Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2007-05-14 Item 4C - Discussion - Single Family Building Height and/or Setback Standards r COUNCIL AGENDA SIWOPSIS J 0tLA iY9 ITEMNO. -I! I Meetin Date Prep d Mayor's review Cojr sFil review c__ 0e, .m i 05/14/ I J I ti I el2 1 908 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 ITEM=INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04 6 5 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Single Family Building Height and /or Setback Standards CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 5 -14-07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance ['Fire Legal P&R Police PW SPONSOR'S The proposal is an exploration of options to increase the compatibility of infill development SuMMIARY in the LDR Zone with existing neighborhood patterns. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DAIF;: 4 -24 -07 RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission CONDETTEE Forward to full Council for consideration CuST 1MPACTTFUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: N/A Comments: =MTG. DATE RECORD=OF COUNCU ACTI-ON 5 -14 -07 1 I I 1 1 MMIDATE ATTACHMENTS 5 -14 -07 Information Memo dated 5/7/07 with Attachments Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/24/07 1 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Park ommittee FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Direc: DATE: May 7, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendment LDR Buildin: Standards ISSUE Should the City change residential standards such as height or setbacks to reduce the impact on adjacent houses? BACKGROUND The Council asked staff to review the way building height was calculated after receiving complaints about a new house that the neighbors felt was out of scale with the surrounding development. Currently the LDR zone allows buildings up to 30 feet in height measured according to the method in the Washington State Building Code (IBC 2003) from the average ground surface to the midpoint of a pitched roof. At their March 15 meeting the CAP reviewed a diagram showing how various jurisdictions calculated building height and how that affected the building envelope, see Attachment A. There was some support for following Kent's approach which is a 35' height limit from "the lowest point within five feet of the foundation." Some codes specify that the point of measurement must be from "undisturbed ground The Kent approach would have the effect of reducing the allowable height of buildings on slopes by a few feet depending on the steepness of the slope and whether retaining walls were used to alter the surrounding grades but raising the height of buildings on flat ground if the height limit was changed to 35'. CAP reviewed the issue again at the April 24 meeting and wanted to bring three options to the COW: Increasing rear yard setbacks from 10 to 15 feet; Increasing rear yard setbacks from 10 to 15 feet for up to two stories and further increasing the rear yard setback to 25 feet if the house has a third story; No action. NG Page 1 05/09/2007 9:44:00 AM Q:\ CODEAMND \5- 14BuildHeightCOW.DOC ALTERNATIVES/DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Building height is only one element of the zoning regulations that control the bulk or building envelope of a structure. The others are lot coverage, setbacks and in some jurisdictions floor area ratio (FAR). Simply lowering building height or changing the way it is calculated may not result in new buildings that are significantly more compatible with existing development patterns. In the case of the house that sparked this discussion changing the building height measuring point from average grade plane to lowest elevation within 5' would only have lowered the house by about 5 feet and not reduced the bulk. Other ideas would be to control the bulk of houses through a FAR or use tiered setbacks such as those in the multi family zones. Building Envelope Pry �i r 1 i I MA.V I ""-3 y' I NOCH7 l q ,e e I a_ I 7 P4, 1 t 448 g Below is a table listing single family development standards in nearby jurisdictions: Jurisdiction Standard Tukwila Kent Renton SeaTac Burien 2.5 Height 30' stry/35' 2 stry/35' 2 stry/30' 30' 35' 5,000 to Lot Area 6,500 7,600 8,000 4,500 15,000 7,200 60', 70' 50', 60' Lot Width 50' 50' Corner Corner 50' Greater Greater Lot 35% at of 2,500sf of 2,500sf Coverage 6,500 sf 45% or 35% or 35% 35% 35% Setbacks: 15', 20' Front 20' 10' 30' garage 20' 20' Second 15', 20' Front 10' 10' 20' garage 20' 15' Total, Side 5' 5' 5' min. 5' 5' 5' Rear 10' 5' 25' 20' 15' 5' Impervious Surface 60% 70% Q: \CODEAM D\5- 14BuildHeightCOW.DOC 2 05/09/2007 NG Lot Coverage The LDR zone currently limits the lot coverage (footprint) of all of the structures on a site to roughly 35% (the percentage decreases as the lot size increases) TMC 18.10.057. This percentage is common among jurisdictions that use this regulation, see table above. However the building size can be maximized by building that footprint straight up three stories. Floor Area Ratio FAR is expressed as the total square footage of the building(s) divided by the square footage of the lot. This links the size of the building to the size of the lot regardless of the number of stories. Common single family residential FARs range from .45 to .65 which would limit a house on a 6,500 sf lot to between 2,925 and 4,225 sf. