HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-04-CA - CITY OF TUKWILA - BAR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS91-4-ca bar ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
91-04-CA
site.
,
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. I6' /
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 18.60.050 BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW GUIDELINES, TO EXPLICITLY ALLOW
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION
CRITERIA IN IMPLEMENTING THE PURPOSE AND '
OBJECTIVES OF THIS CHAPTER.
WHEREAS the City Council ..desires that there be no question' that the Board of
Architectural Review is authorized .to use information is appropriate in carrying out
their responsibility as specified in TMC;18.60.010 (Attachment A), which includes, but is not
`limited to draft' Multi- family Design Standards and Guidelines per Resolution No. 1193
(Attachment B); and
WHEREAS upon Coupcil direction the City Attorney did draft an amendment to Zoning
Code Chapter 18.60.050 to accomplish this end (Attachment A); and
WHEREAS an environmental Determination iof 'Non- Significance (EPIC- 56 -91) was
issued on November 13, 1991; and .■
WHEREAS the Planning. Commission, after due public notice, did hold a public hearing
on November 14, 1991 C); and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission did adopt the findings and conclusions of the
Dept. of Community Development Staff Report (11/6/91) (Attachment C) as entered in the
record and recommend approval of the proposed amendment without changes to the City
Council (Attachment D).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Tukwila Municipal Code Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter
18.60.050 is amended to read as follows:
18.60.050: Review guidelines. The BAR is authorized to request and rely upon any document,
guideline, or other consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives
of this chapter, specifically including but not limited to the following, which shall be considered
in all cases:
(1) Relationship of Structure to Site.
(A) The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape
and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement;
(B) Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate
the visual impact of large paved areas;
(C) The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
(A) Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged;
(B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided;
(C) Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established
neighborhood character;
(D) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities
in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged;
(E) Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be
encouraged.
(3) Landscaping and Site Treatment .
(A) Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a
development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced;
(B) Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote
safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance;
(C) Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas
and important axis, and provide shade;
(D) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor
traffic, mitigating steps should be taken;
(E) Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved
areas is encouraged;
(F) Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should
be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination;
(G) In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences,
walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used;
(H) Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the
adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible
with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design.
Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided.
(4) Building Design
(A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on
quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings;
(B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent
neighboring developments;
(C) Building components- such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have
good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall
be consistent with anticipated life of the structure;
(D) Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for
accent;
(E) Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings
should be screened from view;
(F) Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards,
and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design;
(G) Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided.
Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
(A) Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of
the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with
buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and
surroundings, and proportions should be to scale;
(B) Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should
meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. (Ord. 1247 l(part), 1982).
Section 4. Severability. If any portion of this ordinance is found or rendered invalid or
ineffective, all remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 5. Penalty. The general penalties provided for in the Tukwila Municipal Code
shall apply to any violations of this ordinance, and any person, firm, corporation, or association
failing to comply with any of the provisions hereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force immediately
upon its passage as an emergency ordinance in order to consider and adopt new multi - family
regulations.
PASSED BY THE CITY COU)ICIL OF CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this ,3 day of . , 1991
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
e E. Cantu, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
f
By 1
FILED WITH THE ITY CLERK: 1/- ,2 7- ?/
PASSED BY THE CITY OUNCIL: /2 Z • 7 I
PUBLISHED: /a - /3 - /
EFFECTIVE DATE:/2. - 64.• 9/
ORDINANCE NO.: /( /y
L.
Van Dusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 14, 1991
Council Note: Board of Architectural Review Design
Guideline revision on page 5.
PHONE. 11 (206) 4331800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Mr. Flesher opened the work session at 6:20 p.m. In attendance were Messrs. Flesher,
Malina, Knudson, and Gomez. Mr. Haggerton was excused. Representing the staff were
Vernon Umetsu, Jack Pace, and Sylvia Schnug.
