agenda - tacomacms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/planning commission/agenda packets... · scott morris...

Members Thomas M. Smith, Chair David A. Boe, Vice Chair Kevin Briske Carolyn L. Davidson Robert T. de Grouchy, III Jeremy C. Doty Kimberly Freeman Sean Gaffney Scott Morris

Community and Economic Development Department Ryan Petty, Director Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager

Public Works Department Charles Solverson, P.E., Building Official

Tacoma Public Utilities 747 Market Street, Room 1036, Tacoma, WA 98402-3793 Heather Pennington, Water Representative Phone (253) 591-5365; FAX (253) 591-2002 Cathy Leone-Woods, Power Transmission & Distribution Assistant Manager www.cityoftacoma.org/planning

(To view the agenda online: www.cityoftacoma.org/planning > “Planning Commission” > “Agenda Packets”)

The Community and Economic Development Department does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in any of its programs and services. Upon request, accommodations can be provided within five (5) business days. Contact (253) 591-5365 (voice) or (253) 591-5153 (TTY).

Agenda

Tacoma Planning Commission

MEETING: Regular Meeting

TIME: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 4:00 p.m.

PLACE: Tacoma Municipal Building, City Council Chambers First Floor, 747 Market Street, Tacoma, WA

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. QUORUM CALL

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting on November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting on November 19, 2008

D. GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Nomination and Election of Officers for 2009 Description: Nominate and elect the Chair and Vice-Chair positions of the

Planning Commission for 2009

Actions Requested: Nomination; Election

Support Information: N/A

Staff Contact: Peter Huffman, 591-5373, [email protected]

2. Parking Requirements for International Financial Services Area (IFSA) Description: Review proposed revisions to downtown zoning regulations,

focusing on off-street parking requirements, aimed at encouraging the retention, recruitment and expansion of the international services sector within the designated IFSA

Actions Requested: Review, Discussion, Direction

Support Information: See “Agenda Item GB-2”

Staff Contact: Peter Huffman, 591-5373, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Agenda for Regular Meeting on Wednesday, December 17, 2008

E. COMMUNICATION ITEMS

1. Land Use Administrator’s Reports and Decisions – “Agenda Item C-1”

2. Hearing Examiner’s Reports and Recommendations – “Agenda Item C-2”

3. Amended Ordinance No. 27769 (ordinance only, no exhibit), adopted by the City Council on December 9, 2008, remanding to the Planning Commission Annual Amendment Application #2008-05 pertaining to the Intensity Change at Browns Point Blvd. and 53rd St. NE and modifying the Open Space Habitat and Recreation Element – “Agenda Item C-3”

F. COMMENTS BY PLANNING DIVISION

G. COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION

H. ADJOURNMENT

Members Thomas M. Smith, Chair David A. Boe, Vice-Chair Kevin Briske Carolyn L. Davidson Robert T. de Grouchy, III Jeremy C. Doty Kimberly Freeman Sean Gaffney Scott Morris Community and Economic Development Department Ryan Petty, Director Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager




Minutes



TIME: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 4:00 p.m.


Members Present:

Thomas Smith (Chair), David Boe (Vice-Chair), Kevin Briske, Jeremy Doty, Robert de Grouchy, Kimberly Freeman, Sean Gaffney, Scott Morris

Members Excused:

Carolyn Davidson

Staff Present:

Donna Stenger, Lihuang Wung, Brian Boudet, Elliott Barnett, Reuben McKnight, Ian Munce, Donna Bosinski (Community and Economic Development); Charles Pearson, Jennifer Kammerzell (Public Works Engineering); Greg Klump (Finance/Budget and Research)

Others Present

Julia Walton (AHBL, Inc.); Steve Shanafelt (DEA, Inc.)

Chair Thomas Smith called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. There were no minutes submitted for approval. Due to a temporary lack of a quorum, Chair Smith altered the agenda.

GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Mixed-Use Centers Streetscape Design Guidelines Mr. Elliott Barnett indicated that he was present with Ms. Julia Walton of AHBL and Mr. Steve Shanafelt of David Evans & Associates (DEA) to provide an overview of the Mixed-Use Centers’ Complete Streets project. He explained that the presentation was an informational item at the request of the Planning Commission. Complete Streets are streets that accommodate all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and automobiles. He explained that there was

Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 5, 2008 Page 2

increasing interest in Complete Streets and that it was supported the City Manager’s “Safe and Clean Initiative” and is one of the recommendations of the “Green Ribbon Task Force” on climate change. There is also a new policy being considered for adoption in the Transportation Element that would indicate that transportation projects shall be reviewed in light of Complete Streets principles. He explained that this project was funded by a Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) grant. The project focuses on Complete Streets within the Mixed-Use Centers, since the Centers are the areas expected to see the most significant new growth and that the vision calls for multi-modal transportation to be supported. Mr. Barnett explained that the goal was to provide the City Council with the information they need to make a policy decision regarding Complete Streets in the Mixed-Use Centers. He requested Planning Commission’s input. Ms. Walton presented the Complete Streets design and typologies recommended for the Mixed-Use Centers. She explained that they had been working with Mr. Shanafelt, City staff and other agencies to put together the design guidelines for streets in Mixed-Use Centers. She indicated that they have held focus group meetings in the community, to include meetings with bicycle groups and business owners. She indicated that the design guidelines and typologies that they were recommending would deliver on quality of life objectives for the Mixed-Use Centers and that their project provided information on what the streets may actually look like in the Centers. She explained that they would be completing Phase 1 by the end of the year. Phase 2 would be developing specific standards to implement the guidelines. Regarding the street design guidelines accommodate all modes equitably within the existing right-of-way. She explained that parking and street trees would also be provided and that they were planning for the future build-out of the Mixed-Use Centers. They considered the width of the right-of-way, the type of Center, and streetcar plans in their recommendation. In many areas, the existing streets were not built to their maximum right-of-way. The transit streets were the most constrained and; in some cases, they moved bicycles to an adjacent route. They developed typologies for main streets, avenues, transit priority streets, bicycle boulevards, and urban residential streets. She explained the various typologies and emphasis in each type. She indicated that they also looked at intersection treatments, including the shortest possible pedestrian crossings, bicycle boxes, and transit priority signals where appropriate. Reducing the number of lanes, as well as lane width and re-striping the streets were under consideration. Mr. Shanafelt indicated that there were approximately 22 miles of designated pedestrian streets in the Mixed-Use Centers and 300 total blocks. He explained that he had developed cost scenarios based on the designs and his estimate indicated that redoing a street with concrete and amenities does not cost much more than doing the right-of-way in asphalt. He indicated that if they were considering adding landscaping, there would also be increased maintenance cost. He stated that there was existing funding for traffic calming that could possibly be used to make some Complete Streets improvements. Vice-Chair Boe expressed the opinion that Tacoma Power needed to be on board as power lines had a major impact on the visual appearance of the streets. He indicated that Dan Burden mentioned that his first step in improving an intersection with Complete Streets was to remove the power lines. Regarding street improvements in general, he indicated that the cost of full implementation was a bit high and asked whether they could do a lot of these improvements with paint. Ms. Walton replied that a lot could be done with paint and that most improvements would be conducted within the existing curb line. Mr. Shanafelt indicated that the highest priority (according to public input) was striping bike lanes, which could be done with paint; but to


make a more pedestrian-friendly environment they would need to shorten the crosswalks or construct an island refuge. He indicated that the most expensive elements were the curb extensions and medians, which could not be done with paint. It was noted by several Commissioners that Tacoma crosswalks were often not visible on rainy days and that parallel parking rather than angled parking was best for bicycles. Commissioner Gaffney questioned whether a Complete Streets regulation would impact a developer and whether there would be another level of design detail and review prior to construction. He also questioned how the improvements would be managed with infill development. Mr. Shanafelt responded that the Complete Streets project team was making recommendations to first lay out the vision for streets in Mixed-Use Centers and adopt the typologies conceptually; after which the developer would know what the general build out street would look like and that improvements would be made incrementally at the permit level. Assuming that the City Council supported the Complete Street concept, staff could then develop a conceptual design for the streets, within six to twelve months. Mr. Barnett indicated that Mr. Shanafelt was addressing the infill issue in his analysis of implementation and funding options. Commissioner Freeman inquired as to the Planning Commission’s role regarding Complete Streets. Mr. Barnett responded that they were bringing it before the Commission as an informational item, and it would be going next to the Environment and Public Works Committee for recommendation, and then to the City Council for a decision on whether to move forward with implementation. Chair Smith indicated that the City Council would then direct the Planning Commission to become involved with this issue along with the other Mixed-Use Center requirements. Vice-Chair Boe noted that the separate process creates “a disconnect” with the other amendment process, as there were opportunities to work these issues into the Mixed-Use Center regulations as an economic development means. Mr. Barnett indicated that these guidelines were not slated to return to the Planning Commission for input. Commissioner Freeman commented that specific streets were listed in the document for a particular typology, such as avenue or main street, and she did not feel comfortable in recommending a particular typology at this time. Chair Smith indicated that the Planning Commission could recommend specific changes in the Mixed-Use Center regarding Complete Streets and request that the Complete Streets staff bring the matter before the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Doty commented that the level of work presented to date regarding Complete Streets was not concrete enough to work into regulations for developers and it appeared that Complete Streets would be primarily completed by the City, not developers. 2. Capital Facilities Program 2009-2014 Mr. Greg Klump stated that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 15, 2008, concerning the proposed Capital Facilities Program for 2009-2014, and kept the record open through October 24 to receive written comments. No comments had been


