Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2012-07-09 Item 2B - Discussion - Low Density Residential Zone Height StandardCity of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Jack Pace, Department of Community Development Director BY: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor DATE: July 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Low Density Residential Zone height standard ISSUE Should the City change the method of calculating building height in the Low Density Residential zone? BACKGROUND Staff had previously briefed the Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) in October 2011, regarding some options for regulating the bulk and size of single family dwelling units. See Attachment A for the memo to CAP and the minutes of the meeting. At that time the Committee gave direction to staff to amend the method of calculating building height for sloping sites and to not make any other changes to the building footprint or setback regulations. Planning Commission reviewed the alternate method of calculating height for sloping lots and recommended amending the building height definition to give the developers two options: 1) measuring from the lowest grade; or 2) to establish different measuring points for different sections of the structure and allow the structure to better respond to the topography. See Attachment B for the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings. At the April 9, 2012, CAP meeting, the Committee forwarded the building height item to full Council without a recommendation. See Attachment C for the minutes of the meeting. At the April 23, 2012 Committee of Whole (COW) meeting Council asked staff to remove the proposed changes related to building height issue from the proposed ordinance and referred this topic to a future CAP meeting. See Attachment D for the minutes of the COW meeting. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission's recommendations related to the building height issue are listed under Attachment E. Also, Attachment F includes comparison of Tukwila's building height standards with some neighboring cities. FINANCIAL IMPACT Not applicable RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Committee review Planning Commission's recommendations and decide if any changes should be made to the method of calculating building height of single family residential units. 11 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 ATTACHMENTS A. Memo to CAP dated October 5, 2011, regarding single family residential development standards, along with the attachments and the minutes of the meeting. B. Planning Commission meeting minutes from January 26, 2012 and February 23, 2012. C. April 9, 2012 CAP meeting minutes D. April 23, 2012 COW meeting minutes E. Planning Commission's recommendations on the building height issue F. Comparison of building height standards of Tukwila and some neighboring cities 12 Attachment A City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Jack Pace, Department of Community Development Director DATE: October 5, 2011 SUBJECT: Low Density Residential Zone Development Standards ISSUE Should the City change residential development standards such as height, setbacks or building footprint to increase the compatibility of infill development with existing structures? BACKGROUND This issue was reviewed by the City Council in 2007, when the Council asked staff to review the way building height was calculated after receiving complaints about a new house that the neighbors felt was out of scale with the surrounding development. The Community Affairs and Parks Committee reviewed the issue and asked staff to look at increasing the rear yard setbacks. Based on the research at that time it was determined that there was no easy fix to regulating the compatibility of infill development and just increasing the setback would not have prevented the house in question to be built. However it was decided to review the height issue with an overall look at the single family standards. An overall look at the policies for residential neighborhoods is usually done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. At this time Tukwila is mandated by State Law to update its Comprehensive Plan by 2015. The resident who raised this issue in 2007 has asked that this issue be revisited. Staff has prepared some options for the Committee to review in order to address this issue. DISCUSSION There are a number of ways that the bulk or the building envelope of a structure can be regulated, such as building height, lot coverage, setbacks, and in some jurisdictions floor area ratio (FAR). The current development standards in the LDR zone that regulate single family development are listed in Attachment A. Also, Attachment B is the comparison of common development standards of the neighboring jurisdictions. Different development standards that apply to a single family home are discussed below along with some options for revising the standard in order to address the compatibility of infill housing with the existing homes. Building Height Building height is only one element of the development regulations that controls the bulk or the building envelope of a structure. At this time the building height is calculated by the method laid out in the Washington State Building Code. It is measured from the grade plane, which is the average of the finished ground level adjoining the exterior walls of the structure. On a sloping lot the height of the structure on one side can be more than the maximum height allowed on a flat lot. Attachment B discusses the alternate ways of calculating the building height on a sloping lot. One option is to MD 10 -5 -II WA2011 Info Memos Councils .SingleFamDevStandards.doc 13 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 As part of the Comprehensive Plan update the City of Tukwila will review the policies in the residential neighborhoods chapter. The policies related to neighborhood quality; density requirements; accessory dwelling units; street layout and sidewalk requirements; orientation of the home; accessory structures and other broader policies will be reviewed and discussed as part of that process. However if the Committee decides to review development standards such as building height, setbacks, building footprint and floor area ratio at this time then staff has laid out some options to consider for further discussion. OPTIONS If the Community Affairs and Parks Committee would like to review the development standards in the LDR zone then listed below are some options: 1) Change the Zoning Code to require a different method of calculating the building height on sloping lots; 2) Amend the standards that regulate bulk by: a) Increasing the rear yard setback in LDR for all houses from 10 to 15 feet and to 25 feet if the house has a third story (with a possible exception for alley accessed garages or accessory structures); and /or b) Choose either i) or ii) listed below: i) Allow administrative approval to allow variances up to 10% of the building footprint standard if certain standards are met such as compatibility in scale with the adjoining homes; modulation of the fagade; and /or larger than required setbacks are provided; or ii) Adopt a graduated FAR standard similar to the building footprint standard, where the percentage decreases as the lot size increases. 3) No Action. RECOMMENDATION The options listed above under #1 and #2 will result in slightly reducing the size and the bulk of the homes that could be built in Tukwila. However none of the changes to the building standards would make a significant difference in the bulk of the house that was the source of the neighborhood complaint. Staff recommends that at a minimum the method of calculating building height on sloping lots be revised. If the Committee wishes to look at options 1 and 2, staff recommends that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would bring back the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for final action. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Tukwila's Single Family Development Standards Attachment B: Comparison of development standards of the neighboring jurisdictions Attachment C: Methods of calculating building height MD WA2011 Info Memos-CounciftSing leFamDevStandards.doc 3 10 -5 -2011 IM, Development Standards in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone Minimum lot size 6500 sq. ft. Average Lot Width (minimum) 50 feet Setbacks: Front 20 feet Front, decks or porches 15 feet Second Front 10 feet Sides 5 feet Rear 10 feet Height 30 feet maximum and is measured per Washington State Building Code (from the average grade plane to the mid -point of the highest roof) Parking Two spaces for each dwelling unit up to 3 bedrooms and then one additional space for every two bedrooms in excess of 3 bedrooms in a dwelling unit. In addition to the standards listed above the following sections regulate accessory dwelling units, building footprint and the design of the dwelling units: 18.10.030 Accessory dwelling units Accessory dwelling units are permitted in LDR zone, provided the following criteria are met: a. minimum lot of 7,200 square feet; b. accessory dwelling unit is no more than 33% of the square footage of the primary residence and a maximum of 1,000 square feet, whichever is less; c. one of the residences is the primary residence of a person who owns at least 50% of the property, d. dwelling unit is incorporated into the primary detached single family residence, not a separate unit, so that both units appear to be of the same design as if constructed at the same time; e. minimum of three parking spaces on the property with units less than 600 square feet, and a minimum of four spaces for units over 600 square feet; and f. the units are not sold as condominiums. 