Vernon Umetsu reviewed his memo and the recreation space standards of other
jurisdictions. He noted that the Multi - Family Design Standards draft proposes to increase
the required amount of recreation space from 200 sq. ft. to 400 sq. ft. and allow the
opportunity for 1/2 of that space to be located off -site, within 1/2 mile of the project site in
any zone if the developer desires. The Focus Group suggested providing a 3 to 1 credit for
providing indoor recreation space over outdoor space. For example, 100 feet of indoor
recreation space in gyms, spas, etc. would be equivalent to 300 feet of outdoor recreation
space.
Mr. Knudson said he is concerned about how to best use whatever recreation land or fees
are required to create multifamily developments and neighborhoods which are good places
to live. Just putting some space within a half mile of a project may not be enough. More
problems could be created by proposing requirements which don't address the problem.
Mr. Umetsu agreed 100% with Mr. Knudson. Staff has concluded that increased densities
mean increased need for improvements and sensitive design along public streets. Many
proposed standards and guidelines focus on streetscape, sidewalk and project design
improvements; in addition to facilitating development of a strong system of neighborhood
parks as a focus of community activity. He stated that the developer funded proportion is
a policy decision for recommendation by the Planning Commission and action by the City
Council. Staff has provided a rationale for requiring 400 sq. ft. of recreation space per unit.
Mr. Flesher said he is concerned over the viability of the off -site recreation option. The
developer focus group did not feel that this was realistic. He is concerned over doubling the
recreation space required and then saying that half can be provided off -site. The increased
indoor space credit could be effective in creating a more desirable development with high
quality housing.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
November 14, 1991
Mr. Umetsu said that whatever amount is required, staff urges allowing half to be located
off -site because developing excellent recreation areas within a walled in project, does nothing
to alleviate the impacts of higher densities (and building masses) on the neighborhood.
That is what staff wants to address. Staff anticipates the City would maintain newly created
parks.
The Planning Commission agreed by consensus to require the 400 sq. ft. of recreation space
with the option of allowing the developer to add money to the City fund for development
of public parks, and the money to be spent within a three year period. Staff was requested
to present an administrative system for a fee option based on single family land values.
The Planning Commissioners agreed to approve the proposed sections on pages 30 -31,
except for the following:
With regard to page 30, the Development Standards; the Planning Commission agreed to:
* Delete the section which reads:
Existing: A minimum 30% of all recreation space must be open or uncovered.
Proposed: No change.
* Change the proposed section which reads:
Existing: A maximum of 50% of uncovered space may have a 4:1 (25 %) slope.
Proposed: No maximum area for steeper slopes. However, recreation areas shall
not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the
proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated
use as endorsed by the DCD Director.
* Change the proposed section which reads:
Existing: No provision for extra credit for enclosed recreation facilities.
Proposed: The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of
3 square feet of recreation space for each 1 square foot of extensively
improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility
improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna,
hot tub, large screen television and the like.
* Accept the
section:
Existing:
Proposed:
existing language and delete the proposed language in the following
No general requirement to identify recreation area usage.
The anticipated use of all recreation areas shall be specified and
designed to clearly accommodate that use.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
November 14, 1991
* Change the proposed section which reads:
Existing: 2 per unit regardless of unit size. All spaces shall be individually
accessible.
Proposed: 2 per unit. Tandem spaces will be allowed for each three bedroom and
1/3 of all two bedroom units. No more than 1/3 of all parking spaces
may be tandem and all tandem parking spaces will be full -size rather
than compact size vehicles.
With regard to the Multi - Family Design Guidelines, the Planning Commissioners agreed to
delete sections 18 and 13.
Mr. Flesher adjourned the work session at 7:55 p.m. and called for a 15 minute recess.
Mr. Flesher called the public hearing to order at 8:10 p.m.
Moira Carr Bradshaw joined the staff which were present.
MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17 AND
OCTOBER 24,1991 MEETINGS. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. asked for citizen's comments for items not listed on the agenda; there were none.
