Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-10 Committee of the Whole MinutesTUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Committee of the Whole August 10, 1992 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Council President Allan Ekberg called the meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; STEVE LAWRENCE, STEVE MULLET. OFFICIALS MAYOR RANTS, MIKE KENYON, City Attorney; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; LORA FOWLER, Special Projects Coordinator; NICK OLIVAS, Asst. Fire Chief; JACK PACE, Senior Engineer; ANN SEIGENTHALER, Assistant Planner. Auenda Amended Councilmember Duffie requested Citizens Comments be moved ahead of Special Presentations. It was the consensus of the Council to forward Item 3a, the Tukwila Fire Department video presentation, to the August 24 Committee of the Whole. CITIZENS COMMENTS Roy Raab, resident, submitted a petition signed by residents of 57th Ave. So., from 147th Ave. So. to So. 150th Place, a dead end street, requesting the speed limit be reduced from 25 mph to 15 mph and to designate the roadway a "play" street. Council suggested the issue be forwarded to a future Finance and Safety Committee meeting with recommendations from the administration. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Senior Planner Jack Pace reviewed the history of Crystal Ridge the Crystal Ridge Development and summarized the Development events leading up to concerns regarding the building heights of units F1 and F2 which were approved by the BAR in 1990 at 201 feet. Sunwood resident Robert Erickson has voiced his unhappiness with the building elevation of the Crystal Ridge project, charging that the developers have not complied to the site plans. Pace explained that a recent survey, conducted by the developer's consulting engineer and licensed surveyor, indicated that building F1 stands at 201.40 feet and building F2 is at 201 feet. Pace explained that when the building permits for the project were submitted, there were several elevation plans: elevation plans on grading, the site plans, utility plans, and the cross sections. Looking at the building permit plans, cross sections that particularly show this change were never revised to show the change in height (as approved by the BAR), while the other drawings were revised to show the change. When Mr. Erickson visited DCD and asked what the height of the building was, Pace referred to the cross section page and noted the height, which showed it to be 3 feet lower than the BAR approved because the cross section had not been revised. The site plans to the cross sections were revised, but the one cross section internally within the plans was not revised to reflect the change. The larger scale site plans were revised. It is this discrepancy that has caused all the confusion. According to Pace, the Sunwood Condominium Association reviewed the plans in the building permit and also failed to note the discrepancy before the permit was issued. City Attorney Mike Kenyon advised staff that no action should be taken on the .40 deviation as that amount is insignificant. Rob Erickson commented that his anger stems from the fact that each time he visited DCD he was shown the internal cross sections which are now shown to be in error. Mayor Rants suggested that further conversations between Mr. Erickson and the staff be continued in his office. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole August 10, 1992 Page 2 Snecial Presentation Crystal Ridge Development (con't) 0 q (05 Councilmember Hernandez asked whether the City has a current configuration of the building plan and how often inspectors visit the site. Pace responded that he has a full set of building permit plans. Tukwila's building inspector checks all phases of construction and a surveyor who documents the location of the building and verifies the height of the building. The inspections take place during each phase of the construction, i.e., footings, framing, etc. rather than at set intervals. Council reviewed the documentation presented by Mr. Pace. Councilmember Robertson commented that it appeared the mistake was made in showing the map. He suggested that when the multi- family standards are finished, Council may want to insure that steps are taken to clearly show the relationship of proposed buildings to the site so that mistakes such as this one are avoided in the future. Mayor Rants suggested that in the future more elevations are used to show that they are in line with where they're supposed to be. Robertson stated that he saw no reason for a private street with so much traffic going into such a large development would have setbacks and requirements any different that a public street. He suggested this also be considered during discussions on multi family design standards. Robert Erickson commented he appreciated the fact that Council would consider the discrepancies for future planning; however, he still wants something done at this time. Erickson stated he would go to any length he could to get some form of satisfaction out of a major error that he based the purchase of property on. He asked that if Council would not stop the construction, that they pass a motion to require that every single revision that is made be brought before the BAR for public response. He stated he would not let their department determine what's good or bad because, in his opinion, their determinations are totally erroneous. City Attorney Mike Kenyon cautioned all participants that at this point Mr. Pace and others in his department were perilously close to having a claim against Mr. Erickson and suggested the discussion would be better conducted elsewhere. Erickson inquired what basis the City would have for a claim, stating that his own claim would be for civil damages. Kenyon