HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0035 - CITY OF TUKWILA - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTL94-0035.
CITY OF TUKWILA
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS)
File Number: E02 -020
Applied: 08/16/2002
Issue Date: 11/19/2002
Status: ISSUED
Proponent:
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila
Description of Proposal:
SEPA FOR NEW 14,600 SQ. FT. CLUBHOUSE FOR FOSTER GOLF COURSE, A 200 SEAT RESTAURANT, 286 -CAR
PARKING LOT, 2,000 SQ. FT. MEETING ROOM, ALTERATION OF GOLF COURSE TEES & GREENS NEAR ALTERED
STRUCTURES AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUB HOUSE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS.
Location of Proposal:
Address: 13500 INTERURBAN AV S TUKW
Parcel Number: 0003000049
Section/Township/Range: 04 -14 -23
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The
conditions for this SEPA Determination are amended at the end of this document.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). The conditions are attached. Comments must be submitted by
The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. For a copy of the appeal procedures, contact the City of
Tukwila Department of Community Development.
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206)431 -3670
Date
Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of
action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time
period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075)
SEPA Determination Conditions:
1: Excavations into historically native soil, when in an area of archaeological potential, shall have a professional
archaeologist on site to ensure that all State statutes regarding archaeological conservation /preservation are
implemented. The applicant shall provide a written commitment to stop work immediately upon discovery of archaeological
doc: Miscperm
E02 -020 Printed: 11 -19 -2002
AUGUST 8, 1994
11:20 P.M
CALL TO ORDER
COUNCILMEMBERS
PRESENT
OFFICIALS
SPECIAL ISSUES
Ordinance #1711 adopting
amendments to Planned
Residential Developments
(PRDs)
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
Council President Mullet, Mayor Pro Tem, called the Special Meeting of the
Tukwila City Council to order.
STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOE DUFFLE, JOAN HERNANDEZ,
DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY
DE RODAS.
JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administration; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney;
LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; ROSS EARNST, Public Works
Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; RICK BEELER, ANN
SIEGENTHALER/VERN UMETSU/DENNI SHEFRIN, DCD;
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION
CARRIED. .
City Attorney Cohen read and ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Tukwila, Washington, amending Ordinance Numbers 1247, 1289 and 1599, as
codified at Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.46, pertaining to Planned
Residential Developments, providing for severability,, and establishing an
effective date.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 1711 AS READ.*
City Attorney Cohen commented for the record that under RCW 35A.12.130,
it states that -- "No ordinance or any section or subsection thereof shall be
revised or amended unless the new ordinance sets forth the revised ordinance
or the amended section or subsection at full length."
She said the Council had before them the entire chapter with all the deletions
and additions. Therefore, she feels comfortable that when the ordinance is
prepared in final form it will reflect all of the sections that are outlined
including the whereas clauses.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO AMEND THE
MOTION TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES **
In Section 18.46.020 -- Permitted districts -- should read as follows:
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
August 8, 1994
Page 2
Ord. #1711
PRDs (Cont'd)
"(1) R -1, Single- family residential
(2) R -2, Two - family residential when there are wetlands or water courses
and their associated buffers on the lot
(3) R -3, Three -and four - family residential when there are wetlands or
water courses and their associated buffers on the lot
(4) R -4, Low apartments when there are wetlands or water courses and
their associated buffers on the lot
(5) RMH, Multiple- residence high density when there are wetlands or
water courses and their associated buffers on the lot."
Section 18.46.060(a)(1) Lot Size and Setbacks - -the first sentence shall
read: "A maximum reduction of 15% for lot areas and setbacks in R -1
Districts shall be permitted based upon the underlying zone and in
accordance with Table 1 below, and provided that the amenities or design
features listed below are also substantially provided."
18.46.070- -The title will read: "Multi- family Density Standards."
18.46.110(a)(1)- -The sentence shall read: "Justification for the density
increases or lot size and setback reductions if requested by the
applicant."
18.46.112(2) - -The sentence shall read: "Reasons for density increases or
lot size and setback reductions meet the criteria as listed in Section
18.46.070."
Robertson commented that he supports the amendments because they are all
basically housekeeping in nature. He said the amendments made tonight do
not impact the contents of the ordinance.
**MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED WITH DUFFIE AND CRAFT
VOTING NO.
*MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance #1712 adopting MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE
building height, setback, and PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION .
area regulations CARRIED
City Attorney Linda Cohen read an ordinance of the City Council of the City
of Tukwila, Washington, adopting height, setback and area regulations in the
TMC 18.50.020, providing for severability, and declaring an emergency.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 1712 AS READ.*
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
August 8, 1994
Page 3
Ord. #1712
Adopting building heights,
setbacks, etc.
ADJOURNMENT
11:30 P.M.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG TO AMEND THE
MOTION TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.**
Section 18.52.020 be changed to 18.50.020; eliminate Section 2 in its
entirety and renumber Section 3 to become Section 2, and Section 4 to be
Section 3.
Robertson commented that the amendments made were housekeeping in
nature.
**MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
*MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO ADJOURN THE
SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Steve Mullet, ayor Pro Tem
• Celia Square,
uty City Clerk
Aug. 8, 1994
Council: PRD
C u ici i rrtr be r5 cdmieki s a (YS 4-
ct re . jOYrio., .514(e e5i-i `r1 .
Page 3
�f'evQ. 1i re,; t ..
ISSUE #3 Should the PRD only apply to site containing sensitive areas?
PRD's are optional for sites without sensitive areas, however, the City Council has discretion in approving
PRD's. They, are not automatic.
If PRD's are not longer an option, opportunities to create and preserve open space areas and encourage
imaginative site and building design without allowing for greater flexibility in zoning requirements is
removed. It is recognized that it is desirable to create stronger design guidelines for PRD's. Council
may evaluate how to achieve this in the 1995 work plan.
ISSUE #4 Why was "HARMONIOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL
CHARACTER..." deleted?
On August 1, Council questioned why the first sentence of Section 18.46.030 (1), Permitted Uses, was
not included in the new amended ordinance. The existing sentence reads as follows: 'In R -1 districts,
dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding residential character and building
environment.' This sentence was expressly stricken at the advise of the City Attomey because the
language is ambiguous, subjective and unenforceable.
A question related to Section 18.46.090 (Relationship to Adjacent Areas) was also raised on August 1.
Section 19.46.090•
' (a) The design and layout of a planned residential develop - t shall take into account the
integration and compatibility of the site.to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall
be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent properties.
' (b) Setbacks from thdiaroperty lines of the PRD shall be comparable to atible + ' those
of the existing development of adjacent properties or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped, the
type of development which may be permitted.'
These sections also contain language equally ambiguous. There are other sections within the PRD with
comparable, subjective language.
CONCLUSION
If Council wishes to make further modifications to the PRD ordinance beyond what Is contained in the
draft ordinance (attached), new public hearings may be necessary. The Council packet also contains the
entire PRD chapter incorporating language to be deleted, added and unchanged, per the Council ''
s direction of July 25, 1994. �.
r •
.6-16,,t b2.
%,(ctiv,
plG n n.w� Comm ,s,.P7. a rra( ;Ci.:
he.. came+t% / cd,„(1,_
("Aux, trogit,+aa
Arms puifr It- ke•stri
Co.. icet %A d( .:an te,
$a rraunal . itreas . .
-t-A.177 prapSs -c-a PRD," is .deteroniW # bes ritor►ip #4k,: `. y
'o r [4You1, Yitsz. C6p147i 3 'ial Or-
Ccitoxi l rYl y regu;v . cAa, s- to�c, , PR fr
. . _�Lnw H/liil✓I. rf111. Vu..� ••
Tut wila City Com ,cil Agenda ,
amx-
John W. Rants, Mayor •
John McFarland, City Administrator •
Steve Mullet, Council President'
Councilmembers: Joe Duffle • Joan Hernandez
Dennis Robertson • Allan Ekberg
Joyce Craft • Dorothy DeRodas
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
August 8,1994 • . Tukwila City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER •
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3: CITIZEN'S At this tithe, you are invited to comment on items that are not
COMMENTS _.included on this agenda.
4.. SPECIAL ISSUES a . Ordinance amending TMC Chapter 18.46 pertaining to PRDs
(discussion) • (PAGE 3) •
b. Review of interim tree ordinance (discussion) (PAGE 19)
c: Ordinance adopting building height, setback, and area
regulations and amending the Tukwila Zoning Code Chapter
18.50.020 (discussion) (PAGE 55)
d. Unsewered Areas Sewer Policy (discussion) (PAGE 67)
5. REPORTS .
• a. Mayor . •
b. City Council '
c. . Staff .
d.. City Attorney
e. Intergovernmental
6. MISCELLANEOUS .
7. ADJOURN TO SPECIAL MEETING •
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL •
3. OLD BUSINESS
SPECIAL MEETING
Ord #1711'
. Res #1304
4. NEW BUSINESS
Adopt ordinance•amending TMC Chapter 18.46 pertaining to
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs)•(see Item a. above) (PAGE 3 )
' . ' Ordinance adopting building'height, setback, and area regulations
and amending the Tukwila Zoning Code Chapter 18.50.020 (see item
c. above) (PAGE 55)
5. MISCELLANEOUS
• 6. ADJOURNMENT
•• The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office by. noon on Monday if we can be of assistance.
.( HOW TO TESTIFY
If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and
address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking
and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but
may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a
Committee or discussed under New Business.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public
notification is given.
Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all
Regular Council meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m.
Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing
of ordinances can only' be taken at Regular Council meetings.
Committee.of the Whole Meetings = Council members are elected for a four -year term.
The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of
the Whole meetings for a one -year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held
the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular
Council meeting for official action.
GENERAL INFORMATION
At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items•
that are not included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your
comments to five'minutes.
Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed
are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings.
Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council'of pending legal•action, financial,
or personnel matters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action of matters affecting
the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues,
etc. Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for
Public Hearings:
1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation.
2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may
speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken.
5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker
can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate'at this time.
6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among
themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or
postponed to another date. •
CoicIL AGENDA NrOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Pre are by
May is review
Council review
7/11/94
CAS Number:
Original Agenda Date:
Agenda Item Title • * PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE PRD - 7/11/94.
**.DRAFT ORDINANCE RELATED TO PRD AMENDMENTS - 7/25/94
Original Sponsor: .
Council Admin. X
Timeline:
Sponsor's Sununary: The Council will conduct a public hearing to consider and dicsuss the recommendations for
modification to the PRD (amending TMC, Chapter 18.46, PRD (Planned Residential Development)
Recommendations:
Sponsor: DCD
Committee:
Administration:
Cost Impact (if laiown):
Fund Source (if known):
•F::
Meeting Date
7/11/94
Action
Consider and discuss Planning Commission and Staff recommendations . Public hearing
7/7x/94
8/1/94
held; amendments recommended.'
Di srussinn-- Fail amPnrind«rirdi nanc..P to ..next. Regular Council in final form.
Discussion -- Forward to next Council meeting
8/8/94
Meeting Date
Attachments
7/11/94
Memo from Mayor dated July 8, 1994
7/11/94
Memo dated July 6, 1994
7/11/94
7/11/94
7/25/94
7/25/94
8/1/94
8/8/94
Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/23/94
Staff Report dated 6/15/94
Memo from Rick Beeler dated July 20, 1994
.Draft ordinance related to PRD Amendments
PRD ordinance
Memo from John McFarland; Memo from Rick Beeler ; Draft Ordinance
3
To: City. Council
From: John McFarland, City Administrator
Date: August 5, 1994
Re: PRD Revisions
The attached PRD ordinance draft is based upon the comments•received from the. Council over
the past several weeks. As we have experienced, this entire issue has become somewhat of a
"moving target ". Staff and Council have worked to address all areas. With the exception of
Section 18.46.030 (1),'relating to harmony with the surrounding residential character, which was
earlier recommended for elimination, it appears that we now have a comprehensive draft for your
review. This particular section appears to be troublesome due to vagueness. The Department of
Community Development advises that we may be able to work through this issue, but it will
require considerable staff work. It is suggested that this matter be referred for future study and
consideration.
We have also included a draft of Section 18.46 of the TMC so you can see how the draft
ordinance will actually read; when it is codified and integrated with the existing elements of that
document. I hope you fmd this helpful in placing the various issues into proper context.
At the Council's request, Mike Walter, land use attorney for Keating, Bucklin and McCormick,
our insurance counsel, will be present at Monday's meeting to assist our City Attorney in
advising on various legal issues related to the ordinance. •
City. of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
MEMORANDUM
John W. Rants, Mayor
TO: Mayor Rants
FROM: Rick Beeler, Director, Department of Community Development
DATE: August 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Issues Raised by City Council Pertaining to Amendments to the Planned District
Development Ordinance
The purpose of this memo is to provide a background on past Council discussions leading to the
proposed ordinance amendments, and to respond to issues raised by the City Council on August 1, 1994.
Rick Beeler, Director
Background
On July 11, a special meeting was held by the City Council to consider recommendations of the Planning
Commission regarding amendments to the PRD. In staffs memo dated July 6, seven proposed
amendments were identified:
1. Attached vs. Detached Units in Single - Family Zones
2. Minimum Property Size (for PRD's)
3. D'ens'ty and Minimum Lot Size
4. Density Transfer Formula
5. Density Transferred to Developable Parts of the Site
6. Board of Architectural Review
7. Off-Site Perspectives
After discussion, the City Council made the following motions related to the seven items as follows:
1. That in R -1 districts, only single farnily detached dwellings be permitted;
2. That there not be a minimum property size, meaning, that any property is eligible for a PRD
regardless of whether there are sensitive areas; 7i2'0 c.c.ao eyge, o ?AL, 5 A31■
4ylnliZe,L f1-01-124
3. That a 15% reduction for lot areas and setbacks be allowed for single - family PRD's regardless of
whether there are sensitive areas provided the performance standards are met as follows:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands
exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such
as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided especially in or near areas of
recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehensive '
Plan.
AQnn Gnr,rh,.vntar Rnulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax 1206) 431-3665
4. That the density transfer section be deleted entirely; C (� 2 — )5
5. Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation that °Development shall be
confined to buildable areas of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code,
Sensitive Areas Regulations, however, because the entire density transfer section was deleted,
this provision was included in the deletion. All applicable provisions of the SAO chapter still apply
to PRD's including restrictions to development on slopes based on technical studies;
6. That the provision related to design review be clarified to reflect the application of design review
criteria but not formal review by the Board of Architectural Review; 0
7. That two methods were identified for the preparation of off -site perspectives: photomontage
generated perspectives.
Staff was then directed to prepare a draft ordinance which was reviewed by Council July 25, 1994. Staff
was then directed to formalize the ordinance and retum to the City Council on August 1. At the August
1 meeting, four additional issues were raised by the Council, and staff was requested to evaluate and
respond to each of the issues as identified below and return to Council on August 8:
ISSUE #1: How does the amended 18.46.030(1), Permitted Uses - R -1 Districts,
affect multi - family developments?
1\' The proposed amendment to this provision does not affect building types for mufti- family developments.
The amendment to 18.46.030(1) only restricts building types for PRD's in R_1 districts to single- family
detached, and to disallow attached units.
Multi- family is also addressed under the density standards section: (Section 18.46.070) a density increase
of up to 20% greater than permitted based upon the underlying zone provided certain amenities and
design features ra substantially provided. The 20% increase applies regardless of whether there are
sensitive areas.. Lot areas for developments in mufti- family zones were not reduced as part of the
proposed amendments. .
ISSUE #2: • Should a threshold be established for PRD lot size reductions when
only a small portion of a site is a sensitive area?
The density transfer provision was developed in order to recognize the relationship between the lot size
and the amount of sensitive area on a lot in order for the development to be in proportion to the amount
of developable area.
Ten percent of a large number yields a large number and 10% of a small number yields a small number.
If a threshold of 10% is established across the board to determine whether a site is subject to a PRD, then
for 10 -acre parcels, where only 9% or 3,920 square -feet is sensitive, then a PRD would not be required
regardless of relative size and type of sensitive area or degree of sensitivity. Conversely, if a 2 -acre parcel
contained 9% of sensitive area, or 1,960 square feet, this amount is relative large in proportion to 2 acres.
The minimum lot size based upon the new table governs the number of units. The City Council may want
to consider retaining the density transfer formula, but restrict the size of lots which are 'transferred' to the
lot areas allowed in Table 1. This approach offers predictability regarding the total number of Tots and
the size of each lot, and makes the overall density more proportionate with the parcel size.
wao ctioctwo
4
tPnAF k vu:r�
7
Aug. 8, 1994 Page 3
Council: PRD
ISSUE #3 Should the PRD only apply to site containing sensitive areas?
PRD's are optional for sites without sensitive areas, however, the City Council has discretion in approving
PRD's. They ar not automati
If PRD's are not onger an optio opportunities to create and preserve open space areas and encourage
imaginative site and building design without allowing for greater flexibility in zoning requirements is
removed. It is recognized that it is desirable to create stronger design guidelines for PRD's. Council
may evaluate how to achieve this in the 1995 work plan.
ISSUE #4 Why was "HARMONIOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL
CHARACTER..." deleted?
On August 1, Council questioned why the first sentence of Section 18.46.030 (1), Permitted Uses, was
not included in the new amended ordinance. The existing sentence reads as follows: 'In R -1 districts,
dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding residential character and building
environment.' • This sentence was expressly stricken at the advise of the City Attorney because the
language is ambiguous, subjective and unenforceable.
A question related to Section 18.46.090 (Relationship to Adjacent Areas) was also raised on August 1.
Section 19.46.090:
'(a) The design and layout of a planned residential development shall take into account the
integration and compatibility of the site.to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall
be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent properties.
'(b) Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD shall be comparable to, or compatible with, those
of the existing development of adjacent properties or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped, the
type of development which may be permitted.'
These sections also contain language equally ambiguous. There are other sections within the PRD with
comparable, subjective language.
CONCLUSION
If Council wishes to make further modifications to the PRD ordinance beyond what is contained in the
draft ordinance (attached), new publiohearings .may:be;necessaiy. The Council packet also contains the
entire PRD chapter incorporating language to be de and unchanged, per the Council
' s direction of July 25, 1994.
qh9th dgivrtoff)
Chapter 18.46
PRD — PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
18.46.010 Purpose.
18.46.020 Permitted districts.
18.46.030 Permitted uses.
18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances.
18.46.070 Density standards.
18.46.080 Open space.
18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas.
18.46.100 Preapplication procedure.
18.46.110 Application procedure required for PRD approval.
18.46.112 Review criteria.
18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City Attorney.
18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit.
• 18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments.
18.46.140 Expiration of time limits.
18.46.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to create open space in
residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections
of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to:
(1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography, vegetation,
waterways, wetlands and views;
(2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types;
(3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public improvements; and
(4) Create and/or preserve usable open space for the enjo ment of the occupank and the general public
18.46.020 Permitted distnc s: — Paz
71 Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the following districts:
(1) R -1, Single - family residential;
" --"(2) R -2, Two - family residential when there are sensitive areas on the lot; 'f�
(3) R -3, Three- and four - family residential when there are sensitive areas on the lot; \ �3` )
(4) R-4, Low apartments when there are,sensitive areas on the lot; ' - , k-F - tr�.`� •
[____(5) RMH, Multiple- residence high density when there are sensitive areas on the lot.
18.46.030 Permitted uses.
The following uses are allowed in planned residential development:
(1)
'
,lin R -1 districts, only single -family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
(2) In R -2, R -3, R-4, and RMH districts, residential developments of all types regardless of the type of building in
which sucti residence is located, such as single - family residences, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses,
townhouses or apartments; provided, that all residences are intended for permanent occupancy by their owners
or tenants. Hotels, motels, and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks are excluded;
(3) Accessory uses specifically designed to meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as garages and
recreation facilities of a noncommercial nature;
(4) In planned residential developments of ten acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses
shall be limited to those which are of a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or barber shops,
drugstores, grocery stores and self - service laundries.
Y.
thci -buffers:
).
18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1)
•2• -916«`
Lot Size and Setbacks. A maximum reduction of 15% for lot areas and setbaclhall be permitted based
upon the underlying zone and ins cordance-with Table 1 below, and providell provide that the amenities or
design features listed below are also substantially p ovided:
(A) At least fifteen perc r t- ofthe-na� to I vege Lion is retained (in cases where significant stands exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views,
watercourses, or other natlital- charactistics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided especially in or near areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Table 1, Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks
Zone
District
Minimum
Lot Size
Minimum
Front Setback
Minimum
Side Setback
Minimum
Rear Setback
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
_ 25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
Building Height. Building heights ma _b ern defied within a PRD when „_sists -in maintaining natural
resources and significant vegetation, d enhances'yiews within the site wi thout interfering with the views of
adjoining property. For increases in b ilding- height, there shall be a commensurate• ecrease in impervious
surface.
,
(b) Off - street Parking. Off - street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of buildings and uses as •
required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple- family zoned sites with sensitive areas, a minimum of two parking
stalls per unit will be allowed, with a 50% compact stalls allowance, and parking stalls in front of carports or garages
will be allowed if the design does not affect circulation.
(c) Platting Requirements. The .standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall apply to planned
residential developments if such standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval
of the PRD, filing of the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be
transferred.
(d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface calculated for the total development allowed on
sensitive areas sites will be 50% for each single - family development and each multi- family development.
(e) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as area required to
meet the recreation space minimums, if usable passive recreation opportunities within these areas are demonstrated.
Opportunities could include connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems, wildlife or scenic viewing
opportunities, or picnic areas.
(f) Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas.
(1)
Downslope and Side Yard Buffers. Photomontage or computer- generated perspectives, taken from the
nearest downslope off -site privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty -
five percent of the structures at the time of project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage
within fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard
requirement.
—2—
ti (2) Roads and Access Drivel Any road or access drive which cuts approx>' .ely perpendicular to a slope to the
ridge line of a hill shall have minimum five -foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species that provides a
branch pattern sufficient to provide, at maturity, 50% coverage of the pavement area. Roads or drives which
require retaining walls parallel to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of Northwest native plant
species.
(g) Review guidelines contained in Chapter 18.60, Section 18.60.050 shall apply to PRD's.
(h) For single - family developments, site plans shall include placement and footprint of the residences, driveways and
roads.
u cC1 - t YVI I 1s-
18.46.070 Density standards.
1 -10 30%
11 -'20 27%
21 - 30 24%
31 - 40 21%
41 -50 183E
51- 60 15%
61- 70 12%
71 -80 9%
81 - 90 6%
91 -100 3%
—3-
1I
<4,
-and-approved rou • ... .. .. ..
In multiple -family residential districts, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may
authorize, a dwelling -unit density not more than 20% greater than permitted by the underlying zones and that
findings can be made that amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided:
(1) A variety of housing types is offered.
(2) At least 15% of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist).
(3) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views,
watercourses, wetlands or other natural characteristics.
(4) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided, especially in or near areas of recreation.
(5) Developmental aspects Of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
18.46.080 Open space.
(a) Each planned residential development shall provide not less than 20% of the gross site area for common open space
which shall:
(1) Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas;
(2) Network with the trail and open space system of the City and provide a connection and extension, if feasible;
and
(3) Be under one ownership, owned and maintained by the ownership; or be held in common ownership by all of
the owners of the development by means of a homeowners' association or similar association. Such association
shall be responsible for maintenance of the common open space, or be dedicated for public use if acceptable to
the city or other appropriate public agency.
Planned residential developments shall set aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensitive areas tract as required
by Section 18.45.090, and will be exempted from other open space requirements of this section.
(b)
18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas. •
(a)
(b)
The design and layout of a planned residential development shall take into account the integration and compatibility
of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to minimize any undesirable
impact of the PRD on adjacent properties.
Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD shall be comparable to, or compatible with, those of the existing
development of adjacent properties or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped, the type of development which may be
permitted.
18.46.100 Preapplication procedure.
A preapplication conference between representatives of the City and the potential applicant for a PRD is required
prior to the acceptance of an application for PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the Planning Department
at the written request of the potential applicant. All affected City departments shall be notified and invited to
participate. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint the applicant with the provisions of this
section as well as other ordinances and regulations which would affect the property under consideration.
18.46.110 Application procedure required for PRD approval.
(a) Filing of Application. Application for approval of the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department of
Community Development and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and by the following:
(1) Justification for the density of requested by the applicant; 1 nGopA _ o2- \ r -51? back
(2) Program for development including staging or timing of developmental
(3) Proposed ownership pattern upon completion of the project;
(4) Basic content of any restrictive covenants;
(5) Provisions to assure permanence and maintenance of common open space through a homeowners' association,
or similar association, condominium development or other means acceptable to the City;
(6) An application for rezone may be submitted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary for proposed
density. Fees for rezone request shall be in addition to those of the PRD application;
(7) An application for preliminary plat may be submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees for the
subdivision shall be in addition to those of the PRD application;
(8) Graphic images of development in any sensitive area or buffer, including photomontage or computer - generated
perspectives in a standardized format required by the Director of the Department of Community Development;
a
—4—
Pe.
•
(9) Every reasonable effort, .ill be made to preserve existing trees and ;,etation and integrate them into the
subdivision's design by preparing a tree inventory of the significant vegetation on -site as part of the preliminary
plat application. A tree and vegetation retention/removal plan shall be part of any preliminary plat application.
Such tree and vegetation retention/removal plan shall assure the preservation of significant trees and vegetation.
(b) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the
proposed PRD, and shall give notice thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The public hearing shall not be
held before completion of all necessary and appropriate review by City departments. This review shall be completed
within a reasonable period of time.
(c) Planning Commission Recommendation. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report
of its findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria of this chapter, and forward
the report to the City Council.
(d) City Council Public Hearing.
(1) After receipt of the Planning Commission report, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed
PRD as recommended by the Planning Commission. The City' Council shall give approval, approval with
modifications, or disapproval to the proposed PRD.
(2) The PRD shall be an exception to the regulations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall constitute a
limitation on the use and design of the site unless modified by ordinance.
18.46.112 Review criteria.
The Planning Commission and City Council shall find that the proposed development plans meet all of the following
criteria in their decision making:
(1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met, if appropriate;
` (2) Reasons for density density.baliiaggiie criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; tY`GQ`a ,pc le,
(3) Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated;
(4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter and Chapter.18.45;
(5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the
application;
(6) Development in accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and other relevant plans;
(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines (Section 18.60.050); and
(8) Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation recommended by the Director of the
Department of Community Development.
18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by City Council and City Attorney. .
The restrictive covenants intended to be used by the applicant in a planned residential development (PRD), which
purports to restrict the use of land or the location or character of buildings or other structures thereon, must be
approved by the City Council and the City Attorney before the issuance of any building permit.
18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit.