90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility:
Moira Carr Bradshaw presented the staff report. She located and described the site on an
aerial map as well as on overhead projections. Staff went on to say that this proposal was
for two parcels. She stated that the proposed exhibition facility will extend from the subject
parcel, all the way up to the I -405 crossing. The parcels that the request is being made for
is approximately 9 acres and until 1987 these parcels were in the City of Renton. When the
irregular boundary was cleaned up, these parcels were annexed into the City of Tukwila.
She stated a wetland runs from 180th up to the site, and along the southern edge of the
subject site.
In summary, staff recommended the re- designation from Parks and Open Space to Light
Industrial based on the findings and conclusions of the staff report dated November 1, 1991.
Staff felt that a light industrial designation was more appropriate than a commercial
designation because the property is isolated from the properties to the east and west by the
elevated railroad tracks. Staff stated that two small parcels of Puget Power's and Seattle
Water's adjacent to the subject site also had the Parks & Open Space designation. The
applicant has agreed to enter into a no- protest LID agreement for an extension of Strander
Boulevard which is the portion of the site with the public facility designation. If that
agreement were recorded prior to the recording of any comprehensive plan change or
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
November 14, 1991
rezone, then that public facility designation would not be necessary.
Don Miles, 15828 SE 24th, Bellevue, WA:
Mr. Miles stated that he was the engineer working on this project and he wished to answer
any questions the Planning Commission might have.
Mr. Flesher asked where the access to the facility would be.
Mr. Miles stated that the access will be Strander Blvd.
Mr. Knudson asked why they had decided to choose a light industrial designation.
Mr. Miles said they chose that designation because it was comparable with the adjoining
properties.
Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Knudson stated that this was probably one of the most dramatic zoning changes the
Planning Commission has encountered and that much activity has taken place in that area
recently.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
AMENDMENT AND REDESIGNATE THE MAP FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AND
PUBLIC FACILITY TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE
MOTION; MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Knudson amended the motion to read as follows:
MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITY LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL AND REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL (RA) TO LIGHT INDUSTRY
(M1) BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE REZONE FROM RA (AGRICULTURAL) TO M1 (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL) FOR THAT AREA OUTSIDE THE TYPE 1 WETLAND; FURTHER
RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY
COUNCIL WHEN CONSIDERING THE SUBJECT REQUEST IN ORDER TO INCLUDE
THE SEATTLE WATER AND PUGET POWER PROPERTY IN THE REDESIGNATION
AND REZONE; AND COMPLETION OF THE SEPA MITIGATION MEASURES (a., b.,
c.) ON PAGE 12 OF THE STAFF REPORT, PRIOR TO RECORDING ORDINANCE TO
CHANGE THE ZONING. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
November 14, 1991
90 -4 -CA: Board of Architectural Review Design Review Guideline revision.
Vernon Umetsu provided the staff report. He noted that an amendment needed to be made
to the cover page of the staff report; the SEPA Determination of Non - significance was
issued on November 13, 1991. He went on to say that this code amendment was determined
to be needed by the City Council to clearly authorize the Board of Architectural Review to
use whatever additional information they want to use in determining what is an adequate
level of design quality that all projects must meet in order to be built in Tukwila. There was
a concern by the Council that there was a possibility that someone could challenge the use
of any other document other than the specific criteria listed in 18.60.050, the design
guidelines.
He stated this came up as part of the Council's resolution which asked the Board of
Architectural Review to rely upon the draft Multi- Family Standards in all future multi - family
developments. The City Attorney said the Board had that authority, however, there was a
remote chance that someone could challenge this. Therefore, in order to make sure that
there is no question or legal challenge, this amendment was recommended by the Council
to be brought before the Planning Commission; and the wording of the amendment was
drafted by the City Attorney. The amendment is shown in the "Recommendation" section
of the staff report.