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .5 not including the basement area (CP 7.6.4) The house that triggered this discussion was on a 13,500 sf lot and had a FAR of .34. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1:1 Ratio t story 2 stories 4 stores (100% lot cr ver3g) (50% lot co ra e) s% lot coverasei Setbacks Increasing the side and rear setback distance for the second and third stories of a house would be another way to reduce the impact of a house on the adjacent properties. The current LDR setbacks are 20' in the front, 10' on the second front, 5' on the sides and 10' in the rear. Tiered side and rear setbacks that increased by 5' per story for lots that are at least 50' wide would modulate the side elevations of the houses and reduce their bulk. The increases could have the effect of limiting the development potential of smaller or oddly shaped lots and preclude the use of stock plans by developers. The house that triggered this discussion is set back 5 to 7' from one side, 8' from the other and 65' in the back. The complaint arose from a neighbor whose back yard faced the new house's side yard. This was due to the corner location, but is a common occurrence with infill development. See Attachment B for an example of how the front, side and rear yard are commonly assigned to a new lot in a short plat. In interior lots accessed off of a private road the rear yard often faces the neighboring property's side yard and vice versa. Q:\ CODEAMND \5- I4BuildHeightCOW.DOC 3 05/09/2007 NG OPTIONS The CAP suggested the following options for the Council's discussion: 1) Change the rear yard setback in LDR from 10 to 15 feet; 2) Increase the rear yard setback in LDR for all houses to 15 feet and to 25 feet if the house has a third story (with a possible exception for alley accessed garages or accessory structures); 3) No Action. RECOMMENDATION Tukwila's single family house regulations are similar to those of nearby, similarly situated communities as seen in the table above. None of the changes to building standards suggested by the CAP would have made a significant difference in the bulk of the house that was the source of the neighborhood complaint. However if the Council wished to continue to pursue this issue staff could develop design standards that would require more site sensitive designs. Attachment A: Comparison of Maximum Building Height Standards Attachment B: Yard Location Diagram Attachment C: Seattle Code for Structures and Setbacks Q:\ CODEANEND \5- 14BuildHeightCO`V.DOC 4 05/09/2007 NG t u ■t ■0 s••• -0■■ t 0 j■ ■w o lu■ 1 r■ t3 r■ .r ■C ■o �oeor■■ ■rev■ .0 ■1 ■vino ►r/ r **swig** 0 0 01■001w e eetwiwil 5 so cf) 011.0000060700,1 /r ■1011 e solatiussusitiga ■vd ■■■t cn �■r■ /o/ ►e ■■t/ y n T. s ■r ■t AB c ■■r rl■ ■■sw' .0 e s■ta r 1 t■■■ t 0 0 cl a Ott/ 0 0 010 01 c- ,),9; -il o v�■ *too*. c: p p N N r WA tw s■■ $11 s II 5e.). i 11 To i 010400000 t■ ■t ■■rte i ■ttossl r 0 ,rnitir0 0 410114 oo■■■ 0■ **Sisslistositios r ■■■■■■111 I i ViS /'.o ■lir n igl■ i e 0_,, t i Q /►■■►A t■ 4,1 i Ts c,A,1), t„ 1.52 c-:-, tts 1110.0 v. rill 1 1110 t■ ■110110 ea al110110 OtAlli■■ er■■ r 010Vklie*I V` 1 O 10 ■e r■ reg1011W r'00$‘01000* 0 i i i S, WW in ‘0., r) vakeios (,._i s_ •:i bim APR 05 2007 07:07 AM APPLE -RF P] V1LLHlat rc._- ,o- ..I..-,,, m_._._,_. ,r...._ Attachment B U g S. 117th STREET N 89'02'30" W 323.634 (MEAS) 339.81 Ifi a 116.10'(MEAS) 114.8 U O i N i a N 89'02 30 W 91.00' 2 0.00' t� 71.00' PRIVATE DRAINAGE I I p T. ALONG 117TH ROW --6-- -EAS' f 1 Existing RIVE Driveway .N RIVE VOL. 1 f --j o ul I 113 o N 10 iri H 1 I-,- I 1 W I jM Existing House 1 t p so EEEWO Future I h Z--- 111111. I I LOT 1 i Garage 0 6,539 SQ. FT. L L... 2 NEW 10' PVT SIDE SEWER Vi I OP' /1\ rn I 06• �fi .N89 ,02'30 "W 5890 '32 "E 4 7.58` 2.00 W 1 HUI: so r 20 10 r■ I NEW LOT UNE o I N z 2 L 5 I I I N Proposed House W LOT 2 -1 6, 501 SQ.FT. Q z 0 .t___ ____1 _T_____ J N89 02 3 o W 89.00' RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attachment C Seattle Zoning Code for Structures and Setbacks in Single Family Zones SMC 23.44.014 Yards. Yards are required for every lot in a single family residential zone. A yard which is larger than the minimum size may be provided. B. Rear Yards. The rear yard shall be twenty -five (25) feet. The minimum required rear yard for a lot having a depth of less than one hundred