HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2007-03-05 Item 5 - Public Hearing - Ordinance Clarifying Development of Substandard Lots Zoning Code COUNCIL AGENDA Sivosis
o: z Initials ITEM No.
Q Meeting Date Prepared by I Mayor's review I Council review
usi f 01/22/07 1 BM
03/05/07 I BM /'S I
1905 I 1 Y
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 07-009 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 1/22/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Substandard Lots
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 1/22/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date 3/5/07 Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PIP'
SPONSOR'S Clarification of zoning code language regarding development of "substandard lots" within
SUMMARY the City.
REVIEWED BY COW Mt CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. ['Parks Comm. Planning Comm. 1/25/07
DATE: 01/09/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPoNsoR /ADMIN. Hold public hearing and adopt ordinance as presented.
COMMrI rEE Hold public hearing and adopt ordinance as presented.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N /A $N /A $N /A
Fund Source: N/A
Comments: N/A
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
1/22/07 J Briefing by Planning Staff, issue referred to Planning Commission and Regular Meeting
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
01/22/07 1 Information memo dated 1/10/07
Minutes from Community Affairs Parks Committee meeting of 1/9/07
03/05/07 Information memo dated 2/27/07
Ordinance in Final Form
Minutes from Committee of the Whole meeting of 1/22/07
Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of 1/25/07
-I i t, y I
o s G Ity
of Tukwila
M.
f Steven Mullet Mayor
an i de Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
1908
TO: Mayor
City Council_
FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director
Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner
RE: Substandard Lot
DATE: February 27, 2007
ISSUE
Clarification of code language regarding development of substandard lots found in TMC
18.70.030 adopted via Ordinance 2097.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2007, Planning Staff briefed the COW on a proposed code clarification
regarding how the City regulates the construction of homes on substandard lots which is
found in TMC 18.70.030 and was adopted via Ordinance 2097.
The intent of TMC 18.70.030 is as follows:
1. In order to be developable, a lot must meet all basic development standards with
the exception of average lot width.
2. If a lot cannot meet basic development standards it must be combined with
adjacent lots.
3. In rare situations an individual may seek a variance to basic development
standards.
As the Council may recall, the language of TMC 18.70.030 has been called into question.
It has been alleged that the language is contradictory and unclear. In order to erase any
doubt regarding the intent and effect of this language, staff recommended and the City
Council approved a temporary moratorium on the development of substandard lots, to
allow the City to reaffirm its intention and clarify the code language.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COW referred the matter to the Planning Commission and on January 25, 2007 the
Planning Commission held a public hearing.
Created by B. Miles
H:\Lots \CC\2007.03.05\Memo (Fix Ord)..doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665
Planning Staff presented the Planning Commission the following language modification
for the language found in TMC 18.70.030 (presented in ctrikethrough underline format).
18.70.030 Substandard Lots
A. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which does not meet the minimum
dimensional standards standard for average lot width for the zone in which it is
located may still be developed as a separate lot if the proposed use is one which is
permitted in the zone and the proposed development can comply with the remaining
requirements of this title regarding basic development standards for the applicable
zone and other applicable land use and environmental requirements.
B. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which cannot meet the basic development
standards (other than lot width) for the applicable zone and other applicable land
use and environmental requirements may be developed only if it is combined with
adjacent lot(s) in a manner which allows the combined lots to be developed in a
manner which does comply with the basic development standards for the applicable
zone and other applicable land use and environmental requirements. In the event
lots are combined in order to comply with the requirements of this subsection, a
boundary line adjustment shall occur so that the combined lots are henceforth
considered a single lot.
C. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the owner of a sub-
standard lot from applying for or receiving approval of variances pursuant to TMC
Chapter 18.72.
Planning Commission recommended that the proposed language be forwarded to the City
Council for adoption.
ANALYSIS
The effect of this amendment would be to reconfirm and make clear the Council's intent
with the adoption of Ordinance 2097 was as follows:
1. A lot meeting all Zoning Code requirements except for the minimum width
standard may be developed.
2. A lot not able to meet other Zoning Code requirements (e.g., lot area, setbacks)
may be developed if combined with other property so that it will meet these
requirements, or if the owner is able to obtain a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance as presented.
Created by B. Miles
H:\Lots \CC\2007.03.05\Memo (Fix Ord)..doc
..1.
