HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L97-0013 - CITY OF TUKWILA - NON-CONFORMING USES CODE AMENDMENTL97 -0013
CITY OF TUKWILA - DCD
CHANGES TO NONCONFORMING USES ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COCJCIL AGENDA SYLTrOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
6/23
SI,
10/27
SL
ITEm No.
.... . .... . .. . .... . .... . ..... INFORMATION
•
CAS Number:
Original Agenda Date: 6/23/97
Agenda Item Title: Revision to TMC 18.70, nonconforming uses
Original Sponsor: Council
Admin.
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary: Revisions to TMC 18.70 are designed to limit the ability of nonconforming uses to expand
and encourage maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures.
Recommendations:
Sponsor: Approval of COW to forward to City Council for action
Committee: Forward to COW
Administration: same as Sponsor
Cost Impact (if known): n/a
Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
Action
6/10/97
CAP referred to COW
6/23/97
COW held public hearing on proposed ordinance
Meeting Date
Attachments
6/23/97
Memorandum to COW from Steve Lancaster
6/23/97
Attachment A - Draft version of TMC 18.70 approved by Planning Commission
with D.CD clarifications
6/23/97
Attachment B - Matrix of land uses recognized in Tukwila Zoning Code
6/23/97
Attachment C - Draft ordinance prepared for City Council review
10/27/97
Attachment D - Draft ordinance
10/27/97
Memorandum to COW from Steve Lancaster
z
1
,_.
z
w
6
C- .)
00.
CO
(!) LU
Ili I
- J 1.-
U) u_
uj 0
g
<
-
Z
I- 0
Z
11.1 uj
0
w w
I 0
▪ r-
Ili co
z
0 —
I=
o
MEMORANDUM
TO: Committee of the Whole
FROM: Steve Lancaster c.,
DATE: October 22, 1997
RE: Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70, non - conforming
uses
BACKGROUND
Attachment A to this memorandum is a proposed ordinance revising TMC 18.70.
On July 7, 1997 the City Council held a Public Hearing on the proposed revisions
represented in Attachment A. This hearing was the culmination of a 5 month
process to revise this code section starting with reviews by both the Planning
Commission and the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee and a
Public Hearing before the Planning Commission.
As you may recall, the July 7, 1997 hearing included testimony by Donald Marcy,
the attorney for William O'Connell III, the owner of the Union Tank Works
property and by Mr. O'Connell himself. Both Mr. Marcy and Mr. O'Connell
testified against the provisions prohibiting conversions of one non - conforming
use to another non - conforming use (TMC 18.70.040(5)) and reducing the time
(from 24 months to 6 months) that a non - conforming use may be abandoned
before requiring it to become a conforming use in its zone (TMC 18.70.040(3)).
In essence, Mr. Marcy and Mr. O'Connell suggested that the council:
• Reconsider the prohibition of conversion of one nonconforming use to
another nonconforming use
• Reconsider the reduction from 24 months to 6 months in the amount of time
that a nonconforming use may be abandoned before it must become a
conforming use in its zone.
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommended revisions to
Chapter 18.70, as reflected in the draft ordinance.
z
z
J U;
0 0:
(/) 111
la
J H
N LL
g J:
LLa
d.
=w
z�.
I- 0
Z1:
n • o:
o
w • w`
U.
O;
w
..z
U
0
z
PL''LIC HEARING DRA.F;r'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REVISING CHAPTER
18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE,
RELATING TO NONCONFORMING LOTS,
STRUCTURES AND USES; REPEALING ORDINANCE
NOS. 1758 §1(PART), 1769 §4(PART) AND 1770 §47;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND z
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
t-- W
re u��
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to limit the ability of non - conforming uses 0 0
to expand, and
J
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to allow and encourage the adequate
co p
repair and regular maintenance of non - conforming structures, and 2:
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to improve the clarity and utility of the d
zoning code, towards a goal of reducing the number of non - conforming uses and non- w
conforming structures in our community, z
z o`
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, g �,
o-
o E-.
Section 1. Chapter 18.70 of the Tukwila Municipal Code -- Nonconforming Lots, w w'
r
�o
w z:
0_
It is the purpose of this chapter to establish limitations on the expansion and extension 0
of nonconforming uses and structures which adversely affect the development and Z
perpetuation of desirable residential, commercial, and industrial areas with appropriate
groupings of compatible and related uses.
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Structures and Uses, hereby reads as follows:
18.70.010 Purpose.
18.70.020 Construction approved prior to adoption of title.
To avoid undue hardship, nothing in this title shall be deemed to require a change in
plans, construction or designated use of any building on which actual construction was
lawfully begun prior to adoption of this title and upon which actual building
construction has been carried on in a diligent manner. Actual construction shall consist
of materials in permanent positions and fastened in a permanent manner, and
demolition, elimination and removal of one or more existing structures in connection
with such construction; providing, that actual construction work shall be diligently
carried on until the completion of the structure involved.
18.70.030 Preexisting legal lots of record.
this-title-are/net:
2NONCONF.DOC 10/21/97
ATTACHMENT D
1
,..1:Y.isitS5 :"!'fYj resP 4a1 , r a ..
P1' 'LIC HEARING DRAF7
Any lot not meeting current minimum development standards in its zone may continue
to have uses that are permitted in its zone, if
a) The lot size was legally established before the effective date of incorporation of the
City of Tukwila, or,
b) The lot was a legal lot when annexed by the City of Tukwila, or
c) The lot was legally established prior to the effective date of any City of
Tukwila ordinance that caused the lot to become non - conforming.
18.70.040 Nonconforming uses.
Any preexisting lawful use of land that is made nonconforming under the terms
of this title as- enaeted may be continued as a non - conforming use, defined in TMC
18.06, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to subparts 1 -6 herein the-ferlievvirtg
previsions:
1, No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged -or, intensified, increased nor
extended to occupy a greater use of the land, structure or combination of the two, than
was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title;
2. No nonconforming use shall be moved or extended in whole or in part to any
other portion of the lot or parcel occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption
or amendment of this title;
3. If any such nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than 24 6
consecutive months, or a total of 365 days in a three (3) year time period, whichever
occurs first, any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by this title
for the district in which such use is located;
4. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zone in
which it is located shall be structurally altered, except in changing the use of the
structure to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located; except where minor
alterations are made, pursuant to TMC 18.70.050(1), TMC 18.70.060, or any other
pertinent section, herein;
5. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non - conforming by
application of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in
its zone or a use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process,
subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and /or the City Council.
For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from
one Permitted, Conditional or Unclassified Use category to another such use category as
listed within the zoning code.
6. Any structure, or structure and land in combination, in or on which a
nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, shall thereafter conform to the
regulations for the zone in which such structure is located, and the nonconforming use
may not thereafter be resumed.
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:
2NONCONF.DOC 10/21/97
2
!' x'? ��h4ii�v` �.+, t�..` ��N+ r4nS�or. YtFau. 7n1�:+:+.»±•. r+ r.' rrvC' �++' 1+} Y: r '�PT.uv!nt?4'?T'f*t?'�:VEiN'• ^• �'�•.���tY�':'F,W,t4YFtrr�4!i»j
z
�z
JU
00
0
J
w�
gQ
=d
w- w
zi-
t- O
w
2
o • -
0 H.
w w.
1- • U
O
uiz
U =•
0 I-
z
PL' 1 LIC HEARING DRAFrI.
1. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its degree
of nonconformity. Ordinary maintenance of a non - conforming structure is permitted,
pursuant to TMC 18.70.060, including but not limited to painting, roof repair and
replacement, plumbing, wiring, mechanical equipment repair /replacement and
weatherization. These and other aAlterations, additions or enlargements may be
allowed as long as the work done does not extend further into any required yard or
violate any other portion of this title. Complete plans shall be required of all work
contemplated under this section.
2. Should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of
its replacement cost at time of destruction, in the judgment of the City's Building
Official, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of this title,
except that in the R4 LDR zone, structures that are nonconforming in regard to yard
setbacks but were in conformance at the time of construction may be reconstructed to
their original dimensions and location on the lot.
3. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance whatsoever, it shall
thereafter conform to the regulations for the zone in which it is located after it is moved.
4. When a nonconforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is
vacated or abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and
premises in combination, shall thereafter be required to be in conformance with the
regulations of the zone in which it is located. Upon request of the owner, the City
Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months.
5. Residential structures and uses located in any single- family or multiple- family
residential zoning district and in existence at the time of adoption of this title shall not
be deemed nonconforming in terms of bulk, use, or density provisions of this title. Such
buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original
dimensions and bulk, but may not be changed except as provided in the non-
conforming uses section of this chapter.
6. Single- family structures in single- or multiple - family residential 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.
7. In wetlands, watercourses and their buffers, existing structures that do not meet
the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title may be
remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that:
a. The new construction does not further intrude into or adversely impact an
undeveloped sensitive area or the required buffer;
b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare;
and
c. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter.
8. In areas of potential geologic instability, coal mine hazard areas, and buffers, as
defined in the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title, existing structures
may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that:
a. The new construction is subject to the geotechnical report requirements and
standards of Section 18.45.080E and 080F;
b. The new construction does not threaten the public health, safety or welfare;
c. The new construction does not increase the potential for soil erosion or result
in unacceptable risk or damage to existing or potential development or to neighboring
properties; and
d. The structure otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter.
2NONCONF.DOC 10/21/97 3
jotrvelttw
!Pfrinttan „ H�^ �:^+ L�... r.'++ rx�> 2•. ..,:r�nw...r;�.: +_w,.^TW'N.;'v? wide^' �i. �,. �;.. srh: �M?ntn .'M'6. ^�1A- �rur.,nf,M «�,m,h
z
w.
_JU
UO
CD D
Ilk
J I-
(J)w
w0
w�
D. a
�w
z
z �.
z0
0 co
• 0 H.
w ui'
• L- o
z
U �`
z
Pl ILIC HEARING DRAFT` -`
9. A nonconforming use, within a non - conforming structure, shall not be allowed to
expand into any other portion of the non - conforming structure.
18.70.055 Mobile and manufactured homes.
Legally preexisting mobile and manufactured homes may be replaced. The
replacement must, at a minimum, be with a HUD- approved manufactured home. and
must also meet the following standards:
1. Shall have roofing material that is residential in appearance including, but not
limited to, approved wood, asphalt composition shingles or fiberglass, but excluding
corrugated aluminum, corrugated fiberglass or metal roof;
2. Shall have a minimum roof pitch of three inch rise for each twelve inches of run, or
about 25 %;
3. Shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, which shall
include design specifications for Seismic Zone 3 and wind load factor of 80 miles per
hour;
4. Shall have exterior siding that is residential in appearance including, but not
limited to, clapboards, simulated clapboards such as conventional vinyl or metal siding,
wood shingles, shakes or similar material, but excluding smooth, ribbed, or corrugated ~ � w
1
metal or plastic panels; QQ
JU
5. Shall have the hitch,axles and wheels removed. N o
• w
w=
18.70.060 Repairs and maintenance. co LL u
w O:
If any building is devoted in whole or in part to any nonconforming use, work may be 2
done in any period of twelve consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or ga
replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring or plumbing to an extent not
exceeding 25% of the current replacement value of the building. w
Z 1.-.
18.70.070 Building safety. z o
A. Nothing in this title shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a 2
safe condition of any nonconforming building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by • ° to °o -order of any City official charged with protecting the public safety. �
w w
B. Alterations or expansion of a nonconforming use which are required by law or a
public agency in order to comply with public health or safety regulations are the only z
alterations or expansions allowed. v (0.
01-
18.70.080 Nonconforming parking lots.
A. Nothing contained in the Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations chapter of
this title shall be construed to require a change in any aspect of a structure or facility
covered thereunder including, without limitation, parking lot layout, loading space
requirements and curb -cuts, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of
adoption of this title.
B. If a change of use takes place, or an addition is proposed, which requires an
increase in the parking area by an increment less than 100 %, the requirements of the
Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations chapter of this title shall be complied with
for the additional parking area.
C. If a change of use takes place, or an addition is proposed, which requires an
increase in the parking area by an increment greater than 100 %, the requirements of the
Off - street Parking and Loading Regulations chapter of this title shall be complied with
for the entire parking area.
18.70.090 Nonconforming landscape areas.
2NONCONF.DOC 10/21/97
4
z
PL JLI C HEARING DRAFT.
A. Adoption of the landscaping regulations contained in this title shall not be
construed to require a change in the landscape improvements for any legal landscape
area which existed on the date of adoption of this title, unless and until an
er alteration of the structure requiring Board of Architectural Review is proposed.
B. At such time as a change requiring Board of Architectural Review is proposed for
a use; or structure, and the associated premises whielt does not comply with the
landscape requirements of this title, a landscape plan which substantially conforms to
the requirements of this title shall be submitted to the Board of Architectural Review for
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The BAR may modify the standards
imposed by this title when, in their judgment, strict compliance with the landscaping
standards of this code would create substantial practical difficulties, the existing and
proposed additional landscaping and screening materials together will adequately
screen or buffer possible use incompatibilities, soften the barren appearance of parking
or storage areas, and /or adequately enhance the premises appropriate to the use
district and location of the site.
18.70.100 Conditional and unclassified uses.
A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is
changed to a zone which requires a conditional or unclassified use permit for the use, or
because the use is changed from an allowed use to a conditional or unclassified use
within the same zone; provided, however, the use may not be alloweel -or expanded nor
may buildings may -not be enlarged, altered or modified without first obtaining a
conditional or unclassified use permit if required pursuant to requirements of TMC
18.64 or TMC 18.66.
18.70.110 Nonconforming adult entertainment establishments.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any adult entertainment use or
establishment which is rendered nonconforming by the provisions of any ordinance of
the City shall be terminated or discontinued within 90 days from the effective date of
that ordinance.
1. The owner or operator of any adult entertainment use or establishment which is
rendered nonconforming by the provisions of any ordinance of the City may appeal the
90 -day termination provision of this section by filing a notice of appeal with the City
Clerk within 60 days of the effective date of this section.
2. Within ten days of receipt of a notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall schedule a
hearing on the appeal before a hearing examiner. The hearing shall be no later than 20
days from the date of receipt by the City of the notice of appeal, unless extended by
mutual agreement of the parties. The hearing examiner shall be the City Clerk or
his /her designee.
3. Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays recognized by the City, from
the date of the hearing on an appeal under this section, the hearing examiner shall issue
a written decision, which shall set forth the hearing examiner's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The hearing examiner shall consider the following factors and any
other factors that he /she determines to be relevant or helpful in reaching a decision:
a. The harm or hardship to the appellant caused by the 90 -day termination
provision of this section;
b. The benefit to the public to be gained from termination of the use;
c. The nature of the leasehold or other ownership interest that an appellant may
have in premises occupied by the adult entertainment use;
d. Restrictions or lack of same imposed on an appellant's use of such premises by
a lease or other binding agreement;
e. Amounts expended by an appellant for improvements to such premises or for
necessary equipment and the extent to which those amounts have been recovered
2NONCONF.DOC 10/21/97
5
w. •
PflLIC HEARING DRAFT
through depreciation, tax savings, or whether such improvements are contemplated to
be left as property of the lessor; and
f. Any clear evidence of substantial economic harm caused by enforcement of
the 90 -day termination provision of this section.
4. Any appeal of the 90 -day termination provision filed pursuant to this section shall
be classified as a Type 1 decision to be rendered by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to
the provisions of TMC 18.104 and 18.108.
18.70.120 Sidewalk dedication.
No building setback or landscape area on the subject lot at the time of donation or
easement to the City for sidewalk purposes shall become nonconforming by reasons of
such donation or easement.
Section 2. Repealer. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1769 §4(part) and 1770 §47, as
codified at Chapter 18.70 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, are hereby repealed.
Section 3. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this
ordinance be pre - empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-
emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its
application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force
five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of
1997.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Office of the City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
2NONCONF.DOC 10/21/97
John W. Rants, Mayor
6
z
w'
00
.(O
CO W.
w O'
• a:
z �?
zi-
n o:
ff`.
• 0 I'
w W;
V_0
Z
ILI or.
.0
•
0
z
.Westlake Associates
1 N G O, PO 11 A T C u
2K10 I:(lst1akc Avenue I;atst
Seattle, WA 98102 -:1067
(206) 505 - 9400
(206) 505 -9439 VAX
July 7, 1997
Mr. William L. O'Connell, Ill
UNION TANK WORKS, INC.
P.O. Box 53186
Bellevue, WA 98105-3186
Re: Marketing Union Tank
Dear Bill:
At your request I reviewed the proposed revisions to TMC 1830 as it applies to the
proposed standard to change a non - conforming use that must conform to regulations if
use ceases for 24 months to 6 consecutive months or a total of 365 days within a 3 year
period whichever is less.
With a property iik.e Union Tanks Building it is not practical to expect that you might be
able to fill this property with a tenant consistently in this short a period of time. Your
building is large enough that it takes a business a considerably longer period of time to
select the property. The selection process is more than identify; the property as their
are feasibility studies to complete as well as planning the move. The move alone would
involve logistics to include equipment transter installation and a myriad of other issues. A
good example of this is the experience we had in attempting to lease this building to Bird-
Johnson.
Essentially this short a period of time would not serve the community by finding one ideal
tenant instead of multiple tenants. Beyond this consideration it would place such a
restriction on the property that this zoning change alone would affect the value of this
property considerably. If you have further questions of me let me know.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Lebdis
CCI M
(;OMMI.It(:IA1 h !NUM MINT I1I.AI. FSTA'I1.. L:LHVI(:f S SIN(:P 1I)/h
/Z #! 0922 02P 903 T 0E- '3OSSV 2?lV`1153M
•
00:2T ! LG -L -L
7/7477
A I ,LAS
z
•
J U:
00
cnw;
11/ �.
w 0.
IL. GC'
CO
=d
:
z mow. •
• �.
I- 0
.z
w w:
'D O.
Off'
ww
1--V'
•
a ~O
'0 N'.
•0
z
LAW OFFICES
CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION
70m FLOOR, COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 FIFTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7016
(206) 587-0700
DONALD E. MARCY
July 7, 1997
HAND DELIVERED
Tukwila City Council
City of Tukwila
6200 South Center Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Draft Ordinance Revising Chapter 18.70 TMC
Nonconforming Use Regulations
Dear City Council Members:
'7/0 7
TELEX: 493-8803
FAx: (206) 587-2308
On behalf of Union Tank Works, Inc., we have prepared the following comments
regarding the draft Ordinance Revising Chapter 18.70 TMC. As you may know, Union Tank
Works, Inc. owns approximately 3 acres located at 12065 - 144th Place South in the City of
Tukwila. The property is currently being used for heavy manufacturing purposes and was zoned
and has been used for this purpose for over 50 years until the City adopted its GMA
Comprehensive Plan. Under the GMA Plan, Union Tank Works' property was downzoned to
Low Density Residential.
