HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2012-09-27 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Jiln Hui crton, llluvor
Department Of COmmIInil v Development I(Ickl'(1ce, Director
CHAIR, BROOKE ALFORD, VICE CHAIR, THOMAS MCLEOD, COMMISSIONERS, LOUISE
STRANDER, DAVID SHUMATE, MIKE HANSEN, SHARON MANN, AND CASSANDRA
HUNTER
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
AND
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 6:30 PM
TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
L Call to Order
IL Attendance
III. Adoption of 08/23/12 Minutes
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
IV. CASE NUMBER: 1_12 -019
APPLICANT: Ian Hamad, Owner
REQUEST: Public Hearing Design Review for a new 3 -story mixed use building
with 9 apartments and 3 commercial suites with associated parking
and landscaping.
LOCATION: 42xx 164 Street, Tukwila, WA
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
V. Continue review of public comment matrix.
VL Director's Report
VII. Adjourn
0300SolithcenterBotilcvcarcl .Suite -100• Tillorilca, ff'ashinuton9 18 Phone _00- -{31- 3h'0• Fax 200-431-3005
p
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission
Planning Commission (PC) Public Hearing Minutes
Date: August 23, 2(_)12
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Present: Brooke Alford, Chair, Thomas McLeod, Vice Chair, Commissioners, Louise Strander, David
Shumate, Mike Hansen, Sharon Malin, and Cassandra Hunter
Staff: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner, and Wvnetta Bivens, Planning
Commission Secretaiy
Chair Alford opened the public hearing at 6: PM.
Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development introduced the two new Planning
Commission Members, Sharon Mann, and Cassandra Hunter.
The Planning Commissioners introduced themselves to the new PC members.
Minutes: Additions to 6/28/12 minutes Commissioner Strander requested the following three items
which she raised questions on at the 6/28/12 meeting to be added to the minutes to reflect her
questions. :(1) Regulations on the maximum block size, (2) Neighborhood corridors, street
designation, and (3) Regulations for public frontage.
Revision to 6/28/12 minutes Commission McLeod requested that on the bottom of page 1, that
the last line of text, which reads, "to something more understandable" be revised to read, "not
limited specifically- to four sided buildings
Commissioner McLeod made a motion to approve the 6/28/12 minutes as amended.
Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion, all were in favor.
Chair Alford swore in those that wished to testify.
Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development gave some background on the
planning process for the Southcenter Plan. The process started in the rear 2000, with a 1.5 million dollar
grant that the City received to create a plan for the Urban Center. Staff looked at existing conditions from
2(_)(_)5- 2(_)(_)8, held six workshops, and a number of City Council and Planning Commission Nvorksess ions. The
first draft of the document was completed in 2008 -2009, which was sent back by the PC for more work. The
current draft is the revised version of the plan. The overall project goals were, consistency with State and
Count policy regarding Urban Centers, keeping Southcenter competitive and active, accommodate the 2(_)3(_)
growth targets mandated by Bing County, look at improvements needed to support the plan, develop and
implement regulations and guidelines to help achieve the plan, and look at the potential environmental
impacts from implementation of the plan. A brief overview was also provided on the public hearing
documents. Ms. Miranda directed people to the vvebsite for documents or more information.
TESTIMONY:
Martin Durkan Jr. spoke on behalf of the Desimone Mellon Trust of New York kvho has property in
Tukwila. Mr. Durkan provided the PC with two handouts. He said that currently the proposed threshold for
public hearing Design Review is for developments that have over 20 units and he is requesting that
Administrative Design Review be allowed for projects with up to 5t_) units before public hearing Design
Page 1 of 5
PC Public I fearing Minutes
August 23, 2012
Review is required. Also, he requested that the proposed provisions for parking reductions within btu) feet of
the transit center at Longacres be increased to one quarter mile (1, ft.).
Commissioner Hansen provided the reference numbers on the two sections of the code that Mr. Durkan is
requesting changes to: 18.28.0u04, addresses the number of units for Design Review, and 18.28.091, the
parking requirements. (should be 18.28.020C and 18.28.260.B.5, respectively)
Staff responded to questions raised by Commissioner Mama regarding setbacks within 1()' of the ordinaiv
high water mark, which was raised in the documentation handed out bN- Mr. Durkan.
Brent Carson, Attorney, representing VanNess, Feldman, Gordon Derr, said that they had serious concerns
with past drafts of the plan. He said in the past rear staff has gone above and beyond, making sure they
communicated with the stakeholders and engaged them in creating the draft plan. He said the current draft
really represents an excellent compromise that can achieve the City's objectives, and enable Westfield to
continue to invest in the mall. Mr. Carson said they support staffs recommended changes in the matrix. He
said that they are requesting one change, in section 18.28. (_)31(_)C2, regarding limited design modifications to
existing structures kyhen expansions occur. Mr. Carson said that staff recommended a new example be added to
the matrix in the architectural concept design criteria D, they are requesting that the last sentence of the quoted
section be deleted, and they would support the idea of adding the example. He thanked the staff for their hard
work on the plan and for working to achieve all of the objectives.
Commissioner Strander asked how the mall would be affected by the finer grain streets proposed in the plan.
Mr. Carson said they believe they would be able to comply with those standards. As drafted, it would not
adversely affect their ability to develop.
Joe Desimone said that he urges the City to have development standards that are consistent with other
communities to make businesses more viable and develop economics. He said he wants to protect the
environment, promote uses that are more public transit oriented, and allow for economic development at the same
time. Mr. Desimone made the following suggestions: reducing the parking requirements for the first quarter mile
from transit stations to one parking space per residential unit; having a standard that encourages people to walls;
increasing the building height up to 70 ft. in order to increase the number of properties that can have waterfront
views, which would be selling points. He said Tul-,Nvila does not have this type of amenity. He asked for the
opportunity to bring back some of the mixed uses that are in the current zoning code, such as brew pubs, sports
bars, and night clubs, which he said is important because 80% of the inquiries for their property in the Strander
Blvd area and West Valley Highway is for these tN of uses. He said that could mean an 8(_)% chance of adding
new businesses, increasing development, generating more employment and revenue for Tukwila in challenging
economic times if the uses are allowed to continue. He also said empty spaces mean more crime, etc. He said
until there is mixed use development there will not be investments in infrastructure improvements. Mr.
Desimone said these areas of mixed use development would be for businesses that can't afford rent in the mall
area. He also pointed out there is no threat of flooding in the area. He suggested that the City hold off on changes,
and allow the property owners in the Stander Blvd area and West Valley Highway to keep the same type of uses
they currently have until the market is better.
Commissioner McLeod asked Mr. Desimone how long he's been doing business in Tukwila, and thanked him
for his passion.
Commissioner Strander asked staff to clarify whether Acme Bowl would fall in the TOD or the regional center.
Also she inquired on uses that would not be alloyed in the proposed plan, and
Jamie Balint, Council, for Segale Properties, highlighted concerns on issues raised in the documentation that she
handed out. She asked that staff be directed to revise the TUC Plan, because she said it inconsistent with the
direction given by the Council. Ms. Balint raised the following issues with the plan: The Council's request to
convert the design standards to guidelines; scaling back on the requirements of the TUC Plan; the current plan
creates a disincentive for development in the City or improvements to existing businesses; financing to build;
Page 2 of 5
2
PC Public I fearing Minutes
August 23, 2012
losing potential developers, retail and sales tax leakage to other jurisdictions, concern with the City's approach,
burdens on regulations in the TUC on existing business ov,-ners, new requirements and impacts to landlords and
tenants such as replacing a roof, which would trigger new requirements, no transportation impact analysis on
draft plan, sufficient capital facilities such as utilities, sewer system capacity- for growth and development, cost of
off -site improvements on new development, urban center goals, obligations of an urban center and what it means
to be an urban center, what the obligations are as a City, strict design guidelines; growth targets, concerned that
the TUC Plan does the opposite of encouraging growth and meeting certain thresholds. Ms. Balint raised issues
of concerns as a result of an EcoNorthwest study completed on the earlier version of the plan, Ms. Balint said she
is not ready to address the level of detail for specific concerns until after the general concerns are addressed.
Commissioner McLeod asked if Ms. Balint's letter would suggest the recommended changes, she's requesting.
Ms. Balint said there are specific recommendations in her documentation, but if the Commission does not want
staff to go back and do more work then they would like the opportunity to meet with staff one on one to discuss
their specific concerns. She also mentioned that SEPA is supposed to be performed at the earliest point and time
possible, as a tool to guide decision malting to inform decision makers. So she hopes the enviromnental review is
done as early in the process as possible at this point.
Commissioner Mann inquired on the City's participation in developer incentives.
Staff confirmed that incentives have been added to the current draft of the plan.
Chair Alford stated that some of Ms. Balint's comments did not seem consistent with the current draft plan.
Ms. Balint said she was looking at the most recent draft.
Commissioner Hanson asked staff to address the comment that Ms. Balint made regarding impacts to a property
ov,ner replacing a roof. He asked if it was an accurate depiction of what's possible.
Staff said in accordance with the current code, if exterior changes are greater than 10% of the building value, it
would trigger Design Review. For non conforming buildings, when a building is destroyed by more than 50%, it
needs to be rebuilt. Staff said that generally roof replacements have not triggered Design Review.
Mr. Balint requested that the code is clarified regarding required improvements to existing buildings, etc. when a
property- owner makes improvements that exceed 10% of the value of the building.
Commissioner Strander inquired whether the EcoNoitivvest study was on the City's -,vebsite.
Staff replied that it had not been removed from the web site since it was presented in 2(_)(_)9.
I T 1
Bob Schofield, developer, said that he has been developing on Southcenter Parke ay since 1974, and provided
comments on where he thinks the Citv is economically. He said there are lots of vacancies and the stores are
hurting vei N- badly. He doesn't thinit that the rents on West Vallev Highway- and Strander are one quarter of the
rents on Southcenter Parke ay anymore. He said Southcenter should be a much more powerful market, but the
ability to gain new tenants and hold onto old ones has really declined over the last three or four years. Mr.
Schofield said that he really admires staff and their work greatly- and he understands what they are doing, but he
laiows that we are facing vein tough times and we have to be vein careful with what we do and when we do it.
He encourages staff to be extremely carefid in considering their tax base.
Commissioner Mann inquired about the decline in sales, and asked Mr. Schofield if he saw development of the
residential area in Southcenter as a potential built -in clientele that are more apt to shop in the area.
Mr. Scolfield said that you have to be vein careful to what you impose on eveiNthing in the plan, and said that he
thinks there's a bigger problem that he doesn't want the City to lose sight of He said the Citv needs to keep a
Page 3 of 5
3
PC Public 1 fearing Minutes
August 23, 2012
veiv healthy environment for the City's tai base, which is the commercial retail. He commented on the type of
businesses, such as budget stores that are coming into the City now, wl>ich is affecting every body. He said what
is being built in the retail area is something that doesn't compete with high end stores. He said it will continue to
open the gap away from the mall. Mr. Schofied addressed several questions raised by Commissioner Mann.
Mr. Desimone said if uses are out laived businesses will go to other jurisdictions. He also commented that he
disagreed with staff s comments that certain uses will drive away potential residences. He said the City let
the market dictate when it's time to make changes in uses.
There were no fin ther comments.
The public hearing ivas closed.
Staff handed out comments received and the draft public comment matrix.
Chair Alford called for a break at 7:50 PM.
Chair Alford reconvened at 8:00 PM.
The PC deliberated.
Staff walked through the matrix proposed changes/comments. There -,vas some discussion, but follow -up
discussion will occur at a later date.
Comprehensive Plan Revisions
Requested by Commissioner Strander: On Page 44, section 10.2.8, where the language read the "City
shall prepare a study for parking structure She wanted to krlovv if the City a study much it
would cost the tax payers.
Commissioner Strander asked if the word "shall" could be removed.
Sub -Area Plan
Requested by Commissioner Shumate: Page 48, top of paragraph, letter A. remove the words, `rubber
tired" (Southcenter trolley), Commissioner McLeod was in consensus.
Regional Centers
Requested by commissioner Alford: Starting at Page 15 language too indecisive, needs to be
strengthened.
Zoning Regulation
Commissioner McLeod raised the issue of adding back some of the permitted uses: such as bars,
lounges, night clubs, billiard halls, brew pubs, restaurants with drive through, internet data centers,
and bulls retail. (The Commission would like to consider the issue more)
Commissioner McLeod commented on testimony pertaining to TMC 1828 regarding adding back permitted
uses such as bars, clubs, brew pubs, etc. He said he could see a real benefit to allowing some of those types
of benefits, which would be a nice attraction to a neighborhood. Commissioner Strander was in agreement.
Commissioner Mann said she would also be in agreement with uses such as brew pubs that sell e food if
there were some additional restrictions. Staff said that brew pubs would be required to have 6l_)% in food
sales for it to be permitted. Commissioner Mann also suggested contacting some brew pubs in other Cities
regarding how much sales they have in food and alcohol, to see if requiring 60 in food sales is a reasonable
number. She volunteered to call herself Commissioner McLeod said that he encourages staff to be as open
to as many possibilities as they can that will attract people, and that would be a great location to attract that
kind of crowd. Commissioner Hunter said she was interested in seeing a health impact study on the effects
of these types of proposed businesses on communities. She said she is in favor of brew pubs, and it's
Page 4 of 5
4
PC Public 1 fearing Minutes
August 23, 2012
something that is missing in Tukwila neighborhoods. Several of the Commissioners were in consensus that it
would be favorable to have such local gathering places in Tuk- ,vila. Commissioner McLeod said he thinks
there should be more of this type of gathering place around Starfire, and this district is right next to Starfire.