received. Mr. Klump requested that the Planning Commission forward the draft document, along with the Commission’s Letter of Recommendation, to the City Council. The Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on November 17, 2008 and consider adoption of the document in early December, Mr. Klump indicated. Chair Smith entertained a motion to approve the letter and forward the document to the City Council. The motion was made, seconded, and passed. 3. Downtown Plan Update Ms. Donna Stenger presented the revised Downtown Plan and indicated that staff had made the requested changes and asked for concurrence from the Planning Commission to forward the document to the City Council for adoption and to forward supporting documents from the record for the Council’s review. Chair Smith entertained a motion to recommend the Downtown Plan Update to the City Council for adoption. The motion was seconded and passed. 4. Mixed-Use Center Code Revisions Ms. Stenger indicated that the intent was to provide an opportunity for the Commission to continue the discussion of Mixed-Use Center potential code revisions and incentives including the Historic Preservation incentive. The draft Historic Preservation Incentive proposal provides a bonus height of 10 feet if a historic property is restored as part of a redevelopment in the Mixed-Use Center. She presented some options for the Commission to consider and deferred to Mr. Reuben McKnight, Historic Preservation Officer. Mr. McKnight discussed the potential height bonus incentive and suggested that the bonus should be applied only when a qualifying structure is listed on the Historic Register as this would encourage the listing of eligible structures. He indicated that there were several buildings in the Mixed-Use Centers that were eligible for listing. He also discussed the suggestion of setting up a historic special review district in the Martin Luther King Mixed-Use Center. He indicated that the area has been studied, and several buildings were historically eligible, but none have moved forward through the listing process. He explained that there was a multiple property nomination process and a funding request for a City-wide preservation survey. He explained that the bonus program provided an incentive to get eligible projects listed as the Mixed-Use Centers redeveloped. Vice-Chair Boe noted that most historic structures in the Mixed-Use Centers were small and many were one story. He expressed the opinion that it was unlikely that a developer would try to save a small historic structure even with a height bonus. Commissioner Doty agreed that this incentive was unlikely to be used. Mr. McKnight noted that the City has an inventory program, but the listing process is initiated by the property owners for the most part. He pointed out his experience with the historic property tax incentive program. He explained that the tax incentive program requires listing of historic structures and building rehabilitation rather than demolition. He expressed support for the height incentive and indicated that it provided encouragement to list and save important structures. Ms. Stenger indicated that the height bonus would be an additional incentive to retain and renovate historic buildings in the Centers. Mr. McKnight explained the process to get a property listed on the historic register.


Commissioner Freeman expressed the opinion that the Seattle system of transferring the development rights was the best approach. She indicated the problem was how to get more structures on the Register. Mr. McKnight indicated that Seattle’s transfer of development rights program also supported historic preservation efforts with density bonuses. He agreed that defining what was meant by retaining and renovating was important and noted that buildings not currently listed could be added and qualify for the incentive. Vice-Chair Boe indicated that the purpose of the Mixed-Use Centers was to achieve more development, and this incentive would be an additional road block. Commissioner Doty inquired of Mr. McKnight as to how many historically-significant buildings were in the Mixed-Use Center at 56th Street and South Tacoma Way. Mr. McKnight responded that there were several historic buildings. He indicated that South Tacoma Way was an area where over half the historic buildings are one-story, and that there were many listed in the historic inventory but few listed in the Register. Commissioner Gaffney indicated that, in his opinion, the height incentive would not preserve historic buildings. He made a motion to remove the historic preservation height incentive as a bonus feature. The motion was seconded and passed 5 to 2. Vice-Chair Boe stated that the point of Mixed-Use Centers was to increase density and expressed the opinion that policies to preserve one-story buildings, just because they were old, defeated that purpose. Mr. McKnight indicated that the City has conducted inventories in many areas. He suggested that the Commission re-consider the incentive piece and instruct staff to re-work the functional issues. He expressed the opinion that it was important to assess how historic preservation and infill development could provide a public benefit. He indicated that, in terms of a “façade-ectomy” and substantial rehabilitation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission design review committee deals with those issues. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider other methods to preserve historic structures. The Commission asked Mr. McKnight to come back with some suggestions to revise the historic incentive. Mr. Brian Boudet referenced the public comments and general concerns regarding whether the City had a proper variance process. He referenced the procedures listed in the packet and described the comments received from various parties, particularly the concern regarding a variance to the minimum density requirements. Mr. Boudet indicated that higher densities are necessary for pedestrian-oriented development, and that some of the development near the Mall was not achieving these levels of density. Chair Smith questioned whether it was of value to address the issue of variances alone. Regarding affordable housing, Mr. Boudet indicated that staff would be returning to the Commission with all of the bonus features, as well as enforcement of the features. He reported that staff has been devising a development agreement form that would be recorded with the property Mr. Boudet outlined the issues from the public regarding the affordable housing incentive and commented that application trends have been demonstrating that the 12-year bonus provided by the tax incentive program may not be sufficient to encourage developers to provide