1908
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2097, AS CODnFIED AT
TMC 8.70.030, TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS WITHIN THE CITY OF
TUKWILA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABLITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2142,
which established a six-month moratorium on the development of lots that do not meet
the City's minimum lot area requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify language found in TMC 18.70.030,
resolving any uncertainty as to Council intent when adopting Ordinance No. 2097; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2007, the Tukwila Planning Commission, following
adequate public notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning clarifying
the language found in TMC 18.70.030; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2007, the Tukwila City Council, following adequate public
t3' g q p
notice, held a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the recommendations of
the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2097, as codified at TMC 18.70.030, "Substandard Lots," is
hereby amended to read as follows:
18.70.030 Substandard Lots
A. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which does not meet the minimum standard
for average lot width for the zone in which it is located, may still be developed as a
separate lot if the proposed use is one which is permitted in the zone, and the proposed
development can comply with the remaining requirements of this title regarding basic
development standards for the applicable zone and other applicable land use and
environmental requirements.
B. A lot, as defined in TMC 18.06.500, which cannot meet the basic development
standards (other than lot width) for the applicable zone and other applicable land use
and environmental requirements, may be developed only if it is combined with
adjacent lot(s) in a manner which allows the combined lots to be developed in a manner
which does comply with the basic development standards for the applicable zone and
other applicable land use and environmental requirements. In the event lots are
combined in order to comply with the requirements of this subsection, a boundary line
adjustment shall occur so that the combined lots are henceforth considered a single lot.
C. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the owner of a sub-
standard lot from applying for or receiving approval of variances pursuant to TMC
Chapter 18.72.
C: \Documents and Settings\ All Users Desktop Kelly\ MSDATA\ Ordinances\ Clarifying Substandard Lots.doc
BM:kn 3/1/2007 Page 1 of 2
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after
passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Fffective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
C: Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly MSDATA Ordinances Clarifying Substandard Lots.doc
BM :Sm 311/2007 Page 2 of 2
City of Tukwila Page 4 of 8
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes January 22. 2007
Gas Stations. Should they be required to have backup power generation and emergency tanks in
order to serve the public.
Where does one establish the difference between what is a private responsibility and a public
responsibility in times of a disaster.
What outreach services will the City provide versus educating our citizens as to what responsibilities
they are required to perform.
The Councilmembers asked clarifying questions of Mr. Morrow and expressed appreciation at the
thoroughness of the report.
Anna Bernhard, 14241 59th Avenue South, inquired as to why the City would have to provide generators
to Assisted Care facilities when hospitals have to care for their patients in an emergency.
Councilmember Carter conveyed that the legislature is looking into this issue and requirements may be
increased for these types of facilities.
Mr. Morrow relayed there will be Chipper Days on February 17 and 18, 2007 at Foster High School for
those needing to dispose of storm debris (not lumber or trash).
CITIZEN COMMENT
Eugene Sodano, 16053 48th Avenue South, commented on increased burglaries in his neighborhood.
This type of problem was not typical in this area until recently, and he is asking for increased support for
the Police Department to combat these issues. He also indicated there is a lack of communication to
other people in the area when their neighbors have been burglarized.
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator, relayed there have been no cuts in the Police budget. She encouraged
participation in the Block Watch Program and working with the Crime Prevention Office.
SPECIAL ISSUES
a. Ordinance clarifying Zoning Code language regarding development of substandard lots within
)he City.
s t i Steve Lancaster, Community Development Director, provided background information on this issue. He
utilized Powerpoint slides to provide a visual representation of plat maps from 1908. These plats were
established before zoning and subdivision laws as a convenient means of describing real estate as well
as for buying and selling purposes. Prior to land use laws, areas were platted into very small lots; smaller
than what was ordinarily developed at the time. Those who wished to construct a home would typically
purchase 2 -5 parcels and build one home on them.
In 1995 the City Council established the minimum lot size for the Low Density Residential (LDR) district at
6,500 square feet. For several years thereafter, the City allowed any legally created LDR lot to be
developed with one single family dwelling even if the lot was smaller than 6,500 square feet. This led to
concern regarding a proliferation of new residences on lots as small as 2,500 -3,000 square feet.
In 2005 the City Council adopted Ordinance #2097 which modified the development requirements for
building on such substandard lots. Modified language was added in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
18.70.030. The intent and effect of the language was as follows:
1. In order to be developable, a lot must meet all basic development standards with the exception of
average lot width.
2. If a lot cannot meet basic development standards, it must be combined with adjacent lots.
3. In rare situations an individual may seek a variance to basic development standards.
City of Tukwila Page 5 of 8
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes January 22. 2007
Recently the language in Ordinance #2097 to accomplish this intent has been called into question. It has
been alleged the language is contradictory and unclear. In order to eliminate any doubt regarding the
intent and effect of this language, staff recommended the Council approve a temporary moratorium on the
development of substandard Tots to allow the City to reaffirm its intent and clarify the code language. A
public hearing on the moratorium was held at the January 16, 2007 City Council meeting. A public
hearing on the proposed clarifying amendment is scheduled for the January 25, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting.