twenty -five (125) feet shall be twenty (20) percent of the lot depth and in no case less than ten (10) feet. When the required rear yard abuts upon an alley along a lot line, the centerline of the alley between the side lot lines extended shall be assumed to be a lot line for purposes of the provision of rear yard and the determination of lot depth; provided, that at no point shall the principal structure be closer than five (5) feet to the alley. When a lot in any single family zone abuts at the rear lot line upon a public park, playground or open water, not less than fifty (50) feet in width, the rear yard need not exceed the depth of twenty (20) feet. D. Exceptions from Standard Yard Requirements. No structure shall be placed in a required yard except pursuant to the following subsections: 1. Certain Accessory Structures. Any accessory structure may be constructed in a side yard which abuts the rear or side yard of another lot, or in that portion of the rear yard of a reversed corner lot within five (5) feet of the key lot and not abutting the front yard of the key lot, upon recording with the King County Department of Records and Elections an agreement to this effect between the owners of record of the abutting properties. Any accessory structure which is a private garage may be located in that portion of a side yard which is either within thirty -five (35) feet of the centerline of an alley or within twenty -five (25) feet of any rear lot line which is not an alley lot line, without providing an agreement as provided in Section 23.44.0161 6. Private Garages, Covered Unenclosed Decks, Roofs Over Patios and Other Accessory Structures in Rear Yards. a. Any attached private garages or covered, unenclosed decks or roofs over patios are portions of principal structures. They may extend into the required rear yard, but shall not be within twelve (12) feet of the centerline of any alley, nor within twelve (12) feet of any rear lot line which is not an alley lot line, nor closer than five (5) feet to any accessory structure. The height of private garages shall meet the provisions of Section 23.44.016= D2 and the height of the roof over unenclosed decks and patios may not exceed twelve (12) feet. The roof over these decks, patios and garages shall not be used as a deck. Any detached private garage meeting the requirements of Section 23.44.016=, Parking location and access, or detached permitted accessory structure meeting the requirements of Section 23.44.04012%1 General provisions, may be located in a rear yard. If a private garage has its vehicular access facing the alley, the private garage shall not be within twelve (12) feet of the centerline of the alley. b. Garages meeting the standards of Section 23.44.016= and other accessory structures meeting the standards of Sections 23.44.040= or 23.44.041 shall be permitted in required rear yards, subject to a maximum combined coverage of forty (40) percent of the required rear yard. In the case of a rear yard abutting an alley, rear yard coverage shall be calculated from the centerline of the alley. 7. Private Garages in Front Yards of Through Lots. On through lots less than one hundred twenty -five (125) feet in depth, either an accessory garage structure or a portion of the principal structure containing a garage shall be permitted to locate in one (1) of the front yards. Private garages, either as accessory structures or as a portion of the principal structure, shall be limited as set forth in Section 23.44.016=. The front yard in which the garage may be located shall be determined by the Director based on the location of other accessory garages on the block. If no pattern of garage location can be determined, the Director shall determine in which yard the accessory garage shall be located based on the prevailing character and setback patterns of the block. o `z City of Tukwila ti :mod `.w: so Community Affairs Parks Committee "h ikiii COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 24, 2007- 5:00 p.m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson Staff: Jim Morrow; Bruce Fletcher; Jack Pace; Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej Guests: Eric Reinhardt; Todd Heistuman and Mikel Hanson CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Building Height Issue DCD staff has previously come to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee to discuss J building height issues. Most recently, the Committee asked staff to review the building height regulations utilized by the City. Nora Gierloff and Jack Pace presented their findings to the Committee as well as their recommended changes. Based on previous complaints surrounding building height issues, it appears as the issue also includes bulk. In comparison to neighboring cities, Tukwila is average to lower intensity. Tukwila calculates height restrictions following the International