affordable housing. He explained that the height bonus feature was designed to augment the tax incentive and encourage developers to take advantage of the 20 percent affordable housing provisions. He explained that one of the main reasons that the height bonus provision mirrors the tax incentive in that the tax incentive program already incorporates the necessary tracking to ensure compliance. The height bonus would double the incentive, making the provision of affordable housing more feasible. Mr. Boudet indicated that the yard requirement was a result of concerns regarding much of the recent development near the Mall, where minimal or no yard space for townhouse style, single-family units is being provided. He indicated that there were concerns as to where children would play. Commissioner Freeman inquired as to who expressed concern with the 100 square-foot open space requirement. Mr. Boudet responded that it was a community activist concern that this requirement would add to the cost of the development. Commissioner Freeman asked whether staff could explore other options including requiring a common open space. Ms. Stenger indicated that a policy was added to the open space element to explore a “fee, in lieu of” system, but that was outside the scope of this action. Vice-Chair Boe inquired as to why staff was exploring a potential open space issue in the Mixed-Use Centers, as he had understood that the Commission was examining Mixed-Use Center requirements and potential changes to reduce obstacles and to spur development. He said that the open space requirement was being proposed to avoid the high density and that the new regulations requiring 100 feet of open space per unit would increase cost and that he still had not heard back from staff why they were recommending this open space requirement. Ms. Stenger noted that the Commission had the option of keeping the existing regulations which do not require any open space or yard. Ms. Stenger further indicated that the Mixed-Use Center regulations effort was broader than simply to spur development, as the focus also involved evaluating how to improve the quality of the development. She indicated that this may include design qualities, landscaping, open space and other changes in regulations/incentives to achieve the original vision as outlined in the 1993 plan. Ms. Stenger indicated that they were recommending various bonus and incentive options in order to encourage higher quality development and achieve the original Mixed-Use Center vision. She noted that in some Centers these objectives were not being met. She further indicated that the purpose of this effort was not only to view how to remove barriers to development but also to make development better. She explained that the development of new incentives and regulations was not just to get bigger buildings and increase density but also to improve quality and ensure the proposed regulations would result in new development meeting the original vision. Vice-Chair Boe expressed the opinion that this was a change from the purpose as stated in the Planning Commission review draft of May 30, 2007. He then quoted from page 5, indicating he wanted to make certain it was on the record: ”It has been 14 years since the City’s Mixed-Use Centers were designated and ten years since zoning regulations were crafted to fit these centers. Although downtown and a few of the neighborhood centers are experiencing infill development and other investment, redevelopment is not happening at the rate or density envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. In some cases development is happening just outside the Mixed-Use Center boundaries, rather than where it is desired for the creation of compact centers. The purpose of the Mixed-Use Center analysis is to fine tune the Mixed-Use Center strategy to identify barriers to investment in the centers and identify incentives, refinements and other techniques to achieve Tacoma’s Growth Strategy.” Ms. Stenger indicated that she


understood that to mean that they were to look at barriers and refinements to achieve the growth strategy, which is more than just big buildings and density in the centers. Commissioner Briske inquired whether there was a minimum dimension regarding the open space. Mr. Boudet indicated that the only minimum was indicated for a common open space. For individuals, it could be a 10 X 10 foot patio. He assumed that in most situations there would be common open space and also private open space. The minimum would be 100 square feet per unit. Chair Smith inquired whether staff would be offering other options. Mr. Boudet inquired whether the Planning Commission wanted the open space requirement at all. Commissioner Gaffney expressed the opinion that the requirement increased cost, but was definitely necessary. Discussion continued regarding the requirements being different at individual Centers. It was emphasized that some Centers had extensive common open space while others had less. The Commissioners also discussed the issue of the quality of the open space. Mr. Boudet suggested that the issue of quality could involve implementing design review, perhaps. Vice-Chair Boe expressed concern regarding delays and projects were being delayed in anticipation of the results and that there was still a lot of work to do. Several Commissioners discussed the need to spend more time on Mixed-Use Center requirements and the concern that they were running out of time. Vice-Chair Boe expressed the opinion that the Commission had not been dealing with many policy issues. He indicated that he professionally dealt with the regulations on a regular basis. He expressed the opinion that they needed to put the time into the discussion of Mixed-Use Center regulations and impact and benefit of specific incentives. He also expressed concern that the Complete Streets program was occurring parallel to their Mixed-Use Center regulations and that both were interrelated. Ms. Stenger indicated that the last issue was the Individualization of Mixed-Use Centers. She noted prior discussions of this matter and indicated that the largest question involved the extent the Mixed-Use Centers should be individualized in terms of regulations and incentives. She indicated that the Mixed Use Centers currently have some differentiation on height and also on uses. Commissioner Gaffney indicated that the incentives could change in the various Centers, not just the regulations. Commissioner Morris indicated that he had not seen evidence that Mixed-Use Centers were being held back because they were not individualized. Commissioner Doty expressed opinion that each Center would have its own character and that he did not believe any requirement prevented a Mixed-Use Center from having its own vision. Commissioner Briske noted he agreed with Commissioner Doty and did not see a need for each Mixed-Use Center being individualized. He further expressed the opinion that each Mixed-Use Center should be market driven and to have individualized regulations and codes would be an administrative nightmare. Vice-Chair Boe looked at the economic feasibility study, which indicated that a project must be large to be feasible. He stated that the Centers were made up of small buildings and to redevelop they must replace small buildings with larger buildings. He expressed the opinion that there was a difference between Proctor and South Tacoma Way Mixed-use Center and that a large project would be more compatible in South Tacoma Way.