Mr. Umetsu then entered attachment "B", a map of the BAR design review areas, into the
record.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO ACCEPT 90 -4 -CA: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE
MOTION; MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
During the Director's report the Planning Commission agreed to review the first ten pages
of the Multi - Family Design Guidelines individually between now and the next regular
meeting and discuss them at that time.
Mr. Flesher adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
LOCATION:
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
PLANNING STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared November 6, 1991
November 14, 1991
PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Cary L. VanDnsen, Mayor
90 -4 -CA: B.A.R. Design Review Guidelines Amendment.
Tukwila Dept. of Community Development
Amend TMC 18.60.050: (Board of Architectural Review)
Review Guidelines to explicitly allow consideration of
additional evaluation criteria in implementing the purpose
and objectives of this chapter.
The Proposed text amendment affects all parcels zoned for
multi - family, commercial, and industrial uses.
A D.N.S. is anticipated to be issued prior to November 14,
1991.
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
A. TMC 18.60: Board of Architectural Review (Enabling
Chapter) with proposed amendment of section
18.60.050.
B. Map showing affected districts in Tukwila (to be
presented at the public hearing).
C. City Council Resolution No. 1193.
D. City Attorney Memorandum of September 30, 1991.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
BACKGROUND
DECISION CRITERIA
FINDINGS
90 -4 -CA
Page 2
The City Council was concerned that the projected four to five additional months
to complete Planning Commission review of new multi - family design standards and
additional months of Council review, would allow developers to construct new
multi - family projects based on historic design standards. The Council determined
that these historic standards do not reflect the minimum design quality desired by
the City.
In response, the Council adopted interim multi - family design controls and
requested their application by the BAR to all future multi - family projects. This
set of interim controls was adopted in Council Resolution No. 1193 (Attachment
C), in place of a moratorium on further multi - family project review.
The Council accepted the following regulatory rationale:
a. a wide range of development design quality is possible under the existing
design review guidelines,
b. the BAR currently uses an unwritten set of design standards to implement
the adopted broad design review guidelines, and
c. there is no regulatory difference between the BAR applying historic
unwritten standards and draft standards endorsed by Council resolution.
The Planning Commission, representing the BAR, generally agreed to implement
the draft "Multi- family Design Standards" as revised during their deliberations, if
so directed by the City Council. The Council considered adoption of Resolution
1193 as constituting this direction.
The City Attorney concurred that Resolution 1193's system of interim controls
could be implemented by the BAR under existing ordinances (Attachment D).
However, he recommended that the proposed change be adopted to squelch even
the smallest chance of a successful legal challenge. The proposed amendment is
presented as drafted by the City Attorney and considered by the City Council as
being acceptable.
In considering this Zoning Code text amendment, the guiding decision criteria is
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
whether authorizing the BAR to consider design guidelines beyond those
specifically listed in TMC 18.60.050, better implements the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan and the "Purpose and Objectives" of the Board of
Architectural Review (TMC 18.60.010).
A. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies which support design review do
not address limiting or expanding what specific information may be used in
implementing these policies and determining design quality.
B. Purpose and Objectives of the Board of Architectural Review.
The purpose of the BAR is stated as follows:
"18.60.010 Purpose and objectives. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for
the review by public officials of land development and building design in order to
promote the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the board of
architectural review ( "BAR ") shall encourage well designed developments that are
creative and harmonious with the natural and manmade environments. (Ord.1247
ss.1(part, 1982)."
Allowing the BAR to use all available information in determining what are "well
designed developments" would support implementation of the above Purpose.
CONCLUSIONS
90 -4-CA
Page 3
1. The City Council wished to dispel any possible questions as to the BAR's ability to
rely upon the interim control system adopted in Resolution 1193.
2. The City Attorney feels that the BAR already has authority to use any additional
information on design standards it deems necessary to implement the BAR's
purpose as adopted in TMC 18.60. However, adoption of this amendment would
dispel any possible confusion over the BAR's specific ability to rely upon the
revised "Multi- family Design Standards" per Council Resolution No. 1193 and any
other document in the future.
