Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2004-11-15 Item 7F - Discussion- Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Growth Management Act Revisions COUNCIL AGENDA SIWOPSIS p J2'' Initials ITEM NO. kt G) MeetiiR Date Prepared by i Mayors review I Council review kaet 'Asa, 1 10/11/04 1 R. Fox 1 r} 1;p 1 10/18/04 1 R. Fox 1 1 fie isos 11/08/04 1 R.Fox 1 1 c, 11/15/04 1 R.Fox\ 1 I lr 1 ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: REF. 04-109 (3RD CAS) I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 8-2-04 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Comprehensive Plan Amendments /GMA revisions CATEGORY 121 Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mts Date 10/11 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 10/4 Mtg Date 8/2,8/23 SPONSOR Counczl Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW SPONSOR'S Conduct deliberation on GMA amendments and annual amendments SUMMARY REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COM'MIT1'EE COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 8/2/04 Council considered schedule and process for proposed amendments 8/23/04 Council was briefed on recommendations from the Planning Commission 10/4/04 Public Hearing 10 /11 /04 Deliberations on GMA and annual amendments MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 10/11/04 Memo with summary of amendments (Council to bring notebooks "Comprehensive Plan Update -City Council Review" 10/18/04 Memo w /attach. B.6.A (Insert in "Supplemental Materials "w /tab B in Comp Plan Update 11/8/04 Memo re Council comments /edits 11/15/04 Memo with attachment *New "ordinance" notebooks distributed separately. Please bring to meeting City...of..l'ukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director To: From: Subject: Date: TukwilaCityCouncil Ja. ckPace., De.partm.en. t of COnununity Developmen~ Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinances \) November 10, 2004 At your meeting on November 15, we will review and finalize three draft ordinances. The ordinances are printed on lavender paper. They are placed in a new notebook, which you will receive separately in your boxes. The draft ordinances are as follows: 1) Zoning change and Concomitant..Agreement with the Sabey Companv · To assist you in Y9ur deliberation of the Sabey Concomitant Agreement, the "raw" transcript of discussion from your meeting on October 11, 2004 is attached to this memo. · The City Attomey has added Condition C to the Concomitant Agreement to clarify intent. . 2) Comprehensive Plan Dolicv amendments both relating to the Growth Management act and to the annual amendments: and · The tabbed attachments A through M.show all the Comprehensive Plan policy changes that have been recommended both by the City Council and the Planning Commission in the underline/strikethrough format. 3) Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.80 to permit Comprehensive Plan amendments in "emergencv" situations. Please bring your new "ordinance" notebook to the meeting on November 15. You will not need to bring your large Comprehensive Plan notebook to the meeting. Once the ordinances and attachments are finalized, they will be scheduled for adoption on November 22, 2004. OJVV .)oucncem;er 1Joutevi:1tCl,.':>uue fflVU" LUKWllCl,VViil>lllTlgwn YOUJ(j .. rnone: ~UU-4Jl-JO/V .. rax: ~UO-4jl-3oo:) October 11 , 2004 . Deliberations- Sabey Corporation's reauest for rezone. Minnie Dennis Joan Carter Steve Carter THESE ARE RAW NOTES - NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Option #4 is what staff recommended. I'm againstchanging anything. I'm for going with the Planning Commission recommendation. Two things drive the decision. One is, from the applicant, I heard nothing that said we have to do this. We can't build the building. We can't occupy the building. We can't use the facility. I heard nothing as an overwhelming need. It's just20 additional parking spaces in a spot. The 2nd thing, the (aerial) picture does it. Without a significant reason to do something that would potentially harm developing the LOR, I'm personally reluctant to do that. I'mkinda leaning toward allowing C/LI but with conditions that would address the residents' concerns. Most comments addressed better buffers. If we grant the request, but require a higher barrier of buffer, I'd beinfavorofthe rezone request. I'm. unclear on. whether we can do that. I heard staff say we cannot doa conditional permit. There's a fine line and it gets pretty technical. A conditional rezone is saying we will do this if a private property owner will do that. In 1996 or 1997, the State legislature adopted a new mechanism that allows you to enter into a development agreement. You can do a developers agreement that would allow you to accomplish basically the same..thing. When we approved the conditional use permit for this building being constructed, it bothered me it was on property with several different designations. We tried to make our zoning lines not split properties. Here you have all of these small areas with different zones. It makes sense to be 'zoned the same. Now that the parking lotis in, it relates to the highway. It doesn't relate to the residential. There is no access to 34th. (aftercomments from Steve Lancaster) Fastforward years from now, that building is old, it's going to be taken down and somebody else wants tocome in with something that is allowed in the zone, whichever zone we decide that is. Would there be any restrictions? 