Commissioner Alford made an inquHy on the freeway frontage corridor, street tree spacing pointing out it
is not consistent with other street tree spacing, and wanted to know what the basis for the difference is? She
said that she does not want the area neglected in street tree planning.
Design Manual
Staff addressed a question Commissioner Alford raised regarding the basis for parking requirements.
Commissioner Mann asked if there are incentives built in the plan to do structured parking rather than
surface parking.
Staff said that there are some incentives in the Sign Code, for some signs, but that there is not anNihing
other xvise.
Commissioner Mann asked if staff could think of ways to provide incentives for people to create structures
that are appealing. Commissioner Alford was in agreement.
Commissioner McLeod asked whether it matters where businesses locate their front doors.
Commissioner Mama explained why she is in favor of having store fronts facing the sidewalks.
Commissioner Mann asked if there is a plan to facilitate the parking other than a parking lot at the Transit
center. She also asked who is going to maintain the required landscaping. She said she wants to make sure
this is addressed. She said she thinks the Citv_ should be more proactive to promote getting new business, and
list it in the plan.
Commissioner McLeod said he wants the plans to have looser standards and for it to be inviting to
developers. He said the economic study completed in 2003 concluded that the plan -,vas overly regulatory in
nature and not economically feasible, and another study in 2009 drew the same conclusion. He said the vision
was to have the buildout of the plan completed by 2031 and it's a third of the way there. Commissioner
McLeod said that he really wants to encourage staff to loosen the standards, or do whatever it takes to make
the plan economically feasible so there is not a third report concluding the plan is not economically feasible.
He stated that we want to entice and invite business to Tukwila instead of adhering to the current standards or
Tukwila will lose businesses to other Cities.
Next Steps
Incorporate changes in the matrix format. Provide the Planning Commission with a public review
draft.
Make a recommendation to City Council.
Director's Report:
Nora discussed the email she sent to the PC regarding the APA State Planning Conference.
Nora told the PC that there will be an application for Tukwila Village and a quasi-judicial Design
Review is coming to the PC for review eventually. Nora reminded the PC to keep in mind when they
have their quasi-judicial hat on that they will need to be careftil about opinions they express, people
they talk to, and outside information that they gather once it becomes a valid application.
Nora handed out a list of the upcoming work plan and projects that will be reviewed by the PC.
Submitted Bv_ Wvnetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretaiy
Adjourned: 9:30 PM
Page 5 of 5
5
p
Department of Conununi�v Developmetj
STAFF REPORT TO
THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PREPARED SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
HEARING DATE
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
September 27, 2012
L12 -019 McMicken Court
Ian Hamad, Developer and Oiyner
Jirii Hc� llcn'ur
Jack Director
Design Review approval for a mixed -use building consisting of nine residential units and
three ground floor commercial spaces with associated grading, paved parking, landscaping,
and site design.
LOCATION: The site is located at 42XX 164"' Street in the McMicicen neighborhood. It is east of 42
Avenue South and bound on the south by 164"' Street. The property lies a feiv hundred
feet to the east of an existing Safeivay groceiv store in the City_ of SeaTac. The tax parcel
number is 5379800670. The site is currently a vacant lot.
NOTIFICATION Notice of Application for this Type 4 permit ii-as mailed to surrounding property- owners,
interested parties, affected agencies and posted on the site on July 5th, 2012. Notice of
Public Hearing ii-as also ii-as mailed to surrounding property- owners, interested parties,
affected agencies, posted on the site and published in the Seattle Times on September 13,
2012.
ZONING /COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Commercial Center
SEPA DETERMINATION
DECISION:
STAFF
Exempt
Approval with Conditions
Stacy MacGregor
ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant's response to Design Revieiv Criteria
B. Colored Elevations (5 pages)
C. Site Lighting Plan
D. Design Details (1 page)
E. Citizen Comment Letters (2 pages)
F. Site Plan and I" Floor Plan
G 2" and Floor Building Floor Plans
H. Building Elevations
L Landscape Plan (2 pages)
SM Page 1 of 10
Z: ,DCD n Clerk's .PC Lasertiche Packet 09- 27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review StaffReport FINAL.doex
0920 2012
0 300 Soilthcenter Boidevarcl, Silitc —1 Tillovila, ff'ashinuton 9118 Phone -"00-431-30'0 Fax: 200-431-3005
7
FINDINGS
VICINITY INFORMATION
The proposed site is in the McMicicen Neighborhood along Tuk ila's border with the City of SeaTac. The project fronts
South 16-4"' Street and lies just east of Militai Road South and -42 Avenue South. This site and the site directly to the
north are the only parcels in the area zoned Residential Commercial Center (RCC). They are surrounded bv
Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) zoning with commercial businesses to the north and west and single family
(LDR) zoning to the east. While the RCC and NCC zoning allows buildings up to 3 stories or 35 feet, the commercial
construction adjacent to the site is all single story. The existing housing stock in the area consists of one and one- and -a-
half stoi homes built 50 to 100 rears ago.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The proposal is to develop a nearly 14,000 square foot, three- stoi mixed use building on an existing .62 acre vacant lot
in the McMicicen neighborhood. The building will contain eight 2- bedroom market rate apartment units on the two upper
floors with a ninth accessible unit and three commercial spaces on the ground floor. Access to the site is off of South
16-4"' Street. Access is shared via an easement on this property to a daycare center abutting the northern property line.
Parking for the daycare is included on this site and subject to a previously recorded easement on the project property.
The site is currently a vacant lot with some paving Used by the daycare for parking and some limited vegetation,
principally a grass" field surrounding one significant hemlock tree. Site improvements will result in 38 parking stalls plus
a loading zone, 1,800 square feet of improved outdoor recreation space, perimeter landscaping along three sides along
with landscaping of the parking lot, and curb, gutter, sidewalk and planting strip along South 16.1"' Street.
sM Page 2 of 10 09 20 2012
A DCD n Cleit's PC Lasubehe Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review staff Report FINAL.doex
51
Residential and commercial Uses are located to the south and Rest in the City" of SeaTac, a Safeway grocer" store and strip
mall anchor the corner of 164 and Militan Road South. Crestview Park is located to the north of the project with two
entrances, to the north and to the west, both 1 /10"' of a mile away. There are no sidewalks to the park or the grocery store
on the Tukwila side of the streets, there are We payed shoulders to all of these destinations from the project site.
PUBLIC COMMENT
During the Notice of Application comment period a letter was received from a Tuk -,vila resident objecting to allosying
apartments in the vicinity of single family- homes. In response to the Notice of Hearing a letter was received from the
adjacent daycare center regarding the use of the private parking easement on the applicant's property for the benefit of the
daycare. Both of these letters are included as Attachment E.
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
The project is subject to a Public Hearing Design Review under Tuk vila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.28.070. The
Board of Architectural Reviesy evaluates the project under the criteria established in TMC 18.60.050 C. The design
criteria explain requirements for development proposals. They_ are the decision criteria from which the Board will
evaluate whether to approve, condition, or deny this project.
The applicant's response to the design review criteria is Attachment A. Below is the staff analysis and response.
1. SITE PLANNING.
a. Building siting, architecture, and lamcr,vcahing shall be integrated into and blend har °rnoniously tivith the
neighborhood building scale, natural environnrent, and develoj)nwnt characteristics as envisioned in the
C'onwrehensive Plan. For instance, a nrulti- liin7ily develovnwnt's design need not be harnroniously integrated with
adjacent single farnily str °uctures i f that existing single farnily use is designated as "C or° "High
Densiti1 Residential" in the C'onwrehensive Plan. However, a "Low- Densiti1 Residential" (detached single-liin7ih')
designation would require such har °rnonious design integration.
The parcel is at the edge of a neighborhood commercial district anchored by an existing Safesyav grocer store.
The pocket of commercial development is surrounded by single family- homes. The m3joritN- of commercial
development and all the residential development to the south are in the City of SeaTac. This project is on a parcel
zoned Regional Commercial Center (RCC) and is directly adjacent to LDR zoning on the syest and NCC zoning
to the east. The commercial development is predominately one-stoiv freestanding uses with a multi- tenant strip
development is to the east. The residential development seas generally- built in the 1920's -50's and consists of one
and one and -a -half stoic bungalosy -style homes.
The required recreation space for the residential units is located betsyeen the building and the street. Parking and
access easements for the daycare center line the north and syest sides of the parcel. The street frontage syill have a
five foot wide separated sidewalk and twenty feet of landscaping. The recreation space between the street and the
building ssi11 consist of a picnic area and pea patch space for building tenants.
b. Natural f eatures, tivhich contribute to desirable neighborhood character, shall behreser ved to the rnaxirnurn
extent7)ossible. Natural features ineh0e, but are not linrited to, existing significant trees and stands of trees,
wetlands, streanrs, and significant to7)ogralAie features.
There are no natural features on the site.
c. The site 7JIan shall use lamisca7)rng and building sha7Jes to fornr an aestheticalh'7J1easing aml j)Mestrian scale
streetscahe. This shall include, but not be limited to facilitatinghe(lestr °i(In trcn>el along the street, using
architecture and lamisca7)rng to In -ov0e a d fi
desirable transition ord streetsca7)e to the build 0i
building, amlln- ovng an
integrated linkage fron7I) destrian and vehicular facilities to building entries.
There are no sidesyalks along South 164 Street. A sidewalk separated by a landscape strip is proposed for the
right- of -syay in front of the parcel. An additional tsyenty feet of perimeter landscaping syill continue from the
back of sidewalk towards the building. The building is set back from the street and at the base of a slope.
Landscaping will line either side of the vehicle entrance and the path that will lead pedestrians from the sidewalk
SM Page 3 of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
M
to the front of the building. The fast floor of the building is designed as commercial space with large -,windows
and awnings over the pedestrian path.
c1. Pedestrian aml vehicular entries shall provide a high- qualtry visual locus using builcing siting, shapes aml
lamiscahing. Such a feature establishes aphysical transition between theproject amlInIblic areas, am/
establishes the initial sense of high qualiry cr'evelopnwnt.
The existing enti v is reduced to twenty -four feet and will be shared between this site and the daycare facility to
the north. A freestanding sign swill be located adjacent to the drive. A paved pedestrian path swill lead from the
sidewalk, around the recreation space and to the walk that surrounds the buildings.
e. 1 ehreular circulation cr'esrgn shall nrrnrnrrze crrrvewav intersections with the street.
The existing driveway will be shared by the daycare and this nevv development. The access point will be reduced
in width and defined by landscaping. The parking that currently exists on the applicant's property for the benefit
of the daycare is maintained and integrated into the site design.
l: Site perinwter cr'esign (i.e., lamiseaping, structures, aml horizontal wicr'th) shall be eoorclinatecl with site
cr'eveloprnent to ensure a har °rnonious transition between acr'jacent protects.
Perimeter landscaping is required by code along the front and sides of the parcel. The landscaping on the west
side that is adjacent to residential homes is twice as wide (ten feet) than the east side that is adjacent to
commercial uses.
g. 1'arying degrees ofprivacv for° the imliviclual res0ents shall be provicrCe 1, increasing from the public right- oftival.,
to eonrnron areas, to inclivichial resiclenees. This can be aeeonrplishecl through the use ofsynrbolie amt actual
physical barriers to define the degrees ofhrivacy appropriate to sj)ecific site area functions.
Eight of the nine residential units are located on the tsvo upper floors and the one accessible unit is located on the
ground level at the rear of the building. The outdoor recreation space is quasi public space with a picnic table
available for residents and employees of the commercial spaces.
h. Parking am/ service areas shall be located, cIesignecl am/ screened to inter -1°111)t MA/ recr'uce the visual impact of
large jmvecl areas;
Surface parking is separated by landscape islands eveiv six or seven stalls. The parking and driveway areas are
alreadv defined by easements to the benefit of the daycare at the north end of the parcel. Surface parking is
distributed over the site which minimizes the visual impact of 38 parking stalls. Trash collection is located in the
northeast corner of the building; the trash enclosure is clad in grad split -face CMU stone which is repeated on the
sign base and matches the color of the base of the building.
i. The height, bulk, footprint am/ scale of each builcing shall be in har °rnony tivith its site and acr'jacent long- ter °rn
structures.
Buildings in the RCC zone are allowed to be 3 stories or 35 feet. This building is 3 stories and 33 feet tall at the
midpoint of the roof'. The footprint is about 4,500 square feet. The other commercial uses immediately
surrounding the site include: a 4,300 square foot building to the north currently used as daycare; a 2,700 square
foot restaurant to the east (Ulysses) and a 5,000 square feet commercial building to the northeast. The Safeway
store is 47,(_)(_)(_) square feet and the strip mall to the east that is 23,(_)(_)(_) square feet are both subject to the City of
SeaTac zoning code. The adjacent single family- homes are 1,200 to 1,900 square feet. All surrounding
residential structures are one or one -and a half stories.
Height is calculated at the midpoint of the roof rather than at the highest point of the roof.
SM Page 4 of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
IE
2. BUILDING DESIGN.
a. Architectural style is not restrietecl; evaluation of ahroleet shall be based on the qualiril of its design aml its
ability to harmonize buikling texture, shape, lines MA/ mass IVith the sur°rou1141ing neighbor°hoo(r'.
This proposal is for a three story traditional style building. The building uses external cladding to describe the
interior uses. Chocolate colored lap siding, vs -hite trim and vs -hite vinyl vvindovvs enclose the upper two residential
stories. The commercial ground floor is clad in fiberboard panels vvill be painted a dark gray -blue shade called
Evening Hush.
