Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-11 Special MinutesCALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OFFICIALS JULY 11, 1994 7:0° p.m. 2ITIZEN' S COMMENTS CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS Motion adopting Findings and Conclusions: Southgate Mobile Home Park Comp Plan Amend. Rezone TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY DE RODAS. JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH; Council Analyst; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; RANDY BERG, Projects Manager; RICK BEELER, DCD Director; DON WILLIAMS, Parks Recreation Director. Pam Carter, 4115 South 139th Street, thanked Councilmembers Steve Mullet and Dennis Robertson for participating in the Tukwila Days Advisory Council dunk tank. She also stated that the Seattle Public Library has dial access (voice mail) capabilities for posting items to a community bulletin board. This could be something the City might want to consider for posting Tukwila's special events. Carter continued as she suggested ideas for the Hazelnut. She said it would be nice if the fire works regulations were explained in a special, highlighted area on the front page; and, she said it would be nice to have the City's FAX number listed on the back page of the Hazelnut with the list of City phone numbers. Approval of Minutes: 06/20/94 MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Verbatim Transcript attached, City Attorney Cohen explained that these Findings and Conclusions were basically made by the Council some time ago. However, as a matter of form they need to be adopted by Motion and made part of the record. Special Meeting fuly 11, 1994 'age 2 iouthgate Trailer Park Findings ind Conclusions (Cont'd) tecess 8:10 8:20 Tukwila Community Center Architectural firm selection Public Comments Staff 3,7 MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO ADOPT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE. Mullet inquired if this document is sufficient enough to hold up under scrutiny. Cohen responded affirmatively and said that it might even be a bit more detailed than most judges would expect for this type of proceeding. Robertson commented, for the record, that the Council spent a very long time going through a very structured discussion of these Findings, and everything that is included follows generally what was decided. However, there were arguments and discussions far in excess of what's noted here. Cohen agreed saying that a verbatim transcript of the full discussion is on record as well as the tapes. All of this will be given to the court to consider as well.. *MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor called the meeting back to order with those present as listed above. Pam Carter inquired if there were money in the budget available to demolish the "old" community center The Mayor and Council explained that that's an issue that will be discussed at a later date. Carter also commended the Council and Administration for having the new community center designs on display at Tukwila Days. Carter said she favored Design #1 (ARC Architects') not only because it was the most striking to the eye, but also it appears it will accommodate the needs of the community and others. Randy Berg, Public Works, reported that it was a unanimous recommendation by the multi disciplinary review team to select ARC Architects as the Consultant firm to design the Community Center. While the team felt strongly that any one of the three firms were certainly worthy and capable of handling the project, the ARC group showed the highest level of sensitivity to the site, had the strongest design concept and generally represented the greatest level of understanding of the community's vision for the project. The review team recommended that the firm of Wagner, Miller -Hull be identified as first alternate. Special Meeting filly 11, 1994 'age 3 community center consultant selection (Cont'd) REPORTS Mayor Tukwila Pond Park Project Landscape Architect Consultant Selection Councilmember De Rodas expressed concerns with regards to the Kitchen area. She would like to see the kitchen constructed where it would meet the needs of the diverse community including catering services and deliveries. Williams explained that even though the consultant has been selected, there is still a lot of detailed design work that has to be done. He said there will be many opportunities to address those special concerns in the weeks to come. MOVED BY HERNANDFZ,, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT AND SCOPE OF WORK TO ARC ARCHITECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER DESIGN CONTRACT. The Council agreed to award the contract to the principal consultant (ARC). However, if the contract negotiations are unsuccessful with ARC, the issue will be forwarded back to the Council for review Each Councilmember commented in favor of the ARC firm because they all agreed the ARC group shows the highest level of sensitivity of the site, has the strongest design concept and generally represented the greatest level of understanding of the community's vision for the project. The Mayor thanked all three architectural firms: ARC, Mithun Partners, and Robert Wagner/Miller Hall, for their efforts and concerns for participating in the City's consultant selection process. *MOTION CARRIED Mayor Rants announced he will be attending a joint meeting on Thursday with Puget Sound Regional Council Growth Management Policy Board and Transportation Policy Board, 9:00 a.m. thru 11:30 a.m. Councilmember De Rodas agreed to attend the meeting also. The Mayor distributed copies of the "Report of Public Comment on Major Supplemental Airports" to Councilmembers who were interested. The Mayor announced that the Duwamish Coalition will be meeting this Friday. He requested, per staff recommendation, that Steve Mullet serve on the Infrastructure Committee instead of the Regulatory Reform Committee. Mullet Agreed. Williams reminded the Council of Thursday night's (July 14) Special meeting where three Landscape Architect firms will present information about their design teams, work experience, and design approach for the project. The three Special Meeting ruly 11, 1994 'age 4 ?ond Park Project (Cont'd) ADJOURNMENT ):15 p.m. 36, 1 firms: Murase Associates, The Portico Group and Lee Associates will make their 20 minute presentation and then questions can be asked by staff, Mayor, Council and the Tukwila Pond committee board members. City Administrator McFarland reported that the noise wall issue has been resolved. After meeting with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), they have agreed to extend the wall north of 138th. