Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2007-04-10 Item 2C - Code Amendments - SEPA, Townhouse and Housekeeping INFORMATION MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee Steve Lancaster, DCD Director XA ,~ April 4, 2007 0- Code Amendment - SEP A To: ISSUE Should the SEP A process and thresholds be streamlined to eliminate review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely? BACKGROUND The State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEP A review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. Type of Action Tukwila's Maximum Proposed Threshold Threshold Thresholds Residential 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units Construction CommerciallIndustrial 4,000 sf and 20 12,000 sf and 40 12,000 sf and 40 Construction parking spaces parking spaces parking spaces Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces Landfills or 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards Excavations Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEP A process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit. NG Q:\CODEAMND\4-lOCAP _SEP A.DOC Page 1 04/04/20071:41:00 PM ANALYSIS Tukwila has a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the follO\ving areas: 1. Traffic 2. Sensitive Areas (wetlands, watercourses, slopes, liquefaction areas, coal mine hazards) 3. Shorelines 4. Stormwater 5. Sewer and Water Concurrency 6. Design Review. Because these standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEP A to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to 10 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (ElS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non-significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) after review of the SEP A checklist. The City is authorized under WAC 197-11-355 to make this determination early in the review process and combine the SEP A comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. PROPOSAL Raise the flexible thresholds for residential, commercial and industrial new construction as shown on the table above. Take advantage ofthe optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEP A and project comment periods. RECOMMENDATION Forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and development of specific code amendments. NG Q:\CODEAMND\4-10CAP _ SEP A.DOC Page 2 04/04/20071:41:00 PM To: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: INFORMATION MEMORANDUM Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee Steve Lancaster, DCD Director ~ ~ April 4, 2007 Zoning Code Amendment - Townhouse ISSUES Should the Zoning Code be changed to allow for development of fee simple townhomes? Due to lot size and setback requirements only condominiums or apartments are allowed in our multi-family zones, though they could be built in townhouse form. Because townhouses are also typically significantly larger than stacked apartments or condominiums unless the bulk and coverage requirements in the current code were changed fewer townhouse units could be built on a given site. BACKGROUND DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building townhomes. They think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing in fee simple ownership on individual lots rather than as a condominium. While our codes allow for townhomes to be built if they are owned as condominiums, the insurance requirements for condominiums make many small projects unfeasible. The Council may be interested in expanding the range of O"\\'nership multi-family options available in Tukwila. ANALYSIS Due to Tukwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most infill situations townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with stoops along the street and alley access behind. Below is an example of a typical market driven design for an 80' x 240' infilllot in Tukwil~. -,f---- J . ~1i;~: ',;~'~r.T:~~"~.'''''j;r;r''~'.r~;t;~~,.t;'tki'".L>.>'i'J;1.1 f1 t:r 1:,;1:::~,~.L..- " "- -;.~ ~-, NG Q:\Townhouses\4-10CAP _TO\\TIhouse.DOC Page 1 04/04/2007 1 :40:00 PI...! The development standards in Tukwila's multi-family zones are based on a garden apartment model with communal open space. Many of these standards would be in conflict with the townhouse building type. The following areas of the Zoning Code would require amendments in order to allow for construction of townhouses with private yards on individual platted lots. . Minimum Lot Area Though the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone allows for one unit per 3,000 sf of lot area there is a minimum lot size of 8,000 sf. Similarly in High Density Residential (HDR) one unit is allowed for every 2,000 sf oflot area but the minimum lot size is 9,600 sf. Townhomes can be developed at these densities, but the minimum lot size requirements would need to be eliminated or applied to the project as a whole rather than the individual house lots. . Average Lot Width The minimum lot width of 60 feet required in the MDR and HDR zones would need to be eliminated or applied to the project as a whole. Most townhouse lots are between 15 and 25 feet in width and 80 to 100 feet in depth. . Setbacks The side setbacks would need to be eliminated for interior units and while a minimum separation between tovmhouse buildings should be required the 40 feet required by code (20' on either side of the property line for the 2nd and 3rd story) is excessive. . Landscape The side yard landscape requirement would need to be eliminated for interior units though there should be some landscape requirement between buildings. In addition modifications to the following areas of the code would allow for a development pattern and density closer to what is being built elsewhere. If we did not change these bulk and coverage requirements the market might continue to favor apartment development. . Setbacks The front, second front side and rear setbacks in MDR and HDR all increase for second and third floors. Since townhomes are almost always two to four stories in height these tiered setbacks may make development difficult on small lots even ifthey were applied to the project as a whole. . Landscape There would need to be some flexibility with the front, second front, side and rear landscape requirements even if they were applied to the site as a whole, rather than each individual lot. . Development Coverage The development coverage limitation of 50% in MDR and HDR requires that half ofthe property be kept as landscape, pedestrian or recreation area. That would be difficult to meet at zoned densities with the typical townhouse development pattern given the parking and fire access requirements. A building footprint limitation, similar that in the LDR zone, would be workable. . Recreation Space The MDR and HDR zones require 400 square feet of recreation space per unit with a 1,000 sq foot minimum. The space per unit may be feasible as a combination of yards and balconies, however the restriction that setback areas NG Q:\TO\\11houses\4-10CAP _ Townhouse.DOC Page 2 04/0412007 1 :40:00 PM may not count toward this total (TMC 18.52.060) would not. Since to"rnhomes function more like single family residences than apartment or condominium complexes the requirement for communal children's play areas would not be appropriate. PROPOSAL Subdivision One approach for how to handle this type of development is to treat to\\rnhouse and cottage projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain the individual townhomes. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a different ovmership pattern. Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, fmal approval and then building permit. Some cities allow the buildings to be constructed prior to final approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines can be drawn accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions. Design Review The multi-family Design Review Criteria in the Zoning Code will work for townhouse development. The optional Multi-Family Design Guidelines booklet has some sections that would not be applicable, such as the child play area guidelines. Staff proposes that projects following the short subdivision process (up to 9 lots) be subject to administrative design review and projects requiring a subdivision be subject to public hearing design review. Other Standards In addition modifications to the following bulk and coverage requirements would allow for a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for stacked apartment/condominiums. . Setbacks Even if the setback requirements were only applied to the parent lot the tiered setbacks in the MDR and HDR zones have been identified by developers as difficult for townhouse development. Unlike an apartment building where a smaller unit could be substituted to create a larger setback on the second or third floor, a townhouse may only be 20 feet wide so an additional 1 0' of setback would compromise the usability of that floor. Also to\\rnhouses would typically only have bedrooms on the third level, unlike apartment buildings, so they may be less intrusive on neighbors. NG Q:\Townhouses\4-1 o CAP _ Townhouse.DOC Page 3 04/04/2007 1 :40:00 PM . Development Coverage It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under the 50% impervious surface limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. A 50-60% building footprint limitation is common in other jurisdictions. . Recreation Space Other codes require between 200 and 300 square feet of recreation space per unit with some granting 2 for 1 credit for balconies and patios. In addition setback areas that are part of private open space for an individual unit should be allowed to count toward the recreation space requirement. Since the small private yards are generally fenced some thought should be given to limiting the height of fences, especially along street frontages. RECOMMENDATION Forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. NG Q:\Townhouses\4-1 OCAP _ TO\\11house.DOC Page 4 04/04/2007 1 :40:00 PM INFORMATION 1\1 E 1\1 0 RAN DUM TO: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director ~ DATE: April 4, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendments - Housekeeping BACKGROU1\TD Staff has grouped four amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration. The topics range from minor housekeeping or clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development standards. Each proposed amendment has a brief explanation followed by a list of options. Staff's recommended option is in bold. PROPOSED AME1\TDME1\1TS A. Permit Processing Housekeeping There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. Add to the Type 2 Decisions section: 18.52.020 Special Permission landscape approvals 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area 18.50.130 Structures over public R-O-W 18.56.140 Variance from Parking Standards less than 10% Add to the Type 4 Decisions section: 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area Options: 1. Address these housekeeping items at a different time 2. Forward the corrections to the PC Q:\CODEAMND\2007 AmendCAP.DOC Page 1 B. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks TMC 18.70.040 (6) allows "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts, which have legally non-conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the area of non-conformity and impact upon the neighboring property. Staff suggests that such expansions be limited to the ground floor and the area of the new intrusion into the setback not exceed 50% of the area of the current intrusion. Options: 1. Decline to consider the proposal 2. Forward the language change to the PC 3. Recommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC a) Allow two or three story additions within the setback b) Select a different percentage of increase c) Other changes C. Retaining Wall Setbacks There are several different standards for whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The Zoning Code defines yard as: 18.06.945 Yard "Yard" means a required open space unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward. Structure is defmed as: 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than three feet in height, rockeries and similar improvements of minor character. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to 4' high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rarely allowed to retain more than 4 feet of earth. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property O\vner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property Q:\CODEAMND\2007 AmendCAP.DOC Page 2 line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Staff suggests that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the lots on both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R-O-W improvements. Options: 1. Retain the existing definitions 2. Fonvard the proposal to change the definition of structure and add additional language to the PC 3. Recommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC a) Make additional distinctions between rockeries and retaining walls b) Other changes D. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf. There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with 3,000 sf lots. This means that a property owner would have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to subdivide. Staff proposes to create an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500sfper lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the threshold for subdivision. Requests for greater reductions would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Proposed criteria for this variance include: 1) The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership after the effective date of Ord. 2097. 2) The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, lot width, maximum building footprint and parking. 3) Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4) The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit ofthe comprehensive plan and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. 5) The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary. 6) The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 7) The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. Q:\CODEAMND\2007 AmendCAP.DOC Page 3 Options: 1) Decline to consider these changes 2) Fonvard the proposal to create an administrative variance for lot size to the PC 3) Recommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC a) Allow a variance of up to 10% b) Other changes REQUESTED ACTION Select an alternative for each of the above proposals and either forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for consideration, decline to consider the change or hold it back for further refmement. Q:\CODEAM1\.'D\2007 AmendCAP .DOC Page 4