3. The Comprehensive Plan does not offer guidance on limiting or expanding the
information which may be used in evaluating design quality.
4. The proposed change will clearly allow a the BAR flexibility to use all available
information to implement its responsibility to "...encourage well designed
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
developments that are creative and harmonious with the natural and manmade
environments." (TMC 18.60.010).
RECOMMENDATIONS
90 -4 -CA
Page 4
The Planning Division recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Board
of Architectural Review chapter TMC 18.60.050. The specific amended paragraph is
presented below:
18.60.050 Review Guidelines.
The BAR is
authorized to request and rely upon any document, guideline, or other
consideration it deems relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of
this chapter, specifically including but not limited to:..."
Sections:
18.60.010
18.60.020
18.60.030
18.60.040
18.60.050
18.60.060
18.60.070
Chapter 18.60
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
',.60.010 -- 18.60.030
Purpose and objectives.
Membership.
Scope of authority.
Application requirements.
Review guidelines.
Special review guidelines for Interurban
special review area.
Action by board of architectural review.
18.60.010 Purpose and objectives. It is the purpose
of this chapter to provide for the review by public officials
of land development and building design in order to promote
the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the
board of architectural review ( "BAR ") shall encourage well
designed developments that are creative and harmonious with
the natural and manmade environments. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982).
18.60.020 Membership. The board of architectural review
shall consist of the members of the planning commission. The
officers of the planning commission shall also sit as officers
of the board of architectural review. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982) .
18.60.030 Scope of authority. (1) The rules and
regulations of the board of architectural review shall be the
same as those stated for the planning commission in the bylaws
of the Tukwila planning commission. The board shall have the
authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny all
plans submitted to it using guidelines in Section 18.60.050.
(2) The board of architectural review shall review pro-
posed development plans for the following described land use
actions:
(A) All developments will be subject to design re-
view with the following exceptions:
( i) Developments in RA and R1 districts,
( ii) Developments less than ten thousand gross
square feet of building area in PO, Cl, C2, CP and CM dis-
tricts, except when within three hundred feet of residential
districts or within two hundred feet of the Green /Duwamish
River or that require a shoreline permit,
(iii) Developments in Mi and M2 districts except
when within three hundred feet of residential districts or
within two hundred feet of the Green /Duwamish River or that
require a shoreline permit;
307 (Tukwila 6/89)
ATTACHMENT A
]] 60.040 -- 18.60.050
l .
(B) Any exterior repair, reconstruction, cosmetic
alterations, or improvements, the cost of which equals or
exceeds ten percent of the building's assessed 'valuation, of
any existing commercial development in excess of ten thousand
gross square feet in building floor area in PO, Cl, C2, CP
and CM zoning districts. (Ord. 1497 §2, 1989; Ord. 1481
§2(J), 1988; Ord. 1452 §1, 1988; Ord. 1447 §1, 1988; Ord.
1247 §1 (part) , 1982) .
18.60.040 Application requirements. Applications for
review by the board of architectural review must be submitted
to the planning department at least two weeks prior to the
meeting, of the board of architectural review.
Building permits shall not be granted until approval of
plans by the BAR. All applications shall be accompanied by a
filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and shall include but
are not limited to site plans, exterior building elevations,
the environmental checklist if applicable, and other materials
as required by the planning department. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982) .
18.60.050 Review guidelines.
•
its docicion making he BAR is authorized to request and rely
upon any document, guideline, or other consideration it deems
relevant or useful to satisfy the purpose and objectives of
- `-this chapter, specifically including but not limited to:.
t
/ . (1) Relationship of Structure to Site.
(A) The site should be planned to accomplish a
desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for
adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement;
(B) Parking and service areas should be located,
designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large
paved areas;
(C) The height and scale of each building should be
considered in relation to its site.