The following procedures are required for approval of construction for the proposed planned residential development:
(1) Time Limitation. A complete application• for the initial building permit shall be filed by the applicant within
twelve months of the date on which the City Council approved the PRD. An extension of time for submitting
an application may be requested in writing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding six months may be
granted by the Director of the Department of Community Development. If application for the initial building
permit is not made within twelve months or within the time for which an extension has been granted, the plan
shall be considered abandoned, and the development of the property shall be subject to the requirements and
limitations of the underlying zone and the subdivision code.
(2) Application. Application for building permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department of
Community Development and shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed by the building code.
(3) Documentation Required. All schematic plans either presented or required in the approved PRD plans shall be
included in the building permit application presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans shall include but
are not limited to landscape, utility, open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans. Final plats and public
dedication documents must be approved by the City Council before the issuance of any building permits.
(4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is to be developed in stages, sureties or other security device as shall
be approved by the City Attorney shall be required for the complete PRD. The various stages or parts of the
PRD shall provide the same proportion of open space and the same overall dwelling unit density as provided in
the final plan.
•
—5—
(5)
Department of Community 3lopment Action. The Department of Come °.ty Development shall determine
whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in complian with and carry out the objectives''
of the approved PRD. Following approval of the Department of Community Development, the City Clerk shall
file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the City and the originals shall be. recorded
with the King County Department of Records and Elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall
be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone.
18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments.
If minor adjustments or changes are proposed following the approval of the PRD, by the City Council as provided in
Section 18.46.120; such adjustments shall be approved by the planning department prior to the issuance of a building —
permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of structures, but which do not
affect the basic character or arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or
open space provided. Major' adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning department, 'substantially
change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to
make one or more major changes, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120.
18.46.140 Expiration of time limits.
Construction of improvements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date of the filing of the final
PRD plan by the City Clerk as provided in Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning construction may
be requested in writing by the applicant, and such extension not exceeding six months may be granted by the
Planning Commission upon showing of good cause. If construction does not occur within 18 months from the date of
filing of PRD plans by the City Clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from the official zoning map and the
zoning shall revert to the underlying designation.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS
1247, 1289 .AND 1599, AS CODIHt1) AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 18.46, PERTAINING TO PLANNED RESIDEN- •
TIAL DEVELOPMENTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the establishment of specific standards to the current regulations is necessary
to offer a higher level of predictability for the development of Planned Residential Development
(PRD) projects; and
WHEREAS, some of the provisions in Chapter 18.46 lack clarity and require interpretation
which may be in conflict with the intent of the code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that changes in density standards, lot area
•and'setback requirements, as well as clarification of the application of design review guidelines
and downslope and side yard buffer requirements, will offer clearer direction to the applicant,
citizens and City staff, avoiding the need for code interpretation and providing assurance that
new PRD projects will be compatible with the surrounding residential development within the
City; and
WHEREAS, A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 17,1994;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 18.46 of the TMC is amended as follows:
Section 18 46.030(1) In R -1 districts, only single - family detached dwellings may be permitted.
Section 18.46.040 is hereby repealed.
Section 18.46.060(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 18.46.060(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size and Setbacks. A maximum reduction of 15% for lot areas and setbacks shall be
permitted based upon the underlying zone and in accordance with the Table 1 below; provided
that the amenities or design features listed below are also substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant
stands exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features
such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided, especially in or near areas of
recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land . use policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RETAKE
PREVIOU
DO CUMEN,r
(5)
Department of Community elopment Action. The Department of Comr ?ty Development shall determine
whether the project plans submitted with the building permit are in complianwith and carry out the objectives
of the approved PRD. Following approval of the Department of Community Development, the City Clerk shall
file a copy of the approved PRD plan with the official records of the City and the originals shall be recorded
with the King County Department of Records and Elections. After all approvals, the official zoning map shall
be amended to reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the designation of the underlying zone.
18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments.
If minor adjustments or changes are proposed following the approval of the PRD, by the City . Council as provided its
Section 18.46.120; such adjustments shall be approved by the planning department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Minor adjustments are those which may affect the precise dimensions or siting of structures, but which do not
affect the basic character or arrangement of structures approved in the final plan, or the density of the development or
open space provided. Major 'adjustments are those which, as determined by the planning department, 'substantially
change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant wishes to
make one or more major changes, a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section 18.46.120.
18.46.140 Expiration of time limits.
Construction of improvements in the PRD shall begin within twelve months from the date of the filing of the final
PRD plan by the City Clerk as provided in Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning construction may
be requested in writing by the applicant, and such extension not exceeding six months may be granted. by the
Planning Commission upon showing of good cause. If construction does not occur within 18 months from the date of
filing of PRD plans by the City Clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be dropped from the official zoning map and the
zoning shall revert to the underlying designation.
•
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS
1247, 1289 AND 1599, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 18.46, PERTAINING TO PLANNED RESIDEN- •
TIAL DEVELOPMENTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the establishment of specific standards to the current regulations is necessary
to offer a higher level of predictability for the development of Planned Residential Development
(PRD) projects; and
WHEREAS, some of the provisions in Chapter 18.46 lack clarity and require interpretation
which may be in conflict with the intent of the code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that changes in density standards, lot area
•and'setback requirements, as well as clarification of the application of design review guidelines
and downslope and side yard buffer requirements, will offer clearer direction to the applicant,
citizens and City staff, avoiding the need for code interpretation and providing assurance that
new PRD projects will be compatible with the surrounding residential development within the
City; and
WHEREAS, A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 17,1994;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 18.46 of the TMC is amended as follows:
Section 18 46,030(1) In R -1 districts, only single -family detached dwellings may be permitted.
Section 18.46.040 is hereby repealed.
Section 18.46.060(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 18.46.060(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks,
(1) Lot Size and Setbacks. A maximum reduction of 15% for lot areas and setbacks shall be
permitted based upon the underlying zone and in accordance with the Table 1 below; provided
that the amenities or design features listed below are also substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant
stands exist).
(5) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features
such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided, especially in or near areas of
recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 1, Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks
Zone
District
Minim .
Lot Size
Minimum
Front Setback
G
Minimum Y
Side Setback
Minimum
Rear
Setback
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
Not Less than 4.0
8.5
2) Building Height. Building heights may be modified within a PRD when it assists in
maintaining natural resources and significant vegetation, and enhances views within the site
without interfering with the views of adjoining property. For increases in building height, there
shall be a commensurate decrease in impervious surface.
(b) Off- street Parking. Off -street parking shall be provided in a PRD in the same ratio for
types of buildings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However, for multiple -family
zoned sites with sensitive areas, a minimum of two parking stalls per unit will be allowed,
with a 50% compact stalls allowance, and parking stalls in front of carports or garages will
be allowed if the design does not affect circulation.
(c) Platting Requirements. The standards of the subdivision code for residential
subdivisions shall apply to planned residential developments if such standards are not in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the
PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be
transferred.
(d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface calculated for the
total development allowed on sensitive areas sites will be 50% for each single -family
development and each multi- family development. .
(e) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive areas and stands of significant trees may be
counted as area required to meet the recreation space minimums, if usable passive recreation
opportunities within these areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include connection
and continuation of area -wide trail systems, wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or
picnic areas.
Section 18.46.060(f)(1) Downslope and Side Yard Buffers, Photomontage or computer -
generated perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off -site privately owned property,
shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty five percent of the structures. at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This standard
may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement.
Section 18.46.060(g) Review guidelines contained in TMC, Section 18.60.050 shall apply to
PRD's.
Section 18.46.070(a); N. (b)(1). (b)(2); (c). (c)(1) through (c)(5); (d), (d)(1) through (d)(5) are hereby
deleted and replaced with the following:
Section 18.46.070 Density Standards, . •
In multiple -family residential districts, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Coundl may authorize, a dwelling -unit density not more than 20% greater than permitted by the
underlying zones, after entry of findings that amenities or design features listed below are
substantially provided: •
(1) A variety of housing types is offered.
(2) At least 15% of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands
exist). • •
(3) Advantage is taken or. enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features
such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural characteristics.
(4) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided, especially in or near areas of
recreation.
(5) Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
l
•
•
•
•
:
...:i.:cxyr� •.. •t ��. �:. rrw ...+,c.r�...rav,.r.s:r�:i.«.-
lmconstitutionality sh -11 not affect the validity or constitutionality of a u other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of tE cdinance.
Section 3. 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 ,1994.
John W. Rants, Mayor
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM' .
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
By
•
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
St bK
eL,G
190A-r /cY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Rants
FROM: Rick Beeler, Director, Department of Community Development
DATE: August 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Issues Raised by City Council Pertaining to Amendments to the PRD
Background
July 11
Special meeting was held by the City Council to consider recommendations of the
Planning Commission regarding amendments to the PRD. Council then acted on each
of the proposed amendments and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance.
July 25 Council reviewed a draft ordinance (strike -out and bold format).
August 1
City Council reviewed a revised draft ordinance and took additional citizen comment.
Several additional issues were raised and staff was requested to respond to issues on
August 8.
PRD Amendments
The amendments affect the current PRD in seven ways:
1. Limits building types in single family zones to detached units.
2. Eliminates the site acreage minimum so that PRD's can apply to sites of any size.
3. Replaces language allowing reductions to minimum lot sizes for sites with and without sensitive
areas in single family zones by allowing a 15% reduction to area and setback in single - family
zones.
4. Eliminates requirement that where lot areas are reduced (based upon the R -1 -7.2 zone) for single -
family development with sensitive areas, that amenities and design features as listed must be
substantially provided.
5. Current Code:Density: Multi- family zones allow up to a 20% density increase to what the
underlying zone would allow, or only an increase equal to the allowable density credits by the
density transfer provision if the site contains sensitive areas or buffers and provided amenities and
design features as listed are provided.
Amended Code:Density: Eliminates density transfer provision entirely. Therefore, for multi- family
developments, a density increase is limited to up to 20% based upon the underlying zone and
provided amenities as listed are substantially provided.
PRD's Council 8/8/94
Page 2
6. Modifies off -site perspectives provision to clarify the method to obtain off -site perspectives by
preparing a photomontage or computer- generated perspective.
7. Clarifies how design guidelines contained in the Design Review chapter are to apply to PRD's.
Council Issues.
1. Why, under permitted uses, were the words "harmonious with the surrounding residential character
and built environment deleted?
Staff Response.
The City Attorney advised Council on July 11 that words such as harmonious, is subjective and
unenforceable. The issue is the same regarding Section 18.46.090: Relationship to adjacent areas as
raised by Steve Lawrence. The provision states:
'...planned residential development shall take into account the integration,and compatibility of the
site to the surrounding areas." AND
'...setbacks...shall be compatible to, or compatible with, those of the existing development of
adjacent properties...'
Changes to 18.46.090 are substantive and require new public hearings by the Planning Commission and
City Council. It is recommended that these changes be considered at such time the zoning code is
updated as part of the GMA effort.
2. Should a threshold be established based upon the amount of sensitive area contained on a site
which automatically triggers PRD's?
Staff Response.
Stated in the Purpose section is the following:
it is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imaginative site and building design and to crate
open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements
than is permitted by other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to:
(1) Promote the retention of significant features of the natural environment, including topography,
vegetation, waterways, wetlands and views;
(2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing types;
(3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the layout of streets, utility networks, and other public
improvements; and
(4) Create and /or preserve usable open space for the enjoyment of the occupants and the
general public.
The community has placed a value on the importance of these features such as views, open space areas,
mixture of housing types, etc., in addition to sensitive areas as defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
PRD's strive to protect and preserve these features. If PRD's were only applicable to sites with sensitive
PRD's
•
Council 8/8/94
Page 3
areas, then opportunities to preserve and protect features not defined as sensitive area, will be lost.
The proposed amendment to remove the 1 -acre minimum was decided in order to evaluate whether or
not these other features exist and to further evaluate their importance with respect to preserving and
protecting...on a site -by -site basis. If features are significant,• then a PRD approach offers some flexibility
to integrate these features in the overall site design. This affects both single- and multi- family
developments.
If Council decides to impose a threshold, new public hearings must be held before the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Tukila City Cou:cil'Agenaa
John W. Rants, Mayor
John McFarland, City Administrator
. Steve Mullet, Council President
Councilmembers: Joe Duffle • Joan Hernandez
Dennis Robertson • Allan Ekberg
Joyce Craft • Dorothy DeRodas
REGULAR MEETING
August 1,1994
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. SPECIAL
PRESENTATION
Ord #1711
Res #1302
Chris Vance, King County Council
5. APPOINTMENTS OF
THE MAYOR
6. CITIZEN'S
COMMENTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Community Oriented Policing Board appointments ( PAGE 3)
8. OLD BUSINESS
At this•time, you are invited to comment on items that are not included
on this agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes: 07/11/94 (Spec. Mtg.); 07/18/94
b. Approval of Vouchers
c. Authorize Mayor to sign agreement in the amount of $39,984-with
Sargent Engineers for 51st Ave. S. Bridge PS &E. (PAGE 14)
a An ordinance amending TMC Chapter ::1846':pertaining;toa
Planned' Residential =Developments(PRD's) - (PAGE25)
b. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with the
City of Seattle transferring water utility assets and customers from
the East Marginal Way, Oxbow, and Ryan Hill areas to the City
of Tukwila. (PAGE 31)
c. Authorize Mayor to accept right -of -way dedication for the
Minider property between Andover Park West and Southcenter
Parkway. (PAGE 53)
9. NEW BUSINESS
a.. A resolution setting a public hearing date to consider a request
from Associated Grocers and Northwest Auto Wrecking to vacate
a portion of unopened S. 104th St. PAGE 81)
b. Authorize Mayor to accept release o sleeve asement on S. 180th
Street bridge from Olympic Pipeline. GE 85)
10. REPORT
a.
b.
c.
e.
Mayor
City Council
Staff
City Attorney
Intergovernmental
11. MISCELLA1 EOUS
12. ADJOURNM NT
yettgoto
dvikt16';"-
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office by noon on Monday if we can be of assistance.
.( HOW TO TESTIFY
If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and
address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking
and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but
may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a
Committee or discussed under New Business.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public
notification is given.
Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all
Regular Council meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m.
Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing
of ordinances can onlybe taken at Regular Council meetings.
Committee of the Whole Meetings - Council members are elected for a four -year term.
The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of
the. Whole meetings for a one :year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held
the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular
Council meeting for official action.
• GENERAL INFORMATION
At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items
that are not included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your
comments to five minutes.
Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed
are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings.
Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial,
or personnel matters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action of matters affecting
the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues,'
etc. Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for
Public Hearings:
1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation.
2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make.a presentation.
3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
4. Citizens who wish to address'the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may
, speak a second time until everyone wishing tospeak has spoken.
5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker ..
can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time..
6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among
themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or
'postponed to another date.
Co .2 JCIL AGENDA S OPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Pre a e by
May r's review
Council review
7/11/94
"x
ITEM NO.
�0.
CAS Number: IP 4 _ /17
Agenda Item Title: * PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE PRD - 7111/94,
* *.:DRAFT ORDINANCE RELATED TO PRD AMENDMENTS - 7/25/94
Original Agenda Date:
Original Sponsor: . Council
Admin. X
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
The Council will conduct a public hearing to consider and dicsuss the recommendations for
modification to the PRD (amending TMC, Chapter 18.46, PRD (Planned Residential
Development)
Recommendations:
Sponsor: DCD
Committee:
Administration:
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
Action
7/11/94
Consider and discuss Planning Commission and Staff recommendations . Public hearing
held; amendments recommended:"
7/2'/94
8/1/94
ni �rusti nn- -RnnWa ii a mdnzIPd<<rireli•nancrs. tci ••nAxt• ReguTa'r Council in •final form.
Meeting Date
Attachments
7/11/94
Memo from Mayor dated July 8, 1994
7/11/94
Memo dated July 6, 1994
7/11/94
Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/23/94 •
7/11/94
Staff Report dated 6/15/94
7/25/94
Memo from Rick Beeler dated July 20, 1994
7/25/94
Draft ordinance related to PRD Amendments
8/1/94
PRD ordinance
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBERS 1247, 1289 AND 1599, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.46, PERTAINING TO
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the establishment of specific standards to the current regulations is
necessary to offer a higher level of predictability for the development of Planned Residential
Development (PRD) projects; and
WHEREAS, some of the provisions in Chapter 18.46 lack clarity' and require
interpretation which may be in conflict with the intent of the code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that changes in density standards, lot area
and setback requirements, as well as clarification of the application of design review
guidelines and downslope and side yard buffer requirements, will offer clearer direction to
the applicant, citizens and City staff, avoiding the need for code interpretation and providing
assurance that new PRD projects will be compatible with the surrounding residential
development within the City; and
WHEREAS, A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 17,1994;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 18.46 of the TMC is amended as follows:
Section 18.46.030(1) In R -1 districts, only single - family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
Section 18.46.060(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size and Setbacks. A maximum reduction of 15% for lot areas and setbacks small be
permitted based upon the underlying zone and in accordance with the Table 1 below, and
provided the amenities or design features listed below are also substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where
significant stands exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site
features such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided, especially in or near
areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 1, Minimum Lot Area and Setbacks
Zone
District
Minimum
Lot Size
Minimum
Front Setback
Minimum
Side Setback
Minimum
Rear Setback
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5 •
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
Not less than 4.0
8.5
Section 18.46.060(g) Review guidelines contained in Chapter 18.60, Section 18.60.050 shall
apply to PRD's.
Section 18.46.060(0(1) Downslope and Side Yard Buffers. Photomontage and computer -
generated perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off -site privately owned property,
shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty five percent of the structures at the time
of project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This
standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement.
Section 18.46.070 Density Standards,
In multiple - family residential districts, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the
City Council may authorize, a dwelling -unit density not more than 20% greater than
permitted by the underlying zones and that findings can be made that amenities or design
features listed below are substantially provided:
(1) A variety of housing types is offered.
(2) At least 15% of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands
exist).
(3) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site
features such as views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural characteristics.
(4) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided, especially in or near areas
of recreation.
(5) Developmental aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. 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 ,1994.
John W. Rants, Mayor
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
By
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
TuLwila City CouCthilAa gen
John W. Rants, Mayor
John McFarland, ClryAdminlstrator
Steve Mullet, Council President
Councilmembers: Joe Duffle • Joan Hernandez
Dennis Robertson • Allan Ekberg
Joyce Craft • Dorothy DeRodas
SPECIAL MEETING
July 11, 1994
7:00 p.m.
Ord #1711
Res #1300
PLEASE NOTE: EXECUTIVE SESSION - 6:30 p.m.
Pending Litigation (30 minutes) .
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. CITIZEN'S At this time, you are invited to comment on items that are not included
COMMENTS on this agenda.
5. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes: 06/20/94
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Revision to the PRD ( Page 3 )
7. OLD BUSINESS
a. Motion adopting Findings and Conclusions: Southgate Mobile
Home Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone ( Page 39 )
b. Tukwila Community Center- Architectural fine selection ( Page ` 49 )
8. REPORTS
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff.
d. City Attorney
•
e. Intergovernmental
9. MISCELLANEOUS
10. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office by noon on Monday if we can be of assistance.
HOW TO TESTIFY
If you would like to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and
address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking
and limit your comments to five minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens but
may not be able to take immediate action on comments received until they are referred to a
Committee or discussed under New Business.
COUNCIL MEETINGS
No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public
notification is given.
Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four -year term, presides at all
Regular Council meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m.
Official Council action in the form of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing
of ordinances can only be taken at Regular Council meetings.
Committee of the Whole Meetings - Council members are elected for a four -year term.
The Council president is elected by the Council members to preside at all Committee of
the Whole meetings for a one -year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held
: the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m. Issues discussed are forwarded to the Regular
Council meeting for official action.
GENERAL INFORMATION
At each Council meeting citizens are given the opportunity to address the Council on items
that are not included on the agenda during CITIZENS COMMENTS. Please limit your
comments to five minutes.
Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed
- are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings.
Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial,
or personnel matters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required bylaw before the Council can take action of matters affecting
the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues,
etc. Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for
Public Hearings:
1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation.
2. :The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
3. • Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
4. Citizens who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may
speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken.
5. After each speaker has spoken, the *Council may question the speaker. Each speaker
can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at this time.
6. After the Public Hearing is closed, the Council may discuss the issue among
themselves without further public testimony. Council action may be taken at this time or
postponed to another date.
CG JNCIL AGENDA SNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by ,
Mayor's review
Council review
7/11/94
,
x
ITEMNo.
I . ~ :: >: °>
:
CAS
Number I ........ ......... 4
Agenda Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE PRD
1 Original Agenda Date:
Original Sponsor.
Council
Admin. X
Timeline:
Sponsor's Summary:
The Council will conduct a public hearing to consider and dicsuss the recommendations for
modification to the PRD (amending TMC, Chapter 18.46, PRD (Planned Residential
Development)
Recommendations:
Sponsor: DCD
Committee:
Administration:
Vj9-rhAl �' rY,��1i N;
Y
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
Meeting Date
Action
7/11/94
Consider and discuss Planning Commission and Staff recommendations
momomiommer-
Meeting Date
Attachments
7/11/94
Memo from Mayor dated July 8, 1994
7/11/94
Memo dated July 6, 1994
7/11/94
Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/23/94
7/11/94
Staff Report dated 6/15/94
3
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE
OF •
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A
PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY. JULY 11. 1994 AT 7:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBERS AT TUKWILA CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD., TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (PRD) SECTION OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS: MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE: DENSITY AND
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: DENSITY TRANSFERRED TO DEVELOPABLE AREA; BAR
REVIEW: AND OFF-SITE PERSPECTIVES.
ANY AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT TO VOICE
APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, OR OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE. •
DATED THIS • DAY OF 4994. •
CITY OF TUKWILA.
JANE E. CANTU
CITY CLERK
DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEATTLE TIMES - JULY 1,1994
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
To: City Council
From: John McFarlan
Date: July 8, 1994
Re: PRD Revisions
The Public Hearing for PRD is the next step in the process for possible revision to that portion
of the zoning code. The Planning Commission has completed their review of the PRD and of
the Council's suggested revisions. Their suggestions are incorporated in the attached report from
the Planning staff.
We have several _ options'3nclud e. development of comprehensive: design 'standards. This
will certainly take some time.. I believe it is important that we take the time necessary to make
revisions that will eliminate confusion and misunderstanding in its application.
Planning staff will be present Monday evening to assist the Council in working through the issues
raised by the Planning Commission.
JM/so
Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
MEMORANDUM
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
TO: Mayor Rants
FROM: Rick Beeler, Director, Depaitment of Community Development
DATE: July 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendations re: Amendments to the PRD Regulations (rMC,
Chapter 18.46)
On May 26, 1994, the City Council recommended modifications to the PRD regulations. On June 23rd,
a workshop and hearing was held by the Planning Commission. The workshop provided an opportunity
to,evaluate the implications of the proposed changes and to consider alternatives.
Ttre direction given by the City Council is listed below followed by recommendations of the Planning
Commission.
I. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
(Section 18.46.030 (1)) •City Council: , •• - *4°464 WiAle
Modify: In R-1 Districts; only single-family detached dwellings may be permitted.
Planning Commission:
No change to the existing provision, but develop better architectural design criteria to apply to
PRD's for single-family and multi-family development.
As reflected in the attached minutes, the Planning Commission recognized the merits of allowing for
flexible development standards including allowing attached units in order to preserve native vegetation
and gain open space areas. The Planning Commission however, felt stronger guidelines related to
building architecture and site planning could be developed and incorporated into the PRD. The
guidelines would assure design sensitivity in relation to the surrounding development, and within the site.
11. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
(Section 18.46.040)
City Council:
Delete the entire section d.
Planning Commission:
Concur with City Council direction.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188. • (206) 431-3670 • Fax. (206) 431-3665
1I1. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
(Sections 18.46.060(a)(1) and 18.46.070(b)(1) and (b)(2)
LOT SiZE.
City Council:
Allow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120 square feet in
area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200). Council requested staff to prepare a table which reflects the 15%
reduction for lot areas and setbacks for all zone districts. Also, that Sections 18.46.070(b)(1) and
(b)(2) be deleted. The table follows:
ZONE DIST.
11■11 v. •
LOT SIZE
FRONT STBK
SIDE STBK
REAR STBK
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
NOT <4.0
- 8.5--- - - - -.__
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
Planning Commission:
If it is decided to delete the density transfer provision and impose a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet, then the Planning Commission recommends that criteria A through D under Section
18.46.070(b)(2) not be deleted, but be referenced regardless of the presence of sensitive areas.
This revision would read as follows: IVAW.. OW
__ (1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 6,120 square feet In area provided that the
amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained. (in cases where
significant stands exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site
features such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided especially In or near
areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
DENSITY TRANSFER.
City Council:
Delete the entire section S4 sw
Planning Commission:
Retain the density transfer provision, but limit lot sizes to no less than 5,000 square feet in area
The provision would read as follows:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be,_5,000;squarelfeet in -and shall
establish the maximum number of dwelling units permitted In the PRD.
2
k ; . =' �:
f I1
Lu .- Um g Ft 4 3MSS
GA R : yaws RSatM��.
P ISM goat dessr •
IV. DENSITY TRANSFERED TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE SITE- • r 41te
(Section 18.46.070(d)(5)
City Council: let �a1f 'Sfe6
This provision was not originally discussed at the May City Council m sting, however, staff has
this_asan additional provision which shout; b ; if• D r ati1 44ce preibig„,
Planning Commission: �� Nele44.
Modify as follows:-
Section 18.46.070(d)(5).
Development shall be confined
CA4, to buildable areas of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the toning Code,
WITSensftive Areas Regulations.
The Planning Commission based their decision on the discussion contained in the June 15 staff report
beginning on page 8.
V. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
(Section 18.46.060(g)
City Council:
Delete the entire section.V
Planning Commission:
Concur with the City Council, but create better architectural design standards for PRD's to be
incorporated into the PRD section of the TMC.
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES
(Section 18.46.060(f)
City Council:
Modify as shown (new language shown in bold):
Section 18.46.060(0(1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off-site privately
owned property, shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty -five percent of
the structures at the time of protect completion with anticipated forty percent
coverage within fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be In lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
Planning Commission:
Concur with City Council, but insert °computer- generated' between the words photomontage and
perspectives. The Planning Commission believed perspectives produced by computer better
depict existing vegetative conditions and vegetation and structures proposed by the new
develo e provision would read as follows:
`Photomontage and computer - generated perspectives..•
• - • --. "
In summary, the Planning Commission concurred with the City Council regarding minimum property size,
Board of Architectural Review and Off-site pers • es with one minor modification. The Council and
Planning Commission differed • vs., • • urn setting limits to lot sizes and whether to
permit or modify:density 'transfer.