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO ADJOURN THE THE SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED Joh»W. Rants, Mayor Celia Square, tiiputy City Clerk Verbatim Transcript Revision to the PRD Tukwila City Council Special Meeting July 11, 1994 7:25 p.m. Mayor Rants: Public Hearing revision to the PRD. We will open the public hearing and then have a staff report, citizen's comments. Public hearing is open. Denni Shefrin: Good evening. My name is Denni Shefrin and I'm an Associate Planner with the Department of Community Development. This evening we're going to be discussing propose revisions to the Planned District Regulations. As you recall, back in May, there were six issue areas identified and discussed at the May meeting. The City Council directed the department to take a lot of these areas back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. In the report, what we've done is identified areas both of which the City Council and Planning Commission agree to and areas where there was not concurrence. I'm going to step away from the microphone and introduce these areas specifically. (Denni now pointing to the areas on the). ....These six issue areas that are identified here (unclear) include minimum property size, BAR Review, and off -site perspectives. Again, the Planning Commission did concur with City Council recommendations. They also suggested that Tukwila's words be inserted in the off -site prospectus provision. And it's also indicated in the report. The suggestion was to incorporate computer generated off -site perspectives Mayor: Excuse me Denni. I'm going to stop you for a minute. Would you take this microphone over here, please. I think it's got enough string to reach that far. The audience would like to hear you and I don't believe they can. Denni: Is it on? Mayor: Can you give it a little more volume there, Celia? Try that, Denni. Denni: Ok, is this better? Where was I? Anyhow, we were talking a little bit about the computer generated insertion. If there are no questions I would like to move on then to the other areas where there was a concurrence. So, getting to some of these areas, the first one being attached vs. detached units. There was general concurrence. I'm sorry. Not concurrence but there was lengthy discussion. I'm going to go ahead and step up here and I'll probably get Celia wrapped around here a bit (Denni is referring to the electrical cord on the Microphone). What I'd like to do is to address the issue of attached vs. detached units. This is an example of a project which some of you may be familiar with which is Culhaney up in the Issaquah area. One of the issues that arises when we're talking about detached vs. attached, the current provisions suggest that PRDs will allow units which are attached in order to cluster. And again, the whole purpose of clustering allows for sensitive areas, open space areas and that sort of thing to be preserved and/or created. This is an example of what we consider a fairly successful cluster development. this comes close to a zero lot -line concept. But I was using this in hopes that I can give you folk a little bit better idea of how this can be accomplished. In this example (pointing to her displays), lot areas are about 4500 sq. ft.. Set backs vary anywhere from 15 to 20 ft. This example is an alley- loaded example so you don't have parking off the street but it is coming around from behind the units. The Planning Commission recommended that the 70 2 language be retained in the code; however, they had suggested that the code incorporated much stronger design guidelines, architecturally speaking. That might be something, again, for the City Council to give staff direction to move forward in. The second issue pertain to minimum lot size. And I want to, I guess, take a bit of time to elaborate a bit on the interrelationship between minimum lot sizes and the density transfer provision. We see those as being, again, directly tied to one another rather than separate. So, I'm going to do this again to you, I apologize (turning on view foil machine). In this example, what I've tried to illustrate is what happens when there are sensitive areas on the site and where lot sizes become restricted. In the top picture, I'm showing that in a sensitive area, this again is just be example, there might be a possibility of five units being transferred. However, the bottom example reflects that if we were to limit sizes, there may not be the opportunity for a site to accommodate those additional units. So in essence the greater of the sensitive area, i.e. the greater number of units which could be transferred however the likelihood of the site being able to accommodate those additional units based on a prescriptive standard of a limited lot size becomes minimized. I don't know if that was terribly clear. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Again, this is just an example of what happens when the lot areas, in this case, 7200 sq. ft. In the next example, what I'm trying to illustrate here is what sorts of site amenities can be incorporated into a site plan where lot areas can vary in size and shape. An example to, I guess it's everybody's left ....what I've shown is the sensitive area in the center, smaller lots (and I'm not labeling lot sizes or making some assumptions) but opportunities to provide open space areas, and I've shown a play ground here as well. An example to the right, I'm showing that lot sizes meet a general standard in this case maybe 7200 sq. ft. As you can see, site amenities are not provided nor is there any incentive to do so. So I wanted to show this comparative example between a cluster development setup and what could happen if the City chose to go about limiting lot sizes to something very prescribed. You can refer back to the report because there is something in here that didn't necessarily reflect the direction of the Planning Commission so I wanted to clarify that. And I believe it's on the bottom of page 8. What the Planning Commission was recommending was that for lots which would result from a density transfer, only those lots should be permitted to be a minimum of 5000 sq. ft. However, the remaining lots or those that would be originally allowed should maintain the required 7200 sq. ft. So I do want to point that out as a change for the record. There was another issue area that was not brought before you back in May but was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. I'm