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
(A) Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encour-
aged;
(B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining
properties should be provided;
(C) Public buildings and structures should be con-
sistent with the established neighborhood character;
(D) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circula-
tion patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety,
efficiency and convenience should be encouraged;
(E) Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation
with street circulation should be encouraged;
(3) Landscape and Site Treatment.
308
(Tukwila 6/89)
18.60.050
(A) Where existing topographic patterns contribute
to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recog-
nized and preserved and enhanced;
(B) Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and
other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting
and stable appearance;
(C) Landscape treatment should enhance architectural
features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide
shade;
(D) In locations where plants will be susceptible to
injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should
be taken;
(E) Where building sites limit planting, the place-
ment of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged;
(F) Screening of service yards, and other places which
tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls,
fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should
be effective in winter and summer;
(G) In areas where general planting will not prosper,
other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood,
brick, stone, or gravel may be used;
(H) Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the
building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards
and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with
the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded,
and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant
colors should be avoided.
(4) Building Design.
(A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation
of a project should be based on quality of its design and
relationship to surroundings;
(B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be
in harmony with permanent neighboring developments;
(C) Building components, such as windows, doors,
eaves, and parapets, should have good proportions and relation-
ship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts
shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure;
(D) Colors should be harmonious, with bright or
brilliant colors used only for accent;
(E) Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware
on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view;
(F) Exterior lighting should be part of the archi-
tectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed acces-
sories should be harmonious with building design;
(G) Monotony of design in single or multiple building
projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and
siting should be used to provide visual interest.
(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture.
(A) Miscellaneous structures and street furniture
309 (Tukwila 8/82)
18.60.060
should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of
design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with
buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in
harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions
should be to scale;
(B) Lighting in connection with miscellaneous struc-
tures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable
to site, landscape and buildings. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982).
18.60.060 Special review guidelines for Interurban
special review. area. (1) Purpose of Review. Owing to its
unique physiography, the presence of natural amenities and
recreational facilities, the historical relevance of the area
to the community, and the contemplated future mix of resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses, the
Interurban area requires a special approach for coordinated
planning and land use management. In order to manage the
development of,this area, to upgrade its general appearance,
to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and
to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities
including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities,
to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to
provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth,
there shall.be special review of proposed development in the
Interurban area.
(2) Iriteru = ban Special Review District. As used in this
section, the Interurban area is that area lying between 1 -405
on the south, the toe of slope to the west of Interurban Avenue,
1 -5 on the north, and the city limits on the east, as shown
on Map 3 entitled, "Interurban Special Review Area."
(3) Authority and Scope of Review.. All development in
the Interurban special review area, excluding single- family
dwellings, shall be reviewed by the board of architectural
review. In addition to the review guidelines specified in
Section 18.60.050 of this code, the BAR shall utilize the
guidelines specified in subsections (4) and (5) below in its
review.
(4) Special Review Guidelines Applicable to All Proposed
Developments. In the review of proposed development in the
Interurban special review district, the BAR shall use the
following guidelines in order to ensure that the intent of
subsection (1) is accomplished:
(A) Proposed development design should be sensitive
to the natural amenities of the area;
(B) Proposed development use should demonstrate .
due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational
areas and facilities;
(C) Proposed development should provide for safe and
convenient on -site pedestrian circulation;
(D) Proposed property use should be compatible with
neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which
it is located;
310 (Tukwila 8/82)
18.60.060
(E) Proposed development should seek to minimize
significant adverse environmental impacts;
(F) Proposed development should demonstrate due regard
for significant historical features in the area.