responded that any time the threat of litigation is present, he would instruct his staff clients not to discuss the matter further. Councilmember Robertson asked whether it would be possible to honor Erickson's request to change administrative procedures by having the BAR review each and every revision to this project. Kenyon responded that the Mayor could change the procedures or direct DCD to change its administrative procedures if he so chooses. In addition, the Council can pass whatever amendments to the BAR section of the TMC it deems worthwhile. Kenyon suggested that an important consideration had been overlooked. He explained that the BAR had considered a tremendous amount of documents and heard a great amount of testimony, bent over backwards to consider the concerns of Sunwood and its paid consultant, worked with the applicant, worked with Sunwood. Everyone agreed that the height of Building F was appropriately raised to 201 feet. Nobody appealed that issue. Nobody cared about the increase from 197.5 foot maximum to 201 foot maximum. The blueprints were modified. Architects modified the blueprints, not city staff. The first six pages showing the first six macro projections all have the correct 201 foot maximum. One single cross section, one document out of literally thousands in front of Mr. Pace and other City staff, had an error. Everybody missed it. According to Kenyon, it is difficult to conceive from a legal basis that a 3 -1/2 foot difference would have caused any difference in the actions of Sunwood when they knew about it or Mr. Erickson in determining the purchase of his condominium. Pace may have missed the 3 -1/2 foot difference as did everyone else, but there were thousands of other documents that Mr. Erickson or his attorney or real Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole August 10, 1992 Page 3 Special Presentation Crystal Ridge Development (con't) PUBLIC HEARINGS Disposition of City Owned Property Homes on Open Space Lands Citizen Comment SPECIAL ISSUES Disposition of City Owned Property estate agent could hive looked at as well to find out anything they wanted to find out. Councilmember Lawrence added that if most of the buildings of the City were measured they would probably be off .2 of a foot. He recommended that Mr. Erickson work out this problem with the administration as it is not within the scope of work for the Council to intervene in this matter. In conclusion Mr. Erickson commented he did not know what resolution could be reached by discussing the matter behind closed doors, but he would await a call from the Mayor's office. Council President Ekberg declared the hearing open at 7:53 p.m. Lora Fowler, Special Projects Coordinator, explained that the hearing was called to consider a resolution declaring surplus three homes situated on property purchased with money from King County Open Space funds and the City's 301 fund. The lands are to be used as open space, i.e., parks and trails. The homes must be declared surplus prior to their disposition. Anna Bernhard, 14241 59th Ave. So., suggested the houses be disposed of as quickly as possible. Council President Ekberg closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE RESOLUTION DECLARING HOMES ON CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY AS SURPLUS BE MOVED TO THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Lora Fowler explained the options available to council in disposing of the surplus homes. Council may open an unrestricted bid process, determining specifics, i.e., the house must be purchased, removed from the property and the site renovated. Council cannot restrict who can bid on the houses. 0 Vo 1 An alternative to the open bid would be to market the houses for sale. The City would have to sell the homes at current market value which would be less than what the City initially paid for them. The value of a house with property is somewhat higher than the value of a house that is to be moved off the property. Fowler added that if the house is sold outright rather than going through a bid process, it would be difficult to tie in site renovation. Public Works would need to do the renovation as a separate project after the houses were removed. Councilmember Lawrence inquired whether RCW 35.23.352 was more restrictive than the Tukwila Municipal Code regarding the City's ability to have a process where the bid is offered to non profit organizations first. Attorney Mike Kenyon responded that the RCW was more restrictive with the referenced section being the generic open bidding statute for public works and other projects. Kenyon acknowledged the possibility of offering two separate bid processes, first soliciting bids solely from non profit organizations; however, he cautioned Council of the risk of an equal protection challenge from a "for profit" company. An equal protection challenge can be overcome by establishing a compelling government interest. Kenyon stated he was not sure whether the City has the facts to show sufficient government interest to overcome a challenge in this case. The safest action to take, subject to no challenge, would be to offer the houses in an open bid process. Councilmembers Lawrence and Robertson agreed that they would favor bids by non profit agencies if possible. Councilmember Hernandez commented she was not in favor of attaching site restoration to the bid. Mayor Rants added that in some cases site restoration could cost more than the house itself. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole August 10, 1992 Page 4 Snecial Issues (con't) Disposition of City Owned Property Citizen Comment 1991 Uniform Fire Code Fire Alarm and Permit Fees Recess Multi Family Design .study Growth Mgt. Policies Councilmember Hernandez clarified that the alarm fees pertain to false fire alarms not police alarms. 