HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 87-06-CA - CITY OF TUKWILA - C-P, C-M, C-2 ZONING DESIGN REVIEW87-06-ca
epic-33-87
DOWNTOWN TUKWILA
C-P, C-2 AND C-M ZONING DESIGN REVIEW / CODE AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RF /sjn
attachments
APPENDIX A
City Of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Planning Department
February 8, 1988
C -2 AND C -M ZONE DESIGN REVIEW
Attached are the Planning Commission minutes and staff report for 87 -6 -CA, C -2
and C -M Zone Design Review to amend the Board of Architectural Review scope to
include review of commercial development over 10,000 gross square feet building
area in the C -M (Industrial Park) and C -2 (Regional Retail Business) zones. At
In their January 14, 1988 meeting, the Tukwila Planning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed revisions. The Planning Commission initiated this
amendment at their October 22, 1987 meeting to reinforce and complement their
decision to include development in the C -P (Planned Business Center) in design
review.
The Planning Commission's decision on the C -2 and C -M zones was based on the
following:
1. High - quality, well- designed development is desired in Tukwila.
2. Future development in the C -2 and C -M zones is likely to prompt design con-
cerns similar to those currently addressed by the BAR in other zones.
3. BAR review of development in C -2 and C -M zones will facilitate a well -
designed development.
4. Neither interior tenant improvements nor simple mechanical permits will
trigger design review.
It should be noted that design review will occur only for development or re-
development in the C -2 and C -M zones greater than 10,000 gross square feet of
building area. We request that the City Council approve this as part of their
consent agenda at the February 16, 1988 meeting.
,1908
APPENDIX B
6ty of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 1988
The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m. by Mr. Larson,
Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Larson, Kirsop, Knudson,
Coplen, Hamilton and Haggerton.
Members absent: Mr. Sowinski.
Representing the staff were Rick Beeler, Rebecca Fox and Joanne
Johnson.
MINUTES
MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 17, 1987
MEETING AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MR. HAGGERTON NOMINATED RANDY COPLEN AS THE 1988 PLANNING
COMMISSION CHAIRMAN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE NOMINATION WHICH
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. KIRSOP NOMINATED JIM HAGGERTON AS VICE - CHAIRMAN. MR. KNUDSON
SECONDED THE NOMINATION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rick Beeler gave a report on the progress of Fire District #1
Annexation proposal.
MAYOR VAN DUSEN thanked the members of the Commission and
commended them for their service to the community. He then
presented them with a token of appreciation for their service.
87 -6 -CA: C -2 AND C -M ZONE DESIGN REVIEW Review the require-
ments of the Board of Architectural Review to include design
review for development in excess of 10,000 square feet in the C -M
(Industrial Park) and C -2 (Regional Retail Business) zones.
• v.
• ,,._ ••••••
Planning Commission
January 14, 1988
Page 2
Rebecca Fox, Planner, reviewed the staff report, recommending
approval of the request. She noted that extensive work had been
done to adequately notify the public of this proposed change.
Cris Crumbaugh, 1002 S. Third, Renton, favored the proposed
change noting that it will give the City more control over the
types of development that go in. He suggested using brick and
stone materials to enhance the overall appearance of the City.
Ann Nichols, representing M.A. Segale, Inc. distributed and read
a letter supporting the request. She favored clarification of
the request to included exterior building modification.
Peter Jouplas, 1111 - 118th S.E., Bellevue, concurred with the
previous comments and the letter from Ann Nichols. He felt
restricting building materials to brick and stone would create an
unfair financial hardship for small builders.
Mr. Coplen asked that the letter from Ann Nichols be entered into
the record.
John Baker, 5440 148th S.E., Bellevue, was not in favor of the
proposed change adding that it would be unreasonably burdensome
to the small developer.
Extensive discussion ensued.
MR. LARSON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
REQUEST TO ADD DESIGN REVIEW TO NEW AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATION OF
EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EXCESS OF 10,000 GROSS SQUARE
FEET OF BUILDING FLOOR AREA ON THE C -P, C -M AND C -2 ZONES, BASED
ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT. ALSO, THE
CODE SHOULD BE SIMULTANEOUSLY MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE DELETION OF
SECTION 18.60.030 (2)(F) WHICH IS THE REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Rebecca Fox reported on the status of the Black River Quarry site
for the energy /resource recovery plant (E /RR).
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm.
R spectfully ubmitted,
J anne Johns
Secretary
;1908
APPENDIX C
ity of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
Prepared January 6, 1988
HEARING DATE: January 14, 1988
FILE NUMBER: 87 -6 -CA: C -2 and C -M Zone Design Review
APPLICANT: Tukwila Planning Commission
REQUEST: Revise the Board of Architectural Review requirements to
include Design Review for development in excess of 10,000
square feet in the C -M (Industrial Park) and C -2 (Regional
Retail Business) zones.
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - Significance issued December 31, 1987.