speaking to (I'm on the top of page 9) density transfer to developable parts of this site. The way the code currently reads is in the PRD Section, density transferred could only be permitted in developable portions of the site with the exclusion of sensitive areas but the SAO provisions read that those sites are also considered sensitive areas. So we have a conflict here. The SAO also all allows for development to occur on sloped areas provided there are adequate studies that demonstrate the sites could contain....or the hillsides could contain development. So there is suggested rephrasing of this provision as reflected here in the report and I'm going to read that for the record: The Planning Commission recommends that Section 18.46.070(d)(5) read as follows: "That development shall be confined to buildable areas of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code Sensitive Areas Regulations." Lastly, what we're looking to from you is a recommendation and we can go into few different directions. The first being that because these issues keep coming up in terms of how to contend with and deal with density transfer and lot areas as well as providing adequate open space areas, the report recommends a workshop. There has been an individual who is very skilled at site assessment, site design, architectural design, and who has worked at length with PRDs to help perhaps the Council become more sensitized to how to formulate language, develop goals and have that language be incorporated and translated into a PRD. Another option might be for only a portion of the PRD to undergo revisions and in turn you would direct staff to _7/ go ahead and provide a draft ordinance for you for the review. The other option would be that you go ahead and direct staff to provide changes in ordinance form and draft form based upon your original or your initial suggestions back in May. Are there any question? Rants: Steve? Steve Mullet: Do you want to have some discussion now or just general questions? Rants: This should be questions at this point of staff because you would want to do it because there is more input on the public hearing. Mullet: Well, I guess my question would be I think could be considered general. Now that you've pointed out the Planning Commission basically said only the density transfer lot could go down to 5000 ft. Is that what you reiterated? And everything else has to stay at 7200? Shefrin: 7200, correct. Mullet: Now, so to follow this up, on a recent example that we had without naming names, we had a density transfer of 3 lots. So they would basically have 3 lots that could be 5000 ft., all the rest would have had to have been 7200 ft. Shefrin: That's correct. 3 Mullet: It would seem to me that our provision to just cut down the minimum lot sizes to 6120 would have given them more lots than to go this other way. I haven't done the math because I just found out about this. But it just seem that out system which really gets rid of the density transfer provision really would have let them have more lots than to deal with this the way the Planning Commission suggested to deal with it. Shefrin: You would have had more density. However, the outcome of that may have been an impact to the ability to provide open space areas. That would be correct. And it's important to keep in mind, again, the whole purpose of creating loose standards, so to speak, to provide, again, these open space areas or other site amenities vs. providing something that is restrictive. But again, as you've pointed out, if we're limiting reducing the overall limit of lot size, you are also providing more opportunities for density but where are the opportunities to provide these other amenities and that's what we are seeking from you. Rants: Are there any other questions of staff because there is more on the public hearing? Shefrin: Yeah, I also want to point out we've got two representatives here this evening from the Planning Commission who do wish to speak. Rants: I think we would like to hear from the Planning Commission members at this point. Shefrin: Thank you. Rants: Thanks you, Denni. Mr. Clark, are you going to do the speaking? 37,?-- Scott Clark: Hi, I'm Scott Clark. I was the temporary Chair of the Planning Commission the night that we Rants: Excuse me, Scott. Denni, can you move your sign board? Clark: Oh, I can move it. Rants: I've interrupted everybody now, so far. Clark: So I was chosen, I guess, by Fiat, to speak to you about this tonight. You know the first issue that was kind of a fundamental conceptual thing as whether or not clustering is a goal you would like to work for and if you embrace that goal then do the provisions of the PRD achieve that ultimate effect. And I'm not a real big person on creating rules. My task on the Planning Commission is to present a human face to the rules that the Council passes. I don't particularly enjoy that rule- making process. I'd rather interpret it. But if you don't embrace the clustering idea then I want to tell you why I think it's a good idea and also the citizens.' I think most people aren't familiar with clusters that work. So I thought I'd just ask that question "Do you embrace the clustering goal." If you don't, then I'll tell you why I think it's a good goal. And I think the best way to support that premise is to site an example that, I think, was a PRD that worked. I had just driven through it. I drove through it again today and I want to encourage you and the citizens to drive through it and make your own judgment of it because it happens to be pretty close. Oddly enough, it's not in an incorporated rural city. It's just outside the city limits of Renton. But it a subdivision called Winsper -W I N S P E R -and it's locate on Talbot Road 169th. That's just north of Valley Medical Center. Even though it wasn't in the city limits of Renton, it appears to have been a project that was well thought out and well executed. It's in unincorporated King County and there are lots in that subdivision that are right at 5000 sq. ft. But the density transfer that occurred by clustering those houses together, made huge open spaces, some of which provide a continuous vista into the Kent Valley. And when you look at the project as a whole, it appears to have achieve a good end result through clustering. You know, I don't think need to belabor the point anymore than just to encourage you to look at that and say to yourself if the way the rules are written now didn't achieve a good result then maybe we need to write the rules so that they do achieve a good