09 7 It was the consensu,: of the Council to move forward with the bidding process, but continue to investigate the possibility of a restrictive (non profit) bid process. Ms. Fowler will continue to look into the Port of Seattle's procedures regarding restrictive bidding and report her findings to the Mayor's office. Jackie Dempere 4033 So. 128th St., commented the City should focus on purchasing more low income homes before the prices are too high. In her opinion, the City should not buy any open space with homes if the City plans to demolish them. Ms. Dempere briefly explained some of the housing programs that are available to low income people through non profit organizations and offered her help to the staff in support of the non profit bid process. Assistant Fire Chief Nick Olivas briefed Council on the amendments to the 1991 Fire Code which 1) allows the use of above ground storage tanks specifically for the purpose of filling fuel tanks of motor vehicles, 2) increases false alarm fees from $25 to $50 after the third false alarm, and 3) increases special permit fees. Olivas presented data from other cities illustrating their fee structure for false alarms and special permits. Although at the present time many of the cities contacted do not have a fee structure in place for excessive false alarms, they are considering it as a source of revenue and a way to reduce false alarm calls. Tukwila's ordinance proposes no charge on the first false alarm, a warning on the second false alarm, a $25 fee for the third false alarm, and a $50 fee for the fourth and subsequent false alarms. Olivas explained that there are approximately 47 operations in the fire code that require special permits. Data from the cities contacted showed that most of the jurisdictions charge for their special permits and fees vary. Again, most cities are looking at raising their fees in the near future. Councilmember Mullet asked for examples of instances which would cause repetitive false alarms. Olivas listed the most common examples as malfunctioning detectors, remodel work where the detector is set off by dust from sheetrock, malicious treatment by children. He added that the usual cause of repetitive false alarms is a problem with a device, the wiring, or with the alarm panel itself. According to Olivas, the fire department will use discretion and good judgment in assigning false alarm fees. It was the consensus of the Council to forward the proposed ordinance to the Consent Agenda on August 17. 8:38 p.m. 8:58 p.m. Council continued their review of the proposed Multi- family Design Study. (See attached minutes.) DCD Director Rick Beeler gave a brief synopsis of the GMA policies noting that the basis of the whole policy plan is an anticipated increase of 325,000 more people in King County in the next 20 years. There is an attempt through the policy plan to control growth and preserve the quality of life that we value with much of the emphasis on transportation. Beeler explained that the County Council has adopted an ambitious schedule for adoption of the policy plan. If Council wants to express their opposition or displeasure with the policies, they will need to do so by September 6th, otherwise it will be assumed that we ratify them. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole August 10, 1992 Page 5 Special Issues (con't) Growth Mgt. Policies REPORTS According to the sc },edule Council must also decide the urban and manufactur■ng/industrial centers in Tukwila by October 1st. By October 6th Council must adopt ordinances that address interim minimum densities and allowing manufactured homes and accessory dwelling units on individual lots, and freezing adding lands to business and office park zones. In summarizing the county's plan Beeler noted that in the critical areas there is no net loss of wetlands policy and the highest classification of wetlands would not be touched at all. The King County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan has some ramifications for the City. Public Works will need to review this area with Council. The land use section is directing growth primarily into the centers and urban areas where existing infrastructure will handle it. Funding would go to these areas first before going to areas outside of the center. It's been proposed that an interlocal agreement process will handle the unincorporated areas that are in our potential annexation area. The centers concept is to concentrate growth in certain centers and then link them with transportation. Also to be addressed is growth outside of centers with employment and affordable housing targets to be met. Another intergovernmental process will be developed to handle the employment growth. Designations of activity areas and business /office parks also need to be considered. Regarding transportation issues, Beeler explained that METRO would be very active in helping set the centers policies. Impact fees are to ensure that new development pays it fair share of mitigation of transportation system impacts. Beeler explained that the policies provide for protecting a community's character through high quality urban design. Open spaces, especially those connecting regionally significant open spaces, are a priority. Affordable housing must be planned for. Locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) will also be addressed. Policies dealing with economic development and finance are scheduled for adoption by the GMPC by December 1. Councilmember Robertson recommended Council ratify the policies, stating that although they aren't perfect, they're a good first start. Mayor Rants agreed and suggested Council read the policies thoroughly, continue discussions and make a decision. Following further discussion it was determined that discussion of the GMPC policies would be forwarded to the August 24th C.O.W.. Councilmember Lawrence reported that the Regional Council on Airport Affairs (RCAA) has requested the various cities pass a resolution regarding the performance to -date of Seatac regarding what they planned to do and promised to do in the past. Lawrence distributed draft copies of the draft resolution and asked for Council's comments by tomorrow evening. Council President Ekberg commented that Council sees a lot of negative things that occur in the City based on other people's perspective coming before the Council during Citizens Comments. Ekberg stated he believes the City has Excellence in Action ongoing and would like to see an award program established that supports that spirit. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole August 10, 1992 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT 10:41 p.m. o L e--) E. Cantu, City Clerk 9 1-1 2 MOVED BY DUFT IE, SECONDED BY MULLET, THAT THE COUNCIL ADJOURN TO THE SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Attendance: Joe Duffle, Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson, Allan Ekberg, Steve Lawrence, Steve Mullet, Mayor Rants, and Vernon Umetsu. Minutes: The minutes of the July 29th meeting were reviewed and approved. The Council held the following discussions. Page 30 The Council determined to delete all existing sections of the Zoning Code's Planned Residential Development chapter (TMC 18.46) which were not associated with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Page 5 ATTACHMENT A Work Session for Multi family Design Standards Update Held During Committee of the Whole Meeting on August 10, 1992 9:00 10:00 P.M. The Council found that: a. the proposed standards better articulated the desired level of design quality than the PRD chapter, b. the potential benefits of PRD as a "safety valve" to allow good design in unanticipated situations are out weighed by the potential for confusion and bad design, and c. Council members do not feel they can adequately review project designs to absolutely assure good design quality. Page 12 The Council discussed its desired to have photo- montage examples and elevations included in applications to demonstrate a project's level of neighborhood harmony. Page 22 The Council determined that there be a definition of private access roads, possibly based on volumes and physical characteristics. Page 23 The Council determined that developments fronting various types of internal access roads shall be subject to specific building setbacks similar to structures fronting public streets. The Council found that at some point, developments fronting internal access roads should be treated in a manner similar to those fronting public streets. A Crystal Ridge Apartments building (Bldg. E) on Sunwood Blvd. was cited in example. Planning and Public Works staff were directed to develop such standards. Multi Family Design Guideline Review No. 15 The Council determined not to substitute the more extensive text from Pg. 4, No. 15 of the 2/26/92 draft, but wait for the anticipated Tree Preservation Ordinance. Page 28 No. 27A The Council determined that a new guideline should urge using buildings to buffer recreation areas from noise sources. The Council directed staff to submit the above revisions for review at their meeting on August 24, 1992 and a fully corrected document at their meeting on August 31, 1992. 2� sh thef (b)' tive area provided for open space an use taxation u downers have n or lot size adju ba 18. .rr.L. 444L04 it vU %L.. a.JUL 18.45.140 Asses (a) Fair Market consider sensitive market value of 1 urrent Use Asse cts, as defined 1 Section 18.45.0. wners thereof ma er RCW 18.34; received density ents as provide Page 18-48 ent relief. alue. The Kin ea regulation under RCW ent. Establi ection 18.06. shall be class qualify for c rovided, suc edits, or set- in Chapter County Assessor n determining 34. d sensi- 8 and d as t (c) pecial Assessm ts.. Landowne who se alify un: er subsection (b) o this section shall o be empted m special assess nts on the sens e a tract to d r ay the cost of m cipal improvemen such as sanita sewers, storm s ers and water mains. (Ord 1599 part), 1991) Chapter 18.46 PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Sections: 18.46.010 Purpose. 18.46.020 Permitted districts. 18.46.030 Permitted uses. 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. 18.46.070 Density standards. 18.46.080 Open space. 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. 18.46.110 Application procedure required for. PRD approval. 18.46.112 Review criteria. 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City Attorney. 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments. 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. 18.46.010 Purpose. 4 res#denUal— develo is the pur- pose of this chapter to: (1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation, waterways, wetlands and views:. efficiency 4n the* y (Ord 1599 §4(1), 1991; Ord 1247 §!(part), 1982) 18.46.020 Permitted districts. Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the following districts: (1) R -1, Single family residential; (2) R -2, Two family residential; (3) R -3, Three- and four family residential; (4) R-4, Low apartments; (5) RMH, Multiple- residence high density. (Ord 1289 §l, 1983: Ord 1247 §!(part), 1982) 1 18.46.030 Permitted uses. The following uses are allowed in planned resi- dential development (1) Single-family dwellings, pursuant to the height and yard regulations of Chapter 18.50 for the R -1- 7.2 district; (2) In R -2, R -3, R -4, and RMH districts, resi- dential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in which such residence is located, such as single- family residences, duplexes, triplexes, four plexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; pro- vided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels, .and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded; (3) Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature; 41) In planned resider der sleeps- dgster 4akkidrles.. (Ord 1289 52, 1983: Ord 1247 §!