Councilmember Duffie asked if the City has the right to disallow owners from building on their lots. Mr.
Lancaster responded that from a legal perspective, the City Council can establish this requirement. This
clarifying amendment would prohibit an owner from tearing down 1 home (residing on 2 -3 lots) and
building 2 or even 3 homes in its place. Councilmember Duffie also asked if the Councilmembers could
attend the Planning Commission public hearing on January 25, 2007. Peter Beckwith, Assistant City
Attorney, indicated the Councilmembers could attend the Planning Commission public hearing but should
refrain from discussing the issue at the hearing.
Councilmember Hernandez inquired as to the standard average lot width, and Mr. Lancaster indicated the
width is 50 feet in the LDR zone. Ms. Hernandez also asked about the criteria for requesting a variance.
Mr. Lancaster indicated the guidelines are established in State law and the TMC restates the criteria.
There would have to be something unusual in the size, shape or topography of the property. If the
standards were strictly applied, the owner would be deprived of rights similar to those of neighboring
property owners. The hardship cannot be one that was created by the property owner. A Hearing
Examiner would determine if the criteria has been met, and the decision is appealable to Superior Court.
Councilmember Carter asked what the size of the Tots would be at 4 dwelling units per acre. Mr.
Lancaster responded the size would be approximately 11,000 square feet. Ms. Carter relayed that
density is not always as important as to how the design is handled. Townhomes and cottage houses
could possibly be done very well, but standards would have to be in place.
Mr. Lancaster indicated that if the Council is in favor of greater density, there are various considerations,
such as building design and development standards to include sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street trees.
If that becomes the case, he would suggest the Council proceed with the proposed clarifying amendment
and removal of the moratorium. The staff would then have a significant amount of work to do to prepare a
program that would facilitate the development of quality neighborhoods.
Councilmember Robertson stated that land use decisions rarely result in a win -win situation. Those
property owners who will lose money if the City retains the 6,500 square foot requirement will suffer an
adverse financial impact. If the City lowers the square foot amount, those citizens living in the area on
larger single family Tots will be negatively effected by the increased density in their neighborhoods.
Council President Griffin inquired if notices were sent out regarding this issue. Mr. Lancaster indicated
notices were posted on the website, sent to the newspaper, and mailed to attendees of the last meeting.
Mayor Mullet suggested the possibility of adopting language that would permit a variance to allow the
building of a home to occur on a 6,000 square foot lot.
Mr. Lancaster explained that if there is an existing house on a lot that is smaller than 6,500 square feet
that ends up destroyed, the code is extremely flexible in allowing the owner to rebuild on that lot. The
non conforming use rights in the single family zone are very generous. Consideration is being given to
allowing 6,000 square foot lots in the Allentown area to allow owners more opportunities for development.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE JANUARY 25, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION AND THE
FEBRUARY 5, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION.
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
JANUARY 25, 2007
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM
Present: Chair Allan Ekberg, Vice -Chair George Malina, Commissioners Margaret Bratcher, Bill
Arthur, Lynn Peterson, and Chuck Parrish.
Absent: Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Minnie Dhaliwal, Nora Gierloff, and Wynetta Bivens
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 14, 2006. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE
MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Ekberg swore in those wishing to give public testimony.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
X CASE NUMBER: L06 -092
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Review and provide a recommendation to the City Council to clarify language
found in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70.030 regarding the development of
substandard lots.
Steve Lancaster, Director, Community Development, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the development of
substandard lots. He stated that Ordinance 2142, which was adopted by the City Council on November 20,
2006, declared an emergency and established a six month moratorium. The moratorium is on the
development of lots that do not meet the minimum lot size requirements in the zone that the lot is located.
Staff briefed the City Council on January 22, 2006, on a proposed Zoning Code clarification, which
addressed concerns, raised by City Council, on development of substandard lots. City Council referred the
proposal to the Planning Commission for public hearing for them to provide a recommendation back to the
City Council.
Mr. Lancaster explained that the specific issue before the Planning Commission is whether to consider a
clarification of the way the City's Zoning Code treats the development of substandard lots. In order to
provide some understanding of the current situation, he gave some background on plats that are still in
existence from a hundred years ago. He used Allentown as an example, depicting how lots and
ownership patterns have shifted over time in the area.