The applicant has included a ground floor ADA (Americans with Disabilitv Act) unit in this project. The
permitted uses in the RCC zone allow "multi family units above office and retail uses" (TMC 18.20.020 7). The
Purpose of the RCC zone is stated as "This district implements the Residential Commercial Center
Comprehensive Plan designation which allows a maximum of 14.5 dwelling units per net acre. It is intended to
create and maintain pedestrian friendly commercial areas characterized and scaled to sell e a local neighborhood,
with a diverse mix of residential, retail, seiirice, office, recreational and community facility uses." (TMC
18.20.010). The Federal Fair Housing Act requires an accessible unit in a development of this size and requires
local jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations in their rules and policies to accommodate people with
disabilities. The proposal includes commercial uses along street front, therefore complies vvith the stated purpose
of RCC zone and is consistent with the policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
b. Builclings shall be ofahhrohriate height, scale, aml design shape to be in harn7ony with those existinghernutnent
neighboring cIevelohrnents which are consistent with, or envisionecl in, the C Plan. This frill be
e.tihecially irnhor °tart for °her °irneter° structures. Acr acent structures that are not in confor °rnance with the
C'onrhrehensive Plan shoulcl be eonsi4lere4l to be transitional. The 41egree ofarehiteetural harnwny require4l
shoulcl be consistent with the nonconfor °ruing structure's anticihatecr her °rnanence.
This building is 3 stories and 33 feet height. The t adjacent zoning districts, NCC and LDR, both allovv
structures up to 35 feet in height. The existing permanent structures are all one stoiv buildings. The building
massing is constrained by height limitations and parking requirements. The architectural style is traditional. The
residential neighborhood oveisyhehningh consists of small bungalosys syhile the commercial buildings are
architecturally undistinguished.
e. Builcling eonrhonents, such as wimlows, doors, eaves, harahets, stairs aml creeks shall be integrated into the
overall builcing design. Particular° emphasis shall be given to harrnonioushrohor°tions of these components with
those of acrlacent cIeveloj)nwnts. Builcling cor47j)onents aml ancillarl'harts Shall be consistent with the anticrhatecl
Irfe of the structure.
The building components reflect the uses of buildings. The residential portions of the building are clad in lap
siding, syhite vinyl vvindovvs, and 3 -tap asphalt shingles. The commercial portions of the building are s�rapped in
cement board panels that mimic concrete, have projecting metal awnings, and dark -framed aluminum vvindovvs.
cr'. The overall color° scheme shall yvor °k to recr'uce buikr'inghrorninence ancr'shall blencr' in tivith the natural
environment.
The lap siding on upper stories will be painted dark brown (Behr Chocolate) with Smart White trim. The
commercial ground floor will be a painted a blue -grad- hue called Evening Hush and the metal awnings will be
painted a lighter grad called Manhattan Mist. The base of the freestanding sign and the trash enclosure will be
constructed out of gray colored split -face CMU block.
Monotony ofclesign in single or multiple buiklinghrojects shall be cn>oicr'ecl. 1'ar °ierl' of(letail, for °rn, ancr'siting
shall be usecl tohrovicle visual interest. Other -wise nronotonous flat walls and unifornr verticalhlanes of in&vOual
SM Page S of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
11
buildings shall be broken up with building n7odulation, stair's, decks, railings, and focal entries. Alultij)le building
developments and additional use siting an additional architectural variety to avoid inappropriate repetition of building
designs and appearance to surrounding properties.
This project involves a single structure. Variation to the vertical plane comes through changes in cladding, the
metal awnings that project three feet over the sidessalk and ssindosss that are asymmetrically placed. The vertical
planes of each side of the building have modulated projections or recessions of approximately one foot running
verticall on each side of the second and third floors.
3. LANDSCAPEAND SITE TREATMENT.
a. Existing natural topographic patter °ns and significant vegetation shall be reflected in project design tivhen they
contribute to the natural beauty of the area or are inwortant to defining neighborhood identiry or a sense of
place.
The site slopes slightly from the street and then levels off after about fifty feet. The site has a large tree, possibly
a Hemlock, located within this sloped area and outside the building footprint and payed areas; the tree provides
minimal canopy coverage or natural beauty. To minimize grading and filling on the site, the applicant set the
building back from the street nearly fifty feet. The plant palate consists predominately of native plants.
b. Landscape treatinent shall enhance existing natrfral and architectrral features, help separate public fiord private
spaces, strengthen vistas and nnlportantviews, provide shade to moderate the effects of large paved areas, and
break up visual mass.
The site is relatively small and constrained by easements to the north and east and a slope from the south. The
location of the building on the site requires the recreation area to be placed in the front yard betiseen the building
and the street.
The applicant expects the rental market to be comprised of young urban professionals. The outdoor recreation
space includes a pea patch garden area for the residents to engage in food grossing and gardening.
C. Walkivaus, park -ing .~paces, terraces, and otherpcn>ed areas shallpromote safety andprovide an inviting and
stable appearance. Direct pedestrian linkages to the public street, to on -site recreation areas, and to adjacent
public recreation areas shall be provided
Four foot slide ssallcssays line three sides of the building and connect the building entrances to the parking areas,
trash enclosure, recreation space and the public sideisalk. The walkways in front of the commercial areas are all
covered by assnings.
d. Appropr °iate landscape transition to adjoining proper °ties shall be provided
The code requires a landscape planting bed twenty feet deep consisting of Tape 1' landscaping along the front
perimeter, five feet deep of Type 2 landscaping along the east side, and ten feet deep of Type 2 landscaping along
the rear and the east side because it is adjacent to a Loss- Density Residential zone. Additionally, a separated
side�salk with trees planted eves 30 feet and groundcover line the street frontage. The rear yard is constrained by
a parking and access easement for the parcel to the north. A landscape perimeter is not provided in this location.
4. MISCELLANEOUSSTRUCTURES:
a. Miscellanu)us str °uctures shall be designed as an integral par °t of the architectural concept and landscape.
Materials shall be eon7j)atible with buildings, scale shall be appropriate, colors shall be in harnwnv with
The purpose of Type 1 landscaping is to provide a light visual separation between uses and consists of one tree every 30 lineal feet
and one shrub every- 7 lineal feet and 90 groundcover coverage within 3 rears. The purpose of Type 2 landscaping is to provide a
moderate visual separation between uses and consists of one tree every- 20 lineal feet, one shrub every- -5 lineal feet and 90
groundcover coverage within 3 years.
SM Page 6 of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
12
builclings and surrounclings, and str'uctur'e 7)r'o7)or'tions shall be to scale.
Miscellaneous structures consist of a trash collection area, a bike rack for 4 bikes, a picnic area and a freestanding
sign. The trash collection area and the base of the freestanding sign syill both be constructed from gray split face
CMU block.
While not described on the plans, the applicant discussed and shoves on Attachment B lighted sign boxes mounted
to the tops of the awnings for the use of the three commercial tenants.
b. The use oftivalls, fencing, planting, ber °ins, or° combinations of these shall accomplish screening ofser vice yarn's
and otherhlaces that tencl to be unsightly. Screening shall be effective in tivinter° and sururner
The east side of the property- has an existing chain link fence on the property- line that will remain. Ten feet of
perimeter landscaping will screen and separate this project from that adjacent residence. The trash collection area
spill be constructed from split face CMU block that swill mirror the gray color used on the base of the building.
e Mechanical egiiihrvrent or other utiliril harcr'ware on roof gr-ouncl or' 8uilclings shall be sereenecr fr-orvr view.
Screening shall be clesignecl as an integral7)art of the archrtectrfre (i.e., rarsec11)ara7)ers and frilly enclosed iincler
roof) and lamiscahing.
Mechanical equipment consists of heat exchangers and electrical boxes located on the east side of the building.
Their location was included in the landscape plan with shiubbeiv used to screen them from view. The adjacent
building to the syest backs to the project on this side and is further screened by a five foot tall cedar fence along
the property- line.
cl. Exterior lighting stanclarcls and fixtures shall be of a design aml size consistent with safeol, builcing architecture
and acljacentarea. Lighting shall be shielclecl and restrained in design tivith no off site glare .~hill -over. Excessive
brightness cover' brilliant color s shall not be used unless clear °lv demonstrated to be integr °al to building
architecture.
Site lighting is provided on the building and from the tivo streetlights on the public right -of -way. The project
involves installing one nest' streetlight. Light levels are shosyn on Attachment C; the building mounted lighting
does not spill onto adjacent properties. The building mounted light fixture is shown on Attachment D.
In addition to the specific criteria of the Board ofArehiteetural Review, 7)ro7)osecl cIevelo7)nwnt rvrustshow consistency
with adohtedhlans and regulations (18.100.030 TMC.) Below are the .tihecificholicies from the adopted Comprehensive
Plan that relate to the location of the 1)rol)osal.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
B. RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL CENTER (RCC) ZONE
Goal 7.7: 'Residential Conwwreial Centers that bring srvuill eorvuvrereial concentrations into existing residential
neighbor °hoods to improve existing residential areas tivhile lvrovichriglvroclucts and services to nearby residents
1. The Clevelolvrnent achieves alveclestrian transition between buildings, streets and acrjacentivrolverties (7.7.5).
Sidewalks are created across the public frontage and pedestrian paths connect the sidewalk to the building and
each commercial space.
2. The development incorporates small -scale pedestrian amenities such as benches and canopies, to convey the
impression of a residential center and community focal point (7.7.8).
A picnic bench is includes in the recreation space, syhich is located in front of the building. The picnic bench
and the entire recreation area is not fenced in and intended to be available to both residents and employees and
guests of the commercial spaces.
SM Page 7 of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
13
3. The develol)rnentl)rovides al)l)rol)riate structural transitions (i.e. arse of Similar building scale, cornl)atil
architectural srides, etc.) between residential and eonwwreial areas (7.7.7).
The building scale is defined by the zoning code. The surrounding developments are one or one and -a -half
stoic The architectural style is traditional. The surrounding built environment consists of older bungalows
and nondescript commercial structures.
4. The develol)nwnt enrl)lol°s design elements that hell) to blend it in with the character of the residential
neighborhood (7.7.9).
The building employs residential architecture features includin lap siding, asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl
windows, and a hip roof.
.5. Where there are existing res0entaal structures on site, the eonwwrcial develol)nwnt should be achieveCl
hriinar °ill' through neti! construction, rather than the convey Sion ofexisting residential structures to cornrnercial
uses (7.7.3).
There are no existing structures on the site.
G. Through l)arkingl)laeernent and setbacks (e.g loeating1mrking behind or beside buildings), the develol)nwnt
should hell) to achieve conymctness ofbuilding form andl)edestrian orientation, helping to create a focall)oint
in the Residential Conwwreial Center (7.7.4).
Parking is located at the side and rear of the building. The building site is limited by existing parking and
access easements across the west and north of the parcel. The building is setback farther than code requires and
about five feet lower than the right of ivay.
CONCLUSIONS
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Site Design
The proposed site design meets the design review criteria. The project developer ivas faced with the challenge of
creating a project that is harmonious with a neighborhood that shows signs of age and disinvestment. The
existing homes are overv,-helm*nglv smaller and shorter than code allows and the commercial development is only
one stoi while the code allows three stories. The height and scale of the building are limited by code and the
building's size is constrained by parking and recreation space requirements. In order to harmonize with the
adjacent single fancily homes, the project proposes a "residential appearance" to the upper two stories of the
building where the residential units are located. Finish materials are residential in appearance and the building's
traditional architecture is respectful of the surrounding development.
The nature of a mixed -use building is to create commercial space that is visually and physically accessible from
the public sways leaving more private spaces available for non-commercial or residential uses. To achieve this
end, eight of the nine residential units are located on the tsvo upper floors and the one accessible unit is located on
the ground level at the rear of the building. A sidewalk with landscape strip will be the first section of sidewalk
along 164"' Street and swill connect to the front of the building via pedestrian paths. Landscaping swill line the
vehicular driveway and planting islands swill break up the visual appearance of the parking area. Existing
easements and topography constrained where the building could be located but the effect of increasing the
buildings setback from the street swill have the effect of visually decreasing the perceived height of the building.
Locating the recreation space at the front of the building allows for a transition from the private residences to the
public right- of -ivav_ The pea patch garden will act as an active recreation activity_ that will draw residents outside
SM Page 8 of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
IM,
and afford an opportunity to engage Nyith other members of the community.
2. Building Design.
This project can be vievved as a harbinger of future development envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The
building is larger and taller than the existing development but it is within the size limitations established in the code
and it is located on the site in such a Nyay as to minimize the appearance of its mass. The applicant originally
proposed a modern or contemporaiv styled building and changed the design to this more traditional style in an
attempt to harmonize with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The use of residential -type finish materials on
the residential portions of the building and commercial materials on the commercial portions is effective to illustrate
the uses of the building and integrate well into the overall building design. The use of vertical modulation of the
walls on the upper floors creates visual interest. The use of one color on the upper stories diminishes the ability to
distinguish the modulation and increases the building's prominence. Using a second color on these projecting or
receding features on the upper stories could draw attention to the modulation, increase the visual interest, and
decrease the appearance of a large vertical surface. Adding a second color to the upper stories should be a condition
of approval. The applicant has proposed using split -face CMU block for the sign base and trash enclosure. This
detail is not called out on the plans and should be added as a condition of approval.
Including a ground floor accessible unit allovvs the applicant to meet the requirements of the Federal Fair Housing
Act (FHA). To meet the code requirement of residential above commercial uses would require an elevator, which
Nvould make the project economically infeasible. Locating an accessible unit on the ground floor meets the purpose
of the code and is consistent Nyith the purpose of the zoning district and the comprehensive plan and necessary for
FHA compliance.
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment.
