HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2012-10-25 Item 3 - Adoption of 9/27/12 MinutesCity of Tukwila
Planning Commission
Planning Commission Public Hearing (PC)
And
Worksession Minutes
Date: September 27, 2012
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Present: Brooke Alford, Chair; Thomas McLeod, Vice Chair; Commissioners, Louise Strander, Mike
Hansen, Sharon Mann, and Cassandra Hunter
Absent: Commissioner, David Shumate
Staff: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director; Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner; Lynn Miranda, Senior
Planner, and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary
Chair Alford called the public hearing to order at 6:30 PM.
Minutes: Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the 09/27/12 minutes with one correction,
stating that Brent Carson was "from" VanNess, Feldman, and GordonDerr, not "representing"
them. Commissioner McLeod seconded the motion as amended, all were in favor.
Chair Alford swore in those that wished to testify.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L12 -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
Staff asked the Commissioners the appearance of fairness questions. No one had objections to any of the
Commissioners hearing the case.
Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development, gave the presentation for
staff. She gave an overview of the proposed project. A comment letter was received expressing concern with
multi family uses in the residential zone; Staff stated that the area is zoned to allow multi family uses. Also,
a comment letter was received from the adjacent daycare operator, regarding the private access and parking
easements for the daycare's benefit on the applicant's property. And also, safety concerns for the children
during construction. While the easements are reflected on the site plan, it is not the City's role to enforce an
easement agreement between two private property owners. Staff stated that the challenge with the project was
to design a building that is harmonious with the existing surrounding neighborhood when the development is
significantly older and significantly smaller than what the code allows. Staff recommended approval of the
project with two conditions, and five conditions of approval that will be added to the future Building Permit
as listed in the staff report dated September 18, 2012. Staff responded to questions from the Planning
Commission.
Page 1 of 4
PC Public Hearing Minutes
September 27, 2012
Ian Hamad, the applicant, addressed questions from the Commission.
TESTIMONY:
Mark Schober testified on behalf of his mother, the owner of the property leased to the daycare that is
adjacent to the applicant's property. Mr. Schober said there is going to be a major parking impact for the
daycare since the parking currently available is in use, and the additional parking will not be enough to
accommodate the needs. He said that he is proposing that Council review how the parking will impact
currently existing businesses. Mr. Schober also expressed concern for the children's safety.
Barbara Schober, Owner of the property adjacent to the applicant's property, stated that her concern is
regarding the parking. She said the easement agreement allows the daycare staff and clients to park there
from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. She also expressed that those individuals parking in the easement at night will not
have their cars moved prior to 6:00 AM for daycare use. Ms. Schober concluded with the comment that she is
happy that Mr. Hamad wants to construct a nice facility, and she wants to work with him, but she does not
think there will be enough parking.
Mr. Hamad, the applicant, responded by stating that there is parking in the easement that is not being used
currently. He said that the Schober's are not operating the daycare, but they are the property owners. Mr.
Hamad said that he involved the individuals who run the daycare in the planning, and in a meeting with them
discussed where to locate the fence and sharing a sign. He also said that when he met with the daycare
operators they actually commented that they would have more parking. He said parking was never an issue so
he is surprised at the Schober's argument. In response to Commissioner Mann's questions, Mr. Hamad said
they could assign parking and construct signage to make tenants and visitors aware of the parking hour's
restrictions.
Mr. Schober stated that the parking on the site is currently being used.
There was no additional public testimony.
The public hearing was closed.
The PC deliberated.
Commissioner Mann asked if staff could require a condition of the permit indicating that the easement
parking is for the daycare's use between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Staff indicated the criteria could
be reviewed to see if the request could be linked to a criteria. (No action was taked regarding this inquiry.)
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve Case Number L12 -019 with staff's finding,
conclusions, recommendations, and conditions. Commissioner Mann seconded the motion. All
were in favor.
Chair Alford called a 10 minute recess.
Chair Alford reconvened at 7:58.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
Southcenter Plan review.
Lynn Miranda, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, went over the proposed
recommendations to the planning documents.
The following revisions were incorporated in the various sections of the Plan.
Page 2 of 4
2
PC Public Hearing Minutes
September 27, 2012
Southcenter Comprehensive Plan Chapter Issues Matrix:
Page 12, Goal 10.2. Added verbiage: `Environmentally sustainable to the Comprehensive goals on
urban development section.
Southcenter Sub -Area Plan issues Matrix:
Page 15, 1.4. In the Comment Matrix Illustration item E, revised and strengthened language for the
Regional Center Vision, and forwarded to Westfield for their review.
Page 25, 4"' comment- response to Commissioner Strander's inquiry regarding a road diet: Before a road,
diet is put into place more detailed analysis of impacts will be done.