result because the goal itself, if the goal is clustering, it doesn't necessarily have to result in a bad product in an objectionable subdivision. So I just used that as an example of and further if we embrace clustering, if we say that's going to achieve that's possible to achieve a good product is I don't think that necessarily laying out only detached housing as the only way to achieve that. Winsper happens to have only detached housing but some of those houses are very close together. Denni has a slide, I don't know if she has it with her tonight, but it lays out row houses or zero lot line houses but they are detached. And they have a sameness about them and a very and a very our immediate reaction to that overhead slide was unanimously negative. And yet, it strictly adheres to the detached concept. I just want to say that with proper modulation or with strict design criteria, you could have received a better result, more open space by attaching some of those low end units. Attached housing does not have to look like a row of duplexes. If you have some modulation along the zero lot line, just changing the depth of one structural unit to the next by 10 or 15 ft. you'll have the illusion of detachment where none previously exist. And yet by making those attached, there's a net increase in the open space area or side yards or whatever. Actually, if you went into Winsper and stopped for a moment and thought to yourself what if we bring these two houses that are relatively close together and have them touching 0 T 4 I'll bet that you can visualize yourselves that at least a little bit, not necessarily consistently throughout that subdivision, but that subdivision might have even been enhance by that. So while the idea of the whole subdivision of duplex looking structures is objectionable to me also. You can't throw out that rule just because you haven't seen a good construction of that concept. So I think that was the general feeling of the Planning Commission that night, and mind you it wasn't there weren't seven members there, I believe we just had a quorum. But we were fairly unanimous in our conclusions about your desires regarding PRD amendments. I can't take you to Winsper but there are probably many other examples in South King County that are just as good but I believe that clustering achieves more open space, more views, better amenities and other benefits to the City over the long term. For example, it brings in utilities closer together and there's a whole host of benefits that accrue to it. So I, personally, think it's a good idea. I would like to see more architectural review on the product, whatever the product is. But some of the other issues where we had divergent of opinion, that was the basis for it. Rants: Thank you Scott. Are there questions of Scott? Council: No response. Rants: Thank you. Are there citizens who wish to address the Council on the Planned Residential Development? Pam Carter: Pam Carter, 4115 South 139th Street, yes, I had several comments. First talking about the clustered. I like I agree with him, I like the idea of clustering. However, I also have a sour taste in my mouth and I think you know why. How can we draw the laws so that we only have good examples of clustering. He said don't judge it on the basis of these duplex these ticky -tacky duplexes that are not good examples. I agree with that but how can we write the law or you write the law so that those are disallowed and we only have good examples of clustering. Because we are talking about clustering in single family neighborhoods. And I agree that they can be very effective, they can be well done, but I think we want to guard against having something that look like multi family housing surrounded by a field of weeds. I mean would that satisfy the clustering? If it not written tightly, we've seen in the past the developers gonna take it and push it as far as he can. So that's my concern. The concept of clustering I think is fine. But can you write it so that they cannot get away with these undesirable examples of clustering. I'm very concerned about that. The minimum lot size, I would agree with you, I think that's important because I understand what the density transfer is and that it is a density transfer from the sensitive areas and I could explain to you, I know you understand, I understand it also. But in affect, when you look at it, it's essentially a bonus when you say this is undevelopable so we will give you, we will transfer extra lots so that you can develop those extra lots. It in fact becomes a bonus. I would agree with you that we do need a minimum lot size. Something that hadn't been brought up in your discussion on the PRD is the onsite recreational facilities. I really think that those should be required and that they should not be able to use the sensitive areas as fulfilling that requirement because the sensitive areas are by definition sensitive. They have to be fenced off so that they are restricted. A sidehill slope or a swamp is not a recreational facility. So I think in the PRD, the part that refers to recreational facilities when you have sensitive areas you should not be able to use those sensitive areas to satisfy that requirement of a recreational facility. As I said before, I think you have to be really careful and take your time with this and really do not have loose standards because then we will get the worst. That's just how it has happened and I think will continue to happen. I would agree with what the gentleman just said about provisions for design review. We have design review for multi family. A fair size development whether you are allowing clustering or not it has the same impact as if you had a massive multi family structure. There really does need to be some design review whether it through BAR or a Planning Commission having a charge to do design review. We need to have that required in there because it seems like a lot of the stuff is left to the discretion of the DCD Director who's not an elected official and he makes the decision and then that's how it is. And you don't have much by the time it gets to the Council, you don't have much authority to change it. So I understand allowing some looseness because it allows for creativity and some superior design. But at the same time that looseness can really work against what we want for our City. So when these decisions are made, you know, outside of the legislative body, it's a problem. I think there needs to be some more control in your hands so that if I'm not happy with your decision, I can be mad at you