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Excerpts from Planning Commission meeting of 10/22/87
(B) Section 18.60.10 - Board of Architectural Review
(C) Zoning Map of the Central Business District
STAFF REPORT to the 87 -6 -CA: C -2 and C -M Zone Design Review
Planning Commission Page 2
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
During its October 22, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a request
to require design review for commercial development over 10,000 square feet in
the Planned Business Center. (C -P) zone. At that time the Commission also recom-
mended that there be design review for Industrial Park (C -M) and Regional Retail
Business (C -2) zones not already covered by design review (Attachment A).
Development standards were felt to be minimal in the C -M and C -2 zones. With
the exception of property along the shoreline zone and C -2 property in the
Interurban Special Review District, no mechanism exists for thorough design
review in these zones. The community increasingly desires high - quality develop-
ment, and design review in the C -2 and C -M zones addresses this concern. This
is supported by the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan which states on page 61, Design
Policy 3, to "Encourage aesthetic building and site design in working and
trading areas."
Two weeks prior to the hearing date, public notice was sent to over 260 property
owners in the affected zones. As of January 6; 1988, when this Staff Report was
prepared, one inquiry had been received.
Following closure of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make its
recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed text amendment. The
City Council will then schedule a meeting on the issue and adopt, modify or deny
the recommendation.
DISCUSSION
As stated in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.60.10 (Attachment B), the Board of
Architectural Review (BAR) is charged with encouraging "well- designed develop-
ments that are creative and harmonious with the natural and man -made environ-
ments." As such, the BAR is the designated public body responsible for review
of "land development and building design in order to promote the public health,
safety and welfare."
C - and C -M zoned properties lying within 200 feet of the shoreline are already
subject to design review pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act. C -2 zoned
property along Interurban Avenue is subject to review by the BAR as provided by
the Interurban Special Review District. The proposed text amendment impacts
only new development and major remodels over 10,000 square feet in the C -2 and
C -M zones outside the aforementioned areas Extending BAR review to development
over 10,000 square feet in all C -2 and C -M zones will complement design review
for C -P zones. It will result in more consistent development review in Tuk-
wila's downtown area. As of 1985, there were 19 acres of vacant, usable land in
the C -2 zone, and 18 vacant usable acres in the C -M zone.
Tenant improvements and mechanical permits will not be affected. Section
18.60.050.4(E) of the BAR code requires that mechanical units be screened from
C
STAFF REPORT to the 87 -6 -CA: C -2 and C -M Zone Design Review
Planning Commission Page 3
view. This requirement shall remain in effect. A mechanical permit would not
trigger design review.
PROPOSED CODE REVISIONS - BAR
The proposed code revisions are included in boldface and underlined, as follows:
18.60.030(2)(8) Scope of Authority
Commercial development in excess of ten thousand gross square feet of build-
ing floor area in the RMH, P -0, C -1, C -2, C -M and C -P districts of the City.
CONCLUSIONS
1. High - quality, well- designed development is desired in Tukwila.
2. Future development in the C -2 and C -M zones is likely to prompt design con-
cerns similar to those currently addressed by the BAR in other zones.
3. BAR review of development in C -2 and C -M zones will facilitate a well -
designed development.
4. Neither interior tenant improvements nor simple mechanical permits will
trigger design review.
(22/87 -6 -CA)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The. Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the request to add design review to development over 10,000 square feet in the
C -2 and C -M zones.
.
A l I ALMMtN I A
EXCERPTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 1987
87 -4 -CA: C -P ZONE DESIGN REVIEW Request for revision of Board
of Adjustment Review requirements to include design review for
commercial developments in excess of 10,000 square feet in the
Planned Business Center (C -P) zone.
Mr. Pace reviewed the staff report recommending approval for the
request.
It was noted that the RECOMMENDATION section of the staff report
should be modified to read: Section 18.60.030(2)(F).
John McCullough, 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400, Seattle, WA
98101, represented Toronto Dominion Bank, owner of the Tukwila
Pond property. He felt the recommendation of BAR review would
add further constraints to the development of the Tukwila Pond
Property.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE REQUEST TO ADD DESIGN REVIEW TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OVER
10,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE C -P, C -M AND C -2 ZONES, BASED ON THE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT. ALSO, THE CODE
SHOULD BE SIMULTANEOUSLY MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE DELETION OF
SECTION 18.60.030(2)(F), THE REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS.
ATTACHMENT B
Chapter 18.60
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
18.60.010 -- 18.60.030
Sections:
18.60.010 Purpose and objectives.
18.60.020 Membership.
18.60.030 Scope of authority.
18.60.040 Application requirements.
18.60.050 Review guidelines.
18.60.060 Special review guidelines for Interurban
special review area.