Ms. Stenger indicated that there was an option to reduce height in specific Centers. She indicated that the Proctor district was a challenge, as it was totally surrounded by single-family homes and very small. She indicated that they could differentiate and provide a lower height in the Proctor District or limit height to a particular area. Mr. Boudet indicated he was unaware that it was the zoning code that was forcing big projects but more so due to economic realities. He indicated that indeed a 65-foot tall building would be the largest building in almost any of the Centers. However, as one fo the main goals of this project was to look at ways to encourage development, he indicated that increased height has been identified as one significant way to encourage development. Mr. Boudet indicated that the direction from the Commission was that incentives would be the first way to address the individualization issue. He indicated that streetscape improvements were also a way to differentiate Centers.

COMMUNICATION ITEMS Chair Smith acknowledged receipt of the following:

1. Land Use Administrator’s Reports and Decisions. 2. Hearings Examiner’s Report. 3. City Council Ordinance No. 27751, adopted on October 28, 2008, extending the date for

suspending the acceptance of applications for the Property Tax Exemption for Multi-family Housing in the Tacoma Mall Mixed-Use Center until March 31, 2009.

COMMENTS BY PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Lihuang Wung noted the dates that the City Council would be reviewing and adopting the Downtown Plan and the Annual Amendment Package, as follows: study session on November 18, public hearing on November 25, first reading of ordinances on December 2, and final reading of ordinances on December 9, 2008. Ms. Stenger encouraged the Commissioners to attend.

COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS

Commissioner Freeman inquired as to Planning staff’s involvement in analyzing and correcting the problems in the regulations that led to the development near the Tacoma Mall. Ms. Stenger indicated that they were addressing the townhouse standards, minimum density, streetscape and design standards. She noted it was a combined Public Works/Planning effort.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.

Members Thomas M. Smith, Chair David A. Boe, Vice-Chair Kevin Briske Carolyn L. Davidson Robert T. de Grouchy, III Jeremy C. Doty Kimberly Freeman Sean Gaffney Scott Morris Community and Economic Development Department Ryan Petty, Director Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager




Minutes



TIME: Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 4:00 p.m.


Members Present:

David Boe (Vice-Chair), Carolyn Davidson, Jeremy Doty, Sean Gaffney, Scott Morris

Members Excused:

Thomas Smith (Chair), Kevin Briske, Robert de Grouchy, Kimberly Freeman

Staff Present:

Peter Huffman, Steve Atkinson, Molly Harris, Ian Munce, Bart Alford, Donna Bosinski (Community and Economic Development); Shirley Schultz, Shannon Stragier (Building and Land Use Services

Others Present

N/A.

Vice-Chair David Boe called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. There were no minutes submitted for approval. The Planning Commission did not have a quorum but the item on the agenda was being provided for information only.

GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Shoreline Master Program Update Ms. Molly Harris introduced Steve Atkinson and presented the proposed update to the Shoreline Master Program. She explained that the Tacoma Shoreline Master Program provided policies and regulations that guide development along the shoreline of the City. She provided a scope of work and schedule and summaries of documents provided at the recent public workshop. She indicated that a summary of the comments were also provided.