and you can't say we can't do anything about it. So that you are the ones making the decision. I would like to see that. Thank you. Rants: Thank you, Pam. Allan Ekberg, I'd like to ask a question if I may. Carter: Ok. Ekberg On the issue of provisions for design review, were you mentioning those in regard to the clustered facilities or a single family residence in the PRD? Carter: Well, I think it's really vital with the clustering. But even with a PRD just if it's detached, single family, the impact of a large, ya know if it's a two or three house PRD that's one thing. But a large number together, that could have quite an impact on the area- -just as large of an impact as if you were putting a large multi family. So I think on the developments, the PRDs, I think it should be a design review. Rants: Pam, just for clarity, the DCD Director does not make the determination of design. The Board of Architectural Review is the Planning Commission so it goes back to the Planning Commission. It's not determined by the Director. Carter: But by the time things come along, hands are tied and decisions have been made and it's too late to go back. I mean in my family if my child asks me can you do something and I've given the permission and let's say my husband is the highest authority, which isn't necessarily the case, but let's assume he is and he says no and the kid says but mom already said I could. He's between a rock and a hard place and says ok, if mom says, I guess Rants: I was not meaning to create an argument. I was only saying what the process was and I totally agree that the Board of Architectural Review design standards need to be tightened up. Ok, so we are in agreement. Carter: Ok. Rant: Thank you. Does anyone else wishes to address the Council? Did Council ask I guess you asked Mr. Scott any questions you had. If there are no other 6 Ekberg; I've got a question. It might be targeted to the staff, Rick or as far as we have an ordinance regarding multi family design standards. Does that apply to the units that are clustered or duplexed? Would that be considered a clustered unit? Shefrin: It would apply to a PRD. I mean I guess if your question is whether or not those standards would apply, no, they would not in a PRD situation. They would only apply to a multi family development for project that are located within a multi family zone. Rants: But it is within the Council's prerogative to make those same standards apply to a PRD. Shefrin: For multi family development? Rants: Yes. Yes. Mr. Pace is sitting back there nodding his head yes. Shefrin: He's saying yes, so I guess it's yes. I think a lot of standards can clearly, they can be borrowed too. I think that's kind a the direction we're going or suggesting is that if it's your pleasure we can look at introducing. I think we all agree that the standards need to be tight with respect to architectural design review or something of that nature. And I think it would the point is to help those provisions better articulate the goals of design and that sort of thing from the community stand point. And how do we do that? It seems that the multi family design standards have achieved that. Everybody seems to be contented with those. How could we do something similar to that to have it apply to PRDs for single family development. .Tack Pace: The other thing to keep in mind with the multi family standards to keep in mind not only did we development standards but we worked on a handbook to help developers through the process which has some graphic representations what you wanted as acceptable levels. Cause it's hard to articulate in words what you want. But when you see a picture you'll know this is what I want. If you recall, the handbook for multi family standards, you put a lot of those visual images to reflect the quality that you were looking after. Shefrin: Again, I think Pam raised some really good questions. And I think in particular at what point in the process is it the perception that decisions have already been made. And I would argue that up until the final decision things can change. It becomes tricky and I think there lies the importance of articulating some of those design goals and strategies from a regulatory standpoint. Ekbergi I'll ask the same question, If I may. What would be necessary to have the multi family design standards apply to the clustering situation in a PRD? Pace: I think there are two things the multi family standards are designed predominantly for apartments. Well, what we need to do is as the Vice Chairman mentioned is develop some standards for clustering for one. We do not have basically they were designed for say Crystal Ridge where you look at two to three story units. Not for (unclear) townhouses. We need to go back and look at developing some standards. And that's why Denni, in her presentation, suggested we provide you an orientation and some options to give you some better ideas if you wish to develop some better design standards. Rants: I'm going to close the public hearing and the Council can have the discussion and then they can ask staff questions. This is not quasi-judicial so we can go on. If there is no other public comment Hernandez: There is someone in the back. J 8 Rant: I haven't seen another hand and I've asked three times so ok, Council, how would you like to proceed? Dennis? Robertson: I wanna jump in cause I know what Joan's gonna say. But I want to go back a little on history. Two steps and there's a reason for this. Can you all hear me there. On February 27, 1994, I sent a memo to the Council, to Administration, and to the Department of Community Development with some of the suggestions that we've been discussing. That was almost five months ago. In the memo, I said we and the Planning Commission could debate these changes for a long time. Instead, I proposed we limit our discussion to one session each and save the long debate until the time we both deal with the complete, new citywide Comprehensive Plan. What I was trying to do was get some fixes in very quick before some developer came in and basically established the rights to build under the current code, right? And I made the changes very simple to propose. Now, since then, a lot of very good ideas have come up, pros and cons, some very good suggestions, lots of good discussion. However, five months have lapsed and we have nothing at this point. _Nothing has changed, nothing is fixed, nothing is different from where it was. Now that seems like a long time until Joan, I know, the next point she's going to talk about is the multi family design