18.60.070 Action by board of architectural review.
18.60.010 Purpose and objectives. It is the purpose
of this chapter to provide for.the =view by public officials
of land development and building design in order to promote
t ii' 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 Sl(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 S1(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
proposed development plans for the following described land
use actions:
(A) Development any part of which is within two
hundred feet of the Green River and which requires a shore -
line substantial development permit;
(B) Commercial development in excess of ten thousand
gross square feet of building floor area in the RMH, P -0, and
C -1 districts of the city;
(C) Development of multiple - family complexes in
excess of twelve dwelling units in the R -2, R -3, R -4, RMH,
P -0, and C -1 districts of the city;
(D) Development of buildings that exceed the basic
height limits of Chapter 18.50;
307 (Tukwila 3/32,
18.60.040 -- 18.60.050
J
(E) All proposed developments north of I -405 and east
of 1 -5 in all zone districts, excluding single - family homes;
(F) Approval of the board of architectural review is
required for all landscape plans in the C -P zone. The BAR
may modify all minimum width requirements according to scale
of the property upon request of the applicant;
(G) Proposed developments which, as a condition of
approval of any rezone or other land use action of the city
council or, as a condition of the responsible official's deci-
sion pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, are
referred to the BAR for design review. (Ord. 1247 Sl(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 Sl(part),
1982) .
18.60.050 Review guidelines. In reviewing any applica-
tion, the following guidelines shall be used by the BAR in
its decision making: •
(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;
(8) 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 're
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;
CD) 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 8,3.
A
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 3.'32
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;
(8) Lighting in connection with miscellaneous struc-
tures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable
to site, landscape and buildings. (Ord. 1247 5l(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) Interurban 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
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;
(0) Proposed property use should be compatible with
neighboring uses and complementary to the district in whi..:n
it is located;
310 (Tukwila 3 3,
Gentlemen:
M. A. SEGALE, INC.
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
Board of Architectural Review
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
An equal opportunity employer
Reference: Bar Review of
Development in C -2 District
January 13, 1988
14, 6c,
1 )LCD - 1 r% ` (/ i ?c s'
We would tend to support your proposed code amendment so long
as constraints, in addition to those already set forth in the
Tukwila zoning code, are not intensified. For example: The
zoning code allows certain heights in certain areas subject
to specific reviews already defined. BAR criteria discuss
"compatability with the surrounding neighborhood." Presently
our city consists of relatively low -rise structures.
Your proposed additional review and proposals in C -2 zone
should not be designed to impose height restrictions or
approval criteria more severe and /or different than those set
out presently in the zoning code. Neighborhood design harmony
and current height should not impose itself on the district
into perpetuity. More intense development will occur at some
time, and we should assure its welcome as property values in
the community continue to increase.
The proposed BAR review process should also have a definite
time line so that the building permit process and development
time frame doesn't stretch out any longer than what it already
is.
The amendment should specifically state in the amended section
that design review would not be required for tenant
improvements.
We are a bit unclear as to what rules and by -laws the Board
of Architectural Review and Planning Commission are operating
under, but we urge that those rules and by -laws be reviewed
to assure that our previously mentioned concerns are addressed
or incorporated in those procedures.
P.O. BOX 88050 ° 18010 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY • TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 • TELEPHONE; (206) 575 -3200
223 -01 -SE -GA -LM - A372NO
h■s
AJN:dem
tz,.. +ni ,vd.t4cs5;,:A •a,= *.W r.:cY • t.. as tut+ se,v =ot vi .aro,san ;s4#naM ae,:e:fPXb` �.7'� M V
C
Board of Architectural Review
January 13, 1988
Page Two
We, too, are looking toward Tukwila's growth, and are hopeful
that quality development and redevelopment will occur in our
town. As land value increases, the quality level of the
projects built typically also increases. We applaud your
efforts in trying to encourage this quality upgrade. But we
caution you also to not create overly burdensome or time -
consuming permit procedures and requirements.
Development is a time and cost conscious activity. Developers
will follow the path of least resistance, and if you over-
burden our community with constraints and time delays, the
projects we want will go elsewhere.
Very truly yours,
M. A. SEGALE, INC.
Ann J. Nichols
._3■/3
......:ac, M∎:%: + :t c iVeal'lM23411.4fUSihal i fak zse.2x t:..sv,ues:a: ratmfeitMA AD Via Z7.. ^n"2.1Z6M FI' �' #3' bJ.,,L&iLMMCalatrkwas ymetwu no:a o wet- ttatramtetmatva' IxtVaa>ia ttant it ;' :'7'
Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
C
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, File.
(21 /NTC.1 - 14)
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
" v
-a-
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board
of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on January 14, 1988, at
8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, to consider the following:
Planning Commission Public Hearing
87 -6 -CA:
City of Tukwila
Amend Tukwila Zoning Code to require design review for prop-
erties zoned Regional Retail (C -2) and Industrial Park (C -M).
Tukwila Downtown
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement
or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be
obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify
your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above
items.
Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday, -JANUARY 3, 1988
APPLICATION
DATE FILE NUMBER` PROJECT NAME
T I
ADDRESS I APPLICANT
FILE`
CROSS REFERENCE ACTION
1
1/28/87
87 -1 -A
FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1
EPIC -3 -87
PASSED
x/27/87
87 -2 -A
JOHN STRANDER ANNEXATION
13530 - 53RD AVENUE S.
JOHN C. STRANDER
EPIC -25 -87
ANNEXATION 1987