The existing mature Hemlock tree provides vein limited canopy- coverage and does not contribute to the natural
beauty of the site. While the tree can possibly be preseiired, grading and utility Nyork may harm the tree and its
location is a hindrance to creating a functional recreation space. Staff supports removing the existing Hemlock tree.
Recreation space often involves play structures or other items for children. The recreation space includes a pea patch
that can be used by either adults or children and supports the current trend of urban farming. Placing the required
recreation space in the front of the building will increase the opportunity- for residents to interact with other members
of the neighborhood.
The planting beds meet the requirement for depth but the applicant increased the plant material to approximately
twice the plant material required by code. A predominately native plant palate decrease Nyatering needs although
irrigation is still required and provided. Pathways lead around the building and to the public street; the paths
adjacent to the building are covered with avvmings.
4. Miscellaneous Structures.
The final size of the sign and sign base be verified for code compliance -,yhen the applicant applies for a sign
permit. The applicant discussed building the trash enclosure and sign base out of grad- CMU block to mirror the grad-
color of the building's base. This material is not called out on the plan and should be added as a condition of
approval. The applicant verbally discussed sign light boxes mounted on the avvnings for the commercial tenants.
Canopy-edge signs (signs mounted above or along the edge of a canopy) are regulated under the sign code. TMC
19.20.05017 says that canopy edge signs are limited to a single roNy of letters not to exceed tvvelve inches in height.
Therefore, light boxes would not be allowed and channel cut letters would be required. This is a code requirement
and does not need to be a condition of approval.
The miscellaneous structures, including a bike rack, picnic area, wall and freestanding signs, and trash collection
area all meet code.
SM Page 9 of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
15
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDELINES:
The proposal meets the applicable goals of the comprehensive plan. This mixed -use building incorporates
commercial spaces to sell e the surrounding residential uses and includes residential design features to incorporate
into surrounding residential neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the BAR adopt the Findings and Conclusions as noted in this staff report and approve the request
subject to the following conditions.
The trash enclosure and sign base shall be made from gray split face CMU. This detail is not called out on the
plans.
2. Add a second color to the second and thud floors in addition to the Chocolate color. The new color shall be
applied to the inset /projecting vertical sections to increase the appearance of modulation and to break up the
visual mass of the upper stories.
Conditions of approval that will be added to the future Building Permit:
1. No changes to the Design Review approved plans and conditions will be allowed without prior approval of the
Planning Department, these include changes to the exterior finishes of the building, landscaping (both design and
plant species), site plan, and site finishes. If you wish to make any changes you must submit a written request
along with a justification for the requested change and an explanation as to ivhv the issue ivas not addressed as
part of the design review process.
2. All design elements on the building and the site, including landscaping must be completed prior to final
occupancy The city will not allow the design elements to be deferred; all items must be completed before final
inspection. It is highly- unlikely that the city will consider financial guarantee in lieu of completing the work.
3. A soils inspection will be required after amending the soil, but before any plants are installed.
4. An inspection to approve the exterior finishes (materials and colors) is required before doing any exterior finish
work, to ensure that the finishes approved as part of the design review process are being used.
5. Prior to requesting a landscaping inspection the applicant shall provide an affidavit from the landscape architect,
stating that the landscaping Nvas installed per approved plans. As part of the landscaping inspection you will need
to verify that the irrigation system is working properly-.
Informational Items
A sign permit is required for any new signs on the site including building mounted signs. TMC 19.20.05017 says
that canopy edge signs are limited to a single row of letters not to exceed twehre inches in height. Therefore, light
boxes would not be allowed and channel cut letters would be required.
2. This Design Review is subject to a 14 day_ appeal period. Commencing construction prior to the expiration of the
appeal period is at the applicant's risk.
SM Page 10 of 10 0.920 2012
Z: DCD n Clerk's PC Laserfiche Packet 09 -27 -12 L12 -019 Design Review Staff Report FIN aLdocx
Ir.
Attachment A: Project Discussion
McMicken Court
4228 South 164th Street, Tukwila
Project Discussion
The proposed project consists of a building containing 9 market rent 2 Bedroom, 1 Bathroom
apartments, and 3 commercial spaces. 4 of the apartments will be situated on the second and
third floor each, one unit will be on the ground floor to comply with the American Disability Act
and will be considered accessible. The apartments on the upper floors are accessible through
two separate staircases that are situated on opposite ends of the building; providing easy
access from either the public right of way or the parking lot. Each unit is assigned two parking
spaces. All tenants will have access to a common laundry room.
Each of the commercial spaces will be approx. 950 sqft in size and will each have its own
unisex accessible restroom. Each of the commercial units will be easily accessible from outside
of the building; there are no common corridors. Since access to the units will be directly from
the pedestrian walkway and from the parking lot, these units will be perfect for retail or office
use. To make the commercial units attractive, and abundance of parking opportunities is be
provided. Each unit will have its independent heat and cooling source. Proposed climate control
are ducted gas forced air furnaces for heat and heat pumps for cooling.
Site Planning
The site borders on residential zoning to the East and South (LDR) and on commercial zoning
(RCC and NCC) to the West and North. In order to facilitate a transition from the multi family
use and the single family use of the adjoining zoning, we situated the building towards the West
of the property (towards to commercial area), to allow for a visual transition from multi to single
family use. To further mitigate the visual transition, we used the existing topographic feature
namely the fact that the property slopes away from the street towards the North. By placing the
building towards the lower part of the property it will appear smaller as viewed from the street
since it will sit 5 feet below street level. This, too will help to create a more favourable visual
transition towards the one story single family building on the adjoining properties.
An extensive 10' wide landscape buffer along the East side of the site will not only enhance this
visual transition but will also provide screen to improve privacy.
To provide a physical transition between the project and the public right of way, we propose
a 4' wide pedestrian walkway from the street to the building situated towards the West of the
frontage, and a drive -way for vehicular traffic towards the East of the front. In order to create a
visual focus point for both entries, we propose extensive landscape features.
To reduce the visual impact of large paved areas, the parking lot area is broken up by five
landscaped islands.
Building Design
The challenge of the design process is based on the proximity of the project to the LDR zoning,
which is dominated by single family residences. That means that the proposed design should
help to mitigate a transition from quasi commercial to residential use. To take this into account,
the residential part of the proposed building contains many features that are usually attributed to
residential construction like lap siding and vinyl windows. This will help with a more harmonious
transition to the residential area. The commercial part of the building on the other hand uses
architectural design features usually attributed to commercial building like the steel awnings, the
17
illuminated signs, and aluminum doors and windows.
To avoid monotony of design, the facade of the building is broken up by using different siding
materials, but also by cantilevering certain areas of the building.
Shopping
The units will have easy access to shopping due to the proximity of the Safeway grocery store
and the mall on the West side of 42nd Ave South. Southcenter Mall is a 10 minute drive away.
Recreation
Not counting the landscaped setback areas, the project has a proposed recreation area of
ca. 1805 sq ft, of which 305 sq ft. are designated as a picnic area complete with picnic table
and BBQ. Further 1190 sq. ft will consist of lawn and there will be 310 sq. ft. of community
gardens, where residents will be able to grow vegetables and flowers for their own use. Further
opportunities for recreational activity will be Crestview Park, which is a one minute walk from the
property.
Accessibility
The proposed project is centrally located between Interstate 5, Highway 99, and Highway 518.
All ramps can be reached from the property within minutes. The five corner junction of South
164th Street, 42nd Ave South and Military Road is an important focus point of this area and
allow for an easy reach by car. The immediate area is served by Metro bus route 156. The
Tukwila Light Rail station is 1 mile away.
Design
The proposed building is more than 100 feet away from the junction of Military Road /42nd Ave
South 164th Street. The design of the proposed structure is of a traditional nature in order to
fit into the neighborhood, which consists mainly of single family residence designed and built
during 1940 -1960 The different color patterns of the building will help to differentiate between
the commercial part of the building and the residential part.
Lighting
To provide a safe environment for tenants and visitors alike, proper illumination is essential. All
walk and drive ways including the parking lot will be properly illuminated without creating glare,
that would impact adjoining residences. The proposed light fixtures are mounted on the surface
of the building under the awnings. The awnings not only prevent an uncontrolled dissemination
of the light, but will also reflect the light downwards and out to illuminate the parking lot. The
existing street light in front of the site, situated on the Southwest corner will provide adequate
light at the street access level. Seattle City Light offered to install a second street light on the
existing utility pole, which is situated on the Southeast corner of the site.
I:
Attachment B: Colored Elevations
4228 south 164th street
exterior color
north elevation
west elevation
south elevation
east elevation
24
Attachment c site lighting plan
26
Ill Hoith Rivei Road
S, Joith AL11 01 a, I L 60542
Ph—
�8 0) 323 -5664
BEL "N' 630,897-0573
0 U T D alzbelson.coin
Model H36-5-G-IG Dimension Sheet
HEAVY-DUTY CHALLENGER 3 LOOPS 5 BIKES
37+1/2"
2" SCHEID 40 PIPE
47+112" (2-318"O.D.)
GRADE
T 36-314"+1 7
ELEVATION VIEW
GRADE
3/8" ANCHOR ROD
—CONCRETE
GRANULAR
NATIVE SOIL
Attachment D Design Details
Wall Mounted Lighting Fixture (typ.)
6.5" x 10" x 4"
Cast Aluminum and Polvcarbonate
Z
lL
LU
27
Z
IF
E !'3
HF
r as
27
W.*
Attachment E: Citizen Comment Letter
CITY OF TUKWILA 7/11/12
a
DCD 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD STE 100 ,,d
SUBJECT: FILE L12 -019, PL12 -020
42XX S. 164TH STREET
PARCEL 5379800670
TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA IS ZONED FOR SINGLE
DWELLINGS AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO STAY THAT WAY.
THE ADDITION OF (9) 2 BEDROOM APARTMENTS WILL HAVE AN UNDESIREABLE
EFFECT ON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. WHEREVER YOU HAVE APARTMENTS THE CRIME
RATE GOES UP CONSIDERABLY.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE EFFORT PUT INTO IMPROVING THE COMMUNITY SUCH
AS ENFORCING EXSISTING PROPERTIES TO BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND BY
REMOVING THOSE THAT ARE BEING USED AS MULTI FAMILY UNITS.
WE HAVE LIVED IN THIS AREA SINCE 1974 AND HAVE NOTICED THAT PROPERTIES
HAVE BEEN NOT KEPT UP AND THE ADDITION OF APARTMENTS WILL ONLY DO MORE
TO LOWER THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SINCERELY
GERALD G. HONEMANN
4408 S. 164TH STREET
TUKWILA, WA 98188
PHONE (206) 246 -0290
1
Stacy MacGregor
From: Michael Feddema <michael_feddema hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:37 PM
To: Stacy MacGregor; michael_feddema@hotmail.com; staceyfeddema @hotmail.com
Subject: McMickenCourt project located at 4228South 164th Street Tukwila, WA
Attachments: mcmicken.PNG
Hello Stacy,
This letter is in regards to the "McMicken Court" project located at 4228 South 164' Street Tukwila, WA. We
are the owners of the The Giving Tree Learning Center childcare located at 4230 s 164t' street, directly adjacent
to the project. We have an easement which allows us to have priority parking from 6.am 6pm. The plans
currently show there will be some construction and alterations to the existing parking. We have a few concerns
that need to be addressed to not affect the operations of our business and the safety of the children attending.
1. During construction there needs to be some sort of fenced barrier to hide the work being done and keep
any children from running into the site coming to and from our building. This will be a huge safety
concern for parents bringing children to our daycare.
2. There needs to be approximately 15 parking spaces at the minimum, preferably 20 open at any one time
and not under construction. We have 17 staff with cars, and around 80 -90 families that drive, as well as
two shuttle vans.
3. There is a playground that has proposed parking adjacent to it (marked A on landscape plan) We are
concerned about the safety of children with cars parking directly against the playground with children
present. A possibility would be to continue the 5 ft wide evergreen planting border in front of these cars
as well as metal posts, curb running the length to prevent lunging vehicles into the playground and
hitting a child. It is a huge safety issue with strangers parking in their vehicles up against a playground
with clear visibility without a buffer. We also have to conform to state licensing and safety standards,
and we do not a licenser to then deem it unsafe pulling our license.
4. We need to ensure that we have priority parking in the easement parking area (Marked A B on the
landscape plan) from 6am 6pm as stated in the easement agreement. Individual Parking stall signage
stating: "Childcare parking 6 a.m 6.pm" for the easement parking would work.
Attached is the landscape plan and please let me know if you received this and if this is sufficient,
Sincerely,
Michael Stacey Feddema
Cell: 206 353 -8865 206 353 -2704
Email: Michael feddema a,hotmail.com GTLCalive.com
30
attachment f site plan and first floor plan
32
Attachment G: 2nd and 3rd Floor Building Floor Plans
34
Attachment H: Building Elevations
36
1 Attachment 1: Landscape Plan
W.*
Attachment 1: Plant SChedu |e
.s
x
t
U
c
c
t
2
E
0
U
c
u
t
0
co
E
0
w77\
�Q
ƒ
\2
k\
M
f
E
0
E
CL
k
k
k
2\
cc
77
kC\ CL
0 3o
,c W
k g
a a o
aIL oCL
F11
V-
8
°7
3:
>/a
\CL
x
E
}L\ 7
7
=g
w_
2
0
C
k
E
y
j
x
t
U
c
c
t
2
E
0
U
c
u
t
0
co
E
0
w77\
�Q
ƒ
\2
k\
M
f
E
0
E
CL
k
k
k
2\
cc
77
kC\ CL
0 3o
,c W
k g
a a o
aIL oCL
F11
42
I L
C
G
N
U)
U)
a
L
V
2
_0 CI'
in i
L
_0
-2 a)
N
i
(6 C
Q U— p (D
U
O
C)
O
U
O (n U O E
(A D O
(n
N
0-.