•
The Planning Commission felt these last three issu: , minimum lot size and density transfer, deserve
further discussion. They believe the PRD approach is the best means to allow the layout of the
development to respond to the site to 1) emphasize its unique characteristics and 2) to gain open space
and recreational amenities. Further, with stronger architectural guidelines, attached 'units in a, PFID • can
be designed sensitively to incorporate features compatible with the established residential character.
Clustering is an excellent design arrangement for a number of reasons:
_
1. Clustering enables a developer to concentrate units on the most buildable portion of the site,
preserving natural drainage systems,' open space, and environmental sensitive areas.
2. Development is more economical: only the portion of the site being developed needs to be
cleared, and streets and utility lines are shorter.
3. Maintenance costs are reduced because Infrastructure js more compact.
4. Clustering reduces impervious surfaces, thereby proinoting aquifer recharge.'
5. Homes clustered around natural areas appreciate more than comparable homes on conventional
lots.
6. PRD's also consider changes in technology such as designs for drainage systems, storm water
detention, roadways. Roadway standards are undergoing significant change to respond to
pedestrian-oriented design.
Rather than force prescriptive standards onto PRD's by placing a limit on lot size, the Planning
Commission recommends the City Council augment the PRD regulations and/or Subdivision Code by
articulating site planning and architectural design objectives.
If the City Council is interested, a private consultant who specializes in environmental assessment, site
planning and architectural design, has volunteered to lead a workshop for the City Council. The workshop
would emphasize the process of site planning and provide regulatory tools for PRD's and/or subdivision
regulation.
1
'he Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook", David Listokin and Carole Walker, ..1993.
• 4
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSIONBOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1994
Mr. Clark called the meeting to order at 7:OOp.m. Members present were Messrs. Clark,
Meryhew, Neiss and Mrs. Stetson. Messrs. Haggerton, Flesher and Malina were excused.
Representing•the staff were Jack Pace, Denni Shefrin, Ann Siegenthaler and Sylvia Schnug
Case #L94 -0012
I. Attached vs. Detach Units in Single Family Zones
Denni Shefrin gave the staff report. There are two issues with this first provision. PRD units
need to be harmonious with the surrounding residential developments. Secondly, single family
units which are detached are more preferable than those which are attached. It also references
zgro- lot -lisle dcyclopment! At a typical zerg -19t-line set -up yclu are actually haying ckkigiNd units
but they are built on the property line on alternating lot lines. It would be false to assume that the
zero -lot -line patterns automatically means they're attached. The Council's direction is whether or
not to approve attached units in single family zones.
Mr. Meryhew: This applies only to the PRD section, correct?
Ms. Shefrin: Yes. With one exception, there is one provision that talks about change to the
sensitive area regulations.
Mr. Clark: Could you not find any examples for the Council of a positive impact from attached
PRD housing? To my perspective that is an example of the negative impact of detached zero -lot-
line construction. You could meet the letter of it without the intent of it being harmonious.
Ms. Shefrin: You are bringing up a good point. This attempts to straighten out zero -lot -line
pattern.
Mr. Meryhew: I don't like the restriction either. I'm not sure that down the road we want to
limit it to single family.
Ms. Shefrin: The bottom line here, when we're tallcing about PRD's, something that's created,
it sets in motion the whole desire to try and retain unique geographic features.
Mr. Clark: I think the only people who are embracing the clustering concept are those who are
forced to focus on it. If you ask the general public we'd get a negative response.
f„ •
+3,00 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206J 431-3670 • Fax (206) 40313665
Planning Commission /BAl'k
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 2
?: They are thinking about their immediate neighborhood, they're not thinking about the overall
city.
Mrs. Stetson: What's wrong with attached? What's the difference between attached and duplex
for instance? This is not an example of detached zero - lot -line, this is appalling.
Ms. Shefrin: Do you feel that the language in the PRD is strong enough, are there other sorts
of objectives that are part of the PRD provision to get good design, to allow the kind of flexibility
that we're talking about?
Mr. Clark: I think that a ti hter review of the architectural detailing of the product Would achieve
a better result than this restriction.
Ms. Shefrin: The PRD allows that sort of critique as well. The BAR criteria is more specific
to commercial development,
Mr. Neiss: I think we need some flexibility. If you had the two attached on one lot line it gives
you a lot more room to do something creative with the surrounding area.
Mr. Clark: And preserve native vegetation.
?: I like the the way the code reads without the changes.
Ms, §h frin! Ilia wily this 0.bdc currclitly t'eads iE doesti't regtiii'e BAR review, but it does
require BAR guidelines be applied to the project.
Mr. Clark; The problem with viewing the PRA from the perspective of clustering is that if the
citizen's and the council don't see the value of clustering, what's the point of having that as a goal?
Is that the goal of the PRD?
Ms. Shefrin: Ultimately it is.
Mr. Pace: If you want to leave the wording as is, just strengthen the BAR guidelines.
Mr. Clark: Remember that if the overall goal is clustering, then the existing language
achieves a better result than the new proposed imnguage,
II. Minimum Property Size
Second issue relates to minimum property size. In the Code PRD's are limited to one acre or
greater. The SAO requires that short plats and boundary line adjustments also meet
. administrative PRD. This whole issue pertains to areas where there are sensitive areas.
?: I agree with the Council on this one to just delete it.
. Planning Commission /L _1Z Page 3
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
III, Density and Minimum Lot Size
The PRD allows a density transfer. Density transfer says that if you have sensitive areas on your
property the provision does not penalize for maximizing development. You have to recognize
that sensitive areas says you can't build in those areas and you have to provide a buffer. The
direction that Council gave alto to omit the den §ity tran fer calculation all together and regulate
minimum lot size. They suggested a 15% reduction to lot areas and setbacks with a minimum lot
size of 6,120 square feet in area. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is recommending minimum
lot sizes of 6,500 square feet in residential zones in lieu of 7,200.
Ms. Shefrin: So, do we look at regulating lot size and allow some variety or variance of
setbacks to accomplish the goal of preserving the sensitive areas and open spaces?
Mr. Neiss: I think there should be a minimum lot size, whether it's 15% or an actual square
footage.
Mr. Meryhew: I agree there should be a limit, it could be as small as 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Clark: If you have a high density, 5,000 square feet can look very big. That can support a lot
of design options, but I don't think we should go below 5,000.
Mr. Neiss: I'm not in total agreement with the idea of 5,000 square foot lots, but I stand alone on
that one.
Ms. Shefrin: If we start limiting lot areas there has to be some demonstration that a site can
support "X" number of lots with that minimum area.
Mr. Pace: As lot size gets larger, density transfer doesn't work.
?: The important thing is that we want to minimize the number of 5,000 square foot lots. We
want to vary them, try to go as large as possible, but in some cases we might want it to be 5,000
square feet.
Ms. Shefrin: The other option would be to leave density transfer in there and have a minimum
lot size of 5,000 square feet.
IV, Density Transfer to Developable Parts Of The Site
The Code states that no development is allowed in sensitive areas. The conflict is that this
provision excludes density transfer and the SAO says you can't develop on steep slopes, how do
we resolve that issue? The recommendation is that the development be confined to developable
portions in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of zoning code and sensitive areas regulations.
Planning Commission /BAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 4
V. Board of Architectural Review
The way the Code says there are BAR guidelines, however, there are no guidelines for single
family or multi - family development. Also there is no statement that says that the Board of
Architectural Review must review PRD's. Council and Staff recommend that the entire section be
deleted,
?: All PRD's still have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission?
M. Sheftitt: Ye §.
Mr. Clark: We were just talking about more BAR review, and now you're saying no BAR review.
I feel we should delete the entire section.
Ms. Shefrin: But they still apply to guidelines. You as the Planning Commission use the same
BAR guidelines. You still have the authority to make recommendations on the architecture and
features provided on -site.
VI.Off -Site Pergpeetive§
The intent here is to provide vegetative screening to lessen the visibility of new buildings to
properties located down - slope. The problem is, what is the definition of off -site? With Foster
Yin we made the determirgatjgn that off Site i§ 10 feet away from the proporty. Wilco you'r6
closer you might obtain something that provides a better screen. A problem with using off -site
perspectives is there is a tremendous amount of artistic license that can be taken by an individual,
and to what degree can an individual actually capture all the vegetation? The Council gave us a
direction to use photomontages with future development over -laid.
Mr. Meryhew: Should we include the possibility of a computer generated photo instead of
restricting it to photomontage?
Ms. Shefrin: The most accurate version of the photomontage is computer generated but the
cost is significantly more than an artist's version.
Mrs. Stetson: So is this a cost issue?
Mr. Meryhew: The cost is.in direct proportion to the size of the PRD. I recommend approval
with addition that it could be computer generated photo montage.
Mr. Clark closed the Work Session and opened thePublic Hearing at 8:OOpm.
There were no citizen's comments.
MRS. STETSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26,1994. MR.
MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
\ik
Planning Commmni>;aion /ILA
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page .g
Mr. Meryhew: On item 18, I think we should change "such as" to "including bike racks... ".
Mr. Pace: Would this be coming back to you as a public meeting or hearing? .
Mr. Meryhew: I think all we need is a public meeting since we've had the hearing.
MR: MERYHEW MQVED TO APPROVE L93 -QQ8 §3 DESIGN REVIEW; BASED QN
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ALONG WITH THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
ITEM 1- CHANGED TO READ "TRAFFIC SIGNALING DEVICE AT ENTRY DRIVE
SHALL BE REDESIGNED AND MOVED FURTHER FROM EXIT. DEVICES
SHALL BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO BUTTONS, HUMPS OR BUMPS.
ITEM 2 - DELETED
ITEMS 3 -17 - ACCEPTED AS IS
ITEM 1$ = TO BE REVISED TO READ, "PLAM "PLAN SHALL BE REVISED TO INCLUDE
STREET FURNITURE INCLUDING BIKE RACKS, TRASH RECEPTACLES, ETC.,
WHICH IS APPROPRIATE TO A PUBLIC FACILITY AND INTEGRATED WITH THE
OVERALL ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT,
ALL ITEMS EXCEPT 3, 4, 5,13,14,15,16,17 TO BE APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT FURTHER REVIEW BY PLANNING
COMMISSION. ITEMS 3, 4, 5,13,14,15,16,17 TO HAVE FILIAL REVIEW BY
PLANNING COMMISSION IN A PUBLIC MEETING. MR. NEISS SECONDED THE
MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Special Permission: Public Facility
MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE 04 -QQ41 SPECIAL PERMISSION; SIGH AS
RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO MEET SIGN CODE. MR.
MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED:
Mr. Clark called for a five minute break and then called the meeting back to order.
Mr. CLark re- opened the public hearing at 10:55pin.
Case #L94 -0035: Proposed Revisions to PRD
Denni Shefrin provided the staff report. Prior to the opening of the public hearing there was a
workshop held . to go over the six items that have been identified as potential changes necessary to
the PRD.
Planning CoMnis ion /BA(.. Page 16
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
jtem 1 - Attached versus Detached Units in Single Family Zone
Recommendation from Planning Comrnig ion wag that there would be fits change to the eitistiag
provision.
Mr. Meryhew: Didn't we ask that an example be included?
Ms. Shefrin: You did give staff direction to seek better architectural. design criteria.
jtem 2 - Minimum Property Size
Recommendation from Planning Commission is that the entire section be deleted. The result of
that ig to allaw PRD'g to sdeur a.§ an 8pti6n..
jtem 3 - Related to Density and Minimum Lot Size
What was recommended was that the density transfer provision be retained but therein a
minimum lot area standard of 5,000 square feet. Staff is recommending that the wording on the
top of page 7 be revised to read, "(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet in
area and shall establish the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the PRD." On page 8
where you see items A -D, that already exists in the Code. We put that in with the anticipation
that the Density Transfer may be omitted. You have chosen to keep that in.
Item 4 - Density Transfer to the Developable Parts of the Site
Recommended change occurs on page 9.
Item 5 - Board of Architectural Review
Recommendation was that the entire section be deleted.
Item 6 - Off -Site Perspectives
The proposed change is on the top of page 11 with the addition of "Photomontage or computer
generated perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope.... ".
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L94 -0035 AS READ BY DENNI SHEFRIN,
AND BY RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MRS.
STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Case #L94 -0036 and L93.0091 t Best Sign
Mr. Clark: Howard Turner is not present.
Mr. Pace: He wants to increase the size to 225 square feet. Staff recommends approval of both
signs.
MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L94 -0036 BASED ON STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE
MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
City of Tukwila
Department' of Community Development
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared June 15, 1994
June 23, 1994
L94 -0035
John W Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development
Amend TMC, Chapter 18:46, PRD (Planned Residential Development)
City -wide
Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner
A. TMC, Chapter 18.46 (current)
B. • Minutes, City Council COW, 5/26/94
C. Zero -lot -line illustration
'fir' 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 •: Fax (206) 4313665
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
. FINDINGS OF FACT
1-94 -0035
BACKGROUND
The City Council has directed staff to prepare draft revisions to TMC Chapter
18.46, Planned Residential Development (PRD) in response to problems created
by several provisions of the PRD. The body of this report identifies specific
changes recommended by both City Council at their May 26, 1994 meeting, and
recommendations by staff. The amendments to the PRD are proposed primarily
to offer clearer direction and predictability to the applicant, citizens and City staff.
Secondly, changes are proposed to reduce confusion and to avoid need for
interpretation. some of the provisions lack clarity and require interpretation which
may be in conflict with the intent of the code.
Once the Comprehensive Plan update receives final approval, the Zoning Code will
be revised to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code update will
likely include additional revisions to the PRD and companion provisions of the
Sensitive Areas Regulations.
• Current code provisions are listed below followed by a discussion and proposed
amendments; "PRD process" is replaced with "PRD ".
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
I. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
The code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses.
(1) . In R -1 Districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious
with the surrounding residential character and built environment.
Single -unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units,
however, attached two -unit dwellings will be considered if necessary
to accommodate interior zero lot lines for projects with sensitive
areas and /or sensitive area buffers.
Discussion.
The concern expressed with this provision is the allowance of attached units in a
single - family zone. Also implied, yet erroneous, is the assumption that zero -lot -line
development always means that units are attached. This is incorrect. Zero -lot line
development generally means units are detached with each unit placed at the side
. 2
Planning Commission L94 -0035
23 June 1994
property line (see Attachment C).. Once a PRD is approved, the lot location, and
building footprints are recorded with the. Final Plat.
When the Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO) was adopted, revisions were made
to the PRD to allow the clustering of dwellings to better protect, enhance and
avoid intrusion into sensitive areas and buffers.
The second issue relates to the first sentence of the provision. The first sentence
states: In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the
surrounding residential character and built environment." This sentence is
ambiguous and interpretative: the word "harmonious" is not defined. Under
Section 22.46.090: Relationship' to adjacent areas, PRD's are required to be
compatible with surrounding development.
Council Direction.
Modify the section as follows:
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses
(1) In R -1 districts, only single - family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
II. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
The Code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.040. Site Acreage Minimum.
The minimum site for a planned residential development shall be one
acre, except sites containing sensitive areas and their buffers.
Discussion.
This regulation treats all residential zones equally relative to minimum size, of
property for a PRD. It waives the minimum size for PRD's. The first issue is
whether or not allow PRD's regardless of parcel size.
The benefit of the PRD process is the ability to preserve and create open spaces
and protect sensitive areas and their buffers through creative site design. To
accomplish these goals, the PRD allows and encourages deviations from setback
and lot area standards, and from the Subdivision Code.
A substantial majority of single family Tots in Tukwila are Tess than one acre,
3
•
Planning Commission x'0335
23 June 1994
however, many of these areas contain unique topographic and /or natural features.
By restricting the application of PRD's to one acre, opportunities of gaining open
space areas to preserve important features are minimized. By allowing the option
of a PRD, the following can be achieved:
1. gain more site amenities including open space areas
2. better integration with the surrounding development
3. better site design
4. provision of needed housing.
The PRD also includes decision criteria, such as compliance with the BAR
guidelines, which address building design, site planning, and landscaping. The
application of the BAR criteria combined with flexible standards achieves higher
quality development.
The second issue is whether to continue making mandatory PRD's for short plats
and boundary line adjustments as required by the Section 18.45.060(2) of the
Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO).
The SAO, requires administrative PRD's for residential developments (single and
multi - family) including short plats and boundary line adjustments. There are other
provisions of the Code such as the SAO which requires buffers to sensitive areas,
and the Tree Regulations. Both protect unique features of a site. It is therefore
recommended that PRD's be an option for short plats and boundary line
adjustments.
Council Direction
Delete the entire section:
Staff recommendation:
Section 18.45..060(2). Planned Residential Development Permit. Any new
residential subdivision,
line- adjent; -or multiple family residential proposal which includes a
sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a planned residential
.development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46.
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
DENSITY TRANSFER.
The PRD currently allows a density transfer (not a density bonus) and does not
4.
Planning Commission L94-0(1.35
23 June 1994
•
•
•
•
restrict lot sizes when sensitive areas are present. Without density transfer, density
would normally be calculated based upon the non - sensitive portions of a site only.
With density transfer, density may be increased.
LOT AREA
There is a direct relationship between lot area and density transfer. The PRD
allows deviations to lot area and building setbacks without placing limits on either
in order to accommodate the total amount of density permitted. This total includes
the amount of density "transferred ".. •
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DENSITY TRANSFER AND LOT AREA.
Density transfer assumes the total amount of density permitted for a project can
be accommodated on a site. In most cases, the only way to do this is to vary lot
sizes and building setbacks.
The Planning Commission and City Council have expressed discomfort with the
level of flexibility allowed by the PRD which may result in small lots. If lot areas are
fixed, the concept of density transfer may no longer apply. .
The following decisions must be made:
1. whether to regulate .lot size to a specified minimum; or
2. whether to leave the code unchanged where density transfer would
be applied and lot sizes would vary.
PART I
LOT SIZE
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.060. Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other
ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of
this Code are waived, within the planned residential development.
The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying
zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density.
Discussion.
As discussed above, a decision must be made whether to regulate lot sizes, or to
allow for deviation to lot areas. Secondly, the second sentence is redundant
5
Planning Commission L94-0035
23 June 1994
because the same is also stated under Section 18.46.070(a):...The dwelling units
per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50."
The primary objective of PRD's is to allow for the .greatest amount of design
flexibility including clustering to maximize open space opportunities. Design
flexibility is achieved by reducing lot areas and yard setbacks:
The following alternatives are presented regarding treatment of reduction to lot
area and building setback.
Alternative 1.
Under Section 18.46.060 (a)(3) SETBACKS, the code requires setbacks and
design of the perimeter lots to be compatible. with the bulk and streetscape of
existing development of adjacent properties or anticipated development. A similar
criteria could be considered for lot size:
(1) Lot size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code
are waived within the PRD except for perimeter lots. Perimeter lots must be
compatible with those of existing development of adjacent properties.
Alternative 2.
This Alternative describes the impacts to density transfer by restricting lot areas.
By placing a minimum lot area for PRD's, lot areas and density become
predictable. Predictability however, may be at the cost of loosing open space
opportunities and other amenities which can now be gained with no limits to lot
area.
• Second, if lot area is restricted, retaining the density transfer must be decided.
Two options are offered:
1. Continue to apply the density transfer. The lot area then dictates the
number of Tots allowed.
Example:
If a site with sensitive areas is allowed two units by applying the density
transfer formula, those two units would only be permissible if the lot areas
of all lots can meet the minimum area requirement.
2. Omit the density transfer section entirely.
By omitting this section and by' placing a limit to the lot area, the lot area
6
Planning Commission
23 June 1994 .
194-0035
would determine the maximum number of Tots allowed based upon the net
parcel area.
The following example recommends new language which would restrict lot
sizes to a minimum of 6,1.20 square feet:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 6,120 (example) square
feet in area and shall establish the maximum number of dwellings
permitted in the PRD.
Council Direction.
Allow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet in area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200). Council requested staff to prepare a
table. which reflects the 15% reduction for lot areas and setbacks for all zone
districts. Also, that Sections 18.46.070(b) (1) and (b) (2) be deleted. The table
follows:
ZONE DIST.
LOT SIZE
FRONT STBK.
SIDE STBK.
REAR STBK.
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5.
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1. -20
17,000
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
City Council Direction Related to Density Transfer.
Delete the entire section.
Staff Recommendation.
It would be more appropriate to place this requirement under 18.46.060 (a) (1) [Lot
Size] and add the design features as listed under (A) through (D).
The provision would-read as follows (new language is shown. in bold):
Section 18.46.060(a)
(1) Lot Size.
7
Planning commission
23 June 1994
L940035
The
minimum lot size shall be 6,120 square feet and the following
design features must be substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained
in cases where significant stands exist;
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual
or significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other
natural characteristics.
(C) Separation or auto and pedestrian movement is provided
especially in or near areas of recreation..
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
IV. DENSITY TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE
SITE.
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.070(d)(5).
Development of the transferred density shall be confined to buildable
areas of the site, and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their
buffers.
Discussion
This section conflicts with the Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO) which allows
development on steep slopes. By definition, steep slopes are considered sensitive
areas. In the strictest interpretation of this provision, steep slopes could not be
developed.
Council Direction.
Because staff has had more time to evaluate needed changes to the PRD, this
issue was not brought before the previous City Council meeting.
Staff Recommendation
If density transfer is retained, then the language should be modified as
recommended below. If density transfer is deleted, this provision would be
included in the deletion.
8
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
.'
•
Section 18.46.070(d)(5).
L94 -0035
Development shall be confined to buildable areas of the site in
accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code, Sensitive Areas
Regulations.
V. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.060(g). The Board of Architectural Review shall review
guidelines for single - family and multi-family developments. The design and
review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050.
Discussion.
The first sentence of this provision is entirely unclear. No "guidelines" other than
PRD sections which pertain to design elements, have been developed. Guidelines
have been approved recently for multi - family developments, including review by
the Planning Commission, not the BAR. Secondly, the City Council recently
interpreted this section to mean that PRD's are to be reviewed by the Board of
Architectural Review while the second sentence requires compliance with the BAR
design guidelines. Neither sentence specifically states BAR review is required.
Further, BAR review would be unnecessarily duplicative of Planning Commission
review which is required.
This section is redundant of Section 18.46.112(7), (PRD) Review Criteria which
states the following:
"(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines (Section
18.60.050); and "... .
Council Direction.
Delete entire section.
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES
The existing code reads as follows:
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94 -0035
Section 18.46.060(f)(1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape
coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within
fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
Discussion.
The intent of this section is to provide vegetative screening so as to lessen the
visibility of new buildings to properties located down -slope and away from the new
development. The provision attempts to quantify the amount of vegetative cover
necessary to achieve this objective, however, provides no definitive procedure to
accomplish this. Therefore, administration of this provision is extremely difficult.
This provision was applied the first time to the Fosterview Estates PRD. The
planning staff recommended locations from which perspectives should be
provided. Staff determined where the sloped areas would be after grading; where
visibility would be highest because existing vegetation would either be removed,
or be retained in sensitive area tracts and open space easements. Because the
provision does not define "off- site" or specify from where perspectives should be
taken, staff and the applicant selected ten feet from property lines.
it is very difficult to codify a location for the perspectives that addresses every view
. of the property from downslope properties. Secondly, it is difficult to quantify by
percentage the amount of vegetation needed to achieve the desired effect of
screening because of the uncertain growth rate and growth pattern of trees.
An alternative to perspectives drawn by artists is to require photomontages
(photographs of the property superimposed with the proposed buildings and
landscaping). This may give a better depiction of the visual appearance of the
.development at a reasonable cost, especially for a small PRD of a few lots. The
most accurate version of the photomontage is derived from computer imaging, but
the cost is significantly more that the artist's version. Artistic license can still be
taken with preparation of a photomontage.
While photomontage is an alternative to providing rendered perspectives, many
of the difficulties of providing a clear depiction of the extent of screening still
remains. Interpretation of the exact placement of a new building relative to
vegetation which may or may not be retained after construction is necessary.
Secondly, it should be recognized that while applicant's are dubious in providing
information during the review process, what may actually occur in the field can be
very different.
10
Planning Commission L94-0035
23 June 1994
Council Direction.
Modify as shown (new language shown in bold):
Section 18.46.060(0(1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope
off -site privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape
coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within
fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the recommended changes is to simplify implementation and
administration of the PRD ordinance. Some of the specific changes help to avoid
unnecessary interpretation or duplication or conflict with other regulations. As
discussed earlier, PRD's afford a high level of quality development for single - family
projects as compared to compliance with basic zoning standards. The City has
placed a priority on preservation, protection and enhancement for sensitive areas
through regulations. Design flexibility is absolutely necessary for developments
where sensitive areas .exist to ensure these objectives. The PRD must therefore
be as implementable as possible. The proposed changes will help and future
changes to the zoning code after the comprehensive plan is adopted will further
assist in the administration of these regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Planning Commission respond to the direction provided by
the City Council and consider alternatives presented by staff.
The following summarizes Council direction and alternatives:
1. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
Modify: Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses
(1) In R -1 districts, only single- family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
II. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
Delete the entire section:
11
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
194 -0035
Staff recommendation:
Modifiy Section 18.45.060(2) of the Sensitive Areas Regulations:
Section 18.45..060(2). Planned Residential Development Permit. Any new
residential subdivision,
line adjustment, or multiple family residential proposal which includes a
sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a planned residential
development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46.
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Allow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet in area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200) based on the table on page 7 of this
report and delete density transfer section entirely.
OR
Modify Section:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code
are waived within the planned residential development.
OR
If lot sizes vary, then:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet and the
following design features must be substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained in
cases where significant stands exist;
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or
significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other natural
characteristics.
(C) Separation or auto and pedestrian movement is provided
especially in or near areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
12
�•..._ ..
•
Planning Commission L94-0035
23 June 1994
AND
Delete Sections 18.46.070(b) (1) and (b) (2).
IV. DENSITY TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE SITE.
Delete entire section UNLESS density transfer is retained, then modify as follows:
Section 18.46.070(d) (5). Development shall be confined to buildable areas
of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code, Sensitive
Areas Regulations.
V. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
Delete entire section.
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES •
Modify Section:
Section 18.46.060(f)(1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off -site
privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape coverage of
twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of project completion
with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This
standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape
yard requirement.
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL COIL
Chapter 18.46
PRD = PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
18A6.010
18.46.020
18.46.030
18.46.040
18.46.060
18.46.070
18.46.080
18.46.090
18.46.100
18.46.110
18.46.112
18.46.115
18.46.120
18.46.130
18.46.140
Purpose.
Permitted districts.
Permitted uses.
Site acreage minimum.
Relationship of this chapter to other
sections and other ordinances.
Density standards.
Open space.
Relationship to adjacent areas.
Preapplicatiori procedure.
Application procedure required for PRD
approval..
Review criteria.
Restrictive covenants subject to approval
by City Council and City Attorney.
Application procedures for building permit
Minor and major adjustments.
Expiration of time limits.