18.10.057 Maximum Building Footprint The maximum total footprint of all residential structures located on a lot in the Low Density Residential District shall be limited to 35% of the lot area, provided: 1. The maximum footprint is reduced by 0.125% for each 100 square feet of lot area in excess of 6,500 square feet and less than 19,000 square feet; 2. The maximum footprint shall be 4,000 square feet for lots between 19,000 square feet and 32,670 square feet; 3. The maximum footprint shall be 5,000 square feet for lots between 32,760 square feet and 43,560 square feet, 4. The maximum footprint shall be 6,000 square feet for lots over 43,560 square feet; and 5. For lots less than 6,500 square feet in size, the maximum total footprint shall be the area defined by the application of the standard setback requirements set forth in the applicable Basic Development Standards, up to a maximum of 2,275square feet. 15 Below is a table listing single family development standards in nearby jurisdictions Building Envelope MAxIMttlhi I 81.171 DING -OGHT I F j 1 Kent Jurisdiction Standard Tukwila stry /35' 30' to roof Max. Height mid -point Min. Lot 60', 70' 50', 60' Area 6,500 Lot Width 50' 15', 20' 35%(2,275) 10' at 6,500 sf, garage 20' setbacks only limit Max. Lot below 6,500 Coverage sf Setbacks: 20' Front 20' Second Front 10' Side 5' Kent Renton 2.5 stry /35' 2 stry /35' 2 stry /30' 7,600 8,000 4,500 45% 60', 70' 50', 60' 50' Corner Corner SeaTac Surien 30' 35' 5,000 to 15,000 7,200 50' Seattle 30'+ 5' for roof 5,000 None 35% or 1,000+ 15% (1,750) for lots under 5,000 sf 20' 10' 5 Smaller of 25' or 20% lot depth Rear 10' Impervious Surface 5' 25' 20' 15' 5' 70% 60% 16 Greater Greater of 2,500sf of 2,500sf 45% or 35% or 35% 35% 35% 15', 20' 10' 30' garage 20' 20' 15', 20' 10' 20' garage 20' 15' Total, 5' 5' min. 5' 5' 5' 5' 25' 20' 15' 5' 70% 60% 16 Methods of Calculating Building Height Building Height is defined in the Zoning Code (TMC 18.06.100) as: "Building height" means the height of a building as calculated by the method in the Washington State Building Code. The Washington State Building. Code defines Building Height and the Grade Plane as: Building Height: The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Grade Plane: A reference plane representing the average of the finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 ft (1829 mm) from the building between the structure and a point 6 ft (1829 mm) from the building. Height Limit Actual Grade Average Grade ..4 17 b) In order to allow the structures to better respond to the topography of sloping sites a structure will be allowed to adjust the points at which height is measured. This may be accomplished by establishing separate grade planes at intervals of least 15 feet for different sections of the structure. Height limit I 15' 25' Section 3 15' Section 2 r Section 1 s 0 ,overage Grade or lowest Grade for each section Additionally, the city may require a topographic survey from a licensed land surveyor when the existing grade will be disturbed to accomplish the construction or when the final height of the new structure in the area where grade is being disturbed is within 2 feet of the allowed height limit for the structure as measured above the existing or finished grade. im City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 5 :00p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: Verna Seal, Chair; Joe Duffie and De'Sean Quinn Staff: Derek Speck, Peggy McCarthy, Brandon Miles, Minnie Dhaliwal, Jack Pace and Kimberly Matej Guests: Sandra Kruize CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Seal called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. H. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Crisis Diversion Facilities: Ordinance Repeal and Ammendment Staff is seeking Council approval to repeal Ordinance No. 2332 regarding the location of Crisis Diversion (CDF) and Crisis Diversion Interim Facilities (CDIS) within the City of Tukwila. This repeal is being requested as a result of a decision made by the King County Superior Court on September 16, 2011, which overturned a previous decision by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Board (Board). Ordinance No. 2332 expanded the location of the above facilities in response to the Board's assertion that a previous ordinance (No. 2287) did not comply with the provisions of the Growth Management Act. Since Superior Court has reversed the Board's decision, the City is now able to repeal Ordinance No_ 2332, and revert back to original Ordinance No. 2287. In addition to the repeal, staff is requesting an amendment to Ordinance No. 2287, which would include a revised definition of CDF /CDIS facilities to be consistent with State legislation. This revised definition was included in Ordinance No. 2332. A public hearing will be scheduled on this item for the October 24 COW. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO OCTOBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING. B. Low Densitv Residential Zone Development Standards Staff is seeking Committee direction on how to proceed with policy standards relative to low density residential zone development. This item originally came forward to Council in 2007 in response to concerns regarding development of residential infill that did not appear to be compatible with existing structures. Concerns regarding such infill were not completely addressed at the time, and staff is now seeking policy direction from the Committee regarding such standards. After discussion, the Committee Members determined that it is in the best interest of the community for staff to review the calculations for building height in regards to infill and existing structures while balancing the needs of the community without discouraging development. This item will move forward to the Planning Commission for review and work as appropriate and return to Committee and Council with a recommendation. The Committee suggested that other issues such as setbacks, lot sizes and variances in regards to low density residential development be looked at during the Comprehensive Plan review process. FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 5:33 p.m. Next meeting: Monday, October 24, 2011 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3 f Committee Chair Approval Mi fes b KAM. 19 c Attachment B City o f 1 UKWita Planning Commission Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Date: January 26, 2012 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Hall Council Chambers Present: Brooke Alford, Chair; Thomas McLeod, Vice Chair; Commissioners, Louise Strander, David Shumate, and Jeri Frangello- Anderson Arrived: Commissioner, Mike Hansen arrived at 6:35 PM Absent: Commissioner, Aaron Hundtofte Staff: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director, Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary Chair Alford opened the public hearing at 6:30 PM. Minutes: Commissioner McLeod made a motion to adopt the December 15, 2011 minutes. Commissioner Strander noted one correction and seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Correction: Commissioner Jeri Frangello- Anderson, was absent at the 12/15/11 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L12 -001 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: A series of proposed housekeeping code amendments ranging from code clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development standards. LOCATION: City wide Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development presented the staff report. She gave a brief overview on the proposed code amendments. Similar housekeeping code amendments were last updated in 2009.The current meeting and legislative approval process was explained. Also, background and history was provided on the proposed code amendments, discussion followed. PROPOSED CHANGES: Site Specific Rezones The State law requires only one public hearing for quasi-judicial site specific rezones, which typically also involve changes to the Comprehensive Plan map, as the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps are identical in Tukwila. However, the City is currently holding two public hearings and several Council Committee meetings. The city attorney has advised that the process needs to be changed to meet the State law. Therefore, staff is asking the Planning Commission to make a decision between Option 1 Option 2b as drafted in the 1/27/12 PC packet. Staff is recommending option 1. There was extensive discussion on the proposed options, and potential revisions to the proposed language. Page 1 of 4 21 PC Hearing Minutes January 26, 2012 ACTION: Option 1 Staff was asked to provide the Commission with more information and clarification on what the role of the Commissioners is pertaining to giving, gathering, and sharing information in a public meeting, and whether option 1 will involve making a recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission. Single Familv Design Standards Entered into the record was a public comment letter by Sandra Kinzie, Tukwila resident, that was received on January 26, 2012, and it was handed out to the Commissioners at the public hearing., In 2004, the Zoning Code was amended requiring the same design standards for homes built on site and manufactured homes. In response to a citizen complaint staff briefed the Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) in October 2011, regarding different options of regulating the bulk and size of single family dwelling units. This was in response to a complaint regarding houses being built that are too large in their neighborhood. The committee gave staff directions to amend the method of calculating building height on sloping lots. Recently, another Tukwila resident raised an issue with the City Council regarding the current design standards, which prevent the replacement of a single -wide manufactured home with a much better manufactured home, as it did not meet some design standards. The current standards require all homes to have a minimum roof pitch of 5:12 and the front door to face the street. After discussion on this issue, the PC approved Option 1: ACTION: Amend the Single Family Design Standards to allow the replacement of a single wide mobile home with a newer and larger manufactured home, a one -time allowance. Staff will draft some qualifying language addressing what the community is gaining from allowing this waiver. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Gary Singh, Developer, expressed concern with changing the building height rules that have been in effect for a very long time. He said the City has slopes, which will dramatically change the size of the houses with the new method of calculating building heights. Mr. Singh asked if Attachment G could be looked into. He talked about building height comparisons of the surrounding cities: Kent, Renton, and Burien, stating they allow 35 ft. structure heights and Tukwila is 5 ft. lower than the other three cities. He said that he wonders why Tukwila wants to lower the building heights more. He said he thinks that the 30 ft. limit is great but if it is changed, it's going to create a lot of complications. Mr. Singh said if someone can build a bigger house, he wonders why it is not allowed. Staff noted that in 2007, the City Building Official looked at the referenced Attachment G. Explanation was given on Tukwila and the methods of calculating building height by surrounding cities. Commissioner Alford stated that Tukwila does have homes that are built out of scale, and that they distract from the community. She said efforts should be made to respond to the land and the surrounding community. Staff walked through the proposed changes listed in Attachment F and Attachment I. The PC discussed and approved staff's proposed recommendations with the following changes: 22 Page 2 of 4 PC Hearing Minutes January 26, 2012 Attachment F; Page 2: Correct the name of the park to Duwamish Hill Preserve. Page 5: Building Height, add the word "at" to state that the different grade planes be of intervals at least 15 feet. Page 6: Add the phrase "or its successor" after Department of Early Learning. Page 8: Landscape Plan Requirements section, add the following clarifying language "dead or dying trees as determined by a certified arborist" Page 8: Loading Space Requirement section Eliminate this section Page 9: Filing of Plans section, change the word "restriping" to "reconfiguring with some thresholds, such as adding new spaces, changes to landscaping islands and fire lanes. Discussion of the proposed changes related to manufacturing uses listed under Attachment I followed. The discussion focused on the following use that is permitted in C/LI zone, "Manufacturing, processing and/or assembling of electrical or mechanical equipment, vehicles and machines including, but not limited to, heavy and light machinery, tools, airplanes, boats or other transportation vehicles and equipment Commissioner Alford asked, "Why are manufacturing uses that have significant potential for causing environmental pollution, such as noise, smoke, and dust, permitted in the Commercial Light Industrial (C/LI) area." She said, "It doesn't seem appropriate for the zone. Ms. Dhaliwal stated that she looked into this matter further to understand what the category means, where it is allowed, and what the legislative intent was when it was adopted in 1995. She said it is a permitted use in C/LI, HI, MIC/L, MIC/H zones, and is a conditional use in TVS. It is likely that it was permitted due to some existing business. It is a broad category and the scale of products being manufactured could be small or big under this zone. Ms. Dhaliwal stated if the other Commissioners felt this was an issue that they could consider the following options: 1. Recommendation that the vehicle, auto and boat manufacturing be moved to a Conditional Use in C/LI. If this option is selected then there should be a provision that before it goes to the City Council there is additional notice provided to the property owners of this zone informing them of the options. This would allow property owners a chance to weigh in at the City Council public hearing. 2. Leave as staff has written. 3. No change at this time, and look at it more comprehensively later. She said in the past there was some sensitivity to making decisions that caused existing businesses to become non conforming, and that should be taken into consideration, and proper notice be given before making any changes that exceed the purview of housekeeping code amendments. Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director, commented that the mildest approach with the least impact would be Page 3 of 4 23 PC Hearing Minutes January 26, 2012 to make it a Conditional Use, which would allow some additional control for new uses but it would not make any existing uses non conforming. Ms. Dhallwal said that if the Commission wants to make a recommendation to the City Council, then she suggests notifying the property owners in the C/LI zone, and holding a public hearing on the proposed change. Commissioner Alford asked for the other Commissioners opinion on the issue. Discussion on this issue continued during deliberation. There were no additional comments. The public hearing was closed. The PC deliberated. At the next meeting, staff will provide the PC with a memo of the requested information on the Site Specific Rezones, Option 1, with an attached ordinance of all of the other proposed changes. The PC will complete deliberation on the revised ordinance, and then make a recommendation to forward to the City Council. The Commission took a vote regarding notifying property owners that the PC would be holding a public hearing to change vehicle and boat manufacturing to a Conditional Use in the C/LI. Four Commissioners were in favor, Commissioners Strander and Hansen were opposed. CONTINUANCE: The hearing will be continued to February 23, 2012, at which time staff will return with more specific ordinance language. Staff will also send out a notice to the property owners in the C/LI on the proXosed changes to manufacturing uses and inform them of the public hearing continuance on February 23 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Anthony Ritch, Regional Senior Vice President, Westfield, is tentatively scheduled to attend the February 23 meeting and provide an update on the mall. Work continues on the TUC Plan, staff is not certain it will be ready to bring back to the PC in February. A training opportunity was shared with the PC, if interested they can contact Nora, or Evie Boykan, Tukwila Human Services Program Manager to RSVP. Greater Youth Involvement, community outreach,- Staff said they are unable to take on this project at this time, and asked if anyone would be interested in taking on this project, and developing a proposal to be submitted to the Mayor. Nora asked to be notified if anyone is interested. Staff inquired whether the link to review their PC packet on laserfiche electronically is sufficient, or whether they would also prefer to have a packet mailed to them. Submitted By: Wynetta Bivens Planning Commission Secretary Adjourned: 9:22 PM Adopted: 02/23112 24 Page 4 of 4 City o f Tukwila Planning Commission Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Date: February 23, 2012 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Hall Council Chambers Present: Brooke Alford, Chair; Commissioners, Louise Strander, Mike Hansen, David Shumate, Aaron Hundtofte, and Jeri Frangello- Anderson Absent: Vice Chair, Thomas McLeod Staff. Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director, Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary Chair Alford opened the public hearing at 6:30 PM. Minutes: Commissioner Strander made a motion to adopt the January 26, 2012 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Antony Ritch, Regional Senior Vice President, Development, Westfield Shopping Mall, gave a presentation regarding the mall's vision at the request of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ritch expressed their pride in being a true partner and investing in the community. He said that it is through the shared visions and partnerships that they are able to achieve the best results for the community, customers, retailers, and investors. Recently, Southcenter won a "gold" award for the mall expansion. Mr. Ritch said the award is a very prestigious award in the industry, and was a real compliment to the City, and the team, for the remodel accomplishment, which was achieved under the City's current planning codes. Westfield became in involved with the TUC Plan in 2002, and is interested in continuing to work with staff on the revised draft TUC Plan. They have some concerns with the original TUC Draft, which they have discussed with staff. They feel that the proposed development regulations are not economically viable for developers. Concern was expressed with the way the code was written in the previous draft. And also with the following language, `the shopping industry shift is away from internal focused malls to more open air malls', Westfield felt the previous draft Plan was far too prescriptive, and could be an issue for redeveloping the assets with a very specific form of development. A Canadian pension fund investor has purchased the largest ever real estate investment with Westfield for a 45 percent stake of Southcenter and a number of other development assets. Mr. Ritch said they look forward to continuing to invest in Southcenter and being part of the next evolution of Tukwila. Mr. Ritch said they do not want to discourage investors. He stated that they share the vision for the Southcenter region to become more diversified with residential and office uses. They want to work with the City, but they need assurance that the infrastructure is in place. Public transportation, the roads, and connectivity are extremely important. However, they can't continue to invest if there is a risk that retailers and investors are going to go elsewhere due to better planning environments in which they can work, and this is a major concern. Mr. Ritch said that Westfield looks forward to receiving the next draft of the Plan and participating in conversations. He said the results of the Southcenter remodel have been fantastic, and they are very proud to say that Southcenter is extremely strong and has come through the recession in a very solid fashion, and they think that the product is truly world class. Commissioner Hansen, said that he concurs with many of the things Mr. Ritch said, and he believes it's the right direction for the TUC Plan. Mr. Hansen said Westfield is the engineer for Southcenter, moving forward. He said Page 1 of 5 25 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 transportation will be critical to how people continue to move through the TUC and have the good planning development that everyone wants to have. He also thanked Westfield for being part of the community and commended them on doing a great job. Commissioner Hundtofte asked what in particular is still outstanding for Westfield with the second draft. Mr. Ritch answered that they provided a very detailed list of concerns in the original draft and they have not received any new information on which to comment. Once they receive new information, they will put together detailed comments. He also said that they would be happy to come back and discuss their comments. Additional comments from the PC The Commissioners thanked Mr. Ritch for the presentation, congratulated Westfield on winning the gold award, and expressed their appreciation for having Westfield in the City. Commissioner Alford asked if Westfield had a 10, 20, or 50 year plan for a vision for this property in their organization for the future. Commissioner Alford also asked if Westfield could potentially see having residential housing above the mall one day. Mr. Ritch said they face a challenge having plans that are as far out as 10 -50 years. He said that five years out is even difficult to predict with all of the changes that happen and they are constantly adjusting their plans. He said they want to continue to diversify the assets, keep open communication with the community and retailers, and evolve plans from there. He said the most important thing to do is to keep investing. Regarding housing above the mall, Mr. Ritch said what drives the ability to do mixed use is a lot of the infrastructure. He said it's very site specific and it depends on the timing and the demand. Co mmissi on Shumate expressed concern regarding the price of gas continuing to rise in the next few years and the impact it's going to have on people who normally drive to the mall. He said he hopes there will be a contingency plan on getting people from the train station, light rail, or the bus, to the mall. Mr. Ritch stated they are very adept at working with cities to integrate public transportation, and would be more than willing to work with the City on this issue. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1/26/12 CONTINUANCE: Chair Alford swore in those wishing to provide public testimony. CASE NUMBER: L12 -001 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: A series of proposed housekeeping code amendments ranging from code clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development standards. LOCATION: City wide Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development, explained that at the 1/26/12 public hearing it was proposed to add sub headings to the manufacturing uses that are allowed in the various zones including those allowed in the Commercial and Light Industrial (C/LI) zone. The discussion focused on one of the permitted uses listed as manufacturing of tools, vehicles, and machinery, and whether it should continue to be listed as a permitted use or changed to a conditional use. Since the 1/26/12 public hearing, staff has notified all of the property owners of the C/LI zone that the Planning Commission is reviewing this particular use. Staff received three comment letters on this issue, which were provided to the Commissioners. Staff noted that the C/LI zone is spread out throughout the city and only a small portion of the overall area is adjacent to residential areas. Commissioner Strander disclosed that she informed Nora Gierloff that she owns property in the C/LI. Ms. Page 2 of 5 26 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 Gierloff thanked Ms. Strander for disclosing the information and stated that it is fine for her to participate in the public hearing for the Citywide zoning change. IN tll 1 h Paul Sheehan said he has owned a family business in Tukwila for 35 years. He expressed concern with a comment made pertaining to whether manufacturing uses were zoned appropriately. He said he is hoping the City is not taking the approach that they do not want any manufacturing uses in the area. Mr. Sheehan said that they like it in Tukwila and want to stay. Rick Bellin, Vice President, CFO for Harnish Group, and subsidiary companies, NC Machinery and NC Power System, said that he is very alarmed there is consideration for a Conditional Use. He said they work with light and heavy machinery including total rebuilds of tractors, and the proposed zoning change would affect them tremendously. He said it would harm a long term resident that's been in Tukwila for over 40 years, who generates high sales taxes for the City. He said they have never created any type of environmental issue. And he strongly urges that the zoning is not revised. In response to a question from Commissioner Alford, he said a Conditional Use would put a limitation on the use of their property. Robin Sweiger, business owner, said that she doesn't see where this environmental impact issue has come from. She said that she is incredibly worried about the zone being changed. She said all of the businesses in the area work together and that the area has been cleaned up. Gary Singh, Developer, discussed the issues addressed in the comment letter he submitted. He said that there is a language interpretation issue for one of the TMC codes. Mr. Singh is proposing a different method of calculation for the Maximum Building Footprint (TMC 18.10.057). Mr. Singh spoke in support of a proposal to allow the Director of Community Development to approve a 10% allowable variance. (staff clarified that the building footprint issue was not discussed at the 1/26/12 public hearing but was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting in October 2011) Mr. Singh urged the Planning Commission to consider his requests. Bruce MacVeigh, Civil Engineer, said he has worked on several projects with Mr. Singh. He spoke in support of Mr. Singh's proposed method of calculation for Maximum Building Footprint and spoke favorably of the homes Mr. Singh builds. Mike Overbeck, Tukwila property owner of a proposed 31 unit townhomes development, said that he is very passionate about being proactive and helping the city. He spoke in support of developers like Gary being able to invest in the City. He said he hopes there is a way to resolve Mr. Singh's issues and move forward. He commented that other municipalities would find a way to make this work. Mr. Overbeck said that he wants to continue to participate in bringing businesses, people, and developers into Tukwila. Louie Sanft, Tukwila property owner, said he has several properties that are zoned C/LI. He said that he has a new project he is developing along Interurban Ave that could possibly be affected by changing the zoning, as well as some other existing properties. He said this change seems random and that he has not heard of any reasons why the changes need to occur. Environmentally, he said that the Department of Ecology is really good at watching businesses, as well as King County Industrial Waste Water Division, and the City of Tukwila Fire Department. He said that he doesn't think changing the uses of businesses that are law abiding, following the rules, and doing everything appropriately, would be fair to landlords. He also said a Conditional Use could limit businesses from opening new businesses and some businesses may move to a different city. Mr. Sanft requested the manufacturing use is not changed to a Conditional Use because it would be discouraging to future businesses that may want to move here. There were no additional comments. The public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. Page 3 of 5 27 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 Commissioner Shumate asked what the Conditional Use entails and how it would involve property owners. He also asked whether staff notified the affected residents surrounding the C/LI of the public hearing. Staff responded that they only notified the property owners in the C/LI, and that the standard notice was published in the newspaper. Ms. Dhaliwal explained that Conditional Uses require an additional review process for a use to be approved. It involves a hearing, notifying all property owners within 500 ft. of the property, staff making a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner preparing the finding and facts, and making a decision on the proposal. There is criteria in the code for a Conditional Use for which the applicant will need to submit reports and justify that it is not an impact to the area. New construction structures over 1,500 sq. ft. must go through Design Review, which is approved administratively for up to 10,000 sq. ft. For structures, over 10,000 sq. ft. there is a hearing process. In addition, structures larger than 12,000 sq. ft. must go through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Design Review and SEPA are already in the code and may be triggered for new development. Permitted uses do not require land use approval, they require a business license, and they may need a building permit for construction inside the building. Commissioner Hundtofte asked what was driving the proposed Conditional Use amendment. He also asked for some clarification regarding mixed uses in the NCC, and said if the amendment is approved Conditional Use should apply to the NCC also, because it is lighter than C/LI. Commissioner Alford stated that she raised the proposed Conditional Use amendment for manufacturing, based on language in the basic housekeeping standards. She said there was one classification that would have significant impacts in the C/LI, and she inquired whether it was appropriately zoned. She commented that she doesn't think that businesses should be penalized but that the community should have input regarding what is going on in their environment. Co Stander said there are long term existing businesses that have been a part of the community; and that she personally would be reluctant to put any sort of Conditional Use on their previously zoned activity. Commissioner Hansen concurred with Commissioner Strander. He said that he votes in favor of leaving things the way they are. Commissioner Hundtofte asked if the proximity to the water could be governed by the Shoreline Master Plan and if other overlays, rather than just zoning, could cover it. Ms. Dhaliwal said that the properties that abut the river would apply for new construction or the uses section of the SMP. In addition to the local agencies, there are regional bodies such as the Department of Ecology that would regulate clean air emissions. Under the Conditional Use criteria, in addition to the hearing, there would be documentation on what other overlays cover for regulations. Commissioner Alford asked if all of the other agencies and the current codes would protect AllenTown residents from redevelopment in the area from heavy Industry and impacts from noise, vibration, dust, etc. Ms. Dhaliwal said that for any new development that triggers SEPA, there would be a review done for impacts to the environment. Also, an Environmental Impact Statement will need to be prepared to address the impacts for projects that have a significant impact. COMMISSIONER HANSEN MADE A MOTION TO RETAIN THE LANGUAGE IN ATTACHMENT `I' FOR MANUFACTURING USES IN THE C/L.I WITH NO CHANGE. COMMISSIONER STRANDER SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER ALFORD CALLED FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSION SHUMATE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -1. Page 4 of 5 28 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 Commissioner Alford expressed a concern with having permitted uses causing impacts; she said she hopes this issue can be addressed by a more comprehensive look in the future. There was discussion on Mr. Singh's proposal to change the building footprint calculations. Staff noted that this change could only be implemented if the policy is changed for the way single family houses are regulated. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to retain the current building footprint calculations. Quasi- Judicial Rezone Staff returned with clarifying information as requested by the PC at the 1/26/12 on their role pertaining to the quasi-judicial rezone process. The decision was to keep this item as a Type 5 decision unless Council delegates the authority to the PC for them to hear as a Type 4 decision. COMMISSIONER HANSEN MADE A MOTION FOR TWO OPTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR SITE SPECIFIC REZONES: OPTION 1: STAFF HOLD ONE INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC MEETING PRIOR TO TYPE FIVE DECISIONS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL (PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE OPTIONAL); THEN CITY COUNCIL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION. OPTION 2: IF COUNCIL PREFERS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL; THEN CITY COUNCIL HOLD A CLOSED RECORD PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION. COMMISSIONER STRANDER SECONDED THE MOTION. The decision was to keep this item as a Type 5 decision (Option 1) unless Council delegates the authority to the PC for them to hear as a Type 4 decision (Option 2). ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Other Reuested Housekeenina Chances The remaining list of proposed housekeeping amendments, including the changes requested by the Planning Commission at the January meeting are listed in the draft Ordinance. COMMISSIONER SHUMATE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH AMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS. THE ORDINANCE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER HANSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Sign Code housekeeping items: Nora stated that there were not provisions in the Sign Code for signs to appear on gas station canopies staff is proposing to add some modest signage allowance for gas station canopies; Staff is proposing changes to the Sign Code that will streamline the permit process and allow businesses to amend their existing sign permit without being charged a fee. Staff will present changes to the CAP on 3/12/12, since they are very minor non policy oriented changes they are going to request for approve without returning to PC with the proposed changes. Staff contacted Nate Robinson in Tukwila Parks and Recreation regarding a youth outreach group attending a PC meeting and the PC using this as an opportunity to do some community outreach with the youth. Nate works with the Tukwila high school group of teens on college prep and community service. If there is an interest for Nora to pursue this, please let her know. Submitted By: Wynetta Bivens Planning Commission Secretary Adjourned: 8:40 PM Adopted: 03/22/12 Page 5 of 5 29 30 Attachment C City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 9, 2012 5: 001. m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Kathy Hougardy, Chair: Joe Duffle and Allan Ekberg Staff: David Cline, Peggy McCarthy, Jack Pace and Kimberly Matej CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Hougardy called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. H. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Tukwila Municipal Code: Draft Amendments Staff is seeking Council approval of several draft ordinances amending the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) as outlined below. The Committee for«-arded these items to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation in Januan The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 2012, and Februan 23, 2012. Title 5: Business License Regulations and Title 18: Zoning Code Revision of Comorehensive& Zoning Plan Amendment Process The Cite Attorney has advised there is a need to ensure that site specific rezones, which are quasi- judicial in nature, are processed definitively different than area -wide rezones, which are legislative in nature. Under state lacy, quasi judicial matters should have only one open record hearing as compared to legislative matters which can include several public discussions and/or meetings. In order to address this issue, the Planning Commission recommends the following change to the TMC: Site specific rezones should be handled as Type 5 decisions which are quasi judicial made by the City Council at a Regular meeting (will not go through Committee process or COW) immediately following an open record hearing (also known as a public hearing). Type 5 decisions may only be appealed to Superior Court. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. Sing Familv Design Standards Building Height. At the October 10, 2011, Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting, the Committee forwarded calculations for building height in regards to infill and existing structures to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. This item was sent to the Commission for review in response to the interest of balancing the needs of both infill and existing structures within the community without discouraging development (i.e.: new larger height homes being built in areas of smaller height homes). Currently, the TMC calls for building heights to be regulated by the Washington State Building Code. The Planning Commission recommends continuing to calculate the building height per the Washington State Building Code, except if property is zoned residential and the slope of the property is 15% or larger. If the slope is 15% or larger, the building height would be calculated in one of two ways: either establish the plane from the lowest finished or existing grade adjoining the building at any exterior wall: or establish grade planes at intervals of at least 15 feet for different sections of the structure. Staff distributed a diagram displaying a comparison of building height standards with surrounding cities, Tukwila's current calculation and the proposed calculation. 31 Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes Acrit 9, 2012 Page 2 Since this item began in 2011, and Committee membership has changed since referral to the Planning Commission. the Committee prefers this item more forward for full Council discussion without a recommendation. NO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. Manufactured Homes On January 9. 2012. the Community Affairs Parks Committee forwarded the replacement of existing single -wide manufactured homes to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends waivers from the required 5:12 roof pitch or street facing front door for owners of single -wide manufactured homes if the proposal includes replacement of a single -wide with a double -wide. This waiver would onlN be granted one time per property and the change should result in an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. Other Several additional housekeeping items are incorporated into this draft amendment including: updating references, clariffi ing code interpretations and language, typographical errors. definitions and procedures. The informational memo summarizes specific changes in more detail as well as the strike -out underline changes provided in the draft ordinance. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. 2. Chapter 8.07. Controlled Substances, Paraphernalia, Poisons Toxic Fumes This draft amendment updates the list of schools, parks, community- centers and libraries that are located in designated drug free zones. Staff will check to see if post secondary schools should be included in the drug free zone designation. Committee members offered some other updates /clarifications to the list. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. 3. Chapter 8.22: Noise This draft amendment clarifies the notice requirements for noise variances. Specifically it adds wording that requires written notice to residents within 500 feet of a location for which sound levels that will be exceeded for 30 dads or less. An affidavit of distribution must be provided to the Cite. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. 4. Chapter 8.23: Vehicle Storage and Parking on Single Family Residential Property This draft amendment adds flexibilit -v to residential parking area limitations. Specifically, it allows for director approval of exceptions with properties such as odd- shaped lots or lots that require a long driveway, This change is meant to ensure irregularly shaped lots are not penalized. There is also reference to this in Title 18 (landscaping). UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. 3. Chapter 8.28: Nuisances This draft amendment corrects outdated zoning designation, specifically reference to City zone C -M which is no longer a zone. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. h Chapter 8.45: Civil Violations This draft amendment updates /corrects outdated section references, and refers to general chapters rather than specific sections within a chapter. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. 7. Chapter 21.04: State Environmental Policy Act This draft amendment clarifies public notice procedures for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) applications and decisions. Specifically, staff is codift a process that is already being done, which is 32 Communitv Affairs Parks Committee Minutes Acril 9, 2012 Pace 3 the process of sending notice of application once an application is complete to solicit comments and the notice of decision when the application is approved, is mailed to parties of record. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO APRIL 23 COW FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. Next meeting: Monday, April 23, 2012 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3 k q q Committee Chair Approval MinutV by KATO. Reviewed by MD. 33 34 Attachment D Tukwila Cit)( Council Committee of the Whole Meeting City Hall Council Chambers April 23, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council President Seal called the Tukwila City Council meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. OFFICIALS Present were Verna Seal, Council President, Councilmembers Joe Duffie, Dennis Robertson, Allan Ekberg, Kathy Hougardy, De'Sean Quinn, Kate Kruller. CITY OFFICIALS Jim Haggerton, Mayor; David Cline, City Administrator; Bob Giberson, Public Works Director; Frank Iriarte, Public Works Deputy Director; Gail Labanara, Public Works Analyst; Nora Gierloff, Community Development Deputy Director; Brandon Miles, Senior Planner; Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor; Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner; Mary Hulvey, Code Enforcement Officer; Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director; Mary Miotke, Information Technology Director; Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst; Melissa Hart, Acting City Clerk. CITIZEN COMMENTS Vanessa Zaputil, 15171 52 Avenue South, #5, reported on the success of the "April Pool's Day" event held at the Tukwila Pool on April 21, 2012. She thanked Councilmembers Ekberg and Hougardy for attending the event and Amy Kindell for the promotion of the event. She estimated over 250 children and 50 adults attended the event. The free event promoted water safety and included a "water carnival" for the swimming activities. She expressed her appreciation for the continued community support of the Tukwila pool. PUBLIC HEARING a. Mandatory garbage collection. Frank Iriarte, Public Works Deputy Director, explained that staff published a public hearing notice to advertise the hearing on the proposed mandatory garbage collection. Staff received 9 telephone calls seeking clarification on this issue. Four of the citizens expressed their opposition to the mandatory collection and five of the callers voiced their support. Mr. Iriarte reviewed the 3 options available to the Council: Option A: Reject proposal to implement mandatory garbage collection. Option B: Defer the decision to implement mandatory garbage collection until a later date. Option C: Approve the mandatory garbage collection services. Through the Request for Proposal process, the City was able to secure a very low monthly rate for the minimum service in the City's new solid waste contract. Mr. Iriarte stated the collection fee for once -a -month trash pick -up service would be $4.75 per month, which would include solid waste pick -up, recycling and participation in the City's special recycling events. Implementation of mandatory collection would save current customers approximately $27,000 a year collectively. Councilmember Quinn asked how many King County cities have mandatory garbage collection 35 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Iriarte stated there are 14 cities within King County, including the City of Seattle, that have mandatory garbage collection. 