Tacoma City Council Meeting - July 14th, 2009
Last night’s Tacoma City Council meeting contained several really good moments. We heard about Eric Anderson’s performance review. Councilmember Lonergan went off on astroturfers that are trying to change our city. Plus, we had amendment after amendment to the mixed use center plan submitted by the planning commission. Dive in, take a look, and ask questions.
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. 37818 authorizes the execution of an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Pierce County for the creation and operation of the Law Enforcement Support Agency (LESA) related to its operating fund and provision of services, as recommended by the LESA Executive Board. This was held over from last week after some questions were raised about the future of employee benefits. The result is an agreement stating that benefits will not change.
Purchase Resolution No. 37825 awards contracts to:
1. Henderson Partners, LLC, on its bid of $326,756.15 for the Citywide 2008 Sidewalk Maintenance Program Phase 2, to reconstruct sidewalks at 150 sites within the City limits.
2. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., in the amount of $150,000.00,
sales tax not applicable, for a cumulative total of $390,000.00 to increase and extend the contract for household hazardous waste processing and disposal services, technical assistance, and hazardous waste supplies through June 30, 2010.
Resolution No. 37826 reconfirms the appointment of Eric Anderson as the City Manager; and authorizing the execution of an employment agreement for the period of July 16, 2009 through July 15, 2011. Every year the council has to complete a performance evaluation of the City Manager. There’s a salary increase in the agreement, but it won’t take effect until such time as the National Bureau of Economic Research determines that we’re out of a recession. At that time, it will move his salary to the “market salary” targeted for all employees. We’ll see how long that takes …
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No. 27818 amends Title 13 of the Municipal Code, relating to the Land Use Regulatory Code, by modifying the development regulations pertaining to mixed-use centers, including, but not limited to, increasing height limits and reducing parking requirements, modifying building design and development standards, adding new townhouse standards, establishing new mixed-use zoning classifications, and rezoning properties within 16 designated mixed-use centers to mixed-use zoning districts.
This is where things get interesting and the amendments started flowing:
COUNCILMEMBER TALBERT
Champions Center – 72nd and Portland Ave.
The Champions Center church was proposed to be changed into three zoning districts (CCX, RCX, and URX). The amendment would rezone the church into a single zoning classification of CCX. Everybody seems to agree that this is the right step and an oversight.
McKinley Height Limit
This amendment would modfiy the proposed height limit in the URX zone at the northern end of the McKinley Mixed Use Center from 45 feet to 35 feet.
COUNCILMEMBER FEY
Expansion of Height Bonus Area
This amendment would eliminate the concept of concentrating height increases to just the core areas of the mixed-use centers and would expand the areas where height can be increased. The problem for those already concerned about tall buildings next to residential homes is that instances of new taller buildings directly abutting single family homes will increase. Expect a fight on this one.
Parking Requirements
I’m sure you all knew that parking had to come up at some point. This amendment would change the method of defining the area where parking requirements would not apply. The current languages defines the parking exemption area as 200 feet measured from the centerline of the core pedestrian street in the NCX zoning district. The amendment would apply the parking exemption to buildings located within 10 feet of the core pedestrian street.
TDR Option
This amendment would enable developers to achieve bonus heights through the purchase of credits through a transfer of development rights program. TDR is often used to shift development from agricultural or open space land to designated growth zones. This would not become effective until the Council actually adopts the legislation needd to establish a TDR program.
COUNCILMEMBERS WALKER AND MANTHOU
Housing Trust Fund Contribution Bonus Palette Item
This amendment provides a third option for developers to achieve the maximum height of 85 feet by contributing dollars to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. This money would then be made available in loans or grants to developers for the creation of additional affordable housing. This only applies in three mixed use centers: MLK, Stadium, and 56th & South Tacoma Way.
These amendments will be held over for final action in two weeks on July 28th.
Now back to regular business …
Ordinance No. 27819 amending Chapter 8.27 of the Municipal Code, relating to the Park Code, to expand the definition of a “Park” to include parks that are owned and managed by the City, provide authority to exclude persons committing enumerated violations to 90 days or one year, and add an appeal. The one day exclusion did not work with chronic offenders. The current one day exclusion would be retained.
That’s it for today. Any opinions?
Filed under: City-Council, City-Council
10 comments
D drizell July 16, 2009
I knew it was a long meeting when I checked Exit 133 at 11:30 at nothing had been posted yet. Based on your notes, only amendment I’m really concerned about is the reduction of the parking (surprise!) exemption from 200 feet to 10 feet. Because typical city lots are about 130 feet deep, a 200-foot exemption would mean properties a block off a pedestrian street wouldn’t be required to build unnecessary parking.
I’ve been eyeing a 25-foot wide property on J Street for some time now that is about 150 feet from MLK. If the amendment is adopted as proposed, I would have to build one parking space per unit, even if my front door is just a half block from several bus lines and potentially the streetcar. On a lot that is 25 feet wide, off-street parking is almost impossible while maintaining a density intended by the new code.