18.46.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imagi-
native site and building design and to create open space
in residential developments by permitting greater
flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by
other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the pur-
pose of this chapter to:
(1) Promote the retention of significant features
of the natural environment, including topography,
vegetation, waterways, wetlands and views;
(2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing
types;
(3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the
layout of streets, utility networks, and other public
improvements; and
(4) Create and /or preserve usable open space
for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general
public.
(Ord. 1599 §4(1), 1991; Ord 1247 5l (part), 1982)
18.46.020 Permitted districts.
Planned residential development (PRD) may be
permitted in the following districts:
(1) R•I, Single-family residential;
(2) R -2, Two-family residential when there are
sensitive areas on the lot;
(3) R -3, Three- and four-family residential
when there are sensitive areas on the lot;
(4) R -4, Low apartments when there are
�.�. sensitive areas on the lot;
• ATTACHMENT A
(5) RMH, Multiple- residence high density
when there are sensitive areas on the lot.
(Ord 1655 52, 1993; ; Ord � 1289 p 51, 1983:
18.46.030 Permitted uses.
The following uses are allowed in planned resi-
dential development
(1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be
permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding
residential Character and built environment. Single
unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached
units; however, attached two-unit dwellings will be
considered if necessary to accommodate interior zero
lot lines for projects with sensitive areas and /or
sensitive area buffers; •
• (2) In R -2, R -3, R -4, and RMH districts, resi-
dential deYe1Qprents 91 all types regardless of the type
of building in which such residence is•located, such as
single-family residences, duplexes, triplexes, four -
plexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; pro-
vided, that all residences are intended for permanent
occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels.
and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks
are excluded; .
(3) Accessory uses specifically. designed to
meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as
garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial
nature;
(4) In planned residential developments of ten
acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted.
Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are o.
a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty o:
barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self- servic(
laundries.
(Ord. 1599 54(2), 1991; Ord 1289 52, 1983
Ord 1247 51(part), 1982
18.46.040 Site accrue minmum:
The minimum site for a planned residential devel
opment shall be one acre, except sites containing sensi•
tive areas and their buffers.
(Orr. 1599 54(3), 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 198
18.46.050 Location. •
The site of the planned residential development'
shall abut, and the main internal street serving the PRE
shall be connected to, at Least one major, secondary or
collector arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Lan(
Use Policy Plan, except in R -1 single- family residentia
districts.
(Orri 1289 53, 1983: Ord. 1247 51(part), 198.
18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other
sections and other ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and•Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size. The minimuin lot size provision
of other sections of this Code are waived within th
planned residential development. The er c
•
dwelling units per net acre permitted I • e underlying
zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD
density.
(2) Building Height. Building heights may be
modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining.
natural resources and significant YggetaLion., and en•
he.nces views within the site without interfering with
the views of adjoining property. For increases in build-
ing height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in
impervious surface.
(3) Setbacks. Yard requirements as described
in Chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD;
however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the
PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the
bulk and streetscape of the existing development of
adjacent properties or the type of development which
may be permitted..
(b) Off-street Parking. Off -street parking shall be
provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of build-
ings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However,
for multiple- family zoned sites with sensitive areas, . a
minimum of two parking stalls per unit will be
allowed, with a fifty percent compact stalls allowance,
and parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be
allowed if the design does not affect circulation.
(c) Platting Requirements. The standards of the
subdivision code for residential subdivisions , shall
apply to planned residential developments if such
standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this
chapter. Upon final approval of the ?RD, filing of the
PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the
subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred.
• (d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount
of impervious surface calculated for the total develop-
ment allowed on sensitive areas sites will be fifty per-
cent for each single - family development and each
multifamily development..
(e) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive
areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as
area required to meet the recreation space minimums,
if usable passive recreation opportunities within these
areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include
connection and. continuation of area -wide trail systems,
wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic
areas.
(f) Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with
Class 2; Class 3 and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas. •
(1) Downslope and Side Yard Buffers. Eleva-
tions and off -site perspectives shall show minimum
landscape coverage of twenty -five percent of the
structures at time of project completion with antidpated
forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This stan-
dard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable
landscape yard requirement.
(2) Roads and Access Drives. Any road or
access drive which cuts approximately perpendicular
to a slope to the ridge line of a hill shall have minimum
five -foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species
TITLE 18 — ZONING
that provides a branci'l.. attern sufficient to provide, at
maturity, fifty percent coverage of the pavement area.
Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel
to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of
Northwest native plant species.
(0 The Doard of Architectural Review shall
review guidelines for single - family and multifamily
developments. The design and review of the PRD
shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050.
(h) For single - family developments, site plans shall
include placement and footprint of the residences,
driveways and roads.
(Ord 1599 §4(5), 1991; Ord 1289 §4, 1983;
OrrL 1247 §%(part), 1982)
18.46.070 Density standards.
(a) Basic Density. The basic density shall be the
same as permitted by the underlying zone district.
The dwelling units per net acre for the residential
zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50.
(b) Single - family.
(1) In R -1 single- family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size not less
than the yard requirements of the R -1.7.2 district,
following findings that the amenities or design features
listed in subsections (b) (2)(A) through (b)(2) (D) of this
section are substantially provided. •
(2) In R -1 single-family residential districts on
sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than
the yard requirements of the R -1.7.2 district, following
findings that the amenities or design features listed
below are substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural
vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands.
exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is
achieved of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian
movement is provided especially in. or near areas of
recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the .PRD
complement the land use policies of the Comprehen-
sive Plan. •
(c) In multiple- family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a dwelling -unit density not
more than twenty percent greater than permitted by
the underlying zones or an increase equal to the
allowable density credits as set forth in subsection (d)
of this section, if the site contains sensitive areas or
buffers following findings that the amenities or design
features listed below are substantially provided:
(1) A variety of housing types Is ff d
Printed rAugust 4, 1993
•
o ere .
Page 18—b3
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CEDE
(2) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegeta-
tion is retained (In cases where significant stands
exist).
(3) Advantage is taken. or enhancement is
achieved. of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural charac-
teristics.
(4) Separation of auto and pedestrian move-
• ment is provided, especially in or near areas of recre-
ation.
(5) Developmental aspects of the PRD com-
plement the land use policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
(d) Density Transfer. •
(1) Density transfers are intended to provide
for the protection of wetlands, watercourses, and asso-
ciated buffers while allowing development which is
consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent
possible.
(2) Density transfers are the percentage credits
to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units
for a residential site containing undevelopable sensitive
areas or buffers.
The calculation of the maximum units per
buildable acre of a site with protected areas shall be
equal to: (DU = dwelling units) •
((DU /acre) (buildable acres)] +
((DU /acre)(sensitive areas and buffer)(density transfer)]
(3) Density transfer credits shall be determined
from the table below:
Percentage of Site in Density
Sensitive Areas and Buffer Transfer
1-10 30% •
11 - 20 27%
21 - 30 24%
31 .40 21%
41.50 18%
51.6015 %•
61- 70 12%
71.80 9%
81.90. 6%
91.100 3% •
. (4) The density transfer can only be used
within the development proposal site. ' Any such
modifications shall be reviewed and approved through
the site development process in Chapter 18.60.
(5) Development of the transferred density
shall be confined to buildable areas of the site, and shall
not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers.
(Ord. 1599 54(6), 1991; Ord 1289 55, 1983;
' Ord 1247 51(part), 1982)
18.46.080 Open space.
(a) Each planned residential development shall
provide not less tht twenty percent of the gross site
area for common open space which shall:
(1) Provide either passive or active recreation
concentrated in large usable areas;
. (2) Network with the trail and open spa
system of the City and provide a connection a
extension, if feasible; and •
(3) Be under one ownership, owned a
maintained by the ownership; or be held in comrr.
ownership by all of the owners of the development
means of a homeowners' association or similar assoc
'tion. Such association shall be responsible for main
nance of the common open space, or be dedicated
public use if acceptable to the city or other appropr
public agency. •
(b) Planned residential developments shall
aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensit
areas tract as required by Section 18.45.090, and wil
exempted from other open space requirements of
section.
(Ord 1599 54M, 1991; Ord 1247 51(part), 1
18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas.
(a) The design and layout of a planned resider
development shall take into account the integration
compatibility of the site to the surrounding areas. •
perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to rn
maze any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjac
properties.
(b) Setbacks from the property lines of the 1
shall be comparable to, or compatible with, those of
existing development of adjacent properties or, if a
cent properties are undeveloped, the type of deve
ment which may be permitted.
(Ord. 1599 54(8), 1991; Ord. 1247 §!(part), 1
18.46.100 Reapplication procedure.
A preapplication conference between represe
tives of the City and the potential applicant for a PR
required prior to the acceptance of. an application
PRD approval. This conference shall be set by
Planning Department at the written request of
potential applicant. All affected City departments s
be notified and invited to participate. The purpos
the preapplication conference is to acquaint the a,
cant with the provisions of this section as well as c
ordinances and regulations which would affect
property under consideration.
(OrrL 1247 §1(part), 1
18.46.110 Application procedure required for PRD
aPProval
(a) Filing of Application. Application for apprm
the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by
Department of 'Community Development and sha'
accompanied by a filing fee as required in ChE
18.88 and by the following:
(1) Justification for the density bonus, if
quested by the applicant;
(2) Program for development includ sta
or timing of development;
(3) Proposed ownership patter(, .pon comple-
tion of the project;
(4) Basic content of any restrictive covenants;
(5) Provisions to assure permanence and
maintenance of common open space through a home-
owners' association, or similar association, condo-
• minium •development or other means acceptable to the
City;
(6) An application for rezone may be submit-
ted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary
for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be
in addition to those of the PRD application;
(7) An application for preliminary plat may be
submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees
fQr the §tibdiYlsIQn ;hull bg in gd.it9n tQ those gf t1
PRD application;
(8) Graphic images of development in any
sensitive area or buffer, including photomontage or
computer - generated perspectives in a standardized
format required•by the Director of the Department of
Community Development;
(9) Every reasonable effort shall be made to
preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate
them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree
inventory of the significant vegetation on-site as part of
the preliminary plat application. A tree and vegetation
retention /removal plan shall be part of any preliminary
plat application. Such tree and vegetation reten -.
tion /removal plan shall assure the preservation of sig-
nificant trees and vegetation.
(b) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The
Planning Commission shall hold at least one public
hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice
thereof pursuant to Chapter 18:92 of this title. The
public hearing shall not be held before completion of all
necessary and appropriate review by City depart-
ments. This review shall be completed within a
reasonable period of time.
• (c) Planning Commission Recommendation. Fol-
lowing the public hearing, the Planning Commission
shall make a report of its findings and recommenda-
tions with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria
. of this chapter, and forward the report to the City
Council.
(d) City Council Public Hearing.
(1) After receipt of the Planning Commission
report, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on
the proposed PRD as recommended by the Planning
Commission. The City Council shall give approval,
approval with modifications, or disapproval to the pro-
posed PRD.
. (2) The PRD shall be an exception to the regu-
lations of the underlying zoning district. The ?RD shall
constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site
unless modified by ordinance.
(Ord 1599 §4(9), 1991; Ord. 1289 §4, 1983;
OrrL 1247 §!(part), 1982)
TITLE 18 — ZONING
18.46.112 Review ai�,;•.a.
The Planning Commission and City Council shall
find that the proposed development plans meet all of
the following criteria in their decision making:
. (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for
the proposed development have been met, if appropri-
ate;
(2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the cri-
teria as listed in Section 18.46.070;
(3) Adverse environmental impacts have
been mitigated;
(4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the
provisions of this chapter and Chapter 18.45; •
(5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire
deYelopment and spcvified stages have been dgcn-
mented in the application;
(6) Development in accordance with , the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and other rele-
vant plans;
(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural
Review guidelines (Section 18.60.050); and
(8) Appropriate retention and preservation of
existing trees and vegetation recommended by the
Director of the Department of Community
Development.
(Ord. 1599 §4(10), 1991)
18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by
City Council and City Attorney.
.The restrictive covenants intended to be used by
the applicant in a planned residential development
(PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land.or the
location or character of buildings or other structures
thereon, must be approved by the City Council and
the City Attorney before the issuance of any building
permit.
• (Ord 1289 §6, 1983)
18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit.
The following procedures are required for approval
of construction for the proposed planned residential
development:
(1) Time Limitation: A complete application
for the initial building permit shall be filed by the appli-
cant within twelve months of the date on which the
City Council approved the PRD. An extension of time
for submitting an application may be requested in writ-
ing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding
six months may be granted by the Director of the
Department of Community Development. If applica-
tion for the initial building permit is not made within
twelve months or within the time for which an
extension has been granted, the plan shall be consid-
ered abandoned, and the development of the property
shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of
the underlying zone and the subdivision code.
(2) Application. Application for building permit
shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department
`{•Pflnterj August 4, 1993 Page 18-65
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CL .E
of Community Development and shall be accompa-
nied by a fee as prescribed by the building code.
(3) Documentation Required. All schematic
plans either presented or required in the approved PRD
plans shall be included in the building permit applica-
tion presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans
shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility,
open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans.
Final plats and public. dedication documents must be
approved by the City Council before the issuance of
any building permits.
(4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is
to be developed in stages, sureties or other security
device as shall be approved by the City Attorney shall
be required for the complete PRD. The various stages
or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of
open space and the same overall dwelling unit density
as provided in the final plan.
(5) Department of Community Development
Action. The Department of Community Development
shall determine whether the project plans submitted
with .the building permit are in compliance with and
carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Follow-
ing approval of the Department of Community
Development, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the
approved PRD plan with the official records of the City
and the originals shall be recorded with the King
County Department of Records and Elections. After all
approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to
reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the
designation of the underlying zone.
(Ord 1599 §4(11), 1991; Ord 1247 §t (pant, 1982)
18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments.
If minor adjustments or changes are proposed fol-
lowing the approval of the PRD, by the City Council as
provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall
•be approved by the planning department prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are
those which may affect the precise dimensions or
• siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic
character or arrangement of structures approved in the
final plan, or the density of the development or open
space provided. Major adjustments are those which,
as determined by the planning department, substan-
tially change the basic design, density, open space, or
other substantive requirement or provision. If the
applicant wishes to make one or more major .changes,
a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section
18.46.120.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.140 Expiration of time limits.
• Construction of improvements In the PRD shall
begin within twelve months from the date of the filing
of the final PRD plan by the City Clerk as provided in
Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning
construction may be requested in writing by the appli-
•cant, and such extension not exceeding six month:
may be granted by the Planning Commission upon
showing of good cause. If construction does not occu
within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRI
plans by the City Clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall b
dropped from the official zoning map and the zonir.
shall revert to the underlying designation:
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 198.
Committee of The Whole Meeting Mi( !s
May 9)• 1994 •
Page3
City Sewer Plan
The Council discussed the Sewer Plan Policies. Councilmember Robertson
stated that the first element of the plan is to prepare engineering plans of the
public infrastructure with sewer line profiles, sizing, and elevations for seven
residential areas. The plan identifies planning level costs and two alternatives
for funding as discussed by the Utility Committee. Sewer construction costs
were estimated based on a per foot length for the various streets. Robertson
suggested that the Council merely discuss this issue tonight and not make any
decision at all. Secondly, attend a meeting in the Allentown neighborhood
where this information is presented and discussed with the citizens. After this
is done the Council should hold a public hearing open to all interested
persons. The Council should then deliberate and decide which of the policies
• and/or any other changes they wish to adopt. Robertson stated the difference
between the two proposals is that in one the utility pays for the "in-street"
cost and it takes approximately 40 years (assuming that the cost estimates are
correct); and the other is the actual property owners pay all of the cost at the
time they connect. In neither case will people be forced to connect unless one
of three conditions is true: 1) If public health a safety problem; 2) If they sell
the property; or 3) If they add or develop on it.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a community meeting for
citizen's input then revisit the issue at a future Council meeting.
?RD /Subdivision As directed by Council, DCD staff focused on six (6) major issues of concern
with the existing PRD Regulations as they relate to certain provisions of
TMC, Chapter 18.46. The intent is understood to be to change only those .
few provisions that create significant problems in administering the chapter.
The Council entered a lengthy discussion resulting in the following:
1 -- ATTACHED VS. DETAC}3ED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY
ZONES -- delete all and amend to read: "In R-1 districts, only single -
family detached dwellings may be permitted." TC MAN M M SIZE
PROPERTY— go with staff recommendation to "delete the entire section."
D1 -- DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE: —it was recommended that
staff "create a table to reflect a net reduction of around 15% with a floor
of 6,120 sq. ft. minimum'single family lot size rounded off to whole
numbers with minimum set back requirements." No action will be taken
until the Council has had a chance to review the table. IV -- DENSITY
TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF '1 at; PROPERTY --
"delete this section." V - -BAR REVIEW— "delete per staff
recommendation." 'VI - -OFF SITE PERSPECTIVES -- "accept per staff
recommendation."
A HMENT B
It was the consensus of the Council to have staff prepare document with
amendments per tonight's discussion for final review at a future Council
meeting. •
/4•
zero- lot - line.pattern for
detached single - family dwellings
ATTACHMENT C
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
7 -11 -94
re bared by
Major's review
Council review
ITEM NO.
7a
. };�:.} x, ,c...t... . } .. .. !.,• •: }.: Jr: }J }:
:' t '; ^2�R� \2A:Yi>:: ?.vv..<2;:{., :. ,.,.., :.x •.v� , .;!... ....5:•v.v::...{v: •:fi: ?v: :.
\\ ... :•:...:n., . J..r. :..:L... .:r.. 2 :.. ......: .:....: {•:.'.•: {n•: } }•a }: ' • .. ': • } } }: '• ..
:.� .,. �,. } }� {....�. ,�. �'. re . >. �:::.�..} .n� >:. ,,.J::nI�::<:�� ,ice '01k:".. Q
p,, :. \„ :..K +:.. i.v2v:.: 'Y•4:: :::!.. .}: }:::: /.•...4 •:n :
♦,`.,,. }:} {. ^.,:•:u:2It•Y; i }.f. .. h:.:... ...nY { +. }:2t•:: •;'Y +•, .::: ±:::
: n \`4 `2, `�'v S .... r4.v. {.:v ::: rl,•},;nv,W.
�, v,,.n3 2:.# ,:... `}�:.: .......: ...:.: .... .: .... :.... ... .. .....
•:^., ^.,•'\'\:•�::: w::: }: } {•'}.:.;'iS.L'f:2,... �'^ `2::nf� :.t,•4•::n:• ' •.,•: f:::n•:Y }J:{i;:.v..n•....... ..... • Y
:•:.i:•: rn• •:.. • :.:.5:/ � :::•.},r.. ?•:::.: •: r. {•: f:!•Y ::•.,•: • •::: }• ..r... .
%2f,.t..; •: ..,.. }: , . +a.,•. v•v:.v... re, : +.:{ {i' <i ?: } {..: {:.,. ?;:. ? } ?, {`2: %:
..}:qp!'!S•: [rY.•. Ji }:.: .. }. / {. rYl, { >2vr.. }:vi.'• }Y` iii >Yv: r::...::r {!!:{:• }:: }r}:.
.. {.... ...2,•. :, /r::
vi<.% i{., �. : „vv:2�••'�.::i? in �:vYi' ?A'ti4. ;!.•}`Y {{rin•n• ..:. y:
, '+ �
�� >: �..n...Y: v:..�Y:: <�: <':2�2. , n..: >.:.
..!..v:....... r.re:" :vffq•re::•.v: r:..•:: : ?.r:...,!t2t {., ^....:..::..r.r :... r....:.:.. }: ?},•rr:;;. ::: }:
CAS Number: 'L' •
Original Agenda Date: 4_4_94
—
Agenda Item Title: •
Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone:
Findings and Conclusions.
Original Sponsor: Council Admire X
Attachment A: M
Timeline:
7 -11 -94 A
Sponsor's Summary: Council denied application on 4 -4 -94.
to be adopted (see attached).
Findings and conclusions need
Recommendations:
Sponsor:
•
. Committee: • •
.
.Administration: Adoption of Findings and Conclusions
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
•
:... • • • ..:. t . :.; {... .Y .?: ?• n .. . .} f:: �/..?? �'•: Sv.:, { •: >:{:n}: }: ?:; ` }}: Y i:Y. .• X:fv.}: :v • }. ✓•..t.. : . }?..v.ry ` :.
`:A :. ::
,{ {:: {. •: •n„•:}: re? v :.>' /.,..} v: ::v ::Y:•}: {•Y:} ..n. } f! rw:: }}:.1+•x•: 2 •f •::�:}xx2i: v: • re }:.+ ::}.rw: .• {• :; ..n.} ...:,,v: ",' ."n•'Y' `} }: :2•:o : ..:.: . .. .•,+.. :: .: •::. +:.`: . ..v{: i : ::..
i }2x . {... ...t..
Meeting Date Action '
4 -4 -94 Council decision on Comprehensive Plan and•Rezone applications. .
•
7/11/94
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.:... :.:...:.::.,...:.:..:re..:::::: r
r :::.:::.::.:r:::..::::.� .:}.:::..: ::.�r:n.:..:.:n.::.:::...:::::n .:::::.,..,.re...:..n: :�•.,::::,.:,,,..}.:.::... :..:. {t::.:::.:v {:,.:.;,:. > }:.; .:... .::r,:: :.::,...,,.::.:..,::.r} :.r.
,. J`:;; F..::.,,5'in +::.v.+4.:r: } :�:.v.ni`:::: ..},:vi:.... >.{•/:t!p::.: •::t:o:.{vv.:v.{v... ;.; .!.:.vvf. <':r:2< >.••;'': +/X'22r.,,•.v,,:r {:.x v.:: •n•.v::::n0.•.
Meeting Date A
Attachments •
7 -11 -94 A
Attachment A: M
Memorandum from Rick Beeler to Mayor Rants dated 7- 6 -94..
7 -11 -94 A
Attachment B: F
Findings and Conclusions. • •
.:... :.:...:.::.,...:.:..:re..:::::: r
r :::.:::.::.:r:::..::::.� .:}.:::..: ::.�r:n.:..:.:n.::.:::...:::::n .:::::.,..,.re...:..n: :�•.,::::,.:,,,..}.:.::... :..:. {t::.:::.:v {:,.:.;,:. > }:.; .:... .::r,:: :.::,...,,.::.:..,::.r} :.r.
,. J`:;; F..::.,,5'in +::.v.+4.:r: } :�:.v.ni`:::: ..},:vi:.... >.{•/:t!p::.: •::t:o:.{vv.:v.{v... ;.; .!.:.vvf. <':r:2< >.••;'': +/X'22r.,,•.v,,:r {:.x v.:: •n•.v::::n0.•.
Meeting Date A
Attachments •
7 -11 -94 A
Attachment A: M
Memorandum from Rick Beeler to Mayor Rants dated 7- 6 -94..
7 -11 -94 A
Attachment B: F
Findings and Conclusions. • •
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Rants
FROM: Rick Beeler, Director
Dept. of Community Develo ment
RE: City Council Findings & Conclusions: Southgate Trailer
Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone
DATE: July 6, 1994
BACKGROUND:
On April 4, 1994, the Council heard, applications for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone as proposed by the owner of
Southgate Trailer Park. The owner proposed to change the existing
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the site from
Medium- Density Residential /R -2 to Commercial /C -2.
The applications were denied. Findings and Conclusions for the
Council decision have been prepared (see attached).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Findings and
Conclusions at their July 11 meeting.
cc: File
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington. 98188 • ( 206) 4313670 Fay (206),431 =3665
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
• STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared June 15, 1994
HEARING DATE: June 23, 1994
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
FILE NUMBER: L94-0035
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development
REQUEST: Amend TMC, Chapter 18.46, PRD (Planned Residential Development)
LOCATION: City-wide
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
STAFF:
Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. TMC, Chapter 18.46 (current)
B. Minutes, City Council COW, 5/26/94
C. Zero-lot-line illustration
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Apc /206) 431-3665
Planning Commission L94-0035
23 June 1994
FINDINGS OF FACT
BACKGROUND
The City Council has directed staff to prepare draft revisions to TMC Chapter
18.46, Planned Residential Development (PRD) in response to problems created
by several provisions of the PRD. The body of this report identifies specific
changes recommended by both City Council at their May 26, 1994 meeting, and
recommendations by staff. The amendments to the PRD are proposed primarily
to offer clearer direction and predictability to the applicant, citizens and City staff.
Secondly, changes are proposed to reduce confusion and to avoid need for
interpretation. some of the provisions lack clarity and require interpretation which
may be in conflict with the intent of the code.
Once the Comprehensive Plan update receives final approval, the Zoning Code will
be revised to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code update will
likely include additional revisions to the PRD and companion provisions of the
Sensitive Areas Regulations.
Current code provisions are listed below followed by a discussion and proposed
amendments; "PRD process" is replaced with "PRD ".
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
I. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
The code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses.
(1) In R -1 Districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious
with the surrounding residential character and built environment.
Single -unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units,
however, attached two -unit dwellings will be considered if necessary
to accommodate interior zero lot lines for projects with sensitive
areas and /or sensitive area buffers.
Discussion.
The concern expressed with this provision is the allowance of attached units in a
single - family zone. Also implied, yet erroneous, is the assumption that zero -lot -line
development always means that units are attached. This is incorrect. Zero -lot line
development generally means units are detached with each unit placed at the side
2
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L940035
property line (see Attachment C). Once a PRD is approved, the lot location, and
building footprints are recorded with the, Final Plat.
When the Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO) was adopted, revisions were made
to the PRD to allow the clustering of dwellings to better protect, enhance and
avoid intrusion into sensitive areas and buffers.
The second issue relates to the first sentence of the provision. The first sentence
states: In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the
surrounding residential character and built environment." This sentence is
ambiguous and interpretative: the word "harmonious" is not defined. Under
Section 22.46.090: Relationship to adjacent areas, PRD's are required to be
compatible with surrounding development.
Council Direction.
Modify the section as follows:
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses
(1) In R -1 districts, only single - family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
II. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
The Code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.040. Site Acreage Minimum.
The minimum site for a planned residential development shall be one
acre, except sites containing sensitive areas and their buffers.
Discussion.
This regulation treats all residential zones equally relative to minimum size of
property for a PRD. It waives the minimum size for PRD's. The first issue is
whether or not allow PRD's regardless of parcel size.
The benefit of the PRD process is the ability to preserve and create open spaces
and protect sensitive areas and their buffers through creative site design. To
accomplish these goals, the PRD allows and encourages deviations from setback
and lot area standards, and from the Subdivision Code.
A substantial majority of single family lots in Tukwila are Tess than one acre,
3
Planning Commission L940035
23 June 1994
however, many of these areas contain unique topographic and /or natural features.