7:22 p.m. Council President Seal opened the Public Hearing. Melissa Hart, Acting City Clerk, acknowledged receipt of 3 written comments received in the City Clerk's Office relating to the proposed mandatory garbage collection. The following written comments were referenced into the record: 1. An email from Paul Willoughby dated February 21, 2012, opposing the proposed mandatory garbage collection in Tukwila. This email was distributed to the City Council on February 22, 2012. 2. An email from Ron and Julie Nyborg dated March 31, 2012, supporting the proposed mandatory garbage collection in Tukwila. This email was distributed to the City Council on April 2, 2012, 3. A letter received April 23, 2012 from Diane McCleave opposing the proposed mandatory garbage collection in Tukwila. This correspondence was distributed to the City Council on April 23, 2012. Council President Seal called for public comments. David Puki, 3748 South 152 Street, stated that he is a self hauler, composter and recycler, and after expenses he turns a small profit at the end of the year from recycling. It is his opinion that he is being compared, as a self hauler, to residents who illegally dump their trash, in an effort to require the remaining 20% of Tukwila residents to subscribe to garbage collection services. He has had personal experience with Waste Management in the past, and he would prefer not to deal with them again in the future. He feels implementation of mandatory garbage collection is a punishment to the residents who responsibly dispose of their refuse. There has been reference to a $0.64 savings for all current subscribers if mandatory garbage collection is implemented. This selling point does not properly address the issues of trash accumulation or illegal refuse dumping. The contract with the City will allow Waste Management to request an annual rate adjustment for collection and disposal of up to 4.2 plus the mandatory refuse surcharges and tax increases. The self haulers will only incur a $1.25 disposal rate increase, now $20.00 at the King County Transfer Station. Bow Lake Transfer Station is currently being renovated and upon completion, the new facility will offer more recycling and refuse options to the self haulers. He feels the City should increase Code Enforcement's engagement with residents who have violations such as accumulation of trash, overgrown blackberry bushes and other bulky items, before implementing mandatory services on the 20% of residents who are self haulers. He stated he is against the proposed mandatory garbage collection. Jeanelle Baldwin, 5827 South 144 Street, stated she is speaking against the proposed mandatory garbage collection within the City. She explained she was a self hauler for several years and due to lifestyle changes, she chose to sign up for garbage collection. She feels mandatory collection is an invasion of privacy. She has been very pleased with Allied Waste and she is sorry to hear of the upcoming change to Waste Management. She said Tukwila is a transportation hub and she has witnessed people driving through the City tossing their trash out the car windows. Those visitors are creating the greater problem, and she asked if mandatory garbage collection would curb that activity. In her experience, you can lead a horse to water and hope they drink, but you cannot force them to drink. She feels it is unfair to force individuals to take a service they do not want. Audrey Davis, 1334156 1h Avenue South, voiced her concern and opposition to the mandatory garbage collection in the City of Tukwila. Ms. Davis complimented the Tukwila Parks Department for the reuse of fallen leaves, greenery and the shaving of tree limbs within City parks. She stated it has been scientifically proven that you can bury certain scraps down 12 inches in the ground, and those scraps will provide nutrients to the surrounding soils. Michael Wong, 4420 South 139 Street, voiced his opposition to the proposed mandatory garbage collection. He feels the $0.64 savings for his family would penalize the 900 residents who choose to self haul their trash and recyclables. He voluntarily subscribes to garbage collection, and he feels his neighbors should also have that choice, and not be required because of mandatory collection. In his 36 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 3 of 9 opinion, the individuals who are illegally dumping and littering within the City will not change their habits with the implementation of mandatory garbage collection. Diane Meyers, 13919 42 nd Avenue South, voiced her concern on the proposed mandatory garbage collection. She stated by implementing the mandatory garbage collection, Waste Management would have a guaranteed customer base, and would then have no incentive to do a good job. In her opinion, there are good and bad sides to all situations, and she feels the good self haulers should not be penalized and required to purchase a service they do not want. It is her opinion that mandatory collection will not stop the illegal dumping within the City. She feels many garbage collection subscribers are responsible for the trash along the roads due to overfull cans and dumpsters. She works for a company in Renton where they have mandatory collection, and every Monday they find 1 to 2 truckloads of trash that has been dumped at their collection site. Illegal dumping is a problem everywhere. She explained several of the comments she has read on the "No Bothell Annexation" website referenced county residents who do not want to become part of Bothell because of the mandatory garbage collection. This attempted annexation has now failed twice. Additionally, with the recent increase of home burglaries, she feels empty trash cans on the road would be an open invitation to burglars. Tukwila residents should be given the choice whether to purchase a service they do not want or need, and the Council cannot legislate responsibility. Sharon Mann, 4452 South 160 1h Street, stated she supports mandatory garbage collection. She said they have issues in their neighborhood where some residents accumulate large bulky items and others who are not able to dispose of their trash. She explained her household used to be self haulers, and they did not recycle because it was easier to dispose of everything at once. Currently they have garbage collection, and over the years they have significantly increased their recycling and reduced their disposable trash. She feels the $4.75 monthly rate would aid the senior population within Tukwila who are not able to transport their garbage and recyclables to a transfer station. She commented that the recent clean -up and trash removal that took place at the property on South 160 Street was costly, and that clean -up was paid for by the taxpayers. She personally is in favor of mandatory collection, and she feels the service would be beneficial to the community. Fred Sherman, 13715 42 nd Avenue South, said he is against the proposed mandatory garbage collection. He stated he has lived in the City for the last 37 years, and he has been responsible for the disposal of his trash, recycling, yard waste and downed tree limbs. He enjoys disposing of his refuse responsibly, and he is willing to pay a higher fee to haul his own trash on his schedule. The residents should have the right to choose their services, and he asked the Council to reject the proposal of mandatory garbage collection. Bruce MacVeigh, 14245 59 th Avenue South, stated he has been a Tukwila resident since 1982. He is very conservative about his trash, and he is a responsible recycler. He asked if it would be an issue if mandatory collection was implemented and residents chose to continue to self -haul. Roy Wilder, 13206 34 th Avenue South, submitted a Public Hearing speaker sheet stating he is on a fixed income, and he should be able to decide what services he should have to pay with his limited income. 7:59 p.m. Council President Seal closed the Public Hearing. b. Housekeeping code amendments. Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, explained the Council is being asked to consider housekeeping code changes to the Tukwila Municipal Code. The proposed code amendments range from code clarification to updating development regulations and streamlining the permit processes. The first item for review is the proposal to refine the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone procedures to separate the legislative and associated quasi judicial process. The City Attorney has advised staff that Tukwila needs to revise the way it reviews and processes quasi- judicial, site specific rezones to ensure they are treated distinctly separate from legislative, area -wide rezones. The Planning Commission has recommended keeping site specific rezones as a Type 5 decision, Option 1 as identified 37 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 4 of 9 below, unless the City Council delegates the authority to the Planning Commission to hear site specific rezones as Type 4 decision identified in Option 2. Planning Commission recommendation Option 1: Type 5 decision, with an informational meeting held by staff and the Planning Commission, and the final decision is made by the City Council. There is no formal recommendation by the Planning Commission, and the City Council can take new testimony at the public hearing. 1. Staff holds an informational meeting in an open house format. The notice of the meeting is posted on the site, published in the paper and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property. 2. A formal public hearing is held by the City Council at a Regular City Council meeting, and a decision is made the same night. Public notice is provided. Planning Commission recommendation Option 2: Type 4 decision, with open record hearing conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council holds a closed record hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Council asked clarifying questions of staff, and exchanged comments on this topic. After Council discussion, there was consensus to follow the Planning Commission's Option 1 recommendation. Ms. Dhaliwal conducted a detailed review of the remaining proposed code amendments as identified in the April 18, 2012 Informational Memorandum, agenda pages 9 -15. 