(5) Special Review Guidelines for Authorization of
Development Incentives. In order to provide incentives for
development proposals which, through extraordinary design or
planning, seek to achieve the aims and purposes of subsection
(1), the BAR may modify the standards applicable to the
underlying zone district pursuant to the following provisions:
(A) An additional ten feet of building height over
the basic height standard for the applicable zone district
when the proposed development substantially conforms to the
following guidelines; provided, however, that an additional
thirty feet of building height. over the basic height standard
may be authorized in the M -1 zone located east of Interurban
Avenue a distance of not less than one hundred feet from the
easterly edge of said right -of -way:
( i) The proposed development offers a compatible
and complementary mix of uses in the immediate vicinity of
the project site and within the interurban special review area;
( ii) The design of the proposed development
promotes an interrelationship with the river or open space/
recreational facilities and fosters public use of these
amenities;
(iii) The proposed use and development of the prop-
erty provides for safe and convenient pedestrian movement on-
site, between adjoining properties, and contributes to overall
pedestrian circulation in the interurban area.
(B) A reduction in the standard setback requirements
of the applicable zone district by a factor of..up to fifty
percent, provided that C -2 sideyard setbacks can be reduced
by a factor of up to one hundred percent, when the proposed
development substantially conforms to the following guidelines:
( i) The proposed development is pedestrian -
oriented either in its intended use or design;
( ii) The proposed development is of such a scale,
configuration, or design so as to provide a more desirable and
compatible relationship with the street and pedestrian circula-
tion system than the standard setback requirements.
(C) Either a reduction of up to twenty percent or a
relocation of the required landscape areas of the applicable
zone district when the proposed development substantially con-
forms to the following guidelines:
( i) Existing and /or proposed landscape areas are
effectively used so as to provide more desirable transitions
from the street and between neighboring properties than the
standard landscaping requirements;
(ii) Sufficient natural, mature vegetation is
maintained in the proposed development. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982) .
311 (Tukwila 8/82)
t:
•-•
)
• .
1
.....
......
f 2
1
[lir lE. Ir Urn li i
- Of # kz ir ir g yir
1 07 5gtggUP Iti
..,
1 1 a
ta . v P i!
a i
,-- I
I
i -
'" if I '
•
, t 10•
.—•--
1
1.•
r r
. . • _ I/ • I •
1.• 1.11 ": " I r •
/ Its .•
:1 I C.!1".
r A-ir
• t 0- .1
.•
( 1
, f
.5,..
g r
11 1 z t.i,
c
il •
t . 1 ..... _ . 7........_ ) ...ril:
. . ..11 1 „- . _ - _ - f . IT - -.\ y .. n ..
.- 1 )
/ — ( . . 1 \
.. .
2 .. ) 2 • ‘t /
1: •
1 In'
-..tr-....% I / - •rs
1 - --.
f ." • . / :: ... . - - _....... ...:-; nt
f
,
J.60.070 -- 18.64.020
18.60.070 Action by board of architectural review.
(1) Approval. If the BAR approves the proposed development,
a building permit may be issued by the appropriate city offi-
cial providing all other requirements of the building code
and ordinances of the city have been complied with.
(2) Approval with Conditions. If the BAR approves the
proposed development plans with conditions, it may require that
such conditions shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of a
building or occupancy permit, where appropriate.
(3) Denial. The BAR may deny the proposed development
plans if the plans do not satisfy the'guidelines of Sections
18.60.050 and 18.60.060.
(4) All decisions of the BAR shall be final unless ap-
pealed. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)..
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON Q
RESOLUTION NO. 1/ 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENDORSING THE
"MULTI- FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS UPDATE"
DRAFT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1991, AS AMENDED BY THE
TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION, AS GENERALLY
REFLECTING THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS
DESIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; AND REQUESTING
THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO RELY
UPON THESE STANDARDS IN THEIR APPLICATION OF
THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN TMC 18.60.050.