By restricting the application of PRD's to one acre, opportunities of gaining open
space areas to preserve important features are minimized. By allowing the option
of a PRD, the following can be achieved:
1. gain more site amenities including open space areas
2. better integration with the surrounding development
3. better site design
4. provision of needed housing.
The PRD also includes decision criteria, such as compliance with the BAR
guidelines, which address building design, site planning, and landscaping. The
application of the BAR criteria combined with flexible standards achieves higher
quality development.
The second issue is whether to continue making mandatory PRD's for short plats
and boundary line adjustments as required by the Section 18.45.060(2) of the
Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO).
The SAO, requires administrative PRD's for residential developments (single and
multi - family) including short plats and boundary line adjustments. There are other
provisions of the Code such as the SAO which requires buffers to sensitive areas,
and the Tree Regulations. Both protect unique features of a site. It is therefore
recommended that PRD's be an option for short plats and boundary line
adjustments.
Council Direction
Delete the entire section:
Staff recommendation:
Section 18.45..060(2). Planned Residential Development Permit. Any new
residential subdivision,
lino r or multiple family residential proposal which includes a
sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a planned residential
development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46.
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
DENSITY TRANSFER.
The PRD currently allows a density transfer (not a density bonus) and does not
4
Planning Commission L94 -0035
23 June 1994
restrict lot sizes when sensitive areas are present. Without density transfer, density
would normally be calculated based upon the non - sensitive portions of a site only.
With density transfer, density may be increased.
LOT AREA
There is a direct relationship between lot area and density transfer. The PRD
allows deviations to lot area and building setbacks without placing limits on either
in order to accommodate the total amount of density permitted. This total includes
the amount of density "transferred "..
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DENSITY TRANSFER AND LOT AREA.
Density transfer assumes the total amount of density permitted for a project can
be accommodated on a site. In most cases, the only way to do this is to vary lot
sizes and building setbacks.
The Planning Commission and City Council have expressed discomfort with the
level of flexibility allowed by the PRD which may result in small Tots. If lot areas are
fixed, the concept of density transfer may no longer apply.
The following decisions must be made:
1. whether to regulate lot size to a specified minimum; or
2. whether to leave the code unchanged where density transfer would
be applied and lot sizes would vary.
PART I
LOT SIZE
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.060. Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other
ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of
this Code are waived within the planned residential development.
The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying
zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density.
Discussion.
As discussed above, a decision must be made whether to regulate lot sizes, or.,.to
allow for deviation to lot areas. Secondly, the second sentence is redundant
5
Planning Commission L94 -0035
23 June 1994
because the same is also stated under Section 18.46.070(a):...The dwelling units
per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50."
The primary objective of PRD's is to allow for the greatest amount of design
flexibility including clustering to maximize open space opportunities. Design
flexibility is achieved by reducing lot areas and yard setbacks.
The following alternatives are presented regarding treatment of reduction to lot
area and building setback.
Alternative 1.
Under Section 18.46.060 (a) (3) SETBACKS, the code requires setbacks and
design of the perimeter lots to be compatible with the bulk and streetscape of
existing development of adjacent properties or anticipated development. A similar
criteria could be considered for lot size:
(1) Lot size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code
are waived within the PRD except for perimeter lots. Perimeter lots must be
compatible with those of existing development of adjacent properties.
Alternative 2.
This Alternative describes the impacts to density transfer by restricting lot areas.
By placing a minimum lot area for PRD's, lot areas and density become
predictable. Predictability however, may be at the cost of loosing open space
opportunities and other amenities which can now be gained with no limits to lot
area.
Second, if lot area is restricted, retaining the density transfer must be decided.
Two options are offered:
1. Continue to apply the density transfer. The lot area then dictates the
number of lots allowed.
Example:
If a site with sensitive areas is allowed two units by applying the density
transfer formula, those two units would only be permissible if the lot areas
of all lots can meet the minimum area requirement.
2. Omit the density transfer section entirely.
By omitting this section and by placing a limit to the lot area, the lot area
6
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94 -0035
would determine the maximum number of lots allowed based upon the net
parcel area.
The following example recommends new language which would restrict lot
sizes to a minimum of 6,120 square feet:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 6,120 (example) square
feet in area and shall establish the maximum number of dwellings
permitted in the PRD.
Council Direction.
Allow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet in area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200). Council requested staff to prepare a
table which reflects the 15% reduction for lot areas and setbacks for all zone
districts. Also, that Sections 18.46.070(b) (1) and (b) (2) be deleted. The table
follows:
ZONE DIST.
LOT SIZE
FRONT STBK.
SIDE STBK.
REAR STBK.
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
City Council Direction Related to Density Transfer.
Delete the entire section.
Staff Recommendation.
It would be more appropriate to place this requirement under 18.46.060 (a) (1) [Lot
Size] and add the design features as listed under (A) through (D).
The provision would read as follows (new language is shown in bold):
Section 18.46.060(a)
(1) Lot Size.
7
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94-0035
minimum lot size shall be 6,120 square feet and the following
design features must be substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained
in cases where significant stands exist;
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual
or significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other
natural characteristics.
(C) Separation or auto and pedestrian movement is provided
especially in or near areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
IV. DENSITY TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE
SITE.
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.070(d) (5).
Development of the transferred density shall be confined to buildable
areas of the site, and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their
buffers.
Discussion
This section conflicts with the Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO) which allows
development on steep slopes. By definition, steep slopes are considered sensitive
areas. In the strictest interpretation of this provision, steep slopes could not be
developed.
Council Direction.
Because staff has had more time to evaluate needed changes to the PRD, this
issue was not brought before the previous City Council meeting.
Staff Recommendation
If density transfer is retained, then the language should be modified as
recommended below. If density transfer : is deleted, this provision would be
included in the deletion.
8
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
Section 18.46.070(d)(5).
L94-0035
Development shall be confined to buildable areas of the s to in
accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code, Sensitive Areas
Regulations.
V. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.060(g). The Board of Architectural Review shall revie
guidelines for single - family and multi - family developments. The desi n and
review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.00.
Discussion.
The first sentence of this provision is entirely unclear. No "guidelines" oth r than
PRD sections which pertain to design elements, have been developed. Gui elines
have been approved recently for multi - family developments, including review by
the Planning Commission, not the BAR. Secondly, the City Council recently
interpreted this section to mean that PRD's are to be reviewed by the Board of
Architectural Review while the second sentence requires compliance with the BAR
design guidelines. Neither sentence specifically states BAR review is re uired.
Further, BAR review would be unnecessarily duplicative of Planning Com ission
review which is required.
This section is redundant of Section 18.46.112(7), (PRD) Review Criteria which
states the following:
"(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines ( ection
18.60.050); and "... .
Council Direction.
Delete entire section.
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES
The existing code reads as follows:
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94-0035
Section 18.46.060(f)(1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Elevations and off-site perspectives shall show minimum landscape
coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within
fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
Discussion.
The intent of this section is to provide vegetative screening so as to lessen the
visibility of new buildings to properties located down -slope and away from the new
development. The provision attempts to quantify the amount of vegetative cover
necessary to achieve this objective, however, provides no definitive procedure to
accomplish this. Therefore, administration of this provision is extremely difficult.
This provision was applied the first time to the Fosterview Estates PRD. The
planning staff recommended locations from which perspectives should be
provided. Staff determined where the sloped areas would be after grading; where
visibility would be highest because existing vegetation would either be removed,
or be retained in sensitive area tracts and open space easements. Because the
provision does not define "off- site" or specify from where perspectives should be
taken, staff and the applicant selected ten feet from property lines.
It is very difficult to codify a location for the perspectives that addresses every view
of the property from downslope properties. Secondly, it is difficult to quantify by
percentage the amount of vegetation needed to achieve the desired effect of
screening because of the uncertain growth rate and growth pattern of trees.
An alternative to perspectives drawn by artists is to require photomontages
(photographs of the property superimposed with the proposed buildings and
landscaping). This may give a better depiction of the visual appearance of the
development at a reasonable cost, especially for a small PRD of a few lots. The
most accurate version of the photomontage is derived from computer imaging, but
the cost is significantly more that the artist's version. Artistic license can still be
taken with preparation of a photomontage.
While photomontage is an alternative to providing rendered perspectives, many
of the difficulties of providing a clear depiction of the extent of screening still
remains. Interpretation of the exact placement of a new building relative to
vegetation which may or may not be retained after construction is necessary.
Secondly, it should be recognized that while applicant's are dubious in providing
information during the review process, what may actually occur in the field can be
very different.
10
Planning Commission L94 -0035
23 Juno 1994
Council Direction.
Modify as shown (new language shown in bold):
Section 18.46.060(f) (1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope
off-site privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape
coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within
fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the recommended changes is to simplify implementation and
administration of the PRD ordinance. Some of the specific changes help to avoid
unnecessary interpretation or duplication or conflict with other regulations. As
discussed earlier, PRD's afford a high level of quality development for single - family
projects as compared to compliance with basic zoning standards. The City has
placed a priority on preservation, protection and enhancement for sensitive areas
through regulations. Design flexibility is absolutely necessary for developments
where sensitive areas .exist to ensure these objectives. The PRD must therefore
be as implementable as possible. The proposed changes will help and future
changes to the zoning code after the comprehensive plan is adopted will further
assist in the administration of these regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Planning Commission respond to the direction provided by
the City Council and consider alternatives presented by staff.
The following summarizes Council direction and alternatives:
I. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
Modify: Section' 18.46.030. Permitted Uses
(1) In R -1 districts, only single - family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
II. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
Delete the entire section:
11
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
194.0035
Staff recommendation:
Modifiy Section 18.45.060(2) of the Sensitive Areas Regulations:
Section 18.45..060(2). Planned Residential Development Permit. Any new
residential subdivision,
line- eejestmen*r -or multiple family residential proposal which includes a
sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a planned residential
development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46.
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Allow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet in area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200) based on the table on page 7 of this
report and delete density transfer section entirely.
OR
Modify Section:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code
are waived within the planned residential development.
OR
If lot sizes vary, then:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet and the
following design features must be substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained in
cases where significant stands exist;
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or
significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other natural
characteristics.
(C) Separation or auto and pedestrian movement is provided
especially in or near areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
12
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94 -0035
AND
Delete Sections 18.46.070(b) (1) and (b) (2).
IV. DENSITY TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE SITE.
Delete entire section UNLESS density transfer is retained, then modify as follows:
Section 18.46.070(d)(5). Development shall be confined to buildable areas
of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code, Sensitive
Areas Regulations.
V. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
Delete entire section.
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES
Modify Section:
Section 18.46.060(f) (1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off -site
privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape coverage of
twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of . project completion
with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This
standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape
yard requirement.
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 18.46
PRD - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
18.46.010
18.46.020
18.46.030
18.46.040
18.46.060
18.46.070
18.46.080
18.46.090
18.46.100
18.46.110
18.46.112
18.46.115
18.46.120
18.46.130
18.46.140
Purpose.
Permitted districts.
Permitted uses.
Site acreage minimum.
Relationship of this chapter to other
sections and other ordinances.
Density standards.
Open space.
Relationship to adjacent areas.
Preapplication procedure.
Application procedure required for PRD
approval,
Review criteria.
Restrictive covenants subject to approval
by City Council and City Attorney.
Application procedures for building permit.
Minor and major adjustments.
Expiration of time limits.
18.46.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imagi-
native site and building design and to create open space
in residential developments by permitting greater
flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by
other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the pur-
pose of this chapter to:
(1) Promote the retention of significant features
of the natural environment, including topography,
vegetation, waterways, wetlands and views;
(2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing
types;
(3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the
layout of streets, utility networks, and other public
improvements; and
(4) Create and /or preserve usable open space
for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general
public.
(Ord. 1599 §4(1), 1991; Ord 1247 § 1(part), 1982)
18.46.020 Permitted districts.
Planned residential development (PRD) may be
permitted in the following districts:
(1) R•1, Single - family residential;
(2) R -2, Two - family residential when there are
sensitive areas on the lot;
(3) R -3, Three- and four- family residential
when there are sensitive areas on the lot;
(4) R -4, Low apartments when there are
sensitive areas on the. lot;
ATTACHMENT A
(5) RMH, Multiple- residence high density
when there are sensitive areas on the lot.
(Ord 1655 §2, 1993; Ord 1289 §1, 1983:
Ord 1247 51(part), 1982)
18.46.030 Permitted uses.
The following uses are allowed in planned resi-
dential development
(1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be
permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding
residential character and built environment. Single
unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached
units; however, attached two -unit dwellings will be
considered if necessary to accommodate interior zero
lot lines for projects with sensitive areas and /or
sensitive area buffers;
(2) In R -2, R -3, R -4, and RMH districts, resi-
dential developments of all types reiardless of the type
of building in which such residence Is located, such as
single- family residences, duplexes, triplexes, four -
plexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; pro-
vided, that all residences are intended for permanent
occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels,
and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks
are excluded;
(3) Accessory uses specifically designed to
meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as
garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial
nature;
(4) In planned residential developments of ten
acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted.
Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of
a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or
barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self- service
laundries.
(Ord. 1599 54(2), 1991; Ord 1289 52, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.040 Site acreage minimum.
The minimum site for a planned residential devel-
opment shall be one acre, except sites containing sensi-
tive areas and their buffers.
(Ord 1599 54(3), 1991; Ord 1247 § 1(part), 1982)
18.46.050 Location
The site of the planned residential development
shall abut, and the main internal street serving the PRD
shall be connected to, at least one major, secondary or
collector arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan, except in R -1 single - family residential
districts.
(Ord 1289 53, 1983: Ord. 1247 51(part), 1982)
18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other
sections and other ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions
of other sections of this Code are waived within the
planned residential development. The number of
Pane 18-52
Printed Annust 4. 1992
dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying
zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD
density.
(2) Building Height. Building heights may be
modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining
natural resourges and significant vegetaOen, and en-
hances views within the site without interfering with
the views of adjoining property. For increases in build-
ing height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in
impervious surface.
(3) Setbacks. Yard requirements as described
in Chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD;
however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the
PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the
bulk and streetscape of the existing development of
adjacent properties or the type of development which
may be permitted.
(b) Off - street Parking. Off -street parking shall be
provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of build-
ings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However,
fQr multiple-family zoned sites with sensitive areas, a
minimum of two parking stalls per unit will be
allowed, with a fifty percent compact stalls allowance,
and parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be
allowed if the design does not affect circulation.
(c) Platting Requirements. The standards of the
subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall
apply to planned residential developments if such
standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this
chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the
PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the
subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred.
(d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount
of impervious surface calculated for the total develop-
ment allowed on sensitive areas sites will be fifty per-
cent for each single - family development and each
multifamily development.
(e) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive
areas and stands of significant trees may be counted.as
area required to meet the recreation space minimums,
if usable passive recreation opportunities within these
areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include
connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems,
wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic
areas.
(f) Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with
Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas.
(1) Downslope and Side Yard Buffers. Eleva-
tions and off -site perspectives shall show minimum
landscape coverage of twenty -five percent of the
structures at time of project completion with anticipated
forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This stan-
dard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable
landscape yard requirement.
(2) Roads and Access Drives. Any road or
access drive which cuts approximately perpendicular
to a slope to the ridge line of a hill shall have minimum
five-foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species
TITLE 18 — ZONING
that provides a branch pattern sufficient to provide, at
maturity, fifty percent coverage of the pavement area.
Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel
to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of
Northwest native plant species.
(g) The Board of Architectural Review shall
review guidelines for single- family and multifamily
developments. The design and review of the PRD
shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050.
(h) For single - family developments, site plans shall
include placement and footprint of the residences,
driveways and roads.
(Ord. 1599 §4(5), 1991; Ord 1289 54, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.070 Density standards.
(a) Basic Density. The basic density shall be the
same as permitted by the underlying zone district.
The dwelling units per net acre for the residential
zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50.
(b) Single - family.
(1) In R -1 single - family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size not less
than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district,
following findings that the amenities or design features
listed in subsections (b) (2)(A) through (b)(2) (D) of this
section are substantially provided.
(2) In R -1 single - family residential districts on
sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than
the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, following
findings that the amenities or design features listed
below are substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural
vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands.
exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is
achieved of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian
movement is provided especially in or near areas of
recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the .PRD
complement the land use policies of the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
(c) In multiple- family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a dwelling -unit density not
more than twenty percent greater than permitted by
the underlying zones or an increase equal to the
allowable density credits as set forth in subsection (d)
of this section, if the site contains sensitive areas or
buffers following findings that the amenities or design
features listed below are substantially provided:
(1) A variety of housing types is offered.
Printed August 4, 1993
Page 18-63
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
(2) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegeta-
tion is retained (in cases where significant stands
exist).
(3) Advantage is taken or enhancement is
achieved of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural charac-
teristics.
(4) Separation of auto and pedestrian move-
ment is provided, especially in or near areas of recre-
ation.
(5) Developmental aspects of the PRD com-
plement the land use policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
(d) Density Transfer.
(1) Density transfers are intended to provide
for the protection of wetlands, watercourses, and asso-
ciated buffers while allowing development which is
consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent
possible.
(2) Density transfers are the percentage credits
to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units
for a residential site containing undevelopable sensitive
areas or buffers.
The calculation of the maximum units per
buildable acre of a site with protected areas shall be
equal to: (DU = dwelling units)
[(DU /acre) (buildable acres)) +
((DU /acre)(sensitive areas and buffer)(density transfer))
(3) Density transfer credits shall be determined
from the table below:
Percentage of Site in Density
Sensitive Areas and Buffer Transfer
1 -10 30%
11 -20 27%
21 - 30 24%
31.40 21%
41 -50 18%
51 -60 15%
61 -70 12%
71 -80 9%
81 .90 6%
91 .100 3%
(4) The density transfer can only be used
within the development proposal site. Any such
modifications shall be reviewed and approved through
the site development process in Chapter 18.60.
(5) Development of the transferred density
shall be confined to buildable areas of the site, and shall
not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers.
(Ord. 1599 §4(b), 1991; Ord. 1289 §5, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.080 Open space.
(a) Each planned residential development shall
provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site
area for common open space which shall:
(1) Provide either passive or active recreation
concentrated in large usable areas;
(2) Network with the trail and open space
system of the City and provide a connection and
extension, if feasible; and
(3) Be under one ownership, owned and
maintained by the ownership; or be held in common
ownership by all of the owners of the development by
means of a homeowners' association or similar associa-
tion. Such association shall be responsible for mainte-
nance of the common open space, or be dedicated for
public use if acceptable to the city or other appropriate
public agency.
(b) Planned residential developments shall set
aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensitive
areas tract as required by Section 18.45.090, and will be
exempted from other open space requirements of this
section.
(Ord 1599 §4M, 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas.
(a) The design and layout of a planned residential
development shall take into account the integration and
compatibility of the site to the surrounding areas. The
perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to mini-
mize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent
properties.
(b) Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD
shall be comparable to, or compatible with, those of the
existing development of adjacent properties or, if adja-
cent properties are undeveloped, the type of develop-
ment which may be permitted.
(Ord 1599 §4(8), 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.100 Preapphcation procedure.
A preapplication conference between representa-
tives of the City and the potential applicant for a PRD is
required prior to the acceptance of an application for
PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the
Planning Department at the written request of the
potential applicant. All affected City departments shall
be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of
the preapplication conference is to acquaint the appli-
cant with the provisions of this section as well as other
ordinances and regulations which would affect . the
property under consideration.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.110 Application procedure required tor PRD
OPProvaL
(a) Filing of Application. Application for approval of
the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the
Department of Community Development and shall be
accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter
18.88 and by the following:
(1) Justification for the density bonus, if re-
quested by the applicant;
(2) Program for development including staging
or timing of development;
Pang 1 R-4
OrintArl Atmore. Q 100^.
(3) Proposed ownership pattern upon comple-
tion of the project;
(4) Basic content of any restrictive covenants;
(5) Provisions to assure permanence and
maintenance of common open space through a home-
owners' association, or similar association, condo-
minium development or other means acceptable to the
City;
(6) An application for rezone may be submit-
ted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary
for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be
in addition to those of the PRD application;
(7) An application for preliminary plat may be
submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees
fgr the shall kg in ad¢jtion tQ those Qf alg
PRD application;
(8) Graphic images of development in any
sensitive area or buffer, including photomontage or
computer - generated perspectives in a standardized
format required by the Director of the Department of
Community Development;
(9) Every reasonable effort shall be made to
preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate
them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree
inventory of the significant vegetation on -site as part of
the preliminary plat application. A tree and vegetation
retention /removal plan shall be part of any preliminary
plat application. Such tree and vegetation reten-
tion /removal plan shall assure the preservation of sig-
nificant trees and vegetation.
(b) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The
Planning Commission shall hold at least one public
hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice
thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The
public hearing shall not be held before completion of all
necessary and appropriate review by City depart-
ments. This review shall be completed within a
reasonable period of time.
(c) Planning Commission Recommendation. Fol-
lowing the public hearing, the Planning Commission
shall make a report of its findings and recommenda-
tions with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria
of this chapter, and forward the report to the City
Council.
(d) City Council Public Hearing.
(1) After receipt of the Planning Commission
report, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on
the proposed PRD as recommended by the Planning
Commission. The City Council shall give approval,
approval with modifications, or disapproval to the pro-
posed PRD.
(2) The PRD shall be an exception to the regu-
lations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall
constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site
unless modified by ordinance.
(Ord. 1599 §4(9), 1991; Ord 1289 §4, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
TITLE 18 — ZONING
18.46.112 Review criteria.
The Planning Commission and City Council shall
find that the proposed development plans meet all of
the following criteria in their decision making:
(1) Requirements of the subdivision code for
the proposed development have been met, if appropri-
ate;
(2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the cri-
teria as listed in Section 18.46.070;
(3) Adverse environmental impacts have
been mitigated;
(4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the
provisions of this chapter and Chapter 18.45;
(5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire
development an0 spegjfjg¢ stages Kaye been OM.
mented in the application;
(6) Development in accordance with the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and other rele-
vant plans;
(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural
Review guidelines (Section 18.60.050); and
(8) Appropriate retention and preservation of
existing trees and vegetation recommended by the
Director of the Department of Community
Development.
(Ord. 1599 §4(10), 1991)
18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by
City Council and City Attomey.
The restrictive covenants intended to be used by
the applicant in a planned residential development
(PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the
location or character of buildings or other structures
thereon, must be approved by the City Council and
the City Attorney before the issuance of any building
permit.
(Ord 1289 §6, 1983)
18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit.
The following procedures are required for approval
of construction for the proposed planned residential
development:
(1) Time Limitation. A complete application
for the initial building permit shall be filed by the appli-
cant within twelve months of the date on which the
City Council approved the PRD. An extension of time
for submitting an application may be requested in writ-
ing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding
six months may be granted by the Director of the
Department of Community Development. If applica-
tion for the initial building permit is not made within
twelve months or within the time for which an
extension has been granted, the plan shall be consid-
ered abandoned, and the development of the property
shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of
the underlying zone and the subdivision code.
(2) Application. Application for building permit
shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department
Printed August 4, 1993 Page 18-55
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE(
of Community Development and shall be accompa-
nied by a fee as prescribed by the building code.
(3) Documentation Required. All schematic
plans either presented or required in the approved PRD
plans shall be included in the building permit applica-
tion presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans
shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility,
open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans.
Final plats and public and
documents must be
approved by the City Council before the issuance of
any building permits.
(4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is
to be developed In stages, sureties or other security
device as shall be approved by the City Attorney shall
be required for the complete PRD. The various stages
or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of
open space and the same overall dwelling unit density
as provided in the final plan.
(5) Department of Community Development
Action. The Department of Community Development
shall determine whether the project plans submitted
with the building permit are in compliance with and
carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Follow-
ing approval of the Department of Community
Development, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the
approved PRD plan with the official records of the City
and the originals shall be recorded with the King
County Department of Records and Elections. After all
approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to
reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the
designation of the underlying zone.
(Ord 1599 §4(11), 1991; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments.
If minor adjustments or changes are proposed fol-
lowing the approval of the PRD, by the City Council as
provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall
be approved by the planning department prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are
those which may affect the precise dimensions or
siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic
character or arrangement of structures approved in the
final plan, or the density of the development or open
space provided. Major adjustments are those which,
as determined by the planning department, substan-
tially change the basic design, density, open space, or
other substantive requirement or provision. If the
applicant wishes to make one or more major changes,
a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section
18.46.120.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.140 Expiration of time limits.
Construction of improvements in the PRD shall
begin within twelve months from the date of the filing
of the final PRD plan by the City Clerk as provided in
Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning
construction may be requested in writing by the appli-
,cant, and such extension not exceeding six months
may be granted by the Planning Commission upon
showing of good cause. If construction does not occur
within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD
plans by the City Clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be
dropped from the official zoning map and the zoning
shall revert to the underlying designation.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
Pane 18-56
Printed Auoust 4. 1993
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1994
Page 3
City Sewer Plan
The Council discussed the Sewer Plan Policies. Councilmember Robertson
stated that the first element of the plan is to prepare engineering plans of the
public infrastructure with sewer line profiles, sizing, and elevations for seven
residential areas. The plan identifies planning level costs and two alternatives
for funding as discussed by the Utility Committee. Sewer construction costs
were estimated based on a per foot length for the various streets. Robertson
suggested that the Council merely discuss this issue tonight and not make any
decision at all. Secondly, attend a meeting in the Allentown neighborhood
where this information is presented and discussed with the citizens. After this
is done the Council should hold a public hearing open to all interested
persons. The Council should then deliberate and decide which of the policies
and/or any other changes they wish to adopt. Robertson stated the difference
between the two proposals is that in one the utility pays for the "in- street"
cost and it takes approximately 40 years (assuming that the cost estimates are
correct); and the other is the actual property owners pay all of the cost at the
time they connect. In neither case will people be forced to connect unless one
of three conditions is true: 1) If public health a safety problem; 2) If they sell
the property; or 3) If they add or develop on it.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a community meeting for
citizen's input then revisit the issue at a future Council meeting.
PRD /Subdivision As directed by Council, DCD staff focused on six (6) major issues of concern •
with the existing PRD Regulations as they relate to certain provisions of •
TMC, Chapter 18.46. The intent is understood to be to change only those
few provisions that create significant problems in administering the chapter.
The Council entered a lengthy discussion resulting in the following: .
** 1-- ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY
ZONES -- delete all and amend to read: "In R -1 districts, only single-.
family detached dwellings may be permitted." II-- MINEVIUM SIZE
PROPERTY— go with staff recommendation to "delete the entire section."
m -- DENSITY AND MINIlVIUM LOT SIZE: —it was recommended that
staff "create a table to reflect a net reduction of around 15% with a floor
of 6,120 sq. ft. minimum.single family lot size rounded off to whole
numbers with minimum set back requirements." No action will be taken
until the Council has had a chance to review the table. IV -- DENSITY
TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE PROPERTY- -
"delete this section." V - -BAR REVIEW -- "delete per staff
recommendation." VI- -OFF SLUE PERSPECTIVES -- "accept per staff
recommendation."