In order to provide a clearer overview of the concerns staff is trying to address, Mr. Lancaster gave some
background on an illustration of a plat that was approved in approximately 1908. He explained that the
plats were generally made up of 25 to 35 sq. ft. wide lots by 100 sq. ft. deep and it was typical for people
to purchase 2 to 4 lots for them to build a home on. Plats at that time had no subdivision statute, or
zoning enabling statute in the state. Subdivision plats were largely recorded in order to provide a
convenient means of describing, conveying, buying, and selling property.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 2 of 9
In 1995, after a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted a new
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. At which time 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes for all single
family residential neighborhoods were established. The Zoning Code also included a definition of a lot,
which is a separate parcel of property that was created by plat or binding plat plan. When the state
subdivision law was established it became a requirement that any new lots created must be 6,500 sq. ft.
However, the City did allow pre existing lots of smaller sizes to be developed as single family homes, as
long as it could be demonstrated that they were created through a plat, binding site plan, or there was a
history of it being an independent building prior to the subdivision law.
After improved sewer was put in by the City, smaller lots started being developed in Allentown, which
prompted concerned residents to notify the City regarding the type of development. In 2005, in response
to these concerns, staff brought forth a Code Amendment that reinforced the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot
sizes. The Amendment requires that lots that do not meet the requirement, either have to be combined
with adjacent property (more than one platted lot) or the property owner could seek a variance. The
variance would be judged by the criteria in the Zoning Code, which reflects State criteria 4, variance
application. Mr. Lancaster stated that the fact that the substandard lots are isolated and cannot be
enlarged by its owner is not the owners' fault. Mr. Lancaster said confusion and conflicts have arisen
because some of the code language that was adopted in 2005 was not as clear as it should have been.
Staff has recommended to the City Council that the language in the existing code is clarified and adopted.
In the event that the City Council takes the same position they took in 2005, this will ensure that
everybody understands the code the same. Mr. Lancaster addressed several questions, some of which
were not specifically related to the issue before the Planning Commission for consideration. In response
to one particular question, the reply was that staff would like to get the code clarified and have the
moratorium lifted, as soon as possible, and then go back and address some of the other issues.
Chair Ekberg stated for clarification, the issue before the Planning Commission is the changes to the
language in the code so the moratorium can be lifted by the City Council. He asked those in attendance
of the Public Hearing if they understood that the Planning Commission was not holding a Public Hearing
to deliberate lot sizes. He asked Mr. Lancaster if someone read the code on substandard lot widths and
didn't understand what standard for average lot width means, where they would go to figure it out. Mr.
Lancaster replied to the specific zoning district where the lot is located, which has a table with the
standards listed. Chair Ekberg inquired of staff what would be the process to debate lot sizes in the
future.
Its staffs' hope that the Planning Commission will provide them with some direction on whether they are
interested in taking the next step, which staff will convey to the City Council. However, if the process
goes forward, staff does not anticipate its completion for three or four months.
Chair Ekberg allowed citizens to give comments on the lot sizes. He asked that the results of the
comments are included in the minutes and are distributed to the City Council, since the Planning
Commission cannot deliberate on the issue.
Public comments:
Darryl Doak, Owner, Doak Homes Inc. stated that in 1996 he started development in Allentown and has
built 17 new homes on one street. He stated he has taken down four dilapidated trailers, old junkie
buildings and he has cleaned up the street nicely. He said he has also done that on several other streets
and taken out the trash, cleaning up Allentown. He is currently building nine new houses on the
Duwamish site and he has just completed two houses on 46 Ave. SW.
Mr. Doak stated that since last year the City has changed the minimum lot sizes. He said prior to the
change he was able to split lots in half and have 3,700 sq. ft. lots, which is well below the 6,500 sq. ft.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 3 of 9
minimum. Mr. Doak pointed out on the plat illustration that block one, lots 23 -26, were 5,000 sq. ft. that
was created through a Boundary Line Adjustment with the City, after the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size
went into effect. Mr. Doak commented that he has submitted 17 permit applications, all on substandard
lots with the City. He stated, "Phase II of Allentown has just been completed and the City has been,
"expeditiously keeping me out of improvements over there." Mr. Doak said he met with DCD staff many
times over the summer on improvements and he also met with PW staff. Mr. Doak said that the PW staff
said, "We are not going to let you do that Mr. Doak commented he was not supplied with adequate
sewer and water improvements to build houses. Mr. Doak also commented that he has received six denial
letters from the City on his applications and it looks like all 17 applications will be denied and that his
application fees will not be refunded. He said this is going to end up in Superior Court because last year
the City agreed to let him build on the 17 lots and is now saying they don't recall the conversation. Mr.