1 Steve Carter Steve Carter Linder Dave Dennis Steve Dennis Steve Dennis Steve Dennis No. Therewouldbe no specific restrictions if they came in for another kind of permit. Justa$traight permit - will they have to do design review Yes ,that's. rig ht. Since we're not talking about putting in a parking lot, because there already is a road through there, I wouldn't mind asking that the fencing orbarrierbe extended. I think there would be more protection by doing the MIC staff recommendation. Now that the property has been developed, it's more valuable. I don't think heavy industrial uses would be sited on the property that now has greater value. If we ask for a developer's agreement, I would ask for no access on 34th and I would want larger trees put in now for buffer on the South,instead ofa wall. or a fence. I definitely want it to be all. one zone. Notmixed. I, too, would choose option 4. It's a bit more restrictive. (MIC). I thinkthe developer has proven to me and others that since he's come to Tukwila, that he wants to improve the look of the City. Walking the property made me realize this is a no-brainer. Will the Developer's Agreement carry with the land? Yes. 50 that no access onto 34th is there til the City rezones or agrees to change the developer's agreement? That's correct. With one caveat. That is that the developer's agreement only goes into effect if the property signs as well. Could we also.add. one that says.no other use besides parking spots? We could do that. So thattakescare of the issue of whether its MIC or C/LI. I'm not saying it shouldn't all. be one, but with that caveat, no other use besides parking would be aUowed. 2 Dennis Steve Linder Dennis Carter. Dennis Carter Joe Dave Jim Dave Jim Joe Joan Fencediscussions followed - temporary versus permanent; lights; streetlights; trees; I would make a request on the developer's agreement. After speaking with Shelley Kerslake, she implied very strongly that these kinds of agreements do nottravel with the land, or some phrase like that;ifthe property is sold, they don't necessarily carry oVer. So, I would really like to see something from the City Attorney saying that is true. I hope it is. We cangetthat for you. My understanding is that they can run with the land if so specifically stated within the agreement that it runs with the land and is binding upon successors. I'm pretty sure about this and will confirm with .the City Attorney. I still would recommend it beMIC/L. On the odd chance the developer's.agreement doesn't go with it, you still have the protectionof the 20,OOO(inaudible) office. At least when we have an owner, they probably would offer to put larger trees in. And, the otherthing is that it should be a limited use for parking only. No. Why? We have the right to disagree with you. Statements about lights - shining into homes - lets just remove 'em all and forget about it. Jim, can we get a consensus on this? It's 10 o'clock already. We need to.find an option here, I think, is all we need to do. OK I think we have a consensus on the change (MIC vs. MIC/L) but I'll go around again. Joe. Change from LOR to MIC/L? I don't care. Yes, yes, yes. It would be preferable to have it zoned all the same, so I agree to MIC/L.I agree to the stipulation of no access on 34th. And, I agree 3 Jim Carter Linder ? Linder Jim Dennis Dave Jim Many Joe - Jim Steve tcthelargerbuffer for trees and landscaping, but I would still like to see a higher retaining wall. I would also like to have the stipulation thatit'sn9other use than a parking lot because that's evidently what it's needed for and I think that's fine. I don't know if I would wanttohave to justify to the residents that we allowed another building to be built there. I've already stated mine. The trees and the access are the only two I'm interested in and the numberfour(inaudible) Lagreewith that. The lease for Homeland Security is for 10 years. Is that correct? Yes. Can they renew it after 1 0 years? Well, my guess is that's what's gonna happen. So, we have a minimum of 10 years that that's the same parking lot. Because they're not going to put an office on there while it's Homeland Security. My opinion is that you can't guarantee anything years on down the road - on this, or any other project. No more. I agree with my colleagues. MIC/L. Make that change. And, the trees and no access. So does option 4 sound like what the consensus is leaning towards? Yes. Yeah. Uh-huh. You want the landowners to put in bigger trees. I don't agree with that myself. Take my vote hdW you want. I dunno. Alright. So, Steve, where do we go from there, on that issue? I just want to clarify. I understand that it's option 4 (MIC/L) with two provisions. . One is no access onto 34th and larger trees and buffers. There is no consensus on the "only parking" or "increased barrier wall on thesouth." Do I have that right. 4 Many Joe Steve Dave Steve Jim Steve Jim Steve Jim You havethatright. That is correct. Yes. Uh-huh? Let's run through that one more time. OK. We'll COrne back to you too. But my understanding is a proposal to change the zoning to MIC/L. To enter into an agreement that would prohibit access to 34th Street and that would require larger trees on the buffer, on the south. That's correct. That'swhat I heard. OK. I think you have the consensus of Council. So, what's the nextstep, getting back to my question. We'll draw up the proposal on this proposed agreement that would then comeback to you when you make your final decision. We'll bring it back to you as soon as it's drafted to ensure you have it to take a lookatit. You can tuck it away in your notebook until it's considered in the end. Would the agreement with the applicant come forward to the Council also? Yes. OK..Soundsgood..next item... 5