_0
Q
O
O
E U a)
U (D
(D
O
O) Z3
O
O O
a)
Q
m C
M (n 0
a�j c O N
(6 O
fl-
O C U
(6 a)
N
J
U
a)
(6 -0
c (D
.0
0) O
O
(D C
"a
Q y
o
-0 U
(6
m O
5
c Du
E
O Q
N C C
O
E
U
O
o- (6
m (6 m c Q
W' 'O
O
O
O a)
c
(D +J N Q U
O
j b
C/)
O vl
7
N
Q
a) (n
(n 0
(6
N
a) c
O O c
O Q
a) a- U E O
O
p
O- M 0
O
y
(n (D
(6
0
O
E N
ca
O
(6 D U
ca a�
c .c
c
(on
U
y
(D (D
-0
0
W
U
a)
O N
(n
7 0 0 0 0
E O
0
O a)
N
N
(n .0 m ma c
U O (n
N
r
I\
U D(n X c
0 m O p
(6
(6
r
O
c
p CO (D
U4
m
U r p
O
0
O
V -a
(D Q U E
m m N O .2 a)
c U-0
(6
Op O O
U N (6 c
(D
M
2!
(6
2
c U U
L
a) O)
N
O (D
-p
O (D
L c
O
(D
O>
O U N 0
(U6
(D
O' W (D
N N N O
H N
x
N
n
N LL
3
N
O)
O)
N
N N
O)
O
N
pN
n
rn
N
o rn
(6
m
0
0
O; N
0 N
N
_0
N O) N
_0
N
3i
W p 0
E N
N
c 7 0
a)
p
(6 J 00
a) UN
J 00
UN
(6 (6
E
(6 (6 (6 (6
(D E
7 C
=N
N
Q
=�(D
(D
Un W
Un =Un W
U) 0
W
U
(6
aD
O
U
o
J
Q
(D
T
D
z
pU)
c
c
a) O
E:
a)
7 0
O
0
W CI.
a) C
c c
O 2 m
a
a E
0) T- ca
p
(D c
E
m O
-0 Y 7 T
C
(D
a)
a)
p'�
o
�c>
g
0Q 1�
(D a)
Ear
(D
U
C
U6,
N (D
U
(a 3: (D
0_ O -0
c M
(6 a) OU O)
-p O c
(6
0
(D
a)
a) a)
O m
0 c O
O (D
(6
7
X
E
Q po
c
(n
[if 0)
(n
Q°
oO(
-0Q
o m
Q�
E
0
-0
X
0 O
Y a)
Z3 M
(n
M
a)
aD
cU c
E
a)
c�
Q
o m a)
N 0
(n Z3
O
E
ca
E c
(D
0 0- _C (n
Q
(n
U
C
(n
C
O
O
O
Q p W e
Z m
N
p
O
c U
N
E
c
0 0 t
c (6
m c�
U U O
i
U
�i
a�
(n a)
c
C (6 in
(6
E
(n Q
(D
p c
(6
U
(6
Q
o- a)
o Q
o
c
O)
N
(n
N c
a)
co 0 Y
'J.
a�i U
a)
p) .0
a)
(n�
E.;0)
c (n E
(6
Q� E
(D
C
Q (6
Q
O
a) (D
D c:
O O
a)
O
O N
O
U)
c a)
D
C
(D W
0 .0
O
(n
0
C
(D O
U (D
C Y U C
Z3
U U
C O
O O_
Q E U
D
O
(6 _0
c a)
a) U (6
c �i a)
0_
O
a)
0_
Z
O S6 a)
(D
a) E c
c c O
0 0
(6
a)
C)f
U (6
O:
C
c
(D
c
O
V U
Q
(6 0
CO
i
Ln i
(D
L(7
V
00
lC
C
N
V
V
as
ao
�o
Q
Q
Q-
2
p
TMC 18.28 TUC District Zoning Regulations Revised Issues Matrix
Note that comments listed without an exhibit reference were delivered
verbally during the public hearing.
Page in Zoning Code Comment Exhibit #1
Plan lanquagge changes in strikout/underline, recommendation in bold) Date /Source
P 3 18.28 020 How to use the development code Staff recommends edits that Staff edits
clarify how the Corridor standards are applied. Edits do not change the
meaning or intent of the regulations.
p 4 TMC 18.28 020 C Design review thresholds. Should raise the threshold
Ex. 6, 7, 9; PC
under which residential development is reviewed administratively from 20
mtg 6/28/12,
dwelling units to 30 dwelling units (50 in Exhibit 7). This is more
Open House,
representative of the type of multifamily project that will initially be
Jamie Durkin
proposed in SC Raising the threshold will be an incentive for small -scale
multifamily development. Increasing threshold will encourage the
development of small cluster residential units near transit.
p 4, Revise the third bullet under (1) to read: "Any exterior repair,
18.28 020 reconstruction, cosmetic alterations or improvements, when the cost of
C 1.1b (1) that work exceeds ten percent (10%) of the building's current assessed
valuation."
p 4 Is it the intent to exempt repairs and maintenance for existing buildings
that may trigger a design review? If so, where does the code expressly
state this?
p 4 Segale is concerned aboutthe lowthreshold for applying the new
18.28 020 regulations to improvements to non conforming uses The current
C approach has the potential to impose tens or hundreds of thousands of
dollars of improvements on a landlord who simply wants to improve the
space for a new tenant. For example reroof of a strip commercial building
could exceed 10% of the building value triggering design review and the
following:
Parking
Landscaping
Private Frontage and Building Placement which could potentially require
the entire building to be relocated
Architectural Design Regulations
In the foregoing situation it is highly unlikely that the landlord is going to
repair the roof The cost will exceed the consideration the landlord
received in its leases. The situation could lead to the tenants terminating
the lease and moving out of the building and potentially the city The
EcoNW memorandum supports our contention that the TUC Plan creates
a disincentive to invest in the City Rather than comply with the City's
mandates developers will simply choose not to build.
Ex. 1, 6.25 12
Staff commentlanalysis /options
[at rrz Revise 18.28 020.13.4.a. as follows:
"Thoroughfare configuration, public frontage conditions, building and
parking placement, front yard landscaping, and architectural
aspects of that Dortion of a building's fagade within the first 185 feet
of a parcel, measured from the curb line. See the Corridor Type
6charts. Fiaures 3 -10
Current standards require all multi family development to go through
public hearing design review so raising the threshold to 20 is
already a significant streamlining of the process. The tradeoff is
having a faster processing time (admin review) versus community
interaction in the process (BAR review) No
change Ok to go higher since
projects would not be near single family areas Mann, McLeod,
Strander
Revise as suggested to match current
Letter from Brent language
Carson Make similar change to 18.28.20 C.2.a.(1) second bullet and
(VanNess 18.28.20.C.2.b.(1) second bullet.
Feldman I In favor of loosening thresholds for building repairs and
GordonDerr) updates Mann
Strander 9 /10/12 No, exterior changes count toward the 10% threshold as they do
Email now See p 4.
Ex. 11, 8/23/12, The threshold for triggering design review has been the same since
Balint for Segale design reviewwas first implemented in Tukwila. The Plan would
expand the project types eligible for the streamlined administrative
review process. It is unclear if this example is purely a reroof or if
there is a change in use contemplated for the "new tenant."
However, repairs to a roof that is not visible from a street, parking
lot or sidewalk, and therefore will not have any impact on the
building design, should be exempted from the design review
threshold calculation.
Pg. 4, 18.28 020 C 1.1b (1), 3rd bullet
Revise as follows "Any exterior repair, reconstruction, cosmetic
alterations or improvements, when the cost of that work exceeds ten
percent (10 of the building's current assessed valuation (the cost
of repairs to or reconstruction of roofs screened by DaraDet walls is
exempt)
Pg. 4, 1828 020 C2.a.(1), 2nd bullet and 1828.020.C2.b.(1), 2nd
bullet Revise as follows: "Any exterior repair, reconstruction,
cosmetic alterations or improvements to buildings over 10,000
square feet, when the cost exceeds ten percent (10 of the
building's current assessed valuation (the cost of repairs to or
reconstruction of roofs screened by DaraDet walls is exempt) shall
be reviewed administratively as a Type 2 decision (see TMC
Chapter 18 60)
Per existing standards at 18.70.080 parking conformance is
triggered by a change of use or addition that requires additional
parking, the reroof and design review are irrelevant. In addition the
proposed parking standards are lower than the existing code so
even a change of use may not require additional parking.
Per existing standards at 18.70 090 Design review does trigger
landscape conformance The proposed landscape standards are
similar to the existing standards and the BAR is explicitly given
flexibility to adapt them for existing sites so hardship is minimized.
In the past the BAR has demonstrated a great deal of flexibility and
common sense during design review on existing structures
Only the Walkable Corridor and Tukwila Pond Esplanade have
frontage coverage and maximum front yard setbacks. These
standards only apply to new development, not the tenant
improvement used in the example The Walmart /Renton court case
included along with these comments is not on point because the
question was whether an addition to a building 555' from the street
could be required to meet a minimum front yard setback, the
conclusion was that it could not. Our corridor regulations only apply
185' back from the curb, 18.28.020 A 4 a.
The new Design Manual provides greater clarity about the design
goals for the Southcenter area. It is structured to provide general
design criteria to be met along with several examples and
alternatives for how that might be done Projects within the
Workplace District continue to use the existing design criteria.
The idea is that when an owner reinvests in a building it should
move toward the area's vision. The proposed changes would
exempt non visible reroofs from the design review value calculation.
The EcoNW memo (on the 2009 draft not the current proposal)
actually says "It is our understanding that the City derived the
thresholds through a careful review and analysis of building permits
from prior years and therefore represent levels of investment both
in absolute dollars and percent relative to total value that are
appropriate for Tukwila." p. 17
09/17/2012
W \L 45
ong Range Projects \Southcenter Plan \comment matrix_PC hearings \FINAL PC Review Draft 2012 Matrix 17 12.xlsx 1
Page# in
Zoning Code Comment
Exhibit#/
Staff coommentlahalysisloptiions
Plan
(language changes in strikouttunderline recommendation in bold)
DatelSource
p 5,
Add new subsection (3) to 1828 020 C 1.1b to read as follows "(3) Design
Ex. 1, 625 12,
Do not make the proposed revision
1828 020
review is only reauired for that Dortion of a structure triaaerina the design
Letter from Brent because it would conflict with 1828 030 C (Pad Development,
C 1.b
review threshold
Carson
Expansions or Complete Redevelopment)2 which states:
8/23/12
This language would clarify that when an exterior repair, reconstruction,
(VanlJess
Expansions of existing buildings shall meet all requirements for the
alteration or improvement triggers design review, or when exterior
Feldman
new portions of the structure. and any alterations to non conforming
expansion triggers design review, design review would be limited to that
GordonDerr)
landscape areas or parking lots shall be made in accordance with
Letter from Brent in the Design Manual under 1 Architectural Concept D 4
portion of the structure which is being affected. This clarification would
Carson Alternately an existina buildina may be modified usina the design
the standards in TMC Chapter 18 70 If design review is
(VanlJess vocabulary carried over from the addition to create compatibility
ensure that the applicability for design review is consistent with
Feldman then strike the language as proposed.
triggered limited modifications to the exterior of the existing
or on err
applicability of the remainder of Chapt 18.28, as described in proposed
portion of the structure maybe required to aesthetically unify
section 1828.030 C2, which states that "expansions of existing buildings
the structure. The intent
shall meet all requirements for the new portions of the structure
is to allowfor situations like the IFly project where a tenant
Westfield is concerned that the design manual may impose requirements
improvement that is very different in color /style /materials is made
that result in substantially increased development costs and may fail to
compatible by adding selected design elements onto the existing
recognize unique issues faced by Westfield existing prospective
structure Staff is suggesting a new example in the Design Manual
tenants.
under 1 Architectural Concept D 4 to address this. If the PC adopts
the suggested addition to the Design Manual the bold sentence
above may not be needed.
Mann in favor of loosening requirements for
pna
p 8, Table
Continue most of the current permitted uses in the TUC to give flexibility
Ex. 6, 7, 9; PC
These uses are all permitted within at least one of the Southcenter
1
and not create new nonconforming uses. Add back permitted uses such
mtg 6/28/12,
districts They are not permitted in the TOD district because these
as bars, lounges, night clubs, billiard halls, brew pubs, restaurants with
Open House,
uses would not necessarily be an appropriate neighbor for
drive -thru, internet data centers, bulk retail.
Jamie Durkin.
residential uses because of noise and late hours of operation. It is
PH Written
not clear into which additional districts he would like them added
comment dated
into. A restaurant with an associated cocktail lounge is permitted
823.12.
throughout the urban center No change
J Desimone PH
I Add back uses that would attract people,
testimony
especially brew pubs McLeod, Mann, Hunter See for
the table change to allow uses into the TOD District.
W
p 11 Table Increase allowable building height in the TOD zone to 70 feet within the
Ex. 6, 7, 9; PC
2 100 foot distance of the high water mark on properties adjacent to the
mtg 6/28/12,
river in the TOD zone that do not flood and have no need for dykes. By
Open House,
allowing smaller parcels along the river within the TOD zone to develop
Jamie Durkin.
mixed use residential up to 70 feet within 100 feet of high water mark will
PH Written
encourage residential development. These areas are not prone to flooding
comment dated
and pose not public risk environmental impacts.