Therefore, I’ll be writing a strong letter recommending that the 200-foot exemption be restored.
N Nick July 16, 2009
I’m not really a fan of that 200 ft to 10 ft reduction either. Aren’t we trying to achieve precisely the opposite of this?
This amendment sounds like the old Tacoma way of thinking creeping back in right when it looks like we might actually be making progress.
Can we please not neuter this pivotal change in policy? Especially after so much energy has been put into getting us this far!
D David Boe July 16, 2009
drizell @ 2: The 200 foot line would not impact you since your property is not contiguous with the primary pedestrian street – basically you would still have to provide parking AND your option to go higher would only be for the 50 feet of the property closest to MLK even with the 200 foot line. The proposed amendment will not allow you to develop without parking but is would allow your site to go to higher height if it is all within the NCX Zone. What really needs to happen is that the parking requirement needs to go away for ALL the NCX to allow small site to developed – but there is already signicant push-back from Council now about this baby step to increasing our urban center density – which is imperative if we are be less like Gig Harbor and more like Ballard.
D Donovan July 16, 2009
Parking:
I think the last two posts are misinterpreting the parking exemption. I believe it meens that properties inside the ten feet distance would not have to provide parking. This actually decreases the amount of parking required for properties.
D David Boe July 16, 2009
Nick @ 3: Actually, the proposed amendments gets Tacoma closer to being in compliance with the Growth Management Act – the 200 foot line is more of a waffle on the subject. So – if you like things just as they are, then speak against the amendement. If you would like progress and density in our MUC’s, then support the amendment.
D DavidS July 16, 2009
I agree that the goal is to move to an entirely market-based parking system. I would encourage you to send a letter to Council reminding them of that.
As far as the specifics of the amendment, the 200ft is from the centerline of a road and applies to a project that is 60% within the line. The 10ft is from the edge of the (typically 80ft) right-of-way and applies to the entire building. Both are only available in the core neighborhood commercial zone.
Properties even 1/2 a block away (~160 ft) from a pedestrian street would not receive the benefits of this exemption in either scenario, unless it was rolled together in a single project/building.
Before assuming that 200>10, please acknowledge the difference in units. There are many more details involved, one of which is the impact on potential developments.
(Assuming the J Street lot is within the MUC, there are a number of parking reductions for increased mobility options, including one for transit. However, it would make sense to exclude projects up to size consistent with historical development from parking mandates. Providing parking on a 25- or 50-ft wide project will destroy the frontage whether it is one stall or twenty.)
E Erik B. July 16, 2009
drizell@2,
Yes, the city should have allowed the parking to be determined by market in all of the mixed use center as the NENC and AIA recommended. But at least some progress will be made.
The amendment was supposed to be better in a way so that buildings (the entire building) that were within 10 feet of the sidewalk would be exempt allowing density and connected retail on the first floor for the entire building.
So, as Boe points out, the amendment will likely be an improvement as buildings are supposed to be built withing 10 feet of the sidewalk as they are in walkable urban centers. This allows the whole building to be covered rather than just the first 200 feet.
Yes, it would would have been better if they had added the amendment as an alternative rather than replacing the language but I agree with David Boe that the amendment will improve the ability of the mixed use centers to infill and create a more attractive and functional urban design.
BTW, there is still going to be lots of parking built in the mixed use centers but it will be based on what is best for the center and the demand of parking rather than trying to force every development to be a strip mall.
Hence, in the future, we should see more Proctor type urban designs and the design around Matador on Pacific rather than unwalkable Westgates where a car is required to travel from one box to another.
D drizell July 17, 2009
David and Erik: Thanks for clarifying. If anyone knows the specifics, it’s you guys. How cool is that, that a Planning Commissioner gets on the local blog to correct our misconceptions? I wish every city were as cool as Tacoma.
N Nick July 17, 2009
Maybe I’m not understanding that 200’ => 10’ amendment. So a building basically has to partially touch within that 10’ boundary in order to qualify for the parking exemption?
And that is versus the current arrangement which said that a building hat to be at least 60% within the first 200’ in order to qualify?
If that’s the case, I totally got it wrong. That is actually a ridiculously awesome improvement and not a “neuter” so to speak. That would effectively only reward developers building up-to-the-sidewalk projects and help to avoid rewarding the strip mall design. And that, my friends, is MUSIC TO MY EARS! ;-)
E Erik B. July 21, 2009
How cool is that, that a Planning Commissioner gets on the local blog to correct our misconceptions?
Yes. The Tacoma Planning Commission has really come up to speed on urban design issues.
One of the reasons is the quality of the members. Another reason is that they really listed to the AIA to understand the connection between parking requirements and urban design.
The Tacoma City Council is certainly coming up to speed, but they have a bit to go.
They are starting to understand why the city has forced little else but strip mall development over the last 50 years in Tacoma.
Let’s hope they can follow through by passing the package as is with the amendments offered.