Commissioner Strander provided some additional feedback and also asked some additional questions
pertaining to on- street parking, road diets, bike lanes, and how it's going to affect the level of service on the
roads. She asked to revisit this issue, regarding doing extensive studies on the impact of traffic. She said she
wants more information about putting in a bike lane, on- street parking, narrowing two lanes of traffic either
direction into one with a middle turn lane.
Commission Stander stated she is not comfortable with the road diet vision, she suggested striking all
language pertaining to a road diet, such as the following language, "Undergo a road diet to provide on- street
parking and bike lanes on page 25 and page 45 -46 (1.621C —pg. 45)
After extensive discussion and as a result of a suggestion made by Commissioner Hunter, the following
sentence will be added to page 25 and page 46, (1.6.2. Lc):
A traffic impact analysis would be required to determine if the road diet would create (or exacerbate)
roadway congestion or level of service problems elsewhere in the roadwaysystem prior to making changes.
AND;
Deleting the sentence at the end of the paragraph on page 46, "Additional engineering is required before these
projects can move forward."
The Planning Commission was in consensus with the following changes:
Districts. Request for a different name for the `Work Place District'. There was not a recommendation
for a different name, so a suggestion was made to explain that the PC didn't come up with any ideas for
re- branding the area, but that they felt the Work Place District is not the appropriate name, and it could be
revisited at a later date. Staff will add an implementation strategy to 10.2.12 Economic Development in
the Comprehensive Plan, calling for a rebranding of urban center districts.
Page 44, 4"' bullet item, replace the language "shall" with may
Page 48, 1.6.3.1. Delete language, "rubber tired"
Southcenter Design Manual Issue Matrix:
Page 2, I.D. Add a fourth design example under this criterion to clarify that an existing building
may be modified to match a new addition.
Page 19, 8A.Strike language: `Buildings shall be four- sided meaning that
Page 28 -29, IOD. Add language: Large multi tenant buildings may have multiple main entrances.
Page 30, 10 E E1. Change language to read: All service centers, associated loading docks, and
storage areas should be located to the side or rear of a building instead of "shall", and if they do
have to face the public street locate them in the least visible location or screen them with
landscaping Delete "shall be used
Page 30, 11.A.2, strike language: "and translucent awnings with interior lighting
Page 3 of 4
3
PC Public Hearing Minutes
September 27, 2012
Chapter TMC 18.28
Page 3, 4A. Staff language clarification edit, change aspects of that portion of a building's
facade."
Page 11, Table 2: Cannot increase building heights in this area. This area is regulated by the City's
Shoreline Master Program.
Page 22, 18.28.030.C.2, move language to the Design Manual section.
Page 24, 18.28.060, no change recommended. Maximum Block Face standards only kick in with an
intensification of use when mitigation of traffic impacts may be necessary.
Page 28, 18.28.120, New Streets Requirements. Commissioners discussed options such as allowing
more flexibility and removing specific feet for maximum block face length. No change
recommended.
Page 30, 18.28.140 Building Orientation Delete the language, "located along and Since
maximum setbacks standards removed, this no longer has any meaning.
Page 42, 18.28.230 Landscape Types —No Change.
Page 44, 18.28.240 No Change. Landscaping should be planted where it should survive, and
topping trees is currently not permitted.
Page 44, General Landscaping. No change. Owners are currently required to maintain landscaping.
Page 49, 18.28.250 Open space requirements for existing buildings only applies to new square
footage and /or intensification of use. No change.
Page 50, 18.28.250, Table 3. The open space requirement for residential is less than what is currently
required. No change.
Page 55, Private open space for residential uses. Balconies for multi development in the Urban
Center are favored. No change.
Page 56, 18.28.260 Parking requirements are a minimum, not a maximum, so less parking is
required, not more. Therefore, not an issue, more parking is allowed if needed. No change.
Page 58, Table 4 Compared old to new standards. In many cases the minimum required are being
decreased in the northern part of the Urban Center. The new requirements for the mall parking
requirements reflect what they have currently, so if new development occurred they would be
allowed additional parking based on the current ratios for parking spaces to square footage.
Additional comment on Subarea Plan:
Tukwila Pond Park. There was discussion on expanding Tukwila Pond Park to the south, and how
that should be added to the planning documents. Staff suggested adding language to the
Implementation Section of the Subarea Plan. Add a mid -term action in the Tukwila Pond Park
section recommendation to explore the feasibility of and implementation steps for expanding the
footprint of Tukwila Pond Park when redevelopment of the property to the south of the Park occurs.
Director's Report:
Commissioner Hansen will follow -up with Nate Robinson, Teen Coordinator with the
Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department, to schedule a meeting with the teens.
Adjourned: 9:35 PM
Submitted By: Wynetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretary
Page 4 of 4
4