8.23.12. PH
intent is that the repairs listed in TMC 18 70.050(1) DO NOT trigger the
testimony
p 19 At 40 -50' the street tree spacing for the Freeway Frontage corridor is
Alford PC mtg
much larger than the 20 -30' called for in the other corridors. Spacing
8/23/12
should be reduced or larger trees should be required.
p 22
1828 030
p 22
18.28 030
C2.
Balint 8/28/12
This would require a change to the Shoreline Master Program which
limits heights to 45' within the 200' Shoreline Zone Nothing in the
proposed draft of 18.28 prevents use of the height incentive in the
shoreline overlay ;jai No change
This spacing was chosen based on the higher speeds and lower
pedestrian volumes along this stretch of street. Existing trees are
spaced closer together than 40'
Revise the street tree spacing for the
Freeway Frontage corridor as follows: Each block shall be planted
with deciduous trees at a maximum distance of 4930 -50' derendina
on species
The suggested change would create a lower design review
With respect to 18.28.030(5), the reference to 18 70 doesn't make clear
Email threshold for non conforming structures than for conforming
whether alterations to nonconforming structures trigger the requirements
structures. If their exterior repairs and maintenance trigger design
of chapter 18.28. TMC 18.70 050(1) addresses ordinary maintenance of
review they should be subject to the same process as other similarly
nonconforming structures, but it doesn't provide guidance with respect to
situated buildings No change
the applicability of chapter 18.28 when such repairs are made. Our
concern is that an ordinary repair that costs more than 10% of the
assessed value of the building will trigger the corridor standards. If your
intent is that the repairs listed in TMC 18 70.050(1) DO NOT trigger the
requirements 1828, 1 suggest the following change 1828 030 5
Alteration to nonconforming structures uses, landscape areas or parking
lots shall be made in accordance with the standards in TMC Chapter
18.70 and the corridor standards set forth in this chapter 18.28 shall not
anniv to ordinary maintenance of a nonconformina structure allowed by
TMC 18 78 050
1828 030 C2. Mall asks for the following revised language "Expansions
Ex. 10, 8/23/12, If the PC adds the suggested new example
of existing buildings shall meet all requirements for the new portions of the
Letter from Brent in the Design Manual under 1 Architectural Concept D 4
structure, and any alterations to non conforming landscape areas or
Carson Alternately an existina buildina may be modified usina the design
parking lots shall be made in accordance with the standards in TMC
(VanlJess vocabulary carried over from the addition to create compatibility
Chapter 18 70. {f d:_: t:: m
Feldman then strike the language as proposed.
:.4.._ Rg PEFt En Ef the stiHe-:
or on err
ae Hn if ,.h The Mall's concern is that the term
"limited modifications" provides no constraints on the type or extent of
modifications that could be imposed by the City, which may end up being
too expensive. The phrase "the existing portion of the structure" could be
used to impose exterior alterations far from a small expansion, and used
to impose exterior alterations far from the small area being expanded.
They believe the Design Manual provisions accomplish the City's intent for
this provision.
p 24 Requiring new streets every 800' does not seem like a coordinated or Ex. 11, 8/23/12, This standard only applies when the transportation impacts of an
18.28 060 legal approach to achieving the City's desired grid system. The City should Balint for Segale intensification of use make the new street reasonably necessary
make comprehensive changes to its transportation improvement plan and 18.28 030 B The parties benefitting from a use intensification
make the necessary public investments in land and infrastructure. should share the burden of mitigating the impacts on the
surrounding area. For reference the Segale owned strip center has
less than 700' of frontage each on Strander and Andover Park W
Nochange
p 28 This provision has dubious legal validity New streets should not be Ex. 11, 8/23/12, We agree about when new streets should be required. The section
18.28 120 required unless necessary for access or to meet established Balint for Segale only applies when the transportation impacts of an intensification of
transportation levels of service. use make the new street reasonably necessary 1828 030 B
No change
09/17/2012
W' \Long Range Projects \Southcenter Plan \comment matrix hearings \FINAL PC Review Draft 2012 Issues Matrix _9 17 12.xlsx 2
Page in Zoning Code Comment
Plan (language changes in strikouttunderline recommendation in bold)
p 29 Requiring an owner of an existing building to install decorative lighting will
18.28 130 simply discourage the building owner from performing improvements
A 8 because of the extra cost associated with this and other unnecessary
design related requirements Lighting should be necessary for safety, not
for aesthetics Likewise street furnishings such as benches and trash
receptacles are required "where appropriate This language is vague and
requiring benches and furnishings doesn't resolve a public harm, it confers
a public benefit. Providing amenities such as benches should be at the
discretion of the building owner or tenant.
P 30 This requirement should absolutely not apply to additions /renovations to
1828 140 existing buildings. Per the KCCPP growth within an urban center is
supposed to be encouraged, requiring a building owner who wants to add
20,000 sf to and existing 100,000 sf building to RELOCATE the existing
building so that it meets building orientation requirements will absolutely
stifle growth. For an example of how a similar requirement has gone awry
read the attached case involving Renton and Walmart.
facing that street or open space, and
b Incorporates architectural elements and details that are visually
interesting, attractive and scaled to the pedestrian on the building
fagade facing the street or open space This
standard does not contain a maximum setback that could be read to
require relocation of a building as in the Renton case. In addition
our corridor regulations only apply to development within 185' back
from the curb, 18.28.020 A 4 a.
(See similar response below regarding
transparency) Raise the threshold for compliance with building
orientation for existing buildings. Use a reconstruction threshold
similar to what is currently required for Nonconforming Structures
(TMC 18 70.050).
Add the following to 18.28 030 C Applicability
4 Compliance with buildina orientation and around level
transparencv is reauired for existina buildinas only if thev are
destroved by anv means to an extent of more than 50% of its
replacement cost at the time of destruction in the iudaement of the
Citv's Buildina Official.
P 30 What does it mean for a building to be located along a street as required Strander 9/10/12 During the code revisions the maximum setback standard was
18.28 140 by 18.28.140?
p 30
1828 140 In our discussion today Nora clarified the intent of TMC 1828 140
"Building Orientation to Street /Open Space" and said it doesn't require
buildings to be located along the street (because there is no maximum
setback). Changes were made to 18.28 140 1 that appear to relax the
building orientation standard, but those changes haven't been applied
throughout the entire section of the code I suggest changing 18.28 140.2
as follows: Where Building Orientation to Streets /Open Space is required,
all buildings shall be located along aad or oriented towards new or existing
street(s) or public open spaces, excluding alleys.
p 40 This requirement is very problematic when applied to existing buildings.
18.28.200 Installation of new or larger windows required to reach minimum
transparency may not be structurally feasible The cost for such work
includes both shop -front construction and expense of redesign of the shop
floor layout. To apply this rule universally to an entire existing building is
cost prohibitive. While it can be dealt with individually (on a tenant by
tenant basis) it may result in an unpleasing mix of old and new storefronts
side by side.
p 41 It is hard to fathom the legal basis for this requirement as it arbitrarily Ex. 11, 8/23/12;
18.28.220 imposes a significant burden on certain property owners simply for the Balint for Segale
purpose of conferring a public aesthetic amenity If the City wants to
emphasize certain corners, it should create an incentive for property
owners to follow the corner feature guidelines, not a requirement
adherence
p 42 Section A 2b requires pathways to connect the public sidewalk to the front Ex. 11, 8/23/12,
18.28.230 door and to any parking areas Retrofitting an existing parking lot would Balint for Segale
result in a reduction of parking stalls that would take the property into a
non conforming state and limit the property owner in marketing and
leasing efforts as certain retail uses would no longer qualify for tenancy
due to overall parking counts.
Email removed from this requirement so the phrase "located along" the
street does not have a specific meaning and should be deleted.
Change 18.28.140 2. to read: Where
Building Orientation to Streets /Open Space is required, all buildings
shall be lesate4 a: =-g 2. oriented towards new or existing street(s)
or public open spaces. excludina allevs.
Balint 8/28/12 During the code revisions the maximum setback standard was
Email removed from this requirement so the phrase "located along" the
street does not have a specific meaning and should be deleted.
Change 18.28.140 2. to read: Where
Building Orientation to Streets /Open Space is required, all buildings
shall be {eeated a::-.; _'--oriented towards new or existing street(s)
or public open spaces, excluding alleys.
Ex. 11, 8/23/12, This standard only applies to building fagades that face "a street,
Balint for Segale public sidewalk, open space, or river" when design review is
triggered. Non- commercial uses (industrial, warehouse) require
much lower levels of transparency
(See similar comment above regarding
building orientation). Raise the threshold for compliance with
transparency requirements for existing buildings. Use a
reconstruction threshold similar to what is currently required for
Nonconforming Structures (TMC 18.70 050).
Exhibit#/ Staff coommentlahalysisloptiions
Date /Source
Ex. 11, 8/23/12; This standard only applies when the transportation impacts of an
Balint for Segale intensification of use make the frontage improvements reasonably
necessary 18.28.030 B. Even then there are exceptions under
18.28 130 B when the cost of the improvements are
disproportionate to the cost of the triggering work. ':1...
M No change
Ex. 11, 8/23/12; The commenter seems to have misread the standard. A building is
Balint for Segale oriented to a street or open space if the building:
a. Has a primary public entrance which opens directly on to or
Add the following to 18.28.030.C. Applicability:
4 Compliance with buildina orientation and around level
transparencv is reauired for existina buildinas only if thev are
destroved by anv means to an extent of more than 50% of its
replacement cost at the time of destruction in the iudaement of the
Citv's Buildinn Official
This is an example of a requirement in the prior draft of the Plan
being converted to a design guideline. Addressing site specific
characteristics such as being located on a high- traffic corner is an
element in high quality urban design. We would welcome any
suggestions for incentives beyond the setback and height
exceptions and special sign allowance at 19.20 050 D
Providing safe paths for employees and customers to travel
between the sidewalk and front door is part of high quality urban
design as well as an ADA requirement. This is unlikely to create a
non conforming parking ratio because many sites already provide
this and the lower parking ratios in the draft Plan mean that many
sites will have excess parking after adoption. ':1...
No chanae
09/17/2012
W \L 47
ong Range Projects \Southcenter Plan \comment matrix_PC hearings \FINAL PC Review Draft 2012 Matrix 17 12.xlsx 3
Page# in
Zoning Code Comment
Exhibit#/
Staff commentlanalysisloptiions
Plan
(language changes in strikouttunderline recommendation in bold)
DatelSource
p 44
It is surprising to see the City extend its retroactive reach beyond public
Ex. 11, 8/23/12,
The intent is that if landscaping is planted anywhere on site it should
18.28.240
frontage to "other areas on- premises° The language being proposed is
Balint for Segale
survive, not create unsafe conditions (blind corners, harbor criminal
dictating pruning regulations within a property, notjust along street
activity, falling limbs), and provide screening where needed. Conflict
frontages. Depending on how the existing landscaping will tolerate the
between signage and trees, leading to the temptation to top them,
new pruning regulations, the TUC Plan could require a property owner to
was one of the reasons the new sign code only allows monument
replace all landscaping. Additionally the TUC Plan states that existing
signs. Topping is counter productive according to the Washington
trees may not be topped for any reason. More often than not, topping is
State Department of Natural Resources, resulting in dense growth
requested /required by the retail tenant to ensure signage visibility In retail
of weakly attached suckers, vulnerability to insect infestation and
leasing it is all about traffic counts, visibility and parking. We have tenant
fungal decay, which requires ongoing removal of hazardous limbs,
committments to ensure a signage sightline from the intersection of
This is why the current code already prohibits tree
Strander and Andover Park W As a result we do monitor the height of
topping, 18 52.050 B No Change
trees in the parking lot area and prune where necessary The proposed
TUC Plan assumes buildings are constructed immediately adjacent to the
road where signage visibility would not be impacted by any trees. Most of
the existing strip centers are set back where internal parking lot trees,
could, and do, impact signage. We agree with the City's goal that care
should be taken to preserve the integrity and visual appearance of existing
trees, however retail tenants rely on signage and frontage and oftentimes
this will drive site selection.
p 44
Who is responsible for maintaining landscaping on public thoroughfares?
Mann PC mtg
18.28.240 B 9 Landscaping is required to be maintained by the
Can the City charge owners if they don't maintain their landscaping?
8/23/12
property owner for the life of the project. Failure to maintain
landscaping is addressed as a code enforcement issue
r h No Chanae
p 49
It is unclear as to what level of compliance is being expected for
Ex. 11, 8/23/12,
See 1828.250 D 2. Compliance with the open space square
1828250
pedestrian passage and circulation in existing developed properties. It is
Balint for Segale
footage ratio listed in Table 3 is required for new construction. the
likely that the required open space minimum area and provisions needed
area of e.rpansion of existing buildings and changes in use from
for walkways is not attainable to maintain compliance with required
one category in Table 3 to another For existing buildings this
landscaping areas, parking stall counts, etc.
requirement applies to new square footage and intensifications of
use ,M NoChanae
50
1828250 Table 3. Concern about the developer costs associated with
Hundtofte PC
Staff pointed out that there is less private open space required per
open space requirement for residential uses. Are added costs too much to
mtg 524.12
unit than in the current code No Change
make a project pencil?
55
18.28.250 G, Concern over the visual impacts associated with requiring
Hundtofte PC
No Change
balconies for all MF units in residential developments in SC Too
mtg 5.24.12
cluttered? Not a positive addition to Tukwila's imaqe?
p 56
This entire section needs further consideration and review for existing
Ex. 11, 8/23/12,
The commenter seems to have misread the standard and is
18.28.260
properties Similar to all of the previous comments the addition of
Balint for Segale
unfamiliar with existing City requirements. Parking lot landscaping is
landscape islands and pedestrian circulation routes will trigger parking
already required throughout the City, see existing 18 52.035 The
ratio non compliance in existing properties. For existing properties the
reduced parking standards in the revised Plan are minimums, not
City's continued efforts to reduce current parking counts will very likely
maximums, so less parking is required not more and therefore could
result in a Landlord being found in default of parking commitments made
not create an economic hardship. No
in existing lease agreements. The requirement places undue economic
Change
hardship on Landlords of previously developed properties and will reduce
the tenant pool available to property owners to fill its vacancies.
p 58 Table
How do the recommended parking standards differ from those in the
Alford PC mtg
General retail is 7 spaces /1000 ufa lower than existing, restaurants
4
current code?
