City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 25, 2005
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present:
Robert Simpson-Clark, chair; Jim Clingan, Rebecca McInteer, Jon Newton, Janet Shull, Michael Sumner, Barbara Williams
Absent:
None
Others Present:
David Johanson, senior planner; Gerry Lindsay, minutes taker
Chair Simpson-Clark called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Shull and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment – None
Approval of Minutes
A. January 11, 2005
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Shull and the motion carried unanimously.
Old Business – None
New Business
A. Demolition Standards: Scope of Work Discussion
David Johanson, senior planner, called attention to the memo in the packet in which was outlined the purpose, action and next steps associated with development of demolition standards for the city. He asked for input from the commission, noting that no specific action was necessary at this time. Once the scope of work is fleshed out, the document will be brought back before the commission for recommendation to the City Council. If approved by the council, there will be amendments made to the International Building Code.
Mr. Johanson explained that the demolition and redevelopment standards is on the commission’s work program and is one component of the larger Northeast Redevelopment Area (NERA) item. He said as staff began to look into the issue in detail, they reached the conclusion that the standards should apply citywide, thus the scope was broadened to some degree.
Demolition standards are needed in part to protect the public health, safety and welfare for projects involving demolition. The concern is that sites that have been demolished could become attractive nuisances or serve as an eyesore degrading an entire neighborhood. As envisioned, the standards will apply to situations where there is no proposal for construction following demolition. Demolitions occur on a regular basis, but in most instances they are associated with a construction project; one building is torn down to make way for a new one. The demolition standards will not apply in those cases.
Mr. Johanson said the International Building Code currently contains some demolition standards. The proposal would enhance those standards by effecting a local amendment to the building code. Most of the particulars associated with the draft code amendments are current practices in Burien, though they are not formalized.
The current code addresses nuisances and defines what they are. The list includes hazards or that which would bother or disturb a neighbor. The proposed demolition standards seek to avoid the creation of a nuisance.
Mr. Johanson shared with the commissioners the pertinent Comprehensive Plan policies, including Goal PA.1 “Continue to maintain control over land use within the city in order to prevent degradation of economic vitality, property values, essential infrastructure and the natural environment.” He noted that policies PA 1.4 and PA 1.5 are of particular import.
The proposed administrative permit process has been developed in conjunction with building official Lee Bailey and seeks to formalize practices that are already being carried out on a regular basis. The permit process will, in part, allow the city to ensure that demolition actions are done correctly.
Commissioner Newton stressed the need to control dust at demolition sites. Typically such sites are required to be sprayed down with water. The resulting runoff needs to be managed under the storm water management principles. He agreed with the need to obtain a hazardous materials survey as proposed under the administrative permit, but noted that there is nothing in the application for demolition that talks about hazardous materials. Mr. Johanson said the intent is to make sure all hazardous materials are identified prior to demolition. Commissioner Newton said that can be accomplished by requiring a contractor to list all known hazardous materials associated with a demolition site prior to beginning the actual demolition.
Commissioner Newton said it is his understanding that underground tanks can, under the regulations, be filled in and left in place. He said his recommendation would be for complete removal of such tanks. Mr. Johanson pointed out that that is covered under paragraph (4).
Commissioner Newton suggested that sites on which demolition has been done and that are brought back to grade can over time see erosion issues, unless revegetated or otherwise treated to prevent runoff and erosion. A site could easily remain empty for two or three years. Mr. Johanson noted that paragraph (8) addresses that issue.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that where there is a development plan that includes leaving a demolition site untouched for less than a year, there should be provision for waiving some of the requirements. Mr. Johanson reiterated that the primary reason for having the demolition standards is to provide protections in cases where a demolished site may remain vacant for a length of time without a plan for redevelopment.
Commissioner Newton asked if the term “structure” as used in paragraph (1) is defined anywhere. Mr. Johanson allowed that “structure” is a defined term in the code, and Commissioner Newton proposed including a reference to the definition. Mr. Johanson said a structure is generally defined in the Zoning Code as anything permanently fixed in or on the ground, excluding fences.
Commissioner Williams asked what the term “development application” as used in paragraph (10) refers to. Mr. Johanson said there are a couple of different kinds of development applications. One is a land use approval, a process that could take a number of months. The other is a construction permit or site development permit. Paragraph (10) dictates that the actual demolition work must occur within 30 days, and that within six months the site must be brought into compliance with all demolition standards, including revegetation.
Commissioner McInteer said she is bothered by the word “natural” as used in paragraph (6). The code should clearly describe the purpose behind all of the requirements and a checklist of ways to achieve those purposes.
Commissioner Sumner suggested that any previous hazardous material spills that have occurred on the site and that the property owner is aware of should be disclosed. Mr. Johanson said that is a requirement of any real estate transaction.
Chair Simpson-Clark allowed that in most instances demolition will be conducted in order to use the property in another way according to a plan. The property owner should be allowed to grade following demolition in a manner that is consistent with the long-term use of the property. While it is appropriate to require a hole in the ground left from the removal of a basement to be filled in, it is not necessarily appropriate to require a cut to be filled in, especially if the long-term plan for the site will require another cut in the same place.