It was the consensus of the Council to have staff prepare document with
amendments per tonight's discussion for final review at a future Council
meeting.
ATTACHMENT B
Zero - lot - line.pattern for
detached single- family dwellings
ATTACHMENT C
A P P D A V I T O P
Notice of Public Hearing
E Notice of Public Meeting
Li Board of Adjustment Agenda
. Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet •
fl Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
D I S T R I B T J T I O N
hereby declare that:
ONotice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
fl Shoreline Management Permit
Determination of Non -
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance.
DDetermination of Significance.
and Scoping Notice.
Ei Notice of Action
0 Official Notice
0 Other
U Other_
was ..•<i-€d to each of the following addresses
Name of Project
-1-6AAP, s
on 1!
File Number IMF{' 1 00-5 3
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will be holding a work
session at 7:00 p.m. and public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on June 23, 1994 located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following:
I.
PLANNING COMMSSION WORK SESSION 7:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: L94 -0035
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Amend TMC Chapter 18.46: Planned Residential Development (PRD).
LOCATION: City-Wide
II. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: L94 -0035
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: Amend TMC Chapter 18.46: Planned Residential Development (PRD).
LOCATION: City-Wide
III. PLANNING COMMISSION and BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: L94 -0037: Foster Library Approval of Parking Provided
L93 -0089: Foster Library Conditional Use Permit
L93 -0088: Foster Library Design Review
APPLICANT: Architects Reed Reinvald
REQUEST: To construct a 5,250 sq. ft. neighborhood library, including a 34 -stall parking lot,
landscaping, biofiltration swale, 6' wide curbside sidewalk and street trees.
LOCATION: 4060 42nd Ave. S., Tukwila.
CASE NUMBER: L94 -0036: "Best" Sign
APPLICANT: Howard Turner
REQUEST: Planning Commission approval of an increased wall sign area from 150 sq. ft. to 225
sq. ft. per TMC 19.32.140., and Board of Architectural Review approval of project
signs per its conditions for file L93 -0091.
LOCATION: 400 Strander Boulevard, 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. The City encourages you to notify your
neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published:
Distribution:
Seattle Times
June 10 & 17, 1994
• Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Pace
FROM: Denni Shefrin
DATE: May 24, 1994
SUBJECT: COUNCIL ACTION ON INTERIM ORDINANCE MODIFYING PRD
Meeting: May 9, 1994
Below I have summarized the action taken by City Council based upon recommendations contained in
the staff report dated May 5, 1994 and minutes received May 20. Because it was decided to take these
issues forward to the Planning Commission, it is not clear whether the PC will be reviewing staff's original
memo to Council and Council's recommendations. Remember, Council did not have firm
recommendations on some of the issue areas.
1. Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses.
This was entirely stricken and replaced as follows:
in R -1 districts, only single family detached dwellings may be permitted.'
2. Section 18.46.040. Site Acreage Minimum.
Delete the entire section.
3. Density and Minimum Lot Size.
Section 18.46.060. Relationship of this chapter to other section s and other
ordinances. •
Section 18.46.070 (d). Density Standards.
Both sections as written were deleted and replaced with the following:
The minimum lot size and setbacks may be reduced up to 15% from standards of the underlying
zone district.
Before Council gave a firm recommendation, they directed staff to create a table to show lot sizes and
setbacks with the 15% reduction based upon the underlying zone district. The table follows:
Council Summary
PRD Revisions
Page 2
ZONE DIST.
LOT SIZE
FRONT STBK.
SIDE STBK.
REAR STBK.
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
NOT mi.4:O -5
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
NOT <4.0 3_5
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
NOT <4.0 3,5
8.5
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
NOT <4.0 3.5
8.5
What still needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission and Council is how to treat sites with
sensitive areas. The Council also decided to eliminate the density transfer provision. Hence, if density
is solely limited by lot area with a 15% reduction, density is still fixed.
Example: 10 acre parcel S A C.- u 11 Z�L
R -1 -7.2 zone
1 s. °cki)
O hm 614/4
s
6-ecbs
-LL
2.5 acres of SA (108,900 sq.ft.)
net buildable area = gross/- SA or 435\600 - 108,900 = 326,700
roads = 15% (i�)1'J&r
.15 x 326,700 = 49,005
revised net buildable area = 326,700 - 49,005 = 277,695
277,695 / 7,200 = 38
277,695 /6,120 = 45 �^
if no SA: 10 acre parcel A fiteut Za'-
R -1 -7.2 zone
,J/ roads = 15%,((- JM 61)
.15 x 435,600 = 65340
buildable area = 435,600 - 65,340 = 370,260 / 7,200 = 51
/ 6,120 = 60
gar i1L _92an
es?(6eip )F I
In each case where lot areas would be either 7,200 or 6)20 square feet, there is a net loss in density of •
approximately.25% when sensitive areas exist. This scenario recommended by Council does not permit
density transfer.
Density Transfer
The City Council recommended this section be omitted entirely.
y Section 18.46.060(g). BAR Review.
This section has been interpreted that BAR Review is required. Because the PRD decision criteria #7
requires compliance with BAR design review criteria, there is not needed for 18.46.060(g). Therefore,
Council agreed to eliminate.
Ley Section 18.46.060(f) (1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Council concurred with the language recommended by staff:
%•
1
....
Council Summary
PRD Revisions
Page 3
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off-site privately owned property
shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty-five percent of the structures at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This standard may
supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement.
I rais, questions:
1. The only 'landscape yard' requirement is that required by the Subdivision Code: one tree within
the front -yard setback. I would argue that in a PRD, there is still discretion to apply this
requirement and the requirement becomes meaningless if front -yard landscaping is necessary to
the downslope and side yard buffer requirements.
I would therefore, recommended deleting the last sentence.
2. There is still a tremendous amount of subjectivity in applying this . requirement of providing
perspectives, regardless of how they're done. I would therefore recommend this section ,be
stricken and language be developed which limits the amount of trees removed for new
developments. The TPO doesn't necessarily meet the intent of this section regarding the amount
of screening desired. To specify photomontages doesn't not simplify application of this section.
I therefore recommend that when staff has the opportunity to revise this provision or the entire
zoning code, this section should be revisited.
3. What must be considered are individual choices made by the homeowner including fencing and
tree removal if trees are placed on private property strictly for the purpose of meeting the
screening provisions of this section.
Rick reviewed the first version of this summary and commented that #1 & #2 should not be looked at
now. I would disagree and it appears because we're going before. PC and back to Council, we can do
whatever we want which is reasonable.
General comments. The City Council has essentially removed a tremendous amount of flexibility for PRD
developments. In order to create a better understanding of the benefits of PRD developments, workshops
using a significant amount of illustrations is necessary. I would be interested in coordinating this once
the COMP PLAN process has ended, however, the HOUSING section of the Comp. Plan should speak
to PRD developments where sensitive areas exist.
, c 2- f � i1 ee6VANgr
CVOS q- CC KG
�1�ce
., °`�a 0 61994
MAY 9, 1994
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
COUNCILMEMBERS
PRESENT
OFFICIALS
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
**Revised 5/26/94 (PRD /Subdivision), see page .3
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
MINUTES
PROCLAMATIONS OF THE
MAYOR
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Amend Agenda
Update on new Community
Center
Mayor Rants called the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City
Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOE DUFFLE, JOAN HERNANDEZ,
DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY
De RODAS.
JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney;
LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; RICK BEELER/DENNI
SHEFRIN, DCD; RON CAMERON/PAT BRODIN, Public Works; DON
WILLIAMS, Parks & Recreation
Mayor Rants read a proclamation designating May 14, 1994 as Police
Officer's Memorial Day. Acknowledging the proclamation, Police Chief Ron
Waldner expressed gratitude on behalf of his department and announced that
a brief ceremony will be held at the flag pole at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 13.
None.
Councilmember Duffle requested the agenda be amended to move one item
form "Reports" so that Parks Director Don Williams could give a brief staff
report on the new Community Center progress.
It was the Consensus of the Council to hear the report by Don Williams.
Williams reported that in the Community Affairs and Parks Committee
meeting tonight, it was agreed that a meeting should be scheduled for
presentations by the three architectural firms to present their site plans, floor
plans, renderings, cost estimates, etc. of the new Community Center. Each
firm will be allowed 30 minutes to make their presentation with a 10 minutes
question and answer period following. It's also important to establish a date
that will allow adequate advertising for citizen participation in this endeavor.
Williams said it is hoped that the COW would be followed by a Regular
Meeting so that one (1) firm can be officially selected and the Mayor can
proceed with accepting the contract. Following the acceptance of the
contract, the schedule should flow as follows: eight months design period;
about a month and a half to advertise and award; and, have a contractor on
site no later than June of 1995. It's important that we firm up the date for the
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1994
Page 2
Update on New Community
Center (Cont'd)
Segale Development Agreement
CBD Sidewalk LID
presentations so that the consultant firms can plan appropriately. The
Committee recommended the date of June 27 (4th Monday COW). However,
since the summer months and vacation schedules are upon us, the Council
agreed to schedule June 30 to hear architectural presentations.
It was the consensus of the Council to call a Special Meeting on June 30, at
7:00 p.m. to allow for presentations by the three architectural firms. This
would be the only item on the agenda.
Ron Cameron, Public Works Department, explained that this agreement is to
provide the improvements at Andover Park West and Strander for the Segale
Retail Development. The site will function as a simulcast facility for up to
two years and then transform to retail. Cameron said the goal of this
agreement is to provide the improvements for the least cost to both the City
and the property owners. He said the agreement provides credit against
traffic mitigation costs for constructing traffic mitigation. Traffic mitigations
have been assessed based on fairshare costs.
After a brief discussion and minor changes, the Council agreed to forward the
Developer's Agreement to the next Regular Consent Agenda:
Cameron explained that the CBD Sidewalk Plan Policies require the City to
build sidewalks pursuant to the provisions for sidewalk improvement districts
in RCW 35.70. The essence of this chapter is that the City can require the
construction of a sidewalk by the abutting property owner for public
convenience or safety. If the property owner fails to construct the sidewalk,
the City can build it and recover the costs by forming an LID after the fact.
He said the consultants have sought a legal clarification of the requirements
for the application of RCW 35.70 to the CBD Sidewalk and Tree Plan. The
information provided indicates that the use of RCW 35.70 would not be
appropriate for the CBD Plan. 35.70 is intended for portions not longer than
one block in length. 35.70 does not allow for collection of right of way or
easement acquisition costs. Cameron continued as he reviewed updated
information on RCW 35.43 which defines LID procedures; right -of -way,
construction of sidewalks over three years, and concluded with making a
recommendation to include the widening work with the sidewalk construction
project.
After a lengthy discussion, the Council agreed to forward this issue to the
next Transportation Committee meeting. The Council asked that the pros and
cons of the RCW sections regarding LID procedures be included in the
Transportation Committee meeting packet
Recess Mayor Rants called the meeting back to order with those present as noted
8:20 -8:30 above.
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1994
Page 3
City Sewer Plan
PRD /Subdivision
The Council discussed the Sewer Plan Policies. Councilmember Robertson
stated that the first element of the plan is to prepare engineering plans of the
public infrastructure with sewer line profiles, sizing, and elevations for seven
residential areas. The plan identifies planning level costs and two alternatives
for funding as discussed by the Utility Committee. Sewer construction costs
were estimated based on a per foot length for the various streets. Robertson
suggested that the Council merely discuss this issue tonight and not make any
decision at all. Secondly, attend a meeting in the Allentown neighborhood
where this information is presented and discussed with the citizens. After this
is done the Council should hold a public hearing open to all interested
persons. The Council should then deliberate and decide which of the policies
and/or any other changes they wish to adopt. Robertson stated the difference
between the two proposals is that in one the utility pays for the "in- street"
cost and it takes approximately 40 years (assuming that the cost estimates are
correct); and the other is the actual property owners pay all of the cost at the
time they connect. In neither case will people be forced to connect unless one
of three conditions is true: 1) If public health a safety problem; 2) If they sell
the property; or 3) If they add or develop on it.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a community meeting for
citizen's input then revisit the issue at a future Council meeting.
As directed by Council, DCD staff focused on six (6) major issues of concern
with the existing PRD Regulations as they relate to certain provisions of
TMC, Chapter 18.46. The intent is understood to be to change only those
few provisions that create significant problems in administering the chapter.
The Council entered a lengthy discussion resulting in the following:
1-- ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY
ZONES -- delete all and amend to read: "In R-1 districts, only single -
family detached dwellings may be permitted." II—MINIMUM SIZE
PROPERTY -- go with staff recommendation to "delete the entire section."
III -- DENSITY AND MIN MUM LOT SIZE: --it was recommended that
staff "create a table to reflect a net reduction of around 15% with a floor
of 6,120 sq. ft. minimum single family lot size rounded off to whole
numbers with minimum set back requirements." No action will be taken
until the Council has had a chance to review the table. IV -- DENSITY
TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE PROPERTY- -
"delete this section." V - -BAR REVIEW--"delete per staff
recommendation." VI- -OFF SITE PERSPECTIVES-- "accept per staff
recommendation."
It was the consensus of the Council to have staff prepare document with
amendments per tonight's discussion for final review at a future Council
meeting.
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1994
Page 4
REPORTS
City Investment Report
City Administrator John McFarland reported that the City anticipates
investing approximately $12 million of the State Pool funds in one, two or
three -year government backed investments. This will be done in May or June
and depend on the cash flow needs of the individual funds. The yield on
investments in 1994 and 1995 should be substantially higher than 1993 when
interest rates were at a 20 -year low. He said the estimated interest rate on the
State Pool is 3.63 %. This is slightly higher than CD or "overnight"
investments with savings banks. Total interest earned in the State Pool year -
to -date through 4/30/94 is $217,648. The maturity date for the U.S. Treasury
Note is February 15, 1997 and reflects investment of the Community Center
and Fire Station #53 Bonds. Par Value is $6,050,000 with a yield of
5.7072 %.
Robertson requested disclosure of the investment entity.
McFarland responded that at this point the City's investments are in the State
Pool because it has proven to be the least risky. However, McFarland said .
Alan Doerschel, Finance Director, is looking into other investment areas and
will be provide that information to the Council when it occurs.
Mayor Rants reported that it appears the DVNPC project fell through.
Robertson said there may be some hard feelings on the part of the Coalition
headed by Nadine Morgan for all of the hard work that was rendered toward
the accomplishment of the Beaver Bend Park Project
Duffie commented that the Council needs to stop leading people on. The ,.
Council needs to say what they mean and mean what they say. The Council
made a mistake by saying a certain amount of money would be earmarked but
wasn't clear on its purpose.
De Rodas commented that it is her firm belief that the community was not in
favor of this Coalition. She said she believe the Coalition undertook this
project all unto themselves
Robertson suggested a meeting be scheduled and have Morgan and Aragon
present to address the issue of having a fire station built on the property now
that the Beaver Bend Park issue is dead.
Duffie said the idea of having a fire station built on the Beaver Bend site came
in through the back door. Originally, the plans were to have the fire station
built on the existing site.
Mullet said the last decision made by this Council was to build the fire station
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1994
Page 5
Reports (Cont'd)
on the existing site. However, since then it was determined that the existing
site was really not suitable for a fire station. At that point alternative sites
were considered. Of all the sites considered, the Beaver Bend site was the
best suited for what the City needed in the Allen Town area.
Craft commented that the City should be very cautious and not rush into a
decision.
Mayor Rants reported he had attended the Metro Transit Committee meeting.
The Committee made a recommendation to cancel the LNG (liquified natural
gas) buses and to purchase the clean diesel ones for a savings of
approximately $97 million dollars.
Rick Beeler, Director, DCD, reported on the Comp Plan scheduling. Beeler
stated that the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is scheduled to complete their
work this Thursday. After that all document data will be combined in
preparation to go to the Planning Commission (around June 23 or June 30).
Lastly, the document will come before the Council for scheduling work
session dates.
ADJOURNMENT • MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ADJOURN
11:00 p.m. THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
John W. Rants, Mayor
Celia Square, ty City Clerk
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Rants
Rick Beeler, Director, Department of Community Developmen
May 5, 1994
Amendments to the PRD Regulations (TMC, Chapter 18.46
Rick Beeler, Director
The City Council has directed staff to prepare an interim ordinance which changes
certain provisions of the PRD (TMC, Chapter 18.46). The intent is understood to be to
change, at this time, only those few provisions that create significant problems in
administering the chapter. A comprehensive review of the chapter will occur as part of
the GMA process of updating all regulations.
To date discussions identified six major issues for consideration of changing the PRD
chapter. Those issues are listed numerically below with the regulations as they appear
in the TMC, a brief discussion and staff recommendations. The purpose of the
recommendations are to offer ideas for the Council's consideration in the discussion and
assist in selecting the final direction for the interim ordinance.
I. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses.
(1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with he
surrounding residential character and built envir• •,t ent. Single -unit
detached dwellings will be preferable to attached. unite owever, attached,
two -unit dwellings will be considered if necessary to accommodate interior
zero lot lines for projects with sensitive areas and /or sensitive area
buffers.
Discussion.
Attached units ( zero lot line development) are now possible in PRD's on properties with
sensitive areas: This is being criticized as inappropriate in single family zones.
However, ,zero- lot -line, development does not always mean that units must be attached.
The units can be located at a side property line - no side yard setback. An example of
this is provided in Attachment 1.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665
I-vial/J/0o
du'eP ro-Tr:
Memorandum
Mayor Rants
May 5, 1994
Page 2
The fundamental objection to the existing regulation is that single family units can be
attached. The flexibility to build those type of units can be removed from TMC
18.46.030(1) while retaining the ability to build zero lot line detached single family units.
This is recommended by staff.
Recommendation:
c '2) `F
.J C..
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses.
(1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be perm
1,11W b...he...suutd
/umFetach =d dwellings . r-_ • - rmitt4 -41-04.144.1144, WOW.
-
ts with: sitive W as
itted.w ' ious
er__3Dd built environment. Single-
ir�ter�r� ero lo —I nes for p
J and /or sensitive a ea buffers.
II. MINIMUM SIZE PROPERTY eiji,m/A)
Section 18.46.040. Site Acreage Minimum. (-.?1 -fei (a
The minimum site for a planned residential development shall be one acre,
except sites containing sensitive areas and their buffers.
Discussion. > J
I r'
This regulation treats all residential zones equally relative to minimum size of property
to use the PRD process and waives the minimum size for properties with sensitive
areas. The issue is whether or not to change the property size minimum of one acre.
Not all single family zones benefit equally from the PRD process. The R -1 -7.2 zone
benefits the most because the smaller 7,200 sq. ft. lots are more easily accommodated
on less than one acre of property than the required 20,000 sq. ft. lots in the R -1 -20
zone.
The benefit of the PRD process is preservation /creation of open space and protection of
sensitive areas and their buffers through creative site design that includes deviations
from the normal setbacks or lot area requirements. Because the substantial majority of
single.family lots in Tukwila are less than one acre, very few properties can use the
PRD process to preserve these amenities and habitat while developing additional in -fill
single family homes:
Memorandum
Mayor Rants
May 5, 1994
Page 3
Undeveloped /underdeveloped multifamily zoned parcels are mostly 0.75 acre in size,
therefore ineligible for the PRD process. However, this type of development could
preserve the same amenities and habitat if the PRD process was an option.
Deletion of the minimum property size requirement from the PRD would increase the
applicability; of that process to more properties in Tukwila, and . thereby increase the
amount of open space and habitat. The PRD process includes decision criteria, e.g.,
compliance with the BAR guidelines, that address building design, site plan and
landscaping issues while providing flexible building setbacks that make more single
family housing units available.
Recommendation
Delete this section.
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Section 18.46.060. Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other
ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code are
waived within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units
per net acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to
determine basic PRD density.
Section 18.46.070. Density Standards.
(b) Single Family
(1) In R -1 single family residential districts, the Planning Commission may
recommend, and the "City Council may authorize a minimum lot size not
less than the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, following findings
that the amenities or design features listed in subsections , (b)(2)(A)
through (b)(2)(D) of this section are substantially provided.
Discussion.
This is probably the most significant issue in the discussion for these sections form the
density of PRD's on properties with sensitive areas. No;:;densityrbonus:,t:or`fir "density:
transfer" is allowed for non-sensitive properties. TMC 18.46.070(d) features the density
transfer provisions, including a table for calculating the density to be transferred.
Memorandum
Mayor Rants
May 5, 1994
Page 4
BUJ &fir ,
1- % --rt! tifLta,J ..14111 -5-1/4E-
1>\ Z°, a : orb 1:51- $�- ' u £ i !.
The above two sections clearly permit reduction of the normal minimum lot size of the
underlying zone, but do not give a clear "floor" to that reduction. Effectively, no
minimum lot size is specified in this unfortunate wording.
Two basic alternatives exist to clarifying the language. First, into TMC 18.46.070(b)
could be inserted a specific minimum lot size and then density transfer calculated as
currently done. Second, .a minimum lot size could be specified that is low enough, and
the density transfer section deleted, so that the net effect is the same as currently
required. The difference between the two methods is that the second alternative is
simpler and more direct. pL'\-- ay, Cv tea/4,- qWl -56ett,
Alternative One could have a floor lot area of 6,500 sq. ft. (or some other number)
before the density transfer is applied. While clearer than existing language, the net
reduction of around 10% does not encourage setting aside much land for open space or
habitat. A more substantial reduction will Iikresult in more economic feasibility to
voluntarily set aside more area for aesthetics and habitat. 4)��,,1�- .�L`--
J
Alternative Two could have the floor that Tukwila Tomorrow is, to date, recommenai
of a minimum single family lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. with a floor area ratio ( "FAR ") of 0:3
and inclusion of affordable housing. (FAR = floor area of home / lot area.) The
resulting density would not require the existing density transfer. Sufficient density will
likely result to economically support development while dedicating relatively more open*
space and habitat than might otherwise by Alternative One.
Recommendation
Amend the above sections per Alternative Two:
Section 18.46.060. Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other
ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code are
waiv_within the planned residential development. The number of dwelling units
per acre permitted in the underlying zone shall serve as the criteria to
de ermine basic PRD density, except as modified by Section 18.46,070.
Memorandum
Mayor Rants
May 5, 1994
Page 5
Section 18.46.070. Density Standards.
(b) Single Family
(1) In R -1 single family residential districts, the Planning Commission may
----A\L-v' trecommend, and the City Council may authorize a minimum lot size not
)c1 less than
rlirualiAM 15
, 5.000 square feet
provided a maximum floor area ratio of 0.3 is achieved and affordable
housing units are included. following findings that the amenities or design
features listed in subsections (b)(2)(A) through (b)(2)(D) of this section are
substantially provided.
rg Vr: L ) t.1 -a_t4
IV. DENSITY /TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE
PROPERTY
Ate7 Z` a
e-T'It
ore 7 ij
l'cIu e, Th61/ ate,
S 's
Section 18.46.070(d)
(5) Development of the transferred density shall be confined to buildable
areas' of the site, and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers.
Discussion
This section is unclear in whether or not transferred density can or cannot be located to
sensitive slopes of the property. Unlike wetlands and watercourses, development can
. occur on sensitive slopes, subject to affirmative geotechnical studies. ' Therefore;- -the,
sensitive slopes become "buildable ".
Clear language needs to be inserted to accomplish the purpose of the section.
Discussions so far have advocated both interpretations of the section. Our best
recollection is that the purpose is to allow transferred density on sensitive slopes, but
not in wetlands, watercourses or their buffers.
Recommendation
Section 18.46.070(d)
(5) Development of the-transferred density shall be confined to buildable
areas of the site, and shall not intrude on �srwetlands or
watercourses' or their< buffers:.:.:
Memorandum
Mayor Rants
May 5, 1994
Page 6
V. BAR REVIEW
Section 18.46.060(g). The Board of Architectural Review shall review guidelines
for single - family and multi - family developments. The design and review of the
PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050.
Discussion.
This section is difficult to interpret because of the language and its duplication of the
PRD decision criteria of TMC 18.46.112, which. requires the "Planning Commission and
City Council" find that the proposal meets several criteria, including:
(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines (Section
18.60.050)
Having the BAR review a PRD application is duplicative of the PRD's specific
requirement that the Planning Commission, the other "hat" of the BAR, perform that
review using the codified BAR guidelines. This confusion can be easily clarified by
deleting this section altogether.
Recommendation
Delete 18.46.060(g).
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES
Section 18.46.060 (f)(1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape
coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of project
completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years.
This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape
yard requirement.
Discussion.
A definition of " off- site ": is, not included in the TMC. Perspectives of the development
can, according to the existing language, be taken anywhere beyond the property line of
the development. The location from which the perspectives are taken effectively
determine how successful the proposal meets the 25% and 40% criteria, because of
topography, distance from the property, and relationship to the buildings substantially
Memorandum
Mayor Rants
May 5, 1994
Page 7
effect a perspective drawing.
An alternative to perspectives drawn by artists is to require ; photomontages
(photographs of the property superimposed with the proposed buildings and
landscaping). This gives a more accurate depiction of the visual appearance of the
development at a reasonable cost, especially for a small PRD of a few lots. The most
accurate version of the photomontage is derived from computer imaging, but the cost is
significantly more that the artist's version.
The issue of the location from which to draw perspectives, whatever the technique, is
more . difficult to resolve because of the wide range of circumstances surrounding any
property with sensitive areas.. It is very difficult to codify a location for the perspectives
that addresses every view of the property from downslope properties. Normally the
technique of perspective drawing renders development in less detail the farther the
perspective location is from the development. Therefore, compliance with the 25% and
40% criteria become more difficult to see, and easier to "fudge ", the greater the distance
the perspective is from the property. However, because trees are involved and growth
rates must be estimated, "artistic license" must be taken in drawing the trees in the
perspectives no matter from where they are taken. That "artistic license" is more
noticeable the closer the perspective is taken to the property. Perhaps, a reasonable.
compromise is taking the perspectives from the nearest privately owned property.
Recommendation �bt , *t ( p )1
�j
Section 18.46.060 (f)(1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers. -(4 u4 >
Photomontage perspectives. taken from the nearest downslope off -site
privately owned property. shall show
minimum landscape coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at
the time of project completion with anticipated 'forty percent coverage
within fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
SUMMARY
This paper identifies six issues that have been raised to date regarding the PRD
chapter, discusses each issue, and offers some recommendations. The discussion is
intended to briefly state some background and options for the. Council's consideration.
The recommendations are offered as a beginning point of the Council's discussion.
Staff will be available May 9 to answer questions and participate in the discussion.
. ....