8/23/12
are 4/1000 lower, new category added for planned shopping centers
over 1 million SF to recognize the Mall's current parking variance
and the reductions in parking demand due to the conditions of that
variance, residential requirements set at the level used in the urban
renewal area to recognize the urban nature of any new housing
constructed in the Plan area No Change
p 59
TMC 1828260.B.5 b. Increase the distance a property may be from
Ex. 6, 7, 9; PC
It is almost 1/4 mile from the station to West Valley Highway so an
transit center in order to be eligible for a parking reduction from 600 to
mtg 6/28/12,
increase would allow businesses along Longacres to apply for the
1320 feet. This will allow for reduced parking requirements for residential
Open House,
reduction. The full 1/4 mile around the bus transit center would
development and encourage new housing to locate in close proximity to
Jamie Durkin
capture a large number of businesses for extent
transit center Studies have shown that this is the distance people will walk
of 600 and 1320 foot distances from the station and transit center
to commuter rail station.
Change distance to 1320' for residential
units, retain 600 for commercial uses.
p 59
Within 1/4 mile of Sounder Station, want only 1 space required per
J Desimone
for extent of 1320 foot distances from the station
dwelling unit.
and transit center Proposed code has already lowered parking
standards to 1 per studio or 1 bedroom, 1 5 for 2 bedrooms, 2 for 3
bedrooms v Change distance for parking
exception to 1320' for residential units.
Parking What incentives can we offer for creation of structured parking? It frees up Mann, Alford PC The ECONW technical report indicated that the type of developer
Structure space for development, reduces polluted run -off and is visually more mtg 8/23/12 incentives needed for parking structures will most likely take the
Incentives appealing. form of creative financing, public /private partnerships, and /or
predevelopment agreements rather than through regulatory
measures. Each project will have different needs, so ECONVV
recommends preparing a "public sector redevelopment tool kit" that
could be used to offer developers assistance in order to achieve the
community's goals for the urban center We would welcome other
suaaestions.
09/17/2012
4
W' \Long Range Projects \Southcenter Plan \comment matrix hearings \FINAL PC Review Draft 2012 Issues Matrix _9 17 12.xlsx 4
I L
C
G
U)
CD
U)
U)
C
G
CD
CD
0
L
CD
U
O
U)
D
D (D (6
(n N
a)
Q
O N
cn
N
;F: a)
I
N U
_0 m
(A
U°
(n
C
r
O
N O O
U N
E
O
U OI
0 E
(6 (6
N
C a) Q
m
p (D
-0 (6 O
(6
N
C
O U U
Q
O
Q O 0
E E
M
O
a)
a) D O O
U
O
Q O
C N
C:
E
(n N
U
C
CL C
-0 L
a) C
C
o
d
U
C
d a) N
i
<C 7 a)
C
Q
'a (6
L
O (6 C
0
Z:3 o a)
O
t
t
U)
0
U
X
+�+c Q
N 7
O
O
O C
a)
O E
a)
O
O
O
m
Q
0 3:
Q
O (1)
p O N 0
(n
N C
E :C
7
O E
C
U) N N
(A
v Z3
U) Q°
U E
in u
N
N
N
O
N
i
00
M N
m
M N
m
00
p
N
E
a) E a)
N
C°
0
0
cn
C N
(6 C N C N (6 C N
0 (n
X
O O
O z
E 0 O z E 0
N
W m
J>
(A C
In C-O -2Lo
O
J
N
W
J U
FD O N M Z O N
LL U CO J U LL U CO
U
W
`p
U
a)
c
O_
W
N
0
?i
.O
(n
Q
O -p 0
X
Q
7
0
Q- -o
a)
z
LL
o
O N°
E
C
(D
O O Z3 (n
o
o
0
o
U (n
-U-0
U.
E
a)
N
(D
E (6
a)
_0
M vi ate)
(D a)
a) o
C
(n
(6
(D
3:
E
(n a)
a) C Q
a)
(6
0)
L
a)
C
C
N
a)
U �n U
U_ a) j -E
C
m O
(ECM
��a)
E (D
c� c
c4 o- E�� a>i
i
(D
E -6 x
(D (D
o6 a
a)
E
Q
O (D O
U
O
O) C N_ U
C (6
.E
X
tL... LL O
0)
E _0
_0 N M(D O
(6
E
E
(D
(A
C
a) C
(n O
M U E 0
J C O U
.L O
7
(D (D
O O C (6 C
O
U
N
a)
3 m M U
(n
m .(n
(D N
O a)
�5�
Q
FU
E
E+ o)
>�`(nn0
o
(n 7
Q
C C O
U
(6 7
C (6 (6 E
N N
a) C
C
E U 0
(D O O- 0 (D
-0 U
O
cn
E
O
C, a) 'O Q°
T
O
a)
U O)
C O N> a) C
O
E O)
O C
M X
E 3: a)
(n
O
O
O O
O N O
U Q O
a) p
U
a)
0
U' O O N
O. X C
-0
U E�
(A O) (6
(D
O
W
a (D (a C
E
E
O E
c
N
E
a)
o
o _0
E -0
a)
(A
E
(0 a)
a) n
a) N
(n
0 N
v
O
z
C (6 (D
a)
a)
(D c� 0)
0
C O
c� Of
U Q E D
O°
0
O:
C
O
O
J
CD
;0
W
Oo6
Q
Q
0
C) 0
ao
a_W
D
50
General Topics Minor Staff Edits Matrix
Note that comments listed without an exhibit reference were
delivered verbally during the public hearing.
Topic
Comment
E hibit
Staff comment /analysis /options
(language changes In stnkouUundedme, recommendation m bold)
Date /Source
General
Concerned about potential flooding in the "workplace" areas,
Ex. 5, 7/17/12;
This is a long term issue that the City is working on with the King County Flood
Comment
particularly at Andover Park E 8 S.180th street. The insurance
Harris Klein
Control District. It is not addressed within the Southcenter Plan.
companies will not provide flood insurance at this time. Existing and
prospective tenants will not locate there. Would like the city to focus
on that.
Economic
Tukwila should be pro- active about getting new businesses. I would
Mann PC mtg
I ukwila funds an Economic Uevelopment Administrator position and uses lodging
Development
like to see a conference center Other cities are promoting
8/23/12
taxes to fund the Seattle Southside Visitors Bureau. The City explored creating a
themselves, we should too.
publicly owned conference center in the early 2000s and determined it was not
financially feasible.
General
The final documents are generally workable for Westfield.
B.Carson. PC
Comment noted
Comment
Public hearing
8/23/12,
written oral
comment
General
Need to be careful with plan and development requirements. Current
B.Schofeld.
Comment noted
Comment
economy is hurting Southcenter businesses. Need to be careful about
PC public
how city funds are spent- infrastructure is important.
hearing
8/23/12
Council
On 3/14/2011 the Council discussed 3 alternatives for the Southcenter
Ex. 11,
Direction
Plan and chose to reduce the scope of the project. The revised TUC
8/23/12, Balint
The Council was presented with outreach options that included a consultant led
Plan is not consistent with the direction given by Council. They
for Segale
process, an advisory group, and a standard legislative process with a reduced
specifically discussed converting design standards into into guidelines
scope. They chose the last and gave direction to streamline the Plan requirements
but the Plan still has requirements and requires design review A
and process. Staff briefed the CAP Committee on 9/21/11 on how we intended to
major re -write of the Plan is necessary
move forward. We combined 7 use districts and 3 scale districts into 5 new
districts, simplified the use categories, eliminated the thresholds for conformance
with the Plan in favor of existing triggers, eliminated the 2 story minimum, tower
bulk limit, building length limit, and build to corner requirements, narrowed the
frontage coverage requirement to apply to only 1 street type, moved the building
form standards into the Design Manual, provided more flexibility for the provision of
open space, lowered some parking requirements, and created incentives for
construction of frontage improvements and multi- family housing.
Countywide
There is no direct link between the TUC Plan and Urban Center
Ex. 11,
See the Comp Plan revisions p 3 Figure 22 for a comparison of the Countywide
Planning
status. Once designated as an urban center it is expected that a city
8/23/12, Balint
Planning Policies with the characteristics of Southcenter The zoning standards
Policies
will make planning decisions that allow an intense urban level of
for Segale
(height, setbacks, uses and transit infrastructure allow for the density of
growth and development. The Plan appears to miss the critical zoning
development required for urban centers. The CWPP also call for each urban
for growth component and is weighed too heavily toward directing
center to be a "unique, vibrant community that is an attractive place to live and
what growth will look like, rather than on making policy decisions that
work" with a "pedestrian emphasis" (FW -141 and "superior urban design" !LU -45 i.
will allow for that growth to take place.
The Plan started out as a prescriptive form -based code but has evolved to provide
much more flexibility and alternatives for achieving the vision.
EcoNW
The 2003 economic study found that the Citywas too regulatory and
McLeod PC
The 2002 market study and subsequent supplement were a supply and demand
Memo
the same conclusion was reached in the 2009 EcoNW study We
mtg 8/23/12
analysis and forecast of market conditions for the retail, office, lodging, light
need to make sure that the Plan is economically feasible.
industrial/warehousing and multi family sectors. They did not discuss the
Southcenter Plan regulations because they had not yet been developed. There
was a 2003 pro forma analysis of redevelopment of the Target /Regency site which
concluded that redevelopment to a higher intensity could be feasible with public
improvements to the Pond. The 4 prototypes in the 2009 study were all multi- story.
The 2 story prototype was feasible, the 6 and 11 story ones were not. This is
consistent with the existing development pattern. The 2009 version of the code
required 2 story development in some districts, that requirement has been
removed in the current draft. So the Plan anticipates future market conditions
where multi -story development is feasible but does not require it now
EcoNW
Is the ECONorthwest document on the City's website? Will
Strander
The EcoNW memo has been available on the Citys web site since it was
Memo
ECONorthwest prepare an analysis on this version of the Southcenter
9/10/12 Email
presented to the PC on 12/10/09, see Staff revised the current draft
Subarea Plan?
of the Plan to address the changes to the development code recommended in
Section 4.1 of the 2009 memo.
Ex. 11,
The EcoNW memo has been available on the Citys web site since it was
The City hired EcoNW to evaluate the Citys vision and the
8/23/12, Balint
presented to the PC on 12/10/09, Staff listened carefully to the
development regulations in the 2009 draft of the Plan. This
for Segale
feedback from the 3 focus groups and Eco's evaluation and made extensive
memorandum is attached as it is no longer available on the City's
changes to the Plan.
website. EcoNW concluded that the Plan and development code
require a type of development that is not financially viable at this time
because of uncertainty in the financial market, and is more Iikelyto be
EcoNW
viable even upon the market's return with significant public investment
Memo
in amenity and infrastructure. Some other key points include:
Stakeholder concerns that the building types were too expensive for
The 6 and 11 story prototypes were not financially feasible, though the 2 story one
Tukwila's market were realistic and TUC regulations are Iikelyto
was. Staff revised the Plan to address the changes to the development code
discourage improvements to existing structures
recommended in Section 4.1:
Organization and complexity- the number of districts were reduced, and the
form -based code sections were moved to the Design Manual or deleted
Thresholds- these were deleted in favor of existing standards
Parking some parking standards were lowered but until the transit investments
alter the mode split and on- street parking is added on -site parking is still needed.
Because there are no pay parking lots, city provided lots or on- street parking
available overflow is likely to result in hide and -ride on adjacent property or
customers going to other businesses.
Minimum heights 2 story standard was dropped, 25' minimum height only
required along Baker
Tower bulk and minimum frontage requirements -tower bulk standards were
deleted and frontage coverage requirements were limited to the Walkable and
Esplanade corridors
Open space EcoNW concluded that "the amount and type of pedestrian space
is consistent with other cities in the northwest." Staff added additional flexibility to
the standards.
Fire code- Tukwila has adopted a 5 over 1 ordinance as recommended
Higher end development will have to compete with well established
Retaining Tukwila's regional competitiveness is a key motive for developing the
areas in Seattle and KC
Plan.
If the City does require developers to fund all the off -site
The City has invested in the Klickitat project, the new bus transit center, and
infrastructure it may discourage development. Explore how the City
Tukwila Pond Park master plan and water quality improvements. Given the current
can share some of the burden.
debate about the pedestrian bridge there may be limited funds available for
additional infrastructure investments in the urban center in the near future.
Using the TUC regulations EcoNW created 4 prototypes and
It is true that it may be some time before land values in the Southcenter area
concluded that the first 3 were more expensive to build than it would
support 6 and 11 story buildings. The Plan does not require this type of
be worth and could not get financing.
development, but it does provide standards and guidance for when the market
arrives. There was a design review application this year for a 4 story hotel in the
urban center
51
Comment Exhibit
Topic Staff comment /analysis /options
(language changes in stnkouUundedme, recommendation in bold) Date/Source
SEPA The current proposal does not include documentation consistent with Ex. 11, The decision to designate Southcenter as an urban center and the environmental
the requirements of SEPA. Has the City performed environmental 8/23/12, Balint implications of that were analysed as part of the 1995 EIS. SEPA review will he
review for the current or past drafts of the TUC Plan? for Segale; conducted on the PC recommended subarea plan prior to Council review
Strander
9/10/12 Email
SEPA Has an Environmental Impact Statement been done for this project? If Strander
so, when? If an EIS has been done, does the scope of it include 9/10/12 Email
everything on the Southcenter Subarea Plan?