Commissioner Williams said the purpose statement is well written, but the draft code amendments do not necessarily do a good job of couching the purpose statement. There should first be a statement that the purpose is pre-eminent and that the various code amendment paragraphs are ways in which the purpose can be satisfied.
Commissioner Newton referred to paragraph (9) under the administrative permit process and questioned whether it should be the intent of the city to carry the responsibility for checking and making sure that everything on site is functioning properly. The city should check for compliance, but it should be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the site in a continuing state consistent with the appropriate regulations. The paragraph should read “…determine whether the property owner’s restoration efforts are in place and continuing to function properly.”
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that where there is a final inspection conducted by the city once a demolition is completed, there should be no need for periodic checking of anything. He proposed replacing “shall” with “may.” Mr. Johanson said his intent in crafting the language of paragraph (9) was to allow for periodic checks to make sure no new issues have arisen. He agreed that the word “may” would be better.
Mr. Johanson allowed that having a checklist to be used by both the property owner and the city would be a very valuable tool.
Chair Simpson-Clark said he would like to see incentives included for property owners to conduct demolition. Mr. Johanson said he has not seen jurisdictions incorporate incentives for demolition. More often cities have requirements for demolition under certain circumstances.
Commissioner Sumner cautioned against making the requirements too onerous in that that approach could prove to be a disincentive to demolition.
Chair Simpson-Clark pointed out that the code currently allows for redevelopment on an existing foundation. Commissioner Newton said that would be in conflict with the proposed demolition standard in paragraph (3). Mr. Johanson agreed that there could be a conflict. Under the proposal, however, an existing foundation must be removed within a year, unless it is a nuisance, in which case it must be removed sooner. Staff will take into account whether or not a development application is pending for the site that includes reusing the existing foundation.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested adding to the purpose statement a sentence noting that one purpose is to expedite the removal of structures from a landowner’s tax assessment.
B. Old Burien Design Guidelines: Scope of Work Discussion
Mr. Johanson reminded the commissioners that the development of design guidelines for Old Burien, SPA-1, is on the work program as a Priority 2. He said staff has roughed out a scope of work and a list of what the process should include. The commissioners were asked to review and comment on the proposed scope of work.
Mr. Johanson suggested that the changes that have occurred in the Old Burien area over the past two years or so have been very positive. The preparation of design standards for the area will offer residents and business owners within the SPA-1 area the opportunity to keep the momentum going. The existing framework of design guidelines and the design review process will be the base on which to build new design guidelines for the area. The unique character of the area should be recognized and preserved by the action.
Mr. Johanson briefly reviewed with the commission the proposed schedule and budget. He said a consultant will be hired through an RFP to help formulate the exact scope and objectives, and to complete all of the associated tasks, such as those listed in the packet materials.
Motion directing staff to form focus groups to develop and provide insights for the new guidelines, to develop and finalize a draft plan for Planning Commission review, and to address the new design guidelines only, was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Sumner.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that the proposed direction is quite elaborate. He asked if consideration had been given to simply folding the Old Burien area into the downtown design guidelines. He further suggested that the stakeholders group is going to have to be quite tightly defined.
Commissioner Shull asked if there is currently any group that either loosely or formally represents Old Burien. Chair Simpson-Clark said there is a merchants group and Discover Burien. He added that the area is largely composed of businesses that are operated by those who own the land the businesses are on. Those people will have a very strong interest in the long-term plans for Old Burien.
Commissioner Newton commented that the design guidelines established for Old Burien should be consistent with Town Square. The focus groups should be free to comment on whether or not the unique character of Old Burien should remain that way or if the design guidelines should provide for a smoother transition to the downtown area proper. He proposed that the purpose and assumptions as spelled out in the packet materials are acceptable.
Mr. Johanson said the makeup of the focus group will depend to some extent on the level of interest it generates. If the response is overwhelming it might be better to have the business community more involved. The recommendation of staff, though, is to keep the focus group small.
Commissioner Shull indicated support for Option B as outlined in the packet. She suggested that the consultant may want to have some input on the makeup of the focus group, however.
Commissioner Sumner suggested that there will be plenty of opportunity for local business interests to voice their opinion during the process.
Responding to a question asked by Commissioner Shull, Mr. Johanson allowed that design guidelines can be difficult to create because each person has a different view of what is and is not appropriate. As development and redevelopment occurs, the character of an area becomes more evident.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that the SPA-1 area has to a great extent already achieved many of the goals established for the downtown area in terms of being pedestrian oriented and presenting opportunities for small scale businesses within walking distance of each other. The issue of preservation is already largely incorporated in the SPA-1 zoning.
The motion on the floor carried unanimously.
Chair Simpson-Clark opened the floor to comments from the audience.
Mr. Alexander Sasonoff spoke on behalf of the Highline Historical Society. He said the process to develop the land on the corner of 153rd and Ambuam is underway; a pre-application submittal has been made. The brick building will be designed in keeping with the context of Old Burien; it will have two stories and a basement and some 18,000 square feet overall. On the side of the building there will be a sculpture of a full-scale trolley car inlaid into the brick. A representative from the society should be asked to serve on the Old Burien focus group.
Director’s Report
Mr. Johanson provided the commissioners with copies of the monthly project status report.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner McInteer and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Simpson-Clark adjourned the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department