Due to the hardship on Union Tanks Works arising out of the adoption of the Ordinance
as proposed, we would recommend the following modifications to the draft Ordinance. First, no
changes should be made to the time period established for determining abandonment or cessation
of a nonconforming use. Proposed Section 3 of TMC 18.70.040 reduces the time period from 24
months to 6 months. We believe 6 months is unreasonably short with respect to its application to
properties for which a limited number of potential users exist in the market. Locating
replacement occupants for industrial uses is a multiple month process which with diligent efforts
could easily take more than 6 months. We can provide fact - specific information in this regard
upon request. Similarly, the 365 days in any three -year time period should be eliminated.
Second, we also would recommend modifying proposed Section 5 of TMC 18.70.040 to
allow for a broader category of permitted changes to a nonconforming use provided that the
proposed change in use is within the same Chapter of uses as the nonconforming use and is less
....a...r ....,....,.........,,..-.... rw..re.rs..�,wr..+e�n...�rteal., ..r. v..rw:w*st... we ., «o. «.4
Tukwila City Council
July 7, 1997
Page 2
intense. As we understand the language for proposed Section 5, the only change in use permitted
under the TMC within a particular chapter of uses would be to a use which falls within the same
subcategory of uses as the existing nonconforming use or to a use allowed in the Low Density
Residential Zone. We believe the breadth of this restriction, effectively prohibiting any
conversion of one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, is unnecessary to
accomplish the goals of nonconforming use regulations. The public is not impacted by a change
in a nonconforming use to the extent that the change in use does not result in any greater impacts
and certainly not if the impacts are lesser than those arising under the then existing
nonconforming use. However, the breadth of the prohibition as proposed creates undue
hardships on the owners of the affected properties by eliminating large categories of potential
users from the already small market of similar industrial users.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on behalf of Union Tank
Works. Please call me or my colleague, Staci Jeske, if you have any questions.
DEM:rvh
cc: Mr. Steve Lancaster
Mr. Michael Jenkins
Mr. William L. O'Connell 3rd
216832.D83
Sincerely,
Donald E. Marcy
........ -., .....w :... e... ur. .�.,L.AS.V.I:J13�j�: \ + ✓:+:.tc.? ]1yac..;.emu bit:.{1,10.44.,ic,.1' YmTiiitil .iG:.is? .`54:6V
z
:.�z
re u�
m:
J U�.
O 0;
w z'
w
g• _
u. ¢:
tn
= a,
0.
z F-.
w. W,.
0 N;.
w.
F U;.
LLI
O
z
City of Tukwila
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A
PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, JULY 7, 1997 AT 7:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBERS AT TUKWILA CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD., TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
AN ORDINANCE REVISING CHAPTER 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE,
RELATING TO NON- CONFORMING LOTS, STRUCTURES AND USES.
THE SCOPE OF REVISIONS INCLUDE:
• Substantive revisions to language allowing pre- existing legal lots of record (TMC
18.70.030);
• Reducing the amount of time that a non - conforming use maybe vacant from 24 months to
6 months or 365 days in three years, whichever occurs first (TMC 18.70.040(3));
• Allowing ordinary maintenance on non - conforming structures, to include painting, roof
repair, plumbing, wiring and weatherization (TMC 18.70.050(1));
• Prohibiting expansion of a non - conforming use into additional areas of a non - conforming
structure (TMC 18.70.050(9));
• Requiring non- conforming landscaping to be brought into compliance with code re-
quirements where a change of structure requires review by the Board of Architectural Re-
view (TMC 18.70.090);
• Prohibiting conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use (TMC
18.70.040).
ANY AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT TO VOICE
APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, OR OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE.
THE CITY OF TUKWILA STRIVES TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (206) 433 -1800 BY
NOON ON MONDAY IF WE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE.
DATED THIS <-14, DAY OF
1997.
CITY OF TUKWILA
(f.
Jai E. CANTU
c`r 'Y CLERK
DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEATTLE TIMES, JUNE 27, 1997
/on)
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Mayor Rants
DATE: July 2, 1997
RE: Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70, Non - conforming uses
Attachment A to this memorandum is the final draft to TMC 18.70. The attached draft is the
culmination of a process which began with a request to staff by the Community Affairs and Parks
(CAP) Committee that a comprehensive review of TMC 18.70 be undertaken. A draft of
revisions to TMC 18.70 was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission following a
work session and public hearing. The revisions approved by the Planning Commission were
reviewed by CAP at their June 10 meeting, followed by a review at the June 23, 1997 meeting of
the Committee of the Whole (COW).
In addition to editorial changes that improve the clarity and utility of the code, the scope of the
revisions approved by both the Planning Commission, CAP and COW include:
• Substantive revisions to language allowing preexisting legal lots of record (TMC 18.70.030)
• Reducing the amount of time that a non - conforming use may be vacant from 24 months to 6
months or 365 days in three years, whichever occurs first (TMC 18.70.040(3))
• Allowing ordinary maintenance on non - conforming structures, to include painting, roof
repair, plumbing, wiring and weatherization (TMC 18.70.050(1))
• Prohibiting expansion of a non - conforming use into additional areas of a non - conforming
structure (TMC 18.70.050(9))
• Requiring non - conforming landscaping to be brought into compliance with code
requirements, where a change of a structure requires review by the Board of Architectural
Review (TMC 18.70.090)
• Prohibiting conversions of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use
On the issue of converting one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use (TMC
18.70.040 (5), the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation that prohibited such
conversions, as stated:
"If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non - conforming by application
of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in its zone or a
use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council.
AFB .'7M�(YO!)MSRbN+MYN.?MN14�dfMA: aM, 91YSFS+ v< wi. ew+ eawlw�. o.. wrwiw. wru. �nw+ ��v «ww.v.n�v.�..,w..ur.or.cw.aen _ _ - v�.riunarwl.
Z
z;
re LU2
6
-J U
UO
u) 0'.
W=..
w O:
g.
u_a
s 12 id
Fw
2.
z�
I-0.
Z
U (3,
CO
O—
0 1-.
w W:
• U
a. I-
-
O;
wz
U N;,
0 ~:
z
Memorandum to City Council
July 1, 1997
Re: Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - conforming uses
Following review of this code language initially approved by the Planning Commission, staff
was concerned that the term `change of use' could be interpreted in many ways, resulting in a
code that would be difficult to administer fairly and consistently. Under the language approved
by the Planning Commission, staff felt that any change in a product line offered by a non-
conforming business could be considered a change of use, requiring the entire use to convert to a
conforming use. For example, a `change of use' could occur if a non - conforming grocery store
adds a flower stand or a video rental rack to its product line. Staff does not believe this was the
Planning Commission's intent based upon their review of the code revisions.
Consequently, staff recommended, and the COW has considered, a clarification to the Planning
Commission's recommendation. This approach includes the Planning Commission's
recommended prohibition of conversion of non - conforming use to another non conforming use
(TMC 18.70.040 (5)) as well as the inclusion of a description of what constitutes a change of use,
as emphasized:
"If a change of use is proposed to.a use determined to be non - conforming by application
of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in its zone or a
use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. For purposes
of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one Permitted,
Conditional or Unclassified Use category to another such use category as listed within
the zoning code". "
Staff believes that the definition above clarifies a `change of use' for the successful
implementation of the policy direction recommended by the Planning Commission. This
conclusion was reiterated by the Planning Commission following consultations between staff and
the Chair before the June 23 COW meeting.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt all of the proposed revisions to TMC 18.70, as reflected
in the attached draft ordinance.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Committee of the Whole (, CQW)
FROM: Steve Lancaster`J^�'
DATE: June 18, 1997
RE: Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70, Non - conforming uses
Attachment A to this memorandum is a draft revision to TMC 18.70, approved by the Planning
Commission following a work session and public hearing. The attached draft was also reviewed
at the June 10 meeting of Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee, with a request to
send the matter to the COW. The process to revise TMC 18.70 began in February, 1997
following a meeting with CAP, where members requested that a comprehensive review of zoning
code non - conforming use regulations be conducted by the Planning Commission and staff. Staff
and Commission members developed the attached draft ordinance, designed to limit the ability of
non - conforming uses to expand, and to encourage maintenance and repair of existing non-
conforming structures.
In addition to editorial changes that improve the clarity and utility of the code, the scope of the
revisions approved by both the Planning Commission and CAP include:
• Substantive revisions to language allowing preexisting legal lots of record (TMC 18.70.030)
• Reducing the amount of time that a non - conforming use may be vacant from 24 months to 6
months or 365 days in three years, whichever occurs first (TMC 18.70.040(3))
• Allowing ordinary maintenance on non - conforming structures, to include painting, roof
repair, plumbing, wiring and weatherization (TMC18.70.050(1))
• Prohibiting expansion of a non - conforming use into additional areas of a non - conforming
structure (TMC 18.70.050(9))
• Requiring non - conforming landscaping to be brought into compliance with code
requirements, where a change of a structure requires review by the Board of Architectural
Review (TMC 18.70.090)
On the issue of converting one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use (TMC
18.70.040 (5), the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation that prohibited such
conversions. Staff had originally proposed that conversions continue to be allowed, but that a
defined process be adopted to evaluate such conversions. The following is a brief analysis of the
existing code language, revisions proposed by staff and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
61.4tffireaMMIgter Art.
Memorandum to COW
June 18, 1997
Re: Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - conforming uses
Alternative Number 1: Make no revisions to the existing code language.
Presently, TMC 18.70.040 (5) states:
z
"If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming use of a structure or structure x z
and premises may be changed to another nonconforming use, provided that the Board of a: tu
Adjustment, by making findings in the specific case, shall find that the proposed use is 6 M
more appropriate to the zone than the existing nonconforming use. In permitting such v o
change, the Board of Adjustment may require appropriate conditions and safeguards in . w =
accord with the provisions of this title; -'
U) u_
iii
+'�v�y� This approach will continue to allow conversions of one non - conforming use to another non- 2
:conforming use;?. however- the method to evaluate the impact of such conversions is vague and
Q V Or ..r unclear in the use of the term more appropriate '. This issue was recently addressed by staff N d
through a recent proposal to open a Marine Propeller manufacturing and finishing plant at the 1- _
Union Tank Works site, a conversion subject to this code section. The application was z 1-
withdrawn prior to substantive staff review. z ot-
UCa
,O N:
o1--
Alternative Number 2: Revise the existing code language to allow for conversion of one
non - conforming use to another non - conforming use, with application of specific criteria.
In staff's. original proposal to the Planning Commission, conversions under TMC 18.70.040 (5)
would continue to be allowed but evaluated by specific criteria,: resolving the `vagueness' issue
m.the current "code. The following language was developed by staff:
w w'
1- —
9-O
tii z
o =.
t= 0
"In making the determination of whether the proposed use is more appropriate to the zone z
than the existing non - conforming use, the Board of Adjustment shall review the impacts
that the proposed non - conforming use may have in comparison to the former non-
conforming use. The presence of any of the following conditions will be considered:
Whether there will be an increase in the amount of parking required
Whether there will be an increase in the number of non - commute trips to the site
Whether on -site equipment is altered
4. Whether there is an increase of more than 20% in the number of employees for any shift
Whether noise generated by the proposed use will comply with applicable standards
6. Whether products or on -site services change
7. Whether the proposed use first appears as a permitted use in a less restrictive zone
8. Whether the new use increases the number of dwelling units on the site"
The Planning Commission recommended that conversion of one non - conforming use to another
non - conforming use be prohibited outright..
∎fiW H ' •+6i°
Memorandum to COW
June 18, 1997
Re: Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - conforming uses
Alternative Number 3: Adopt the language approved by the Plann_ingCommission
Following the public hearing and work session on the revisions to TMC 18.70, the Planning
Commission direction on the conversion issue was to prohibit any such conversions. The
following language was approved by the Planning Commission:
"If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non - conforming by application
of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in its zone or a
use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council.
Following review of the proposed code language approved by the Planning Commission, staff
was concerned that the term `change of use' could be interpreted in many ways, resulting in a
code that "would be difficult to administer fairly and consistently. Under the language approved
by the Planning Commission, staff believes that any change in a product line offered by a non-
conforming business could be considered a change of use, requiring the entire use to convert to a
conforming use (this problem currently exists with the existing code language). For example,
would it be considered a `change of use' if a non - conforming grocery store adds a flower stand or
a video rental rack to its product line? Staff does not believe that this was the Planning
commission's intent based upon their discussion of the issues.
Alternative Number 4: Adopt the language approved by the Planning Commission, with
clarification of what constitutes a `change of use'.
Staff has recommended, and the CAP has considered, a clarification to the Planning commission
recommendation. This approach includes the Planning Commission's recommended prohibition
of conversion of non - conforming use to another non conforming use (TMC 18.70.040 (5)) as
well as the inclusion of a description of what constitutes a change of use, as emphasized:
"If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non - conforming by application
of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in its zone or a
use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. For purposes
of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one Permitted,
Conditional or Unclassified Use category to another such use category as listed within
the zoning code". "
Referring to Attachment B, implementation of this alternative would assume that a change of use
would occur when a use switched its numbered category as opposed to the scenario outlined in
Alternative 3. Examples of the change of category scenario include:
Memorandum to COW
June 18, 1997
Re: Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - conforming uses
• Non - conforming drug store (category 106) to non - conforming stationary store (category 106)
- allowed
• Non - conforming drug store (category 106) to non - conforming furniture store (category 105) -
not allowed
Staff believes that a clear definition of a change of use is essential to implement the policy
direction recommended by the Planning Commission.
CONCLUSION •
Staff recommends that the Council schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance,
including the proposed staff revisions, as reflected in the attached `mark -up' version of TMC
Chapter 18.70, and as reflected in the attached draft ordinance.
(c:lcitycouncir supplementar1204matrix.xls)
Page 1 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
, wT,U, 11... ..�
A
B
C
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
M
1
DECEMBER 4, 1995 ZONING CODE USE MATRIX
9
9
®
9
C
a
z
a
a
3
a
2
P = Permitted, A = Accessory, C = Conditional, U = Unclassified
3
Adult day care and adult family homes
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4
Adult entertainment (subject to restrictions)
P
P
P
P
PP
5
Airports, landing f i e l d s and heliports (except emergency sites)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
6
Amusement parks
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Animal shelters and kennels, subject to all additional State and Local regulations (less than
7
4 cats or dogs does not need a permit)
C
C
C
C
C
C
8
Animal rendering
U
I
Animal Veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial
9
required
p
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Automobile, recreational vehicles or travel trailer sales rooms and travel trailer or used car
10
sales lots. N o dismantling of cars or travel trailers nor sale of used parts allowed
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Automotive services, gas (outside pumps allowed), washing, body and engine repair
11
shops (enclosed within a building)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
12
Beauty or barber shops
1'
"
P
P
P
P
p
P
13
Bed and Breakfast lodging for more than twelve guests
C
C
C'
14
Bed and Breakfast lodging for not more than twelve guests
C
C
C
C'
15
Bicycle repair shops
P
P
P
P
P
p
p
p
p
p
PP
16
Billiard or pool rooms
P
A .
P
P
P
'p
P
P
P
A
AP
17
Bus stations
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Ip
p
P
18
Cabinet shops or carpenter shops employing less than five people
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
19
Cement manufacturing
U
U
U
U
U
U
20
Cemeteries and crematories
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
21
Churches and community center buildings
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
22
Colleges and universities
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
__
23
Commercial laundries
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
24
Computer software development and similar uses
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P•
P
P
P
P
25
Contractors storage yards
P
P
P
P
P
PP
26
Convalescent, nursing, & retirement homes for more than twelve patients
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
27
Convalescent, nursing, & retirement homes f o r not more than twelve patients
C
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
28
Convention facilities
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
Conversions of rental multi - family structures to condominiums or owner - occupied multi-
family housing, but excluding the construction of new condominium or owner - occupied
29
multi- family housing.
U
U
U
U
U
U
30
Correctional institutions
U
U
U
U
U
U
L
U
31
Day care centers
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
32
Drive -in theaters
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
33
Dwelling - Single Family (Includes factory built or modular home that meets UBC code)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Dwelling unit - Accessory (Owner occupies one unit, parking, size limit, landscaping
34
required)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
(c:lcitycouncir supplementar1204matrix.xls)
Page 1 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
( c:l citycouncil lsupplemental\1204matrix.xls)
r
Page 2 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
AC
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
RI
a
1
DECEMBER 4, 1995 ZONING CODE USE MATRIX
9
9
®
9
0
a
Z
a
a
6
3
2
g
35
Dwelling - Multifamily Duplex - Triplex - Fourplex units (Max. 14.5 Units /AC)
P
P
36
Dwelling - Apartments, townhouses, row houses, & condominiums (Max. 22.0 Units /AC)
P
37
Dwelling - Manufactured or Mobile Home Park (Max. 8.0 Units /AC)
C
P
38
Dwelling - Multi - family units (Max. 22.0 Units /Acre, as a mixed use development that is
non - industrial in nature)
C`
CI
39
Dwelling - Multifamily units above office, and retail, uses (Max. 14.5 Units /AC)
P
P
P
P
40
Electrical Substation - D i s t r i b u t i o n
C
C
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C 1
C
C
C
41
Electrical Substation - Transmission/Switching
.
U
U
U
42
Essential public facilities, except those specifically listed as a permitted, conditionally
permitted or unclassified use in any of the districts established by this Title.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
43
Family Child Care Home
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
44
Farming and farming and farm- related activities
Financial, banking, m o r t g a g e , other services
CC
C
P
C
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
P
CC
P
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
PP
C
P
C
45
46
Fire & Police Stations
47
Fix -it, radio or television repair shops /rental shops
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
48
Fraternal organizations
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
49
Frozen food lockers f o r individual or family use
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
50
Garage or carport (private) not exceeding 1500 sq /ft on same lot as residence
A
A
51
Greenhouses (noncommercial) and storage sheds not exceeding 1,000 sq /ft
AA
A
A
52
Greenhouses or nurseries (commercial)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
53
Hazardous substance processing and handling and hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities (on -site) subject to compliance with state siting criteria (RCW Chapter 70.105)
(See Chapter 21.08 of this code)
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4 .
