when the original application was approved. There
were no objections to any of the Commissioners hearing the project.
4
Page 3 of 6
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, gave the staff
presentation. The proposal is to remove three of the parcels originally included in the Preliminary
Plat. When Phase 1 of the project was approved in 2008, the owners of the three properties signed
an affidavit of ownership stating they were aware that the current project was proposed before the
City. Since then the apartment building was sold, and the applicant for the Osterly Park
Townhomes was not able to work out an agreement with the new owner of the apartment building
to be able to include the apartment building property in Phase 2 of the Osterly Park Townhomes.
Preliminary Subdivision
Staff provided an explanation of the platting process and a detailed overview of the project for
Phase 1 and 2. Staff noted that after the packet was finalized a revised survey document was
submitted by the applicant. Staff entered three exhibits into the record:
1) The revised plat map,
2) the recorded plat for Phase 1,
3) CC&Rs recorded for Phase 1. Staff handed out a copy of the threeexhibits to the
Commissioners.
Staff addressed questions from the Commissioners. It was noted that the applicant has not
submitted various review documentation for the project, including the proposed recreation
easement. The Phase 1 Final Plat recorded for the Osterly Park Townhomes includes a note that
the Temporary Recreation Tract is owned by the C sterly Park Townhomes Homeowners
Association. It is not clear whether the Homeowners Association has been formed. Staff
recommended a new condition be added for the record to require the applicant to provide evidence
he has the legal authority to transfer the Temporary Recreation Tract property to the 14424 34'
Ave S Condo property prior to Final Plat approval.
Design Review
Staff provided background information on the site, the review process, and the design review
criteria. Staff addressed questions from the Commissioners, and it was noted that the applicant has
not submitted various review documentation
The applicant has requested modifications to the required landscaping, including:
1) Landscape perimeter averaging,
2) Allowance for a sidewalk within the perimeter landscaped area, and
3) Clustering of the required, trees and scrubs.
The revisedsurvey that staff handed out at the public hearing is proposing a fourth recreation area,
which was not included in the staff report. The additional proposed recreation space is the existing
Temporary Recreation Tract located north of the Condo Building and is not needed to meet the
code requirements. The guest parking spaces are proposed to decrease in number from what was
originally approved for Phase 2, from 12 stalls to 8 stalls. The guest parking spaces would be for
guest parking only, except that the two spaces in the easement area of the Condo property would
also be used by residents of the Condo property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Subdivision application with conditions, as
listed on pages 94 and 95 of the staff report. An additional condition was recommended to
require the applicant to provide evidence of his legal authority prior to Final Plat approval
to transfer the Temporary Recreation Tract shown on the Final Plat for Phase 1 to the
14424 34th Ave S Condo property.
• Staff recommended approval of the landscape modifications
• Staff recommended approval of the Design Review Major Modification, with five
conditions, as list in on page 88-89 of the staff report.
Vice -Chair Martinez swore in those providing testimony.
5
Page 4 of 6
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Kalanchi Abraham, townhouse home owner, said that she lives in the unit north of Condo
Building 14424 and that she has a vested interest in the new proposal. She said she had not heard
of the new proposal prior to the public hearing. She asked staff a clarifying question regarding the
recreation area being shared with the Condo Building. Staff confirmed that was correct and that
the recreation space would become part of the Condo property. Ms. Abraham expressed many
concerns with the project, she said the proposed project would extend within feet of her front door;
the proposal is extremely concerning; although it is a Condo Building all four units are rented out
and they have had a lot of issues with traffic, car break-ins and packages being stolen; before the
fence was installed separating the area, people would often pass through from the condo building
area through the Osterly Townhomes property; she was told before she purchased the townhouse
that those condo buildings were secured and that they were already sold to Mike Overbeck; after
she purchased the townhouse, Mike Overbeck said that he and the owners of the condo buildings
were still working out the details and he did not own the condo buildings. Then he said they were
no longer interested in selling their property to him; she was also told that the communal space
would always remain there; the change to the communal space will directly affect her and her
neighbor, as well as the other property owners; her property value and everyone who has
purchased a home there will dramatically be lowered due to Mr. Overbeck's property not being
well maintained; the parking proposal is extremely inconvenient and there is already a parking
problem; the dramatic changes are a dis-service to the original eight homeowners, She said she
feels really deceived and had she known any of this before she would have "one hundred percent"
never purchased the property; all the issues have been a nightmare so far, including the delayed
development; promises made by Mr. Overbeck have not be kept; she wanted it to go on the record
that, "it has been extremely difficult working with Mr. Overbeck."
