HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2007-06-26 Item 2C - Code Amendment - Zoning Code
INFORMATION M EM 0 RAN DUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks C)~ittee
FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director ~ t
DATE: June 15,2007
SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments
BACKGROUND
Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration:
1) Limitation on single family expansions within non-conforming setbacks;
2) Retaining wall setback changes;
3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and
4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010.
Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP)
Committee on April 10, 2007. They were then discussed at the CO\V meeting on May 14th. The
Committee discussed each item and chose to forward them to the Planning Commission for a
hearing and recommendation. The PC made only minor changes and their recommendations are
reflected in the strikeout/underline language listed below.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks
TMC 18.70.050 (6) states "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.
Staffs proposal is as follows:
18.70.050 Nonconforming Structures
Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be
built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or
other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure
remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions:
Q:\CODEAMND\2007 Amend6-26CAP.DOC
Page 1
37
6. Single-family structures in single- or multiple-family residential zone districts, which have
legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along
the existing building line(s) so long as ffthe existing distance from the nearest point of the
structure to the property line is not reduced and the square footalle of new intrusion into the
setback does not exceed 50% orthe square footage or the current intrusion.
B. 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 and structure 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.
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 four feet high without a
permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rareiy
allowed to retain more than four 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 owner because of the
grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is
perpendicular to a property line across two or more lots or alongside a dtiveway 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.
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 up to six feet in height, retaining walls less
than three feet in height, Q!...rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face and similar improvements
of minor character.
TMC XX Retaining. Wall Setback Waiver
Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front.
side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances:
3g
Q:\CODEAMND\2007 Amend6-26CAP.DOC
Page 2
1. When the applicant's propeltv is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible
from adiacent propelties or is screened bv landscaping. or
2. ,,,lien a wall built on a propeliy line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and
the owners of both properties agree to iointly maintain the wall. or
3. When a wall in a front vard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements. or
4. Wl1en a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department
slope requirements and the exposed face either has a decorative/textured treatment or is screened
with landscaping.
C. 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 different lot
patterns such as 3,000 sflots. These substandard lots are no longer considered individual
building sites since the passage of Ordinance 2097. This means that a property owner might
have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to create two building sites as
opposed to the 13,000 sfrequired by code.
Staff proposes to create an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size
of up to 500sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the
threshold for subdivision or where there is an existing house that prevents the lots from being
divided equally. Requests for greater reductions through a variance would still require a public
hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Proposed criteria for this new type of variance include:
TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR
A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500 square feet
per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision concurrent with the short
plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved only if all of the following criteria
would be met.
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 (August 6, 2005).
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 of the comprehensive plan and will
not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring
property owners.
5) The lot must not contain a multi-family structure or an accessory dwelling unit.
6) The variance permitted is the minimum variance 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.
30
I /
Q:\CODEAMND\2007 Amend6-26CAP.DOC
Page 3
D. 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. In addition the proposed
changes above, if adopted, would add a new decision to the code. For clarity all of the types of
decisions should be listed along with the decision maker and appeal body.
Add to the Type 2 Decisions section:
TYPE OF PER1\1IT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY
(open record appeal)
18.52.020 Special Permission Community Development Board of Architectural Review
landscape approvals Director
18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Community Development Board of Architectural Review
Waiver of certain setback and Director
landscape standards in the
Commercial Redevelopment
Area
18.50.130 Structures over public Community Development Hearing
R-O- W Director Examiner
18.56.140 Variance from Parking Community Development Hearing
Standards less than 10% Director Examiner
18.50.140 Administrative Lot Community Development Hearing
Area Variance in LDR Director Examiner
Add to the Type 4 Decisions section:
TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY
(closed record appeal)
18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Board of Architectural Review Hearing
Waiver of certain setback and Examiner
landscape standards in the
Commercial Redevelopment
Area
REQUESTED ACTION
Send the PC recommended changes to the full Council for discussion, a final hearing and
adoption of the ordinance amending the Zoning Code.
Attachment A - PC Minutes from 5/24/07 Hearing
!I0
Q:\CODEA..\1ND\2007 Amend6-26CAP .DOC
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MAY 24, 2007
/)~A . .
"tf:r
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Malina at 7:00 PM
Present:
Chair George Malina, Vice Chair Chuck Parrish, Commissioners, Allan Ekberg,
Margaret Bratcher, Bill Arthur and Lynn Peterson
Absent:
Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff:
Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace and Wynetta Bivens
COMMISSIONER PARRISH MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES FROM APRIL 26, 2007. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE
MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNAl'\1JMOUSL Y APPROVED.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LO? -024
City of Tukwila
Hold a Public Hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about
four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code concerning:
1. Limitation on single family expansions within non-conforming setbacks;
2. Retaining wall setback changes;
3. Administrative variance for single family lot size; and
4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010.