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
A4
54
Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (off -site) subject to compliance with state
siting criteria•(RCW Chapter 70.105) (See Chapter 21.08 of this code)
C
C
55
Heavy equipment repair and salvage
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
56
Heavy metal processes such as smelting, blast furnaces, drop forging, or drop hammering
•
C
P
57
High tech uses including research and development, light assembling, repair or storage of
electronic equipment, instruments, or biotechnology with at least 35% office.
P
P
P
P
P
.
P
P
PP
P
PP
58
Home Occupation (Max. 1 non - resident worker, no exterior change, etc.)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
59
Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
60
Hotels
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
61
Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants
U
U
U
0
U
0
0
0
0
62
Industries involved with etching, film processing, lithography, printing, and publishing
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
63
Industries involved with etching, lithography, printing and publishing in conjunction with
a retail component and if meets other performance standards
U
U
U
U
U
U
P
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
64
Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions
( c:l citycouncil lsupplemental\1204matrix.xls)
r
Page 2 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
It
Ii
( c: lcitycouncillsupptementaI \12O4matrix.xls)
f
Page 3 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
A ,�B
G
D
F
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R)
a
s
a
0
u
X
b
C
n
0
1
4 DECEMBER 4, 1995 ZONING CODE USE MATRIX
9
I
p
a
z
a
a
a
x
_
i
z
F•
a
65
Laundries; self serve, dry cleaning, tailor, dyeing
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
66
Libraries, museums, or art galleries (public)
C
C
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP
Manufacturing, processing, assembling and/or packaging of pharmaceuticals and related
products such as cosmetics and drugs in conjunction with a retail component and if meets
67
other performance standards
P
Manufacturing, processing and/or packaging pharmaceuticals and related products, such
68
as cosmetics and drugs
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Manufacturing, processing, assembling and/or packaging of bags, brooms, brushes,
canvas, clay, clothing, fur, furniture, glass, ink, paints, paper, rubber, tile and wood in
59
conjunction with a retail component and if meets other performance standards
P
70
Manufacturing, processing and /or packaging previously prepared materials including, but
not limited to, bags, brooms, brushes, canvas, clay, clothing, fur, furniture, glass, ink,
paint, paper, plastics, rubber, tile, and wood
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Manufacturing, processing, and /or assembling chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents,
soaps, wood, coal, glass, enamels, textiles, fabrics, plaster, agricultural products or animal
71
products (no rendering or slaughtering)
C
C
P
C
P
C
72
Manufacturing, processing, and/or assembling of previously manufactured metals, such as
iron and steel fabrication; steel production by electric arc melting, argon oxygen refining,
and consumable electrode melting; and similar heavy industrial uses
C
C
P
C
P
C
Manufacturing, processing, and/or assembly of previously prepared metals including, but
not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing
73
and hand forging
C
C
C
C
P
P
P
P
C_
Manufacturing, processing, assembling and/or packaging of electrical or mechanical
equipment, vehicles and machines including, but not limited to, heavy and light
74
machinery, tools, airplanes, boats or other transportation vehicles and equipment
P
PP
P
P
Manufacturing, processing, assembling and/or packaging of electronic, mechanical or
precision instruments in conjunction with a retail component and if meets other
75
performance standards
P
Manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging and/or repairing electronic,
mechanical or precision instruments such as medical and dental equipment, photographic
76
goods, measurement and control devices, and recording equipment
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Manufacturing, processing, assembling; packaging of foods (instant, frozen, canned,
preserved), baked goods, beverages, candy, dairy products, and meat (no slaughtering) in
77
conjunction with a retail component and if meets other performance standards
P
P
P
Manufacturing, processing, packaging, of foods, such as, baked goods, beverages (except
fermenting and distilling), candy, canned or preserved foods, dairy products and
78
byproducts, frozen foods, instant foods, and meats (no slaughtering)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
( c: lcitycouncillsupptementaI \12O4matrix.xls)
f
Page 3 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
(cAcitycouncir supplementaM1204matrix.xls)
Page 4 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
— ---- -- - - - -
A
_ --
BC
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
QJR
F•
a
1
DECEMBER 4, 1995 ZONING CODE USE MATRIX
9
9
9
O
a
z
a4
a
p
F
-
6
a
x
2
2
79
Manufacturing, refining or storing highly volatile noxious or explosive products (less than
tank car lots) such as acids, petroleum products, oil or gas, matches, fertilizer or
insecticides; except for accessory storage of such materials
U
U
U
80
Medical and dental laboratories
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
81
Monorails, people movers, and other mass transit systems such as park- and -ride lots
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
82
Mortician and funeral homes
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
83
Motels
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
84
Offices including: medical, dental, govemment, (excluding fire & police stations),
professional, administrative, business, e.g., travel, real estate, & commercial.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P2
P2
P
85
Offices: i.e., medical, dental, government, (excluding fire & police stations) professional,
administrative, business, e.g., travel, real estate, & commercial when offices occupy no
more than the first two stories of the bldg. or basement & floor above
P
•
P
P
86
Outpatient, Inpatient, and Emergency Medical and Dental Commercial Services
P
P
PP
PP
P
PP
P
P
P
87
Parking areas
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
88
Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks,
golf courses, or commercial recreation
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P .
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
89
Planned shopping center (mall)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
90
Plumbing shops (no tin work or outside storage) •
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
91
Private stable with restrictions
A
A
A
92
Public parking lots or garages for private passenger cars
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
P
93
Radio, television, microwave, cellular or observation stations and towers
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
94
Railroad freight or classification yards
U
U
U
U
95
Railroad tracks (including lead, spur, loading or s t o r a g e )
•
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
96
Recreation facilities (commercial - indoor) - athletic or health clubs
P
P
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
97
Recreation facilities (commercial - indoor), including bowling alleys, skating rinks,
shooting ranges
C
P
P
P
PP
P
98
Recreation facilities (commercial - outdoor), including golf courses, golf driving ranges,
fairgrounds, animal race tracks, sports fields
C
C
C
C
99
Recreation facilities (public), including, but not limited to, sports fields, community
centers, and golf courses
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
100
Recreational area and facilities for employees
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
101
Removal and processing of sand, gravel, rock, peat, black soil and other natural deposits
together with associated structures
U
U
U
U
U
U
102
Residences for security or maintenance personnel
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
103
Restaurants including cocktail lounges in conjunction with a restaurant
PP
C
P
104
Restaurants including drive through, sit down, cocktail lounges in conjunction with a
restaurant
P
P
P
P
PP
P
P
P
105
Retail sales of furniture, appliances, automobile parts and accessories, liquor,
lumber/building materials, lawn and garden supplies, farm supplies
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
(cAcitycouncir supplementaM1204matrix.xls)
Page 4 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
( c:l citycounciRsupplementai \1204matrix.xis)
Page 5 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
1
DECEMBER 4, 1995 ZONING CODE USE MATRIX
a
s
a
®
p
p
U
a
U
z
a
X
a
V
f~
�"1'
C3
a
oC
c7
U
v�
0
na.
106
Retail sales, e.g., health/beauty aids /prescription drugs /food/hardware/notions /
crafts / supplies /housewares/electronics /photo. equip. /film processing/books /magazines
/ stationery/ clothing /shoes/flowers /plants/pets, jewelry/gifts /rec. equipfsporting goods
Retail sales, as part of a planned mixed -use development where at least 50% of gross
leasable floor area development is for office use; no auto - oriented retail sales (e.g., drive -
ins, service stations)
.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C'.
C'
P
P
107
108
Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture,
marble works, and the assembly of products from the above materials
C
C
P
C
P
C
109
Sales and rental of heavy machinery and equipment subject to landscaping requirements
of Chapter 18.52
P
P
P
P
P
P
110
Salvage and wrecking operations
P
P
C
111
Salvage and wrecking operations which are entirely enclosed within a building
Schools and studios for education or self im . rovement
P P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
C
112
113
Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, & senior high schools (public), and equivalent
private schools
Storage (outdoor) of materials is permitted up to a height of 20 feet with a front yard
setback of 25 feet, and to a height of 50 feet with a front yard setback of 100 feet; security
required
C
C
C
C C
C C
C
C
C
P
P
P
114
115
Storage (outdoor) of materials allowed to be manufactured or handled within facilities
conforming to uses under this chapter; and screened pursuant to Chapter 18.52
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
_-
116
Studios - Art, photography, music, voice and dance
P P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
117
Taverns, nightclubs
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
118
Telephone exchanges
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
.19
Theaters, except those theaters which constitute "adult entertainment establishments" as
defined by this Code
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
120
Tow -truck operations, subject to all additional State and local regulations
P
P
P
P
P
P
121
Transfer stations (refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency
U
U
U
U
122
Transit center (Regional)
U U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
123
Truck terminals
P
P
P
PP
124
Warehouse storage and wholesale distribution facilities
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
125
Wholesale or retail sales offices or sample rooms, with less than 50% storage or
warehousing
P
126
FOOTNOTES
1
127
t Must be on property adjacent to and not greater than five hundred feet from the Green River, Tukwila Pond or Minkler Pond.
128
2 Must be associated with another permitted use (e.g., administrative offices for a manufacturing company present within the MIC)
129
3 Limited to uses of a type and size that clearly intend to serve other permitted uses and/or the employees of those uses.
_
130
4Allowed only where clearly incidental and secondary to a permitted use.
1
( c:l citycounciRsupplementai \1204matrix.xis)
Page 5 of 5
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN
THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON 8 DAHEIM, PL.L.C.
TACOMA OFFICE
2200 FIRST INTERSTATE PLAZA
POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98401•1157
(206) 572-5050
FACSIMILE (206) 572.4516
REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE
STEPHANIE A. AREND
June 6, 1997
Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
SEATTLE OFFICE
ONE UNION SOUARE
600 UNIVERSITY. SUITE 2101
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 447-9505
FACSIMILE (206) 622-9779
Re: Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
Chapter 18.70, Nonconforming Uses
Dear Mr. 'Jenkins:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the draft revisions to TMC
18.70. It is my understanding that, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
entered into between the City of Tukwila and Baker Commodities, Inc. dated
1996 that the City of Tukwila determined that Baker's facility is a use requiring
an unclassified use permit and therefore is not subject to the provisions of
Chapter 18.70 Nonconforming Uses. If this understanding is inconsistent with
the City of Tukwila's understanding, I would appreciate being advised in writing
upon receipt of this letter.
SAA:sj
: Baker. Commodities, Attn. Charlie Frame
and Ray Kelly (w /enclosure)
Very tru ,' yours,
✓'f
Stephanie A. Arend
[M971570.01611+
RECEIVED
JUN 1 0 1997
f,OMVMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
>:.ts4i1.4,ru:3 ?dilkkS �' :ice- r�t�<fik;; ",���.,��+.;�v;°� �•
Jo •
00."
' v) w i
•
w =;
W LL
• w.oL
J'
w<
..co
• =car•
Ut
z•
z • .
uji
Do.
off'
.0 H.
•w •
o
• F.
z •
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Affairs and Par s Committee
FROM: Steve Lancaster lip
DATE: June 5, 1997
RE: Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70, Non - conforming uses
Attached to this memorandum is a draft revision to TMC 18.70, approved by the Planning
Commission following a work session and public hearing. The revisions to TMC 18.70 are the
latest step in the process initiated in February, 1997 following a meeting with CAP, where
members requested that a comprehensive review of zoning code non - conforming use regulations
be conducted by the Planning Commission and staff. Staff and Commission members developed
the attached draft ordinance which more clearly limits the ability of non - conforming uses to
expand, and also encourages maintenance and repair of existing non - conforming structures.
In addition to editorial changes that improve the clarity and utility of the code, the scope of the
revisions approved by the Planning Commission include:
• Substantive revisions to language allowing preexisting legal lots of record (TMC 18.70.030)
• Reducing the amount of time that a non - conforming use may be vacant from 24 months to 6
months or 365 days in three years, whichever occurs first (TMC 18.70.040(3))
• Allowing ordinary maintenance on non - conforming structures, to include painting, roof
repair, plumbing, wiring and weatherization (TMC 18.70.050(1))
• Prohibiting expansion of a non - conforming use into additional areas of a non - conforming
structure (TMC 18.70.050(9))
• Requiring non - conforming landscaping to be brought into compliance with code
requirements, where a change of a structure requires review by the Board of Architectural
Review (TMC 18.70.090)
• Prohibiting conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use (TMC
18.70.040 (5))
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
t=' :. iV, ia+>t; L' "",i'ss%N .'.4.iN; f:e: ':.a ARj
z
w
re 0 0'
Lo
W Z'
J 1-.
w0.
g -J
(�.
Ci
1- _;
zI.
1- 0
Z
Lu
0.
O 1-
w w
1-- • U. • al
U =
O
~
z
1
Wif
vow eptA
Memorandum to CAP
June 5, 1997
Re: Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - conforming uses
On the issue of prohibiting conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming
use, the Planning Commission chose to recommend tighter control than had been suggested by
staff. The approach chosen by the Commission requires, in staff's opinion, a clearer delineation
of what constitutes a "change of use ". If, in their consideration, the City Council agrees with a
prohibition against changing one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use (TMC
18.70.040(5)), staff proposes the following language be added to the revisions approved by the
Planning Commission to TMC 18.70.040 (5), as highlighted in Attachment A:
"For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from
one Permitted, Conditional or Unclassified Use category to another such use category as
listed within the zoning code ".
Staff seeks direction from the CAP on the revisions adopted by the Planning Commission as well
as the language recommended by staff on the change of use issue.
,z
•
r4 w 2.
uQl D,
.J C.);
U O
and'
W I
co u-
= no
z F
F— o:
z
2
moo:
,a N
ZI
w
H V
co
z!
Z 1—i
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
MEMORANDUM
Bob Noe
Michael Jenkins
May 23, 1997
Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - conforming uses
John W. Rants, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
iwPaa.e- a,;h'a__ f
ak wtt 9 z- o b u
+•- [I eal c- c I wee, k et es ac,1141
rt. p n,irw 6A-
f l y
1011ot.4..ir -ct 7.L.- 1lwec.k_
kra_f-4-9 1 citcutc,G
At the May 22, 1997 Planning Commission work session, members approved the draft
revisions you previously reviewed with a few notable exceptions. As you may recall,
staff sought guidance from the Commission on the adoption of a 15 year abatement for
non - conforming nonresidential uses in residential zones and approval of criteria to
evaluate conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use. The
Planning Commission unanimously approved language that would expressly prohibit
conversion on the non - conforming uses issue and unanimously voted against the
adoption of any abatement of non - conforming nonresidential uses in residential zones.
As a side note, the Planning Commission also indicated in their motion that they
supported improved enforcement of code violations on non - conforming uses in lieu of
an abatement ordinance. William O'Connell III, owner of Union Tank Works, and his
attorney, were in attendance at the work session.
I have attached a copy of the draft approved by the Planning Commission with the
changes mentioned above. I would appreciate your review and comment on this draft
prior to sending the recommended language onto the Council. Of particular concern in
this review will be, in staffs mind, what constitutes a change of use. As our code
includes approximately 125 separate uses, understanding what is a change of use and
how it is defined can greatly impact the adoption and implementation of these proposed
changes.
I would appreciate hearing from you by June 3 concerning these revisions. Thank you.
cc: Jack Pace
Steve Lancaster
c: /msofce...memo /noenc523.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
..,vendor
z
_ 1-":.
Z
cc
JU
• U O:
N p'
tnw
w2
J H:
NLL .
w
Nd.
•
=w
z
1- o •
z
==-•
.w w.
w
Z.
---_,
oI-
z
I.
II.
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director
PLANNING COMMISSIONBOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
AGENDA
MAY 22, 1997
WORK SESSION 6:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS; 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
CALL TO ORDER
ATTENDANCE
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION 6:00 P.M.
L97 -0013
City of Tukwila
Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - Conforming Uses.
City-Wide.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 1,1997
CITIZENS COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items which are NOT included on this
agenda.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L97 -0004: JC Penney Home Store
John Balkovec
Design review approval of a new 60,000 sq. ft. furniture and housewares store.
17200 Southcenter Pkwy, Tukwila.
L97 -0017
Outback Steakhouse
Design review of a 6,300 sq. ft. restaurant and landscaping.
16500 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila.
L97 -0019
Bonsai Northwest
Design review of a 4,800 sq. ft. expansion of an existing greenhouse.
14427 51 Ave. S., Tukwila,
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
.761 C� °.. 34i*Mt8's411.41.11r'.`.'u�': P A z'1 itiu ia"r Yiij 'T• 111441ablits}i?�i`vt' ilia e "„ ;%SL+;1 t•. t.4'06,11 Wit. "3y "[ " ` - .�Jv$.14 'ia'i -'4; `t' ti'-
+u:a0rs?Ms
z
f— W..
re n
J0.
U0
U 0
' cnw
W =;
, 'J I—:
w 0,
s(oa.
W;
Z
I— 0,.
Z !— .
p;
O N
!0 I—
W W
LI 0
• Z;
U�
00
z
Planning Commission Agenda 'x'2/97
Page 2
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Follow up to discussion on the role of the Commission and staff, and running
meetings.
ADJOURN
ye .,r;N`', .irtiS, .; ei KL.mrn.1%.. ;..n+r h�n.=..��, .rv....n. .,.., 1,.. rwm- r.N.,.m)g7M•Fr^.?.iZ• :rnFHek �,r,1�i^:n -•rl <u iR+�!;7;;;,,_
May 19, 1997
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Stephanie Arend
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca
Peterson and Daheim
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401
Re: Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.70, Non-conforming uses
Dear Ms. Arend:
Attached with this letter are draft revisions to TMC 18.70, as referenced above. It is my
understanding that Steve Lancaster left a message for you about these proposed
changes. There is a work session scheduled with the Planning Commission for May
22, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. If you have any questions or comments about these changes,
feel free to contact Steve or myself. My direct line is 431-3685.
Sincerely,
deez4e_c_z
Michael Jenkins
Assistant Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
U) Ur,
• ILI I;
.00 IL:
ID;
. .2
En_
• :LtI
•
• -z
Z I-'
. ILI ID
2 D
D CI'
1.0
Wm
1-
Ley,
- 0
Z;
LIJ u),
o
UNION TANK WORKS, Inc. Since f936
May 13, 1997
SAY 97
DEVELOPMENT
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila WA 98188
Reference: File Number L97 -0011, E97 -0005 (SEPA)
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
RF(r`=1‘,P0
MAY 1 3 1997
GL iviivii.uNI FY
;DEVELOPMENT
Via US Registered Mail
Thank you for meeting with Jack Jackson and me last week. Your help and information is
appreciated. The Application for Change of Use will be submitted this week.