WHEREAS, significant additional time will be required to complete adoption of updated
multi- family design standards; and
WHEREAS, the limited amount of remaining multi- family zoned lands may be
developed at a level of design quality not envisioned in those design standards; and
WHEREAS, the design concepts expressed in the Multi- family Design Standards Update
draft of February 26, 1991, as amended by the Planning Commission to date, generally reflect
the minimum desired design standards; and
WHEREAS, the design concepts in the Multi- family Design Standards Update could be
used by the Board of Architectural Review during application of the Design Guidelines in TMC
18.60.050; and
WHEREAS, all existing minimum Zoning Code requirements including, but not limited
to structure type restrictions, building height, setback, landscaping, common open space,
recreation, and parking minimums continue to be applicable; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Architectural Review Design Guidelines (TMC 18.60.050)
shall include consideration of those design standards to provide a consistent higher level of
design quality of all future development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has generally agreed that it is reasonable to
consider the amended design standards in the application of Design Guidelines in their role as
the Board of Architectural Review.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: That the Board of Architectural
Review shall immediately rely upon the Multi- family Design Standards Update draft of February
26, 1991, as now or hereafter amended by the Tukwila Planning Commission, as illustrating the
minimum desired level of design quality that all future projects must satisfy pursuant to
implementing the Design Guidelines of TMC 18.60.050.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF,,I• E CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a regular meeting thereof this.-/ 5r` day of (C'' C Z — C -'� ./, 1991.
A 1'i EST/AUTHENTICATED:
• .. LC: • .. , L•:ti•C c c—
/lade E. Cantu, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i/
OFFICE OF THE IpITY ATTORNEY:
Filed with the City Clerk: / i / •
Passed by the City Council: • / • `./
Resolution Number •
Dennis L. Robertson, Council President
ATTACHMENT C
. 1908
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
DATE: September 30, 1991
MEMORANDUM
[pi! it;([1 ii]
t SEP3 01991
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
TO: Vernon Umetsu
FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney It
Gam'
RE: Resolution for BAR Use of Draft Multi- Family Design
Standards
I have reviewed your memorandum on the above subject which we
received yesterday, and which requests a response by today.
Given those time constraints, I think the proposed resolution
makes sense from a practical perspective. A couple of issues
remain:
1. If a multi - family permit application is received, that
applicant would of course vest under the then - existing law. The
applicant could argue that these draft multi - family standards
cannot be applied prior to adoption.
2. In a related manner, the applicant could argue that the BAR
cannot consider any factors in application review other than
those set forth in TMC 18.60.050. You have proposed a resolution
generally requesting that the BAR consider this draft multi-
family standards report. In TMC 18.60.050, however, "the
following guidelines shall be used by the BAR in its decision -
making...." In reviewing the guidelines set forth, there is no
catch -all factor such as, "Any other consideration deemed
relevant by the BAR." This proposed Resolution approach, then,
may have a couple of flaws. First, the BAR may ignore it.
Second, an applicant could argue that the BAR must ignore any
factors other than those set forth in TMC 18.60.050.
A suggested alternative would be to propose an amendment to TMC
18.60.050 (which would have to go to the Planning Commission)
providing for a new subparagraph (6) that would include a catch-
all phrase similar to that set forth above.
ATTACHMENT D
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
September 30, 1991
All in all, however, your proposal makes sense and would be
defensible in the event of a challenge even without making the
referenced code amendment. It would be imminently more
defensible, however, by making such an amendment.
MRK /cc
BAP.•001
COMPREHENSIVE' PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: At l M C 60.0s C'gcm-iip
OF A 2 Kt TGC C. ROOet.) Kervl G ut�a,(nces.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub -
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection)
C ( TY - (,J (1 ). E, A t c- MuC,T►-F/ -tt( CotKet-C(M-y- /KbusriatAt, eonteg.
Quarter: Section: Township: Range:
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name: VG'4..Non( Us"r el v Y. C.� Pc,nt
Address: 6 300 S arc 702.. Ft-Vb. /7 c.JA
Pho •• 206--
Signature: - Date: 1 425
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and
to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
OWNER
4. PROPERTY Name: IVA
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
Address:
Phone:
I /WE,[signature(s)1
swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved
in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the
best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date:
attachment b
affected zone districts
zoning map