Doak commented that the process on his 17 applications is being held up, now that the City has put the
moratorium in effect to change the verbiage to prevent him from doing his job. In conclusion, he said he
is getting aced out of the deal.
Estrella Doak (Telly Doak), Doak Homes, Inc. stated she would like to make an appeal to the Planning
Commission to leave the language of the Ordinance as is, which will allow substandard lots that meet the
minimum setback requirements to be recognized as buildable lots. She said her justification is that
substandard lots will make affordable housing available to low income people, seniors, and first time
home buyers. Mrs. Doak stated that the City had addressed a need for affordable housing in a City
Council meeting she attended. She said increasing the minimum lot size to 6,500 sq. ft. would defeat the
purpose, lot costs will be much higher, the houses will be bigger, and the price less affordable. Mrs. Doak
said potential buyers may not buy the higher priced houses in this Allentown location. She reiterated her
appeal asking for Allentown to be excluded from the 6,500 sq. ft. requirement and that substandard lots
that meet the minimum setback requirements are made available as affordable housing to seniors and first
time home buyers. She said, "We need to continue the progress and development needs of the Allentown
community, and Doak Homes Inc. has contributed to this growth for the past eight years
Commissioner Peterson asked Mrs. Doak to comment on what her company thinks about the impact
their type of development has on the existing homes and their value.
Mrs. Doak replied that the values have gone up and that Allentown has only done something really good
for the Allentown community.
Betty Brooks, property owner of lots 39-42 in Allentown. The lots combined equal a total of 12,000 sq.
ft., which she can only build one house on. She asked why the extra sewer systems
were installed if she can't use them. She said, "I think the lot should stay the same as they have been, I
don't think they should change. "I was told in 1994, when I purchased the lots that I had four lots."
"Now I don't have four lots, I have one lot." "That's not fair to me or anyone else She said she should
be able to build more than one house and she is stuck with a 12,000 sq. ft. lot.
Gerald Robinson, Attorney for Doak Homes Inc. stated when Doak Homes Inc. invested in the 17 lots it
was with the understanding that they would be able to build 17 houses. He said in less than two years it
has been ripped out from under them at a substantial cost to them. Mr. Robinson stated that he was going
to speak primarily on the clarification issue. Prior to the 2005 in the Zoning Code, the City had a code
that allowed you to build on previously created lots. He said that you should be able to build on a lot that
was legally created. Mr. Robinson stated that the ordinance says, if the lot does not meet the minimum
lot size standards or minimum dimension standards, then you can still build on it if you can meet the other
requirements. He commented that the current ordinance is not ambiguous or vague. He said the only way
you get to the interpretation that has been put forth by staff is by ignoring completely one of the
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 4 of 9
paragraphs of the Ordinance. He said, "It doesn't make any sense to have an ordinance that says that you
have to meet the minimum setback requirements for lots that are too small, if you are saying you just
can't build on lots that are too small Mr. Robinson said that the clarification that is being requested is
a major modification of the Zoning Code. He said that the current language will change to say, if you
own adjacent lots you have to combine them to in order to meet the minimum required lot size. Mr.
Robinson said that's a radical departure from what the code was before 2005 and it's a radical departure
from what the code was after the 2005 adoption. He said it's not a minor clarification, and will
completely change the way land is going to be used in the area and it's a particular hardship on people
who have property in Allentown with the narrow lots. Mr. Robinson concluded by saying this is a matter
of being able to use these lots that were legally created and are legal lots.
Randy Kinsley, property owner in Allentown, stated he is not a fan of the narrow houses being
developed in Allentown, but it has cleaned up the neighborhood. He said the damage has already been
done as far as changing the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kinsley said his real problem is, "The
City seems to be breaking a promise to a contractor's commitment to work with you guys." "He had the
understanding that these lots were buildable and now the City seems to be reneging, denying that they
ever agreed to it." "I have a problem with that and I have also experienced that myself." Mr. Kinsley
commented that he owns a piece of property that he cannot build a home on and he thinks that is
improper. He said that the City went to the trouble of installing sewer and that was a great move that
needed to be done, but now there are sewer connections to property that can't be used. He said the City
loses because they don't get the fees on their connections and the property owner loses because they had
to have the connections installed, so it was a waste of time and effort. Mr. Kinsley said his main concern
is to see lot sizes at 6,000 sq. ft. However, because the City has already made promises to Doak Homes
Inc, for the smaller lots, the City should allow them to build because Doak Homes Inc. may lose money.
Commissioner Peterson asked Mr. Robinson if he was personally aware of the promises he says that the
City made to Doak Homes Inc. Mr. Robinson said no he did not have first hand knowledge of the
promises.