8:17 p.m. Council President Seal opened the Public Hearing. Sharon Mann, 4452 South 160` Street, stated she was present to speak specifically on the Single Family Design Standards as referenced on page 11 (paragraph B.) in the agenda packet. She explained this item was discussed at a past Council Coffee Chat. As a real estate agent, she is pro development and looking to have new houses built in the City. She is concerned with the proposed changes to the code. Tukwila has some older homes that have deteriorated and others that could be better used. She feels the proposed height calculation, using the lowest grade of the lot to calculate the overall building height, would restrict new development, or cause a lot of new basement type homes. Construction of a new home on a sloped lot would increase the amount of excavation required, and much of the house would be inside the ground. The surrounding cities use an average height method. In the City of Renton, they allow a 35 -foot building height, which is the high end of building height. She provided examples of how a proposed home on a large lot (over 6,500 square feet) would be smaller in size than a new home constructed on the City's standard 6,500- square -foot lots. It is her opinion that the proposed height restrictions are anti development, and not conducive to the current standard of living. Today, families are looking for 4 or 5 bedroom homes, and the proposed height restrictions would limit the size of any new homes. Gurdip Singh, 4645 South 148 th Street, indicated he is speaking against the proposed code amendment relating to the allowable residential building height. He distributed his written comments for the Council to review. In his opinion, if the Council approves the 30 -foot building height limit, developers would be forced to eliminate the 3 1d floor from new home designs. Houses today are constructed with 9 -foot ceilings, and with the recent changes in the energy codes, builders are not allowed to install mechanical ductwork in exterior walls. With the energy code changes and a reduction in building height, residential developers in Tukwila would be limited to constructing 1 -1/2 story homes. Bruce MacVeigh 14245 59 1h Avenue South, explained he has been a licensed Civil Engineer for 32 years, and he has assisted other jurisdictions to calculate acceptable residential building height. He voiced his concern relating to the proposed code amendments relating to the reduction of building heights. The industry standard for residential building height is currently 35 feet, and the City's proposed code amendments would reduce residential building height to 30 feet. He feels the proposed building height limitation would increase the need for residential home builders to design basement type homes, which are much more costly to construct. Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Mike Overbeck, 4620 South 148` Street, expressed his support for development in Tukwila. He feels attracting economic growth is important for the residential areas in the City, and he supports that growth. He is also a developer who will have a future development in Tukwila and encouraged all parties to work together to balance all the concerns and issues to move forward with new development. 8:32 p.m. Council President Seal closed the Public Hearing. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Discussion on implementation of a mandatory garbage collection program. Councilmember Robertson indicated this item was discussed at the Utilities Committee meeting on January 24, 2012. The committee members were unanimous in recommending the Council conduct a Public Hearing. Council President Seal explained there has been public testimony on the proposed mandatory garbage collection, and the Council has three options to discuss: Option A: Reject proposal to implement mandatory garbage collection. Option B: Defer the decision to implement mandatory garbage collection until a later date. Option C: Approve the mandatory garbage collection services. Councilmember Robertson explained his family used to be self haulers, and he was opposed to the implementation of mandatory collection. He stated there was a comment made during the Public Hearing about the City's Code Enforcement, and increasing code enforcement. He expressed support for the City's code enforcement team and commented on the expense associated with code enforcement. In preparation of a decision on this item, he contacted his neighbors to inquire about their concerns on mandatory garbage collection. His neighbors were not against the proposal, and they said the new program would not stop the illegal dumping, although they thought it could help the issue. Another concern that was voiced was regarding those residents who burn their trash and the subsequent increase in air pollution. Mr. Robertson explained the cost of the program does not appear to be an issue, and it is the "mandatory" implementation of the program that raises concerns. He voiced support for a trial period of city -wide collection to see if the program would curb the illegal dumping and trash burning. Councilmember Duffie voiced his concern about implementation of mandatory collection, and does not like to force any type of service on the Tukwila residents. He used to be a self hauler and as several factors have changed over the years, he appreciates the collection service. He concurred with Councilmember Robertson's recommendation to implement the program for a trial period. Councilmember Ekberg explained he has not seen any improvement relating to trash along the streets and illegal dumping in the last 20 years. He said he is willing to support a trial period of mandatory collection, with the caveat that the Council is able to cancel the program if there is not a noticeable improvement of less roadway trash and overall cleanliness on a city -wide scale. Councilmember Hougardy asked for clarification on the minimum monthly collection fee. Frank Iriarte, Public Works Deputy Director, confirmed $4.75 is the minimum collection fee for once -a- month service. Councilmember Hougardy stated she is not willing to support mandatory collection at this time. Councilmember Quinn relayed that at this time he is not ready to support implementation of mandatory collection. He voiced his support for Code Enforcement, and feels mandatory collection will not improve current illegal dumping issues, and he prefers staff Option B. He stated he would like to investigate options that could help solve the issues the City has with repeat code enforcement offenders. He voiced his support for Option B of the staff recommendation, to defer the decision until a later date. Councilmember Krulier said garbage collection service is a convenience. She is a self hauler and she enjoys the disposing of her trash and recyclables. Ms. Kruller indicated that she has not heard any 39 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 6 of 9 compelling reasons for the implementation of mandatory collection within the City. She feels the Council should delay implementation of the service, and research other ways to deaf with the city -wide trash issues. Council President Seal agreed the Council is not able to legislate responsibility, and she acknowledged the trash issues within the City. She explained that initially she was excited about the possibility of mandatory collection. However, after hearing the public testimony, she is willing to support Option B to defer a decision on mandatory collection until a later date. She requested this topic return to a committee after a year of the new service with Waste Management has been completed. This would allow staff to analyze the services provided under the City's new contract with Waste Management and their performance. Mr. Iriarte explained he would work with Code Enforcement to gather information relating to issues and problem properties. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO DEFER A DECISION REGARDING MANDATORY GARBAGE COLLECTION TO A LATER DATE, WITH THE ISSUE RETURNING TO A COUNCIL COMMITTEE A YEAR AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW SERVICE WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT. 9:24 p.m. Council President Seal declared a brief recess. 9:35 p.m. Council President Seal reconvened the Committee of the Whole Meeting. b. Housekeeping code amendments. Councilmember Hougardy indicated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting on April 9, 2012. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval for items 2 -7 as identified in the Committee packet. The Council asked clarifying questions of staff and exchanged comments on the above topic. After Council discussion, there was consensus to remove the proposed changes in Section 2 from the draft zoning code ordinance, and refer the topic of building height and construction standards for single family homes to a future Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THE 7 ORDINANCES AS AMENDED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. c. An ordinance adopting the Development Agreement between the City of Tukwila and Riverton Development for property at 12909 East Marginal Way South. Brandon Miles, Senior Planner, explained that on March 26, 2012, the Council conducted a public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting a Development Agreement for the construction of a Leadership in Energy Environmental Design (LEED) certified building at 12909 East Marginal Way South containing 23 apartments and ground floor retail /office spaces. The staff memorandum on page 151 of the agenda packet outlines the public testimony. Mr. Miles introduced Aaron Hundhofte with Riverton Development. Aaron Hundhofte, Riverton Development, LLC, 3723 South 126 Street, said the proposed project is a development to revitalize the area. It will be a "green" project, with a diverse mix of uses as defined in the Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC) Zoning. Additionally, the project will have live -in management and local ownership. Mr. Hundhofte updated the Council on two of the items that were discussed at the March 26, 2012 meeting. The first item is the private issue relating to multiple survey markers at the project site and a neighboring property. He explained the development team has reviewed the placement of the multiple survey markers, and the confirmed proposed development has the proper building setbacks. He said they look forward to working with the neighbor to minimize any potential impacts relating to the differences of surveyor opinions. The final issue of concern was the proposed tandem parking stalls listed in the parking agreement. The tandem stalls will have assigned parking permits to individual units for greater control of those parking stalls. He introduced Mark Jacobs, Traffic Engineer. .s Tukwila City Council Committee ofthe Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 7 of 9 Mark Jacobs, President of Jake Traffic Engineering (JTE), explained he was retained by Riverton Development to conduct a parking analysis at the proposed development site. He