Joshua Deming, townhouse home owner, said he agrees with most of Ms. Abraham's testimony.
Mr. Deming also expressed many concerns with the project, he said the main issue going forward
with Phase 2 is they were promised a different layout, and the big issue is parking. They were also
falsely led into believing how the project was going to be, and the sale of the Condos was set in
stone but it did not happen; the promise of the exchange of the property also duped a lot of the
homeowners; Mr. Overbeck gave the condos two of their parking spaces for property; they were
told there would be a gate for the parking between the two property lines. And the parking spaces
would be for management; people are walking through the property aimlessly, there has been a
spike in crime, which is worrisome if it is connected to the condos or derelicts; had he known this
before, he would not have purchased this property, The main issue going forward is that he wants
everything in writing, including an established timeline. When he purchased his property in early
2016 he was told the project would be completed in two years, but it is not half way completed.
There is no HOA. The builder, Mike Overbeck is the HOA and he has not enforced any of the
policies that he sent to the homeowners. Even though the homeowners have made numerous
complaints, nothing the homeowners were promised has happened.
Vice -Chair Martinez made a statement that the BAR is there to review information that is one
hundred percent accurate and in front of them. He said he had some concerns from the
presentation: the public comments; no HOA agreement; the release of property and the lighting
review. He said the applicant has had ample time to fix the issues, as well as the frontage design
for 34' Ave S and building elevations for 34' Ave S. He said he could understand the CC&Rs
need to be revised from what's in the packet. He said there are certain items on which the BAR is
entrusted to make decisions that affect everybody; the community, the City, the builder and the
neighbors. As a Board they are responsible to make the proper decisions with the correct
information in front of them.
Staff noted that the applicant, Mike Overbeck, was not present at the public hearing and his
representatives would introduce themselves.
Bruce MacVeigh, Civil Engineer, for the applicant, provided background on the project. He said
originally it was a one phase operation that included properties that Mr. Overbeck had control over
and the three other properties had the older apartment buildings on the site. He said at one time that
M6 Overbeck had a complete agreement among himself and the three other property owners to
Page 5 of 6
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
carry out a complete comprehensive single-phase plan. Mr. MacVeigh said the easement was
prepared and all agreements were on the verge of being recorded. However, at the last moment the
owner backed out on the agreement. He said it has taken quite a bit of negotiation and work to go
forward and make adjustments that will work with the condo owner on the far east. They reached
an agreement that there would be an exchange of uses for parking, access, and some recreational
areas. Mr. MacVeigh said he did not have the details for the layout. He said it has taken some time
to obtain permission to use part of the property on the east. He said the property owner is important
because the eastern ten feet of his property is also one half of the access roadway. He said the
details of parking and recreational space was a side line.
He said they have a reasonably acceptable layout, which includes the buildings, access road,
landscape areas, sidewalks, etc. He said they have completed the revision to the road system for
Phase 2, and the water main and storm systems. He said the last thing that is being worked out is
the sanitary sewer for the most efficient design with Valley View. Mr. MacVeigh addressed
questions for the Commissioners pertaining to lighting, and HOA.
Gary Singh, a friend of Mr. Overbeck's who is a developer, said he helps Mr. Overbeck a lot on
the project. Mr. Singh responded to questions raised by Commissioner Stander. He said two of the
buildings are completed and ready to sell and are a financial burden on Mr. Overbeck. He said the
project is going back and forth to make small revisions, and they have come this far after two
years. He said it would be very wise to get the project approved. He said most of the infrastructure
for road and utilities is in place and it is just a matter of getting approvals and then the applicant
can move on. He said he is pretty sure that Mr. Overbeck will satisfy the previous homeowners.
Mr. Singh said the stealing was already going on and it would be a win -win for everybody for the
project to be approved so the gates can go up and alleviate the problems one hundred percent
Staff clarified that the area of Phase 2 is to large parcels zoned high -density residential. The two
buildings that are almost completed and ready to sell are on one of the parcels. According to the
zoning of the area, the applicant can build a multi -family unit on the lot but is not able to sell them
as individual units until there are unit lot lines; the units in the building cannot be sold individually
until the plat is recorded.