At your suggestion, I am writing to request to be informed of any and all up coming
notices, draft language, meetings, hearings, etc. regarding the above referenced changes. This
activity is critical to our property in Tukwila.
Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention.
Sincerely,
Union Tank Works, Inc.
William L. O'Co►4nell, 3rd
President
c. Donald Marcy
}sr
Plant Location: 12065 44th Place South, Tukwila WA 98178
• Reply Address: P.O. Box 53186, Bellevue WA 98015 -3186 •
(425) 450 -5510 Fax 450 -5560 OConne113 @ msn.com
k.
,44, 41". iitio,c .4ifia Sl F:?N , :":;k'ua:; 3:k'F giak,4;Rito
m5�.,• .�Sv 7(1.�'.r: <:� t�.C:�a:,tii'�ie�r Ir�FiY^4i:.
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
z
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO x
APRIL 24,1997 STAFF REPORT
FILE NUMBER L97 -0013 6
J U ';
0
N 0.
'
U) 111
TO: Planning Commission s
FROM: Michael Jenkins N u.:
uj O.
DATE: May 15, 1997 2
RE: Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70, Non - conforming uses ga
u- a:
(12.d.
At their.May 1, 1997 public hearing on revisions to TMC 18.70, Planning Commission members x w
expressed concern about three provisions and the effect their implementation may have on the z �`
community. Members raised the following questions: z O:
• Are revisions allowing conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use n • o
stringent enough or can they be expressly prohibited ,o N
o H,
• Is the 15 year time frame for abatement of non - conforming nonresidential uses in residential w ui
zones is of an appropriate length ▪ v:
• How many non - conforming nonresidential uses in residential zones are in Tukwila "-- 0
, Z
To assist in review of these issues, staff consulted with the City Attorney to determine the o I
legality of the proposed revisions. This updated draft, included as Attachment B, also includes z
requested revisions to TMC 18.70.030 that improves the utility of the code. These remaining
issues are answered below:
Conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use
As outlined in the draft ordinance, staff developed criteria to evaluate conversions from one non-
conforming use to another non - conforming use. Prior to these revisions, staff lacked clearly
stated criteria to evaluate these requests. As presented, the criteria provides a concise threshold
that the proposed use would have to meet prior to approval by a Hearing Examiner. Bob Noe of
the City Attorney's office indicated that this type of conversion could be prohibited or the
criteria and process may be strictly drawn to make such conversions difficult. Bob further
indicated that prohibiting conversions may be problematic if the proposed use is markedly
similar to the existing non - conforming use. He also expressed concerned that expressed
prohibition may skirt issues of due process raised in the Baker Commodities decision.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
'� 1 [''�� �slt� . �Y: 17�f: �• �i .�Yti.iR•e/r'. ^n.�t:Mrsi`u±i+iv "ink �•'v�.'�ir�l:L7 �i�i•
a
*Yff A4 i.4u."1.CiSw '611442 ha. ili`i '..1 C$1°. 'i. ItTeigt4 15V` ±Fi33`°dift�
Based on staff review of this issue, the Planning Commission has three options for TMC
18.70.040:
1. Adopt the criteria presented in the Attachment B
2. Prohibit any conversions of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use
3. Make no change to existing code
15 year time frame for abatement of non - conforming nonresidential uses
At the hearing, Planning Commission members expressed concern about the appropriate length
of time that should be allowed for abatement of non - conforming nonresidential uses in
residential zones. Members were also concerned about when the ordinance would take effect
and when the ordinance would be applied. Staff brought these issues up to the City Attorney.
Bob Noe indicated that the 15 year time frame seems quite reasonable and that a reasonableness
test would be applied to this ordinance. Bob also indicated that 15 years seemed somewhat long
but staff and Commission members should keep in mind that the shorter the time frame, the
greater the possibility that it would be interpreted as not being reasonable. In regard to the
applicability of the ordinance, the Commission may adopt language that would make the
applicability date from the date the ordinance is adopted by the Planning Commission.
Based on staff review of this issue, the Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Adopt the proposed 15 year abatement time frame
2. Increase the time frame
3. Make the time frame shorter than 15 years
4. Do not approve the code language
Examples of non - conforming nonresidential uses in residential zones
Staff reviewed available information concerning existing non - conforming nonresidential uses in
residential zones. Staff has determined that there are seven (7) such uses. These uses are
included in Attachment C to this document, stating the name of the business, current owner,
address, parcel and zoning information. These uses include:
• Automobile repair and sales
• Wholesale /retail nursery
• Automobile salvage
• Fraternal Organization
• Sales of topsoil
Page 2
Ga,' to , ':.t:. : t:: . ifs" }
.14"i '�R .,.t !"`f ��f'!i�}.Y.r 4!i4%n,"7'::�f,�,.kf_ iii: R4Yl is�`. �' S1hi: Fb: ily: �' r. 1=+ �' �"! � ''ii�,.�`�vaet11is5a�lG:1+^YA. �X.ikQ'.''J�A. T!� %5'Y.��.u: }E+�l,F. ib�'�.(�+ii";5. F�iit�S `Ce��+S��/.?tfi��.t,'Yb�%�w.h I�lAW5.13 Mi�{1'
z
ix w.
U O'
;. co 0
cn w
al
J
'w 0
ga
IL. a.
w
mo.
Z
z 1-
;o cn
Ot
u.1—
kJ z
V=
O ~.
z
If the Planning Commission adopts the recommendation that would require these uses to be
abated in 15 years from adoption of the ordinance, members may want to consider revising the
Conditional Uses section of TMC 18.10 -18.14 (LDR, MDR and HDR) to make one or all of
these uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit for new uses or if these existing uses seek any
expansion.
Conclusion:
Staff seeks direction and a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward for City
Council review on:
• The revised language for TMC 18.70.030
• Criteria to evaluate conversions of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use
• A time frame for abatement of non - conforming nonresidential uses in residential zones
• Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit process for evaluating new or expansion of
existing uses now considered as non - conforming nonresidential uses in residential zones
_ 6.ln.c..., r;.:....... *.<ur .. :s
Page 3
k:+..." L..,a4rtiryct *M`' ?,,4;,5'irt.;a FMCS { "�47ttk. 1 ?,"''..z'i5,i„u�.✓i:.a`Yi tr�''r tiYw`�:d� ?..qtr �Sw...w,.e.tt�;,rct�.:i .,:,..=„7;r: �'.a'•.:,i.�l<
TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO: All DCD Staff
FROM:. Steve Lancaster
SUBJECT: Code interpretation relating to Unclassified Uses
DATE: May 9, 1996
INTER- OFFICE MEMO
Attached is a code interpretation relating to unclassified uses. It reflects recent case law,
including Baker Commodities v. Tukwila, that distinguishes intensification of non - conforming
uses from expansion of such uses. I will be attending the Planners meeting next Tuesday (May
14) and will be happy to provide additional background at that time. For those of you who do
not attend that meeting, see Jack or me if you have questions.
BC_INTRP.DOC
: 4:• ubtr.': 4r.2 3: i.;. a�;: � ..uii;��,a�iairvlta�f�aiF�hi�A r.,t- �h!.,vr'�Si'�aUa'�1i:.3ks�2x'
�; d1,X311.;f:z:<i >�, off.;: nnwr. �. ..x,�.a;v�k}:e:ds,•ra:xti�kY'•i. i;v: s+i9S yi.�:` j:;r:z
CODE INTERPRETATION FORM
CODE INTERPRETED:
SECTION NO.:
DATE INTERPRETATION MADE:
Interpretation:
(1) Normal Upkeep, Repairs and Maintenance.
ZONING CODE
18.66.020 USES REQUIRING AN
UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP)
AN-t. 3,
Normal upkeep, repairs, maintenance, strengthening, or restoration to a safe condition of any
building or structure being used as part of an unclassified use shall not require a new or revised
unclassified use permit. The replacement of existing structures with either new structures of
equivalent size and/or capacity, or with new structures which do not change the use and do not
constitute an expansion or enlargement as described below, shall not require a new or revised
unclassified use permit; provided that, in any event, any structure that is non - conforming by
reason of its height, bulk, or setbacks shall not be re- constructed in a manner which increases the
extent of the nonconformity. Nothing in this interpretation shall modify applicable requirements
that such construction work may require a building permit or other construction permits
pursuant to TMC ch. 16 (construction codes).
(2) Effect of Changes to Zoning Code or Zoning Map.
A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed to
a zone which requires an Unclassified Use Permit for the use, or because the use is changed from
an allowed use to an unclassified use within the same zone; provided, however, the use may not
6503AG01.rdj code intcrp
0:1;
".1e444', .1144e4,141VAZZP%
4
RDJ/18555/31665
be expanded or buildings may not be enlarged without first obtaining an unclassified use permit
for such expansion or enlargement if required pursuant to requirements listed under.
Intensification and Expansion, below.
(3) Intensification and Expansion of Animal Rendering Facilities.
In addition to the structures permitted pursuant to paragraph 1, above, existing animal rendering
businesses shall be allowed to construct new facilities to update and/or modernize such use
without needing to obtain a new or revised UUP if such construction involves an intensification
of the permitted existing facility. For purposes of this interpretation, "facilities" shall refer to all
structures, including tanks, processing equipment, buildings and other improvements used in the
rendering operation, and "intensification" shall mean new construction shall meet all of the
requirements below. Any proposed new construction which fails to meet one or more of the
requirements of intensification shall be considered an enlargement or expansion, and shall require
an application for a new or revised UUP for the facilities which constitute the enlargement or
expansion.
A. The construction of new facilities shall be considered an intensification and may be
permitted without the need to obtain an Unclassified Use Permit (UUP), if:
1. The total area of the site is not increased.
2. The construction of new facilities does'not generate more than ten new
vehicle trips at peak hour, as determined pursuant to established City policy and procedure
related to traffic concurrency.
6503AG01.rdj code inter')
2
• • { +.
z
HZ
w-
UO:
0:
.w w:
J H.
N LL;
o
u.
i d'
w
• E' _,
F-•
z E-
LIJ
D• o.
• N.
O 1-'
,w W!.
,w o,
•z
U
�
z
RDJ/18555/31665
3. No new facilities are located in the River Environment or Low Impact
portion of the Shoreline.
below.
4. The new facilities will comply with the performance standards set forth
5. The construction of new manufacturing facilities does not result in more
than a 5% cumulative increase in the manufacturing capacity of the processing facility.
6. The construction will not increase the extent of any nonconformity of any
structure by reason of its height, bulk or setbacks.
Any proposed new facility which does not meet criteria A 1 through A6, above, shall be
considered an enlargement or expansion, and shall comply with the provisions of TMC Ch.
18.66, Unclassified Use Permits.
C. Whether or not a proposed new facility is considered an intensification or an
expansion/enlargement, all other applicable codes such as construction codes, SEPA, etc., shall
continue to apply.
D. Performance Standards
The following performance standards shall apply to rendering plants, in addition to the
performance standards for the applicable zoning district:
1. Any new facilities constructed at a rendering plant which will be used for
storage or transmission of liquid or semi - liquid products will be protected by containment
facilities capable of preventing the release of any product into surface or ground waters in the
3
6503AGO1.rdj code interp
c, '�•';r. , .. x'z' #�...r...,.rf 4.vl .i „!,:!t�tC: +lfii``:c�i<r {+is�. 'iris':��:; ?.kY�d GSti t %ris 9ol��aa '��. '. : "iii ti7` br'i? .N`^�J+2tt.J3i�1*; .7i3':S rhl�'. l�vV�iP1A 't14fxV1e+aG� + "•»4-4,4k3 :,* t i�.S.is s&A;a.°9`V4,1&.4*;u: :'^ `i..t�:+Rt�.. 6f.. '�'a'•z . '�iRfi �'r�5 `si.''YiM�.
z
•„w:
• J U'
UO:
U U:
u)w
Ill I'
w a •
u.
I D-
= w.
1—=
• Z
1--O.
•U
'O N
= V',
•u-0;
Z'
• H F=-
O
z
RDJ/18555/31665
event of a spill or breakage. If more than one storage or transmission facility is protected by a
containment facility, such containment facility shall be of sufficient size to contain a spill of the
largest storage or transmission facility so protected.
2. Any new facilities will utilize the best feasible odor abatement equipment
and shall be designed, constructed and operated so that the new facilities will not increase the risk
of odor emissions from the site.
3. The facility, including both existing and new facilities, shall comply with
applicable air pollution control requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency,
including both procedural and substantive standards.
4. A copy of the current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
(SPCCP) as required by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency shall be on file with the
DCD.
(4) Why Was This Interpretation Developed?
Legal action taken by Baker Commodities, Inc., has resulted in the need to clearly articulate
objective circumstances under which modifications to Baker's rendering plant require the
processing of an Unclassified Use Permit under the provisions of the Tukwila Municipal Code,
and when such a permit is not required.
4
6503AG01.rdj code intcrp
RDJ/18555/31665
(5) What is the Justification of the Interpretation?
Court decisions like the one involving Baker Commodities, Inc., focus upon a distinction made by
our courts between improvements proposed to existing facilities that involve an "intensification"
of the use and those which involve an "expansion or enlargement" of the use. Expansions or
enlargement of the existing use are subject to requirements related to obtaining a new or revised
use permit, such as a new or revised UUP for Baker Commodities' animal rendering plant. A
proposed improvement which involves an intensification of the existing use, however, does not
necessarily trigger a need under our zoning code to apply for a new or revised use permit.
Without criteria, it is difficult to determine when a proposed improvement to an existing facility
constitutes an intensification or instead involves an enlargement. This interpretation provides
that criteria, and provides notice and guidance to owners of existing facilities with Unclassified
Use Permits, the public, city agencies and the courts as to when new improvements constitute an
intensification and when they constitute an enlargement or expansion. In addition to providing
guidance, this interpretation furthers the City's goals of encouraging owners of such facilities to
update, modernize and improve its facilities to minimize existing impacts upon the surrounding
vicinity, without being inhibited from doing so because of the uncertainty as to whether the
improvements require obtaining a new or revised UUP.
6503AG01.rdj code interp
5
�.� ,� k; •�;�'�i43i5'::��;,Ki fir. rti Sci24 a }:(v1'iNu'tx3i'�i1Y��tx
T 6.1",'l1t,40 �YF�c�i h'it
z
et
6
_iO
o O';
CO W
• W =.
1-,
N LL
W O:
2
ga.
co
=W
Z �.
I- o'
w H•
2 j!
N.
o
W w'
▪ V
W
ui z`
U N•
H
O
z
•
RDJ/18555/31665
(6) Normal Upkeep and Repairs.
These provisions articulate what has been the historic practice of DCD. They also recognize
court decisions that have upheld the rights of property owners to maintain legally established
improvements and investments.
(7) Effect of Changes to Zoning Code or Zoning Map.
These provisions echo similar provisions of TMC 18.70.100 relating to conditional uses. There
is no logical or policy basis to treat conditional and unclassified uses differently with regard to
the effect of code or map changes.
Signature of Interpreter: �` = (
Approved By:
Department of Community Development Director
6503AG01.rdj code intcrp
6
Date: N(4-1 3 151' co
Date: Ab-) 3. 155C.
iR rn,r``:t iFu4i,: i:c sd`�a'itz�z�'i a4GSSa «'siiFr,aih..FS (.k.; inn aS �uih %S.7.K;tiiw <en„ tia �x2is fsi ,>
w
00
W=
ICJ 0,
g .711
�d
Z I-
�0
Z �.
D CI,
o�
w W
V;
um
111 Z'
O 1—:.
,
A F F I D A V I T
SIL\l /\ M
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
el‘1"113'1"1S12i hereby declare that:
KNotice of Public Hearing
fl Notice of Public
O Board of
Packet
fl Board of
Packet
Meeting
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
0 Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
0 Short Subdivision .genda
Packet
0 Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
PlI
was } leto each of the following addresses on
ODetermination of Non -
significance
fl Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
ODetermination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Notice of Action
Official Notice
El Other
0 Other
ektP�.'6A R or)
�F— 1im. &-s
Name of Project Signature
File Number 1 " DOI ?) or- -p- t- ivtotLk
j--C11 - 000+ – . frAopm 0,0A6 ocAz
o 1- o T Aoc ST. MLt 1OU5E
c_61,1 - 00 1 - ,, r3gA I Aj W -1
�i�k:�r?:x :r'�.'.'°t 'iy;• ;.::�r firi< ;r �'y:k `1FSa,+,L"y.Cs{`- kicS= i3 G5..�i41;1�r"''m.AA.g rtittit`SfBi.. is.kadt<IV.4*,113i4,441 ;�'• s y. tr v,
'C�:F�s: atC! +�9�^iR3f7nsi ,•�xl.a`�''fui�:!S.a;i �'. �Stvk`^ �saTA' �Y.* 3i�5Ska '�:S•.tnfiii��%riz�;.:�si1�
z
_I
mow'
J U;
U O
o
vow
• w =.
w O:
7,
w a;
.c
I-w.
z�
0'
z
Dp:.
:0
'
z
"VW
—:
• z
PUBLIC NOTICE
City of Tukwila
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., on May 22, 1997; in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the
following:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
L97 -0013
City of Tukwila
Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non - Conforming Uses.
City -Wide.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0004: JC Penney Home Store
APPLICANT: John Balkovec
REQUEST: Design review approval of a new 60,000 sq. ft. furniture and
housewares store.
LOCATION: 17200 Southcenter Pkwy, Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L97 -0017
Outback Steakhouse
Design review of a 6,300 sq. ft. restaurant and landscaping.
16500 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0019
APPLICANT: Bonsai Northwest
REQUEST: ' Design review of a 4,800 sq. ft. expansion of an existing
greenhouse.
LOCATION: 14427 51 Ave. S., Tukwila.
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 Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your
neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published: Seattle Times
May 9, 1997
Distribution:
Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent
Property Owners, File.
A
City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Noe, City Attorney's Office —
FROM: Michael Jenkins, Assistant Plann r t)
RE: Revisions to TMC 18.70, Non -con ng uses
DATE: May 2, 1997
At their May 1, 1997 hearing on proposed revisions to TMC 18.70, the Planning
Commission was concerned about two issues that may have some legal implications if
entacted. As you know, criteria under TMC 18.70.040 was developed to evaluate the
impacts of converting one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use. At the
hearing, concern was expressed by the Planning Commission that these types of
conversions should be accommodated at all. In addition, members were concerned
about the proposed 15 year time period to abate non - conforming non - residential uses
in residential zones (TMC 18.70.070 (7). Some of the members were unsure as to
whether the provision can or should be retroactive or if the length of time was
appropriate.