In 1971, the Shoreline Management Plan Act was passed by public referendum and the Act placed priority on three items 1) Protecting water quality and the environment, 2) Providing for water-dependent uses and 3) Providing public access to the shoreline. In 2003, the Washington Administrative Code, which provides the guidelines that implement the Shoreline Master Plan, was updated. Ms. Harris reported that the new guidelines require Tacoma to develop and adopt new policies based on the three priority items for all 42 miles of marine shoreline areas, streams, and Wapato Lake. The new guidelines require the Shoreline Master Program to be consistent with new standards. The updated Shoreline Master Plan must be adopted by 2011; however, Tacoma’s goal is 2009 to coincide with the update of the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the new guidelines place emphasis on water quality. Ms. Harris indicated that in 2006 the City hired consultants ESA and Reed Middleton and; earlier this year the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance was revised. On October 23, 2008, the first public workshop regarding the Shoreline Master Program update was held and approximately 40 citizens attended. The following documents were prepared and submitted: draft Restoration Plan; draft Waterfront Land Use Analysis; draft Public Access Inventory and Opportunities; and draft Foss Waterway Public Access and Use Analysis. Mr. Steve Atkinson indicated that the new Washington State guidelines require a Restoration Plan to guide the City of Tacoma in restoration activities. A map was prepared of existing restoration sites and potential sites based on existing plans. He outlined the four goals of the restoration plan: 1) Improve water quality; 2) Re-establish and restore natural shoreline processes, restore degraded and lost habitat, and improve wildlife corridors; 3) Improve connectivity of the shoreline environments to one another and to adjacent habitat corridors that support priority species and species of local significance; 4) Promote stewardship in shoreline areas, in general, and the restoration plan, in particular. Mr. Atkinson indicated that included were objectives and evaluation criteria. He explained that comments had been received regarding Ruston Way and Marine View Drive, and there was a concern expressed regarding the use of armoring. There were also concerns expressed regarding shoreline areas near the creek mouths, including Puget Creek. The Draft Waterfront Land Use Analysis estimated the future demand for waterfront uses and compared data to the current supply. He explained that they mapped water-dependent uses and in the shoreline districts. He indicated that some of the comments involved view issues. He explained that they received feedback regarding Sperry Ocean Dock and whether it could be relocated. He noted the depth analysis indicated few areas that were over 30 feet in depth, the minimum depth needed to accommodate large vessels. Ms. Harris indicated that there was a specific public access plan for the Thea Foss Waterway, which notes existing and future development plans. Staff was also working on the public access plan for the rest of the shoreline areas in Tacoma. Ms. Harris explained that the strategy was to conduct several workshops; hold technical review committee meetings; and conduct numerous meetings with key stakeholders and interested parties. There would be significant review of the shoreline updates by the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms Harris noted that participants in the early discussions expressed concern that there was inadequate land available for water dependent activities. She explained that conflict between public access needs, development, and environmental protection was to be expected. She also explained that conflicts with property owners would likely occur due to the stricter requirements of this update.


Ms. Harris explained that they were working with the technical committee and key community groups and had scheduled an eight-week comment period through mid-January to review the four documents. She reported that the Washington State Department of Ecology was pleased with the City’s direction thus far. Vice-Chair Boe inquired as to whether the Department of Ecology would be reviewing the documents prior to the Planning Commission making their recommendation. Ms. Harris explained that DOE would be reviewing and commenting before the Planning Commission took final action. Commissioner Sean Gaffney inquired whether the Critical Areas addressed in the Critical Areas Plan stopped at 200 feet from the shoreline level. Ms Harris indicated that Critical Areas, regulated under the Growth Management Act, did not stop at the 200-foot level and the Critical Area regulations would be coordinated with the Shoreline Plan. Commissioner Scott Morris questioned the water measurement level as to whether it was mean or ordinary high water mark. Ms Harris indicated that the ordinary high water mark is the usual measurement but that is often very close to the mean higher high water mark. Vice-Chair Boe commented that he was happy to see a joint City Council/Planning Commission study session and inquired as to what conflict would be expected regarding the proposed changes. Ms. Harris indicated that concerns were anticipated especially along Salmon Beach, the Narrows, and Marine View Drive. Commissioner Doty noted it was an exciting project and commented that the schedule was very aggressive.

COMMUNICATION ITEMS Vice-Chair Boe acknowledged receipt of the following:

1. Land Use Administrator’s Reports and Decisions. 2. City Council’s schedule for review and adoption of the proposed Amendments to the

Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code for 2008.

COMMENTS BY PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Peter Huffman reported the following: The study session on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments was conducted on November 18, 2008, and the public hearing was scheduled for November 25, 2008.

*~*~*~*~*~*

In order to provide the Planning Commission’s minutes for approval in a timely manner, a pilot program will be instituted whereas several staff would be transcribing, perhaps without benefit of having attended the meeting and taking notes. Therefore, it was suggested that if Commissioners wanted their comments/thoughts/opinions/questions individually recognized in the transcription, they should state their name so that the transcriptionist would know to whom


the information/questions should be attributed. Mr. Huffman also reminded the Commissioners to speak clearly into the microphones.

*~*~*~*~*~*

On December 3, 2008, the Mixed-Use Center proposed regulations will be reviewed, as well as the nomination of officers for 2009.

COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS

Vice-Chair Boe suggested that Mr. Wung send an e-mail to the Planning Commissioners who were not in attendance to advise them of the upcoming discussion of the Mixed-Use Center regulations and incentives.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m.