ATTACHMENT 1
Zero - lot -line pattern for
detached single - family dwellings
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
John W. Rants, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Rants
Rick Beeler, DCD
March 17, 1994
PRD Revisions
Rick Beeler, Director
The experience of review of Fosterview Estates, the first PRD under the SAO, is
prompting consideration of revisions to the PRD chapter of the Zoning Code.
Councilman Robertson proposed a list of amendments which the Department has not
reviewed comprehensively. However, we do have the following comments to assist
Monday's discussion by the Council.
Similar to the proposed interim home day care ordinance, revisions to the PRD chapter
need to be processed through SEPA and the Planning Commission: Interim changes can
follow the same procedure as the interim home day care ordinance.
A simple revision could be to remove the PRD requirement from properties with sensitive
areas. This would make the PRD an option for those properties.
Annother revision could be to adopt a minimum size single family lot, e.g., 6500 square
feet. This would remove dabate over the PRD minimum lot size calculation experienced
during Fosterview.
Together these two revisions would accomplish most of the significant concerns
surrounding the PRD process.
Similar to the interim home day care ordinance, the priority of the PRD revisions needs to
be addressed relative to the Department's adopted 1994 work plan (1994 Budget) which
does not include this ordinance. While the amount of work may not appear significant, the
various tasks subtract from the already stretched resource capabilities and tight timelines
Therefore, the Council needs to decide what adjustments in the work plan are acceptable
out of the following alternatives:
A. Delay completion of Tukwila Tomorrow by two weeks and delivery of the draft
Comp Plan to the Planning Commission another two weeks.
B. Delay for one month one of the Board of Architecture Review applications.
C. Delay for two weeks the start of the Highway 99 Project and completion of the
project by another two weeks..
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Mayor Rants
March 17, 1994
Page 2
D. Delay beginning the Comp Plan EIS process and delivery to the Council by one
month.
E. Slow down/reduce participation in the King County Duwamish Coalition.
F. Reduce/delay participation in the Metro Multimodal Study.
To: City Council
From: Lucy Lauterbach
Date: March 17, 1994
Subject: Emergency Changes to the PRD Ordinance
When the Council heard the Fosterview EIS appeal, the effect the current PRD ordinance
has on how land can be developed was shown. Some Council Members were surprised at
the actual effect this portion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance had in an actual application
of the law.
Some concerns were raised that the PRD law be changed to not allow attached units, to set
minimum lot sizes, minimum acreage, and overall single family densities.
Dennis has proposed and Steve has commented on his proposal, some emergency changes
to the PRD ordinance. The Council can discuss the provisions, the need for an emergency
ordinance, and the form of the ordinance among themselves, and with DCD.and the City
Attorney at Monday's meeting.
•
(
Subject: Proposed Emergency Changes to the PRD Ordinance
I believe that recent experiences have demonstrated that several parts of
the PRD Ordinance cause results that were not originally intended or
expected. It is quite possible that these results will occur again and
again if the ordinance is not changed.
I realize that we are in the midst of creating a new Citywide
Comprehensive Plan with attendant zoning code changes. However, this
process will not complete for approximately one year and it would be
tragic to have the mistakes in the PRD Ordinance repeated. Therefore, I
would like to propose that the four changes listed below be implemented
as "Emergency Measures" or that the changes be 'forwarded on to the
Planning Commission with a formal request from the City Council and
Mayor that they be treated as the highest priority item by the Planning
Commission and dealt with immediately.
We and the Planning Commission could debate these changes for a long
time. Instead, I propose we limit out discussion to one session each and
save the long debate to the time we both deal with the complete, new
Citywide Comprehensive Plan.
The four changes that I propose are:
(1) 18.46.030 (1) Permitted Uses
Totally remove the second sentence in this section that reads
"Single unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units;
however, attached two -unit dwellings will be considered if necessary to
accommodate interior zero lot lines for projects with sensitive areas
and/or sensitive area buffers."
12) 18.46.040 Site Acreage Minimum
Totally remove the last clause in the sentence that reads
", except sites 'containing sensitive areas and their buffers."
(3) 18.46.060 A.1 Lot Size
Change the first sentence to read as follows: "The minimum lot
size provisions of other sections of this code may be reduced by 15%
within the planned residential development."
(4) 18.46.070 B.1 Single Family Density Standards
Change the sentence to read as follows: "In R -1 single - family
residential districts, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the
City Council may authorize, a minimum lot size not less than 85% of R -1 -`
7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features
listed in subsection a. through d. of 18.46.070 82 below are substantially
provided."
The four changes that I propose are:
(1) 18,46.030 (1) Permitted Uses
Totally remove the second sentence in this section that reads
e unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units;
owever, attached two -unit dwellings will be considered it necessary to
accommodate interior zero lot lines for projects with sensitive areas
and /or sensitive area buffers."
f2) 18.46.040 Site Acreage Minimum
Totally remove the last clause In the sentence that reads
�!< ", except sites containing' sensitive areas and their buffers."
f3) 18,46_060 A.1 Lot Size
60 X 12,0
a_.
Change the first sentence to read as follows: "The minimum lot
size provisions of other sections of this code may be reduced by 15% o
within the planned residential development." haw CID y oy PI CI ‘..r ? 15 4 °(�'
6 00 0 is as r"3 y ,,vt ti w I i re, qu► re, qm dft S
f4) 18.46,070 B.1 Sinole Family Density Standards -H# L)f �c, a� .C�sf 50'w;dc
w�6c )pie sets
Change the sentence to read as follows: ''In R -1 single- family
residential districts, the Planning Commission may recommend, and the
City Council may authorize, a minimum lot size not less than 85% of R -1-
7.2 district following findings that the amenities or design features
listed in subsection a. through d. of 18.46.070 B2 below are substantially
provided."
�:7f►�c� ara leaf±
' 001
.ACC) oti
1-tAILA- Ib
�� 1 1l i uki€
'AL s 5S
s.ve 0.16 kki41
P."J\e •.LL.4 XI LA. c.Lw44
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 18.0
PRD — PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
18.46.010
18.46.020
18.46.030
18.46.040
18.46.060
18.46.070
18.46.080
18.46.090
18.46.100
18.46.110
18.46.112
18.46.115
18.46.120
18.46.130
18.46.140
Purpose.
Permitted districts.
Permitted uses.
Site acreage minimum.
Relationship of this chapter to other
sections and other ordinances.
Density standards.
Open space.
Relationship to adjacent areas.
Preapplication procedure.
Application procedure required for PRD
approval.
Review criteria.
Restrictive covenants subject to approval
by City Council and City Attorney.
Application procedures for building permit.
Minor and major adjustments.. •
Expiration of time limits. • .
18.46.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imagi-
native site and building design and to create open space
in residential developments by permitting greater
flexibility in zoning requirements than Is permitted by
other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the pur-
pose of this chapter to:
(1) Promote the retention of significant features
of the natural environment, including topography,
vegetation, waterways, wetlands and views;
(2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing
types;
(5) RMH, Multiple- residence high density
when there are sensitive areas n the lot.
(Ord 1655 §2, 4993; Ord 1289 §1, 1983:
prd 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.030 Permitted uses.
ik_,
I I Lt 1 tS - LUNIN(a
dwelling units per net acre permitted( the underlying
zone shall serve as the criteria to det .mine basic PRD
density.
(2) Building Height. Building heights may be
modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining
natural resources and significant vegetation, and en-
hances views within the site without interfering with
the views of adjoining property. For increases in build-
ing height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in
impervious surface.
(3) Setbacks. Yard requirements as described
in Chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD;
however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the
PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the
bulk and streetscape of the existing development of
adjacent properties or the type of development which
may be permitted.
(b) Off -street Parking. Off -street parking shall be
provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of build-
ings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However,
for multiple - family zoned sites with sensitive areas, a
minimum of two parking stalls per unit will be
allowed, with a fifty percent compact stalls allowance,
and parking stalls in front of carports or garages wily' be
allowed if the design does not affect circulation.
(c) Platting Requirements. The standards of the
subdivision code for residential subdivisions shall
apply to planned residential developments if such
standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this
chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the
PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the
subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred.
(d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount
of impervious surface calculated for the total develop-
ment allowed on sensitive areas sites will be fifty per-
cent for each single - family development and each
multifamily development.
(e) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive
areas and stands of significant trees may be counted as
area required to meet the recreation space minimums,
if usable passive recreation opportunities within these
areas are demonstrated. Opportunities . could include
connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems,
wildlife or scenic viewing 'opportunities, or picnic
areas.
(f) Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with
Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas.
(1) Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.. Eleva-
tions and off -site perspectives shall show minimum
landscape coverage of twenty -five percent of the
structures at time of project completion with antidpated
forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This stan
dard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable
landscape yard requirement.
(2) Roads and Access Drives. Any road or
access drive which cuts approximately perpendicular
to a slope to the ridge line of a hill shall have minimum
five -foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species
that provides a brand 'attern sufficient to provide, at
maturity, fifty percenhi:overage of the pavement area.
Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel
to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of
Northwest native plant species.
(g) The Board of Architectural Review shall
review guidelines for single- family and multifamily
developments. The design and review of the PRD
shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050.
(h) For single - family developments, site plans shall
include placement and footprint of the residences,
driveways and roads.
(Ord 1599 §4(5), 1991; Ord 1289 §4, 1983;
Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.070 Density/ standards.
(a) Basic Density. The basic density shall be the
same as permitted by the underlying zone district.
The dwelling units per net acre for the residential
zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50.
(b) Single- family.
(1) In R -1 single - family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the CI
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size not less
than the yard requirements of the R-1-7.2 district,
following findings that the amenities or design features
listed in subsections (b) (2)(A) through (b)(2) (D) of this
section are substantially provided.
(2) In R -1 single - family residential districts on
sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than
the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, following
findings that the amenities or design features listed
below are substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural
vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands
exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is
achieved of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian
movement is provided especially in or near areas of
recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD
complement the land use policies of the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
(c) In multiple- family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a dwelling -unit density not
more than twenty percent greater than permitted by
the underlying zones or an increase equal to the
allowable density credits as set forth in subsection (d)
of this section, if the site contains sensitive areas or
buffers following findings that the amenities or design
features listed below are substantially provided:
(1) A variety of housing types is offered.
Printed August 4, 1993
Page 18-53
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE(
(2) Network with the trail and open space
system of the City and provide a connection and
extension, if feasible; and
(3) Be under one ownership, owned and
maintained by the ownership; or be held in common
ownership by all of the owners of the development by
means of a homeowners' association or similar associa-
tion. Such association shall be responsible for mainte-
nance of the common open space, or be dedicated for
public use if acceptable to the city or other appropriate
public agency.
(b) Planned residential developments shall set
aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensitive
areas tract as required by Section 18.45.090, and will be
exempted from other open space requirements of this
section.
(Ord 1599 §4(7), 1991; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
(2) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegeta-
tion is retained (in cases where significant stands
exist).
(3) Advantage is taken or enhancement is
achieved of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural charac-
teristics.
(4) Separation of auto and pedestrian move-
ment is provided, especially in or near areas of recre-
ation.
(5) Developmental aspects of the PRD com-
plement the land use policies of .the Comprehensive
Plan.
(d) Density Transfer.
(1) Density transfers are intended to provide
for the protection of wetlands, watercourses, and asso-
ciated buffers while allowing development which is
consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent
possible.
(2) Density transfers are the percentage credits
to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units,
for a residential site containing undevelopable sensitive
areas or buffers. •
The calculation of the maximum units per
buildable acre of a site with protected areas shall be
equal to: (DU = dwelling units)
((DU /acre) (buildable acres)) +
!(DU /acre)(sensitive areas and buffer)(density transfer)!
(3) Density transfer credits shall be determined
from the table below:
Percentage of Site in Density
Sensitive Areas and Buffer Transfer
1 -10 30%
11 -20 27%
21 -30 24%
31 -40 21%
41 -50 18%
51 -60 15%
61 - 70 12%
71 -80 9%
81.90 6%
91 -100 3%
(4) The density transfer can only be used
within the development proposal site. Any such
modifications shall be reviewed and approved through
the site development process in Chapter 18.60.
(5) Development of the transferred density
shall be confined to buildable areas of the site, and shall
not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers.
(Ord. 1599 §40), 1991; Ord. 1289 §5, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.080 Open space.
(a) Each planned residential development shall
provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site
area for common open space which shall:
(1) Provide either passive or active recreation
concentrated in large usable areas;
Pge 18-54
;
18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas.
(a) The design and layout of a planned residential
development shall take into account the integration and
compatibility of the site to the surrounding areas. The
perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to mini-
mize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent
properties.
(b) Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD
shall be comparable to, or compatible with, those of the
existing development of adjacent properties or, if adja-
cent properties are undeveloped, the type of develop-
ment which may be permitted.
(Ord 1599 §4(8), 1991,- Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.100 Preapplication procedure.
A preapplication conference between representa-
tives of the City and the potential applicant for a PRD is
required prior to the acceptance of an application for
PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the
Planning Department at the written request of the
potential applicant. All affected City departments shall
be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of
the preapplication conference is to acquaint the appli-
cant with the provisions of this section as well as other
ordinances and regulations which would affect the
property under, consideration.
(Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.110 Application procedure required for PRD
aPProva
(a) Filing of Application. Application for approval of
the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the
Department of Community Development and shall be
accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter
18.88 and by the following:
(1) Justification for the density bonus, 'if re-
quested by the applicant;
(2) Program for development including staging ;
t° or timing of development;
Printed August 4; 1993 .��
TITLE 18 — ZONING
(3) Proposed ownership pattern( on comple-
tion of the project;
(4) Basic content of any restrictive covenants;
(5) Provisions to assure permanence and
maintenance of common open space through a home-
owners' association, or similar association, condo-
minium development or other means acceptable to the
City;
(6) An application for 'rezone may be submit-
ted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary
for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be
in addition to those of the PRD application;
(7) An application for preliminary plat may be
submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees
for the subdivision shall be in addition to those of the
PRD application;
(8) Graphic images of development in any
sensitive area or buffer, including photomontage or
computer - generated perspectives in a standardized
format required by the Director of the Department of
Community Development;
(9) Every reasonable effort shall be made to
preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate
them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree
inventory of the significant vegetation on -site as part of
the preliminary plat application. A tree and vegetation
retention/removal plan shall be part of any preliminary
plat application. Such tree and vegetation reten -.
tion /removal plan shall assure the preservation of sig-
nificant trees and vegetation..
(b) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The
Planning Commission shall hold at least one public
hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice
thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The
public hearing shall not be held before completion of all
necessary and appropriate review by City depart-
ments. This review shall be completed within a
reasonable period of time.
(c) Planning Commission Recommendation. Fol-
lowing the public hearing, the Planning Commission
shall make a report of its findings and recommenda-
tions with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria
of this chapter, and forward the report to the City
Council.
(d) City Coundl Public Hearing.
(1) After receipt of the Planning Commission
report, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on
the proposed PRD as recommended by the Planning
Commission. The City Council shall give approval,
approval with modifications, or disapproval to the pro-
posed PRD.
(2) The PRD shall be an exception to the regu-
lations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall
constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site
unless modified by ordinance.
(Ord 1599 §4(9), 1991; Ord 1289 §4, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
�:..,� r� 4
'rinted Auiust 4, 1993
18.46.112 Review crate ,
The Planning Commission and City Council shall'
find that the proposed development plans meet all of
the following criteria in their decision making:
(1) Requirements of the subdivision code for
the proposed development have been met, ff appropri-
ate;
(2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the cri-
teria as listed in Section 18.46.070;
(3) Adverse environmental impacts have
been mitigated;
(4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the
provisions of this chapter and Chapter 18.45;
(5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire
development and specified stages have been docu-
mented in the application;
(6) Development in accordance with the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and other rele-
vant plans;
(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural
Review guidelines (Section 18.60.050); and
(8) Appropriate retention and preservation of
existing trees and vegetation recommended by the
Director of the Department of Community
Development.
(Ord. 1599 §4(10), 1991)
18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by
City Council and City Attomey.
The restrictive covenants intended to be used. by
the applicant in a planned residential development
(PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the
location or character of buildings or other structures
thereon, must be approved by the City Council and
the City Attorney before the issuance of any building
permit.
(Ord 1289 §6, 1983)
18.46.120 Application procedures for building permit.
The following procedures are required for approval
of construction for the proposed planned residential
development:
(1) Time Limitation. A complete application
for the initial building permit shall be filed by the appli-
cant within twelve months of the date on which the
City Council approved the PRD. An extension of time
for submitting an application may be requested in writ-
ing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding
six months may be granted by the Director of the
Department of Community Development. If applica-
tion for the initial building permit is not made within
twelve months or within the time for which an
extension has been granted, the plan shall be consid-
ered abandoned, and the development of the property
shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of
the underlying zone and the subdivision code.
(2) Application. Application for building permit
shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department
Page 18-55
• TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE1f..
of Community Development and- shall be accompa-
nied by a fee as prescribed by the building code.
(3) Documentation Required. All schematic
plans either presented or required in the approved PRD
plans shall be included in the building permit applica-
tion presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans
shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility,
open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans.
Final plats and public and
documents must be
approved by the City Council before the issuance of
any building permits.
(4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is
to be developed in stages, sureties or other security
device as shall be approved by the City Attorney shall
be required for the complete PRD. The various stages
or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of
open space and the same overall dwelling unit density
as provided in the final plan.
(5) Department of Community Development
Action. The Department of Community Development
shall determine whether the project plans .submitted
with the building permit are in compliance with and
carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Follow-
ing approval of the Department of Community
Development, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the
approved PRD plan with the official records of the City
and the originals shall be recorded with the King
County Department of Records and Elections. After all
approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to
reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the
designation of the underlying zone.
(Ord 1599 §4(11), 1991; Orr. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.130 Minor and major adjustments.
If minor adjustments or changes are proposed fol-
lowing the approval of the PRD, by the City Council as
provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall
be approved by the planning department prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are
those which may affect the precise dimensions or
siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic
character or arrangement of structures approved in the
final plan, or the density of the development or open
space provided. Major adjustments are those which,
as determined by the planning department, substan-
tially change the basic design, density, open space, or
other substantive requirement or provision. If the
applicant wishes to make one or more major changes,
a revised plan must be approved. pursuant to Section
18.46.120.
(Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.140 Expiration of time limits.
Construction of improvements in the PRD. shall
begin within twelve months from the date of the filing
of the final PRD plan by the City Clerk as provided in
Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning
construction may be requested in writing by the appli-
cant, and such extension not exceeding six months
may be granted by the Planning Commission upon
showing of good cause. If construction does not occur
within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD
plans by the City Clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be
dropped from the official zoning map and the zoning
shall revert to the underlying designation.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
Page 18-56
iPrinted August , 1993
B ...............
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Rants
Rick Beeler, DCD
March 17, 1994
PRD Revisions
John W. Rants, Mayor
The experience of review of Fosterview Estates, the first:PRD under the SAO, is prompting
consideration of revisions to the PRD chapter of the Zoning Code. Councilman Robertson
proposed a list of amendments which the Department has not reviewed comprehensively.
However, we do have the following comments to assist Monday's discussion by the Council.
Similar to the proposed interim home day care ordinance, revisions to the PRD chapter
need to be processed through SEPA. In addition the Planning Commission should also
review the revisions.
A simple solution would be to remove the PRD requirement from properties with sensitive
areas. This will make the PRD an option for those properties.
An additional revision could be to adopt a minimum size single family lot, e.g., 6500 square
feet. This would remove debate over the PRD minimum lot size calculation experienced
during Fosterview.
Together these two revisions would accomplish most of the significant concerns surrounding
the PRD process.
Similar to the interim home day care ordinance, the priority of the PRD revisions needs to
be addressed relative to the Department's adopted 1994 work plan (1994 Budget) which
does not include this ordinance. Viewed independently, the PRD may seem a small item,
however, the cumulative effects of PRD revisions and the Child Care ordinance have definite
effects on our ability to maintain the integrity of the established work plan.
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833
i
ATTACHMEN1 A4
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared June 15, 1994
HEARING DATE: June 23, 1994
FILE NUMBER: L94 -0035
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development
REQUEST: Amend TMC, Chapter 18.46, PRD (Planned Residential Development)
LOCATION: City -wide
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
STAFF: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. TMC, Chapter 18.46. (current)
B. Minutes, City Council COW, 5/26/94
C. Zero -lot -line illustration
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 S Fax (206) 4313665.
Planning Commission L940035
23 June 1994
FINDINGS OF FACT
BACKGROUND
The City Council has directed staff to prepare draft revisions to TMC Chapter
18.46, Planned Residential Development (PRD) in response to problems created
by several provisions of the PRD. The body of this report identifies specific
changes recommended by both City Council at their May 26, 1994 meeting, and
recommendations by staff. The amendments to the PRD are proposed primarily
to offer clearer direction and predictability to the applicant, citizens and City staff.
Secondly, changes are proposed to reduce confusion and to avoid need for
interpretation. some of the provisions lack clarity and require interpretation which
may be in conflict with the intent of the code.
Once the Comprehensive Plan update receives final approval, the Zoning Code will
be revised to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code update will
likely include additional revisions to the PRD and companion provisions of the
Sensitive Areas Regulations.
Current code provisions are listed below followed by a discussion and proposed
amendments; "PRD process" is replaced with "PRD ".
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
I. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
The code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses.
(1) In R -1 Districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious
with the surrounding residential character and built environment.
Single -unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached units,
however, attached two -unit dwellings will be considered if necessary
to accommodate interior zero lot lines for projects with sensitive
areas and /or sensitive area buffers.
Discussion.
The concern expressed with this provision is the allowance of attached units in a
single - family zone. Also implied, yet erroneous, is the assumption that zero -lot -line
development always means that units are attached. This is incorrect. Zero -lot line
development generally means units are detached with each unit placed at the side
2
Planning Commission L94-0035
23 June 1994
property line (see Attachment C). Once a PRD is approved, the lot location, and
building footprints are recorded with the Final Plat.
When the Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO) was adopted, revisions were made
to the PRD to allow the clustering of dwellings to better protect, enhance and
avoid intrusion into sensitive areas and buffers.
The second issue relates to the first sentence of the provision. The first sentence
states: "In R -1 districts, dwellings may be permitted which are harmonious with the
surrounding residential character and built environment." This sentence is
ambiguous and interpretative: the word. "harmonious" is not defined. Under
Section 22.46.090: Relationship to adjacent areas, PRD's are required to be
compatible with surrounding development.
Council Direction.
Modify the section as follows:
Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses
(1) In R -1 districts, only single - family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
II. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
The Code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.040. Site Acreage Minimum.
The minimum site for a planned residential development shall be one
acre, except sites containing sensitive areas and their buffers.
Discussion.
This regulation treats all residential zones equally relative to minimum size of
property for a PRD. It waives the minimum size for PRD's. The first issue is
whether or not allow PRD's regardless of parcel size.
The benefit of the PRD process is the ability to preserve and create open spaces
and protect sensitive areas and their buffers through creative site design. To
accomplish these goals, the PRD allows and encourages deviations from setback
and lot area standards, and from the Subdivision Code.
A substantial majority of single family Tots in Tukwila are less than one acre,
3
Planning Commission L94-0035
23 June 1994
however, many of these areas contain unique topographic and /or natural features.
By restricting the application of PRD's to one acre, opportunities of gaining open
space areas to preserve important features are minimized. By allowing the option
of a PRD, the following can be achieved:
1. gain more site amenities including open space areas
2. better integration with the surrounding development
3. better site design
4. provision of needed housing.
The PRD also includes decision criteria, such as compliance with the BAR
guidelines, which address building design, site planning, and landscaping. The
application of the BAR criteria combined with flexible standards achieves higher
quality development.
The second issue is whether to continue making mandatory PRD's for short plats
and boundary line adjustments as required by the Section 18.45.060(2) of the
Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO).
The SAO, requires administrative PRD's for residential developments (single and
multi - family) including short plats and boundary line adjustments. There are other
provisions of the Code such as the SAO which requires buffers to sensitive areas,
and the Tree Regulations. Both protect unique features of a site. It is therefore
recommended that PRD's be an option for short plats and boundary line
adjustments.
Council Direction
Delete the entire section:
Staff recommendation:
Section 18.45..060(2). Planned Residential Development Permit. Any new
residential subdivision,
Iine- adjustment,or multiple. family residential proposal which includes a
sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a planned residential
development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46.
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
DENSITY TRANSFER.
The PRD currently allows a density transfer (not a density bonus) and does not
4
Planning Commission L94-0035
23 June 1994
restrict lot sizes when sensitive areas are present. Without density transfer, density
would normally be calculated based upon the non - sensitive portions of a site only.
With density transfer, density may be increased.
LOT AREA
There is a direct relationship between lot area and density transfer. The PRD
allows deviations to lot area and building setbacks without placing limits on either
in order to accommodate the total amount of density permitted. This total includes
the amount of density "transferred ".
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DENSITY TRANSFER AND LOT AREA.
Density transfer assumes the total amount of density permitted for a project can
be accommodated on a site. In most cases, the only way to do this is to vary lot
sizes and building setbacks.
The Planning Commission and City Council have expressed discomfort with the
level of flexibility allowed by the PRD which may result in small Tots. If lot areas are
fixed, the concept of density transfer may no longer apply.
The following decisions must be made:
1. whether to regulate lot size to a specified minimum; or
2. whether to leave the code unchanged where density transfer would
be applied and lot sizes would vary.
PART I
LOT SIZE
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.060. Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other
ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks. .
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of
this Code are waived within the planned residential development.
The number of dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying
zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD density.
Discussion.
As discussed above, a decision must be made whether to regulate lot sizes, or to
allow for deviation to lot areas. Secondly, the second sentence . is redundant
5
Planning Commission L94 -0035
23 June 1994
because the same is also stated under Section 18.46.070(a):...The dwelling units
per net acre for the residential zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50."
The primary objective of PRD's is to allow for the greatest amount of design
flexibility including clustering to maximize open space opportunities. Design
flexibility is achieved by reducing lot areas and yard setbacks.
The following alternatives are presented regarding treatment of reduction to lot
area and building setback.
Alternative 1.
Under Section 18.46.060 (a) (3) SETBACKS, the code requires setbacks and
design of the perimeter lots to be compatible with the bulk and streetscape of
existing development of adjacent properties or anticipated development. A similar
criteria could be considered for lot size:
(1) Lot size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code
are waived within the PRD except for perimeter Tots. Perimeter Tots must be
compatible with those of existing development of adjacent properties.
Alternative 2.
This Alternative describes the impacts to density transfer by restricting lot areas.
By placing a minimum lot area for PRD's, lot areas and density become
predictable. Predictability however, may be at the cost of loosing open space
opportunities and other amenities which can now be gained with no limits to lot
area.