There was further extensive discussion between the applicant's representatives, staff and the
Commissioners.
Joel Barth, friend of Mr Overbeck's, real estate broker, and listing agent that sold the first phase
of units, addressed questions raised by Commissioner Mann regarding existing owners' concerns.
Commissioner Mann asked Ms. Abraham to answer some clarifying questions. Ms. Abraham
also noted a fence was erected that separates the Osterly Townhomes from condo building 14425
that has, made the traffic better and the community safer, and to open it back up and put in an
easement will significantly affect the townhomes at 14405 and 14407. Commissioner Mann asked
if it would please her if there was a requirement for a fence to be erected around condo building
14424 separating the property from phase 1 and 2. In conclusion Commissioner Mann said they
need to address the easement for the recreation area and the two parking spaces. During further
discussion staff clarified the easement is for use of the recreation space by the Townhomes.
Joel Barth, for the applicant shared notes found from Mike Overbeck stating that he is going to
give the temporary recreation space to the condo unit owner and he will fence it in, so it will not be
shared. Mr. Overbeck is also proposing to create three new recreation spaces as part of Phase 2.
Bruce MacVeigh, for the applicant confirmed that the notes from Mr. Overbeck clarified the
shared parking issue and apologized that he did not have direct knowledge of the information.
He said the north recreation area is property owned by Mr. Overbeck, and that the agreement and
understanding with the condo owner is that upon completion of Phase 2, the recreation area will
revert exclusively and be fenced to the East condo building. That recreation area upon completion
of Phase 2 will be replaced by three other recreation areas. Mr. Overbeck has provided two plans.
7
Page 6 of 6
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
Commissioner Hansen said he agrees with Commissioner Mann regarding the importance of
taking care of the construction. He said the site looks terrible. He understands the issues, but to
speculate about the issues is not right and he wants to see what the real story is, so the BAR can
make a decision. He said it's a project they are all in favor of, but they don't have enough
information, or the right people present, and it's unfortunate and a shame they cannot move it
forward, but he is not willing to continue working on notions that aren't sure or accurate.
Commissioner Martinez made additional comments regarding the project not being complete and
his concerns and the desire for everyone to be happy.
Commissioner Watters asked for some clarification regarding the legal role of the BAR over the
recreation space, and the code requirements. Staff stated that the applicant meets the code
requirements without the fourth recreation space planned to become part of the condo property.
However, Mr. Overbeck must provide evidence that he has legal authority to grant the property to
the condo property. Therefore, there are some legal issues that need to be addressed regarding the
easement and an HOA for the Osterly Townhomes.
There were no additional public comments.
The Commissioners requested that the applicant return with the items listed below that were not
submitted for review, as well as some clarifying information prior to deciding on the project:
1. A formal HOA needs to be formed and documentation provided regarding who has the
legal right to transfer the recreation space to the condo property. Staff will also weigh-in on
this issue.
2. A lighting plan.
3. A frontage plan for 34Th Ave. S.
4. Updated building elevations for the nev triplexes and'the duplex, including the elevation
facing 34th Ave. S.
5. Updated CC&Rs.
6. Clarification on ownership and usage of the recreation area north of the condo building.
7. Clarification on who makes the decision regarding design°of the recreation space north of
the condo building.
8. An updated colors and materials board.
MOTION:
Vice -Chair Martinez moved to keep the public hearing open for Case Number PL18-0054. All the
Commissioners were in favor.
The public hearing will be continued to December 13Th, At 6:30 PM.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
• Staff provided status on the open house for the Shoreline and Sensitive Area Code Update
on October 9Th
• Commissioner Mann requested status from staff on the Updated Zoning Code that was
passed for the Comprehensive Plan in 2017. Staff will get back to the Commissioners with
some information on the work plan.
• Reminder: The Commissions cannot discuss the hearing since it was continued.
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretary
Adjourned: 9:20 PM
8
1u111,1,1,11p11111111111111111,1,1M
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BAR)
AND
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) WORK SESSION
MINUTES
Date: October 25, 2018
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: Council Chambers
Present: Vice Chair, Dennis Martinez; Commissioners, Sharon Mann, Mike Hansen, Louise
Strander, Miguel Maestas and Heidi Watters
Absent: Chair, Nhan Nguyen
Staff: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director; Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor; Lindsay
Brown, Assistant Planner; and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary
Vice -Chair Martinez opened the public hearing and swore in those wishing to provide testimony.