Commissioner Arthur asked Mr. Robinson to identify his property for clarification. He also asked for
clarification from Mrs. Brooks.
Darryl Doak gave additional comments. He stated that he attended a pre application meeting with the
City regarding 11 of his sites. He said after the moratorium went into effect that he received a letter from
the City stating that his applications were not complete. He said the letter indicated the radius to the
approach going in was at 15 sq. ft. instead of 20 sq. ft. and it threw him into the moratorium, which holds
up his 11 sites. Mr. Doak stated that the City neglected to give him sewer for three houses. He indicated
that he met with PW four years ago regarding his intent and was told he would receive hook -up, which
did not happen. He said he has had several meetings with DCD since and has not received a satisfactory
answer on why he is not getting sewer hook -up. Mr. Doak said the night that the moratorium went into
effect he provided public comment at the City Council meeting and explained he was not getting sewer
and water.
Commissioner Parrish told Mr. Doak he was sensitive to the fact that sometimes regulations can have
unintended consequences and officers do not want that to happen. Commissioner Parrish questioned
whether Mr. Doak chose to interpret the code in the manner in which it would be more beneficial to him.
He asked Mr. Doak what was his thinking regarding the 6,500 sq. ft. and did he think that maybe it just
wasn't applicable at all because of the term minimum dimensional standard.
Mr. Doak replied he is putting in 9 houses on the Duwamish side since the code changed with staff's
approval, as well as, an approval for a Boundary Line Adjustment with lot sizes well under 6,500 sq. ft.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 5 of 9
Upon further questioning, Mr. Doak explained how he thinks the 6,500 sq. ft. requirement would apply
since the adoption of the code in 1995.
Mr. Robinson made additional comments. In response to questions that were raised, he said this is not
an issue of zoning, but how you treat people with lots that were previously subdivided.
Georgina Kerr, property owner in the community, commented that she hopes the Planning Commission
understands that 6,500 sq. ft. is a reasonable size. She said the impact that people are facing in terms of
impervious surfaces and having that contribute to storm water run off and other problems facing the
Duwamish River impacts all their lives. Mrs. Kerr said she would hope that the lot size does not go
down. She said the houses that Doak Homes Inc. is constructing are unattractive, do not fit in, and are not
conducive to a good future to the City. Mrs. Kerr said she hopes the City notifies other citizens that
would like to know there is a public meeting on this issue, so they can provide comment.
Chair Ekberg reiterated that the Planning Commission is not deliberating on lot sizes.
Donna Anderson, property owner in the community, commented that she is in support of the 6,500 sq. ft.
minimum lot sizes. She said smaller houses would create drain water run off and traffic impacts.
Mr. Lancaster's response to questions raised by the Planning Commission.
(1) The moratorium expires on May 20, 2007. It could expire earlier if the City Council adopts
regulations or for some other reason believes it is no longer necessary, or it could be extended in the
event they are not satisfied with the progress when the six months is up.
(2) Doak Homes Inc. is a developer that has submitted 17 building permit applications for
development. Staff's position is that they do not believe that neither the moratorium, nor the code
changes /clarification recommendations proposed by staff, changes Mr. Doak's situation in regards
to his applications. As amended in 2005, the code requires that new houses are built on 6,500 sq. ft.
lots, if that's possible.
(3) The narrower houses are believed to be built on 3,000 sq. ft. lots.
(4) The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and considers it a clarification.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Arthur requested that a slide showing a house on a 30 ft. wide lot, which Mr. Lancaster
showed during his PowerPoint presentation be displayed on the screen while the Planning Commissioners
deliberated. Commissioner Arthur used the photo to point out the differences between the illustration and
the Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan), vision, design criteria, and the efforts of those that worked on the
development of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Citizens Committee, Planning Commission, and
City Council went through the process to come up with the criteria to put into the Comp. Plan. He also
said that the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size that was adopted in 1995 was a very clear and easy thing to
understand. Commissioner Arthur pointed out that the Comp. Plan addresses a quality residential
development, consisting of such things as trees, front lawns, and fences. He said there seems to be an
absence of all three as shown on the slide. He also read excerpts from the Comp. Plan that addressed
garages, front porches and sidewalks that shall allow interaction of neighbors.