SEPA When would SEPA review he done for the "road diet" restriping of Strander
Baker and APE to accommodate street parking and hicycle lanes? 8/23/12
Hearing,
Strander
9/10/12 Email
An EIS was completed for the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
in 1995. This included both the vision for the urban center and the specific zoning
regulations that allowed a wide range of uses and up to 11 5' tall buildings. The
current draft of the plan creates districts which are differentiated by use and over
the majority of the urban center will have lower building heights so environmental
impacts will he lower than previously analyzed. Additional environmental review
specific to the proposed plan and regulations will he conducted on the PC
recommended Southcenter Plan documents prior to Council review
Restriping an existing urban road would he exempt from SEPA analysis under
WAC 197 11-300 2 (c) The construction or installation of minor road and street
improvements such as pavement marking and reconstruction of existing
roadbed (existing curb-to-curb in urban locations), including adding or v✓idening of
shoulders, addition of bicycle lanes, paths and facilities, and pedestrian walks and
paths, but not including additional automobile lanes. However PW has indicated
that a Traffic Impact Analysis would he required to determine whether or not the
"road diet" would create for exacerbate i roadway congestion or level of service
prohlems elsewhere in the roadway system prior to making changes.
Concurrency Has City considered how the new street regulations will affect levels of Ex. 11,
As part of Tukwila's ongoing transportation concurrency analysis, growth in the
service and concurrency? Adding new streets every 800 feet will likely 8/23/12, Balint
Southcenter area as well as the impacts of potential new streets have been
impact the existing transportation system. for Segale
entered into our traffic model. New streets will add capacity and relieve pressure
on existing arterials. New streets will also make parts of the urban center more
walkahle.
Due Process Zoning regulations cannot require an individual to shoulder an Ex. 11,
It is difficult to provide a specific response when it is not clear which regulations the
economic burden, which in justice and fairness the public should 8/23/12, Balint
commenter considers unfair
righffully hear Many of the regulationsin the TUC Plan appear to for Segale
confer a public benefit, rather than legitimately addressing a public
harm. The City should let the market dictate what public benefits and
amenities property and business owners will provide.
Subarea The sub -area plan is too limited and does not contain common
Plan elements such as an analysis of market /economic impacts, housing,
Contents environmental factors, utilities and transportation. Of the
recommended elements utilities and transportation are most
important.
Suharea (Update photo of mall associated with the bullet Large regional
Plan. u. 5 shopping Mall surrounded by
Subarea Notes that Puget Sound Energy i PSE i operates a 115kV underground
Plan, Future transmission line that runs along the south edge of Tukwila Pond. It's
Street on S. in an easement and it appears to look like a sidewalk corridor if you
Side of Pond look at it in the field. The map on page 7labels the south area of the
pond as a "Future Urban Corridor Does that mean trails or roads?
The line has been in place since the mid 1970's and we're currently in
the beginning stages of replacing the line with new conductor
Ex. 11,
8/23/12, Balint The decision to designate Southcenter as an urban center and the environmental
for Segale implications of that were analysed as part of the 1995 EIS In the 10 years that we
have been working on the Southcenter Plan we have adopted updates to Tukwila's
Water, Surface Water and Sewer Plans which factor in Tukwila's growth targets
and proposed densities. As part of Tukwila's ongoing transportation concurrency
analysis, growth in the Southcenter area as well as the impacts of potential new
streets have been entered into the Cltys traffic model. Because analysis of the
utility and transportation impacts of growth in the urban center have been
incorporated into other documents they are not repeated in the subarea plan.
Staff 5.20 12 I evt u update with new photo provided by Westfield.
Cody Olson Comment noted. The Plan assumes that, when constructed, the new thoroughfare
(PSE 15.15.12. cross section will use PSE's "sidewalk" as the sidewalk for the north side of the
email street.
Subarea What will he the determination as to where the parking structure will Strander
Plan, p. 44 he located? 9/10/12 Email
Draft TMC 18.28.020 How to use the development code. Staff recommends edits Staff edits
18.28, p. 2 that clarify how the District and Corridor standards are referenced.
Edits do not change the meaning or intent of the regulations.
Draft TMC Staff recommends edits that maintain reference /naming consistency Staff edits
18.28, p. 7
Corridor map
Draft TMC Walkahle Corridor Missing text. Does not change intent or
18.28, P. 13 requirement
Draft TMC Neighborhood Corridor Missing text. Does not change intent or
18.28, P. 16 requirement
Draft TMC IUrhan Corridor Missing text. Does not change intent or requirement
18.28, p. 17
Commercial Corridor Missing text. Does not change intent or
Draft TMC requirement
1 S.2S, p. 118
1 Draft TMC As per 18.28.220, are special corner features required or just
18.28, p. 41 allowed?
18.28.220
Draft TMC Who determines what kind of open space is provided pursuant to the
18.28, p. 51 open space regulation requirements in section 18.28.250? How will
this determination he reflected in the code?
Draft TMC In Draft Chapter 16.26.250 E 3 f it states: "For properties adjacent to
18.28, p. 53 the Green River, a passage may include a pedestrian connection
between the Green River Trail and a publically accessible
street /sidewalk. The passage should he established in an easement
allowing for puhlic access through private property" Does this
mandate access through private property?
Southcenter Missing word.
Design
Manual, D
SC Image shown for envisioned high density development has 9 stories,
Comprehen- can this he achieved in the Plan area?
sive Plan,
Figure 24
Staff edits
Staff edits
Staff edits
Staff edits
Strander
9/10/12 Email
Strander
9/10/12 Email
Strander
9/10/12 Email
The idea was that it would he located in the TOD area to provide convenient
overflow parking for businesses in that area, and allow customers to "park once"
and walk between multiple stores without having to move their cars. More specific
siting would he addressed in the feasihility studv.
M1 Revise 18.28.020.6.1 as follows: "Locate the property on
the District Map, Figure 1, and Corridor Tyne Map, Figure 2."
Revise 18.28.020.6.2 as follows: "Review the District Standards iTables 1 3 2) and
Corridor Standards i Figures 3-10 i the o,., r.g :awes and identify the
specific standards for the applicahle District and Corridor Type. Note that the
Tables and Figures are intended as a summary
m, Revise as follows: "Figure 2 Corridor Twe Map"
.t" r! u' Add SDecial Corner Feature under the Architectural Design
Regulations
.t', r! t": Add SDecial Corner Feature under the Architectural Design
Regulations
.t', r! t": Add SDecial Corner Feature under the Architectural Design
Regulations
t": Add SDecial Corner Feature under the Architectural Design
Regulations
A new huildmg ate designated "special corner feature" location would be required
to meet the additional design criteria at section 6 of the Southcenter Design
Manual.
Applicants have a choice of options for meeting their open space requirements,
see 18.28.250 E 1 "Pedestrian space for commercial uses are publicly accessible,
outdoor, landscaped spaces used pnmanly foractive or passive community
recreation and civic purposes. These may include a linear green, square, plaza,
courtyard, or pedestrian passage."
No, it is one option for providing open space.
Staff edit u Change to read "D Secondary Entrances: Side or rear
building entries shall he consistent with but visually secondary to main entrances.
Mann PC mtg It could he built with a height incentive in the Regional Center District.
8/23/12
52
Comment Matrix illustrations
A) Walking Radius for parking reduction eligibility
!f
Legend
1 321 1 Buff Pr
TO F,AABuffc-r
Tran 31t 1:1 *07,
=71,
I und
Pall
S
�M=A
Eva tats E
N Ell
y
avke L
Tikwilki
-�T= Transi 1 JA F
[I n
Ell U
El E= Ll
Tukwila Pond
E
Li
0
Or2 r
IN
An D-- F ll F
B) Information about the negative effects of tree topping
Department of Natural Resources information:
llillly;�� z!p gy lljigl%�11111 1 11 1111 1 1 1
53
The 'broom look' of this willow was caused by Tree limbed up to preserve views.
severely topping the tree wrecking its future growth.
Photo: Linden Mead /DNR
C) Screen shot of City of Tukwila web site showing where to download the EcoNW
Technical Memorandum.
t ",a �;�r re v �r �a ll ll ll�,ll ll ll lil ll ll ll�,ll ll ll 1'R, ll ll 11�,1S1 1 A
ii (iiiJ�a hrr iii= r °rUi,j
i tukwilawa.gov
Favorites King -ounty Parcel Viewer 2 2010 -ensus Interactive Po 1', Employee Services ,a`'°_, NWhI Portal Rewrite Project... 4L, NWMaps Home lg
s'f? Tukwila Urban Plan
Previous Meeting Information
December 10,. 2009 Planning Commission Briefing on ECONorthwest
Findings
At their May 14, 2009 meeting.. the PC. made a motion to send the current Public Revier)
Craft of the Scuthcenter Subarea Plan back to staff for revisions after the close of the
public hearing on ktay 28th and the close of the written record on June 11th. These
revisions should respond to the comments received during the hearing process from the
public and from the Commission. The Planning Commission will hcld another public hearing
during their rev ievv of the revised Public Review Craft.
Tc respond to sta keha Id er cc terns regarding the economic feasibility c the development
regu latices. Tu K.ila contra cted rith EC 0 crthvtest (ECG t. the consulting firm th at
prepared economic and market analyses during. the preparation of the first draft of the
plan. ECG s analysis consisted of
1 Technical research on market and demographic forces that ,.ill influence Plan
implementation:
2. Creating four pro- fcrmas for possible prototype development in the TUC, and
2. Conducting three focus groups and follow -up interviews with TUG stakeholders and
other office, retail, residential and mired -use developers. George Malina (Planning
Commission Chair:, Derek Speck Economic Development ridministrator), and DCD
staff also attended the focus groups.
ECG has prepared a Technical Memorandum presenting their market research, a summary
cf the focus group discussions, recommended revisions to the development standards,
and recommended implementation strategies.
Technical Memorandum:. Tukwila Urban fender lmenlementadion,4nalvs s—
Final
Tukwila Urban center Imnlementation Analvss
Planning C.nmmiss nn Presentatinn. December 10. 2009.
Gone I�
LJ 1=
ds, >a r Inbox: Nora yierloFF r1�'r<P3r 1' 1p'slfi,
D) Additional Uses in the TOD District
Regional Pond Commer-
Land Uses Allowed by District Center TOD District cial Corr.
P Permitted A Accessory C Conditional UUP Unclassified Use Permit
Retail_'
Bars, Cocktail Lounges, Nightclubs Pool Halls I P I I P I P
Brew Pubs, on -site brewing I P I I P I P
Work-
place
54
E) Regional Center Description Revisions Subarea Plan
The Regional Center
The Regional Center portion of this Plan is the primary shopping and entertainment destination
for South King County, and the centerpiece of the Southcenter area. It occupies the highly
visible and accessible northwestern quadrant of Southcenter, which is nestled snugly up against
the intersection of Interstate 405 and Interstate 5. The Regional Center owes its success to and
is anchored by the recently expanded and refurbished Westfield Southcenter Mall. The drawing
power of this retail powerhouse will continue to bring investment in retail and services oriented
to an expanding regional trade. Just to the east, Acme Bowl, LA Fitness and I -Fly will serve as
complements to the Mall and strong attractors for new entertainment venues in the area. The
new Transit Center with service to the Sounder commuter rail and LINK light rail stations, local
and regional bus routes, and bus rapid transit (BRT) is prominently located between the Mall
and existing entertainment venues.
As new investment continues to flow into the Plan Area, the community envisions the
emergence of an increasingly urban district that uses its progressively more valuable land with
greater efficiency, which can be comfortably explored not only by automobile but also on foot
or bicycle. The C begin changing from the
exclusively parking -lot- surrounded, auto dominated development to an increasingly walkable
and amenity driven pattern reflecting contemporary consumer and investor preferences.
However, ensuring excellent access for all modes of transportation into the Regional Center will
be key to its continued success.
Over time, public investments combined with market driven infill
instigate new development increasingly characterized by a pattern of walkable scaled city
blocks with key street frontages lined with visible storefronts and active sidewalks (Photos 1, 2).
Buildings may be oriented to public spaces and sidewalk areas with higher levels of amenity
(Photo 3). Abundant and convenient parking will be provided, but will no longer dominate the
view from the road or the sidewalk.
As the Regional Center continues to grow in response to the growth of the region, the market,
public investment, and escalating property values, the District may continue to intensify with
upper stories containing offices (Photo 4), homes (Photos 5) or hotel rooms. Over the long
term, infill development on the high -value property of the Mall e C v continue the
transition from surface parking to structured parking, and may be increasingly characterized by
mid -rise or high -rise building components built over the retail base. This process of increasing
land use efficiency, development intensity, synergy and mix, will be combined with public and
private investments increasing walkability and accessibility befitting a true regional center. The
55
increased intensity and vitality can continue the process of broadening the Mall's draw,
expanding its "captive audience," adding customers, residents, employees and safety to the
dynamic center of the region.
In the long term, the Mall the entertainment area, and the Southcenter Transit Center will
continue to be the armature for the ongoing escalation of value, activity and investment. The
access points and internal streets of the regional shopping mall will likely be extended,
developing into bustling, high amenity spines that connect shopping anchors and shopfronts
southward to the north shore of Tukwila Pond (ultimately an "amenity anchor Photo 6) and
eastward toward additional shops in the direction of Southcenter Transit Center (Photo 7).
56