standards that have been mentioned more than several times tonight. I'm not quite sure how long, but I would suspect it was darn near five years to get those through. It sure seems like it's sitting here on the Council. Maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe it was only four. But Joan was really worried about getting it finished in her second term. So, and the reason I'm proposing as I don't disagree with the concept of clustering at all. I don't think the issue is whether clustering is good or bad is not the issue and that's what we tried to attempt when we wrote the original SAO in the PRD sections afterwards. The issue isn't whether clustering is good or bad, it's just exactly what everybody else said, how do we manage it, how do we ensure that we only see good example. Pam made a wonderful. Depending on which viewpoint someone wants to make you can go find good examples or you can go find bad examples of how this is implemented. Depends on what you want to sell. Fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter. What we really live with is the standards we have today until we change them to something better. The standards we have today gives the developers complete flexibility to pick the minimum. They can always pick the maximum. I mean, you could build the single family house in the middle of the wheat field or the middle of Southcenter property if you owned it. Segale could have build a house down there on that corner, property where we have that new commercial area. There is no maximum standard, but there is a minimum. Everytime I hear the word flexibility without very strong, specific workable guidelines to as we think we have in our multi family design standards what I now believe is, what we've done is not put flexibility in, we've just lowered the bottom minimum standards down and the developers can choose what they want. Now that's me being scared and being negative and everything else. But the last 5 or 6 months I haven't enjoyed sitting up here in something I've worked awful darn hard on a few years ago ended up coming up exactly the opposite of what I expected for what I yeah. what I wanted. And I say that I'm disappointed is just a little bit of an understatement. And we haven't 5 months have gone by and we haven't done a thing to change that. If we say that we want to change as was proposed, or to leave those phrases in there and go off and develop some 37b' new standards, we could easily be 4 or 5 years away cause the last history with the multi family design standards showed it took that long before anything changes. And I'll have more time setting on this Council table with a lot of really unhappy people in front of me and I don't want to go through that again. So I want my point is real simple -I want the changes that we proposed, the Council did, although, it's intriguing that point on the minimum lots standards. But as far as duplexes, triplexes and attached buildings, I'll listen to that argument when somebody brings forward some real architectural guidelines in their hand at the same time they make the argument. But I do not, personally, want to put or allow that to continue without the guidelines being in hand first. Otherwise, it's a wonderful idea and I believe in clustering; I believe in the advantages. But we aren't creating flexibility we just look with what we have today and that approach without those guidelines all we're doing is lowering the standards. That's Rants: Joan. Joan Hernandez: Well, I think it's very true that, ya know, when you sit here you try to balance the issues on the sides and I don't like to be rigid, I like to create some flexibility. But at the same time that comes with a lot of risk. It comes with a risk of being misinterpreted and I think that we've found ourselves in that dilemma this past year more often than we care to. And so, I think at this point I from -what I know from sitting here that this community does not want to see I mean, wants to preserve single family housing first of all and the residential neighborhoods. And I don'really think that they are in favor of attached houses in single family development. That's one thing I think I'm quite sure of. Unless somebody can come to me and show me that that's not true or that they have a better proposal for handling it, I would rather see that we interpret it this way, the way that we have suggested that in R -1 Districts only single family detached dwellings may be permitted. Now I'm willing to consider clustering and I'm willing to consider attached single family dwellings when you can come to me and show me some guidelines that will assure me that we will be getting the design quality that will be acceptable in a single family neighborhood, not something that's going to be degrading to the neighborhood or that will be in opposition to the surrounding uses. If you can assure me of that, I'm willing to look at it consider it, study it. But I need more time and I need more assurance than what we have on the books right now as far as some guidelines that would assure me that we would achieve that goal. So until that time, I prefer that we do amend our code to address this issue in a more clear way that there will be no question about it and how we feel about it and what kind of stand that we're taking on it at this time. Rants: Anymore further comments? Mullet: I have one more. Rants: all right, Steve. Mullet: I guess I would reiterate what Dennis' comment that we were attempting to put something in that was quick and there was general agreement around the table to review this again when the Comprehensive Plan comes out. And the idea was not to get involved with all of this great ideas I I don't ya know I I don't know if I have anything against clustering either but the idea was to get the current law changed to protect some issues that we felt were work ah some bad da some bad situations. So I would agree at this time also to carry it forward with what we had decided before with the exception of the one area where the Planning Commission wanted the computer generated put in. That doesn't bother me. I thought we had talked about developable or buildable areas in our discussion when we had that. So I'm surprised that that wasn't in minutes somewhere because I remembered that we had discussed that. But I propose that we carry forward with where we started and get something on the books and then let the clustering be developed for discussion at the Comprehensive Plan level and any other thing that might want to come back in at that time. Rants: All right, I'll