Commissioner Arthur said the point is that a lot of time and effort went into the development of the
Comp. Plan over a number of years and that the issue he sees before him is not in compliance and he finds
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 6 of 9
that disturbing. There was a total of seven City Council Members and seven Planning Commissioners that
worked on the development of the 1995 Comp. Plan; of those 14 positions, 9 of the same individuals who
previously worked on the plan will be part of the current review process. He said if there is a problem it
seems to be with the interpretation. If clarifying the code is needed in order to be in compliance with the
Comp. Plan, he is in favor of staff's recommendations. He stated that he does not think that the Planning
Commission is in the position to lift moratoriums, settle disputes between property owners and the City,
or deal with minimum lot size changes. Their position is to make decisions on language changes. He
expressed concern regarding Mr. Kinsley's and Mrs. Brooks's comments and suggested that the Planning
Commission request that the City Council take a look at the other issues commented on to determine the
best long term solutions for areas like Allentown. It is his hope that the City Council takes the same care
and deliberation with this matter as they did when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS FORWARDING THE PROPOSED CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION.
ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
Based on public comments and concerns, the Planning Commission would like staff to provide the City
Council with the following information and request these issues be addressed at a later date.
Commissioner Ekberg raised the question whether the Planning Commission is interested in looking at
areas like Allentown and other areas that have small lots. Then have a discussion with the public
regarding what the vision should look like for the future in comparison to what the Comp. Plans looks
like now. The Planning Commissioners had the following comments:
Commissioner Malina said that the Planning Commission has the desire for the substandard issue to
come back to them at a future date. He would like to see some discussion on infrastructure, lot sizes of
6,000 sq. ft., sewer and water hook -up timeframes, and a balance between infrastructure when it comes to
sewers, water, and sidewalks. He also suggested that the Council could give these types of areas special
consideration.
Commissioner Parrish stated that if the vision is not spelled out clearly in the Comp. Plan then a
developer cannot be blamed for not meeting the code. Affordable housing is important to a community,
which is something that should be discussed. He also said that visions change. He fully supports the idea
that the Planning Commission encourages the City Council to take this up in a very Comprehensive
manner, which he is looking forward to participating in. In the future, there is a need to explore what the
process is, concerning what city staff and city board members are allowed to say to citizens and what is
considered binding.
Commissioner Peterson stated that from listening to hardships raised, he can see how citizens can see
their future being affected. He concurs with Commissioner Arthur's comments regarding the
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Peterson said there may be a need to take a look at the densi ty in
Allentown because the affect could be much higher than the LDR. He said the kind of things that
provide quality of life, not just affordable housing, should also be addressed.
Chair Ekberg asked Mr. Lancaster, without formal commitment of process, what he thinks would be the
next step if the City Council is interested in moving forward.
Mr. Lancaster said when staff takes the Code recommendation to the City Council, they will also present
the comments and the ideas raised and seek Council's guidance. He said he would assume what could
happen is that the City Council will refer the matter to the Community Affairs and Park Committee (a
sub committee of the City Council) for further discussion and that they would make a request for staff to
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 7 of 9
do an evaluation of options and bring them back to the Council for discussion. It would then be referred
to the Planning Commission for their input on the specific options that are described, and then go back to
the City Council for a decision. However, before anything could be finalized, it would probably be next
year, since the City is only allowed to amend the Comp. Plan once a year, and the timeframe for 2007 is
approaching very quickly. If City Council moves forward and there was potential for significant changes
to occur to the Comp. Plan or the Zoning Code staff would have the opportunity to provide notice
and get the information out to the public. This would allow a lot more input from the public on the issue.
Chair Ekberg called a 5 minute recess.
The public hearing reconvened at 8:48 PM.
Chair Ekberg opened the Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing and swore in those providing
testimony.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L06 -064, L06 -066
APPLICANT: Donahou Design Group
REQUEST: Design Review approval for the demolition of the existing True Value hardware store and
construction of a new 9975 sq. ft. freestanding drug store with a drive -thru. The
applicant is also requesting a sign code variance to reduce the minimum required
setback of the proposed sign from the property line.
LOCATION: 3716 S. 144 Street, Tukwila WA.
Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. She gave an overview of the project. She talked about the
criteria used to review the project, grade differences between the site and the adjoining streets and it's impact
on site design. At staff's request, the applicant is working with the adjacent property owner to resolve the
issue of the retaining wall on the east side of the property to provide a better transition. A potential solution
may be landscaping. The Police Depaitment suggested better surveillance of the trash enclosure/loading
dock area. Staff recommended installing cameras to provide better surveillance in the area. Ms. Dhaliwal
provided some additional description of the project. Ms. Dhaliwal answered several questions. She deferred
a question to the applicant regarding the easement between the applicant's property and the adjacent property
owner. She stated that the applicant has not documented that their request for a Sign Code Variance meets
any of the variance criteria. Staff is recommending denial of the Sign Code Variance request and approval of
the Design Review application, with five conditions as listed in the January 17, 2007 staff report.