Second, if lot area is restricted, retaining the density transfer must be decided.
Two options are offered:
1. Continue to apply the density transfer. The lot area then dictates the
number of lots allowed.
Example:
If a site with sensitive areas is allowed two units by applying the density
transfer formula, those two units would only be permissible if the lot areas
of all Tots can meet the minimum area requirement.
2. Omit the density transfer section entirely.
By omitting this section and by placing a limit to the lot area, the lot area
6
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94 -0035
would determine the maximum number of Tots allowed based upon the net
parcel area.
The following example recommends new language which would restrict lot
sizes to a minimum of 6,120 square feet:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 6,120 (example) square
feet in area and shall establish the maximum number of dwellings
permitted in the PRD.
Council Direction.
Allow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet in area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200). Council requested staff to prepare a
table which reflects the 15% reduction for lot areas and setbacks for all zone
districts. Also, that Sections 18.46.070(b) (1) and (b) (2) be deleted. The table
follows:
ZONE DIST.
LOT SIZE
FRONT STBK.
SIDE STBK.
REAR STBK.
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
City Council Direction Related to Density Transfer.
Delete the entire section.
Staff Recommendation.
It would be more appropriate to place this requirement under 18.46.060 (a) (1) [Lot
Size] and add the design features as listed under (A) through (D).
The provision would read as follows (new language is shown in bold):
Section 18.46.060(a)
(1) Lot Size.
7
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94-0035
The
minimum lot size shall be 6,120 square feet and the following
design features must be substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained
in cases where significant stands exist;
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual
or significant site features such as views, watercourses, or other
natural characteristics.
(C) Separation or auto and pedestrian movement is provided
especially in or near areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
IV. DENSITY TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE
SITE.
The existing code reads . as follows:
Section 18.46.070(d) (5).
Development of the transferred density shall be confined to buildable
areas of the site, and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their
buffers.
Discussion
This section conflicts with the Sensitive Areas Regulations (SAO) which allows
development on steep slopes. By definition, steep slopes are considered sensitive
areas. In the strictest interpretation of this provision, steep slopes could not be
developed.
Council Direction.
Because staff has had more time to evaluate needed changes to the PRD, this
issue was not brought before the previous City Council meeting.
Staff Recommendation
If density transfer is retained, then the language should be modified as
recommended below. If density transfer is deleted, this provision would be
included in the deletion.
8
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
Section 18.46.070(d)(5).
Development shall be confined to buildable areas of the site in
accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code, Sensitive Areas
Regulations.
V. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
The existing code reads as follows:
Section 18.46.060(g). The Board of Architectural Review shall review
guidelines for single - family and multi - family developments. The design and
review of the PRD shalt also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050.
Discussion.
The first sentence of this provision is entirely unclear. No "guidelines" other than
PRD sections which pertain to design elements, have been developed. Guidelines
have been approved recently for multi - family developments, including review by
the Planning Commission, not the BAR. Secondly, the City Council recently
interpreted this section to mean that PRD's are to be reviewed by the Board of
Architectural Review while the second sentence requires compliance with the BAR
design guidelines. Neither sentence specifically states BAR review is required.
Further, BAR review would be unnecessarily duplicative of Planning Commission
review which is required.
This section is redundant of Section 18.46.112(7), (PRD) Review. Criteria which
states the following:
"(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines (Section
18.60.050); and "...
Council Direction.
Delete entire section.
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES
The existing code reads as follows:
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94 -0035
Section 18.46.060(f) (1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Elevations and off -site perspectives shall show minimum landscape
coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within
fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
Discussion.
The intent of this section is to provide vegetative screening so as to lessen the
visibility of new buildings to properties located down -slope and away from the new
development. The provision attempts to quantify the amount of vegetative cover
necessary to achieve this objective, however, provides no definitive procedure to
accomplish this. Therefore, administration of this provision is extremely difficult.
This provision was applied the first time to the Fosterview Estates PRD. The
planning staff recommended locations from which perspectives should be
provided. Staff determined where the sloped areas would be after grading; where
visibility would be highest because existing vegetation would either be removed,
or be retained in sensitive area tracts and open space easements. Because the
provision does not define "off- site" or specify from where perspectives should be
taken, staff and the applicant selected ten feet from property lines.
It is very difficult to codify a location for the perspectives that addresses every view
of the property from downslope properties. Secondly, it is difficult to quantify by
percentage the amount of vegetation needed to achieve the desired effect of
screening because of the uncertain growth rate and growth pattern of trees.
An alternative to perspectives drawn by artists is to require photomontages
(photographs of the property superimposed with the proposed buildings and
landscaping). This may give a better depiction of the visual appearance of the
development at a reasonable cost, especially for a small PRD of a few Tots. The
most accurate version of the photomontage is derived from computer imaging, but
the cost is significantly more that the artist's version. Artistic license can still be
taken with preparation of a photomontage.
While photomontage is an alternative to providing rendered perspectives, many
of the difficulties of providing a clear depiction of the extent of screening still
remains. Interpretation of the exact placement of a new building relative to
vegetation which may or may not be retained after construction is necessary.
Secondly, it should be recognized that while applicant's are dubious in providing
information during the review process, what may actually occur in the field can be
very different.
10
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
Council Direction.
L940035.
Modify as shown (new language shown in bold):
Section 18.46.060(f) (1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope
off -site privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape
coverage of twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of
project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within
fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the recommended changes is to simplify implementation and
administration of the PRD ordinance. Some of the specific changes help to avoid
unnecessary interpretation or duplication or conflict with other regulations. As
discussed earlier, PRD's afford a high level of quality development for single - family
projects as compared to compliance with basic zoning standards. The City has
placed a priority on preservation, protection and enhancement for sensitive areas
through regulations. Design flexibility is absolutely necessary for developments
where sensitive areas exist to ensure these objectives. The PRD must therefore
be as implementable as possible. The proposed changes will help and future
changes to the zoning code after the comprehensive plan is adopted will further
assist in the administration of these regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the Planning Commission respond to the direction provided by
the City Council and consider alternatives presented by staff.
The following summarizes Council direction and alternatives:
I. ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES
Modify: Section 18.46.030. Permitted Uses
(1) In R -1 districts, only single - family detached dwellings may be
permitted.
II. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
Delete the entire section:
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94 -0035
Staff recommendation:
Modifiy Section 18.45.060(2) of the Sensitive Areas Regulations:
Section 18.45..060(2). Planned Residential Development Permit. Any new
residential subdivision,
4 nc adjustment, or multiple family residential proposal which includes a
sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a planned residential
development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46.
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Allow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet in area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200) based on the table on page 7 of this
report and delete density transfer section entirely.
OR
Modify Section:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions of other sections of this Code
are waived within the planned residential development.
OR
If lot sizes vary, then:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet and the
following design features must be substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained in
cases where significant stands exist;
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or
significant site features such as views, Watercourses, or other natural
characteristics.
(C) Separation or auto and pedestrian movement is provided
especially in or near areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
12
Planning Commission
23 June 1994
L94 -0035
AND
Delete Sections 18.46.070(b) (1) and (b)(2).
IV. DENSITY TRANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE SITE.
Delete entire section UNLESS density transfer is retained, then modify as follows:
Section 18.46.070(d)(5). Development shall be confined to buildable areas
of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code, Sensitive
Areas Regulations.
V. • BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
Delete entire section.
VI. OFF -SITE PERSPECTIVES
Modify Section:
Section 18.46.060(f) (1). Downslope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off -site
privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape coverage of
twenty -five percent of the structures at the time of project completion
with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This
standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape
yard requirement.
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 18.46
PRD - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
18.46.010
18.46.020
18.46.030
18.46.040
18.46.060
18.46.070
18.46.080
18.46.090
18.46.100
18.46.110
18.46.112
18.46.115
18.46.120
18.46.130
18.46.140
Purpose.
Permitted districts.
Permitted uses.
Site acreage minimum.
Relationship of this chapter to other
sections and other ordinances.
Density standards.
Open space.
Relationship to adjacent areas.
Preapplication procedure.
Application procedure required for PRD
approval,
Review criteria.
Restrictive covenants subject to approval
by City Council and City Attorney.
Application procedures for building permit.
Minor and major adjustments.
Expiration of time limits.
18.46.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage imagi-
native site and building design and to create open space
in residential developments by permitting greater
flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by
other sections of this title. Furthermore, it is the pur-
pose of this chapter to:
(1) Promote the retention of significant features
of the natural environment, including topography,
vegetation, waterways, wetlands and views;
(2) Encourage a variety or mixture of housing
types;
(3) Encourage maximum efficiency in the
layout of streets, utility networks, and other public
improvements; and
(4) Create and /or preserve usable open space
for the enjoyment of the occupants and the general
public.
(Ord. 1599 §4(1), 1991; Ord 1247 § 1(part), 1982)
18.46.020 Permitted districts.
Planned residential development (PRD) may be
permitted in the following districts:
(1) R -1, Single- family residential;
(2) R -2, Two - family residential when there are
sensitive areas on the lot;
(3) R -3, Three- and four - family residential
when there are sensitive areas on the lot;
(4) R -4, Low apartments when there are
sensitive areas on the lot;
ATTACHMENT A
(5) RMH, Multiple- residence high density
when there are sensitive areas on the lot.
(Ord 1655 §2, 1993; Ord 1269 §l, 19&3
Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.030 Permitted uses.
The following uses are allowed in planned resi-
dential development
(1) In R -1 districts, dwellings may be
permitted which are harmonious with the surrounding
residential character and built environment. Single
unit detached dwellings will be preferable to attached
units; however, attached two -unit dwellings will be
considered if necessary to accommodate interior zero
lot lines for projects with sensitive areas and /or
sensitive area buffers;
(2) In R -2, R -3, R -4, and RMH districts, resi-
dential deYe1Qpinents of all types re6ardless of the type
of building in which such residence is located, such as
single - family residences, duplexes, triplexes, four -
plexes, rowhouses, townhouses or apartments; pro-
vided, that all residences are intended for permanent
occupancy by their owners or tenants. Hotels, motels,
and travel trailers and mobile homes and trailer parks
are excluded;
(3) Accessory uses specifically designed to
meet the needs of the residents of the PRD such as
garages and recreation facilities of a noncommercial
nature;
(4) In planned residential developments of ten
acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted.
Commercial uses shall be limited to those which are of
a neighborhood convenience nature such as beauty or
barber shops, drugstores, grocery stores and self- service
laundries.
(Ord 1599 §4(2), 1991; Ord. 1289 §2, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.040 Site acreage mkiknurn.
The minimum site for a planned residential devel-
opment shall be one acre, except sites containing sensi-
tive areas and their buffers.
(Ord 1599 §4(3), 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.050 Location
The site of the planned residential development
shall abut, and the main internal street serving the PRD
shall be connected to, at least one major, secondary or
collector arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan, except in R -1 single - family residential
districts.
(Ord. 1289 §3, 1983: Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other
sections and other ordinances.
(a) Lot Size, Building Height and Setbacks.
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size provisions
of other sections of this Code are waived within the
planned residential development. The number of
Pane 18-52
Printed AuaUst 4. 1993
( TITLE 18 — ZONING
dwelling units per net acre permitted in the underlying
zone shall serve as the criteria to determine basic PRD
density.
(2) Building Height. Building heights may be
modified within a PRD when it assists in maintaining
natural resources and significant vgg &tat1Qn, and en.
hances views within the site without interfering with
the views of adjoining property. For increases in build-
ing height, there shall be a commensurate decrease in
impervious surface.
(3) Setbacks. Yard requirements as described
in Chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD;
however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the
PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the
bulk and streetscape of the existing development of
adjacent properties or the type of development which
may be permitted.
(b) Off -street Parking. Off -street parking shall be
provided in a PRD in the same ratio for types of build-
ings and uses as required in Chapter 18.56. However,
fgr multiple- family zoned sites with sensitive areas, a
minimum of two parking stalls per unit will be
allowed, with a fifty percent compact stalls allowance,
and parking stalls in front of carports or garages will be
allowed if the design does not affect circulation.
(c) Platting Requirements. The standards of the
subdivision code for residential subdivisions : shall
apply to planned residential developments if such
standards are not in conflict with the provisions of this
chapter. Upon final approval of the PRD, filing of the
PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the
subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred.
(d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount
of impervious surface calculated for the total develop-
ment allowed on sensitive areas sites will be fifty per-
cent for each single - family development and each
multifamily development.
(e) Recreation Space Requirements. Sensitive
areas and stands of significant trees may be counted,as
area required to meet the recreation space minimums,
if usable passive recreation opportunities within these
areas are demonstrated. Opportunities could include
connection and continuation of area -wide trail systems,
wildlife or scenic viewing opportunities, or picnic
areas.
(f) Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with
Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas.
(1) Downslope and Side Yard Buffers. Eleva-
tions and off -site perspectives shall show minimum
landscape coverage of twenty-five percent of the
structures at time of project completion with anticipated
forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This stan-
dard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable
landscape yard requirement.
(2) Roads and Access Drives. Any road or
access drive which cuts approximately perpendicular
to a slope to the ridge line of a hill shall have minimum
five -foot planted medians. The tree shall be a species
that provides a branch pattern sufficient to provide, at
maturity, fifty percent coverage of the pavement area.
Roads or drives which require retaining walls parallel
to the topographic line shall plant roadside buffers of
Northwest native plant species.
(g) The Board of Architectural Review shall
review guidelines for single- family . and multifamily
developments. The design and review of the PRD
shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050.
(h) For single - family developments, site plans shall
include placement and footprint of the residences,
driveways and roads.
(Ord 1599 §4(5), 1991; Ord. 1289 §4, 1983;
Orr. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.070 Density standards.
(a) Basic Density. The basic density shall be the
same as permitted by the underlying zone district.
The dwelling units per net acre for the residential
zones are as provided in Chapter 18.50.
(b) Single-family.
(1) In R -i single - family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size not less
than the yard requirements of the R -1.7.2 district,
following findings that the amenities or design features
listed in subsections (b) (2)(A) through (b)(2) (D) of this
section are substantially provided.
(2) In R•1 single- family residential districts on
sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the City
Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than
the yard requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district, following
findings that the amenities or design features listed
below are substantially provided:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural
vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands,
exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is
achieved of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian
movement is provided especially in or near areas of
recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the , PRD
complement the land use policies of the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
(c) In multiple- family residential districts, the
Planning Commission may recommend, and the .City
Council may authorize, a dwelling-unit density not
more than twenty percent greater than permitted by
the underlying zones or an increase equal to the
allowable density credits as set forth in subsection (d)
of this section, if the site contains sensitive areas or
buffers following findings that the amenities or design
features listed below are substantially provided:
(1) A variety of housing types is offered.
Printed August 4, 1993
Page 18-53
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
(2) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegeta-
tion is retained (in cases where significant stands
exist).
(3) Advantage is taken or enhancement is
achieved of unusual or significant site features such as
views, watercourses, wetlands or other natural charac-
teristics.
(4) Separation of auto and pedestrian move-
ment is provided, especially in or near areas of recre-
ation.
(5) Developmental aspects of the PRD com-
plement the land use policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
(d) Density Transfer.
(1) Density transfers are intended to provide
for the protection of wetlands, watercourses, and asso-
ciated buffers while allowing development which is
consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent
possible.
(2) Density transfers are the percentage credits
to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units
for a residential site containing undevelopable sensitive
areas or buffers.
The calculation of the maximum units per
buildable acre of a site with protected areas shall be
equal to: (DU = dwelling units)
[(DU /acre) (buildable acres)] +
((DU /acre)(sensitive areas and buffer)(density transfer))
(3) Density transfer credits shall be determined
from the table below:
Percentage of Site in Density
Sensitive Areas and Buffer Transfer
1 -10 30%
11 - 20 27%
21 - 30 24%
31 .40 21%
41 -50 18%
51 -60 15%
61 -70 12%
71 -80 9%
81 .90 6%
91 -100 3%
(4) The density transfer can only be used
within the development proposal site. • Any such
modifications shall be reviewed and approved through
the site development process in Chapter 18.60.
(5) Development of the transferred density
shall be confined to buildable areas of the site, and shall
not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers.
(Ord. 1599 §4(6), 1991; Ord 1289 §5, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.080 Open space.
(a) Each planned residential development shall
provide not less than twenty percent of the gross site
area for common open space which shall:
(1) Provide either passive or active recreation
concentrated in large usable areas;
. (2) Network with the trail and open space
system of the City and provide a connection and
extension, if feasible; and
(3) Be under one ownership, owned and
maintained by the ownership; or be held in common
ownership by all of the owners of the development by
means of a homeowners' association or similar associa-
tion. Such association shall be responsible for mainte-
nance of the common open space, or be dedicated for
public use if acceptable to the city or other appropriate
public agency.
(b) Planned residential developments shall set
aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensitive
areas tract as required by Section 18.45.090, and will be
exempted from other open space requirements of this
section.
(Ord. 1599 §4(7), 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas.
(a) The design and layout of a planned residential
development shall take into account the integration and
compatibility of the site to the surrounding areas. The
perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to mini-
mize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent
properties.
(b) Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD
shall be comparable to, or compatible with, those of the
existing development of adjacent properties or, if adja-
cent properties are undeveloped, the type of develop-
ment which may be permitted.
(Orrl 1599 §4(8), 1991; Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.100 Preapplication procedure.
A preapplication conference between representa-
tives of the City and the potential applicant for a PRD is
required prior to the acceptance of an application for
PRD approval. This conference shall be set by the
Planning Department at the written request of the
potential applicant. All affected City departments shall
be notified and invited to participate. The purpose of
the preapplication conference is to acquaint the appli-
cant with the provisions of this section as well as other
ordinances and regulations which would affect the
property under consideration.
(Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.110 Application procedure required for PRD
arcrOvaL
(a) Filing of Application. Application for approval of
the PRD shall be made on forms prescribed by the
Department of Community Development add shall be
accompanied by a filing fee as required in Chapter
18.88 and by the following:
(1) Justification for the density bonus, if re-
quested by the applicant;
(2) Program for development including staging
or timing of development;
Dana 1 Lid
DrInse.r A,IM,up. A 1004
(3) Proposed ownership pattern upon comple-
tion of the project;
(4) Basic content of any restrictive covenants;
(5) Provisions to assure permanence and
maintenance of common open space through a home-
owners' association, or similar association, condo-
minium development or other means acceptable to the
City;
(6) An application for rezone may be submit-
ted with the PRD application if rezoning is necessary
for proposed density. Fees for rezone request shall be
in addition to those of the PRD application;
(7) An application for preliminary plat may be
submitted with the PRD application, if necessary. Fees
f9F hilt~ §U d1Yi 1Qf1 bQ in addIggn to thosg 9t the
PRD application;
(8) Graphic images of development in any
sensitive area or buffer, including photomontage or
computer - generated perspectives in a standardized
format required by the Director of the Department of
Community Development;
(9) Every reasonable effort shall be made to
preserve existing trees and vegetation and integrate
them into the subdivision's design by preparing a tree
inventory of the significant vegetation on -site as part of
the preliminary plat application. A tree and vegetation
retention /removal plan shall be part of any preliminary
plat application. Such tree and vegetation reten-
tion /removal plan shall assure the preservation of sig-
nificant trees and vegetation.
(b) Planning Commission Public Hearing. The
Planning Commission shall hold at least one public
hearing on the proposed PRD, and shall give notice
thereof pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title. The
public hearing shall not be held before completion of all
necessary and appropriate review by City depart-
ments. This review shall be completed within a
reasonable period of time.
(c) Planning Commission Recommendation. Fol-
lowing the public hearing, the Planning Commission
shall make a report of its findings and recommenda-
tions with respect to the proposed PRD and the criteria
of this chapter, and forward the report to the City
Council.
(d) City Council Public Hearing.
(1) After receipt of the Planning Commission
report, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on
the proposed PRD as recommended by the Planning
Commission. The City Council shall give approval,
approval with modifications, or disapproval to the pro-
posed PRD.
(2) The PRD shall be an exception to the regu-
lations of the underlying zoning district. The PRD shall
constitute a limitation on the use and design of the site
unless modified by ordinance.
(Ord. 1599 §4(9), 1991; Ord. 1289 §4, 1983;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
TITLE 18 — ZONING
18.46.112 Review criteria.
The Planning Commission and City Council shall
find that the proposed development plans meet all of
the following criteria in their decision making:
(1) Requirements of the subdivision code for
the proposed development have been met, if appropri-
ate;
(2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the cri-
teria as listed in Section 18.46.070;
(3) Adverse environmental impacts have
been mitigated;
(4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the
provisions of this chapter and Chapter 18.45;
(5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire
gCyclQFiilfynt and §pe91h0 stages have been d991;-
mented in the application;
(6) Development in accordance with the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and other rele-
vant plans;
(7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural
Review guidelines (Section 18.60.050); and
(8) Appropriate retention and preservation of
existing trees and vegetation recommended by the
Director of the Department of Community
Development.
(Ord. 1599 §4(10), 1991)
18.46.115 Restrictive covenants subject to approval by
City Council and City Attomey.
The restrictive covenants intended to be used by
the applicant in a planned residential development
(PRD), which purports to restrict the use of land or the
location or character of buildings or other structures
thereon, must be approved by the City Council and
the City Attorney before the issuance of any building
permit.
(Ord. 1289 §(5, 1983)
18.46.120 Application procedures tor building permit.
The following procedures are required for approval
of construction for the proposed planned residential
development:
(1) Time Limitation. A complete application
for the initial building permit shall be filed by the appli-
cant within twelve months of the date on which the
City Council approved the PRD. An extension of time
for submitting an application may be requested in writ-
ing by the applicant, and an extension not exceeding
six months may be granted by the Director of the
Department of Community Development. If applica-
tion for the initial building permit is not made within
twelve months or within the time for which an
extension has been granted, the plan shall be consid-
ered abandoned, and the development of the property
shall be subject to the requirements and limitations of
the underlying zone and the subdivision code.
(2) Application. Application for building permit
shall be made on forms prescribed by the Department
Printed August 4, 1993 Page 18-55
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE(
of Community Development and shall be accompa-
nied by a fee as prescribed by the building code.
(3) Documentation Required. All schematic
plans either presented or required in the approved PRD
plans shall be included in the building permit applica-
tion presented in finalized, detailed form. These plans
shall include but are not limited to landscape, utility,
open space, circulation, and site or subdivision plans.
Final plats and public dedication documents must be
approved by the City Council before the issuance of
any building permits.
(4) Sureties Required for Staging. If the PRD is
to be developed in stages, sureties or other security
device as shall be approved by the City Attorney shall
be required for the complete PRD. The various stages
or parts of the PRD shall provide the same proportion of
open space and the same overall dwelling unit density
as provided in the final plan.
(5) Department of Community Development
Action. The Department of Community Development
shall determine whether the project plans submitted
with the building permit are in compliance with and
carry out the objectives of the approved PRD. Follow-
ing approval of the Department of Community
Development, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the
approved PRD plan with the official records of the City
and the originals shall be recorded with the King
County Department of Records and Elections. After all
approvals, the official zoning map shall be amended to
reflect the PRD by adding the suffix "PRD" to the
designation of the underlying zone.
(Ord. 1599 §4(11), 1991; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.46.130 Minor and major adjustrnents.
If minor adjustments or changes are proposed fol-
lowing the approval of the PRD, by the City Council as
provided in Section 18.46.120, such adjustments shall
be approved by the planning department prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Minor adjustments are
those which may affect the precise dimensions or
siting of structures, but which do not affect the basic
character or arrangement of structures approved in the
final plan, or the density of the development or open
space provided. Major adjustments are those which,
as determined by the planning department, substan-
tially change the basic design, density, open space, or
other substantive requirement or provision. If the
applicant wishes to make one or more major changes,
a revised plan must be approved pursuant to Section
18.46.120.
(Ord. 1247 §!(part), 1982)
18.46.140 Expiration of time limits.
Construction of improvements in the PRD shall
begin within twelve months from the date of the filing
of the final PRD plan by the City Clerk as provided in
Section 18.46.130. An extension of time for beginning
construction may be requested in writing by the appli-
•cant, and such extension not exceeding six months
may be granted by the Planning Commission upon
showing of good cause. If construction does not occur
within eighteen months from the date of filing of PRD
plans by the City Clerk, the PRD zoning suffix shall be
dropped from the official zoning map and the zoning
shall revert to the underlying designation.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
Paae 18-56
Printed Auoust 4. 1992
Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1994
Page 3
City Sewer Plan
The Council discussed the Sewer Plan Policies. Councilmember Robertson
stated that the first element of the plan is to prepare engineering plans of the
public infrastructure with sewer line profiles, sizing, and elevations for seven
residential areas. The plan identifies planning level costs and two alternatives
for funding as discussed by the Utility Committee. Sewer construction costs
were estimated based on a per foot length for the various streets. Robertson
suggested that the Council merely discuss this issue tonight and not make any
decision at all. Secondly, attend a meeting in the Allentown neighborhood
where this information is presented and discussed with the citizens. After this
is done the Council should hold a public hearing open to all interested
persons. The Council should then deliberate and decide which of the policies
and/or any other changes they wish to adopt. Robertson stated the difference
between the two proposals is that in one the utility pays for the "in- street"
cost and it takes approximately 40 years (assuming that the cost estimates are
correct); and the other is the actual property owners pay all of the cost at the
time they connect. In neither case will people be forced to connect unless one
of three conditions is true: 1) If public health a safety problem; 2) If they sell
the property; or 3) If they add or develop on it.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a community meeting for
citizen's input then revisit the issue at a future Council meeting.
PRD /Subdivision As directed by Council, DCD staff focused on six (6) major issues of concern
with the existing PRD Regulations as they relate to certain provisions of •
TMC, Chapter 18.46. The intent is understood to be to change only those
few provisions that create significant problems in administering the chapter.
The Council entered a lengthy discussion resulting in the following: .
1-- ATTACHED VS. DETACHED UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY
ZONES -- delete all and amend to read: "In R -1 districts, only single -
family detached dwellings may be permitted." II—MINIMUM SIZE
PROPERTY -- go with staff recommendation to "delete the entire section."
III -- DENSITY AND MININIUIVI LOT SIZE: —it was recommended that
staff "create a table to reflect a net reduction of around 15% with a floor
of 6,120 sq. ft. minimum.single family lot size rounded off to whole
numbers with minimum set back requirements." No action will be taken
until the Council has had a chance to review the table. IV -- DENSITY
'i1(ANSFER TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE PROPERTY- -
"delete this section." V - -BAR REVIEW -- "delete per staff
recommendation." VI—OFF SLUE PERSPECTIVES -- "accept per staff
recommendation."
It was the consensus of the Council to have staff prepare document with
amendments per tonight's discussion for final review at a future Council
meeting.
ATTACHMENT B
Zero- lot - line.pattern for
detached single- family dwellings
ATTACHMENT C