I would appreciate input from you concerning:
• How stringent can the city be in allowing conversion of one non - conforming use to
another non - conforming use
Is a 15 year time frame to abate non - conforming non - residential uses in residential
zones appropriate and when would be the effective date
I have attached a copy of the strikeout code for your review. I will be out of the office
from May 7 -12. The information you provide will be included in a report to the Planning
Commission due May 15. I would appreciate it if we could discuss this issue on May 6
or when I return on May 13.
Thank you
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
3413, OPAKV
z
z 1—
ww
JU
00: •
moo•
CO w',
• III I;
w
ti
•
.Na
z
1-.i.
z�
.z 1-:
11J w,
.0 COY
w W'.
z.
w
.o
z
• . • • • • • I • • , •
•
'n
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE:
NOTIFICATION:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
SEPA.
DETERMINATION:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENT:
Prepared April 24, 1997
May 1, 1997
Notice published in the Seattle Times on March 14, 1997
for original hearing scheduled on March 27, 1997. Second
notice published in Seattle Times on April 18, 1997 for
May 1 hearing
L97-0013
E97-0005 (SEPA)
City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development
Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.70, Non-
conforming uses
City wide
Pending
Forward a recommendation of Approval of the City
Council
Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner
A. Proposed code revisions
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
' Mt.,a=11:aatt:&tlittit:oWt...Atissuiv,m11=;0445iIiikal.:01rtirrithstiKrizMi'R4W-ANigis;',...653V1.'k)r
.__Q 1A
Staff Report to the L97 -0013
Planning Commission Non - Conforming Uses
FINDINGS
BACKGROUND
This report is a follow up to the memoranda on proposed revisions to Tukwila Municipal Z
Code (TMC) 18.70, Non - conforming uses, presented at the February 28, 1997 Planning F .
Commission meeting. In January, 1997 staff proposed revisions to TMC 18.70 to the w
re
Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee that would establish decision criteria for 6n
evaluating non - conforming uses. CAP was concerned that more revisions were needed, v p
including a review of the length of time that a non - conforming use may be "grandfathered"
and whether the city should continue nonconformity's by allowing one non - conforming use
to be converted to another non - conforming use. To study this issue, staff obtained relevant co u_
code sections concerning non - conforming uses from the cities of Auburn, Bothell,
ui O
Lynnwood, Kirkland, Renton and SeaTac. g =,
u-
Staff revisions to TMC 18.70 are intended to improve both the utility of the code and the w,
process for evaluating non - conforming uses. Staff is particularly concerned with 4 issues: Z
1- O
• Limiting the ability of non - conforming uses to expand w
• Providing more ways for non - conforming uses to contract o
• Encouraging maintenance and repair .0 Y2
• Restricting time clock on non - conforming uses ° F"
w W:
1— V':
U-
O:
Z.
Conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use (TMC 18.70.040) v co
0
Of the jurisdictions researched, most allow for one non - conforming use of a property to be
replaced by another non - conforming use. Such changes are currently allowed if the impacts
of the new use are not greater than the previous use, nor is the intensity of the non-
conformity allowed to increase. However, this approach is vague and does not provide a
method to effectively evaluate the scale and scope of the non - conformity. Lynnwood's code
does provide criteria to evaluate this type of action. Lynnwood's code also prohibits a new
non - conforming use if it is substantially different than the existing non - conforming use. The
term `substantial' is determined based on application of goals, zoning standards and the
following:
SCOPE OF REVISIONS
• An increase in parking
• On -site equipment is substantially altered
• Products or services rendered on site change substantially
• New use first appears as a permitted use in a less restrictive zone
• New use increases the number of dwelling units on the site
Page 2
Staff Report to the L97 -0013
Planning Commission Non - Conforming Uses
Abandonment of non - conforming uses (TMC 18.70.040/050)
TMC 18.070.040/.050 provides a 24 month threshold if a non - conforming use is abandoned
or ceases activity. In reviewing other jurisdictions, a 6 month time frame provides a
consistent threshold. Some jurisdictions allow for either 6 consecutive months or 1 year
total in a three year time period. Kirkland has the most stringent standard by only allowing a
3 month time period. Renton also a 24 month time period. Revisions to this section would
also require non - conforming uses in the LDR, MDR or HDR zones to be discontinued 15
years from the date that the original use became non - conforming.
Decision process for non - conforming uses (TMC 18.70.040)
The decision process used by jurisdictions reviewed varies, as well as the chain of authority
for appeals. Kirkland, Edmonds, SeaTac and Auburn use a hearing examiner to make a
determination on non - conforming uses, with a decision process similar to Tukwila's Type 4
process with closed record appeals to the City Council. Bothell's process requires the
Planning Director to issue findings, with appeals to a Board of Adjustment and then to
Superior Court. In Lynnwood the Planning Commission is the deciding body, with appeal to
the City Council.
Pre - existing Legal Lots of Record (TMC 18.70.030)
The current language concerning pre - existing legal lots does not provide distinction as to
when a pre - existing legal lot is established. While the current language requires that basic
development standards be met, it should clarify when lots are considered a pre- existing legal
lot.
Minor modifications to non - conforming structures (TMC 18.70.050/060)
TMC 18.70.060 allows for ordinary maintenance of structures where non - conforming uses
are located, as long as repairs do not exceed 25% of its current replacement value. TMC
18.70.050(1) presently does not allow for non - conforming structures to be enlarged or
altered in a way that increases its nonconformity. The revision would allow for ordinary
maintenance to be performed, pursuant to TMC 18.70.060 and further defines the type of
maintenance allowed.
Modifications to existing structures devoted to a non permitted use (TMC 18.70.040)
Currently, this code section does not allow for an existing structure housing a non - permitted
use to be structurally altered, unless it is done so to change the use of the structure to a use
that is permitted in its zone. The proposed revisions to this section would allow the same
type of ordinary maintenance afforded in TMC 18.70.050/060, stated above, to such
situations.
y
Page 3
4�41atLeCu�i€,, �v +ua•�'l6i�x?jid,'+df:tFX�Fb5,�4 2'titgfLv.'� `tV .0 %: F.c•
tt
.��i+�.}if�?7f�'�. �, ": titSF�•.%./a2i:'vix:
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission Non - Conforming Uses
L97 -0013
Conditional and Unclassified uses (TMC 18.70.100)
Minor modifications to this code section are intended to incorporate revisions concerning
modification or expansion of unclassified uses as agreed on between the City of Tukwila
and Baker Commodities, Inc.
CONCLUSIONS
The goal of the proposed revisions to TMC 18.70 are intended to provide greater distinction in
evaluating non - conforming uses through the establishment of criteria and a decision process. The
revisions also bring the issue of abandonment of non - conforming uses closer in line to other
jurisdictions and provide additional support to enable maintenance of non - conforming uses and
structures. The following is a summary of the proposed revisions:
Current Standard
No criteria to evaluate impacts between non-
conforming uses.
Proposed Standard
Evaluate impacts based on changes in parking,
vehicle trips, employees per shift, noise registered
off -site, alteration of equipment, changes in product
or services, if non - conforming use is a permitted in
a less restrictive zone or increase in number of
dwelling units on site.
A non - conforming use must conform to
regulations if use ceases for 24 months.
A non - conforming use must conform to regulations
if use ceases for 6 consecutive months or a total of
365 days within a three year time period, whichever
is less.
No time limit on abatement of non - conforming
non - residential uses in a residential zone.
Non - conforming non - residential uses in residential
zones must be abated within 15 years after original
use became nonconforming.
An authorized use or structure may be erected on a
pre - existing legal lot of record containing less area
that required for its zone, provided setback and
dimensional standards are met
A lot not meeting minimum square foot or
dimension requirements may be used for permitted
uses provided lot was legally established at city's
incorporation, when annexed or prior to effective
date of any ordinance making lot non - conforming.
The code is currently silent on expansion of a non-
conforming use into a non - conforming structure.
A non - conforming use may not be allowed any type
of expansion within a non - conforming structure
Ordinary maintenance of non - conforming
structures and on structures housing nonpermitted
uses are not expressly allowed
Ordinary maintenance of non - conforming structures
or on structures housing nonpermitted uses is
defined
Legal non - conforming uses may not be allowed or
may not expand without obtaining a conditional or
unclassified use permit, where required.
Legal non - conforming uses may not expand, be
altered or modified without obtaining a conditional
or unclassified use permit, where required.
Hearings on non - conforming uses follow Type 3
process before Board of Adjustment.
Hearings on non - conforming uses follow Type 3
process before Board of Adjustment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the revisions outlined above, as incorporated in Attachment A, be approved
Page 4
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
MEMO
Planners
Diana Painter
Parking for industrial /business parks
April 19, 1996
In conjunction with the parking study, we've studied the parking for the mixed use developments
in the Tukwila Urban Center, which include the office and business parks, office buildings and
complexes, and various types of retail outlets and complexes. The differentiation is made
between business parks and industrial parks based on the average square footage of businesses
in the complex. In general, the business parks contain a mix of commercial services, retail, office
and warehousing. The industrial parks contain a mix of warehousing, office and retail. There is
very little Tight industrial use in either development type.
The existing parking ratio is based on the existing parking for the complex. For the business
parks, the existing parking ratio ranges from 2.5 to 3.75 stalls per 1000. In the industrial parks,
the existing ratio ranges from 1/1000 to 1.25/1000. The parking based on use is an approximate
calculation of the number of stalls that would be required in the development today, based on
current codes and the current mix of uses. This figure is less consistent than the existing parking ��' ',v"
ratio. In general, however, the business parks are 'overparked' according to the current code, and v,.
the industrial parks are 'under - parked.' This would seem to indicate that the types of uses
planned for the business parks is the same as exist there today, whereas there is an increase in ) .\ •
uses such as retail and office that require higher parking ratios in the industrial complexes. �� �� �`'. �,1n
BUSINESS PARKS
Andover Executive Center '1
340 -628 Industry Dr.
Mix of office, services & retail
Andover Executive Center 2
605 -774 Industry Dr.
Mix of office, services, retail
& warehousing
Koll Business Center la
805 -981 Industry Dr.
Mix of retail & services
Koll Business Center lb
800 -998 Industry Dr.
Mix of services, office, retail
& warehousing
Total sf # Bus.
exs.N Pk •Q; �
Extg.
Pkg ratio based �\ '.,,ti"
on use -�)� s ��
N1/4)
L.
117,945 sf 50 3.25/1000 2.5/1000
119,509 sf 35
3/1000 2.25/1000
82,189 sf 26 3.75/1000 2.5/1000
117,360 sf 46
3/1000 3/1000
Koll Business Center 2
1000 -1164 Industry Dr. 170,002 sf 54 2.5/1000 2/1000
Mix of services, office,
retail & warehousing ,
Z.
rt w
6
UO.
` cunw
J
w
w o:
u. Q'
(o
= d;
Z
F- O'
Z
ui
off;
LI w w'
O
Ni
0�'
Z
Koll Commerce Center
601 -699 Strander BI.
Mix of services, office,
retail & warehousing
INDUSTRIAL PARKS
89,725 sf 55
Tukwila Industrial Center
1105 -1191 Andover Pk. W. 469,800 sf 22
Mix of light industrial, office
& warehousing
Andover Industrial Park #4
551 -583 Strander B.
Warehousing
Upland Drive Business Park
340 -378 Upland Dr.
Mix of retail & warehousing
162,450 sf 4
3.75/1000 2.25/1000
1/1000
1.25/1000
1/1000 1/1000
106,060 sf 7 1.25/1000 3/1000
Upland Tukwila Industrial Park
305 -379 Upland Dr. 258,598 sf 6 1.25/1000 2.25/1000
Mix of retail & warehousing
:=..: 4.1:.iti'+i•.1,:a',..,i5::€1.:e
j Z..
2,
U,
UO
W w.+
co
0:
J'
•u_' a
• I- w
Zf-;
w W>
D p;
O -7;
z'
U_ NTTyT �.
o.
z
t
Retail Parking Survey in Urban Center
TYPES OF RETAIL
Square
Parking
Existing
Required
Deficit or
BUILDINGS IN CBD
footage
ratio
parking
parking
surplus
5rs:,
42*
m wtg
Kinko's
f 1 ri ^'
4, 5 t 0OO
16,076
s �Y ,t
4/1000
:Lfl. ',,;4 if1S %; 3J l tf'
64 -22
Paper Zone
22,800
4/1000
50
91 -41
Skarbos
23,422
4/1000
51
93 -42
Computer City
24,600
4/1000
66
98 -32
Office Depot
25,380
4/1000
62
102 -40
Sears Homelife
30,320 4/1000
105
121 -16
Pacific Linen
34,714 4/1000 48
139 -91
i'e stab'-n. � ' .'
Circuit City
>A'" ; 7 0' •AilCt
88,076
7 h£ } a 3j '
:,S1 :
• ii • F" ia '
4/1000
167
352 -185
Future Shop /Best
101,590
4/1000
225
406 -181
Home Depot
146,506
4/1000
685
586 99
Eagle
154,633
4/1000
456
619 -163
Costco
' >. V:'
• •
A, • ., •h.Wut',.
Pavillion Mall
'J� '„
t��,� i• N
�} f 7
I '�s{�:%*�,P�'i: 1'.tt
222,968
4/1000
589 891 -302
y� bb +J'%i
�'f i!�pf�S�f i�'iAi:!'*
��`� 61; ;� f r{�j''i'Py
A X7{4 .��i�fi•�'.1
265,000
M'J M1'+ v r'' r,, a
t. �,, HA MM—, ,j( �". ,!{��s �a•''F•.n
L { i�'; p}, yi"��i �,C(�- "Yt�e
'',i�1MW • "M .fi.f..M• b�.J •l i�iF'!��i...
4/1000 1520
q t. .r
rZY�;LS� {�,�is'u1•;:!'rnLq L�, \t�Y
i 5" Ali `�Y�' •^'. "! ) >�e�{'� J {{
:�.N4�+1�m�i ".. X+��i "� ��: Fn '1 rriYYi• 'y
1060 460
Southcenter
Mall 1,628,520
pa: �.' ,'�.. (Q�!$f'lT1t,��Y
':" ��
Retail 11 28,006
5/1000 **
�: R..r +iE vt'l',,4
7 i•
3- Jf w f r.
t�1 ���a�;l� �ga� ,
4/1000
7166
4;;' i i'i
� �,ii'{��
i, irv{ -,,tie
���; � ^r °�;,, _;•s;7��,L,�r':;;.•r:�
232
.r 4, ^�* �1����� e{ •.
e. 4' .
i'' }.•
�i�is� .,1����:a�„ °�;u.�' <,�'��w •
112 120
, • .4
• .. ' ��a..
Southcenter
Center Place
zi"`
f.
44,680
i :,*�`iiNi f
... t, �!'.IL ?�t,t.•4'7..
96,795
4/1000
sic'- }:•,Y..
fi t �,rt � a �l: ty,'a;.
",�.�,.r %i.X. k:tl�w :.L ,�i'.}'�fs.
4/1000
154
t y ,
t. ` ?� ria, t :Jtta
Y,g ;^ �v }��`��`������tttt
480
179
ir; t
�, •, 3 *';1'•; ~; '
y,J:,ifi't r +l� F G.r*...s
387
25
T u 'rye `• ;,.4 e
�'.`f v'{S'e�'r ..
93
S ��y•
' v + � ri
.. ..
Parkway Square
Segale Retail Mali
108,000 4/1000
486
432
54
Park Place
163,629 4/1000
840
655
185
Southcenter Plaza
171,663 4/1000
750
687
-63
Parkway Plaza
345,795
4/1000
F �'�i �'i��
.:. � "vr.� (1.4`,'�"`
' 4/1000
1536
� �( ;
u.:�« �eti1:4{�
1383
tf::f :".. f'1.:•'+e'F'�rY�'�il•
J iVrr�.k'�'����`Tfnt;f
153
t•.L.: a
�A��^.`�'Sy1 ?!t�3
41
� �
Q [. - . -
Tukwila Park
�y
Ce �v..
27,761
* Does not include shared parking arrangement
* *5/1000 + 3 stalls per 100 seats over 750 seats for theater, minus 4/1000
sf of restaurant
Prepared by Department of Community Develop 7/16/96
Page 1
1
•Z
Z;
• w:
.0 0
cv
cn w
w z,
0 LL'
wO.
� a. •
• I u1
Z I_
Z
uj
2
U�
o I-
'aid
w
LL ~:
•
• W
;
tiz:
U =.
H:
.'Z
A F F I D A V I T
Notice of
fl Notice of
OBoard of
Packet
O Board of
Packet
Planning
Packet
C
Public Hearing
Public Meeting
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
Commission Agenda
Q Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
Shoreline Management Permit
Wr-A0
was mailed to each of the following addresses on
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
ODetermination of Non -
significance
fl Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
fl Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
fl Notice of Action
fl Official Notice
0 Other
0 Other
Name of Pro j ectNOVI PDVITDInvo vim, 141S Signature
File Number (A-1- al 1
z.
HZi
OOH
`moo;
cn w
w 1_
co
w O,
g J.
u.
=d:
Z• =
ZO
n
0-
0 H
w:.
LL P
w z'
U.
O ~',
z
.4.
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
PUBLIC NOTICE
City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Director
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review will be holding a public meeting and public hearing at 7:00 p.m.,
on May 1, 1997; in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to
discuss the following:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PUBLIC MEETING
L92 -0084
Great Bear Motor Inn /Total Art Corp.
Design review approval of a 20 foot freestanding sign.
14420 Pacific Highway, Tukwila.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
L97 -0013
City of Tukwila
Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70,
non - conforming uses.
City -wide.
L97 -0020
Don Williams, Tukwila Parks and Recreation
Planning Commission determination of the parking requirements
for the Tukwila Pond Park.
299 Strander Blvd, Tukwila.
L97 -0023
City of Tukwila
Adding provisions to the Tukwila Municipal Code related to the
temporary residential use of recreational vehicles at active
construction sites.
City wide.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
0 "4: 04S4W V a . K ritth lab- -41. 4AilF;xts4 ak+. ". Er &i rttr 4%
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0004: J.C. Penney Home Store
APPLICANT: John Balkovec
REQUEST: Design review approval of a new 60,000 sq. ft. furniture and
housewares store.
17200 Southcenter Pkwy, Tukwila.
LOCATION:
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 Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your
neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published: Seattle Times
April 18, 1997
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent
Property Owners, File.
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared April 9, 1997
Hearing Date: May 1, 1997
Notification: Notice published in the Seattle Times on March 14, 1997
for original hearing scheduled on March 27, 1997. Second
notice published in Seattle Tines on April 1997 for
May 1 hearing
File Number:
Applicant:.