Building Code. After a brief discussion, Nora urged the Committee not to change the way in which the City calculates building height. She outlined other possible alternatives, including: Reduce the allowable building height Reduce the lot coverage standard Limit the floor area ratio (FAR) Increase or tier rear and side setbacks Discussion took place among Committee members and staff as to the possible alternatives and concerns regarding the need to avoid focusing on one issue and in turn, limiting residents. Dennis Robertson expressed the desire to identify a general change that will be applicable to most cases. He feels that rather than telling residents how to design their house, the City should consider increasing setbacks. Pam Carter articulated her concern of unintended consequences resulting from a change in setbacks (i.e.: residents with detached garages since anything over 30 inches tall is subject to the setback regulations). Todd Heistuman, a local developer, commented that almost all new houses in Tukwila will be built on re- platted land area. He stated that Seattle allows accessory structures in the backyard with constraints and that the purpose of setbacks is to provide quality of life and visual impacts. Todd believes that Tukwila has a very minimal lot standard in comparison to other cities. He thinks that the City should study cause and effect prior to making any decisions on regulations. Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes Aoril 24, 2007 Pace 2 The Committee agreed that there is not a "quick fix" to fit this problem. They agree that Council does not desire to revamp the entire code, but rather identify a possible area of regulation in order to avoid future concerns such as the complaint brought forth at the March 27 and April 9 Community Affairs and Parks meetings (also see Council minutes of April 10, 2007). Additionally, the Committee was in consensus of the desire expressed by full Council for this issue not to consume an inordinate amount of staff time. Dennis commented that he believes that the simplest solution to this issue is to increase the rear setback to 15', 25' for a three -story and then consider accessory buildings. Dennis requested that Jack secure a copy of the Seattle Code regarding garages and accessory structures and how they pertain to allies, etc. and submit this information to the agenda packet for full Council review at the May 14 COW. The Committee feels strongly that this issue needs to be discussed with full Council. The following three proposals will be taken to Council for discussion and consideration: 1. Leave the Building Height Code as is, with no changes 2. Increase rear setback to 15' for every residence 3. Increase rear setback to 15' feet for two -story, and 25' for three -story The Building Height limitation would cover any structure in the LDR Zone that requires a building permit. In addition to bringing these proposals to full Council, staff will also submit a cursory review of existing permits as impacted by each proposal, and the Seattle Code as requested above. DCD staff recommends that no changes be made to the City's current code. FORWARD TO MAY 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION. B. SAO Mitigation Ratio Amendment DCD staff brought forth a proposal to modify the existing Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to allow the DCD Director to make case by case waiver of strict compliance with the City's current mitigation ratios if off -site mitigation is proposed in a wetland mitigation bank that has been approved by certain regulatory agencies. After discussion, Dennis Robertson expressed his opposition to this request as it appears that the ordinance is being changed for one specific example in this situation, the exception is WSDOT. He stated that off -site mitigation should be here in Tukwila, and although he is sympathetic that the current regulations will cost the government more money, he does not feel that the government should exclude itself from environmental impacts. Additionally, he is concerned with leaving complete decision- making authority on each case to the discretion of the director rather than having specifications set forth in the ordinance. Jack Pace clarified that the idea of utilizing the administrator /director decision is not new to the SAO, and that the proposed amendment is not in violation of the spirit of the SAO. Additionally, the director would utilize an established chart, based on wetland type at which we are mitigating loss, to arrive at his/her decision. This is not a decision that the director would make at his/her own discretion without predetermined regulations. Jack stated that it is the intent of the City to ensure a cumulative impact verses small wetland areas, and the amendment would aIIow for this type of decision making following a best available science approach.