provided a detailed explanation of how the parking demand analysis was totals were compiled. Based on the parking analysis, he feels the project site has ample parking for the proposed development. The Councilmembers asked clarifying questions of staff and exchanged comments on the above topic to include: concern about possible parking spillover to neighboring residential streets; acknowledgement of the issues surrounding Group Health and Wells Trucking traffic; the possibility of installation of parking restriction signage; concern relating to Saturday morning parking at Friendz Cafe; and concern regarding parking enforcement within the development and along the residential streets. Ed Fish, 12930 East Marginal Way South, stated he is speaking on behalf of Friendz Caf6. He suggested the developer purchase the vacant lot on the corner of South 130 Street and East Marginal Way South for public parking. Pam Fernald, 2431 South 133 rd Street, SeaTac, stated she had prepared a statement, and she distributed a copy of the statement for the Council. She feels the proposed development size and parking congestion will create issues for the Riverton neighborhood. She commented that a project of this type and size should be located along Tukwila International Boulevard, not in the small Riverton neighborhood. It is her opinion that the development will lead to an increase of on- street parking that will block driveways and mailboxes. The citizens in this area want a safe neighborhood, not a 3 -story apartment complex with more parking issues and increased traffic. David Wyble, 3536 South 130 th Street, explained his property backs up to the proposed development site. In speaking with the developer, they have discussed the property line concerns and those have been resolved. He referenced the potential parking issues, and he asked the Council to consider converting the vacant lot on South 130 and East Marginal Way South to a public parking lot. Additionally, he asked that the 4 -way stop signs and flashing light be converted to traffic signals. Sharon Mann, 4452 South 160 Street, explained she was very involved with the City's Riverton Annexation. A group of neighbors also worked very hard to keep Becker Trucking from expanding in the residential area. Currently, the Riverton neighborhood has small older homes that do not generate a lot of rental income, and the small number of new homes that have been built are helping the area grow. She feels the proposed development would be a blessing for the area. Janice Ludington, 3521 South 130 th Street, stated the area has heavy evening traffic, and the proposed development will increase the neighborhood traffic. She feels this type of development is not needed in the Riverton neighborhood. Elisha Jenson, 3705 South 130 th Street, stated she is a new Riverton area homeowner, and she feels the project is being pushed forward without consideration to the neighborhood. She is concerned about the increased traffic in the area. In her opinion the proposed development is not a good fit for the Riverton community. Jeremy McGregal, 12930 East Marginal Way South, stated he is the owner of Friendz Caf6. He expressed concern about the digital photos provided by the developer and specifically questioned the date and time stamps. Linda McCloud, 13021 37 Avenue South, asked if anyone has talked to the Tukwila School District about the proposed project. She is concerned about the increased traffic the proposed project will bring to the area. Councilmember Robertson asked what guarantee would the City have relating to the parking agreement if the property were to be sold within 1 or 2 years. Additionally, he asked what the City could do to ensure no overflow parking occurs along the neighborhood streets near the project site. Mr. Miles stated the parking agreement would be recorded as an exhibit with the Development Agreement, and that would transfer to a new property owner. The City could have "no parking" signs installed along the residential streets, or a type of "Residential Parking Zone" could be established similar 41 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 8 of 9 to the City of Seattle. Residents within the zone would be issued parking permits, with the caveat that the City would need to have resources to enforce the parking. Councilmember Quinn asked for clarification on the "Residential Parking Zone." He asked if that type of zone would have a specific time limit for vehicles that did not have a parking permit. Mr. Miles clarified the time limits would be pre established, and the parking zone could be open after 7:00 p.m. This option would be a combination of implementation and enforcement. Due to the lateness of the hour, Council President Seal asked how the Council would like to proceed with this item. Options include forwarding the discussion to a future Committee of the Whole meeting or to the next Regular meeting. Councilmember Kruller stated the developer has provided great information on the proposed project. The main issues are surrounding parking and citizen concerns about not wanting this type of development in their neighborhood. She feels the parking issues need to be mediated and she clarified the area is zoned for the type of development that is being proposed. Councilmember Ekberg stated the Council does need to move toward a decision, and time constraints have played a factor in this evening's discussion. Several citizens have commented on this proposed project and the potential impacts it could have in the area. The area is zoned Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC), and the proposed development satisfies the vision for the area. Mr. Ekberg requested staff research the availability of the vacant corner lot and whether that could be utilized as public parking to determine if this compromise could be a solution to the parking issues. Councilmember Hougardy commented the additional parking would greatly benefit the current businesses and proposed development. Mr. Miles explained staff will research the availability of the vacant lot at South 130 Street and East Marginal Way. He clarified the main reason a development agreement is required is due to the request by the developer for a reduction in the number of parking stalls for the project. If the Council has concerns about the parking, one way to address those concerns would be to reduce the number of residential units for the development, so the parking would meet the code- requirement of 2 stalls per unit. If this option were used, the applicant would not be required to have a development agreement for the project. The development application would follow the regular design review process and that would remove the Council from making a decision on the project. The elimination of the development agreement would also mean the project would not be required to achieve LEED certification. Staff can work with the developer on this option and ensure the proposed development would meet the City code. Councilmember Quinn concurred with Councilmember Ekberg, and he requested staff and the developer try and resolve the parking issues. Mr. Miles confirmed staff will work with the developer and research the availability of the vacant lot. This will take some time to accomplish, and the item might not be ready for review at the next Regular meeting. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING (OR A FUTURE MEETING BASED ON STAFF RESEARCH). d. Puget Sound Energy service connection agreements for Southcenter Parkway Extension project. Councilmember Ekberg indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on April 16, 2012. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. The Southcenter Parkway Extension project requires five new power service connections for City of Tukwila facilities. The facilities include 4 traffic signals at Segale Park Drive C, South 190' Street, South 194 Street and South 200 Street, and the new sanitary sewer pump station located at 18799 42 Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes April 23, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Southcenter Parkway. The Council is being asked to approve the Puget Sound Energy service fees for the five new connections in the amount of $70,428.52. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. e. A resolution adopting a City -wide Work Plan for 2012. Councilmember Ekberg indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee meeting on April 16, 2012. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. At the 2012 Council Retreat in February, the Council discussed the need for a City -wide work plan. Guided by the City's mission statement, the formalized plan will help ensure prioritization and progress toward the goals of the City. The Council is being asked to approve a resolution adopting the 2012 Work Plan. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. REPORTS Due to the lateness of the hour the Council dispensed with reports. ADJOURNMENT 10:53 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT SEAL DECLARED THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJO RNED TO CONVENE A SPECIAL MEETING. uda� Verna Seal, Council President Melissa Hart, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT ON 05108/2012 AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE 05/09/2012 43 EE Attachment E Section 2. TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions Amended Ordinance Nos. Ord. 1971 §2, 2001 and 1758 §1 (part), as codified in TMC 18.06.100, "Building Height are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.06.100 "Building height" means the height of a building as calculated by the method in the Washington State Building Code, except if the slooe of the subiect property is 15% or more and the subiect property is zoned residential then buildina heiaht shall be calculated by either option a) or option b) listed below: 1) The arade plane shall be established from the lowest finished arade or lowest existina arade (whichever is lower) adioinina the buildina at anv exterior wall: or Height limit Lowest Grade Actual Grade is greater than 15% b) In order to allow the structures to better respond to the topoararft of slovina sites, a structure will be allowed to adiust the points at which height is measured. This 45 may be accomplished by establishina separate arade planes at intervals of at least 15 feet for different sections of the structure. Height Limit (f 15 I,- 15" Section 3 15' i_ Section 2 Section 1 r M Average Grade or Lowest Grade for each section T f El Additionallv, the city may require a topographic survey from a licensed land survevor when the existinq grade will be disturbed to accomplish the construction or when the final heiaht of the new structure in the area where qrade is beina disturbed is within 2 feet of the allowed height limit for the structure as measured above the existing or finished grade. W 'm cn Y O 7 V co �Q y 9 Z m n n, N a J Attachmen� 1 k 0 W a a