Request:
Recommendation:
SEPA Determination:
Staff:
Attachments:
L97-0011
E97 -0005 (SEPA)
City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development
Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.70, Non-
conforming uses
Forward a recommendation of Approval of the City
Council
DNS
Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner
A. Proposed code revisions
BACKGROUND
This report is a follow up to the memoranda on proposed revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
18.70, Non - conforming uses, presented by Steve Lancaster at the February 28 Planning Commission
meeting. As you will recall, staff had proposed "housekeeping" issues related to TMC 18.70 with the
Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP), specifically to apply a decision criteria process to non-
conforming uses. CAP was concerned that more significant revisions were needed, including a review of
the length of time that a non - conforming use may be "grandfathered" and whether the city should
continue nonconformities by allowing one non - conforming use to be converted to another non-
conforming use. To study this issue, staff obtained relevant code sections concerning non - conforming
uses from the cities of Auburn, Bothell, Lynnwood, Kirkland, Renton and SeaTac.
SCOPE OF REVISIONS
z
w.
0 0.
co 0-
cow:
• w
J 1
u u-.
W 0;
Conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use (TMC 18.70.040) N
= d;
Of the jurisdictions researched, most allow for one non- conforming use of a property to be replaced by I- al .
another non - conforming use. Such changes are allowed if the impacts of the new use are not greater than z
the previous use, nor is the intensity of the non- conformity allowed to increase. However, this approach z Og.
is vague and does not provide a methodology to evaluate the scale and scope of the non - conformity. ,� D'
Lynnwood's code does provide criteria to evaluate this type of action. Lynnwood's code prohibits a new v O. •
non- conforming use if it is substantially different than the existing non - conforming use. The term 'O N
`substantial' is determined based on application of goals, zoning standards and the following: 'w H
W
s
V,
H
u- �-`
• An increase in parking _ O.
• On -site equipment is substantially altered . Cu z
• Products or services rendered on site change substantially .0 =:
• New use first appears as a permitted use in a less restrictive zone p E-`
• New use increases the number of dwelling units on the site z
Abandonment of non - conforming uses (TMC 18.70.040/050)
TMC 18.070.040 -.050 provides a 24 month threshold if a non - conforming use is abandoned or ceases
activity. In reviewing other jurisdictions, a 6 month time frame provides a consistent threshold. Some
jurisdictions allow for either 6 consecutive months or 1 year total in a three year time period. Kirkland
has the most stringent standard by only allowing a 3 month time period. Renton also a 24 month time
period. Revisions to this section would also require non- conforming uses in the LDR, MDR or HDR
zones to be discontinued 15 years from the date that the original use became non - conforming.
Decision process for non - conforming uses (TMC 18.70.040)
The decision process used by jurisdictions reviewed varies, as well as the chain of authority for appeals.
Kirkland, Edmonds, SeaTac and Auburn use a hearing examiner to make a determination on non-
conforming uses, with a decision process similar to Tukwila's Type 4 process with appeals to the City
Council. Bothell's process requires the Planning Director to issue findings, with appeals to a Board of
Adjustment and then to Superior Court. In Lynnwood the Planning Commission is the deciding body,
with appeal to the City Council.
Pre - existing Legal Lots of Record (TMC 18.70.030)
The current language concerning pre - existing legal lots of record is somewhat vague in regard to how
much less area will be allowed if new construction occurs. Tukwila's code does not include a minimumJ.- ?
threshold below current requirements where new development on the lot would continue to be allowed.]
Further, in review of code language in other jurisdictions, a threshold indicating when a legal lot was
established was an essential part of the code.
Vacating or abandoning non - conforming structures (TMC 18.70.050)
As with the case of a 6 month threshold for changes of non - conforming uses, the jurisdictions reviewed
also had a 6 month provision for non- conforming structures. When the structure is abandoned or vacated
for a continuous 6 month period, the structure must then conform to requirements of the zone where it is
located. The revisions proposed to this section would also require that the structure conform with
Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements as well.
Non - conforming signs (TMC 19.28.030)
Presently, regulations concerning non- conforming signs are included in Title 19, Sign Code. However,
to improve the utility of TMC 18.70, a reference to that portion of the sign code is proposed.
Minor modifications to non - conforming structures (TMC 18.70.050/060)
TMC 18.70.060 allows for ordinary maintenance of structures where non - conforming uses are located, as
long as the repairs do not exceed 25% of the current replacement value of the building. TMC
18.70.050(1) presently does not allow for non- conforming structures to be enlarged or altered in a way
that increases its nonconformity. The revision would allow for ordinary maintenance to be performed,
pursuant to TMC 18.70.060 and further defines the type of maintenance allowed.
Modifications to existing structures devoted to a non - permitted use (TMC 18.70.040)
Currently, this code section does not allow for an existing structure housing a non- permitted use to be
structurally altered, unless it is done so to change the use of the structure to a use that is permitted in its
zone. The proposed revisions to this section would allow the same type of ordinary maintenance
afforded in TMC 18.70.050/060, stated above, to such situations.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed revisions to TMC 18.70 are designed to provide greater distinction in evaluating non-
conforming uses through the establishment of criteria and a decision process. The revisions also bring
the issue of abandonment of non - conforming uses closer in line to other jurisdictions. The following is a
summary of the proposed revisions:
• Z
_ 1-
re w.
00.
4 co
cn
w z,
J 1i
wo
d:
Z F.. .
Of
Z F-
11J au
•
gyp;
u
w w'
1- -
Z
iii
O ~•.
Z
/^�((,,���yy + (��}� : ?:'i ti :.; ... } ? {.Y. • .'CvS,,.l: {: • .. Y l.:rAfyr..q
�•4'.fi1ti14:7h:Mi4�ii.'iF..R ����{RIv���Yy • .�tr;� ?} ..� Y.S{
vv:;'•::: F{{ qi:{^}}' • }:{:vri' }"•:V'.•Y. +•}}'tr+}n +:: +•.v .'�.,�:n .'5.•:� fv: 4+f iG}}:�iX�
.
No criteria to evaluate impacts between non-
conforming uses.
+. :..:... ......:::.:.........:.: � .......::...
}��jy}� .:�i�:iyiS�M�ri : i{ Si} tiiri �S:ii4U' }:�4i:::i::�SL: {':{ .
f Ti•+�+�'X� i }' {ij?C{'ffi }Si+. �Lihri?hTi` +C � tr.
.KN:.+(? .: }T. } . r: F. }} }; ;LL?x• ;rr.•.: C(........':h..... � C;^ MC:n.... +
Evaluate impacts based on changes in parking,
number of vehicle trips, number of employees
per shift, amount of noise registered off -site,
alteration of equipment, change in product or
services, if non- conforming use is a permitted in
a less restrictive zone or increase in number of
dwelling units on site.
A non - conforming use must conform to
regulations if use ceases for 24 months.
A non - conforming use must conform to
regulations if use ceases for 6 consecutive
months or a total of 365 days within a three year
time period, whichever is less.
No time limit on abatement of non- conforming
non- residential uses in a residential zone.
Non - conforming non- residential uses in
residential zones must be abated within 15 years
after original use was determined to be non-
conforming.
An authorized use or structure may be erected on a
pre - existing legal lot of record containing less area
that required for its zone, provided setback and
dimensional standards are met
A lot that does not meet minimum square foot
or dimension requirements may be used for
permitted or authorized uses provided that lot
was legally established at city's incorporation,
when annexed or prior to effective date of any
ordinance making lot non- conforming and lot
width /dimensions are at least 80% of current
minimum standard in its zone. Provisions do
not extend to meeting UBC requirements.
The code is currently silent on expansion of a non-
conforming use into a non - conforming structure.
A non - conforming use may not be allowed any
type of expansion within a non- conforming
structure.
• non- confori • i g structure may b- , a int or
a.andoned •.r 24 month before ' is requi -d to
co - e with regu . ' • - : ' its zone
A non -c. • 'orming s ucture may be vac
•. .oned for 6 conse . p' -.L.
t or
otal
: ' 65 d. '' 'n . hree year time peri.L
bef e it is a rel".N . onform with regulations
zone -'•- • • •►.: -„'.
application.
Non - conforming signs are governed under TMC
19, Sign Code
Non - conforming signs are governed under TMC
19, Sign Code and is referenced as such in TMC
18.70
Ordinary maintenance of non- conforming
structures and on structures housing nonpermitted
uses are not expressly allowed
The type and nature of ordinary maintenance of
non - conforming structures or on strucutres
housing nonpermitted uses are defined
Hearings on non - conforming uses follow Type 3
process before Board of Adjustment.
Hearings on non- conforming uses follow Type 3
process before Board of Adjustment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the revisions outlined above, as incorporated in Attachment A, be approved.
To:
Steve Lancaster
Jack Pace
MEMO
From: Diana Painter
Subject: Non - conforming parking and landscaping areas
Date: March 28, 1997
SUMMARY
, imv 0 vet -l4
0( c.e / Cat tL1tel.-ii
L k �Ll A
to �F i Ge-
Jack asked me to look at these sections of the code, to see if I thought changes needed to be made at this
point in time (ie at the same time we're changing the non- conforming use section). In short, I don't think so.
There are problems with changes we are making with parking requirements, but I don't think changing the
non - conforming section of the parking code will fix that. A change to 4 /1000 for retail and 3/1000 for office
in the TUC may make some parking lots in the business parks non - conforming in the future,lbut we don't
often enforce this. (c4-- A• 0.1 }-; T' —" .., t- ,�, vay)UYc plulu.e A ieciit wu.ei� J
The parking requirements of 4/1000 for retail in the TUC has made many of the smaller, free - standing retail
structures non - conforming (see memo on retail parking, 7- 16 -96). However, they would only have to be
brought into conformance if they build an addition that more than doubled their building size. This seldom
occurs, so this area of the code is also, in practice, fairly ineffectual. Unless we are having parking problems
in the TUC,.I don't really see a need to change the code
We will be changing the non - conforming landscaping section of the code when we do the landscape code
revisions this summer.
'4
The following is an evaluation of the nonconforming parking and nonconforming landscape areas sections of
our code, based on what typically happens in redevelopment here.
NONCONFORMING PARKING LOTS
The current code says that if a change in use would result in a doubling of (presumably) required parking,
then the whole lot has to be brought into conformity.
Evaluation: Most of our `changes of use' consist of a conversion of light industrial uses to retail uses. This
always means a doubling of the required parking area in single tenant buildings. The standard for industrial
is 1 space /1000 sq. ft. The (proposed) standard for office is 3 spaces /1000 sq. ft. The standard for retail is
2.5 or 4 spaces /1000 sq. ft. All these latter requirements represent a doubling (or more) of the required
number of spaces. Therefore, in most cases, a change of use for single tenant buildings means that the whole
parking area must be brought into conformity.
If the change in use consists of just one tenant turning over in a multiple tenant, mixed use building, then this
. provision would typically not be an issue, as the required parking would not typically be doubled.
I would say that this aspect of the code is working the way 11 should - when a building converts to a new
use, parking must be brought into conformity. IPhen just a portion of the building converts, it typically
does not have an impact on parking requirements. however, we do not evahtate on an on -going basis the
`use' category of mixed use buildings, and therefore do not enforce this aspect of the code. But most
mired use buildings or developments in the City are not currently imderparked, in terms of parking
requirements. This may change in the future.
Z
•
W
C4
J 0'
0 0;
W=
w 0,
J.
ur
d`
�W
Z�
I-0`
Z I-
.2n
•v
W W'
h=-0-
•
U. 0,
Z,
uy
O ~:
Z
1 Y"
?-0/-1
The new code requirements wit! make more mixed use buildings Iron- conforming ill their parking areas, if b
the conversion of light industrial to office and retail space continues as 0 trend. f we monitor the uses in
' \ ,t,,9 the buildings, and determine that the one new tenant that Breaks the camel's back' means re ro g to
N \vgAt
ey
parkin area, the will result in a hardship for these projects. It will impact the ►v/lole project, because one
tenant will not be able to et their business license until the parking lot is roug /il up -to -code. Also, most
oft projects are Galt ! -ant. 7/le oar y place o adl<! ir`ali/ilionci! p % nig spaces is if they take out some
landscaping. Therefore, requiring these projects to be brought up -to -code will be detrimental to the built
environment (see memo on parking for business parks, 4- 19 -96). The way we `solve' tllis problem now is
that we don't monitor the uses in these projects.
w
ce"'
fps t��'f
The current code says that Wan addition is proposed that represents less than a doubling of the size of a
structure, then just the new parking area has to be in conformance with code.
Evaluation: Most additions are smaller than a doubling of the building size. Therefore, the parking-to-
building ratio required by today's codes applies only to a portion of the site.
While the impact of this regulation is negligible, in terms of making sure that parking supplies are
adequate, This is not significant. Historically, most developments in the City have been overparked rather
than underparked, so we're not likely to run short of parking spaces any lime soon.
The current code says that if an addition is proposed that represents more than a doubling of the size of a
structure, then the whole parking lot must be brought into conformance.
Evaluation: It is not typical that a renovation to a building results in more than a doubling of the building
size. if the building size is doubled, they have to bring the whole parking lot up -to -code. If a business
doubles the building size, they are typically doing a lot of site renovation anyway.
Note: If we re- define change of use to be `more than' a change between light industrial, office, retail or
residential, this would make a difference in the above evaluation of impacts. The recent tank works case
comes to mind - the way we usually define change of use, the proposed new tenant would not trigger a
change in use.
If we re- define change of use so that the whole building has to be `one thing', this would make a difference
in the above evaluation of impacts. In other words, if we call a building that is occupied by 40% retail, 30%
office and 30% industrial (which happens quite often) a retail building, this will have an impact. If we
continue to pro -rate the parking requirements based on uses at any one point in time, then there is little
impact.
NONCONFORMING LANDSCAPE AREAS
This is not clearly written: "At such time as a change is proposed for a use; or structure, and associated
premises which does not comply... " The `change in structure' is not clear - what kind of change? How
extensive? `Change in structure' should be defined using the type of thresholds we use elsewhere in our
code, or the building code.
The way 1 read this section, it says that a landscape plan has to be submitted to the BAR every time there is a
change in use or change in structure, and the property already has non - conforming landscaping. 1 am not
familiar with this ever happening, in which case the code is not effective, in that we don't use it. I agree with
the premise though - that the BAR has the discretionary ability to judge whether the intent of the code is
being met.
This will be `fixed' with our new landscape standards and landscape guidelines. 1 anticipate that we will
establish more flexible standards, so that there are more options for bringing landscaping up -to -code. If
welt: k
/'I
i
there are more options, and fewer landscaped areas are non- conforming in terns of the code, it should be less
necessary to have the BAR review special situations
Related to this, Vernon tells me that the way we have dealt with this provision in the past is that we have
required a wider landscaping strip for the portion of a building occupied by a new use. This makes no sense
at all, because it would typically impact the circulation in the parking strip, and not fulfill the intent of the
code to screen certain types of businesses. Presumably, if there is a change of use in one part of a building,
this would not be terribly apparent on the facade, and screening needs shouldn't differ drastically. It also
impacts the streetscape, which typically is improved by being made more consistent, not less consistent.
Note: We also need to address the problems we (the City) create when we make private property
landscaping nonconforming by requiring sidewalks.
cc '` ,Michael Jenkins •
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
M E M O R A N D U M
Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner
Bob Noe, City Attorney's Officd
March 20, 1997
Amendments to non - conforming use provisions.
As we discussed, attached you will find my copy of your staff
report with my penned in suggested changes to the text of the
proposed language. Mike and I will get back to you after we review
the Baker Commodities settlement and evaluate what impacts it has
on the changes proposed. Thanks.
cc: Steve Lancaster
Jack Pace
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
,z
�- Z
ay
w.
°J U
00:
LLi
w 0'
lL Q•.
'ma;
Ci
p
Z
Oi
ZI-.
� p
1O co;,
wT w,
Vim,'
O;:
.0 N,
H
Z ''
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Communily Development Steve. Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared March 20, 1997
Hearing Date: March 27, 1997
Notification: Notice published in the Seattle Times on March 14, 1997
File Number: L97 -0011
E97 -0005 (SEPA)
Applicant:
Request:
Recommendation:
SEPA Determination:
Staff:
Attachments:
City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development
Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.70, Non-
conforming uses
Forward a recommendation of Approval of the City
Council
DNS.
Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner
A. Proposed code revisions
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
1
Background
This report is a follow up to the memoranda on proposed revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code
(TMC) 18.70, Non - conforming uses, presented by Steve Lancaster at the February 28 Planning
Commission meeting. As you will recall, staff had proposed "housekeeping" issues related to
TMC 18.70 with the Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP), specifically to apply a
decision criteria process to non - conforming uses. CAP was concerned that more significant
revisions were needed, including a review of the length of time that a non - conforming use may
be "grandfathered" and whether the city should continue nonconformities by allowing one non-
conforming use to be converted to another non - conforming use.
To study this issue, staff obtained relevant code sections concerning non - conforming uses from
the cities of Auburn, Bothell, Lynnwood, Kirkland, Renton and SeaTac.
Conversion of one non - conforming use to another non - conforming use
Of the jurisdictions researched, most allow for one non - conforming use of a property to be
replaced by another non - conforming use. Such changes are allowed if the impacts of the new use
are not greater than the previous use, nor is the intensity of the non - conformity allowed to
increase. However, this approach is vague and does not provide a methodology to evaluate the
scale and scope of the non - conformity. Lynnwood's code does provide criteria to evaluate this
type of action. Lynnwood's code prohibits a new non - conforming use if it is substantially
different than the existing non - conforming use. The term `substantial' is determined based on
application of goals, zoning standards and the following:
• An increase in parking
• On -site equipment is substantially altered
• Products or services rendered on site change substantially
• New use first appears as a permitted use in a less restrictive zone
• New use increases the number of dwelling units on the site
Abandonment of non - conforming uses
TMC 18.070.040 -.050 provides a 24 month threshold if a non - conforming use is abandoned or
ceases activity. In reviewing other jurisdictions, a 6 month time frame provides a consistent
threshold. Some jurisdictions allow for either 6 consecutive months or 1 year total in a three year
time period. Kirkland has the most stringent standard by only allowing a 3 month time period.
Renton also a 24 month time period.
z
W
ug D
—I C.)
U O'.
CO CI
cnw.
w =:
• J l...:
CO
0.
Q.