City wide
LOCATION:
Nora Gierloff gave the presentation for staff on each of the four requests:
1. Limitation on single family expansions within non-conforming setbacks
The current Zoning Code has an exception, which states - if you have a single family house in a
residential zone that was built in a setback, you can expand a house along the existing wall. There
have been some cases where people have taken this to the extreme and had a much greater impact
on their neighbors.
Staff is proposing:
. You can expand only on the ground floor and that you can't have a second floor that is also
in that non-conforming set-back area.
. The area of the new expansion should not be more than 50% of the intrusion.
Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions.
The Planning Commission recommended:
. Change the word 'area' to 'square footage' under letter A, number 6 of the Staff Report.
'I;
Attachment A
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 2 of 4
2. Retaining wall setback changes
Definition of a yard - You are not allowed to have a structure more than 30 inches high in a required front
yard or side yard.
Definition of a structure - Retaining walls less than three feet in height and rockeries are not considered
structures. A lot of people assume since you don't need a building permit until you hit four feet that it's
not a structure that requires a setback.
Staff is Proposing:
. Change the definition of structure to - 'Retaining walls or rockeries up to four feet high would
not be considered structures and would be allowed to be in front and side yards.'
. Residential fences up to six feet in height do not require a building permit.
. Allow exceptions for retaining walls in a setback for structures greater than four feet and provide
outline of justified cases.
. Wall needed to create vehicular access road for Fire Department requirements should either have
a decorative treatment or are screened with landscaping.
Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions. Commissioners Malina and Arthur were opposed to
Staff s proposal for the wall decorative treatment requirement or screeningwith landscaping.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
. Under TMC?? Retaining Wall Setback Waiver - 'Retaining walls with an exposed height
greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yards under the
following circumstances' change, insert the word 'setbacks' after yards, letter B, paragraph
under TMC?? of the staffreport.
. Change - 'decorative treatment' to 'decorative/textured treatment' or screen with
landscaping, letter B, number 4 under TMC?? in the Staff Report.
3. Administrative variance for single family lot size
In the Single Family zone the minimum lot size is 6, 500 sq. ft.. In order to create two lots you need
a minimum of 13,000 sq. ft. For various reasons people do not meet the criteria to short plat or
create two equal size lots.
Staff is Proposing:
. Allow up to a 500 sq. ft. reduction in lot size, for up to two lots ifrequired criteria are met.
Chair Malina swore in a citizen who wished to give public testimony.
Jonathan Brown, a citizen, spoke in support of the Administrative Variance. He shared his
personal experience with his house and lot size, calling the reduction a handsome decision, which
would fit a lot of peoples circumstances.
Commissioner Ekberg requested a definition of material hardship, letter C, number 7, for future
reference.
Commissioner Arthur wanted to add that the Administrative Variance still allows the City to compile
with the Comprehensive Plan when it comes to describing what is desired in a residential structure.s
1:J
Planning Commission recommendation:
. No change
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 3 of 4
4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010.
Ms. Gierloff indicated this was a house keeping item. If the Administrative Variance for lot size is
approved it should be added to this table.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE FOUR ZONING
CODE RECOMMENDATIONS ON CASE NUMBER L07-024 AS MODIFIED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER EKBERG SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL
WERE IN FAVOR.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
L07 -024
City of Tukwila
Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about
an amendment to the Sensitive Area Ordinance allowing the DCD Director
to establish the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for
specific off-site mitigation proposals.
City wide
LOCATION:
Nora Gierloffprovided background on sensitive areas. She gave an explanation on the purchase of
mitigation bank credits, stating the mitigation process is outlined in the attached Code. Credits in a
mitigation bank: are based on net ecological benefit provided and are determined on the basis of
Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the bank and the total
acreage for each type of mitigation. The missing piece is wetland credits versus the amount of
ecological function that is impacted by filling the wetland. Staff proposes creating a process after
the Director has approved the filling of the wetland and approved off-site mitigation to allow him to
set the number of credits that are required for the impact at that particular bank. The proposed
language is listed in attachment C in the Proposed Amendment to Sensitive Area Ordinance in the
May 24, 2007 Staff Report. This would give the Director some criteria to use when making his
determination. Ms. Gierloff listed the criteria.
There was extensive questions and discussion on this item. Some of the key issues that were raised:
l) Is there a formula used to determined what is worth X number of credits? 2) If there is an appeal
process where does it go (type 2 decisions go to the hearing examiner)? 3) Is WSDOT the ones
who are monitoring the amount of credits that go into the bank (WSDOT is a purchaser; they are a
developer who wants to buy credits from this bank)? Staff explained that we have one method of
mitigation and WSDOT has the credits. 4) Staff would like to have a more formal process for
selecting the number of credits. 5) This process has already been built and approved, meets the
Department of Ecology, as well as, other agency requirements. 6) The City does not have a bank of
it's own because staffhas not been able to identify spaces that are big enough to be viable.
Commissioner Parrish indicated he has no problem with Staffs proposal. He suggested that there
are paper records, which would make the Director's position defendable in the event of a challenge.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
(13