Agenda ItemGB-2

City of Tacoma Community and Economic Development Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Peter Huffman, Manager, Planning Division SUBJECT: Parking Requirements for International Financial Services Area DATE: December 11, 2008 The City Council adopted Resolution No. 37508 on June 17, 2008, designating an International Financial Services Area (IFSA) as a special emphasis area within the Downtown Commercial Core (DCC) Zone, to encourage the expansion, retention and recruitment of international financial services businesses within the designated area. The resolution also requested the Planning Commission to evaluate, and recommend necessary changes to, zoning regulations to help accomplish the intent of the IFSA designation. The IFSA is identified in the new Downtown Element of the Comprehensive Plan as a priority development area. The new Plan also includes a section to address parking management. The Commission may recall that based on public testimony, a new policy was added to move the City toward a market based approach for parking requirements in certain areas of the downtown. The City Council’s Environment and Public Works Committee, at the request of the City Manager, agreed to refer a proposal to eliminate the parking requirements within the IFSA for review and study by the Planning Commission. At your meeting, staff will facilitate the Commissioners’ review and discussion of the proposal as a pilot project to test a market based approach for parking. The Commission has repeatedly heard that the parking requirement is an impediment to downtown private investment. The IFSA appears to be an area where the elimination of parking requirements could be tested because of the relatively few residences compared to the predominance of commercial/office uses. The intent is to modify the parking requirement as the first implementation step of the Downtown Plan and move toward implementation of the City Manager’s mobility and parking strategy. Attached is a memorandum from the City Manager suggesting the evaluation by the Planning Commission, which was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee at their meeting on December 10, a map depicting the IFSA boundary, an excerpt of the existing downtown zoning code pertaining to parking requirements, and a copy of Resolution No. 37508. If you have any questions, please contact Peter Huffman 591-5373 or [email protected]. PH:ds Attachments (4)

747 Market Street, Room 1036 ▌ Tacoma, Washington 98402-3793 ▌ (253) 591-5365 http://www.cityoftacoma.org/planning


INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES AREA (IFSA) Parking Requirements

Planning Commission Meeting – December 17, 2008

IFSA Area As adopted in Resolution 37508 (6-17-08)

Existing Land Use Regulatory Code – Parking Requirements Excerpt from TMC 13.06A, Downtown Tacoma

13.06A.060 Development standards. Development Standards Table.

Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1 Districts “As of Right” With Design

Standards With Special Features

Height Limits

Non-Res Parking2, 3, 4 Min Max

Non-Res Res

Non- Res Res

Non-Res Res

(stalls/floor area sf)5

DCC 3 3 6 6 12 12 400’ 2.4/1000 3.6/1000

DMU 2 3 4 5 6 7 100’ 2.4/1000 3.6/1000

DR 1 2 2 4 4 6 90’ 1.2/1000 3.6/1000

WR 3 4 4 5 6 7 100’ 1.2/1000 3.6/1000

Notes: 1. The FAR for non-residential and residential uses within a given development are individually calculated

and may be added together for a cumulative total, provided that the respective maximum FAR for each use is not exceeded. For example, in the DCC, an “as-of-right” development may have a total FAR of 6, with a FAR of 3 in non-residential use and a FAR of 3 in residential use in a single development.

2. For the purposes of calculating maximum allowable FAR, hotels shall be considered a residential use. 3. A minimum FAR of 1 shall be achieved for structures within the Downtown Commercial Core district.

The gross floor area shall be used to calculate the minimum FAR. 4. Building Height will be measured consistent with the applicable Building Code, Height of Building and

excludes parapets, mechanical penthouses, elevator overruns and machine rooms, and decorative architectural features (e.g., spires, towers, pergolas, pyramids, pitched roofs) not intended for residential, office or retail space.

5. Maximum Building Height within 150’ east of the centerline of the right-of-way of Yakima Avenue shall be 60 feet, in order to create a transition to lower-rise residential development to the west.

6. Minimum parking ratios for non-residential development located east of Market Street, or located east of Jefferson Avenue from South 21st to South 28th streets shall be reduced by 50 percent in recognition of the availability of transit.

7. The first 3,000 square feet of each street level establishment is exempt from parking requirements. 8. Maximum parking ratios may be exceeded for providing parking available to the public and which is not

dedicated to individual owners, tenants and lessees of the building. 9. Tandem parking is permitted only for residential development subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 10. Development shall also comply with the requirements of 13.06.510(C) Loading Spaces. 11. No variances shall be granted to these development standards unless otherwise indicated. 12. Buildings lawfully in existence on January 10, 2000, the time of reclassification to the above districts do

not need to conform to these standards; however, additions will need to conform. No addition can increase nonconformity to these standards or create new nonconformity.

Footnotes: ______________________ 1 The maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio may be exceeded as provided for in Section 13.06A.080. 2 Residential developments shall be required to provide one stall per residential unit. Special needs housing,

including, but not limited to, seniors, assisted living, congregate care, licensed care, or group care homes may provide less than one stall per residence upon a showing that a lesser parking requirement will reasonably provide adequate parking for residents, staff, and visitors, subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer.

3 Required parking for hotels shall be .5 stalls per room inclusive of all accessory uses. 4 Telecommunications exchange facilities may provide less than the required parking stalls upon a showing

that a lesser parking requirement will reasonably provide adequate parking for operational, vendor, and transient service staff, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer.

5 Floor area is determined pursuant to the definition provided in Section 13.06A.030(7).

Req. #12052 Amended 12-2-08 Amended 12-9-08 ORDINANCE NO. 27769

-1- ord12052amendNo2.doc-EAP/lad

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Comprehensive Plan; amending the Growth

Strategy and Development Concept Element, Generalized Land Use Element, Capital Facilities Element, Utilities Element, Transportation Element, Environmental Policy Element, Recreation and Open Space Facilities Element, and Neighborhood Element.