11...
a:
Z�
Z o'
al III
U�.
co
o I—
w w,.
zi
H ='
0 ~'
Z
Decision process for non - conforming uses
The decision process used by jurisdictions reviewed varies, as well as the chain of authority for
appeals. Kirkland, Edmonds, SeaTac and Auburn use a hearing examiner to make a
determination on non - conforming uses, with a decision process similar to Tukwila's Type 4
process with appeals to the City Council. Bothell's process requires the Planning Director to
issue findings, with appeals to a Board of Adjustment and then to Superior Court. In Lynnwood
the Planning Commission is the deciding body, with appeal to the City Council.
Conclusions
The proposed revisions to TMC 18.70 are designed to provide greater distinction in evaluating
non - conforming uses through the establishment of criteria and a decision process. The revisions
also bring the issue of abandonment of non - conforming uses closer in line to other jurisdictions.
The following is a summary of the proposed revisions:
G 4 K IXy
oS:: .tin • •v:\ \.......�....... n.. ...:. ...... •
No criteria to evaluate impacts between non-
conforming uses.
Evaluate impacts based on increases in
parking, increases in the number of vehicle
trips, an increase in the number of
employees per shift, amount of noise
registered off -site, alteration of equipment,
change in product or services, if non=
conforming use is a permitted use in a less
restrictive zone or increase in number of
dwelling units on site.
A non - conforming use must conform to
regulations if use ceases for 24 months.
A non - conforming use must conform to
regulations if use ceases for 6 consecutive
months or a total of 365 days within a three
year time period, whichever is less.
No time limit on abatement of non - conforming
non- residential uses in a residential zone.
Non - conforming non - residential uses in
residential zones must be abated within 15
years after original use was determined to be
non - conforming.
Hearings on non- conforming uses follow Type
3 process before Board of Adjustment.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the revisions outlined above, as incorporated in Attachment A, be
adopted.
Hearings on non - conforming uses follow
Type 3 process before B9arEl -ef tijnstment.
(60
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
aNotice of Public Hearing
hereby declare that:
❑ Determination of Non - Significance
❑ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Mitigated Determination of
Non- Significance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
❑ Determination of Significance and
❑ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Scoping Notice
❑ Planning Commission Agenda Packet ❑ Notice of Action
❑ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet ❑ Official Notice
❑ Notice of Application for ❑ Other
Shoreline Management Permit
❑ Other
❑ Shoreline Management Permit
was mailed/
to each of the following addresses on: "57i( / i
Seattle Times for publication on March 14,1997
File Number L 1 b/ 3 Signature
Name of Project lu0R WVL rVbvlt A �-
c, ^r,,.'^�^,n s "�i:`� .:i:"',;�`tiKS�`: 3t:y::rlt Ynvyr• :wa "- rmat°6R"i! 4W.145 :",�f:'Ji+i' .tglit:;iii.YX `r' •:IiSL. iCti 4 ::drii i 't'%a`'Y ciNlR + wx , is 'z'' ,,2o f•.s�v(f... ^ ,
^¢•t �2�kX�li•^1o31 y�b°F!l��R?'�7Gd4�f'.. - SA." L�. �1fB�fl "%:�'ti�7F,���,u�!'.�ai:ns'wa
z
a•
t- z;
▪ U:
•N O
CDw
•
N u.
w O
J
:co a`
,-- al
O •
• z�
w w;
w wl
H U'
uiz
0
•z
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
PUBLIC NOTICE
City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Director
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., on March 27, 1997; in
the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the
following:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
L97 -0013
City of Tukwila
Revisions to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.70,
non - conforming uses.
City -wide.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
L96 -0079: B.P. Gas Station
Evan Zefkelis, dba Tukwila Station, L.L.C.
Construction of a gas station with separate car wash and
convenience store.
16200 West Valley Highway, Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER: L97 -0008: Design Review
L97 -0007: Shoreline
APPLICANT: John Walker, Teutsch Partners
REQUEST: Design review and shoreline permit approval for a new 60,500 s.f.
light industrial building.
LOCATION: 13075 Gateway Drive (Gateway Corp. Center), Tukwila.
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 Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your
neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published: Seattle Times
March 14, 1997
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent
Property Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 O (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
_..
Rm' °d'f =vrel 2Grp*+»v.-•nm+n +- ow-.mrt.w«+...szr�"s.e..n.+��.. -+ nrrc.;. nr .^n�.w�ncm..orrxmti.k.»s5v,oNF ".(COYSe"4.1'?,K0.?: -Arf
z
~ w
—I 0,
U 0:
CO
CO
w =,
H!
LL:
w
uu<
-a
z�
I- 0
Z E—•
cri
•o
w uj`
I- -.
•
0 N.
P
:z
1
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 -2189
FAX: 235 -2541
To:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
From:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
Date:
Pages including this
cover page:
Comments:
Michael Jenkins
City of Tukwila
431 -3685
431 -3665
Lisa Grueter
City of Renton
277 -5578
277 -4455
03/04/97
19
103 P01 MAR 04 '97 12:22
1
The following ordinance and review checklist were prepared by Don Erickson, Long Range Plannin11 Section.
You can reach him at 277- 6181. Several conditional approval permits have been processed which yore may want
to discuss with Don.
~Z.
LLI
ln.W
w z:
w o'
g
RI a;
mow:.
Z1-.:
Z
i0 =11
;w —'
w Z,
U
O
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
Non - conforming Use Extension Criteria
103 P02 MAR 04 '97 12:22
These criteria are primarily intended to be applied at the time of a Toss to a building or structure
housing a non - conforming user when the Toss is in excess of fifty percent (50 %) of the value
of the damaged building or structure and such building or structure is not considered to be a
Class A - Non - conforming use. An affirmative answer to any three of the five following
questions could qualify a heavily damaged non - conforming use for full restoration.
LAND USES:
In the case of a non-conforming land use the following criteria would be used to judge whether
such a.land use should be allowed to re- establish itself on the site where it previously existed.
Generally, an applicant would have to show compliance of at least three of the five suggested
criteria.
1. Historic Significance
A use associated with a historical event or activity in the community e.g. a coal miners
equipment /supply store that had been in the same location for the last 60 or 70 years, or a
train station could, for example, be assumed to have historic significance.
Was the use associated with a historical event or activity in City of Renton?
17 YES; C1 N0.
2. Economic Significance
•1.
Did the use provide .employment for a number of people andlor generate considerable retell
sales or B & 0 tax distributions to the City?
D YES; ONO.
1A "non - conforming use" can be either or both a use that does not comply with currant zoning
or, structures or buildings on the premises that do not comply with the Building Code or the
development standards of the zone they are located in.
i
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SVCS /PLAN
103 P03 MAR 04 '97 12:22
3. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
As a legal non - conforming use how compatible was the use with abutting and /or neighboring
,uses? For example, a duplex might be quite compatible with neighboring single- family homes,
particularly if there already was a number of rental units in the area but be Tess compatible with
new strip commercial uses that were moving into the area
-r- Tr."'�
Was the damaged use compatible with *butting and/or neighboring uses?.
D YES; ONO.
4. Level of Departure from Comprehensive Plan
How consistent was the use with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan?
Although it right not be in fuU compliance with the City's Zoning Code was the damaged use
consistent with Plan policies relating, say, to economic development or community
preservation?
YES; D NO.
5. Level of Departure from Zoning Code
How consistent was the use with the City's Zoning Code? If neither a primary or secondary
use, could it have been allowed, say, as a secondary or conditional .use?
With minor modifications such as a reduction in size, the screening of out door, storage
materials, or being located only on the ground floor, might the use then have been allowed,
either as a secondary use or conditional use?
DYES; DNO.
'ex+�'N'aLtiC]:4F�.'Iiv11dL:1W "' �
•z.
•
mow`
• U.O;
i,N W'
• W•=',
N V_
W 0:
u- Q. •
•
H =•. •
z �..
o
z
CI
U �s
I—
i
1—
W
tii Z
N;.
z. •
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
Non - conforming Structure Criteria
103 PO4 MAR 04 '97 12:22
The following criteria are intended to be used when deciding whether a building or structure
that is non - conforming, either in terms of Building Code provisions or the Zoning Code's
development standards, should be allowed to be replaced when the value of the damage to It
exceeds 50% and it is not a Class A - Non - conforming Use.
1. Architectural Significance
Did the damaged building or structure represent a unique regional or national architectural
style? Did the structure represent an innovation in architecture, either because of its style, use
of materials, or functional arrangement?
Was the damaged structure architecturally significant?
DYES; •DNO. •
2. Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
Although not architecturally significant in terms of its style or use of materials, was the bui /ding,
part of a unified streetscape of similar buildings that could be considered to be archlecturally
unique because of when they were built or their use of similar building elements, front yard
setbacks, etc.?
D YES; D NO.
3. Potential of Site for Redevelopment
Is the size and shape of the site in question suitable for redevelopment consistent with the
current Zoning Code, say in terms of its size, access, etc.? If not, how likely is it that nearby
uses would acquire and expand to the present site, if it were available?
lgtGJNe uuES
Is it unlikely that abutting or other nearby conforming uses would expand to this site if It were
available as a vacant lot?
D YES;. D NO.
t.V�a"o�rJX:?:r
z
i ~'
z:
e: 1
6 0.
00
• CO
wz
J
CO LL'
w0
�Q
wd
I- at
z
Z
1-0:
Z
w.
D o'
U
O • F
= U'.
u0:
w
Z
• N
0
z ,
206- 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
103 P05
MR 04 '97 12:23
4. Condition of Structure Prior to Event
Prior to the recent damage, was the former structure well maintained, e.g. did it comply with
the minimum maintenance standards of the building code? Presumably if it was deteriorated or
visually blighting there would be less interest in seeing it renew itself than in the case of a
structure that, although it was non - conforming, was well maintained.
Was me former structure a visual asset to the surrounding area?
0 YES; ONO.
5. Level of Departure from Building Code
How significantly does the existing building or structure depart from the provisions of City
Building Code? Are these relatively minor violations or are they major such as structural
violations.
Could most existing Building Code violations, if any, be rectified if the former structure was
allowed to be replaced on the site?
DYES; DNO.
6. Level of Departure from Zoning Code
If the .existing building or structure was allowed to be replaced on the present site, to what
extent would it comply with the present zoning code, say, in terms of lot coverage, height,
setbacks, etc.?
Could existing Zoning Code deficiencies, if any, be reduced of eliminated if the existing building
or structure was allowed to be replaced on the present site?
DYES; DNO.
NONCNFRM.DOC /CoR
X111:: xY- .''l+n'i3'4+'7�i.7J3xdh.i .''r.S«'".YLiSod7 Ft7yrL' ±2t .^'.4t4)1•nkGaPiii. krAtc:17.44..2'>li'clAr.°Si:e' 154Titii+Sf SdSb`Sm Thi,s41C9:kCr.1.�,�*a' Xi7CF3Xk`iM i'fc`.Eir 2: Y7i' i,�lutY+�tn,t^- .:h +ti`VIItG: ^,::
.z
o:
J U;
.0o'
'CO co
U.
w o
g
u.Q
co
=d
HW
zft:
1-O
O-.
•
.W w.
a.
wz
U �
O
z
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS,PLAN
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4584
103 P06 M(':R 04 '97 12:23
4523, 4549
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTIONS 4- 31 -2.N, 4 -31 -19 AND 4 -31 -23 OF CHAPTER 31,
ZONING CODE, OF TITLE XV (BUILDING REGULATIONS), OF
ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" RELATING TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH LEGAL
NONCONFORMING 'USES AND STRUCTURES CREATED IN JUNE 1993 OR
THEREAFTER.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION Y. The following definition in section 4 -31 -2 of
Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations), of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City
of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
4-31-2; NONCONFORMING USE: A lawful use of land that does
not comply with the current use regulations (primary, secc:ndary,
conditional, etc.) for its zone, but which complied with applicable
regulations at the time the use was established.
SECTION ,II. Section 4 -31 -2 of Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of
Title IV (Building Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is
hereby amended by adding the following definition:
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE: A lawful structure that does not
comply with the current development standards (yard setbacks, lot
.. -Ar., �... :fi.- t6.��:i•n: -:V: iit�' a= iYM': �Yi�A. tc^ is�f' iJOat !:�"i+F`�NSE�ekKtyii}.Mijr.'.io- � . .
1
z
cc
UO
N0
Ili H
u_
wO
u.¢
co C1
?
I-O
Z
2j.
U�
co
O
ww
1--U
z`
U N'
z
206- 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
,INANCE NO. 4584
103 P07 NPR 04 '97 12:23
size, lot coverage, height, etc.) for its zone, but which complied
with applicable regulations at the time it was established. Such
structures may or may not be in compliance with other relevant
z
building codes and regulations.
~w
re
SECTION III. Section 4- 31 -19)of Chapter 31, Zoning'Code, v
UO
of Title IV (Building Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled o.
W I
J i_
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is co OLL
w
hereby amended to read as follows: 2
u.<
cop
4- 31 -19.J: Conditional Approval Permits - Nonconforming = v
I- _.
z1.-
1-O.
Z 1.
O =
approval permit is to allow nonconforming uses and /or structures ,o.
Ill w.
that became nonconforming as a consequence of Code amendments in 'Li--P-
i
z
June 1993 and thereafter, to be reestablished and /or rebuilt in 0
O~.
certain zoning districts where they would normally be prohibited z
because the costs associated with reestablishing the use and /or
structure exceed fifty (50 %) percent of their most recently
Uses /Structures:
1. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this conditional
•
assessed or appraised value prior to the loss or damage. Such
permits would be issued when the continuance of the use or
structure is determined to be in the public interest and such
uses /structures are: 1) found to be compatible with other e.�:isting
and potential uses /structures in the general area; or, 2) can be
made to be compatible with the application of appropriate
2
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS'PLAN
iRDINANCE NO. 4584
103 P09 MHR 04 '97 12:24
conditions. Such a permit, if granted, typically would carry
conditions with it pertaining to how the damaged structure would be
allowed to redevelop.
Damaged existing legal nonconforming uses and /or
structures where the costs associated with reestablishing the use
and /or structure do not exceed fifty (50i) percent of theirs most
recently assessed value, prior to the loss or damage, are allowed
to be reestablished or rebuilt as a matter of right.
2. Applicability: Any existing building or structure that
was legally established and has been continuously occupied, or a
use that has been continuously in existence on the site but is now
nonconforming because of a change in City Codes in June 193 or
thereafter, may apply for a conditional approval permit. Uses or
structures that cannot substantiate that they were legal at the
time they were established shall not be eligible for this permit.
3. Exception: Any legally established single - family
dwelling damaged by fire or an act of God may be rebuilt on the
same site, subject to all relevant fire and life safety codes,
without a conditional approval permit.
4. Conditional Approval Permit Review Procedures: For all
applications received after January 1, 1996, the Hearing Examiner
shall hear all requests for conditional approval permit;: for
nonconforming uses. Conditional permit application. for
3
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
.RDINANCE W. 4584
103 P10 MAR 04 '97 12:24
nonconforming structures shall typically be heard by the
Planning /Building /Public Works Administrator or his or her
designee, unless such applications are coupled with conditional
permit applications for nonconforming uses that are being heard by
the Hearing Examiner or City Council. The approving body may
grant, with or without conditions, or deny a requested conditional
permit pursuant to Chapter 8, Title IV, of the City Code. , The
approving body may, for example, limit the term and duration of the
conditional approval permit as well as impose conditions.
Conditions imposed by the approving body shall reasonably assure
that nuisance or hazard to life or property will not develop. A
conditional approval permit for a nonconforming use and /or
structure may, for example, be conditioned upon the provision
and /or guarantee by the applicant that necessary public
improvements, facilities, utilities and /or services needed to
support the use /structure will be provided, or the provision of
other features that would make the use /structure more compatible
with its surroundings. Conditions imposed relating to the duration
of a permit for a use or structure should also reflect reasonable
amortization periods for any substantial upgrades to the premises
that are required by City Code.
Any decision of the Planning /Building /Public Works
Administrator or his or her designee to grant, deny, or condition
4
206 - 277 -4455 _RENTON DEU SUCS'PLRN
.JRDINANCB NO. 4584
103 P11 MRR 04 '97 12:25
an application for a nonconforming structure shall be appealable to
the Hearing Examiner as an administrative determination. Any
appeal from a Hearing Examiner's decision, whether an appeal from
an administrative determination or an original decision on a
nonconforming use, shall be appealable to the City Council upon
written appeal filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the
Examiner's decision and upon payment of the applicable appeal fee.
5. Review Criteria for Nonconforming Uses: The Hearing
Examiner and /or City Council shall consider the following factors,
among all other relevant information, when considering a request
for a conditional approval permit for a nonconforming use. In
order to grant the permit, at least three (3) of the these factors
shall be complied with.
a. Community Need: There shall be a community need
for the proposed use at its present location. In the determination
of community need, consideration shall be given to the following
factors, among all other relevant information:
(1) The continuance of the nonconforming use should
not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a '
particular use within the City or within the area surrounding the
site.
x.1.44! fix otnar
5
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS'PLAN 103 P12 MHR 04 '9? 12:25
)RDINANCE NO. 4584
(2) That the existing location is or can be made
suitable for the existing use.
b. Effect on Adjacent Property: The existing
nonconforming use has not resulted in undue adverse effects on
adjacent properties from noise, traffic, glare, vibration, etc.,
(i.e. does not exceed normal levels in these areas, emanating from
surrounding permitted uses).
c. Historic Significance: The existing use was
associated with a historical event or activity in the community and
as a result has historical significance.
d. Economic Significance: The existing use provides
substantial benefit to the community because of either, the
employment of a large number of people in the community, the
generation of considerable retail and /or business/occupatioa tax
revenues to the City, or it provides needed affordable housini.
e. Timeliness with Existing Plans and Pro.rams:
Because of the anticipated market timing for permitted uses :i.n the
zone, retention of the existing nonconforming use would not impede
or delay the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan.'
6. Conditional Approval Permit Review Criteria for
Nonconforming Structures: The Planning /Building /Public Works
Administrator or his or her designee shall consider the following
factors, among all other relevant information, when considering a
... �!Yn'fM,f�!`Atft�ANtl" tl�4sY+�..�Sei:77uc�R S•xL'p 1 (y'��(} � "' -w .....
6
z
z'
re 2
6
J 0.
UO
to w'
J HI
w0
ILj.