(part), 1982) e 4 Location. pla ll- abut, and the- main4nt (Ord 1289 53, 1983: Orr! 1247 §!(part), 1982) 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. (a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks. (1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code are waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density. (2) Building Height. Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining natural resources and significant vegetation, and en- hances views within the site without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in build- ing height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface. P. 1 S MAY oN Y 8 EsT Air C WED ON r (TEi w r7-N 5ET4 (Tt A2uES, n�� the _fire of de ..r1. {n1. r ,r lop ment inay-be #ttod. (b) Off -street Parking. Off -street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of build- ings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple- family zoned sites with sensitive areas, a minimum of two parking stalls per unit will be allowed, with a fifty percent compact stalls allowance, and parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be allowed if the design does not affect circulation. (c) Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. (d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface calculated for the total develop- ment allowed on sensitive areas sites will be fifty per- cent for each single family development and each multifamily development. (e) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums, if usable passive recreation opportunities within these areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems, wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic areas. (f) Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas. (1) Downslope and Side Yard Buffers. Eleva- tions and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty-five percent of the structures at time of project completion with antidpated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This stan- dard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement. (2) Roads and Access Drives. Any road or access drive which cuts approximately perpendicular to a slope to the ridge line of a hill shall have minimum five -foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species that provides a branch pattern suffident to provide, at maturity, fifty percent coverage of the pavement area. Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of Northwest native plant species. (g) The Board of Architectural Review shall review guidelines for single- family and multifamily developments.. The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050. Page 18-49 �7 (h) For single-family developments, site plans shall include placement and footprint of the residences, driveways and roads. '(Ord 1599 54(5), 1991; d 247 §1289 1982) 18.48.070 Density standards. (a) Basic Density. The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. (b) Single- family. (1) In R -1 single family residential districts, the Planning Commission may.. recommend,. and_ the.. .City_ t s ouncil may authorize, a minimum lot size not less an the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, llowing findings that the amenities or design features ted in subsections (b) (2)(A) through (b)(2) (D) of this section are substantially provided. (2) In R -1 single family residential districts on sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist). (B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics. (C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided especially in or near areas of recreation. (D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehen- sive Plan. (c) In multiple- family residential districts, the anning Commission may recommend, and the City ouncil may authorize, a dwelling -unit density not ore than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones or an increase equal to the allowable density credits as set forth in subsection (d) of this section, if the site contains sensitive areas or buffers following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (2) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegeta- tion is retained (in cases where significant stands exist). (3) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural charac- teristics. 1 Page 18-60 dement —the -1 (d) Density Transfer. (1) Density transfers are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses, and asso- ciated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent possible. (2) Density transfers are the percentage credits to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units for a residential site containing undevelopable sensitive areas or buffers. The calculation of the maximum units per buildable acre of a site with protected areas shall be equal to: (DU dwelling units) [(DU /acre) (buildable acres)] [(DU /acre)(sensitive areas and buffer)(density transfer)] (3) Density transfer credits shall be determined from the table below: Percentage of Site in Density Sensitive Areas and Buffer Transfer 1 -10 30% 11.20 27% 21 -30 24% 31 .40 21% 41.50 18% 51.60 15% 61 .70 12% 71 .80 9% 81- 90 6% 91.100 3% (4) The density transfer can only be used within the development proposal site. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the site development process in Chapter 18.60. (5) Development of the transferred density shall be confined to buildable areas of the site, and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers. jOrrt: 1599 §4(6), 1 Ord 1247 1289 art), 1982) 18.46.080 Open space. •eystern of the City and --pere cone tief -°„d. (h) For single-family developments, site plans shall include placement and footprint of the residences, driveways and roads. '(Ord 1599 54(5), 1991; d 247 §1289 1982) 18.48.070 Density standards. (a) Basic Density. The basic density shall be the same as permitted by the underlying zone district. The dwelling units per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50. (b) Single- family. (1) In R -1 single family residential districts, the Planning Commission may.. recommend,. and_ the.. .City_ t s ouncil may authorize, a minimum lot size not less an the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, llowing findings that the amenities or design features ted in subsections (b) (2)(A) through (b)(2) (D) of this section are substantially provided. (2) In R -1 single family residential districts on sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist). (B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics. (C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided especially in or near areas of recreation. (D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehen- sive Plan. (c) In multiple- family residential districts, the anning Commission may recommend, and the City ouncil may authorize, a dwelling -unit density not ore than twenty percent greater than permitted by the underlying zones or an increase equal to the allowable density credits as set forth in subsection (d) of this section, if the site contains sensitive areas or buffers following findings that the amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided: (2) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegeta- tion is retained (in cases where significant stands exist). (3) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural charac- teristics. 1 Page 18-60 dement —the -1 (d) Density Transfer. (1) Density transfers are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, watercourses, and asso- ciated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent possible. (2) Density transfers are the percentage credits to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units for a residential site containing undevelopable sensitive areas or buffers. The calculation of the maximum units per buildable acre of a site with protected areas shall be equal to: (DU dwelling units) [(DU /acre) (buildable acres)] [(DU /acre)(sensitive areas and buffer)(density transfer)] (3) Density transfer credits shall be determined from the table below: Percentage of Site in Density Sensitive Areas and Buffer Transfer 1 -10 30% 11.20 27% 21 -30 24% 31 .40 21% 41.50 18% 51.60 15% 61 .70 12% 71 .80 9% 81- 90 6% 91.100 3% (4) The density transfer can only be used within the development proposal site. Any such modifications shall be reviewed and approved through the site development process in Chapter 18.60. (5) Development of the transferred density shall be confined to buildable areas of the site, and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers. jOrrt: 1599 §4(6), 1 Ord 1247 1289 art), 1982) 18.46.080 Open space. •eystern of the City and --pere cone tief -°„d. .pu -{b}- Planned residential developments shall set aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensitive areas tract as required by Section 18.45.090, and will be exempted from other open space requirements of this section. (Ord 1599 54(7), 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982) •(a) The desig ayou• of a p .eemp ilii -of .rnize-any-undesirable-icepac-t-€4-4:11e--P41)-en-aijaseat- -prepeAtege .(b).— Setbacks 18.46.100 Preapplication procedure. A preapplication conference between representa- tives of the City and the potential applicant for a PRD is required prior to the acceptance of an application for PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the Planning Department at the written request of the potential applicant. All affected City departments shall be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint the appli- cant with the provisions of this section as well as other ordinances and regulations which would affect the property under consideration. (Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982) 18.46.110 Application procedure required for PRD approval. (a) Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department of Community Development and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and by the following: (1) Justification for the density bonus, if re- quested by the applicant; (2) Program for development including staging or timing of development; (3) Proposed ownership pattern upon comple- tion of the project; (4) Basic content of any restrictive covenants; (5) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a home- owners' association, or similar association, condo- minium development or other means acceptable to the City; (6) An application for rezone may be submit- ted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall.be in addition to those of the PRD application; (7) An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application; (8) Graphic images of development in any sensitive area or buffer, including photomontage or computer generated perspectives in a standardized format required by the Director of the Department of Community Development; (9) Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on -site as part of the preliminary plat application. A tree and vegetation retention/removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application. Such tree and vegetation reten- tion/removal plan shall assure the preservation of sig- nificant trees and vegetation. (b) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by City depart- ments. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time. (c) Planning Commission Recommendation. Fol- lowing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommenda- tions with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter, and forward the report to the City Council. (d) City Council Public Hearing. (1) After receipt of the Planning Commission report, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed PRD as recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council shall give approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval to the pro- posed PRD. (2) The PRD shall be an exception to the regu- lations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance. (Ord 1599 54(9), 1991; Ord 1289 54, 1983; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982) 18.46.112 Review criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall find that the proposed development plans meet all of the following criteria in their decision making: (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met, if appropri- ate; (2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the cri- teria as listed in Section 18.46.070; 1, Page 18-51 1 (3) Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; (4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter and Chapter. 18.45; (5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been docu- mented in the application; (6) Development in accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and other rele- vant plans; (7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines (Section 18.60.050); and (8) Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation recommended" by the ector of the Department of Community Develop Sent. (Ord. 1599 54(10), 1991) 18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City Attorney. The restrictive covenants intended to be used by the applicant in a planned residential development (PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other structures thereon, must be approved by the City Council and the City Attorney before the issuance of any building permit. (Ord 1289 56, 1983) 18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit. The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development: (1) Time Limitation. A complete application for the initial building permit shall be filed by the appli- cant within twelve months of the date on which the City Council approved the PRD. An extension of time iox or submitting•an application may be requested in writ by the. applicant, and an extension not exceeding months may be granted by the Director of the epartment of Community Development. If applica- tion for the initial building permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan shall be consid- ered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code. (2) Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department of Community Development and shall be accompa- nied by a fee as prescribed by the building code. (3) Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be included in the building permit applica- tion presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public and documents must be Page 18-52 13 ti I approved by the City Council before the issuance of any building permits. (4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties or other security device as shall be approved by the City Attorney shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in the final plan. (5) Department of Community Development Action. The Department of Community Development shall determine whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in compliance with and carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Follow- ing approval of the Department of Community Devel- opment, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the City and the originals shall be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone. (Ord 1599 54(11), 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982) 18A6.130 Minor and major adjustments. If minor adjustments or changes are proposed fol- lowing the approval of the PRD, by the City Council as provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall be approved by the planning department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic character or arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or open space provided. Major adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning department, substan- tially change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to make one or more major changes, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120. (Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982) 18.46.140 Expiration of time limits. Construction of improvements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date of the filing of the final PRD plan by the City Clerk as provided in Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning construction may be requested in writing by the appli- cant, and such extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the Planning Commission upon showing of good cause. If construction does not occur within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD plans by the City Clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from'the official zoning map and the zoning shall revert to the underlying designation. (Ord. 1247 51(part), 1982) 1) y I .4 I: Z r.• r T •r:. t.: -r 1 1 I 1 .f .i.. I t r n 1 I I 1; r :i I :1 3 W. J,l— I! i r .Sl!/t VII1 .9 C� 4:2F:111- is :y•n 1- Ft' :IF i !r it jn 4 1 fi t; 1• 4 t'!: :1•: Vii_: 1. •t• -rrt ,i. iij '4 l ',..irr •I )..,....:,.1 I�''� ,r11 fiI; PA. 1 r Y1 r f _z 4 1 I w IdWS QNV 1 t 7 it I lJ -cEiIGi 2d As .DV.P'.S ?.f�NyoJ sjsta?/)NI _Nd ru "Nr i n r A ter' /y i ,cr h'9�i�i I 1 i S •i 11 v••i CL'')StC/d) N/ Q72• 0.01.1 Lz 52 0 II oe N.:' 1' 1 -1 =J:.:•- -sgd) t. v i �I. t 14 •7 1 I