CASE NUMBERS: L18-0026 Public Hearing Design Review
L18-0027 Conditional Use Permit (CUPs)
APPLICANT: Sean Hill of Broderick Architects for Vietnamese Martyrs Parish
REQUEST: A 7,000 sf addition to an existing office building to create a learning center,
partial demolition and construction of an addition to the main church
building (67,500 sf), and related improvements including restriping of the
parking lot and interior remodeling. A Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit are required, along with SEPA
(environmental) analysis.
LOCATION: 6841 and 6847 S. 180th St. (Sperry Drive); APN's 3623049079,
3623049017, and 3623049087
Staff asked the appearance of fairness questions. No one had any disclosures, and no one objected
to the Commissioners hearing the case.
Lindsay Brown, Assistant Planner, gave the presentation for staff.
She said the applicant needs four land use entitlement approvals for their proposal:
1) SEPA analysis, required of CUPs in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC)
2) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, because it is within 200 ft. of the ordinary high-water
mark within the shoreline overlay;
3) Design Review and;
4) CUP, SEPA and Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are administrative decisions made
by the DCD Director. Shoreline approval shall be issued after the 14-day SEPA comment period
ends, which is after October 31". Although the public hearing is being held to review the Design
Review and Conditional Use Permit, the BAR cannot make their decision until a future date, after
9
Page 2 of 5
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
the SEPA comment period is over.
An overview was provided of the project, which will happen in three phases. Following are some of
the issues noted by staff:
• The existing parking area on the west side of the site is non -conforming and will remain as
such because the code does not require these types of parking areas to come into
conformance.
• The applicant submitted a letter prior to the public hearing regarding public access in
contention of some of the City's requirements in the Shoreline Management Plan that require
public access. The City Attorney is reviewing the letter, as well as the applicant's attorney.
The details and the requirements of the code are being worked out. A copy of the letter was
provided to the Commissioners by email, as well as a hard copy at the public hearing. Staff
stated that the public access issue is related to the Shoreline permit and not to the Design
Review or CUP.
• On the north side of the site abutting 180thstreet is a very steep slope and a sidewalk cannot
be reasonably accommodated. Since it is impractical to build a sidewalk with landscaping it
will not be required, even though TUC standards state this as a requirement.
• There was conversation between staff the applicant and Karen Walter with the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe regarding perimeter parking landscaping. Ms. Walter wanted some tall conifers
to provide some shade for the river and to help juvenile salmon thrive and live in the green
river. Some tall evergreens have been proposed.
• Staff showed a revised parking plan, which is Attachment F in the packet. The applicant is
proposing to contract with off -site properties for additional parking for festivals that require
more parking. The new plan increases parking from 139 to 369 in four different parking
areas. The applicant is proposing to shuttle the overflow attendees from the overflow parking
areas to the festival events. Agreements will need to be secured, recorded and submitted to
the Planning Depar rent.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP):
CUPs are required to evaluate unique or unusual land uses in a zone. Churches with more than 750
sf. of assembly area require a CUP' Impactsconsidered in the CUP process are noise, traffic,
parking, light, safety, building design, and use compatibility with the neighborhood. There are four
criteria of approval.
Design Review:
Design Review is required of large-scale construction or external expansion of more than 25,000 sf.
in the TUC Work Place District. There are five criteria of approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
• Conditional Use Permit - staff recommended approval with three conditions, as listed in the
October 25, 2018 staff report.
• Design Review - staff recommended approval with three conditions.
Father Thanh Dao, the applicant, gave the presentation, he said they moved to Tukwila for a
bigger place and more parking. They would like to expand the property to have a larger space for
the kids and a bigger church for the community. Father Dao said their vision is to build a church
to promote mutual understanding and respect, to share ethnic cultures with other people, feed the
homeless, poor, low income people and to start a learning center to educate the younger
10
Page 3 of 5
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
generation. He said there are 1,000 people attending the church, and these people shop at the
surrounding businesses causing the businesses to grow. Concern for safety was raised and
regarding cars getting broken into. He said they try to support the community, and this will allow
them to help the surrounding communities. It would also bring a lot of good will to the City. In
closing, he asked the Commissioners for their help and guidance and consideration to make this
possible.