D. a'
ti...w
z
Z °:
uJ (Li
O N.
ww
F=- V`
O:
w z'
U ='
z
206- 277 -4455 ,RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
..,RDINANCE NO. c584
103 P13 MR 04 '97 12:25
request for a conditional approval permit for a nonconforming
structure. In order to grant the permit, he /she shall find that at
least three (3) of the following criteria have been satisfied:'
a. Architectural and /or Historic Significance: The
damaged structure represents a unique regional or national
architectural style or an innovation in architecture because of its
style, use of materials, or functional arrangement, and is one of
the few remaining examples of this.
b. Architectural Compatibility with Surrounding :Uses:
1
The nonconforming building or structure was part of a unified
streetscape of similar structures that is unlikely to be replicated
unless the subject structure is rebuilt per, or similar to, its
original plan.
c. Potential of Site for Redevelopment: Redevelopment
of the site with a conforming structure is unlikely either because
the size of the existing lot may be too small to be economical, or
because the characteristics of adjacent permitted uses (that might •
normally be expected to expand to such a site) currently might
preclude their expansion. Typically, economic hardship would not '
be considered for a variance, but is a consideration here.
d. Condition of Building /Structure: If nonconforming
as to the provisions of the City's Building Code, the building or
structure and surrounding premises have generally been well
?� Zii; }$.)...kl(i7i:9iib 511.1 Fiagi•-9L`3MS'Ut v:Si"a i).4V iGMai
wlFSCt:SiY✓
sttitt'�a''' v
7
Uaaariculairt14t4auar
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SVCS /PLAN
:)RDINANCE NO. 4584
103 P14 MAR 04 '97 12:26
maintained and is not considered to be a threat to the public
health, welfare, or safety, or it could be retrofitted so as not to
pose such a threat.
z
e. Departure from Zoning Code: If nonconforming, with E- w:.
re 2
the provisions of the City's development regulations, the building o
or structure does not pose a threat to the public health, welfare w ='.
J I-
N u_
or safety, or could be modified so as not to pose such a threat. w O.
7. Application Procedure: Application for a conditional u_
u)d
permit for a legal nonconforming use or structure shall be _;
zI.-
submitted and reviewed pursuant to Chapter 8, Title IV, of the City z I
11.1 uj
Code. The complete application shall be as specified on the 0 o co
DI--
appropriate Planning /Building /Public Works document and shall, at w w
z
u- ,'
minimum, include a plan of the site drawn to scale showing the — C
z
w
co .
actual dimensions and shape of the existing site, and the 'txact o I
z
sizes and locations of existing structures and uses, whether
damaged or not. It shall also include the dates these
structures /uses were established. The plan should also show
existing landscaping, off - street parking, signs, ingress and
egress, and adjacent land uses. The application should also
include drawings, photographs, or other visual aids that show the
relationship of the existing structure or building to its
surroundings and may include studies or reports that support the
applicant's contention that the existing nonconforming use or
i:= 614, oi: tlfil � i, °° • 1W iA •
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
)RDINANCE NO. _Aug_
103 P15 MFR 04 '97 12:26
structure is compatible with the surrounding area and its uses.
Any other relevant information requested by the
Planning /Building /Public Works Department shall be included in the
application.
SECTION IV. Section 4 -31 -23 of Chapter 31, Zoning Code; of
Title IV (Building Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled
"Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is
hereby amended to read as follows:
4- 31 -23: COMPLETION AND RESTORATION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING
USES /STRUCTURES:
A. Pending Permits Valid: Nothing herein contained shall
require any change in the plans, construction, or designated or
intended use of a building for which a building permit has
heretofore been issued, or which has been submitted to the Building
Official before the effective date of amendments to the development
regulations.
B. Nonconforming Structures: Any building or structure
legally existing at the time of enactment of this Code may remain,
although such structure does not conform with the provisions of
this Code, provided the following conditions are met:
1. Vacant, abandoned, or amortized structures: The
structure is not abandoned, vacant, or extensively damaged.
Nonconforming buildings or structures which do not have historic
9
z
:
re w
QQom;
J U.
0 0;
CO Cl
COW
-J
CO L-;
w0
D. a
F=. w
z �.
Z 0'
w uj
no
o
o
ui
w-
LL-
(0
O;
ui .
O1-
z
1
M6-277-4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN 103 P16 MAR 04 '97 12:26
.RDINANCE NO. 4584
significance and have been vacant for two or more years, or
abandoned,' or are sufficiently old at the time that they, are
severely damaged so as to have had sufficient time to amortize most a
z~..
or all of their initial economic value, shall not be allowed to be m w
redeveloped or reestablished. v o
co
cn w'
wI
_1 I_
2. Unsafe structures: The structure is kept in a safe
N LL
condition. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the strengthening g 0
or restoring to a safe condition of any portion of a building or N
w
structure declared unsafe by a proper authority.
1- O
3. Alterations: Any alterations must comply with the w w a. Structures with Conditional Approval Permits: = w
H U,
— O`
The cost of the alterations shall generally not
H /-,
exceed an aggregate cost of one hundred percent (100k) of the value O
z
following requirements:
of the building or structure, unless: 1) the building or structure
is made conforming by the alterations; or 2) the alterations were
imposed as a condition of granting a conditional approval permit.
Alterations shall not result in or increase any nonconforming
conditions unless they were specifically imposed as a condition of
granting a conditional approval permit.
b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost of
the alterations of all other legal nonconforming structures shall
not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50W) of the value of
10
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
.RDINANCE NO. 4584
103 P17 MR 04 '97 12:27
the building or structure, based upon its most recent assessment or
appraisal, unless the amount over fifty percent (50 %) is used to
make the building or structure more conforming. Alterations shall
not result in or increase any nonconforming condition.
4. Extension: The structure shall not be extended unless
the extension is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions
of a conditional approval permit issued for it. The extension of a
lawful use to any portion of a nonconforming building or structure
which existed prior to the enactment of this Code shall not be
deemed the extension of such nonconforming structure.
5. Restoration: Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the
reconstruction, repairing, rebuilding and continued use of any
nonconforming building or structure damaged by fire, explosion, or
act of God, subsequent to the date of these building regul;ntions
and subject to the following conditions:
a. Legal Structures with Conditional Approval Perrnits:
The work shall generally not exceed one hundred. •
percent (100%) of the latest appraised value of the building or
structure closest to the time such damage occurred; restoration or
reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of this
value shall either be a condition of granting the conditional
approval permit or necessary to conform to the regulations and uses
specified in this chapter.
11
206 -277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS'PLAN
)RDINANCE NO. 4584
103 P18 MAR 04 '97 12:27
b. Other Nonconforming Legal Structures: The ;work
shall not exceed fifty percent (50) of the latest assessvd or
appraised value of the building or structure at the time , such
damage occurred; otherwise, any restoration or reconstruction shall
conform to the regulations and uses specified in this chapter.
c. Illegal Structures: These shall be discontinued.
C. Nonconforming Uses: Any lawful use existing at the time
of enactment of this Code may be continued, although such use does
not conform with the provisions of the building regulations,
provided the following conditions are met:
1. Abandonment: The use is not abandoned. A 'legal
nonconforming use (of a building or premises) which has been
abandoned shall not thereafter be resumed. Abandoned uses shall
not be eligible for a conditional approval permit. A nonconfcrming
use shall be considered abandoned when:
a. The intent of the owner to discontinue the use
is apparent, and discontinuance for a period of one year or, more
shall be prima facie evidence that the nonconforming use has been
abandoned, or
b. It has been replaced by a conforming use, or
c. It has been changed to another use under permit
from the City or its authorized representative.
74,01:hTiy.p4A1.. , i :4•ii0: .1s S•J; :�k- ',F".3 itasTir" '`tilldaS :+.iiGeAut S:a:
12
z
re w
UO
u)w
•
•J
N u,
w 0:
u-Q
w
z�
,_0'
z s~
Di
U0
0 N•
0
w w,
z
N;
O
•
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
JRDINANCE NO. 4584
103 P19 MAR 04 '97 12:27
2. Relocation: The use is not relocated. A ,legal
nonconforming use of a building or premises which has been vacated
and moved to another location, or discontinued, shall not be
allowed to reestablish itself except in compliance with the
building regulations.
3. Changes: The use is not changed to a different
nonconforming use. The nonconforming use of a building or
structure shall not be changed to another nonconforming use.
4. Restoration: Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the
restoration or continuance of a nonconforming use damaged by :fire,
explosion, or act of God, subsequent to the date of these building
regulations, or amendments thereto, subject to the following
conditions:
a. Legal Nonconforming Uses with Conditional Ap droval
Permits: The work shall generally not exceed one hundred percent
(100 %) of the latest appraised value of the building or structure
housing the use closest to the time such damage occurred;
restoration or reconstruction work exceeding one hundred percent
(100') of this value shall either be a condition of granting the
conditional approval permit or necessary to conform #:a the
regulations and uses specified in this chapter.
b. Other Legal Nonconforming Uses: The work shall
not exceed fifty percent (50t) of the latest appraised value ''of the
13
441.n6* i14 tiw >SIL=x1ktiSYXii2id3
z
a-
�w
m
U O;
• No.
' U)w
w =:
J 1
U) u.
w O'
J
u.<
_a
I-w
z=
I— O
z E—.
uj
O co
O N
O 1—'.
w w
U
H
w z.
O F-;
z...'
206 - 277 -4455 RENTON DEU SUCS /PLAN
RDINANCE NO. 4 84
103 P20 MAR 04 '97 12:28
building or structure at the time such damage occurred. Uses which
were in conformance with the Code at the time it was enacted or at
the time they were built or developed, but which became
nonconforming on adoption of the development• regulations or
amendments to it.
c. Illegal Uses: Uses which were not in conformance
with the Code or the development regulations in effect on thedate
they were established (illegal uses). These uses shall be
discontinued.
gECTION V. This ordinance shall be effective upon its
passage, approval, and thirty (30) days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 12th day of February , 1996.
24110
Marilyn Jr•
etersen, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 12th day of February
Approved to form:
(:;4111
Law ce J.
Warr , City Attorney
, 1996.
Jesse Tanner, Mayor
Date of Publication: February 16, 1996
ORD.51.4:2/05/96:as.
14
FEB -25 -1997 17:32
CITY OF BOTHELL 20648624GS P.02/e4
Chapter 12.26
Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Other Improvements
Sections:
12.26.010 Purpose.
12.26.020 Applicability.
12.26.030 Determination of nonconformance.
12.26.040 Nonconforming uses of land.
12.26.050 Nonconforming structures and other improvements.
12.26.060 Repair or reconstruction of damaged nonconforming structures or other
improvements.
12.26.070 Lots of record.
12.26.080 Illegal use, structure, or other improvement.
12.26.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the legal status of nonconforming uses, structt es and
other site improvements by creating provisions through which such uses, structures a; r? other
improvements may be established, maintained, altered, reconstructed, expanded or abated.
12.26.020 Applicability.
A. All nonconformances shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
B. The provisions of this chapter do not supersede or relieve a property owner from
compliance with:
1. The requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes; or
2. The provisions of this Code beyond the specific nonconformance adds ksed by
this chapter.
.I
12.26.00 Determination of nonconformance.
A. Any use, structure or other site improvement (e.g., landscaping, parking or ;: gnage)
which was legally established prior to the effective date of this title or amendments
thereto shall be considered nonconforming if:
1. The use is now prohibited or cannot meet use limitations applicable to isle zone
in which it is located; or
2. The structure or other site improvement does not comply with the density,
dimensions, landscaping, parking, sign, design or other standards of this title.
A change in the required permit review process shall not create a nonconformance.
26 -1
fi- : i
i�' �.. ';�r,".,���:�it,xa:;�y�i:z�c;u' t.a.
FEB -25 -1997 17:33
CITY OF BOTHELL 206486241:9 P.03/O4
C. Any nonconformance that is brought into conformance for any period of time shall forfeit
status as nonconformance, except as specified in Section 12.26.040.
12.26.040 Nonconforming uses of land.
If, at the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or any amendment thereto, a lawful
use of land exists that is made no longer permissible under the terms of this title or amendments
thereto, such use may be continued as a nonconforming use so long as it remain; otherwise
lawful, subject to the following conditions:
A. No nonconforming use shall be intensified, enlarged, increased or extended to occupy
a greater area of land than was occupied on the effective date of the zoning code or
amendment that made the use no longer permissible.
B. No nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot
which contains the nonconforming use.
C. If any nonconforming use of land ceases for any reason for a period of mate than six
months or a total of one year over a three year period, any subsequent use of such land
shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the zone in which such land is
located.
12.26.050 Nonconforming structures and other improvements.
If, at the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or any amendment thereto, a lawful
structure or other improvement exists which is made no longer permissible under th9 terms of
this title or amendment thereto, such structure or other improvement may be continued as a
nonconforming structure or other improvement so long as it remains otherwise lawf°ai, subject
to the following conditions:
A. No nonconforming structure or other improvement shall be altered or changed in a way
which increases its nonconformity.
B. Upkeep, repairs and maintenance of a nonconforming structure or other imt rovement
shall be permitted.
12.26.060 Repair or reconstruction of damaged nonconforming structures or other
improvements.
A damaged nonconforming structure or other improvement may be repaired or reconstructed
provided that;
A. The extent of damage does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the King or Snohomish
County assessed value of the structure or improvement damaged;
B. The repair or reconstruction does not increase the previous nonconformity;
oZy
26-2
%f .S ':'lit'k ^rye^��' `.+i- +}`i1: tj: rite%idk'A o` i'': �n'' f.° a' 1� ,+�" %•S}r.'.a�,its %"2'a;if�iSi� 3. he72t }c e 4*..Agi� vA;
r.
FEB-25-1997 17:33
CITY OF BOTHELL
2064862489 P.04/04
C. The building permit application for repair or reconstruction is submitted within six
months of the occurrence of damage;
D. Should such structure or other improvement be moved for any reason for any distance
whatever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zdne in which it is located.
12.26.070 Lots of record.
In any zone in which single-family dwellings are permitted, notwithstanding limitations imposed
by other provisions of this title, a single-family dwelling may be erected on any single lot of
record which was a building site under Ordinance No 156 of the City. Variance of area width
and yard requirements shall be obtained only through action of the Board of Adjustment.
12.26.080 Illegal use, structure, or other improvement.
Any use, structure or other improvement which cannot be .established as a nonconforming use,
structure or other improvement shall be deemed illegal and be subject to abatement by removal
or conformance with this title or amendments thereto in accordance with procedures set forth
in Title 11, Administration.
omgqwvvmv.tOttr,.V.,OPXA.I.eYAMWZWn0.5.ili*'.=:.irgvm-
?cfl . od 1 °1
City of Tukwila
,-q? .ao / 3,
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Lancaster
SUBJECT: Changes to Nonconforming Uses
DATE: February 21, 1997
Staff recently discussed with the City Council Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP)
some "housekeeping" amendments to several sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC).
These minor amendments were made necessary due to the new zoning district designations
adopted in late 1995, or the mid -1996 code changes made in response to the regulatory reform
requirements of ESHB 1724. In most cases, these changes relate to references (in non -land use
codes) to zoning district designations (for. example, our Noise Ordinance uses the old "R- 1,2,3"
designations rather than the current "LDR" designation). Other cases involved clarifying that all
decisions that are subject to ESHB 1724 (for example, flood control permits) be appropriately
classified as a Type 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 decision.
One such housekeeping amendment involves the Zoning Code. Our current Code allows a
nonconforming use to be "changed to another nonconforming use, provided that the Board of
Adjustment, by making findings in the specific case, shall find that the proposed use is more
appropriate to the zone than the existing nonconforming use" (TMC 18.70.040(5)). However,
nowhere in the Code does it specify what "Type" of decision this is. In order to maintain
consistency within the Zoning Code, the Code could be modified to designate this a Type 3
decision, as are other Board of Adjustment (BOA) decisions.
In reviewing this situation, the Community Affairs and Parks Committee expressed some
concerns that go beyond a simple housekeeping "fix."
• The Committee questioned, as a matter of policy, whether Tukwila should be accommodating
the continuation of nonconformities by allowing the conversion of one nonconforming use to
another.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
0i.ard;bs rir`ink'td's 'ot d`t�iHalYb�ili`i�A�
z
a •
6
_i O;
0 O:
• w
J =
H
N LL
w 0
2
g Q.
s�
i-- _
I-a
zt-
w
j
2 .
U�
'0--
.o
ww
Lid z
0
The Committee did not want to start from an assumption that the BOA is the appropriate
decision -maker in this instance, or that it should be a type 3 decision. The appropriate
decision -maker and process should be based on "what is best" rather than what has been the
practice in the past, just like we did with all the other Zoning Code decisions when the
Council, Planning Commission and BOA met jointly on ESHB 1724 reforms.
• The Committee questioned the provisions of the Code allowing a nonconforming use to cease
operation for up to 24 months without losing its "grandfather" status (TMC 18.70.040(4)). Is
this too lenient?
The Committee has requested that the Planning Commission review these issues as part of any
recommendation regarding "changes to nonconforming uses." Staff will brief you on this matter
at your February meeting. We will then present additional background material, options and a
recommendation for your consideration and public hearing at your March or April meeting.
cc: Mayor Rants
Community Affairs and Parks Committee members
John McFarland
Lucy Lauterbach
::..:::' �i:.!.« �r:' L :i:�,.La.L+�:.....:..�.e1:+.15. _'fke:...:u:v W:.a+Y:•..v..�»�4ti.:.i.:..i u� S..+ua...
z
w'
6
U O'
No
UJ
w 0,
J;
tea..
= a.
w.
I— O'.
Z F—
W w:
• D
U�.
;O U;
13 I—
w wI
I--
ui z'
co
0
O
Z
City of Tukwila
\Cd
�-j AS v D�S�sS
C N1 ANt, e, -T0
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director
TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
TO: Department of Community Development Staff
FROM: Steve Lancaster
SUBJECT: Nonconforming landscape areas (TMC 18.70.090)
DATE: September 16, 1996
In consultation with Mayor Rants I have decided to place an administrative hold on
enforcement/implementation of the second paragraph of TMC 18.70.090. Until further notice,
we will no longer withhold approval of business licenses on the basis of this section.
Mayor Rants is concerned about the equity of basing amortization of nonconforming landscaping
on change of use. He has asked that we evaluate alternatives to this approach. Through this
memo I am suggesting that the issue be evaluated as part of the citywide design criteria and
guidelines work that Diana is managing. This should fit in well since it is my understanding that
strengthening our landscaping requirements is likely to be a significant aspect of this work.
Please don't hesitate to see me if you have questions or comments on this matter.
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
LNDSCAP.DOC
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
? d'a t 'v Sr a: �Y 3S ITM iS x••1—,.'xw.YadifixtlL 3e :,t i%A4i25;a- atieaoN ei: Arr.:Qif •z ^ ti1E•aid um