David Thompson, Managing Member of Tukwila Holdings LLC, gave the presentation for the applicant.
His company is under contract to build the proposed Walgreens. He talked about the type of store Walgreens
builds and their type of clientele. Mr. Thompson said staff compelled them to design a radically different site
plan to provide a pedestrian friendly shopping experience of an urban store front. He stated that Walgreens
may not be happy with the end product, but that personally he believes a better site plan than the typical
prototype store was produced. An overview was given of what Mr. Thompson said the City was endorsing.
Tom Keyes, Donahou Design Group, for the applicant, addressed questions that were raised regarding the
signage. He also addressed the easement issue.
Frank Carlson, Law Firm of Buck and Gordon, also addressed the easement issue. He stated there is no
recorded easement, but that it is a verbal easement that is valid and has been in place for 28 years. Mr.
Carlson offered to talk with the City Attorney about the issue.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 8 of 9
Commissioner Arthur asked that the specific location of the easement be pointed out on the site plan.
There was intensive discussion regarding the easement. Chair Ekberg expressed concem that there would be
a mass of red across the face of the north side of the building facade was too blank. He asked what could be
done to break up the mass. There was also several other questions raised and addressed.
Commissioner Arthur revisited the issue regarding the easement. He stated he was very uncomfortable
with some things he sees and some things he doesn't see. Steve Lancaster commented that the issue has been
discussed and staff was assured that the right exists. Staff intends to request verification that the legal right to
access exists for the property, which must satisfy the City Attorney.
Rune Harkestad, the adjacent property owner, acknowledges that the easement between the properties is for
the benefit of customers of both properties. Mr. Harkestad had no objections to Walgreen using his site to
access 37 Ave. S.
David Thompson went over the applicant's goals for the project and confirmed they are in agreement with
staff's recommendations.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearin g was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONDITIONS, WITH ONE ADDITIONAL
CONDITION, #6 "LEGAL RIGHT FOR ACCESS THAT WILL SATISFY THE CITY
ATTORNEY FOR CASE NUMBER L06 -064 A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT.
COMMISSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION ON L06 -066 TO DENY THE SIGN CODE
VARIANCE REQUEST. COMMISSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL
WERE IN FAVOR.
CASE NUMBER: L06 -069 (L07 -003 Special Permission Landscape Deviations)
APPLICANT: Cascade Development Co.
REQUEST: Design Review approval for conversion of an existing office /warehouse building into retail
stores.
LOCATION: 406 Baker Blvd.
Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development gave an overview of the
remodel to the existing building. Staff has determined that within the constraints of the existing building
the applicant has done as much as they can to further the Comprehensive Plan goals. The goals are to
have a hospitable pedestrian environment, an active street scape, and a mixed use. Staff is
recommending approval with the following two conditions:
1. The street trees are changed to Red Maples to match the CBD tree plan.
2. Add screening for the garbage /recycling area in the rear of the building.
An overview was also given on the two landscape issues. (1) Permission to substitute sidewalk in front
yard landscape requirement. (2) relief from the requirement to provide landscape islands at the ends of a
row of parking stalls.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2007
Page 9 of 9
Todd Bertellotti, Architect, for the applicant, gave the presentation. He named a list of proposed
changes that he said could transform the building into a very viable, dynamic, and appropriate building
for the area. He stated that the corridor between the proposed Sounder Station and the Westfield
Shopping Mall is very important. He expressed excitement and the interest to do whatever they can to
improve pedestrian access. Mr. Bertellotti stated that they understand the limitations and are willing to
address issues that were raised. He specifically addressed comments made by Commissioner Peterson.
He addressed the landscape issue and said they are open to suggestions. The original site plan was more
complex. However, after removing some parking stalls the Fire Department considered the site easier to
navigate. The applicant is also willing to accommodate any additional changes. Mr. Bertellotti also
provided information on the material used for the project.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TWO CONDITIONS FOR CASE NUMBER
L06 -069 A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT. COMMISSIONER PARRISH SECONDED THE
MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CASE NUMBER L07 -003, A SPECIAL
PERMISSION LANDSCAPE DEVIATIONS PERMIT. COMMISSIONER PARRISH
SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Commissioner Arthur made a motion to nominate Commissioner Malina for 2007 Planning
Commission Chair.
Commissioner Ekberg made a friendly amendment to nominate Commissioner Parrish for 2007
Planning Commission Vice Chair. All were in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens
Secretary
Adopted: 2/22/07