Commissioner Stander asked for clarification on the Commissioner's role regarding the comment
letter, which raised concerns about public access requirement. Staff clarified that public access is a
Shoreline requirement and will be addressed as part of the Shoreline permit. Staff said the
Director of Community Development will make the Shoreline decision and public access will be
addressed as part of that decision.
Sean Hill, for the applicant, addressed questions from Commissioner Mann regarding a fuel tank
shown on Attachment A that she said was close to the river. The applicant said the drawing was
taken from an existing survey, and they are not proposing a new fuel tank but plan to removing the
existing tank.
Commissioner Maestas asked if there were any further communications from Karen Walter or
anyone else from the Muckleshoot Tribe regarding comments addressed in Attachment J. Staff
said they responded to informal inquiries from Karen Walter.
Staff and the applicant addressed additional questions raised by the Commissioners.
Mr. Hill said the public access is the one issue thatthe applicant does not find acceptable and
hopes that they can prove it is not required and proceed.
Commissioner Mann said she wanted to thank the applicant personally for the great work and the
beautiful addition they brought to the City.
Father Thanh Dao said they hope the process can be expedited.
CONTINUANCE:
Vice -Chair Martinez said because the comment period for the SEPA determination has not ended
the hearing would be continued to the next regular public hearing on January 10, 2019.
11
Page 4 of 5
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
Vice -Chair Martinez called the Planning Commission Work Session to order at 8:15 PM.
Commissioner Strander recused herself from the discussion due to the fact her family owns
property in the Shoreline area and left the courtroom.
Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development, announced that
Lindsay Brown was leaving the City.
There was a five minute recess.
The Work Session reconvened at 8:20 PM.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L18-0075
City of Tukwila
Work session on the State mandated periodic review of Tukwila's Shoreline
Master Program
200 ft. Shoreline Zone on each side of
een River
Vice -Chair Martinez called for approval ofthe minutes, which was postponed because most of
the Commissioners were not in attendance from the previous meetings.
Nora Gierloff provided an overview of Washington State Shoreline Regulations. Tukwila has a
local Shoreline Master Program and a Shoreline Overlay in the Zoning Code. These are being
updated along with Tukwila's Critical Areas Regulations. She said these items are separate, but
are being tracked together, because they are inter -related and both deal with environmental issues,
and staff wants them to move forward in tandem. There are Sensitive Areas and Critical Area
regulations for the shoreline and outside the shoreline that staff wants to condense into one set of
regulations. This update is occurring now because it is state mandated approximately every eight
years, so it is a State timeline. Staff said there has been changes to state law that are not in the
City's regulations,as well as best available science, and that they need to be brought up to date.
This update is a housekeeping update.
Background was provided on the Shoreline Management Act. Each jurisdiction considers the State
guidance and makes their own local Shoreline Master Program. Ms. Gierloff explained what is
regulated under the Shoreline Master Program.
Commissioner Hansen said Riverton Creek runs through his property and asked if it would
preclude him from the discussion. Staff said it is a legislative process and that it is okay for all the
Commissioners to take part in the process because it affects the community as a whole.
The following are some of the potential update categories:
1) Consistency with State regulations and definitions;
2) Housekeeping corrections for ease of use and to correct inconsistencies;
3) Levee profile flexibility;
4) Recreation building and trail updates; and
5) Vegetation management.
12
Page 5 of 5
October 11, 2018
BAR Minutes
Noted Issues:
• The levee reconstruction is usually County or Federally funded and therefore has not used
our preferred levee profile.
• Shoreline Master Program regulations vary by jurisdiction.
• Support for allowing river overlooks and picnic areas to be larger.
• Clarifying that volunteers removing invasive species along the river will not require
monitoring for 5 years, unlike other mitigation projects.
Ms. Gierloff went over the process and timeline, which started with an open house on October 9th.
Commissioner Watters said that she agrees very much with having more flexibility to increase
recreation in the areas that makes sense in the code to consider. She said it would be fabulous if
Tukwila had a waterfront landmark.
Staff will provide the Planning Commission with a strikethrough underline in advance of the
public hearing.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
• Holiday schedule, meeting, November 8th and December 13th
• PC Schedule update - Two meetings in January, 1/10/19 and 1/24/19.
• Reminder for those Commissioners that have terms expiringto notify the Mayor of their
interest by October 31 st
Submitted by:
Adjourned:
Wynetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretary
8:58 PM
13