WHEREAS the Planning Commission (“Commission”) annually

recommends changes to the Comprehensive Plan (“Plan”) and Land Use

Regulatory Code (“Code”), pursuant to the Growth Management Act (“GMA”),

and

WHEREAS the 2008 changes are presented in four separate ordinances

for ease of review, and

WHEREAS these ordinances have been categorized as Comprehensive

Plan Elements (other than Downtown), Comprehensive Plan Downtown

Element, Code Revisions, and Areawide Rezones, and

WHEREAS this ordinance covers the Comprehensive Plan Elements

(other than Downtown) and amends eight elements thereof, and

WHEREAS, on October 15, 2008, the Commission made a

recommendation to the City Council to amend the Growth Strategy and

Development Concept Element to modify the Generalized Land Use Plan Map

and the Tacoma Growth Concept, Concentrations and Corridors-Designated

Centers Map to change the land use intensity designation from Single-Family to

Low-Intensity for property located at Browns Point Boulevard Northeast and

53rd Street Northeast, to modify the boundaries of the South Tacoma


Manufacturing/Industrial Center and the Tacoma Mall Mixed-Use Center, and to

revise maps in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan depicting land use

intensity designations and center boundaries consistent with said recommended

modifications, and

WHEREAS, at this same meeting on October 15, 2008, the Commission

made a recommendation to the City Council to amend the Growth Strategy and

Development Concept Element to revise the chart, “Relationship of

Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Classifications,” to indicate that

M-1 zoning is not an appropriate zoning classification in Low-Intensity areas,

and


made a recommendation to the City Council to revise the Generalized Land Use

Element to include new and revised Urban Design Goals and Policies and add

new and revised intent and policies concerning Industrial Development and the

Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, and


made a recommendation to the City Council to include revisions to the Capital

Facilities Element pertaining to Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, and


made a recommendation to the City Council to include revisions to the

Transportation Element to add policies pertaining to Commute Trip Reduction,

“complete streets,” and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers, and to add 19 projects

to the Transportation Improvement Projects List – Unfunded, and



made a recommendation to the City Council to replace the Recreation and

Open Space Facilities Element with a new Open Space Habitat and Recreation

Element while retaining policies on recreational needs and facilities, including

policies on the location, design and distribution of recreational facilities, and

which said policies have been incorporated into the new Open Space Habitat

and Recreation Element, and


made a recommendation to the City Council to revise the Generalized Land

Use, Utilities and Environmental Policy Elements, consistent with said new

Open Space Habitat and Recreation Element, and


made a recommendation to the City Council to include revisions to the

Neighborhood Element to add policies to provide direction for the future

development of the recommended Low-Intensity area at Browns Point

Boulevard Northeast and 53rd Street Northeast and to revise text and policies

pertaining to the South Tacoma Manufacturing/Industrial Center, and

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2008, the City Council held a public

hearing to receive public comment on the Commission’s recommendations on

amending the aforementioned eight elements of the Comprehensive Plan and

plan maps, and


WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, the City Council, in response to

public comment and concerns about public notice, moved to remand to the

Planning Commission the recommended change to the Land Use Intensity and

the revisions to the Neighborhood Element to add policies to provide direction

for the future development of the recommended Low-Intensity area for property

located at Browns Point Boulevard Northeast and 53rd Street Northeast, and

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2008, the City Council, in response to

public comment, moved to amend the Open Space Habitat and Recreation

element of the Plan in Amended Ordinance No. 27769, by removing Parcel Nos.

5945621211 and 5945621212 and the abutting portion of the undeveloped

Narrows Drive right-of-way from designation as open space on any maps within

the element and in any document/map associated with the Plan; Now,

Therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF TACOMA:

Section 1. That the City Council hereby remands to the Planning

Commission the proposal to change the land use intensity designation from

Single-Family to Low-Intensity for property located at Browns Point Boulevard

Northeast and 53rd Street Northeast (“Browns Point”), and the revisions to the

Neighborhood Element to add policies to provide direction for the future

development of the recommended Low-Intensity area for additional public

participation that will include a new public notice and public hearing.

Section 2. That the City Council adopts the Findings and

Recommendations of the Planning Commission, dated October 15, 2008,


except as to those Findings and Recommendations that relate to the Browns

Point proposal, Application No. 2008-05.

Section 3. That the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended, as

summarized in Exhibits “A,” “A-2,” “A-3,” “B,” “C,” “D,” “E,” “F,” and “H,” attached

hereto substantially in the form of the amendments on file in the office of the

City Clerk.

Section 4. That the Comprehensive Plan is hereby further amended, as

summarized in Exhibit “G,” as modified by the City Council motion of

December 9, 2008.

Section 5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be

December 31, 2008.

Passed

Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved as to Form: City Attorney

agenda - tacomacms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/planning commission/agenda packets... · scott morris...

Documents