have staff bring forward the recommendations for solidification, Council voting on it two weeks from tonight, I believe. Robertson: I think if we went through this real fast, the three pages and memo, we can clarify it. Rants: You'd like to do it this evening? Robertson: Yeah Rants: All right, then let's begin. Ekbergi Before we do that, I'd like to ask a general question. Rants: Ok. Ekberg As far as any of the ideas brought up before by the City Council for staff implementation of those ideas, what road blocks may there be to those? Pace: Is there a specific area you wanted to Ekbergj Nope. Pace: I think the major issue we would just like to redraft the ordinance, the consensus, the direction you want us to go Ekbergj Ok, we do that right now? Rants: All right. Let's begin then with number one. As we go on through this and your recommendation: Attached vs. Detached Units In single Family Zones. Is there a Motion on the table? Robertson: I MOVED THAT THE MODIFY IN R -1 DISTRICTS ONLY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS MAY BE PERMITTED. Rants: Maintain Council wording. Robertson: Yes. Rants: Is there a Second there? 3 77 10 ,Toe Duffle: Yes, I Second it. Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIED. Rants: Number two, Minimum Lot Size. City Council recommendation delete the entire section. Do you want to just stay with it? Council: Yea Rants: We can pass because you concur. Rants: Number three: Density and Minimum Lot Size. The City Council 11 Robertson: I want to go back on page 8 under, gees, 2 under Minimum Lot Size. The Planning Commission did recommend that we put in if we did go with the minimum lot size the way we had Rants: That's number 3 Robertson: Yea, I was speaking in agreement with the A, B, C, D portion that the Planning Commission wanted to put in. So I would move that we go with the Council's recommendation for the minimum lot size with the addition of the ah Rants: Of the Planning Commission recommendation? Robertson: On A, B, C, D, yeah Rants: All right, I understand the Motion. Does everyone else understand the Motion? Hernandez: And they're eliminating the density transfer first suggestion? Rants: Yes. Hernandez: Ok. Rants: You're maintaining the Council sentence in the first paragraph and adding to it number 1: A, B, C, D from the Planning Commission's recommendation. Shefrin: Can I clarify something, I sorry. I wanted to point out that the recommendation that the Planning Commission assumes that the density transfer provision is deleted. Is that what you intended? Rants: Yes. Shefrin: Ok, thank you. 3 Yo Ekberg Just for my clarification as well. When we look at a bold face print the sentence in paragraph begins with #1, in colon, Lot Size. Mullet: That's stricken. Rants: That's right. That would be added. Robertson: Yeah, added. That would be the Lot Size: The minimum lot size should be 6,120 sq. ft. in areas provided that the amenities were design features listed below are substantially provided. Ekbergj Ok, and that's not only would apply in the R -1 -7.2 zone. Robertson: Yes, actually what the Council said was you can have a 15% reduction so that table shows you (that staff prepared) the 15% reduction in lot size, the front size and rear setbacks and those would all apply. The only addition would be we would add in: The amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided. Ekbergi I asked that mentioned that because as I read this I would like to see that maybe the table wording be changed from lot size to minimum lot size for those respective zone districts. And then there wouldn't be any participant's concern about potential 6100 sq. ft lot sizes in an R -1 -20 Robertson: Ok. Ekberg Would you need to put minimum setbacks on would you need to Robertson: Yeah Ekbergj On each of those or is that an assumed you can always have more than the setback that's required. I suppose you could always have more than the minimum lot to if you wanted to. Rants: Maybe we should have minimum on each one of the four categories? Duffle: So we don't need to put that on there because it already stated that. So I think we should just leave it as it is. You have a problem with that? Robertson: Let's go back. Denni, Jack, what we want to do is what we said before which is allow a if it's a sensitive area allow a 15 up to a 15% reduction in lot size and setbacks for the different R -1 Districts and require that the amenities and design features listed below are substantially provided that A, B, C, D. Do you know how to word that in to a Shefrin: Let me raise one question, see if I'm following you. It doesn't matter in this case. I think the direction you're headed whether or not there's sensitive areas or not. What we're doing now is just setting up standards for PRD regardless if they are sensitive areas. Robertson: That's correct, but currently the PRD can only be applied in the sensitive area. 12 Shefrin: No. Robertson: Who changed that? Shefrin: If there is a sensitive area PRD it's mandated. But if an individual wanted to come in and do a PRD, they have the right to do so under the PRD provisions regardless if sensitive areas are present. Robertson: I though we eliminated the PRDs for everything except for sensitive areas. We did do that. Pace: You did not eliminate PRDs. The ordinance adopted the ordinance is the just the opposite, it requires if you are building in a sensitive area, a short plat with boundary lines to go through the PRD process. You did not eliminate it. Robertson: But we did say that you could not have the PRD unless you had a sensitive area. We did away with PRDs in general. They only apply where there's sensitive areas. Pace: That's not correct. The current ordinance does not say that. Robertson: That must be the multi family part Mullet: We did get rid of the PRD and multi family unless it's sensitive areas. Is that correct? Pace: Not to the degree he's talking about. He talking about if I wanted had a single family development and I had no sensitive areas, you could still have a right to request a PRD. It does not prohibit it for single family development. Robertson: Ok, then. Did we prohibit PRDs for multi family development if you didn't have a sensitive area? Pace: I think that was that provision. I'd have to go back and when we did the multi family (unclear, everybody talking at same time). Robertson: That's my misunderstanding, then. Ok. Rants: Could we come back to the issue here, on the table. Ekbergj Regarding the issue on the table. The 15% reduction to lot areas, would that only apply to PRDs that have been identified with sensitive areas or to all PRDs no matter what? Shefrin: All. Ekberg All right. So I would suggest I not sure that's what we wanna do. I think that our intent was to eliminate to just PRDs with sensitive areas in it and give them this ability to downsize some. 13 14 Mullet: Under the PRD provisions if you do not have a sensitive area you can you have no minimum lot size. Pace: Currently. Mullet: Currently. So I think we do want to establish a minimum lot size in any PRD that's going on. Rants: All right, so we have the paragraph under City Council as written. We've changed minimum on each of lot size: front size, back size and rear setbacks and we are adding lots size A, B, C, D. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION CARRIED Rants: Density Transfer: Delete the entire section. Is there a motion? Robertson: So Moved. Ekbergj Seconded. Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED TO MAINTAIN THE COUNCIL'S ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION CARRIED. Rants: Number four: Density Transferred to Developable Parts of the Site Robertson: I MOVED THAT WE USE THE WORDS AS PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I think that's what we intend that clarifies the issue of buildable site and gets away from that confusion on whether or not you can build on a hillside, right? Yeah. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE SECTION Rants: Planning Commission recommendation. Mullet: SECOND. Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION CARRIED. Rants: Board of Architectural Review. Council original was delete the entire section and Planning Commission concurred. Mullet: Getting back to Allan's question about PRDs in general, did we want to delete BAR approval on a none sensitive area PRD if this is PRDs in general? Robertson: The Planning Commission still has to set and review it. But they review it with Planning Commission's guidelines not with Board of Architectural Review guidelines, correct? Pace: Correct. 3"3_ 15 Mullet: This would be one of those areas where new information on clustering and other things would probably fall in real nice as far as taking care of that problem. Rants: I would think so. Robertson: I would suggest for now we delete it. Rants: I would suggest you stay with the original sentence and that we bring more information forward on this one. That takes care of what we are trying to solve now of the protection at this point and then the modification as we come into it. All right. IS THERE A MOTION TO MAINTAIN YOUR ORIGINAL SENTENCE? Robertson: We'll delete it. Rants: Which is delete the entire section Duffle: Right. Rants: IS THERE A SECOND? Duffie: SECOND. Rants: ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIED. Rants: Off -Site Perspectives Robertson: I MOVE THAT WE GO WITH THE MODIFICATION PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Joyce Craft: SECOND. Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED TO GO WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION CARRIED Rants: Well, that takes care of the revisions to the PRD at this point. Robertson: Can I ask a question? Since more than once we've missed something when we've gone through this and I suspect I was a little bit more emotional than I was clear thinking. Does staff understand what we want and will it work? What we've put together. I mean, we haven't created a more confusing document than we had before, have we? Can you administer Pace: We'll write the ordinance and see if there are any problems and if we do we can highlight them when we draft the ordinance for you. Rants: All right, I think the answer to that question will come after looking into it a little bit not just right here. 3 B Robertson: Ok, can I ask administration how soon we are likely to see this back to us now, an ordinance to make the changes. Pace: We are gonna meet with the City Clerk and see what their schedule is. We have about seven other items coming before you. And so we are just trying to schedule those so they axe not all at once. Ekberg: Doesn't this set the priority? 16 Robertson: Yeah. I WOULD MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL SENDS A DIRECTIVE TO THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS IS A VERY HIGH PRIORITY ITEM. Rants: I hear ya. Mullet: Not knowing what the others are we'll trust you to juggle into the top of the order if you can, Mr. Mayor. Rants: You bet. END OF VERBATIM 3g Verbatim Transcript Motion adopting Findings and Conclusions: Southgate Mobile Home Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Tukwila City Council Special Meeting July 11, 1994 Mayor Rants: Shall we go on to OLD BUSINESS: "A Motion adopting Findings and Conclusions: Southgate Mobile Home Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone City Attorney Linda Cohen: These were basically Findings that were and Conclusions made by you some time ago and just as a matter of form, they need to be adopted, by Motion is appropriate, and then made part of the record. Council President Steve Mullet: I ah....Wally could ah do we need to put something on the table first? Rants: We simply need a Motion to adopt these Findings and Conclusions. Mullet: I will move that we adopt the Findings and Conclusions. Rants: Is there a Second? Councilmember Joan Hernandez: I Second the Motion. Rants: And is there a discussion? Mullet: Yes, I had dah ah I, I concur with everything that was said in here ah. .and, of courses, there are a lot of things that are just listed and aren't really here and in many ways it's a very general recap of what we said. So I guess my question would be ah, Linda, is this is this record enough for what may come down the road? Cohen: Yes it is, and actually it's a little bit more detail than what most judges would expect. Mullet: Ok, alright. Rants: Alright, is there any other discussion? Councilmember Dennis Robertson: I guess I would ask like to add to Steve's comments that we spent a very long time going through a very structured discussion of these points, and everything that's here follows, generally, what we decided, but we had arguments and discussions far in excess of what's explained here and I guess I would like that on the record. Cohen: That's correct. That actually is the record or part of the record. The tape is part of the record and all of that is transcribed and will be given to the court to consider as well. Rants: Any further discussion? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. (MOTION CARRIED). THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). END OF VERBATIM